Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ai Shun
224
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:48:00 -
[31] - Quote
I do not like the idea of allocating seats along specific blocks. Recent history is fraught with examples of, for example, ethnic minorities given preferential treatment. So you could ask, is Null a minority? Well, based off character data it is. But character data is a seriously skewed metric. Even account would give us a skewed perspective. What we'd really need to see is player participation, but CCP has not made those numbers available.
So from my perspective, I would actually prefer a null-sec candidate over a high-sec or a low-sec candidate. (Those terms are just so vague and so exclusive, but never mind - it seems to be what we're working with nowadays) The question would be why?
Well, a null-sec candidate has to have coverage over a much larger slice of the game than a high-sec candidate, while still covering pretty much the same ground. Yes, the challenges are a bit different, but a null-sec candidate is also highly likely to have experience in high-sec; whereas the reverse is less frequently true. Thus, to my thinking, a null or even a low sec candidate has more coverage over New Eden as a whole and as a benefit for the player base overall than a candidate focussing only on a specific aspect of the game. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:49:00 -
[32] - Quote
J Kunjeh wrote:*Inalienable
Fixed that for ya. "Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."
I did too. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
Ai Shun wrote:I do not like the idea of allocating seats along specific blocks. Recent history is fraught with examples of, for example, ethnic minorities given preferential treatment. So you could ask, is Null a minority? Well, based off character data it is. But character data is a seriously skewed metric. Even account would give us a skewed perspective. What we'd really need to see is player participation, but CCP has not made those numbers available.
So from my perspective, I would actually prefer a null-sec candidate over a high-sec or a low-sec candidate. (Those terms are just so vague and so exclusive, but never mind - it seems to be what we're working with nowadays) The question would be why?
Well, a null-sec candidate has to have coverage over a much larger slice of the game than a high-sec candidate, while still covering pretty much the same ground. Yes, the challenges are a bit different, but a null-sec candidate is also highly likely to have experience in high-sec; whereas the reverse is less frequently true. Thus, to my thinking, a null or even a low sec candidate has more coverage over New Eden as a whole and as a benefit for the player base overall than a candidate focussing only on a specific aspect of the game. And the CSM - as a whole - represents ALL sectors because it's intrinsic in the structure.
But the rationale is false anyway. A highseccer might only have experience in Highsec but alas, that's all he is representing. He would be rather foolish to front the CSM and wax lyrically about Nullsec changes without his obvious lack of knowledge showing.
(and you need to ask how many Highseccers actually DO have nullsec experience - perhaps their input might be VERY important to the CSM and CCP.)
The important point here - if a "Nullsec resident" has a concern about an Highsec issue then he has every right to lobby and vote etc. for a Highsec candidate - nothing to stop him.
If he wants a boot in both camps then it is up to him to decide - not some arbitrary alliance loyalty which is all he has to vote with now.
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
297
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
Something vaguely related to goons is happening. Obviously we need terrible apostle threads about it. |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
135
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:17:00 -
[35] - Quote
This is a terrible idea. Lets take the idea of 1 person from low sec for example. Is this person a pirate, industrialist or a member of Faction Warfare? All 3 live in low sec. But someone who does one cannot automatically claim to be an expert on the other. So you still aren't representing the people who live and play in low sec. The same goes with the stupid 3 CSM idea. Lets have people who know nothing about wormholes responsible for wormhole mechanics.... This is the reason the FW community have been up in arms about some of the current CSM ideas/comments regarding FW - they are making decisions on something they don't understand. People need to actually get off their butts and rally members to their cause to get elected. There are enough people interested in high sec incursions, industry and missioning to get more votes then the goons IF the candidate can put out a strong message. What you are really saying is that eve needs primaries like they have in the US lol
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
Ai Shun
224
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:22:00 -
[36] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:But the rationale is false anyway. A highseccer might only have experience in Highsec but alas, that's all he is representing. He would be rather foolish to front the CSM and wax lyrically about Nullsec changes without his obvious lack of knowledge showing.
I disagree. A specialist is far less likely to see how a bigger picture will affect the entirety of New Eden. By dividing it up this way, you are creating special interest groupings that will most likely have a detrimental impact on the game as a whole, as well as creating further separation between the various sectors. Yes, they can potentially achieve a balance by being at loggerheads on various issues and eventually settling that way. But if every individual on the CSM had the ability to see the broader scope of New Eden you'd have less conflict and more progress.
Additionally, we, as the playerbase have the ability to influence and drive the CSM. This is done, primarily, through the election process. There everyone has an equal chance to be elected providing they can gather the support. Secondly, through submissions in the Assembly Hall and in supporting those. Up until recently I was unaware of this, so I can see that promoting these mechanisms and highlighting them more may be very beneficial for overall participation from the community.
But I'd think education, voter and player participation and involvement are better mechanisms for driving this than segregating and creating artificial blockages.
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2871
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:40:00 -
[37] - Quote
Why do you hate democracy, Apostle? When the will of the people is expressed, you rush towards authoritarianism to shy away from their chosen representatives.
You should be ashamed of yourself. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Berke Negri
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:52:00 -
[38] - Quote
The Apostle wrote: - Maximum term of no more than 2 years.
If someone could get elected more than once, let alone want to serve more than once, why stop them? |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 04:28:00 -
[39] - Quote
Ai Shun wrote:The Apostle wrote:But the rationale is false anyway. A highseccer might only have experience in Highsec but alas, that's all he is representing. He would be rather foolish to front the CSM and wax lyrically about Nullsec changes without his obvious lack of knowledge showing. I disagree. A specialist is far less likely to see how a bigger picture will affect the entirety of New Eden. By dividing it up this way, you are creating special interest groupings that will most likely have a detrimental impact on the game as a whole, as well as creating further separation between the various sectors. Yes, they can potentially achieve a balance by being at loggerheads on various issues and eventually settling that way. But if every individual on the CSM had the ability to see the broader scope of New Eden you'd have less conflict and more progress. If the CSM were a ruling body then this might be true and I am very concious of that.
But ultimately, the CSM no more than a representative body to put forward ideas to CCP. The game as a whole will always be represented by CCP and the CSM can only hope to represent the different sectors - in fairness - by sector representation.
I do find it extraordinary that this topic has been raised many times and invariably one of the most common retorts is "field a highsec candidate".
Strangely, that's exactly what I am advocating. Not by chance though, by enshrining the position to allow it to be so.
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Roll Sizzle Beef
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 04:29:00 -
[40] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Why do you hate democracy, Apostle? When the will of the people is expressed, you rush towards authoritarianism to shy away from their chosen representatives.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Too bad democratic corps are an insane method of business. So why bother treating the games subscribers as people with a passion and voice when they choose totalitarianism direction and lean on someone else's passion for some ultimate goal of schadenfreude... Because deep down we all just love being awful and people do want goons around. If highsec truly needed its own individual voice to save it and bring it out of some grim darkage, it would have bore a charismatic leader to unite the bears in a knee jerk fashion that EVE is known for quite awhile ago. So don't panic highsec, and close your eyes. If you feel something throbbing on your backside, just tell yourself "at least its not incarna." |
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 04:56:00 -
[41] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Why do you hate democracy, Apostle? When the will of the people is expressed, you rush towards authoritarianism to shy away from their chosen representatives.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh come now Mittens. A study of democracy shows there are many different types and most of them are NOT based on American democratic "standards" (and I use the term very loosely), fraught with might and money iWins. The "will of the people" was null and void when big business "donations" and media hyperbole became the new election methodology.
You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world. Your voice, attached to your region, is considered one of the best and fairest democratic electoral systems in the world. The seat itself - as one vote in the nation - is the valued position and can easily be owned by a non-aligned individual, not by a party. You may be unemployed, poor, green or gay, your vote is for your region.
It's not a vote - and never has been a vote - for poor, green, unemployed gays as this current CSM system clearly prefers.
And authortarianism is a big call. Do you mean by restricting specific sector candidates from claiming they represent people who they have no interest in?
For an apparently devout and declared communist Social Democrat I'm surprised you're even commenting given that this system will still guarantee you will remain on the CSM and at least one of your brethren. I'm just looking for ways to make sure OTHER sectors can be just as well represented.
I can certainly understand the enviable position you hold dear and will protect through metagaming/obfuscation or pure belligerence. My motivation is an undying belief in "the good of the game for ALL". Iceland truly does not interest me.
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Ghazu
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:05:00 -
[42] - Quote
lol NO to affirmative action |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:08:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ghazu wrote:lol NO to affirmative action Y'all best get dat pickup full of ammoontion boy, we gonna go get us some of dem bears.... Yeehawww Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:11:00 -
[44] - Quote
The Apostle wrote: unalienable right
1) That's not a word
2) Were you using the right word, it still would not mean what you think it means. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
385
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:16:00 -
[45] - Quote
The Apostle,
You are trying to rationalise your belief in a faulty system of your own design and desires. Is it not sufficiently evident from the responses to your post that your idea, no matter how good you try and make it sound - is flawed, bad and unworkable ?
Your concept leads not to Democracy, but to Authoritism in it's worst form. It's a form of Democratic suicide. Given the total fracture of Highsec, I would rather not cast my vote for a highsec dweller who has not ever spent time out of Highsec or has not contributed to Eve in a significant manner. If you have not already done so, I urge you to read the CSM White paper.
I would far rather vote for The Mittani and pay 1 Billion ISK to do so, than to vote for someone like you and be given 1 Billion ISK as a reward. You fail to acknowledge the real work this CSM has done and the results achieved because your thoughts are clouded by hatred of individuals within it.
The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:21:00 -
[46] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:J Kunjeh wrote:*Inalienable
Fixed that for ya. "Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."I did too.
Ok, so if the right to a specific organization of government you claim is inalienable actually is; how is it that the specific organization of government you espouse is not the current one? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:21:00 -
[47] - Quote
The Apostle wrote: You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.
By Whom? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:26:00 -
[48] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: unalienable right
1) That's not a word 2) Were you using the right word, it still would not mean what you think it means. If we must.
Quote:Webster's 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as "not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights" and inalienable as "cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another." The Declaration of Independence reads:
GǣThat all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rightsGǪGǥ
This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law.
Further
Quote:Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights, these rights cannot be abridged.
By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3072
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:30:00 -
[49] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Nova Fox wrote:.... short answer is no. Dont make me get a long answer. From that I assume you're happy with the status quo. So be it. My stance on this stems from the intrinsic risk to bloc voting this scheme entails. I expect opposition to same, understandably. But change is in the air, it's obvious. Voter dissatisfaction and apathy doesn't come from a working system. Nonetheless, I'm not "siding" here, I've put this up for debate so your "long answer" is most welcomed.
I think Ill cheat today and declare this to be my long answer.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=64821 TL;DR I think of eve as one sector entirely.
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:35:00 -
[50] - Quote
The Apostle wrote: By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights.
'Kay, so if the rights (to a specific form of governance) you claim we have are unable to be revoked/modified/removed, how is it that we do not have that specific form of governance right now? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:41:00 -
[51] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.
By Whom? Australians. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
destiny2
Right Ascension
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:47:00 -
[52] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:you deleted your insane forum trolling alt and then re-made it, which is why you're back to 0 likes
cute
Correction He has 5 Likes. learn to count :) |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:47:00 -
[53] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.
By Whom? Australians.
Ok, that means more people like the American system than like the Australian system. Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:50:00 -
[54] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights.
'Kay, so if the rights (to a specific form of governance) you claim we have are unable to be revoked/modified/removed, how is it that we do not have that specific form of governance right now? Probably because metagaming was never considered as a way to create an ogligarchy under the auspice of democracy. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:52:00 -
[55] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote:RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.
By Whom? Australians. Ok, that means more people like the American system than like the Australian system. I think you might have TLDR'd my entire point inadvertently. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:58:00 -
[56] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote:RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.
By Whom? Australians. Ok, that means more people like the American system than like the Australian system. I think you might have TLDR'd my entire point inadvertently.
I'm not sure what that sentence means.... Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:08:00 -
[57] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights.
'Kay, so if the rights (to a specific form of governance) you claim we have are unable to be revoked/modified/removed, how is it that we do not have that specific form of governance right now? Probably because metagaming was never considered as a way to create an ogligarchy under the auspice of democracy.
Eve has Players. In the CSM Elections, every player has an equal* opportunity to vote. How in the world is that not a democratic process.
That some players may band together to advance a candidate who represents a compromise between their ideals is called Tactical Voting. Tactical Voting, while not ideal from a game theoretical standpoint, does not rise to the point of making the election a farce, which your claim of an Oligarchy requires of the election.
An Oligarchy is a rule by few. 7000 is not few. 14 is. If the 14 CSMs were to decide they were no longer bound by the results of the election (and had some way to force the issue), you'd have an Oligarchy. But you don't. You got boring old representative democracy, and as in every other representative democracy, sometimes your guy gets beat and his opponent is such a slimeball he shrinks under salt.
*proportional to number of accounts Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
87
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:15:00 -
[58] - Quote
Entered thread hoping for pictures of aliens. Left disappointed. Ronald Reagan: I do not like Sweden, they support communism. Minister: Sir, but Sweden are anti-communist, Sir.-á Ronald Reagan: I do not care what kind of communists they are. |
Ai Shun
224
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:21:00 -
[59] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:If the CSM were a ruling body then this might be true and I am very concious of that.
But ultimately, the CSM no more than a representative body to put forward ideas to CCP. The game as a whole will always be represented by CCP and the CSM can only hope to represent the different sectors - in fairness - by sector representation.
I do find it extraordinary that this topic has been raised many times and invariably one of the most common retorts is "field a highsec candidate".
Strangely, that's exactly what I am advocating. Not by chance though, by enshrining the position to allow it to be so.
Again, I disagree with you. This is becoming a habit. The most effective way to have the CSM represent the different sectors is not to pick ONE or even TWO specialists from each sector. That is fundamentally flawed because players have cross overs between sectors, it is not as black and white as you paint it.
The whole concept of candidates by sector is flawed because players and in fact, EVE Online, is not just about a microcosm of one sector. The whole needs to be visible, viable and understood before any one voice can articulate what it means and what any change will mean.
What I want is for more active player participation to guide our elected representatives - irrespective of their sector - into the shape of EVE the player base wants. And that can only be done through education, participation and by reminding them of the power they have over the CSM.
It is not done by "affirmative action" to create a narrow minded viewpoint. That's just too negative for my taste.
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:26:00 -
[60] - Quote
Thorn Galen wrote:The Apostle,
You are trying to rationalise your belief in a faulty system of your own design and desires. Is it not sufficiently evident from the responses to your post that your idea, no matter how good you try and make it sound - is flawed, bad and unworkable ?
Your concept leads not to Democracy, but to Authoritism in it's worst form. It's a form of Democratic suicide. Given the total fracture of Highsec, I would rather not cast my vote for a highsec dweller who has not ever spent time out of Highsec or has not contributed to Eve in a significant manner. If you have not already done so, I urge you to read the CSM White paper.
I would far rather vote for The Mittani and pay 1 Billion ISK to do so, than to vote for someone like you and be given 1 Billion ISK as a reward. You fail to acknowledge the real work this CSM has done and the results achieved because your thoughts are clouded by hatred of individuals within it.
Aside from the obvious side your bread is buttered on, a Highsec candidate does not need to know about "Nullsec" in the first instance but it's also highly likely (and may even form part of their manifesto) that they HAVE lived outside of Highsec and in fact may also be able to help identify WHY many Highseccers are now in Nullsec. I did state this point already.
And twice I've heard "authortarinism". How? A decree that says YOU, representing Nullsec cannot possibly represent ME, residing in Highsec (as you can under the current system) and thus you're ability to do so is hereby removed?
The white paper does nothing towards representing any sector and does nothing to remove the ability to or the perception of bloc voting. THAT much is evident.
In fact, the CSM must reach a consenus to present to CCP - how can a consensus be drawn on "Highsec" when most of the members neither reside nor have any interest in Highsec.
As we've seen, many CSM are far from objective when people bring forward ideas and how this trait translates into fair and equitable representation escapes me.
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |