| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.09.19 20:32:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Jade Constantine
I certainly feel strongly that I literally cannot post ANYTHING here without being abused, insulted, flamed and trolled at the moment. And thats a ridiculous situation for a player, let alone a CSM rep, let alone CSM chair to be in.
So, it wouldn't have anything to do with the content of your posts, then?
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 20:58:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Santaria Boon
People are different and neither you nor anyone else is the arbiter of morality or post quality.
See this is where I think you are wrong. The eve community needs involved in some way as arbiter of post quality (even if simply through the aegis of peer pressure) - because the community here is something worth preserving and we have seen a terrible reduction in post quality on these forums and something does need doing about it. Its simply not acceptable to see these Eve forums turned into SA forums mk2. It has to stop.
Or you could take things that work from SA. Pertinent to this, how about an ignore list? Don't like the user, add them to your ignore list and you never have to read their twaddle again. Pretty straight forward and egalitarian.
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 21:08:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Odet
Originally by: Santaria Boon
Originally by: Odet
I never stated their opinions should be controled in any way shape or form.
I've clearly state that their opinions should be delivered in an appropriate manner suitable to the postion of of a CSM. If the CSM is unable to deliver his message in a respectful manner his post should be removed as any other poster, but face harsher penalities.
I'll ask you to re-read my posts from the begining, it should help you get a clearer picture of what I am saying.
I did read your posts and responded directly to them. Unless a CSM violates the EULA they are within their rights to act however they wish. Your opinion on what is acceptable and what isn't is irrelevant. People are different and neither you nor anyone else is the arbiter of morality or post quality.
So in your view a CSM should not have to be respectful? Diplomatic? Mature?
Should is a nice word. The world should be buttercups and puppies. However, it seems to be economic meltdown and posturing at the moment.
The CSM should be able to comprehend proposed game balancing and changing for the betterment of the game. However, it seems that some CSM members have little to no ability to understand how the game works.
We can maybe fix the game but fixing people..?
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 21:14:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well I can see some problems when I end up adding "goonswarm" as an organization to my ignore list and can't see issues that Darius or Bane want adding to agendas.
Your choice, your problem.
Quote:
But aside from that - there is the role these forums play as a "shopfront" and advertising venue for the game of Eve online. If it devolves to flamers flaming flamers (but protecting themselves with selective ignores) how does that look to Joe Public taking a quit peer at the forums?
...They look like a bunch of angry weird nerds getting really angry about internet spaceships? Plus, who the hell looks at the forums for a game about blowing things up in space? Watch the promo vids, DL client and get 2 weeks free.
Quote:
And is it fair to put the burden on administration on the ordinary player that just wants to see a decent standard of debate and discussion on these forums?
Pressing one button is a burden? Wow, the poor players actively deciding for themselves. We can set up helplines and stuff.
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 21:33:00 -
[5]
Odet, Santaria is correct. Opinions are subjective. You may or may not agree with how they are expressed but that is up to you. Are you telling me that you never heard anyone say something you thought was absolute hogwash and expressed as such to them.
Personally, if I think someone is talking shit, I tell them they are talking shit. I get hit a lot less often than you might think, somewhat bafflingly. |
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 23:31:00 -
[6]
It occurs to me at this point to ask a question of you, Jade. Now, my understanding is that you are not seeking re-election in the next round. It thus follows that I wonder as to your demeanour after stepping down.
Are you going to accept the decisions of the CSM or are you going to refer to your days as chairman and make with the "Well, what I would do..." and all that lark?
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 01:02:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm not convinced thats actually the problem so much that the "0.0 leaders" it ended up with all came from the same kinda philosophical block without much healthy debate or alternative viewpoints between them.
What, much like the Empire people having the same general concerns because they all encounter the same types of problems in Empire?
Geographic proximity leads to the same problems experienced,i.e., if it is cold, people put on warm clothing when they go out. I somewhat agree with you about the levels of healthy debate but that seems endemic to all CSM discussions rather than a particular grouping of problems.
Quote:
+ We have had the problem that the "0.0 Knowledge" expressed by the "experts" has too often been gone unchallenged by rigorous debate and left to stand.
"Nice" "Kevin" "Williamson" "approach" "to" "writing" "there". That's the sort of approach that gets you flak. Handily, I've pointed it out to you now so you should rectify that and, no doubt, get less flak.
Quote:
Some of the non 0.0 CSM's on the council have been a little too hesitant about going against the stated prevailing wisdom of the 0.0 CSM's on nullsec issues and this is something I feel to be a mistake given Eve's interconnected single server nature.
Again, probably a consequence of too little debate and discussion. Perhaps those adopting an issue could start by outlining the problem and leave the proposed fix to a subsequent post. Once the problem is clearly understood, things should go more smoothly.
Quote:
The tendency to personalize these things ruins decent debate and to be fair, its something I've tended to do as well by representing the other side of the issue as lazy status quo worshiping bloat-interests that just want to defend their own backyard. But I guess thats partisan politics baby. And the problem is you don't typically find out anything about the reality of 0.0 warfare without getting passionate about the whole thing so you come to table either without knowledge - or with knowledge tempered by bias against the other side of the argument.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. This paragraph makes no sense put against the rest of your post. Please elucidate.
Quote:
1-3 0.0 seats (contested by 0.0 powers)
1-3 Empire seats (contested by mission runners, pve'ers, empire fighters)
1-3 lowsec seats (contested by pirates, bounty hunters, mercs, explorers etc)
1-3 Random indeps (contest by whoever felt they could make a special interest message)
You might well get a more interesting council all round. Worth talking about certainly. Though of course the flaw in system would likely be that a big 0.0 power could just split its vote again and get a candidate in for 0.0 AND for one of the others to double up its CSM power. The only real cure for that one is an end to voting apathy and ensure as many people as humanly possible are encouraged to vote.
Ugh, no. That system creates elitism where there shouldn't be any. One man, one vote and all that.
Quote:
Or make voting mandatory on the login panel - you have to pick a candidate (or click abstain) to get into the game.
That also might work 
Pretty good idea. I'd support that for the next elections. It might need a shade of reworking, i.e., people get a few chances to vote at login, giving them time to look at the candidates. Or something, Iunno.
|
| |
|