Difference between revisions of "CSM Meeting Minutes 3.011 raw log"

Latest revision as of 11:52, 22 January 2010

[ 2009.11.02 18:08:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > ***** opening up meeting 11
[ 2009.11.02 18:08:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1: Gallente navy ships should be black (Vuk)
[ 2009.11.02 18:08:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > hm..
[ 2009.11.02 18:09:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk isnt here but its a fairly self explanatory issue I think?
[ 2009.11.02 18:09:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > or should we skip it in absence of vuk
[ 2009.11.02 18:09:21 ] Erik Finnegan > We can discuss it
[ 2009.11.02 18:09:35 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:09:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler
[ 2009.11.02 18:09:46 ] Issler Dainze > as a suggestion sure (end)
[ 2009.11.02 18:09:57 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > eric
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:09 ] Erik Finnegan > Isn't black for Serpentis faction ? FIN
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think OZ mentioned that black was an official colour of a different (pirate?) faction.
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > yeah you're right eric
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > k*
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:34 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > since black is the serpentis colour - as awesome as black ships look (I love the curse), we cant just mess up the colour schemes on a whim.
[ 2009.11.02 18:10:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:11:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.11.02 18:11:17 ] Erik Finnegan > Also I do not like issues where we are commenting on CCP's design department's work. They did a great job in giving this game such a coherent look...
[ 2009.11.02 18:11:33 ] Erik Finnegan > ...any suggestion of players is necessarily biased. [FIN]
[ 2009.11.02 18:11:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.11.02 18:12:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok then lets vote.
[ 2009.11.02 18:12:20 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes no
[ 2009.11.02 18:12:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > yesterday, OZ registered a No vote for this
[ 2009.11.02 18:12:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also vote no
[ 2009.11.02 18:12:51 ] Issler Dainze > no
[ 2009.11.02 18:13:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz?
[ 2009.11.02 18:13:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > oh hang on, in her email: "to DiedraVaal: i am voting yes on everything except the black ships issue."
[ 2009.11.02 18:13:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > that is 5 "no" (dv, oz, maz, erik, issler)
[ 2009.11.02 18:13:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > we'll need to gather the rest by email
[ 2009.11.02 18:14:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2: Giving carriers the ability to repair drones (OZ)
[ 2009.11.02 18:14:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Giving_carriers_ability_to_repair_drones
[ 2009.11.02 18:14:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > I can introduce this one
[ 2009.11.02 18:14:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > basically it involves giving carriers the ability to repair drones more easily than is currently done
[ 2009.11.02 18:14:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > by introducing a repair bay or 'maintenance hangar'
[ 2009.11.02 18:14:58 ] mazzilliu > im back
[ 2009.11.02 18:15:13 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:15:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.11.02 18:15:24 ] Erik Finnegan > Enlighten me : we had quite a few carrier related issues. And we discussed carriers on Iceland IIRC. Does anyone feel at this point already that we might be overpowering them ? [FIN]
[ 2009.11.02 18:15:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > I dont think this overpowers them, as this really only reduces the headaches of carrier pilots
[ 2009.11.02 18:16:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > they can already repair their drones using a few remote repair drones or remote rep modules, but its a hassle
[ 2009.11.02 18:16:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > the proposal does take into account that it shouldn't unbalance carriers - so this shouldnt give them more drone space for example
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > any other questions?
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:08 ] Erik Finnegan > It's a good suggestion
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:12 ] Erik Finnegan > I like ship special roles.
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok I guess we can vote
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ voted yes on this
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:49 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:53 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:17:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:18:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > mazzletov?
[ 2009.11.02 18:18:22 ] Erik Finnegan > ^^
[ 2009.11.02 18:18:26 ] mazzilliu > still voting yes on this
[ 2009.11.02 18:18:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:18:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Overheat rigs (Vuk)
[ 2009.11.02 18:19:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > concerns the introduction of rigs that reduce overheating damage, thus increasing a pilots ability to overheat (or keep overheating) his mods
[ 2009.11.02 18:19:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > any questions?
