These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 8 - Things that need repairing.

First post
Author
Frying Doom
#1 - 2013-03-10 12:57:32 UTC
Might I suggest that one of the first things CSM 8 looks at is the restoration of the CSM itself.

And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.

It removes all incentives from the candidates to be frank with CCP and encourages brown nosing.

Add on to that the stupid voting system and subsequently anything else that comes out of these elections.

Now I would like to hear all the candidates points of view on the new voting system and well as the selection system compared to the old one.

And how many candidates actually know how the 2 decided by vote to go to Iceland is achieved.

Because lets face it if all the candidates cannot describe it bugger all of the electorate will.

So thank you those members of CSM 7 that created this travesty and all the resources that the CSM will have to use to fix it.

May you rot.

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

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#2 - 2013-03-10 13:15:06 UTC
"If you want to make enemies, try to change something."

http://www.wormholes.info

Frying Doom
#3 - 2013-03-10 13:32:46 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
"If you want to make enemies, try to change something."

I prefer "if you want to disappear sell your union seat to the employers."

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

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#4 - 2013-03-10 13:34:14 UTC
No

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

Frying Doom
#5 - 2013-03-10 13:40:05 UTC
Two step wrote:
No

Oh I did not know you were one of the lucky ones that sold out the Csm.

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

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#6 - 2013-03-10 14:30:50 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.t.


It's a better idea than letting the community choose to send people to a summit that never say more than 5 sentences over three days or who ONLY speak when it's summit time and do **** all the rest of the year long term. Smile

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!

Frying Doom
#7 - 2013-03-10 14:36:43 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.t.


It's a better idea than letting the community choose to send people to a summit that never say more than 5 sentences over three days or who ONLY speak when it's summit time and do **** all the rest of the year long term. Smile

Yes but as the CSM is the voice if the players, don't you think it should be the players who decided that not CCP.

But I already know your answer to that don't I.

It is hardly the voice of the players if an external party decides who to reward. Also it adds to the likely hood the the players representatives are more likely to become CCP representatives and start apologising for CCPs actions rather than advocating for the players.

You know just like csm7 turned out.

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

Ayeson
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#8 - 2013-03-10 15:59:56 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Yes but as the CSM is the voice if the players, don't you think it should be the players who decided that not CCP.


Uhh, unless I'm mistaken there is still a vote to decide who is ON the CSM, and the top 2 candidates still get to go to the summit regardless. So it seems your fears regarding "the players" voices being quashed are unsubstantiated.

Personally, it makes business sense to me, when you're flying 7 people halfway around the world to iceland for a summit, you should probably make sure they are the most knowledgeable or beneficial people regarding the upcoming topics. Otherwise you're missing out on valuable operational experience.

Also, it makes it so tagalongs don't get a free vacation.
Frying Doom
#9 - 2013-03-10 16:08:10 UTC
Ayeson wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Yes but as the CSM is the voice if the players, don't you think it should be the players who decided that not CCP.


Uhh, unless I'm mistaken there is still a vote to decide who is ON the CSM, and the top 2 candidates still get to go to the summit regardless. So it seems your fears regarding "the players" voices being quashed are unsubstantiated.

Personally, it makes business sense to me, when you're flying 7 people halfway around the world to iceland for a summit, you should probably make sure they are the most knowledgeable or beneficial people regarding the upcoming topics. Otherwise you're missing out on valuable operational experience.

Also, it makes it so tagalongs don't get a free vacation.

You might want to look into what the top two candidates mean because it is not what you think it means.

If the csm was set up to be minor devas and beta testers I would agree with you but it was set up to be the voice of the people and removing the peoples ability to chose makes it now more a CCP tool and less our voice.

Plus the other CSMs kowtow or no trip for them.

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

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#10 - 2013-03-10 16:09:17 UTC
Is the summit really a 'reward'? It's two days of jetlag and meetings. I don't think ccp will only choose to invite who they like, they'll pick who'll be the most useful for the topics under discussion
Frying Doom
#11 - 2013-03-10 16:13:51 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Is the summit really a 'reward'? It's two days of jetlag and meetings. I don't think ccp will only choose to invite who they like, they'll pick who'll be the most useful for the topics under discussion

Going drinking with the devas is a lot more reward than working all year and getting nothing back.

How do you define most useful as you don't need to be an expert on an area to have a good idea, take Hans in csm7, for example. With the current layout it discourages csm members to speak out of their own area.

But hey when we get another year of CCP cheer leaders don't say you were not warned.

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

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#12 - 2013-03-10 16:19:44 UTC
Hans would have been an auto-invite had the new system been in place last year.
Frying Doom
#13 - 2013-03-10 16:25:17 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Hans would have been an auto-invite had the new system been in place last year.

If they were talking about FW.

What happens if the majority of the candidates are from Null sec and they are talking primarily about hi-sec?

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

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#14 - 2013-03-10 16:27:07 UTC
Confirming that null sec does not impact high sec, and vice versa.

http://www.wormholes.info

Frying Doom
#15 - 2013-03-10 16:29:09 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Confirming that null sec does not impact high sec, and vice versa.

Well that is good to know.

But what candidates would they send?

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

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#16 - 2013-03-10 16:38:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathan Jameson
CCP has said their expansions will take a more holistic approach now, with themed changes to many areas of the game. Now, even more than before, they will be looking at having a wide range of opinions during the Summit meetings.

And even if they were focusing on only null sec, for example, it is in their best interests to have one person representing each area of space that would be affected by changes to moon goo and T2 production, for example.

http://www.wormholes.info

Frying Doom
#17 - 2013-03-10 16:42:39 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
CCP has said their expansions will take a more holistic approach now, with themed changes to many areas of the game. Now, even more than before, they will be looking at having a wide range of opinions during the Summit meetings.

And even if they were focusing on only null sec, for example, it is in their best interests to have one person representing areas of space that would be affected by changes to moon goo and T2 production, for example.

Yes but even that say for example you have 10 hard working members on the CSM 8 from Null and 2 from wormholes for example.

Who do they send?

Even as a holistic approach it means you still have 8 different views on the balance and alterations to the Null part of the Theme.

So which ones do they send to Iceland?

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

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#18 - 2013-03-10 16:50:06 UTC
10 hard-working people is still more than the 7 primary CSM members. As it stood before the change, the 7 were sent who had gained the most votes in an election over a half a year previously. Hardly representative of the work they had actually done on the CSM council--I'm familiar with some alternates who have done more work than primaries during their tenure.

In the new system, at least someone will be looking at contributions done during the year, even if it IS a company with a vested interest in how they're represented.

Is it perfect? No, no system is. One is governed by swayed and distant opinion of the masses, the other by the relationships of people who've worked together for months. Between the two, though, I think the newer system has more merit and will be the lesser of the two evils.

http://www.wormholes.info

Frying Doom
#19 - 2013-03-10 17:04:39 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
10 hard-working people is still more than the 7 primary CSM members. As it stood before the change, the 7 were sent who had gained the most votes in an election over a half a year previously. Hardly representative of the work they had actually done on the CSM council--I'm familiar with some alternates who have done more work than primaries during their tenure.

In the new system, at least someone will be looking at contributions done during the year, even if it IS a company with a vested interest in how they're represented.

Is it perfect? No, no system is. One is governed by swayed and distant opinion of the masses, the other by the relationships of people who've worked together for months. Between the two, though, I think the newer system has more merit and will be the lesser of the two evils.

Personally I see the new system as open more to brown nosing and ass kissing.

but I must still ask who do you send

you answered "10 hard-working people is still more than the 7 primary CSM members."

and that is very much what this comes down to "Who do you send", which members go and who stay, it becomes dependent on CCP to decide not on the playerbase.

And as CCP is deciding you can guarantee the brown noses will be in the 5 and if you are elected there is not much you can say other than "Thats crap" any thing more and you would probably have to break the NDA agreement to prove yourself right.

This is why the old system was better for "The voice of the players"
If the scope of the CSM said

what is the CSM wrote:
The Scope of the CSM

The purpose of the CSM is to suggest improvements to CCP designs and to suggest possible courses of future action . The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP.


Then the new system would be great none of that "The purpose of the CSM is to represent society interests to CCP" stuff involved but it is and the CSM cannot be the voice of the people with CCP deciding who will represent us while at the same time encouraging brown nosing.

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

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-03-10 17:44:18 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.

It removes all incentives from the candidates to be frank with CCP and encourages brown nosing.

I'm fine with the rule and willing to bet that you're hilariously naive if you believe the second sentence. I'm sure CCP would be simply thrilled to know that some believe that transparent ass kissing would be enough. But, as you're hell bent on clinging to the "BUT THE VOICE OF THE PLAYERS DEMANDS SENDING SOMEONE USELESS!!!" notion, I'm not going to bother arguing the point.

Frying Doom wrote:
Now I would like to hear all the candidates points of view on the new voting system and well as the selection system compared to the old one.

The new is meant to better represent those who voted, and it should do that job well. Of course, it may lower voter turnout amongst unorganized, and the onus is ultimately on CCP to prevent that through voter education and turnout efforts. If null achieves something like 10 out of 14 seats, it will more likely be because non-null turnout was lower than anything else. Hopefully CCP would look at such a result as a failure on their part rather than proof that the system works (in a "well, 71% of votes went to null candidates so there are 10 of them, that's how it's supposed to work!" sort of way).

Frying Doom wrote:
And how many candidates actually know how the 2 decided by vote to go to Iceland is achieved.

The STV vote is re-run, except with two slots instead of 14. This raises the threshold to get one of the top two slots from integer([(total votes cast)/15]+1) to integer([(total votes cast)/3]+1); in an election with 100k votes cast, that means it goes from 6667 votes to snag a seat to 33,334. Aside from that change, the election is re-run as normal. Due to the exceptionally high vote requirement, of course, the idea of "transfer" would tend to lose meaning... a candidate who appeared on ten thousand ballots as the first choice in the election to choose the CSM would transfer 3333 votes (3333/10000 votes each) to the second preference candidates on each of those ballots, but of course would keep them all for himself in the top-two election. As there are two seats, the goal here is basically to appear on as many ballots as possible in as high a ranking as possible.


Frying Doom wrote:
So thank you those members of CSM 7 that created this travesty and all the resources that the CSM will have to use to fix it.

May you rot.

The only way this will be a travesty is if the same effort is not also put into increasing voter turnout, which pretty much everyone told CCP should be a priority.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

123Next pageLast page