These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

CSM Accountability

First post First post
Author
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-01-29 06:04:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
As a member of EvE community and one who has voting potential with a number of alts I have taken an active part in reviewing CSM minutes.

One aspect that concerns me with the notes is the accountability to the community. Whilst the minutes reflect what was discussed it does at times mention significant individual views that is of significance to the various issues at hand, but without knowing the owner it doesn't afford any real accountability due to the annonymity afforded, leaving views simply to be reflected to the whole council.

Its nice to see the unity behind these issues, but then why quote individual concerns or extremist views in the CSM minutes if you have no intention of reflecting the origin for them?

My request is simple in that viewpoints of significance reflected in the minutes can be made attributable to the party/parties making them to better inform the community. Most significant for considering election options which I think is a valid consideration you should afford to EvE players.
Triana
Aliastra
#2 - 2012-01-29 09:19:02 UTC
Accountabilty doesnt exist in EvE.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-01-29 09:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Triana wrote:
Accountabilty doesnt exist in EvE.


Appreciation to probably what is a valid interpretation but the CSM council does have a duty to fully communicate its deliberations with the community:

From the CSM constitutional paper:

"CSM Comm unication with Voters Council Representatives will communicate with the voting community through the topic forums mentioned above, but also with individuals as necessary through any means they agree upon. Although private communications between Representatives and voters can be kept confidential, transcripts of all CSM meetings are considered public property and are to be made public."

( http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf )
ISD Eshtir
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#4 - 2012-01-29 09:54:09 UTC
Off topic posts removed. Stay on topic please.

ISD Eshtir

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons

Interstellar Services Department

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-01-29 10:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
The demands of accountability, made by a one day old anonymous forum alt, is hilarious in its hypocrisy. A counter-proposal I made to remedy such situations that degrade dialog within Jita Park Speakers Center: 'ban npc forum alts from csm forums'

Edit: Forum moderation discussion part removed, CCP Phantom
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#6 - 2012-01-29 11:12:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
The demands of accountability, made by a one day old anonymous forum alt, is hilarious in its hypocrisy. A counter-proposal I made to remedy such situations that degrade dialog within Jita Park Speakers Center: 'ban npc forum alts from csm forums'

Edit: Forum moderation discussion part removed, CCP Phantom


If a person can post on this forum, then they have shown sufficient evidence to hold a valid account.

The constitution then affords for people to make contributions, it does not stipulate anything concerning the use of alternative characters:

( http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf )

"In the spirit of encouraging as much debate and discussion as possible, any voter may present any topic at any time in this forum, and there is no limit to the number of topics they can introduce—as long as they are genuine, relevant, and well articulated. In addition, they may participate in as many existing topics opened by fellow voters as they please. The burden of demonstrating the legitimacy or urgency of the issue rests with the voters themselves. A good idea will generate momentum all on its own, and it is the task of the CSM to not only track these discussions, but to engage the populace as much as possible in the interest of sustaining that momentum until the issue is brought to closure."

"Voter Eligibility

Anyone who has held an EVE Online account for a full thirty (30) days, and said account is active, is eligible to vote. Only one vote per account—not per character—is permitted. The thirty-day account exclusion rule is to limit undue metagaming influence in the election, and is in line with the precepts of a modern democracy that imposes a minimum age for voting privileges. The only exclusion rule for voting is CCP employee accounts, which are ineligible. Affiliates, volunteers, partners, and interns are permitted to vote."


If you can prove my account is invalid to vote then I will ask for the post to be censored accordingly myself, otherwise please refrain from spamming with unconfirmed opinionated beleifs. Happy for a CCP moderator to access my details as applicable purely for the legitamate purposes of confirming the validity as a voter, if it helps.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-01-29 13:28:17 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
My request is simple in that viewpoints of significance reflected in the minutes can be made attributable to the party/parties making them to better inform the community. Most significant for considering election options which I think is a valid consideration you should afford to EvE players.

As the editor of the minutes, I can address your question.

The main reason we don't individually attribute statements is a practical one; it would take a huge amount of extra time, and would delay the release of the minutes. Also, the AV recording of the meeting is a single camera with a built-in mic, and it's often hard to tell who is making a fool of thems... er, expressing their well-considered opinions.

Many of the more communicative members of the CSM, such as Meissa, Seleene and myself, have publically posted their personal positions on a variety of items in the minutes.

You should, of course, assume that any CSM who does not do so is violently opposed to your own personal position, whatever it might be. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-01-29 13:33:22 UTC
Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.

Your argument does not remove the possibility of accurate minute keeping. (The beer might of course Blink )

However can I suggest that since this is a stipulated requirement of the CCP rulings then perhaps ask CCP to provide an appropriate minute taker for use?
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#9 - 2012-01-29 14:13:20 UTC
I addressed this exact issue, and my stance on most of the larger points in the minutes here:

The Dec Summit Minutes and "The CSM"


Discussion thread here.


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!

Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#10 - 2012-01-29 14:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
I have to agree Selene, the idea of CCP stipulating "public" ownership but then not making the details "public" actually seems a tad contradictory and doesn't afford accountability to the average player imho.

However, I do respect the intention of why they are protecting the anonyimity of the council members in principal, but does throw some doubt into the credibility of CCP's own desire with transparency at the same time. I can see the pros and cons for both sides. At least I suppose we can tell from individual accounts elsewhere who in fact favours an open relationship with the players.

Interesting that it isn't just an administration competency as your colleague identified. And whilst it might seem harsh for a computer game, it does give some indication to the level of determination afforded to the issue/role perhaps?

If not too overbearing could CCP be approached to reconsider their stance on this, as I'd still prefer accurate reflective minutes, and at the end of the day, if they say no, they say no.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-01-29 16:53:10 UTC
Triana wrote:
Accountabilty doesnt exist in EvE.


Not empty quoting.
Di Mulle
#12 - 2012-01-29 20:35:39 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.



I love when people pull statements like that out of their opposite end. Ownership, I guess, is that of CCP. CCP may make it public, if they'd wish to, but will probably not - NDA and stuff.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#13 - 2012-01-29 21:38:22 UTC
Di Mulle wrote:
CCP may make it public, if they'd wish to, but will probably not - NDA and stuff.

That does make sense. So they are only public to the extent that they do not come under the NDA. Now if only the NDA were expanded to simply cover everything - or maybe it already covers everything by default, and specific items have to be declassified.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-01-29 21:39:14 UTC
Di Mulle wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.



I love when people pull statements like that out of their opposite end. Ownership, I guess, is that of CCP. CCP may make it public, if they'd wish to, but will probably not - NDA and stuff.


Very, very true. this is a game owned by CCP and the CSM exists at its whim. They could, and probably should, pull the plug whenever they feel fit to do so. The CSM idea was good but it has no honest brokers. The actual roll of the CSM is either unclear or at least not binding to any party and therefore ineffective. The CSM is a focus group for whatever they feel like focusing on. They are not under any obligation to improve anything for anyone and it seems they, as a group, are running with that. Since CCP is not familiar with their product, they probably have to take what the CSM puts out as fact. I would be grreatly suprised if they ever fact checked what they were told. These days its almost exclusively null sec alliance buffs and a PvP-only EVE. the rest of the game gets a nerf or, if they're lucky, ignored. Since the voting system is what it is, we can expect it to stay the same for as long as the CSM concept lasts or null sec gets bored with it.

Since they can say anything and there is nothing available to disprove it, then there is no accountability. That's where we are now. Who knows what gets said or done. frankly, who cares anymore. People shouldn't expect the game to be any better than the lives they really live in.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-01-29 22:06:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Di Mulle wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.



I love when people pull statements like that out of their opposite end. Ownership, I guess, is that of CCP. CCP may make it public, if they'd wish to, but will probably not - NDA and stuff.


Well this is a magic bunny out of the hat, if you made a point of following the thread:

From the CSM constitutional paper:

"CSM Comm unication with Voters Council Representatives will communicate with the voting community through the topic forums mentioned above, but also with individuals as necessary through any means they agree upon. Although private communications between Representatives and voters can be kept confidential, transcripts of all CSM meetings are considered public property and are to be made public."

( http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf )

Clearly states that the transcripts are considered public property by CCP, not owned by the CSM. And whilst I understand that NDA material cannot be disclosed in the interests of EvE, for the materials that have details where opinions have been stated it would be useful to see who has raised it, for reasons I stated earlier.

If not there is very little accountability other than the whole CSM council collectively and therefore pretty pointless pointing it out as a radical or an indifferent view at the meeting if unidentified, as you can't really use it to qualify anything. How does an electorate form an informed opinion on and how attributable it is to wether certain candidates are in fact tied to their interests as a result. The only other format is from personal blogs for which they have full editorial control.

Admittedly it may be the duty for certain individuals to raise devils advocate points as they view it for the interest of complete debate, but it doesn'st stop them from stating where particular finalised stances of note are apparent.



I fully expect CCP to decline my request, however this post in itself has certainly opened my eyes to certain attitudes as to how CCP and the CSM currently view this responsibility to the community, so it already has been personally invaluable.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-01-30 00:32:19 UTC
realistically, even if notes of who-said-what were releasedyou still wouldn't know if anything released was actually said. The idea of accountability is well out of the question.

CCP doesn't have to release anything. CSM can say whatever they want since they aren't held to even working on the game if they so choose. Does the CSM serve it's own interests? Absolutely. Does it serve the player base? Depends. If you live in null in a big alliance, yes. If you don't, then no. They are not obligated to so much as return a phone call or emaikl from CCP so why should any of them so much as look for good ideas for anything other than what they want to do? Nobody owes the players anything, no matter what game you play.

This also means that the CSM is ultimately just a PR stund that they would have a tough time backing out of. They made a big deal out of it and the game media agreed it was a good thing. They can do what they like, but that looks bad. They can't disband it easily without a publicity problem, but they can pretend to listen to the peasants every now and then.

Like I said earlier, CCP isn't very familiar with how their product is used so its always going to be a crap shoot about what they want to use to seem like they care what the masses think.

The bulk of everything going on these days was in the forums for years. The current list of ideas from the notes are what null sec NAP fest want. The rest of EVE is in a real fix becauseanything left over has either the appearance of shooting from the hip or even malicious destruction. Whatever.

The point is, who cares? Your interests or mine are not the interests of CCP or the CSM. They serve themselves, and why not? I would love to see it be different but that would not be in line with how this "community" works. EVE is not a very good game and it isn't getting better. No time soon anyway.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-01-30 13:42:20 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.

Hey, if CCP wants to spring for multiple cameras, mics for every participant, and lots of transcribers, sure, we could document every word.

But the practical reality is that even doing the Minutes at the current level is easily >150 hours per summit, and most of that gets done by a relatively small number of people. I personally spent >40 hours working on the Winter minutes.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#18 - 2012-01-30 13:55:12 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.

Hey, if CCP wants to spring for multiple cameras, mics for every participant, and lots of transcribers, sure, we could document every word.

But the practical reality is that even doing the Minutes at the current level is easily >150 hours per summit, and most of that gets done by a relatively small number of people. I personally spent >40 hours working on the Winter minutes.



So replacing "someone" with a "name" is really going to expand the document writing so much?

I would hope you have a least some affinity with the other council members to do this? You do seem to use the term friendly teamwork alot, which kind of makes me beleive recognition is feasible.

If your heard it to write it, I doubt it's that bad you can't identify the speaker, if so then yes you definatley need to improve your technology. I personally wouldn't see this as being a majorly expensive investment. I'm sure CCP might even be able to loan you some of these assests for these purposes, I'd hope so anyhow.

And like I said, CCP stipulates the ruling, I don't see why approching them for the resources to carry it out effectively is so unreasonable as I suggested above.

Technical obstacles doesn't seem a valid argument to me. Especially if you haven't even tried to improve them yet.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-01-30 19:23:41 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Considering that the ownership of the records is in fact public and not the CSM council, can I ask that you attempt to improve the record keeping.

Hey, if CCP wants to spring for multiple cameras, mics for every participant, and lots of transcribers, sure, we could document every word.

But the practical reality is that even doing the Minutes at the current level is easily >150 hours per summit, and most of that gets done by a relatively small number of people. I personally spent >40 hours working on the Winter minutes.



Nobody is disputing that. I think its silly to expect anything but meta-gaming from all this actually. That's part of the reason I don't think it needs to exist. The only positive thing I can say about the Chairman is that he's honest when he says he's only serving his own interests (he calls it his constituants or whatever). That's really a process nobody needs.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-01-30 23:34:51 UTC
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
So replacing "someone" with a "name" is really going to expand the document writing so much?

As I have explained several times, it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to figure out who is talking. The camera is on the conference table, and it's pointed at the end where the devs sit. Only one or two CSM's are visible in the video.

Even if we had proper coverage (at a minimum 2 cameras in opposite corners of the room; I've explained to CCP what would be needed, and I've done multicamera taping and editing in RL), it would still take a fair amount of extra time. And remember guys, we are volunteers, in many cases burning vacation days to go to Iceland plus evenings/weekends to prep the minutes.

Several CSMs -- myself included -- have already taken the time to clarify details upon specific request. If that is not good enough for you, I'm sorry, but we have to strike a balance.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

123Next pageLast page