This is a thread for folks to ask about stuff to the members of the Icelandic Spaceship Parliament Council.
Why was there a vote for the CSM7 chairman when mittens was never chairman in the first place (for CSM7) and hence arguably it should have gone to two step without a vote?
Why did you collectively decide to make seleene chair and two step secretary? Is this the reason you wanted a vote to take place for chairmanship?
What will the CSM be doing different this year than last?
Mike, I am curious and not being sarcastic - have you not read any of the responses / blogs on these questions elsewhere?
my blog a few days ago. Also, Jester wrote a blog and Hans and Alek posted their positions in the comments section.
There was no collective decision. Each position went to a vote.Originally Posted by Mike deVoid
We're fairly determined to improve visibility and transparency where possible by putting as much information out to the community as we can. Forums, twitter, blogs, podcasts, EVE Radio, etc... There is also the fact that we don't have "alts" anymore and everyone feels much more involved this year. Hopefully we won't have to waste time this year with emergency summits brought on by bad decisions and be able to focus a whole terms on advocating the stuff we'd all like to see improve in the game.Originally Posted by Mike deVoid
Sorry, by collective decision I did mean the result of the vote. I had read a bit elsewhere but there's hardly a single source which makes it rather easy to miss responses. And I just don't read eve-o forums unless I'm linked to a thread.
With regards to the positions and who was chosen, I was looking for an elaboration for yourself and two step and why your respective positions are the best ones. Your blogpost doesn't explain to well what your role is as chairman (probably a problem with the position having no role). From the reading I've done just now, I gather that two step as secretary will allow him to function as a communication officer which matches well his goals this year (improved communication). Though perhaps two step himself can give a fuller answer?
Hans' and Alek's comments on Jester's blog are actually great comments. But it just shows how some CSM voices and words are easily lost - even when I do read Jester's blogs, I don't read all the comments written there.
I feel quite placated right now. I'll be asking some game balance questions tomorrow. Congrats on getting Chairman.
Mittens vs krutoj vs prom vs ankh - are their punishments consistent in scale?
Blah blah blah tapatalk
Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.
"You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."
1) I put in the time and effort during CSM 6.
2) The voters deserve some input into the decision.
3) I don't like the message that having someone with a PL alliance tag sends about the CSM. I think if anyone actually looks into what Seleene says, it is quite clear that he isn't just pushing PL agenda items on the CSM, but I felt that the CSM as a whole would be better off with a more neutral chairman, especially on issues like titans and tech.
As for drawing attention to CSM comments, I think that is one of the things we still need to figure out. We clearly need to be doing a better job and being more open with folks, and we aren't totally sure how best to approach that.
I don't think prom was punished at all for anything, and I have no idea what you think he should have been punished for.
Ankh and Lark both broke the NDA. I don't see anything at all wrong with their punishments.
I don't agree with Mitten's punishment, but it also isn't my job to enforce CCP's rules. I don't like that CCP is now applying the EULA and TOS to non-game actions, and I especially don't like that they aren't being clear about which actions are subject to them. I made my position totally clear to CCP when we talked about Mitten's ban.
I understand seleene was very preoccupied last year, is he going to be around this year?
It's a bit odd how the CSM is still entirely CCP's experiment in democracy. It'd be impossible to really have an independent council, but you'd figure CCP could leave some decision-making to you guys instead of 'here's how shit's gonna go down, i hope you guys don't mind.' Anyhow...few questions:
- Do you guys plan on 'spotlighting' or otherwise publically focusing on a particular issue/feature you'd like to see, like was done early on with CSM6 and TiDi? The impression I got was that it was fairly effective in focusing CCP's attention on a particular issue.
- Has CCP discussed how the CSM are going to be involved with Dust 514? I would imagine they'd want player feedback for it as much as they do on EVE, but have they signalled that there might be a CSM for Dust or whether they'll have dust CSM reps running in our elections, or what?
We have had brief discussions about DUST. I don't think CCP has made their mind up yet, and I would expect for them to wait until after DUST is closer to release to decide some of that stuff. Assuming DUST is successful, I would expect we would see people running for EVE CSM based on their DUST achievements even if CCP doesn't change anything.
For two step: do you plan on pushing hard for wormhole specific changes or more general?
What kind of wormhole related changes are you interested in pushing, if any? Is POS security on the table?
Our 'goal' of improving comms is more a matter for us as a group (CSM) to solve than CCP holding us back in any way. We are actively working on several ideas which we'll roll out in the next few weeks once they become formalized.