open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked What should change in the CSM?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.08.18 06:31:00 - [1]
 

Right, as you might have noticed, I have been writing a bunch of topics which tries to address certain key issues, which I see being the procedural issues for the CSM.

I see a lot of discussion about the CSM. But I would like to have a discussion(And gather feedback) about what people think should be done, in order for CSM to improve. Based on this feedback, it's my intention to come up with a bunch of suggestions for changing the CSM document, in order to have the CSM2 be a large improvement compared to CSM1.

So lets gather up all the feedback and figure out how to improve this thing.

Cheers.

Ryas Nia
Minmatar
Veto.
Posted - 2008.08.18 06:39:00 - [2]
 

wee you have value to the community!


ps still glad i voted for you :P

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:02:00 - [3]
 

Actually, procedure is something that is VITAL to the CSM. However, you have bypassed such procedure in the past and it is interesting that you now are campaigning for its importance (for instance, see meeting log on 17th August re: forum 7 day rule).

What would be more helpful and constructive is DISCUSSION of issues before meetings, interaction with players via the forums, and adjustment/changes made to issues to take account of player concerns.

Instead, what we see, are many ill-thought through issues being brought up at meetings and voted out. We also see many issues at meetings that clearly are pet-projects and there is a stubborn reluctance to alter one's own ideas or proposals to take account of other ideas etc. This narcissistic method of operating is not conducive to productive CSM meetings, or an effective CSM.

By discussion, I mean discussion meetings....not mailing issues and promptly ignoring replies (if you get them).

Take care,
Arithron

Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:37:00 - [4]
 

Ideally what you want is a forum that is restricted to CSM/CCP Posters only, though readable by anyone. Then, when a topic in the Assembly Hall Catches a CSM's eye they can create a Topic in the CSM Discussion Forum with links to the Submission Document so that all CSM members can review the idea and post up their queries/comments at leisure. Then, once the original topic has been on the board for 7 days the CSM can move to vote on that issue.

This would replace the current CSM meetings with everyone in a single channel at a given time.

Pro's

- Easier to give a clear and concise answer to queries as you're not having to break up your reply by the chat line limit. This helps to avoid the current confusion when multiple people have queries that pop up in the middle of someone explaining their point.
- Issues get dealt with faster as you don't have to wait till the next batch of issues are dealt with.
- Timezone issues are eliminated for CSM Members as all discussion/voting does not rely on all the members being present at the same time.
- Less reliance on Alternatives for the same reason, an Alternative should only be called to the CSM should something happen to one of the Main CSM members that would prevent them taking part in CSM business for an extended period of time (e.g. Holiday, Illness etc)

Issues directly triggered from a Dev Blog should have a 7 day timer from the date of the Dev Blog, not the date of the Issue being raised in the Assembly Hall.

There should be a mechanism in place to allow for Time Critical Issues to be pulled forward from the 7 Day Limit (For example, had the Issue concerning Forum changes not been voted on last night then you would have had to wait 3 months before you could put it to CCP by which time the changes would likely have already been implemented.)

The proposed Forum should be carefully monitored by CCP to allow speedy resolution of issues by getting a response from the Correct Dev on any given issue in the Issue Topic itself, CSM members can then debate with CCP any queries concerning the Response. Once an Issue has been resolved to the Satisfaction of the CSM that Topic can then be Locked.

Any Face to Face meeting with CCP should focus only on Big Picture Issues and Visions for the Future, general queries should be answered on the Forum.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:44:00 - [5]
 

It just seems like there's some sense of issue fatigue based on the last chatlog. CSM members either don't care about or fail to read up on or discuss some topics, while other issues aren't clearly written or are too heavy on details to summarize.

Basically prior to being brought up for a vote, there should be some actual workshopping, outside of the meeting, by the CSM so as to present something likely to be passed. The actual in-channel meeting time is wasted without good preparation.

Really, that's why you guys need a forum to discuss upcoming issues in and make changes to topics before they are formally presented and voted on.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:57:00 - [6]
 

1) Debate issues before the meeting, not during, on a publicly accessible forum of some type. I don't care whether it's the forum threads here, a separate forum you create, or what, but your meetings go far too long because you try to do everything there.

2) Robert's Rules of Order. This should have been literally the first vote at the first meeting. Without rules of order, meetings are just catfights with a threadbare pretense of dignity.

3) Stop screwing with what rules of order you do have. If there's a mandated 7-day consultation, then consult for 7 days, don't just ignore it when you see fit. There's plenty of ways to respect such requirements while still doing what you want to do, don't ignore it and undermine yourselves when it is not absolutely necessary.

4) You need better processes for picking issues. Right now, you have eight people who submit pet projects, and one guy who goes through and puts up everything that strikes his fancy. That is not a reasonable system.

5) Too many good issues fall by the wayside. Some of that is a lack of community response, but even the good ones that get enough supports to be reasonably considered(20-30, say), don't always seem to make it. I'm thinking moving to biweekly meetings was a mistake.

6) Would it be possible to find a friendly GM to sticky all the threads in the Assembly Hall that will be voted on at the upcoming meeting? Say, send them a list on Wednesday(with the corresponding expectation that the agenda will be set by then), and have them stickified until Sunday evening. That should give the community a better feedback mechanism, since they'll know exactly what will be talked about.

7) This one's a bit of a pet issue of mine, given how often I do this, but it seems like ideas proposed within threads often get overlooked, and only the first iteration of the idea is considered. That's not to say that all my ideas are good, of course, but I'd like to see the topic as a whole considered, not just the original idea.

8) This isn't something the CSM can implement solo, but the forum software is desperately in need of overhaul. The standard Assembly Hall thread should be a proposal with a poll at the top of "Support/Support, with reservations/Oppose", to eliminate all the content-free thumbs that have to be given out now. Also, once polling is in place, things like the Support/Oppose Nano Nerf threads can be moved to Eve General, where they belong(and merged too!), and forums like F+I can have another tool for feedback on ideas.

That's all I've got offhand, though I'll probably have more to say at a later date.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:01:00 - [7]
 

There are such forums available- they are called Jita park and Assembly hall! Count through the issues raised there and you can clearly see how much discussion and interaction issues get by CSM members. Its not just input from CSM on issues that is important- player suggestions etc are just as valuable.

Above this discussion, you need ADJUSTMENT of stances and ideas by CSM members that are going to bring the issue to the meetings for voting purposes. When presented to meetings, an issue should have already been through the development phase and be a much more robust issue for voting purposes, accommodating concerns/suggestions of players and fellow CSM members. Bad ideas and issues should already have been clearly identified as requiring further development and work.

I disagree that the 7 day rule should be bypassed in ANY circumstances. Forums, although useful, do not affect in-game play or detract from EVE in any in-game way (otherwise 80% of the players are currently getting some lesser experience!). Not everyone uses them at all...

Take care,
Arithron

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:03:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: LaVista Vista on 18/08/2008 15:03:46
Thanks for all the feedback so far. I quite frankly agree with most, if not all, of the points made so far.

Keep it coming Smile

EDIT: As for the point about the 7-day rule in regards to our last meeting, it was Jade who put it on in my name(I didn't request it, exactly due to the 7-day rule).

Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:56:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 15:58:43
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 18/08/2008 15:57:03
I'm not really certain why you bother to have the "get everyone into a chat channel for two hours" meetings. You could do all of that asynchronously on a forum.

The CSM could have a "voting" forum where every issue is a poll-thread (the poll options being "Vote Yes" and "Vote No". An issue stays in the voting forum for a week, during which time everyone can read up on the issue, post discussion about it, etc.

At the end of the week, the poll is closed and the votes entered stand. If someone didn't vote in the poll, then they abstain (read: they vote no). With a week to discuss and vote, you can get rid of the voting-duties of alternates (except in extreme cases where someone goes on a two-week vacation with no net access or whatever).

And as a bonus no one has to keep the "minutes" of the discussion -- it's right there on the forum as a permanent record.

You also wouldn't need anyone to moderate the discussion. I mean you wouldn't need someone determining the order of when people speak, when they're talking too long, etc.

Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.18 16:23:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Arithron
There are such forums available- they are called Jita park and Assembly hall! Count through the issues raised there and you can clearly see how much discussion and interaction issues get by CSM members. Its not just input from CSM on issues that is important- player suggestions etc are just as valuable.



Agreed, however in both of those cases meaningful discussion on any topic is easily swamped by masses of spam posts. Could you imagine, for example, trying to keep track of a discussion in either one of the Nano-Nerf Threads in the Assembly Hall? Then multiply that by the number of Hot Topic Debates that spring up. This is why a Forum Dedicated to the CSM is needed.

Meanwhile on the Public Discussion Thread debate will continue and there's nothing stopping the CSM from bringing decent alternative ideas into their discussion that have been raised on that Thread.

Quote:

Above this discussion, you need ADJUSTMENT of stances and ideas by CSM members that are going to bring the issue to the meetings for voting purposes. When presented to meetings, an issue should have already been through the development phase and be a much more robust issue for voting purposes, accommodating concerns/suggestions of players and fellow CSM members. Bad ideas and issues should already have been clearly identified as requiring further development and work.


In an ideal world that would be the case, unfortunately a lot of the ideas hitting the Assembly Hall, at the moment at least, seem to be poorly thought out, incomplete and jumbled in their implementation.

For example, the issue identified in the original post title is often not the issue that the proposal is designed to fix and even if it is, the discussion thread often gets dragged off topic into whines concerning whatever the prevailant perceived problem of the Month is (ie Nano's, Carebear/Greifer's* being catered to too much (*Delete as appropriate depending on who's posting), 0.0/Empire Arguements)

As stated above, this would help to keep the CSM Discussion on Topic.

Quote:

I disagree that the 7 day rule should be bypassed in ANY circumstances. Forums, although useful, do not affect in-game play or detract from EVE in any in-game way (otherwise 80% of the players are currently getting some lesser experience!). Not everyone uses them at all...

Take care,
Arithron


The problem with this is simple, yes the current issue was about the Forums, however, say 5 days before the next submission deadline CCP announces a Major Change that does affect a large proportion of the EVE Player Base (For the sake of arguement, let's use something extremely unlikely like:- "CONCORD will extend their WTFPWNED protection down to 0.1"). Now, you can be sure that there will be a massive outcry if that did happen with the Playerbase calling on the CSM to raise the Topic as a "WTF are you playing at CCP!?!". In this case, should the CSM bypass the 7 day rule? Or should they stick to the Rule with the resulting silence from the CSM being taken as Tacit approval of the Changes by CCP of the idea by the playerbase and the changes being implemented before the next CSM deadline?

I know in that case, I would want the CSM to be able to Bend the Rule.

Vashan Tar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.18 17:24:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Vashan Tar on 18/08/2008 17:38:15
Edited by: Vashan Tar on 18/08/2008 17:26:05
1)CSM needs a publicy viewable forum that only they can post in for discussion of the upcoming meeting's proposals. This should be done BEFORE the actual official meeting. This will allow questioning/clarification of proposals before the meeting regardless of timezones (with CSM members spread all over the world I see this as essential) and reduce the time wasting that occurs with questions that have already been covered in the proposals. It also allows the CSM member to present/argue his proposal eloquently rather than during the meeting where time is limited (assembly hall = swamped by spam). Lastly it will provide a legible record of all previous CSM proposals/discussions for the next CSM delegates when the voting rolls around again.

2)CSM should have already read the proposals that are on the agenda. Any CSM who asks for an explanation of the current topic during the voting has obviously not read the agenda and as such should not be on the CSM if they cannot even be bothered to do their basic homework. There's a reason that meetings are overshooting timewise, it's because some CSM's aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing and reading up on the proposals beforehand. As a result of this time is wasted during the meetings as you have to go over the proposals again for whichever person has been lazy and not bothered preparing for the meeting. If you do not have the time/inclination to do this then you should step down (hell, you shouldn't even have run for the CSM in the first place).

3) Current rules/procedures MUST be stuck to. No disregarding them because there is a particular issue that you personally want escalated (7 day rule is a prime example here). Procedure/points of order are not up for discussion during the meeting, they are meant to be followed. Discussion just wastes more time.

4) Abstentions should be removed. You are either for escalating the issue to CCP, or you are against it. Abstaining shows that you either have no understanding of the proposal or just can't be bothered to make a decision. Either way it shows poor leadership and brings into question your suitability for the CSM in the first place.

5) Unannounced AFK's. Votes are being missed/defaulted because of unannounced AFK's. CSM's have been given a position of responsability by the rest of the Eve playerbase. Not bothering to let the rest of the council to know that you are going to be away because your dog got hit by a car or your house is on fire results in hold ups and missed votes. I understand that with the meetings current length of time (see points 1 and 2 above) there may be the time that a person needs to go AFK, but these should be kept to the bare minimum and it is simple courtesy to let the chair know that this is going to happen.

6) When voting Yes/No, CSM members should be stating "Yes, because *****", or "No, because ******". Some CSM's do this already, idealy I want to see all CSM members doing this. In addition if they have read/discussed the proposals before the meeting they can prepare their answer before this so it should not add any extra time to the duration of the meeting.

7) Don't waste time on uncessary buracracy. I can't stress this enough. Whilst some of your proposals seem to have the right idea, others just seem intent on adding uncessary rules for things which are covered by simple common sense or existing rules. The recent high/low priorty vote proposal in a seperate thread you posted today is a prime example of this. If something is under discussion by the CSM then it already has a high priority. Any ordering of issues due to priority should be done by CCP and CCP only AFTER the CSM has submitted their proposals to them. This is because only CCP has the knowledge of their road map and the difficulty level of proposed plans/solutions. The CSM should not be wasting their time discussing rules for how to discuss the proposed issues.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.18 17:28:00 - [12]
 

1) CSM-only forum for discussion. Asked for since day 1.

2) More communication with CCP. I liked it when they asked for our stance on Factional Warfare. We need a lot more of those inquiries.

3) A wiki or whatever to keep these issues organized in one central place! It's one big mess and I'm the one that has to clean it up all the time.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:04:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 18/08/2008 18:04:23

5/9 small unit pvpers voted into the council next time
*(Ank counts as one btw Cool)

But seriously.

Needs the CSM post only forums and better overall forum functionality and it does need better infrastructure support from CCP next time around.

It can't be dependent on the Chair/Vice Chair to provide hosting for fundamental communications resources.

Maybe some kind of each CSM gets to pick 2 issues in each 14 day period? They signal their advocacy by moving an Issue thread to the CSM only posting forum and have a debate in the individual threads. Voting at the end of the discussion phase. I dunno, something like that would be superior to what we have at the moment.

But the kicker is it takes forum assets and infrastructure support. I'm pretty much convinced we've done the best with what we had this time around and unless CCP can provide more assets to the next CSM it will have similar problems and potentially worse outcomes depending on the how much time and effort the new Chair/Vice chair are prepared to devote to it.

Basically its support from CCP that is needed on the infrastructure though - not getting carried away with internal bureaucracy for the sake of it.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:10:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 18/08/2008 18:11:34
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Maybe some kind of each CSM gets to pick 2 issues in each 14 day period? They signal their advocacy by moving an Issue thread to the CSM only posting forum and have a debate in the individual threads. Voting at the end of the discussion phase. I dunno, something like that would be superior to what we have at the moment.


I wouldn't put a cap on the number of issues members can bring up. Also, the implied rate of 18 votes per 2 weeks is really low.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:13:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Vashan Tar
*good post too long to quote*


Agree with pretty much all of that except my outrageous rule breaking to get the forum topic in anyways - I'm an anarchist at heart I guess - rules are made to be broken if they need to be. On that specific point I think because it wasn't much an actual ISSUE we probably just need an alternative CSM method of immediately addressing items of concern.

"CSM says please don't nerf the tech lab forum" isn't exactly rocket science or a huge potential use of CCP dev time and in my opinion its utterly ridiculous to have that scale of CSM function held to the same discussion time and submission process as a fully-fledged bounty hunting/merc proposal(for example). Some flexibility is needed.

As for the rest - completely agree on the responsibility of CSMs - hopefully next time around people thinking about running will look at this term and reach a more reasonable assessment for whether they believe they can actually devote the time. CSM isn't for everyone - it is a lot of hard work and can be extremely frustrating. tbh its not glamorous either and feels more like jury service that being president. Things to bare in mind.

Absolutely agree on 7 - bureaucracy for the sake of it is total rubbish. Total waste of everyone's time. The prime thing this inaugural council has achieved is actually firing through a bunch of issues and getting them to CCP. It has achieved something - its made it work. Getting tied down in the minutiae of committee government is just clerical fetish and needs hurling out of the window in the interests of actually addressing what the community wants us to address.




Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:16:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

I wouldn't put a cap on the number of issues members can bring up. Also, the implied rate of 18 votes per 2 weeks is really low.


All depends on the scale of the issues really. And you mentioned somewhere else about the metrics for selecting these things? At the moment there is no real guidance. Sure, some have their pet projects - some (like me) like to pick and choose interesting sounding Issues and advocate them. The work rate of the CSM's varies a lot as you can see - putting a cap on the Issues per session would stop frenetic csm's dominating proceedings perhaps and make the electorate ask hard questions is certain csm's were not advocating issues for their slots? Dunno. Its an interesting question.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:39:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 18/08/2008 18:43:30
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Agree with pretty much all of that except my outrageous rule breaking to get the forum topic in anyways - I'm an anarchist at heart I guess - rules are made to be broken if they need to be. On that specific point I think because it wasn't much an actual ISSUE we probably just need an alternative CSM method of immediately addressing items of concern.

"CSM says please don't nerf the tech lab forum" isn't exactly rocket science or a huge potential use of CCP dev time and in my opinion its utterly ridiculous to have that scale of CSM function held to the same discussion time and submission process as a fully-fledged bounty hunting/merc proposal(for example). Some flexibility is needed.

As for the rest - completely agree on the responsibility of CSMs - hopefully next time around people thinking about running will look at this term and reach a more reasonable assessment for whether they believe they can actually devote the time. CSM isn't for everyone - it is a lot of hard work and can be extremely frustrating. tbh its not glamorous either and feels more like jury service that being president. Things to bare in mind.

Absolutely agree on 7 - bureaucracy for the sake of it is total rubbish. Total waste of everyone's time. The prime thing this inaugural council has achieved is actually firing through a bunch of issues and getting them to CCP. It has achieved something - its made it work. Getting tied down in the minutiae of committee government is just clerical fetish and needs hurling out of the window in the interests of actually addressing what the community wants us to address.


You seem to think rules exist to prevent you from doing your job. If that is actually the case, you're using the wrong rules. Various issues - the Chair's power to mute or not, how abstaining works, etc. - must be properly addressed for a meeting to function as anything other than a wrestling match. Disputes do arise, and rules exist to provide a non-violent way of settling those disputes. Admittedly, violence is less of an issue when you're spread across four countries than it was in a medieval Parliament, but the principle stands. This is why any well-written Constitution has a fairly detailed set of fallback positions, along with someone who can deal with the unforseen by fiat if truly necessary(see the King-Byng affair in Canada, the Dismissal in Australia, or Lincoln's changing of the quorum rules of the US Congress). In the CSM's case, those should be RRO and Xhagen - not Jade - but insofar as those rules exist and are complete, which generally they are, they should be followed, not flouted.

Originally by: Jade Constantine
All depends on the scale of the issues really. And you mentioned somewhere else about the metrics for selecting these things? At the moment there is no real guidance. Sure, some have their pet projects - some (like me) like to pick and choose interesting sounding Issues and advocate them. The work rate of the CSM's varies a lot as you can see - putting a cap on the Issues per session would stop frenetic csm's dominating proceedings perhaps and make the electorate ask hard questions is certain csm's were not advocating issues for their slots? Dunno. Its an interesting question.


Guidance shouldn't really be necessary - this is the sort of thing you guys should sort out on the mailing list. "Okay guys, we should probably be bringing forward about 20 issues a week, so let's just have everybody pick 2, and then we'll take the 2 most popular that haven't come up yet". That might not be the best solution, but it's the best method for finding one IMO. Figure out how much you want to discuss, come up with an understanding. No solid rules for something this ephemeral, but there should be some discussion amongst you on how this all should function.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.18 20:34:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 18/08/2008 20:48:34
A few interesting points raised so far that need some explanation:

1. Can anyone state an issue that has achieved the 5% required player voting base and been immediately put on the agenda of a CSM meeting?

I ask this because otherwise, all issues appearing on an agenda are put there due to A CSM MEMBER supporting the issue. Thus, it follows that if the issue is poorly thought out, inadequately explained or just simply a bad idea that won't work/benefit the players of Eve, the CSM MEMBER THAT SUPPORTED IT is to be held at fault.

This occurs often, and the root cause of this is the TOTAL lack of interaction with players and interested parties via the forums supplied, or the total ignoring of those players and interested parties when they oppose/suggest alternate ideas etc.

I can not agree with the argument that 'The forums are the reason that we can't discuss things/too many detractors etc'. It just smacks too much of a bad workperson blaming his/her tools. The reasons bad issues make it as far as meetings are varied: Naivety on topics/areas, ignorance of other ideas/opinions, failure to actually consider implications of issues, failure to discuss and interact with players/interested parties, personal popularity (for re-election, kudos etc), or just the plain stubborn reluctance to accept that their own ideas might not be as good as they think.

cntd...

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.18 20:47:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 18/08/2008 20:52:43
Of course, these aren't all the reasons. However, more personal responsibilty by a CSM member for their issue and their supposed desire to work for the benefit of the majority of players (note: not their own personal gain, or their corp/alliances interests etc) would see less dubious issues doomed to be voted down put onto the agenda.

Its obvious to see the benefit of hard work and proper discussion and interaction; these issues generally are escalated to CCP.

2. I stated that under no circumstances should rules like the 7-day rule be broken. I highlighted this during the meeting, and I stand by it now. Major changes to the GAME will result usually in a dev blog, with a forum thread started for player responses and discussion. The Devs read and respond on these threads, so obviously this is an instant vechile for voicing concerns etc. Indeed, many changes implemented turn out to be good, despite the doombringers predictions. These dev threads work (remember the forum changes proposed last year for instance). The CSM, by not stating anything to CCP, are by no means agreeing by silence to CCP about changes. An issue can be raised, be discussed, and brought up in the next meeting.

I find it sad that players think CCP would implement changes without thinking through the consequences- they have produced a bloody good game as far as I am concerned, and I trust them to continue to improve it...

Limiting the amount of issues/votes etc for a CSM rep are not answers to the problems currently faced. A lack of communication, as with any council or organisation, is solely to blame; communication with players, communication between the CSM members, and communication with those with opposing viewpoints or experience in a different sphere within game.

Take care,
Arithron

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.18 20:54:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Arithron
A few interesting points raised so far that need some explanation:

1. Can anyone state an issue that has achieved the 5% required player voting base and been immediately put on the agenda of a CSM meeting?


Even after the requirement was lowered, nothing has yet gotten particularly close. "All against the nano nerf" is I think the most popular thread, but it's not an issue, it's just in the Assembly Hall for the polling mechanic.

Originally by: Arithron
I ask this because otherwise, all issues appearing on an agenda are put there due to A CSM MEMBER supporting the issue. Thus, it follows that if the issue is poorly thought out, inadequately explained or just simply a bad idea that won't work/benefit the players of Eve, the CSM MEMBER THAT SUPPORTED IT is to be held at fault.

This occurs often, and the root cause of this is the TOTAL lack of interaction with players and interested parties via the forums supplied, or the total ignoring of those players and interested parties when they oppose/suggest alternate ideas etc.


Can't really argue with that. There haven't been a lot of dumb ideas brought forward, all told, but the ones that have been are the fault of the member who did.

Originally by: Arithron
I can not agree with the argument that 'The forums are the reason that we can't discuss things/too many detractors etc'. It just smacks too much of a bad workperson blaming his/her tools. The reasons bad issues make it as far as meetings are varied: Naivety on topics/areas, ignorance of other ideas/opinions, failure to actually consider implications of issues, failure to discuss and interact with players/interested parties, personal popularity (for re-election, kudos etc), or just the plain stubborn reluctance that their own ideas might not be as good as they think.


The goal is to have a forum where CSMs can discuss, and everybody can read. No such forum exists, and given CCP's current forum software, it can't exist on the Eve site. It doesn't cripple the CSM, but it's the primary reason why meetings take so long.

Originally by: Arithron
Of course, these aren't all the reasons. However, more personal responsibilty by a CSM member for their issue and their supposed desire to work for the benefit of the majority of players (note: not their own personal gain, or their corp/alliances interests etc) would see less dubious issues doomed to be voted down put onto the agenda.

Its obvious to see the benefit of hard work and proper discussion and interaction; these issues generally are esculated to CCP.


As long as they're following through on their election platform, I don't even object to them going for pet issues. But yes, trying to put together support for your ideas makes them more successful come voting time. Who'd have thought?

Originally by: Arithron
2. I stated that under no circumstances should rules like the 7-day rule be broken. I highlighted this during the meeting, and I stand by it now. Major changes to the GAME will result usually in a dev blog, with a forum thread started for player responses and discussion. The Devs read and respond on these threads, so obviously this is an instant vechile for voicing concerns etc. Indeed, many changes implemented turn out to be good, despite the doombringers predictions. These dev threads work (remember the forum changes proposed last year for instance). The CSM, by not stating anything to CCP, are by no means agreeing by silence to CCP about changes. An issue can be raised, be discussed, and brought up in the next meeting.

I find it sad that players think CCP would implement changes without thinking through the consequences- they have produced a bloody good game as far as I am concerned, and I trust them to continue to improve it.


"Thinking through the consequences" is not always enough - CCP seems to be blindsided by player opinion on many issues. Expressing those opinions is the CSM's primary job. I agree, though, that process is important.

Treelox
Posted - 2008.08.19 06:45:00 - [21]
 

Certain memebers need to stop pushing their own agenda's repeatedly, at meetings. I keep seeing some of the members trying to push forward the same idea just reworded every other meeting. While I understand they may think that what they think is "important" is the most important, this is not always the case to the player base as a whole.

Seriously some of you delegates need to be a little less self centered, and actually pay attention to the constituency as a WHOLE. Not just the part you personally agree with.


--

I also think that there needs to be something done with post in the Assembly area that really belong in the Features and Ideas. I realise there is a fine line sometimes between Assembly Hall and F & I post, but sometimes it is just so obvious that people are posting in the Assembly Hall, when it should be in F&I first. To me F&I is where ideas get started, feedback generated, changes accomadated, and then if there seems to be a general consenus, it should be brought to the Assembly Hall if Dev's failed to acknowledge it in F&I.


---


I do like the idea of no real "live" meetings, and a delegates only forum, with public view. Although particapation would have to be recorded for historical purposes. Since some of the delegates are less forum whoring than others.

Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.19 14:43:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 19/08/2008 14:44:27
Part of the problem regarding the 7 day rule isn't the rule itself, it's the simple fact that, as the CSM have stated in the past, they only have Three opportunities per term to present issues to CCP and CCP have mandated that the submission templates need to be with them a set period of time prior to their meetings or else the issue won't even be officially looked at. This happened with a couple of the issues at the Iceland meeting where the vote was performed in plenty of time but the Template Document was accidentally left out of the Submission to CCP for the Agenda.

No If's, No But's. Miss the deadline and the issue doesn't go on the table until the following meeting which could end up being 2-3 Months down the road.

There has to be some degree of Flexibility in how issues get from us to the CSM and then from the CSM to CCP otherwise we just bog the process down in pointless bureaucracy and nothing gets achieved as a result.

Having said that, the 7 Day Rule is in the CSM Vision Document along with such promises as:-

"To further support the introduction of ideas from society members, a forum mechanism will be introduced which allows topics to be “marked for resolution”, ensuring that the matter is brought before the CSM . Using their own judgment, Representatives will have the power to mark topics as they deem necessary— namely by gauging which issues voters are generating the most debate about. Once a topic is marked, voters will be able to indicate their support or disapproval anonymously. Just as with the general election, the system will also prevent individuals from voting more than once on the topic."

The underlined sections indicating Issues that have been raised due to these features not being implemented correctly. At the moment, you need to stick to the 7 day rule, however, there's nothing stopping you from debating, and possibly changing, the rule in Future if it becomes an Obstacle to the smooth running of the CSM. At the moment, CCP have provided you with certain shackles (for example, the requirement to hold Live Meetings via the In Game Chat) and next to no guidance in what you can, or can't do.

You need to decide for yourself, what boundaries are necessary, and which ones NEED to be pushed back. To do that, however, CCP need to be taking a much more active role with the CSM than 3 meetings a Term. They need to be dealing with the CSM on a Daily basis, if need be, if only to ensure a smooth transision to the next CSM when the current term ends.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.20 01:19:00 - [23]
 

Write out what the purpose of the CSM is in a thread, and sticky it at the top of the assembly hall. Include in that thread:

- Aspects of the game the CSM will/will not look into
- A list of what topics have already been covered (with links to the relevant meeting)

Secondly, I'd suggest you review a way to insure that the range of issues raised is more...holistic.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.20 01:51:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Write out what the purpose of the CSM is in a thread, and sticky it at the top of the assembly hall. Include in that thread:

- Aspects of the game the CSM will/will not look into
- A list of what topics have already been covered (with links to the relevant meeting)

Secondly, I'd suggest you review a way to insure that the range of issues raised is more...holistic.


I like the sticky idea. I'm not convinced on holism, though - a lot of the stuff being brought up at this point, even after the first two batches are complete(though it's slowing down) are long-standing concerns being brought under the umbrella of the new system to address those concerns. I agree, a more holistic viewpoint of issues would be good, and it's something I'd like to see come from the next iteration of the CSM, but I'm not surprised it hasn't really come from the inaugural Council.

There have been some examples of people trying to address multiple issues at once - the one that comes to mind is the group of recent threads on 0.0 changes, attempting to address POS overuse, fleet lag, and insufficient detail/strategic depth in 0.0 systems all at once, but most of them are just simple one-off issues. For example, holism in an approach to the user interface would be nice, but people are just going to bring forward threads about the one issue that's bugging them this week. You generally have to find somebody passionate about an entire set of issues, who is willing to bring it forward as a package deal, because the CSM can't just turn a thread on basket-weaving into a submission about the role of wicker in the pre-modern economy. There have been some examples of that approach as well - Bane's (failed) attempts to address the role of carriers, Dierdra's (successful) attempts to overhaul highsec PvP options, and the like - but overall, there's only so much the CSM can do. I have a couple threads brewing about issues I find important, though they're not fit to be posted yet, and I'm sure there are some waiting in the wings from others, but the bulk of what lands at the CSM's feet is going to be disjointed, highly reductionistic, and not really get anything anywhere in the long run. Just the nature of the mechanisms used, and this is why we keep a Council around, to sort out the dreck before CCP has to look at it.

Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:59:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 27/08/2008 12:00:07
Originally by: Arithron

I find it sad that players think CCP would implement changes without thinking through the consequences- they have produced a bloody good game as far as I am concerned, and I trust them to continue to improve it...



While I'd like to think that, the outcry from the Forum concerning the Unnannounced Removal of All Capital Ships from High Sec to Low Sec with no explanations given by ANYONE from CCP (to date) as to why the changes were implemented (Regarding the current Assembly Hall Post about reinstating the Veldnaught and other High Sec Capitals with 150+ Support Posts in less than 6 Hours after the Change was discovered and climbing) does lead to the conclusion that there MUST be a method of speeding up the wheels of Bureaucracy within both the CSM and with CSM/CCP Communication.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.27 13:08:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
....the outcry from the Forum concerning the Unnannounced Removal of All Capital Ships from High Sec to Low Sec...


Is ridiculous. It is not a CSM issue.

Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.08.27 14:50:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 27/08/2008 15:08:38
Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 27/08/2008 15:07:04
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
....the outcry from the Forum concerning the Unnannounced Removal of All Capital Ships from High Sec to Low Sec...


Is ridiculous. It is not a CSM issue.


When you consider that in less than 8 Hours this problem has attracted 300 Support Posts in the Assembly Hall (Not including those who supported but didn't check the "Support" Box), not to mention a 400+ Post Thread in GD you tend to come to the conclusion that this is an Issue that the Playerbase feels strongly about. Hence, while you believe that it's not a CSM issue, 300 others disagree and that number is still climbing rapidly.

Personally, I'm of the belief that this shouldn't need to be a CSM Issue, as CCP could easily post their reasons for making this change out of the blue, however the Silence from CCP both prior to and after this change may necessitate it becoming one, not because of this particular issue, but because if we don't speak out when a change like this is dropped upon the game without explanation then whats to stop CCP dropping an unannounced change onto something you do care about?


Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.27 16:13:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 27/08/2008 15:08:38
Edited by: Gabriel Darkefyre on 27/08/2008 15:07:04
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
....the outcry from the Forum concerning the Unnannounced Removal of All Capital Ships from High Sec to Low Sec...


Is ridiculous. It is not a CSM issue.


When you consider that in less than 8 Hours this problem has attracted 300 Support Posts in the Assembly Hall (Not including those who supported but didn't check the "Support" Box), not to mention a 400+ Post Thread in GD you tend to come to the conclusion that this is an Issue that the Playerbase feels strongly about. Hence, while you believe that it's not a CSM issue, 300 others disagree and that number is still climbing rapidly.

Personally, I'm of the belief that this shouldn't need to be a CSM Issue, as CCP could easily post their reasons for making this change out of the blue, however the Silence from CCP both prior to and after this change may necessitate it becoming one, not because of this particular issue, but because if we don't speak out when a change like this is dropped upon the game without explanation then whats to stop CCP dropping an unannounced change onto something you do care about?




Yes, 300 support posts, (which could just be as low as 50 or so if people vote with alts and other characters on their account).

Let's assume every vote there is an individual player. 300 people care. That's nothing, and objectively speaking, their issue is a really a non-issue.

Mediastinum
Evolution
IT Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.27 18:04:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Mediastinum on 27/08/2008 18:16:51
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
....the outcry from the Forum concerning the Unnannounced Removal of All Capital Ships from High Sec to Low Sec...


Is ridiculous. It is not a CSM issue.


Absolutely correct, it's not a CSM issue.

Additionally, the CSM does NOT need a CSM only forum for discussion here on the Eve-O forum. If you desire a CSM only forum, then create a website yourselves and populate it with the topics you see fit and discuss those topics you see fit, in private.

edit: to remove anything that may be deemed controversial

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.27 20:44:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
....the outcry from the Forum concerning the Unnannounced Removal of All Capital Ships from High Sec to Low Sec...


Is ridiculous. It is not a CSM issue.


Nonsense. The CSM has authority to question and advise CCP on any and every issue related to Eve. This certainly qualifies.


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