|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Seleene wrote:No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over.
Ok, here's a question! When you guys came up with this "**** goons" voting system, did you do it because you thought it'd rouse the totally-real-and-not-at-all-made-up Silent Pubbie Majority into voting for you, or did you do it because you really just have a problem with goon candidates in and of themselves? |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:I don't think all the trolling in the thread by the CSM is helping their case. Disappointing. The CSM is good at typing out their own opinions, communicating those opinions to us ... very bad as discussing their opinions.
They aren't even all that good at the second part. Wasn't that long ago they practically had to be shamed into giving updates as to the progress of the CSM minutes. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
I have to say, I admire how Darius III's commitment to not contributing to the CSM at all is so thorough he's even passing up an opportunity to troll goons. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him!
If he starts answering questions now, he'll probably get asked some really annoying question about the relation between the Dominion sov system and full-on learning disabilities and it'd all just go downhill from there.
Normally just dropping out of discussion like this would have consequences, but hey, nobody but the blocs care about the CSM at all anyway, and if he gets his way, there's even less they'll be able to do about it!
Sal Volatile wrote:Holy ****, someone page Issler Dainze and Darius III to this thread, they are now the CSM members I have the most respect for and I really want to hear what they have to say. The rest of you deflecting BS artists can get out.
Darius could post that he backed this idea just to make goons angry and I'd still respect him the most of the bunch because he was at least honest about it. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Wonder when they'll declare Mission Accomplished: Concensus Achieved, new voting system is greenlighted?
Depends how many more excuses in the face of all this they want to go through. They've already tried blaming the idea on Trebor, trying to say this thread is just for open-ended discussion, and straight up trolling dissenting opinions (i.e. all of them) when the first 2 ideas didn't work. I'm curious what's even left at this point.
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Two step wrote:Any other actual ideas? I think it is quite clear that some folks don't like the system proposed in the OP, so lets talk alternatives.
I think this whole voting system thing is a smokescreen for the true problem, which is abysmal voter turnout and general apathy towards the CSM. Talking about voting system changes in the face of that is akin to carefully planning the decoration of a party that nobody's attending anyway. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
And now Two Step goes to hide under the same pile of coats as Seleene. Dodging discussions - it's CSM7's anti-drug! |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:If I read them, will I be very disappointed ?
Like you wouldn't believe. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:I'll do it next time I'm on a DBRB op.
Hey guys, let me tell you about the CSM's brave new voting system :shobon:
I'm being 100% serious when I say I'd listen to DBRB for days on end rather than even attempt to read the summit minutes again. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em?
Xolve wrote:For all the people touting on and on about how many terms they've served on the CSM there sure isn't a lot being done. Simply stated, do what people voted you in to do- stop CCP from screwing up our beloved space pixels, and stop trying to fix things that aren't broken when there is literally a mountain of broken mechanics to fix (although this alone alludes that half of you worthless nitpickers even know which mechanics are broken).
Not much to say but "llllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll" |
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread
Do you guys think if you pass some kind of petulance high water mark that your ideas will cease to be bad or something? |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
Hey Alekseyev - if you guys truly think you're doing a really good job, where does the need to disenfranchise voting blocs come from? |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:37:00 -
[13] - Quote
serras bang wrote:again why you care you have the low sec ore you make more isk that way by sitting behind a blue firewall and mining
Actually only 2 nullsec ores (Ark and Merc) are worth more than Scordite (or even Plagioclase) and they aren't anywhere near as abundant. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1, 2, 5 hardly seem like the kind of "chest sucking wounds" CCP needs to prioritize or the kind of development/gameplay things the CSM could provide meaningful feedback on how they address the issue (but yes they are annoying things). 3 is just how it is. 4 we did.
Literally every issue on that list is several orders of magnitude more important than a new voting system. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:43:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:That problem was raised and will be addressed. You're mad about it not being able to happen tomorrow, but pretend that it not happening overnight means that nothing was said about it or will happen to fix it.
Sooo you've p much marginalized your self. Good work.
This **** GOONS VOTING SYSTEM is proposing to marginalize him for having the audacity to be a part of an organized group of players already. Good work doing it for him, intrepid CSM 7 member! |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:48:00 -
[16] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums.
awwwwww, poor muffin, we're not appreciating how totally hard he and his **** goons friends are kind-of-sort-of-not-really advocating on our behalf!
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.
"you guys are jerks so we're just going to do what we want anyway!"
Be honest. This thread was never about a discussion, you and your fellow CSM just tried to retcon it into one after the detailed-but-awful proposal in the OP was being thoroughly ripped to shreds.
We've also told you many times why we can't simply drop the point and move on, but I guess reading comprehension isn't the CSM's strong suit. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:10:00 -
[18] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I had considered it. But at this point, it feels a little hard to believe any further attempt at engagement would be anything other than toxic. It wasn't really a distraction before, the issue was p much settled as far as i could see. If it wasnt enough to get some real discussion going, i dont see how its own thread would help. Probably just get the same people posting the same kind of spergy replies in there too.
Translation: There's actually people active in these forums that are smart enough to see through our transparent bullshit, so we're just going to quit and force whatever through anyway. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.
There's also too many large questions about why this many people aren't participating. Is it lack of knowledge of the CSM? Apathy? Would they participate if it wasn't for certain factors?
Until you actually attempt to find the answers to these questions, changing the voting system will only affect current voters. The changes proposed in the OP of this thread were very hostile to a certain group of players while showing no actual benefit to any other group of players, let alone the massive majority that doesn't participate. That's why you're getting hostility on two fronts - not only because you tried to **** a group of players over, but also because the idea is just plain bad and doesn't really solve anything. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
Also, since I know Aleks has at least suggested he doesn't agree with Trebor's idea, this section needs to be re-read by him (and any other CSM who doesn't agree):
Quote:The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:
1) Be easy to implement (by CCP), use (by the voters) and permit public verification of the results given the published raw vote totals.
2) Reduce the need for tactical voting ("I like A better than B, but I have to vote for B because I think she's more electable"). This is typically done by reallocating votes cast for candidates that are eliminated from the election to other candidates, thus reducing or eliminating undervotes.
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.
Option #3 is of particular interest, as it's the source of 95% of the rage in this thread. He suggests that voting blocs need to have their power "reduced" by systemic methods while giving zero justification for this. He also starts this entire section off by saying "The CSM" considers these options to be a MINIMUM. Not "I" think, not "Trebor" thinks, "The CSM" thinks that voting blocs need to have their power removed via systemic methods AS A MINIMUM. This language trend also continues on throughout his post - it's full of "we think" and "we've created". Whether it's just his idea or the CSM's idea, he's very clearly trying to represent it as the latter.
It is also the major reason you're not seeing any kind of true discussion about alternative voting systems, since the CSM's minimum baseline (as said to us by CSM member Trebor and not refuted yet by anyone else, including Hans, Seleene, Two Step or Aleks who have all posted in this thread) is completely unreasonable and unworkable. Until that changes, don't expect anything but what you're already getting.
If Trebor has misrepresented the entire CSM here, your problem lies with him (and also with your Chairman Seleene for allowing such an impression to continue on). Every angry poster in this thread has been 100% justified by the above quote alone. |
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CSM has yet to show that the system is, indeed, broken.
Exactly, and given their first suggestion involved attempting to screw over a specific group of players (and failing miserably), it begs the question of whether or not they can even be trusted to attempt to fix this kind of problem, should it ever occur. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:53:00 -
[22] - Quote
Hykke wrote:we might even get a genuine high sec dweller on the CSM
The current CSM already has 2 (Kelduum and Issler). |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT wrote:You underlined the key points of Trebor's post you quoted but it doesn't seem like you read them. He doesn't state that the CSM is backing anything. Point of fact he states, that its presented simply as an example for discussion and improvement and that it is not something that has been decided upon by the CSM. There is no 'proposal' being made. There was a post made to spark open discussion.
Hi! You're illiterate!
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: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 bolded the important part for you! I also left in the 3rd ~MINIMUM~, which is for the 978th time, the part that's simultaneously making everyone angry and making any kind of constructive discussion worthless so long as it exists. There hasn't been a single CSM member that has actually addressed this in going on 40 pages when EvilWeaselFinance has been pointing it out since the thread was still in the single digits page-wise. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
So many things wrong with that, I'm not even going to bother with a quotes nest, I'll just do a quick point-by-point.
1. Nobody cares how nice a guy Trebor is, or what his intentions might truly have been. We care about what he actually said, and what he actually said was that the GSF voting bloc needs to have its power reduced via a system. That's not a reaching interpretation or anything, he actually SAID IT.
2. The issue we had was brought up very early, and instead of being acknowleged as a thing, was met with Hans trying to pin the entire idea on Trebor, Two Step trying to say the entire thread's true goal was "discussion", Seleene calling it all "tinfoil" and Alekseyev trying his best to use Mittani's removal from this CSM as a strawman ("BUT BUT YOU GUYS LOST 10,000 VOTES! WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ~HELP~!"). How can the CSM reasonably expect discussion when the initial attempt at such was met with derision and dismissal?
3. If their system was not designed with reducing the power of the GSF voting bloc, then why was the extreme case of GSF success in this past election used as a benchmark? There isn't a single other bloc in the game who can even approach that kind of power right now, and yet there's an attempt to nerf that power. It's not reaching in the slightest to take the CSM proposed sugggestion as a direct attack on the GSF, because guess what? IT IS. |
|
|
|