These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#61 - 2013-02-23 00:43:18 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I know all about the alumni channel. Most of the ex-CSM hang around the process as much as they can, because they're addicted to the process. There's little chance you wouldn't find a "retired" CSM who wouldn't want to give his two cents again.


Apparently not. There isn't any CSM work being done in the alumni channel, its entirely social. We sit around and shoot the **** and continue with **** jokes, but business is business and kept to the current CCP / CSM Skype channel only for the most part. Prometheus Exenthal and I grumble back and forth to each other about shotguns and scout suits, but since there aren't any Dust developers in the alumni channel, it doesn't exactly count as backseat CSM-ing. The previous CSM's have been quiet all year except when consulted from time to time, and seemed to enjoy their retirement. I'm fairly certain I can speak for all of us in saying our plan is to do pretty much exactly the same thing, Trebor being the exception of course.

TL, DR: The alumni channel is not for official business or cross-CSM consultation, its purely social and will in no way substitute for having Trebor on the sitting CSM, and under current NDA with all the other CSM8 members.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2013-02-23 04:03:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I know all about the alumni channel. Most of the ex-CSM hang around the process as much as they can, because they're addicted to the process. There's little chance you wouldn't find a "retired" CSM who wouldn't want to give his two cents again.
The previous CSM's have been quiet all year except when consulted from time to time.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew: that the CSM alumni channel is occasionally used for exactly what I already said it is sometimes used for.

Which makes it a perfect place to resolve continuity issues between CSM councils.

In the days and weeks immediately following the turn-over of power, consultations on exactly where CSM7 left off could easily, and would likely, occur. As CSM8 eased into their transition and started dealing with their own issues, it would of course revert to more social uses.
None ofthe Above
#63 - 2013-02-23 06:44:53 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I know all about the alumni channel. Most of the ex-CSM hang around the process as much as they can, because they're addicted to the process. There's little chance you wouldn't find a "retired" CSM who wouldn't want to give his two cents again.
The previous CSM's have been quiet all year except when consulted from time to time.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew: that the CSM alumni channel is occasionally used for exactly what I already said it is sometimes used for.

Which makes it a perfect place to resolve continuity issues between CSM councils.

In the days and weeks immediately following the turn-over of power, consultations on exactly where CSM7 left off could easily, and would likely, occur. As CSM8 eased into their transition and started dealing with their own issues, it would of course revert to more social uses.


Wow.

Clearly and hilariously in the wrong and doubling down. You are now lecturing these CSMs on what they are experiencing every day, when you have nothing to go on.

If you keep undercutting your credibility, Ripard might have to pull out of the race. He's counting on you pick up his outsider commentary. That would be a terrible shame.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#64 - 2013-02-23 07:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Yeah, personally I think Poetic only has really one point left, that could still be valid.

The guilt trip one. where we have to feel bad Trebor didn't get elected since we all suck so bad, and the CSM will obviously fail without him there to guide it. I was impressed he would step down from the chair and mostly just take the chair to help and guide the new CSM though.

But I do like voting strings free and don't want to vote out of obligation really. Seems like people are trying to make us feel obligated to vote for him, just so things work out well for them. Kind of hard to enjoy, hopefully its something that gets worked out.

This is exactly the kind of tactical voting quandary that STV eliminates. You don't have to vote for me out of obligation, or vote for me instead of another candidate because you think I stand a better chance of being elected, or not vote for me because you think I'm a lock and everyone else will vote me in.

Just pick the candidates you like, put them in the order you like them, and vote. If your favorite candidate doesn't get elected, your votes will transfer to your alternate choices. If he gets more votes than he needs, some of your voting power will transfer to the alternates. As long as one of your candidates get elected, your vote counted, and counted fully.

Want your vote to count for more? Encourage other people to vote in the same way as you did.


So I was right, you are the only one to still troll us.

So your recommendation is for us to use brute force to make ya leave the CSM.

Well, I could vote, but would it still matter in a way, you could still be on the CSM anyhow?

But anyhow, I was mostly hoping to hear ya defeat the last issue it seems like. Most of the interview and stuff like that paint you pretty nice and a good thing to have on the CSM.

I think I would prefer, for this last issue to be smoothed out, that way I don't have to vote, and I still like the CSM or whoever wins.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#65 - 2013-02-23 07:11:10 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
None ofthe Above wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I know all about the alumni channel. Most of the ex-CSM hang around the process as much as they can, because they're addicted to the process. There's little chance you wouldn't find a "retired" CSM who wouldn't want to give his two cents again.
The previous CSM's have been quiet all year except when consulted from time to time.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew: that the CSM alumni channel is occasionally used for exactly what I already said it is sometimes used for.

Which makes it a perfect place to resolve continuity issues between CSM councils.

In the days and weeks immediately following the turn-over of power, consultations on exactly where CSM7 left off could easily, and would likely, occur. As CSM8 eased into their transition and started dealing with their own issues, it would of course revert to more social uses.


Wow.

Clearly and hilariously in the wrong and doubling down. You are now lecturing these CSMs on what they are experiencing every day, when you have nothing to go on.

If you keep undercutting your credibility, Ripard might have to pull out of the race. He's counting on you pick up his outsider commentary. That would be a terrible shame.


To be fair, this is the most CSM action I have seen in awhile, and that was Ripard's biggest gripe. But true, Poetic does seem to be too sacrificial at it at times.

But anyhow, its nice to see all the other CSMs, actually answering the question I asked Trebor. Its too bad he is the only one running, and the person you guys are relying on to hold the fort down, so people can run off and have fun.

And it sounds like Trebor, they are not gonna help ya out at all either, after they vote ya in. Just gonna go off and fly space ships. And only talk to ya to shoot the **** and for jibs and jabs*. Oh how I might vote now. And I don't even have to rely on Trebor's inventive creation as well.


* "There isn't any CSM work being done in the alumni channel, its entirely social. We sit around and shoot the **** and continue with **** jokes,"

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#66 - 2013-02-23 07:17:49 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Also since, I really don't know the basics of the voting algorithm, and the last time I tried anything complex, I think I got an F for it.

If I only vote for one candidate, and he wins. I know My vote probably won't slide off then, or if it does, does it just get discarded? Or do I stay static with my vote, and another player's vote is forced to slide down, and vote for the next person in line?

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2013-02-23 11:08:57 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Also since, I really don't know the basics of the voting algorithm, and the last time I tried anything complex, I think I got an F for it.

If I only vote for one candidate, and he wins. I know My vote probably won't slide off then, or if it does, does it just get discarded? Or do I stay static with my vote, and another player's vote is forced to slide down, and vote for the next person in line?

The exact mechanics depend on the STV counting method, but if your preferred candidate doesn't need all of your vote, then an appropriate fraction of your voting power moves to your next preference.

Simplified example:

If you vote Trebor > Ripard > Malcanis, and 2000 votes are needed to get elected, and I end up getting 4000 votes, then I get elected. Since I needed half of your vote to get elected, your ballot becomes Ripard > Malcanis, but worth 0.5 vote.

If on the other hand, you voted Helmut von Loser > Ripard > Malcanis, and Helmut gets eliminated, then since none of your vote was used by Helmut, your ballot becomes Ripard > Malcanis, but still retains its full value.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-02-23 11:43:24 UTC
admiral root wrote:
According to the CSM minutes, you want to completely wussify highsec, turning it into a carebear heaven where they can safely affect the rest of the game wtih no risk. ... How would you respond to concerned voters who are worried that you'll actually get CCP to further reduce the already minimal risk that exists in highsec?

I would respond by encouraging them to actually read the minutes and see what I actually said.

There is an old Churchill anecdote that goes like this:

Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."


EVE already has different areas with different risk/reward relationships. The argument is not whether there should be different areas with different levels of permitted interactions -- we've already established that. It is whether those areas are sufficient (in number) and properly balanced. In other words, we are haggling about the price.

An important part of being a CSM is ensuring that CCP does not arbitrarily exclude potential solutions to game problems -- challenging preconceived notions about "what is EVE" is part of that.

I think most EVE players would like EVE's playerbase to grow, if for no other reason than it will provide additional resources that can be devoted to improving the game for all us jaded veterans. One of the significant challenges for CCP is that EVE is perceived as being difficult to learn (true) and having an unfriendly community (false, deep down you're all wonderful, intelligent people).

So if the data shows that a particular game feature, for example wardecs, is having a significant negative impact on subscriber trends, then it behooves CCP to take a really hard look at it and see what can be done to address that situation.

The bottom line is: you can't fix a problem if you don't know there is one. So a big part of what CSM does at the highest levels is pushing CCP to look at things with a fresh eye. Wardecs may be totally fine. Hisec risk/reward may be reasonable. But I for one would like to make sure CCP has done a proper job of determining that, so when I detect groupthink, I try to hit it with a hammer.

Consider the following Devil's bargain: What if CCP determined that making a small part of hisec very low-risk/low-reward would increase subscriptions enough to justify hiring 10 more devs, who would mostly work on improving other areas of the game? Would you think that was a good deal for you as a PVP-oriented player?

No? What about 20 devs?

No? What about 50?

Like I said, it's all about haggling over the price.

PS: I ran across this article while writing up this answer, which touches on the benefits of looking at the whole picture, and the dangers of what in another context might be labelled "inattentional blindness". I think it's relevant to this issue.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2013-02-23 15:53:50 UTC
That was a Good Post™ by the way. Some of you might have trouble recognizing that.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2013-02-23 19:40:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Consider the following Devil's bargain: What if CCP determined that making a small part of hisec very low-risk/low-reward would increase subscriptions enough to justify hiring 10 more devs, who would mostly work on improving other areas of the game? Would you think that was a good deal for you as a PVP-oriented player?

No? What about 20 devs?

No? What about 50?
The problem is that CCP has been very reticent about lowering highsec rewards, while being quick to decrease highsec risk. Few people would have a problem with low-risk/low-reward, except that CCP keeps delivering low-risk/high-reward.

As for the increased devs you suggest. They'd more than likely add to their DUST team and/or their Vampire team, if EVE revenue were to increase.
None ofthe Above
#71 - 2013-02-23 21:20:11 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Consider the following Devil's bargain: What if CCP determined that making a small part of hisec very low-risk/low-reward would increase subscriptions enough to justify hiring 10 more devs, who would mostly work on improving other areas of the game? Would you think that was a good deal for you as a PVP-oriented player?

No? What about 20 devs?

No? What about 50?
The problem is that CCP has been very reticent about lowering highsec rewards, while being quick to decrease highsec risk. Few people would have a problem with low-risk/low-reward, except that CCP keeps delivering low-risk/high-reward.

As for the increased devs you suggest. They'd more than likely add to their DUST team and/or their Vampire team, if EVE revenue were to increase.


Having lost the debate, you've now moved to cynical defeatism. Nice.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-02-24 01:19:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
As for the increased devs you suggest. They'd more than likely add to their DUST team and/or their Vampire team, if EVE revenue were to increase.

If you truly are that pessimistic, then why are you still playing EVE? For if things are as you suggest, the game is doomed.

Having actually spent significant time talking to CCP upper management, I am guardedly optimistic that they are smart enough to plow more resources into a business that would clearly be on a growth track.

PS: Can I have your stuff?

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#73 - 2013-02-24 03:37:48 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
As for the increased devs you suggest. They'd more than likely add to their DUST team and/or their Vampire team, if EVE revenue were to increase.

If you truly are that pessimistic, then why are you still playing EVE? For if things are as you suggest, the game is doomed.

Having actually spent significant time talking to CCP upper management, I am guardedly optimistic that they are smart enough to plow more resources into a business that would clearly be on a growth track.

PS: Can I have your stuff?


You do make its confusing to know what the growth track is really, Trebor. I agree the ultra safe place isn't really that bad of an idea, but it does seem there are other places to see growth depending on the perspective, and I wouldn't even know what would be the best one, besides becoming WoW or something. Which is probably too hard to do right now really. But that could be all at the upper management lvl like ya said.

I think poetic is coming from the player lvl though, where players see making hi sec safer, or an ultra safe hi sec area, as too easy really. Seems some player perspective is towards nothing easy, and it should be harder. Or gains should be hard to have.

I think the only chip in the game Poetic has really, is the sandbox title really. Like Trebor said, CCP is smart enough and probably has enough options to always make money. One of their proud points, is that iceland went broke, but their company never did.

But a sandbox, would have to pay attention to player concerns or at least allow them to interact with each other, which understanding player concerns matter then mostly. CCP could take the Sandbox adjective away, and not listen to the players anymore.

Personally, I am not old enough to feel the hope for fresh blood in the game, so some points will be hard for me to argue for. But it did seem CCP itself, doesn't want a shabby unfit player base really. So Poetic shouldn't worry too much. But from my perspective either CCP will try to improve people and move them to better places, or if they are untouchable, EVE players try their best to reach out and touch and move them to better places. Which is why they are worried about an ultra safe area, CCP won't be able to touch the players there if they become unfit and lazy and also players won't be able to grab them for being lazy.

But like I said, I don't know new players very well. So I wonder what you think of them Trebor, do they want an easy game, or are they unfit and lazy? Or do they just genuinely want an area to themselves, and promise to move or or make something of themselves afterwards?

( EVE players are very jaded from the WoW and their player base, sometimes I think they think all new players are from WoW making it very hard make an ultra safe hi sec trustworthy enough to them.) ( I suppose their paranoia is justified considering I came from WoW, its too bad you are running for CSM again Trebor, you and I could make a good troll tag team, trying to make EVE safer.)

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-02-24 04:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
As for the increased devs you suggest. They'd more than likely add to their DUST team and/or their Vampire team, if EVE revenue were to increase.
If you truly are that pessimistic ...
How is that pessimistic? Are the development funds for Vampires Online magically appearing from the vacuum? No. EVE Online revenue is going to pay for a good chunk of that development. If they want to increase the pace of Vampire development, then any increased revenue from EVE is likely going to go towards Vampires.

It's not like the current pace of EVE development has any great mass of the playerbase up in arms. They can keep with the status quo of EVE development, while shoving additional resources at other projects.

All you're trying to do is create this path of acceptance. "Hey everyone, if we accept a safer, consensual highsec, then you'll get nullsec development faster." Which is not necessarily the case, and is most likely not the case.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#75 - 2013-02-24 10:38:40 UTC
I draw a different moral from Trebor's Churchill anecdote, specifically: once you've shown that you're ready to sell out what you believe in, then there's nothing to stop people from dragging the price down as far as they like.

"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
#76 - 2013-02-24 11:42:16 UTC
Some quick answers with my morning coffee:

rodyas wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

Anyone who runs for CSM because they want to get CCP to implement any particular item is either naive or disingenuous. What effective CSMs do is provide decision support.

What if the idea they were gonna push is for retrievers to be able to take on Titans?

Then we'd unanimously support a decision to throw the dev who came up with that into Reykjavik Bay. But the CSM is a compassionate group, so we'd insist he be given a life-jacket first. Well, most of us would... a clear majority I think.

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
If they want to increase the pace of Vampire development, then any increased revenue from EVE is likely going to go towards Vampires.

You're just assuming CCP will automatically do the worst possible thing from your perspective. After 3 years of having a privileged view of the company, I am somewhat more optimistic that they would reinvest some extra resources into EVE. It may shock you to hear this, but some of them actually care both about the business and the game.

In any case, I think we both agree that improving EVE's subscriber base is a good thing. We're just haggling over the price.

Malcanis wrote:
I draw a different moral from Trebor's Churchill anecdote, specifically: once you've shown that you're ready to sell out what you believe in, then there's nothing to stop people from dragging the price down as far as they like.

Amusing, but not relevant in the context I used the anecdote. Having strong beliefs is fine, as long as you're willing to change them when confronted with credible evidence that they are wrong.

Most people hate doubt and uncertainty, but I consider them my friends -- they make me less prone to serious error.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#77 - 2013-02-24 13:51:27 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


Malcanis wrote:
I draw a different moral from Trebor's Churchill anecdote, specifically: once you've shown that you're ready to sell out what you believe in, then there's nothing to stop people from dragging the price down as far as they like.

Amusing, but not relevant in the context I used the anecdote. Having strong beliefs is fine, as long as you're willing to change them when confronted with credible evidence that they are wrong.

Most people hate doubt and uncertainty, but I consider them my friends -- they make me less prone to serious error.


That wasn't the context you provided though: it was doing something you'd find morally repugnant for a sufficient incentive, not having your belief in whether it was repugnant changed. Once you've shown youre willing to do it at all, then what leverage do you have to keep the price high?

"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
#78 - 2013-02-24 15:47:28 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
That wasn't the context you provided though: it was doing something you'd find morally repugnant for a sufficient incentive, not having your belief in whether it was repugnant changed. Once you've shown youre willing to do it at all, then what leverage do you have to keep the price high?

I think that you are reading more into the anecdote than I intended. The morally pure sandbox position would be that all areas of space should be unrestricted, but we have decided (for obvious reasons) to sully ourselves by having different regions of risk/reward in the game. As such, the argument is over the details of those tradeoffs.

I confess amusement when people trot out the "keep the sandbox clean" argument. The truth is that the sandbox is full of turds -- it has to be in order for EVE to be a functional game. What we can do is discuss the size, shape, number and artistic arrangement of the turds. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-02-24 19:23:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Malcanis wrote:
I draw a different moral from Trebor's Churchill anecdote, specifically: once you've shown that you're ready to sell out what you believe in, then there's nothing to stop people from dragging the price down as far as they like.
Trebor's entire campaign is about selling out. And he's trying to convince as many as he can to sell out with him. "Look what I can promise you if you sell out! More devs! Faster [your area of space] development!"
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#80 - 2013-02-24 20:09:50 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
That wasn't the context you provided though: it was doing something you'd find morally repugnant for a sufficient incentive, not having your belief in whether it was repugnant changed. Once you've shown youre willing to do it at all, then what leverage do you have to keep the price high?

I think that you are reading more into the anecdote than I intended.


It's one of the more annoying of my wide and complete range of annoying habits.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The morally pure sandbox position would be that all areas of space should be unrestricted, but we have decided (for obvious reasons) to sully ourselves by having different regions of risk/reward in the game. As such, the argument is over the details of those tradeoffs.

I confess amusement when people trot out the "keep the sandbox clean" argument. The truth is that the sandbox is full of turds -- it has to be in order for EVE to be a functional game. What we can do is discuss the size, shape, number and artistic arrangement of the turds. Twisted


I'm well aware that deal making and compromise is a part of the process. That's why you'll be glad to have my idealism to increase your bargaining leverage, and I'll be glad to have the use of your pragmatism to get me the best deal and the fewest turds in the sand

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016