These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM December minutes: The CSM

First post First post
Author
Frying Doom
#101 - 2013-01-23 02:38:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So to sum your position up. The chair should be someones epeen and a commodity that can be bought.


You have yet to explain how having the CSM choose instead of the players changes any of that.

Actually I have.

If the CSM decides on the chairman, it would require me for example to by out enough votes for me to gain election to the CSM as well as buying the votes of 7 more members of the CSM to get elected to chairman.

So not really viable.

As to someones epeen, frankly I think if some one wanted it just for the title this would show up if they took some time to decide on the chairman as I said about 2 weeks should do it.

Lets be blunt the only reason people would argue for the right to vote for the chairman would be if they stood a reasonable chance of it happening for their alliance (or future party).

At the moment all this will lead to is the Voting of a TEST or Goonswarm member to the role of chairman and it will be harder for the CSM to shake the fact that in the past it has looked like a Null sec lobby group.

The ability for the CSM to select the best person for the job is the only way that it can move beyond being perceived as a hopeless cause for the majority of EvE

This discussion should be about what is best for the CSM, not what feeds the ego of one alliance or group.

One other thing I would like to add is that with CCPs new Theme based expansions I can see parties forming to actually push one specific theme. It would actually make things quiet interesting.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2013-01-23 10:24:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
One other thing I would like to add is that with CCPs new Theme based expansions I can see parties forming to actually push one specific theme. It would actually make things quiet interesting.

Given the way CSM works, and the way CCP currently plans to do theming, this would not be a useful strategy.

Having everyone pushing the same agenda doesn't make it more likely that that agenda will get addressed; having a diversity of opinion, well-argued, helps CCP find ways to address multiple issues within the context of a theme.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Frying Doom
#103 - 2013-01-23 11:16:21 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
One other thing I would like to add is that with CCPs new Theme based expansions I can see parties forming to actually push one specific theme. It would actually make things quiet interesting.

Given the way CSM works, and the way CCP currently plans to do theming, this would not be a useful strategy.

Having everyone pushing the same agenda doesn't make it more likely that that agenda will get addressed; having a diversity of opinion, well-argued, helps CCP find ways to address multiple issues within the context of a theme.


Ok what I was implying was that unlike at the moment where Goons vote for Goons ect.. Instead of a candidate that comes forward and goes I will stand for this, you have a party formed that then chooses the best candidate or candidates with the basis of what they would like to be done and what they would not like done.

and yes diversity does help, I will not argue that. What I am saying is that with themes hopefully parties will form rather than the current mishmash of voting to create powerblocks which stand behind their "Vision" of eve, rather than candidates who believe in fix POS, fix Null and put ponies in space for example but having a group figure out a full theme that they would like implemented that covers all areas of EvE or the majority and run with that idea.

There are enough smart people in EvE that if they formed a party with a theme, I am sure they could even prepare a professional business plan to CCP to show how it would increase their player base and show them the approximate amount of extra revenue they could receive.

I was not saying the CSM should be one party as that is exactly what I am against, I don't like the idea of a Null sec lobby group or a high sec lobby group being the CSM.

The CSM is the voice of the people and like a voice it must listen to the people and communicate the peoples thoughts.

EvE is full of nuts and brilliance, so why shouldn't CCP shake the nuts and use the brilliance.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2013-01-24 13:15:21 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
and yes diversity does help, I will not argue that. What I am saying is that with themes hopefully parties will form rather than the current mishmash of voting to create powerblocks which stand behind their "Vision" of eve, rather than candidates who believe in fix POS, fix Null and put ponies in space for example but having a group figure out a full theme that they would like implemented that covers all areas of EvE or the majority and run with that idea.

The problem here is one of time-lag. Right now CCP is making decisions about the May expansion, which will also directly affect what they do in December. So if you came up with a decent theme and ran on the platform of pushing that theme, by the time you get elected to CSM, events will likely have rendered your theme obsolete or impractical.

As the saying goes, "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" Twisted

It's certainly OK to have strong opinions about the direction the game, but the value of a platform is not so much in what you specifically advocate, but on what insights it gives about your general ability to react to the ground truth and help CCP make the best decisions given the circumstances -- which, as anyone who has been on CSM will tell you, are often very different from what the community percieves them to be.

What I look for in a CSM candidate are:

* Clear ability to think logically about problems, even if I disagree with the solutions advocated.

* Some evidence that they'll be a hard worker. I'll take a worker-bee over a lazy super-genius any day.

* Relevant business and professional skills -- these are crucial to framing effective arguments.

* Good knowledge of some part of the game.

Last year when I ran for CSM, I also posted a Voter's Guide giving my opinions about the other candidates, and I used the above criteria as a guide. Only one of my "proven performers" didn't meet my expectations, and the "serious contender" and the two "special cases" that got elected kicked ass.

Of the currently declared non-bloc candidates, Malcanis and Ripard Teg have already proved they make the cut.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Frying Doom
#105 - 2013-01-24 13:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
I suppose that to me the idea of a party with a theme appeals to me more than people who vote for a candidate because their alliance leaders told them too.

One of the biggest problems I am perceiving from within my nutty brain this season is the number of candidates who seem to have a plan(If your lucky) for their part of EvE, but don't seem to get that the game is actually interconnected to the other parts.

As I posted elsewhere the fact I post on these forums makes us a minority to start with and so maybe these one dimenension sales pitches are what the majority of EvE want to see in a CSM candidate but frankly I am finding some of the candidates this year to be well, boring and not communicating anything at all in their threads.

But as I said we are the minority.

Oh and please do another voters guide this year, last years was actually helpful, unlike a lot of what I read during the elections

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2013-01-24 20:51:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
... the two "special cases" that got elected kicked ass.
Kelduum Revaan. Kicked ass? LOL.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#107 - 2013-01-24 21:25:01 UTC
I'd agree that parties being made more viable due to themes won't really happen. As mentioned the election is done well after themes are in place.

I tried to create a party last election and I've pretty much decided with the current voting system it is a non-starter. If you really wanted to do it you'd need to do an independent gathering of consensus around some core values, vet some potential candidates internal to the party, then run that candidate once the elections begin. Basically make your own bloc ahead of time and pick someone.

What I found was I certainly wasn't able to do that, maybe someone else could pull it off.

As to trying to pick who to vote for going forward:

- I'd want someone that understands software engineering
- Someone that has played Eve enough to be able to have opinions supportable with direct experience
- Someone that that can be flexible enough to realize the folks you will work with in the CSM likely have different experiences and all the different backgrounds of the CSM members is what makes a better CSM for helping to keep Eve healthy. Eve is too large a game for a single CSM member to understand (or even care) about it all
- That isn't trying to be a game designer
- That seems to be committed to put in the time to really participate

I'd want someone that has been active in some form communicating with the greater Eve community, forums, blogs, in game activity or otherwise. Although there could be some great candidates that are "new to the scene" that we may never have heard of I think it is riskier to back someone who really can't be verified as effective in Eve in some past manner.

I see some interesting candidates for CSM 8 already and look forward to see who else emerges as the elections progress.

Also, take voting guides with a grain of salt, both when voting and especially when running...

Issler
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#108 - 2013-01-24 21:29:28 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Only one of my "proven performers" didn't meet my expectations ...
Kelduum Revaan. You were supportive of his candidacy last year.


Try again, Poe. Maybe read the linked thread first?

Kelduum was one of the "special cases" who "kicked ass."

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#109 - 2013-01-25 05:02:32 UTC
Actually Two Step and Hans are theme candidates or party candidates.

Or course Trebor and Issler would not like theme candidates since they were not that type of candidate. Of course with them seeming to like individualistic quality I can see why trebor pushed the voting changes. Of course it is surprising he doesn't share frying dooms fear and paranoia though. Especially with how dark he paints CCP being with game features and such. Its almost making me paranoid and such.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Frying Doom
#110 - 2013-01-25 05:10:16 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Also, take voting guides with a grain of salt, both when voting and especially when running...

Issler

Voting guides are like TV guides, you ignore the number of stars given but it does tell you what the movie is about.

Especially with candidates who you have never heard of and they quiet often have links to past comments by the candidate.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2013-01-25 15:50:09 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
... the two "special cases" that got elected kicked ass.
Kelduum Revaan. Kicked ass? LOL.

Kelduum may not have been the most visible CSM in public, but he did more than his share of work behind the scenes.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#112 - 2013-01-25 16:16:52 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
... the two "special cases" that got elected kicked ass.
Kelduum Revaan. Kicked ass? LOL.

Kelduum may not have been the most visible CSM in public, but he did more than his share of work behind the scenes.


Confirming this.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Frying Doom
#113 - 2013-01-26 02:02:04 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
... the two "special cases" that got elected kicked ass.
Kelduum Revaan. Kicked ass? LOL.

Kelduum may not have been the most visible CSM in public, but he did more than his share of work behind the scenes.

Might explain some of the "the CSM has no hi-sec representative" comments.

To be honest does any one out side of the CSM and EvE Uni know what he did this year?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#114 - 2013-01-26 05:23:42 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
... the two "special cases" that got elected kicked ass.
Kelduum Revaan. Kicked ass? LOL.

Kelduum may not have been the most visible CSM in public, but he did more than his share of work behind the scenes.

Might explain some of the "the CSM has no hi-sec representative" comments.

To be honest does any one out side of the CSM and EvE Uni know what he did this year?


He made Poetic very proud to have once been part of EVE-Uni and twitter feeded the CSM summit.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#115 - 2013-02-06 14:11:51 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
... the two "special cases" that got elected kicked ass.
Kelduum Revaan. Kicked ass? LOL.


Trebor is using the old, rather outdated metric of "actual work done" rather than the modern "forum drama caused".

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2013-02-06 19:11:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor is using the old, rather outdated metric of "actual work done" rather than the modern "forum drama caused".

What can I say, I'm a traditional kind of guy.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#117 - 2013-02-14 20:07:01 UTC
my only suggestion regarding the voting process would be to let players vote, not their characters. However i realize that there are technical issues regarding this and it may not be possible enforce that.

after all, even in RL you don't receive an extra vote for each of your children which is not yet allowed to vote by itself.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#118 - 2013-02-14 20:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Prompted by: https://twitter.com/HansShotFirst/status/302141132064837633

Unless CCP knows for a fact that the low voting turnouts are because of a voting system turning people off, talking about changing it at this point is a waste of time and resources. Even if the former case of CCP knowing for a fact that the system is what's keeping people from voting were true, then there'd be nothing for the players to discuss as CCP hasn't shared this information with us, and thus we have no idea what kind of system would make the necessary changes.

This isn't even touching how badly this current CSM poisoned the well with Trebor's proposal of disenfranchising what few of us actually DO vote for his own gain. This topic even being up for discussion is pretty gross as this point.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2013-02-14 20:48:47 UTC
It should come as no surprise that Veritas is (more than likely) going to implement his Schultz system. He's had a hard-on for it since the Summer Summit. It should come as no surprise that it would be implemented this late in the game, when the time period for public comment is far too short.

As long as he's implementing the system as described, then I'm cool with it. If he's doing some modified version ... then I'm not so cool with it. (And how would be ever know?)

The entire voting results should be released after the election (anonymous). These can be run through a verified version of the voting algorithm and the playerbase can ensure the results are as expected. Releasing all the votes (each vote not linked to an actual voter) is not an NDA issue. It's simply an issue of transparency.


And if CCP feels this new voting system is a replacement to spending any time educating and advertising these elections further to the playerbase ... then they are dumb. :)
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#120 - 2013-02-14 21:14:48 UTC
It's my opinion a change to the CSM voting process is fixing a thing that is not broken. Voters are only disenfranchised if their candidate gets elected and then said candidate sits on their hands all year and does jack **** all. And they all know who they are. How do you stop people from running/winning/going to Iceland for free then doing nothing?

First, start with getting people interested in voting. But you can only do so much. If people won't vote there isn't much that can be done. Leave the voting alone. Power blocs have as much right as anyone else. Those who don't vote have no say if they sit on their ass and give no damn. Those who do vote and whine like babies, get out their and do "Get out and vote campaigns".

I don't know that eliminating the trip to Iceland is a good idea or not. I understand a lot of quality discussions happen of hair letting down imbibing session at the bar.

So maybe a performance bonus? CSM members who are actively participants and workers during their campaign get free tickets to the following year's Fanfest? Or airfare to cover the trip there should they desire to attend? Who decides who works and who doesn't? I think it becomes self evident who does and doesn't. Transparency man. Out the lazy ones. Name and shame. Then perma-ban them from ever running again.

CCP. Keep your hands off our votes. Let us vote for whom we want and leave it alone.