| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.09.06 10:57:00 -
[91]
Weekly meetings should be a desirable goal of the CSM. If not, I definately agree that fortnightly meetings need to be held. If there aren't any agenda items suitable (IF!), then why not DISCUSS an issue/s for development purposes?
Heck, why not even get around to making some firm rules for meetings/CSM scope etc....since you aren't allowed to raise these concerns in a voting meeting...
Interaction with the playerbase via the forums has always been poor for a number of the CSM members. I'm starting to think that some weren't supported to do CSM stuff, but to occupy a position to stop others doing CSM stuff!
It could, however, be a disenchantment with the process and CSM, given the rocky beginnings and clear non-communication between many members (or negative communication between members). Lets hope for better next time!
Take care,
Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 16:01:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 06/09/2008 16:04:32
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
Oh come on Andrew. That's just stupid.
Do I really have to repeat what Ankh said when she hit the nail right on it's head?
Well Charlie
Yes, it would have been polite to answer a direct question on when we should have the next meeting and what that meeting should cover. If you had agreed with Ank then you should have posted "I agree with Ank - seconded." Simply saying nothing looks like you weren't interested. Of course you are not the only one who hasn't replied or commented on the question. But you are the only one posting in public disapproval of poor CSM communications standards with sad-face smilies at the lack of activity - hence you have voluntarily claimed for yourself a higher standard than those you are critical of.
From my perspective as Chair I need feedback and comment from the other delegates on this question:
Do we wait until we get CCP feedback on the 2nd session issues?
Do we continue with the bi-weekly meetings?
Do we have a brainstorming session on general issues (such as those proposed by Ank?)
If we do are those in way way shape or form "official"?
Are any of the delegates going to disagree with such a meeting being on the record?
One of the topics Ank suggests is improving 0.0 sovereignty warfare.
Are the Goons going to veto that on the continuing grounds that nobody else on the CSM has their "specific knowledge" of territorial warfare? If they do that is anything the rest of us going to say on the issue going to matter anyways?
There are a lot of unanswered questions. We have 9 CSM delegates and so far 1 solid answer and 1 "what she said". If I go ahead and schedule a meeting on that basis whats the chances somebody accuses me of "making up the rules" and "re-writing the CSM" again? Is more drama what we really need at this point?
But the bottom line Charlie is that you are occupying a seat on a committee. When the committee chair asks for suggestions on how we proceed with the meeting structure simply saying nothing and assuming that your silence is meant to signify assent for what somebody else says is poor practice whichever way you cut it.
Quote:
And where did you read that my fellow delegates are terrible? You are obviously not reading my message. I used "scary", which is an informal way of expressing that one is surprised.
Yeah right and this  means that I'm looking at a fascinating ceiling-ornament not expressing exasperation with you.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 16:18:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
As for the meeting, I agree that there's been rather a paucity of interesting topics recently, but I was under the impression that meetings were regularly scheduled. Anyone staring at a big blank agenda can easily enough find some less-interesting topics still worthy of advancement, or bring some forward on the Assembly Hall and see what players have to say, or dredge for old topics that never got brought up for one reason or another.
Well we've been thrown a curve-ball in the timing anyhow because the late august feedback on issues is being delayed. But the bigger issue is the lack of topic advocacy. I'm one of nine CSM delegates. I can't be advocating everything. And I've drawn a huge amount of criticism already for advocating issues that the other CSM's don't like for one reason or another (and those were issues I did care about!). If you look back through the last meetings a fairly high proportion came from me - if I'm not seeing anything at the moment that has either a) significant popular support and I perceive as being in the interest of eve or b) that I'm personally enthused over - then its probably wrong for me to just keep on scooping up issues for the sake of issues. If people care enough about an issue they are welcome to write to me and ask me to take a look at something and argue the point (and they can certainly do that for any other csms - but if that isn't happening then maybe the case is that people just don't care that much about the current issue threads).
Quote:
But with no meeting even on the horizon, and lame-duck syndrome starting to show up(for those not running next time, at least), it's not a surprise that laziness is setting in, and people have stopped really caring.
Well like I said I asked almost two weeks ago what the other delegates wanted to do about upcoming meetings and I've now had two responses of eight, both in favor of no more formal meetings until the ccp feedback, but mooting the principle of a generalized brainstorming meeting instead. But as you can appreciate thats not exactly a consensus. As for lame-duck syndrome I assure you, if there was an issue in the assembly hall I genuinely felt passionate about I'd be supporting and pushing it for this last session. I obviously can't speak for anyone else on that matter though.
Quote:
... It is, however, immensely unfortunate - not only does it mean that less is being done, but it casts a bit of a shadow upon the idea of player representation in MMOs generally.
Well, this CSM does have problems its true and once my turn is over I'll be pretty outspoken on what they are, but even that said I think you are being a little melodramatic. Reality was that everyone had a bunch of issues they wanted promoted at the beginning and most of us have managed to do what we promised to do in our manifestos in turns of issue advocacy. Speaking personally I think I've 80% of the manifesto stuff I wanted through to get a hearing and have only failed on the 0.0 sovereignty improvement and local chat replacement stuff. Sure I'm disappointed about that but ultimately you don't get everything you want.
But the point is once the CSM's have done their best to meet their manifesto pledges it becomes a matter of reacting to genuine emergencies or inspired good ideas. At the moment there isn't much of either in the assembly hall.
Quote:
I'm not trying to attribute blame to anybody here - I'm not on the inside, I don't know if it's everybody's fault or nobody's. I'm just saying, the system seems not to have been working especially well for the last week or two.
I think there is a sense that we've done as much as can be done on our individual election pledges. I for example simply don't believe we'll get movement on 0.0 issues in this CSM now. I think a future team might, but this one is too divided and log-jammed on these issues. But its going to be vital that the electorate choose wisely.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Lia Gaeren
Caldari
Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 16:20:00 -
[94]
Not sure I like the way this thread is going. I voted for the CSM so they could discuss and bring to CCP's attention the issues which the players felt were important, not to be taking cheap shots at each other and apparently not discussing anything at all. That is what RL elections and RL polititians are for (for example, look at Prime Minister's Question Time in the British Parliament - an embarassment to the whole democratic process).
I agree with Herschel in that there haven't been many great and innovative topics in the AH lately, but I also agree with Arithron when he said that there are plenty buried back in the Assembly Hall that are good ideas, have decent support, which were never raised.
I would far rather the CSM spend their limited time looking through some of those than wasting it attacking each other.
But what do I know - I'm just a voter 
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 16:28:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Arithron
Weekly meetings should be a desirable goal of the CSM. If not, I definately agree that fortnightly meetings need to be held. If there aren't any agenda items suitable (IF!), then why not DISCUSS an issue/s for development purposes?
Well mate, its for the CSM's to advocate issues. And if the players (or alternates) WANT and issue advocated then they need to make the argument and persuade us. And sure, for what its worth I agree with you (and Ank as it happens) who say it would be nice to have a brainstorming session in the absence of any issues on some important issues -> example (0.0 sov warfare, local chat removal, improving low-sec et etc) but we do need a consensus to change the focus of meetings otherwise it'll just get bitter and snowed under in recriminations again.
Quote:
Heck, why not even get around to making some firm rules for meetings/CSM scope etc....since you aren't allowed to raise these concerns in a voting meeting...
At this point I think its best left for the next CSM to choose how it wants to handle itself. This one has had some successes, some failures, some PR triumphs and some forum fiascos and its for the next group to define its own rules and regs. With any number of the current csms either not standing next time or maybe not getting reelected it'd be a bit rum to spend the last month making rules for the next people I think.
Quote:
Interaction with the playerbase via the forums has always been poor for a number of the CSM members. I'm starting to think that some weren't supported to do CSM stuff, but to occupy a position to stop others doing CSM stuff!
Well, best can be hoped for is that the electorate factor that into their votes next time around.
Quote:
It could, however, be a disenchantment with the process and CSM, given the rocky beginnings and clear non-communication between many members (or negative communication between members). Lets hope for better next time!
Speaking personally I do feel we've found the limits of what kind of issues can get through the CSM and I'm disappointed that limit prevents us addressing "the big issues" we were asked to consider, but there's a very real question on whether the essential nature of the CSM would ever allow advocacy of those issues since it IS a virtual council of ingame interest groups determined to argue their corner. Given that the big issues are almost by definition political issues, its no surprise that agreement doesn't come easy (or indeed possible) between ideological enemies.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 16:37:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Lia Gaeren
Not sure I like the way this thread is going. I voted for the CSM so they could discuss and bring to CCP's attention the issues which the players felt were important, not to be taking cheap shots at each other and apparently not discussing anything at all. That is what RL elections and RL polititians are for (for example, look at Prime Minister's Question Time in the British Parliament - an embarassment to the whole democratic process).
I completely disagree about Prime Ministers Questions by the way. I think its the cornerstone of our democracy in the UK and its absolutely neccessary for a leader to stand up to robust debate and challenge on a regular basis. But on topic, this is what tends to happen towards the end of a term when most election promises have been kept and people have done what they said they'd do. Some of us won't be standing again, others will. With the outstanding issues covered then some CSM's are beginning their reelection campaigns early and a certain degree of backbiting and personal attacks on rivals is to be expected. CCP named us "tribal chieftains of the internet" not marrage guidance counselors so its not exactly a surprise to see delegates sharpening their boot-knives for a little character assassination in the run-up to the next poll.
Quote:
I agree with Herschel in that there haven't been many great and innovative topics in the AH lately, but I also agree with Arithron when he said that there are plenty buried back in the Assembly Hall that are good ideas, have decent support, which were never raised.
Nothing is stopping you posting and getting them back onto the first page and trying to engage players and CSM delegates in the discussion. If you feel I've missed something that you think I should support then let me know. Make the argument and if it persuades me I'll support it. Can't really say fairer than that.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:14:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
If I go ahead and schedule a meeting on that basis whats the chances somebody accuses me of "making up the rules" and "re-writing the CSM" again? Is more drama what we really need at this point?
I don't think it will cause any drama to go right ahead with it. People can't whine if they didn't voice their opinion in the first place.
Quote:
Are the Goons going to veto that on the continuing grounds that nobody else on the CSM has their "specific knowledge" of territorial warfare? If they do that is anything the rest of us going to say on the issue going to matter anyways?
No. That would be silly if they did. Even if they did during a meeting, then the logs will always be public and even the community can identify the reason why we are not discussiong the issue which bothers a lot of people.
|
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 23:52:00 -
[98]
Interesting reading in all. Can't say I buy the arguement about CSM members having fulfilled their manifestos etc. CSM are elected to represent the players first and foremost. It's the narrow focus of their own manifestos that have limited the effectiveness of the CSM in the first place. Of course, its easy to use the 5% rule regarding current issues in the assembly hall to justify non-activity. It's just not doing what you were elected to do.
Arithron
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 01:12:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well we've been thrown a curve-ball(snip)
A fair point. And as you've said above, you've taken enough flak over the last few months that I can't blame you for trying not to rock the boat.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well like I said I asked almost two weeks ago what the other delegates wanted to do about upcoming meetings and I've now had two responses of eight, both in favor of no more formal meetings until the ccp feedback, but mooting the principle of a generalized brainstorming meeting instead. But as you can appreciate thats not exactly a consensus. As for lame-duck syndrome I assure you, if there was an issue in the assembly hall I genuinely felt passionate about I'd be supporting and pushing it for this last session. I obviously can't speak for anyone else on that matter though.
As I said, people are getting lazy. Also as I said, I'm not trying to blame anybody - not you, not LVV, nobody. I don't know who is at fault, nor do I have any way of knowing. I'm just trying to assert that there is a fault, something that all involved seem to agree on - you and LVV in words, the other seven by their silence.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well, this CSM does have problems its true and once my turn is over I'll be pretty outspoken on what they are, but even that said I think you are being a little melodramatic. Reality was that everyone had a bunch of issues they wanted promoted at the beginning and most of us have managed to do what we promised to do in our manifestos in turns of issue advocacy. Speaking personally I think I've 80% of the manifesto stuff I wanted through to get a hearing and have only failed on the 0.0 sovereignty improvement and local chat replacement stuff. Sure I'm disappointed about that but ultimately you don't get everything you want.
But the point is once the CSM's have done their best to meet their manifesto pledges it becomes a matter of reacting to genuine emergencies or inspired good ideas. At the moment there isn't much of either in the assembly hall.
Yeah, a touch melodramatic. I'm just annoyed by CCP's tendency towards excessive ambition - they do immensely cool things, but because they go haring off in a thousand directions at once, 999 of them fall short due to lack of support. The CSM is not failing merely because there's been a couple slow weeks, but I don't want to see it fail at all. Thus I'm raising the issue after two weeks, instead of waiting two months and having it be irreparable.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I think there is a sense that we've done as much as can be done on our individual election pledges. I for example simply don't believe we'll get movement on 0.0 issues in this CSM now. I think a future team might, but this one is too divided and log-jammed on these issues. But its going to be vital that the electorate choose wisely.
Yeah, but that's always vital. The scariest thing about politicians saying "This is the most important election of our lives" is that they're usually right - they all matter, as much as the institution that they're getting voted into matters. Obviously, the CSM is not a government, not even in-game, but if the CSM matters, and I think it does, then its elections matter just as much.
And if you can't work on promises, work on the ideas of others. It's not as flashy, and it's way more disjoint, but it's far better than giving up.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Lia Gaeren
Caldari
Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 18:59:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Nothing is stopping you posting and getting them back onto the first page and trying to engage players and CSM delegates in the discussion. If you feel I've missed something that you think I should support then let me know. Make the argument and if it persuades me I'll support it. Can't really say fairer than that.
I had figured forum rules would contain some kind of anti-bump rule.
However, I have taken a page at random (was page 20) from the AH, and these are the topics on that single page scoring more than two thirds supports (although some of them do have a very small post count).
12/12 - 100% - display unique posters
7/7 - 100% - add 'avoid populated system to autopilot
5/5 - 100% - quick sale button on your own auction
3/3 - 100% - scanning and probes
3/3 - 100% - enhance the EVE music player
3/3 - 100% - scrolling solar system menu
1/1 - 100% - make wrecks show tracking, velocity etc on overview
37/38 - 97% - not being able to contract damaged items
12/13 - 92% - Item sorting by meta level
488/534 - 91% - the use of evemail as corporate logging
6/7 - 86% - directional scanner and 2D system map
6/7 - 86% - mission autobalancing
21/25 - 85% - hotkey for multiple modules
61/73 - 84% - drone modules
25/30 - 83% - Alliances and factional warfare
14/17 - 82% - minor annoyances (UI)
40/50 - 80% - Drone implants
39/49 - 80% - proposals for UI improvements
17/22- 77% - new arrivals on grid flash in overview
10/13 - 77% - More variety in mission content
26/35 - 74% - One Account, One vote
5/7 - 71% - more things to make EVE more immersive
Quite a selection of issues. I have not cross-refered this with what's come up at CSM meetings (2 of those topics are by CSM members so I'm assuming at least those two have come up!) or against what CCP have already posted on, but I am willing to bet there's still a few things in that list that might be worth looking at. I have sorted by % of posted support.
Also, apologies for choosing a page with one of my posts on it - I didn't realise until I had collected almost all the linkage data and didn't want to start over. 
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 09:28:00 -
[101]
Just for the record I do not believe we should proceed with ANY meetings until CCP actually acknowledges those issues already submitted and sets a date for the review meeting.
There is no point us debating and preparing issues if CCP is not going to make any effort to actually listen to them.
Now I am aware that Andrew/Jade is putting pressure on for a date - which is good - but is currently being stalled.
I do not believe therefore that we should continue with 'business as usual' until CCP realise that they have to firm up a date and actually process all the proposals that are already in the pipeline.
Otherwise we simply create an unmanageable backlog.
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 10:26:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Hardin
Just for the record I do not believe we should proceed with ANY meetings until CCP actually acknowledges those issues already submitted and sets a date for the review meeting.
There is no point us debating and preparing issues if CCP is not going to make any effort to actually listen to them.
Sadly, I must disagree with both of these. Whilst it would be very helpful if a date was set for the (online) CCP-CSM review meeting it doesn't actually stop us doing everything else. On the second I see no evidence that they aren't making an effort! They sent us a timetable and we (erm. I) sent them a response to tell them we could send them the second list immediately rather than the three weeks away of their proposal. It is now with them and will still arrive back to us before they asked to receive it! This is a good thing so far as I can see.
Originally by: Hardin
I do not believe therefore that we should continue with 'business as usual' until CCP realise that they have to firm up a date and actually process all the proposals that are already in the pipeline.
Otherwise we simply create an unmanageable backlog
There *is* a backlog though; the one created by the other pilots of EVE. The ones we are here to represent. As I see it, either we stop those we represent from using these forums - and become the puppets of CCP to some extent in shutting down discussion - or we take our responsibilities seriously and show pilots and CCP alike that we are here to do the business we were elected to do.
IZ
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 10:39:00 -
[103]
I agree with Inanna. I'm certainly building up a backlog of issues which has to be discussed.
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 12:27:00 -
[104]
You have your opinion and I have mine.
I just do not believe we should be be ploughing on regardless when at this moment in time CCP cannot even set a date to get back to us on the issues already submitted. They have known the 'schedule' for a long time...
We can of course continue to look at issues - hell I have some of my own on the Assembly Halls - but the whole thing is rather pointless if we simply turn into a talking shop - which is what we will become unless CCP gets its finger out...
Of course we have a responsibility to the players of EVE but in my opinion giving people the impression we are achieving anything when everything is currently stalled is not exactly being 'responsible'...
Yes we can go on examining and voting on issues but unless that process is leading to something constructive then its all rather pointless.
My view is that more pressure needs to be placed on CCP to get this sorted and that refusing to do anymore work until they take this seriously is a good way of getting their attention and the process moved forward.
Of course we can all pretend that everything is rosy and if people want to have more meetings simply to be pious and look good then I will certainly participate - but my heart wont really be in it unless we get some indication from CCP that they are interested in taking this seriously.
They clearly demonstrated this interest in Iceland and I was very positive about the process at that stage but there seems to be some drift now and we need to get back on course. We cant rely on the CSM working only when there are face to face meetings!
We - the members of the CSM - have had many meetings since our return from Iceland - often long tedious and argumentative meetings - we have been doing our part - it really is up to CCP to do theirs...
- We still do not have CSM forums - these are still promised soon (tm)
- We have not had any detailed feedback of action on the priorities we agreed in Iceland.
- we do not know when CCP is going to respond to the last batch of issues we submitted
All of these things can be resolved and I know there are 'some' good people in CCP working on these but it is taking too long and I really don't see the point of continuing to mislead the voters that things are progressing normally when they are not.
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 12:34:00 -
[105]
On reflection maybe I am being too negative.
If people want to organise another meeting then I will certainly be there and contributing.
I would however like to see more concerted pressure being put on CCP to progress things!
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 13:50:00 -
[106]
My opinions are not a hundred miles from yours Hardin. I think you make some very decent points there and the process does need to start moving again from CCP's end certainly.
Once we get the responses from Issue pack 2 lets look at posting a new meeting time and we'll start handling the backlog again. Speaking personally I don't have that much more I want on the agenda at the moment, but I can think of some issues that should be discussed before we finish. (The proper local chat replacement topic from tusko for example :)
How about if we get the responses from CCP prior to Wednesday evening lets look at a meeting this sunday (14th) or if later than that the following sunday (21st?)
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 16:08:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Arithron on 09/09/2008 16:09:59
A build up or backlog of issues...for CCP to deal with...
I hardly see how this affects the elected responsibility of the CSM members to hold regular meeting to discuss PLAYER issues. If CCP has a build-up of issues, it's not of any concern to the CSM! They have fulfilled their obligation to players by submitting them in the first place. I might go as far as to suggest that maybe CCP has been a little busy of late with patches etc. It's just more of the same; excuses for not doing something, rather than proactive reasons to do it.
It's irrelevant if CSM members (any CSM member) feels they don't have any issues to bring to a meeting. Look in the Assembly Hall, where PLAYER issues are posted...interact... discuss...essentially, put personal agendas and manifestos aside and look at issues that may just benefit players outside your narrow focus.
Take care,
Arithron
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 18:48:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Hardin
Just for the record I do not believe we should proceed with ANY meetings until CCP actually acknowledges those issues already submitted and sets a date for the review meeting.
There is no point us debating and preparing issues if CCP is not going to make any effort to actually listen to them.
This only makes sense if you believe that CCP is intentionally ignoring the CSM and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. And in that case, the correct thing to do is resign in protest en masse, and probably head straight for the gaming press to raise hell, rather than sit in a corner.
Of course, I don't believe that CCP is lying about their commitment to the CSM, and I don't think you believe it either. Yes, they're busy. Yes, they'll get back to you Soon(tm). But given that the time between being raised in the Assembly Hall and being put into a patch is likely going to be several months at a minimum for the vast majority of issues, what's an extra couple of weeks in the middle of that? Besides, even if they don't get back to you, they can still take your ideas and implement them - it's far worse for accountability and communication, of course, but it doesn't actually harm the CSM's core function.
So given that the only reason for your delay is CCP's delay, and that you've all known about CCPs propensity towards delay for years now, this all seems kind of pointless. Clear your backlog, and let CCP worry about theirs.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 19:03:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
This only makes sense if you believe that CCP is intentionally ignoring the CSM and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. And in that case, the correct thing to do is resign in protest en masse, and probably head straight for the gaming press to raise hell, rather than sit in a corner.
Of course, I don't believe that CCP is lying about their commitment to the CSM, and I don't think you believe it either. Yes, they're busy. Yes, they'll get back to you Soon(tm). But given that the time between being raised in the Assembly Hall and being put into a patch is likely going to be several months at a minimum for the vast majority of issues, what's an extra couple of weeks in the middle of that? Besides, even if they don't get back to you, they can still take your ideas and implement them - it's far worse for accountability and communication, of course, but it doesn't actually harm the CSM's core function.
So given that the only reason for your delay is CCP's delay, and that you've all known about CCPs propensity towards delay for years now, this all seems kind of pointless. Clear your backlog, and let CCP worry about theirs.
CSM just received a preliminary response to all the issues. The issues weren sent on the 26th of August. So the issues were handeled in exactly 2 weeks, as the CSM document describes.
So everything is fine...
As for the actual content of the response, I'll not comment on for now till I make sure it won't break the NDA or anything, since the information we got is that there will be official posts for it after the discussions with CCP we will be having. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 20:18:00 -
[110]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
CSM just received a preliminary response to all the issues. The issues weren sent on the 26th of August. So the issues were handeled in exactly 2 weeks, as the CSM document describes.
So everything is fine...
As for the actual content of the response, I'll not comment on for now till I make sure it won't break the NDA or anything, since the information we got is that there will be official posts for it after the discussions with CCP we will be having.
Good to hear. Like I said, I don't think CCP is shirking their commitments here, and I don't think that Hardin really believes that either. I'd fully understand if you guys had decided not to bring forward issues related to those you were awaiting response on already, that would just be natural. But the submission-reply loop is close to a month, and there's three of them in a six-month term. Does anybody really want the CSM to spend 1/3 to 1/2 their time in office passively awaiting a response? This is a big game, and there's a lot of things that can be discussed, even with a few dozen issues outstanding already.
Also, two questions on this topic. Is there a clean list of what topics are up somewhere, or will I have to search the minutes to find out what they are? And when can we expect Wrangler's forum bomb?
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 16:09:00 -
[111]
Quote:
Also, two questions on this topic. Is there a clean list of what topics are up somewhere, or will I have to search the minutes to find out what they are?
As with any effectively run and managed council, the CSM secretary will have a list of discussed issues (and will have recorded escalation/failed vote etc) that can be compiled and displayed in the forum. 
If this isn't what you were after, Serenity had a thread with current topics on it in the assembly hall, although I'm not sure how current it is.
Quote:
Does anybody really want the CSM to spend 1/3 to 1/2 their time in office passively awaiting a response?
There would be a few, no doubt...
Take care,
Arithron
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 18:31:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Arithron
As with any effectively run and managed council, the CSM secretary will have a list of discussed issues (and will have recorded escalation/failed vote etc) that can be compiled and displayed in the forum.
If this isn't what you were after, Serenity had a thread with current topics on it in the assembly hall, although I'm not sure how current it is.
I could ask Ank to mail it to me, but I'd prefer a public list, for people less forward than I. Ultimately, I'd like to see every submission the CSM makes to CCP CC'd to JPSC, and then updated with responses when they're available, so that there's a single easily-accessible list of them(as well as keeping a sticky on top of JPSC with links to all such threads).
And Serenity's list is ancient - I don't think it's been updated since mid-June. I was keeping a daily update of new threads, but when it became obvious that I was talking to a wall, I quit, and nothing has been done since except incorporating them in and deleting my posts a month or so later.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 18:50:00 -
[113]
The CSM really does need better tools for things like this. A wiki would be IDEAL.
But these issues were submitted for this round of CSM-CCP meetings:
0102-01-0041 Alliance Corps in Factional Warfare
0102-01-0042 Fix Precision Heavy missiles
0102-01-0043 POS Standing Fixes
0102-01-0044 Gate Agressoin Timer
0102-04-0045 Buff Minmatar Capital Ships
0102-04-0046 Crane needs powergrid increase
0102-01-0047 Nighthawk needs powergrid increase
0102-01-0048 Rigged Ships and Cargo issues
0102-06-0049 Dynamic Agent Qualities
0102-01-0050 Factional Warfare Storyline Impact
0102-01-0051 Unnerf the Bio length
0102-06-0052 Buff Gallente Ewar
0102-04-0053 Musical Intruments in Ambulation
0102-02-0054 Rigs need some attention
0102-01-0055 Covert ops and cynojammers
0102-04-0056 Turning Titans into mobile stations
0102-01-0057 Remote Repair issues
0102-01-0059 Covert Ops Jumpbridge Range
0102-01-0060 Third Bloodline Background
0102-01-0061 MOTD for fleets and gangs
0102-06-0062 Bountyhunting Improvements
0102-06-0063 Mercenary Improvements
0102-09-0064 Ship Maintenance Bays Revisited
0102-03-0065 Missions under review
0102-09-0066 UI Combat Notifications
0102-09-0067 UI Distance Status Change
0102-09-0068 UI Hotkeys
0102-09-0069 UI Visibility Status of Modules
0102-06-0070 UI Slash Commands
0102-03-0071 Small Anchorable Structures
0102-03-0072 Remote Jumpclone Destruction
0102-03-0073 Drone Quirky Behaviour
0102-03-0074 More Crossfaction Ships
0102-08-0075 Forum Reworking
0102-07-0076 Kill Rights should be transferable
0102-07-0077 Funky POS Recommendations
0101-04-0029 Corporate Email Issues
0101-01-0030 Wreck Flagging in PVP
0101-01-0031 Account Security (
0101-08-0032 Moon Mining
0101-08-0033 Color Deficiency
0101-08-0034 Mac/Linux Client Issues
0101-08-0035 Multiple Monitors
0101-08-0036 Small Freighters
0101-05-0038 Rebalancing Large Autocannons
0101-02-0039 Completion of Story Arcs
0101-02-0040 Improvements for Roleplaying
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 22:58:00 -
[114]
Thanks for the list, much appreciated. What do the middle parts of the codes mean? I can tell that 0101 is first CSM, first submission, and 0102 is first CSM, second submission, and 0029-0077 are issue numbers, but the middle bit I just don't follow. Also, why are those particular issues back on the table the second time around?
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 00:47:00 -
[115]
Jade/Inanna, a question. Agenda item #10, about UI fixes - link "to follow". That was a month ago. I can't tell from LVV's list which threads the topics are about. Can one of you please provide links? Thanks.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 04:15:00 -
[116]
[CSM Incarnation #][CSM Meeting # for that incnarnation]-[CSM Member ID]-[Issue ID]
|
Mediastinum
Caldari
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 16:05:00 -
[117]
How about changing the link in item #1 to direct a person interested in the actual Dev Blog regarding the ludicrous speed issue, thereby allowing the educated person to make their own decision. Posting a link to the thread AGAINST the change makes the OP appear biased (did I read something to that effect already?), unless there is another link FOR the changes to the ludicrous speed issues the Dev's clearly elaborated on.
Ya, this is late. No, I don't care.
------------------------------------------------
When you pay for my playtime, you can dictate to me what my opinion should or should not be, until then move along |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 09:36:00 -
[118]
Quote:
0102-07-0077 Funky POS Recommendations
La vista... you better not let it slip this time 
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 10:34:00 -
[119]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Quote:
0102-07-0077 Funky POS Recommendations
La vista... you better not let it slip this time
Don't worry. It was a part of the package we sent for sure
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 11:59:00 -
[120]
quick question though
Im trying to peice together a 'project' (fancy word for a 15 post idea in features and ideas discussion fourm) and its not done yet, how much time do i have to the next meeting or pass up?
Pre Order your Sisters of Eve ship today!!! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |