open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Run for office in EVE, the new CSM by Xhagen
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : last (11)

Author Topic

Theodred Matana
Posted - 2007.11.27 16:20:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: Hamfast
Edited by: Hamfast on 27/11/2007 13:47:11
Originally by: Theodred Matana

Yes, proxy voting could pad the count, getting the people that might otherwise not vote. And I am sure that there will be players that won't care about voting.


Part of an election campaign is "Getting out the vote" so instead of saying "Click A, Click B, Click C and give me your proxy" it would be the campaigns task to say "Click A, Click B, Click C and Vote for me, I am the 14th person on the list"... but now the person who might not have otherwise voted, will have voted...

Originally by: Theodred Matana
What about the players that are interested, but see the 30 to 40 people that are interested in the position? That's an awful lot of people. Some are going to feel overwhelmed by the "shopping experience". And it can feel like a lot of pressure to get the "right" people into the position. They've got a friend who knows what that overwhelmed person is looking for.



The Friend says "No problem, I will walk you through it, click A, Click B, Click C, look down the list and vote for the guy in position 23"
or better, says "Come to this site, Chribba made it available in game, see, here is an overview of what each of the candidates stands for, I think #23 will be closest to your views, check him out... then Click A, Click B, Click C, and vote for whom you like..."

Originally by: Theodred Matana
Or how about the ones that play every now and again, same situation of 30 to 40 people? Again, a large number of people to look at when one doesn't really "have time" to be looking at them and play EVE. RL can be a pain, we can all attest to that.


it was said that voting would cover 2 weeks... read a few candidates every day, or ask friends...
Originally by: Theodred Matana
How about the person that has the faith and trust in their friends, or CEO, to put the vote towards the right candidate?


See above, Substitute CEO for Friend...
Originally by: Theodred Matana
The person that doesn't care enough to vote? If that person doesn't care enough to vote, what of the possibility of that person not handing their vote to someone else. After all, they don't really care, so what's the point of even doing that?


That people who don't care or can't be bothered don't vote or don't hand out their proxy is not the problem, I think we should help them in that goal to not care or be bothered.

Originally by: Theodred Matana

And on the side, I do hope that voting is ingame. I don't think many people would bother getting to the site to cast a vote.

I agree, Voting needs to be "In Game", even if the candidate forums is not.


Great points. I'm convinced.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.28 09:33:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: TornSoul

Two new points brought up:

"guarantee that new members get a chance"
I'll re-iterate my wish for the *best* people beeing on the CSM.
I dont care for "new members to get a chance" - if they are not the best for the job.
I've argued for this already - So I'll skip it here.

"prevent that either party, CCP or the CSM, stops being constantly on its toes."
I've already above argued for the the lazy bit on behalf of the CSM members. They'll get replaced by voters.

Now, CCP becomming lazy.. hmm..
Nothing the voters can do about that ofc.
But I fail to see how new people entering the CSM, would have any impact on this either...
Care to argue for that?




I believe we have reached the position of where we have switched places, in the sense of me not believing that the elections will take care of people that are not the best one for the seat while you do think that it will.
The model of elections that is closest to me, the Icelandic one, is plagued by this; i.e. people who are voted have frelled up so often and so bad that they should have been left in a ditch decades ago, yet they have not.
So, us switching seats in the sense that now I believe you are too optimistic about the elections Wink

About CCP becoming lazy, that might not have been the best course of 'statement' for me. However, I believe that new members of the CSM will make sure that the flow of topics is not a uniform one. Secondly the limit will prevent CSM members, and CCP for that matter, from allegations of 'preferential treatment'.

To state the point clearly I believe I can say that we don't trust the election mechanism to function perfectly and thus the limited terms is put forth as a 'backup'.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.28 09:55:00 - [273]
 

Originally by: TornSoul


What bothers me most about your wish for doing proxy voting is that the only argument you seem to have (unless I've missed it) is that it will get more votes "cast". (I really wish you had some other/better arguments for it.)

If not enough people care about the CSM to cast a vote, so be it.
Lets scratch the whole thing then.

No point in using alot of CCP time (and player time - those beeing interested) if only, say 1% of the entire playerbase cares enough to actually cast a prober vote.



The reason behind the proxy voting was simply to make it more appealing to vote, i.e. having a friend convincing you that he knows things about the elections so you entrust him with your vote was the thought behind this. So, yes, essentially it was kept in to get more votes.

Originally by: TornSoul

I don't want to see the whole thing scratced - As I said above, I care a great deal about the CSM.
But I dont want to have CCP (and the players interested) vaste their time either.



I believe that I speak for everybody when we say that there will be no time wasted in relations to this. We might to reach the conclusion we were hoping, but we will sure as hell learn a great deal from this.

Originally by: TornSoul

As for trying out both approaches (proxy vs non-proxy)
Tough one tbh.

I fail to see how any sensible/accurate comparisons could be made between the two.
The only real objective meassurement would be the number of votes cast.

And we already know the result of that...

So I'd have to see excactly what you would meassure/compare between the two before beeing able to give that a thumbs up.

Adunh Slavy has already mentioned alot that could be looked at, but they are all a bit non-specific. Ie. *how* would you meassure the things mentioned, which things *excactly* would you meassure/look at.

All that would have to be worked out, in detail, before hand.

I hope people here can contribute with ideas.

Sofar I'm not convinced any meassurement, to compare the two methods to rule which one is "better" that the other, can be made.

(and what excactly *is* "better"?)

I'd be delighted to be convinced otherwise.



The 'both options' was an idea I had that I decided to share. I mean, it is an option we have regardless of whether we decide to use it or not. I am however leaning towards rejecting it exactly because of the difficulties comparing the results. And the added complexity is also an incentive to drop the thought.

Originally by: TornSoul

I remain strongly opposed to proxy-voting though.

I still see it as just a tool to artificially increase the number of votes. And I've yet to see any other good argument for doing it.

The risks inherent in doing proxy-voting (spelled out elsewhere in this thread) vs. not doing proxy-voting, really (in my mind) makes it a no brainer...



I was asked by a reporter about if I wasn't afraid of real life positions of the persons in the CSM would not influence the council to the extent of it being not working at all. That concern is perfectly mirrored by the concern of ingame politics affecting the council to the extent of it not working at all.

The reason am mentioning this is that there is an inherent risk everywhere. The proxy voting might make the risk more visible, yet like is stated in the thread, the risk is there non-the-less.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.28 09:59:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: James Duar
Will there be a market subforum for auctioning our votes?


You can auction your votes all you like. Yet the buyer has no guarantee what-so-ever of you actually delivering.

So I would like to ask in turn, would you pay for something that you might get but most likely will never get?

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.28 10:15:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Ramblin Man

(note: please skip if you don't have a comment, Xhagen Wink)


I usually have a comment Wink

Originally by: Ramblin Man

. on the matter of proxy voting

My primary concern is exactly how low we're placing the bar,

  • no proxy: voters must identify their candidate from a list

  • proxy: voters must click a button to assign their votes



After reading through things, I'd like to throw my support behind a quorum-sans-proxy requirement for any vote to be legitimate. Simply put, X% of the vote must have come from independent voters/proxies of number < Y. In other words, if 85% of the electorate is made up of 5 proxies controlling 100+ votes, then the results are void. Thus, we maintain the ease of assigning proxy votes without unduly skewing the results; and yes, if we wanted to get more technical about it we could also keep the "small proxies" number secret. Smile



Many people have come and said that our type of system does not work because, well, it usually never works and that we need a more complicated version of it. Yet we do not wish to sacrifice transparency. And transparency in the voting process is not achieved by a 'hidden magic number' Wink

Originally by: Ramblin Man

. on the matter of term limits
I'm going to have to disagree with TornSoul here. Between you and Goumindong, there are the following problems with term limits.
  • It disadvantages people without 'built-in' power blocs (Goum)

  • It won't curb corruption/incompetence (TornSoul)

  • Eventually I'll have to vote for someone I don't know (TornSoul)

. power blocs
I'd bet you that, given sufficient mass of voters, power blocs based on issues will self-organize surprisingly quickly. Xhagen seems to be leaning towards the 'hands-off' approach with similar hope. Looking at the current game, we see [ALLIANCE] or [CORP] voters, but I give it a distinct possibility that post-implementation we'll soon have [GREEN] or [AMARR] voters. New possibilities for the win. Very Happy


Powerblocks will always form. That is simply how people are used to living and they automatically seek that 'shelter'. I believe that the proxy option will however give the non-alliance blocks a chance to rise with more ease. To allow the anarchy inherent to EVE to spring up through the CSM functions and ... yes, do what anarchists do.

Originally by: Ramblin Man

. corruption/incompetence will be dealt with by voters
Personally, I find it much more likely that Chribba could be elected in perpetuity on the basis of name recognition alone, while simply eating grapes, drinking wine, and never lifting a finger to the job (no offense, mea Bacchus).

. voting for strangers
This is the essence, in my opinion, although I consider this a vastly changed proposition from the 'random individual' case put forward by most detractors. Parties should form, and candidates will run with their public support. If you really support a single member so highly, then why not vote for his or her candidate-in-stead? I consider it far more likely that the EVE universe will die a heat death before we run out of qualified people who can be vetted by others -- if nothing else, look at the market forum: self organization in action. Brought up not as an ad hominem, but as a historical note. You ran BMBE based on name, presumably found out it wasn't your bag, and then Ray, who people didn't know, was installed with your and "voter's" backing. If it'd strictly been up to an ingame shareholder vote, however, do you think they could have removed an actively malevolent version of you?


This is one of the factors of the limited number of terms for a CSM member and the point you bring up with 'a former CSM member greatly loved could ask people to proxy him their votes and trust him to find the best candidate'. For example that is.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.28 10:35:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Theodred Matana

A lot has been said on both sides, I'll warrant that.

CCP definitely has a choice to make here. The focus is definitely split between proxy voting and "Alliance R Us."

Since this whole idea is for the players, how about asking the players, in-game. If there isn't an in-game system to track this sort of thing, I'd recommend tabling this idea until you could do it that way. And, since the idea of going in-game has been presented I am sure many, many times, how about asking us, the players, what we would like to see changed first?

Or, let's take a bigger step back, take a look at a bigger picture. Since I'm thinking about it and am starting to get on a roll. At least in my head I am. Sounds good up there.

So what I'm suggesting here is that what CCP does, is take the spirit of the CSM, and impliment it into an in-game survey of what the players would like to see different. Have it happen on a monthly cycle, it'd be a quick "What of these would you like to see improved?" with a little bit of an explanation. If it is a recurring theme over, say, a six month period, then CCP announces that they are looking into that particular issue. And they sit down with a few players, maybe random, maybe ones that had a few ideas, talk about how they could improve this particular aspect of the game. I don't think it would really matter what forum (be it actual forums like these, or face-to-face, or whatever) is primarily used. The opportunity to sit across from developers, and get a good discussion going about how to make things better, that's the whole idea of all of this. That's the spirit of it.

Hey, it's worth a shot, it's worth talking about. Taking that idea, maybe tweaking a few things here or there. Maybe turning it upside down and giving it a big *FLUSH*. Who knows? It's worth tossing out there.

CCP does indeed have a choice. They've done phenomenally well thus far. And I'm sure there are patterns that have evolved. I haven't paid that much attention to them. (I'm too focused on pew-pew-ing those bloody asteroids that spawn every now and again. Stupid asteroids.Rolling Eyes) Given that this is a huge, and blind, step, CCP should take the time to look at what the options are--even looking at crazy ideas that will never work--and ask about what the consequences could be. That's what CCP did here. Tossed the idea out, saw what people thought about it. Got an understanding not only of how their idea might not be such a good one, but also of part of the active and vocal part of the community.

I like the idea. I have my doubts and concerns, but overall, it is definitely worth looking into. The actual implementation is something else entirely, but the idea is a good one. And I like it.


The bigger picture that you are viewing is what bread the CSM. But that thing is always CCP selecting topics and then asking players, OR CCP selecting players and asking them to come up with something (like in the old CSM). Both of these approaches have been tried, and the consensus was that we want something more. Hence the players selecting both the topics and the players.

Like I have stated elsewhere, we want transparency and simplicity. We do realize that the results can be 'less-than-optimum' for CCP, but that risk is perfectly acceptable. And that is why I insisted that the idea would be put forth for the players before any decisions would be made. And I think it is safe to say that this thread is one of the constructive ones on the whole of the EVE forums Wink

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.28 10:50:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Layla

The one topic upon which the White Paper is silent is the Ombudsman role of the CSM.

"An ombudsman (English plural: ombudsmans or ombudsmen) is an official, usually (but not always) appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman

My impression was that CCP responded to the many and varied concerns raised about the allegations of misconduct by (a) CCP employee(s) by suggesting that they would create a council of 9. The implication, certainly, was that the CSM would have some kind of investigative role, analogous in some way to the Ombudsman role.

Is that role still envisaged? Will CSM members be able to investigate and report on individual complaints? Or only those that are supported by a 5% vote? ie collective complaints? What would happen if they did conclude that there had been maladministration by CCP individually or collectively?

Or is the CSM to only be a consultative body?



Funny that you mention Ombudsman, as that is an Icelandic word actually, umbošsmašur. Very Happy (etymology here)

I would prefer not to use a Real Life term to describe the influence the CSM has, as there is always something attached to the Real Life meaning that will make things too complicated.

We already have an Internal Affairs department with two members doing only that, making sure that members of CCP are not doing something they should not be doing. Having them preparing a statement about the current situation and deliver it to the CSM would be one way. Another would be that the CSM asked IA to look into particular issues that they will then do.

We are however suggesting a much broader role for the CSM. The CSM is to represent the players of EVE in a fair manner and to bring to CCP the thoughts and worries of the players.

And the 5% rule is only to force the CSM to take up topics. It has nothing to do with what topics can be taken up to CCP or not.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.28 10:54:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Ramblin Man

Xhagen seems to have been oddly specifically silent on that question, so I'm assuming something was said from above him about what to and what not to promise.

As it stands now though, it looks like the CSM can at the very least compel CCP to give a detailed public answer to any question voted through by the CSM (not limited to 5% questions, which is a way for the playerbase to force the CSM to consider something afaik). This, in writing, is actually pretty powerful if the CSM goes through, as CCP will honestly be forced to give a 'fair accounting' on any question or risk the fallout from having the CSM collapse. Actual investigation/auditing or any contact with the new 'Internal Affairs Guy' is still very murky though.



I have been specifically silent about that question yes. The reason is simply that I do not wish to force the potential members to think that they can only do A or B; i.e. I do not want to direct the thought put into the CSM by trying to define specifically what it is to do or not to do.

I only wish to keep the discussions going and making sure that they are not derailed by some accident, other than that I wish to have CCP's influence as small as humanly possible.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.29 15:22:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen
Originally by: Layla

The one topic upon which the White Paper is silent is the Ombudsman role of the CSM.

"An ombudsman (English plural: ombudsmans or ombudsmen) is an official, usually (but not always) appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman

My impression was that CCP responded to the many and varied concerns raised about the allegations of misconduct by (a) CCP employee(s) by suggesting that they would create a council of 9. The implication, certainly, was that the CSM would have some kind of investigative role, analogous in some way to the Ombudsman role.

Is that role still envisaged? Will CSM members be able to investigate and report on individual complaints? Or only those that are supported by a 5% vote? ie collective complaints? What would happen if they did conclude that there had been maladministration by CCP individually or collectively?

Or is the CSM to only be a consultative body?



Funny that you mention Ombudsman, as that is an Icelandic word actually, umbošsmašur. Very Happy (etymology here)

I would prefer not to use a Real Life term to describe the influence the CSM has, as there is always something attached to the Real Life meaning that will make things too complicated.

We already have an Internal Affairs department with two members doing only that, making sure that members of CCP are not doing something they should not be doing. Having them preparing a statement about the current situation and deliver it to the CSM would be one way. Another would be that the CSM asked IA to look into particular issues that they will then do.

We are however suggesting a much broader role for the CSM. The CSM is to represent the players of EVE in a fair manner and to bring to CCP the thoughts and worries of the players.

And the 5% rule is only to force the CSM to take up topics. It has nothing to do with what topics can be taken up to CCP or not.



I still love this thread...
With the definition of an Ombudsman - "a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies", it would seem to me that the CSM does not fit...

If we look at the entities involved, "The Government" would most closely equate to CCP, not the CSM... Our own Xhagen being the closest at this point as he is the voice and face of CCP in this idea...

The CSM is a Player Organization, more like the P(Parents) part of the PTA (Parent/Teacher Association) who is here to bring up issues, with the understanding that the Teachers and the School District are not required to fix any issues, just to address them (in some manner).

So, when can we expect the next white letter?

Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2007.11.29 20:50:00 - [280]
 

Any announcement on when the voting system will be put into action?
Next patch perhaps?


Jen loo
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2007.11.30 09:15:00 - [281]
 

Edited by: Jen loo on 30/11/2007 09:16:18
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
... - its well thought out but has a few galaxy sized holes in it - ...



Rolling Eyes


J. Loo

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.30 09:18:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Theodred Matana

Originally by: Ramblin Man

It's been stated the proxy votes, as they're currently being weighed, cannot be traded more than once. Ergo, you can't "give" away a proxy vote that you "receive" -- only the original owner of the vote can assign them.



Just trying to clarify here. If you have five proxy votes, excluding yours, and you give your vote to me, I would have just that one instead of all six?



I envisioned that the system would be as simple as "if you have more than one vote, you can not forward any votes to a proxy" or "you can give your vote away if and only if you control one vote".

Originally by: Theodred Matana

I think if the CSM were granted that authority, they would have to sign NDAs. They would be dealing with raw data: actual logs of players, ISD, and GMs; wallet transactions; and item transfers, just off the top of my head. Some hardcore stuff. If it were implemented, where would the line be drawn? Just how much insight would they get into Internal Affairs? More importantly, I think, would they be able to find out which players are CCP, ISD, GM, or friends of 'em? (Which adds the question, would those people be allowed to vote?)



I would like to believe that if the Director of IA would stand before the CSM and give a statement, that the trust in CCP would mean that his words would be taken as being true.

And further more, everybody can vote with the exception of CCP employed people.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.30 09:27:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Serendipity007
Great Thread! Love the amount of feedback.

Here's my big issue:

Hypothetical situation. CCP wants to change something (nerf), and the playerbase nearly all hates it. CSM takes up the issue, and gathers numbers of people who are against this change. It issues a detailed report saying that the EVE community as a whole does not want this change. This report lists why people don't want it changed, and goes into some length on why. It also lists the most reasonable and desired alternatives to the change. And lastly, it lists demands the playerbase wants in exchange for the change (ie nerf this, buff that to make it not so bad). CSM submits the report, and unanimously tells CCP, "we don't want it, the playerbase doesn't want it, here are some alternatives and concessions we want from you."

3 Things could happen:
1. CCP decides not to make the change. It could possibly use some of the suggested changes to have the same effect. Playerbase is mostly happy.
2. CCP decides to go ahead with the change, but decides that concession A B and C is reasonable and implements them alongside the change. Playerbase is mostly happy.
3. CCP decides to totally ignore the CSM and changes it anyways. Chaos and threadnaughts ensue.

So CCP Xhagen, which case should I expect to happen more often with this new CSM?



To be honest, I don't know which case we should expect to happen more often. I did try and craft into the CSM - CCP Council deliberation that CCP would have to answer all topics, i.e. I was trying to minimize the chance of #3 becoming the reality. I can sadly not guarantee that it will never happen.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.30 09:34:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Erelas RyAlcar
Where to begin...Shocked

Not often I am in the forums, but I suppose I am one of those more "silent" players, and relatively new, mentioned repeatedly in this thread. I do care, and the issue of and development of the CSM is certainly an important issue to me.

That said, what role will this CSM have within New Eden. For my part, and a good many others, the forums and New Eden are separate entities...yes, those pesky roleplayers.

For example, CONCORD as a corporate entity exists because all the empires agreed and created it, long story shortened. Introducing the CSM election into New Eden seems a bit...odd. I do, and agree with the need and desires and have thoroughly examined the white paper, of having real Ombudsman represent the player community to CCP; but how is this to be integrated into New Eden itself?

Oh, a thought farther, the white paper, has some frank holes in it now, with the cancellation of EVE-TV, but I'm certain it's next iteration will address that.



I realize where you are going with this and for a long time we were contemplating having CSM fit into the roleplaying scenario in EVE. There are however two things (mainly) that prevent that. One is that what the CSM will do can not be explained in roleplay terms. Imagine trying to explain that, in ingame terms, the CSM accomplished to convince the makers of the world to make a change that only makers of the world can do.
Secondly we are requiring people to run under their real names, with ingame identities to back them up or give them credit that other players can relate to. Again the roleplay aspect would be impossible.

I have sadly no information about EVE-TV or in what way it is being changed so I can not answer any questions about that.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.30 09:43:00 - [285]
 

Originally by: Serenity Steele

Any announcement on when the voting system will be put into action?
Next patch perhaps?




No announcements yet. And this will definitely not happen until Q1 2008. Trinity has all resources now available, so it is only 'ye old me' doing the brainwork here, still Wink

Erelas RyAlcar
Caldari
Destinies Touch Unlimited
Posted - 2007.11.30 11:32:00 - [286]
 

Edited by: Erelas RyAlcar on 30/11/2007 11:34:29
Edited by: Erelas RyAlcar on 30/11/2007 11:32:51
Thank you for such an honest and frank reply GM Xhagen. Your forthrightness, and all of CCP's means such a great deal to the playerbase, after years of being maligned by other game companies....well, you get the picture.

Speaking for myself, and perhaps some other roleplayers out there, though none have spoken up in this forum; your reply certainly leads me to feel that the CSM will need be left outside of New Eden entirely and it should remain within the Forums. Stating this, I will now have to duck and cover.Rolling Eyes

Events within the game environment itself have always been backed up with some sort of "lore", please correct me if I am wrong, even now, with the coming introduction of Rev. 3, the ground is being laid with "news reports" of new ships, etc. being leaked. This is all part of "roleplay". Since the CSM will not be treated as such, then let it remain outside of the game environment, let alone that the volunteers who participate in it will also give up their personal anonymity to become involved (not everyone wishes to do so for one reason or another).

The CSM concept is a wonderful idea, but potentially could remove any legitmacy to the idea of EVE-Online being an MMORPG, as advertised, and not just an MMOG, if certain caveats are not heeded.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.11.30 14:39:00 - [287]
 

Originally by: Erelas RyAlcar

Thank you for such an honest and frank reply GM Xhagen. Your forthrightness, and all of CCP's means such a great deal to the playerbase, after years of being maligned by other game companies....well, you get the picture.

Speaking for myself, and perhaps some other roleplayers out there, though none have spoken up in this forum; your reply certainly leads me to feel that the CSM will need be left outside of New Eden entirely and it should remain within the Forums. Stating this, I will now have to duck and cover.Rolling Eyes

Events within the game environment itself have always been backed up with some sort of "lore", please correct me if I am wrong, even now, with the coming introduction of Rev. 3, the ground is being laid with "news reports" of new ships, etc. being leaked. This is all part of "roleplay". Since the CSM will not be treated as such, then let it remain outside of the game environment, let alone that the volunteers who participate in it will also give up their personal anonymity to become involved (not everyone wishes to do so for one reason or another).

The CSM concept is a wonderful idea, but potentially could remove any legitmacy to the idea of EVE-Online being an MMORPG, as advertised, and not just an MMOG, if certain caveats are not heeded.



I understand you concerns in the matter. The scope of the CSM is just so massive and the CSM is essentially working 'outside' the environment EVE has to offer. There is however nothing that prevents the roleplayers from running for the CSM, in character if they like, and therefore open up a communications to CCP with special regards to the roleplayers and how we can accommodate them better.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2007.12.13 22:09:00 - [288]
 

Edited by: TornSoul on 13/12/2007 22:09:25
Did this get locked? Wink (I've stayed out for a bit, to not hog the thread *too* much Razz ...)



Proxy Voting:

It would seem to me that Xhagen has his mind set on doing the proxy voting?

It would also seem to me that most player arguments here dont like the idea?
(while I'm biased, I think it's accurate)

So... That would be an interesting start to the CSM, no matter which outcome.
One on the positive and reinforcing side (of the general idea of the CSM), and the other not so much Wink

----------

Term length

It would seem Xhagen has set his mind on limited terms, but leaning towards extending it to more than just 2 terms?

The players en large dont seem to care too much either way, except for a few (yours truly included)?
At a very biased "shot in the dark", I'd say it's really a dead race, with the slightest of sligth advantages to the "no limit on terms" camp.?

---

About accurate?


Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2007.12.13 22:45:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: TornSoul
Edited by: TornSoul on 13/12/2007 22:09:25
Did this get locked? Wink (I've stayed out for a bit, to not hog the thread *too* much Razz ...)



Proxy Voting:

It would seem to me that Xhagen has his mind set on doing the proxy voting?

It would also seem to me that most player arguments here dont like the idea?
(while I'm biased, I think it's accurate)

So... That would be an interesting start to the CSM, no matter which outcome.
One on the positive and reinforcing side (of the general idea of the CSM), and the other not so much Wink

----------

Term length

It would seem Xhagen has set his mind on limited terms, but leaning towards extending it to more than just 2 terms?

The players en large dont seem to care too much either way, except for a few (yours truly included)?
At a very biased "shot in the dark", I'd say it's really a dead race, with the slightest of sligth advantages to the "no limit on terms" camp.?

---

About accurate?




Yes, I think we were too good with our arguments (not that we argued) and pushed poor Xhagen into a corner, which (speaking at least for myself) was not the intent.

I too am not fond of the Proxy, and upon reflection (years ago, in real life) found I was against term limits (it's not the federal governments job to limit who can run and serve, but the job of the voters), but I would rather see the CSM embraced and worked on with those (IMHO) flawed ideas then dropped as an idea because we can't seem to get along.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.12.17 09:55:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: TornSoul

Did this get locked? Wink (I've stayed out for a bit, to not hog the thread *too* much Razz ...)

Proxy Voting:

It would seem to me that Xhagen has his mind set on doing the proxy voting?

It would also seem to me that most player arguments here dont like the idea?
(while I'm biased, I think it's accurate)

So... That would be an interesting start to the CSM, no matter which outcome.
One on the positive and reinforcing side (of the general idea of the CSM), and the other not so much Wink

----------


My mind isn't set on anything particular. I've been just defending the design I came up with from many excellent arguments and counter arguments.

And you guys have convinced me to drop the idea for proxy voting. I believe that the option will a) fuel a certain apathy that would be better displayed by not voting at all and b) complicate matters unnecessarily as the difference between "let me be your proxy" and "go vote this one" will require exactly the same amount of work on the voters behalf, hence countering my initial idea of the entire proxy system.

So, to the point, proxy voting is out.


Originally by: TornSoul

Term length

It would seem Xhagen has set his mind on limited terms, but leaning towards extending it to more than just 2 terms?

The players en large dont seem to care too much either way, except for a few (yours truly included)?
At a very biased "shot in the dark", I'd say it's really a dead race, with the slightest of sligth advantages to the "no limit on terms" camp.?

---

About accurate?




I'm still not convinced that the elections will do the work that the term limit is supposed to do so that will stay in. Please remember though that these ideas are not written in stone so things can change quite easily.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.12.17 09:58:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: Hamfast

Yes, I think we were too good with our arguments (not that we argued) and pushed poor Xhagen into a corner, which (speaking at least for myself) was not the intent.

I too am not fond of the Proxy, and upon reflection (years ago, in real life) found I was against term limits (it's not the federal governments job to limit who can run and serve, but the job of the voters), but I would rather see the CSM embraced and worked on with those (IMHO) flawed ideas then dropped as an idea because we can't seem to get along.



"Poor little Xhagen" Wink

I'm still here working on this and other things here and there.
And the CSM will be put into motion. We will then wait and see if it gets the player attention it requires (and deserves imho Wink).

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2007.12.19 23:22:00 - [292]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen

And you guys have convinced me to drop the idea for proxy voting.
...
So, to the point, proxy voting is out.



\o/

What's the ETA on the CSM at this point?

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2007.12.20 04:07:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen

So, to the point, proxy voting is out.



Awesome, Glad you came around Very Happy

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.12.20 22:08:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: CCP Xhagen

And you guys have convinced me to drop the idea for proxy voting.
...
So, to the point, proxy voting is out.



\o/

What's the ETA on the CSM at this point?



No ETA yet. I'm working on everything that follows this idea but I promise that I will let you know when things are shaping up.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2007.12.20 22:09:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: Hamfast
Originally by: CCP Xhagen

So, to the point, proxy voting is out.



Awesome, Glad you came around Very Happy


Hehe, yes, I learn slowly, but I usually get there in the end.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2007.12.22 16:19:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen
Originally by: Hamfast
Originally by: CCP Xhagen

So, to the point, proxy voting is out.



Awesome, Glad you came around Very Happy


Hehe, yes, I learn slowly, but I usually get there in the end.


You are a philosophy major...

From the Latin philosophia...

Or Love of Knowledge...

Now we know you can use the knowledge (or act on it) as well, so all is good.

Keep up the good work, I look forward to the next step in the CSM evolution.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2008.01.28 12:41:00 - [297]
 

Just a quick update here. This is still being worked on and hopefully I will be able to publish a dev blog with time lines and a 'finalized' (to be used in the first one or two elections at least) version after two to three weeks. There will be a short summary of the 'core' functions following the paper for those 'not as enthusiastic about long reads'.

The ideas of proxy votes has been scrapped entirely, term length for alternates have been changed and the term length for representatives still stands.
Other than that, the idea will go through more or less unchanged.

Ramblin Man
Empyreum
Posted - 2008.01.29 22:32:00 - [298]
 

Holy zombie Jesus! Shocked

Vote Xhagen for... most... attendant... thread starter... evar!

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:37:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Ramblin Man
Holy zombie Jesus! Shocked

Vote Xhagen for... most... attendant... thread starter... evar!


I and all my proxy votes concur...

Originally by: CCP Xhagen
Just a quick update here. This is still being worked on and hopefully I will be able to publish a dev blog with time lines and a 'finalized' (to be used in the first one or two elections at least) version after two to three weeks. There will be a short summary of the 'core' functions following the paper for those 'not as enthusiastic about long reads'.

The ideas of proxy votes has been scrapped entirely, term length for alternates have been changed and the term length for representatives still stands.
Other than that, the idea will go through more or less unchanged.


Looking forward to it.

Eurzadahn
Gallente
Omega Eclipse Industries
Posted - 2008.02.07 07:44:00 - [300]
 

All I know is I want to run for a place at the nearest opportunity! SIGN ME UP! Wink


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : 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