| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cede Forster
54
   |
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am having a hard time to find the statements of the people who ran for CSM7 or plan to run for CSM8 on whether or not they support changing the voting system like suggested (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917).
Maybe somebody can point the right direction. I know there is a thread on the subject but that one is a bloody mess and there is the chance of a snowball in hell to get the answer. |
Cede Forster
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
thanks a lot for the help so far  |
Cede Forster
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:The sheer cowardice of many of the people on the CSM will prevent an accurate determination of their positions on this issue. Following Trebor's initial proposal, the primary tactic appears to be to do everything possible to shut down criticism while simultaneously and disingenuously claiming to be seeking a discussion on the topic, without actually making a definitive statement regarding their own support of the actual proposal.
that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly
on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well  |
Cede Forster
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
...
Thank you for your reply Mr. Jagerblitzen
First of all, please let me appologice for the missunderstanding at hand. With "Changing the CSM Votes" i was refering to the proposed changes to the process of voting for a CSM by Trebor Daehdoow. This was possibly somewhat missleading.
As for the argument at hand about the thread suggesting changes to how the CSM is being elected i'd like to follow up with a question.
1) You stated very clearly that it is not the place of the CSM to dictate the election policy. How to you personaly suggest to go about approving changes to the election process?
2) Your argued for CSM members should not directly dictate election policy. Of the already existing systems (for now lets go with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system) which one would you consider a good choice for EVE?
3) You mentioned that the discussion thread was destroyed intentionaly and therefore the discussion will not be carried further by CSM comments. How will that influence the further proceeding of this planned election reform in your opinion?
4) Just between us, do you approve of the example system Mr. Daehdoow suggested?
I'd be very happy for a reply ;) |
Cede Forster
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
thank you for your answers again
i think i will carefully step out of the way now and leave you to the guys with the pitchforks and torches, they seem to have some questions too regarding "limiting the influence of power blocs/political parties" and i really wouldn't want to get in anyone's way ... i am sure you understand 
or maybe a last question
considering the recent outrage, do you support limiting the discussion proposals for a new election system to systems that have a required negative impact on powerblocs or would you encourage proposals that do not meet such a requirement? (i know the question might have come up before, but never hurts to ask politely) |
Cede Forster
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
ah come on guys, lets be fair here, at least Hans went out and took the heat, unlike others who can not be even bothered to deal with this
for all we know this was discussed and decided by the CSM unless somebody is willing to say different wise or am i missing how the CSM works? |
Cede Forster
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
see there you go, he took the heat and he answered you
now people with pitchforks and torches, back to the discussion thread to find somebody else to give a clear answer on their view about "restricting power bloc votes" |
Cede Forster
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
yes, this was somehow much more productive then anticipated, thanks a lot for clearing this up |
Cede Forster
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
well once the pitchforks are out, things get heated, on both sides
on the plus side, he came out clear and loud against "screwing organized voters" which no one else has done so far, so maybe the time is to leave the floor to some other csm / candidates and not dwell in the past |
Cede Forster
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
:tinfoilhat:
making a discussion thread and then making sure it is so controversial that it fails would be a way to justify not involving the public
|
Cede Forster
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:CliveWarren wrote: The entire proposal from Trebor was a straightforward attack. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just not the type of person that treats an idea, on paper, as "a straightforward attack". If this were something being forcefully pushed, it may indeed represent a threat, but everyone should always feel free to put out ideas for discussion, even bad ones. It was and still is unclear to me exactly how Trebor's proposal invalidates the overvotes at the top, if the person those people voted for actually takes office. That is why I started asking questions, and got buried for not "seeing the obvious" and jumping in with all those that felt that the proposal would "disenfranchise voters". I get it, everyone expects CSM members to have our minds made up about everything before we ever speak about it publicly, and come ready for battle with ammunition ready. This just wasn't one of those cases where I felt strongly one way or another and needed to know more about this before giving it patent endorsement. Those that objected to the proposal would have done a better job of gaining support from me by simply saying, this is an unethical system, and here's why, breaking down the mechanics and discussing how it actually disenfranchises voters instead of simply being angry with the fact that it was even proposed in the first place. I think you'll find I'm actually quite reasonable and willing to listen.
let me give it a try
it is an unethical system because votes that do not count because the candidate did not make it are redistributed, votes that do not count because the candidate has too many are discarded.
it is an unethical system because it allows CSM candidats to endorse others whom they consider not having a chance and in return "harvest" their own votes back that they might have lost through the endorsement - making it harder for new people to get in
it is an unethical system because it is by its author explicitly designed in order to harm the vote of organized voting groups and any proposal, however good it may be, because unethical if it is pushed forward with the declared goal of trying to disadvantage voters just because they care enough to organize
|
Cede Forster
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Hans, have you gone so far up your own ass that you've forgotten that it's YOU (the CSM) that needs to gain OUR (the playerbase's) support and not the other way around? Every time you say that we should have done a better job selling you is completely missing the point that it's on YOU, the CSM to convince US that your idea is not only worthy, but even necessary.
That's not even touching about how you and every other CSM that participated in that thread was asked point blank about the implications of Requirement #3 only to be met with contempt.
you know what happens if you say things like that, people show up and delete postings ^^ lets just try to stay somewhere in line ? |
Cede Forster
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:21:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Naaahh, nothing like that. In retrospect I think we would have done better to just ask questions to the public to get the conversation going rather than bother to include a specific proposal which may or may not have been controversial based on its content. Lesson learned. The problem isn't the proposal, the problem is this: "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."
and i think we all agree that this is not okay, right? right |
Cede Forster
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Cede Forster wrote:and i think we all agree that this is not okay, right? right Most of the posters in this thread are. Hans kind-of-sort-of is. Trebor thinks it's just fine. That leaves 11 CSM members, 3 of which were very active in the orignal thread, that haven't weighed in. Don't expect this issue to go away until they do that at minimum.
well i hope that all will get around to make a stand, but then again, i am very optimistic in general
changing the CSM vote would essentially redefine the very nature of the CSM so this is no issue that somebody should shy away from |
Cede Forster
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
it isnt broke, do not fix it ?
in all honesty, that was the only point that i found convincing. it should be the players who decide about how to vote for the player representation - but that would also include the possibility of endorsing the current system |
Cede Forster
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
first of i am very sorry to hear about the family medical emergency
i think what people would really get down to know is quite simple
1) do you support the "Trebor Proposal" ?
2) do you support the idea that there should be a "Penalty for organized voting groups"
|
Cede Forster
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:CliveWarren wrote:"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion. Sure it does, and you did discuss it. All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.
okay
sorry csm, i dont agree with the requirement and i would like a new thread to discuss this |
Cede Forster
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 07:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
...
thanks for taking the time to post here
although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked
1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is?
2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea?
3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like?
i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements |
Cede Forster
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 07:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Kazanir wrote:For what its worth I strongly doubt that Trebor had any sort of hidden agenda, but in a game like EVE it pays to be careful with your public statements. If you want people to take you at your word in a game about backstabbing spaceship politics, then you have to do something to earn that trust first. You seem to be a person that gives the benefit of the doubt to people in a backstabbing spaceship politics environment. I'll concede one point, the agenda wasn't hidden, it was a "in plain view" sort of affair.
also, he is welcome to answer some questions himself to clear this up  |
Cede Forster
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 15:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
...
thanks for taking the time to post here although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked 1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is? 2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea? 3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like? i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements
while you are here ! ;) |
Cede Forster
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 15:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Cede Forster wrote:Cede Forster wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
...
thanks for taking the time to post here although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked 1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is? 2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea? 3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like? i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements while you are here ! ;) I already answered your questions
you did? i somehow missed that - can you link it maybe so i can add it to the overview? |
Cede Forster
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
for what reason exactly are you being rude to me?
i asked the question very politely, i stated that i think i can see your answer between the lines but it was not clear
and now you accuse me for trolling because i care about the discussion? because i took the effort to clear up what the CSM members position on the proposal was?
maybe you are used to a different attitude around here but please accept my apology if i offended you.
i honestly would like to know your answer on the subject, i am having difficulties to go through the text and find a clear answer. it would be really nice if you could just answer a clear yes or no instead of accusing me of trying to "troll" csm members
i am very disappointing to see that you took the time to offend me but did not care to help with the answers |
Cede Forster
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 19:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1. No. 2. No. I even bolded it for you. I"M SO NICE. 3. Cede Forster wrote:Alekseyev Karrde:
The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank. See, you did read my answer. It's on the front page of this thread, your first reply. So yea Ms. Victim, you are a very obvious, very bad, need a little more practice troll. Leave it to the professionals bro.
as i said before, i am pretty sure it was clear between the lines but hey what is the big deal to ask for a straight forward yes or no answer on such an important subject -it is not like a CSM will jump in your face just for asking ...
as for the reply in the other thread, the thread is a mess, you know that as much as anyone who tried to read though it and clear statements on the proposal and the restriction #3 were quite hard to nail down to an yes/no
i am quite disappointed by your continuous personal attacks against me even after i told you in all honesty that this is not intended to troll you. when personal attacks happen against CSM members in other thread, this was considered not acceptable, yet here you are doing just the same thing. the justification you seem to offer is because i am somehow inferior, just a troll in your eyes and therefore this warrens to be handled that way? okay - not quite right in my eyes, specially considering your function in the system but who am i to tell you to be nicer to people who are interested in the changes of the voting system. you are perfectly in your rights to behave just as you are
i am still happy that you took the time to clear this up so, thank you for the reply |
Cede Forster
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 06:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Sal Volatile wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:I can't repost private CCP correspondance, but I can assure you Xhagen was very grateful for my help in communicating the concerns of the playerbase with your CSM council. Not only that, but he seems to have acted on it by creating a new thread in which CCP and the players can communicate their feelings directly, with much less petty trolling, weasel words and non-committal answers from certain 'representatives'. Everyone seems much happier with the new dialog that has begun.
So I guess that letter answered my hopes and totally did help, and we now have a productive dialog going on between Xhagen and the EVE player base now.
Just what Nicolo da'Vicenza 7 is all about, providing a medium for which CCP and the players to communicate through. Please run for the next CSM I think you can do a good job. I unironically agree. Thirded.
considering that communication between players and ccp is one (or the) main concern of the csm, i think they are right |
| |
|