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) |
Lord Zim
1429
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:06:00 -
[751] - Quote
Okay, that's an incomplete list, Hans quickly distanced himself from the idea very early on by saying it was Trebor's idea. |
DaiTengu
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:37:00 -
[752] - Quote
Jesus christ how is this thread still going?
Doing anything other than 1-character = 1 vote is stupid.
If you're upset over voting blocs or whatever, start your own. In the real world, that's what political parties are for. |
Holander Switzerland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:44:00 -
[753] - Quote
Why should my vote count for less because I happen to be part of a group that shares similar views? |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:34:00 -
[754] - Quote
here we go this is how csm delegates should be determined
change sisi so it never goes offline, remove all stations, outposts, and POSes
throw every person who wants to run on the server and lock everyone else out
put those people into rifters and let them fight it out and the last eight people alive are the csm
my idea is only slightly less ******** than the one currently presented Follow me on twitter |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:38:00 -
[755] - Quote
Your idea has the added advantage that Goonswarm would never again get a seat because we're terrible at this game. So it should be perfectly acceptable to the CSM! |
Lord Zim
1430
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:38:00 -
[756] - Quote
but but but how can hisec be represented when the metric to be measured by is pvp? :confused: |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:49:00 -
[757] - Quote
how is10% of the game even holding the game hostage the math just doesn't add up
oh wait there's no isk/hour in voting lalalala Follow me on twitter |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
283
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:56:00 -
[758] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:Two step wrote: 2) Some sort of reserved seat system where each community is allocated seats. I don't like this because I don't see how you could possibly decide how many seats nullsec gets vs w-space. It is quite clear to most folks that the population stats aren't all that meaningful.
If you align to gaming areas why do you need to to weight the seats to player population? Why would three null sec seats be more effective than two? Keep in mind that the CSM is a representative body, intended to act as an interface between CCP and the playerbase. It is not a legislative or ruling body.
Based on this premise, null sec (and any other area) does not need more than one seat, in order to represent all null sec specific issues to CCP and provide them with a conduit for getting feedback from the null sec playerbase.
However, allowing the CSM members to choose the seat allocation would be a conflict of interest and a general player vote on seat allocation would be counter-productive, since using the current popular voting system would end up gaming the results in favor of minority blocks in the same fashion as the general CSM elections.
The obvious and practical method for seat allocation, by area or issue, is to let CCP decide, based on what they consider to be their priorities of the game's future development and whose gameplay POV they most want to solicit, from members of the CSM. |
Cass Lie
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:04:00 -
[759] - Quote
Serious proposal incoming.
Let me start off by saying that I think the current system is fine and the best way to "improve" it is to increase voter participation.
With that out of the way, let's look at the CSM arguments for changing the system. First: 25% of votes getting lost. I personally don't see this as a problem in itself. Second: If two strong candidates from a certain playstyle are running, say for wh, fw or incursions, chances are neither will be elected. I can see how that could be a problem, for instance when you get a null/empire centric CSM, which typically doesn't have much experience with wormholes and isn't thus much use to CCP on this topic. And I hope being a better use to CCP is what this CSM wants to achieve.
OK, with that premise, the original proposal makes some sense, but there are fears of the system being overly complicated and prone to gaming. So what if there was only one person the unsuccessful candidate could transfer votes to and not the whole amount was transferred but only a half (for example). Determination of the results would stay the same as in the original proposal. That way a voter would still lose something for voting for an unsuccessful candidate, but it would hopefully somewhat mitigate the second problem mentioned above. If there were three strong candidates running and couldn't agree on a single person to eventually push through, that would be their fault and their voters. High sec could also get a strong vote if all the small candidates running could agree on a few strong candidates who would eventually make it.
Gaming the system would be somewhat harder and if all the various high sec candidates ended up listing as their candidate a goon alt, well tough luck, at least he campaigned well and is supposedly not ignorant.
This way a vote for unsuccessful candidate can be worth half a vote, while an excess vote for an overly successful candidate is basically lost - you can try similar mechanism for transfering overvotes, but here I am not sure if it would not be overcomplicating things and prone to further gaming.
This whole designing voting system business is dubious anyways, since the purpose and the power of the CSM is vaguely defined. Goons/nullsec wouldn't much "benefit" for getting 80% of seats since there is no voting mechanic, same as someone won't benefit from getting 3000 more votes than was actually needed, since there is no formal power derived from that.