[ 2009.11.02 18:19:44 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:20:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.11.02 18:20:02 ] Erik Finnegan > This had very few supports on the forum. Doesn't look like a showstopper. FIN
[ 2009.11.02 18:20:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think its not a majorly important issue to many people
[ 2009.11.02 18:20:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > at the same time, I quite like the idea of these rigs
[ 2009.11.02 18:20:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > as they dont directly improve a ship (like a trimark or CCC rig does), but it gives a pilot more strategic choices
[ 2009.11.02 18:20:49 ] Erik Finnegan > I want ship crew rigs more than any other. :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:20:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:21:23 ] Erik Finnegan > Everything can be balanced. It's sure something we can suggest to CCP.
[ 2009.11.02 18:21:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.11.02 18:21:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok lets vote
[ 2009.11.02 18:21:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ voted yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:21:49 ] mazzilliu > still voting yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:21:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also vote yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:21:56 ] Issler Dainze > no
[ 2009.11.02 18:22:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.11.02 18:22:34 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:22:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4 yes votes (dv, oz, maz, erik), 1 no vote (issler)
[ 2009.11.02 18:22:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: Wild 0.0 (DV)
[ 2009.11.02 18:22:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Wild_0.0&oldid=70787
[ 2009.11.02 18:23:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > this may turn out to be quite impopular but I kinda like the idea:
[ 2009.11.02 18:23:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > its a proposal to turn all of 0.0 local into delayed mode.
[ 2009.11.02 18:23:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > to compensate, a system upgrade should be available to restore immediate mode.
[ 2009.11.02 18:23:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > since local has become an important intel tool, it is understandable this change may be delayed until better, alternative intel tools are developed by CCP
[ 2009.11.02 18:24:10 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:24:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:24:25 ] mazzilliu > i think the chances of ccp implementing this are below zero
[ 2009.11.02 18:24:32 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:24:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > why do you think that?
[ 2009.11.02 18:24:50 ] mazzilliu > because its a massive change to 0.0
[ 2009.11.02 18:25:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > so is Dominion
[ 2009.11.02 18:25:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > and they did that
[ 2009.11.02 18:25:39 ] mazzilliu > yeah.  but being able to log out the moment anyone jumps in is a long held tradition amoungst all ratters, automatic and manned
[ 2009.11.02 18:25:59 ] mazzilliu > im still voting yes tho because all my constituents will bitch all day at me if i dont XD
[ 2009.11.02 18:26:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > btw, the alternative solution that is suggested here is to make local channel mode a simple setting for whomever holds sov - not related to a system upgrade. (I forgot to mention this)
[ 2009.11.02 18:26:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > oh I'm sure many people hate me from bringing this up
[ 2009.11.02 18:26:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > but I do love the idea of 'dark' systems - just as they are in WH space. it proves to be really fun
[ 2009.11.02 18:26:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > Erik?
[ 2009.11.02 18:26:53 ] mazzilliu > i dont necessarily think its a bad thing
[ 2009.11.02 18:27:02 ] Erik Finnegan > CCP's suspected stance should not influence our vote. Also, they want to change the chat system soon(tm) - we heard that the "ache" in carrying it along from the early days is growing.
[ 2009.11.02 18:27:03 ] mazzilliu > its just not the game a lot of people want to play
[ 2009.11.02 18:27:06 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:27:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > understood
[ 2009.11.02 18:27:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes CCP has not been happy with local as an intel tool - and once they can change that they may be interested in doing this as well
[ 2009.11.02 18:27:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > this isn't a high priority thing for me, I just thought the idea was cool :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:28:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.11.02 18:28:17 ] Erik Finnegan > Also, concerning that log-off tactics, while being absolutely valid today, is it really the style how you would want to play ?
