Even that claim to a tiny margin of "can/could" has no evidence to support that it actually ever "can/could".

Its an empty claim, with no method of proof.

She cannot prove the probability that the conditions she stipulated can/could occur.
With no proof that it can/could occur, the probability remains at zero.

As to the 1 person not being represented, that is sufficient, in current context, to evidence that the CSM does not represent the entirety of the EVE population. And there is no proof that there will not always be that 1 person sufficient to disprove those conditions in future.

That part I do not agree on, and that is the division between us.
We will have to agree to disagree.

Yes I have, and to a far higher degree and precision than you've been able to demonstrate that it will always be the case. Statistics GÇö it's like magic, only not. And again, what happens in practice doesn't actually invalidate the probability.

You cannot prove that the conditions you speculate can ever come to pass.
Thus there is no way to assign a figure higher than 0 to the likelihood of it ever coming to pass.

Thats pretty false actually. It can very well be 0. If no one runs that is a 0% chance of representation. If CCP eliminates the CSM that is a 0% chance of representation.

If you want to talk about statistical probability there are literally dozens of elements that can make probability 0%. Infact there are probably more realistic probable outcomes where the % of variance becomes 0% then it does trending to 100%.

They represent those who have voted for them. Without votes, you cannot claim to represent anyone.

Just as I cannot claim to represent you, unless you vote for me.

The link was provided just to inform discussion. I didn't imply any more or less by adding it.
Wasn't directed to anyone in particular.

No, you've just proven that you feel that you are represented by a CSM though you never voted for anyone.

Thats your prerogative. Feel that all you want. Seriously.
If you feel like that, good for you. I'm happy for you.

I did not step over the posts describing mathematical probability.
I answered them with my own views, which it would seem you have actually stepped over since you think I did not address them.

Yes, I addressed the same issue earlier here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4381702#post4381702

That's factually inaccurate though, and was written before I wrote my post.

You didn't vote.

And this is why they CSM should be removed.

Don't waste your time talking to the omnipotent and omniscient Malcanis. It's his world and we are just peasants renting space in it.

Again, I call for all who are unhappy with these changes to VOTE WITH YOUR WALLETS. Don't try engaging the phony CSM with your grievances. TAKE REAL ACTION THAT CCP WILL NOTICE. UNSUBSCRIBE. Only through declining player numbers and revenues will CCP ever take your concerns seriously.

Good for you!
I hope you make the best of your opportunity.

But you don't represent me.

I'm simply taking action and urging others to do the same as is my right. Good to see how you null bigots and big alliance shills feel on open display for all to see. You just can't stand anyone with a differing opinion can you?

Hypocrite.

By the way, ISD, you have a member of the CSM aggressively trolling and flaming the very players he's supposed to be representing. Are you going to moderate him as well?

I think your taking a game a little too seriously.

Might be time to stop typing and take a short walk.

He represents me about as much as a waiter does in a restaurant, and in much the same capacity.

I'm here enjoying the service of the game, and if he wants to take my choices to the chefs in the kitchen, sure.

He's a random bloke somewhere in the world with a soapbox as a reward for a tiny % of the populations vote.

You deal with that ;)

Uhm no.
No mention of him legally representing me in the EULA or that link.

And yes, I pay for the service.
But I don't pay Malcanis, I pay CCP.

I have a relationship with CCP.
Malcanis is just some random with a soapbox.

Citation still missing.

Try again!

The Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a player-elected council who represent the views of the members of the EVE Online community to CCP.

No one EVER said that being represented on the CSM constituted legal representation of any kind, as that would obviously be ludicrous. You should lie down for awhile.

As a player, you're represented by the CSM. This is both objectively true and legally meaningless.

If you going to use that "first line" then Salvos is right.

Random guy somewhere in the world with a soapbox as a reward for a tiny % of votes.

Yeah, this guy really represents me.

Well his views aren't represented. He might be as a player but his views aren't. That isn't the CSMs fault though, I am sure if he made a post regarding something and asked any of the CSM to check it out they would.

But by stating that he is being represented because his views are, is false. He is represented, but not his opinion.

Don't confuse the two. They are not one in the same. They are infact two very different forms of representation, and it falls upon the individual to seek to have his views represented, not the CSM member.

I am a nitpicker its what I do.

There you see, we can agree!

Hugs?

You didn't even vote. Why are you even continuing discussing this.

You can take whatever you want to into account doesn't change anything. A guy building 1K ships in HS loses just as much as a guy making 1K ships in NS if both need to repurpose. Arguing that NS guy needs to repurpose more is subjective. He doesn't HAVE TO. He CHOOSES to.

Neither of them need to reconfigure at all, they can both stick them on market and contracts and let the market do its job. Or they can both bite the bullet and take a loss. This is like the argument yesterday about factoring in JF costs to the bonus NS gets. You don't HAVE TO have a JF. People CHOOSE to have one.

You can't include situational objectiveness into a blanket discussion because it is not a variable when discussing blanket changes. Now if Null was getting a 45% nerf and HS was only getting a 30% nerf then you could discuss the merits of situational change, as it stands within the announcement EVERYONE is getting the same treatment.