Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 22:52:00 -
[1]
CSM Formal Meeting 8. Sunday 3rd August. 16:00 hours Eve Time
Agenda:
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. tba 2. tba
CSM Raised ISSUEs (to be submitted in templated form to CSM mailing list by 18:00 hours Friday 1st August.)
1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog 2. Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp 3. Covert Cyno Fields should ignore Cyno Jammers 4. Remote rep criminal flagging is broken 5. Covert Jump bridge activation range (too short) 6. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) 7. tba 8. tba 9. tba 10. tba 11. tba 12. tba
POPULAR Issue (Biggest unaddressed Assembly Hall Issue û will be added after CSM raised ISSUEs.)
1. tba
AOB (Any other business) (additions can be submitted prior 18:00 hours Friday 1st August)
1. tba 2. tba
***
All CSM delegates and Alternates are invited to attend.
Serenity Steele is on holiday and we'll need at least one alternate for voting, lets try to have as many people as possible present.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
LetsDoThis
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:42:00 -
[2]
Well, at least there will be a week to test the speed changes before you try to convince to devs to not test things on the test server.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 08:34:00 -
[3]
Damn. I'm leaving for my trip to seattle that day.
How come it's on a sunday anyways?
|
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 10:25:00 -
[4]
* Capital Ship's Ship maintenance bay revisited * Another tranche of UI issues and improvements
IZ
My principles |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 16:40:00 -
[5]
Updated with Bane and Inanna's issues.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 16:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Damn. I'm leaving for my trip to seattle that day. How come it's on a sunday anyways?
Was the day most of us could make on a regular basis and we generally announce the next meeting at the end of the previous one. Just to remind you we agreed we'd have 2 bi weekly meetings prior to the end of august/beginning of sept CSM/CCP formal discussion, this one on 3rd of august, and another on 17th of august (when we'll be submitting issues to ccp).
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jodie Amille
Sadist Faction
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 02:27:00 -
[7]
It would be really nice if you guys would bring up the problems with Minmatar battleships, capitals and the problems with projectiles in general(at least artillery) in one of those open slots...
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 06:54:00 -
[8]
I eat babies they are tasty
|
LetsDoThis
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 08:08:00 -
[9]
Your link is extremely broken.
|
Dranearian
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 08:27:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Dranearian on 03/08/2008 08:27:35 Edited by: Dranearian on 03/08/2008 08:26:47 I propose that the behavior of CSM members be brought up at this meeting. Arrogance, and outright personal attacks should NOT be acceptable from someone in the CSM, especially someone that chairs the program. The CSM has already lost the faith of many, and something needs to be done to even remotely start building up a reputation as something useful and worth paying attention to.
The first step would be to take action and swiftly kick the guilty parties rear out the door.
Evidence that there is a problem can be found here: Multiple pages of trash from Jade Constantine
|
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Celestial Apocalypse The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 11:19:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Dranearian Edited by: Dranearian on 03/08/2008 08:27:35 Edited by: Dranearian on 03/08/2008 08:26:47 I propose that the behavior of CSM members be brought up at this meeting. Arrogance, and outright personal attacks should NOT be acceptable from someone in the CSM, especially someone that chairs the program. The CSM has already lost the faith of many, and something needs to be done to even remotely start building up a reputation as something useful and worth paying attention to.
The first step would be to take action and swiftly kick the guilty parties rear out the door.
Evidence that there is a problem can be found here: Multiple pages of trash from Jade Constantine
Years ago before Parliament was televised live sometimes I'd tune into it live on radio.
The insults, name calling, stupid noises and the utter lack of respect to the speakers was unbelievable at times and I'm sorry to say it but it seems the CSM is like this the majority of the time or it certainly comes across this way.
Basicly until the elected behave with more decorum and profesionalism the majority of the EvE subscribers will have very little faith in the CSM.
Possibly this is why only a small percentage of the subscribers didn't vote in the first place because they didn't want to be bothered with all the pettiness they knew would follow.
Unfortunately it looks as if they are right which is a big shame because I feel this was/could have been a step in the right direction.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 13:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dranearian
I propose that the behavior of CSM members be brought up at this meeting. Arrogance, and outright personal attacks should NOT be acceptable from someone in the CSM, especially someone that chairs the program. The CSM has already lost the faith of many, and something needs to be done to even remotely start building up a reputation as something useful and worth paying attention to.
The first step would be to take action and swiftly kick the guilty parties rear out the door.
Evidence that there is a problem can be found here: Multiple pages of trash from Jade Constantine
This is the thread where RuleofBone and the ex veto guys suggested that the current CSM be disbanded and replaced with an unelected group of "verone, rells and some other bitter vets" right to ensure that RuleofBone would have the "dark and dangerous" eve he wanted?
Then when some people called him on how stupid that idea was the veto guys started crying about the standards of elected officials?
Short answer is "no". If you want an issue on the agenda make an Issue and get a CSM to support it.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Sergio Ling
Veto.
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 16:54:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/08/2008 13:43:16
Originally by: Dranearian
I propose that the behavior of CSM members be brought up at this meeting. Arrogance, and outright personal attacks should NOT be acceptable from someone in the CSM, especially someone that chairs the program. The CSM has already lost the faith of many, and something needs to be done to even remotely start building up a reputation as something useful and worth paying attention to.
The first step would be to take action and swiftly kick the guilty parties rear out the door.
Evidence that there is a problem can be found here: Multiple pages of trash from Jade Constantine
This is the thread where RuleofBone and the ex veto guys suggested that the current CSM be disbanded and replaced with an unelected group of "verone, rells, eddz and some guy with glasses from eve tv" to ensure that RuleofBone would have the "dark and dangerous" eve he wanted?
Then when some people called him on how stupid that idea was the veto guys started crying about the standards of elected officials actually having the poor taste to come and say that a stupid idea was a stupid idea?
Short answer is "no". If you want an issue on the CSM agenda make an Issue and get a CSM to support it. No support for Rule's shortcutting of democratic decision-making here.
Wow, you're Twisty McTwistington.
It's nothing like that. It's a thread where you dismiss people's opinions because they're "not players, they're whiners" and therefore not worthy of your golden stare. _
BET ISK ON ANYTHING AT ALL |
Dranearian
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 16:58:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Dranearian on 03/08/2008 17:06:05 And you start the personal insults here as well?
If you happened to actually, you know, read anyones replies instead of just assuming things and making an ass out of yourself you would realize two things: Noone ever once insulted you until you started the ****ing match, and even then the insults were nothing in comparison to the trash you were provoking others with. and Two: Nowhere did anyone ONCE say that they themselves should be put in the place of the CSM. If I recall, half the people in that thread believe the CSM is a farce and wouldn't want to participate anyways.
Nice try though.
But the simple fact remains, if you TRULY believe in the CSM, and what it stands for, you should do the best thing for it and remove yourself. You lose supporters every day with your pathetic behavior and you are driving the CSM into the ground. And considering how most people think the CSM is a farce in the first place, you shouldn't be treating what little supporters you have that way in the first place. I can't speak for anyone else, but after reading countless threads I can only assume I am not alone in saying I will never support the CSM as anything until you are gone from it jade.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:36:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/08/2008 19:43:17
Outcome of todays meeting.
Full Chatlog of meeting 8 is here.
1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue
CSM voted 4-4 not to escalate or make any kind of collective statement on the current speed patch on SISI.
2. Musical Instruments in Ambulation - Bane
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
3. Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp - Jade
CSM voted against escalating this proposal.
4. Remove Ship Maintenance Bay Restriction - Inanna
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
5. Covert Cyno Fields should ignore Cyno Jammers - Jade/Tusko
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
6. Turn Titans into Mobile Stations - Bane
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
7. Remote rep criminal flagging is broken - Jade
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
8. Autopilot Options in FW - Avoid enemy Sov - Inanna
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
9. Covert Jump bridge activation range (too short) - Jade
CSM voted to escalate this proposal.
10. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane
Meeting adjourned before the vote because we slipped beneath the quorum with people needing to leave. Issue will be revoted on the next agenda.
11. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade
Delayed till next meeting 12. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade
Delayed till next meeting
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 23:41:00 -
[16]
While I appreciate you using your corp forums to host the chatlogs, can we please go abck to Serenity posting them on the eve-csm site? Even a link to the JF threads, so I can find them more easily, would be appreciated.
As for the vote people care about, I find it rather disappointing no decision was made. If you don't say something now, you really won't have a chance in two weeks, let alone two months. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 23:49:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto While I appreciate you using your corp forums to host the chatlogs, can we please go abck to Serenity posting them on the eve-csm site? Even a link to the JF threads, so I can find them more easily, would be appreciated.
Serenity is on holiday at the moment so there won't be any eve-csm.com updates for a bit. Sorry its inconvenient but its the only option I can think for posting them at the moment.
Quote: As for the vote people care about, I find it rather disappointing no decision was made. If you don't say something now, you really won't have a chance in two weeks, let alone two months.
I know. I was very disappointed as well. I felt it was a big missed opportunity and a real shame.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Sakura Nihil
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 00:45:00 -
[18]
I'd just like to thank Bane, Darius, Tusko, and Inanna for screwing the population over and refusing to comment on an ongoing change in gameplay that will affect everyone. Especially when you know this is just going to come up down the road later.
Even Ank, the carebear extraordinare, was on the ball with her comment...
Quote: [ 2008.08.03 16:24:34 ]...I'd say this is the most important phase of the process, and that if we're going to have any imput on this at all, we'll have to do it in the next few weeks so it can still be considered.
Way to go.
Click me! You know you want to... |
Bane Glorious
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 01:40:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sakura Nihil I'd just like to thank Bane, Darius, Tusko, and Inanna for screwing the population over and refusing to comment on an ongoing change in gameplay that will affect everyone. Especially when you know this is just going to come up down the road later.
Even Ank, the carebear extraordinare, was on the ball with her comment...
Quote: [ 2008.08.03 16:24:34 ]...I'd say this is the most important phase of the process, and that if we're going to have any imput on this at all, we'll have to do it in the next few weeks so it can still be considered.
Way to go.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 02:40:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto While I appreciate you using your corp forums to host the chatlogs, can we please go abck to Serenity posting them on the eve-csm site? Even a link to the JF threads, so I can find them more easily, would be appreciated.
Serenity is on holiday at the moment so there won't be any eve-csm.com updates for a bit. Sorry its inconvenient but its the only option I can think for posting them at the moment.
The last chatlog posted on eve-csm was June 8th. If it was one or two meetings, I wouldn't mind so much, but it's been two months. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 03:16:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto While I appreciate you using your corp forums to host the chatlogs, can we please go abck to Serenity posting them on the eve-csm site? Even a link to the JF threads, so I can find them more easily, would be appreciated.
Serenity is on holiday at the moment so there won't be any eve-csm.com updates for a bit. Sorry its inconvenient but its the only option I can think for posting them at the moment.
The last chatlog posted on eve-csm was June 8th. If it was one or two meetings, I wouldn't mind so much, but it's been two months.
Not sure what I can say really. Its not my site. I'll keep a record of the chatlogs like I promised and post them somewhere but ultimately the eve-csm stuff will have to wait for Serenity.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 06:22:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Not sure what I can say really. Its not my site. I'll keep a record of the chatlogs like I promised and post them somewhere but ultimately the eve-csm stuff will have to wait for Serenity.
Sorry if it seemed like I'm blaming you, I'm not. Just general annoyance. It's just as much aimed at CCP, of course - if not more, Serenity's not getting paid for this - but I don't expect as much out of their Soon(tm) as I do from a player. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Mr Friendly
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 07:41:00 -
[23]
Could the forum rules be amended so that semi-official CSM threads aren't instantly inundated by yet more off-topic demands that Jade be burned alive and his family butchered?
If Agony/Veto is going to hijack every thread Jade posts in regardless of the content of the original thread, nothing is ever going to get done.
_____
Guys, if Jade is the bane of your existence and you are determined to have him pulled down and hanged for his terrible crimes, make a thread of your own. That way I can choose not to click on it.
Thanks.
|
Verone
Gallente Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 09:51:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mr Friendly
If Agony/Veto is going to hijack every thread Jade posts in regardless of the content of the original thread, nothing is ever going to get done.
When I post, it's with my own opinion, not that of my corporation. If people in my corp happen to post it's off their own backs. I don't see me hijacking any threads, simply putting my albeit harsh opinion forward, to be met with a barrage of abuse and hostility from the CSM chair because he can't handle the fact someone feels he's doing a bad job.
Anyway, not to cause issues here I'll get back on topic.
I agree with how the CSM have voted regarding the nano changes, I think it's a good idea to see how the patch develops since it's still only in testing on SiSi and is subject to change. I think it's also a good idea that the CSM are waiting and not jumping the gun on the issue, it's good to see that some of the members can show some restraint and wait to see how the situation will develop. There's been a lot of kneejerk reaction, and it shows some stability in the ranks of the CSM that people can sit back and wait for the patch to evolve in testing before they make any suggestions on how to change it. I'm sure ideas and suggestions are already flooding in, past the CSM straight to CCP, at least that's how it seems from the game development forum.
On a personal note, in most respects I like the changes although it will make life difficult for myself and my corp at times. It's going to make the lives of a lowsec pirate corp a lot more difficult with the arrival of factional warfare, and speed being our only real advantage against the Militia blobs. Since we rely solely on belt pirating income and try to avoid static camping as much as possible, the changes to how a bubble camp will work and how sucessful it will be don't really affect us.
I think that the changes are good for the game overall, and in time people will grow accustomed to them. I'm a bit dubious about the changes to the MWD, and the addition of a scrambler being able to deactivate it, but I think this is purely on personal preference since I have a fondness of blaster boats. Blaster boats don't seem too gimped by the state of play on sisi at the current build, and there's always ways to adapt, it just takes time.
On a more general note, I respect the fact that this is CCP's game, and we play for the privilege of being able to play it. Hence, I'll do what I always do, and encourage my corporation to do the same : Adapt.
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 13:29:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mr Friendly Could the forum rules be amended so that semi-official CSM threads aren't instantly inundated by yet more off-topic demands that Jade be burned alive and his family butchered?
If Agony/Veto is going to hijack every thread Jade posts in regardless of the content of the original thread, nothing is ever going to get done.
Guys, if Jade is the bane of your existence and you are determined to have him pulled down and hanged for his terrible crimes, make a thread of your own. That way I can choose not to click on it.
Thanks.
Apparently you have not read the chatlog. Let me enlighten you with a very relevant sample (and this is how a thread hijack should be done):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 2008.08.03 19:08:17 ] Darius JOHNSON > How many 0.0 sov contests have you been in ankh? [ 2008.08.03 19:08:33 ] Bane Glorious > "It may only work half way, and halfway isn't all the way, but half of the way is still part of the way, and that's worth something" [ 2008.08.03 19:08:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Remember I took a tour through 0.0 to ask dozens of people their opinions on that, Darius. [ 2008.08.03 19:09:09 ] Ankhesentapemkah > So I got quite a good view what joe average in 0.0 thinks. [ 2008.08.03 19:09:12 ] Darius JOHNSON > Man I wish I could do a survey and make sweeping statements about what is good or bad [ 2008.08.03 19:09:31 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Well at least I talk to joe averages. [ 2008.08.03 19:09:31 ] Darius JOHNSON > Fact: You have 0 experience [ 2008.08.03 19:09:39 ] Bane Glorious > I don't mean to be rude, but a few hours (maybe?) in 0.0 is really not a comprehensive understanding [ 2008.08.03 19:09:39 ] Darius JOHNSON > So don't tell me what's boring [ 2008.08.03 19:09:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > guys, we are getting off track here... [ 2008.08.03 19:09:57 ] Ankhesentapemkah > If 50 RANDOM people in game say so, who are you to question that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep....I for sure want she-whose-name-sounds-like-sneeze to be involved in anything to do with ship/game balancing.
And voting to not have a position on the proposed speed balance changes despite huge feedback threads to the initial dev blog, SISI test commentary in the development forum, and rather large for/against votes in the Assembly Hall area is generously described as a cop-out. Not even an attempt to discuss the mechanics or the scope of the changes. "Wait and see" is a bit weak given the obvious CCP dev time and software resources spent on getting a full blown patch of this scale onto the test server--or did you folks think they cobbled the whole thing together in 5 minutes. Yeeeesh.
Now Mr Friendly...squashing dissenting views from active players (or paying customers) is not the way to go. I don't care if JC & company remain as CSM reps..but as the initial purpose of the CSM was to act as a quasi-watchdog over future potential abuse ingame by non-players (i.s. devs/gm's/whoever) I take issue with any of them playing "game-design god" on our behalf when they are clearly unable to do so.
Part of that is CCP's fault for not providing a stricter framework. The balance of blame goes to those who feel the CSM is any more than the originally intended watchdog.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 16:28:00 -
[26]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone but as the initial purpose of the CSM was to act as a quasi-watchdog over future potential abuse ingame by non-players (i.s. devs/gm's/whoever) ... Part of that is CCP's fault for not providing a stricter framework. The balance of blame goes to those who feel the CSM is any more than the originally intended watchdog.
Rule, get over the CSM as a corruption watchdog rubbish. The idea behind that was thrown out as soon as the CSM documents were published by CCP and the direction of the CSM was outlined as having nothing to do with that original idea. ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog |
Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 16:46:00 -
[27]
I think the CSM's position vis-a-vis the nanonerf is a fair one to take--for now.
What people need to understand is that the CSM by design is not something that can react quickly, nor should it. It is intended to help address the perceived grievances of the players. At this stage, there are no grievances to be had regarding the nanonerf, since nothing is live.
Yes, there is a large amount of change and testing going on over at Sisi...but its all still being tested and balanced and investigated.
If and when the changes get finalized enough to make it into patch notes, THEN and only then should the CSM get involved. The nano nerf is certainly on their radar to keep an eye on, and the vote reflects that. However, it is entirely inappropriate for them to take a stance on something that isn't even in the damned game yet.
The CSM is a petitioning body and an alternative way to get issues recognized by CCP. They can and will also hear out player concerns directly if they feel like it--and I believe they are closely watching the test server forum for just that feedback. They can and will also change anything they want about the game, if they feel like it. We play in their sandbox, not the other way around.
Nanos WILL be nerfed. The devs are pretty damn clear on that aspect--if for no other reason than they are straining the (obsolete) physics engine the game uses. Demanding the CSM somehow prevent the inevitable is both useless and wasteful of your time in this world.
Requesting them to have CCP examine or adjust a specific feature of the nerf once it's been relatively finalized, however, is a different situation altogether.
Now, the points against all the posturing and pointless arguing are quite valid...however I also have to agree that someone shouldn't hold their position as Enlightened just because of a random survey. I applaud the motivation behind seeking informed opinion, but a large lump of sodium chloride needs to be taken with it--use something like that to provide some frame of reference, but not the crux of a position.
tl;dr: they're dong a decent job. Could be tighter, though--but they are acting as a council and not as a rubber stamp. ----------------------------------------------- Hadean Drive Yards |
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:01:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: RuleoftheBone but as the initial purpose of the CSM was to act as a quasi-watchdog over future potential abuse ingame by non-players (i.s. devs/gm's/whoever) ... Part of that is CCP's fault for not providing a stricter framework. The balance of blame goes to those who feel the CSM is any more than the originally intended watchdog.
Rule, get over the CSM as a corruption watchdog rubbish. The idea behind that was thrown out as soon as the CSM documents were published by CCP and the direction of the CSM was outlined as having nothing to do with that original idea.
Hilmar Petursson, CCPÆs chief executive, said in a telephone interview. ôEve Online is not a computer game. It is an emerging nation, and we have to address it like a nation being accused of corruption...
where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, and they can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis."
The NY Times and CEO of CCP are incorrect? Interesting.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:12:00 -
[29]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: RuleoftheBone but as the initial purpose of the CSM was to act as a quasi-watchdog over future potential abuse ingame by non-players (i.s. devs/gm's/whoever) ... Part of that is CCP's fault for not providing a stricter framework. The balance of blame goes to those who feel the CSM is any more than the originally intended watchdog.
Rule, get over the CSM as a corruption watchdog rubbish. The idea behind that was thrown out as soon as the CSM documents were published by CCP and the direction of the CSM was outlined as having nothing to do with that original idea.
Hilmar Petursson, CCPÆs chief executive, said in a telephone interview. ôEve Online is not a computer game. It is an emerging nation, and we have to address it like a nation being accused of corruption...
where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, and they can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis."
The NY Times and CEO of CCP are incorrect? Interesting.
But can't we do that? I'm sure if we request it based on player feedback, we can do exactly that.
Though picture of the CSM that was drawn by NYT is not how Xhagen(The guy who created CSM) had intended it, I'm sure we can shape the CSM ourselves, enough for it to be the case.
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:30:00 -
[30]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Rule, get over the CSM as a corruption watchdog rubbish. The idea behind that was thrown out as soon as the CSM documents were published by CCP and the direction of the CSM was outlined as having nothing to do with that original idea.
Hilmar Petursson, CCPÆs chief executive, said in a telephone interview. ôEve Online is not a computer game. It is an emerging nation, and we have to address it like a nation being accused of corruption...
where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, and they can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis."
The NY Times and CEO of CCP are incorrect? Interesting.
again, if you want to live in the past, go do so with your triple mwd scorpion. ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog |
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 19:51:00 -
[31]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone Apparently you have not read the chatlog. Let me enlighten you with a very relevant sample (and this is how a thread hijack should be done):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 2008.08.03 19:08:17 ] Darius JOHNSON > How many 0.0 sov contests have you been in ankh? [ 2008.08.03 19:08:33 ] Bane Glorious > "It may only work half way, and halfway isn't all the way, but half of the way is still part of the way, and that's worth something" [ 2008.08.03 19:08:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Remember I took a tour through 0.0 to ask dozens of people their opinions on that, Darius. [ 2008.08.03 19:09:09 ] Ankhesentapemkah > So I got quite a good view what joe average in 0.0 thinks. [ 2008.08.03 19:09:12 ] Darius JOHNSON > Man I wish I could do a survey and make sweeping statements about what is good or bad [ 2008.08.03 19:09:31 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Well at least I talk to joe averages. [ 2008.08.03 19:09:31 ] Darius JOHNSON > Fact: You have 0 experience [ 2008.08.03 19:09:39 ] Bane Glorious > I don't mean to be rude, but a few hours (maybe?) in 0.0 is really not a comprehensive understanding [ 2008.08.03 19:09:39 ] Darius JOHNSON > So don't tell me what's boring [ 2008.08.03 19:09:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > guys, we are getting off track here... [ 2008.08.03 19:09:57 ] Ankhesentapemkah > If 50 RANDOM people in game say so, who are you to question that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep....I for sure want she-whose-name-sounds-like-sneeze to be involved in anything to do with ship/game balancing.
Are you familiar with the concept of opinion polling? Assuming there's no bias in the selection of the "random" people, a poll of 50 has a margin of error of about +- 14%, 19 times out of 20. It's hardly a tight error bound, but it is at least indicative of how people think. Since I'm not familiar with the sampling method, I can't judge its bias or lack thereof, but 50 is a worthwhile starting point for a poll. It's not as big of a data set as Darius would have, of course, but it's a start. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 20:20:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Are you familiar with the concept of opinion polling? Assuming there's no bias in the selection of the "random" people, a poll of 50 has a margin of error of about +- 14%, 19 times out of 20. It's hardly a tight error bound, but it is at least indicative of how people think. Since I'm not familiar with the sampling method, I can't judge its bias or lack thereof, but 50 is a worthwhile starting point for a poll. It's not as big of a data set as Darius would have, of course, but it's a start.
Well, here is the question:
Do you go opinion polling a bunch of kids if they want to eat icecream for all 3 meals of the day? We all know it's not healthy for them. But if they think they should, hey, why not?
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 20:32:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 04/08/2008 20:34:47 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 04/08/2008 20:33:53
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Are you familiar with the concept of opinion polling? Assuming there's no bias in the selection of the "random" people, a poll of 50 has a margin of error of about +- 14%, 19 times out of 20. It's hardly a tight error bound, but it is at least indicative of how people think. Since I'm not familiar with the sampling method, I can't judge its bias or lack thereof, but 50 is a worthwhile starting point for a poll. It's not as big of a data set as Darius would have, of course, but it's a start.
Well, here is the question:
Do you go opinion polling a bunch of kids if they want to eat icecream for all 3 meals of the day? We all know it's not healthy for them. But if they think they should, hey, why not?
Your analogy is off. In this particular instance the better question would be "Do you ask a bunch of people who've ever eaten it what ice cream tastes like?"
If I have never tasted ice cream and go out and ask 50 people what it tastes like, that isn't going to give me anywhere near the degree of knowledge actually eating a scoop will give. That's IF the people polled even give me good information OR the issue were as black and white as what a flavor is. In this case it's not.
:edit: To add to this my analogy also sucks because we're comparing something real life physical science can deal with and a video game. There is no past experience to borrow from in a game. You've either experienced a mechanic or you haven't. I hate to speak in absolutes but in this case I'm afraid it is indeed absolute.
Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Bane Glorious
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 22:03:00 -
[34]
RuleOfTheBone:
The CSM is not primarily for acting as CCP's internal affairs because that was what all the commotion was about a year to a year and a half ago. Now, nobody is really worried about developer corruption, and the commotion is about game balance and design. Accordingly, CCP repurposed the CSM as a way for players to express game design concerns with the developers, hopefully separating the crappy ideas from the good ones in the process. |
Deldrac
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 22:53:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Assuming there's no bias in the selection of the "random" people, a poll of 50 has a margin of error of about +- 14%, 19 times out of 20.
Be serious.
Nobody wandering about in 0.0 systems where you don't get shot on sight could possibly find a reasonably fair sample of 50 people to ask without extreme bias being driven in through the location of the tour, the fact that busy people won't talk to you, and the fact that a large number of 0.0 residents will shoot you on sight.
|
LetsDoThis
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 23:15:00 -
[36]
Edited by: LetsDoThis on 04/08/2008 23:18:29 I read over the speed nerf discussion.
Am disappointed that many of the CSM are trying to take a higher-than-thou feedback role, when CCP explicitly asked for sisi testers to provide feedback through a different means.
Attempting to second-guess developer's decisions before those decisions are finalized is disgusting.
That is not the CSM's role, half of you recognized that, the other half apparently want to be EVE developers.
Edit: Also, about samples of 0.0 stuff. I know most of you hate goons with an unhealthy passion, but Darius is really the only qualified among you to speak with any authority on 0.0 concerns. You may not like it, cause you hate his corp, but the rest of you are pretty much inexperienced empire dwellers.