[ 2009.11.02 18:28:33 ] Erik Finnegan > We might want to think about counter balancing this.
[ 2009.11.02 18:28:51 ] Erik Finnegan > Log-offski just sounds not right. But it shows that there's an itch.
[ 2009.11.02 18:29:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > this isnt about balancing against logoffski's
[ 2009.11.02 18:29:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > though it helps
[ 2009.11.02 18:29:43 ] Erik Finnegan > No, I know that this term is coined for something else
[ 2009.11.02 18:29:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > hey avalloc :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:30:33 ] Avalloc > ironic I see meeting email 20min after meeting..lol
[ 2009.11.02 18:30:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else want to respond to this topic?
[ 2009.11.02 18:30:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > I sent it yesterday
[ 2009.11.02 18:30:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > after we were supposed to have a meeting
[ 2009.11.02 18:31:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > you can vote on this issue (or comment if you wish)
[ 2009.11.02 18:31:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > we're at item 4: Wild 0.0
[ 2009.11.02 18:31:07 ] Avalloc > didn't check email yesterday, I was busy recovering from festivities
[ 2009.11.02 18:31:14 ] Avalloc > sec
[ 2009.11.02 18:31:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Wild_0.0&oldid=70787
[ 2009.11.02 18:31:35 ] Erik Finnegan > If logging off as a play tactics is so necessary today already, this suggestion does surely look atrocious to ratters.
[ 2009.11.02 18:32:20 ] Erik Finnegan > But 0.0 will hopefully change completely with Dominion and this might appear in another light [FIN]
[ 2009.11.02 18:32:57 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:33:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.11.02 18:33:14 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:33:23 ] mazzilliu > yeah, about erik's comment, if all the ratters are probably going to be in one local, having a delayed local means much less then it does right now
[ 2009.11.02 18:33:24 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:33:40 ] mazzilliu > (i mean, when dominion hits and everyone crowds into upgraded systems)
[ 2009.11.02 18:34:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > good point.
[ 2009.11.02 18:34:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc
[ 2009.11.02 18:34:09 ] Avalloc > changng too much of 0.0 too quickly could be quite the shock to players and may piss/scare them off. (end)
[ 2009.11.02 18:34:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I have no illusions that this would happen quickly
[ 2009.11.02 18:34:35 ] Erik Finnegan > The timing for this is - as always - purely up to CCP.
[ 2009.11.02 18:34:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > if nothing else, I'd like to know how CCP feels about turning 0.0 into delayed local - even if they dont want to do it at all
[ 2009.11.02 18:35:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > any other questions?
[ 2009.11.02 18:35:14 ] Erik Finnegan > Plus : six months earlier, when discussing this already, we did not have "upgrades".
[ 2009.11.02 18:35:17 ] Erik Finnegan > so that changes the matter.
[ 2009.11.02 18:35:20 ] Erik Finnegan > slightly
[ 2009.11.02 18:35:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok, so lets vote
[ 2009.11.02 18:36:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ voted yes on this last night
[ 2009.11.02 18:36:02 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:36:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also vote yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:36:04 ] Issler Dainze > no
[ 2009.11.02 18:36:20 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:36:52 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.11.02 18:37:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > that is 5 yes (oz, dv, maz, erik, avalloc) 1 no (issler)
[ 2009.11.02 18:37:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc can you register your votes on items 1 through 3?
[ 2009.11.02 18:37:35 ] Avalloc > also, voting yes on issues 1 2 3
[ 2009.11.02 18:37:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > thank you sir
[ 2009.11.02 18:37:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik, is it clear for you who voted what?
[ 2009.11.02 18:37:53 ] Erik Finnegan > Yes.
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:01 ] Erik Finnegan > Not now. But it will be when reading the logs. :-D
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:07 ] Erik Finnegan > You mentioned all voters.
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:22 ] Avalloc > btw, I am sorry for missing meeting yesterday.
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > I have forgotten with issue 2 but that was 6 yes if I recall correctly
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > you werent the only one avalloc
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok the last thing I wanted to mention
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > we got CCP's questions from petur
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > I should've emailed you all with this
[ 2009.11.02 18:38:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > if I didnt, please let me know
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:07 ] Erik Finnegan > Oh, yes, we may discuss them shortly now.
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:20 ] mazzilliu > yes, lets get to that
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think the best way to gather our opinions is to discuss it on the internal forum as well?
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > for those who arent here
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:31 ] Erik Finnegan > Yes, that too
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok in that case
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > Petur's question 1:
[ 2009.11.02 18:39:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > "what are the pros and cons for upping the term limit or change its function somehow?"
[ 2009.11.02 18:40:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:40:10 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:40:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > dv
[ 2009.11.02 18:40:27 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:40:34 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:40:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we can all agree we dont want anyone being able to be on the council continuously. Clearly a well known con (the romans knew this) is "power corrupts". You dont want people to get complacent
[ 2009.11.02 18:41:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > pro of less restrictions is that some of us can run again - this is good if you assume that we're the right people for the job :P
[ 2009.11.02 18:41:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:41:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.11.02 18:41:53 ] mazzilliu > i dont think you can get corrupt when you are basically a member of a glorified suggestion box.  we cant levy taxes or any of the other stuff actual politicians can do
[ 2009.11.02 18:41:58 ] mazzilliu > i dont think the comparison is valid
[ 2009.11.02 18:42:47 ] mazzilliu > however when we make a proposal, as it is we have little to no chance that we will be around when it comes to fruition, or if it needs followup we will have little chance of ensuring it gets followup, we just have to hope the next csm agrees with us
[ 2009.11.02 18:43:54 ] mazzilliu > people getting elected over and over who dont deserve it need to get kicked out, but a flat lifetime ban i think is not good for continuity
[ 2009.11.02 18:43:59 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:44:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > I do think you can get complacent though (not corrupt but lazy), and stop putting the effort in because you dont have to worry about your time on the council 'running out' if you have an almost guaranteed seat. And if future CSMs dont agree with your...
[ 2009.11.02 18:44:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > idea maybe it wasnt a good one?
[ 2009.11.02 18:44:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc
[ 2009.11.02 18:44:23 ] mazzilliu > if you stop raising issues, maybe you should get kicked?
[ 2009.11.02 18:44:28 ] Avalloc > imho, I wonder if having term be a year might be good since it would allow more opportunity to interact with ccp.. dunno if that'd mean multiple trips or not but the con is risk of getting a deadbeat on council who is waste for year
[ 2009.11.02 18:44:42 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:45:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc, that is question 2 :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:45:09 ] mazzilliu > scratch my ! then
[ 2009.11.02 18:45:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.11.02 18:46:04 ] Erik Finnegan > The submission clearly tries to strike a balance between player-elected council and "money-worth" think tank for CCP. That is why (as I understand it) CCP shall have a veto based on the actual contribution of any Councelor to the whole discussion ABOVE
[ 2009.11.02 18:46:11 ] Erik Finnegan > the two terms, which are purely based on the ballot.The continuity aspect (learning how the CSM works) is definitely a hurdle, as I have experienced myself. And for sure
[ 2009.11.02 18:46:28 ] Erik Finnegan > Eva did brief me how it works.
[ 2009.11.02 18:46:59 ] Erik Finnegan > So the first term is really hard to contribute well.
[ 2009.11.02 18:47:01 ] Erik Finnegan > [FIN]
[ 2009.11.02 18:47:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok so it seems there exists at least some preference for performance based limitations
[ 2009.11.02 18:48:10 ] Erik Finnegan > Definitely.
