|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1044
   |
Posted - 2013.06.12 17:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Reserved |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1044
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 17:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved (cont from previous) |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1044
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 20:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Klivve Cussler wrote:Nova, you've got some valid points and have correctly listed the perils of any democratic system.
However.
The primary advantage of the player councils over the CCP community reps is the fact that they are player-chosen. This gives them a solid mandate to act on behalf of the players, and significantly increases the trust that the player body has in the council as a whole. I think an appointed body, while likely more active, would be no more effective than the existing CCP community reps because they would be exactly that: Community reps. Volunteer reps at that.
I'm not sure I understand this point. Why would players who were voted in (because of popularity) be less effective than people chosen for prior contributions? Sure, there's going to be some good people who get voted in, like I said. But the vast majority of the playerbase does not participate on the forums. They don't watch youtube videos, or listen to podcasts. They just play the game, and when they leave their PS3, they're done with dust until they get back. This will cause an even worse 'bloc vote' syndrome than we put up with in eve. The majority of players will vote for whoever they're /told/ to vote for, not because they know or trust any of the candidates or what they do or have done.
That being said... Why? Why is it so important that players choose? In my mind, if CCP legitimately wants feedback on their next build(s) on the immediate roadmap, I'd rather see them pick people who can directly provide feedback to that. Consider the Eve CSM. What would be the point of players electing 3-4 Wormhole guys, if the entire next expansion is dedicated to FW, etc? While those 3-4 guys might contribute... They're not ideal picks.
In my mind, you have the screening/veto process backwards. CCP needs to pick the candidates, and the players need to veto them. This needs to be in the form of ISD or other 'trusted' players, or you'll just have zerg blocs saying "no to X because i don't like them" regardless of how good a candidate they'd be. Again, this brings us back to the perils of Politics.
Personally, I think the whole idea of the CPM as the players (and probably CCP) expect it to be formed and processed, is a flawed, unrealistic, and impractical beast. A 12-14 (or less) person council is not the way to go. Elections are not the way to go. There are a bunch of people who stand out as 'experts' in certain fields, on the forums. I don't think a public council is necessary for CCP to get feedback from these groups of people.
I'd honestly prefer this kind of stuff to be an ISD Team with several subgroups instead. With proper logistics, it'd be much more ideal. The general anonymity (mostly) prevents any sort of e-peen/political agenda. ISD all are given NDAs to sign already, so giving them the skinny on upcoming plans/features that affect their relevant group, is no big deal. This also means that if say, CCP wants to iterate on Vehicles/AV, they can just set up a meeting with the specific guys on this ISD thing who deal with vehicles/AV, and not get any garbage feedback from other guys in the feedback group who've never touched either.
Giving CCP a means for their devlopers to communicate with the players who can help them most is pretty much the entire goal of this 'CPM thing' anyways. The real question is : Do we really need a political entity of a few people to do this, when we could get a much better result, from a larger, organized group with several subgroups?
I don't think anyone could use platforms like they do in Eve. Being a " Caldari assault guy" or a "HMG guy" doesn't really hold the same clout as "WH guy" or "Nullsec guy" in eve does. There's a huge distinction between the two. And honestly? The last thing I want to see is a group of self proclaimed 'experts' who only care about once facet of the game trying to railroad CCP into making their personal play style the best thing in dust. You want people who will represent the greater interests, not ones who will represent the specific. Those who care about the game as a whole will go to bat for anything that needs support. Those who care about /their/ part of the game, will generally be blind to all others.
Personally, I don't give a damn if players trust or like the people giving feedback... as long as it's good feedback. A wise man once said to me "Being on the CSM isn't about how you support and communicate with the people who voted you in.... It's about how you support and communicate with the ones who didn't." |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1044
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 21:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Nova, the fact that you don't see the point in the players directly electing who represents them to CCP makes me sad.
(Other stuff)
I see the point. I'm trying to tell you that it's the wrong point.
