These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Kaleb Rysode for CSM 8 - Diplomacy to Create Understanding

First post
Author
Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-03-20 06:10:48 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Dolan
Greetings, my name is Kaleb Rysode, and I am running for election to the 8th Council of Stellar Management.

I’m running as the Corps Diplomatique candidate for CSM this year. Corps Diplomatique is the diplomatic arm of Goonswarm Federation. We are the organization that was built by Vile Rat three years ago and currently operate as the defacto nullsec diplomacy group and administrators of Jabberlon 5. There are few large, organized groups in EVE that we do not interact with directly and I am proud to be a part of this organization.

This brings me to the CSM. Over the past few years we’ve seen a marked difference in the way the CSM works with CCP development staff. One trend that’s been a constant has been candidates running for CSM positions based on a particular change they want to lobby for or on their preferred “association” in EVE (lowsec/faction warfare, nullsec, highsec/industrial, highsec/wardec, wormhole, etc.) By and large, these sorts of “lobbying” candidacies have been mostly unsuccessful. As such I’m not here to lobby for a particular group, or as a candidate from *insert gameplay affiliation here*.

I’m here to bridge the understanding divide.

I want to come in and understand the core ideas and philosophies that CCP’s development team use when working with new, player-submitted or outside-of-the-box ideas. Then I plan to return to the players and help craft solutions to the problems that the players believe they have with the ways in which CCP is most receptive to addressing them. This doesn’t mean that I want to be the “fixer” for the players, because sometimes the problem is that the players fundamentally misunderstand where CCP wants the game to go; they get tunnel-visioned into gameplay tropes that are years old and reflect a different period in EVE’s development. I want to help direct players towards highlighting the real issues that face the game tomorrow and how to approach CCP to get them fixed today. Alternatively if CCP doesn't believe that the requested issue needs to be addressed, I want to work with them to do a better job expressing this to players.

Super Important Candidacy Video

My life outside of EVE:
My name is Joshua Kane Perlow. I am 26 years old, and currently reside in Washington, DC. I’m currently a professorial lecturer of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical engineering at the George Washington University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science. My research for the last several years has been focused on nuclear and plasma physics. I have a background that includes game development and e-sports/events. I also worked on the Hubble Space Telescope & Google Sky at the Space Telescope Science Institute. I like having discussions over beer on pretty much everything, ranging from neutron spectrometry or an 850k EHP proteus, to playing craps in a casino or why Leonard Cohen is the coolest musician alive.

I will do my best to answer any questions that my constituents may pose either in or outside of this thread. I also want to wish my fellow candidates good luck in the coming election.

If you prefer private contact, please evemail or email me. I also have been known to use "the twitter" on occasion.
Email: kalebrysode@gmail.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KalebRysode

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-03-20 06:10:58 UTC
Reserved.

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-03-20 06:11:05 UTC
Reserved.

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-03-20 06:11:19 UTC
Reserved.

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2013-03-20 06:42:42 UTC
Kaleb is a pretty cool guy and you should give him a spot on your ballots. Cool

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Frying Doom
#6 - 2013-03-20 09:28:55 UTC
Nice to see more Goonswarm candidates, I knew you would not disappoint, given the new voting system.

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

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#7 - 2013-03-20 12:22:56 UTC
Kaleb Rysode wrote:
One trend that’s been a constant has been candidates running for CSM positions based on a particular change they want to lobby for or on their preferred “association” in EVE (lowsec/faction warfare, nullsec, highsec/industrial, highsec/wardec, wormhole, etc.) By and large, these sorts of “lobbying” candidacies have been mostly unsuccessful.


As a candidate who (I think) ran on just such a platform, I am interested in hearing why I was "unsuccessful". Can you please elaborate?

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-03-20 19:51:31 UTC
Two step wrote:
Kaleb Rysode wrote:
One trend that’s been a constant has been candidates running for CSM positions based on a particular change they want to lobby for or on their preferred “association” in EVE (lowsec/faction warfare, nullsec, highsec/industrial, highsec/wardec, wormhole, etc.) By and large, these sorts of “lobbying” candidacies have been mostly unsuccessful.


As a candidate who (I think) ran on just such a platform, I am interested in hearing why I was "unsuccessful". Can you please elaborate?


Hi Two Step! Thank you for your question.

I think the best example of what you were lobbying for that ended up being unsuccessful in most regards was the POS revamp. The POS revamp was incredibly important to your wormhole constituents, because its impossible to live in a wormhole without a POS or two. Based on the CSM minutes, there were some on the CSM that had said CCP promised a POS revamp, and CCP stated that no such promises were made.

Now, the reason why I feel you were unsuccessful? A lack of communication. Yes, you successfully started a 137 page threadnaught demonstrating to CCP that there were several thousand players, from all areas of EVE, that wanted a POS revamp ASAP. While your respone to CCP in a public venue was seemingly effective in securing a sympathetic response, it was ultimately unsuccessful as you didn't secure the changes that you ran on, and you sacrificed good will with the development team. CCP Gargant mentioned in his post in the thread that you seem to of had a misunderstanding of what was said regarding a POS revamp at the meetings you were present for. And as CCP Seagull discussed in his post in that thread, CCP has actively been working on prototypes for a new POS system, but that they are just that, prototypes.

As a CSM member, instead of creating what amounted to a call out thread, you had the ability to interface with CCP directly, and ask not only why the POS revamp wasn't part of their plans for the next development cycle, but what their possible plans were for a POS revamp in the future. While you probably could not have discussed their plans on a revamp due to NDA restrictions, you could have lobbied for CCP to communicate their plans better. Instead of Seagull having to write a post in your thread, there could have been a devblog written on the long term goals of a POS revamp. By learning CCP's reasoning on the matter, you could have brought that information to the players, and explained why CCP felt it couldn't be part of their current development cycle.

Again, thank you for your question.

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

Powers Sa
#9 - 2013-03-20 21:38:09 UTC
Two step wrote:
Kaleb Rysode wrote:
One trend that’s been a constant has been candidates running for CSM positions based on a particular change they want to lobby for or on their preferred “association” in EVE (lowsec/faction warfare, nullsec, highsec/industrial, highsec/wardec, wormhole, etc.) By and large, these sorts of “lobbying” candidacies have been mostly unsuccessful.


As a candidate who (I think) ran on just such a platform, I am interested in hearing why I was "unsuccessful". Can you please elaborate?

Hey look its the guy who isn't running, trying to play candidate police.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Kesper North
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-03-21 03:50:18 UTC
Kaleb is one of the most effective communicators I've had the pleasure of working with. He's also part of a diplomatic organization that I hold in the highest possible esteem. He will be a truly great CSM representative and you should definitely give him one of your highest votes.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2013-03-21 17:01:15 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Two step wrote:
Kaleb Rysode wrote:
One trend that’s been a constant has been candidates running for CSM positions based on a particular change they want to lobby for or on their preferred “association” in EVE (lowsec/faction warfare, nullsec, highsec/industrial, highsec/wardec, wormhole, etc.) By and large, these sorts of “lobbying” candidacies have been mostly unsuccessful.


As a candidate who (I think) ran on just such a platform, I am interested in hearing why I was "unsuccessful". Can you please elaborate?

Hey look its the guy who isn't running, trying to play candidate police.

How so? he was just asking for an elaboration upon a statement that carried a significant amount of relevance.

Is asking questions of the candidates a bad thing all of a sudden?

I personally wouldnt vote for someone until i knew every little thing i wanted, and that means alot of questions, and depending on how they answer those, you gain an understanding of their views and position outside of the bare-bones presented in their initial statement.
Xiao rui
Accidental Renegades
#12 - 2013-03-22 06:45:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Xiao rui
Kaleb's a strong communicator and an objective advocate. He has been able to help keep on of the most notoriously bad alliances in the CFC in the clear for over a year now and that certainly counts for something.

He gets it.

It is known.
Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2013-03-22 09:06:15 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

I personally wouldnt vote for someone until i knew every little thing i wanted, and that means alot of questions, and depending on how they answer those, you gain an understanding of their views and position outside of the bare-bones presented in their initial statement.


Fire away! Happy to answer as many questions as I can to be lucky enough to hopefully get your vote.

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

Xander Phoena
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2013-03-25 00:36:31 UTC
Kaleb, I hope you will join me for a Crossing Zebras CSM8 Election Interview. The full list of those I have already interviewed or who have agreed to be interviewed can be found here - http://crossingzebras.com/CSM8

Full details for booking an interview can be found here - http://crossingzebras.com/2013/01/16/electioninterviews/

www.crossingzebras.com

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#15 - 2013-03-25 20:46:33 UTC
Kaleb Rysode wrote:

Hi Two Step! Thank you for your question.

I think the best example of what you were lobbying for that ended up being unsuccessful in most regards was the POS revamp. The POS revamp was incredibly important to your wormhole constituents, because its impossible to live in a wormhole without a POS or two. Based on the CSM minutes, there were some on the CSM that had said CCP promised a POS revamp, and CCP stated that no such promises were made.

Now, the reason why I feel you were unsuccessful? A lack of communication. Yes, you successfully started a 137 page threadnaught demonstrating to CCP that there were several thousand players, from all areas of EVE, that wanted a POS revamp ASAP. While your respone to CCP in a public venue was seemingly effective in securing a sympathetic response, it was ultimately unsuccessful as you didn't secure the changes that you ran on, and you sacrificed good will with the development team. CCP Gargant mentioned in his post in the thread that you seem to of had a misunderstanding of what was said regarding a POS revamp at the meetings you were present for. And as CCP Seagull discussed in his post in that thread, CCP has actively been working on prototypes for a new POS system, but that they are just that, prototypes.


The NDA doesn't make refuting your analysis easy, but I will still give it a shot. Firstly, to assume a lack of communication is just plain false. Trust me, I do *plenty* of talking to CCP.

As for CCP Gargant's response, he wasn't in the room (for all but the live events session). Also, CCP Seagull is a she, not a he.

I imagine my success on the POS issue may be judged by things like this, from the odyssey site:
Quote:

Continued development towards raising accessibility without removing functionality will bring dozens of changes to player-owned starbases, game UI and beyond.


Kaleb Rysode wrote:

As a CSM member, instead of creating what amounted to a call out thread, you had the ability to interface with CCP directly, and ask not only why the POS revamp wasn't part of their plans for the next development cycle, but what their possible plans were for a POS revamp in the future. While you probably could not have discussed their plans on a revamp due to NDA restrictions, you could have lobbied for CCP to communicate their plans better. Instead of Seagull having to write a post in your thread, there could have been a devblog written on the long term goals of a POS revamp. By learning CCP's reasoning on the matter, you could have brought that information to the players, and explained why CCP felt it couldn't be part of their current development cycle.

Again, thank you for your question.


I'm not sure why you think I haven't been asking CCP those questions, or why you think I haven't been asking them to communicate better. A large part of why I started that thread was to force CCP to talk to the playerbase about the decisions they had made and were going to be making about the POS system.

I dearly hope you get elected to CSM 8, because then I can link you some posts in the CSM private forums about exactly what I asked CCP to do.

Frankly, I am surprised at just how much assumption you did in your response. I would have figured a major block level diplomat to understand that perhaps they don't have the entire story before making some pretty false claims.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#16 - 2013-03-26 00:49:54 UTC
Two step wrote:


Frankly, I am surprised at just how much assumption you did in your response. I would have figured a major block level diplomat to understand that perhaps they don't have the entire story before making some pretty false claims.


He is just part of the new generation of players, that look forward to sucking up to CCP.

The only bad part, is that it does seem you have to get angry at CCP at times to get a response, then they do, but they are always nice about it, so you wish you could avoid the anger, but it never seems possible to. (Well mostly nice about it, sometimes you do get some rough spots.)

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-03-27 05:48:57 UTC
Xander Phoena wrote:
Kaleb, I hope you will join me for a Crossing Zebras CSM8 Election Interview. The full list of those I have already interviewed or who have agreed to be interviewed can be found here - http://crossingzebras.com/CSM8

Full details for booking an interview can be found here - http://crossingzebras.com/2013/01/16/electioninterviews/


Xander I will try and get in contact with you towards the end of the week for an interview. I am looking forward to it immensely.

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

Kaleb Rysode
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2013-03-28 20:17:18 UTC
Two step wrote:
Kaleb Rysode wrote:

Hi Two Step! Thank you for your question.

I think the best example of what you were lobbying for that ended up being unsuccessful in most regards was the POS revamp. The POS revamp was incredibly important to your wormhole constituents, because its impossible to live in a wormhole without a POS or two. Based on the CSM minutes, there were some on the CSM that had said CCP promised a POS revamp, and CCP stated that no such promises were made.

Now, the reason why I feel you were unsuccessful? A lack of communication. Yes, you successfully started a 137 page threadnaught demonstrating to CCP that there were several thousand players, from all areas of EVE, that wanted a POS revamp ASAP. While your respone to CCP in a public venue was seemingly effective in securing a sympathetic response, it was ultimately unsuccessful as you didn't secure the changes that you ran on, and you sacrificed good will with the development team. CCP Gargant mentioned in his post in the thread that you seem to of had a misunderstanding of what was said regarding a POS revamp at the meetings you were present for. And as CCP Seagull discussed in his post in that thread, CCP has actively been working on prototypes for a new POS system, but that they are just that, prototypes.


The NDA doesn't make refuting your analysis easy, but I will still give it a shot. Firstly, to assume a lack of communication is just plain false. Trust me, I do *plenty* of talking to CCP.

As for CCP Gargant's response, he wasn't in the room (for all but the live events session). Also, CCP Seagull is a she, not a he.

I imagine my success on the POS issue may be judged by things like this, from the odyssey site:
Quote:

Continued development towards raising accessibility without removing functionality will bring dozens of changes to player-owned starbases, game UI and beyond.


Kaleb Rysode wrote:

As a CSM member, instead of creating what amounted to a call out thread, you had the ability to interface with CCP directly, and ask not only why the POS revamp wasn't part of their plans for the next development cycle, but what their possible plans were for a POS revamp in the future. While you probably could not have discussed their plans on a revamp due to NDA restrictions, you could have lobbied for CCP to communicate their plans better. Instead of Seagull having to write a post in your thread, there could have been a devblog written on the long term goals of a POS revamp. By learning CCP's reasoning on the matter, you could have brought that information to the players, and explained why CCP felt it couldn't be part of their current development cycle.

Again, thank you for your question.


I'm not sure why you think I haven't been asking CCP those questions, or why you think I haven't been asking them to communicate better. A large part of why I started that thread was to force CCP to talk to the playerbase about the decisions they had made and were going to be making about the POS system.

I dearly hope you get elected to CSM 8, because then I can link you some posts in the CSM private forums about exactly what I asked CCP to do.

Frankly, I am surprised at just how much assumption you did in your response. I would have figured a major block level diplomat to understand that perhaps they don't have the entire story before making some pretty false claims.


I appreciate your reply Two Step. The problem still remains that neither you nor CCP chose to communicate to the players that significant discussions had taken place. This lead to some necessary assumptions to fill in the information black holes, ranging from "Hey CCP dudes here are a POS thing I want" all the way to "omg RAR RAGE pos threadnaught."

The fact that significant discussions exist is almost complete irrelevant if there is no revelation that those discussions were had (without revealing details covered by the NDA). However, this does not absolve your part in the POS fixing platform you ran on just because you said discussions took place.

To be honest, the threadnaut was a badly managed tirade paraded in front of what amounts to the public constituency of the CSM. This was done in my mind and many others for the purpose of political points that could have been better made with some contextual details as well as faith in the good intentions of both the developers and players.

The irresponsibility you showed in managing the situation demanded I as well as others to make certain assumptions as to the reasons and intent of the POS threadnaut. Your initial and early followup posts in that thread were simply there to incite players and cause some rabble rousing to get traction for the points you wanted to make. And when it comes down to it, the points you made early on were based on your own assumptions separate from ACTUAL facts as CCP replies demonstrated later in the thread.

Also, my apologies for not knowing CCP Seagull was female. No offense was meant, Ms. Seagull.

"The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns."

Powers Sa
#19 - 2013-03-29 07:04:47 UTC
Jeez way to go Two Step. I can't believe Kaleb is a professor at school and on the forums.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Frying Doom
#20 - 2013-03-29 07:18:55 UTC
Kaleb Rysode wrote:
Two step wrote:


The NDA doesn't make refuting your analysis easy, but I will still give it a shot. Firstly, to assume a lack of communication is just plain false. Trust me, I do *plenty* of talking to CCP.

As for CCP Gargant's response, he wasn't in the room (for all but the live events session). Also, CCP Seagull is a she, not a he.

I imagine my success on the POS issue may be judged by things like this, from the odyssey site:
Quote:

Continued development towards raising accessibility without removing functionality will bring dozens of changes to player-owned starbases, game UI and beyond.


Kaleb Rysode wrote:

As a CSM member, instead of creating what amounted to a call out thread, you had the ability to interface with CCP directly, and ask not only why the POS revamp wasn't part of their plans for the next development cycle, but what their possible plans were for a POS revamp in the future. While you probably could not have discussed their plans on a revamp due to NDA restrictions, you could have lobbied for CCP to communicate their plans better. Instead of Seagull having to write a post in your thread, there could have been a devblog written on the long term goals of a POS revamp. By learning CCP's reasoning on the matter, you could have brought that information to the players, and explained why CCP felt it couldn't be part of their current development cycle.

Again, thank you for your question.


I'm not sure why you think I haven't been asking CCP those questions, or why you think I haven't been asking them to communicate better. A large part of why I started that thread was to force CCP to talk to the playerbase about the decisions they had made and were going to be making about the POS system.

I dearly hope you get elected to CSM 8, because then I can link you some posts in the CSM private forums about exactly what I asked CCP to do.

Frankly, I am surprised at just how much assumption you did in your response. I would have figured a major block level diplomat to understand that perhaps they don't have the entire story before making some pretty false claims.


I appreciate your reply Two Step. The problem still remains that neither you nor CCP chose to communicate to the players that significant discussions had taken place. This lead to some necessary assumptions to fill in the information black holes, ranging from "Hey CCP dudes here are a POS thing I want" all the way to "omg RAR RAGE pos threadnaught."

The fact that significant discussions exist is almost complete irrelevant if there is no revelation that those discussions were had (without revealing details covered by the NDA). However, this does not absolve your part in the POS fixing platform you ran on just because you said discussions took place.

To be honest, the threadnaut was a badly managed tirade paraded in front of what amounts to the public constituency of the CSM. This was done in my mind and many others for the purpose of political points that could have been better made with some contextual details as well as faith in the good intentions of both the developers and players.

The irresponsibility you showed in managing the situation demanded I as well as others to make certain assumptions as to the reasons and intent of the POS threadnaut. Your initial and early followup posts in that thread were simply there to incite players and cause some rabble rousing to get traction for the points you wanted to make. And when it comes down to it, the points you made early on were based on your own assumptions separate from ACTUAL facts as CCP replies demonstrated later in the thread.

Also, my apologies for not knowing CCP Seagull was female. No offense was meant, Ms. Seagull.

God defending Two Step what has the world come too

Two steps actions were I feel necessary as a large number of the CSM as well as CCP decided to push the POS problem under the rug and hope we the players missed it.

The fact that the POS was under NDA until the minutes were released and even then screened extensively by CCP, for example has anyone seen the DUST sections minutes from 3 months ago?

So Two Step did the best he could given the crummy hand he was dealt, and frankly CCP should be thanking him for the tone of that discussion, especially after all the we will get on modular POSs soon comments from CCP and all the comments about telling us how good it will be.

If I had authored that thread I think I would have started it with the words

Blood, Blood, Blood.

We were all very pissed and Two Step managed to save that from turning into a crap-storm.

CSM 7 did little well other than praise CCP, (and the mining barges) even the new expansion is almost 50% ignore the CSM, but on this Two Step stood up and acted in the manner best befitting a CSM Member. He stood up for us the players against the CSM and CCP.

And frankly that is what we want in a CSM member, someone who will stand up for us when we are being ignored.

God I hope I never feel the urge to say that again.

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

12Next page