Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:32:00 -
[61] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote:RubyPorto wrote: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.... I was addressing your implication that American democracy MUST be better simply because America has more people. It TLDR's my absolute belief that the entire CSM selection process is nothing more than a numbers game and is open to abuse. It does not make it a better system (and in fairness - nor is mine - but I started this as a topic to draw it out).
Either way, if MOST people can't be bothered - something is wrong. I'm subscribing for change. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Parthonax
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:41:00 -
[62] - 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 what is the matter scared someone you don't like gets elected and starts exposing your RMT schemes or how some pro goon dev giving you all kind of cheats for your alliance to use I used to be a adventurer like you, but then i took a arrow in the knee |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:42:00 -
[63] - Quote
Parthonax wrote: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 what is the matter scared someone you don't like gets elected and starts exposing your RMT schemes or how some pro goon dev giving you all kind of cheats for your alliance to use That helps. 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 06:55:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ai Shun wrote: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.
And nor should it be but I haven't delineated candidates, I've deliniated seats. It's up to the candidate and subsequently the voters to determine the best choice based on the manifesto of the candidate. He can add/omit his various game style to claim a specific seat.
Really, if Highseccers want candidates with only Highsec experience, that's their call. If highseccers want candidates with multi-sector experience that's also their call - but let it be THEIR call.
If they have a seat that represents them specifically they WILL vote. Atm it's voter bloc and they are NOT buying into it.
Besides, if what you say is true, then no changing of the system will have an effect because people will continue to vote for the one with the best "total game" experience.
Thus nullseccers can quite easily field a Highsec candidate and if Highsec agrees - they're in anyway - IF what you say is true.
Somehow I bet it doesn't work that way. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
304
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
Parthonax wrote: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 what is the matter scared someone you don't like gets elected and starts exposing your RMT schemes or how some pro goon dev giving you all kind of cheats for your alliance to use
Tin foil hat activate! |
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1362
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 07:04:00 -
[66] - Quote
The Apostle wrote: I was addressing your implication that American democracy MUST be better simply because America has more people. It TLDR's my absolute belief that the entire CSM selection process is nothing more than a numbers game and is open to abuse. It does not make it a better system (and in fairness - nor is mine - but I started this as a topic to draw it out).
Either way, if MOST people can't be bothered - something is wrong. I'm subscribing for change.
"Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives" -Wikipedia
Now, replace "decisions... lives" with "representatives elected to make decisions" and you have representative democracy.
Sounds a lot like the CSM elections.
Now limiting the choices that the voters can choose is undemocratic (thus write ins), so why do you think we should have the inalienable right to a less democratic institution than we have now? Single-Shard, Player Driven Sandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special in my eyes. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1776
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 07:15:00 -
[67] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Parthonax wrote: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 what is the matter scared someone you don't like gets elected and starts exposing your RMT schemes or how some pro goon dev giving you all kind of cheats for your alliance to use Tin foil hat activate!
Better yet you can assume everything she says is true and still think she's a complete idiot. How on earth does being elected to the CSM give you the batman level of ability to get evidence about any of that. If you didn't have access to their alledged RMT scemes before, things aren't suddenly going to change just because you got elected to the CSM. Same thing with dev favoritism and cheating. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 07:29:00 -
[68] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The Apostle wrote: I was addressing your implication that American democracy MUST be better simply because America has more people. It TLDR's my absolute belief that the entire CSM selection process is nothing more than a numbers game and is open to abuse. It does not make it a better system (and in fairness - nor is mine - but I started this as a topic to draw it out).
Either way, if MOST people can't be bothered - something is wrong. I'm subscribing for change.
"Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives" -Wikipedia Now, replace "decisions... lives" with "representatives elected to make decisions" and you have representative democracy. Sounds a lot like the CSM elections. Now limiting the choices that the voters can choose is undemocratic (thus write ins), so why do you think we should have the inalienable right to a less democratic institution than we have now? You're believing that the candidates put forward by sheer weight of numbers is both representative and democratic? You're also believing that they are both objective and impartial?
As I've said, how can a Nullsec entity be a representative of ME - a highseccer? They neither care NOR do they know of my concerns.
But alas, point is being missed. Tell me, how is your presidential candidate (I assume you're American) selected? Does the candidate elect require a majority of states in order to stand for president or do they simply add all the states votes together and declare a winner?
Please correct me if I am wrong but Romney (for example) could win 35 states and still have LESS then the majority vote making him the presidential candidate? (Ignore the obvious reality - even Australia knows Newt is moot)
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
ThisIsntMyMain
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 07:50:00 -
[69] - Quote
So we can TL;DR your entire argument down to ....
"I don't like the current CSM members even though they were voted for by more people than other candidates. To fix this problem we should exclude the candidates I don't like and replace them with ones I do"
And then you spend 5 pages arguing about "democracy"
Are you just plain thick or something?
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 07:58:00 -
[70] - Quote
ThisIsntMyMain wrote:So we can TL;DR your entire argument down to ....
"I don't like the current CSM members even though they were voted for by more people than other candidates. To fix this problem we should exclude the candidates I don't like and replace them with ones I do"
And then you spend 5 pages arguing about "democracy"
Are you just plain thick or something?
I care little for the current membership, it's irrelevant in this thread - I'm discussing process.
If you took the time to read through "5 pages" you would have spotted the lack of exclusion and seen the posssibility of absolute inclusion in this form.
TLDR; Any sector candidate can stand in any sector seat.
By guaranteeing they represent the very sector they stand for will also guarantee - by default - that the candidate INTENDS to represent that sector. If he choses not to or lies to get the seat he won't be back and it guarantees that a DIFFERENT candidate is likely to be there NEXT TIME.
Any candidate that wants to play "the game" is welcome to try. They'll only do it once.
In addition: If you decide to stand for a highsec seat then you can't stand for a nullsec seat. The candidate gets to choose and must choose wisely. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
|
Cass Lie
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 08:15:00 -
[71] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:...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.
If you are speaking about Malcanis and his manifesto, most people living in null would consider him as a pure null inhabitant, despite him having other accounts and spending some time in high sec. That's because they are doing more or less the same. They would also like to see high sec improved, but their view would differ vastly from your average bear (note: they wouldn't necessarily want it made more dangerous, just much more interesting and engaging).
I see where are you coming from with this argument and I think it is somewhat valid, but I still much more prefer the current system. Imagine the CSM are divided into sectors and each one sector is actually given "one wish granted". I dread the time someone who hasn't stepped outside of high sec ever and has not much clue how eve works as a whole gets to decide something important. |
Ai Shun
224
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 08:24:00 -
[72] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:By guaranteeing they represent the very sector they stand for will also guarantee - by default - that the candidate INTENDS to represent that sector. If he choses not to or lies to get the seat he won't be back and it guarantees that a DIFFERENT candidate is likely to be there NEXT TIME.
Sector based representation has an inherent flaw in that it excludes a candidate from contributing to the entire EVE experience. You cannot just consider high-sec in exclusion and if a candidate comes with that view, that candidate will skew the system.
You forget.
The CSM represents the players. You could make ALL the seats High-sec and we would STILL be able to control what they took to CCP.
I can't make that any clearer, unfortunately.
Your idea will bring nothing beneficial, will do harm and will not achieve better representation.
|
ThisIsntMyMain
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 08:37:00 -
[73] - Quote
The Apostle wrote: TLDR; Any sector candidate can stand in any sector seat.
So you're not trying to exclude the Mittani. Under your proposal He can in-fact stand as a Hi-Sec candidate, get 5000 goons to vote for him and then repeat the feat next year.
I fail to see your point and repeat my question.
|
Roime
UNFRL Fleet Operations CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
157
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 08:42:00 -
[74] - Quote
"The Apostle" wrote:To ensure both pre-selection and re-election a candidate must stand and act with the interests of the sector he stands for as a priority.
As Ai Shun already pointed, the fallacy of your proposal lies here- "sectors" do not have conflicting interests nor distinct demographies, they merely mark the borders between different levels of CONCORD presence.
|
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
385
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 08:49:00 -
[75] - Quote
ThisIsntMyMain wrote:The Apostle wrote: TLDR; Any sector candidate can stand in any sector seat.
So you're not trying to exclude the Mittani. Under your proposal He can in-fact stand as a Hi-Sec candidate, get 5000 goons to vote for him and then repeat the feat next year. I fail to see your point and repeat my question.
@ThisIsntMyMain He will continue to ignore the point you made, it does not fit his illusion, he will not see the fault nor admit to it. if I were you guys, I would stop posting in any threads he makes. It just feeds his delusions. 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. |
ThisIsntMyMain
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 08:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
Yeah, I know. I'm just prodding him to see how long it takes him to give up. |
Dowla Daupor
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 09:39:00 -
[77] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:.... short answer is no. Dont make me get a long answer.
Uh oh, it sounds like you should back off OP. I think this guy means business. |
Di Mulle
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 09:56:00 -
[78] - Quote
Roime wrote:"The Apostle" wrote:To ensure both pre-selection and re-election a candidate must stand and act with the interests of the sector he stands for as a priority. As Ai Shun already pointed, the fallacy of your proposal lies here- "sectors" do not have conflicting interests nor distinct demographies, they merely mark the borders between different levels of CONCORD presence.
This.
When OP and his friends will start to realize that, there will be no need for devious election schemes pulled out of the opposite ends of their bodies. CCP is unable to implement simpliest things. Like settting to hide signatures. So they sweep it under a rug . Children do that in their pre-shool years, CCP does it being adults. Probably because it is fearless enough. |
Ai Shun
226
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 10:05:00 -
[79] - Quote
Di Mulle wrote:When OP and his friends will start to realize that, there will be no need for devious election schemes pulled out of the opposite ends of their bodies.
Seems to me as if they don't "get" EVE. It's almost as if those types of players wants to see see the sectors as PvE / RP-PvP and PVP servers. They don't quite realise it's all part of one universe; we're all playing together, there aren't multiple servers and what you do mining that tritanium over there is having an impact way over there on the other side ... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2760
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 10:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:.... short answer is no. Dont make me get a long answer.
But Nova it's like you think that imposing arbitrary constituencies that bear no relation to the reality of the game in order to ringfence a few seats for your own views because you can't get enough actual votes in a free contest would be somehow bad for the CSM.
Seriously though, claiming that an election is "rigged" because the guys with the most votes win is like claiming that a race is rigged because the guys who run fastest have an unfair advantage. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet Villore Accords
122
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 10:34:00 -
[81] - Quote
Regulated voting? No thanks I would vote against that. Your plan is more dangerous than your conspiracy . . .... how did you do that OP?
Would like to see a more up front form of politics. A forum just for CSM and CSM nominees to debate the issues in with no one else being allowed to do any thing beyond look and like. I would like to see political party's form that are more detached from the corps and alliances, but that will happen with time. I am in Factional Warfare. Have been from day one.-á-áI will never work for a mega corp in null-sec. Do not make FW like null-sec.-áMake FW worth our time. Reword us for what we already do.Give us some more activities to do. |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 10:43:00 -
[82] - Quote
High sec dwellers don't vote because they don't care.
Take my rl buddy. Two accounts nearing 100m sp each, enough isk to buy a titan, but just wants to run missions and do carebear stuff by himself.
He never votes, doesn't do forums, doesn't do the meta game, he's one of the majority. |
March rabbit
Ganse Shadow of xXDEATHXx
120
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 10:54:00 -
[83] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Aiwha wrote:The Apostle wrote:
EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you.
Exactly. And all eight of the highsec bears who care about the CSM will vote. I'll disregard the obvious exaggeration but it still leaves the clear question why this bothers you? If all seats are represented regardless of vote, as is Lowsec and WH's, why would it matter how many voted for Highsec? there is one problem here: if some change/boost/nerf will be welcomed by one side (let's say high-sec) and not welcomed by other (let's say 0.0 space) then you comparing votes of 8 and 1000 people (just for example). Current system says: 1000 people are more important than 8. Yours: 1000 people equal to 8.
I prefer current system. |
Karn Dulake
Souls Must Be Trampled The.Alliance
339
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 11:07:00 -
[84] - Quote
Im sure that someone is going to post. "My Granddaddy died fighting ***** so you could vote boy"
1. get jobs 2. get girlfriends 3. taste the fresh air 4. talk to a human face to face I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion. |
Shazzam Vokanavom
Hedion University Amarr Empire
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 11:10:00 -
[85] - Quote
Karn Dulake wrote:Im sure that someone is going to post. "My Granddaddy died fighting ***** so you could vote boy"
1. get jobs 2. get girlfriends 3. taste the fresh air 4. talk to a human face to face
Actually not funny. As my GD did die in World War II as an a member of the RAF.
|
Roosterton
Syndicalis Immortalis
310
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 14:51:00 -
[86] - Quote
I'm still waiting for that evidence which shows how the current CSM neglects hisec. |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated
206
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 16:30:00 -
[87] - Quote
Isn't it more concerning that EVE has fragemented to a state where the various security states (hi,lo,nul,wh) are so divergent that they are essentially unrelated?
C.
|
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
72
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 16:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
Cailais wrote:Isn't it more concerning that EVE has fragemented to a state where the various security states (hi,lo,nul,wh) are so divergent that they are essentially unrelated?
C.
It isn't concerning at all to me. What concerns me is that the pussies want to resolve their differences with votes instead of turrets, launchers, smartbombs, and drones.
They only think they're unrelated because they belive the lie of the vote.
If they voted with their weapon and spaceship skills, the illusion of separation would vanish like an approaching mirage.
The solution isn't more organization or votes. It's more balls and less Discovery Channel Style Empire ISK Hoarders.
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 20:50:00 -
[89] - Quote
ThisIsntMyMain wrote:The Apostle wrote: TLDR; Any sector candidate can stand in any sector seat.
So you're not trying to exclude the Mittani. Under your proposal He can in-fact stand as a Hi-Sec candidate, get 5000 goons to vote for him and then repeat the feat next year. I fail to see your point and repeat my question. Correct. But while he stands for Highsec he's not standing for Nullsec and if he really wants to corner the Nullsec voice he has to chose. It puts competition directly in the face of the candidates.
Which seat is going to be most important and influential to him? He can't split all votes across all seats to win.
Incidentally, I HAVE in fact answered this question multiple times in a myriad of ways long before you asked. (I used 10,000 possible votes taking alts into account - go look)
By "seating" the CSM, bloc voting is reigned in and representatives will be more inclined to actually represent their seat for real reasons than for lolz.
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 20:52:00 -
[90] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:The Apostle wrote:Aiwha wrote:The Apostle wrote:
EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you.
Exactly. And all eight of the highsec bears who care about the CSM will vote. I'll disregard the obvious exaggeration but it still leaves the clear question why this bothers you? If all seats are represented regardless of vote, as is Lowsec and WH's, why would it matter how many voted for Highsec? there is one problem here: if some change/boost/nerf will be welcomed by one side (let's say high-sec) and not welcomed by other (let's say 0.0 space) then you comparing votes of 8 and 1000 people (just for example). Current system says: 1000 people are more important than 8. Yours: 1000 people equal to 8. I prefer current system. And I'm seeing a lot of the CSM could do this/that and doing it this way does not represent "the whole".
Firstly, the CSM can't DO anything. They are a representative body and even their own "charter" as it were states that a consensus must be formed for presentation to CCP. So Highsec can't "steamroll" the issues regardless of how many votes. Their voice is simply to make sure Highsec interests are HEARD and CONSIDERED.
Secondly, that same CSM white paper also states that ANY proposal put forward to CCP can be thrown out if CCP thinks it does not take into account he whole picture.
The CSM is NOT a ruling body. It's power is limited, it's influence could be far better. 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 |