Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 19:17:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 19:17:32
3rd CSM Meeting: 8th of June 18:00 Eve Time
Initial Agenda Items:
1. Alternates and Voting (if an alternate is empowered to replace a full rep for the meetings does can a rep come back mid-way through and take the alternates place once again?) (Hardin)
2. Processes behind future appointment of CSM committee (Hardin)
3. Update on Assembly Hall tweaks for CSM members (Jade)
4. Confirmation of CSM forum tools request document. (Dierdra)
5. Confirmation of Assembly Hall stickies, public template, + submission template.
(Provisional public issues û have been on record for 7 days with significant public support or CSM rep advocacy -)
1. Science Industry + Secondary Market (Lavista) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782682
2. General Eve Forums improvement/fixing http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778049
3. CSM should vote for its own chairman (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042
4. Feasibility of Outposts going boom (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785568
5. Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906
6. Reload all Ammo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783536
7. Small Freighters http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781074
8. Drone Implants http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781729
9. Multiple undocking points http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886
10. Rigged ships and cargo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886
11. Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=780181
12. Improve Bombs http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572
13. Large Hull Exploration Vessel http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779425
***
IÆd like all CSM representatives/alternatives that will be able to attend on Sunday to inform themselves about the council/public issues that weÆll be discussing in advance of the meeting. Please read the threads, check out the drafts and review the previous meeting minutes/chatlog so we donÆt waste any time allotted to us.
If any CSM representative wishes items added to the agenda for Sunday please reply to this thread before 14:00 hours on Friday afternoon with a brief overview of the issue + link to the assembly hall thread. Make sure that the issue you are advocating will have been open to public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Sunday.
*Note, order of the agenda will be tweaked if necessary to ensure that all CSM reps get their issues heard within the scope of the meeting.
*Note2, as a member of the electorate the best way you can ensure you get your issues onto the agenda is a) convince a CSM rep to bring it to the agenda directly, or b) make sure it gets a good debate and plenty of support and IÆll be inclined to add it anyways on my own authority in the interests of community.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:26:00 -
[2]
Nothing being done to facilitate discussion? No word on what that template you voted on last time was?
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Goumindong Nothing being done to facilitate discussion?
The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion.
Quote: No word on what that template you voted on last time was?
If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion.
Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
Put up a thread where we can have a discussion. Its not difficult, its no undue burden, all it requires is a little honesty and a smidgen of initiative.
Quote:
If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week.
I read the chatlog and it looked to me like you voted to approve it.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:54:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Goumindong Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Goumindong Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored.
Welcome to the internet. Now are you going to answer my charges, buck up and get something useful done or are you going to go and cry to your mommy because someone said a mean word?
I don't ignore you when you ad hominem, strawman, and use all sorts of fallacious and specious logic. You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:22:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 21:22:41
Originally by: Goumindong You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives.
I'll feel free to ignore anybody I consider fails on the basic standards of civilized debate Goum. Welcome back to my ignore list
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Viktor Amand
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:45:00 -
[8]
I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
|
Omber Zombie
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:22:00 -
[9]
i won't be available as an alt due to the timing of the meeting. Have fun. ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Ming Daizong
Mithraeum
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:56:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ming Daizong on 04/06/2008 00:58:40
|
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 03:58:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Viktor Amand I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
Could you give an example of such ones?
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 07:30:00 -
[12]
I'd like to raise an objection to Agenda item 1, for the following reasons:
Each player is only allowed to present ONE issue- here, 60+ issues are being presented together. I see no mention of a CSM member being exempt from this one topic limit. They can support as many issues as they like. However, each issue on the PDF and start of this thread needs to be proposed on the thread by a different player, discussed for 7 days etc.
Each of these are seperate issues and have different implications, level of support and the like. There needs to be seperate discussion on EACH one. I doubt that you will have time in a meeting to discuss each of the 60+ issues raised in the PDF.
Take care, Arithron
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 07:34:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Viktor Amand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care, Arithron
|
Papa Ina
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 09:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Arithron Originally by: Viktor Amand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care, Arithron
To give a proper example you would have to also include an issue with more popular support being ignored in favour of this.
As an aside it is also the CSM members rights to bring up issues which they feel are important to Eves future. That's why they were voted in. if you wanted a puppet council you should have voted for someone else.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:18:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Papa Ina
Originally by: Arithron Originally by: Viktor Amand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care, Arithron
To give a proper example you would have to also include an issue with more popular support being ignored in favour of this.
As an aside it is also the CSM members rights to bring up issues which they feel are important to Eves future. That's why they were voted in. if you wanted a puppet council you should have voted for someone else.
This really. I've actually been pretty wide-ranging in the issues I've nominated to the agenda thus far and looked for the highest levels of relative support as a tie-breaker. Its important we get the material for good meaty discussions at the Iceland summit and that means getting a move on in the selection of issues. Some candidates did stand on purely administrative platforms without opinions of their own, but by and large the eve electorate voted for people with outspoken views and the drive to get things done.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 15:26:00 -
[16]
This really. I've actually been pretty wide-ranging in the issues I've nominated to the agenda thus far and looked for the highest levels of relative support as a tie-breaker. Its important we get the material for good meaty discussions at the Iceland summit and that means getting a move on in the selection of issues. Some candidates did stand on purely administrative platforms without opinions of their own, but by and large the eve electorate voted for people with outspoken views and the drive to get things done.
I have never said you don't pick wide-ranging topics for the agenda I was simply giving an example of one with just 20 players supporting, as Lavista asked ;)
All of the candidates had drive to get things done, otherwise they wouldn't have stood in the first place. You seem to take offence when players point out the rules that the CSM should follow and what it is supposed to do. You are in an elected position, and the guidelines are available for all to see...so expect players to watch and point out when things aren't as they could be. This is healthy, not something to be dismissed with glib one-liners!
I point out when there are issues I don't believe are in keeping with the general gist of what the CSM was setup to do...such as Lavista putting 60+ issues on the table in one go, presumably needing just a single nay or aye vote for them all. I disagree with this, as each issue should get its own thread for discussion and no block acceptance of issues was intended...
You might put a lot of issues to CCP for the meeting, but by then they would have already decided the outcome and give you a response as you formally present the issues. The last minutes indicate that you think it's not needed to discuss the issues in a CSM meeting, just a vote, as, presumably, you all follow each argument and response on each thread...
Some of the issues you select contravene this part of the explanatory document:
After each CSM member presents their opinion to support or disprove a motion, the matter is brought to vote; a majority rule passes the issue for escalation. A ll CSM deliberations are to be documented by the S ecretary, including the reasons for supporting or denying the measure.
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case.
Anyway, looking forward to the next meeting minutes!
Take care, Arithron
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 16:19:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 04/06/2008 16:24:04
Originally by: Arithron I'd like to raise an objection to Agenda item 1, for the following reasons:
Each player is only allowed to present ONE issue- here, 60+ issues are being presented together.
Not true - many players have started multiple threads on Assembly Hall. For example, I've started 4, of which 2 are being discussed this week. As well, many people are bringing up multiple topics in one thread - usually in the form of comprehensive fixes on one topic of discussion, exactly like LaVista. I don't recall seeing this as being disallowed anywhere in the CSM rules. Unless I missed something(and if I did, let me know), everything happening here is perfectly in order.
Also, Jade, your agenda has an error - the link to issue #11 is wrong. Please update it, so that we can be sure which issue you're referring to. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 17:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, Jade, your agenda has an error - the link to issue #11 is wrong. Please update it, so that we can be sure which issue you're referring to.
Thank you Herschel, fixed it now.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:14:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Arithron
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case.
If all the issues were brought up individually, you won't get the large picture either. And without the large picture, it won't benefit the entire EVE society. The industry side of eve is extremely complex. Some of the things in my issue relies on other issues. Some can be implemented alone(Bug fixes, general UI improvements and gameplay mechanics). But some of the ideas DOES have large implications indeed.
That is why this is just a list of things for CCP to have a look at. Ginger stated at the devchat recently, that industrial love will happen in the next expansion(Post-FW), and this is why the market discussion forum, who put this together, wants to gather together a large bunch of things, such that CCP can work on it. The CSM term is planned around the fact that expansions go out every + year. So CSM is exactly the right place to bring up a huge bunch of issues and ideas for CCP to work on.
By your logic that one can't raise an issue with several aspects is not good. Many of the isuses that are brought up so far have extremely many aspects, which will have to be discussed. The only difference from that and then the issue I raised, is that I made it pretty clear what the EXACT issues are.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:29:00 -
[20]
Sorry, quite correct!
I mant to say that each player is allowed to start one topic per thread..
Obviously Lavista isn't doing this, since 60+ topics in one thread...
Arithron
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:32:00 -
[21]
The point I am trying to make Lavista is that you do bring up many issues that need discussed- but each needs a seperate thread to discuss them in turn. At a meeting of the CSM, you will need to debate each issue in turn and vote on each one- not vote once on 60+ issues!
Some affect the whole Eve society, some don't...
Take care, Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:38:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Arithron The point I am trying to make Lavista is that you do bring up many issues that need discussed- but each needs a seperate thread to discuss them in turn. At a meeting of the CSM, you will need to debate each issue in turn and vote on each one- not vote once on 60+ issues!
Some affect the whole Eve society, some don't...
Take care, Arithron
Wouldn't creating +60 issues create an extreme overhead, especially when they can't really be discussed and individual issues per say, due to the clear connection between most of the issues?
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:53:00 -
[23]
Well, they already creat the overhead by virtue of there being so many of them! They are connected simply by falling under the 'Science and Industry' category. Each is a seperate issue by itself...and hence needs a seperate thread for discussion and debate for 7 days by players.
And then, of course, each issue needs to be discussed and then voted upon by the CSM. The CSM document makes this clear.
Take care, Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:55:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Arithron Well, they already creat the overhead by virtue of there being so many of them! They are connected simply by falling under the 'Science and Industry' category. Each is a seperate issue by itself...and hence needs a seperate thread for discussion and debate for 7 days by players.
No, that isn't really the case. It's way more complex than you make it out to be. Some of them relies on other things, it's that simple.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 19:05:00 -
[25]
They may rely on other things, but you can bring those up when you are discussing and debating the issue in a CSM meeting, or on the thread for a specific issue. Afterall, thats what you have been elected to do as a group...
Take care, Arithron
|
Wu Jiun
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 00:51:00 -
[26]
I know its nitpicking but I think its "per se".
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:11:00 -
[27]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Wouldn't creating +60 issues create an extreme overhead, especially when they can't really be discussed and individual issues per say, due to the clear connection between most of the issues?
I agree that +60 issue threads would be a bit much, however, there must be a balance that can be found.
I agree with the settiment that you have bundled too much into a single proposal. It makes it far too diffucult to address each sub-proposal.
Most of your ideas I support, but it is diffucult to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the individual ideas with them so tightly bundled.
Perhaps breaking them down a bit more: ie improvements to shares, improvements to POS services, improvements to the market, improvements to contracts.
There is simply too much in there, and the only constant uniting it all is that it does not involve combat mechanics.
To the point, contrast the level of discussion in your thread, verse this more specific thread. While both touch on the need to improve share trading, your thread says very little about how that is accomplished and why that approach is favorable. The other thread allows the idea to be developed more fully.
There are pros and cons to most of your suggestions. However, by uniting them all into a monstrous package, it limits and diffuses discussion of those specifics.
I would encourage the council to replace LaVista's general issue with discussion of the stock-market specifics for this meeting as we have atleast three threads (those linked above plus this one) that have been active for over a week discussing different approaches to implementing/improving this area of the game.
Then allow development of discussion on the other areas of LaVista's proposals seperately before being them up in the council.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:22:00 -
[28]
Per se is indeed correct!
I agree with the idea of the shares being an agenda item and the rerst put up on seperate threads for better discussion.
As an aside, I note that the meeting this weekend, 8th June, is within the 14 day period before the meeting in Iceland. Does this mean that the agenda items discussed, which have to be submitted to CCP at least 14 days in advance, won't be addressed by CCP this time?
Take care, Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:49:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Arithron As an aside, I note that the meeting this weekend, 8th June, is within the 14 day period before the meeting in Iceland. Does this mean that the agenda items discussed, which have to be submitted to CCP at least 14 days in advance, won't be addressed by CCP this time? Take care, Arithron
As of this moment zero issues have been formally transmitted to CCP in the format of a submission template. Time constraints have been harsh, and we are doing our best to invent this process from the ground up. All parties are going to need to appreciate that the CSM document (full and summary) will be incomplete and inappropriate to the needs of the inaugural/founding session in certain aspects. We will be forwarding submission templates to CCP in advance of the Iceland meeting but these will fall short of the 14 day specification in the documentation and we're going to be asking CCP for their understanding and forbearance on the issue in the interests of making this inaugural session work.
As an aside, I'm going to ask people to stop trying to play legal games with the founding CSM documentation for the apparent purpose of confusing the issues and making the task of the CSM harder than it should be. We will get these things resolved and will have the CSM documentation re-written where it needs to be revised and corrected. We are not going to slavishly adhere to the text where it needs revision and external input to ensure the CSM can be all it can be for the game of Eve and the community. For this inaugural session its my intention that we take 3 weeks worth of issues produced in template format and provide these to CCP 5-6 days in advance of the first CSM/CCP meetings. Yes this is certainly shorter than the 14 days specified but its my judgment call as CSM chair that this represents better value to the community than simply flying to Iceland with a grand total of zero issues added to the agenda after complying with the 7 day open discussion and 14 day prior submission rules in the documentation.
Sometimes you have to bend the rules to get a decent outcome. This is one of those times.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 18:19:00 -
[30]
The following three topics will have completed seven days of 'the ability for discussion' by the date of the meeting:
* Proposals for UI improvements * Replace double-click in a chat channel * Cargo hold size of ships in hangar but not in use
Not surprisingly, for topics which will benefit everyone and are non-contentious, there are not an enormous number of responces, however they are all positive. eg.
Originally by: Elseix UI improvements are second only to performance improvements in terms of positive effect on the entire eve community.
IZ
My principles |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |