open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked A Question Regarding Collective Decision Making
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.12 12:54:00 - [1]
 

I have a question for all of the candidates, regarding their views on collective decision making.

Imagine that you are elected to the CSM and find yourself outvoted on an an issue there 8-1.

In the event of such an occurrence, will you try to present a united front when it comes to discussing the issue with CCP and avoid speaking out against your fellow council members?

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:47:00 - [2]
 

I would see no need to continue bringing the item up AFTER a decision has been reached. Now, the CSM doesn't have to pretend it was a unanymous decision if it wasnt, but a simple "the council has decided..." should be enough. No sense in beating a dead horse.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:51:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
I would see no need to continue bringing the item up AFTER a decision has been reached. Now, the CSM doesn't have to pretend it was a unanymous decision if it wasnt, but a simple "the council has decided..." should be enough. No sense in beating a dead horse.


Agreed really. I would be a pointless waste of everyone's time to keep harping on about a position that the council has already voted against in the valuable environment of the CSM/CCP meeting. By the same measure, its clear that the advocates of the issue receiving 8-1 support should be the people making the key presentation in face to face discussion, and it shouldn't fall to the opposing vote to be the primary lead in such instances.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:10:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Rodj Blake

In the event of such an occurrence, will you try to present a united front when it comes to discussing the issue with CCP and avoid speaking out against your fellow council members?


Yes.

If the CSM cannot present a unified face in terms of its decisions then it will be hopelessly undermined.

Hopefully we have will get 9 people who are able to ratonally discuss, debate and compromise, allowing the CSM to put forward suggestions which if not unanimous are at least reasonably acceptable to a majority of CSM members.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:14:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 14:17:33
Originally by: Rodj Blake
I have a question for all of the candidates, regarding their views on collective decision making.

Imagine that you are elected to the CSM and find yourself outvoted on an an issue there 8-1.

In the event of such an occurrence, will you try to present a united front when it comes to discussing the issue with CCP and avoid speaking out against your fellow council members?


It really depends on the issue at hand. There certainly are some things that i could not sit by as the one and let 8 foolish people push though. And i would not expect anyone else to not provide an adversarial position to anything I was saying. But there are also issues that simply aren't important enough to matter.

Its important to have the other side of the coin when dealing with an issue, because without that, the problems that are being addressed as well as those present in the solution get obfuscated.

Two good examples come in the form of Remote Doomsdays and Destructible Stations. Both ideas which are terrible for the game. Remote Doomsdays and all such large AoEs' make fights happen less often and of greater magnitude. And Destructible Stations give another large advantage to large alliances and a kick in the teeth to anyone who wants to live in 0.0 and not be in those large alliances. I could not sit by and let people do that to the game and would voice my argument towards not implementing those mechanics.

On the same hand, if there were 8 people who where saying that changing web mechanics was a good idea[and i think it is], i would absolutely not want the one person on the opposing side to not mention the massive upheaval that such a change would cause to current combat mechanics. It would be a failure of their duty to not bring up their objections and a failure of mine if i pressured them into doing so.

And on the other hand, if there were 8 people who thought that making salvaging a flaggable offense or supported increasing the de-aggression timer for jumping and docking up to 90 seconds or 2 minutes, or wanted to push for a mechanic that made war-decs follow someone who left a corp/alliance for some amount of time, or wanted to fix some other problem in a way that while i didn't feel was optimal, wasn't detrimental to the game. I don't think i would have a reason to fight the other members even if I disagreed with the outcome.

ed: Elected members will not be a legislative body they will be a council. And the job of a council is to lay out the pros and cons not to make decisions. That means keeping an opposing voice even with large scale support.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:21:00 - [6]
 

I'm inclined to agree with Goumindong.

Three wolves and a sheep sit down to vote on what's for dinner...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a team player at heart, and I'd attempt to use my dissenting opinion to "shoot holes" in the current proposal. Perhaps by airing my concerns and listening to the recommendations of the other council members they can better formulate their plans to make persuasive arguments to those who have my exact concerns.

I'm no soar loser, and will certainly stand with the council on anything I'm out-voted on, but it will be after having voiced my concerns clearly and stated where I feel that the proposed idea has fault. However, I'm but one man and certainly would never think of my interests as "universal" for EVE Online.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:48:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/05/2008 14:50:01

I think the question is more about - during the face to face meetings in Iceland, would a candidate who has been outvoted on an issue be prepared to allow fruitful discussion of the issue between the CSM consensus and CCP Developer Reps or would the dissenting rep feel obliged (and rightful) in continuing to argue the minority case and filibuster the issue out of council on pure argumentation in that environment?

On destructible stations for example: if a proposal to make this happen passes 6-3 from CSM and we have a good working proposal for implementation, would the 3 CSM members who voted against continue to argue against throughout the presentation or would they feel the period for internal discussion had already passed at the pre-voting phase and continued arguments at face to face meeting would be unreasonable in the face of an existing council consensus on the issue?

This is actually a VERY important question on CSM principle and behaviour.





Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:08:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

On destructible stations for example: if a proposal to make this happen passes 6-3 from CSM and we have a good working proposal for implementation, would the 3 CSM members who voted against continue to argue against throughout the presentation or would they feel the period for internal discussion had already passed at the pre-voting phase and continued arguments at face to face meeting would be unreasonable in the face of an existing council consensus on the issue?

This is actually a VERY important question on CSM principle and behaviour.




Of course, that works in reverse too - if the vote to lobby CCP for destructible outposts failed 6-3, would those three members continue to push for it during the subsequent meetings with CCP?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:09:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/05/2008 14:50:01

I think the question is more about - during the face to face meetings in Iceland, would a candidate who has been outvoted on an issue be prepared to allow fruitful discussion of the issue between the CSM consensus and CCP Developer Reps or would the dissenting rep feel obliged (and rightful) in continuing to argue the minority case and filibuster the issue out of council on pure argumentation in that environment?



Making the minority case and allowing fruitful discussion are not mutually exclusive positions.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:13:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Rodj Blake

Of course, that works in reverse too - if the vote to lobby CCP for destructible outposts failed 6-3, would those three members continue to push for it during the subsequent meetings with CCP?


I think it would be unreasonable behaviour on the part of those three members to depart from the agenda of agreed items that had passed the CSM consultation votes prior to the face to face meeting. The face to face meetings should be limited to addressing issues that have been successfully voted onto the agenda.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:15:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 15:17:33
Originally by: Rodj Blake

Of course, that works in reverse too - if the vote to lobby CCP for destructible outposts failed 6-3, would those three members continue to push for it during the subsequent meetings with CCP?


There certainly is a difference between lobbying for a change not on the agenda and lobbying against a change on the agenda. I don't think it would be right to bring up unless there was free time at the end when the rest of the agenda had been cleared.

That is to say that if you are discussing something, the cons are pertinent to the discussion. If you are not discussing something, then nothing on the topic is pertinent to the discussion. Just as it would be out of line to start talking about aggression timer mechanics in the middle of a POS discussion it would be out of line to talk about something not on the agenda unless the agenda had been completely cleared.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:22:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: zoolkhan on 12/05/2008 16:24:24
Originally by: Rodj Blake

In the event of such an occurrence, will you try to present a united front when it comes to discussing the issue with CCP and avoid speaking out against your fellow council members?


That would be professional.

However, if the 8 suggest to remove the network stack, i would probably not accept that vote Wink

However, only a united front could possibly convince the joves
and even if we 9 would present the idea to remove the network stack as the best since invention
of texan beef burger - CCP would just dismiss it.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:38:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/05/2008 16:39:06
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Rodj Blake

Of course, that works in reverse too - if the vote to lobby CCP for destructible outposts failed 6-3, would those three members continue to push for it during the subsequent meetings with CCP?


I think it would be unreasonable behaviour on the part of those three members to depart from the agenda of agreed items that had passed the CSM consultation votes prior to the face to face meeting. The face to face meetings should be limited to addressing issues that have been successfully voted onto the agenda.




If I interpret the documentation correctly nothing that is to be discussed in Iceland has not undergone a vote. All of the silliness should already be out of the way by then. Your agenda will already be well documented at that point and I'd expect CCP to question it if you deviate. You should only be discussing items that have been SUCCESSFULLY voted upon. Nothing else.

That being said if you were on the opposing side of a vote I don't see why you shouldn't be able to make a reasoned statement regarding it. You have 3 days. Ultimately just don't be a **** about it... v0v

Much like the CSM isn't some new arm of the dev team, you don't get to pick and choose what votes you like.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.05.13 01:05:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Rodj Blake

Of course, that works in reverse too - if the vote to lobby CCP for destructible outposts failed 6-3, would those three members continue to push for it during the subsequent meetings with CCP?


I think it would be unreasonable behaviour on the part of those three members to depart from the agenda of agreed items that had passed the CSM consultation votes prior to the face to face meeting. The face to face meetings should be limited to addressing issues that have been successfully voted onto the agenda.


I share Jade's view on this.

However, I also think that "both sides of the coin" should be presented to CCP.

Ie. the concerns of the "loosing side" should not simply be swept under the carpet.

Pro's and con's on a given subject should be presented.
And as it happens, those pro's and con's can be different depending on who you are (or what profession you prefer in EVE)
I think that needs to be laid out as well.

But if that's all included in the presentation to CCP, then I definatly believe that the time for internal CSM discussion is over once the internal (but public) CSM vote is over.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.13 08:56:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Rodj Blake
Imagine that you are elected to the CSM and find yourself outvoted on an an issue there 8-1.

In the event of such an occurrence, will you try to present a united front when it comes to discussing the issue with CCP and avoid speaking out against your fellow council members?

It really depends on the issue at hand. There certainly are some things that i could not sit by as the one and let 8 foolish people push though. And i would not expect anyone else to not provide an adversarial position to anything I was saying. But there are also issues that simply aren't important enough to matter.

I can't say I agree with this, on the basis that the importance of the issue at hand will be determined not by the CSM, but by the community's ability to get the CSM's attention about that issue to begin with. I'd believe that once said issue has reached the CSM discussion table, it's important enough.

So no, it should not depend on the issue at hand, but on how close the vote was. The more votes against the proposal, the more time I would hope there'd be given to explain the opposing point(s) of view. But certainly, any individual who doesn't get their way needs to respect the group's majority decision, regardless of how passionate the member may feel about it, or however little their point of view may have lost out by.

/Ben

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:11:00 - [16]
 

Good question, a pity that it's just a bait and people will answer whatever they think is popular. Maybe we will know _after_ who were the big mouthed kids and who acted professional... :)


 

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