open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Re-Elect Trebor Daehdoow
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Casiella Truza
Ecliptic Rift
Posted - 2011.03.05 17:54:00 - [91]
 

Without turning this into a full-scale debate, how do you contrast your approach with the valid points The Mittani makes? By this, I mean in terms of the function of the CSM and its relationship with CCP, not whether you're a "ruthless, manipulative bastard".

To be frank, I'd planned all along to vote for you, but I tend to agree with his philosophy that the CSM primarily serves as a sounding board rather than as a set of extra game designers. Your response matters a lot to many of us caught in the same situation as me.

Jenna Malone
Caldari
W-hat LLC
Posted - 2011.03.05 19:42:00 - [92]
 

You shouldn't be let anywhere near people that are involved in decision making. You're the water to the cats.

Taross
Caldari
Laurentson INC
Posted - 2011.03.06 00:03:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Casiella Truza
Without turning this into a full-scale debate, how do you contrast your approach with the valid points The Mittani makes? By this, I mean in terms of the function of the CSM and its relationship with CCP, not whether you're a "ruthless, manipulative bastard".

To be frank, I'd planned all along to vote for you, but I tend to agree with his philosophy that the CSM primarily serves as a sounding board rather than as a set of extra game designers. Your response matters a lot to many of us caught in the same situation as me.


As much as I DO like mitten's run, and the points he makes, just think about it.

WORST thing that could happen to the CSM would be getting mittens and 5 copies of him elected. NEXT TO worst thing would be mittens and 5 sycophants elected.

Which is why I'm backing trebor, and hoping he'll get chairman, as well.

I'm guessing he, as a returning CSM, is aware of the retraints his Infinte Power still holds... I'm voting for a CSM that has BOTH mittens and Trebor, with Trebor having as big a mandate as possible. IE, I'm voting trebor.

Taross
Caldari
Laurentson INC
Posted - 2011.03.06 00:05:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Taross on 06/03/2011 00:06:55
Originally by: Jenna Malone
You shouldn't be let anywhere near people that are involved in decision making. You're the water to the cats.


Magic 8-ball says: "Statement too cryptic, try again"

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.03.06 00:26:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Taross
Originally by: Casiella Truza
Without turning this into a full-scale debate, how do you contrast your approach with the valid points The Mittani makes? By this, I mean in terms of the function of the CSM and its relationship with CCP, not whether you're a "ruthless, manipulative bastard".

To be frank, I'd planned all along to vote for you, but I tend to agree with his philosophy that the CSM primarily serves as a sounding board rather than as a set of extra game designers. Your response matters a lot to many of us caught in the same situation as me.


As much as I DO like mitten's run, and the points he makes, just think about it.

WORST thing that could happen to the CSM would be getting mittens and 5 copies of him elected. NEXT TO worst thing would be mittens and 5 sycophants elected.

Which is why I'm backing trebor, and hoping he'll get chairman, as well.

I'm guessing he, as a returning CSM, is aware of the retraints his Infinte Power still holds... I'm voting for a CSM that has BOTH mittens and Trebor, with Trebor having as big a mandate as possible. IE, I'm voting trebor.


Also, Mittens has asserted that he'll get a seat on his Goon votes alone, so why waste a vote on something that is presumably a sure thing already? I encourage you (and everyone) to invest your vote in a diverse and experienced CSM by voting for Trebor. Continuity--even if CSM6 takes a very different approach to CSM5--is still very important in helping maintain the CSM's momentum. That continuity is best served by re-electing people who were effective and publicly engaged during the previous term. No one fits that description better than Trebor.


Taross
Caldari
Laurentson INC
Posted - 2011.03.06 00:40:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
[

Also, Mittens has asserted that he'll get a seat on his Goon votes alone, so why waste a vote on something that is presumably a sure thing already? I encourage you (and everyone) to invest your vote in a diverse and experienced CSM by voting for Trebor. Continuity--even if CSM6 takes a very different approach to CSM5--is still very important in helping maintain the CSM's momentum. That continuity is best served by re-electing people who were effective and publicly engaged during the previous term. No one fits that description better than Trebor.




Hear, hear.

IF my second vote is going to anyone BUT Trebor, something I;m still mulling over ( I don't LIKE just voting one guy, But that's more of a personality disorder than something rational...) it's not gonna be mittens. But, at least , by now I'm convinced that he's not gonna KILL all the hard work you, trebor, Teadaze and others did...

PC l0adletter
Posted - 2011.03.06 08:52:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
And during the December summit, CCP took some of the top player-ranked items and ran a prioritization game with CSM, where they added to the mix their estimates of how much development time each item would take. Some of that feedback helped Team BFF when they were choosing what "potholes" they were going to try and fix during the next expansion development cycle.


So, uh, what can we expect, exactly?

If they're working on any of this crowdsource/game prioritization stuff, they're sure not doing you any favors by keeping whatever it is they've decided to implement under wraps.

disclaimer:voting for you on 1 of 2 accts

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.06 14:10:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 15/03/2011 00:56:28
Originally by: Casiella Truza
To be frank, I'd planned all along to vote for you, but I tend to agree with his philosophy that the CSM primarily serves as a sounding board rather than as a set of extra game designers. Your response matters a lot to many of us caught in the same situation as me.

The idea that the CSM "primarily serves as a sounding board rather than a set of extra game designers" is an example of a false proposition for several reasons; first because the CSM has never served as extra game designers, but also because CSM has many functions in addition to -- and arguably more important than -- acting as a sounding board (which, btw, is not so much about discussing low-level issues like "fix rockets" and much more about big issues like MicroTransactions and Botting)

CSM is not just about providing feedback to CCP, or communicating player concerns to the devs. These are important, but even more important is the CSM's role as a stakeholder: asking the hard questions, getting CCP to justify the allocation of their development resources, and, in the words of CCP Hellmar, "calling bull****" on them when needed.

But "calling bull****" doesn't mean yelling, or calling people idiots. It means making sure CCP's considered all the angles, that they have good answers for those hard questions, that they can provide good metrics to back up those answers, and so on. It can, and should, be done in a calm, professional manner -- "Nothing personal, just business."

OhThis GuyAgain
Posted - 2011.03.06 17:05:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: OhThis GuyAgain on 06/03/2011 17:05:02

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
CSM's role as a stakeholder: asking the hard questions, getting CCP to justify the allocation of their development resources, and, in the words of CCP Hellmar, "calling bullsh*t" on them when needed.

Can you elaborate more on this? Specifically,
  1. What about the "stakeholder" position is unique to the CSM and how the role is enforced ("stakeholders" in general have power... what is the CSM's power?)
  2. How you personally have used your role as "stakeholder" for the betterment of the game? What hard questions have you asked CCP, and when have you called BS on them?

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.03.06 18:18:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Seleene
I just wanted to throw a few words in here in support of Trebor. The last go around, I split my 6 accounts equally between Dierdra Vaal, Trebor and Mynxee. Since Mynxee and Dierdra aren't running this time, I've thrown my hat into the ring and I sincerely hope that I will get to work alongside Trebor in CSM6. I know he understands that the CSM has a lot of work to do and he's certainly proven his desire to push things forward.

So, after you've voted for me, if you've got an extra account left, vote for Trebor too. Smile
Treb gets my one vote, you get the other account's vote.

Trebor may not be mister PvP hotshot, nor may he be mister nullsec alliance, but he is the sole candidate running who really worked hard for all of us the last time round, with visible results. I disagree with him on the issue of rage and how it affects CCP's actions, but even without the rage, the work he did was absolutely worth the vote he got from my last time round. It's sad that TeaDaze and Myxnee aren't running this time as they were both hard workers as well, especially Mynxee. All she got for her trouble was endless bad-mouthing and insults by the more lunatic fringe of the game, and she deserves a better legacy than that, and the best way to do that IMO is to vote for the serious and professional candidates, no matter how boring they appear to you.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.03.06 20:10:00 - [101]
 

Trebor, you have my 1400's.


Wait wrong movie.

You have my vote.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.06 22:21:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: PC l0adletter
If [Team BFF is] working on any of this crowdsource/game prioritization stuff, they're sure not doing you any favors by keeping whatever it is they've decided to implement under wraps.

disclaimer:voting for you on 1 of 2 accts

In addition to the items mentioned in the Size Doesn't Matter DevBlog, Team BFF is working on some extra items that they hope to deploy in the near future.

They've told CSM about the CSM-raised issues that they are planning on working on (all MuSCoW Should's and Could's, and all things that will make a lot of people happy), but they've also taken CSM's advice to "underpromise and overdeliver" perhaps a bit more to heart that we'd like; they don't want to say a word about them until they are ready to deploy -- I guess you have to be careful what you wish for.

As with the other teams, such as the ones working on Incarna, CSM is encouraging Team BFF to communicate as much as possible to the players as soon as possible. You can help speed this process by plying them with liquor at FanFest. Twisted Evil

Habaticus
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.07 05:04:00 - [103]
 

We must vote for Trebor in the numbers that will get him the Chairmanship. It looks like at the moment that at least three or four of the 0.0 crowd will get seats on the CSM. We all know that they are out for themselves and not the EVE Community. In order to make next year just a lost year and not revert us to the CSM of three or four years ago, we need his leadership.

Avalloc
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.07 06:12:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Habaticus
We all know that they are out for themselves and not the EVE Community.


That comment is like saying carebears are against PVP. Well, someone has to blow up the ships that carebears build or mine for. Nullsec players are very aware of Empire and how it impacts their gameplay.

captain foivos
Posted - 2011.03.07 09:27:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: captain foivos on 07/03/2011 09:27:37
Originally by: Habaticus
Nullsec players are very aware of Empire and how it impacts their gameplay.


All that tritanium has to come from somewhere.

Seriously, though, that's about all that comes out of highsec. That and whining.

P.S. Trebor has bad ideas and should not be re-elected. Unduhpants.

Everial
Posted - 2011.03.07 09:31:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Everial on 07/03/2011 09:31:23
http://eve-search.com/thread/1305694/page/1#19
How could you ever explain this away? This is garbage, I have no trust in someone who thinks this will fix lag or is a good idea even if it did! Perhaps you envisioned the game as millions of smaller grids or I really don't know, but I don't share that vision.

Harvey Warstein
Posted - 2011.03.07 11:37:00 - [107]
 

I like how this CSM candidate ignores anything that he doesn't have an easy answer for.

Good politics!

Cockhorse
Posted - 2011.03.07 11:50:00 - [108]
 

You sound like an idiot, who doesn't realize they're an idiot.

Quick: What are the Oil of Olay Seven Signs of Aging?

jujumagumboo
Posted - 2011.03.07 12:45:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Harvey Warstein
I like how this CSM candidate ignores anything that he doesn't have an easy answer for.

Good politics!


And sadly it looks like not very many people are noticing. Strip away all the rhetoric and he's just a guy who doesn't understand how nullsec works and is asking CCP to break the game for the people who do.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.07 12:59:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 15/03/2011 00:57:29
Originally by: OhThis GuyAgain
Can you elaborate more on this? Specifically,
  1. What about the "stakeholder" position is unique to the CSM and how the role is enforced ("stakeholders" in general have power... what is the CSM's power?)
  2. How you personally have used your role as "stakeholder" for the betterment of the game? What hard questions have you asked CCP, and when have you called BS on them?


Stakeholders are, roughly speaking, the "customers" of the development team. An example of another stakeholder at CCP would be the Marketing Department.

Each stakeholder group submits requests for things to be done (in CSM's case, this is a prioritized version of our backlog), provides feedback and other input, and holds the Product Manager accountable for the results.

Individual CSMs are not stakeholders; the CSM as a group is. As for examples of CSM 5 "calling bull****" (which does not involve raising one's voice, btw), the most recent public one that most EVE players have heard about was regarding micro-transactions, where CSM very forcefully represented that non-vanity MT items would have significant negative consequences, and CCP has adopted CSM's position (at least for now).

CSM as a stakeholder operates under certain handicaps; we're not on-site except during the summit meetings, and our input into the development planning meetings is provided through our representatives (CCP Xhagen and CCP Diagoras). Also, CSM 5 is the first CSM to have stakeholder status, and just like EVE, the game of Stakeholder Offline has a bit of a learning cliff. So the role of the CSM is continually evolving.

Before the end of our term, CSM 5 will produce (at CCP's request) a continuity document which will describe CSM 5's "best practices" in the hopes of helping CSM 6 get off to a running start -- especially with respect to its expanded responsibilities as a stakeholder.

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.07 12:59:00 - [111]
 

Look at all these goons and their alts running in here trying to sling mud. Laughing

Maybe you need to check out mittani's statement saying he wants instant PvP in eve just like Battlegrounds in WoW and then come back here and talk about stupid ideas.

OhThis GuyAgain
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:19:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Stakeholders are, roughly speaking, the "customers" of the development team
...
and holds the Product Manager accountable for the results.

Stakeholders... are "customers". How does this make CCP accountable to them? In what way is CCP accountable? What happens when CCP just does what it wants anyways?

Naynomi
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:21:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
Look at all these goons and their alts running in here trying to sling mud. Laughing

Maybe you need to check out mittani's statement saying he wants instant PvP in eve just like Battlegrounds in WoW and then come back here and talk about stupid ideas.


Actually, he said he wanted an option of instanced PvP, not that he wanted all PvP to be instanced.

HeroInAHalfShell
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:45:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
Look at all these goons and their alts running in here trying to sling mud. Laughing


What I am looking at is this candidate being unable to answer a whole bunch of questions.

If he's going to cherry-pick where he responds at this stage, what do you think he's going to be like when he's screwed the pooch? I have no problem with people "trying to be important in online games" - what I have a problem with is his apparent misunderstanding of pretty much everything that needs fixing with this game.

Yeah great so you want competition so everyone has 'different ideas.' In this case the game NEEDS a strong and focussed CSM in order to GET THE CHANGES MADE, or this game is going to hell in a handbasket.

If you seriously want another ineffective, uninformed, bootlicking CSM delegation then vote for the guy who wants to

completely break contracts
let bots live outside of CONCORD protected areas Shocked

Killer Gandry
Caldari
Shadow of the Pain
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:46:00 - [115]
 

It's funny how insecure the Goons are due to this candidate.

Fact is that you want a chairman who is balanced.
Fact is that you want a chairman who listens to other people's opinions.
Fact is that you want a chairman who loves the game because of the game.
Fact is that you want someone who's actually intrested in overall improvement.

I have been watching the CSM closely for quit a while. And Trebor is a person who brings those qualities to the board.
He receives high praises by other CSM members, be it 0.0 CSM members or none 0.0 CSM members.

This player doesn't claim to be the ephiphany of deviancy who will will change the world because he's soo smooth.

He claims to listen to your concerns and idea's and together with the rest of the CSM forge those concerns and idea's into packages to be taken up with CCP.
And instead of fighting CCP to show how l33t he is he suggests to actually work together towards improvement.

These are the strongpoints we want in Chair.


HeroInAHalfShell
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:58:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Everial
Edited by: Everial on 07/03/2011 09:31:23
http://eve-search.com/thread/1305694/page/1#19
How could you ever explain this away? This is garbage, I have no trust in someone who thinks this will fix lag or is a good idea even if it did! Perhaps you envisioned the game as millions of smaller grids or I really don't know, but I don't share that vision.


The argument above this post just confirmed from me why I won't be voting for Trebor. Arrogant, confrontational, and wrong is not a great combination. He's essentially the Sarah Palin of the CSM election ugh

HeroInAHalfShell
Posted - 2011.03.07 14:07:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: ******AHalfShell on 07/03/2011 14:07:33
Originally by: Killer Gandry

Fact is that you want a chairman who listens to other people's opinions.


You mean
like this?

From those links:
Quote:
Individual issues: Obviously, I could state my position on a bunch of individual issues, but as you quite rightly point out, all that does is lose you votes!

(this, btw, is why I won't answer Larkonis' transparent questions -- sorry Lark!)

Larkonis, apart from your reprehensible behavior when you were on CSM, your latest post in which you blatantly misrepresent my position on lag is just another example of why I won't waste my time getting into pointless arguments with you. Go away, little troll.




Originally by: Killer Gandry

He receives high praises by other CSM members, be it 0.0 CSM members or none 0.0 CSM members.



If I could buy votes I am sure I would get praise too!

Originally by: Killer Gandry

He claims to listen to your concerns and idea's and together with the rest of the CSM forge those concerns and idea's into packages to be taken up with CCP.
And instead of fighting CCP to show how l33t he is he suggests to actually work together towards improvement.



His claims and suggestions don't match his actions or arguments. Please don't break this game.

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.03.07 14:43:00 - [118]
 

Ah, I see the smearing has begun again.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.03.07 15:10:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Everial
Edited by: Everial on 07/03/2011 09:31:23
http://eve-search.com/thread/1305694/page/1#19
How could you ever explain this away? This is garbage, I have no trust in someone who thinks this will fix lag or is a good idea even if it did! Perhaps you envisioned the game as millions of smaller grids or I really don't know, but I don't share that vision.


I think you may have skipped over the preface to that argument, which I'll reproduce here:

I want to preface this by saying that since I don't have any knowledge of the internals of EVE, this is based on guesswork. I do not claim this is the way to deal with lag, only that I think it's an interesting starting point for discussion about the kinds of changes that might tame lag -- see, I'm waffling just like a real politician!

In my CSM 5 Manifesto, from which that posting was taken, I was trying to make the point that no matter what CCP does to make the servers more efficient, the current game mechanics encourage fleets to "expand to fit the lag available".

I was just illustrating one possible way of changing the "fleet size/fleet power" curve so that after a certain fleet size, the power curve starts to level off, which would tend to put an "organic" soft-cap on fleet sizes, because wise commanders would find better uses for their manpower than putting them all in a big blob.

I make no claims that is the only solution, or the best solution -- it was simply an illustration offered to spark discussion.

One thing that I think it's important to understand about me is that, as a skeptic, I'm always willing to change my mind when presented with sufficient evidence. For example, during the June CSM summit, I had a wonderful dinnertime discussion with Stephan (Meissa) about blob reduction. He disagreed with me about the fog-of-war idea, and made a good argument for "multiple simultaneous objectives" in sov warfare as a way to encourage blob-splitting and reduce. This discussion significantly influenced my personal opinions on the matter.

However, my personal opinions are just that -- my personal opinions. While I am happy to inflict them on anyone foolish enough to ask, I try very hard not to impose them on anyone.

Being a CSM delegate is not about trying to get CCP to do things your way, it's about trying to get CCP to allocate their limited resources in ways that maximize benefits for the players. That's what stuff like the prioritization crowdsourcing was all about -- members of the community who cared enough to get involved contributed their opinions about prioritization of backlogged CSM items, which helped inform the prioritizations that the CSM submitted to CCP. In many cases, individual delegates' personal pet issues did not end up getting the ranking they expected. But, as they say, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few... or the one."

HeroInAHalfShell
Posted - 2011.03.07 15:21:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: ******AHalfShell on 07/03/2011 15:23:33
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow

I make no claims that is the only solution, or the best solution -- it was simply an illustration offered to spark discussion.



I guess that is why you called someone a troll instead of addressing their points. Regardless of personal history, you should be able to put this behind yourself if you're going to be an effective representative. What happens if the playerbase supports something you yourself disagree with? Are we all trolls?

Obviously this is hyperbole, but I imagine you'd just lie and hide behind the NDA, sorry.

Quote:

I want to preface this by saying that since I don't have any knowledge of the internals of EVE, this is based on guesswork. I do not claim this is the way to deal with lag, only that I think it's an interesting starting point for discussion about the kinds of changes that might tame lag -- see, I'm waffling just like a real politician!



If you're waffling then you're waffling and trying to deflect from this by making it into a cute joke doesn't mean that you are doing it any less.

Haha I'm picking holes in your campaign just like a person who really cares about the direction this game is going!!!

e: something else that doesn't ring true - you say knowledge of the game mechanics isn't important (which is untrue, but does help to excuse the fact that everything I have seen you post that isn't a simple generalization is inaccurate at best), so why then do you place such emphasis on it in your campaign statement and website? Which do you really believe? Or do you assume that voters are essentially dumb and will be dazzled by your 'qualifications?'



Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

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