Perhaps the matter of a CSM Candidate Replacement in the event of an elected member's removal could be its own separate thread, that way productive discussion could be had on a legitimate issue without it getting mired in this attempt to meddle with the electoral process. It would come across as an earnest attempt at dialogue instead of being inserted as a distraction from a larger issue. If you want to make the thread on it, I'd be happy to talk about it (and probably support it)

You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him!

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.

You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

1) In which universe did you believe that this "voting system revamp" would go down well, at all, given the minimum requirement of **** goons?
2) When are you going to rescind the **** goons minimum requirement, and apologize for letting such a bad first system even be put out to the public?

bye seleene....

"oh god questions! quick, ~back to tweeting~"

Wonder when they'll declare Mission Accomplished: Concensus Achieved, new voting system is greenlighted?

Why are you quoting me with that question? I already said I don't think it does in two posts.

There does need to be an acceptable way to deal with that circumstance though, the Mitanni's case should not be repeated. If it's not on the candidate end, something on the voter end then. Perhaps an "emergency preference" where your vote would go to that second guy if and only if your first choice was somehow incapacitated?

Throwing out ideas for the handful of people reading/replying constructively.

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.

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.

Remove the **** goons requirement from the "minimum requirements", and we can begin to have a chat about what the system should be.

I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.

I think it is unfortunate that this CSM is so afraid of popular voting that they would invent a new system while trying to pass it off under the guise of 'STV'; I can understand their fear of bloc voting and I respect their opinion, but trying to imply that I somehow support this policy shows that they have a lot of growing up to do. The popular opinion is that the CSM should be focusing on game-related issues and getting results instead of fretting about who 'controls' the CSM itself - after all, who cares who controls a CSM if it accomplishes nothing?

This will be my only comment on the issue. Please do not try to involve me in your proposals again; if you must bring up whether I supported X, Y or Z in the past, we're all in a Skype channel together so there's no excuse for not conferring with me about what I support/do not support before making a public assertion to that effect. Good luck in your future endeavors!

I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.

In summary...

"I've heard what you're saying. You know nothing of my work."

Yeah, this totally won't backfire when the candidates end up working together instead of the voters.

Likes for "redo democracy" proposal: 5 within 2 days
Likes for "eat a phallus csm7" proposal: 45+ within 10 minutes