|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
But they have been discussing it, while current CSM members have been posting extremely defensively, like your post above. I think that's very telling.
I think it's very interesting that you've characterized posting and critiquing as "invading." It demonstrates that this is not a politically neutral idea, and that you are not interested in genuine criticism. |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Obviously here Trebor is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.
Deliberate mischaracterization of the other side's point of view is an extremely dishonest form of discourse. Shame on you. What is the difference between "taking an interest" and "taking it personally" other than where you sit in terms of the other side's point of view? There is none. It's all about how you want to (mis-)characterize those with whom you disagree. Facing this level of intellectual dishonesty, it's natural to start questioning the motives of those engaging in it.
|

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
A "bloc" of players (however you define it) might also have internal divisions which, while agreeing on most issues, might disagree on a few things or just have different priorities.
Additionally, organized blocs do not even have to run candidates themselves to be powerful. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if a large coalition like the CFC or HBC pointedly did not run candidates or make official endorsements, but strongly encouraged their members to vote, and see what the overall shift to the political landscape would be as CSM candidates tried to court their votes.
Suppose this did happen, and an otherwise completely independent candidate managed to court a huge overvote without intending to. Under the proposed system, all those overvotes will have to be thrown out. How is that fair to the voters who independently cast them?
Essentially, this proposal seems to take as a given the often asserted but patently ridiculous idea that voters in large blocs do not actually have free will and are just toeing the party line, rather than making a conscious choice to express their concerns in participatory democracy. This proposal quite openly designates their votes as less valuable.
The proposal is, itself, dehumanizing, and I can see why people might actually "take it personal |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Why do people think there isn't dissent within large coalitions?
Why are voters who choose popular candidates less worthy of representation than those who choose unpopular candidates?
How is this proposal anything other than dehumanizing to some voters, by making their votes worth less than others? |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
It's ice hypnosis. Once you've stared at the glow of the mining lasers for too long, it's all you really see.
|

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ignoring legitimate criticism while vaguely referring to tinfoil hattery is extremely dishonest and I am extremely disappointed in both you and the other CSM members, Seleene. Many very serious and legitimate critiques have been made in this thread. Your dismissive attitude is patronizing and appalling. |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Seleene wrote: There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.
My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them.
May I point out that Trebor is the one who posted the thread, so if "there IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists" then maybe you should take it up with him instead of acting in the entirely dismissive and patronizing manner in which you are acting.
Nobody really cares about your attitude when your actions, specifically the way you state things in your posts, are the way they are. You have not attempted to actually engage, you have simply been dismissive and patronizing in a belated attempt to control the narrative.
I can see why someone this bad at politics would feel the need to undermine democracy. |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. My counter-proposal: don't change anything. Or if that's entirely out of the question for some reason: use any widely known voting system, not something you lot cobbled together over lunch and a couple of beers. ^ This Nothing needs to be changed except people's perceptions that votes for candidates who didn't make CSM were "wasted". A single vote, first-past-the-gate voting system makes it very easy to candidates to see (a) how popular they are, (b) how much harder they have to try next time, and (c) how everyone else gamed the system. Complex voting solutions outside the realm of "1-N preferential voting system" are not going solve any problems, but they will introduce new problems due to bugs in vote counting software, people not understanding the voting system, and candidates outright gaming the system. The simple solutions are not effective, and the effective solutions are not simple. Even worse, the effective solutions are not going to be that much better than single-vote first-past-the-post. The current system is broken, but at least we can all see and understand the brokenness. We just have to change the perception that votes for a candidate who didn't make CSM are somehow "wasted" any more than surplus votes for someone who made chairman. Those votes that went to candidates who didn't get into CSM mean that those voters didn't want the people that got into CSM. It's really as simple as that. Those are not "wasted votes". Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it. I'll butt out now, but that's my contribution to this topic.
This is yet another very good response that will be dismissed as "tinfoil" by our increasingly intellectually dishonest CSM.
|

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
To be fair, the current CSM is actually pretty strong evidence that the existing voting system does not produce a very good CSM. |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Seleene wrote:Lord Zim wrote: It was talked about as "a problem" at the CSM meet in may/june. The CSM came up with this abortion of a suggestion, birthed out of the abortion of a set of minimum requirements, 3 months later.
You've spent 3 months on this.
You are my favorite poster in this thread because you know exactly what is going on and don't hesitate to let the people know. CSM Chairman treating us to some more b-grade shitposts. Asking him some questions usually sends him scurrying off. 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.
You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him! |
|

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
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.
|

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote: 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.
I unironically agree with this. And Issler could say anything and I'd know it was just Issler being Issler. |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: Testies, Goonies and friends are "motivated" enough when they aren't getting pissed on. My mind balks at the absolute mayhem that would result if someone actually, deliberately (and with malice aforethought) schat on them in public.
Fear of reprisal is not a good reason to be opposed to this proposal. The explicitly stated intent to disenfranchise voters is really the only reason anyone needs. |

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
And here we sit at page 40, with no real progress beyond being accused of "tinfoil" for believing the exact words in the opening post about the limitations of this discussion.
|

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
I may be wrong, but something tells me goons' response to getting shafted by the CSM and/or CCP will not be to create exciting new in-game content like Burn Jita.
|
|
|
|