These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 - Do you think? (... continued)

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenshae Chiroptera
#221 - 2011-09-27 07:46:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Steph Wing wrote:
Am I correct in understanding, then, that you'd propose disallowing members of large alliances from running?

What's the cutoff point for a small alliance?


Personally, I don't think I would have noticed or taken issue with this if Goons had just one member on the CSM if that member wasn't the chairman, including that the person in turn wasn't the director of their alliance and if other aspects of the game were equally represented.

As it stands, how can people not view the CSM with scepticism?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#222 - 2011-09-27 12:32:38 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Steph Wing wrote:
Am I correct in understanding, then, that you'd propose disallowing members of large alliances from running?

What's the cutoff point for a small alliance?


Personally, I don't think I would have noticed or taken issue with this if Goons had just one member on the CSM if that member wasn't the chairman, including that the person in turn wasn't the director of their alliance and if other aspects of the game were equally represented.

As it stands, how can people not view the CSM with scepticism?


it was all done by the rules - unsubbed accounts were resubbed via hours for plex, multiboxers voted with several accounts, single-account dudes voted with their accounts, and the drooling morons like windypops lost to an organized null-sec voting bloc.

basically cry all you want, in the end, CCP cares more about their customers who run numerous accounts and invest far more money and time into their game than the drooling idiots who burn out after 8 months of running highsec missions or mining trying to achieve an unattainable goal.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Jenshae Chiroptera
#223 - 2011-09-27 13:21:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Andski wrote:

it was all done by the rules - unsubbed accounts were resubbed via hours for plex, multiboxers voted with several accounts, single-account dudes voted with their accounts, and the drooling morons like windypops lost to an organized null-sec voting bloc.

basically cry all you want, in the end, CCP cares more about their customers who run numerous accounts and invest far more money and time into their game than the drooling idiots who burn out after 8 months of running highsec missions or mining trying to achieve an unattainable goal.


The same drooling masses which probably out number null sec accounts and make up the majority of money paid to CCP?
The same drooling masses that are new enough to pay for the game with actual money?
The same drooling masses which is where you null sec pilots originate from?

Yeah. Great post! Big smile

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#224 - 2011-09-27 13:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
I am starting to like this Jenshae Chiroptera guy Big smile




Andski, always good to see goons like you remembering where you came from!
Keep up the good work and thx for the drooling masses of completely bias CSM's that we are stuck with!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2011-09-27 15:19:36 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
As it stands, how can people not view the CSM with scepticism?

You should always view your elected representatives with scepticism. Fortunately, Mittens makes this easy! Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#226 - 2011-09-27 18:32:39 UTC
Every person running for the CSM has an agenda. Hopefully most of them had agendas beyond a trip to Iceland. Just like in real life, we have the ability to vote. Many of us just choose not to.

There are lobbyists, Superpacs, unions, etc all with the ability to sway decision making. Most of the time these people are not working towards the common good, just their good. Now here, CCP does not have to listen to what the CSM tells them, but flat out ignoring them is very foolish.

And disallowing someone from running because they belong to a certain group.... Plain wrong.

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#227 - 2011-09-27 18:46:17 UTC
Lady Zarrina wrote:
Every person running for the CSM has an agenda. Hopefully most of them had agendas beyond a trip to Iceland. Just like in real life, we have the ability to vote. Many of us just choose not to.

There are lobbyists, Superpacs, unions, etc all with the ability to sway decision making. Most of the time these people are not working towards the common good, just their good.


Anyone that looks at my alliance tag and assumes that means a damn thing about my opinions or why I ran for CSM doesn't know me at all and is welcome to read back on my blog to when I was running to find out more.

I ran for CSM on a very simple platform - Iterations. I want CCP to finish features they never completed and enhance the ones that currently exist. I've been playing since early 2003 & I worked at CCP as a Game Designer for over three years. Any views I had about one play style over another were pretty much washed away when you are forced as part of your job to consider things from every angle. I don't really have a 'personal agenda'. No, seriously, I have my opinions about EVE and what I like to do in it, but I'm not beholden to any one style of game play or out to wreck someone's day.

As for the other CSM members, they can speak for themselves. What I will say is that everyone on this CSM, even Mittens, has stepped and spoken up on issues outside of their perceived little box. At the end of the day, we play the game too and want it to get better.

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!
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#228 - 2011-09-27 19:51:47 UTC
Seleene, how about dem Wh minerals?

How did it come up?
Do you feel like it is an issue?
Are there large mining ops in WH's that are hauling them into empire and hurting the economic ballance?
Does a null sec industry "re-ballancing" require such a thing in order to work?



Do you care to comment at all on this subject or pretend like it never existed?
Current or not, on the table no or not... it was discussed. Why don't one of you CSM's want to comment on this subject?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Jita Alt666
#229 - 2011-09-27 20:00:33 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Basileus Volkan wrote:
Smaller groups being less represented in a democratic system? What madness is this?


I guess you don't remember middle school then do you?
I mean, Texas is so big it out votes all the rest of the states in the US by itself!!!!


The USA is not a Democratic System. Its a Republican System.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#230 - 2011-09-27 20:02:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Actually...edited for content.

& still poking the CSM's

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#231 - 2011-09-27 20:52:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Steph Wing
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Steph Wing wrote:
Am I correct in understanding, then, that you'd propose disallowing members of large alliances from running?

What's the cutoff point for a small alliance?


Personally, I don't think I would have noticed or taken issue with this if Goons had just one member on the CSM if that member wasn't the chairman, including that the person in turn wasn't the director of their alliance and if other aspects of the game were equally represented.

As it stands, how can people not view the CSM with scepticism?


That doesn't answer my question. I'll repeat it again so you can take another stab at it:

Do you propose disallowing members of all large alliances from running for CSM, or from being the CSM chair? If so, what is the cutoff point between a large and a small alliance?
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#232 - 2011-09-27 20:56:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Steph Wing... does the below sound good to you?


Quote:
it was all done by the rules - unsubbed accounts were resubbed via hours for plex, multiboxers voted with several accounts, single-account dudes voted with their accounts



Sounds like **** to me how about you?
Just about anything would be better, ya?


In a perfect world "Your ISP is only allowed one Vote"
Or... "Your account details (credit card account) is only allowed one vote"

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#233 - 2011-09-27 21:02:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Steph Wing
While I don't doubt the veracity of that claim, it also does not answer my question.

To recap: My question has to do with eliminating "conflicts of interest" in CSM candidates, not curbing the impressive list of ways people can inflate their votes.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#234 - 2011-09-27 21:03:08 UTC
U missed my edit, look again.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#235 - 2011-09-27 21:04:34 UTC
You also missed my edit, look again.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#236 - 2011-09-27 21:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
You cannot get rid of conflicts of interest, but if the largest alliances can't inflate (and thus manipulate) the vote it helps out allot.

I have 3 accounts, I should be allowed 1 vote.
I should not be allowed to inflate a vote 3 fold over people who only have 1 account (the obviousness is obvious) to do so greatly increases the likelihood of manipulation and thus, conflicts of interest.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#237 - 2011-09-27 21:10:49 UTC
Let me set the record straight here:

I agree. Inflating votes with resubbing and trial accounts and alts ect is horse manure. One player = one vote. How to enforce that is a logistical concern, but I agree in principle.

Now: Go back and check the first post of this thread. Look at the bit where the OP talks about conflicts of interest.

That is the discussion I am trying to have.
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#238 - 2011-09-27 21:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Where as I am trying to have a conversation with CSM Seleene about how the "WH mineral thing" came into existence.
And although he has read my post many many time on this matter, he continually ignores the question.



How do we get CSM's to be candid and open about the ideas that they present? I have no idea... How do we get people to screen through all the crap ideas like "make null sec accessible only through wormholes" and good old time tested ideas like "Fix POS's for god's sake!"


There is no simple answer... say this.
We need smart people who are actually playing the game make some decisions.


Everyone has an agenda, it doesn't matter who you are (the CSM's who were voted Via alliance vote inflation especially) IMO, CCP should never have made a CSM, they should have made a special public relations team who's sole purpose was to assess what "Fixes" and "additions" were most desirable by the general community and then ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#239 - 2011-09-27 21:23:27 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Basileus Volkan wrote:
Smaller groups being less represented in a democratic system? What madness is this?


I guess you don't remember middle school then do you?
I mean, Texas is so big it out votes all the rest of the states in the US by itself!!!!


You're aware that Texas isn't the most populous state? (And by a considerable margin)

(Hint: acres don't vote)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population


(I realise that you're averse to using actual facts and metrics in your arguments, so I apologise for introducing them here)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#240 - 2011-09-27 21:25:43 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Where as I am trying to have a conversation with CSM Seleene about how the "WH mineral thing" came into existence.
And although he has read my post many many time on this matter, he continually ignores the question.


I'm not ignoring it; there's simply nothing at all to say on it right now. It's been months since the initial questions / discussions happened and there has been no movement on it afaik. It's still sitting there untouched. I've seen nothing that tells me any such nerf / adjustment is actually going to happen or when.

Quote:
How do we get CSM's to be candid and open about the ideas that they present?


Ask? Read up on them and learn about their history in EVE so you can better gauge whether or not they are bullshtting you?

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
How do we get people to screen through all the crap ideas like "make null sec accessible only through wormholes"


WTF? Yeah, that's horrible.

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
and good old time tested ideas like "Fix POS's for god's sake!"


You don't have to because pretty much every CSM has said that, including this one.

Eternum Praetorian wrote:
We need smart people who are actually playing the game make some decisions.


Is there anyone on the current CSM that meets that criteria in your eyes? :)

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!