| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sunwillow Auryn
   |
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:56:00 -
[61]
When I first saw this thread I thought 'no problem, I can /sign this without even thinking about it.'
I'm a carebear. Proabbly always will be, no intention of being involved in the FW either. My play style is about as far from GSA as it's possible to be (heck on other threads I have taken the mick and argued with them). However, we cannot have a CSM all with the same views or what's the point? Fact is, they were democratically elected, and have a right to remain, or it will undermine all confidence in the voting - why bother voting if the candidate you will vote for is banned from office?
So. I don't agree with anything that GS have to say (well probably not true, we probably agree that sometimes when the sun is shining the sky is blue, but it sounds good ;) but from diversity comes progress. They have a right to be there, let them stay.
/not signed
|
Trader Man
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:03:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Ispitane
Quote:
If you observe any reasonably democratic country in the world, it would say in the constitution that ellections are NOT valid, unless certain % of population turns and unless that particular candidate gets a majority of votes in excess of some threshold.
Let's take the United Kingdom, which (rigging of postal votes aside) is somewhat democratic. Please find something somewhere on www.statutelaw.gov.uk that specifies a minimum number of votes for the election of an MP to be valid.
Well here you go - another stupid argument by goonswarm guy. Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. If only you spent 5 minutes of your time doing simple research on the internet you would realise that you are wrong:
1) I'm not gonna dig into that database of laws, I deem this as a pointless exercise.
2) It is absurd to state that simply because 1 country (in that case is UK) does not have certain law mechanism, then this mechanism does not exist elsewhere and does not make sense. I don't know if UK has minimum turnout (and I don't care and I don't want to find out because read above), but many countries do and it seems to be a very logical mechanism.
3) "As in legislative elections, one way to avoid candidates being elected with only a small proportion of the popular vote is to hold a second ballot...blablabla...A number of countries also have minimum turnout rates for their presidential elections, typically 50 per cent...blablabla..."
Source
So what lesson can we draw from this :
1) Ellections mechanisms are incredibly complex these days, and the reason for that is that majority vote may not be the best choice for all situations. If that was not the case, and majority voting did good work, then there will be no need for all those complex system. Hence I would very strongly suggest current mechism should be reworked.
2) One of the key points was to provoke discussion, whether election mechanism in place makes sense. This goonswarm person not only made zero effort to follow the logic and make a reasonable argument, but in fact insists on his position which has absolutelly no grounds whatsoever.
Do you REALLY want someone like this to represent you in eve comunity ?
I don't
|
Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:05:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Tolis Irithel
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 18:32:05
I was never suggesting that the 22% was wrong, just for clarity; 22%>19% was not an argument that 22% was wrong. (I wouldn't make that argument because I don't agree that 22% is accurate, in any case.)
Fair enough though, you make perfectly good and valid points as to why members of large alliances may be considered to have more knowledge of the problems being discussed. I for one am quite happy with the range of different foci/opinions, on all sides of the debate.
(Editing, because the above post seems to have changed. I'm not really sure where the whole 11%<19% thing was coming from; I've never advocated or encouraged any change in CSM membership at all.)
That "19%" doesn't account for trading alts, or people who logged in for their free week and never played again though.
I agree with this thread, because by the logic of the OP jade or anyone else who I think is a complete annoyance to this game shouldn't be on the CSM either.
Originally by: nlewis
jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
|
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:15:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 19:16:55
I do realise the problems with the 19% figure I specified above, and in combination with:
1) There are only 9 representatives, so % targets are quite limited.
2) I don't accept the 22%, as I think candidates beyond the two GS candidates are prepared, and able, to look at 0.0 issues; in reality, I believe this to be far higher than 22%. I used this as an approximation because:
a) It's lower than what I think, so by using it I'm making a stronger case.
b) The likely deviance is for an underestimation, offsetting the underestimation in the 19%, whether in part or in full.
22% ~ 19%, and (22+a)% should be closer to (19+b)% than any other combination, hence my support, unless you either genuinely believe that only the GS candidates represent 0.0 issues or that the number of alts/random temporary players is massive. Unfortunately, the only publicly available data on 0.0 entry is a single data point, so the statistical significance, is, admittedly, limited.
|
Hrin
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:19:00 -
[65]
CCP already hired a economist, now should they hire a political scientist too?
|
Ispitane
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:20:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Trader Man
If you observe any reasonably democratic country in the world, it would say in the constitution that ellections are NOT valid, unless certain % of population turns and unless that particular candidate gets a majority of votes in excess of some threshold.
(emphasis mine)
Originally by: Trader Man
It is absurd to state that simply because 1 country (in that case is UK) does not have certain law mechanism, then this mechanism does not exist elsewhere and does not make sense. I don't know if UK has minimum turnout (and I don't care and I don't want to find out because read above), but many countries do and it seems to be a very logical mechanism.
These statements are mutually exclusive. At no point was I trying to argue that it doesn't exist anywhere. I was merely providing a convenient example of it not existing somewhere. That is, providing a counterexample to your claim. |
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:20:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 19:20:31
"Should CCP hire a political scientist"
Oh dear gods no!
|
Gorobom
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:21:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Gorobom on 22/05/2008 19:29:19
Originally by: Trader Man
Well here you go - another stupid argument by goonswarm guy.
Answer mine then. So far you've been trolling and ignoring every serious post, picking up whatever you can troll with more ease on your personal vendetta against goonswarm. You don't present any argument, only points of view, and you marginalize others.
You turned a perfectly fine post into a "lol you're stupid, see, his post about democracy makes his "kind" a terrible people" which makes no sense whatsoever.
I presented not only one, but two very big posts filled with arguments and well researched facts and clear numbers, which are available for public at either eve-maps.com or the economics pdf - one with info straight from the game itself, the other with info from a CCP member, officially released.
In the meanwhile, half of your posts are "what a stupid argument" ending with "see one is evil, they're all evil". You're behaving as if you were in the middle ages and so far has not presented any evidence against the very two GS candidates, only against random GS members that are posting in the forums.
Do you also believe Obama is evil because black people are evil, or something? Coming from your "flawless" arguments, I wouldn't doubt a bit.
Anyway, I have two very nice posts back there which you didn't have the courage to reply, probably because you don't have how.
What I do know however, is that I definitely don't want anyone like you representing myself anywhere.
|
trading hub
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:23:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Tolis Irithel
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 19:16:55
I do realise the problems with the 19% figure I specified above, and in combination with:
1) There are only 9 representatives, so % targets are quite limited.
2) I don't accept the 22%, as I think candidates beyond the two GS candidates are prepared, and able, to look at 0.0 issues; in reality, I believe this to be far higher than 22%. I used this as an approximation because:
a) It's lower than what I think, so by using it I'm making a stronger case.
b) The likely deviance is for an underestimation, offsetting the underestimation in the 19%, whether in part or in full.
22% ~ 19%, and (22+a)% should be closer to (19+b)% than any other combination, hence my support, unless you either genuinely believe that only the GS candidates represent 0.0 issues or that the number of alts/random temporary players is massive. Unfortunately, the only publicly available data on 0.0 entry is a single data point, so the statistical significance, is, admittedly, limited.
To put it simple:
It is difficult to forecast the result of the election, especialy in case of eve, since its completely new territory. However as a result of election mechanism goons appear to be overrepresented. That is the case even we do not factor in notion that 50% of active eve population (conservative estimate) hate goons.
Hence I would say that something is definently wrong with election mechanism
|
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:26:00 -
[70]
If I could thumbs up Gorobom's post just above this, I would.
Re: something being wrong with the election mechanic... I'm of two minds on this one. It's a whole other discussion though; I wasn't going for the mechanic, I was attempting to respond to specific concerns about the current members of the CSM. I'll be happy to contribute in an appropriate thread on that matter, but I don't think it's place is in here, already full of enough different topics.
|
Fraszoid
ULTRA VEGA
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:35:00 -
[71]
I do not support this. This is the first council, so everything is a bit shaky while things settle in and start working. The soonest the ability of any CSM Member could be evaluated would be after the first meeting with CCP when the minutes of the meetings are posted to review. After that there should be enough information to make an informed decision on the matter.
--------------------------------------------------
Everyone is born right handed, only the great over come it.
Check out my players guide at:
http://www.eve-miners.info/guide/minersguide.html |
Trader Man
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:35:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Gorobom
There's a lot more issues in 0.0 now than in high-sec. Furthermore, 0.0 players are forced against hard walls more often, making them more aware of the issues of EVE. This, combined with the fact 0.0 is mutable and entirely based on real-player politics, makes 0.0 players much more interested in voting and participating in those politics. This is what they've been doing constantly - politics. 0.0 alliances depend on it much more, since they actually "own" space. 0.0 Alliances are more organized usually, because you need to have well defined politics in order to sustain thousands and thousands of players.
To sum it up: Most High sec players never really faced serious, real politics in this game and care about it less than, say, your average GS member. This is reflected in the elections.
I totally agree with the bold part, and hence it is especially strange that 2 gs ppl representing the whole 0.0
This will create biased single view. If you are arguing that 0.0 issues require more attention and hence more weight then fine, maybe we need more candidates from 0.0 elected then % population that actually lives in 0.0, however that implies goons are definently overrepresented
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:45:00 -
[73]
Originally by: trading hub
That is the case even we do not factor in notion that 50% of active eve population (conservative estimate) hate goons.
Sir, would you please do me a favor and share the source of this data with me? I must have overlooked this study and while I'm sure the conclusion is not at all made up and completely based in fact, it would be of great interest to me to review the original data.
|
Sariyah
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:47:00 -
[74]
Agree. I hate goons as many others for the clear attempt to destroy the game.
|
Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:48:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Yorda on 22/05/2008 19:48:05
Originally by: Trader Man
I totally agree with the bold part, and hence it is especially strange that 2 gs ppl representing the whole 0.0
This will create biased single view. If you are arguing that 0.0 issues require more attention and hence more weight then fine, maybe we need more candidates from 0.0 elected then % population that actually lives in 0.0, however that implies goons are definently overrepresented
Actually if you only take the votes cast for the winning 9 CSM members goons got 22.15% of the votes.
We're under represented by 0.15% I demand a recount.
Originally by: nlewis
jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
|
ElanMorin6
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:54:00 -
[76]
This forum is going to replace the auth forum as the best forum?
c/d
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:32:00 -
[77]
It is very interesting to see where what was intended as a parody on the other no-confidence thread got to...
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:50:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups
No.
The simple reason why? Because when the votes are counted the person elected is *elected*. They aren't there by your grace and favour; they received a high enough number of votes to get elected and elected they are and shall stay.
Plus ... each incarnation of the CSM serves six months. That is all. In five months' time or so the whole candidate campaigning thing will start again. If you don't like who got elected stand for yourself (the 'put up or shut up' position) or join the support team for someone else you do like. But even then , the people who get elected are the ones who take office*.
inanna zuni
* yes, this sadly includes people who ruin their planetside countries too :-(
|
Moon Kitten
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:03:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Sariyah
Agree. I hate goons as many others for the clear attempt to destroy the game.
Seconded, I too hate goons. The Goons -- we talked about this yesterday and I -- and, you know, I have to pick on the Goons because they're the most dangerous organization in the Eve right now. There's by far. There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Isk farmers.
/signed
|
Trzzbk
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:23:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Trzzbk on 22/05/2008 21:23:38
Originally by: Trader Man
Totally support the idea, if you think about the whole election then obviously two goons was a rigged election.
In any proper ellection there is a notion of majority voters participating,
CCP claims that there total of around 200k acounts, all in all only around 10k ppl participated, that means only approximatelly 5% of eve population participated.
Lets take this analysis a bit further, according to official statistic average age of participant was around 1,5 game time, that implies that for sure an average participant is totally aware of obnoxiously stupid behavior of goonswarm people, hence the probability of him voting for goonswarm is very low !UNLESS! he is goonswarm member himself.
Goonswarm is a very big and active alliance, they could easily encourage their fellow members on internal forums to vote for their candidates.
This situation would not have occured in the first place if rate of participation was much higher. Although I do realise that it is very difficult to speculate about potential ellection outcome, however I would forecast that if rate of participation was sufficiently high then none of goonswarm members would have been elected.
Maybe an appropriate solution would be to re-run the ellection, but this time introduce some sort of encouragement policy to induce more ppl to vote (carrot cake maybe?)
This way electorate base which be much more representative and will reflect true will of eve comunity !
