Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2647
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 00:58:00 -
[181] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Schulze runs in polynomial time, not exponential time.
The Schulze algorithm is a widest path problem. It has a running time of N^3, where N is the number of candidates. It's quite an efficient algorithm for all candidate sizes.
You're way off base here, Trebor. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. You are talking about the Schulze Condorcet Algorithm for a single seat election, which is not suitable for a multiple seat election.
For that, you need Schulze-STV. Schulze-STV exhaustively compares all possible quorums to find the best one. As such, it explodes factorially. If you have n candidates and m seats, you need to evaluate n choose m possibilities.
A Schulze-STV election selecting 14 candidates out of 20 requires evaluating 38760 possible results. A test run of this took ~8 minutes or so to execute.
Running last year's election, of 14 candidates out of 40, would require evaluating 23206929840 positions, which would take 598,734 times as long. Even if we can get the code running 100x faster, that's over a month.
tl;dr: I'm sure this will come as a shock to many, and to you in particular, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:I realize though that your programming experience is circa-1981. And clearly I knew more about algorithmic complexity then than you do now. Re-elect Trebor to CSM8 GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó My CSM Blog |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 01:03:00 -
[182] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Schulze runs in polynomial time, not exponential time.
The Schulze algorithm is a widest path problem. It has a running time of N^3, where N is the number of candidates. It's quite an efficient algorithm for all candidate sizes.
You're way off base here, Trebor. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. You are talking about the Schulze Condorcet Algorithm for a single seat election, which is not suitable for a multiple seat election. For that, you need Schulze-STV. Schulze-STV exhaustively compares all possible quorums to find the best one. As such, it explodes factorially. If you have n candidates and m seats, you need to evaluate n choose m possibilities. A Schulze-STV election selecting 14 candidates out of 20 requires evaluating 38760 possible results. A test run of this took ~8 minutes or so to execute. Running last year's election, of 14 candidates out of 40, would require evaluating 23206929840 positions, which would take 598,734 times as long. Even if we can get the code running 100x faster, that's over a month. tl;dr: I'm sure this will come as a shock to many, and to you in particular, but you don't know what you're talking about. Quote:I realize though that your programming experience is circa-1981. And clearly I knew more about algorithmic complexity then than you do now. Poe got served. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Black Legion.
1045
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 01:14:00 -
[183] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: I realize though that your programming experience is circa-1981.
And clearly I knew more about algorithmic complexity then than you do now. Someone get Poetic some aloe vera lube. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3978
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 01:18:00 -
[184] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:I don't like the 'if the guy you picked had enough votes already, you get to vote again' idea. That's obviously catering to the big alliance blocs so that their votes won't be wasted.
I DO like the 'if the guy you picked didn't have enough votes to win, you get to vote again' idea.
Selectively transferring undervotes but not overvotes was one of the principles at the core of Trebor's original proposal, actually. The response was adamant assertion by many that this selective transferability constitutes disenfranchisement of larger blocs, a notion that CCP Xhagen appears to agree with. So it's been discussed,but for now, a transferable vote is a transferable vote, and all are eligible. For better or worse, I'm looking forward to seeing how it all plays out.
Oh! ....and inb4 latest round of "HANS IS DEFENDING TREBOR'S PROPOSAL" nonsense. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:18:00 -
[185] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:AkJon Ferguson wrote:I don't like the 'if the guy you picked had enough votes already, you get to vote again' idea. That's obviously catering to the big alliance blocs so that their votes won't be wasted.
I DO like the 'if the guy you picked didn't have enough votes to win, you get to vote again' idea. Selectively transferring undervotes but not overvotes was one of the principles at the core of Trebor's original proposal, actually. The response was adamant assertion by many that this selective transferability constitutes disenfranchisement of larger blocs, a notion that CCP Xhagen appears to agree with. So it's been discussed,but for now, a transferable vote is a transferable vote, and all are eligible. For better or worse, I'm looking forward to seeing how it all plays out. Oh! ....and inb4 latest round of "HANS IS DEFENDING TREBOR'S PROPOSAL" nonsense.
Trebor should have fought harder, then. Is CCP Xhagen ex-goon too? Now instead of picking a specific number of CSM delegates, the big alliances can run an unlimited number and be assured of maximizing their presence. This is a terribad proposal, and I'm not interested in seeing how it all plays out, because I have enough sense to see how it will play out.
Just abolish the CSM already. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
526
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:49:00 -
[186] - Quote
I don't like it! Make it go away!!! |
Quang Chow Lee
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 04:38:00 -
[187] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Schulze runs in polynomial time, not exponential time.
The Schulze algorithm is a widest path problem. It has a running time of N^3, where N is the number of candidates. It's quite an efficient algorithm for all candidate sizes.
You're way off base here, Trebor. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. You are talking about the Schulze Condorcet Algorithm for a single seat election, which is not suitable for a multiple seat election. For that, you need Schulze-STV. Schulze-STV exhaustively compares all possible quorums to find the best one. As such, it explodes factorially. If you have n candidates and m seats, you need to evaluate n choose m possibilities. A Schulze-STV election selecting 14 candidates out of 20 requires evaluating 38760 possible results. A test run of this took ~8 minutes or so to execute. Running last year's election, of 14 candidates out of 40, would require evaluating 23206929840 positions, which would take 598,734 times as long. Even if we can get the code running 100x faster, that's over a month. tl;dr: I'm sure this will come as a shock to many, and to you in particular, but you don't know what you're talking about. Quote:I realize though that your programming experience is circa-1981. And clearly I knew more about algorithmic complexity then than you do now.
Trebor with the UFC beat down |
rodyas
tie fighters inc
1053
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 06:34:00 -
[188] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:AkJon Ferguson wrote:I don't like the 'if the guy you picked had enough votes already, you get to vote again' idea. That's obviously catering to the big alliance blocs so that their votes won't be wasted.
I DO like the 'if the guy you picked didn't have enough votes to win, you get to vote again' idea. Selectively transferring undervotes but not overvotes was one of the principles at the core of Trebor's original proposal, actually. The response was adamant assertion by many that this selective transferability constitutes disenfranchisement of larger blocs, a notion that CCP Xhagen appears to agree with. So it's been discussed,but for now, a transferable vote is a transferable vote, and all are eligible. For better or worse, I'm looking forward to seeing how it all plays out. Oh! ....and inb4 latest round of "HANS IS DEFENDING TREBOR'S PROPOSAL" nonsense.
So is the reason, only Trebor is gonna run again, is because he is the only CSM who still brings trolls out?
I think someone needs an arch enemy.
Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
1091
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 08:10:00 -
[189] - Quote
After reading Xhagen's posts, I quite understand where he stands.
CCP must accurately listen to those who put an effort and vote, that's right. This way, once the voter turnout was high enough, the representativeness of CSM would be better.
But then, as long as the CSM is intended (in my opinion) to allow CCP to satisfy its customers by listening to them, the fact that the CSM at its peak only gave voice to 14% the customers and in all likelihood is going to hit a low with the new and more complex election system, casts a shadow on CSM usefulness. Having a perfect answer for representativeness under high voter turnouts is useless and even self-defeating when voter turnout is low.
Of course, the CSM is not (shoud not be) the only way in which CCP engages its customers in order to achieve customer retention. But I wonder what is the point, for CCP, to have an extremely expensive customer-engagement tool as the CSM and then waste it by telling customers to please ignore it unless they're willing to commit more into their videogaming than they commit into their RL decission making.
To summarize it, CCP's stance on electing the CSM 8 is like: "To your left, look at the beautiful intrincacy of these vote-tossing algorythms to pick the CSM 8; to your right, please ignore the blind elephant stomping their usefulness to a record low".
Some people won't answer unless you actively ask them to. And my personal impression is that most people in EVE would answer in interesting ways. In EVE as in RL, what people does and what the guys in charge think that people does could be worlds apart. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6957
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 13:32:00 -
[190] - Quote
AkJon Ferguson wrote:As for people crying a river over Alex Gianturco, please stop. Nobody should be harassed irl, but nobody should be running around telling people to 'kill yourself irl' and encouraging people to harass a mentally ill person in an effort to get him to commit suicide, either.
Alex Gianturco behaved terribly, apologized, and was removed from CSM. Drop it already.
namedropping doesn't make you look clever ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
|
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 19:25:00 -
[191] - Quote
As for the 'CCP gets to pick 5 of 7 CSM members now' idea, that's even more pants-on-head than the 'big alliances no longer have to worry about overvotes for their most popular candidates' idea.
CSM already consists of (mostly) a bunch of sycophants and brown-nosers and now you want their selection contingent on how much CCP likes them? How about no. |
Illest Insurrectionist
The Scope Gallente Federation
79
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 02:42:00 -
[192] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Styth spiting wrote:Any plans on how you will be handling players abilities to make throw away 21 day accounts to cast additional posts or players abusing the buddy system? It wouldn't be very difficult for large groups of players who want specific candidates to win to manipulate the voting counts this way. Y'know, I know that the white paper is filled with fluff, but...read much? Quote:Any active EVE Online account that is at least a full thirty (30) days in age is eligible to vote.
That paper was 9 pages of WTF is this?
Beyond that the buddy system could be easily abused for this. I'd venture a guess CCP would dish out bans but a buddy account is 'free' for the first 51 days. If it took a 52 day old account then sure, problem solved. As is i think the concern has some merit but won't matter in reality.
As a former suicide ganker that no longer cares enough to log in i hope your alliance can outline a plan to cause the most grief possible.
|
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
264
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 05:00:00 -
[193] - Quote
Is there anything to prevent the largest blocs/alliances from running and ranking identical 14 candidate ballots?
A system of ranked averages sounds fair at first glance but when you realize that votes are going to be carried over or reallocated it suddenly doesn't seem so great. Instead of a bloc voting for one guy now they get to vote for 14?
AND their votes carry over like a champagne fountain?
AND all positions on the CSM are now going to be chosen by a majority of CSM members? Number of votes is irrelevant? You actually need a majority of members to run the CSM?
Aye yi yie.
If it only takes 1000 votes to get on the CSM, won't this reallocation business virtually guarantee a CSM stacked by whichever is the largest voting bloc? I'm extremely apprehensive about what I've just read here.
A CSM stacked with one pov/playstyle isn't going to be representative of the playerbase and quite frankly won't be particularly useful to CCP imo.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1007
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:42:00 -
[194] - Quote
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:Beyond that the buddy system could be easily abused for this. I'd venture a guess CCP would dish out bans but a buddy account is 'free' for the first 51 days. If it took a 52 day old account then sure, problem solved. As is i think the concern has some merit but won't matter in reality.
It's obv. not mentioned in the doc, but I'm pretty sure the CSM 7 election had a special restriction for Buddy accounts - 60 days old or something like that, I can't remember off the top of my head. I do remember I had to petition when it turned out my 2 buddy alts were too young at the time (they were definitely older than 30 days, hence the petition).
Perhaps if CCP is reading this (lol) they would be so kind as to clarify (looooooooooooooooool) for us. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2662
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 11:54:00 -
[195] - Quote
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:Beyond that the buddy system could be easily abused for this. I'd venture a guess CCP would dish out bans but a buddy account is 'free' for the first 51 days. If it took a 52 day old account then sure, problem solved. As is i think the concern has some merit but won't matter in reality. Abuse of the buddy system is considered an exploit. I have no doubt that CCP Sreegs cannot wait to bludgeon the intromissive organs of anyone who tries to mess with the election using the buddy system.
Yonis Kador wrote:Is there anything to prevent the largest blocs/alliances from running and ranking identical 14 candidate ballots? No, but under STV it won't help them. A vote has one unit of voting power. If a group of voters has 4/14 of the voting power, they'll get about 4 seats, whether they run 4-5 candidates or 14.
There are some second-order edges in running a lot of candidates (clogging the ballot, etc) but they are unlikely to make a significant difference. Re-elect Trebor to CSM8 GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó My CSM Blog |
Illest Insurrectionist
The Scope Gallente Federation
79
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 16:20:00 -
[196] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Illest Insurrectionist wrote:Beyond that the buddy system could be easily abused for this. I'd venture a guess CCP would dish out bans but a buddy account is 'free' for the first 51 days. If it took a 52 day old account then sure, problem solved. As is i think the concern has some merit but won't matter in reality. Abuse of the buddy system is considered an exploit. I have no doubt that CCP Sreegs cannot wait to bludgeon the intromissive organs of anyone who tries to mess with the election using the buddy system.
Right, and fair enough. Had they set the age to 52 he and the other staff wouldn't even have to worry though. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
628
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 16:44:00 -
[197] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:After reading Xhagen's posts, I quite understand where he stands.
CCP must accurately listen to those who put an effort and vote, that's right.
That not right: CCP better figure out away to listen to those that are not voting whom compromise near three quarters thier customer base. Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
1120
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 20:13:00 -
[198] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:After reading Xhagen's posts, I quite understand where he stands.
CCP must accurately listen to those who put an effort and vote, that's right. That not right: CCP better figure out away to listen to those that are not voting whom compromise near three quarters thier customer base.
You should had read past that sentence, as most of my post was on the need to achieve either greater voter turnout or alternate ways to engage the non-invested players.
Which is not gratuitous, it's jsut hammering on the summit talks about engaging "lurkers" as they, well, they are a majority of players and so far nobody in CCP really knows what they are about. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
265
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 21:43:00 -
[199] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: No, but under STV it won't help them. A vote has one unit of voting power. If a group of voters has 4/14 of the voting power, they'll get about 4 seats, whether they run 4-5 candidates or 14.
I must've missed something. In the old system, a group with 4/14 of the votes got one seat because they had to ensure a win. In the STV system, they'll get 4 guys on the CSM. How does that not "help them?"
Are we saying that a group with 4/14 of the votes cast deserves 4 seats? As a tool, a diverse CSM would be most useful.
It just seems to me that this system will work best relative to the number of votes cast. More votes overall could generate a more diverse panel. Maybe. But if that's the case, then working on voter turnout should have preceded the switch.
Unless voting is going to be compulsory, with a popup in the middle of your client that won't go away until you vote, there really is no guarantee folks are going to care more about this election than elections past.
And if the result is a stacked CSM, well, everyone loses.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
1124
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 22:41:00 -
[200] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote: No, but under STV it won't help them. A vote has one unit of voting power. If a group of voters has 4/14 of the voting power, they'll get about 4 seats, whether they run 4-5 candidates or 14.
I must've missed something. In the old system, a group with 4/14 of the votes got one seat because they had to ensure a win. In the STV system, they'll get 4 guys on the CSM. How does that not "help them?" Are we saying that a group with 4/14 of the votes cast deserves 4 seats? As a tool, a diverse CSM would be most useful. It just seems to me that this system will work best relative to the number of votes cast. More votes overall could generate a more diverse panel. Maybe. But if that's the case, then working on voter turnout should have preceded the switch. Unless voting is going to be compulsory, with a popup in the middle of your client that won't go away until you vote, there really is no guarantee folks are going to care more about this election than elections past. And if the result is a stacked CSM, well, everyone loses. YK
It is unlikely that voting is ever linked to the client as that would require extensive work. So there is no material chance to make voting compulsory.
As I said above they've tackled the easy issue they can fix via software (voter repesentation, if we can call that to toss votes up and down until nobody knows who he "elected" actually), but the real issue on how representative of the player base is the CSM is not being discussed.
In a way, CCP doesn't really know their playerbase, so, how can they tell that they're achieving to represent it accurately? EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1008
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 23:43:00 -
[201] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:I must've missed something. In the old system, a group with 4/14 of the votes got one seat because they had to ensure a win. In the STV system, they'll get 4 guys on the CSM. How does that not "help them?"
Are we saying that a group with 4/14 of the votes cast deserves 4 seats? As a tool, a diverse CSM would be most useful.
The other thing to remember is the new 2+5 go to Iceland and the council itself votes on the chair means that it's well within a group's interest to stack the council with as many friendly voices as possible, as opposed to the old "top 7 to Iceland, top votes get chair" system which not only reduced the value of having multiple members, it made putting all of your votes behind one strong candidate the preferable option.
So in short CCP created new rules that would compel us to put as many members on the council as possible and then gave us a voting system that'll make it as easy as possible. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Jon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 01:00:00 -
[202] - Quote
They can't make voting compulsory but maybe a small reward for voting like 1 unit of quafe zero would be a nice incentive. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1717
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 02:30:00 -
[203] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:I must've missed something. In the old system, a group with 4/14 of the votes got one seat because they had to ensure a win. In the STV system, they'll get 4 guys on the CSM. How does that not "help them?"
Are we saying that a group with 4/14 of the votes cast deserves 4 seats? As a tool, a diverse CSM would be most useful. The other thing to remember is the new 2+5 go to Iceland and the council itself votes on the chair means that it's well within a group's interest to stack the council with as many friendly voices as possible, as opposed to the old "top 7 to Iceland, top votes get chair" system which not only reduced the value of having multiple members, it made putting all of your votes behind one strong candidate the preferable option. So in short CCP created new rules that would compel us to put as many members on the council as possible and then gave us a voting system that'll make it as easy as possible. That about sums it up and the best way for a Goons success if for them to run 14 candidates or have their 14 picks in their pocket.
That way the votes will trickle down and they will not have any wastage at all.
I thought the CSM was a Null sec lobby group before. Now it will be wall to wall.
So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8. EvE players have no voice. Just don't bother voting for the CSM, really its not worth the energy.
|
rodyas
tie fighters inc
1053
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 05:29:00 -
[204] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:I must've missed something. In the old system, a group with 4/14 of the votes got one seat because they had to ensure a win. In the STV system, they'll get 4 guys on the CSM. How does that not "help them?"
Are we saying that a group with 4/14 of the votes cast deserves 4 seats? As a tool, a diverse CSM would be most useful. The other thing to remember is the new 2+5 go to Iceland and the council itself votes on the chair means that it's well within a group's interest to stack the council with as many friendly voices as possible, as opposed to the old "top 7 to Iceland, top votes get chair" system which not only reduced the value of having multiple members, it made putting all of your votes behind one strong candidate the preferable option. So in short CCP created new rules that would compel us to put as many members on the council as possible and then gave us a voting system that'll make it as easy as possible. That about sums it up and the best way for a Goons success if for them to run 14 candidates or have their 14 picks in their pocket. That way the votes will trickle down and they will not have any wastage at all. I thought the CSM was a Null sec lobby group before. Now it will be wall to wall. So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8.
I see that view as too optimistic of working well really.
Sure with enough seats, the null sec could strong arm the other CSM, but they still have to get past CCP, and they would probably see the strong arming and such and not really look forward to the summit.
Plus I thought it had to do with features as well. If the features was an all null sec revamp, then perhaps all the 7 null seccers would go to the summit. But if the feature is different be hard for the null sec people to strong arm themselves to iceland.
It would be fun for the null sec people to put 14 null sec candidates on the voting list, but it being more then a fun move, would be hard to defend. Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1020
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 14:12:00 -
[205] - Quote
Callduron wrote:Hmm. So an election that struggles to get people to even vote for one candidate is now going to ask us for our top 14? Seems like it's going to be too much form filling for a lot of people.
This is the most likely outcome, unfortunately. This is not a signature. |
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade The East India Co.
1087
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 14:17:00 -
[206] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CCP Veritas wrote:Sgurd Battersea wrote:going up to 5 would be better. People are free to only put in 5 if they wish. Heck, they can only vote for one if that's all the preference they have. The only downside is that they might disenfranchise themselves if noone in their small set of candidates end up having enough support. Ring-a-ding-ding!
Pandemic Phone?
Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7
1. CFC Guy 1 2. CFC Guy 2 3. CFC Guy 3 4. HBC Guy 1 5. HBC Guy 2 6. HBC Guy 3 7. Some really surprised chap who had absolutely no chance of winning until the CFC and the HBC both used him to block the other side from getting a majority of the seats. I expect him to be showered with e-riches to sway his voting like any reasonable swing vote politician. The Margin Trading Scam: If you fell for it, it's your own damned fault. Malcanis for CSM 8
Eve Online: The full-contact sport for your brain. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1020
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 14:38:00 -
[207] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:And "you're" grammer is sub year six.
Unworthy of you Malcanis. This is not a signature. |
|
CCP Dolan
C C P C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 14:43:00 -
[208] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote: Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7
1. CFC Guy 1 2. CFC Guy 2 3. etc....
There is no longer an "Iceland 7". Please re-read the Dev Blog I linked in the first post of this thread. CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
1154
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 14:56:00 -
[209] - Quote
CCP Dolan wrote:De'Veldrin wrote: Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7
1. CFC Guy 1 2. CFC Guy 2 3. etc....
There is no longer an "Iceland 7". Please re-read the Dev Blog I linked in the first post of this thread.
Yay, now there's 2 most voted (CFC+HBC guys) plus the 5 the CSM and CCP think that they will be of more use. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
|
CCP Dolan
C C P C C P Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 15:03:00 -
[210] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Yay, now there's 2 most voted (CFC+HBC guys) plus the 5 the CSM and CCP think that they will be of more use.
Actually the 2 candidates who will be permanent attendees will be those with the widest appeal. Because the top 2 are chosen based on a secondary STV with only 2 seats, they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible. CCP Dolan | Community Representative
Twitter: @CCPDolan
Gooby pls |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |