Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Machine Delta
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 02:40:00 -
[181]
Originally by: thoth foc Edited by: thoth foc on 10/10/2008 00:48:39
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
re: CCP allowing it... That would need to be addressed internally by CCP. This isn't a thread recommending that CCP be able to intervene and save a CSM member. It's not a thread saying that CCP should be able to remove CSM members. It's a thread requesting that via some magical against-CCP-policies mechanism the CSM discover when a member has been temp banned so that they can then decide to vote them out of the council, based on circumstances for which the representative will have not real ability to defend themselves. It's a thread requesting that the CCP moderation team, which has deemed itself beyond the purview of the CSM in ANY way, be in the position of deciding not just who can post on their awfully moderated forums, but also who can serve as a representative. That's just plain silly.
A some what theatrical representation some of which i would actually agree with, unfortunately it's the parts you seem to be deliberately ignoring that would swing my support for the the issue.
Within reason, i wouldnt be in favour of removal of a player representative based on constructive interaction with CCP, i would be in favour of the option of removing a representative who cant interact with other members of the community on E-O within the guidelines given by CCP.
This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
How bout the alternative is not changing something that works as-is? *snip* Your signature is inappropriate. Do not post it again. If you have questions, email [email protected] with a link to your signature graphic. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Jack Gates
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 02:41:00 -
[182]
I'm not sure I understand why a temp ban on the eve-o fora -which are wholly separate from the game itself- should warrant removal from the CSM. Your idea is beyond idiotic.
|
Cannibal PLT
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 05:21:00 -
[183]
Originally by: thoth foc This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
A better alternative is nothing. If it 'aint broke, don't fix it.
Originally by: Goumindong Why is a forum banned representative a problem?
These questions have still not been answered.
|
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 09:45:00 -
[184]
Has my support. You carry a responsability. I don't see how people find getting banned "easy" if you keep a civil tone at all times.
Diary of a pod pilot |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 12:32:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Myrhial Arkenath Has my support. You carry a responsability. I don't see how people find getting banned "easy" if you keep a civil tone at all times.
"Civil" is completely subjective. I'd also like to remind you people that these are forums for a spaceship game where you kill people. Dumbing down the conversation to the level of the sickening repeated pretend niceties should not be a desired end result for any competent moderation team.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Lumen Atra
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 14:02:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Lumen Atra on 10/10/2008 14:07:05 The responsibility of CSM is not to be a shiny, perfect person. That falls on the shoulders of the moderators and devs. CSM are normal people that are elected by other normal people to try and help fix the game.
The CSM is not meant to be a pedestal, but unsurprisingly, certain egotistical people have turned it into just that - a position of power where no power was meant to exist, nor should it.
A temporary ban means that the offense was not heinous enough to remove them from the population of EVE. It is a slap on the wrist, and is usually a completely subjective judgment call.
The only case where this should even be considered is on permanent bans of the account. This clearly makes sense because they have had their ability to contribute to the game removed, full stop.
It does not matter if a person gets along with the others or the rest of the Eve-O community. What matters is that they were elected by said community. If you don't like him, the solution is as simply as common democracy: don't vote for him next round. Saves lots of unnecessary drama. |
fuze
Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 14:06:00 -
[187]
Originally by: thoth foc And to echo Gramtar's sentiment, i believe CCP wouldnt allow someone to be evicted from the council unjustly.
-1, naive Nobody is perfect but it doesn't hurt to try. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 14:23:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 10/10/2008 14:24:27
Originally by: thoth foc
A some what theatrical representation some of which i would actually agree with, unfortunately it's the parts you seem to be deliberately ignoring that would swing my support for the the issue.
Within reason, i wouldnt be in favour of removal of a player representative based on constructive interaction with CCP, i would be in favour of the option of removing a representative who cant interact with other members of the community on E-O within the guidelines given by CCP.
This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
I don't find it theatrical at all. Let me break down the facts for page 7.
1) CCP policy will not allow them to discuss bans with anyone but the person who has been banned.
2) The forum moderation policies were placed by CCP beyond the purview of the CSM.
3) As per the example I posted in detail of my own situation, it can be seen that people can be banned for items that are quite trivial.
4) CCP has given no guidelines for how representatives should interact. This is mostly because their own mechanisms are either broken or were not up to snuff. It was only a week ago that the CSM even got a section on the forums.
5) Allowing council members the leverage to remove each other will only create more silly situations like this thread. Situations where people who have a bone to pick with other council members will seek to consistently passive-agressively find ways to manipulate their removal, rather than working on what they were elected to do. Perhaps we should have CSM Survivor and we should vote someone off every week? Last man standing wins Eve!
Now you claim the suggestion is the best there is... the best there is to solve what problem? I don't have an alternative because I prefer to find solutions to problems rather than create solutions and try to manufacture problems to fit it. Game account bans already warrant removal from the council by CCP. This problem has already been solved.
This is not the CSM's responsibility in any way. The council does not and will not have the resources or ability to actually follow through on it and it is not a need. I'm not sure how much more succinctly it could be put.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
thoth foc
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 15:51:00 -
[189]
I am well aware of the potential draw backs of this, this is why i have constantly ask you to provide a better alternative. But clarifying that on the CCP provided media (forums/game), community representatives are required to interact with the community they represent in a manner consistent with the CCP specified rules is much too important a subject to simply ignore.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
4) CCP has given no guidelines for how representatives should interact.
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 16:03:00 -
[190]
Originally by: thoth foc I am well aware of the potential draw backs of this, this is why i have constantly ask you to provide a better alternative.
Everyone is well aware of the potential drawbacks. That is why we keep asking "what is the problem in the first place?" that needs to be resolved
What is the problem that needs to be fixed?
Quote:
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.)
You're misunderstanding the original statement.
|
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 16:25:00 -
[191]
Originally by: thoth foc I am well aware of the potential draw backs of this, this is why i have constantly ask you to provide a better alternative. But clarifying that on the CCP provided media (forums/game), community representatives are required to interact with the community they represent in a manner consistent with the CCP specified rules is much too important a subject to simply ignore.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
4) CCP has given no guidelines for how representatives should interact.
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.)
A better alternative for what? There's no problem.
That link is the forum rules... The forum and the CSM are mutually exclusive, by the design of the CCP Forum team. The only standing rule for a CSM representative's behavior is that they not violate the EULA which would result in a ban, which would result in removal. A rule that already exists and a valid one as it would be pretty hard to represent a game you can't play because you cheated or said something terrible like a racist comment.
The guidelines I was referring to are regarding (As I said) HOW REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD INTERACT. CCP has not provided the tools for this... That IS a fact. The council had to create its own mailing list, its own website to publish the minutes... CCP did not.
The only thing that link provides is rules for posting on the eve-online.com forums. That has nothing to do with the council whatsoever.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Lars Erlkonig
Caldari Discrete Solutions Ltd.
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 17:56:00 -
[192]
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We voted the CSM candidates into office. Let's not give the forum moderation team the ability to remove them. It's a one year position. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 18:00:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Lars Erlkonig Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We voted the CSM candidates into office. Let's not give the forum moderation team the ability to remove them. It's a one year position.
6 months. |
Telender
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 18:10:00 -
[194]
The good thing about Jade is that its motives are so poorly hidden that you really have to be dumb to not see through them.
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 01:44:00 -
[195]
According to Serenity, an independently elected representatives board should cease to be independent? Were you drunk when this struck you as a good idea or are you an advocate of fascism?
The sheer potential for abuse is so staggering that it would keep Goons entertained for weeks in a sort of forum Jihadswarm. Unless, of course, you wish to reword it to exclude those in Goonswarm from being able to report people on the forums?
|
Joss Sparq
Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 22:50:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I go very long periods of time without even reading these forums.
|
Kransthow
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:30:00 -
[197]
Yes lets get CSM kicked from CSM because they posted an image on caod
great idea +10
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 18:43:00 -
[198]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 14/10/2008 18:45:10
Originally by: Goumindong Everyone is well aware of the potential drawbacks. That is why we keep asking "what is the problem in the first place?" that needs to be resolved
What is the problem that needs to be fixed?
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.)
The the problem that needs to be fixed is there is no way to repair a disfunctional council/members that cannot work together in a civilized way to identify, analyze and promote the issues effecting EVE Players.
I would define a disfunctional council/members as those that spend the majority of their time having non-eve related arguments about their respective characters to the point of abuse.
Forum bans are an indicator of this problem. There are many others seen at the start of the first CSM, where a lot of that energy could be directed to helping EVE, and had no actual benefit to the purpose of the CSM what-so-ever.
In regards to "Not everything has to have a benefit to the purpose of the CSM, the CSM are only human" argument belittles the humans who are capable of getting down to business. Are they sub-human? I don't think so, I think they're fit for purpose.
Unfortunately the nature of "internet space games" and lack of real-world or real-consequences for being unsuitable for position of responsibility mean that there is no existing (please someone think of one) way for vetting player appropriately with an election.
In RL there are multiple-elections before making it to the top, but in EVE's election system this isn't currently the case; which gives a high risk for people poorly suited to the job IMHO.
Edit: Thought of a potential sub-filter - if the forums actually had the "rate this post" system and you could chose to filter out low-rated posts, then there would be less voice for CSM candidates who really weren't fit for purpose.
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store | eve-maps.com |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 18:51:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 14/10/2008 18:54:20 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 14/10/2008 18:52:30
Originally by: Serenity Steele
The the problem that needs to be fixed is there is no way to repair a disfunctional council/members that cannot work together in a civilized way to identify, analyze and promote the issues effecting EVE Players.
I would define a disfunctional council/members as those that spend the majority of their time having non-eve related arguments about their respective characters to the point of abuse.
Forum bans are an indicator of this problem. There are many others seen at the start of the first CSM, where a lot of that energy could be directed to helping EVE, and had no actual benefit to the purpose of the CSM what-so-ever.
In regards to "Not everything has to have a benefit to the purpose of the CSM, the CSM are only human" argument belittles the humans who are capable of getting down to business. Are they sub-human? I don't think so, I think they're fit for purpose.
Unfortunately the nature of "internet space games" and lack of real-world or real-consequences for being unsuitable for position of responsibility mean that there is no existing (please someone think of one) way for vetting player appropriately with an election.
In RL there are multiple-elections before making it to the top, but in EVE's election system this isn't currently the case; which gives a high risk for people poorly suited to the job IMHO.
Forum bans have nothing to do with the above problem. Forum bans are merely an indicator of the moderator's judgement at any point in time. They are mutually exclusive to the council and have no bearing on a council member's effectiveness.
If you're looking for a measuring stick for council members, I'd posit one already exists with the checks of a 6 month term, CCP's ability to remove council members, and the council's desire to function internally against people if they so desire. Every time it's come up it's been shot down either administratively by the target, or by the council when the target decided to feign good behavior.
Nothing in this proposal solves the problem that you've outlined above. This proposal merely gives the council a mechanism to alter the election results based on the judgement of the CSM-proof moderation team.
Ultimately like it or not it's the people voting who decide the council's standards, not some silly "elite" class of people with their noses in the air. This is by design and as it should be. It's called "Democracy". Your personal standards for behavior don't matter a bit when contrasted with the voters.
:edit: To answer your edit, I welcome a post rating system. We have one on GF.COM and it works wonderfully.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |