Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
|
GM Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:28:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Liam Liam No system is ever fair ...then again life isn't fair
Democracy definitely isn't fair
The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship But Benevolent dictators are rarer than true sansha spawns
I've an idea ...put me in charge ! lol
I would like to venture out and say that 'fair' is a subjective term that people have been trying to grasp for centuries. The modern view of a 'fair' society (for example) can be traced to John Rawls, where he states that the only 'fair' society is the one created under certain conditions (you can read about them at Wikipedia) and that all members of that society signs a contract stating that they accept the society. Then and only then will the society be 'fair'.
And about the benevolent dictators; I think we can say that CCP has been operating on that level towards EVE. A level that we wish to, but not entirely abandon, try and move away from it.
P.S. about your idea. It could be bad, or it could be good. I can't really say until you have given me reason why you should be in charge. For all I know you could be hyper-intelligent and get everything right in the first go... ____________________________
EVE Online EVE Customer Support |
|
|
CCP Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:28:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Liam Liam No system is ever fair ...then again life isn't fair
Democracy definitely isn't fair
The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship But Benevolent dictators are rarer than true sansha spawns
I've an idea ...put me in charge ! lol
I would like to venture out and say that 'fair' is a subjective term that people have been trying to grasp for centuries. The modern view of a 'fair' society (for example) can be traced to John Rawls, where he states that the only 'fair' society is the one created under certain conditions (you can read about them at Wikipedia) and that all members of that society signs a contract stating that they accept the society. Then and only then will the society be 'fair'.
And about the benevolent dictators; I think we can say that CCP has been operating on that level towards EVE. A level that we wish to, but not entirely abandon, try and move away from it.
P.S. about your idea. It could be bad, or it could be good. I can't really say until you have given me reason why you should be in charge. For all I know you could be hyper-intelligent and get everything right in the first go... ____________________________
EVE Online CCP Games |
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:45:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Avon on 14/11/2007 15:56:16 I'm a little disheartened to see the amount of people who think that someone's political affiliation in game would affect their ability to make sound descisions for the good of the game. Is that how those people would act themselves? It seems a little sad to me.
I have always argued for Eve first, even when it goes against what people think my alliance ticker stands for.
We are all players of the same game, and I think the vast majority hold this game in a very high regard, and genuinely want to see it develop in the best way possible.
If I didn't honestly think that I would be scared to death of this entire concept. Maybe I am naive. Maybe everyone is just going to act selfishly, but I hope not.
Still, let's see how it all unfolds before we even consider writing it off.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
|
GM Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:56:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Nicho Void I have a hard time understand what the big problem is here. The community clamored for more transparency and that's exactly what they'll get with this council. If anyone imagines that CCP is going to let a bunch of players come in and make executive decisions over their game without CCP having the final say, you're sadly mistaken.
But that's beside the point. We're talking about the design of the council. For all of you complaining about how the power blocks will get all the seats, I think you'll be surprised. Yes, it will be nearly impossible to keep BoB or Goon members off the council entirely, but all of the small corps and alliances could easily combine their voting power and have a bigger sway...thus getting MORE seats.
I like this original design that CCP has laid out. Much like the game, I expect it will improve as time goes on.
My 2 isk.
It is correct. The power blocks are numours, but when compared to the entire population, they suddenly are not that numerous. ____________________________
EVE Online EVE Customer Support |
|
|
CCP Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:56:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Nicho Void I have a hard time understand what the big problem is here. The community clamored for more transparency and that's exactly what they'll get with this council. If anyone imagines that CCP is going to let a bunch of players come in and make executive decisions over their game without CCP having the final say, you're sadly mistaken.
But that's beside the point. We're talking about the design of the council. For all of you complaining about how the power blocks will get all the seats, I think you'll be surprised. Yes, it will be nearly impossible to keep BoB or Goon members off the council entirely, but all of the small corps and alliances could easily combine their voting power and have a bigger sway...thus getting MORE seats.
I like this original design that CCP has laid out. Much like the game, I expect it will improve as time goes on.
My 2 isk.
It is correct. The power blocks are numours, but when compared to the entire population, they suddenly are not that numerous. ____________________________
EVE Online CCP Games |
|
|
GM Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:09:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 14/11/2007 15:56:16 I'm a little disheartened to see the amount of people who think that someone's political affiliation in game would affect their ability to make sound descisions for the good of the game. Is that how those people would act themselves? It seems a little sad to me.
I have always argued for Eve first, even when it goes against what people think my alliance ticker stands for.
We are all players of the same game, and I think the vast majority hold this game in a very high regard, and genuinely want to see it develop in the best way possible.
If I didn't honestly think that I would be scared to death of this entire concept. Maybe I am naive. Maybe everyone is just going to act selfishly, but I hope not.
Still, let's see how it all unfolds before we even consider writing it off.
I agree with you on all points and I genuinely believe that people can and will put EVE first. Although ingame politics can never be fully left behind, they will make up such a small part of the concern that it is not necessary to have them control the process at this stage. ____________________________
EVE Online EVE Customer Support |
|
|
CCP Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:09:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 14/11/2007 15:56:16 I'm a little disheartened to see the amount of people who think that someone's political affiliation in game would affect their ability to make sound descisions for the good of the game. Is that how those people would act themselves? It seems a little sad to me.
I have always argued for Eve first, even when it goes against what people think my alliance ticker stands for.
We are all players of the same game, and I think the vast majority hold this game in a very high regard, and genuinely want to see it develop in the best way possible.
If I didn't honestly think that I would be scared to death of this entire concept. Maybe I am naive. Maybe everyone is just going to act selfishly, but I hope not.
Still, let's see how it all unfolds before we even consider writing it off.
I agree with you on all points and I genuinely believe that people can and will put EVE first. Although ingame politics can never be fully left behind, they will make up such a small part of the concern that it is not necessary to have them control the process at this stage. ____________________________
EVE Online CCP Games |
|
Rakso Smith
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:12:00 -
[68]
Ill bet my wallet Virtuozzo or one of his in invictus alts or maybe even his bob or system shock alts gets on the panel that attention ***** gets everywhere
|
|
GM Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:31:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Rakso Smith Ill bet my wallet Virtuozzo or one of his in invictus alts or maybe even his bob or system shock alts gets on the panel that attention ***** gets everywhere
One must keep in mind that when running for the Council, one is running as a person not as a character. Granted the character is the main identity within EVE, but you will still be running as a person. ____________________________
EVE Online EVE Customer Support |
|
|
CCP Xhagen
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:31:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Rakso Smith Ill bet my wallet Virtuozzo or one of his in invictus alts or maybe even his bob or system shock alts gets on the panel that attention ***** gets everywhere
One must keep in mind that when running for the Council, one is running as a person not as a character. Granted the character is the main identity within EVE, but you will still be running as a person. ____________________________
EVE Online CCP Games |
|
|
Dravin Dread
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:36:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Avon ... stuff ...
Still, let's see how it all unfolds before we even consider writing it off.
ItĘs human nature to not trust such things. ItĘs been going on for thousands of years. Clear and fair rules that are fairly enforced, that provide for transparency and accountability will be what is needed, and even then there will always be a segment that has issues with it. That segment will shift around depending on what the issues are. So anything that can be done to accommodate that as well, would be a good idea, though perhaps difficult to manage. Some measure of flexibility will be needed, but even that can have problems if not handled properly and I think that is what is going on now.
CCP et alia has some ideas on what they feel is how it should be done. But they donĘt want to just say directly what that is, because then players will feel it is not transparent. Xhagen has stepped in to reveal plans as players raise what the concerns are and the gods will hopefully adjust their plans as players see the bits and pieces revealed and raise concerns. ItĘs a catch 22 for CCP at this stage. I think perhaps if community looked at it from that perspective instead of allowing past events to colour expectations, then perhaps the conspiracy theories would dwindle. ThatĘs asking a lot of the community though, donĘt know that I can fully do it myself, but we the community can either try and help or bcith and moan.
|
Sylia
Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.11.14 16:54:00 -
[72]
With the pollign I meant that for each top toopic of the moment, the candidates could pledge their stance and then be voted in from this, but one per topic.
Not one person tryign to get everythign listed, but the active people in that subsection of the poll would be voted by the partiipant of that pole
So it wouldnt be that random under that approach. So if they campaign to their respective audience, then that audience is the majaority to vote them in, not just andom alliance mates.
Also, people would only be able to vote for one person, so an alliance could get one perosn in, but spreadign their votes over every area wouldnt work. Also, you coudl have say 5 peopel for each aspect so 5 peopel elected for pvp, 5 for minign and so on.
then these 5 would vote for their main spokesperson who had to represent them takign on heir voters concerns.
So nobody would have their tiem wasted unless oen of the 5 went bad. And no alliane could overrun everything.
Obviously it needs refineign but its a posible avenue that I feel could really be made to work.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 19:27:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 16/11/2007 19:29:26 A good solution to this would be to determine specific issues CCP thinks needs player involvement. Obviously there is the subject of alliances power blocking into the council etc. The better way to promote this is to create rolls for the different members of the council. For example, a member for Role Play and storyline suggestions, a member for large alliance questions, a member to responsible for missions/exploration, etc etc. Obviously these need refining.
Extending this idea a little further, the player base would poll each election cycle to see what ideas need to be championed the most and then the most popular ideas would each get their own champion. Champions could get voted based on their platforms and by extension would be responsible for becoming as knowledgeable as to what players opinions are on their respective topics, either through forum threads or other means.
Obviously, alliances are not completely interested in certain areas. To further limit a council take over, you can restrict people/factions for only running for one position at a time. Also, it causes a full member refresh since different positions will be available each year requiring different champions. Opening up the floor for different people and player bases to participate. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish. |
Moon Kitten
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 19:47:00 -
[74]
Originally by: GM Xhagen
Originally by: Nicho Void I have a hard time understand what the big problem is here. The community clamored for more transparency and that's exactly what they'll get with this council. If anyone imagines that CCP is going to let a bunch of players come in and make executive decisions over their game without CCP having the final say, you're sadly mistaken.
But that's beside the point. We're talking about the design of the council. For all of you complaining about how the power blocks will get all the seats, I think you'll be surprised. Yes, it will be nearly impossible to keep BoB or Goon members off the council entirely, but all of the small corps and alliances could easily combine their voting power and have a bigger sway...thus getting MORE seats.
I like this original design that CCP has laid out. Much like the game, I expect it will improve as time goes on.
My 2 isk.
It is correct. The power blocks are numours, but when compared to the entire population, they suddenly are not that numerous.
You have to factor in voter apathy. One might argue that power blocks have less apathy when it comes to voting. Numbers is not the only factor. Also consider that the numbers you quote might not take persons into account but merely characters.
|
Ira Theos
|
Posted - 2007.11.16 20:29:00 -
[75]
as to OP.....
SIGNED AND SEALED.
I HOPE CCP LISTENS TO THESE WISE COMMENTS.
|
Ramblin Man
Empyreum
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 04:33:00 -
[76]
Oddly enough, I think it would be quite fair to argue that any resultant council would in essence approximate Rawl's 'original position' more closely than anything else.
I just don't think you could find enough specialized players with broad support to vote in anything else. Hyper-specialized candidates would either alienate or appear ignorant to the majority of voters, and 'coalition-based' candidates (read: alliance platforms) would by necessity be concerned with the well-being of their entire alliance, not just the mining/PvP/POS/logistics/trading portion of it.
So that, at least, is cause for hope. There's a lot to be said for voting in ignorance of personal applicability.
Welcome to the dark side old friend. .Shar Where we hate people through words. |
Jen loo
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 08:55:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Jen loo on 30/11/2007 08:55:38
Originally by: CCP Xhagen Of course it will be a popularity contest. Of course 0.0 alliances or power blocks will try and monopolize the council. The thing is that only 9% of EVE's population lives in 0.0 (this is a number that Dr. Eyj= got, and I'm only quoting him; if it is a bad number, blame him, not me ). 9% will not be able to monopolize anything if the 91% actually cares. Right?
Please, I beg of you, stop using that number. It is ludicrous. A one time look at the playerbase, 1 hour prior to downtime, represents nothing other than who happened to be on at the one instant of time.
J. Loo |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |