These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The CSM Internal vote for chairman WHAT A JOKE

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#41 - 2012-04-05 21:35:40 UTC
The fact that a vote takes place after the initial "f*ck up" if the first chairman gives the CSM a CHOICE on who should be up next.

This is a good thing in case the chair was so terribly awful that he stood up in front of the whole world and proclaimed what an ******* he is. Oh wait...

In this case it allows them to guarantee that a 2nd chair won't be just the same sort of bullshit.

It's like voting in Barak Obama after having George W Bush... Perception is everything, amirite ?

.
Dry Martinis
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-04-05 21:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dry Martinis
Cosmic Fart wrote:
quote=Dry Martinis]I don't care for goons, but it sickens me to see 10k ignored. Especially when that 10k is most of CCP's business. You guys can hit the goons with at the sarcastic and "moar tears" comments that you like, but they keep eve interesting and keep stuff going. If they all left today eve would not be half as engaging .....



/stuff [/quote]


I was being a bit too general and I apologize.  I don't associate pirates with goons at all.  I do however associates griefers and scammers with them as they do fit that mold a bit.  Of course all pirates and goons don't go hand and hand.  But my comment was about the bigger picture and what is looking to be the future of eve. 

Take your comment for example about banning anyone who participates in the burn jita campaign.  That is not the future of eve that I want and I hope that you are not considering yourself a pirate with that kind of mindset.  Eve is tough, it is a living breathing world with content that is created by the players.  Most of us don't give a crap about the eve lore.  (Though some do) But I bet a good amount of us read about the BOB wars and the wars of the old south.  This is player generated content.  Goons burning Jita is player generated content.  CVA turning provi into their own version of camelot is generated contect. Even the forming of the CSM.  This is what makes eve grand. 


We are all apart of the "story" of eve.  So anytime CCP butts in and takes us out of that story and removes our choice, then it pisses people off and rightfully so. I'm a roleplayer by no means btw.  CCP's storytelling and content doesn't make eve sucessful.  Looking at mining/missions and incursions for example.  They are all boring.  The players make it sucessful.  If I want a deep story from a developer, then there are much better games on the market.  I want to do what I want in this sandbox. 
 
Back on topic. Sure Mittens did something wrong. Make him step down.  Hold a re-vote and do not allow him to participate.  Let the 10k voters pick who they want.  You may think its silly, but in a game that usually garners 30-40k ppl max, 10k is a pretty big bloc.  You don't give that 10k their voting rights, then I shudder to see the hell they unleash next year coming voting season. 
To add insult to injury you take someone who barely made the CSM as it is and let them be voted to Chairman.  Chairman holds no special power, but it would of been far less of an outcry if they gave it to the 2nd highest candidate. 
TL:DR
10,000 is a lot of people and they should be able to choose the person they want.  Re-vote.

CAPS LOCK: CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
Cosmic Fart
Doomheim
#43 - 2012-04-05 23:03:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Cosmic Fart
You said:

Take your comment for example about banning anyone who participates in the burn jita campaign. That is not the future of eve that I want and I hope that you are not considering yourself a pirate with that kind of mindset.


and I say if the "Burn Jita" campaign is in response to what happened to Mittens then I say "YES" ban anyone who participates as it could be interperted as a support for violating EULA/TOS.

There is no need for a re-vote as the votes were cast for Mittani and he would have been on the CSM7 if it weren't for his violating EULA/TOS. Contrary to popular opinion there is such a thing as accountability for those who violate rules regardless of tenure or position.

I fully support CCP's action and thank them for doing what might cost them a few accounts. So in return I renewed two of my accounts the other night when I read what happened. (have been away on vacation for a couple weeks.) I will probably open two more NEW accounts in support.

CCP's not ignoring the votes. The votes were thrown out in the wash because of the actions of one person, Mittani, no one else. CCP simply enforced EULA/TOS and the one deserving the bad karma finally got it. Wish more people would get the karma they so deserve in game and real life.

EVE is a harsh world, no doubt. But just because it's a sandbox game built around the brutality of living in space doesn't give anyone a right to be an complete arse to people in real life. We've seen too much of it and people are tired of it.

Play your game, but lines are drawn when it comes to RL attacks. I commend CCP for taking appropriate action even though they know it might effect their bottom line to some degree.
GOON TEARS BEST-TEARS
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#44 - 2012-04-05 23:36:26 UTC
Cosmic Fart wrote:
You said:

Take your comment for example about banning anyone who participates in the burn jita campaign. That is not the future of eve that I want and I hope that you are not considering yourself a pirate with that kind of mindset.


and I say if the "Burn Jita" campaign is in response to what happened to Mittens then I say "YES" ban anyone who participates as it could be interperted as a support for violating EULA/TOS.

There is no need for a re-vote as the votes were cast for Mittani and he would have been on the CSM7 if it weren't for his violating EULA/TOS. Contrary to popular opinion there is such a thing as accountability for those who violate rules regardless of tenure or position.

I fully support CCP's action and thank them for doing what might cost them a few accounts. So in return I renewed two of my accounts the other night when I read what happened. (have been away on vacation for a couple weeks.) I will probably open two more NEW accounts in support.

CCP's not ignoring the votes. The votes were thrown out in the wash because of the actions of one person, Mittani, no one else. CCP simply enforced EULA/TOS and the one deserving the bad karma finally got it. Wish more people would get the karma they so deserve in game and real life.

EVE is a harsh world, no doubt. But just because it's a sandbox game built around the brutality of living in space doesn't give anyone a right to be an complete arse to people in real life. We've seen too much of it and people are tired of it.

Play your game, but lines are drawn when it comes to RL attacks. I commend CCP for taking appropriate action even though they know it might effect their bottom line to some degree.


I dont think i could have put it better myself.

Also i just wanna thumbs up Sir patrick moore.. your avatar is just too awesome
Dry Martinis
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-04-06 01:01:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dry Martinis
Cosmic Fart wrote:
You said:

Take your comment for example about banning anyone who participates in the burn jita campaign. That is not the future of eve that I want and I hope that you are not considering yourself a pirate with that kind of mindset.


and I say if the "Burn Jita" campaign is in response to what happened to Mittens then I say "YES" ban anyone who participates as it could be interperted as a support for violating EULA/TOS.

There is no need for a re-vote as the votes were cast for Mittani and he would have been on the CSM7 if it weren't for his violating EULA/TOS. Contrary to popular opinion there is such a thing as accountability for those who violate rules regardless of tenure or position.

I fully support CCP's action and thank them for doing what might cost them a few accounts. So in return I renewed two of my accounts the other night when I read what happened. (have been away on vacation for a couple weeks.) I will probably open two more NEW accounts in support.

CCP's not ignoring the votes. The votes were thrown out in the wash because of the actions of one person, Mittani, no one else. CCP simply enforced EULA/TOS and the one deserving the bad karma finally got it. Wish more people would get the karma they so deserve in game and real life.

EVE is a harsh world, no doubt. But just because it's a sandbox game built around the brutality of living in space doesn't give anyone a right to be an complete arse to people in real life. We've seen too much of it and people are tired of it.

Play your game, but lines are drawn when it comes to RL attacks. I commend CCP for taking appropriate action even though they know it might effect their bottom line to some degree.




I agree he should of been removed but should of been a revote. Also if you are suicidal then get help don't cry in a videogame. Eve, hell, the Internet is a mean place. I don't trash talk and I've been trash talked. It's online, it's a videogame. Grow a pair man up, and learn to deal with jerk offs online. Disney has a game called toon town that may better fit your self esteem. I don't see what real life has to do with it besides what mittani did. I don't care what anyone says outside of eve cuz eve is Internet spaceships and real life normally shouldn't mix with it. Lol, you think what mittani said was bad? Try being on snigg comms with pl...

Anyhow, I'm not gonna go back and forth over it and I respect your opinion. Tho it seems my comments were solely directed at you, I just mean in general, just a pain to explain via phone. o/ mate

CAPS LOCK: CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
Nymph Purchasing
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-04-06 01:20:03 UTC
While I think this was a reasonable way to apply rules to a situation that no rule quite fits I think everyone having this debate is missing one very important point.

We are playing in CCP's sandbox. CSM exists at their discretion. We have no divind right to such direct player represntation at CCP. It might be best to accept the *generous* gift they give us and accept that CCP makes the rules, makes it exist, and can make it cease to exist.
Dry Martinis
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-04-06 01:25:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Dry Martinis
Nymph Purchasing wrote:
While I think this was a reasonable way to apply rules to a situation that no rule quite fits I think everyone having this debate is missing one very important point.

We are playing in CCP's sandbox. CSM exists at their discretion. We have no divind right to such direct player represntation at CCP. It might be best to accept the *generous* gift they give us and accept that CCP makes the rules, makes it exist, and can make it cease to exist.


That's cool an all but we pay the electric bill. We pay for servers to be hosted and when you have a game with 40k players tops, then you better realize it and not **** off 10k of them. Ccp exists at our discretion, don't forget it. When they have blizzards amount of subs, then they can give bad service

CAPS LOCK: CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
Nymph Purchasing
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-04-06 01:30:29 UTC
Dry Martinis wrote:
Nymph Purchasing wrote:
While I think this was a reasonable way to apply rules to a situation that no rule quite fits I think everyone having this debate is missing one very important point.

We are playing in CCP's sandbox. CSM exists at their discretion. We have no divind right to such direct player represntation at CCP. It might be best to accept the *generous* gift they give us and accept that CCP makes the rules, makes it exist, and can make it cease to exist.


That's cool an all but we pay the electric bill. We pay for servers to be hosted and when you have a game with 40k players tops, then you better realize it and not **** off 10k of them. Ccp exists at our discretion, don't forget it


40K at one time. 300k+ total.

The same could be said for any company that produces anything. Most companies do not have so formal an organization as CSM. This includes companies with both much larger and much smaller customer bases.
Frying Doom
#49 - 2012-04-06 02:02:06 UTC
Dry Martinis wrote:
Nymph Purchasing wrote:
While I think this was a reasonable way to apply rules to a situation that no rule quite fits I think everyone having this debate is missing one very important point.

We are playing in CCP's sandbox. CSM exists at their discretion. We have no divind right to such direct player represntation at CCP. It might be best to accept the *generous* gift they give us and accept that CCP makes the rules, makes it exist, and can make it cease to exist.


That's cool an all but we pay the electric bill. We pay for servers to be hosted and when you have a game with 40k players tops, then you better realize it and not **** off 10k of them. Ccp exists at our discretion, don't forget it. When they have blizzards amount of subs, then they can give bad service

Show me a company that doesn't **** off 3% of its customers or more, called a telephone company lately?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
None ofthe Above
#50 - 2012-04-06 02:38:20 UTC
Banderlei Shiiba wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
Jeebus,

You guys can't stop yourself can you?

The white paper called for "If the Chairman decides to step down or rescind his responsibility at any time for any reason, a vote must be held among Representatives to elect another Chairman – should the Chairman voluntarily step down as one he is still eligible for the position during the vote for a new Chairman."

I note the "rescind", Mittani decided not to accept the chair, so rescinded his responsibility.

He was banned and ineligible to sit afterwards..


His ban made him ineligible to sit, meaning he couldn't rescind a title he never officially held, as this all went down before CSM 7 had officially started, and CSM 6 was still active. If you don't agree with that interpretation, that's fine (hopefully you'd at least agree that clarification is required for the future), but to keep quoting that Whitepaper excerpt when it's been explained pretty clearly why that doesn't work is just kind of stupid fyi.


I grant you that this doesn't exactly seem to have been a corner case they explicitly covered, but again this is the only mechanism they list for dealing with what happens when the guy voted chair isn't going to be in that position. Doing it any other way would have been "making up the rules as they went along".

I thought Two Step would have had the edge and would have made a fine chairman, but I have a lot of respect for Selene as well. Selene has that wider view which probably led to him winning out. I hope Two Step doesn't feel slighted, I heard he wasn't sure he wanted it.

So anyway, I am happy to abide by the vote both in principle and in practice.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Olivia Veminok
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-04-06 05:25:04 UTC
Vile rat wrote:
Aradus Gunnell wrote:
http://community.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf


The White Paper seems pretty clear to me on how this all goes down; where exactly did CCP change the voting schemata? Page 16 of the CSM governing document clearly states that if the Chairman is in any way removed (voluntarily or involuntarily) from his/her seat, the CSM members hold an internal election for the Chair.

This was in place long before the current debacle, no?


Not trolling, I'm asking honestly: at what point did the document change from something else to its current iteration? Where were changes made along the line?




Mittani stepped down from CSM 6 and was ineligible to sit in CSM 7. The chair never existed and the highest vote total of the eligible candidates was Two step.


You can still be elected without holding office. The Mittani was elected to CSM 7 and won the chair by a landslide. It is my interpretation that after the election was finished, and although the next term had not yet started, he was banned and as per the white paper removed from CSM 7. After that it falls to the proviso that the CSM then has to elect a CSM chairman since the chair was removed.

Interestingly enough, if he was banned at the time of the presentation (which afiak was before the election was finished), everything would change.
Dry Martinis
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-04-06 06:06:25 UTC
Nymph Purchasing wrote:
Dry Martinis wrote:
Nymph Purchasing wrote:
While I think this was a reasonable way to apply rules to a situation that no rule quite fits I think everyone having this debate is missing one very important point.

We are playing in CCP's sandbox. CSM exists at their discretion. We have no divind right to such direct player represntation at CCP. It might be best to accept the *generous* gift they give us and accept that CCP makes the rules, makes it exist, and can make it cease to exist.


That's cool an all but we pay the electric bill. We pay for servers to be hosted and when you have a game with 40k players tops, then you better realize it and not **** off 10k of them. Ccp exists at our discretion, don't forget it


40K at one time. 300k+ total.

The same could be said for any company that produces anything. Most companies do not have so formal an organization as CSM. This includes companies with both much larger and much smaller customer bases.



Yea, and how many of total are active subs. The activity number never really reaches a new peak at any points. I'd say 50-60k active max. It's whatever at this point though. Cheers.

CAPS LOCK: CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#53 - 2012-04-06 06:51:28 UTC
Vile rat wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Vile rat wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:


if you take a look outside your alliance chat you'll see that pretty much everybody else IS laughing Big smile


Ok?


tell you what, have a sympathy space like and I'll stop taking the mickey for a bit.


What does this even mean?

I swear the english invented the language then forgot how to use it.


Lol at the American goonie not getting the most basic aspects of British humour...Which only makes it funnier, 'natch.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
VCBee 180
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-04-06 14:58:00 UTC
Perhaps you should show a bit more respect to the country that won WW2 for you. You're welcome.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-04-06 15:31:15 UTC
I literally don't see anything wrong with Seleene as chairman

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#56 - 2012-04-06 15:40:56 UTC
VCBee 180 wrote:
Perhaps you should show a bit more respect to the country that won WW2 for you. You're welcome.


Yeah I for one feel like the good guys won Shocked

The pics from Abu Graib alone are worth it.

.
Josef Djugashvilis
#57 - 2012-04-06 16:44:51 UTC
VCBee 180 wrote:
Perhaps you should show a bit more respect to the country that won WW2 for you. You're welcome.



How did Soviet Russia get into this ?

Many would argue that they won the war for the 'West'

This is not a signature.
Banderlei Shiiba
SSAP KG
#58 - 2012-04-07 18:37:29 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
I thought Two Step would have had the edge and would have made a fine chairman, but I have a lot of respect for Selene as well. Selene has that wider view which probably led to him winning out. I hope Two Step doesn't feel slighted, I heard he wasn't sure he wanted it.

So anyway, I am happy to abide by the vote both in principle and in practice.


One of the reasons I was reluctant to say anything at all was precisely because it could easily come off as sour grapes as to who got the chair, when in reality I was pretty fine with it being whoever (and I fully agree that Seleene is a very good choice - if anything because he had near unanimous votes from the other council members). Really though, I was just curious to see if the interpretation of the White Paper was due to any kind of politicking from another member (or members), or if it was just CCP saying "hey, new situation, you guys just do X".
None ofthe Above
#59 - 2012-04-07 19:08:07 UTC
Banderlei Shiiba wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
I thought Two Step would have had the edge and would have made a fine chairman, but I have a lot of respect for Selene as well. Selene has that wider view which probably led to him winning out. I hope Two Step doesn't feel slighted, I heard he wasn't sure he wanted it.

So anyway, I am happy to abide by the vote both in principle and in practice.


One of the reasons I was reluctant to say anything at all was precisely because it could easily come off as sour grapes as to who got the chair, when in reality I was pretty fine with it being whoever (and I fully agree that Seleene is a very good choice - if anything because he had near unanimous votes from the other council members). Really though, I was just curious to see if the interpretation of the White Paper was due to any kind of politicking from another member (or members), or if it was just CCP saying "hey, new situation, you guys just do X".


Fair enough.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#60 - 2012-04-08 20:18:26 UTC
VCBee 180 wrote:
Perhaps you should show a bit more respect to the country that won WW2 for you. You're welcome.


No, I shouldn't.

Perhaps you should go **** yourself?

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.