| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
    |
Posted - 2008.10.06 11:37:00 -
[1]
Way back when this CSM stuff was first talked about, the idea was that popular ideas would get put through via the CSM. Lately I'm seeing a lot of 'I support this, putting on the agenda for next meeting' by current CSM members on issues that don't have that much support, or worse, appear to have quite a vocal opposition which cannot be quantified thanks to this forum lacking a proper poll.
I just wanted to ask what people's views were. Should the current and future CSM members be championing causes, or acting as an interface for the community, or both?
To me it's tough whichever way you cut it - in an ideal world you voted for the right people so they should champion your causes - but EVE is big and diverse enough that this may not be true. I'd be happy with causes if they were at a lower priority than obviously popular issues...
Equally I suppose you could argue that since all the CSM can do is suggest, it doesn't matter, we have CCP as final arbiter of whether Idea X is a good idea or not, but that comes off as very cynical...
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Environmental Effects
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 12:12:00 -
[2]
That's a really hard question.
The problem is that there's just some issues which are EXTREMELY controversial, but where the general public has a misconception about the actual problem. An example is the people who want T2 BPO's removed.
People thinks that T2 BPO's are still a bad thing for EVE, though this is certainly not the case.
I hate to sound elitist, but some issues are not simple enough that we can agree on them nor can we all be right. Somebody has to be right, and CCP must be that entity who decides on who this is.
Some issues are also not very mainstream, yet they are damn important for EVE as a whole. An example is the economics issues which I have been advocating and will continue to do so. A very small minority cares about these, but do realize that are just as important as 0.0, mission and low-sec issues.
 |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 19:38:00 -
[3]
I mostly fall to the Edmund Burke position on this one - we elect representatives for their judgment, not for their ability to slavishly follow the whims of their constituents. As long as representatives are honest in their campaigns, people should basically know what they'll be getting when they cast their vote - LVV does economic issues, Ank does carebear stuff, Jade tries to overhaul 0.0, and so on.
There always needs to be checks and balances, like the automatic escalation of an issue with a certain support level(currently ~2800 votes), and the short terms of office that also increase accountability, but overall I will largely leave the choice of issues up to the representatives following the general positions laid out in their election campaigns. They should consider public levels of support and opposition, but it's only one factor. After all, if support was the only metric, why bother having an election?
------------------
Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:01:00 -
[4]
Vague labels such as 'Carebear stuff' need a little more definition. Empire activities are vast and complex in their interactions. The term 'Economic' covers a vast multitude of areas (one could argue that anything connected with isk is economic for example).
Having experience of particular spheres of game play might make a candidate a bit more knowledgeable in that sphere, but it doesn't make such a candidate an expert or any more qualified to deal with issues in that sphere than other candidates.
However, it might mean that issues seemingly picked from random from the Jita threads for agendas actually are issues that interest particular candidates.
Personally, I look for issues that show a degree of thought, define an issue well, and qualify as affecting the majority of players and making Eve a better gaming environment. I don't think it follows that I'd need vast experience of the sphere the issue stems from; I just need an open mind, ability to see outside the box, and the ability to weigh up the pros and cons before making a decision. Maybe this is what you mean by electing for their judgment?
It's clear to me that CCP want ideas for the future development of the game; players needn't get bogged down in the finer details! At times, CSM members also get into conflict with the finer details. The ability to stay objective should be a mainstay for any candidate.
Take care,
Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:34:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Arithron
Vague labels such as 'Carebear stuff' need a little more definition. Empire activities are vast and complex in their interactions. The term 'Economic' covers a vast multitude of areas (one could argue that anything connected with isk is economic for example).
Having experience of particular spheres of game play might make a candidate a bit more knowledgeable in that sphere, but it doesn't make such a candidate an expert or any more qualified to deal with issues in that sphere than other candidates.
However, it might mean that issues seemingly picked from random from the Jita threads for agendas actually are issues that interest particular candidates.
Personally, I look for issues that show a degree of thought, define an issue well, and qualify as affecting the majority of players and making Eve a better gaming environment. I don't think it follows that I'd need vast experience of the sphere the issue stems from; I just need an open mind, ability to see outside the box, and the ability to weigh up the pros and cons before making a decision. Maybe this is what you mean by electing for their judgment?
It's clear to me that CCP want ideas for the future development of the game; players needn't get bogged down in the finer details! At times, CSM members also get into conflict with the finer details. The ability to stay objective should be a mainstay for any candidate.
Take care,
Arithron
I was vague with how I referred to their topics of preference, but if you look through the past CSM agendas, and the topics that they have created personally, their opinions and styles are pretty obvious. It was only intended for illustration, though, so a bit of a lack of specificity is tolerable IMO.
My point was that the nature of the electoral system tends to lead to very factionalized representation. The Goons vote for a Goon, the bears vote for a bear, the industrialists vote for an industrialist, and so on - not always, but pretty often. Fortunately, a lot of the issues are similarly factionalized - most non-industrialists don't need to care about whether components are used in production or not - and so representing the assorted groups leads to most of the niche issues getting checked off, and the broader issues(lag, forums, etc.) will be raised by just about any of the reps. It's certainly worthwhile to have generalists on the Council, but the voting system tends to skew it more towards specialists, and there's nothing wrong with having a few of them too.
As for my comment about electing people for their judgment, the point Burke(and, by quotation, I) was trying to make was that representative democracy is not direct democracy. You do not elect a representative for the sole purpose of listening to his constituents and doing what they demand on any given issue at any given time. You run to represent them, by using your own judgment, not to parrot them. This is why election platforms matter - if we were just electing avatars, trust would be the only factor. Since we are electing councillors, their opinions matter more than ours - you elect somebody who you believe will represent your own methods of thought and take care of the things you want taken care of, not merely somebody who will follow the mob. Incidentally, this is why honesty matters so much in politics - anybody who says they think like X and then acts like Y is being elected on a fraudulent basis, and since those claims are all the voters can judge based on, they are diminishing the quality of the voters' representation by their deceptions.
------------------
Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 17:44:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Way back when this CSM stuff was first talked about, the idea was that popular ideas would get put through via the CSM. Lately I'm seeing a lot of 'I support this, putting on the agenda for next meeting' by current CSM members on issues that don't have that much support, or worse, appear to have quite a vocal opposition which cannot be quantified thanks to this forum lacking a proper poll.
I just wanted to ask what people's views were. Should the current and future CSM members be championing causes, or acting as an interface for the community, or both?
To me it's tough whichever way you cut it - in an ideal world you voted for the right people so they should champion your causes - but EVE is big and diverse enough that this may not be true. I'd be happy with causes if they were at a lower priority than obviously popular issues...
Equally I suppose you could argue that since all the CSM can do is suggest, it doesn't matter, we have CCP as final arbiter of whether Idea X is a good idea or not, but that comes off as very cynical...
The problem with the current system of popular placement of topics is that as per the rules the bar was set higher than the interested and engaged portion of the playerbase could hope to achieve. That bar will be lowered in the next cycle. Having the bar set so high meant that in order for any topic to even make it to the council causes HAD to be championed by the council. If they were not there'd be very little for the council to discuss at all.
We also have to remember that we do elect CSM representatives. What you have to keep in mind when electing a representative is that you're electing a vote. You're also electing a voice that can champion any issue they like, which should give you a bit more pause for thought when considering whom you are voting for.
Ultimately I think that in a perfect world the representatives would be championing both their own causes and those of the community. I've personally voted multiple times for items I felt were quite silly. I voted positively for the items because they did not have any negative repurcussions I could anticipate on the way I and my constituency choose to play Eve. Why should I vote down something that will bring joy to someone else if it doesn't impact me in any negative fashion?
Hell I've voted for things that HAVE impacted me in a negative fashion simply because I was able to see that they were better for the game. That's just a part of the tough choices you have when choosing whom to cast your vote for. I should think at the very least you'd be looking for someone who didn't just champion your causes, but also that you'd take into consideration whether or not they could be trusted to exercise reasoned judgment in cases where the items presented were not personally of interest to them. Believe it or not, there will be a lot of times where your chosen representative will have no opinion, positive or negative, on the item on the table, but their yes or no vote is required.
Originally by: Iroku Mata
Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 12:23:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Molock Saronen on 08/10/2008 12:26:39
To me we're talking about two things here.
a) How ideas are put on the CSM agenda.
b) What do CSM members think about the idea.
I'd prefer a neutral system for putting up ideas on the agenda, in stead of a CSM member having to support it. No definite idea here btw, something like a fixed number of support votes perhaps?
After it's put online of course the opinion of the CSM members decides if it should be passed to CCP.
Why?
Some items 'float' for a long time without any acknowledgment or support from a CSM member. I assume this is because no CSM member supports that idea.
This of course is their right, but if it would come to a vote at least we'd see the argumentation behind the opinion and thus the vote.
Now all I can do is think 'Well, maybe they haven't looked at it yet?' |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 15:12:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Molock Saronen
Edited by: Molock Saronen on 08/10/2008 12:26:39
To me we're talking about two things here.
a) How ideas are put on the CSM agenda.
b) What do CSM members think about the idea.
I'd prefer a neutral system for putting up ideas on the agenda, in stead of a CSM member having to support it. No definite idea here btw, something like a fixed number of support votes perhaps?
After it's put online of course the opinion of the CSM members decides if it should be passed to CCP.
Why?
Some items 'float' for a long time without any acknowledgment or support from a CSM member. I assume this is because no CSM member supports that idea.
This of course is their right, but if it would come to a vote at least we'd see the argumentation behind the opinion and thus the vote.
Now all I can do is think 'Well, maybe they haven't looked at it yet?'
That methodology exists today. If a portion of the playerbase expresses support for an issue by voting on it in the Assembly Hall the CSM has no choice but to address the issue. The problem is that the current percentage is a bit unrealistic.
They've significantly lowered the number for the next CSM.
Originally by: Iroku Mata
Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 22:09:00 -
[9]
Quote:
That methodology exists today. If a portion of the playerbase expresses support for an issue by voting on it in the Assembly Hall the CSM has no choice but to address the issue. The problem is that the current percentage is a bit unrealistic.
They've significantly lowered the number for the next CSM.
Actually, I'm quite surprised at CCP and their willingness to follow the CSM's suggestions. I didn't think they'd have the understanding that they currently have, nor the force of change they're willing to give for these changes.
From following the Assembly Hall discussions for the past 3-4 months, I've noticed that a lot of issues that had raised concern are suddenly getting the spotlight they deserved, although I can't say whether this was planned or not. Issues such as the Linux/Mac problems, the Industrial expansion (Midas), suicide ganking, and others, are getting a spotlight I didn't think would happen for many months.
Kudos to CCP, and keep up the good work. Likewise, kudos to many members of the last CSM for getting these issues to the attention of the devs. I only hope I can fill the shoes that may be left open adequately.
-Bunyip
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |