Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cede Forster
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am having a hard time to find the statements of the people who ran for CSM7 or plan to run for CSM8 on whether or not they support changing the voting system like suggested (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917).
Maybe somebody can point the right direction. I know there is a thread on the subject but that one is a bloody mess and there is the chance of a snowball in hell to get the answer. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Seleene (CSM Chair) Hans Jagerblitzen Trebor Daehdoow Alekseyev Karrde |
Cede Forster
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
thanks a lot for the help so far |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
690
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:I am having a hard time to find the statements of the people who ran for CSM7 or plan to run for CSM8 on whether or not they support changing the voting system like suggested (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917).
Maybe somebody can point the right direction. I know there is a thread on the subject but that one is a bloody mess and there is the chance of a snowball in hell to get the answer.
Nothing wrong with the current voting system, each person gets a vote, they either choose to vote or they don't , I really can't see why it needs changing.
I imagine some people want something like proportional representation whereas one man and his dog from some shitehole can get on the CSM because he comes from a very small place with only two voters. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
The sheer cowardice of many of the people on the CSM will prevent an accurate determination of their positions on this issue. Following Trebor's initial proposal, the primary tactic appears to be to do everything possible to shut down criticism while simultaneously and disingenuously claiming to be seeking a discussion on the topic, without actually making a definitive statement regarding their own support of the actual proposal. |
Cede Forster
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:The sheer cowardice of many of the people on the CSM will prevent an accurate determination of their positions on this issue. Following Trebor's initial proposal, the primary tactic appears to be to do everything possible to shut down criticism while simultaneously and disingenuously claiming to be seeking a discussion on the topic, without actually making a definitive statement regarding their own support of the actual proposal.
that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly
on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2855
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:thanks a lot for the help so far Seleene: " If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with." Rating: Approval (?) Hans Jagerblitzen: "As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread." Rating: Undecided Trebor Daehdoow: "Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote." Rating: Approval (?) Alekseyev Karrde: The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank. Rating: Disapproval Feel free to correct me, that was just my impression.
All of these comments pertain to variants of an STV voting system, not about how we feel about voters being able to change their votes up until election day. Make sure you're quoting people on what they're actually talking about before you come to any conclusions.
Myself, I'm pretty open minded about the idea. I don't really have a problem with candidates being held responsible for their actions right up until the end of the voting period. If someone in an electable position in the race but gets outed as a scammer or white supremacist a few days before poll close, it would be nice for players not to be screwed over because they didn't have that information sooner.
Like I said in the other thread though, ultimately this kind of change has to be born out of community discussion, not the will of the CSM. It's inappropriate for us to directly dictate election policy. For that reason, individual CSM member's approval or disapproval of any proposal, Trebor's or otherwise, isn't particularly relevant at the end of the day. He was quite explicit about the modified STV system in the OP being an example to prompt a community discussion, not a formal proposal we're seeking ratification on so we can bring some mandate to CCP. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2855
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well
Voting reform is much like tax reform. It's complicated, messy, the existence of a "perfect" system is a myth, and rife with subjective issues of justice and fair representation. It's much easier to definitively say "Yes, let's nerf ASB's" than it is to say, "Yes, let's change the voting rules."
I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.
The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
367
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cede Forster wrote:that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well Voting reform is much like tax reform. It's complicated, messy, the existence of a "perfect" system is a myth, and rife with subjective issues of justice and fair representation. It's much easier to definitively say "Yes, let's nerf ASB's" than it is to say, "Yes, let's change the voting rules." I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road. The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.
You should have Trebor request for the thread to be locked then, and start over asking for ideas.
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.
The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.
This is hilarious. No dogmatic statements? Trebor's entire first 2 posts were nothing BUT dogmatic statements, in particular the "These 3 things are what the CSM believes are a minimum for any new system" section. The fact that neither you or any other of the CSM is willing to even acknowledge its existence (let alone discuss its merits) is what killed discussion of actual systems. Don't try to pin the CSM's failings on the playerbase. |
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
691
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.