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 00:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: LetsDoThis Also, about samples of 0.0 stuff. I know most of you hate goons with an unhealthy passion, but Darius is really the only qualified among you to speak with any authority on 0.0 concerns. You may not like it, cause you hate his corp, but the rest of you are pretty much inexperienced empire dwellers.
Granted this was my first meeting as an acting alternate, but I assure you I have spent plenty of time in 0.0 throughout the last 4+ years, and I'm sure at least some of the others could be considered more than just "inexperienced empire dwellers" as well.
You might have a case for suggesting that Darius is perhaps more qualified on 0.0 matters than others, but he's not the outright only one.
/Ben
|
LetsDoThis
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 00:33:00 -
[38]
Oh, yeah, I have no idea who the alternates are. Just going by the original CSM listing, and their current involvement in 0.0 sov warfare. (none)
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 01:42:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ben Derindar
Originally by: LetsDoThis Also, about samples of 0.0 stuff. I know most of you hate goons with an unhealthy passion, but Darius is really the only qualified among you to speak with any authority on 0.0 concerns. You may not like it, cause you hate his corp, but the rest of you are pretty much inexperienced empire dwellers.
Granted this was my first meeting as an acting alternate, but I assure you I have spent plenty of time in 0.0 throughout the last 4+ years, and I'm sure at least some of the others could be considered more than just "inexperienced empire dwellers" as well.
You might have a case for suggesting that Darius is perhaps more qualified on 0.0 matters than others, but he's not the outright only one.
/Ben
Probably the last too after :
[ 2008.08.03 17:38:46 ] Ben Derindar > nay for this specific proposal
Welcome to the 0.0 powerbloc buddy
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 07:27:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Bane Glorious RuleOfTheBone:
The CSM is not primarily for acting as CCP's internal affairs because that was what all the commotion was about a year to a year and a half ago. Now, nobody is really worried about developer corruption, and the commotion is about game balance and design. Accordingly, CCP repurposed the CSM as a way for players to express game design concerns with the developers, hopefully separating the crappy ideas from the good ones in the process.
Thats a sort of fair enough statement. Sadly the sifting element is overshadowed by SNR, individual ego, and amazing ignorance of existing game mechanics .
Let the designers design. If they seek sifted and accurate player feedback the CSM in it's current form is not the way to do it. My alternate suggestion has been posted elsewhere.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way" General George Patton USA
|
|
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 14:57:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Natalia Kovac on 05/08/2008 14:57:29
Originally by: Jade Constantine
CSM voted 4-4 not to escalate or make any kind of collective statement on the current speed patch on SISI.
Welp, fail. I guess you are just as useless as everyone said you would be. Oh well. Enjoy your ruined game.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 16:54:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/08/2008 16:55:21
Originally by: Natalia Kovac Edited by: Natalia Kovac on 05/08/2008 14:57:29
Originally by: Jade Constantine
CSM voted 4-4 not to escalate or make any kind of collective statement on the current speed patch on SISI.
Welp, fail. I guess you are just as useless as everyone said you would be. Oh well. Enjoy your ruined game.
I've added the issue to the next agenda for the August 17th meeting And urged the CSM delegates to put aside some time to go test the Speed Patch on SISI and speak to players testing these changes in the interim. I consider what was voted against at the august 3rd meeting was my (with input from Omber) specific motion that CSM release a collective statement:
"ItÆs the CSMÆs position that the best answer to the anti-speed-nerf ISSUE at this time is that people feeling strongly against this balancing patch should make time to test it on SISI and form realistic combat situations and provide detailed feedback to CCP developers. Lets raise the argument from ôthe nerf sucksö to this is the impact of these changes and why x,y,z element needs to be adjusted. Meanwhile lets ask CCP for a list of of what they are trying to accomplish and whether the changes do that or go overboard."
This was refused by the CSM (4/4) vote. But it doesn't mean we have ruled out addressing the speed issue or have decided either way on the validity/desirability of changes at this point.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
LetsDoThis
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 19:58:00 -
[43]
Oh my god, you are so dense.
So guys what became of that idea for the revolving chairman?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 20:13:00 -
[44]
LaVista, Darius, Bane: Of course, opinion polling only tells you what a given group thinks, there's no direct implication that the group is right. But knowing what 0.0 dwellers think is a fairly good antidote to ignorance about 0.0 affairs, and assuming that the poll was actually conducted semi-properly, charges of outright ignorance are baseless. For that matter, assuming that people who experience something directly know it relatively well, and that there's no bias in those resulting opinions(which is true nowhere near as often as I'd like, but work with me here) a competent pollster is actually the best-educated person in the world. The smartest guy in the world is dumber than the average of the next 10, who in turn are dumber than the average of the next 100. The bigger the group, the smaller the standard deviation of the error. This is the reason why democracy works - the average person can be astoundingly ignorant, but you stick millions of them in a room and the resulting answer usually isn't too bad. It certainly seems to work better than sticking 10 of the best, brightest, and backstabbiest onto a central committee and hoping for a paradise.
Originally by: Deldrac
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Assuming there's no bias in the selection of the "random" people, a poll of 50 has a margin of error of about +- 14%, 19 times out of 20.
Be serious.
Nobody wandering about in 0.0 systems where you don't get shot on sight could possibly find a reasonably fair sample of 50 people to ask without extreme bias being driven in through the location of the tour, the fact that busy people won't talk to you, and the fact that a large number of 0.0 residents will shoot you on sight.
As long as you're doing it right - safe and cloak, before you ask around in local - I imagine that you can ask around without undue risk. You'll get eaten by the occasional bubble, of course, but that's what alts are for(especially with a name like "Ankhesentapemkah", who would notice a typo in that name?). And I didn't say that there wasn't systematic bias either, just that it probably wasn't large enough to destroy the merits of the data. I hope the 50 interviews were conducted across most of the 0.0 regions and alliances' space, because if, say, the only samples you took were of Goons, then your data would only reflect the opinion of Goons. A systematic bias of this sort - like the bias caused by most of the 0.0 dwellers you know being your Goon corpmates - might well introduce a large bias into your data, even if your sample size were larger, but I should hope someone setting out specifically to run an opinion poll would specifically avoid any obvious sources of bias.
Ankh, care to comment on your research methods? ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:49:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 05/08/2008 23:54:45 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 05/08/2008 23:51:58 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 05/08/2008 23:51:03
Originally by: Jade Constantine
CSM voted 4-4 not to escalate or make any kind of collective statement on the current speed patch on SISI.
Welp, fail. I guess you are just as useless as everyone said you would be. Oh well. Enjoy your ruined game.
I've added the issue to the next agenda for the August 17th meeting And urged the CSM delegates to put aside some time to go test the Speed Patch on SISI and speak to players testing these changes in the interim. I consider what was voted against at the august 3rd meeting was my (with input from Omber) specific motion that CSM release a collective statement:
"ItÆs the CSMÆs position that the best answer to the anti-speed-nerf ISSUE at this time is that people feeling strongly against this balancing patch should make time to test it on SISI and form realistic combat situations and provide detailed feedback to CCP developers. Lets raise the argument from ôthe nerf sucksö to this is the impact of these changes and why x,y,z element needs to be adjusted. Meanwhile lets ask CCP for a list of of what they are trying to accomplish and whether the changes do that or go overboard."
This was refused by the CSM (4/4) vote. But it doesn't mean we have ruled out addressing the speed issue or have decided either way on the validity/desirability of changes at this point.
You can say you're raising the issue until you're blue in the face. Issues get raised once per session as per agreement. You're attempting to waste our time to pander and it's not within your purview to do so. Once again a vote doesn't go your way and you attempt to ignore the system. You are with out a doubt one of the sorest losers I have ever come across on the internet. That's saying a lot fyi.
In case you didn't learn from the last few times. You don't get to change the rules midstream simply because you don't like the results. Grow the **** up.
You know for someone who griped repeatedly about taking these things public, ignoring the emails from the rest of the council saying you shouldn't be doing this then posting here is a bit hypocritical I'd think.
Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 00:23:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/08/2008 00:26:36
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON You can say you're raising the issue until you're blue in the face. Issues get raised once per session as per agreement.
Well I'm honestly not you can say we made an agreement on this. We addressed the point in this meeting around 21:11
"Serenity Steele > To clarify;Each CSM sits for a period of only six months and gets three opportunities to put ideas forward to CCP (one in person, two online). As such, it would seem wrong to me for a given issue to keep coming back to the table two or three tim..."
But we didn't get to a vote and no decision was made. Insult and rage against me all you like Darius. But I'd like you to show me where we made this "agreement" you are referring too. Because that particular debate ended with:
[ 2008.07.06 21:15:19 ] Inanna Zuni > But clearly, not all agree here so, in that whilst 7 is a quorum it isn't that meaningful, I'll withdraew this. [ 2008.07.06 21:15:22 ] Inanna Zuni > permanently,.
And thats my personal last recollection of the issue.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 00:37:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well I'm honestly not you can say we made an agreement on this. We addressed the point in this meeting around 21:11
"Serenity Steele > To clarify;Each CSM sits for a period of only six months and gets three opportunities to put ideas forward to CCP (one in person, two online). As such, it would seem wrong to me for a given issue to keep coming back to the table two or three tim..."
But we didn't get to a vote and no decision was made. Insult and rage against me all you like Darius. But I'd like you to show me where we made this "agreement" you are referring too. Because that particular debate ended with:
[ 2008.07.06 21:15:19 ] Inanna Zuni > But clearly, not all agree here so, in that whilst 7 is a quorum it isn't that meaningful, I'll withdraew this. [ 2008.07.06 21:15:22 ] Inanna Zuni > permanently,.
And thats my personal last recollection of the issue.
Fair enough. You know as well as I do that the vote will fail, but if we didn't have an agreement I really can't be angry about that. I can say it's bad form and that the council's not happy with it, but go ahead and have it your way. v0v
See you in 2 weeks when it fails by a higher margin. Time well spent I say.
Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 00:50:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Fair enough. You know as well as I do that the vote will fail, but if we didn't have an agreement I really can't be angry about that. I can say it's bad form and that the council's not happy with it, but go ahead and have it your way. v0v See you in 2 weeks when it fails by a higher margin. Time well spent I say.
Well maybe it does Darius. But end of the day we have a lot of players feeling very passionately that the CSM should be addressing the speed issue and I'd like to be able to tell those people that we are considering it and have been testing SISI and will help to the make the arguments needed to get CCP to reach the right balance in the patch. I'd rather get humiliated and voted down 7-2 in the CSM that I would just stand by and not even try to do the right thing. If we can't act from principle in the virtual politics of a MMORPG it'd be a pretty poor thing really.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:00:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 06/08/2008 01:00:26
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well maybe it does Darius. But end of the day we have a lot of players feeling very passionately that the CSM should be addressing the speed issue and I'd like to be able to tell those people that we are considering it and have been testing SISI and will help to the make the arguments needed to get CCP to reach the right balance in the patch. I'd rather get humiliated and voted down 7-2 in the CSM that I would just stand by and not even try to do the right thing. If we can't act from principle in the virtual politics of a MMORPG it'd be a pretty poor thing really.
Spare me the walking against the wind bullshit. If we spend every meeting voting on the same issues we get nowhere. This isn't a game issue yet. The players have been given a channel directly to the devs to address this issue by the devs. The CSM should be focusing on the game that actually exists.
The right thing is to respect the vote we already had.
Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 02:18:00 -
[50]
CAN'T YOU TWO SEE THAT YOU'RE IN LOVE?!?!
|
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:58:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Kelsin CAN'T YOU TWO SEE THAT YOU'RE IN LOVE?!?!
/thread ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:34:00 -
[52]
as a man of the roid, I could act as the celebrant during the next CSM Meeting aka Jade & Darius' Wedding.
I'll be setting up a gift registry in the eve store ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog |
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:52:00 -
[53]
I wonder why the member of the large, entrenched space-holding alliance is so in favour of the nano nerfs that would make their life a lot easier... Hmm why IS that??
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:08:00 -
[54]
Bear in mind that the CSM wasn't voting on whether the Nerf was a good Idea, but on whether they should issue a unified statement on the changes.
Considering how wide reaching the proposed changes actually are, and the sheer number of changes involved are you surprised that they couldn't come to an agreement over this? Especially given that within the Playerbase itself there are heavy divisions as to how this issue should be approached even to the degree of agreeing with some changes but not others. You'd have to debate each change individually instead of as a whole, then debate the changes as they affect each other.
This would be one of the first times I've seen a CSM vote where the vote was deadlocked with neither enough votes for escalation not enough votes to deny escalation. I'd be interested to know what mechanisms you have in place to resolve such issues in future, though at the moment, returning it to the Full CSM (9) for further discussion does seem the most prudent course of action so that a vote can be done to definately set the CSM's Position in one direction or another.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:07:00 -
[55]
Well Gabriel it's not so much a matter of needing enough votes to deny escalation - it's just about whether something gets the 5 votes needed to support escalation. If it doesn't get 5 supports it fails.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:43:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre This would be one of the first times I've seen a CSM vote where the vote was deadlocked with neither enough votes for escalation (5 Votes For) nor enough votes to deny escalation (5 Votes Against). I'd be interested to know what mechanisms you have in place to resolve such issues in future, though at the moment, returning it to the Full CSM (9) for further discussion does seem the most prudent course of action so that a vote can be done to definately set the CSM's Position in one direction or another.
It fails on a tie, as is standard for any venue that doesn't have a tiebreaking vote. I remember a few big ones in student government that did that, and of course there's Canadian abortion law, which doesn't exist because the replacement law failed on a tie in the Senate(because the acting Speaker didn't know he could vote, oddly) after the first one was struck down. |
Lia Gaeren
Caldari Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:10:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto ... the acting Speaker didn't know he could vote...
Canadian politicians FTW!
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:39:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre This would be one of the first times I've seen a CSM vote where the vote was deadlocked with neither enough votes for escalation (5 Votes For) nor enough votes to deny escalation (5 Votes Against). I'd be interested to know what mechanisms you have in place to resolve such issues in future, though at the moment, returning it to the Full CSM (9) for further discussion does seem the most prudent course of action so that a vote can be done to definately set the CSM's Position in one direction or another.
It fails on a tie, as is standard for any venue that doesn't have a tiebreaking vote. I remember a few big ones in student government that did that, and of course there's Canadian abortion law, which doesn't exist because the replacement law failed on a tie in the Senate(because the acting Speaker didn't know he could vote, oddly) after the first one was struck down.
Thus the reason there's an odd number on the council. I believe at the time there were two alternates active. Unfortunately if everyone doesn't attend (not calling anyone out just stating a fact) we won't have the optimal voting arrangement.
I find it pretty hilarious that some dude itt tried to allude to our being a "large entrenched 0.0 alliance" having anything to do with the nano issue. Firstly it wasn't a year or two ago we were small and new. Secondly my guys are just as split over this as anyone else. Gabriel hit the nail on the head when he said why the vote was shot down.
It seems virtually every time I vote against something people pull out the Goon card which is pretty hilarious given that I have voted at times in opposition to their wishes. If we can take a step back from the Kool-aid and Narcissism maybe we can accept the fact that I simply think something's a bad idea as opposed to an attempt to cling to some vested interest. I don't even like my own space to be frank, it's just a facet of the game and there's not been any better alternatives presented.
Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
LetsDoThis
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:10:00 -
[59]
You're either involved in 0.0 sov warfare and are assumed to be furthering your own agenda, or not involved at all and proposed ridiculous solutions to fake problems. /sigh
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:47:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Lia Gaeren
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto ... the acting Speaker didn't know he could vote...
Canadian politicians FTW!
Ties in Westminster legislatures are vanishingly rare, and if I recall the story correctly, the guy wasn't the actual Speaker, meaning he's not expected to know the rules as well. He thought he had the tiebreaking vote, but it tuned out that if he wanted to vote he had to do it at the same time as everybody else, which he failed to do. Hence a tie, hence abortions are legal until the actual moment of childbirth in Canada(a unique situation in the Western world) since for various reasons I won't go into here, nobody has tried to change that in the 18 years since.
Anyways, I'll stop hijacking the thread and just finish making the point I raised the example to make - votes fail on a tie. Hence a 9-man committee, but that doesn't work so well when there are 6 absences among the 9+5 of them. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |