open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Helen Highwater for President!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.02.26 21:44:00 - [1]
 

Hello to all, I will be seeking re-election to the sixth CSM and here's why you should vote for me.

There are many candidates who are running on a single issue. These are bad candidates. Regardless of how much you might agree with that issue, they fundamentally misunderstand how the CSM actually works. The CSM does not, for the most part suggest ideas to CCP. Rather we highlught problems and then provide feedback on CCP's proposed solutions. From time to time CCP also come up with new ideas and they bounce those off us first. All of this is about ten billion times more important and more useful than voting yes or no on somebody's 55 page POS proposal which CCP will then go on to ignore anyway. Seriously, look at the platforms of any of the single issue candidates for the last few CSMs and see how much of that they even got to push forwards, let alone achieve in game.

Ideas are largely useless. Nobody is really interested in ideas because generally, the playerbase (including the CSM) don't have enough information to suggest usable changes beyond the most superficial balance tweaks. We don't have the ability to look into code and see how things are done, we don't have the overview of CCP resources and how they would need to be allocated to implement any given change and we don't have the strategic vision that drives CCP's release schedule. What is useful however is the ability to look at other people's ideas and to point out all the reasons as to why they are wrong and bad. As it happens, I am very good at this - it's actually my day job.

At the meetings, in the internal CSM forum and at the December summit, I have been very active and vocal in providing quality feedback and constructive criticism on a multitude of topics raised by CCP as well as working with the other delegates to ensure that the playerbase as a whole is properly represented in those discussions. I have had long discussions with members of CCPs community management department about messaging and issues raised by the playerbase. As someone who has worked for many years as a community manager in AAA MMOs previously I am uniquely positioned in this regard.

If you would like to see more professionalism in the CSM, a candidate with professional experience in modern MMO games design and community, a candidate who is committed to holding CCP to their promises and a candidate who will tirelessly fight to shut down the plethora of terrible ideas that pop up from all sides then you should vote for me.

You can read a little more about my platform on my personal site and I look forwards to taking your questions in this thread.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.26 23:21:00 - [2]
 

Even as someone who is technically running against Helen, I'd like to say that over the last year, the technical ability of Helen to raise, expose, and explain points within the working in the CSM has been top notch.

If I wasn't running personally, and wasn't under orders to vote for The Mittani, I'd be voting for Helen.

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.02.27 02:20:00 - [3]
 

With the same caveat of running against Helen I hope he and I are both elected as watching Helen over the past CSM's has done nothing but impress me in both skill and thoughtful nature.

But I would still like some votes as well.

We are electing a council, not president.

m

4C 4F 5645
Rogue Drone Systems
Posted - 2011.02.27 02:26:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: 4C 4F 5645 on 27/02/2011 02:32:40
Does this make 5 goon candidates ?

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.27 03:03:00 - [5]
 

Anybody can sit and just shoot down ideas. Sorry but there is a plethora of other candidates that have more motivation than, "Vote for me so I can shoot down all ideas non-stop."

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.02.27 14:40:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
Anybody can sit and just shoot down ideas. Sorry but there is a plethora of other candidates that have more motivation than, "Vote for me so I can shoot down all ideas non-stop."


There's a difference between just flinging **** around and spending the time to come up with compelling arguments for or against an idea. If you think that protecting Eve from bad ideas isn't important then read the first couple of pages of the Assembly Halls forum and try to imagine what the game would be like if they were all implemented.

As I said in my post and on my campaign site, ideas aren't really important. Anyone who says that they have great ideas on how to fix Eve is going to be disappointed when they reach the CSM. Anyone who says that they will make CCP sort out <issue du jour #65826> is either not paying attention or is just trolling for populist votes from voters who aren't paying attention. What is important for a CSM delegate is a strong and comprehensive knowledge of the game so that when ideas are floated you can provide clear and useful feedback on them. Most of the time that clear and useful feedback comes down to 'this idea is bad for these reasons'. That isn't the same as 'shooting down all ideas non-stop' rather it's pointing out that there are consequences that haven't been considered and the idea needs to be refined or reconsidered. A delegate who can do this is 100% more useful than a delegate who has a bunch of really neat ideas on how to fix blasters or how to redesign the sovereignty system. And this is what I do professionally.

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.02.28 13:55:00 - [7]
 

In fact I just noticed that Mittens quoted me in his campaign post so in a particularly meta display of recursiveness, I'm going to quote him quoting me on this topic:

Originally by: Helen Highwater, CSM5
People have an unrealistic idea of what the CSM actually does. It's how dribbling ******s got elected because they had platforms like 'I will fix low-sec' or 'I will make CCP fix the lag'. The CSM doesn't generally present solutions to CCP because that historically isn't very effective so proposals like 'Improve the tracking of blasters' are dead in the water. They get raised anyway and then CCP buries them because they are more interested in having the problems highlighted rather than solutions put forwards.

Most of what goes on in public with the CSM is total bull****. The important stuff is what happens at the summits and in the internal forums. That's when CCP present their solutions and ask for the CSM to feedback on them and that's when the theorycrafting and superior knowledge of this horrible game come into play. In the year and a half since I've been a CSM alternate, 95% of my work has been shooting down other people's utterly dreadful ideas rather than actually raising new ones. Nobody cares about your ideas, least of all CCP, the best you can do is to try and slow the tide of slack-jawed idiocy coming from both sides of the table.

Not T'amber
Posted - 2011.02.28 16:12:00 - [8]
 

My only vote goes to Helen.

Goodluck.

Legal Assistant
Posted - 2011.02.28 16:23:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Helen Highwater, CSM5
People have an unrealistic idea of what the CSM actually does. It's how dribbling ******s got elected because they had platforms like 'I will fix low-sec' or 'I will make CCP fix the lag'.


Why highlight such juvenile name-calling so publically when your knowledge and experience seem capable of carrying the day without them?

Originally by: Helen Highwater, CSM5
Most of what goes on in public with the CSM is total bull****.


Can you give some examples of this and describe what you find objectionable?

Zelda Wei
Caldari
New Horizon Trade Exchange
Posted - 2011.02.28 16:46:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Zelda Wei on 01/03/2011 15:05:44

Deception never quite what it appears.

Originally by: "Goon Rules"
a true goon ceases to perceive his deception which allows him to lie with sincerity.


Vote against the Null-Sec plan to take over the CSM.


Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.02.28 16:51:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Legal Assistant
Originally by: Helen Highwater, CSM5
People have an unrealistic idea of what the CSM actually does. It's how dribbling ******s got elected because they had platforms like 'I will fix low-sec' or 'I will make CCP fix the lag'.


Why highlight such juvenile name-calling so publically when your knowledge and experience seem capable of carrying the day without them?

A lot of candidates in the current election cycle are doing exactly this again. They (and the people who voted for them) are going to have a big surprise if they get a seat and discover that their personal agendas and bundles of ideas are essentially worthless.

I don't want to pick on her because I think she's done a great job as chairman, but Mynxee provides a great example to use here. She was elected largely on a platform of fixing low-sec. What low-sec changes have been made, hinted at or mentioned in minutes since she took office a year ago? (Hint: if you answered none at all you'd be correct). That's not because she lied during her election campaign but rather because she came in with unrealistic expectations and crashed into reality.

Originally by: Legal Assistant

Originally by: Helen Highwater, CSM5
Most of what goes on in public with the CSM is total bull****.


Can you give some examples of this and describe what you find objectionable?



To be fair, this tends to get better over the course of a CSM term as the delegates get a better understanding of what their role is. What I'm mostly talking about here is the CSM as games designer stuff, it smacks of the classic Tighten Up the Graphics on Level Three! advert. As each CSM gets settled in, they largely lose the idea that they are going to be overseeing sweeping fixes to their pet projects and get used to the idea that they are mostly a focus group.

As I've said (repeatedly), nobody cares about your ideas for the most part, CCP least of all. The truly important stuff happens on the internal CSM forums, at the summits and in email chains with CCP personnel. It's there that the CSM has the largest opportunity to influence the way that Eve progresses and all of that is covered by NDA. The public stuff mostly comes down to us coming to agreement on what we believe are areas that CCP could or should fix given our (limited) insight into their schedules - not to suggest fixes but to flag up problem areas. Most of that work could easily be done by an internal CM department (and I say that as someone who has created and managed CM departments for AAA MMOs).

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.02.28 17:17:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Zelda Wei
Lol NC will taek your CSMs!



Let's talk about this and expose it as the nonsense that it is.

Firstly even if the CSM were able to push through the agendas of any (or all) delegates, you are assuming that CCP has no other metrics to determine what is good or bad in their own game. Really?

As has been pointed out and as a cursory glance through the CSM section of the Evewiki will reveal this simply doesn't happen. Not just because CCP isn't dumb enough to rely on only one source but also because the CSM doesn't get to decide what CCP does.

The most important work that the CSM does is providing feedback on CCP's ideas. That requires a strong understanding of the game and how the various parts inter-relate. The best CSM delegates are the ones who can point out the unforeseen consequences of someone else's ideas not the ones who are the most ~passionate~ about their particular area of the game. A 0.0-centric CSM will not mean that hi-sec mission runners will be herded into cattle-cars and transported to gulags or that Concord will suddenly start giving suicide gankers a cheery wave and a pat on the back. It means that players who understand the 0.0 game as well as the hi-sec and economic game will be giving feedback.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.28 18:03:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 28/02/2011 18:14:23
Originally by: Helen Highwater
I don't want to pick on her because I think she's done a great job as chairman, but Mynxee provides a great example to use here. She was elected largely on a platform of fixing low-sec. What low-sec changes have been made, hinted at or mentioned in minutes since she took office a year ago? (Hint: if you answered none at all you'd be correct). That's not because she lied during her election campaign but rather because she came in with unrealistic expectations and crashed into reality.


Hindsight is 20/20, as the old saying goes. That said, I promised during my campaign to pursue Low Sec changes and that I did almost immediately upon being elected by requesting a two-hour Low Sec session at the June Summit. That session resulted in good discussion with devs but it was made quite clear that CCP dev resources were allocated for the next 18-24 months and there was no chance of Low Sec getting any dev love in that timeframe. Failure to get any Low Sec changes are not my fault, nor anything to do with naivete or dribbling ******ation on my part...the lack of Low Sec changes is just a reality based on CCP focus and allocation of resources. Given the situation, I feel my Low Sec voters got as much value for their votes as could feasibly be gotten this particular CSM term. If by some crazy coincidence, CCP had had Low Sec in the near term dev queue, perceptions about the effectiveness of my campaign message might be very different now, wouldn't they?

My point is, it doesn't matter what candidates do or don't promise. No CSM term will ever go the way its fresh-faced delegates expect. There are too many factors that drive CSM focus and activities, and they come from a lot of different directions. Campaign platforms, however, do provide one method for voters to get a sense of how a candidate could be expected to respond to some issues if those issues come up for discussion during their term. Therefore, I suggest that it's not necessarily invalid for candidates to post their views on the issues that matter most to them.

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.02.28 18:33:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Edited by: Mynxee on 28/02/2011 18:14:23
Originally by: Helen Highwater
I don't want to pick on her because I think she's done a great job as chairman, but Mynxee provides a great example to use here. She was elected largely on a platform of fixing low-sec. What low-sec changes have been made, hinted at or mentioned in minutes since she took office a year ago? (Hint: if you answered none at all you'd be correct). That's not because she lied during her election campaign but rather because she came in with unrealistic expectations and crashed into reality.


Hindsight is 20/20, as the old saying goes. That said, I promised during my campaign to pursue Low Sec changes and that I did almost immediately upon being elected by requesting a two-hour Low Sec session at the June Summit. That session resulted in good discussion with devs but it was made quite clear that CCP dev resources were allocated for the next 18-24 months and there was no chance of Low Sec getting any dev love in that timeframe. Failure to get any Low Sec changes are not my fault, nor anything to do with naivete or dribbling ******ation on my part...the lack of Low Sec changes is just a reality based on CCP focus and allocation of resources. Given the situation, I feel my Low Sec voters got as much value for their votes as could feasibly be gotten this particular CSM term. If by some crazy coincidence, CCP had had Low Sec in the near term dev queue, perceptions about the effectiveness of my campaign message might be very different now, wouldn't they?

My point is, it doesn't matter what candidates do or don't promise. No CSM term will ever go the way its fresh-faced delegates expect. There are too many factors that drive CSM focus and activities, and they come from a lot of different directions. Campaign platforms, however, do provide one method for voters to get a sense of how a candidate could be expected to respond to some issues if those issues come up for discussion during their term. Therefore, I suggest that it's not necessarily invalid for candidates to post their views on the issues that matter most to them.



I wasn't picking on you (honestly!) and I wouldn't even have used you as an example if you were running for re-election. I'm just pointing out that the agendas of any CSM delegate almost never survive contact with the CCP schedule - a point that you've actually reinforced with your post above. You ran on low-sec changes, realised early in the term that this wasn't going to happen and had to ditch your preconceptions of what being on the CSM was going to be about. The exact same thing happened to delegates in every previous CSM session too and yet here we are after five terms with prospective candidates who aren't paying attention promising the sky to voters who also aren't paying attention.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.28 19:46:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 28/02/2011 19:57:26
Originally by: Helen Highwater
I wasn't picking on you (honestly!) and I wouldn't even have used you as an example if you were running for re-election. I'm just pointing out that the agendas of any CSM delegate almost never survive contact with the CCP schedule - a point that you've actually reinforced with your post above. You ran on low-sec changes, realised early in the term that this wasn't going to happen and had to ditch your preconceptions of what being on the CSM was going to be about. The exact same thing happened to delegates in every previous CSM session too and yet here we are after five terms with prospective candidates who aren't paying attention promising the sky to voters who also aren't paying attention.


Oh I agree totally. But a lot of people don't do their homework. I wonder how many of the current candidates have read the CSM White Paper, even, or gone back and looked at candidates' campaign threads from last year, or read the minutes from CSM5 and previous summits to get a sense of what goes on in Iceland--and become informed about how the process has evolved. Not many, it appears.


Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.28 20:57:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Mynxee

Originally by: Helen Highwater
I wasn't picking on you (honestly!) and I wouldn't even have used you as an example if you were running for re-election. I'm just pointing out that the agendas of any CSM delegate almost never survive contact with the CCP schedule - a point that you've actually reinforced with your post above. You ran on low-sec changes, realised early in the term that this wasn't going to happen and had to ditch your preconceptions of what being on the CSM was going to be about. The exact same thing happened to delegates in every previous CSM session too and yet here we are after five terms with prospective candidates who aren't paying attention promising the sky to voters who also aren't paying attention.


Oh I agree totally. But a lot of people don't do their homework. I wonder how many of the current candidates have read the CSM White Paper, even, or gone back and looked at candidates' campaign threads from last year, or read the minutes from CSM5 and previous summits to get a sense of what goes on in Iceland--and become informed about how the process has evolved. Not many, it appears.




Many people misunderstand what CSM is about I guess. (in before all kinds of horrible puns)

But on the subject of Helen, I can attest that he is a cool guy who does the job well.

Eldaec
Posted - 2011.02.28 21:17:00 - [17]
 

If you bother to look at any of the CSM5 output, you'll spot fairly quickly that this is the only guy on the current panel able to string together a coherent thought.


I have no idea how he puts up with the cretins he has to coexist with on the current CSM or with the galactic scale stupidity that passes for game design at CCP. And since the EVE player base is probably the least well informed electorate in the history of democratic endeavour, I see no reason to think you ****wits will pick a better panel this time around. In fact, subjecting Highwater to another term will likely lead to his brain dribbling out of his ears through overexposure to head melting stupidity.

Vote for this masochist. tia.

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.01 16:34:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Eldaec
If you bother to look at any of the CSM5 output, you'll spot fairly quickly that this is the only guy on the current panel able to string together a coherent thought.


I have no idea how he puts up with the cretins he has to coexist with on the current CSM or with the galactic scale stupidity that passes for game design at CCP. And since the EVE player base is probably the least well informed electorate in the history of democratic endeavour, I see no reason to think you ****wits will pick a better panel this time around. In fact, subjecting Highwater to another term will likely lead to his brain dribbling out of his ears through overexposure to head melting stupidity.

Vote for this masochist. tia.


To answer the many emails and private comments I've had about this, Eldaec is not an alt of mine or of anyone connected to me.

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.02 20:40:00 - [19]
 

To answer some other questions I've had.

Are you an official Goon candidate?

No I'm not an official Goon candidate. There are two of those and neither of them are me. I am running on a generalist platform of improving the quality of feedback that CCP receives across the board rather than as a bought-and-paid-for alliance advocate. Nobody in Goonswarm should be voting for me.

But you're a Goon!

Yes. And I was while a member of CSM 4 and CSM 5 too. Somehow I managed to curb my kitten-eating instincts. I stand by my record of contribution to those sessions.

Why aren't you putting forwards ideas for changes to the game like some of the other candidates are?

Because they don't matter. I'll happily tell you what my position is on anything you care to ask about but my ideas for fixes are largely irrelevant to the process. CCP doesn't care what they are and neither should you.

I Googled your name and it looks as though you are a huge nerd.

Yeah I am.

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.04 19:12:00 - [20]
 

Tune into Lost in Eve at 21:00 Eve on March 12th for a debate featuring me and other candidates. I look forward to answering your questions and hearing your comments.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2011.03.04 22:07:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Helen Highwater
... What is useful however is the ability to look at other people's ideas and to point out all the reasons as to why they are wrong and bad. As it happens, I am very good at this - ...

At the meetings, in the internal CSM forum and at the December summit, I have been very active and vocal in providing quality feedback and constructive criticism on a multitude of topics raised by CCP as well as working with the other delegates to ensure that the player base as a whole is properly represented in those discussions. ...



It seems to me that for almost any proposed change or fix there are people who disagree. You state that you are very good at sorting out the good from the bad. I wouldn't expect you to say different. You however don't want to tell us what specifically you think are good or bad ideas. Although you do have a voting record people can search out, you donít seem to offer that easily. In this post you basically just say: CCP is not interested in your ideas players, but my views are very good and constructive Ė vote for me.

If candidates are not going to give any specifics of what their views or even general vision for eve is, I canít see why we are doing this csm business at all. How can I vote for someone who shares my views if they donít tell me what they are?
Everyone seems interested in talking about processes instead of substantive issues so let me ask a few questions on that.
It seems to me that this last csm was the first csm to actually get ccpís attention for any stretch of time. We have a dev blog asking players to post many fixes that they can work on. We also have seen at least a few of the items in the backlog get addressed. We have seen dev blogs about how much resources they are putting where and we have had devs even speak on podcasts about the direction of the game. Moreover we saw ccp back off of microtransactions to a certain extent.

This was accomplished despite the fact that before csm 5 took office ccp as a company had already assigned the majority of their devs to non-spaceship related tasks. Accordingly the fact that they accomplished more than all the prior csms is even more impressive.

This last csm was the first one to actually create a measurement of how responsive (or unresponsive) ccp is to the players.
Would you agree that this last csm did the best job at capturing ccps attention? If not which one was?

It seems that this last csm was the first to actually do something more than go to Iceland, have a few beers with the devs, shoot the sh___and come home. They were the first to actually create a situation where ccp really needed to address CSM concerns.

Mittani suggested that formal meeting minutes might be replaced by less formal methods like having meetings take place via skype. To me that sounds like he is going to return it to the prior do nothing csms. Do you agree with his proposal?

If you agree with him about dropping the minutes etc how are the players you are supposedly representing even to know what is going on?

If you do not agree with him would you be willing to take notes and post them (after getting ccp approval of course) so that the players can be kept informed on what you guys are doing?



Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.05 00:06:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Cearain

It seems to me that for almost any proposed change or fix there are people who disagree. You state that you are very good at sorting out the good from the bad. I wouldn't expect you to say different. You however don't want to tell us what specifically you think are good or bad ideas. Although you do have a voting record people can search out, you donít seem to offer that easily. In this post you basically just say: CCP is not interested in your ideas players, but my views are very good and constructive Ė vote for me.

If candidates are not going to give any specifics of what their views or even general vision for eve is, I canít see why we are doing this csm business at all. How can I vote for someone who shares my views if they donít tell me what they are?


This is a good point and deserves a solid answer. I've tried to avoid giving specifics because in most cases my opinions are more nuanced than 'I believe x change should happen to feature y' and don't lend themselves well to simple mission statements. In the years that I've been playing this game, I've experienced most of it from Empire mission running and industry to 0.0 life as a renter, a member of a huge alliance, a moongoo magnate and a trader. Pretty much the only significant areas of the game that I've not spent a lot of time in are Factional Warfare and wormholes.

So, how does that tie in to my opinions on stuff? Well it means that when I'm faced with a proposal, I'm using direct experience of many different types of play. I'm also using my experience as a community professional and a games designer to theorycraft the edge cases, the unforeseen consequences that could be catastrophic if not addressed. The specifics will of course depend on the type of proposal that is being put forwards but typically I will evaluate things from an economic, a community and a game-vision point of view.

In general I believe that Eve should be true to itself and not compromise on the unique experience that it provides. I believe that reward should always be relative to risk and I believe that balance should come from an array of equally valid choices and not from making the game into brown team vs green team vs blue team vs gold team.

To answer your specific queries:

I do agree that this CSM has done a good job of capturing CCP's attention. Partly that was due to the enormous outcry over the infamous '18 months' statement and CCP needing to patch the perception that Eve was going into a temporary maintenance mode. A lot of that pressure came from within the CSM as well as from the larger community.

About meetings. I've brought this up before to the other CSM reps without much success. The normal CSM meetings are held ingame using the regular ingame chat system. It's not a very good system because ingame chat in almost any game is a poor medium for back and forth debate. I am of the opinion that a lot of the stuff that goes on at meetings (especially early in the term or before a summit which is when the workload spikes hard) could be handled out of game via a more appropriate method such as forum posts, Skype or whatever. This would leave the meetings to summarise the discussion and record the votes. A valid criticism of this approach is that the process of debating is just as important to the public as the final results are so there would have to be a way in which the preamble and initial rounds of debates were collated and released along with the actual meeting minutes for the sake of full transparency.

On this subject it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of the CSM's interaction with CCP happens outside of the regular meetings. The discussions in the internal forums, the Iceland summits and email chains with CCP devs are all several orders of magnitude more constructive than any given ingame meeting. While the ingame meetings are the most publicly visible part of what we do, they really are the tip of the iceberg with regard to CCP.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2011.03.05 04:20:00 - [23]
 

Thank you for your responses.

I tend to agree that forums would seem to be a better way to debate an issue than chat. It would allow some more in-depth discussion where everyone does not need to wait for each post. Moreover, itís often more important to know the reasons why someone votes a certain way than what the end vote is.

I understand that allot of the discussion of csm 5 happened on internal forums already. Its just that those internal forum posts are not made public. Mazz had proposed they be made public - I supported that proposal but never really followed it.

Would you support that they, or at least future forum posts, be made public? That way players could make a more informed vote on who really represents their views?

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.05 12:49:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Cearain
Thank you for your responses.

I tend to agree that forums would seem to be a better way to debate an issue than chat. It would allow some more in-depth discussion where everyone does not need to wait for each post. Moreover, itís often more important to know the reasons why someone votes a certain way than what the end vote is.

I understand that allot of the discussion of csm 5 happened on internal forums already. Its just that those internal forum posts are not made public. Mazz had proposed they be made public - I supported that proposal but never really followed it.

Would you support that they, or at least future forum posts, be made public? That way players could make a more informed vote on who really represents their views?



There is a lot that happens within the CSM that the larger community never sees. Some of that is to do with the NDA, most of it is because there isn't really an effective mechanism to release it (discounting here the purely trivial administration stuff that would be of little interest to anybody anyway). The internal forums are sealed under a strict NDA and would require CCP to sanction any release. This would have to be on a case-by-case basis as there's a wide variety of stuff in there. I believe that there should be a lot more transparency around the CSM but the CSM cannot do this itself, it would require a policy change from CCP and a fairly fundamental change in the communications setup as we'd need to identify before each discussion what would be NDA restricted and what wouldn't.

There are other ways to increase transparency and thus the accountability of the CSM however. One of those ways is through the CSM devblogs that have been published from time to time. This is an avenue for the CSM as a whole to give the community more insight into what's happening behind the scenes as well as a chance to talk about future plans or priorities. Other ways are even simpler, attaching names to comments in the Summit minutes for example (currently they just say 'one CSM said...' which doesn't help if you want to determine which CSM member is fighting your corner).

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:51:00 - [25]
 

Mynxee just posted an open letter to CCP about Incarna. I was one of the primary authors of that letter and of the private letter that has been posted simultaneously to the internal forums. This is a critical time for CCP and the Eve playerbase, there is a lot of potential for things to slide off the rails and for Eve to lose its way unless CCP get clear and unambiguous feedback from the community.

Of particular note is the first point about an apparent lack of direction for the feature. Too often in the past CCP have seemed to follow a design ethos of 'throw ideas at the wall and see what sticks'. Unfortunately that leads to poorly integrated and schizophrenic design, it's easy to look back at major systems that have fallen flat at launch due to a poor understanding of what the players want from them - PI, Dominion, Eve Gate, Faction Warfare are the most obvious exxamples and it's interesting to note that of all those systems only one (PI) has been iterated upon post-launch. Everything else has been left in its launch state despite glaring inadequacies. Let's not go down that path again.

iP0D
Posted - 2011.03.07 18:57:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Helen Highwater
Mynxee just posted an open letter to CCP about Incarna. I was one of the primary authors of that letter and of the private letter that has been posted simultaneously to the internal forums.


Not to degrade the message in that letter, one of constructive concern I share. But I'm a little bit in doubt on that part of "primary author". If I remember correctly, you were an inactive alternate until a CSM member could not make a trip, at least if the logs in Teadaze's CSM Database with meeting logs are correct.

Correct me if I'm wrong or confused, on both parts of the question. Cheers!


Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.07 19:12:00 - [27]
 

I was unable to make the first few online meetings due to a health issue over the summer and early autumn. I still contributed on the internal forums and the various email chains that went around despite being in hospital for most of the weekend meetings and was able to go to Reykjavik after I had recovered in the place of Mynxee who couldn't attend. The Incarna concerns sprang from the summit and were discussed at length internally by the CSM. Meissa and I wrote draft letters back in January and mine was chosen as the basis for the final draft. Over the past month and a half, other CSM members have chipped in and suggested edits and changes. The final version was jointly written by Trebor and I taking into account all of the input from the other members.

Princess Hotbox
Posted - 2011.03.08 22:43:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Princess Hotbox on 08/03/2011 22:43:12
I was impressed by your results on CSM match tool
Not perfect, but better than the other idiots. ;)

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.09 07:46:00 - [29]
 

Voting is now open! Cast your vote for Helen Highwater today.

Helen Highwater
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.03.09 12:22:00 - [30]
 

A vote for me is a vote for common sense in the CSM. Tell your friends, reactivate your accounts and click this button.


Pages: [1] 2

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