The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism. This is hilarious. No dogmatic statements? Trebor's entire first 2 posts were nothing BUT dogmatic statements, in particular the "These 3 things are what the CSM believes are a minimum for any new system" section. The fact that neither you or any other of the CSM is willing to even acknowledge its existence (let alone discuss its merits) is what killed discussion of actual systems. Don't try to pin the CSM's failings on the playerbase.
You can always go against Trebor in the next election......... God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:You can always go against Trebor in the next election.........
Hey, they apparently (lol) wanted discussion. I'm telling them why they didn't get it. I'm not the first, and given how they've ignored the actual reason they got nothing so far, I won't be the last. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
691
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Signal11th wrote:You can always go against Trebor in the next election......... Hey, they apparently (lol) wanted discussion. I'm telling them why they didn't get it. I'm not the first, and given how they've ignored the actual reason they got nothing so far, I won't be the last.
Humm surely it's not for them to discuss? Wasn't the purpose of the CSM to digest things "CCP" were going to implement and then offer an alternative solution if one was needed, obviously being a nice firewall as well when it all went teets up??
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Humm surely it's not for them to discuss? Wasn't the purpose of the CSM to digest things "CCP" were going to implement and then offer an alternative solution if one was needed, obviously being a nice firewall as well when it all went teets up??
I would've thought so too, but the voting system thread says otherwise (to save you from reading it, there wasn't a single peep about any of it being CCP's idea, it was presented 100% as a CSM creation - until it backfired horribly, that is, then it was just silly ol' Trebor!). |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
692
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Signal11th wrote:Humm surely it's not for them to discuss? Wasn't the purpose of the CSM to digest things "CCP" were going to implement and then offer an alternative solution if one was needed, obviously being a nice firewall as well when it all went teets up?? I would've thought so too, but the voting system thread says otherwise (to save you from reading it, there wasn't a single peep about any of it being CCP's idea, it was presented 100% as a CSM creation - until it backfired horribly, that is, then it was just silly ol' Trebor!).
Is there a link anywhere that has the "official" CCP remit for the CSM? God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism. **** you. No, seriously, **** you. You don't get to play the victim after you (the CSM) start off the debate with "oh and we don't want Goons to have as much influence as other people, and all proposed solutions must reflect that". |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
279
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:49:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cede Forster wrote:that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well Voting reform is much like tax reform. It's complicated, messy, the existence of a "perfect" system is a myth, and rife with subjective issues of justice and fair representation. It's much easier to definitively say "Yes, let's nerf ASB's" than it is to say, "Yes, let's change the voting rules." I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road. The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.
You got called on your blatent voter disenfrachisement bullshit and don't think you're just gonna get to run off to some other thread and moan about it.
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Cede Forster
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:50:00 -
[18] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ...
Thank you for your reply Mr. Jagerblitzen
First of all, please let me appologice for the missunderstanding at hand. With "Changing the CSM Votes" i was refering to the proposed changes to the process of voting for a CSM by Trebor Daehdoow. This was possibly somewhat missleading.
As for the argument at hand about the thread suggesting changes to how the CSM is being elected i'd like to follow up with a question.
1) You stated very clearly that it is not the place of the CSM to dictate the election policy. How to you personaly suggest to go about approving changes to the election process?
2) Your argued for CSM members should not directly dictate election policy. Of the already existing systems (for now lets go with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system) which one would you consider a good choice for EVE?
3) You mentioned that the discussion thread was destroyed intentionaly and therefore the discussion will not be carried further by CSM comments. How will that influence the further proceeding of this planned election reform in your opinion?
4) Just between us, do you approve of the example system Mr. Daehdoow suggested?
I'd be very happy for a reply ;) |
Lord Zim
1450
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road. You mean like "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:
[...]
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM."?
I.e. "the new system should, as a minimum requirement, **** goons.".
This was brought up as a problem from the first page of the thread, and the only reason it's still a thing 39 pages later is that none of you have come even close to redacting that minimum requirement, nor has there been a single apology for singling us out for nerfing because we're organized.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. Yes, the people who don't get things exactly their way are invariably going to be whining very loudly about how the voting system is unfair, which you guys apparently took as a cue to say "well, if people think it's unfair, let's make it unfair!"
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism. So, when you said, in the 40 page thread, that it wasn't The CSM's idea, it was Trebor's idea, and more or less ran away screaming from that idea, that wasn't because you thought it was actually a bad idea, but because you wanted to save your own skin? At least it looks that way from this post.
Let's play through this again, shall we? The discussion isn't worth having as long as you guys insist on having a **** goons policy as a minimum requirement for voting reform. If you guys had just rewritten the whole thing and dropped that aspect of it, then we could've had a discussion. But you didn't, you haven't, and you won't. All you will be doing is continue to be sarcastic and bitter because we saw through your ruse so quickly. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road. I'm trying to "nail you down" on one simple issue only: Do you agree or do you not agree that people should have more or less influence on the CSM voting process solely based on their membership in a social group? This shouldn't be a difficult question, but it's fundamental enough that it needs to come out before we're starting any serious discussion about voting reform. |
|
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:13:00 -
[21] - Quote
Apparently demanding a yes or no answer about the explicitly stated intent of a proposal and refusing to accept deflection or obfuscation is "obvious thread destruction" to the craven members of CSM7.
Even for a space video game student council, the level of intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice here is appalling. Please prove me wrong and take a position on your own position, if that's not too much to ask. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1653
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
What can I say Hans? Opening a discussion where CSM7 as a group requires as a minimum (your words) to 'institute a voting mechanism where all the people who didn't vote for the current CSM7 reps have their voting power decreased' is so unbelievably inappropriate that you don't get to whine when people call you out on it. This isn't even getting into the petty sniping and sulky pouting that consisted the CSM's defense of their poorly thought out scheme to advance their personal interests.
If Trebor's statements on behalf of 'the CSM7' wasn't truly voicing your beliefs when issuing demands, merely say so. If you don't think such an undemocractic demand should be 'required as a minimum', merely say so.
Either you believe in the statement Trebor made on behalf the CSM and are right now trying to deflect the issue, or Trebor was merely lying and putting words in your mouth.
In this case when you keep quiet, you're saying more then you think. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2856
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:1) You stated very clearly that it is not the place of the CSM to dictate the election policy. How to you personaly suggest to go about approving changes to the election process? 2) Your argued for CSM members should not directly dictate election policy. Of the already existing systems (for now lets go with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system) which one would you consider a good choice for EVE? 3) You mentioned that the discussion thread was destroyed intentionaly and therefore the discussion will not be carried further by CSM comments. How will that influence the further proceeding of this planned election reform in your opinion? 4) Just between us, do you approve of the example system Mr. Daehdoow suggested?
1.) I think that discussion should take place in a public forum and be highly informed by the players. With the CSM as well as in-game content, CCP should listen to the feedback the players provide and make decisions with respect to these concerns. The CSM's role should be helping to communicate these ideas back and forth, not authoritative in the sense that we decide what's best for the players. The CSM should be allowed to have their opinions like any free-thinking person, and the players should be allowed to disagree.
2.) I'm a big fan of simple. Other than that, I don't have one particular system in mind at this time. That's why I showed up in the thread, to hear people's ideas and listen to the pros and cons of the various electoral systems. Hopefully there will be a chance for that conversation to take place.
3.) It's too early to tell. Surely its not the last you'll hear from the CSM on the issue, I was simply pointing out that bombarding a thread with 39 pages of essentially the same question and interlacing it with character attacks is a good way of sending the message you're not there to talk. Outside of that thread, however much this continues will be dependent in large part on whether the players themselves are interested in this, and whether or not anyone tries to drown out a real conversation with aggressive posting tactics the next time this comes up.
