EVE Search - Xenuria: CSM 10

All Channels

CSM Campaigns

Xenuria: CSM 10

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2062	Posted - 2014.12.13 13:02:18 - [1] - Quote Xenuria wrote: corebloodbrothers wrote: Xenuria wrote: You seem genuine albeit naive as I once was. I appreciate your input but I will persist in what I feel is right. Genuine and naive is what got me in csm If that were true I would have won a long time ago. You have to also support what your voters want. If you dislike the way the CSM itself is run and the way votes are cast, then you'll find the majority of your voters among those who already aren't voting. So to get more popularity, the best thing to do is to spread your campaign around the areas that are opposed to the CSM. You've got to get the word out to the right people. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2164	Posted - 2015.01.03 05:44:47 - [2] - Quote Xenuria wrote: Good Advice. Statistically 4-7% of the EvE Population is Female. 90%~ of my voting base is Female. While I agree that I should expand my reach to those who have already given up on the system in terms of voting, I also think statistically it makes the most sense to dedicate the limited resources I have to the female eve demographic. Why do you think that 90% of your voting base is female? I ask this both to ascertain the evidence leading to your belief of such, and to prompt you to consider what may have caused it to happen. And I'm not trying to get you to tell me, but I want you to ask yourself this. Perhaps your message is something that more people than just female EVE Online players can agree with; maybe there is a way to bring this message to them in a way that will get them to agree with it? Speaking of your message, what is it, exactly? I have read your OP and I still don't get it. Can you summarize it for me? T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2184	Posted - 2015.01.06 13:29:01 - [3] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: This looks like a no win situation. If you get elected it proves the system does work (contrary to your premise) and so the reform would not be needed. If you are not elected then your premise may or may not be a fault but you will be unable to do anything about it. It's a slim chance, but there are times in a rigged supposedly-representative system in which the majority may briefly come to agree on a point of contention and use the broken voting system for an act of upheaval. While I disagree with Xenuria on there being said problem in place, I believe she has the right to fight behind such a reform movement. I see no harm coming from it, as even in the case that it is successful, it is most likely only representative of a deeper dissatisfaction in the voters over how the system works. Even if these voters are misguided as to the specifics of what is wrong with the system, they still help to reveal the discontent. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2201	Posted - 2015.01.11 05:34:08 - [4] - Quote Xenuria wrote: It's mostly that, EvE Online is like any other game where people are given anonymity and a voice. The difference is eve is brutal and harsh. This mentality encourages people to attack that which they fear or don't understand. I am controversial in no small part because I cannot be bribed or bought off. I represent a clear and sustained threat to the system as it exists in it's present form. This concerns people. I really don't think it does concern people that you can't be bought or bribed. Every once in a while one individual may get ticked off by it, while the majority of the community will ignore such actions as trivial. You can call immunity to attacks all you want, and the people with power will continue to have successful attacks on others while ignoring you. They do not worry that your mentality will spread, as well they shouldn't. People immune to attacks like you and I are few and far between, and nothing will ever change that. The vast majority of the population even in this game are highly vulnerable to others by subconscious or instinctive choice and they refuse to address the basal nature which drives them to be that way, instead preferring to assume it cannot be understood or controlled. We are powerless to change their view on the subject because they don't understand it and they don't want to. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2201	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:58:04 - [5] - Quote Xenuria wrote: At this point I am just going to outright ignore posts that are asking questions which I have already in this very thread answered specifically. Perhaps I can provide an example of an answer. I will take the antagonist position in the debate and attempt to demonstrate that the CSM is good and does not have any drawbacks. I am debating against Xenuria's claims, as an example of how to do a proper demonstration of a point. My specific point will be to suggest that the voting system that is used by the CSM negates political treachery rather than facilitates it. My first attempt to persuade my audience will come in the form of a brief explanation of the voting system: The Council of Stellar Management in EVE Online uses the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system to distribute votes to the candidates. In this system, each voter selects several candidates and ranks them in order of choice, from 1 (most important) and down. Each player only gets to use one vote but when the votes are tallied, a player's vote only counts toward a winning candidate. Their vote will be automatically transferred to a candidate ranked lower in their list as needed to ensure their vote counts. This prevents the old "Go ahead, throw away your vote!" mentality from preventing tertiary parties from getting votes. Should the voters be interested in a new candidate, they can freely rank the candidate on their list without giving up the chance to vote on the lesser of two evils should it become the only option. My second attempt to persuade my audience will come in the form of examples in which the system has demonstrated itself: The Single Transferable Vote system has seen real-world use in several countries, including the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, and more recently, in Iceland. These nations have seen a staggering change in politics with the introduction of STV, with fresh new candidates cycling in and pushing out the old and unwanted parties, and with politicians learning that they must address the concerns of their voters, since merely defaming the competition is no longer a successful method of collecting votes. This contrasts starkly with two-party systems in nations not using STV, such as the USA or Canada. These countries see a wide variety of new and interesting candidacies die quickly since everyone is afraid to vote for anyone but one of the two primary candidates. It fuels hatred and animosity between supporters of either party, while all of the voters begin to feel trapped and powerless to effect change in their failing economy. Note how I have made separations and highlights in my post to make it easier to read and digest. It is also clear and direct. Not everyone will understand it or believe it, but it both states my position in the debate and provides others with my reasoning for my position. This is a reasonable starting point but I still need to be prepared to answer questions asked about my position, even if I have answered them previously. If they didn't understand it the first time, either I have not described it in a way they understand, or I have hidden it too deeply in my rant and they have failed to locate it. What I suggest for you, Xenuria, is to write up a campaign letter similar to mine, only in reverse. State clearly what specific problems you see with the system, then give examples that suggest your position is correct. Now I realize you have stated that the voting system caters to nullblocs and have used the prevalence of Goonswarm candidates as a supporting example, but you have not yet presented this in a clear and concise manner. Try writing it in the format I used above, or something similar and equally clear. Then you are strongly recommended to finish with an explanation of how you intend to solve the problem. If voters are to take you seriously as a candidate, they need to know that you not only agree with them but that you are going to support them. Recognizing the problem is not enough by itself. If you do not yet have a functional solution, perhaps your answer can be that once elected, you intend to present your evidence of corruption first-hand to the candidates of the CSM and work closely with them to explore other possibilities, pushing minor changes as they are discovered to gradually reform the system. Ultimately you need to convince your potential voters that if you won a seat on the CSM, your presence there would have a positive impact on EVE. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2203	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:53:22 - [6] - Quote You're too busy assuming these people are trolling and not putting enough time and energy into listening to them. I don't think you read my post very carefully. I mentioned the voting system as an example but my real point was that you haven't formulated your points in a way that makes them easy for people to understand and respond to. Your entire stance on your issues are difficult to decipher as even the issues you present are unclear. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2224	Posted - 2015.01.17 10:08:45 - [7] - Quote Xenuria wrote: You make a great deal of assumptions and leaps of logic for somebody so otherwise eloquent. By the way the psychological term you are looking for is "Proteus Effect", Not Psychological Projection. Actually Alexa Machavela described Psychological Projection, and you seem to do that a LOT. The Proteus Effect has nothing to do with anything that Alexa Machavela was talking about. Interesting effect though. I'm glad you brought it up, am now reading the wiki page on it and am glad I can now give a name to this effect. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2233	Posted - 2015.01.18 19:52:00 - [8] - Quote I have proof that Xenuria's voterbase is 90% female. I am 90% female and 10% male, and I voted for Xenuria. T3 Strategic Shuttle \| T3 Flexible Battleship
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2257	Posted - 2015.01.20 18:46:15 - [9] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Xenuria wrote: ....few people would disagree with my goal to reform the way in which the CSM functions. I agree there is something wrong that null sec holds the majority of CSM seats. This is the first time I have noticed your thread. Although ... your methods are ... interesting. Here is a bump. At least we agree there is something wrong with the voting mechanism. I think you're both getting hung up on where the candidates came from and failing to notice that the nullsec candidates have been remarkably reliable in advocating changes all over EVE. There is clearly no great conspiracy here, and few of the nullsec candidates including none of the ones anybody including the CSM takes seriously are even pushing for changes that would directly benefit anyone in nullsec. Furthermore, even if the nullsec candidates were ruthless and were taking the seats only for self/blue-serving reasons, they still would be advocating changes that would help their own specific nullsec group while trying to hurt another specific nullsec group, without caring who outside of nullsec is affected in what way. One thing is doubly certain: the nullsec candidates are no enemy to anyone outside of nullsec--unless you consider Providence to not be nullsec. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2258	Posted - 2015.01.20 21:14:01 - [10] - Quote You posit that it is unfair and you back it up with speculation. Well statistics say it is fair. The happiness of the EVE playerbase with the CSM shows it is fair. The effectiveness of the CSM and the diversity in their moves show it is fair. Your logic is not flawed. What is flawed is your perception of the way other people think. There is definitely room for people to take advantage of the CSM in a bad way, it is very much a theoretical possibility. But it hasn't happened yet and apparently isn't about to. You're wasting your breath trying to fight a theoretical menace when, statistically speaking, you getting your way is more likely to cause a negative disturbance than a positive one, even if the net potential for disruption is reduced. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2260	Posted - 2015.01.21 06:35:03 - [11] - Quote HarlyQ wrote: Xenuria wrote: I have cited my sources, please cite yours. You cited you're sources but never showed evidence so I still think you are blowing smoke. Xenuria, you may have cited sources for other information not related to the topic, but I was pointing out that your logic is flawed. There are no sources to cite for that except yourself, unless you have borrowed the logic from someone else that I'm not aware of. I'm trying to help you see why you're flailing, and help you improve your presentation quality, and you are treating me as an opponent to be won against in a contest of writing command and knowledge of esoteric rules of convention. ChYph3r wrote: Then shouldn't you take this up with the developer. As they are the ones who construed this way of doing the votes. Being on the CSM cant fix that. As the CSM do not fix anything. The entire purpose of the CSM is to help CCP hear the voices of the playerbase. The CSM is in fact the best place to go for CSM reform. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2263	Posted - 2015.01.21 22:49:41 - [12] - Quote Xenuria wrote: Silly Example: Would giving players the ability to instantly teleport their ships to any system provide conflict? YES, it would provide a gratuitous amount of conflict. Is it a good idea? NO Actually it would reduce conflict, as people would be more afraid to undock. Xenuria wrote: I do not see you as an opponent. Please list in specifics which sources I have not cited or which statements I have claimed to be factual and did not provide proper citation. What is the importance of who cited what sources? Any sources you have cited demonstrate nothing to support your points, if valid they are outside the scope of your presentation. And what sources do you wish for me to provide? Are there factual bits I've given that you wish to dispute? Point them out and I'll see what I can do. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2270	Posted - 2015.01.22 00:46:29 - [13] - Quote Xenuria wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: And what sources do you wish for me to provide? Are there factual bits I've given that you wish to dispute? Point them out and I'll see what I can do. I wish I could empty quote this. I really can't take your criticisms seriously if you have no intention of standing by them when challenged. Not empty quoting. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2285	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:32:19 - [14] - Quote HarlyQ wrote: But how do we know it's you that lead said wow pubbies? Btw I'm not ruining my search history by looking up wow scrubs. I play WoW so I'm not afraid. I did a check, here is what I found: Largest guild in WoW currently: Alea Iacta Est (Earthen Ring) - over 9000 members (so they claim) Largest guild in WoW of all time: No available info I can find Servants of Xenu: OldSmeller has a Wowhead bit claiming to be its CEO [sic] and also that the guild is "currently the single largest corporate body on the entire storm strike battle group" (no date for statement). I can find no evidence of any significance to the guild. Interesting bit of trivia: WoW players do not compare their guilds to corporations nor use any corporate terms to describe guild activities. WoW guilds are very non-corporate, and the players do not refer to guild masters as CEO. Any guild in WoW pushing itself as corporate in style would be very eccentric from the mainstream guilds, and likely not very popular. Source: I've played a lot of WoW during TBC and WotLK, and still play it from time to time even today. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2286	Posted - 2015.01.24 18:28:24 - [15] - Quote Xenuria wrote: Nariya Kentaya wrote: why should I vote for you, Did you have a question? I am not being snide, I just see a long statement ended with a "?". If you have a specific question I will answer it. shortened to reveal the question CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2289	Posted - 2015.01.25 13:35:19 - [16] - Quote Xenuria wrote: I am sorry if I offended you, I have unfortunately become accustomed to people falsely accusing me of stuff. It's a sore subject for me. You can't just settle with the belief that everyone is targeting you specifically more than others for no reason at all. There has to be a reason for it. Easiest way to discover the reason behind a string of similar occurrences is to find the common denominator. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2302	Posted - 2015.01.31 03:02:19 - [17] - Quote Xenuria wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Xenuria wrote: I am sorry if I offended you, I have unfortunately become accustomed to people falsely accusing me of stuff. It's a sore subject for me. You can't just settle with the belief that everyone is targeting you specifically more than others for no reason at all. There has to be a reason for it. Easiest way to discover the reason behind a string of similar occurrences is to find the common denominator. If you don't have any questions about my platform or csm candidacy than we have nothing to talk about. I tried to help you but I give up. You're on your own, man. GLHF CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.