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:04:00 -
[760] - Quote
HVAC Repairman wrote: put those people into rifters and let them fight it out and the last eight people alive are the csm
I think this is the system used by political candidates in Taiwan, except that they do it on the RL server.... :) |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1421
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:32:00 -
[761] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with. CSM6 was also nullsec's response to CSM5's "**** nullsec" attitude. CSM7 was a return to a more balanced CSM - only without the mittani at the helm it looks like it's a CSM which is going full steam ahead to derpville. Perhaps Derpville is where we should be going? I mean, just because a lot of people don't think so doesn't mean they know anything unlike the CSM that has already thought a lot about it, and not just making sure they can keep other people from trying to get us to somewhere else, like awesomeville.
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue. Would this system fit within the minimum requirements as laid out by "The CSM" to make sure goons are properly ****** come election day? It could, as long as they are smarter about not letting us know about it by writing it down in such an obvious manner. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1421
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:35:00 -
[762] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:How many people didn't vote for Korvin because while they agreed with him he didn't have a chance of peeling enough Russian votes away from the -A- and DRF candidates to win? How many people's votes were you planning to throw out with the bathwater just to "make sure the ebul goonies can't be organized"? Us, anyone like us, anyone who likes us ...
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified. So instead you guys decide to bring forth a system to basically try to **** goons, because we're "many" and "well-organized". And, when we tell you to remove the **** goons requirements, you basically tell us to go **** ourselves, and you have the audacity to complain that we're not being productive? Well, gonna make them work to get to ***ing goons. We will soon pass 40 pages of "caught ya". Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 12:00:00 -
[763] - Quote
i got one last idea that will work for every NO MORE CSM |
Holander Switzerland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 12:07:00 -
[764] - Quote
serras bang wrote:i got one last idea that will work for everyone NO MORE CSM Holy ****, you actually do know you can capitalize letters. |
Tolmar
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:04:00 -
[765] - 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?
Where to start... Where to start:
Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot. Amarr Stations bugging out Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them. Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through. Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible) So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting So Few types of Escalations So few types of models for Player built stations Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible
There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws
|
Pinky Feldman
Gank Bangers Moar Tears
332
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:14:00 -
[766] - Quote
Tolmar wrote: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? Where to start... Where to start: Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot. Amarr Stations bugging out Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them. Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through. Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible) So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting So Few types of Escalations So few types of models for Player built stations Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws
I hear random socket errors and having to relog because grid doesn't load when you jump through a gate is pretty fun as well. \o/
The moar you cry the less you pee |
Tolmar
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:16:00 -
[767] - Quote
Pinky Feldman wrote:Tolmar wrote: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? Where to start... Where to start: Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot. Amarr Stations bugging out Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them. Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through. Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible) So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting So Few types of Escalations So few types of models for Player built stations Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws I hear random socket errors and having to relog because grid doesn't load when you jump through a gate is pretty fun as well. \o/
O god, YES! that really should have been at the top of the list! :) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
834
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:17:00 -
[768] - Quote
Well at least the CSM has decided that they need to do this without the minor minority discussion. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:49:00 -
[769] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote: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?
Could it possibly be because EVE is a video game and not everyone who plays makes it the central focus of their life or online time? |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:22:00 -
[770] - Quote
So when will a member of the CSM be making a contribution to this discussion other than insults, hand waving, and defensive sniping? You have stated your position, received feedback and criticism, and been given more than enough time to reevaluate your position.
How do you intend to change or moderate your proposal to address the legitimate concerns expressed? It is time for you to put on your big boy pants and participate seriously in this dialectic.
|
|
Lord Zim
1443
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:23:00 -
[771] - Quote
Literally the only thing they have to go back on to start to get a productive conversation going, is to remove the goonfucking requirement. |
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:40:00 -
[772] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
"Trebor's proposal" is specifically presented as a CSM suggestion: Quote:Below we present one possible system that attempts to meet the above goals. We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement. Could we get some clarity on if Trebor was wrong to imply this was CSM backed or if the rest of the CSM actually supports it? Given the clear wording of his post, your statements that "this is just Trebor's proposal!" means one of you is being deceptive.
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.
With that out of the way I support the call made by Lord Zim to remove the goonfucking requirement of any proposal thats put forward. There are those that don't like the goon "Family". But for an instant to not believe that it is and will continue to be one of the vital player bloc's for this game is stupid beyond belief. |
Pinky Feldman
Gank Bangers Moar Tears
335
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:42:00 -
[773] - Quote
I am the most disturbed by the lack of Darius III in this thread. The CSM needs to stop using :words: and admit that he is the missing piece to CSM7 and NOT Senor Mittani. As the candidate that represents player apathy, he is the only one with the power to reform the process in a way that eliminates that apathy, the Ying to balance out the Yang.
