Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:38:00 -
[271] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: 1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space. Three seats are allocated to the highest-priority issues which CCP plans to deal with in the upcoming releases - this might be a POS issues seat, a frigate rebalancing seat, etc. CCP can opt to add more issue-specific CSM seats, as they choose.
I play the game entirely to touch myself while moving the breast size slider in the character creator. Where is my representative? That would fall under the Incarna issues seat, I believe. :) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
815
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:41:00 -
[272] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:
The US is a perfect example of this, wherein lobby and special interest groups exert disproportionally large power given the relatively small number of people they actually represent. As an additional bit of hard cold fact, neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties actually represent a majority of the US citizens of voting age - both major parties are also actually minority groups. Most Americans choose not to exercise their right to vote, because they don't care for either of the two major political parties and don't see that their single vote can do anything to dilute the effective power of these minority voting blocks.
Bit the same now with so few people not voting as they believe they cannot brake the Null minority hold on the CSM. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 11:29:00 -
[273] - Quote
Perception is a powerful tool in politics.
"People are stupid, they will believe what you tell them because they think it is true, or they fear it is." ~ Terry Goodkind
While this sentiment comes from a fantasy novel it is essentially the backbone of politics. If I as a candidate were to run, on the grounds of being a new player to Eve, and having experienced in small part all different aspects of the game then I would run as a true representative of a small but growing population in the game true? Let's have a little experiment.
Well letGÇÖs say that I pander with amazing abandon to the Miners, Industrialists, and Something for nothing groups in high sec. Well what would my platform be? Simple, null and low sec are Evil! They bully us all into being here, and make it "not fun" to try to play the game! I mean just look at them PVPing all the time, and blowing up my "hard earned" ship. Clearly brethren of high sec, we must fight this evil. If you elect me to CSM as a new player representative then I promise I will push CCP to make high sec as safe as it should be! I mean CONCORD would never let someone fly in their space with guns active right? So why not push to get that fixed. Elect me and I'll make it happen. Further, I promise if you elect me I will argue Industrialization for high sec. I mean clearly you must realize that the best place for doing anything would be the "most developedGÇ¥ So with that being the case, I will pressure CCP to increase refining efficiency in high sec, and reduce manufacture times to an all time low. It is after-all the best space, the most developed space, and the safest space. Elect me for your CSM 8 rep.
In this platform I've given examples of things that I know the care bears want. They want high sec to be I win space, and they want a way to "play" eve where there is no risk but all reward. I've used a few very obvious phrases that most would say are clich+¬ and base, but they will work to stir masses. Why, because I've shown them a place where their goals can be accomplished. I've done things in this "platform" that politicians of ages have done to great effect, I've created a common goal, a common enemy, and made myself seem harmless, but firm. I've lied, and given them what they think to be true, people are stupid.
Now as I've stated I'm new to Eve, my reg date is just this summer past, but I do know a thing or two about games and about how to keep them interesting. This game is interesting because it's risk versus reward in a place where you know to be cold and heartless, Space.
You don't come to Eve online to mine, play industry, and log off. You come to Eve because space is interesting, you know it's dangerous, and you know there's a pay off for taking the risks you will take to succeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq2oxt7Nrxo
This is a prime example of the 'key selling points" of Eve. You will affect everything in space, with just one voice, just one action, just one moment in time. Space is a cold dark place, where risk is there. If you want to play a safe game there are tons in the market.
You don't think one person matters; I propose a name to you The Mittani. Checkmate. |
Lord Zim
1343
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 11:30:00 -
[274] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:~ Terry Goodkind This author can't write believable characters to save his life. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 11:37:00 -
[275] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Remnant Madeveda wrote:~ Terry Goodkind This author can't write believable characters to save his life. True story, but he did offer a single good quote that I've used with wonderful effectiveness. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:20:00 -
[276] - Quote
Ted McManfist wrote:serras bang wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ? noone has put in front of and explained it properly So because you aren't spoon-fed something, you think the people that actually pay attention should have their votes marginalized? If you are too lazy to make ISK, should the rest of us pay for you? Your entire argument seems to me that you can't be arsed to pay attention, and you are upset that your voice isnt heard. I have news for you: The system is working as it should.
hey i never voted last time i couldnt give a flying feck if my voice isnt heard this time atm im here playing devils advocate sticking my boot into this for hi sec in general and giveing a pov on this descustion that is open to everyone in eve. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2255
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:20:00 -
[277] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:1) Citation needed. December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"
Lord Zim wrote:2) So you're taking today's system, which has which problem with it again? ... and you're switching it over to a system which is gameable, with a modification which makes it even more gameable? The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.
EvilweaselFinance wrote:For example, I - as Goonswarm's CFO (or one of our other finance directors) - have a huge amount of experience in everything industry and money related. The Mittani, as Goonswarm's CEO , has a huge amount of experience in 0.0 sovwar, diplomacy, and running a successful alliance. I know virtually nothing about the areas Mittani is an expert in, and he knows very little about the areas I am an expert in.
We are both in Goonswarm. Do we bring identical things to the table? Am I to be excluded, were I to run, because in your esteemed opinion I am a clone of The Mittani? Or should he be excluded, as a clone of me? A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.
Andski wrote:Why do you feel the need to focus on reforming the election process and how is your point about the BIG BAD VOTING BLOCKS valid? On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.
Dramaticus wrote:What about a Poll Tax? We can RP it in terms of needing to fund the voting infrastructure. If I really wanted to disenfranchise some people, I'd suggest a literacy test. The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1816
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:26:00 -
[278] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.
But they will be better off under the candidate nominated STV, since the dozen or so hisec joke candidates they fielded soak up some of the "25% wasted votes that elected noone" and feed them to the CFC's actual candidates, further cementing their hold and perhaps boosting that "first of the bottom 7" position to the "bottom of the first 7". Which has more influence: someone sitting on the other side of a NDA-covered forum, or someone sitting in the same bar as CCP Soundwave et al merrily drinking away until 4am in the Icelandic night? Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:38:00 -
[279] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off. But they will be better off under the candidate nominated STV, since the dozen or so hisec joke candidates they fielded soak up some of the "25% wasted votes that elected noone" and feed them to the CFC's actual candidates, further cementing their hold and perhaps boosting that "first of the bottom 7" position to the "bottom of the first 7". Which has more influence: someone sitting on the other side of a NDA-covered forum, or someone sitting in the same bar as CCP Soundwave et al merrily drinking away until 4am in the Icelandic night?
Beer, the ultimate friend of persuasion, next to perhaps tequila, depending on the individual of course. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:39:00 -
[280] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off. So you yourself concede that your new proposed system is as trivially gameable as the old one. Why exactly is it important that we change the old system now? Especially why is it necessary to change the old and proven system to one that you have made up on the spot, that hasn't ever been proposed in literature, never been discussed by mathematicians? One that you even had the gall to call "CD-STV", as if you wanted people to think you were proposing a slight modification to "classic" STV?
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council. What are your quality criteria in candidates? And how does changing the electoral system improve the quality of the candidates? |
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:42:00 -
[281] - Quote
From reading this entire thread I believe the criteria they are basing this off of is :notgoons: and :fucktest:. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:46:00 -
[282] - Quote
Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"
Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?
And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".
Massive Sperglord wrote:The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
It will be hilariously gameable, as already pointed out. Also, why is it fine to disenfranchise voters if they overvote?
Literally The Worst CSM Member wrote:If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.
"Casual statements"? Really? We prove multiple times that it's gameable and you still keep your fingers in your ears shouting LA LA LA LA?
Robert Woodhead Backward (so clever!) wrote:A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.
We would simply split the vote between 4 or more candidates with them all picking one another for their undervotes to transfer to, allowing the eliminated ones to shove the non-eliminated into the top 7. Why do you keep ignoring this?
Trebor "Hilariously Useless" Woodhead oh man I mean Daehdoow wrote:On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.
How exactly does voting reform that screws over big blocs help you improve the quality of the candidates by allowing even more useless fluff like yourself onto the CSM? |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:50:00 -
[283] - Quote
How long until Mr. Woodhead comes and either completely ignores my post or responds like the snide child he is?
STAY TUNED TO THE EVE ONLINE DOT COM FORUMS TO SEE WHAT'S NEXT ON DRRAAAGGGONNN BALLLLLL ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:53:00 -
[284] - Quote
Oh I know I propose the following as CSM 7's stance. http://soundcloud.com/shutupandshave/****-goons (explicit language) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
818
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:58:00 -
[285] - Quote
This really is minorities are us.
Have you guys considered working for lobby groups.
Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet.. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:01:00 -
[286] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Have you guys considered working for lobby groups. Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet.. We could, but that wouldn't really be debating in good faith anymore, would it? Aside from having nothing to do with the scope of the current thread. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:01:00 -
[287] - Quote
Nah I'll leave that one to the highsec carebears that are whining "OMG These mining nerfs are trash!" (In regards to the most recent barge changes.) |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Have you guys considered working for lobby groups. Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet..
Also.. if we are minorities are us, why do we even need a change to the system? I mean if we're the minorities then what the **** would it matter that the current system is as it is? It wouldn't, because we the "minorities" wouldn't have any say in who makes the CSM would we? Interesting... tell me more about how we're the minority. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9415
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:10:00 -
[289] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Yes, that's why it's a bad suggestion.
A good suggestion would be one where the majority doesn't get discounted just because it's a majority. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
818
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:18:00 -
[290] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Have you guys considered working for lobby groups. Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet.. Also.. if we are minorities are us, why do we even need a change to the system? I mean if we're the minorities then what the **** would it matter that the current system is as it is? It wouldn't, because we the "minorities" wouldn't have any say in who makes the CSM would we? Interesting... tell me more about how we're the minority. Well the number of votes cast in total is a small minority of EvEs population, less than 1/5 that is what makes you a minority mathmatics.
If you are minorities (which you are see above point) then a system run by minorities is a bad thing. (See USA war with Afghanistan).
So yes the system needs changing, the populous needs to be more engaged into the system and part of that is making it possible for people to believe that it is possible to have a CSM that represents the whole population.
Actually the mistake that the CSM made was posting this here and actually expecting a discussion on it rather than just the lobby groups.
This should have been sent as a poll to the whole of EvE as it would have reached more people, all of which are Voters. Yes a lot of people would have ignored it, but it would have still given opinions wider than those who already vote. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:24:00 -
[291] - Quote
Yet again I'm forced to come back and re-type the same thing. The problem is not the system, it is the voters. If you CBF to give a damn about the goings on and the meta of Eve then we don't need to hold your hand all the way to the voting platform. Candidates make announcements if you want votes. CCP, keep using splash screens for weeks leading up to CSM elections. Then finally post a stickied :HOW TO VOTE FOR DUMMIES: thread in the Eve O general forum and all the subsequent relevant forums.
If this doesn't fix the problem then well I suppose there's an addage for that, "You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If the horse doesn't want to drink.. let the bastard thirst to death. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:32:00 -
[292] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Yet again I'm forced to come back and re-type the same thing. The problem is not the system, it is the voters. If you CBF to give a damn about the goings on and the meta of Eve then we don't need to hold your hand all the way to the voting platform. Candidates make announcements if you want votes. CCP, keep using splash screens for weeks leading up to CSM elections. Then finally post a stickied :HOW TO VOTE FOR DUMMIES: thread in the Eve O general forum and all the subsequent relevant forums.
If this doesn't fix the problem then well I suppose there's an addage for that, "You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If the horse doesn't want to drink.. let the bastard thirst to death. Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been, with the current splash screens ect.. we are leading the horse to water and the horse thinks it is poison.
A simple on the log in 3 buttons and a little blurb about the CSM is all it needs.
The fact that most games do not consider the forums part of the game is part of the problem, the lobby groups are the other.
Most of what you said above only shows to those who use the forums, the rest don't know what it is or believe it is Null sec poisoned water not for bothering with.
But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9416
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:35:00 -
[293] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been GǪthe problem is still the voters not caring, as shown by this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GǣcontrolledGǥ and that it has nothing but nullsec representation, when neither is true and who can't be bothered to find out what it actually is.
Quote:But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities. GǪand yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2156
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:36:00 -
[294] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".
See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:38:00 -
[295] - Quote
Still comes back to the if they CBF to care we can't make them. Further I did recommend splashscreens, and adverts in game, which reminds me it is impossible to leave local, so...
In any case, it's moot to continue debating the validity of the incompetence of the vast majority of Eve, we need only look to the General forums to bask in it's glory. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:40:00 -
[296] - Quote
Two step wrote:Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we". See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.
This is why I liked the summer minutes where it was full disclosure except what was covered by NDA. It gave you an idea of what if anything was being discussed. Strange though that in no point during the summer minutes did the voting for CSM come up, and yet it's been a constant concern. I don't pretend to know though, I'm still just another newbie who likes the meta. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:40:00 -
[297] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been GǪthe problem is still the voters not caring, as shown by this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GǣcontrolledGǥ and that it has nothing but nullsec representation, when neither is true and who can't be bothered to find out what it actually is. Quote:But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities. GǪand yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities. So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null?
And no I was just saying myself time with the inevitable reply I would get. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:43:00 -
[298] - Quote
My the Ego you have to pretend to know my mind. I prefer if more people vote, hell I'd love for the game to have a fully active playerbase. The sad fact of the matter is it doesn't where the meta game is concerned. CSM is, whether you like it or not, a big part of that Meta. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:45:00 -
[299] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Two step wrote:Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we". See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them. This is why I liked the summer minutes where it was full disclosure except what was covered by NDA. It gave you an idea of what if anything was being discussed. Strange though that in no point during the summer minutes did the voting for CSM come up, and yet it's been a constant concern. I don't pretend to know though, I'm still just another newbie who likes the meta.
CSM Summit 2012 Minutes wrote: Trebor expressed his desire for changes in the way the CSM is elected and operates. In his opinion, both the role of the CSM and the required skillset of effective CSM members has changed over the last few years, and the political environment of the elections has also significantly evolved. Seleene listed a number of topics CSM members had raised during summit prep (CSM made extensive use of EtherPad for this note-taking): voting systems, election of officers, summit changes, required duties and the future of the Assembly Hall. CCP Diagoras asked if CSM had done similar prep for all the meetings. Short answer: "yes". Trebor trolled CCP Diagoras: Just because he does not see the CSM working doesn't mean they aren't actually working. And come to think of it, CSM never sees him working... Election Reform: Seleene mocked the "like" system. CCP Xhagen characterized it as "easily exploitable". Trebor asked CCP Xhagen if he remembered what advice CSM gave him about this before the elections. Seleene noted however that the number of candidates significantly declined vs. the CSM 6 election. Two step questioned if this was relevant: only two people didn't get enough likes. CCP Xhagen noted that a side-effect was that you had to go to the effort of putting up a forum thread. Two step stated that unless the voting system was changed to reduce the number of wasted votes (undervotes), the best alternative was something that would reduce the number of candidates. He suggested a primary system might be worth looking at.
And it goes on for pages. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9417
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:46:00 -
[300] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null? An irrelevant number of them, since the question was one of representation.
Oh yes you did. Specifically, you said GÇ£So yes I am in favour of thisGÇ¥ (referring to CD-not-at-all-STV). So you most certainly are approving a system that favours the minority. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |