These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Representative Reform

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-09-24 02:12:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
The real issue is not voting, or how it is accomplished or even if we can grow the voter-base.

The issue is having representatives who are willing to do the work they were voted for. But how to alter the CSM White Paper to penalize or remove underperforming members?

Any reform should ensure a system where people can't simply be voted out if they're disliked (they could still be doing a ****-tonne of work).

The problem is that CCP Xhagen seems to want to take a real hands-off approach with the CSM (that's the impression I got from the CSM Summit Report.) Whereas I think that CCP Xhagen has to take a somewhat active role in managing the CSM and calling to task underperforming members.

For instance, the trip to Iceland should be reserved not for the TOP SEVEN voted representatives, but the representatives that actually contribute to the CSM/CCP effort. And this is a role that CCP Xhagen should take responsibility for. He knows best who is contributing and who is not. (He certainly should not be worried about someone being pissed off at him, if he denies them the trip.)

Also, if some non-active CSM member is removed, are they replaced? If not, then the Darius III's will still continue to run, because they are removing an effective seat from the CSM. But then, how do you replace a member? Retain a list of non-active alternates from the election, who can be activated as necessary?

The point of this thread is to throw out a bunch of ideas on how to reform the CSM, so that underperforming members can be penalized or removed. Such rules would ensure that in future CSMs, candidates are aware that it's simply not a free trip to Iceland, but that some amount of work and effort towards improving the game is necessary and expected.

I have a few ideas ... but all the heads that participated in the Voting Reform thread could certainly come up with a bunch of procedures worth considering.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-09-24 02:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Define "performance", in such a way that the adequacy of it can be measured and acted upon, and do it in such a way that it can't be gamed (i.e. no "you need to show up for X amount of meetings", since your much-hated D3 would just show up that many times).

That's why it fails before it even starts, because there's no objective way to measure it. Sure, you could put a baseline thing in to get rid of truly inactive people, like say someone literally never shows up for anything ever and doesn't respond to prompts. The barely active types though, the ones that are paying attention just enough to show up, there's nothing you can do to get rid of them.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-09-24 02:45:46 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Define "performance", in such a way that the adequacy of it can be measured and acted upon, and do it in such a way that it can't be gamed (i.e. no "you need to show up for X amount of meetings", since your much-hated D3 would just show up that many times).

That's why it fails before it even starts, because there's no objective way to measure it. Sure, you could put a baseline thing in to get rid of truly inactive people, like say someone literally never shows up for anything ever and doesn't respond to prompts. The barely active types though, the ones that are paying attention just enough to show up, there's nothing you can do to get rid of them.
It needs to be subjective by its very nature. Objective rules can be gamed, as you stated.

For instance, the CSM could vote to remove someone, which would require a 2/3rds majority. If a 2/3rds majority is achieved, then CCP Xhagen would have the final say. In the end, Xhagen can be objective about the reasons to remove someone, and subjective about their participation.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-09-24 03:03:26 UTC
That'd make sense if CCP's defintion of a "good" CSM and the playerbase's definition of a "good" CSM were in any way the same thing.

Like I bet if CCP had to give their opinions by-and-large of this current CSM, they'd be very happy, since they do what CCP wants (sounding board, good PR simply for existing) without even trying to wield any of the soft power they get in return. That doesn't mean they work at all for the playerbase, though.

I get where you're coming from, though. From a voter's perspective, it's hard to actually gauge who "does" anything at all, since we have no idea who's in on talking to CCP, who contributes to anything, etc. The only representation we've gotten so far is the Summit, which is only top 7 + those who have time to videoconference and Hans/Seleene's podcast thing, which at best was far too biased to really take seriously.

As an aside, could you imagine how much of a ******* trainwreck it would be if a CSM as self-absorbed as this current incarnation could vote on removing people?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Shingyoku
Griffin Support Services
Ad-Astra
#5 - 2012-09-24 06:26:27 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I t needs to be subjective by its very nature. Objective rules can be gamed, as you stated.


What about subjective with objective conditions. Like for instance someone can't be kicked out for saying things CCP doesn't like, and by that I don't mean things like mitten's "kill yourself" I mean things like saying eve needs something and CCP absolutely doesn't want to do it. I don't think that situation will happen, but it's an example and I think a variation could happen.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-09-24 08:02:22 UTC
Shingyoku wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I t needs to be subjective by its very nature. Objective rules can be gamed, as you stated.


What about subjective with objective conditions. Like for instance someone can't be kicked out for saying things CCP doesn't like, and by that I don't mean things like mitten's "kill yourself" I mean things like saying eve needs something and CCP absolutely doesn't want to do it. I don't think that situation will happen, but it's an example and I think a variation could happen.
That's where the CSM would come in. Xhagen could not simply remove someone at Hilmar's request, for instance, without 2/3rds approval of the CSM first.

It works both ways. So, there's some level of protection against anyone being removed for the wrong reasons. The CSM can't remove anyone without Xhagen's approval, and Xhagen can't remove anyone without the CSM's approval.

But it's just an idea. And there are probably better ideas on how to codify such a system.
Signal11th
#7 - 2012-09-24 08:07:29 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
The real issue is not voting, or how it is accomplished or even if we can grow the voter-base.

The issue is having representatives who are willing to do the work they were voted for. But how to alter the CSM White Paper to penalize or remove underperforming members?

Any reform should ensure a system where people can't simply be voted out if they're disliked (they could still be doing a ****-tonne of work).

The problem is that CCP Xhagen seems to want to take a real hands-off approach with the CSM (that's the impression I got from the CSM Summit Report.) Whereas I think that CCP Xhagen has to take a somewhat active role in managing the CSM and calling to task underperforming members.

For instance, the trip to Iceland should be reserved not for the TOP SEVEN voted representatives, but the representatives that actually contribute to the CSM/CCP effort. And this is a role that CCP Xhagen should take responsibility for. He knows best who is contributing and who is not. (He certainly should not be worried about someone being pissed off at him, if he denies them the trip.)

Also, if some non-active CSM member is removed, are they replaced? If not, then the Darius III's will still continue to run, because they are removing an effective seat from the CSM. But then, how do you replace a member? Retain a list of non-active alternates from the election, who can be activated as necessary?

The point of this thread is to throw out a bunch of ideas on how to reform the CSM, so that underperforming members can be penalized or removed. Such rules would ensure that in future CSMs, candidates are aware that it's simply not a free trip to Iceland, but that some amount of work and effort towards improving the game is necessary and expected.

I have a few ideas ... but all the heads that participated in the Voting Reform thread could certainly come up with a bunch of procedures worth considering.



Are you a current CSM alt or something, these guys have been voted on, if they are not doing anything that's not really an issue, If their voters don't like them they vote for someone else next time.

Darius was voted on more than likely on the pretence that he would do feck all so in that respect he's been a very successful CSM candidate. Just because you don't agree is not really their problem, use your vote or run yourself next time.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-09-24 08:09:06 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
For instance, the trip to Iceland should be reserved not for the TOP SEVEN voted representatives, but the representatives that actually contribute to the CSM/CCP effort. And this is a role that CCP Xhagen should take responsibility for. He knows best who is contributing and who is not. (He certainly should not be worried about someone being pissed off at him, if he denies them the trip.)
This is something that's important too.

Contributors should be gifted with the trip. Let's say Darius had won enough votes to get into the TOP SEVEN. He does nothing at all. Should he get the trip to Iceland? I don't think many would agree that he should. So there should be some system that defines who gets to go to Iceland each summit.

Perhaps an internal STV style vote, a month before each trip? A vote per CSM member and a vote for Xhagen. Rank each CSM member from 1 - 14. Top seven vote getters receive the trip. Or perhaps just leave it entirely in the hands of Xhagen. Or perhaps a mixture of the two. Xhagen picks three people, the CSM picks four people.

Again. Ideas. Probably better ones out there.

But for the CSM to be taken seriously, we need a system to ensure that the most effective CSM members are given the most opportunity to participate at the highest level (Iceland.)

Voting reform and all that jazz, does not guarantee an effective CSM. And what we all want most of all is an effective CSM.
Signal11th
#9 - 2012-09-24 08:11:42 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
For instance, the trip to Iceland should be reserved not for the TOP SEVEN voted representatives, but the representatives that actually contribute to the CSM/CCP effort. And this is a role that CCP Xhagen should take responsibility for. He knows best who is contributing and who is not. (He certainly should not be worried about someone being pissed off at him, if he denies them the trip.)
This is something that's important too.

Contributors should be gifted with the trip. Let's say Darius had won enough votes to get into the TOP SEVEN. He does nothing at all. Should he get the trip to Iceland? I don't think many would agree that he should. So there should be some system that defines who gets to go to Iceland each summit.

Perhaps an internal STV style vote, a month before each trip? A vote per CSM member and a vote for Xhagen. Rank each CSM member from 1 - 14. Top seven vote getters receive the trip. Or perhaps just leave it entirely in the hands of Xhagen. Or perhaps a mixture of the two. Xhagen picks three people, the CSM picks four people.

Again. Ideas. Probably better ones out there.

But for the CSM to be taken seriously, we need a system to ensure that the most effective CSM members are given the most opportunity to participate at the highest level (Iceland.)

Voting reform and all that jazz, does not guarantee an effective CSM. And what we all want most of all is an effective CSM.



Mate stop trying to make something of nothing, which nobody is really interested in anyway.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Sun Win
#10 - 2012-09-24 12:32:20 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
The issue is having representatives who are willing to do the work they were voted for. But how to alter the CSM White Paper to penalize or remove underperforming members?


There is already a mechanism for removing under-performing members: Vote them out.

The CSM term is ONE YEAR. It does not need nor would it benefit from additional layers of bureaucracy around removing people/recall votes/jockeying for a trip to Iceland. A year is a very sort period of time. It's barely enough time to demonstrate that you are accomplishing anything at all, let alone that any longer term project you might be working on has a chance of succeeding.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-09-24 18:35:42 UTC
Sun Win wrote:
There is already a mechanism for removing under-performing members: Vote them out.
I believe there are certain requirements that go along with that, such as attending meetings. Since the CSM meets informally on Skype, there are no "meetings" on which to objectively gauge attendance.

The scope of removing and penalizing members needs to be broadened.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-09-24 18:44:59 UTC
Here's an example of penalizing a member for not performing their assigned duties.

I called out Two Step for not performing the tasks associated with being Secretary of the council.

He replied:
Quote:
. . . we are unpaid volunteers who don't want to spend *all* of our free time on the CSM. For those of us that are active in the CSM process, it can take up a large portion of our day already. Most of us have jobs, significant others, and want to even play a game called EVE from time to time. I'm sorry if you would like more communication from us, but we are doing the best we can.

I don't dispute his claim that he's performing the duties of a CSM representative. But he did accept extra responsibilities when he took on the role of Secretary. And he's not performing those duties. The Vice-Secretary is performing all of the duties of the Secretary.

Come CSM8 election time, Two Step will be able to claim that he was Secretary of CSM7, without having adequately performed any of those duties.

Two Step should be penalized. He should be stripped of his title. If he doesn't want to perform the duties of the position he requested, then he doesn't deserve to have the title, or the appeal it might offer to voters in a future election.

There should be procedures that can be implemented to hold him accountable for his underperformance.

I want to make it clear that this thread is not simply about getting Darius' and Isslers and Meissas off the council, but to ensure that people that want to be on the council also want to do the work required. Sure, it's unpaid. It's volunteer. But everyone that runs knows that going in. It's no secret. The CSM is not supposed to be a chat channel and a vacation to Iceland twice a year. It is supposed to be something more than that.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#13 - 2012-09-24 21:31:14 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Here's an example of penalizing a member for not performing their assigned duties.

I called out Two Step for not performing the tasks associated with being Secretary of the council.

He replied:
Quote:
. . . we are unpaid volunteers who don't want to spend *all* of our free time on the CSM. For those of us that are active in the CSM process, it can take up a large portion of our day already. Most of us have jobs, significant others, and want to even play a game called EVE from time to time. I'm sorry if you would like more communication from us, but we are doing the best we can.

I don't dispute his claim that he's performing the duties of a CSM representative. But he did accept extra responsibilities when he took on the role of Secretary. And he's not performing those duties. The Vice-Secretary is performing all of the duties of the Secretary.

Come CSM8 election time, Two Step will be able to claim that he was Secretary of CSM7, without having adequately performed any of those duties.

Two Step should be penalized. He should be stripped of his title. If he doesn't want to perform the duties of the position he requested, then he doesn't deserve to have the title, or the appeal it might offer to voters in a future election.

There should be procedures that can be implemented to hold him accountable for his underperformance.

I want to make it clear that this thread is not simply about getting Darius' and Isslers and Meissas off the council, but to ensure that people that want to be on the council also want to do the work required. Sure, it's unpaid. It's volunteer. But everyone that runs knows that going in. It's no secret. The CSM is not supposed to be a chat channel and a vacation to Iceland twice a year. It is supposed to be something more than that.


You keep calling me out. Could you please cite an example of where I am NOT doing exactly what I promised to do if elected? CCP has big plans for mining and industry. Due to the laws of physics we can't expect them for several expansions. I am trying to make sure that they deliver those plans. In fact I not only doing what I promised I'm not doing what I promised not to do, which is try and be a game designer and doing intricate feature designs for things that could be put in Eve.

I've attended all the public meetings and watch the forums, responding when I can add some value to the conversation. If you think there is something special I should be doing you are going to need to be more specific. Again, if you could tie that back to anything I promised to do when I ran that would be great.

Issler
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-09-24 23:37:23 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
You keep calling me out. Could you please cite an example of where I am NOT doing exactly what I promised to do if elected?

I suppose if you were elected to do the very bare minimum, then, yes, you are doing what you were elected to do quite admirably. Nobody does nothing with quite the same panache that you do.
Rengerel en Distel
#15 - 2012-09-24 23:49:08 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
You keep calling me out. Could you please cite an example of where I am NOT doing exactly what I promised to do if elected?

I suppose if you were elected to do the very bare minimum, then, yes, you are doing what you were elected to do quite admirably. Nobody does nothing with quite the same panache that you do.


Does she need to host a podcast, talking for 4 hours about how everything she ran on is going to be done by CCP? Perhaps she needs a blog, and should post it to the forums every couple of hours, in which she says the same thing over and over and over and over?

Seriously, it's obvious you want to run for CSM and want to be secretary, so you have a reason to be writing all this shite.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#16 - 2012-09-25 06:17:04 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
You keep calling me out. Could you please cite an example of where I am NOT doing exactly what I promised to do if elected?

I suppose if you were elected to do the very bare minimum, then, yes, you are doing what you were elected to do quite admirably. Nobody does nothing with quite the same panache that you do.


If after I was elected I learned CCP had decided to ignore mining and industry for another couple of years my level of participation would be different. But I choose to live in reality so again, what are you expecting me to do?

Issler
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-09-25 17:17:00 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
If after I was elected I learned CCP had decided to ignore mining and industry for another couple of years my level of participation would be different.
And pigs would fly, too.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-09-25 17:20:45 UTC
Another bit of reform I'd like to see. Real-life names are only released for those that win a seat. If you do not win a seat, you still retain your anonymity.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-09-25 17:34:43 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Another bit of reform I'd like to see. Real-life names are only released for those that win a seat. If you do not win a seat, you still retain your anonymity.


How about zero published RL names for anyone, period since it serves absolutely no purpose other than to help facilitate vigilante justice?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-09-25 17:58:08 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Another bit of reform I'd like to see. Real-life names are only released for those that win a seat. If you do not win a seat, you still retain your anonymity.
How about zero published RL names for anyone, period since it serves absolutely no purpose other than to help facilitate vigilante justice?
That would be preferable ... but since CCP seems pretty adamant about real-life names for reps, I opted to suggest a half-measure that is at least a step in the right direction.
12Next page