open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Under the surface
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:30:00 - [1]
 

Last week of voting and I believe this is the point where candidate and voters needs to be objective and clear about their expectances.
Many players ( myself included) have been voting with a few accounts and letting a few others open to make a better judgement or perhaps wait and understand more about these players who are asked to be the voice of the community for a period of time.

A few things bothers me since I began browsing and reading the several questions and replies of candidates here. I won't enter details but be focused at one point specifically: I perceive that Voters and candidates alike are treating CSM above its own scope.
Many of you speaks of issues as Game developers, others try to enter publicity and marketting of ccp business, etc etc.
I see no issues about candidates trying to express their opinion as how they feel about a subject, but basing their campaign in form of promisses and false premisses of changing aspects of game that are trully not under CSM reach makes me feel that this whole election is being misunderstood in their main objective.
It is my understanding that CSM will be formed not as a primary entity to determine or lead changes in game, but rather a support base to bring their voice to issues already in game and under improvement raised by ccp primary.
Another point to consider is that CSM candidates will be there for 6 months. ( correct me if I'm mistaken about the date, didn't check it myself ) It's not really a significant amount of time and if you take each candidate profile and try to match with their base campaign it becomes a bit contrasting even about feasibility to express their core ideals in matter of time given. Hell there is people proposing more then they will ever be able even to adress.

I don't want this to be taken as a criticism but rather, a point that me, as a voter with a few extra accounts still open to vote, would like to see clear. I'd like to find a candidate that actually can understand the scope of CSM and address things in a feasible way, considering time, considering function ( not as a pseudo dev, not as an executive inside ccp ) but as a player that will be there simply to give opinions and bring to ccp points which the community finds important.

A lot of focus has been given to the individual players as candidates to CSM. In my view, in general many have the profile to be there, well-spoken people, educated, with know how of game mechanisms and willingness to dedicate a bit of their time to do this.
So my point being, what differenciates them, is how will they use this not as their own voice or show, but to actually bring the capacity to have the voice of the community heard and expressed in this way.
Flexibility and openess is a must. Candidates with extreme close plataforms can not really reflect the wishes of a community in a changeble environment as eve is supposed to be.
Anyhow, just a few thoughts that I'm curious to read some replies and get my votes finally cast in time.


thanks in advance.

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:44:00 - [2]
 

I think the main reason candidates may talk about ingame problems and solutions as if they were developers is so you, the voter, can see how they feel the game should be. Obviously, their views will influence the way they'll discuss/vote for subjects that will be brought up in the actual CSM.

You'll want to vote for the person whose view of the game and its future most closely matches your own. After speaking with quite a lot of candidates I do think that many of us CAN "address things in a feasible way, considering time, considering function ( not as a pseudo dev, not as an executive inside ccp ) but as a player that will be there simply to give opinions and bring to ccp points which the community finds important". Personally, I think the main bonus of the CSM will be the increased feedback from CCP about the ideas.

Also, keep in mind that while a CSM may run for 'only' 6 months, they can recommend changes to CCP that will not be finished or not go into development until after their tour is up, but will be developed nonetheless.

Cold Burn
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:57:00 - [3]
 

The Dev Blog really sheds a lot of light on what the CSM can hope to accomplish.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:59:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
I think the main reason candidates may talk about ingame problems and solutions as if they were developers is so you, the voter, can see how they feel the game should be. Obviously, their views will influence the way they'll discuss/vote for subjects that will be brought up in the actual CSM.

You'll want to vote for the person whose view of the game and its future most closely matches your own. After speaking with quite a lot of candidates I do think that many of us CAN "address things in a feasible way, considering time, considering function ( not as a pseudo dev, not as an executive inside ccp ) but as a player that will be there simply to give opinions and bring to ccp points which the community finds important". Personally, I think the main bonus of the CSM will be the increased feedback from CCP about the ideas.

Also, keep in mind that while a CSM may run for 'only' 6 months, they can recommend changes to CCP that will not be finished or not go into development until after their tour is up, but will be developed nonetheless.


Thanks for your reply Diedra. You raise another point which concerns me a bit, the fact of candidates treating this as " views as they feel it should be" rather then " listening to the community to express their views of what it should be"
The individualism approach of representing a set of voters who thinks like the candidate seems somehow at odds to me according with the CSM purpose of bringing a cast of people to represent the community in general, as a whole.
Obviously, as human nature candidates are biased, as voters are, we won't discuss this here as it was spoken endlessly before.
But the secret perhaps is, a candidate to find the different view of what you are refering, one not interested on being the focus , dragging voters to support their own view, but rather, placing the focus in the community and using his hability and position given at CSM to express their wishes.

Thanks for your reply Diedra, and GL at the elections. Was a pleasure to meet you at the CSM halls.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:47:00 - [5]
 

I agree with your general point Revan.

I am not quite sure how we as candidates can demonstrate this for you though...

I certainly think that the CSM has almost been set up to fail by both CCP and the candidates due to the high level of expectations that are being set.

There is a risk that while CSM will be able to do things of benefit on a small scale it will be percieved to have been a failure simply because we have all given the impression it could be so much more.

It's like when you book a flight. You choose Ryanair which costs you 50. Your expectations are low because its cheap but the flight arrives on time, the plane is clean and you get to your destination without much stress. You tell your friends about your good experience.

You buy a 1,500 first class ticket to NY on British Airways. Your champagne is lukewarm rather than chilled. There is a child sitting three seats away who spends the entire flight crying and your bed/seat doesn't recline properly. In general your flight is a hell of a lot more comfortable than the Ryanair one - but you EXPECT a lot more for your money. You tell your friends about your crappy flight!

I think CCP - but certainly the candidates - have hyped up the power/influence of the CSM, which could come back and bite them on the arse.

But then that is what politicians the world over do when they are seeking election. As a candidate you need to sell a 'dream' and a 'vision' to get votes even if that 'vision' is unachievable in reality or is impossible to implement due to external influences.

Many are being 'cynical' about the CSM and they are right to do so - at least they won't be dissapointed if it does fail to work...

Obviously I am only standing because I believe CSM can work and can help improve communication between the playerbase and CCP - which can only be a good thing.

As a candidate I intend to work to make CSM a success but also maintain a pragmatic view about what we will actually achieve.

I hope that we can prove the cynics wrong but I think expectations have been set so high that people will be disappointed no matter what we do!

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:56:00 - [6]
 


We can only give it our best shot at the end of the day. This is a rich and vibrant game community thats bursting with ideas and enthusiasm for the future improvement and enhancement of the game of Eve Online. If as candidates we can build a CSM that is able to get a significant proportion of the best ideas in front of the CCP Developer team with progressive and skilled advocacy of the issues then we'll be a success and future CSM groups will have something to live up to.

Its a bold experiment from CCP and from the players who have committed to devote their time and oversight to this process. All we can do is try our best to make it happen and promise to remain true to the opinions and perspectives expressed throughout the election if we are fortunate enough to be elected.


Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:01:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Hardin
I agree with your general point Revan.

I am not quite sure how we as candidates can demonstrate this for you though...

I certainly think that the CSM has almost been set up to fail by both CCP and the candidates due to the high level of expectations that are being set.

There is a risk that while CSM will be able to do things of benefit on a small scale it will be percieved to have been a failure simply because we have all given the impression it could be so much more.

It's like when you book a flight. You choose Ryanair which costs you 50. Your expectations are low because its cheap but the flight arrives on time, the plane is clean and you get to your destination without much stress. You tell your friends about your good experience.

You buy a 1,500 first class ticket to NY on British Airways. Your champagne is lukewarm rather than chilled. There is a child sitting three seats away who spends the entire flight crying and your bed/seat doesn't recline properly. In general your flight is a hell of a lot more comfortable than the Ryanair one - but you EXPECT a lot more for your money. You tell your friends about your crappy flight!

I think CCP - but certainly the candidates - have hyped up the power/influence of the CSM, which could come back and bite them on the arse.

But then that is what politicians the world over do when they are seeking election. As a candidate you need to sell a 'dream' and a 'vision' to get votes even if that 'vision' is unachievable in reality or is impossible to implement due to external influences.

Many are being 'cynical' about the CSM and they are right to do so - at least they won't be dissapointed if it does fail to work...

Obviously I am only standing because I believe CSM can work and can help improve communication between the playerbase and CCP - which can only be a good thing.

As a candidate I intend to work to make CSM a success but also maintain a pragmatic view about what we will actually achieve.

I hope that we can prove the cynics wrong but I think expectations have been set so high that people will be disappointed no matter what we do!



That's what I tried to expose above, I'm glad it was understood on its righfull scope.
This said Hardin, I'm pleased to see your views on this regard. More grounded, without the extraordinaire cynic claims, just a bit more clean and fair I believe.

thanks for your reply and gl with the elections. I believe you deserve a seat there.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:05:00 - [8]
 

It's interesting with this CSM council being the first that many of us are just shooting from the hip without an exacting knowledge of how one will actually serve the CSM.

I can only speak for myself in these matters, so allow me to clarify any suspicions or concerns you have with respect to me and my candidacy. The CSM, in my understanding, is but a funnel and an advisory panel with regards to the player-base interests and CCP's development team. The CSM will take the issues/proposals put forth by the candidates themselves or by the EVE community. Those issues and proposals with enough support will be put for to the CCP development team by the CSM.

That being said many of the players, with votes to offer, want to make certain that the candidates they're going to vote for share the same concerns and interests that they do - there-by giving the kind of support they want to see on the issues that are near and dear to them. I'm certain you can understand wanting to know is a candidate supports a given issue as you do so that they'll actually give it the passion of support you would if you were a Council member. Therefore, I'm left having to voice my opinions and stances on many issues throughout this campaign. However, I have never promised anything to anyone other than making certain I'll keep everyone's head screwed on through the 6 months I could end up serving. It makes no sense to promise anything until we're all familiar with the CSM and the proposal process. At that point we'll know what it actually takes to implement change in EVE.

Let me speak specifically to you comments of Flexibility and Openness. I find openness far more important than flexibility, and I'll tell you why. I'm open to anything, provided it has been well reasoned and thought-through. Many times have I had my mind changed due to researching a topic, or entering a discussion with those more educated on the matter than I. Flexibility is merely a matter of give and take to get what you want implemented. There is an old adage: if everyone's unhappy then you've come to a consensus, and I've found this to often be true.

In many instances I do not envy you voters, but hope that each had taken the time to find a candidate that they can relate to and support. Revan, I wish you the best of luck.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:23:00 - [9]
 

In a big way, the scope of the CSM will be determined by how well this first council works. What sort of impact it can have is going to at least partially depend on the precedents set by the folks we're electing now.

But based on the outline for how they will meet and interact with CCP, I agree that the Council Members will have a limited number of issues they can present to CCP and a limited time to do it in - so it's going to be about pinpointing what the player base wants/needs and then getting right into formulating a presentation to give to CCP on that issue. And to an extent, that does include specific proposals for solutions - although framing those specific solutions within a broader context is just as critical.

Taking something like the nano issue as an example, I would expect the CSM to be responsible for:

1) Recognizing the fact that ship speed is something on the minds of the players.
2) Creating a clear synopsis of the issue from the players' perspective to present to CCP ("Speed is seen as the most valuable attribute for smaller ships - to the extent that players choose fast ships over most others by default")
3) Propose solutions that would improve the game, ranging from the broad ("Give a wider range of options for dealing with fast ships") to the specific ("Introduce scripts for stasis webifiers that increase the range at the expense of speed reduction")

The candidates revealing specific proposals during the campaign are giving insight into the way they'd handle the process above - something I think is VERY important to helping determine who to vote for. Are they able to recognize the issues facing the playerbase? Can they summarize how we feel? Can they compellingly present both broad ideas and specific ones to spur the imaginations of CCP and start an internal discussion of practical solutions?

So while I agree that it's unreasonable to expect all campaign ideas to be presented to CCP and then turned into reality, there is merit to the presentation of these ideas during the campaign, as well as the possibility that a certain candidate might promise to make a particular issue/solution the centerpiece of their 6 month tenure on the Council.

The fact that there will be 9 CMs serves to both allow a diversity of specific interests and to filter out fringe proposals by virtue of requiring a majority vote. So yes, a level head and an open mind is a benefit, but passion and drive bring issues forward and sell CCP on them is something that you can't just sit back and expect will take care of itself.

I'm confident that CCP and the 9-person council won't allow the game to be broken - the question is whether the CSM will have the passion and drive to push forward what needs to be fixed.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:28:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis

I see no issues about candidates trying to express their opinion as how they feel about a subject, but basing their campaign in form of promisses and false premisses of changing aspects of game that are trully not under CSM reach makes me feel that this whole election is being misunderstood in their main objective.



It may seem like it is. But there is no other way to present ones competency and ability to rationally review issues than to show that by making arguments for or against specific changes.

If anything, the question asked of "what would you do as the minority voice" on the council is probably the best indicator. Those who are here to be legislative are going to say they should stick with the council. Those who are here to be council are likely to object and make concerns known.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:53:00 - [11]
 

I have always maintained that I will be listening to issues and topics raised by PLAYERS, debating these in the CSM meetings and voting for or against a particular idea or topic after carefully weighing up the arguments. I have also always maintained that I will NOT be proposing any topics or ideas on the CSM forums (as I don't believe this is what I'd be elected to do).

If an idea or topic is posted, and I consider it a good one or one that needs addressing, I will be the representative to support it so it gets to debate stage at the CSM meetings. This is because I believe that many Candidates have a narrow focus, or their own agendas to push.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:19:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Hardin
I agree with your general point Revan.




so do i.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:13:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Arum Erzoh
It's interesting with this CSM council being the first that many of us are just shooting from the hip without an exacting knowledge of how one will actually serve the CSM.

I can only speak for myself in these matters, so allow me to clarify any suspicions or concerns you have with respect to me and my candidacy. The CSM, in my understanding, is but a funnel and an advisory panel with regards to the player-base interests and CCP's development team. The CSM will take the issues/proposals put forth by the candidates themselves or by the EVE community. Those issues and proposals with enough support will be put for to the CCP development team by the CSM.

That being said many of the players, with votes to offer, want to make certain that the candidates they're going to vote for share the same concerns and interests that they do - there-by giving the kind of support they want to see on the issues that are near and dear to them. I'm certain you can understand wanting to know is a candidate supports a given issue as you do so that they'll actually give it the passion of support you would if you were a Council member. Therefore, I'm left having to voice my opinions and stances on many issues throughout this campaign. However, I have never promised anything to anyone other than making certain I'll keep everyone's head screwed on through the 6 months I could end up serving. It makes no sense to promise anything until we're all familiar with the CSM and the proposal process. At that point we'll know what it actually takes to implement change in EVE.

Let me speak specifically to you comments of Flexibility and Openness. I find openness far more important than flexibility, and I'll tell you why. I'm open to anything, provided it has been well reasoned and thought-through. Many times have I had my mind changed due to researching a topic, or entering a discussion with those more educated on the matter than I. Flexibility is merely a matter of give and take to get what you want implemented. There is an old adage: if everyone's unhappy then you've come to a consensus, and I've found this to often be true.

In many instances I do not envy you voters, but hope that each had taken the time to find a candidate that they can relate to and support. Revan, I wish you the best of luck.



Thanks for your reply Arum, another good view set forth about the subject. If I could resume in a few words what I spoke about above I'd say that I'm concerned with the aspect of candidates being somehow too self-centered on making voters support their plataform instead of assuring or presenting us methods they intend to use to accomplish what ccp already said it will be their function:

"provide effective and correct council to CCP on the issues that are brought up by the people"

I trully hope that the focus you gave about openness will be taken to the heart in this matter.

Best of luck to you as well Arum.


Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:23:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Revan Neferis on 12/05/2008 17:24:40
Originally by: Goumindong

It may seem like it is. But there is no other way to present ones competency and ability to rationally review issues than to show that by making arguments for or against specific changes.


I'm not sure if I agree with this statement Mr, however I understand where you're coming from. Let me put it this way, it depends a lot o how you view CSM and how voters view their representants.
Allow me to give you an example: If I view my representant as an absolute icon which has his or her ideas formed in base to which I expect, ready to just seat there and do his "job" with nothing else to worry about, I'd have no further issues even to comment here.
I like peaches, candidate A like peaches and will enforce peaches , this is all about, - vote - But is that what CSM really is about?
I don't see it this way.

When I read that CSM is a representation of a PLAYER base, I'm more interested to know from the candidates their habilities to actually do just that.
How the candidate approaches the community, how open he is to bring matters of general interest instead of his own, how does he communicate, how is his social skills and temperament facing such "job", how will he be communicating with the player base in case he is elected to know how, when and what to address. etc etc etc...
I'm not really interested if he wants nano ships to explode or if he thinks the developer aspectes should be this or that, not because it's not interesting but simply because it's not his function to operate this way.
I may be naive but what I want to see is a method where the player base will propose, analize, create, discuss something with these people and they will be the intermediate of this message to ccp.

Anyhow, thanks for your reply Goumindong and gl at the elections, not that you'll need it :)


Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:28:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Arithron
I have also always maintained that I will NOT be proposing any topics or ideas on the CSM forums (as I don't believe this is what I'd be elected to do)


That's exactly my feelings on the matter. I believe the CSM elections would be taking another turn if considering with this view a more realistic approach at least.

Thanks and gl Mr with your campaign.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:49:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 17:50:46
Originally by: Revan Neferis
...


I am not saying that ideas are formed in stone, but that we cannot get across how we will argue, present information, or what types of arguments we are likely to support without simply doing so.

A good example is the local chat issue. There are a lot of people that want local removed[and a lot of people who want it kept]. I do not think it is a good idea. But it would be impossible for me to show how i can argue against an idea without actually doing so. Saying "Yea, i won't support bad ideas" is as hollow as "I will fix lag!". People need to know how you come to the conclusion that ideas are bad, people need to know how you come to the conclusion that ideas are good.

Similarly with refining and proposing ideas. All these things give players an idea of what a candidate values. I for instance, value the strength of small ships and the ability of ships to force others to commit to a fight. Which can be seen in my web idea thread. To enhance small ships by making sig radius more important in all sorts of combat, and to reduce the ability of ships to simply leave the engagement area. But people will not know that if i don't present them with the information. Does it mean i will necessarily present that specific idea in that iteration? No. I will present the best idea that enhances small ships and reduces disengagement ability if such an item is on the agenda.

I know it may seem like a lot of people are running on a campaign of "you're voting for my ideas when you vote for me", but i doubt that is the case in their minds or will be the case when the council gets together and starts working.

Quote:
I may be naive but what I want to see is a method where the player base will propose, analize, create, discuss something with these people and they will be the intermediate of this message to ccp.


The CSMs will be taking a large part in the analyzing and discussion part of the equation, if they don't then their role is entirely extraneous. CCP could have simply implemented a poll system for the forum and the players could do it themselves.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:05:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
I know it may seem like a lot of people are running on a campaign of "you're voting for my ideas when you vote for me", but i doubt that is the case in their minds or will be the case when the council gets together and starts working.


Well, what we, as voters can acess is just what they represent here and with a few exceptions, (when having a better contact with them personaly) understand the deeper motivations behind their presentation.
How they see it in their minds, it's hard for general public to acess but I hope your statement is proven true or the whole function of the elections would be wasted as in a private meeting of closed doors.



Originally by: Goumindong
The CSMs will be taking a large part in the analyzing and discussion part of the equation, if they don't then their role is entirely extraneous. CCP could have simply implemented a poll system for the forum and the players could do it themselves.


But that is the actual fact. As Hardin and others already pointed, I believe that there is a danger on seeing CSM with more power or actually placing on the candidates functions which they can not assume. I don't believe that CSM will have any large part on major company or game developments, to the contrary, I believe that CSM will have the same function as a poll system forum ( as you stated) would have, just with a better PR imput.
The marketting ideal is the focus of this whole campaign and it can turn positive or negative towards their executors, a risk which by assessment, they were wise to take.

Nickaelhoop
Minmatar
Concordance Extraction Corporation
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:06:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Nickaelhoop on 12/05/2008 18:07:19
Yeah, the 6 months rotation will give less likely players a chance, like myself for instance Smile.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:24:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis

But that is the actual fact. As Hardin and others already pointed, I believe that there is a danger on seeing CSM with more power or actually placing on the candidates functions which they can not assume. I don't believe that CSM will have any large part on major company or game developments, to the contrary, I believe that CSM will have the same function as a poll system forum ( as you stated) would have, just with a better PR imput.
The marketting ideal is the focus of this whole campaign and it can turn positive or negative towards their executors, a risk which by assessment, they were wise to take.



If you think that the point of the CSM is to be a poll mechanic, then why vote? Wouldn't any candidate be better or worse than any of the others?

I firmly believe that its the advisory capacity that we will be most useful in. Identifying which concerns are reasonable, which are most important to be addressed first, and in which direction the concern is best handled. That doesn't necessarily mean its specific direction, but it is important to have that judgment.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:27:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Nickaelhoop
Edited by: Nickaelhoop on 12/05/2008 18:07:19
Yeah, the 6 months rotation will give less likely players a chance, like myself for instance Smile.


Owing to the number of threads and posts on this exact subject, I'd come to the conclusion that many voters and candidates have no idea what the job really is and haven't read or don't understand the documentation.

Hopefully we'll be able to get over that hump anyway.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:34:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
If you think that the point of the CSM is to be a poll mechanic, then why vote? Wouldn't any candidate be better or worse than any of the others?


Isn't that exactly the reason why this thread was written, to start with? Have no doubts, if you browse a bit around here you'll see that many players are asking exactly the same question. why even vote?

I'll tell you that I will vote with my accounts because I believe that apathy towards something is worse then making a mistake at first place. I'll vote now and if I feel that CSM isn't good or did not fullfil it's role, next time I won't be commiting the same efforts to it.
That's quite simple.

Now, I believe that the true issue regarding candidates is exactly that: To make sure to show us that their presence, their charisma, their will to be there for players not for themselves is actually more worthy then a simple click in forum pool.

-Advisory capacity-

check. although just a few candidates spoke about their merits or habilities on this regard.

-Identifying which concerns are reasonable, which are most important to be addressed first, and in which direction the concern is best handled. -

uncheck. I believe it's the role of the community to identify such issues and the role of the CSM representant to use his habilities to make them as priority.


-That doesn't necessarily mean its specific direction, but it is important to have that judgment. -

More important the knowledge of how to address it and why.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:39:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
I'd come to the conclusion that many voters and candidates have no idea what the job really is


Why, are you an exception? I believe that blogs, threads and all written material have been browsed by many voters and hopefully by all candidates with non exception. This doesn't make it clear and absolutely black and white just because a simple logical fact: it didn't happen yet, it's an experimental phase until concluded and there is no lessons learned to be taken until the first CSM is over.

Anyone who pledges the contrary is simply pushing the logic and using the system of cynical pr which we have seen so often.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:46:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
I'd come to the conclusion that many voters and candidates have no idea what the job really is


Why, are you an exception? I believe that blogs, threads and all written material have been browsed by many voters and hopefully by all candidates with non exception. This doesn't make it clear and absolutely black and white just because a simple logical fact: it didn't happen yet, it's an experimental phase until concluded and there is no lessons learned to be taken until the first CSM is over.

Anyone who pledges the contrary is simply pushing the logic and using the system of cynical pr which we have seen so often.



From day one I had a posting on my internal forums which was moved to my campaign website to explain exactly what you said in your post regarding what CSM really is. The same statement's all over any interviews I've done, multiple questions on this forum, and in my CSM thread.

CCP has documented the basic rules for how the CSM is to function. Oh hey look a link...

http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=555

I think that what was written is pretty clear. There's going to be some degree of discovery, but the ground rules are spelled out clearly.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:48:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis

-Identifying which concerns are reasonable, which are most important to be addressed first, and in which direction the concern is best handled. -

uncheck. I believe it's the role of the community to identify such issues and the role of the CSM representant to use his habilities to make them as priority.


That is not what the documentation says is going to happen. There is both judgment and priority. Though the CSM cannot ignore anything that the community brings up.

Check page 4 of the summary document(PDF)

Quote:

-That doesn't necessarily mean its specific direction, but it is important to have that judgment. -

More important the knowledge of how to address it and why.


Very probably.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:57:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
CCP has documented the basic rules for how the CSM is to function. Oh hey look a link...

http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=555

I think that what was written is pretty clear. There's going to be some degree of discovery, but the ground rules are spelled out clearly.




Could you state clear where at any point or other candidates that actually understood the post said that they weren't rules written about CSM?
Still you fail to explain what gives you the right to say that your other fellow candidates have no knowledge about their functions or specifications.
I've said here that expectancies towards CSM has escalated much above to what is originally written officially in this regard. Expectancy, as in any subjective matter is not measurable or contained in this case. People made of it what they expect it to be, it doesn't mean in any shape or form that it will take this dimension now just because of it.
Still, I wouldn't go that far calling candidates ignorant of what was written or material provided. This shouldn't be a way to address the issue as well specially if you are a candidate too. Will heavily impact towards your own profile.

Candidates and voters alike have doubts and a lot of thoughts about how CSM will work in practical. This is normal and highlighted at the last week of elections.


Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:00:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Though the CSM cannot ignore anything that the community brings up.


Agreed, judment and priority on the aspect the document brings forth, it doesn't mean that automatically the candidate will have to execute the functions idependently. If this was a rule set in stone, I doubt the eve community would take such a chance.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:02:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis
Originally by: Goumindong
Though the CSM cannot ignore anything that the community brings up.


Agreed, judment and priority on the aspect the document brings forth, it doesn't mean that automatically the candidate will have to execute the functions idependently. If this was a rule set in stone, I doubt the eve community would take such a chance.


The rule is set in stone. Any issue brought by the people voted down by the council requires a summary explanation from the council. And everything must be discussed publicly for 7 days before a vote can take place.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:21:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Revan Neferis
Originally by: Goumindong
Though the CSM cannot ignore anything that the community brings up.


Agreed, judment and priority on the aspect the document brings forth, it doesn't mean that automatically the candidate will have to execute the functions idependently. If this was a rule set in stone, I doubt the eve community would take such a chance.


The rule is set in stone. Any issue brought by the people voted down by the council requires a summary explanation from the council. And everything must be discussed publicly for 7 days before a vote can take place.


No, it's not. They start with a set of parameters and as any experience will be under constant monitoring to see if they are positive , negative, feasible, applicable or not and will be subjective to changes along the way. I have no doubts about it, if I had the concept that things of this matter are set in stone the words continuous improvement would dissapear of our dictionaries and I doubt that this is what ccp and players want.
I spoke above about candidates being open to accept their functions in light of these matters.
this is what I seek on a candidate particularly. Nothing set in stone regarding views, modus operandi and particular pre-disposed settings.
Every scenario needs rules and rules are adapted to the best development of the objective to be achieved. Candidates needs to be prepared to know, propose, and accept that as much.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:33:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
CCP has documented the basic rules for how the CSM is to function. Oh hey look a link...

http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=555

I think that what was written is pretty clear. There's going to be some degree of discovery, but the ground rules are spelled out clearly.




Could you state clear where at any point or other candidates that actually understood the post said that they weren't rules written about CSM?
Still you fail to explain what gives you the right to say that your other fellow candidates have no knowledge about their functions or specifications.
I've said here that expectancies towards CSM has escalated much above to what is originally written officially in this regard. Expectancy, as in any subjective matter is not measurable or contained in this case. People made of it what they expect it to be, it doesn't mean in any shape or form that it will take this dimension now just because of it.
Still, I wouldn't go that far calling candidates ignorant of what was written or material provided. This shouldn't be a way to address the issue as well specially if you are a candidate too. Will heavily impact towards your own profile.

Candidates and voters alike have doubts and a lot of thoughts about how CSM will work in practical. This is normal and highlighted at the last week of elections.




What? Fail to explain? I've said the same thing your post said. Read it in the other 8 threads I said it.

You've got a candidate who promises to resolve lag. A candidate promising to make pos's destructable... That's not their job, though it does give some insight into their thinking.

At the end of the day it appears in some way that the expectation is being set that somehow we're hiring an additional crew of game designers. We're not. That's spelled out in the documentation I linked and in your post.

Now if it's not directly apparent to you from reading other threads that people seem to think they're hiring additional game designers and that's being pandered to then it's not. Don't expect me to visit every single thread on the first page of the forum and link you to specific items however, simply because you saw fit to make the same thread that's been made 3 times.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:41:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Revan Neferis on 12/05/2008 19:45:34
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
What? Fail to explain? I've said the same thing your post said. Read it in the other 8 threads I said it.

You've got a candidate who promises to resolve lag. A candidate promising to make pos's destructable... That's not their job, though it does give some insight into their thinking.

At the end of the day it appears in some way that the expectation is being set that somehow we're hiring an additional crew of game designers. We're not.


Excellent then, you said the same things and agree with the post. Could have been better to have stopped there. Although the main question then rises: why candidates continues to have this approach?

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Now if it's not directly apparent to you from reading other threads that people seem to think they're hiring additional game designers and that's being pandered to then it's not. Don't expect me to visit every single thread on the first page of the forum and link you to specific items however, simply because you saw fit to make the same thread that's been made 3 times.


No, I don't expect you to do that, as a matter of fact I don't even understand to the reason why you seem to be so eager to attend to an issue you said you have spoken before. You have all rights to abstaim of giving the courtesy of your answers Mr.
The hread will serve me to make my decisions about my votes. If it serves the community as well, even better and I believe that the subject is not overrated according with some sensible replies of other candidates above.

sucess with your campaign.


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