[ 2009.11.02 18:48:15 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:48:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler
[ 2009.11.02 18:48:35 ] Issler Dainze > I don't see how you guage that (end)
[ 2009.11.02 18:48:39 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:48:41 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:49:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes the performance metrics are trick. Issues raised? (will this result in non-issues making it on just so a person keeps his seat?)
[ 2009.11.02 18:49:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.11.02 18:49:31 ] mazzilliu > right now we have "non-attendance" of meetings as a performance metric
[ 2009.11.02 18:49:54 ] mazzilliu > issues that get raised can be artificially inflated, but issues that get passed cannot
[ 2009.11.02 18:50:21 ] mazzilliu > kicking out a member of the CSM will probably have to depend on the agreement between CCP and the CSM that a member is not performing
[ 2009.11.02 18:50:30 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:51:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > (btw, while brainstorming is good, we dont have to make a descision here - the discussion will continue on the CSM forums as well)
[ 2009.11.02 18:51:06 ] mazzilliu > it would be hard to establish a hard line for minimum performance though
[ 2009.11.02 18:51:09 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:51:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > Erik?
[ 2009.11.02 18:51:34 ] Erik Finnegan > You don't "measure" hard. CCP chooses. Call that a benevolent dictatorship, if you want. I don't know if that will cater for the popular critics that CSM is a publicity trick if - with the suggestion in effect - CCP can now also choose their favourite
[ 2009.11.02 18:51:46 ] Erik Finnegan > player peers who do not rain on their parade.
[ 2009.11.02 18:52:18 ] Erik Finnegan > But from how we have experienced CCP I get the impression that both parties do have a common understanding about which discussion brings the game forward.
[ 2009.11.02 18:52:33 ] Erik Finnegan > And that clearly does not measure by the issues being raised let alone implemented.
[ 2009.11.02 18:52:51 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.11.02 18:52:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler
[ 2009.11.02 18:52:57 ] Issler Dainze > problem with "passes" is that a CSm could be tring to effectively represent a minority group and in some cases the composition of the csm would make getting their issues passed (end)
[ 2009.11.02 18:53:24 ] Issler Dainze > err difficult (end)
[ 2009.11.02 18:53:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes, someone may be very active and involved, and still unsuccesful
[ 2009.11.02 18:53:46 ] Issler Dainze > I need to drop off, I am at work now, I'll comment more in the forums
[ 2009.11.02 18:53:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > thakns for taking the time :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:53:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > but as eric points out, this metric is more complicated than a simple number. I think it would be an interesting question for Petur too.
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > since he studies philosophy
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:30 ] mazzilliu > yes, maybe we can pose a discussion topic for CCP!
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > question 2: what are the pros and cons for upping the term length to one year (12 months)? Practical pros and cons as well as theoretical are appreciated.
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:51 ] mazzilliu > i think its going to end up being a "you know it when you see it" issue
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:56 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.11.02 18:54:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:55:08 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:55:15 ] mazzilliu > i think that a 12 month term is not practical due to RL reasons
[ 2009.11.02 18:55:23 ] mazzilliu > people can sort of predict how their life will be in the next 12 months
[ 2009.11.02 18:55:27 ] mazzilliu > when deciding wether to run or not
[ 2009.11.02 18:55:35 ] mazzilliu > i mean, they can predict next 6 months
[ 2009.11.02 18:55:53 ] mazzilliu > but 12 months is a bit of a stretch and you will see members dropping out because of it, if its implemented
[ 2009.11.02 18:56:13 ] mazzilliu > i think the better option is to increase term limits and allow people to come back after a break, or something like that
[ 2009.11.02 18:56:36 ] mazzilliu > but doing this csm stuff for a whole 12 months is a pretty big dedication to make
[ 2009.11.02 18:56:37 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:56:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > To be honest, I think a 6 month term is good. I'm sure that getting new members settled in can be improved to get them up to speed faster, but tbh I couldnt do this for a whole year straight without burning out. Also maz makes a good point.
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > plus as someone else pointed out - if someone is a deadbeat candidate you're stuck with them for a whole year
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:17 ] Erik Finnegan > RE question #1 : The proposal already shows that we seem not to fully trust the player vote in terms of "who is good and worthy" and who is not.
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:17 ] mazzilliu > yes, i would burn out doing this too.  sacrificing every other sunday for a whole year argh
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:22 ] Erik Finnegan > And for term length :
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:26 ] Erik Finnegan > all what you said !
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:28 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:35 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 18:57:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.11.02 18:58:02 ] mazzilliu > re: erik's comment about question #1, i dont understand what you mean?  anyone getting elected for a 3rd term has to be elected by actual players in the first place
[ 2009.11.02 18:58:06 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.11.02 18:58:21 ] Erik Finnegan > ! (response)
[ 2009.11.02 18:58:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > go :)
[ 2009.11.02 18:59:24 ] Erik Finnegan > I understood the CCP veto as a barrier for alliances ( or big parties ) getting a candidate in through their "pets", who only biases the game to a certain direction.
[ 2009.11.02 18:59:38 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN ?
[ 2009.11.02 18:59:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > keep in mind not all voters base their choice on the (past) performance on a candidate (or at least, constructive performance), but may base their vote purely on something for the lulz
[ 2009.11.02 19:00:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > look at all the people who seem to want to vote for Larkonis just so he can pull a bigger heist (their words)
[ 2009.11.02 19:00:08 ] Erik Finnegan > <- this
[ 2009.11.02 19:00:12 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.11.02 19:00:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > so the people that get elected my not be elected because they're the best for the job - but because a portion of the eve players are cynical asshats.
[ 2009.11.02 19:00:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.11.02 19:00:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.11.02 19:00:43 ] mazzilliu > it is really funny that you say that DV
[ 2009.11.02 19:01:08 ] mazzilliu > the guy that is winning the primaries for the PL vote right now is getting voted in mostly on the greifing ccp vote
[ 2009.11.02 19:01:25 ] mazzilliu > he is a perfectly valid candidate though, technically speaking
[ 2009.11.02 19:01:31 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.11.02 19:01:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > well that is the point erik wants to make
[ 2009.11.02 19:02:04 ] Erik Finnegan > He will be able to do the job for two terms on that basis !
[ 2009.11.02 19:02:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > you cant always trust people to vote good candidates in - a majority vote can be based on griefing ccp as you point out
[ 2009.11.02 19:02:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > and that is not the kind of person you want to get re-elected time after time after time
[ 2009.11.02 19:02:30 ] mazzilliu > it will be his first term, but if he performs as we all expect him to, he wouldn't pass any sort of performance metrics to get re-elected
[ 2009.11.02 19:02:35 ] Erik Finnegan > The first two terms are fully player-driven.
[ 2009.11.02 19:02:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > right
[ 2009.11.02 19:02:59 ] Erik Finnegan > After two terms, lulz have an end.
[ 2009.11.02 19:03:05 ] mazzilliu > unless you count csm issues complaining about black people as performance lol
[ 2009.11.02 19:03:10 ] Erik Finnegan > This is serious business here. ;)
[ 2009.11.02 19:03:32 ] Erik Finnegan > ( wasn't it about black ships ?! )
[ 2009.11.02 19:03:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > yeah maz its really that sort of thing that is undesired - as it wastes everyones time and just make the csm look foolish
[ 2009.11.02 19:04:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway I think we can continue this on the forums :)
[ 2009.11.02 19:04:05 ] mazzilliu > yeah
[ 2009.11.02 19:04:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone have anyhting to add to this meeting?
[ 2009.11.02 19:04:29 ] mazzilliu > i'm done
[ 2009.11.02 19:04:44 ] mazzilliu > im going afk if were done
[ 2009.11.02 19:04:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > yeah looks like :)
[ 2009.11.02 19:04:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > ***** meeting 11 closed