| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
   |
Posted - 2008.09.19 17:30:00 -
[1]
 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.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 17:38:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 19/09/2008 17:42:57
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Your hypocrisy knows no limits.
Well, I was pretty straightforward about describing the kind of delegate I expected the Goons to put forward during the election campaign. I think you've illustrated my point there perfectly as well. Well done, you are quite the paragon of your society when all is said and done.
As a quick note Darius - hypocrisy means saying one thing and doing (or believing) another. I've been very very open about my lack of respect for you and your capabilities. And I've been similarly honest about my inability to work with somebody of your kind. I can't turn the other cheek to your constant flaming and childish behaviour and if that makes me a bad CSM then so be it - nobody pays us for this "job" and to be frank I don't think anybody could pay me enough to sit in a room/channel/hallway with you once this CSM term is over.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 17:57:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Odet
If you are unable to remain civil with ALL the other CSM's, then I don't see you fit to be a CSM.
Grudges or not, you are public representative, in a position of respect. You should show respect, class and diplomacy, regardless of how stupid or irrational an idea or person is being. Regardless of in game politics and pasts.
As expected, you can see in exhibit A and Exhibit B.
I think you cite a very idealistic proposition there. And if people truly did vote only for people they expected to be able to remain calm and respectful at all times then the CSM might be interesting - but you do have the problem that however YOU vote, you are always going to get a couple of alliance block candidates in the mix who cannot help themselves but be unpleasant and get stuck into the other delegates.
Still, its been an interesting process - I've learned of myself that I'm not cut out for politics because I simply can't stand certain people and can't really hide my disgust for short-sighted partisan issue-blocking against the interests of the game at large.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 18:07:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 19/09/2008 18:08:13
If I appear to be ignoring parts (well okay most of) your posts Darius thats because I am. Nothing you say ever really amounts to more than an extended personal attack and as a rule its pointless to respond in detail. Still, continue bellowing as you will. Freedom of speech and all that.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 19:28:00 -
[5]
It really isn't the moderators fault if you can't express yourself with civil words and debate. Nobody is forcing Goonswarm to flame people on the internet.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 19:44:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Saint
If you truly feel the need to continue, please take it in game and hunt each other down with massive amounts of 'pew pew' and 'ohh noesss!'
QFT - excellent advise! 
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 20:12:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 19/09/2008 20:14:49
Originally by: Odet
Well Jade, I agree there will always be somebody elected who shouldn't have been, as they do not meet the criteria of a well rounded CSM. But CSM's are still subject to the forum rules as you can see from this thread. If the CSM Can't act accordingly, he will get his post removed like everyone else.
Well I don't want to get involved in the specific discussion of moderation in this thread - but I think this Jita Park/Assembly hall pair of forum sections has been a problem for forum management since the outset. There has been a lot of flaming and bad behaviour perpetrated here - and part of that is responsible for the death of actual debate between CSMs and the community in these forum sections. I can understand why it happened and why it was felt these sections should be "hands off" so as to not interfere with the democratic opinions and discussions that were meant to happen here - but with virtual mudslinging so thick that you can't see opinions and debate for the actual mud its all a bit silly.
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.
We were promised some private forums to conduct CSM business in but circumstances have gotten in the way of that and its nobodies fault end of the day. But the fact we NEED private forums is a bad reflection on the climate of the forums in and of themselves. The community does have some responsibility in not exercising appropriate peer pressure on individuals and organizations that promote flaming as an ordinary style of discourse.
Quote:
CSM's should imo be subject to harsher penalities, when it comes to having their post removed, given their position in the community. If a CSM has thier posts removed x amount of times they should be removed from CSM period. Let's say first time a warning, second a gag for x amount of time, third time removed as a CSM. They should act accordingly with their added responsibility. If they are unable to act in accordance to their position they should not be there. That's how I feel about it anyway.
Problem is that any moderation system can be "gamed" to a degree. And you don't want lawfully elected CSM's getting removed due to some underground mob "report" flood. Its a very difficult thing to measure.
I think ultra-strict moderation is not the answer. I think community peer pressure is.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 20:23:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 19/09/2008 20:24:39
Originally by: Santaria Boon
:edit: I'm glad to see you've changed your tune on the moderation angle to one of community policing. I do seem to remember you mentioning wanting community members to be able to ban people in some form as well. A concept which seemed to gloss over the fact that in this world you also wouldn't be able to post.
Oh I still want that. I think it would be a great idea for the leaders of organizations to have collective responsibility for the posting standards of their members. I think eventually an organization that seems to promote pointless flaming as a default posting standard for its membership on eve online forums - should probably face temp-banning at the organizational level and be expected to improve.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 20:31:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 19/09/2008 20:31:19
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
heh Jade talking about posting standards. Really? i guess you dont need to be here anymore.
Well yes I will talk about posting standards. Case in point - you know that IGS forum here - the one tagged "roleplay discussions". When I post there I do so in an IC voice and respect the in-character nature of that forum and the characters posting there.
This afternoon we've seen a lot of ooc smacktalk from the goons posting there. I think thats simply bad and your leadership should ensure that your members are taught better standards not encouraged to break the specific forum posting rules and spoil the forum experience for other players who want to roleplay their characters and organizations.
I don't care that goons think roleplay is laughable.
I do care that you don't respect the posting rules for specific sections.
Hence I think it would be good if there was some kind of collective responsibility for an organization that seems collectively incapable of maintaining decent and responsible standards.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 20:48:00 -
[10]
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.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 21:05:00 -
[11]
Originally by: KeratinBoy
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.
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.
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?
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?
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 13:17:00 -
[12]
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!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 15:04:00 -
[13]
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!
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 12:02:00 -
[14]
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
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 17:53:00 -
[15]
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
|
| |
|