I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.

You can always go against Trebor in the next election.........

Humm surely it's not for them to discuss? Wasn't the purpose of the CSM to digest things "CCP" were going to implement and then offer an alternative solution if one was needed, obviously being a nice firewall as well when it all went teets up??

Gosh, what's a good way to stop people from asking the same question over and over again? I know, deflect, dodge, dissemble!

Guys, why isn't it working???

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?

If a discussion is what people were after, very few in that thread are making an effort about it. Character attacks, calling the CSM useless, telling us to **** off, accusing us of power grabs, and incessantly, impatiently posting over and over without giving even the slightest pause for response in between hostile comments in no way tells me that this is a crowd that actually cares about what I had to say.

From the beginning I articulated how I felt vs. what the post said, and my words were deliberately misconstrued as defense of the specific proposal, and not defense of civil conversation itself. Given that I was called a flip-flopper, backpedaller, and other names that don't even begin to describe what I actually wrote, what in the world would encourage me to continue making more posts if people weren't going to read them?

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".

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

I also feel that the other thread would have gone much better had Trebor actually defended his proposal more than once: if he's going to propose something highly controversial like that he better be around to answer the inevitable questions.

and i think we all agree that this is not okay, right? right

Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post. He said that the CSM believes that "these would be good requirements for a voting system", not "proposals that fail to meet these requirements shall not be discussed in this thread and will not be presented to CCP". You are implying a form of attempted censorship that was never there. Everyone is free to disagree with those objectives for any reason they want and advocate something different.

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.

2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.

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.

It was answered by roughly page 25 of the original thread (by me anyway), you just kept repeating the question till no one, including and especially us, wanted to talk about it anymore. .