I personally was elected despite bloc power and don't have a vested stake in controlling the influence of one group or another, but I know that many players have concerns about this issue (they just usually don't get brought up except during campaign season). If it can be widely determined that this isn't something players want changed, I have no reason to push for reform.
4.) There are aspects of it that have merit, such as the transparency given by candidates stating where they would prefer their votes to go if not elected, helping to expose some of the underlying reasons for candidacy and help voters better understand who they are voting for and who they represent. I also think players have brought up some legitimate concerns about the overvotes reducing the size of the pool for the next round of selection, though I'm unsure how this is all that different from the system we have currently where you can excessively vote a candidate into office and not be able to apply those excess votes to another candidate. If after hearing feedback I decide to support or reject the proposal, I'll be more than happy to say so. In the meantime, my job is to listen and learn. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I was simply pointing out that bombarding a thread with 39 pages of essentially the same question and interlacing it with character attacks is a good way of sending the message you're not there to talk. Answer the ******* question then, god damn, it's not like we're unreasonable here |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
I guess the new CSM tactic is "literally ignore the negative questions". What's next when this one fails to shut anyone up? |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:40:00 -
[26] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: 3.) It's too early to tell. Surely its not the last you'll hear from the CSM on the issue, I was simply pointing out that bombarding a thread with 39 pages of essentially the same question and interlacing it with character attacks is a good way of sending the message you're not there to talk. Outside of that thread, however much this continues will be dependent in large part on whether the players themselves are interested in this, and whether or not anyone tries to drown out a real conversation with aggressive posting tactics the next time this comes up.
Gosh, what's a good way to stop people from asking the same question over and over again? I know, deflect, dodge, dissemble!
Guys, why isn't it working??? |
Cede Forster
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:40:00 -
[27] - Quote
thank you for your answers again
i think i will carefully step out of the way now and leave you to the guys with the pitchforks and torches, they seem to have some questions too regarding "limiting the influence of power blocs/political parties" and i really wouldn't want to get in anyone's way ... i am sure you understand
or maybe a last question
considering the recent outrage, do you support limiting the discussion proposals for a new election system to systems that have a required negative impact on powerblocs or would you encourage proposals that do not meet such a requirement? (i know the question might have come up before, but never hurts to ask politely) |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:41:00 -
[28] - Quote
Do you or do you not approve of the proposal and requirements that Trebor posted in, amongst others, YOUR NAME? Don't weasel around. Trebor posted it as a CSM decision. Is it or is it not a joint post by the CSM? |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:Gosh, what's a good way to stop people from asking the same question over and over again? I know, deflect, dodge, dissemble!
Guys, why isn't it working???
LA LA LA LA LA WE'RE NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA LA |
Lord Zim
1452
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:46:00 -
[30] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:3.) It's too early to tell. Surely its not the last you'll hear from the CSM on the issue, I was simply pointing out that bombarding a thread with 39 pages of essentially the same question and interlacing it with character attacks is a good way of sending the message you're not there to talk. 1) You guys have never answered the questions, you guys haven't removed the **** goons minimum requirement, and you guys are actually surprised as to why we keep asking the questions we do ask, over and over and over?
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I personally was elected despite bloc power and don't have a vested stake in controlling the influence of one group or another, but I know that many players have concerns about this issue (they just usually don't get brought up except during campaign season). If it can be widely determined that this isn't something players want changed, I have no reason to push for reform. How many people have been in favor of the changes you guys've proposed in that thread?
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4.) There are aspects of it that have merit And there's one very, very specific aspect of it which needs to die in a fire, yet you guys seem reluctant/unwilling to even contemplate this.
Who, on the current CSM, are in favor of this change? Why aren't you guys removing the **** goons minimum requirement? Why aren't you guys apologizing for trying to blatantly game the system? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |