EVE Search - CSM - Time to clean out the stink

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM - Time to clean out the stink

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:14:00 - [1] Edited by: Le Skunk on 03/08/2008 20:16:32 Edited by: Le Skunk on 03/08/2008 20:15:46 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. So we get "musical instruments" put forward, and not the biggest protest the CSM has seen (nano objection) YOU COULDNT MAKE IT UP! Musical instruments? What is this shit! Can you have blue aliens with big noses playing the saxaphone please! Resign all of you! - your stinking up the place SKUNK
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:15:00 - [2] Originally by: Le Skunk in before the content? __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:17:00 - [3] It is pretty embarrassing granted. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
The Wounded Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:18:00 - [4] Edited by: The Wounded on 03/08/2008 20:18:26 IBTL Next time just reply in one of the 50 other CSM bashing posts ow and DUH theres goons in it, what ya expect?
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:18:00 - [5] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change....
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:20:00 - [6] A divisive and contentious topic doesn't make it out of committee, while a silly and fluff topic does. This is not news, nor is it even slightly peculiar.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:21:00 - [7] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change.... WRONG Player supports for in game trombones : 36 Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248 SKUNK
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:22:00 - [8] Oh hey you'll get no argument from me that the CMS is flawed.
Quelque Chose New Eden Roller Disco Supply	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:22:00 - [9] Originally by: Jimer Lins A divisive and contentious topic doesn't make it out of committee, while a silly and fluff topic does. This is not news, nor is it even slightly peculiar. This. Anybody surprised by that must be living under a rock. Meanwhile, I CBA to plow through the chatlog. Can we get a vote breakdown on that one? ___________________________________________
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:22:00 - [10] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change.... WRONG Player supports for in game trombones : 36 Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248 SKUNK And Player support for NOT putting forth an expression of "severe malcontent"?

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:24:00 - [11] Hmm. Maybe it was something about how CSM's are directly involved with every balance issue, but are trying to focus on where to take the game in the future? Sorry, but I don't think the CSM's are going to be the ones who get the balance changes that the EvE dev team put forth, thrown out. I know it's a real nutcracker, but that's not what they are there for, as far as I'm aware. I could be wrong. Or I could be right. But what good do you expect to be had with pushing the nano-nerf argument in front of the devs faces ... as if it already wasnt, that is. "The greatest offense is no defense."
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:26:00 - [12] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change.... WRONG Player supports for in game trombones : 36 Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248 SKUNK It is a bit pathetic. Especially since we specifically agreed in the CSM we'd let the big issues from the assembly hall make the agenda. For the CSM to be relevant to the players it needs to look out for the interests of players and I have to say a big sorry to everyone who expected something better of us on the speed-issue. Its very disappointing to me personally to have us ducking out on a huge issue like the speed changes and sovereignty and generally only being able to escalate little things like instruments and fixes. All I can personally promise is that I'll be on the test server this week and I'd advise as many people who care about the speed issue to do the same and lets look at sending in some detailed feedback documentation to CCP on the issue. Even if the CSM as a body isn't interested in this stuff I'll undertake to send this stuff personally and try my best to get the issue heard somehow. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:26:00 - [13] Originally by: Jimer Lins Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change.... WRONG Player supports for in game trombones : 36 Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248 SKUNK And Player support for NOT putting forth an expression of "severe malcontent"? 590. So under half and therefore irrelevant. SKUNK
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:27:00 - [14] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:27:41 Originally by: Le Skunk Player supports for in game trombones : 36 True fact: I was a tromboner from fifth through twelfth grade. Other true fact: nano mechanics needed a change Therefore: internet trombones > nanoships
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:27:00 - [15] "We want the devs to know how horribly bad their idea of this game is and that the new nerf is hated by the entire community?" I wonder ... how do the devs say 'they don't care' in a nice way? "The greatest offense is no defense."
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change.... WRONG Player supports for in game trombones : 36 Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248 SKUNK It is a bit pathetic. Especially since we specifically agreed in the CSM we'd let the big issues from the assembly hall make the agenda. For the CSM to be relevant to the players it needs to look out for the interests of players and I have to say a big sorry to everyone who expected something better of us on the speed-issue. Its very disappointing to me personally to have us ducking out on a huge issue like the speed changes and sovereignty and generally only being able to escalate little things like instruments and fixes. All I can personally promise is that I'll be on the test server this week and I'd advise as many people who care about the speed issue to do the same and lets look at sending in some detailed feedback documentation to CCP on the issue. Even if the CSM as a body isn't interested in this stuff I'll undertake to send this stuff personally and try my best to get the issue heard somehow. I think the CSM had a damn good opportuinity to prove its worth on this issue. Even if CCP ingnored you (which they no doubt would have done) you had an opportunity to express the obvious disquiet felt by large sections of the eve playing community. By NOT expressing it, CCP will now have carte blacnhe to do what they want, and if criticised, will simply say "Well the CSM didnt mention it. And they are your go between. " SKUNK
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:30:00 - [17] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:27:41 Originally by: Le Skunk Player supports for in game trombones : 36 True fact: I was a tromboner from fifth through twelfth grade. Other true fact: nano mechanics needed a change Therefore: internet trombones > nanoships Sorry you are in the minority with this opinion. And its a democraticaly elected CSM. So im afraid you must pipe down. SKUNK
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:34:00 - [18] Just to pipe in, though many of the apparent forum warriors probably won't agree with me, I am one of the people more interested in seeing the CSM bring up musical instruments to the developers than bring up another nano complaint. My mindset is that A) the change IS coming, B) the speed fix is already being worked on and is in testing, C) players who want to have an effect will do so through testing, D) there are a thousand back-handed plays by players trying to insult, coerce and intimidate (through use of 'vetos' and 'votes' and calling on CSMs) the managers of a company into changing how they produce their (the company, mind you) product. Hey, I'm almost CERTAIN that the developers know the nano-nerf is going to hurt a lifestyle in EvE. But if they don't care, as in it doesn't fit the developers perception of how EvE should play, OR if it harms the code and causes undue stress, what good would it do to cry to your hearts content, only to have the CSM's not be listend to any more than the selfish players? "The greatest offense is no defense."
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:35:00 - [19] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change.... WRONG Player supports for in game trombones : 36 Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248 SKUNK It is a bit pathetic. Especially since we specifically agreed in the CSM we'd let the big issues from the assembly hall make the agenda. For the CSM to be relevant to the players it needs to look out for the interests of players and I have to say a big sorry to everyone who expected something better of us on the speed-issue. Its very disappointing to me personally to have us ducking out on a huge issue like the speed changes and sovereignty and generally only being able to escalate little things like instruments and fixes. All I can personally promise is that I'll be on the test server this week and I'd advise as many people who care about the speed issue to do the same and lets look at sending in some detailed feedback documentation to CCP on the issue. Even if the CSM as a body isn't interested in this stuff I'll undertake to send this stuff personally and try my best to get the issue heard somehow. I think the CSM had a damn good opportuinity to prove its worth on this issue. Even if CCP ingnored you (which they no doubt would have done) you had an opportunity to express the obvious disquiet felt by large sections of the eve playing community. By NOT expressing it, CCP will now have carte blacnhe to do what they want, and if criticised, will simply say "Well the CSM didnt mention it. And they are your go between. " SKUNK I agree with you. We failed mightily and if anbody wants to call me a useless so and so on this issue go ahead, failing to get a CSM statement on this speed nerf I kinda feel like one Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Jimer Lins Gallente Federation Fleet New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:35:00 - [20] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Jimer Lins Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:18:30 Maybe the fact that more people support instruments in ambulation than don't support the nano change is saying something about the nano change.... WRONG Player supports for in game trombones : 36 Player supports for an expression of severe malcontent by the CSM to CCP: 1248 SKUNK And Player support for NOT putting forth an expression of "severe malcontent"? 590. So under half and therefore irrelevant. SKUNK Irrelevant? No, being in the minority doesn't make one irrelevant. c.f. "tyranny of the majority". Anyway, from my reading in other threads, it seems that there was some contention on whether there was anything to actually escalate, given how little information is available and that the Sisi changes are still in their early stages. Still, a 4/4 split on a contentious issue with lots of implications... not surprsing at all. Welcome to politics; it's the same in EVE as it is anywhere else.

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:36:00 - [21] Originally by: Le Skunk Originally by: Dirk Magnum Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 03/08/2008 20:27:41 Originally by: Le Skunk Player supports for in game trombones : 36 True fact: I was a tromboner from fifth through twelfth grade. Other true fact: nano mechanics needed a change Therefore: internet trombones > nanoships Sorry you are in the minority with this opinion. And its a democraticaly elected CSM. So im afraid you must pipe down. SKUNK By the way, WHERE are these votes happening? I know quite a few people who would be interested in putting their say in, ESPECIALLY considering the voting right now seems to be powerplayed by the l33t forum ****'s. "The greatest offense is no defense."
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:37:00 - [22] Originally by: Jade Constantine I agree with you. We failed mightily and if anbody wants to call me a useless so and so on this issue go ahead, failing to get a CSM statement on this speed nerf I kinda feel like one Stop doing that your making me feel guilty! SKUNK
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:39:00 - [23] The fact that CCP didn't want ultra high speed should have been obvious when they nerfed the use of multiple MWD's. I hadn't even heard of this game when they did that, so there's a long-established precedent for speed limits.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:40:00 - [24] However else would we be able to play the miniature violin? Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Tzar'rim Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:41:00 - [25] If you would have read it, the consensus was that since it is still in the testing stages and NOT on TQ it's not something the CSM can comment on. All they can do is bring it to the attention of CCP that people are worried (doh) but without (f)actual changes they can not do anything at this point. Remember, the CSM doesn't change things, all they can do is raise issues. Since it's not on TQ yet it can not be an issue.
Frug Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:41:00 - [26] Originally by: Danton Marcellus However else would we be able to play the miniature violin? I for one would love to have my character play a violin, and would train the skill to lvl V - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Steel Tigeress Gallente Steel-Wolfs	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:43:00 - [27] The thing about those for and against nano-nerf threads: How do you think those two threads would have gone if there was not an announced nerf on the horizon. Just a "Who's for a Nano-nerf" And a "Who's against a Nano-Nerf" threads. I'ld be willing to bet money that the results would be exactly the opposite as they are now. Reason being: People who are happy with the way things are are generally silent, people who arnt are vocal. Thats why prior to the nerf anouncement, Cries for a nerf were 3-4 deep on the front page everyday, while only about 5-6 people showed up to defend nano's in those same threads. Now with the nerf on the horizon, roles have reversed, and those wanting a change to speed are content, while the nano crowd is not and is flooding the forums. TLDR: Those poll's in the assembly hall dont really mean jack. as they will never represeant an accurate cross section of what eve's population really thinks. At least not on big issues. The only way to find out for sure is to have a vote cast when people log into the game.
Kil'Roy Minmatar The Rat Patrol	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:43:00 - [28] I would be dumbfounded if they even considered musical istruments for ambulation in this game. What would you ask for next? A charmer profession? What is this? The twilight zone?
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:44:00 - [29] Originally by: Tzar'rim If you would have read it, the consensus was that since it is still in the testing stages and NOT on TQ it's not something the CSM can comment on. All they can do is bring it to the attention of CCP that people are worried (doh) but without (f)actual changes they can not do anything at this point. Remember, the CSM doesn't change things, all they can do is raise issues. Since it's not on TQ yet it can not be an issue. I really don't buy that. You can test the changes on SISI and see the way the wind is blowing. We need large scale testing of this stuff to ensure it doesn't get rolled out to the live server in a form that right royally screws small unit combat and roving playstyle. Only way to do that is get players energized to test test test and I really don't see any reason why the CSM couldn't advise that. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.03 20:46:00 - [30] Originally by: Dirk Magnum The fact that CCP didn't want ultra high speed should have been obvious when they nerfed the use of multiple MWD's. I hadn't even heard of this game when they did that, so there's a long-established precedent for speed limits. I will rephrase then: Arguments for and against the nerf are irrelevant in this thread. What is relevant - and undeniable 1Their is clear support for the "anti nerf" movement in the assembly forums. 2The assembly forum are designed to allow the player base to express concern/support/ideas to the CSM 3The CSM is designed to pass on these concerns/support/ideas to ccp. This has not happened, in the most supported issue in the game. Instead, we have utterly peabrained (and it should be noted majorly self proposed by members of the council) issues put forward. SKUNK



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.