These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-01-31 04:04:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
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.


You have placed your "excuses" down twice not several.

And, whilst I certainly appreciate the work you do as a volunteer to this process, I personally think you are just making excuses. Especially to the inability of distinguishing voices or just reluctance to even approach a techological solution or ask CCP for assistance in the minute taking. You haven't even tried from my apparent view.

And I find your attitude of simply wanting to repudiate the responsibility afforded to accurate record keeping and its relevance to the player base dissmissive and not an atttitude I find warrenting my vote in the next election. If thats not good enough for you, then I'm sorry, but we have to be able to make informed decisions.

I have to discount the CSM versions where they afford full editorial control to how they represent themselves. And please don't come back with a trust issue as clearly the idea CCP placed some importance on ensuring the players can make informed decisions following the CSM minutes and given the current player climate of misstrust expressed by the community concerning the CSM it is extremely relevant. (And of course is the topic of the thread)

I appreciated your colleagues explanation that the view is for members of the CSM to avoid drama which CCP has allowed them as opposed to competence issues with minute taking as a much better and plausible reason.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-01-31 10:29:53 UTC
you're a hypersensitive npc corp alt with an axe to grind about a triviality which is already covered by csm blogs

~hi~

Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-01-31 15:19:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
The Mittani wrote:
you're a hypersensitive npc corp alt with an axe to grind about a triviality which is already covered by csm blogs


Which I have to say isnt an unexpected viewpoint:

To help demonstrate my point,

An incongruous part of the recent CSM minutes where you can't discern who said what, but has interesting views unrepresented:

CSM Minutes wrote:
"This was followed by a discussion about removing learning implants, to encourage more risk taking. This was generally unpopular with most of the CSM at first. The discussion turned towards clone costs, which were widely agreed to be too high for high SP characters, which discourages high SP players from going on random suicide Rifter roams. One CSM stated a point in favor of removing learning implants, as that would be a nerf to highsec income, and he is always in favor of those where possible. Other members of the CSM were quick to object to that suggestion. Another CSM objected to "his peeps being thrown under the bus". It was suggested that CCP look into the implant losses in PVP, to try to determine the amount people are currently risking in implants."


and some comments from your CSM thread:

The Mittani wrote:
I'd kind of like to see Learning Implants vanish. A lot of people avoid PvP on account of them. "Oh, I won't go on this op, my jump clone is on a timer and I'm in my Learning clone."

I think the attribute system vanishing entirely is something we'd never see, but removing learning boosts from implants (such that they become combat-only enhancements) might be a possibility.

However, this isn't really a major priority for me. I might bring it over beer in Islenskibarinn, but it's not going to be a summit topic and something I expend vast amounts of political capital on, like I have on supercaps.


But I cannot easily validate in the CSM minutes who is claiming to speak about these things. Might be obvious, but I had to hunt down these views. Since given the apathy to the current CSM doesn't afford the awareness to these issues as advertised through the public notes. The above notes do afford some annonymity however should they be required.

However:

Quote:
Another CSM objected to "his peeps being thrown under the bus"


I havent seen much blog material about bus homicide in various personal blogs. And struggling to find a connection as a result. Blink

---

I personally find the lack of responsibility, due diligence and neglect to certain issues quite indiciative of the current CSM Council and likley affords the attitude of representation and accountability as pretty laughable. Not that it isn't clear from comments.

However, I'm sure you'll simply use this as an opportunity to exclaim with the usual predjudice that pubbies are deranged idiots as opposed to actually trying to give some intergrity to your position and purpose. Especially as you see the repsonsibilities you have as trivial.

As a result I'm finding very few exisiting members of the council worthy of a vote.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-01-31 15:54:36 UTC
I think learning implants should be removed, ayep.

The anonymity of the minutes or lack thereof is a Xhagen/Diagoras thing, not a 'CSM chooses' thing.

~hi~

Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-01-31 16:03:58 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
I think learning implants should be removed, ayep.

The anonymity of the minutes or lack thereof is a Xhagen/Diagoras thing, not a 'CSM chooses' thing.


Both not new to the discussion.

Thankyou however for clarifying the stance but not answering any of the points made.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-01-31 18:44:36 UTC
I really do know you didn't expect ol' Mitt to answer any of those points. Like me, he just does meaningless rants.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#27 - 2012-01-31 19:08:19 UTC
At one time the CSM meetings including releasing notes that attributed every CSM members comments. If and of the VoR candidates are elected to the CSM 7 we will insist that the practice be reinstated!

Issler Dainze
Voice of Reason Party CSM 7 Candidate
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-01-31 21:21:13 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
At one time the CSM meetings including releasing notes that attributed every CSM members comments. If and of the VoR candidates are elected to the CSM 7 we will insist that the practice be reinstated!

Issler Dainze
Voice of Reason Party CSM 7 Candidate


Once something has been deemed unnecessary by those tasked with doing something it generally never returns unless there's a really good reason to force it back in. You are asking what is basically a polically based system to publicly declare what their positions are and the arguements they used for or against such positions. This is exactly the opposite of what any such system would ever want. If you can have meeteings and afterwards say what you like about them then there is nothing to dipute positions taken for public viewing in comparison to positions taken in task. Plus, as Trebor said, there are other physical limitations currently in place.

tl;dr
You will most likely never see such notes ever again for a variety of reasons. They are gone.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#29 - 2012-01-31 23:37:22 UTC
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
At one time the CSM meetings including releasing notes that attributed every CSM members comments. If and of the VoR candidates are elected to the CSM 7 we will insist that the practice be reinstated!

Issler Dainze
Voice of Reason Party CSM 7 Candidate


Once something has been deemed unnecessary by those tasked with doing something it generally never returns unless there's a really good reason to force it back in.


And yet if you took the time to read Selene's blog as represented on the subject there are CSM council members who consider it an important part of the CSM duties.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#30 - 2012-02-01 00:23:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
At one time the CSM meetings including releasing notes that attributed every CSM members comments. If and of the VoR candidates are elected to the CSM 7 we will insist that the practice be reinstated!

Issler Dainze
Voice of Reason Party CSM 7 Candidate


Once something has been deemed unnecessary by those tasked with doing something it generally never returns unless there's a really good reason to force it back in.


And yet if you took the time to read Selene's blog as represented on the subject there are CSM council members who consider it an important part of the CSM duties.


I'd very much like to have the minutes acknowledge something like,"Seleene stood up and threw Mitten's laptop at CCP Soundwave because of his stance on the Retribution needing another mid-slot." instead of, "The CSM all agreed the Retribution needed another mid-slot."

(The above may or may not have actually happened...)

Whether it will change or not is obviously something worth discussing. However, as Trebor has pointed out, when all you have is a single little flip-cam recording the meetings, it's not exactly easy to nail down specifics. I do think the minutes could be a bit more transparent in how they represent the stances of individual members, but I don't think a line by line transcript is needed or even possible.

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!

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#31 - 2012-02-01 01:55:43 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
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


We did it in earlier CSMs and got out minutes out much faster than we see as typical these days.

Issler
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-02-01 08:24:02 UTC
Interesting. Some posts are now missing from this thread.

That kind of leads right into what I was saying. When information can be manipulated, it will be. Not that everybody has a reason to or would even try. the fact is, once the idea that only unverifiable summaries become the norm, that's were it stays. Its hard to raise the bar once lowered, regardless of good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with those.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#33 - 2012-02-01 10:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Pavel Bidermann wrote:
Interesting. Some posts are now missing from this thread.

That kind of leads right into what I was saying. When information can be manipulated, it will be. Not that everybody has a reason to or would even try. the fact is, once the idea that only unverifiable summaries become the norm, that's were it stays. Its hard to raise the bar once lowered, regardless of good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with those.


If the posts were adjudged to be irrelevant to the topic by the accepted moderators that removed troll content really isn't going to hurt the actually debated topic.

Some censorship is actually useful, or as an example shall we "just" let the CSM Council talk only about types of cheese they like at their iceland meetings?
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-02-01 13:22:27 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
We did it in earlier CSMs and got out minutes out much faster than we see as typical these days.

You served on CSM2 and CSM3 IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken, the CSM2 summit minutes were 10 pages long and contain references to individual CSMs; the CSM3 summit minutes were 16 pages long -- and do not contain references to individual CSMs.

The minutes from the most recent CSM summit were 44 pages long. Admittedly, we had an extra day of meetings, but even so, apparently we talk twice as fast and get twice as much done.

Oh, and by the way, you are not credited with having done any work on the above-mentioned minutes. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-02-01 13:47:31 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
We did it in earlier CSMs and got out minutes out much faster than we see as typical these days.

You served on CSM2 and CSM3 IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken, the CSM2 summit minutes were 10 pages long and contain references to individual CSMs; the CSM3 summit minutes were 16 pages long -- and do not contain references to individual CSMs.

The minutes from the most recent CSM summit were 44 pages long. Admittedly, we had an extra day of meetings, but even so, apparently we talk twice as fast and get twice as much done.

Oh, and by the way, you are not credited with having done any work on the above-mentioned minutes. Twisted


And yet the overall page length really wouldn't be that affected by this request.

All I have simply asked for since the start of this thread is replacing the use of descriptors like "someone" as currently voiced in the minutes with the appropriate ownership of the speaker where significant points of view have been expressed.

Not looking for a word by word account.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#36 - 2012-02-01 20:15:32 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
We did it in earlier CSMs and got out minutes out much faster than we see as typical these days.

You served on CSM2 and CSM3 IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken, the CSM2 summit minutes were 10 pages long and contain references to individual CSMs; the CSM3 summit minutes were 16 pages long -- and do not contain references to individual CSMs.

The minutes from the most recent CSM summit were 44 pages long. Admittedly, we had an extra day of meetings, but even so, apparently we talk twice as fast and get twice as much done.

Oh, and by the way, you are not credited with having done any work on the above-mentioned minutes. Twisted


My view of the role of the CSM 2 was oversight of the POS exploit scandal and worked on influence after hours with 1:1 to CCP employees. If you look at all the individual meeting minutes you will see that I was quite active in all the meetings.

One thing to note is that the Wiki is screwed up. The minutes listed as the second CCP/CSM meeting are not the CCP/CSM Iceland meeting with the second CSM. Look at the members present, you can see that was a meeting with the first CSM. So your claim I wasn't credited with having done anything is wrong.

CSM 3 had me coming in very late in term and reduced my ability to contribute much as virtually all the working sessions and the Iceland trip had already occured. I did however, very effectively drive some issues into CCP's thinking at the fanfest.

When I began the CSM it was my view that the purpose of the CSM was largely oversight. I was against the idea of the CSM being the "feaure idea farries" for CCP. Since the result of the CSM 5 and much more the CSM 6 I now accept and embrace the position that the CSM are now "thought leaders" to CCP and will be taking a much more active role should I be elected.

Issler Dainze
Voice of Reason Party CSM 7 Candidate
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-02-02 02:47:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow
Issler Dainze wrote:
My view of the role of the CSM 2 was oversight of the POS exploit scandal and worked on influence after hours with 1:1 to CCP employees. If you look at all the individual meeting minutes you will see that I was quite active in all the meetings.

Which is besides the point; you made the claim that previous CSMs got the minutes out faster and with individual attributions, and I demonstrated that not all CSMs individually attributed their summit minutes, and that CSM minutes have gotten significantly longer and more detailed as time went by.

My personal preference is to favor putting the time and effort into describing in as much detail as possible what things were discussed, as opposed to detailing exactly who said what brilliant or stupid thing. You can disagree with that position, but you aren't doing the work.

If you do get elected, I look forward to seeing you lead by example in this matter.

Quote:
One thing to note is that the Wiki is screwed up. The minutes listed as the second CCP/CSM meeting are not the CCP/CSM Iceland meeting with the second CSM. Look at the members present, you can see that was a meeting with the first CSM. So your claim I wasn't credited with having done anything is wrong.

Another thing to note is that I didn't reference the Wiki at all. I linked to CCP's PDFs of the summit minutes. And I didn't claim you did nothing on CSM3; I merely noted that there was no evidence you did any work preparing the minutes.

And as for your inability to fully contribute to CSM3 until after the summit, while I am sure there were extenuating circumstances, if the matter of individual attribution was so important, surely it would have only taken a moment to bring it up -- certainly much less time than you have devoted to the issue in recent days.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-02-02 02:57:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My personal preference is to favor putting the time and effort into describing in as much detail as possible what things were discussed, as opposed to detailing exactly who said what brilliant or stupid thing. You can disagree with that position, but you aren't doing the work.


What a load of "codswallop". More like protecting your anonymity it seems.

As has been argued I really fail to see the practical difficulty in changing pronouns for names or how that would seriously detract from being able to complete things with the same level of detail. I'd suggest getting someone to take on the editorial role with some competence if so.
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#39 - 2012-02-02 03:07:40 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My personal preference is to favor putting the time and effort into describing in as much detail as possible what things were discussed, as opposed to detailing exactly who said what brilliant or stupid thing. You can disagree with that position, but you aren't doing the work.


What a load of "codswallop". More like protecting your anonymity it seems.

As has been argued I really fail to see the practical difficulty in changing pronouns for names or how that would seriously detract from being able to complete things with the same level of detail. I'd suggest getting someone to take on the editorial role with some competence if so.


You're missing the point. Petty he/she-said spaceship politics are irrelevant in the context of what the summit as a whole is about.

I don't mind one bit that a) there are realities of time and manpower preventing full disclosure and b) that there exists one area of the CSM free from politics and pandering in which the CSM can discuss and debate 'hot topics' internally without worrying about the forum lynch mob.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-02-02 03:21:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Zirse wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My personal preference is to favor putting the time and effort into describing in as much detail as possible what things were discussed, as opposed to detailing exactly who said what brilliant or stupid thing. You can disagree with that position, but you aren't doing the work.


What a load of "codswallop". More like protecting your anonymity it seems.

As has been argued I really fail to see the practical difficulty in changing pronouns for names or how that would seriously detract from being able to complete things with the same level of detail. I'd suggest getting someone to take on the editorial role with some competence if so.


You're missing the point. Petty he/she-said spaceship politics are irrelevant in the context of what the summit as a whole is about.

I don't mind one bit that a) there are realities of time and manpower preventing full disclosure and b) that there exists one area of the CSM free from politics and pandering in which the CSM can discuss and debate 'hot topics' internally without worrying about the forum lynch mob.


The argument you put forward is really only relevant if sufficient trust is afforded. Trust EvE politics with these Meta-idiots? Your kind of missing the whole point about the thread as opposed to claiming I missed his diversionary scramble for an alternative reason.

So far two CSM have exclaimed the primary reason is due to CCP afforded them drama avoidance. Only one CSM, seems to consider that a more comprimised view of keeping things as currently detailed but affording identifying names. The main understanding then not really about administrative capabilities but wether the people elected to council should be afforded this curtesy.

imho: Just an incompetent CSM using a smokescreen is all I see.