Player elections makes something like this little more than a PR stunt for the company. If they actually want legitimate feedback from an orgnanized group of players... Politics and 'the metagame' need to be as far from this process as possible.
Re-read my post directly above yours.
There's much, much better ways to get specific feedback from the people who're best suited to give it. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1051
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 00:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Klivve Cussler wrote: If CCP is choosing the members of the CPM, then the assumption is that they WILL be beholden to CCP in some way. This can't be stressed enough. The CPM needs to be beholden to the community it represents.
One could argue that CCP picked the people who kissed the most ass while still being reasonable (Because that part at least is true) and they probably did so because they expected us to all say "Good job, CCP. You guys are amazing!"
Yet, so far all they've been getting from us is "You're doing it wrong. This is why, and what you can do. Step it up in the future." I think this does a pretty good job of saying that even though CCP is more likely to pick people they think they'd enjoy working with... People who kiss ass without actually being a positive contributor probably won't make the cut (And with proper screening, they wouldn't)
@Kliive regarding Noc's post:
The point I was making about structure, is that it's basically completely moot to have like 6-12 guys who 'represent' the entire community as a whole. A 'council' is a nice PR tool, but isn't nearly as effective as a series of sub-panels. See post #53 (my previous post in reponse to yours) to how I'd like to see something like that set up.
While it'd be much more work on CCP's end to handle the logistics and process... the entire point of the CPM is to facilitate better communication between the developers working on something, and the players themselves. That is the most basic definition of the CPM's job.
Now, wouldn't you rather see each development team having their own panel of a dozen (or more) or so people they can poll at a whim for specific feedback on things that panel specifically uses? IE: Vehicle devs can go straight to vehicle guys, Logistics/Suit devs can go straight to logistics guys, etc.
The statement "Players need to vote to have a voice" is a strawman argument at best. If CCP pays any attention whatsoever to any feedback on the forums, the players have their own voice. They don't need a fancy election to somehow 'matter' in the eyes of the company. (If they do, that is a serious problem that CCP needs to bite in the ass right here and now) Good feedback is good, regardless of who it comes from.
Honestly?
I don't feel that a group of 6-12 people can adequately provide proper, objective feedback to all this game has to offer. I don't believe the community should be forced to have such a small group providing sensitive feedback. CPM0 are politicians, if we like it or not. We knew what we were getting into for that regard, but most of us didn't expect to be doing half the things we're doing now. Are we ideal for it? Probably not. But honestly- Who is? The fact is we're all gamers, not bureaucrats.. While we all want to make our game better... I can honestly say I can only name three people in the community who I'd ever want to see on any sort of council to 'represent' the community as a whole. I was sadly disapointed when CCP didn't pick any of them because they'd actually objectively and reasonably argue and concede any point that was presented logically. (Those people are Skihids, Leither Yilton, and Tiel Syysch)
But I completely abhor any notion of "It's not representation if we don't choose" and would argue that you're much more likely to be better represented by people that ISD and 'trusted' players screen out, than by whoever the zerg groups vote in because it's 'their guy'.
Because think about this honestly : Do you really want CCP to take the vocal majority of "QQ/Whine/Nerf" 100% seriously on some sort of council? Spend some time, some REAL time talking to people who aren't in leadership positions in corps/clans. I've spent the last 14+ months talking to just completely random people on my team (and the opposing team) about anything and everything. I'm not just talking about the forums here. While there's a bunch of -really- cool and logical dudes around, they are the very, very, very, very, vocal minority. The people who actually deserve to be listened to and would actually improve the game for everyone, won't really have a say. Then there's the other side of the coin. The very vocal majority of "Man, screw whatever kills me. X is so lame." "I died because of lag, not because I suck" "Y player must be cheating!!!1!" and so forth.
I believe there are much better ways for CCP to get honest, quality feedback than by using a PR gimmick team that no matter who is on it, is ill-suited to provide feedback on a level that would be truly helpful in all circumstances.
Actually, no, I take that back.
It'd be /amazing/ PR for CCP if instead of saying "So, we're the only company in history to allow the players to vote in some dudes to help us make the game" if they said "We have a process where within certain restrictions, anyone can apply to join one of our many consultation teams, formed entirely from their fellow players, which we converse with regularly to help us in key decisions surrounding the development of the game."
Plus, that way we avoid all of the political bullshit, the nightmare of trying to determine how someone qualifies for a vote, and then the aftermath if they do a horrible job. I personally don't see the downside, aside from the strawman "B-b-but I DIDNT GET TO CHOOSE".... Do you?
|
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
1058
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 21:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
There is basically only four options when it comes to voting:
1) Free, unrestricted voting for anyone who has an account.
- This is going to be abused as hell, and will allow individuals desparate enough to basically control who gets on the council. Obviously not ideal in any way.
2) Pay to vote. Eve players pay a sub to 'earn' vote, this is no different. People can vote as many times as they have subbed accounts, so each vote is a source of revenue for CCP, and serves as an artificial barrier towards rigging.
- People can still 'rig' the vote, but having a cost tied to it means there's less incentive to stuff the ballot en masse.
- The major downside to this is the 'freebie gamer' gets no say.
3) Free voting, based on ingame activity metrics
- Everyone gets a say
- Basically the same as option 1: Easily rigged en masse, as the barrier for entry would mean anyone wanting to stuff the ballots would just need to play for a few hours a day, maybe a couple days per week on each account. (Any more and CCP risks 'giving no say' to the super casual weekend warriors or 12 hour shift workers)
- Would stop any sort of mass voting script (But then, all voting should be done ingame if at all, so this point would ideally be moot)
4) No voting at all. Players accept that an elected council serves as little more than a PR stunt, and push for a more legitimized, properly used feedback entity.
- Completely avoids all of the nightmare about how to make sure elections are 'fair'
- Provides CCP with a more rounded source for feedback based on what they actually need feedback on at the time (No sending a bunch of logistic dudes to summits if the entire dev cycle for that time period is devoted to vehicles, etc)
- Almost completely removes the drama, ego, and politics from the feedback cycle, which have no place there to begin with.
None of these options are going to be universally liked, and they're all messy, ugly options that will leave some people pissed no matter what CCP does. The sad fact is : Having any sort of 'fair', unabusable voting system for something like this is basically a pipe dream for a free-to-play game. Most of the measures CCP would have to take to restrict rigging would end up harming legitimate voters, and are almost all easily bypassed by people with the know-how and willingness.
IMO, People need to stop pushing for a system that isn't ideal in the first place and open their minds to a better way. |
Nova Knife
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
2132
|
Posted - 2013.11.20 04:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Personally, I'm not so concerned with "how people vote", so much as "who can be voted for". There needs to be some kind of filter process that ideally uses player and CCP judgement alike to weed out the "I wanna be on the CPM just cuz" crowd. I feel strongly that politics should have no place in this, and that campaigning should be expressly forbidden (or frowned upon) If someone submits their name (even if someone may not like them) an observer should be able to say "Yeah, this guy/girl has done a lot." without the person having to spam the forums/social media saying "Hey everyone I support everything you love and hate everything you hate!" which is something I find incredibly aggravating and unproductive, since these people usually won't do anything they promise.
Take for example : ContraBanJoe. I love this man to death, and whatever election system was implemented, if he wanted to run PXRXO could've easily gotten him into the CPM regardless of the fact that he'd be terrible for it. This is something I desperately wish to avoid.
Any and all candidates eligible for the final ballot should have a strong history of doing /something/ to involve themselves and make themselves a productive member of the community. This is not an attempt to silence 'power blocs' however, as most of these blocs would likely have a diplomat who is dedicated to maintaining a positive community presence, and these are the kinds of people who generally do well in a 'council' environment. (In most cases) All this does is create a more defined barrier to entry so that only those who fully understand what they are getting themselves into and will positively contribute (for better or worse) will be able to get elected.
|
|
|
| |
|