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

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:45:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis
...


Maybe i mis-understood you. I thought you were talking about the rule that the CSM must give a summary explanation on anything they vote down for the duration of the first CSM.

Were you instead talking about the rules themselves not changing over various iterations?

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:50:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Revan Neferis
...


Maybe i mis-understood you. I thought you were talking about the rule that the CSM must give a summary explanation on anything they vote down for the duration of the first CSM.

Were you instead talking about the rules themselves not changing over various iterations?


Yes I speak about candidates being able to understand their roles into the concept that CSM is not a pseudo Dev park, that CSM is an experience and needs to be looked upon as such in order to continue to exist and be better, that CSM may or may not work even with setting of rules this or that already in place because the variants affecting it are many and that because of it perhaps a more realistic approach from candidates towards it would be welcome at this point of the campaign.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.12 19:59:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Arum Erzoh on 12/05/2008 20:01:35
Originally by: Revan Neferis
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 platform 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 truly hope that the focus you gave about openness will be taken to the heart in this matter.


I hope it will, too. I would not be so naive to think of this CSM council as a democracy, but as a representative government. I would plan on taking the strongest of the player-base issues to heart and trying to direct them to CCP's attention with as well a thought out plan of implementation as possible. Some things may be a simple change, while others may have a further impact. However, I'd be lying if I didn't indicate, that all of this will run through my own personal filter - and this is where you and every other voter for the CSM should extend their concerns. Issues dear to a candidate will be backed with far more passion than items of little or no interest.

Should it happen that I make it into the CSM I'd want to speak with those players who feel strongest about the issues that have garnered the greatest support from the EVE community. Think of it as an education on a matter of perspective. I have my own perspective of EVE and I'd imagine it's quite different than some of the other players of EVE. However, many of the things players want to see implemented could be of significant impact. Taking the time to get to the root of the matter may allow for us to assess what 's important and what isn't.

There is one other thing that haunts me about the CSM and its format, and that is what percentage of EVE players read the forums. It's this very thing that makes me wonder if the CSM will be acting in the best interest of EVE's player-base. If I were to assume that 50% (...a number pulled from thin air) of EVE players read the forums, and 50% of those actually post, we're looking at 25% of the EVE players (and likely the highly opinionated ones at that). As an issue is taken to heart by a large portion of these 25% is it really an issue for the majority of EVE players? I understand what it takes for an issue to be brought forth to the CSM, but I do wonder about the large number of players who may never be heard from.

Ultimately I'll want to be reasoned about any changes implemented, as I've said, keep everyone's head screwed on. As I see it, the CSM is impacting the game for a larger number of people than will ever be heard from.

Originally by: Revan Neferis
Best of luck to you as well Arum.


Thank you much, I'm sure I'll need it.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 20:07:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis

Yes I speak about candidates being able to understand their roles into the concept that CSM is not a pseudo Dev park, that CSM is an experience and needs to be looked upon as such in order to continue to exist and be better, that CSM may or may not work even with setting of rules this or that already in place because the variants affecting it are many and that because of it perhaps a more realistic approach from candidates towards it would be welcome at this point of the campaign.


All, i see what you are saying now. Though I am not sure what can be done to assuage the fears of the voters on that front, other than to say "nothing ventured, nothing gained"

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.12 21:13:00 - [35]
 

Simple answer Revan,

While the CSM is limited as you said, Campaigns for any office are never limited by facts or realistic limits for that office... Candidates are looking to get elected so they try to appeal to everyone...

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.12 21:30:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Hamfast
Simple answer Revan,

While the CSM is limited as you said, Campaigns for any office are never limited by facts or realistic limits for that office... Candidates are looking to get elected so they try to appeal to everyone...


True. Now the question is, was / is the right way to approach this? Will it bring to CSM a false, ungrounded image due to this fact or actually is the "show" what matters most?
We could see it from 3 perspectives: voters/ ccp/ candidates. all playing at the same stage, each with their functions.
For voters , I might be wrong and yet I want to believe that many actually believes that many things said on pseudo-pr can be done by CSM candidates. Others know it's unfeasible but plays along for the entertainment value of it. Some will take it lightly if it doesn't work at all, others will be fiercily upset.
CCP will get their marketting feedback. already happening, let's hope for the best.
Candidates... well, some are doing this for a pure individual chance to show up, others for their alliances, others perhaps with a genuine effort to make a difference and change things they feel needed in game , or even just for the free trip to iceland and a little closeness with cco staff. We can't speculate neither is the place here, we have individual profiles for that.

Anyhow, as I said, candidates and voters are giving CSM an image with the way they display it. I felt that the pseudo- dev complex that was pretty much the majority base of talks around here was unfortunate to help us to feel a realistic base of what CSM is and can do for us and eve.

But at the end, as you said, there is no limits to a campaign. Candidates will do what they feel they must do to win.
If that is what it takes...

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.05.12 22:56:00 - [37]
 

Hi Revan,

I think the reason that the candidates are being portrayed and are portraying themselves as 'mini-devs' is relatively simple.

Firstly in order to differentiate the candidates from each other they have to be thrown into this hypothetical 'dev' role. Other wise each candidate would say 'Im willing to listen to the community, and relay your concerns to CCP'.

Secondly we must consider the extreme 'worst case scenario' in that a CSM candidate (who has the face to face time with the developer) expresses a bad idea that actually nobody wants and the developer fails to realise this and implements it any way.

Both these elements are at the extreme ends of the CSM scale and simply wouldnt happen but because they exist in theory we find the CSM voting has reached a middle ground.

If voters didnt ask the CSM candidates what their views were on contentious subjects what would they ask them about?? Equally if CSM candidates didnt express a view on contentious topics how would anyone be able to judge their capacity for logical thought, analysis and communication?

Pledges, promises and the like are a natural progression from this as it is after all a competative vote as are hardening of stances on particular topics in order to 'guaruntee' support from a specific sub set of eve players.

C.


TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.05.13 00:39:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis
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.


While the core of what Arithron says is something I agree with, it's missing something.

There's a pretty good chance that so many subjects will be brought up that the CSM will *have* to choose among them (as theres simply not time to handle everything)

And this is where the role of the "Q&A" sessions here kick in.
It gives people a chance to see which subjects the CSM candidates are most likely to look closer at.

Even with the best of interest at heart with regards to representing the playerbase, if theres 1000 threads, the CSM candidates will naturally focus on those that have their natural interest.

-------

Reflecting a bit on your other concerns:

I think the first CSM will need to invest quite a bit of energy and time in actually setting up the (internal) format of how the daily work of the CSM is to be played out.

Sure ther'll be a new forum - But that really doesnt put down any framework as such for how the CSM will deal with things on a daily basis.

The devil is in the detail.


Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
Posted - 2008.05.13 01:12:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: TornSoul


There's a pretty good chance that so many subjects will be brought up that the CSM will *have* to choose among them (as theres simply not time to handle everything)




call me pessimistic, but I think exactly the opposite will happen. Under the current structure a topic needs a minimum of 10,000 votes to get passed to the CSM... I don't think the CSM will end up with that many topics to discuss based on the current player interaction and the lack of player presence on the forums. It also doesn't help when the basic 'rules' of the CSM can be manipulated in their current state.

As an example - who is moderating the CSM forums when they go active? Who is getting the ability to remove topics as 'unsuitable'? If it's a CCP employee, doesn't that remove even the illusion of a player run council?

or how about

Quote:
“The time limit of seven days applies to both Representatives and voters, meaning that a Representative cannot bring a topic up at a Council meeting without having it go through deliberation on the public forum. A 5% voter support is however not required for a Representative to bring up a topic to the Council.”

So a topic can’t be brought up at a council meeting unless 5% of the population vote for it to be brought up, unless of course a representative wants to? Why bother having the vote at all if the reps can just bring up their own topics regardless of what the community wants to discuss? What order of preference is given to these topics - is a community issue of higher importance than a CSM rep issue? Or can the reps just bring up topics as they want and ignore the community?

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.13 01:19:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Hi Revan,

I think the reason that the candidates are being portrayed and are portraying themselves as 'mini-devs' is relatively simple.

Firstly in order to differentiate the candidates from each other they have to be thrown into this hypothetical 'dev' role. Other wise each candidate would say 'Im willing to listen to the community, and relay your concerns to CCP'.


hey Cailais, long time Very Happy

Well, it may look simple but in fact it isn't. Let's see this way, I, particularly would preffer a candidate that comes and tells me something feasible even at the basic core as 'Im willing to listen to the community, and relay your concerns to CCP' then coming here to read that X will end lagg, Zeta will bring the jove back, Y will open the eve gate ( sorry about the jokes but it's meant to exagerate the situation as an example).
Besides, even a more realitic approach , if it is their role should be debated as such.
Are you willing to hear the community? How? What are your qualities, talents that makes you able to do so? what methods to use, when, how can you relay this, how will you express yourself, so on, in this line.
What concerns me is, if I take away all the mini dev pseudo complexes at most of CSM candidate plataforms, with rare exceptions I'll see the questions above even mentioned.
And after all, that is what they will have to do there, not playing devs. Honestely I'd rather to see things with little "lights" compromising "aesthetic" sake but not blinding towards the base core issues.

Originally by: Cailais
Secondly we must consider the extreme 'worst case scenario' in that a CSM candidate (who has the face to face time with the developer) expresses a bad idea that actually nobody wants and the developer fails to realise this and implements it any way.

Both these elements are at the extreme ends of the CSM scale and simply wouldnt happen but because they exist in theory we find the CSM voting has reached a middle ground.

If voters didnt ask the CSM candidates what their views were on contentious subjects what would they ask them about?? Equally if CSM candidates didnt express a view on contentious topics how would anyone be able to judge their capacity for logical thought, analysis and communication?

Pledges, promises and the like are a natural progression from this as it is after all a competative vote as are hardening of stances on particular topics in order to 'guaruntee' support from a specific sub set of eve players.

C.




I believe that the second issue will happen, independent of CSM words or players. Who among us didn't see it happening even when sharing their company at a pub or dinner, in an informal discussion where opinions are cast and kaboom... it's quite normal and I don't believe it's the worst case scenario neither justification for the mini dev wrong play. But it's just my view of things also blended with my own experiences and social interaction with diverse sets and sides here.

But let's hope for the best, always Cailais.
Take care!

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.13 01:27:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Omber Zombie
... Or can the reps just bring up topics as they want and ignore the community?


Good points on general and I'd like to read a bit more on your discussions to be able to set an opinion. quite interesting btw. But I have highlighted that small portion of your sentences; I believe that this point will be one which players will be trully observing.
If this happens I see no reason at all why the player base should take their time even to cast a vote. lets just make a round table with a " who speaks first about what they want" and spread names for the next five years. As ironic as it seems let's hope this is not exactly what we are aiming for.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 02:32:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Revan Neferis
Let's see this way, I, particularly would preffer a candidate that comes and tells me something feasible even at the basic core as 'Im willing to listen to the community, and relay your concerns to CCP'


But that statement is implicit in every candidates' bid for election. If you had 60 candidates all doing as you suggest - how would you tell the difference?

The stating of areas of interest and the proposing of solutions to the major issues of the day are necessary to understanding the character and talent of the candidates. You can't ignore the "psuedo-Dev" element of the campaign threads because it's that very exercise that can tell you the most about a candidate.

At the end of the day anyone worth noting in this race are going to be capable of reasoned thought and will be able to assess the will of the playerbase. If that's where your requirements for a good CSM rep end then we might as well throw all the names into a hat and pick some at random.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 06:59:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 13/05/2008 06:59:40
Quote:
There's a pretty good chance that so many subjects will be brought up that the CSM will *have* to choose among them (as theres simply not time to handle everything)


If all these topics get the 5% player support, or the support of one representative, the CSM will HAVE to discuss them all! It says so in the job spec after all...

I'd like to pick up another point made above, about candidates bringing up their own ideas for discussion. It is my understanding that such ideas must be put into the public domain (ie, through the forum) for a period of not less than 7 days. Only then can it be discussed at CSM meetings. So, in essence, if each candidate puts up their maximum 1 topic, that would be 9 topics to discuss extra (well, if I get elected 8, since I won't be putting any up for discussion).

It will be important in meetings for the chairperson to keep things on track, and relevant to the topics being raised (it is easy to see how some of the more verbose candidates may attempt to steer discussion onto their pet topics).

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)


Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.13 10:15:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Revan Neferis
Let's see this way, I, particularly would preffer a candidate that comes and tells me something feasible even at the basic core as 'Im willing to listen to the community, and relay your concerns to CCP'

But that statement is implicit in every candidates' bid for election.

Do you really believe that, Kelsin?

Originally by: Kelsin
If you had 60 candidates all doing as you suggest - how would you tell the difference?

By the ability to demonstrate said willingness to listen. You could start with this forum; I note that only 40-something candidates have begun their own campaign thread, for starters.

It's also not just about what is said, but how it is said. You might get two people who agree on a given subject, but one may dismissive or even condescending of the opposing view, while the other structures their thoughts in ways that indicate a more open mind.

You raised this same point in my own thread Kelsin, and I continue to stand by my position. I make a point of saying that I will be open-minded in dealing with issues raised by the community, because (a) I don't share your belief that all candidates have proven that they can simply by the act of CSM application, and (b) in my case, I believe there are unique aspects of both my Eve and my RL histories that can ably qualify that statement.

/Ben

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:36:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Ben Derindar
I make a point of saying that I will be open-minded in dealing with issues raised by the community, because (a) I don't share your belief that all candidates have proven that they can simply by the act of CSM application, and (b) in my case, I believe there are unique aspects of both my Eve and my RL histories that can ably qualify that statement.



It's not that I think being a willing listener and communicator is unimportant - it definitely is! But when I hear a candidate say "I am willing to listen to the community" I have to respond "Okay yeah that's great, it's part of the job description - what else?"

Granted, there may be candidates who just don't get it, or who could somehow ignore the fact of community interest in an issue - but that level of ignorance is surely the smallest of minorities amongst the actively campaigning candidates.

I mean, can you point to an actively campaigning candidate that isn't willing to listen to alternative viewpoints and take them into consideration?

My point is only that there are plenty of candidates who can lay claim to being willing to represent the community in one way or another - the real question: is what further distinguishes them to the extent that a player should give their single vote to them?

And again, I don't mean to disparage anyone - I just want to hear the big ideas that truy make candidates stand out, rather than have these campaigns be muddled in a sea of truisms. I just want to hear clearer definitions of the candidates beyond the broad strokes.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:56:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: TornSoul

There's a pretty good chance that so many subjects will be brought up that the CSM will *have* to choose among them (as theres simply not time to handle everything)


call me pessimistic, but I think exactly the opposite will happen. Under the current structure a topic needs a minimum of 10,000 votes to get passed to the CSM...



Err no...
Any CSM member can bring any number of topics to the CSM for discussion (as long as the 7 day rule is kept)
The 5% topics simply *force* the CSM to discuss them.

I can easily see a situation where everyone and his dog puts up new pet topics for the CSM to consider.
Thus we could easily end up with hundreds upon hundreds of topics.

While, as you suggest, only a very few (if any) will manage the 5% limit.

Meaning that the CSM will have to look at every other topic to find some more (than just the, perhaps non-existing 5% topics) for the CSM to debate. Else the CSM could end up having zero topics to take to CCP.

-----------

Originally by: Omber Zombie

As an example - who is moderating the CSM forums when they go active? Who is getting the ability to remove topics as 'unsuitable'? If it's a CCP employee, doesn't that remove even the illusion of a player run council?



Excactly.

I've been pointing this out in a few other places as well. Theres still so much ground work that needs to be sorted out for the CSM.
Not *all* rules for *everything* has been hammered out yet.

So the first CSM will have to spend some time on that as well...



Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.14 07:19:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Ben Derindar on 14/05/2008 07:20:09
Originally by: Kelsin
I mean, can you point to an actively campaigning candidate that isn't willing to listen to alternative viewpoints and take them into consideration?

Ankh?

Originally by: Kelsin
My point is only that there are plenty of candidates who can lay claim to being willing to represent the community in one way or another - the real question: is what further distinguishes them to the extent that a player should give their single vote to them?

Fair enough. I would say the answer to that is up to each candidate him/herself to provide in their own way.

/Ben

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.14 10:03:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Kelsin


I mean, can you point to an actively campaigning candidate that isn't willing to listen to alternative viewpoints and take them into consideration?


Jade

Breha Organa
Posted - 2008.05.18 18:44:00 - [49]
 

Revan, and any who wish to know what each of us realistically thinks we can accomplish in CSM... I refer you to my last post in my campaign thread here.

I will simply state here that the people who will effectively get the job done are those with experience and success in understanding others' points of view, recognizing the need for change, and organizing the collective ideas of the players into a succint proposal for CSM consideration. I have read the scope and expectations for what the CSM is all about.

My effectiveness as a leader is unquestioned among those who know me, both in and out of EVE. I will take the time to study an issue, and consider all the players' ideas for solving it... and try to make a proposal based on fairness of gameplay, and compromise.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.18 20:34:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Ben Derindar
Edited by: Ben Derindar on 14/05/2008 07:20:09
Originally by: Kelsin
I mean, can you point to an actively campaigning candidate that isn't willing to listen to alternative viewpoints and take them into consideration?

Ankh?

Rediculous, my posting history clearly proves otherwise and so has my activity ingame. I'm probably one of the most openminded candidates around, if I may say so myself. The game as a whole and my duty as CSM comes before any personal beliefs and interests I have, and I clearly demonstrated this.

Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2008.05.18 20:59:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
I mean, can you point to an actively campaigning candidate that isn't willing to listen to alternative viewpoints and take them into consideration?

Goum

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.18 21:01:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
I mean, can you point to an actively campaigning candidate that isn't willing to listen to alternative viewpoints and take them into consideration?


Without pointing fingers to anyone I could answer this question like this: take the campaign threads, and check this out:

How many candidates say: I think the game should work like this and that and if you " voters " thinks the same as I do, vote for me. Point.

The replies of the above cases doesn't discuss a point, most of it just tries to convince how he/ she is right.

x

Now, look again at the candidates and see how many have this sort of approach: " I believe the game could be better like this and that BUT this is not a calling to hear what I have to say but rather transmit and be the intermediate of the player base. To this effort, I'll do my best to use my communication, leadership, social skills to make sure to be listened and taken into consideration at CSM"

This has been the core issue of many discussions I've had about the whole light to wich CSM candidates presented themselves.
At the end, I have voted for 3 candidates for different reasons, but none to the main reason why I think I should give a vote towards the main purpose and achievement of CSM ideals.

To all repliers here, my thanks and good luck with the final day of elections.


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