| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
   |
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:03:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 04/08/2008 17:04:43
CSM Formal Meeting 9. Sunday 17rd 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 15th August.)
1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue - Putting this on the agenda again because by the time of this meeting we will have had a further two weeks of testing the SISI changes and plenty of feedback to give a CSM statement on the speed issue and impact on gameplay and pvp balance in Eve Online.
2. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane (rearranged issue from august3)
3. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade (rearranged issue from august3)
4. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade (rearranged issue from august3)
5. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=755364 Local Chat Replacement + here + here (removing local as an intel tool) - Jade/Tusko
6. Gang/Fleet bonuses for single race fleets -Jade
7. tba
8. tba
9. tba
10. tba
11. tba
12. tba
13. tba
14. tba
15. tba
POPULAR Issue (Biggest unaddressed Assembly Hall Issue û will be added after CSM raised ISSUEs.)
1. I'm guessing its going to be speed and given we've undertaken to find out some more about the issue in the two weeks prior to this meeting I think its appropriate to put it back to the agenda.
AOB (Any other business) (additions can be submitted prior 18:00 hours Friday 15th 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.
++ This is the last date for Issues to be voted onto the second formal CSM/CCP meeting. All documents need to be fully completed in advance of the meeting and we'll be sending a bundled list of Issues to Iceland for the CCP council to review the following monday.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:03:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 04/08/2008 17:04:43
CSM Formal Meeting 9. Sunday 17rd 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 15th August.)
1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue - Putting this on the agenda again because by the time of this meeting we will have had a further two weeks of testing the SISI changes and plenty of feedback to give a CSM statement on the speed issue and impact on gameplay and pvp balance in Eve Online.
2. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane (rearranged issue from august3)
3. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade (rearranged issue from august3)
4. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade (rearranged issue from august3)
5. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=755364 Local Chat Replacement + here + here (removing local as an intel tool) - Jade/Tusko
6. Gang/Fleet bonuses for single race fleets -Jade
7. tba
8. tba
9. tba
10. tba
11. tba
12. tba
13. tba
14. tba
15. tba
POPULAR Issue (Biggest unaddressed Assembly Hall Issue û will be added after CSM raised ISSUEs.)
1. I'm guessing its going to be speed and given we've undertaken to find out some more about the issue in the two weeks prior to this meeting I think its appropriate to put it back to the agenda.
AOB (Any other business) (additions can be submitted prior 18:00 hours Friday 15th 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.
++ This is the last date for Issues to be voted onto the second formal CSM/CCP meeting. All documents need to be fully completed in advance of the meeting and we'll be sending a bundled list of Issues to Iceland for the CCP council to review the following monday.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:53:00 -
[3]
I believe its supposed to be the 17th not the 17rd as in 3rd, 23rd, 33rd..etc.
Outside of that I am looking forward to it!
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 18:07:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Red Raider
I believe its supposed to be the 17th not the 17rd as in 3rd, 23rd, 33rd..etc.
Outside of that I am looking forward to it!
thank you
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Marya Sklodowska
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 12:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
7. Specific Alternative to speed changes MWD disables weapons -Jade
<3
-----------------------------------
Raivi's Research Alt
-Explosion Matrix-
Support Sarmaul's MWD MKII |
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:06:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 07/08/2008 14:10:12
So do you just intent to keep stacking the agenda with every 0.0/sov suggestion that gets posted?
It seems like every 0.0 or sov idea that comes up in the assembly hall, you will support inside of the first ten posts and agree to bring before the CSM. You do this before any significant discussion takes place on the issue (that is, before any well-thought-out objections can be made). You do it before you're able to see if the idea gets any popular traction. I know that the idea has to be discussed in the assembly hall for a minimum period of time before the CSM can vote on it, but you essentially bring the idea to the CSM for a discussion and vote regardless of how the suggestion thread pans out.
For example, the two 0.0/sov ideas on the agenda right now: The first one has all of 20 replies. The second one has 11, but you're right there in the second post supporting and you've got it on the agenda. It's absurd. If an idea is actually good, don't you think that it probably will get more than 6 supports?
The point of the CSM is to represent the player base. Right now you've got two items on the agenda that together have the support of a whopping 20 people from the player base. And the CSM is going to spend time discussion those ideas. Can you not at least wait until another idea with some popular support shows up? Barring that, maybe you could wait until a number of other CSM reps support an idea (hint: I mean Darius) before you bring an idea to the CSM, so that maybe it will have a chance of passing? Rather than voting on ideas that capture genuine player concerns, you've decided to vote on suggestions that fit your own preconceived agenda. I mean my god seven out of ten issues on the agenda right now are yours, and for the most part they're all issues with a mere two pages of player discussion behind them.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 14:39:00 -
[7]
If the CSM was sitting on their thumbs and not addressing any issues posted in the Assembly Hall unless they have 500 supports, we'd be pretty ****ed at them for their laziness. I think it makes sense to present a variety of ideas to CCP, otherwise the process stagnates.
In short, are you really blaming the CSM for being hard-working?
|
Tzujeih
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:25:00 -
[8]
Jade to use up 10 of the 15 slots?
How about you move all that stupid bullshit to the end of the line.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:46:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 07/08/2008 15:48:07
Originally by: Kelsin
If the CSM was sitting on their thumbs and not addressing any issues posted in the Assembly Hall unless they have 500 supports, we'd be pretty ****ed at them for their laziness. I think it makes sense to present a variety of ideas to CCP, otherwise the process stagnates.
In short, are you really blaming the CSM for being hard-working?
So you define hard-working as:
1) See thread with "0.0" or "Sov" in the title.
2) Open thread.
3) Hit reply.
4) Type "Please fill this out with a more detailed proposal."
5) Check Support.
6) Hit Submit.
7) Edit topic into CSM agenda.
Well, it is a whole seven steps, and I didn't even include all the steps needed to edit the agenda. So I guess you might have a point.
Seriously though, "hard-working" in this context would involve an active effort to build a consensus around an idea by soliciting buy-in from the relevant base of players. And not just 50 random peons (I'm looking at you Ankhsh2lfoslv.asdlf), people who matter in the game. Guess what, BoB don't waste much time on this CSM crap, and most of them don't read the assembly hall or eve-o in general. Many Russians or TCF might not even be able to read English. A hard-working CSM member would be making an effort to get in touch with the important individuals who actually live in 0.0 and get some feedback from them before tossing the idea off to the rest of the do-nothing know-nothing congress for a vote. Just because a group of people can't stand these forums doesn't mean that their opinion is irrelvant. It's highly relevant.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:53:00 -
[10]
If anyone on the CSM attempts to do what you describe, I'd be very happy. Right now though I'm seeing a lot of work being done by Jade to keep getting topics in front of the CSM. If some people don't wish to be involved in this, that is their call. But arranging and attending every meeting and scouring the assembly hall forum to find topics to put on the agenda is indeed a lot of work, and if Jade weren't doing it the CSM would hardly be addressing anything - I think he deserves more credit than you're giving him.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:06:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Kelsin
If anyone on the CSM attempts to do what you describe, I'd be very happy. Right now though I'm seeing a lot of work being done by Jade to keep getting topics in front of the CSM. If some people don't wish to be involved in this, that is their call. But arranging and attending every meeting and scouring the assembly hall forum to find topics to put on the agenda is indeed a lot of work, and if Jade weren't doing it the CSM would hardly be addressing anything - I think he deserves more credit than you're giving him.
He's certainly putting more effort into the CSM than I would put into a video game without compensation. But he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, and his effort is nevertheless insufficient for this task. If something is worth doing, then it's worth doing right.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
He's certainly putting more effort into the CSM than I would put into a video game without compensation. But he knew what he was getting into when he signed up, and his effort is nevertheless insufficient for this task. If something is worth doing, then it's worth doing right.
It's being done right. We would be very lucky to have more folks putting as much good work in as Jade is, given the thanklessness of the task.
As for the idea of appointing a development group of 0.0 'important individuals' - I don't see how handing the keys over to one particular subgroup of players will do anything for balance other than ensure that only development changes beneficial to that subgroup are passed.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:38:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 07/08/2008 16:46:39
Originally by: Kelsin
I don't see how handing the keys over to one particular subgroup of players will do anything for balance other than ensure that only development changes beneficial to that subgroup are passed.
Good point. For that matter, I wonder why CCP didn't ask a bunch of WoW players, or even non-eve-playing citizens of iceland, to form the CSM? Those people would be free of any bias regarding changes to the game. And, if CCP implements changes requested by those who don't play Eve, maybe they would start to play it! What a bonus!
Oh, of course. It's because you want the people who understand the game and are invested in it to guide the changes. It's because when you change a game, you don't change it in favor of the people who do not play that game. You change it in favor of the people who do play that game so as to increase their enjoyment of it and maintain them as loyal subscribers. And if they like your improvements, they may invite their non-playing buddies to join in on the fun.
Living in 0.0 is a game. It is a very different game from the one played in highsec or lowsec. If the 0.0 game is changed, it should be changed by the people who actually play it and invest in it for their increased enjoyment. 0.0 should not be changed for the benefit and enjoyment of those who have chosen not to play the 0.0 game.
"Let's change 0.0 and the sov system" is a task that is fundamentally different in scope and in impact than "Let's change the powergrid on the nighthawk". Fitting a ship does not really constitute a game. The sovereignty system and the mechanics of 0.0 do constitute a game in the same way that the faction warfare system constitutes a game (I guess you would say a "mini-game", a sub-game within Eve). The people who choose to play the sov game should guide its changes in the same way that the people who play eve online should guide changes that apply generally to all of eve online.
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:00:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kelsin
As for the idea of appointing a development group of 0.0 'important individuals' - I don't see how handing the keys over to one particular subgroup of players will do anything for balance other than ensure that only development changes beneficial to that subgroup are passed.
The CSM is a 'particular subgroup of players'.
The Star Fraction has sovereignty in zero solar systems. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
Living in 0.0 is a game. It is a very different game from the one played in highsec or lowsec. If the 0.0 game is changed, it should be changed by the people who actually play it and invest in it for their increased enjoyment. 0.0 should not be changed for the benefit and enjoyment of those who have chosen not to play the 0.0 game.
In the end, any aspect of the game should be balanced by developers with an eye towards how all subsystems within the game interact. To that point, it's just a really terrible idea to put veto power over the entire playerbase in the hands of players appointed solely because they have a narrow focus in their gameplay on 0.0 Sov warfare.
One might as well argue that a council of only nano-ship pilots should be selected to address the nano-nerf. It takes all sides to sort something as big as this out.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:18:00 -
[16]
CCP ask CSM to help them come up with proposals to reform sovereignty warfare in 0.0
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
CCP has been discussing 0.0 and sovereignty internally for the past year and discussed many issues already. They found that Player Owned Station (POS) warfare is a very limited mechanic, and that it revolves around the amount of dreadnoughts and other capital ships in the fleet, while small ships only serve as support instead of being able to accomplish small objectives on their own. The long-term plan for 0.0 warfare is to have multiple layers of goals and objectives instead of all fighting occurring over stations. This would allow small groups to have an impact on the game, instead of needing hundreds of ships to have influence in 0.0.
Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire.
Andrew (CSM Jade Constantine) commented that current 0.0 PVP is siege warfare, people stick to established fortresses and do not venture beyond the gates. His suggestion was to include mechanics that encouraged sovereignty holders to patrol their space, and have ways for roaming gangs to peck at undefended systems and steal resources there.
The issue of logistics was also discussed. Alex stated that current POS logistics required an alliance to have powergamers that managed them around the clock. He proposed to make 0.0 appeal to a wider audience by removing these repetitive activities that required powergaming. Shayne urged CCP to consider mechanics that would provide more synergy between the industrial and combat aspects of 0.0.
CCP said that they would have to balance short term achievements to the long term empire building. If people could easily destroy in a day what took months to build up, this would be unfair. But on the other hand, it should not be too hard to smoke out established entities. They agreed however, that the current time sinks in POS warfare are too long.
This issue has been put on the rolling agenda, and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty.
Enough said really.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:21:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Hertford on 07/08/2008 18:21:49
Originally by: Hertford
The Star Fraction has sovereignty in zero solar systems.
That makes The Star Fraction one of the last group of individuals qualified to comment on and suggest changes to 0.0 Sovereignty.
Jade, stick to Empire (High Sec) Issues. |
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:26:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 07/08/2008 18:28:34
Originally by: Jade Constantine
CCP ask CSM to help them come up with proposals to reform sovereignty warfare in 0.0
Ya, you keep waving that flag as if my point is that the CSM should give up on 0.0 and sov warfare.
But what I'm actually saying is that the CSM should try and address sov warfare in an effective way. Not by rubber-stamping ideas supported by some miniscule number of people for CCP to read. By actually putting in the time and the work to build a significant consensus around an idea.
If all the CCP devs are asking for is a bunch of ideas cast up by Joe Messageboardposter, then they can get that just by reading the assembly hall. They don't need you to vote for them to read it.
What CCP wants the CSM to do is the freaking legwork -- go out into the field, talk to people, and figure out what the solution really should be. Be solution builders, and not just a dumb pipeline or filter through which solutions might flow.
Stop lazily expecting the solutions to very hard, complicated problems to be dropped on your doorstep by enterprising constituents. Go out and find the solutions that will work yourselves.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:28:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Hertford
Jade, stick to Empire (High Sec) Issues.
Negative. And on 0.0 issues, if you are interested in a balanced approach to 0.0 balancing you don't ask a group composed entirely of people too close to the issue. You guys are too invested in current 0.0 defensive advantages to discuss these things objectivity. Sure you have a right to an opinion, but you have absolutely no right to a veto. Asking people holding 0.0 space from the current stacked deck of broken sov mechanics about the future 0.0 warfare is like asking a focus group of turkeys if they are in favor of thanksgiving - nobody should be surprised at the answers that interest group gives.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:33:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 07/08/2008 18:37:37
Originally by: Toman Jerich
Stop lazily expecting the solutions to very hard, complicated problems to be dropped on your doorstep by enterprising constituents. Go out and find the solutions that will work yourselves.
The thing you keep forgetting though is that we already have the opinions of the current status quo and those = lets do nothing. CCP also care about the opinions of the people who would like change and would like to make 0.0 warfare more interesting, more dynamic and generally more of a game. Those minutes are very revealing. The impression I get from reading you posts is that feel that people interested in raiding and opposing settlements in 0.0 have no right to opinion in the direction the game should develop and I strongly disagree with you. Eve is a game for all the players and I don't believe the current space holders in 0.0 have the right to veto any change that might make their job of holding territory more challenging.
You yourself concluded in Kelsin's thread that you didn't foresee ANY solutions that could be implemented within the lifespan of Eve online. You'll forgive me for dismissing that level of cynicism and remaining hopeful that those people who do see a future for non blob warfare laggy logjams in 0.0 might eventually win this argument and drive positive change.
Originally by: Toman Jerich
Issues this big are nothing more than opportunities for fun theorycrafting and to build castles in the air. By the time any 'visionary' proposal issued by the CSM can become reality, there will be a better game out there to play anyway.
Simple defeatism. I don't buy it.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:37:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
And on 0.0 issues, if you are interested in a balanced approach to 0.0 balancing you don't ask a group composed entirely of people too close to the issue.
Yes you do, because that's the group that has experience of the issue, and what they feel is 'wrong' with it. You don't ask an accountant to fix your car.
Quote:
You guys are too invested in current 0.0 defensive advantages to discuss these things objectivity. Sure you have a right to an opinion, but you have absolutely no right to a veto.
A semi-valid point. Yes, objectivity may well be difficult to achieve, but I'd rather have a car mechanic tell me what's wrong with my car than an accountant. Yes, the mechanic may not be perfectly objective, because he'd like to get some money out of you. But if the final result is that the car works, then the mechanic has succeeded. And who said anything about 'veto'? As a 0.0 player, I'd rather see proposals from those in or involved with 0.0.
Quote:
Asking people holding 0.0 space from the current stacked deck of broken sov mechanics about the future 0.0 warfare is like asking a focus group of turkeys if they are in favor of thanksgiving - nobody should be surprised at the answers that interest group gives.
Strawman and fallacious analogy. Those who have taken sovereignty, defended sovereignty, assaulted sovereignty, clashed over sovereignty and lost sovereignty are the perfect group to ask about sovereignty.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:40:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 07/08/2008 18:42:52
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 07/08/2008 18:41:34
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Toman Jerich
Stop lazily expecting the solutions to very hard, complicated problems to be dropped on your doorstep by enterprising constituents. Go out and find the solutions that will work yourselves.
The thing you keep forgetting though is that we already have the opinions of the current status quo and those = lets do nothing.
Oh really? You're certain that the general opinion of, say RA or Stain Empire or Solar Fleet is that the status quo is good? What are you basing that opinion on? Did nync post that somewhere on eve-o? Did you ask him? And what about BoB? Do you have a lot of contacts there who are feeding you information about what they generally think?
Jade, you don't know shit about what people in 0.0 think and you haven't tried to find out. You know what you think, and you know what you think people who play in 0.0 think. That's it.
Those people who are close to the issue have an important role to play. Maybe you don't let them decide every facet of your idea, but if it doesn't have any input or feedback from them and ignores their concerns, then your idea is useless. And the fact is that people with the best insights to give aren't just going to come to you. For one thing, many of them aren't going to post feedback here because they don't understand English. Or imagine a 0.0 powerhouse Russian alliance who might have their bread-and-butter game changed out from under them according to suggestions approved by a council that they couldn't provide feed back to because they don't even know it exists. It's absurd.
You need to put forth the effort to solicit the opinions that, while they won't show up on an eve-o forum, are still extremely relevant to the issue. You cannot dismiss those opinions by waving your hands and muttering about bias.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:42:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Hertford
Strawman and fallacious analogy...
Ah well, we'll agree to disagree. Life goes on.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:45:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hertford
Strawman and fallacious analogy...
Ah well, we'll agree to disagree. Life goes on.
Your analogy would be perfect if you were comparing the turkeys involved in Thanksgiving to the Control Towers involved in 0.0 sovereignty warfare.
I don't see you requesting the opinions of the Control Towers, but then Control Towers don't have opinions, hence why your analogy is completely fallacious. |
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 19:00:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 07/08/2008 19:00:29
Imagine you're in Iceland, discussing your ideas for 0.0 and sov with the devs. The devs hear you out, and then look at Darius and Bane and ask "So, what did you guys think of the idea? You spend all your time doing this stuff". Then they say "We don't think this idea is the way to go. Certainly something needs to be changed, but I think this will anger a lot of veteran players". Then the devs look at you ask, "So did anyone who plays in 0.0 already get on board with this idea? What did they think?" And you say "Well not many of them contributed to the discussion about the idea. I guess they don't care strongly about it." I don't think the devs are going to buy that.
It's in your best interest in doing what I suggest. I'm not sure why you would resist it unless you're simply too lazy to do it. Even being able to tell the devs something like "I talked to some of the head guys in BoB and in some Russian alliances and all they want is the status quo. I think they'll be angry no matter what you do" Sounds better than "They didn't offer any opinions and I didn't go out of my way to ask."
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:46:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hertford
Strawman and fallacious analogy...
Ah well, we'll agree to disagree. Life goes on.
You really dont get it do you? All you have ever done is try to get them to change 0.0 so your stupid worthless alliance can participate in it. Well you can't so stop trying to change the game for your own agenda. 0.0 is supposed to be where all the big players of the game emerge and duke it out if you aren't cutting it in the current system what makes you think that you will cut it with another system? Alliance level warfare isn't something someone like you or anyone else with no experience to take a look at and make decisions based off of crap like that.
Take for Example Ank and all her stupid crap she's putting forward.
|
sexyminer
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 06:50:00 -
[27]
Edited by: sexyminer on 08/08/2008 06:50:40
[quote/]In short, are you really blaming the CSM for being hard-working?
So you define hard-working as:
1) See thread with "0.0" or "Sov" in the title.
2) Open thread.
3) Hit reply.
4) Type "Please fill this out with a more detailed proposal."
5) Check Support.
6) Hit Submit.
7) Edit topic into CSM agenda.
Well, it is a whole seven steps, and I didn't even include all the steps needed to edit the agenda. So I guess you might have a point.
Seriously though, "hard-working" in this context would involve an active effort to build a consensus around an idea by soliciting buy-in from the relevant base of players. And not just 50 random peons (I'm looking at you Ankhsh2lfoslv.asdlf), people who matter in the game. Guess what, BoB don't waste much time on this CSM crap, and most of them don't read the assembly hall or eve-o in general. Many Russians or TCF might not even be able to read English. A hard-working CSM member would be making an effort to get in touch with the important individuals who actually live in 0.0 and get some feedback from them before tossing the idea off to the rest of the do-nothing know-nothing congress for a vote. Just because a group of people can't stand these forums doesn't mean that their opinion is irrelvant. It's highly relevant.
e: Here is one step-by-step for success:
1) Recognize that 0.0 is the land of elitist *******s who don't necessarily bother or have the ability to read eve-o. Remember that CCP doesn't really get involved in big 0.0 powerblocks after the t20 scandal and that certain players really do know more than the devs do about some aspects of their game. Get ready to play along with people's egos to accomplish something.
2) Get a shortlist of people who would be useful to ask about 0.0 and sov warfare. Hint: One of them sits on the council already! The others are major players in the large 0.0 powerblocks. They are people who have played the 0.0 game for a long time and have big-picture views, as well as a large personal investments in the game, and a lot of subordinates to take care of.
3) Present to them whatever idea you have.
4) Incorporate their feedback to improve the idea. Or if they collectively suggest that the idea is trash, then shitcan it.
5) Eventually bring to the CSM a plan that has a large chance of being successful if implemented because the people who understand the complicated inter-woven big-picture issues have at least not struck it down outright.
i agree all we need a CSM to do is to actually go into the topic count how many supports they have and then ask for a more detailed description and look at EVERY topic and some1 that can actually hold there ground towards CCP on the arguments as well (not that this may be a problem with holding ur ground) i wish i was older (17 atm -_-) to go to iceland then id go and put my self in a vote to be CSM ^^
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:55:00 -
[28]
Why is Jade filling half the slots with his stuff and where the hell are the rest of the council members? Shouldn't there be like 9 or something?
--------
Ideas for: Mining
|
Mazzarins Demise
Profit Development and Research Association
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 12:21:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Mazzarins Demise on 08/08/2008 12:27:13
Jade Constantine in regards to number 8 about donating ISK to real world charities. Might I suggest to look up a name called CrazyJoe for the game Ultima Online. If you get into contact with him that'll be even better.
Some years ago we did the same thing and donated millions upon millions of gold. We raised $10,000 for what I believe was for the Tsunami Relief Fund and the Red Cross. It made headlines on various news outlets so finding it shouldn't be too difficult. I'll see what I can pull up for you as well.
His main website is GamersCharity
Regards, MD.
-edits
Article on MSNBC
News Article
News Article when we reached 1 billion gold donated
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 14:29:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Why is Jade filling half the slots with his stuff and where the hell are the rest of the council members? Shouldn't there be like 9 or something?
We are working on "larger" issues, in terms of actual size and reach(Though I'm working on smaller issues too, a number of them even). Also the submission date is not for another week, so there is still plenty of time.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 15:36:00 -
[31]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Abrazzar
Why is Jade filling half the slots with his stuff and where the hell are the rest of the council members? Shouldn't there be like 9 or something?
We are working on "larger" issues, in terms of actual size and reach(Though I'm working on smaller issues too, a number of them even). Also the submission date is not for another week, so there is still plenty of time.
Interesting. Is there a place where you announced what those "larger" issues are and I can read up on them? At the moment it kinda looks as if you just do your thing and to hell with the rest of the players. More positive publicity might be a good idea for the CSM...
--------
Ideas for: Mining
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:06:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Interesting. Is there a place where you announced what those "larger" issues are and I can read up on them? At the moment it kinda looks as if you just do your thing and to hell with the rest of the players. More positive publicity might be a good idea for the CSM...
Well, I can only speak for myself: Right now, I don't have much to show(Been on holiday the last week, so have really not had time). But look out for it on the market discussion forum, I will be posting much more about it there.
|
Mr Friendly
That it Should Come to This
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 04:57:00 -
[33]
I'm confused.
Jade is being criticized for advancing his agenda (shock! horror! surprise!), yet *two* Goon CSMs aren't being criticized for not aggressively advancing their agendas. 'Squeaky wheel gets the oil' etc.
Isn't the job of the CSM to advocate their position? Maybe the posters in this thread should be demanding the CSMs who represent their positions to push for *their* agendas?
I guess you could keep deriding people who are obviously dedicated to seeing their vision realized instead of fighting for your positions, then whine after it's too late to block changes you don't like --- like you're doing now.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 16:13:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 09/08/2008 16:13:32
Originally by: Mr Friendly
I'm confused.
Jade is being criticized for advancing his agenda (shock! horror! surprise!), yet *two* Goon CSMs aren't being criticized for not aggressively advancing their agendas. 'Squeaky wheel gets the oil' etc.
Isn't the job of the CSM to advocate their position? Maybe the posters in this thread should be demanding the CSMs who represent their positions to push for *their* agendas?
I guess you could keep deriding people who are obviously dedicated to seeing their vision realized instead of fighting for your positions, then whine after it's too late to block changes you don't like --- like you're doing now.
You're missing a key point. In some of these issues, the status quo is the desired outcome by some delegates (the opinion that nothing needs to be changed in that particular area), and arguing against new ideas that they disagree with is fighting for your position.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 20:28:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Also are we going to see other 0.0 proposals from more delegates?
If you have in mind an idea you like, just post it in the assembly hall on a non-goonswarm alt. Jade will make sure it gets on the agenda.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 20:56:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Also are we going to see other 0.0 proposals from more delegates?
If you have in mind an idea you like, just post it in the assembly hall on a non-goonswarm alt. Jade will make sure it gets on the agenda.
Time to make a posting alt. WindPipeJammer?
|
iselljunk
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 07:17:00 -
[37]
Add a topic. There should be a way to replace the CSM head rep once you find out the one you elected is a total moron and has no idea about anything except roll playing a girl so he can meet boys online and get confronted by Chris Hansen and end up in jail with his front teeth knocked out.
|
Detlev Cree
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 11:35:00 -
[38]
Could we please have fleet battle lag discussed as an issue at the meeting? It has been raised a number of times - for example http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834954 - and surely has enough support for explicit discussion.
Agreed that some of the sovereignty ideas might well have a bearing, but many of us would like to see epic battles work well, whatever changes are made to sov, and it would be good to understand from CCP what is possible and what their priorities are.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 15:01:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Detlev Cree
Could we please have fleet battle lag discussed as an issue at the meeting? It has been raised a number of times - for example http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834954 - and surely has enough support for explicit discussion.
Agreed that some of the sovereignty ideas might well have a bearing, but many of us would like to see epic battles work well, whatever changes are made to sov, and it would be good to understand from CCP what is possible and what their priorities are.
Yes, fix the lag. We know, CCP knows, and by now most Tibetan monks probably know.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Serenity Steele
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 18:32:00 -
[40]
I'm back from Holidays today, so will be attending.
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store - Includes Black Rise & Empyrean Age |
Detlev Cree
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 19:38:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
[Yes, fix the lag. We know, CCP knows, and by now most Tibetan monks probably know.
What makes you think CCP know? The only quote I've seen from CCP on fleet battle issues comes from further up this thread as follows: "Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire."
That comment didn't come from someone who has experienced fleet battle's current issues. Ism't it worth discussing this explicitly with CCP rather than just saying 'yes yes, of course everyone knows about that' ?
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 19:47:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Detlev Cree
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
[Yes, fix the lag. We know, CCP knows, and by now most Tibetan monks probably know.
What makes you think CCP know? The only quote I've seen from CCP on fleet battle issues comes from further up this thread as follows: "Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire."
That comment didn't come from someone who has experienced fleet battle's current issues. Ism't it worth discussing this explicitly with CCP rather than just saying 'yes yes, of course everyone knows about that' ?
They know about lag. You don't need to tell them about lag at all.
|
Detlev Cree
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 19:57:00 -
[43]
Is there a problem with putting it on the issues list? It isn't there currently
Is there a problem with discussing it in the CSM meeting? Surely it would be worthwhile.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 20:01:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Detlev Cree
Is there a problem with putting it on the issues list? It isn't there currently
Is there a problem with discussing it in the CSM meeting? Surely it would be worthwhile.
I wouldn't be opposed to knowing exactly what they are doing to improve performance.
|
Lia Gaeren
Caldari
Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 20:18:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Yes, fix the lag. We know, CCP knows, and by now most Tibetan monks probably know.
Those Tibetan monks are wise, and surely know the answers to all questions. Maybe CSM should discuss sending Nozh to Tibet to find out what the solution is 
|
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar
Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 21:59:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The impression I get from reading you posts is that feel that people interested in raiding and opposing settlements in 0.0 have no right to opinion in the direction the game should develop and I strongly disagree with you. Eve is a game for all the players and I don't believe the current space holders in 0.0 have the right to veto any change that might make their job of holding territory more challenging.
That's exactly how it works. CCP spin the wheel of nerf, and sledgehammer whatever it lands on (nano this time). Usually while at the same time completely ignoring screwed ships and mechanics for months and months (black-ops, cyno jammers, jumpbridges, bombs, range rig stacking bug etc etc.)
Of course the players and particpants in whatever style of play don't get a say. CCP don't give a crap what you think.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 14:46:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Detlev Cree
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Yes, fix the lag. We know, CCP knows, and by now most Tibetan monks probably know.
What makes you think CCP know? The only quote I've seen from CCP on fleet battle issues comes from further up this thread as follows: "Nathan (CCP) said that he does not believe that current large-scale fleet combat is interesting for the participants, mainly due to focus fire."
That comment didn't come from someone who has experienced fleet battle's current issues. Ism't it worth discussing this explicitly with CCP rather than just saying 'yes yes, of course everyone knows about that' ?
1) The majority of CCP employees play Eve. And, from all the stats I've heard, they lean far more heavily towards 0.0 and PvP careers than the player base as a whole. Remember, the scandal wasn't about T2 BPOs being given to Caldari Provisions.
2) The devs read the forums, and since any new thread on Eve General has a 12.7% chance of being about lag of one sort or another, I think they'd have clued in by now.
3) They've been at work building a new server for months now.
Yeah, I think they know.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Drolus
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:46:00 -
[48]
Ok, I don't care about ANY of the above issues, but fair enough lets look at them. But could just ONE of the CSM's look at drones please? (No damage notifications, no T2 mods, UI etc.etc.etc.)
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:45:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
CCP ask CSM to help them come up with proposals to reform sovereignty warfare in 0.0
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
....and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty.
Enough said really.
CSM and the players
CSM and the players
CSM and the players
You forgot something when you made the highlighted post.
Everyone else  .
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way"
General George Patton USA
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 23:39:00 -
[50]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Originally by: Jade Constantine
CCP ask CSM to help them come up with proposals to reform sovereignty warfare in 0.0
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
....and CCP asked the CSM and the players to come up with concrete suggestions how to improve 0.0 warfare and sovereignty.
Enough said really.
CSM and the players
CSM and the players
CSM and the players
You forgot something when you made the highlighted post.
Everyone else .
The majority of the idea were originally proposed by :everyone else: and the CSM gave their support or didn't. It's not Jade's fault that he's sponsoring all of them.
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 18:35:00 -
[51]
I too am concerned that Jade is the CSM member with the largest amount of issues on this list. Why is this? Are there no other CSM members that have issues to bring up that are supported by the players?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 22:28:00 -
[52]
Originally by: J Kunjeh
I too am concerned that Jade is the CSM member with the largest amount of issues on this list. Why is this? Are there no other CSM members that have issues to bring up that are supported by the players?
Jade is the most liberal about seeing topics he likes and bringing them forward. Others tend to only bring up issues they feel strongly about. I wish that more would be brought forward, because there's too many good topics that just sink without being noticed, but I don't think that the CSM wants to spend twice as much time on meetings in order to bring forward everything, or that CCP would thank them if they did.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Gonada
Gallente
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 04:09:00 -
[53]
all I'd like to know is wtf are Goons doing as CSM's?
nothing like having the ultimate carebear, lying, exploiting, cheating, corp having a say in the future of the game.
Please, jump into traffic
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 04:32:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Gonada
all I'd like to know is wtf are Goons doing as CSM's?
Probably because they were voted in.
Quote:
nothing like having the ultimate carebear,
gonna have to elaborate there ...
Quote:
lying, exploiting,
condoned by EVE ...
Quote:
cheating,
but follow the EULA ...
Quote:
corp having a say in the future of the game.
I guess the largest corp brings in a little bit of game experience.
But its OK. You're the first person to point this out. The very first one. You should bring more topics like this into the spotlight.
|
Lia Gaeren
Caldari
Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 21:19:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Lia Gaeren on 13/08/2008 21:25:10
Edited by: Lia Gaeren on 13/08/2008 21:19:18
Originally by: Gonada
all I'd like to know is wtf are Goons doing as CSM's?
nothing like having the ultimate carebear, lying, exploiting, cheating, corp having a say in the future of the game.
Real carebears don't lie, exploit or cheat. Goons may claim to be the ultimate carebears but they clearly suck at it, and I'm not afraid to say so!
Speaking AS a carebear though, I'm actually glad that there are Goons as CSMs. Sure I don't enjoy playing the game in the same way they do, and I might never agree with more than one word in twenty that they say, but they do represent the interests of a large section of the player base, and have a good deal of experience in their playing arena, and some of them are even intelligent and atriculate. No, really!
What would be absolute hell would be a CSM made up of nothing but Empire huggers too afraid to step into low sec for fear of being ganked (that's me!). We need a decent cross-section of the playing population to make the CSM actually useful and to look at all sides of any issue before submitting it to the Kingdom of Devness in Icelandia.
|
Empire Runner
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 00:03:00 -
[56]
I'd like an update from CCP about the state of industry in EVE.
Rorqual - Is it filling the niche CCP wants ?
Orca - Status Report ?
Mining - Is mining (in its current incarnation) what CCP wants, if not how are they going to change it.
A general a roadmap for where they see Industry going.
Its a big part of EVE, and its getting neglected.
(Quarterly Economics Blogs?)
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 10:53:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Hardin on 15/08/2008 10:53:30
Jade please add...
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=839605
...to the agenda - as per recent CSM mails.
Thanks!
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:20:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Empire Runner
I'd like an update from CCP about the state of industry in EVE.
Rorqual - Is it filling the niche CCP wants ?
Orca - Status Report ?
Mining - Is mining (in its current incarnation) what CCP wants, if not how are they going to change it.
A general a roadmap for where they see Industry going.
Its a big part of EVE, and its getting neglected.
(Quarterly Economics Blogs?)
Isn't the next expansion about industry?
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 09:57:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 16/08/2008 09:58:02
In case anyone's interested, here's the stuff I intend to put on the agenda.
1) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=844584&page=1 Mission improvements
2) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=844059&page=1 Remote Jumpclone Destruction
3) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=823901 Small Anchorable Structures
4) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=817813 Irky Drone Behavior
5) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=839971 Drones and Disconnects
Not sure on the 'crazy 0.0 ideas' yet, I think that needs a lot more discussion.
---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 10:30:00 -
[60]
What's the point in the deadline? Nobody seems to be keeping it.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 14:19:00 -
[61]
CSM Formal Meeting 9. Sunday 17th August. 16:00 hours Eve Time
Agenda:
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Popular Issue - Putting this on the agenda again because by the time of this meeting we will have had a further two weeks of testing the SISI changes and plenty of feedback to give a CSM statement on the speed issue and impact on gameplay and pvp balance in Eve Online.
2. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane (rearranged issue from august3)
3. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade (rearranged issue from august3)
4. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade (rearranged issue from august3)
5. Local chat replacement/removal + here + here (removing local as an intel tool) - Jade/Tusko
6a. Proper Bounty Hunting for Eve - Dierdre/Arithron
6b. Proper Mercenary Profession support for Eve - Dierdre/Arithron
7. Improvements for Rigs - Hardin/Omber
8. Mission Improvements - Ank
9. Forum change issues - Lavista (this topic technically breaks the 7 day discussion rule but I'm inclined to make an exception due to the importance of the issue)
10. UI Fixes (link to follow) - Inaana
11. Specific Alternative to speed changes MWD disables weapons -Jade
12. Slash Commands - Dierdra
13. Small Anchorable Structures - Ank
14. Ship Modifications - Lavista
15. Radical Change to 0.0 sovereignty (sov "points" from activity) -Jade
16. Remote destruction of Jump Clones - Ank
17. Using ISK towards real world charities -Jade
19. Drone Disconnects and Quirky Behaviour + here -Ank
20. Gang/Fleet bonuses for single race fleets -Jade
21. Specific adjustments to 0.0 sovereignty - Jade
AOB (Any other business) (additions can be submitted prior 18:00 hours Friday 15th August)
1. tba
2. tba
All CSM delegates and Alts invited.
++ This is the last date for Issues to be voted onto the second formal CSM/CCP meeting.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 18:04:00 -
[62]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
What's the point in the deadline? Nobody seems to be keeping it.
Please, at least publically show some respect towards the CSM. |
Kixkahn
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 18:14:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: LaVista Vista
What's the point in the deadline? Nobody seems to be keeping it.
Please, at least publically show some respect towards the CSM.
He seems to have a legitimate point.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 18:16:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: LaVista Vista
What's the point in the deadline? Nobody seems to be keeping it.
Please, at least publically show some respect towards the CSM.
Dude, I'm just asking a valid question.
Why would I have to stress out during the week, in order to write up these documents, when I could write then up during saturday? |
Drolus
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 23:35:00 -
[65]
hahahahaha
MOTD's, slash commands, Prime Fiction. WTF?
way to go for the "big picture", guys.
hahahahaha
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 21:23:00 -
[66]
*looks through bloodstained eyes*
Meeting over, after 5 hours and 15 minutes....
now I need umm
BRAINS! *HISS!*
---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 21:26:00 -
[67]
CSM Formal Meeting 9. Sunday 17th August. 16:00 hours Eve Time
Agenda:
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. The "nano-nerf" implications as per dev blog - Deferred to next session because of SISI rollback
2. Changing Carriers Combat Roles - Bane - Voted down 3/6
3. Prime fiction for the 3rd bloodline (more needed) - Jade - escalated
4. MOTD for Fleet/Gang window - Jade - escalated
5. Local chat replacement/removal + here + here (removing local as an intel tool) - Jade/Tusko - withdrawn prior to vote since we didn't have Tusko's docs.
6a. Proper Bounty Hunting for Eve - Dierdre/Arithron - escalated
6b. Proper Mercenary Profession support for Eve - Dierdre/Arithron - escalated
7. Improvements for Rigs - Hardin/Omber - escalated
8. Mission Improvements - Ank - escalated with edits
9. Forum change issues - Lavista (this topic technically breaks the 7 day discussion rule but I'm inclined to make an exception due to the importance of the issue) - escalated 5/4
10. UI Fixes (link to follow) - Inaana (4 issues all escalated)
11. Specific Alternative to speed changes MWD disables weapons - voted down 2/7 (jade and ank voted aye)
12. Slash Commands - Dierdra - escalated
13. Small Anchorable Structures - Ank - escalated with edits
14. Ship Modifications - Lavista - deferred to AOB
15. Radical Change to 0.0 sovereignty (sov "points" from activity) -Jade voted down 1/8
16. Remote destruction of Jump Clones - Ank - escalated
17. Using ISK towards real world charities -Jade voted down 3/6
19. Drone Disconnects and Quirky Behaviour + here -Ank Bug fix escalated / enduring drones denied.
20. Gang/Fleet bonuses for single race fleets -Jade - voted down 1/7
21. More crossfactional ships -Ank - escalated
22. Specific adjustments to 0.0 sovereignty - Jade (deferred lack of time)
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Drolus
|
Posted - 2008.08.17 22:34:00 -
[68]
are the full minutes posted somewhere?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 01:04:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Drolus
are the full minutes posted somewhere?
Very last link in Jade's post above yours. Sadly, there are no minutes for most meetings, so chatlogs are what we get.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Vision Threads
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 01:47:00 -
[70]
lol Bane got voted down again, 3rd strike and out. Who can be more ineffective than that guy? Jade has better chance off changing 0.0 than he has of changing cap ships
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 02:18:00 -
[71]
I'm rather amazed by that vote on the forum changes. For one, you can submit your 2nd and 3rd batches of issues at any point you desire. It's not a matter of missing the deadline, because there is no deadline, you just submit your list and get responses back in 2 weeks. Of course, that changes if CCP is screwing around with the founding document somehow, but from what I know, "missing the deadline" is a bogus concern.
Furthermore, even if you are pressed for time, just resolve to have a five-minute meeting in two days' time for this one issue. It'd pass easily, without bitterness and the setting of a truly awful precedent, and I can't imagine you're going to have the stuff ready for formal submission before then anyways. Also, in the amount of time you spent debating whether Arithron could talk after the vote, he could have typed up his response three times over. Word of advice to Ari and all the other alternates who may find yourselves in this position - just say your piece, and the debate over whether you're allowed to or not will end far faster.
Continuing to read...
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 04:28:00 -
[72]
Okay, finished reading. I only have one more question. That bit at the end, where you guys knocked off issues in rapid succession by just voting on them, why don't you do that more often? Discuss before, vote during. I acknowledge that the CCP forums are dreck, and that you can't get a proper list of members for access control purposes to make such a forum work on this site(at least not until someone on CCP's side swallows their pride and downloads some proper forum software instead of continuing to use the present abortion), but isn't this why you registered a domain like www.eve-csm.com? Put up a discussion board, make one section read-only for non-members, and debate everything there. Or if that doesn't work for you - which, given the history of updates on that site, it might not - just figure out what's on the agenda in advance and talk about it in its own thread.
Of course, that'd mean longer debate, but it'd also mean better debate, and shorter meetings. Given that you seem to be unable to finish meetings properly due to other commitments/odd hours, keeping the hours as flexible as possible, by moving the bulk of the debate to a week-long period instead of the meeting itself, should allow more people to participate(including the poor Aussie, though I see he's been attending more often lately).
For that matter, I don't know why you even have "meetings". Just vote on the forums. If you use the off-site forums it's even easy, since any forum software worth its salt(cough, cough) has polling options. But even without those, just posting "I vote aye" should do the trick.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 05:31:00 -
[73]
I'm now officially a noob.
"Ruin and hit" = Hit and run. Jesus what lack of sleep can do to you
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 07:50:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
(including the poor Aussie, though I see he's been attending more often lately).
oi, i have a name you know :) The reason I have been there more recently is due to the meeting start time being moved to 2am Monday morning my time rather than the 4am it used to be.
/rant on
Anyway, pretty much what you asked for has been suggested a few times already by multiple people involved in the CSM. I just find it ridiculous that the CSM can't even post it's meeting minutes to a CCP hosted site let alone have a sub-forum hat can have the discussions needed for the issues that do come up. Unfortunately it relies on the goodwill of Serenity who hosts the mailing list and Jade who is posting the minutes to his own corp forum. If neither of them are in the next CSM, it's going to be fun to see what happens to the information flow.
This time I will point fingers - CCP your lack of support tools for the CSM is a major problem and needs addressing immediately. You demand a lot from the CSM in both time and effort, it would be nice to see the support from your end in basic functionality of information flow and dissemination.
1. a CCP hosted mailing list
2. a CCP hosted CSM forum for delegates to discuss issues
3. a CCP hosted site for posting of meeting minutes/agendas/documents
all are needed before this situation turns into a complete farce when people start deciding they no longer want to donate their own personal servers to the cause.
/rant end
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog |
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 08:27:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
(including the poor Aussie, though I see he's been attending more often lately).
oi, i have a name you know :) The reason I have been there more recently is due to the meeting start time being moved to 2am Monday morning my time rather than the 4am it used to be.
/rant on
Anyway, pretty much what you asked for has been suggested a few times already by multiple people involved in the CSM. I just find it ridiculous that the CSM can't even post it's meeting minutes to a CCP hosted site let alone have a sub-forum hat can have the discussions needed for the issues that do come up. Unfortunately it relies on the goodwill of Serenity who hosts the mailing list and Jade who is posting the minutes to his own corp forum. If neither of them are in the next CSM, it's going to be fun to see what happens to the information flow.
This time I will point fingers - CCP your lack of support tools for the CSM is a major problem and needs addressing immediately. You demand a lot from the CSM in both time and effort, it would be nice to see the support from your end in basic functionality of information flow and dissemination.
1. a CCP hosted mailing list
2. a CCP hosted CSM forum for delegates to discuss issues
3. a CCP hosted site for posting of meeting minutes/agendas/documents
all are needed before this situation turns into a complete farce when people start deciding they no longer want to donate their own personal servers to the cause.
/rant end
Signed...
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:36:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
For one, you can submit your 2nd and 3rd batches of issues at any point you desire. It's not a matter of missing the deadline, because there is no deadline, you just submit your list and get responses back in 2 weeks. ... "missing the deadline" is a bogus concern.
'fraid not. CCP asked us to submit batch #2 around now and so that is what we were doing. Batch #3 will go in in early October so that we can have the online discussion with them before we end our terms.
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Furthermore, even if you are pressed for time, just resolve to have a five-minute meeting in two days' time for this one issue
With the first batch we did indeed have a mid-week 'finalising' meeting but the Chair didn't schedule one this time (as it turned out we wasted so much time with 'some people' deciding to take ages restating the issue that we went on for many-too-many hours).
IZ
My principles
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 17:13:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
For one, you can submit your 2nd and 3rd batches of issues at any point you desire. It's not a matter of missing the deadline, because there is no deadline, you just submit your list and get responses back in 2 weeks. ... "missing the deadline" is a bogus concern.
'fraid not. CCP asked us to submit batch #2 around now and so that is what we were doing. Batch #3 will go in in early October so that we can have the online discussion with them before we end our terms.
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Furthermore, even if you are pressed for time, just resolve to have a five-minute meeting in two days' time for this one issue
With the first batch we did indeed have a mid-week 'finalising' meeting but the Chair didn't schedule one this time (as it turned out we wasted so much time with 'some people' deciding to take ages restating the issue that we went on for many-too-many hours).
IZ
"Around now" doesn't have 2 days of leeway? Besides, from the discussions, it looks like it'll take you 2 days to get the final submission documents ready anyways. And if the Chair didn't schedule a meeting, then someone who knows how to work committee structures should have had a brief chat with the Chair to explain the merits of not violating one of your more fundamental rules unnecessarily.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 17:58:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
(as it turned out we wasted so much time with 'some people' deciding to take ages restating the issue that we went on for many-too-many hours).
[ 2008.08.17 20:15:41 ] Jade Constantine > so its 15. Radical Change to 0.0 sovereignty (sov "points" from activity) -Jade
[ 2008.08.17 20:16:09 ] Darius JOHNSON > !
[ 2008.08.17 20:16:14 ] Jade Constantine > This is a working proposal which is basically vision stuff rather than specifics - and the principle is that sovereignty changes from being a fixed thing that you get from simply putting towers up
[ 2008.08.17 20:16:17 ] Hardin > !
[ 2008.08.17 20:16:32 ] Jade Constantine > into become a value that is increased by actually "doing things" in your claimed space
[ 2008.08.17 20:16:46 ] Bane Glorious > !
[ 2008.08.17 20:16:50 ] Jade Constantine > ie pvp'ing, ratting, mining, even using gates and such .... some strutures will have an effect on it
[ 2008.08.17 20:16:58 ] Jade Constantine > but the basic effect should be
[ 2008.08.17 20:17:10 ] Jade Constantine > if you are active in your space you get to build sov points
[ 2008.08.17 20:17:26 ] Jade Constantine > that allow the bigger strategic modules - like bridges and jammers and cap yards etc etc
[ 2008.08.17 20:17:43 ] Jade Constantine > while if you are not active in your space - sov will drip away and return to a neutral level
[ 2008.08.17 20:17:47 ] Inanna Zuni > !! Jade - we've read it; a one -post summary should suffice this late in the day
- 20.15:41 -> 20:17:47 !
Thats a 2min introduction to an issue out of a 5 hour meeting. Don't you think you might be exaggerating a little?
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:14:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
- 20.15:41 -> 20:17:47 !
Thats a 2min introduction to an issue out of a 5 hour meeting. Don't you think you might be exaggerating a little?
Time flies when you're having fun. Conversely, when you're bored and tired, things seem to take 10x as long as they actually do. Not exaggeration, merely misperception.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 15:34:00 -
[80]
I read over this and while the CSM got a lot done, the issue overall is one of time. I don't think a meeting should be going on that long - not just for the comfort of CSM members, but it got confusing with people leaving (though understandably) and who was voting, and a lot of the votes seemed rushed through, particularly when peoples votes would hinge on a particular point.
So I'm starting to see the need for a CSM-only forum. (and probably alternates too, given if they're going to be filling in and actually voting, they should probably have a chance to discuss things before hand as well) By CSM-only, I don't mean privacy - I think transparency is important in discussions - but one in which only CSM members post to discuss issues amongst themselves (visitors to the board are read-only). Yes, we already have a discussion forum for the CSM here, but that's between players and CSM, not for the CSM to discuss amongst themselves. (the problem being if they tried to discuss things amongst themselves here, players would jump in and then it wouldn't be discussing amongst themselves anymore) And yes, they can do that in the meetings, but then they end up being 5 hours long...
Rather than explanations and arguments in the meeting, that could have all been done and dusted on a forum. The advantage to a forum over a discussion meeting, is that anyone can swing by at their own convenience and in their own time zone - also that they can explore issues more fully. The disadvantages would be issues being explored a bit too much and egos/sniping going on (which seems to happen in all forums) so it would have to be professional and, if not CCP moderated/hosted then self moderated/hosted if possible.
The link to a CSM only forum if not CCP hosted/moderated could be posted as a sticky on Jita Speakers Corner, so everyone could read what the CSM's arguments /explanations to each other are. Also there's the issues of the minutes/chatlog making sense, so when an issue is brought up and briefly described just so CSM members remember what it is, a link could be put in either at the time or afterwards to the thread on the CSM forum so people can read what the arguments between CSM members for that issue was. (I don't think a link to the current eve-o CSM forums is necessary, as players would have already had an opportunity to read all that, as well as the opportunity to post and make their own arguments/own votes there)
So I wouldn't see it as 'adding an extra layer' of confusing bureaucracy, more like removing any explanation /argument from the meetings and having those elsewhere. Nor is it replacing the discussion between CSM and players, just that it's necessary to have discussion between CSM members too.
So I'd see the meetings going as:
3. Skills and balancing issues: for example the [ ] being changed to the [ ]. [Thread link] vote yay or nay
yay
nay
nay
yay
yay etc 
then onto 4. Basically, less debating. There'd still be æ!Æ if people had problems - such as errors, but most of what they didn't understand or didn't agree with to the specific issue would have already been debated, and they'd then know what their vote is without all the "I'll vote this, if you make this clear..."
Also there seem to be confusion on the documents - could those have been read before hand (posted on a CSM only discussion forum!) or are they only published at the meetings? If the latter is true, it might save confusion to put a motd on IRC saying:
"For meeting 9 you should all have docs (filename) (filename) (filename)to hand for reference" - then anyone who doesn't have those, knows from the outset that they don't, but should.
Apologies if I've misunderstood/misrepresented the process, I only follow things vaguely and it's what the meeting suggested to me.
tl;dr - CSM only-forum seems like a good idea, and IRC motd with the filenames for documents might be useful in meetings.
|
Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 20:10:00 -
[81]
When is the next meeting with CCP? I was under the impression that it was late August, but don't see anything about it.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 03:53:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Yorda
When is the next meeting with CCP? I was under the impression that it was late August, but don't see anything about it.
Issues were submitted on the 26th of August. So it will take at least till next week.
But I don't think the date has been announced yet.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 05:16:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Yorda
When is the next meeting with CCP? I was under the impression that it was late August, but don't see anything about it.
More intriguingly, when is the next CSM meeting? The 17th of August was almost three weeks ago.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 09:35:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Yorda
When is the next meeting with CCP? I was under the impression that it was late August, but don't see anything about it.
More intriguingly, when is the next CSM meeting? The 17th of August was almost three weeks ago.
I believe we are in a waiting position at present for when CCP gets back to us, at which point we will start the meetings again.
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 12:29:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 05/09/2008 12:30:02
Surely it would make more sense to be holding the meetings regardless of waiting for CCP to get back to you for their second Meeting? That way, you guys can be processing the Issues that will make it to the 3rd meeting. and so avoiding the problem with the last two meetings where issues were deferred as you were trying to address too many issues in too short a space of time.
For example, instead of you having a marathon 6 hour meeting every three weeks to discuss up to 30 issues of which 6 or 7 get deferred to the start of the next meeting (thus making it more likely that a new issue will be deferred during that meeting), why not have 3 shorter, 2 hour meetings discussing 10 issues each on a weekly basis?
At least, that way people aren't getting frustrated by Time Concerns as much. And it helps to keep the CSM in the Public Eye. Unfortunately, in the last few weeks it's seemed like the CSM has dropped off the face of the Earth (I think the only CSM I've seen around the boards doing CSM business has been yourself, LaVista, though will confirm that through Eve-search.com) I don't doubt that there has been plenty going on behind the scenes, however, we're just not seeing that.
Edit: Here's the Posting Stats for each of the CSM members
Jade Constantine - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 29th August)
Hardin - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 19th August)
LaVista Vista - Last Posted 5th September (Last AH/Jita Post 5th September)
Darius Johnson - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 13th August)
Bane Glorious - Last Posted 18th August (Last AH/Jita Post 11th August)
Dierdra Vaal - Last Posted 21st August (Last AH/Jita Post 21st August)
Serenity Steele - Last Posted 3rd September (Last AH/Jita Post 2nd September)
Ankhesentapenkah - Last Posted 31st August (Last AH/Jita Post 28th August)
Heh, for some of them I thought it had been longer, guess I just shot myself in the foot with this one... 
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 15:03:00 -
[86]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
I believe we are in a waiting position at present for when CCP gets back to us, at which point we will start the meetings again.
Then limit your agenda items to ones not relevant to the questions you asked of CCP. Otherwise your backlog will be truly frightening.
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Here's the Posting Stats for each of the CSM members
Jade Constantine - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 29th August)
Hardin - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 19th August)
LaVista Vista - Last Posted 5th September (Last AH/Jita Post 5th September)
Darius Johnson - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 13th August)
Bane Glorious - Last Posted 18th August (Last AH/Jita Post 11th August)
Dierdra Vaal - Last Posted 21st August (Last AH/Jita Post 21st August)
Serenity Steele - Last Posted 3rd September (Last AH/Jita Post 2nd September)
Ankhesentapenkah - Last Posted 31st August (Last AH/Jita Post 28th August)
Heh, for some of them I thought it had been longer, guess I just shot myself in the foot with this one...
That's still pretty bad - only two have posted on CSM forums in the last week, and it's been over two weeks for four of them.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 18:05:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Here's the Posting Stats for each of the CSM members
Jade Constantine - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 29th August)
Hardin - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 19th August)
LaVista Vista - Last Posted 5th September (Last AH/Jita Post 5th September)
Darius Johnson - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 13th August)
Bane Glorious - Last Posted 18th August (Last AH/Jita Post 11th August)
Dierdra Vaal - Last Posted 21st August (Last AH/Jita Post 21st August)
Serenity Steele - Last Posted 3rd September (Last AH/Jita Post 2nd September)
Ankhesentapenkah - Last Posted 31st August (Last AH/Jita Post 28th August)
Heh, for some of them I thought it had been longer, guess I just shot myself in the foot with this one...
That's still pretty bad - only two have posted on CSM forums in the last week, and it's been over two weeks for four of them.
I agree. Pretty scary statistics I think. 
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 21:17:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/09/2008 21:23:19
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Here's the Posting Stats for each of the CSM members
Jade Constantine - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 29th August)
Hardin - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 19th August)
LaVista Vista - Last Posted 5th September (Last AH/Jita Post 5th September)
Darius Johnson - Last Posted 4th September (Last AH/Jita Post 13th August)
Bane Glorious - Last Posted 18th August (Last AH/Jita Post 11th August)
Dierdra Vaal - Last Posted 21st August (Last AH/Jita Post 21st August)
Serenity Steele - Last Posted 3rd September (Last AH/Jita Post 2nd September)
Ankhesentapenkah - Last Posted 31st August (Last AH/Jita Post 28th August)
Heh, for some of them I thought it had been longer, guess I just shot myself in the foot with this one...
That's still pretty bad - only two have posted on CSM forums in the last week, and it's been over two weeks for four of them.
I agree. Pretty scary statistics I think.
Not being funny but before you wring your hands at how "terrible" your fellow delegates are at communicating you might consider replying to the message I sent to the csm mailing list ten days ago asking the CSM delegates for their opinion of when and what the next meeting should be and involve LaVista. Please don't express public moral outrage when you aren't able to respond to messages yourself.
As for the statistics - well, I've not really seen a topic I'm particularly impressed by/with general popular support/and or something I've got specialist gameplay knowledge of in the last couple of weeks. Guess everyone is busy at the moment players included.
I'm guessing the other CSM's must feel similarly.
In any case I've asked the other delegates to post their opinions on what the next meeting should involve and when it should be and when I've got answers from them all I'll make a decision.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 05:52:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
you might consider replying to the message I sent to the csm mailing list ten days ago asking the CSM delegates for their opinion of when and what the next meeting should be and involve LaVista. Please don't express public moral outrage when you aren't able to respond to messages yourself.
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?
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.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 05:59:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Not being funny but before you wring your hands at how "terrible" your fellow delegates are at communicating you might consider replying to the message I sent to the csm mailing list ten days ago asking the CSM delegates for their opinion of when and what the next meeting should be and involve LaVista. Please don't express public moral outrage when you aren't able to respond to messages yourself.
As for the statistics - well, I've not personally seen a topic I'm particularly impressed by/with general popular support/and or something I've got specialist gameplay knowledge of in the last couple of weeks - certainly not one for which I've got a strong desire to promote or the confidence that it could be voted through. Guess everyone is busy at the moment players included.
I'm guessing the other CSM's must feel similarly.
(For the record - the only issue any delegate has requested on record for next available meeting was the cribba mining dreadnaught thing that got resolved by the gms the same day.)
In any case I've asked the other delegates to post their opinions on what the next meeting should involve and when it should be and when I've got answers from them all I'll make a decision.
Gotta love the inside baseball.
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. 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. 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. I don't know that any other game has ever done something like a CSM, and I'd hate to see it fail for procedural reasons or because those involved have given up on something or other.
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. It's not time to throw up our hands in defeat, of course, but I would like to see the resumption of regularly scheduled meetings at the very least.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
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!!! |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 12:22:00 -
[121]
1,5 months.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 19:45:00 -
[122]
thanks for the heads up ill try to get done in time then
Pre Order your Sisters of Eve ship today!!! |
Asterisk Grat
Best Path Inc.
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.09.17 14:52:00 -
[123]
Any idea when CCP will post their responses for meeting #2?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |