These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

CSM 8 Chairmanship

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-04-24 11:07:00 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
It has become a rather boring stereotype.

, said the guy perpetuating it
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-04-24 14:50:29 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
mynnna wrote:
I'm sure I can swing it, although it's readily apparent that you disagree on behalf of Gimmick Alts Associated. Blink


Nope just myself. Never got the membership card for GAA. Clearly I am unworthy of even that honor.

So, I didn't think your crossing zebra's interview or any of your podcast/debate appearances really showed that kind of real charismatic presence, or even the ability to think on one's feet really. Important qualities for a Chairman. Although the appearances did of course highlight a keen observational mind with insight into economics and perhaps even politics, which is why I held off on any sort of real campaign against you (not that I am saying that would have made a real difference). You do have my respect, although you may not care. I am just saying that role does not appear to play to your strengths.

You are getting the disdain of others and smack downs fairly well. Not the kind of chairman I would prefer, but it did serve your predecessor well. You have been taking lessons from the great one?


The CZ interview was far from my best appearance, yes. Bad cold, and more importantly, went into it rather ill prepared. Sorry if you've drawn the conclusion that I'm unsuited for the job, though I do appreciate that you're now conveying your opinion rather than that of a mysterious, unidentified "we".

Who knows, though. Perhaps a year from now I'll agree with you by virtue of hindsight. Cool

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
None ofthe Above
#23 - 2013-04-24 14:53:43 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
Yeah the CSM has no responsibility to the voters past the election does it?


Not when it comes to their own procedural stuff, no.


Amusingly you lot had much to say when Seleene stood for the chair.

Now you contend that the playerbase should have no opinion about this?

See Mynnna's comment on demagoguery for clues to how I perceive your comments.



The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#24 - 2013-04-24 15:04:43 UTC
mynnna wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
mynnna wrote:
I'm sure I can swing it, although it's readily apparent that you disagree on behalf of Gimmick Alts Associated. Blink


Nope just myself. Never got the membership card for GAA. Clearly I am unworthy of even that honor.

So, I didn't think your crossing zebra's interview or any of your podcast/debate appearances really showed that kind of real charismatic presence, or even the ability to think on one's feet really. Important qualities for a Chairman. Although the appearances did of course highlight a keen observational mind with insight into economics and perhaps even politics, which is why I held off on any sort of real campaign against you (not that I am saying that would have made a real difference). You do have my respect, although you may not care. I am just saying that role does not appear to play to your strengths.

You are getting the disdain of others and smack downs fairly well. Not the kind of chairman I would prefer, but it did serve your predecessor well. You have been taking lessons from the great one?


The CZ interview was far from my best appearance, yes. Bad cold, and more importantly, went into it rather ill prepared. Sorry if you've drawn the conclusion that I'm unsuited for the job, though I do appreciate that you're now conveying your opinion rather than that of a mysterious, unidentified "we".

Who knows, though. Perhaps a year from now I'll agree with you by virtue of hindsight. Cool


Or perhaps you will do a stellar job and I will agree with you in hindsight. To an extant I would love for that to happen.

I do actually appreciate the fact that you took the first interview, and therefore had the most difficult task of walking in, not knowing what to expect. The fact had not escaped me that the others had the advantage of seeing what they were getting into before hand.

FYI - The "we" I had in mind when I wrote that first comment was you and I. You were right to point out that it was presumptuous to assert a knowledge of the collective consciousness. I hadn't actually meant to and I don't mind being called out for accidentally doing so. It does amuse me however that Snow Axe's posts are using the same type of "my opinion is the objective truth and there is no room for discussion" that you accused me of.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-04-24 15:21:53 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
FYI - The "we" I had in mind when I wrote that first comment was you and I. You were right to point out that it was presumptuous to assert a knowledge of the collective consciousness. I hadn't actually meant to and I don't mind being called out for accidentally doing so. It does amuse me however that Snow Axe's posts are using the same type of "my opinion is the objective truth and there is no room for discussion" that you accused me of.


So instead of asserting knowledge of the collective consciousness, you were asserting what I think? What?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Rengerel en Distel
#26 - 2013-04-24 15:31:31 UTC
I don't really see the point in the officer positions at all anyways. The vote of an officer or their opinion doesn't mean any more to CCP than anyone else on the council. It's the person themselves that set their worth, not a title they get voted upon.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
None ofthe Above
#27 - 2013-04-24 15:40:10 UTC
mynnna wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
FYI - The "we" I had in mind when I wrote that first comment was you and I. You were right to point out that it was presumptuous to assert a knowledge of the collective consciousness. I hadn't actually meant to and I don't mind being called out for accidentally doing so. It does amuse me however that Snow Axe's posts are using the same type of "my opinion is the objective truth and there is no room for discussion" that you accused me of.


So instead of asserting knowledge of the collective consciousness, you were asserting what I think? What?


Heh, in a way.

I was appealing to you to be honest with yourself. If I was wrong about you (or self-deluded, in this case the effect would be the same), you'd reject it. If I was right, I hoped that you might see that and do the right thing.

Since you appear to be intent on continuing it would seem one of the following is correct:

  1. I am completely wrong. You are up for the task and know it.
  2. You are not being honest with your self, and not up for the task.
  3. You are fully aware that you are not ready, but not willing to do the right thing.
  4. None ofthe Above

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#28 - 2013-04-24 15:48:58 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
I don't really see the point in the officer positions at all anyways. The vote of an officer or their opinion doesn't mean any more to CCP than anyone else on the council. It's the person themselves that set their worth, not a title they get voted upon.


You are about as completely right as you are completely wrong.

The roles and positions have no real inherent power except what a person can make of having that label attached to them. It does set expectations and perceptions, meaning that person will be the guy to go to for certain types of things.

If a candidate believes the chairmanship is meaningless and takes that role, it probably will be for them. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand we've seen what can be done with it, when in the hands of someone who understands what opportunity it presents.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-04-24 16:20:50 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
mynnna wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
FYI - The "we" I had in mind when I wrote that first comment was you and I. You were right to point out that it was presumptuous to assert a knowledge of the collective consciousness. I hadn't actually meant to and I don't mind being called out for accidentally doing so. It does amuse me however that Snow Axe's posts are using the same type of "my opinion is the objective truth and there is no room for discussion" that you accused me of.


So instead of asserting knowledge of the collective consciousness, you were asserting what I think? What?


Heh, in a way.

I was appealing to you to be honest with yourself. If I was wrong about you (or self-deluded, in this case the effect would be the same), you'd reject it. If I was right, I hoped that you might see that and do the right thing.

Since you appear to be intent on continuing it would seem one of the following is correct:

  1. I am completely wrong. You are up for the task and know it.
  2. You are not being honest with your self, and not up for the task.
  3. You are fully aware that you are not ready, but not willing to do the right thing.
  4. None ofthe Above


All of which is, of course, predicated on your personal opinion that I'm unfit for the job. Unfortunately, you're not on the list of people to whom I'm happy to listen to about such things. Or, perhaps you are, but as you post with the obvious alt, I have no way of knowing. And if I listened to every alt poster on the forums, well, I'd have every possible opinion covered.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#30 - 2013-04-24 17:26:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Issler Dainze
None ofthe Above wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
I don't really see the point in the officer positions at all anyways. The vote of an officer or their opinion doesn't mean any more to CCP than anyone else on the council. It's the person themselves that set their worth, not a title they get voted upon.


You are about as completely right as you are completely wrong.

The roles and positions have no real inherent power except what a person can make of having that label attached to them. It does set expectations and perceptions, meaning that person will be the guy to go to for certain types of things.

If a candidate believes the chairmanship is meaningless and takes that role, it probably will be for them. It will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand we've seen what can be done with it, when in the hands of someone who understands what opportunity it presents.


It is really up the CSM 8 to decide what an officer role means as in practice they really have no real meaning. It will be up the CSM 8 to decide what they mean or if they even matter. In the CSM 7 I'm not sure I saw anything about the officers roles that made them any different than the other members. What it came down to was the folks that worked, worked and the work was spread across the entire group whenever possible.

Wearing a special officer "hat" never made a difference to anyone in the CSM 7. Leadership in the CSM 7 was more driven by the topic or specific issue and the passion or experience of an individual CSM member than some edict that resulted from a title. Issues seemed to naturally find the best owner to take the lead and title had nothing to do with that.

I expect the CSM 8 will do great regardless of who gets to wear a shiny officer hat..

Issler
None ofthe Above
#31 - 2013-04-24 18:18:45 UTC
mynnna wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
mynnna wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
FYI - The "we" I had in mind when I wrote that first comment was you and I. You were right to point out that it was presumptuous to assert a knowledge of the collective consciousness. I hadn't actually meant to and I don't mind being called out for accidentally doing so. It does amuse me however that Snow Axe's posts are using the same type of "my opinion is the objective truth and there is no room for discussion" that you accused me of.


So instead of asserting knowledge of the collective consciousness, you were asserting what I think? What?


Heh, in a way.

I was appealing to you to be honest with yourself. If I was wrong about you (or self-deluded, in this case the effect would be the same), you'd reject it. If I was right, I hoped that you might see that and do the right thing.

Since you appear to be intent on continuing it would seem one of the following is correct:

  1. I am completely wrong. You are up for the task and know it.
  2. You are not being honest with your self, and not up for the task.
  3. You are fully aware that you are not ready, but not willing to do the right thing.
  4. None ofthe Above


All of which is, of course, predicated on your personal opinion that I'm unfit for the job. Unfortunately, you're not on the list of people to whom I'm happy to listen to about such things. Or, perhaps you are, but as you post with the obvious alt, I have no way of knowing. And if I listened to every alt poster on the forums, well, I'd have every possible opinion covered.


God forbid that you would have every possible opinion covered, that would be inconceivable as a player representative.

I post as None when the message is more important than the messenger. In this case being that the chairmanship is not a trophy but instead a responsibility.

FYI - We have crossed paths as my main(s) at times in game and on the forums, but I am probably not a person there that you'd happily take criticism from either. I suspect that's a rather small circle.

Considering you are not happy listening to me about such things, I thank you for your time in engaging in the conversation. It's been educational.

Also a minor point of refutation: Option 1 above is "predicated" on my personal opinion being wrong. (An opinion which is open to change, and has changed to a degree during this conversation. You've handled yourself decently well under a pretty blunt bit of criticism. Despite your tendency to use one off barbs to dismiss the attacker, you've done so artfully. Making pointed comments about my argument to shape the conversation. Bravo.)

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#32 - 2013-04-24 18:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Issler Dainze wrote:


It is really up the CSM 8 to decide what an officer role means as in practice they really have no real meaning. It will be up the CSM 8 to decide what they mean or if they even matter. In the CSM 7 I'm not sure I saw anything about the officers roles that made them any different than the other members. What it came down to was the folks that worked, worked and the work was spread across the entire group whenever possible.

Wearing a special officer "hat" never made a difference to anyone in the CSM 7. Leadership in the CSM 7 was more driven by the topic or specific issue and the passion or experience of an individual CSM member than some edict that resulted from a title. Issues seemed to naturally find the best owner to take the lead and title had nothing to do with that.

I expect the CSM 8 will do great regardless of who gets to wear a shiny officer hat..

Issler


Well, interesting. While I do admire the adhocratic approach and commend those that stepped up, I can't help but think that it is sad that the opportunities presented by those positions were not capitalized on.

At any rate we shall see about CSM 8, I hold high hopes as you do.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2013-04-24 19:26:51 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Is really up the CSM 8 to decide what an officer role means as in practice they really have no real meaning. It will be up the CSM 8 to decide what they mean or if they even matter. In the CSM 7 I'm not sure I saw anything about the officers roles that made them any different than the other members. What it came down to was the folks that worked, worked and the work was spread across the entire group whenever possible.

Wearing a special officer "hat" never made a difference to anyone in the CSM 7. Leadership in the CSM 7 was more driven by the topic or specific issue and the passion or experience of an individual CSM member than some edict that resulted from a title. Issues seemed to naturally find the best owner to take the lead and title had nothing to do with that.


If this was the case, perhaps you could explain why CCP or this past CSM cared enough to change how the Chairman role was chosen? If it's all just ~individuals~ rising and the titles themselves are irrelevant, seems like it'd be a giant waste of time to even talk about how they're assigned, right?

"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["
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-04-24 20:30:11 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:


If this was the case, perhaps you could explain why CCP or this past CSM cared enough to change how the Chairman role was chosen? If it's all just ~individuals~ rising and the titles themselves are irrelevant, seems like it'd be a giant waste of time to even talk about how they're assigned, right?


Not to correct you or anything but apparently (mind you, I'd have to find the old version of the white paper to check) "top vote getter, unless they're ineligible, in which case internal vote" was always how chairman was selected.

None ofthe Above wrote:
God forbid that you would have every possible opinion covered, that would be inconceivable as a player representative.

It's hard to say that "every possible opinion" is relevant even on balance changes, seeing as those opinions can include things like "CCP is out to turn highsec into a theme park" or "CCP is intentionally giving a huge buff to (insert player group here)" and other such useless drivel. On something like this I'm more inclined to trust my own feelings & those of a handful of others. Obviously I'm not alone, otherwise Malcanis' first appearance in the thread might have been "Thanks to your insightful analysis I will be putting my name forward for chairman" rather than "I have no interest in any of the CSM officer positions."

None ofthe Above wrote:
I post as None when the message is more important than the messenger. In this case being that the chairmanship is not a trophy but instead a responsibility.


Well, you can rest assured that I view it as the latter.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
None ofthe Above
#35 - 2013-04-24 20:44:04 UTC
mynnna wrote:


None ofthe Above wrote:
God forbid that you would have every possible opinion covered, that would be inconceivable as a player representative.

It's hard to say that "every possible opinion" is relevant even on balance changes, seeing as those opinions can include things like "CCP is out to turn highsec into a theme park" or "CCP is intentionally giving a huge buff to (insert player group here)" and other such useless drivel. On something like this I'm more inclined to trust my own feelings & those of a handful of others. Obviously I'm not alone, otherwise Malcanis' first appearance in the thread might have been "Thanks to your insightful analysis I will be putting my name forward for chairman" rather than "I have no interest in any of the CSM officer positions."

None ofthe Above wrote:
I post as None when the message is more important than the messenger. In this case being that the chairmanship is not a trophy but instead a responsibility.


Well, you can rest assured that I view it as the latter.


That is actually comforting. Anyway fair enough on that point.

On the every possible opinion side, sure there are dumb ideas. About as many put forth by mains as forum alts. My point simply being that the source is fairly irrelevant to the value of the message. The ideal filter is the value of the concept, not the corp the poster belongs to.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#36 - 2013-04-24 20:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Malcanis wrote:
I have no interest in any of the CSM officer positions.


Refreshing. Then again it's always been pretty clear that you are there to work on the game rather than a power play. Hope to see you in the results.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#37 - 2013-04-24 21:19:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I have no interest in any of the CSM officer positions.


I hope the CSM makes you chairman against your will

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#38 - 2013-04-25 03:54:32 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Is really up the CSM 8 to decide what an officer role means as in practice they really have no real meaning. It will be up the CSM 8 to decide what they mean or if they even matter. In the CSM 7 I'm not sure I saw anything about the officers roles that made them any different than the other members. What it came down to was the folks that worked, worked and the work was spread across the entire group whenever possible.

Wearing a special officer "hat" never made a difference to anyone in the CSM 7. Leadership in the CSM 7 was more driven by the topic or specific issue and the passion or experience of an individual CSM member than some edict that resulted from a title. Issues seemed to naturally find the best owner to take the lead and title had nothing to do with that.


If this was the case, perhaps you could explain why CCP or this past CSM cared enough to change how the Chairman role was chosen? If it's all just ~individuals~ rising and the titles themselves are irrelevant, seems like it'd be a giant waste of time to even talk about how they're assigned, right?


I'd say in the end it never mattered much. If we'd had some officer that had tried to be all "big and bad" pulling rank I think everyone in CSM 7 would have quickly "flipped the bit of the wanna be despot" as some say at a previously employer and the power seeker would have been quickly ignored and marginalized by the rest of the CSM.

No one likely to be in the CSM 8 strikes me as the sort to let someone with aspirations of dominance to use a title to keep others from contributing to the work of the next CSM if those other folks have a strong desire to make a difference.

Issler
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-04-25 05:23:18 UTC
Notice how I didn't ask what your opinion of someone trying to "pull rank" would be and instead asked why the procedure for selecting the Chair was changed between CSM 6 and CSM 7, despite it apparently not mattering to any of you?

I'll give you a hint: I'm insinuating that you're (a) lying or (b) so blind to anything political that you actually believe Trebor when he says nonsense like "the politics end when the election ends".

mynnna wrote:
Not to correct you or anything but apparently (mind you, I'd have to find the old version of the white paper to check) "top vote getter, unless they're ineligible, in which case internal vote" was always how chairman was selected.


I was referring to the new method of picking the Chair in the current White Paper, not the fact that CSM 7 had to vote. That was more CCP getting so convoluted with Mittens' punishment that they forgot their own rules :v

"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["
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2013-04-25 15:30:15 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
I'm sure I can swing it, although it's readily apparent that you disagree on behalf of Gimmick Alts Associated. Blink

One of these days we might actually get a Goon CSM member without a superiority complex.

when discussing things with the luminaries on this forum such as yourself it is very, very difficult to avoid developing one
Previous page123Next page