Difference between revisions of "CSM Meeting Minutes 3.011"

Latest revision as of 13:57, 4 November 2009

Meeting Minutes: 02 Nov 2009

See also CSM Meeting Minutes 3.011 raw log

Attendance

• Present: Dierdra Vaal, Erik Finnegan, mazzilliu, Issler Dainze.
• Absent: Zastrow J, Vuk Lau, Avalloc, Meissa Anunthiel, Omber Zombie

Discussion

Gallente navy ships should be black (Vuk)

Issler likes the idea.
Erik an Dierdra object to the suggestion that black is reserved for Serpentis ships.

Motion fails 7/2 (Vuk, Zastrow)

Giving carriers ability to repair drones (OZ)

Dierdra introduces the issue summarizing that carriers should get a drone repair bay of some sort.
Erik wonders, if, including other changes discussed for carriers, they would not be overpowered. Dierdra responds that repair was already possible, though complicated, and balancing was clearly mentioned in the issue. Erik concurs that he likes special abilities on ships.
Issler does not contribute to the discussion.

Motion passes 9/0

Heat Reduction Rigs (Vuk)

Dierdra explains the issue summarizing that a special rig should reduce heat damage from overloading modules.
Erik states that the support for this suggestion was fairly low on the forums. Dierdra concedes that is was obviously not a major concern to many pilots. However, she likes the idea, as their beneficial effect would be indirect.
Erik states that he would rather see Ship Crew rigs.
Issler does not contribute to the discussion.

Motion passes 8/1 (Issler)

Avalloc joins the meeting.

Wild 0.0 (Dierdra)

Dierdra summarizes that the suggestion includes putting all 0.0 local channels into a delayed mode (pilots not showing up on the list upon entry into the system). And that a system improvement module should be available to establish immediate local. Alternatively, the sov-holder could simply have a switch to determin local mode.
mazz fears that CCP will not like idea, because it would radically change 0.0, since logging off at the moment some other pilot enters the system was a wide-spread tactics. However, in voting she would have to follow her constituent. Erik responds that CCP's suspected attitude should not influence the Council's vote. Also, they were not happy with local, as it dated back to very early days of EVE. Dierdra seconds that local was never meant to be an intel tool.
Erik adds that if logging off was a needed tactics, a balance to this suggestion should be found rather than voting down this motion. mazz continues that she suspects pilots crowding systems once Dominion hits, and local will have less of weight then.
Avalloc suggests to go slowly with 0.0 changes. Dierdra and Erik respond that the moment of implementation was up to CCP anyway.
Issler does not contribute to the discussion.

Motion passes 7/2 (Meissa, Zastrow)

AOB

Late Votes

Absent councelors registered their vote later via e-mail.

Questions of CCP to the Council

CCP transmitted two questions to the Council, which are discussed in the following:

• What are the pros and cons for upping the term limit or change its function somehow?
• What are the pros and cons for upping the term length to one year (12 months)?

Dierdra thinks that the Council unanimously objects to continuous membership, which may lead to complacency. Having more terms per player would be beneficial, of course, if the one doing the job, was doing her job right. mazz does not agree with Dierdra; the nature of the CSM as glorified suggestion box will not lead to corruption. She also says people not deserving to be on the CSM, but being elected over and over, should be kicked. However, a flat lifetime ban after two terms was bad for continuity. She mentions suggestions, which needed a follow up in subsequent terms would only be followed up now, if the next Council still agreed on the subject.

Dierdra objects that while not corruption, laziness may well be a result of many terms. And if a suggestion did not receive attention of future Councils, then it was probably not a good one.

Erik says that the suggestion tried to balance between player-elected council and "money-worth" partner of CCP. Thus, the first two terms were to stay vote-based, while additional terms should be subject to a CCP veto. Also, during the first term it was hard for a councelor to contribute well, as he needed to get familiar with the details.

Dierdra concludes that a performance-based limitation of sorts was apparently preferred by the Council. Issler wonders how that can be gauged. Dierdra acknowledges that number of issues raised was obviously not a good metric (leads to junk being raised), and mazz recalls non-attendance as the only current metric. She suspects some sort of agreement between CSM and CCP would have to be basis of an expulsion. Hard measures might not exist. Erik adds that he sees this decision with CCP. Even if that would cater the popular critic that the CSM was a publicity stunt. Still, he thinks that CCP and CSM will a similar idea of who performs. Issler points out that "issues passed" could make it even harder for individual CSMs to represent a minority.

Issler leaves.

Avalloc likes the idea of an extended term length, as it would allow more opportunity to interact with CCP. mazz, Dierdra, and Erik object that the commitment required would most likely conflict with private life. While six months can be overlooked, a full year dedication was hard to make. Also, referring to the performance discussion above, if someone performed low, how would the Council get rid of her ?

Erik adds to question one that an additional barrier to the appointment of a Councelor on top of the player ballot had already been suggestion in the submission. A CCP veto could also be used to remove Councelors who obviously try to bias the game in one direction. Dierdra points out the campaign started by Larkonis, who seemed to get a lot of support explicitly to cheat again. mazz reports from the Pandemic Legion primaries to the next CSM ballot that the guy winning got his support on the greifing CCP vote. While he may well make it into the CSM for one term, he will likely not pass any performance metric. Dierdra and Erik concur that such a corrective measure after two terms was exactly the point of the suggestion.