These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 December minutes: The CSM

First post First post
Author
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2013-01-19 15:54:01 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
That said, I do agree with the CSM themselves delegating the other strictly "more work" roles - secretary, etc. Chair/vice chair should always be decided by the players, though.


Achieving #1 and #2 positions demonstrate a good deal of leadership skills, which are some of the things chairman and vice chairman require anyway.

I know there are reasons why the guys voted the way they did, but there was quite a lot of drama last year when Seleene became chairman instead of Two Step (not counting the rest of the drama by then). Now imagine this happening again every single time. I think we can do away with that. There's plenty of room for drama in the game already, no need for more of it during the CSM taking office.

Now, there is nothing in the process that implies #3 and #4 are necessarily the most suitable people for secretary and vice secretary, so it's ok to give the CSM the flexibility to choose these internally.

Just to kick the discussion a little further, should we consider creating new roles to try spreading the work more evenly? Or maybe some other form of recognition for people that show good performance?

:sand:  over  :awesome:

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2013-01-19 20:17:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Orisa Medeem wrote:
Achieving #1 and #2 positions demonstrate a good deal of leadership skills, which are some of the things chairman and vice chairman require anyway.
I generally like the Goon candidates ... but telling 6000 people to vote for X does not confer any leadership qualities upon X.

Test, this year, could tell their 11000 members to all vote DurrDurrDurr, does that somehow mean DDD will be a good leader?
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#83 - 2013-01-20 22:04:41 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Orisa Medeem wrote:
Achieving #1 and #2 positions demonstrate a good deal of leadership skills, which are some of the things chairman and vice chairman require anyway.
I generally like the Goon candidates ... but telling 6000 people to vote for X does not confer any leadership qualities upon X.

Test, this year, could tell their 11000 members to all vote DurrDurrDurr, does that somehow mean DDD will be a good leader?

Alliance leaders can tell their dudes to vote for anyone but there's no way to enforce it since voting is completely anonymous.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Frying Doom
#84 - 2013-01-20 23:33:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Having The Chair as the highest vote, makes it little more than an ego trip.

Being on the CSM should be ego trip enough for the members, The chairperson should be the best person in a leadership and communication not the person who is looking for the biggest swollen head.

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

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#85 - 2013-01-21 09:31:41 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Having The Chair as the highest vote, makes it little more than an ego trip.

Being on the CSM should be ego trip enough for the members, The chairperson should be the best person in a leadership and communication not the person who is looking for the biggest swollen head.


If the position of the chair is cause for an ego trip, it'll be that way regardless of whether it's voted on by the CSM or the players. Hell, in your case, it'd be better to let the players pick so as to avoid starting a CSM year off with political infighting.

"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["

Frying Doom
#86 - 2013-01-21 10:27:17 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Having The Chair as the highest vote, makes it little more than an ego trip.

Being on the CSM should be ego trip enough for the members, The chairperson should be the best person in a leadership and communication not the person who is looking for the biggest swollen head.


If the position of the chair is cause for an ego trip, it'll be that way regardless of whether it's voted on by the CSM or the players. Hell, in your case, it'd be better to let the players pick so as to avoid starting a CSM year off with political infighting.

Quote:
CSM 7 Chairman - Seleene

Because of the resignation of The Mittani from CSM 7, the position of Chairman was opened up to a vote among all 13 members of CSM 7. The candidates were Two Step and Seleene. The votes:

Meissa Anunthiel - Seleene
Greene Lee - Seleene
Two Step - Two Step
Kelduum Revaan - Seleene
Alekseyev Karrde - Seleene
Hans Jagerblitzen - Seleene
Elise Randolph - Seleene
UAxDEATH - Seleene
Seleene - Seleene
Trebor Daehdoow - Seleene
Dovinian - Seleene
Issler Dainze - Two Step
Darius III - Seleene

With the total 11 for Seleene and 2 for Two Step, Seleene has been elected Chairman of CSM 7.

Personally I don't see infighting, some deals might be made but honestly anyone who starts infighting over the CSM chair, do we really need that kind of egomaniac as chairperson?

What I am saying is that I would prefer the decision be made by 14 representatives of the people so that the chairperson selected is the most qualified for the job, not the person able to obtain or scam the most votes. We elected them with the trust to do the right thing. Allowing them the ability to take the time to chose the right person to speak for the CSM and take the leadership is the right thing.

With luck as it becomes a more normalized thing the CSM will spend more time debating this decision, rather than as it was there forced on them. A council working in harmony will attain more than a council run by a huge ego that is not suited for the position.

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

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#87 - 2013-01-21 11:07:02 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Having The Chair as the highest vote, makes it little more than an ego trip.

Being on the CSM should be ego trip enough for the members, The chairperson should be the best person in a leadership and communication not the person who is looking for the biggest swollen head.


If the position of the chair is cause for an ego trip, it'll be that way regardless of whether it's voted on by the CSM or the players. Hell, in your case, it'd be better to let the players pick so as to avoid starting a CSM year off with political infighting.


What if the player who gets the most votes has no desire to be Chair?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2013-01-21 11:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Can't really compare CSM 7, as their vote on the chair was unexpected. A CSM where the vote for chair by the council is known well in advance is an entirely different kettle of fish, especially if *ahem* differently-aligned members win seats.

You keep calling the Chair position a job, but even you've admitted there's more to it than that. Picking the secretary etc, you're right, those are simply jobs and are best decided by the council. The Chair position isn't as simple, and shouldn't be treated as if it is.

Granted, I don't think that "top votes=chair" is some wonderful or optimal way to do it, but it's far better than letting the CSM vote on it (or god forbid having CCP choose).

Malcanis wrote:
What if the player who gets the most votes has no desire to be Chair?


Now this is interesting. Obviously, the top vote-getter should be well within their rights to relinquish the spot, though where it goes from there is a very good question. Personally, I think the top vote-getter should be able to choose the new Chair if they want, or put it to a vote if they have no preferred candidate. I know I just argued against a vote, but I think in this case it'd be similar to the current CSM's vote, in that the lack of advance notice prevented things from getting too dumb.

"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["

Frying Doom
#89 - 2013-01-21 11:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
removed didn't read that one clearlyBig smile

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

Frying Doom
#90 - 2013-01-21 11:21:38 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Can't really compare CSM 7, as their vote on the chair was unexpected. A CSM where the vote for chair by the council is known well in advance is an entirely different kettle of fish, especially if *ahem* differently-aligned members win seats.

You keep calling the Chair position a job, but even you've admitted there's more to it than that. Picking the secretary etc, you're right, those are simply jobs and are best decided by the council. The Chair position isn't as simple, and shouldn't be treated as if it is.

Granted, I don't think that "top votes=chair" is some wonderful or optimal way to do it, but it's far better than letting the CSM vote on it (or god forbid having CCP choose).

Malcanis wrote:
What if the player who gets the most votes has no desire to be Chair?


Now this is interesting. Obviously, the top vote-getter should be well within their rights to relinquish the spot, though I'm not sure how it should go from there. Personally, I think the top vote-getter should be able to choose the new Chair if they want, or put it to a vote if they have no preferred candidate. I know I just argued against a vote, but I think in this case it'd be similar to the current CSM's vote, in that the lack of advance notice prevented things from getting too dumb.

I very much do not consider the chair something simple which is why I feel it should be more than an ego trip for who ever manages to get the most votes.

The chair should be something given for ability, not just the ability to get votes. Especially as scamming votes will still be an acceptable way of getting them and if the new interface allows easier voting it will allow easier scamming as well.

It is my belief that the CSM will have a better idea of who is better as spokesman and leader than the voters as the voters are going on charisma and lets face it in some cases spoon fed drool.

Take mittens for example if he was say the seventh down and there was no one better qualified (I add this as these people possibly do exist in a base of a few hundred thousand people) he should have been chairman with or without the backing of votes. He had leadership skills and the ability to speak to large masses and did not just run away and hide.

So the talent should get the position not the votes.

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

Frying Doom
#91 - 2013-01-21 11:35:30 UTC
I will add a hypothetical in here.

Say TEST needed cash for example and I coughed up an amount to buy their votes on the contingency, they only get it if I get chairman.

Now in all honesty would you want me as chairman? really?

Of course not and the above hypothetical is completely within the rules.

So keep the chair as it was in CSM6 and before and it is only a matter of time before someone just pays for it to add it to their trophy collection.

The CSM is the voice of the players and should not be used to polish anyone's ego, undeservedly.

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

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2013-01-21 11:36:43 UTC
Yeah, Mittens was an obvious choice. What happens for councils where there is no Mittens? What happens when say, there's 2 members who are both good at it and both really want it? OR, to use your example, what happens if Mittens came in 7th but the council chose someone inferior but perhaps more popular internally than him?

Why would the CSM have a better idea who's good at what? Remember, they'd be voting on a chair nearly right away, well before anyone's attributes could really start to shine (or well before their less-desirable attributes become apparent). They're in no better position to choose than anyone else.

"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["

Frying Doom
#93 - 2013-01-21 11:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Snow Axe wrote:
Yeah, Mittens was an obvious choice. What happens for councils where there is no Mittens? What happens when say, there's 2 members who are both good at it and both really want it? OR, to use your example, what happens if Mittens came in 7th but the council chose someone inferior but perhaps more popular internally than him?

Why would the CSM have a better idea who's good at what? Remember, they'd be voting on a chair nearly right away, well before anyone's attributes could really start to shine (or well before their less-desirable attributes become apparent). They're in no better position to choose than anyone else.

Yes they will be voting fairly soon after election but personally I feel they should probably take more time than CSM7 did, 4 days may be to short a time span to chose a chairman.

We personally would not die if they took 2 weeks to decide their positions and in that amount of time on skype and just general research you could easily discover who is suited.

As to two equally qualified people, well that would very much come down to their leadership skills as the better leader will come to the top pretty fast.

And as I pointed to above it makes the chair worth more than an ego buff for the person in the biggest alliance and worth more than someone buying the position.

Oh as the the mittens being internally less popular than someone else, yes this could happen but I personally would not want the chair in that position, you would spend your whole term trying to live up to what people believed mittens would have done.

One thing I do want to add though is that I personally think the vote for chairman should be a silent one to prevent brow beating

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

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-01-21 13:20:25 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
What if the player who gets the most votes has no desire to be Chair?

The candidates are those that say they will accept the post if elected.

The election in CSM7 was much closer than it appears. For me it was a 51/49 situation.

Snow Axe wrote:
Yeah, Mittens was an obvious choice. What happens for councils where there is no Mittens? What happens when say, there's 2 members who are both good at it and both really want it? OR, to use your example, what happens if Mittens came in 7th but the council chose someone inferior but perhaps more popular internally than him?

Please explain how any of these situations is worse than arbitrarily assigning chairman to the top vote getter.

My experience over 3 CSMs has been that the politics ends when the voting ends. Pretty much everyone understands that the point of the CSM is to do as good a job as possible in influencing CCP, and makes their decisions accordingly.

In the unlikely event that the 14 people the community has just elected to represent them descend into squabbling and butthurt over a bit of ego-massage, then they're off to a pretty ****-poor start, and better everyone should know it.



Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#95 - 2013-01-22 11:05:43 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My experience over 3 CSMs has been that the politics ends when the voting ends.


This from the guy who created a voting system specifically designed to **** over a group of voters that would never have voted for him is especially rich.

"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
#96 - 2013-01-22 11:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Please explain how any of these situations is worse than arbitrarily assigning chairman to the top vote getter.
I suppose Two Step's threadnaught is an excellent example of CSM cooperation. Or when most of the CSM quickly distanced themselves from your voting reform thread. Yeah. You're right. The politics do stop when the voting ends.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#97 - 2013-01-22 17:47:01 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Please explain how any of these situations is worse than arbitrarily assigning chairman to the top vote getter.
I suppose Two Step's threadnaught is an excellent example of CSM cooperation. Or when most of the CSM quickly distanced themselves from your voting reform thread. Yeah. You're right. The politics do stop when the voting ends.


Uh, my threadnaught was a pretty good example, actually. As far as I know, only one member of the CSM was publicly against it.

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

Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2013-01-22 20:02:38 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Please explain how any of these situations is worse than arbitrarily assigning chairman to the top vote getter.


1) I think making the top voter getter into the chairman is a right of the voters and the CSM should not have the power to overwrite this under normal circumstances. Trying to argument that they only got there due to block voting does not rule out this right.

2) Assigning chairman to the top vote getter is the least controversial way of handling this, especially in an environment where not all the communication can be disclosed. Allowing the chairman to be elected internally means dooming all future CSMs to deal with the commotion of "how the chairman was selected this time around" and all the tinfoilhattery that will invariably arise.

You were one of the first to say that the chairman has no special powers because, summits apart, all representatives are given the same accessibility to the devs. That means any amount of time dealing with a community backslash over this, no matter how small, is wasted, detracting from more important discussions.

3) We have no evidence that the representatives are able to choose a better chairman than the voters do. As was said before, the decision must be made before there is enough time to build an informed decision on the other members' capabilities and a lot of it is based on subjective factors anyway.

:sand:  over  :awesome:

Frying Doom
#99 - 2013-01-22 23:40:03 UTC
Orisa Medeem wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Please explain how any of these situations is worse than arbitrarily assigning chairman to the top vote getter.


1) I think making the top voter getter into the chairman is a right of the voters and the CSM should not have the power to overwrite this under normal circumstances. Trying to argument that they only got there due to block voting does not rule out this right.

2) Assigning chairman to the top vote getter is the least controversial way of handling this, especially in an environment where not all the communication can be disclosed. Allowing the chairman to be elected internally means dooming all future CSMs to deal with the commotion of "how the chairman was selected this time around" and all the tinfoilhattery that will invariably arise.

You were one of the first to say that the chairman has no special powers because, summits apart, all representatives are given the same accessibility to the devs. That means any amount of time dealing with a community backslash over this, no matter how small, is wasted, detracting from more important discussions.

3) We have no evidence that the representatives are able to choose a better chairman than the voters do. As was said before, the decision must be made before there is enough time to build an informed decision on the other members' capabilities and a lot of it is based on subjective factors anyway.

So to sum your position up. The chair should be someones epeen and a commodity that can be bought.

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

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#100 - 2013-01-23 00:30:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So to sum your position up. The chair should be someones epeen and a commodity that can be bought.


You have yet to explain how having the CSM choose instead of the players changes any of that.

"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["