To sum this up: "Hi I am Trader Man and I have no idea what 'rigged election' actually means or how to actually spell 'election'." The ability to drum up support for your candidates does not a rigging make. If all of you people who are obviously so far above us Goonies really cared so much, why didn't you take it upon yourselves to get people to vote against the Goon members?
|
Mr Stark
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:31:00 -
[81]
Anyone who supports scamming and metagaming does not have the right be on this council. Goonswarm are openly trying to disrupt play for everyone else.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:33:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Mr Stark
Anyone who supports scamming and metagaming does not have the right be on this council. Goonswarm are openly trying to disrupt play for everyone else.
You're aware that scamming is explicitly allowed in Eve, right? I'm no great fan of the Goons, but that's hardly the reason why.
Also, will people please stop misusing the word "metagaming"? I do not think it means what you think it means.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:38:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
If you don't like who got elected stand for yourself (the 'put up or shut up' position) or join the support team for someone else you do like. But even then , the people who get elected are the ones who take office*.
As a matter of fact I was a candidate myself and actually finished as the final backup. That you as an actual CSM member are not aware of that...
Make suicide ganking more difficult!
|
jm24
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:43:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
If you don't like who got elected stand for yourself (the 'put up or shut up' position) or join the support team for someone else you do like. But even then , the people who get elected are the ones who take office*.
As a matter of fact I was a candidate myself and actually finished as the final backup. That you as an actual CSM member are not aware of that...
No one cares, but while your here I heard Darius needs a coffee.
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:35:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
As a matter of fact I was a candidate myself and actually finished as the final backup. That you as an actual CSM member are not aware of that...
My sincere apologies. I can only plead that I am speed-reading as many of the massive number of posts appearing at the same time as having an ingame meeting with other CSM members and was not noting carefully enough who was posting before I actually answered.
It is the case though that there are a lot (too many!) posts complaining about the results from people who didn't get involved in the first place ...
Inanna Zuni
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:38:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
If you don't like who got elected stand for yourself (the 'put up or shut up' position) or join the support team for someone else you do like. But even then , the people who get elected are the ones who take office*.
As a matter of fact I was a candidate myself and actually finished as the final backup. That you as an actual CSM member are not aware of that...
You should have eve-mails waiting for you with details of csm-mails and in-game channels for the CSM and alternates Leandro. Hope to see you online soon!
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
ZombyDog
Welp Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 23:05:00 -
[87]
Edited by: ZombyDog on 22/05/2008 23:07:00
Waaaah lets subvert the democratic process because some people I dont like got voted in ( and I didn't ). This surely won't make a mockery of the whole CSM model from the outset.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 23:54:00 -
[88]
You know the problem with this entire CSM crap is that we have the CSM members/chair/vice whatever still have their head in a form of role play mode.
Bringing in game politics, bias and so forth to the board does not show objectivity nor the ability to separate ones self from the game long enough to make rational decisions or recommendations.
Once everyone convenes to the table everyone should be sitting down as Sean, Andrew, Alice, John boy or whatever. Not Bane, jade, Ankfkdjsgfgtigwrei, Inui.
Am I the only one seeing this problem? Or is everyone caught up in the I am still logged and and I can't logg out mode?
|
cimmaron
Warp Riders
Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:21:00 -
[89]
Edited by: cimmaron on 23/05/2008 00:21:25
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.
Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.
I agree, Failswarm has no place on the council, they do enough to pollute eve as it is.
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:30:00 -
[90]
Originally by: cimmaron
Edited by: cimmaron on 23/05/2008 00:21:25
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 22/05/2008 16:02:44
In the case of clear ridicule and disrespect expressed towards the CSM and EVE as a whole by members of their alliance, as well as the stated intent to disrupt EVE as game by said alliance, I would like to see the two GoonSwarm members on the CSM removed and replaced by the top backups, because the only thing I am confident they will do is make the work of the council harder and do their best to hurt EVE as a game.
Express support or discuss criticism of this idea here. Thank you.
I agree, Failswarm has no place on the council, they do enough to pollute eve as it is.
Yea nice objectivity there big guy. You have just proved my point that this CSM thing is a bunch of crap because no one has any true objectivity and could not identify reality if it came up a bit you on the arse.
With this kind of input and participation, the CSM should be zhit canned in about a month.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |