|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
358
   |
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'd rather they list all canditates, and you pick the 7 or whatever candidates you would put on the council. It's a council, you shouldn't be limited to just 1 or 2. Different candidates have different attributes, and you shouldn't have to decide which part is more important to you for a year.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
358
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 00:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
As I said like 10 pages ago, the simplest solution is still to just list the 12 candidates and let people pick 7. If a large bloc wants to improve their odds, they get more candidates in the 12. The large bloc would most likely get all their candidates in, but that's how voting works, the people with the most backing get in. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't agree that people in general have a problem with it. CSM should be dominated by the active player base, whether it covers the majority of the player base or not. In reality, there are very few issues that really matter to high sec that aren't an issue in low/null/WH as well.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
I think it's pretty clear the proposed system is a non-starter. The CSM should just admit that and close this thread down and start over. If you really want ideas on a new system, ask us for ideas, don't start it with a proposal stating you want to bend over alliances for being organized.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:I think it's pretty clear the proposed system is a non-starter. The CSM should just admit that and close this thread down and start over. If you really want ideas on a new system, ask us for ideas, don't start it with a proposal stating you want to bend over alliances for being organized.
It's not just the proposal, it's the basic rules they put forth as minimum requirements. To paraphrase: 1) Be easy for CCP to implement 2) Buff small voters 3) **** goons
That's what i mean, because they even said, if another bloc of voters got together like the goons, they'd try and **** them over too. That's a non-starter. The goal should be for candidates to form coalitions of like-minded individuals in order to secure their election.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
I don't think all the trolling in the thread by the CSM is helping their case.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: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! Ask an easier question like "why is CCP so great and why should we continue paying sub/buying plex from people that bought them from CCP". I hear they really liked the improved UI and thought FW was a great idea - just like CCP did, in fact.
Just because their current idea is crap, doesn't mean you should make stuff up about their previous work. The UI and FW both had their issue brought up before they went live. If anything, it shows more that CCP really doesn't think the current CSM is in touch enough to even know when something is totally ****ed up.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
368
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
You can be anti-goon and be against idiotic proposals. They're not mutually exclusive.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
370
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:If I were a ruling member of the CFC, I'd actually be pushing to get a carebear representative on the CSM, rather than 3 CFC members. I'd want the carebear issues to be heard and properly addressed by CCP, so that they keep on playing and provide me and mine with more targets to shoot and tears to harvest, whenever we want to run amok through high sec. Yes, the highsec miners got Issler. Remember what happened when we shot the tower, and harvested the tears?
You guys hiring another alliance to destroy low sec towers -- because you couldn't be bothered -- doesn't have much to do with Issler representing mining though, does it? It has little to do with any voting reform either.
|
|
|
| |
|