These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

"That" time of year again.

First post
Author
Jenshae Chiroptera
#221 - 2016-01-19 19:46:18 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Did you have an argument to make, or have you just been reduced to shrilly complaining about THE SYSTEM for no articulable reason at this point?
Have you actually done anything or presented anything concrete yet to disprove anything that I have said?
Your opinion doesn't amount to much. Blink
I am presenting this quote as concrete evidence that you do not understand how burden of proof functions.
I am presenting this quote as a deflection of a question.
I stand upon something. The results of the elections and the CSM candidates supported by Goons.

You stand upon your opinion and nothing else.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#222 - 2016-01-19 19:48:09 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Did you have an argument to make, or have you just been reduced to shrilly complaining about THE SYSTEM for no articulable reason at this point?
Have you actually done anything or presented anything concrete yet to disprove anything that I have said?
Your opinion doesn't amount to much. Blink
I am presenting this quote as concrete evidence that you do not understand how burden of proof functions.
I am presenting this quote as a deflection of a question.
I stand upon something. The results of the elections and the CSM candidates supported by Goons.

You stand upon your opinion and nothing else.


Well, no, I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV when coupled with an ordered list, which conclusively proves your claim false.

Meanwhile, you're just making things up.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Jenshae Chiroptera
#223 - 2016-01-19 20:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
... I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV ....
You stand on the belief that the system can't be gamed.

"Alliance A, put X at the top of your list. Alliance B, put Y at the top of your list. Alliance C, put Z at the top of your list," ... and hey, guess what? Not all alliances have the same activity or membership numbers.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#224 - 2016-01-19 20:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
... I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV ....
You stand on the belief that the system can't be gamed.



And why wouldn't I?

It is not as if anyone has suggested a compelling, factually supported argument that it has been gamed, or even can be meaningfully gamed.

Right now you're just some quack screaming about chemtrails and WiFi sickness. Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#225 - 2016-01-19 20:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
... I stand upon the mathematical reality of STV ....
You stand on the belief that the system can't be gamed.

"Alliance A, put X at the top of your list. Alliance B, put Y at the top of your list. Alliance C, put Z at the top of your list," ... and hey, guess what? Not all alliances have the same activity or membership numbers.


That can't overcome that 62% "supermajority" though, unless that supermajority chooses not to vote.

It's an election, sweetie. People who do vote are going to get better results than people who don't vote. It's not unexpected. It's not even unfair. It's certainly not a bad thing.


EDIT: here's the wiki on the system used. See if you can't dig out a way it can be gamed that doesn't devolve to "well all the candidates are people I don't like and none of the people who actually take 60 seconds to click and drag a dozen times to vote are people I do like"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jenshae Chiroptera
#226 - 2016-01-19 20:39:27 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
That can't overcome that 62% "supermajority" though, unless that supermajority chooses not to vote.
Are you absolutely sure that the 62% know there is a vote happening?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#227 - 2016-01-19 21:11:46 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
That can't overcome that 62% "supermajority" though, unless that supermajority chooses not to vote.
Are you absolutely sure that the 62% know there is a vote happening?


This is the 11th CSM election. There have been, what? 10 in the last 7 years. Plenty of the "62%" seem to manage to find their way to the forum to complain about grr gons hat gons bloc votang because someone has been busy persauding them not to vote. The election is advertised in devblogs, it's all over the EVE 3rd party media (even if only people complaining about it), it appears on the launcher, and you can hardly open 2 form threads here without running across at least a reference to it.

Very new players have, I suppose, some excuse. Anyone who's been playing since there was last an election has none.

Just accept it. They know there are elections. They're just not voting. And people like you making **** up about "gaming" the elections are a big part of that.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jenshae Chiroptera
#228 - 2016-01-19 21:57:14 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
...Anyone who's been playing since there was last an election has none. ....
Average life expectancy of a High Sec account is 1.5 years + climbing the learning curve + time of year they join.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Marsha Mallow
#229 - 2016-01-19 22:50:29 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
...Anyone who's been playing since there was last an election has none. ....
Average life expectancy of a High Sec account is 1.5 years + climbing the learning curve + time of year they join.

Then only exceptional players are retained, engage with the community, and have awareness of the CSM. Your 62% may well be dropout scrubs whose unspoken voice no-one wants to hear anyway. Because they aren't likely to stay ingame, and are probably whiny locusts moving between games in search of nerd-nirvana.

To the retained playerbase - why should this functionally illiterate and gormless blob of whingers be able to vote candidates in, then quit playing and leave us to deal with the consequences? Perhaps CSM votes should only be issued after players have acquired citizenship and fulfilled the naturalisation process?

Jen, that's my CSM delegate you're baiting btw. And I do mean 'delegate'. I voted with the intention of delegating that role to him, so I could boot him about it and call him my sockpuppet. But he worked hard and acheived results. And still takes the time to engage with you, despite the fact that you're wasting time window dressing trash talk, and have no real point.

Make some daft remark to signal that you accept being PvP'd by another player, without the CCP/CSM/clan gibbering. I'll give you a headstart to hide :)

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Jenshae Chiroptera
#230 - 2016-01-19 23:03:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Jen, that's my CSM delegate you're baiting btw.
One poster's bait is another poster's debate. Subjective.
Marsha Mallow wrote:
... Then only exceptional players are retained, engage with the community, and have awareness of the CSM. Your 62% may well be dropout scrubs whose unspoken voice no-one wants to hear anyway. ...
Try that the other way around. They don't know they have a voice. They see changes to Null Sec and think their way of play is ignored.

Again, CSM might have helped lead CCP into focusing on the wrong area of space. If it has been the other way around, perhaps more would have been enabled to transition into other areas of space more smoothly and additionally, they would spend more time paying for an account in High Sec.

If the average life of High Sec accounts could be extended by just a month, that would be significant.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#231 - 2016-01-19 23:07:27 UTC
Is this guy still clinging to the "if they only knew me they'd elect me/listen to my idea and share them" idea?

CCP please make a pop up telling people ingame about the CSM. I want to see this mental house of cards crash and burn in my lifetime.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#232 - 2016-01-19 23:27:00 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Is this guy still clinging to the "if they only knew me they'd elect me/listen to my idea and share them" idea?

CCP please make a pop up telling people ingame about the CSM. I want to see this mental house of cards crash and burn in my lifetime.


Dean Chambers was only wrong because he didn't consider voter fraud. LolLol

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Jenshae Chiroptera
#233 - 2016-01-19 23:30:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Jenn aSide wrote:
Is this guy still clinging to the "if they only knew me they'd elect me/listen to my idea and share them" idea? ...
FTFY.
I won't be running again. Ever. Pay attention.
Said that before the results last year (CSM thread if you want to check it)

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
It's not the taking, it's the giving. I voted you with 2 acounts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ivkM0ChSo don't bother next year. The elections are rigged amongst a minority. The majority I spoke with have no clue their even is a CSM.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Closing statement:

It has been quite an experience.
Quite some day ago, I said that win or lose, I won't be running again next year.
The whole process reinforced my belief that CSM is a farce where mostly only a few people from large alliance win seats. (Few token ones from other parts of EVE). Notice how much of Goons slate won seats, for example.
The way CCP Fozzie Logic is going ahead with Low Sec 2.0 and ignoring player and CSM feedback further fortifies my beliefs that CSM is a PR puppet that looks good when they dance to the right tune. I am glad that I will not share in the blame for such bone-headed design changes.

To future candidates, remember that Marlona Sky biomassed over the process of running for CSM.

Fortunately, good ones from CSM 9 were re-elected.
If people voted for me over some others, who I am glad lost the election, then I have done my part for EVE.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
While campaigning, I directed people to you or Lorelai as true high sec candidates.

Voting is almost over and I won't be running again next year.
Just wanted you to hear a vote of confidence and best wishes that you get a seat.


I hope you can see this through your glasses (or do you have them because you are blind, aSnide?).

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#234 - 2016-01-20 00:01:02 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Jen, that's my CSM delegate you're baiting btw.
One poster's bait is another poster's debate. Subjective.
Marsha Mallow wrote:
... Then only exceptional players are retained, engage with the community, and have awareness of the CSM. Your 62% may well be dropout scrubs whose unspoken voice no-one wants to hear anyway. ...
Try that the other way around. They don't know they have a voice. They see changes to Null Sec and think their way of play is ignored.

Again, CSM might have helped lead CCP into focusing on the wrong area of space. If it has been the other way around, perhaps more would have been enabled to transition into other areas of space more smoothly and additionally, they would spend more time paying for an account in High Sec.

If the average life of High Sec accounts could be extended by just a month, that would be significant.


And once again, nullsec got eff all between Dominion (yeah thanks for that) and Crius. Retribution up until Crius was either zone agnostic or all about empire.

Basically null got ONE thing that was good post Revalations, and that was the system upgrade/anoms thing. Which was horrible gameplay, but at least increased the potential economic density of nullsec such that it only took a whole region to match a good quality hi-sec system with 2+ level IV agents.

Hi-sec isn't being "ignored". It's just had it's damb turn and, if I don't miss my guess, as soon as Citadels come out, it'll get another.

So quit the stupid whining, God.


Also, public disclosure: Marsha voted for me with like 17 accounts, and started complaining about it even before I was actually elected. IIRC she got a snit on because I said that CCP was absotively right to dumpster Ankmephat-thing, or whatever her name was.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Marsha Mallow
#235 - 2016-01-20 00:24:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Marsha Mallow
Malcanis wrote:
Also, public disclosure: Marsha voted for me with like 17 accounts, and started complaining about it even before I was actually elected. IIRC she got a snit on because I said that CCP was absotively right to dumpster Ankmephat-thing, or whatever her name was.

28 and I'll whine about it FOREVER.

But no, I wasn't arsed over Ankh being fired and found the spoonthrowing incident hilarious. Although the 'Deaf ***** gets fired from CSM' topic posted on Kugu by Viper at the time seemed excessively nasty, the comments were nauseating, and it bothered me that she was clearly an immature person whose CSM dismissal may have resulted in real life consequences. As a game developer herself, who'd put the CSM on her CV (which was leaked) and in the gaming industry, an accusation of an NDA leak might be fairly significant career-wise and disproportionately damaging.

Think the argument you recall is - I never agreed with CSMs being forced to post real names, you did, it's been subsequently overturned - I won/you lost/you're a bad loser <.< Being subject to the abuse of people on a forum who ejaculated on pictures of female players then posted them for applause, seemed a bit off, in addition to the CV (which had her contact details) and the rest. I think I got in a 'snit' because you regurgitated the 'deaf *****' tripe and deserved a smack in the mouth. Your election was after that conversation.

You're fired btw. Again. Got at least 20 of those saved sockpuppet.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#236 - 2016-01-20 00:25:55 UTC
Er... you know when you say, "Win or lose, I'm not going to run again," when it is apparent to everyone that you will not even enter the same zipcode as "winning" that we all understand it's just a bunch of face saving nonsense, right?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#237 - 2016-01-20 08:50:31 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Er... you know when you say, "Win or lose, I'm not going to run again," when it is apparent to everyone that you will not even enter the same zipcode as "winning" that we all understand it's just a bunch of face saving nonsense, right?



Since you've said so, with neither citation nor logic to back up your assertion, we'll just have to take it on faith.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#238 - 2016-01-20 08:51:25 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Also, public disclosure: Marsha voted for me with like 17 accounts, and started complaining about it even before I was actually elected. IIRC she got a snit on because I said that CCP was absotively right to dumpster Ankmephat-thing, or whatever her name was.

28 and I'll whine about it FOREVER.

But no, I wasn't arsed over Ankh being fired and found the spoonthrowing incident hilarious. Although the 'Deaf ***** gets fired from CSM' topic posted on Kugu by Viper at the time seemed excessively nasty, the comments were nauseating, and it bothered me that she was clearly an immature person whose CSM dismissal may have resulted in real life consequences. As a game developer herself, who'd put the CSM on her CV (which was leaked) and in the gaming industry, an accusation of an NDA leak might be fairly significant career-wise and disproportionately damaging.

Think the argument you recall is - I never agreed with CSMs being forced to post real names, you did, it's been subsequently overturned - I won/you lost/you're a bad loser <.< Being subject to the abuse of people on a forum who ejaculated on pictures of female players then posted them for applause, seemed a bit off, in addition to the CV (which had her contact details) and the rest. I think I got in a 'snit' because you regurgitated the 'deaf *****' tripe and deserved a smack in the mouth. Your election was after that conversation.

You're fired btw. Again. Got at least 20 of those saved sockpuppet.



This is what it looks like when you bite, kids.

Don't bite.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#239 - 2016-01-20 11:14:57 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jace Varus wrote:
Go to the beta map in-game, and turn to the average number of pilots in space in the last 30 minutes. There you go.

Just one problem — in fact, the exact same problem as with all those inane claims: it doesn't display players. The mythical majority is just that: a myth, at best born out of bad maths, at worst born out of sheer ignorance and wishful thinking.


So the vast majority of players are docked up or in a wormhole ?

Ive seen you toss this trash about before, it runs counter to anything remotely reasonable given the facts presented by the game itself and it makes you look desperate and silly.


Players != characters.

I have 6 characters, all of which I use to some degree or another. 5 of them basically never leave high sec. One of them basically never enters high sec.

If you're pretending that all of my characters are a player, well, gosh, 5/6 players live in high sec!

Except, no. 5/6 "players", in this case, are station-sitting alts because characters are not players.


All those ships in highsec have a player flying them. If there was only a modest difference between the head counts of highsec and everywhere else i could see your point but the difference is overwhelmingly in favor of highsec having more players.

In order for nullsec to have some huge 'unseen' mass that is truly the heart and soul of EVE pretty much every highsec player would have to have like 50 accounts and be playing them simultaneously 23/7 but that isnt the case. Tippia is wrong but desperately wants to be right. I dont get 'her' obsession with this point but it is a lost case straight out of the gate.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#240 - 2016-01-20 11:40:40 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
All those ships in highsec have a player flying them. If there was only a modest difference between the head counts of highsec and everywhere else i could see your point but the difference is overwhelmingly in favor of highsec having more players.

In order for nullsec to have some huge 'unseen' mass that is truly the heart and soul of EVE pretty much every highsec player would have to have like 50 accounts and be playing them simultaneously 23/7 but that isnt the case. Tippia is wrong but desperately wants to be right. I dont get 'her' obsession with this point but it is a lost case straight out of the gate.
But this is simply not known. CCP says how many characters are where. We don't have the data to extrapolate from that to any certain knowledge about player distribution. The best we can do is educated guesses, as Tippia has done.
And again, if you're right, and the majority of players are hi-sec (Again, we don't have any clear evidence to back this up), then nothing needs to happen to the CSM. Hi-sec candidates just need to get off their buttoms and get those voters, and they'll have at least 62% of the seats.
That just doesn't happen. Why? Well, maybe it's because most candidates are like Jenshae or Xenuria, and couldn't get elected on their own if running against a rock of modest intelligence. Maybe it's because hi-sec people don't care enough to vote. Maybe it's because hi-sec people don't know an election is happening. There could be plenty of reasons, and we can't ascertain any of them based on the lacklustre data, but a combination seems plausible.
What isn't the reason is STV, certain null-sec groups voting too much or certain null-sec groups rigging the election. That, at least, we know for certain.

And just for the record, the claim isn't that hi-sec players have 50 accounts. It's that plenty of null-, low- and WH-players have several alts in hi-sec, and that that skews the numbers (Again, SurrenderMonkey has 5/6 of his characters in hi-sec, I have half my active characters in hi-sec...). Just so you don't make yourself look like an idiot next time by missing the discussion by a nautic mile. Smile