http://cdn.pcgamesn.com/sites/default/files/dust%20514%20e3%20trailer.jpg

Laser raven, never forget.

For the sake of argument, assume you and I and OEK were on CPM and the topic of spin-scanning came up. Rattati asks, "is this really a big issue like the Scouts say it is or should we prioritize it under other client-side improvements?"

Being Scouts, you, I and OEK all know for a fact that a Nos Nothi Raid Party's success or failure could absolutely be influenced by scannerina wielding Focused Scans. To us, it is a game breaker and a serious balance problem. We would likely respond accordingly, and we would likely challenge opinions to the contrary.

Now, assume that the three of us were all Pilots. Or Assaults. Or Logis. Or Heavies. Why prioritize this issue over another? Because the Scouts complained about it? Scouts complain about alot of things. If they don't like getting scanned, they should run more damps.

---

At least, that's how I think it'd play out. A heavy concentration in one role or another could, in my mind, influence ultimate outcomes. At the very least, temporarily.

There's always a chance, never meant to say otherwise and hope that it didn't come across that way. Bias is a real thing, which is why identifying it (hopefully a thing that the candidates themselves are willing and able to do) and accounting for it (a thing that an effective CPM needs to be able to do) are in my view vastly more important that being free of it (not likely to ever happen) or stacking the council in such a way as to negate it (honestly pretty unlikely unless we switch to a role based rep system, which could work as I've done things in that context as community rep in another game).

To highlight what I mean using your example, my reply to your last post about GalLogi scans was to state that I did not agree with you that they were OP but rather would say that they were broken in ways that are both UP and OP depending on the case and context and to further elaborate on where I saw the specific areas of that playing out. I also stated that within the are of OP risks I'd be totally comfortable with the base values of the scanners themselves being nerf'ed such that the combined racial synergy+scanner was not over performing, but that I didn't want them touched until a full sweep on them could be properly done.

Now that last aspect, that's an aspect of my bias as I do support granulated change but the earning situation is already bad for support play (not the same thing as consistently running a logistics frame, just so we're clear, because you can certainly run logi and not play support) so I'm resistant to the idea of making it worse without other aspects being address.

Now, there are a few key things in that. First being that I have conversations on the subject somewhat consistently, with you, with Ru, etc. and actually try new fits and methods of play to see what various things are like from another angle.
Second is that when asked for any comment on it from CCP any concerns I voice derived from my own play style bias are explicitly tagged as such. And third is that CCP in put requests are responded to, first and foremost, with what community feedback I am privy to, not just my own impressions of a particular subject.

The point being that while knowing the knowledge base and potential bias of a candidate is absolutely relevant it is a bad primary focus point because being knowledgeable and well spoken for example, are both assets to being a CPM but they become detriments to the value of that CPM station if they are possessed by someone who is unable/unwilling to address their own bias, attempt to step outside of it, and most importantly represent the community before their own personal agendas. I would rather have a CPM composed 100% of one role, but composed of people who do their utmost to supply CCP with community feedback. Than to have a CPM composed of seven different roles all of which are doing their best to put forth role centric (or even worse purely personally driven) agendas.

The other pitfall of voting based on role, even just labeling experience in that context rather than more broadly assessing the skill set of the individual in question, is the elephant in the room that Dust has wrestled with since its inception.
That being a lack of clear role definition. Look at my CPM threads on Commandos and Logis, there is much debate about the nature of those roles. Look at the pages of the shop here, we all know there is the same. And those conversations are primarily composed of people who identify as being someone who 'mains' that role. Expand the discussion outward to include what those who do not main the role think the role is/should be and you get even more disparity in definition of terms.

So look at how someone plays by all means I fully support that, but I remain deeply wary of the notion that applying role based labels is a good voting criteria especially if it applied as anything other than an explicitly secondary method of evaluation.

Look at it this way, who provides better input on what the shop thinks, any single bastard here voicing their personal view, or someone (even a 'non-scout') who reports to CCP the collective stance/discussion that happens here in the shop?

[...]

People are free to disagree with me of course, but this aspect is the single non-negotiable part of my own assessment of CPM candidates. Anyone who cannot take community feedback, and debate (both internal and in the community) as of more merit than their own personal view, is not someone I could support as a CPM because everything in my experience tells me they will at best be ineffective at the role, and at worst may actually cause detriment.

*sighs*

Out of curiosity, what does running a similar check on me show?

That looks like a Caldari Moa if I am not mistaken.

Look at it this way, who provides better input on what the shop thinks, any single bastard here voicing their personal view, or someone (even a 'non-scout') who reports to CCP the collective stance/discussion that happens here in the shop?

Me obviously

That really depends on the someone, Cross. If that someone is you, then absolutely the latter. Others might not be so inclined to value our input. In fact, we once had a member of CPM come in here to proclaim that the founding father of bricked-tanked Scouts didn't actually stack brick, then argue with us and imply that we were lying when we told him he was mistaken.

Me obviously

Cookie Clicker > DUST 514

At least, it's more addictive

The hell is cookie clicker?

[...]
Look at it this way, who provides better input on what the shop thinks, any single bastard here voicing their personal view, or someone (even a 'non-scout') who reports to CCP the collective stance/discussion that happens here in the shop?

I can't play this gameGǪ (When you want to make cookies but nobody wants to eat them)

For the sake of argument, assume you and I and OEK were on CPM and the topic of spin-scanning came up. Rattati asks, "is this really a big issue like the Scouts say it is or should we prioritize it under other client-side improvements?"

*First Prophet disappears for a while*

It's nothing to do with not being able to make good cookies IRL.

IT'S EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WATCHING NUMBERS GET BIGGER!!!

Cookie Clicker > DUST 514

At least, it's more addictive

It's nothing to do with not being able to make good cookies IRL.

IT'S EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WATCHING NUMBERS GET BIGGER!!!

I can't play this gameGǪ (When you want to make cookies but nobody wants to eat them)
My cookies are legendaryGǪ I get demands to make themGǪ people eat them. Hell I've had people deliver me ingredients and wait for me to make them.

Cookie Clicker > DUST 514

At least, it's more addictive

I can't play this gameGǪ (When you want to make cookies but nobody wants to eat them)
My cookies are legendaryGǪ I get demands to make themGǪ people eat them. Hell I've had people deliver me ingredients and wait for me to make them.

That is literally the stupidest thing you ever have and ever will type.

Kinda cookies u making bra.

That is literally the stupidest thing you ever have and ever will type.