| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
   |
Posted - 2008.09.20 13:17:00 -
[61]
No point whatsoever me addressing the specific bias and personal attacks Herschel Yamamoto. All I suggest is that you run next time and put yourself in the spotlight.
But I will repeat my point. The absolute worst thing about this CSM experience is the interaction on these forums. There are some players who have tried to interact decently with the delegates and bring good issues to the forefront - but many many others that simply see it as an excuse to flame people without moderation and feel entitled to treat delegates like circus freaks for their amusement.
Nothing I say to you will put a fault line into your sense of entitlement Herschel. Therefore next time around its for you to demonstrate you can take it as well as you give it.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 14:40:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Jade Constantine
No point whatsoever me addressing the specific bias and personal attacks Herschel Yamamoto. All I suggest is that you run next time and put yourself in the spotlight.
But I will repeat my point. The absolute worst thing about this CSM experience is the interaction on these forums. There are some players who have tried to interact decently with the delegates and bring good issues to the forefront - but many many others that simply see it as an excuse to flame people without moderation and feel entitled to treat delegates like circus freaks for their amusement.
Nothing I say to you will put a fault line into your sense of entitlement Herschel. Therefore next time around its for you to demonstrate you can take it as well as you give it.
Bias? Are you seriously trying to accuse me of bias? I voted for you! I supported you on these forums against unwarranted attacks for months, and for that matter I still do whenever I feel them to be unfair. I never claimed you were the only problem on the CSM, and in fact I have explicitly stated the opposite repeatedly. I've just gotten sick and tired of your "oh woe is me" facade, your paranoid conspiracy theories, and your constant picking of fights with those you're supposed to be working with. Your policy is often great, but your personality is toxic.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 15:04:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 20/09/2008 15:12:20
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Bias? Are you seriously trying to accuse me of bias? I voted for you!
Its a very easy claim to make and you are not the only one to make it. I've lost count of how many weird sounding "alts" claimed to have voted for me then suddenly decided what a bad idea it was the first time I ended up disagreeing with any of their personal issue threads. Spooky.
Quote:
I supported you on these forums against unwarranted attacks for months, and for that matter I still do whenever I feel them to be unfair. I never claimed you were the only problem on the CSM, and in fact I have explicitly stated the opposite repeatedly.
I've seen nothing but bias and general attacks from you since meeting 3 and that was a long long long time ago. But its fine, you have a right to an opinion as do I - and that opinion is that I hope you'll run next time and put yourself into the firing line and I hope you will demonstrate what a paragon of humankind you are able to be under fire from a host of people on these forums. Ultimately its easy to scapegoat, its easy to play to the chorus, not so easy to retain a sense of integrity and do what you promised to attempt in an election manifesto.
Quote:
I've just gotten sick and tired of your "oh woe is me" facade, your paranoid conspiracy theories, and your constant picking of fights with those you're supposed to be working with. Your policy is often great, but your personality is toxic.
And I've gotten tired of your continual snipes and bias. What you consider "toxic" is doubtless the fact that you've reached the limits of my patience for dealing equitably with personal attack and trolling. As I said earlier - you seem to believe you are "entitled" to behave poorly in respect to CSM delegates elected to this institution. I don't recognize that entitlement. Nothing I can about that though save consider your comments in that light and resolve not to vote for you if you decide to stand next time.
But rest assured, I'm not exactly wounded to the quick by your assessment of my personality. I'm not crushed by goonswarm value-judgments either. End of the day I'll live, I'll flourish and keep on enjoying the game of Eve online. I hope you find a way of enjoying it too. The environment is big enough for us both - and perhaps once you no longer feel "entitled" to flame and troll me at will then I'll stop considering you in such a negative light as a consequence.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 21:47:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
But the reality is we did get people elected who loathe one other and cannot remain civil let alone cooperate
Please note Jade is speaking very much for himself there and he has made his feelings very clear. He does not speak for me nor, so far as I am aware, anyone else in this.
IZ
My principles
|
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 22:00:00 -
[65]
Actually, you missed the important word, should have been;
Show respect when posting and interacting with fellow players...
Respect is what is sadly missing...
take care,
Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 23:31:00 -
[66]
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?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 23:36:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Its a very easy claim to make and you are not the only one to make it. I've lost count of how many weird sounding "alts" claimed to have voted for me then suddenly decided what a bad idea it was the first time I ended up disagreeing with any of their personal issue threads. Spooky.
I can show you messages of support in your campaign thread, chatlogs where I tried to get corpies to vote for you, and repeated messages of support between the time I read your manifesto and the time you decided muting was fun. Even then I limited my criticism to the act at hand - I stated that I didn't regret my vote, and that I wanted you to stay on as a CSM member when many were saying otherwise. My public record is clear, and whether you choose to believe me or not is utterly immaterial to me.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I've seen nothing but bias and general attacks from you since meeting 3 and that was a long long long time ago. But its fine, you have a right to an opinion as do I - and that opinion is that I hope you'll run next time and put yourself into the firing line and I hope you will demonstrate what a paragon of humankind you are able to be under fire from a host of people on these forums. Ultimately its easy to scapegoat, its easy to play to the chorus, not so easy to retain a sense of integrity and do what you promised to attempt in an election manifesto.
Who said I'm a paragon of humanity? I'm a total jerk. The difference is, I'm a jerk towards people's ideas. You're a jerk towards people. I've had plenty of low-level wars in committees I've sat on in the past(and I don't mean forum sniping, I mean face-to-face, and in one rather bizarre case a fistfight between two friends of mine), but at the end of the day I could go out and have a beer with anyone and everyone involved in those fights.
As for me running, you'll find out one way or the other by the nomination deadline, and that's all I'll say about that for now.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
What you consider "toxic" is doubtless the fact that you've reached the limits of my patience for dealing equitably with personal attack and trolling.
Here is a selection of quotes from your candidacy thread, all from April or May.
Quote:
the primary argument against destructible outpost concept comes from lazy large alliances
goonies...I neither like nor appreciate much of the specific gameplay focus they crave nor do I think that focus is actually very good for the future of Eve online the successful MMORPG.
Goons, please get over yourselves. Eve Online is not about you. You're a single 0.0 power (currently in decline). You have no more knowledge about "what Eve is about" than any other collection of players and often considerably less.
As well, there's a rather nice quote of yours from earlier in this thread that the mods deleted, and thus that I won't quote directly, that basically admitted that you had an anti-Goon bias from the beginning - see here for what I mean, specifically post #7. Considering that that was precisely my complaint about your personality - your simultaneous desires to pick fights and stay aloof from the consequences of them - I feel justified in my accusations.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
As I said earlier - you seem to believe you are "entitled" to behave poorly in respect to CSM delegates elected to this institution.
You are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to call you on them, and vice-versa. We're both adults, we both live in free countries(well, mostly), and we both have our right to freedom of speech(well, mostly) - we're entitled to be mean to each other, whatever our positions.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Lia Gaeren
Caldari
Pole Dancing Vixens
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 09:37:00 -
[68]
I don't think wqe've had any truly terrible CSM reps this time around although I do feel that some have performed their elected role better than others. My opinion on their performance is below. I'm not saying I can do the job better (in fact, I am sure I couldn't), I'm just being an armchair analyst here.
(note - this is based on what I've read on the forums and chat logs, but I know this is not the whole picture because I got bored after about chat log 5, and as an Empire carebear tend to not bother reading posts about 0.0 mechanics or PvP.)
1: Jade - started out well but I feel has deteriorated under the pressure of being in so many cross-hairs (something he has admitted himself). Didn't help himself by his willingness to engage in forum wars.
2: Darius - started out not too good (I couldn't see much evidence of constructive discussion in the first few chat logs) but I feel has gotten slightly better. Has been a little too keen to take shots at Jade.
3: Bane - Not the best. He seems to have some good ideas and clearly has knowledge of 0.0 mechanics, but seemed unwilling to want to discuss them either in the meetings, or on the forums. Posting record is sparse and sometimes aggressive.
4: LaVista Vista - Has had good forum presence and has shown willingness to engage in debate. One of the better performing CSMs.
5: Hardin - I had trouble remembering the 9th member of the CSM... I don't know if he's just been active in the threads I'm not reading, but I don't remember much input in the chat logs either.
6-9: Serenity, Ankhesentapemkah, Innana, Deirdra - seem to have quietly gotten on with the job. A little more forum interaction would have been nice though.
I have two accounts and already know who I will be voting for, if they stand - one is a serving CSM (and the same one I voted for in the original elections who got in) and the other is someone who every time they post I find myself agreeing with pretty much every word.
I think people now have a much better idea of what the CSM is for, and what it is able to achieve - I do hope though that next time around we get as decent a cross-section of the playing public as we have had this time, but hopefully with more individuals able to push their election platforms through while not being blinkered to the big picture. I don't have a problem with issue bias - heck, we all vote for CSM members based on the issues they support - provided that they don't lose sight of what is good for the game as a whole.
|
Candice Dice
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 11:51:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Originally by: Jade Constantine
But the reality is we did get people elected who loathe one other and cannot remain civil let alone cooperate
Please note Jade is speaking very much for himself there and he has made his feelings very clear. He does not speak for me nor, so far as I am aware, anyone else in this.
IZ
 The fact you take any and all oppotunities to make sly remarks/innuendos against Jade at any/every oppotunity kinda makes your personal feelings/maturity real clear.
@ Jade Constantine : I personally think you have gotton a bit of a raw deal, for starters you have to deal with some of the most immature players/Alliance and you have become the subject of many a witch hunt however it's partially your own fault.  You always rise to the bait, you never let it slide, always gotta shove your point down people's throats which just irritates and wind them up.
The CSM has 'failed' (in my eyes) becuase there is no true accountability and let's face it, you get what you paid for and in this case we got a bunch of un-paid bickering emotionally stunted net nerd's invovled in what affect's them soly who have clearly bitten more than they can chew.
I voted for that young lady with a long name, starting with an A (I think, not seen much of her at all), poor thing, shes had to be sidelined whilst you children moanded and groaned.
If there was no free trip, would anyone bother trying for the next council?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.21 13:10:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Candice Dice
If there was no free trip, would anyone bother trying for the next council?
I don't see why everyone's so hung up on the trip. A trip spent in committee rooms is hardly a trip worth fighting for. I mean yes, you get to go clubbing in a foreign country, which is nifty I guess(though I imagine it'll be a ***** to order drinks), but to me the primary appeal is that it's two days spent with people who I can talk about Eve with without having to compare it to WoW. Well, that and having an opportunity to get an answer to what the heck the devs are thinking on some issues straight from the horse's mouth. But don't think that just because it resembles a vacation that it actually will be.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
IloveRickAstley
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 11:24:00 -
[71]
i would like a classy csm with good dance moves who likes kittens AND puppies, then we she could come over and watch starwars and eat hotpockets with me, it would be true internet love
|
Santaria Boon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 21:20:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
I don't see why everyone's so hung up on the trip. A trip spent in committee rooms is hardly a trip worth fighting for. I mean yes, you get to go clubbing in a foreign country, which is nifty I guess(though I imagine it'll be a ***** to order drinks), but to me the primary appeal is that it's two days spent with people who I can talk about Eve with without having to compare it to WoW. Well, that and having an opportunity to get an answer to what the heck the devs are thinking on some issues straight from the horse's mouth. But don't think that just because it resembles a vacation that it actually will be.
It's not a vacation. It's a lot of work. You're spending all day in an overheated office talking about spaceships. Depending on the time of year there's either "ok" weather and no night time (The sun doesn't set in June), or really horrible weather with very little daylight.
You're going to lose a few hours of every Sunday when there's a meeting and have to pay a ton of attention to threads you may or may not care about.
Really there's nothing vacationy about it. There's a lot of work involved.
Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner
Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto |
Latex Sandals
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 16:01:00 -
[73]
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.
I'm sure that this is not a result of any abuse, insults, flaming or trolling that you do to anybody that disagrees with you.
Reap what you sow.
I now expect a reply that includes details of Jade's fantasies about my rear end; Jade's psycho-therapy sessions (touch the doll Jade); and perhaps veiled allusions to Jade's sexual persuasion - as is his usual reply when somebody is mean to him.
|
SOFcode Z777
Caldari
Human Enhancement Tech.
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 16:58:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Latex Sandals
I now expect a reply that includes details of Jade's fantasies about my rear end; Jade's psycho-therapy sessions (touch the doll Jade); and perhaps veiled allusions to Jade's sexual persuasion - as is his usual reply when somebody is mean to him.
And this is supposed to be the community asking CSM to represent them with class?
Talking about hypocrisy tbh...
Originally by: Avon
Realising that BoB would certainly take over 0.0, CCP wisely added factional warfare so that we don't get bored and can subsequently take over Empire space too. |
Aodha Khan
Minmatar
The Paratwa
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 12:34:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Aodha Khan on 24/09/2008 12:34:05
CCP needs to weed out those which are causing a lack of progression within the CSM right NOW or it is doomed to fail.
I suggest starting with Darius JOHNSON.
Did the CSM members actually have to sign anything to concur with a set of rules for behaviour on the CSM?
Paratwa Recruitment |
Ephemeral Waves
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 14:50:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Aodha Khan
Edited by: Aodha Khan on 24/09/2008 12:34:05
CCP needs to weed out those which are causing a lack of progression within the CSM right NOW or it is doomed to fail.
I suggest starting with Darius JOHNSON.
Did the CSM members actually have to sign anything to concur with a set of rules for behaviour on the CSM?
I agree. Get rid of the biggest trouble-maker, and the worst mudslinger in the group: Jade Contantine.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 15:46:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Aodha Khan
Did the CSM members actually have to sign anything to concur with a set of rules for behaviour on the CSM?
The CSM document describes that the CSM has to go by a high social standard. So everybody should have read it. But nothing was signed.
|
Kalahari Wayrest
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 16:29:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Kalahari Wayrest on 24/09/2008 16:30:01
Quote:
The fact you take any and all oppotunities to make sly remarks/innuendos against Jade at any/every oppotunity kinda makes your personal feelings/maturity real clear.
Not really, or not in this instance.
It seems to me that she's simply saying she doesn't loathe anyone in the CSM.
__________________________
Indulge Me
Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥
Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Santaria Boon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 17:00:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Aodha Khan
Edited by: Aodha Khan on 24/09/2008 12:34:05
CCP needs to weed out those which are causing a lack of progression within the CSM right NOW or it is doomed to fail.
I suggest starting with Darius JOHNSON.
Did the CSM members actually have to sign anything to concur with a set of rules for behaviour on the CSM?
Darius has done nothing but cooperate with the CSM. Don't take my word for is go ahead and ask the rest of the council.
I'm sure he'd respond to this direct and personal attack but it seems he's held to a different standard by the moderation team than everyone else.
Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner
Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto |
Richard Angevian
The Crusaders.
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 23:39:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Odet
Show some class when posting.
> Somebody throws an accusation at you, let it slide, don't insult or accuse right back.
> If a fellow CSM has a different stance on something don't bicker with them on the forums, do it privately away from the public eye. You're a team, act like one.
> Your personal stances should stay off the forums, be more diplomatic and neutral in discussion. Showing pros and cons to an idea, instead of clearly siding.
As far as I'm concerned the whole CSM idea was a bad idea in the first place.
Atleast try and make the best of your existence and act accordingly.
You're embarassing yourselves and the community.
^ The above wall of text is my opinion, take it or don't it's there. ^
Thank you for expressing "The Community"'s opinion.
And here we have Darius. A fine example of what NOT to elect to the CSM if it's ever to be anything. True, if e-peen were worth anything he'd be the richest man in the world, but unfortunately it's currency that only accumulates in EVE.
When the next election comes (and it's due soon) vote ANYONE but a goon.
|
Richard Angevian
The Crusaders.
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 23:44:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Odet
Show some class when posting.
> Somebody throws an accusation at you, let it slide, don't insult or accuse right back.
> If a fellow CSM has a different stance on something don't bicker with them on the forums, do it privately away from the public eye. You're a team, act like one.
> Your personal stances should stay off the forums, be more diplomatic and neutral in discussion. Showing pros and cons to an idea, instead of clearly siding.
As far as I'm concerned the whole CSM idea was a bad idea in the first place.
Atleast try and make the best of your existence and act accordingly.
You're embarassing yourselves and the community.
^ The above wall of text is my opinion, take it or don't it's there. ^
For what its worth I don't think the CSM "idea" was bad. But the reality is we did get people elected who loathe one other and cannot remain civil let alone cooperate - and given Eve's political climate its hardly surprising that happens since the game is built around grudges and vendettas and dark brutality.
Whatever happens in the future the reality is some of those people will keep getting re-elected due to alliance voting blocks, so yes, its a problem and I'm honestly not sure how you deal with it. You can certainly make sure YOU pick candidates you believe are capable of turning the other cheek - but you can't stop other players electing their own choice of knife-wielding drama-merchants if it pleases them.
The problem is that the CSM ended up composed disproportionately of 0.0 "leaders".
The CSM should have different rules of eligibility next time.
Divide up the CSM "seats" into districts, so that there can be proportionate representation across the various places players play. IE: candidates will be running for a seat to represent Empire players, a seat to represent 0.0, a seat to represent lowsec, and a certain number of "at large" that are open everywhere, etc. CCP screens candidates for eligibility, they can determine where their activities primarily are.
|
Ephemeral Waves
Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 00:23:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Richard Angevian
The problem is that the CSM ended up composed disproportionately of 0.0 "leaders".
Do you have any idea who the members are? There are 9 seats. Only 3 are from 0.0.
How does that have anything to do with the problems in the CSM?
|
Latex Sandals
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 00:28:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Who the **** are you?
And who the **** are your friends?
And what exactly don't you like?
Important questions that need answering if your post isn't just another trashy nonsense green-eyed exhibition of numptydom.
Oops whats that lassy? As a CSM delegate I should be more empathic to complete ******s?
**** that shit to be honest. Morons like you deserve to be thrown down the virtual stairs with your bullshit baggage following shortly afterwards.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings but then you did kind of ask for it by posting a load of crap on the forums.
Action -> Consequence. Its pretty simple.
Still butthurt that I said rude things to you?
Well. Wardec or shut the **** up you spineless ****handler.
Originally by: Richard Angevian
A fine example of what NOT to elect to the CSM if it's ever to be anything.
When the next election comes (and it's due soon) vote ANYONE but a Star Faction.
|
Aodha Khan
Minmatar
The Paratwa
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:01:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Santaria Boon
Darius has done nothing but cooperate with the CSM. Don't take my word for is go ahead and ask the rest of the council.
I'm sure he'd respond to this direct and personal attack but it seems he's held to a different standard by the moderation team than everyone else.
His poor attitude is clear for all to see who can read these forums. Its not suitable for a member of the CSM. If you cannot see this then your blinded by your association to him.
Paratwa Recruitment |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 12:02:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Richard Angevian
The problem is that the CSM ended up composed disproportionately of 0.0 "leaders".
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.
+ 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. 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.
+ Things have always gotten too personalized too quickly. I've certainly tried to be a counter to the big-alliance status quo vote but its very easy to stereotype my position as being some whining wannabe that simply wants to damage 0.0 empires because "I'm apparently not good enough to run one." (rather than seeing the input for what it is, being the promotion of genuine gameplay options for smaller organizations and roving playstyle).
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.
Quote:
The CSM should have different rules of eligibility next time. Divide up the CSM "seats" into districts, so that there can be proportionate representation across the various places players play. IE: candidates will be running for a seat to represent Empire players, a seat to represent 0.0, a seat to represent lowsec, and a certain number of "at large" that are open everywhere, etc. CCP screens candidates for eligibility, they can determine where their activities primarily are.
Thats an interesting idea really: be a devil of a thing to sort out the details for though - you'd need some kind of objective (re ccp sponsored/independent oversight committee to decide the electoral boundaries - maybe mr Ingthorsson could help again?)
But yeah, if it came down to something like (off the top of my head)
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.
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 
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 17:07:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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
Not really - you'd wind up with random CSMs, not good ones. The current crew, internecine warfare aside, has been fairly effective and representative of all the various types of players in the game. I don't trust that the 89% of the population who doesn't care would elect a group as good. Also, it's never a good idea to make people do work that they don't want to do in order to be able to play a game that they're paying you for access to.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 17:53:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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
Not really - you'd wind up with random CSMs, not good ones. The current crew, internecine warfare aside, has been fairly effective and representative of all the various types of players in the game. I don't trust that the 89% of the population who doesn't care would elect a group as good. Also, it's never a good idea to make people do work that they don't want to do in order to be able to play a game that they're paying you for access to.
Thats what the "abstain" button would be for.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 21:04:00 -
[88]
Dividing seats on the CSM by district (or however else you want to) is really an unworkable idea!
Given that many players have multiple characters, how would you (and who would) deem X player eligible for running to represent X district?
Or maybe you were thinking of the CHARACTERS coming from these areas (forgetting that players who run characters have multiple ones). Making the CSM form from characters from certain districts on a quota basis just silly when you think about it. Afterall, its not the characters that discuss issues in real life with CCP, or get together in CSM meetings- its real players. Having districts etc doesn't avoid certain types of players, or make the resultant CSM anymore diverse/representative in any reality.
Take care,
Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 23:14:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Not really - you'd wind up with random CSMs, not good ones. The current crew, internecine warfare aside, has been fairly effective and representative of all the various types of players in the game. I don't trust that the 89% of the population who doesn't care would elect a group as good. Also, it's never a good idea to make people do work that they don't want to do in order to be able to play a game that they're paying you for access to.
Thats what the "abstain" button would be for.
That helps with the former problem, but not with the latter. If real elections aren't blocking people's recreation in the vast majority of the world, why should we actively be seeking to extend fake elections to that level? Angering your customer base by making them do unnecessary things they don't want to do is a terrible business practice.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 01:02:00 -
[90]
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.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |