open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: CSM - Call for Candidates and Changes to the CSM
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2010.03.23 15:24:00 - [1]
 

In addition to changes in the length of the Council of Stellar Management terms, we are pleased to announce that will be accepting candidates for the Fifth CSM. More information can be found in CCP Diagoras' newest dev blog.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.03.23 15:47:00 - [2]
 

1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators. Confused

el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:02:00 - [3]
 

Marlona, you're assuming the CSM matters.

Silly bear.

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:02:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators. Confused



On the positive side, we can now stop wasting time getting to know any new candidates and just keep voting the same candidate each time, until he finally gets tired of taking free trips to Iceland.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:15:00 - [5]
 

Yay, now we will have Fanfest freeloaders stuck at CSM for 12months per year...

T'Amber
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:26:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: T''Amber on 24/03/2010 05:06:22


T'amber for CSM5

What Larkonis and Serenity Steele say below. Very Happy


-T'amber








Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:35:00 - [7]
 

Awwwww yeah.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:46:00 - [8]
 

Quote:
Term limits will be removed, and all people who have previously used up their term limits are ‘reset' - anyone can run again, and can be elected as many times as the voters see fit.


Lol. Csm failing to exist already?

Katana Seiko
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:50:00 - [9]
 

Well, I think that a limitation is good and necessary. But a limitation of being re-elected once should be good. That also allows the person to run for office again after having a break of one year.

Jack bubu
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:52:00 - [10]
 

good, more power to the CSM ;)

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:58:00 - [11]
 

I do wonder if that is a bit too soon for the next Iceland summit. Unless CCP expect CSM5 to consist of pretty much all returning candidates.

Getting up to speed in 3 weeks (whilst the Alliance Tourney is on too) is a big ask for people totally new to the process.

Ashina Sito
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:01:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Yay, now we will have Fanfest freeloaders stuck at CSM for 12months per year...




Quote:
The visit will take place in June, the first month of their taking office.

This will then be followed by a second visit in December.


There is no FanFest CSM summit, unless CCP is moving Fanfest out of October and changing it to June or December.


It's nice to see all the requirement information posted or linked to with the CSM announcement blog this time. Smile Having a 3 day notice to get started with the CSM canidaite info is a bit short, but I guess it must be done. Time to get crackin' I guess.


Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:04:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators. Confused


Better than having the number of voters half every term cause no one knows anything about the dregs of the barrel.

Though I would have suggested a cool-off period of one term after every two, just to rotate the seats a bit.

Ashina Sito
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:10:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
I do wonder if that is a bit too soon for the next Iceland summit. Unless CCP expect CSM5 to consist of pretty much all returning candidates.

Getting up to speed in 3 weeks (whilst the Alliance Tourney is on too) is a big ask for people totally new to the process.


I think they know this. I can't see the CSM 5/1 summit being of much use to CCP. It is unfortunate but something that must be done to set the CSM on the schedule they want it to run.


Derus Grobb
Minmatar
Selectus Pravus Lupus
Transmission Lost
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:16:00 - [15]
 

Looks like the CSM is getting a boost.

Good stuff CCP!

Kile Kitmoore
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:36:00 - [16]
 

No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?

EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.

Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.

ThorTheGreat
Caldari
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:40:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Kile Kitmoore
No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?

EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.

Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.



yes csm candidates should be pigeonholed into arbitrary categories because you said so

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:40:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
1st in a dark day for the EVE Community with the removal of term limits. I guess we should welcome out new CSM dictators. Confused



U mad?

I do have my reservations about the term length and abolition of limits though. As seen with CSM 4 continuity isn't much of an issue, perhaps forbid people from doing 2 consecutive terms?

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:50:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: ThorTheGreat
Originally by: Kile Kitmoore
No term limits but is there a mechanism for recalling someone?

EVE is a very complex game, thank god. That complexity however makes it impossible for a handful of elected individuals to represent many aspects of the game. Divide the game into categories and CSM candidates should run on their expertise in those areas.

Please consider using EVE Gate, IGB and e-mail to help facility CSM communications and voter turnout.



yes csm candidates should be pigeonholed into arbitrary categories because you said so


What he said.

Funnily enough people tend to vote for the people they most relate to and to be brutally honest a candidate is probably better off with decent-good knowledge of all game mechanics rathat than being an expert in one field at the expense of others.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:11:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler

Funnily enough people tend to vote for the people they most relate to and to be brutally honest a candidate is probably better off with decent-good knowledge of all game mechanics rathat than being an expert in one field at the expense of others.


Absolutely.
The number of elected representatives over the terms who had no knowledge whatsoever of some aspects is not small. Some of them barely knew anything other than PvEing in Empire...

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:18:00 - [21]
 

If I get elected I will propose the rule that Herschel Yamamoto must be in CSM. Its a pity that he is missing his delegate spot for ages, while FreeTripToIcelandCrew is repeatedly getting in.

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.03.23 19:55:00 - [22]
 

"Term limits will be removed"

So much for steering away from the CSM as special interest / advance insight group.

Very Happy

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2010.03.23 21:18:00 - [23]
 

I can understand the desire for longer terms for the sake of added delegate continuity, but I can't say I like the idea of unlimited terms, I'm afraid; not unless CCP raises the standard of requirement for becoming a candidate to begin with.

It's hard to have faith in a system when some of the delegates have clearly got in just for the luls, and would freely do so again given another chance.

/Ben

Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:36:00 - [24]
 

This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.

Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.

Extending the period to 1 year means:
- non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad.
- people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad.
- Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.

Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.

Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.

It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:43:00 - [25]
 

Posts nr 2 and 3 says it all.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.03.23 23:00:00 - [26]
 

Hm. Perhaps one day I will run also for that spot in there. Next spring perhaps. I can already imagine the pitchforks and torches when I promise to lobby for removal of T2 BPO's and proper UI for industry.

6 months was pretty reasonable time interval for CSM in my opinion considering how 'fast' is time in EVE. However 1 year is still within more or less reasonable time interval. Just have to pick your candidates better.

Cat o'Ninetails
Caldari
Rancer Defence League
Posted - 2010.03.24 00:01:00 - [27]
 

vote cat

x

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:00:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Serenity Steele
This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.

Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.

Extending the period to 1 year means:
- non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad.
- people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad.
- Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.

Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.

Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.

It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)


Looks like you're still thinking of the CSM as the CSM, whereas it seems CCP is moving ahead full speed encompassing CSM in SCRUM.

It is almost funny if it goes like announced now it'll bump into stuff players usually bump into in game, like kicking inactive directors and all that, I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM Very Happy

As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).


Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:20:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Dragon Greg

As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).



That is only true insofar as the only people voting are the ones with special interests.

However, despite the fact that most elected reps come from special interests, some of them have acted in the general interest and have had the knowledge necessary to make decisions with general regards to the impact to the whole community.

ThorTheGreat
Caldari
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:24:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Dragon Greg
Originally by: Serenity Steele
This looks to me like over-kill; both extending the period to 1 year PLUS making no limit on total number of sessions.

Taking the limit off enables good performers can do it for longer = good.

Extending the period to 1 year means:
- non-contributing/incapable/stupid people stay longer = bad.
- people will need to be kicked for non-participation = bad.
- Still facing a risk of continuity every time the entire council can cycle = bad.

Would it not be better to state the terms are 6 months, existing members get an option to extend for 1yr? Council members nominating to step-down before election cycles, rather than having to be kicked because their life changes. A number of seats open each 6 month period, there is still continuity for people who get into it, there is still a chance to bow-out gracefully, there is still a medium-term period for new-blood to enter.

Not to mention the other interesting meta-gaming aspects of people demanding that specific council members step-down at the 6 month mark, encouraging others to stay the 1 year etc.

It would probably also have an interesting effect on the election periods, as there are less positions, people would have a greater impact on garnering votes to get in. The flip-side could ofc. be that larger voice powerblocks keep on inserting more candidates, with 2 strikes at the pie ;)


Looks like you're still thinking of the CSM as the CSM, whereas it seems CCP is moving ahead full speed encompassing CSM in SCRUM.

It is almost funny if it goes like announced now it'll bump into stuff players usually bump into in game, like kicking inactive directors and all that, I wonder if the chairman has a button to disband the CSM Very Happy

As long as the CSM remains a political process, it will not become a viable stakeholder group within scrum since it solely represents special interest groups (representing polities) as opposed to general interest groups (representing clients).




This statement would make more sense if it wasn't the clients doing the voting.


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only