To quote the most recent Star Trek movie, I feel like this thread and current CSM7 in regards to Darius III can be summed by a quote that Future Spock makes regarding Kirk and his younger self.
"Because you needed each other. I could not deprive you of the revelation of all that you could accomplish together, of a friendship that will define you both in ways you cannot yet realize."
Obviously, D3 is Kirk and CSM7 is Spock.
Sadly, we're still at the part where Kirk is on Earth wasting his life and hasn't even signed up for the Academy. (This connection should be obvious) Meanwhile, Spock is back on Vulcan having difficulty reconciling his Human mother and Vulcan heritage, which represents the CSM struggling to balance the concerns of the people and its own personal concerns.
The moar you cry the less you pee |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:07:00 -
[774] - 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. |
Lord Zim
1445
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:38:00 -
[775] - 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. I was going to point out your fallacy, but I see CliveWarren did that for me. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
576
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:24:00 -
[776] - Quote
I don't think the CSM could put in a system robust enough to achieve they're goals. I don't have ABSOLUTE faith in the "gaming" abilities of the CFC, but quite a healthy respect.
In fact, *IF* the CSM were to get something like this pushed through - I think the CSM, CCP and the NEXT CSM would be in for one hell of a goddam surprise...
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.
Volcanoes erupting would be subtle in comparison.
Don't schat on the CFC.
(P.S. - for anyone mentally challenged enough not to know how to check corp history, no, I'm not a goon/goon alt/whatever).
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:34:00 -
[777] - 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. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
277
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:35:00 -
[778] - Quote
I mean there is something to be said for deliberately antagonizing the one(large) portion of your playerbase that is organized enough and well connected enough to make a public show over it. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:42:00 -
[779] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: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.
This is close, really close to admitting that maybe, just maybe, something in the initial post was wrong. You want your serious discussion, well, oddly enough, so do a lot of us. But while Trebor's "minimum requirement number 3" sits unchallenged and unrevoked by any member of the CSM, we can't consider that any of you want an honest debate on the matter, and that discussion isn't going to happen (as you must have noticed by now).
So, come on, in the interest of having this discussion you say you want, lets make it easy for you. Say this: "It is not, and should not be a minimum requirement of any proposal in this discussion, that large posting blocks be penalised for being organised and being enthusiastic".
There you go. Its not many words, you can tailor them to your own style, as long as you say it, unequivocally, without evasion (as you have), without trolling (as Seleene tried), or without deflection (as Two Step and Hans opted for). Dress it how you like, but just say it. And it doesn't even force you personally to support schemes that don't penalise posting blocks, if thats what you want to do. It just opens up the conversation, without slapping a giant **** off on the wrapper like trebor's original post did. Give it a go.
|
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:48:00 -
[780] - Quote
Hi Thar!
Quote:Trebor's proposal is specifically presented as a CSM suggestion.
Quote:We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement.
He stated that the CSM believes xyz. ThatGÇÖs fine. They can believe anything they want and should have the opportunity to present it for discussion. I think people jump to the conclusion that OMFG they've already decided that this is what they are going to try and accomplish and are only interested in presenting here so that seems impartial. Then they can get on with the serious assfucking they've been planning all along.
I know-ish Trebor. I know that he has a personal dislike TheMittani. I also think that he's a mature enough guy thatGÇÖs not going to allow his dislike for of one person to lead him on a path that refuses to allow compromise on a topic he's specifically asked for feedback on.
I don't think that itGÇÖs his intent nor the CSM as a whole to anally abusing the GoonNation. They believe that there is an issue with the voting system. TheyGÇÖve talked about and came up with this (In my opinion) Clusterfuck of a voting system that allows your votes to transfer or whatever and they are asking for input on their ideas.
I think itGÇÖs fair and right that people including you and myself have the chance to state that any attempt to specifically alienate a huge block of players in such a way that there seems to be an active 'Them' out to get an 'Us' is stupid and will lead not to helping the game out but in denying it monies in the form of loss of subscriptions as well as a feeling of **** it I'm not logging in to that ****** game which denies the player driven conflict that is the mother's milk of EVE. |
|
|
|
|
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 |