| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
   |
Posted - 2008.08.24 03:02:00 -
[151]
It's the neverending story
So, thought I was finally going to get my main machine working and go pew pew but it turns out the BIOS on my wonderful laptop is the subject of a warranty extension since it indeed breaks things
Anybody heard from Fahtim? Account go ahead and lapse?
New thoughts on things sovereign?
Do any good boosters lately?
---------------------------------------
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 16:52:00 -
[152]
I suspect that having had multiple 0.0 proposals rejected already, the CSM isn't interested in discussing a proposal that isn't really, really likely to pass the vote. It's kind of like Bane's cap ship stuff. The topic is complicated and controversial and so the proposal has to consist of a lot of different pieces -- so many pieces that most CSM members (and most players) can find one or two pieces that they dislike enough to vote against the whole proposal.
The CSM process is basically:
1) Put proposal as-is on agenda
2) Discuss it for 5-10 minutes in the meeting (mostly poking holes)
3) Everyone votes on the proposal as-is
There's not really any...compromise among the reps. No dialog where they hash out their concerns ahead of time.
Like with Bain's stuff. His topic was on the agenda for two weeks this last time before it hit the vote. You can bet that most CSM reps knew how they would vote after browsing the proposal thread a couple of days in. But none of them replied to the thread saying "I'm not going to vote for this in the meeting because of X, is there any leeway on that piece of the proposal?"
Honestly, with as long as the issues sit on the agenda before the meeting to vote, the CSM reps could actually have the issues hashed out in the assembly hall well in advance of the meeting to vote. They could go into that meeting and rocket through 20 issues in 30 minutes, because the issue presentation and discussion and compromise would have been done in the assembly hall ahead of time.
But that's not the way the CSM works. And, with that level of...inflexibility, I think it is a waste of time putting complicated, controversial issues on the agenda. Majority support is just too unlikely.
All that aside, I think the reason that we didn't get much feedback on our thread in the assembly hall is that the proposal was too long. Of course, the discussion we could have gotten by making it shorter would have been all chaff. So it's kind of lose-lose. I kind of doubt that the proposal flat-out sucked and no one had the heart to tell us. On eve-o, everyone always has the heart to tell you that you suck.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 23:49:00 -
[153]
I very much agree - I think there was a high degree of burnout because the current process doesn't allow for compromise and revisions in order to make progress, it's more "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" and that results in a lot of false starts.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 00:44:00 -
[154]
 Originally by: Toman Jerich
On eve-o, everyone always has the heart to tell you that you suck.
Hahahaha. You notice that too? Well, suppose we can give it time and come up with another angle. Seems more like a marketing war than coming up with a good product.
---------------------------------------
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 01:06:00 -
[155]
Quick thought:
In the future, I think we should shy away from discussing the reasoning/philosophy of changes and just dive into a very flexible document with specific examples. That's probably the model for an OP that will survive everyone's hopes and disagreements for the changes well enough to spark discussion.
Even if it does generate more riff-raff, it will get the topic bouncing along well enough to collect supports, and CSM's will be debating the OP more than the crap that follows.
FFS there's a thread right now getting endlessly bumped about all the reasons POS warfare sucks It's unthinkable that we can't at least get the major points through.
Seems like the greatest resonance is in the switch to planetary sov battles and the satellite system for driving more interesting conflicts. The battles will be harder probably for attackers and defenders, but there will be fewer of them and the fights will happen even when one side thinks they lack manpower to go for a clean sweep. Compared to boring POS shooting, that seems like a win for everyone.
---------------------------------------
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 21:46:00 -
[156]
No offence guys, but there's a thread one month older than this one about it... Linkage... might want to take a peek in there too ?
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 23:36:00 -
[157]
Most everyone active in this thread has put a post in that thread and surely everyone is aware of it since it's linked in multiple other threads getting juggled around. There's also a massive sov thread POS and Starbases The Future thread going on in the ideas and features forum.
Those threads are massive and every other post is yet another radical idea. It's so daunting to weed through them that I usually only make it a page at a time and forget half of what I read.
I kind of enjoy the peace of this thread. It seems to continue taking direction and enjoying the relative inactivity of the speakers corner. Almost as though serious proposals would naturally be better off if they started here...
---------------------------------------
Originally by: Red Raider
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |