These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

( ABSTAIN at very bottom) CSM is only a meta game with ramifications - other options when voting.

First post
Author
Karos Vandarl
Electric Sun Associates
#181 - 2012-02-19 13:22:29 UTC
I Believe having the CSM is more usefull to the player base than not having it, im not saying is perfect but if there wasnt a CSM next time thres a crisis as bad as the jita riots ...who are CCP goina call on to represent thew playerbase ? So...i am opposed to the inclusio of an abolition option however i do appeciate that there may not be a candidate who seems to represent the interests of every player so i would be in favour of the inclusion of an abstention option. I would not use it personly but i can see the value in its inclusion. Of cource the real solution to player who doent feel represented is to stand for election themselves.

Jenshae Chiroptera
#182 - 2012-02-20 13:54:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Karos Vandarl wrote:
... next time there is a crisis as bad as the Jita riots ...who are CCP going call on to represent their player base?


I believe that CSM were a waste of time, literally. I believe that CCP thought, "Oh darn it! We just spent all this time and man hours to make this expansion but the players don't like it. Well ... hey, maybe they just don't like change. I know, we can call the CSM over here for an 'emergency' meeting in a week or two. That should buy us time for people to calm down, accept this change and we can probably spin it out longer saying that we need to work on the meeting notes." Evil

All I can see CSM doing is repeating exactly what was being said loud and clear all over the forums.
They then threw in some fun curve balls such as, "It isn't fair, worm holes shouldn't have ABC ore, only null sec should, even though they are both equally risky for their target players," while they were there. Roll

Skex Relbore wrote:

The fact is that unless they are adversely affected by the actions of the CSM most people don't really give a rats ass who's on it. What difference does The_Mittani being the CSM chair have on the average high sec dweller? The answer is not a lot.
The_Mittani may be evil but he's not stupid so you won't see him advocating idiocy ...


You have said more eloquently what others in this thread have said before you. Right from September last year, a relatively short time after the meeting minutes were at long last released, I thought that I could smell a rat.

Face it, high sec fluctuates far too much for coalitions to be made, the corps and alliances are too small, there are no central intelligence channels and pretty much the same happens with low sec and worm holes. It is highly improbable that they will ever form up into voting blocks to ever contend with null sec.

It has been suggested that the CSM seats be split up into the different regions of space, each of the four having one or two seats and there being an extra veto seat.
However, that would not work as null sec players are quick to point out as they usually have care-bear characters and would still just vote themselves in.

Which means that the voting system is broken with no alternative on the horizon.


Thus I have the two options that I am putting forward, active abstaining declaring that "Go ahead but know that they do not represent this many players," and removal which means that the whole CSM is considered a farce that should be terminated.

Majority null sec player + CSM = biased sounding panel.
X - X - X


Which, means in turn that when ever there is an idea that would damage the other three areas of space suggested by CCP - CSM could say, "Great idea, go right ahead" then push all their null sec agendas. They already have members falling out of their ears - no, what they want more are victims coming as poor little refugees from the other broken parts of space to be slaughtered.

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.

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#183 - 2012-02-20 14:28:01 UTC
basically this boils down to that you're bitter that nobody likes you

other highsec candidates have managed to not be spergin' morons and get elected

you, on the other hand, have clearly recognized there is no voting system ever that will get anyone supporting you so you want to throw a hissy fit and take your ball and go home

except nobody let you play with the ball so you don't have any ball to take home its very sad
Jenshae Chiroptera
#184 - 2012-02-20 14:58:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Retar Aveymone wrote:
The usual garbage, which is usually ignored even by Goony Toons


Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

Like, that would NOT work COZ Piratenull sec playersPirate say they have Bear care-bear Bear toons and would always PWNZ the CSM elections!!1!.

Pirate x 9000!!!1! Majority null sec players (YES you!) + CSM = BAD (GGRRR) Evil.

.


You seem to require some assistance as your comprehension appears to be lacking. I have done some extra highlighting and cut out the relevant parts of my post that suit yours in response. Even added some smilies to help you with your attention deficiency. P

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.

Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#185 - 2012-02-20 15:04:02 UTC
"quote" is not the same as "fill in your own biased summary"
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#186 - 2012-02-20 15:04:37 UTC
that was the worst post i have ever seen
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#187 - 2012-02-20 15:06:27 UTC
i've seen some terrible posts in my day: been forced to watch helplessly as digi posted on the goonswarm forums without remorse, watched snot shot making such bad posts you could feel the internet weep in shame as it transmitted them

but this, this is an abomination against posting
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#188 - 2012-02-20 15:23:38 UTC
my position is completely incoherent and perpetually shifting, let me mock your inability to understand the voices in my head
Jenshae Chiroptera
#189 - 2012-02-20 15:25:13 UTC
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
my position is completely incoherent and perpetually shifting, let me mock your inability to understand the voices in my head


You are jealous because the voices only talk to ME! Twisted

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.

None ofthe Above
#190 - 2012-02-20 17:13:11 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
(I hate the way this ******* forum eats posts)

A "None of the Above" option would not significantly affect the outcome of the CSM elections.

All forms of government rely on the consent of the governed, Even the most brutal dictator must have the "support" of the majority of their people. In this case support being defined as satisfied enough with the status quo to not take action to change it.


It is probably an important note to make that the CSM governs jack all. Its more of a diplomatic committee. These are our representatives to CCP. Consent of the governed has little to do with what we are talking about here.

I strongly believe that "None of the Above" protest vote sends a hell of a lot stronger message than an abstention. Meanwhile, if there are good candidates, its probably better to vote for them. So I'll be voting for Hans and perhaps a few others.

Quote:

There is this saying that 90% of the battle is showing up (This coincidentally is why we own Branch while WN. is couch surfing), this applies just as much to democracy as any other activities.


No argument there.

Quote:

Those who are active politically are generally the people who are dissatisfied and effected significantly enough by the status quo that the value of their time spent on affecting change is greater than their alternatives. The corollary being that those who are least active are those who are generally satisfied with the status quo.

Here is a brief history lesson of how CSM6 came about. For the first 5 cycles of the CSM program the null blocks generally ignored it as being a mostly irrelevant PR whitewash by CCP in the wake of the t20 debacle. The CSM didn't significantly affect them so they pretty much ignored it.

Then CSM5 said "hey removing jump bridges is a great idea" and CCP said "coolio".


And the current CSM is different how?

They've done essentially the same with Worm hole stabilizers, Drake nerf/refocusing/buff, and using FW as a test bed to avoid breaking null. All bad ideas greeted enthusiastically by the CSM according to the minutes.

We should be outraged and rallying behind those that take this seriously.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Alavaria Fera
Imperial Shipment
#191 - 2012-02-20 18:25:55 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
except nobody let you play with the ball so you don't have any ball to take home its very sad

That is pretty sad.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Skex Relbore
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#192 - 2012-02-20 19:46:15 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:


I strongly believe that "None of the Above" protest vote sends a hell of a lot stronger message than an abstention. Meanwhile, if there are good candidates, its probably better to vote for them. So I'll be voting for Hans and perhaps a few others.


You believe wrongly.
None-of the above would not gain significant votes because most of the people who currently abstain do so out of a lack of interest rather than a lack of candidates.


Quote:

Those who are active politically are generally the people who are dissatisfied and effected significantly enough by the status quo that the value of their time spent on affecting change is greater than their alternatives. The corollary being that those who are least active are those who are generally satisfied with the status quo.

Here is a brief history lesson of how CSM6 came about. For the first 5 cycles of the CSM program the null blocks generally ignored it as being a mostly irrelevant PR whitewash by CCP in the wake of the t20 debacle. The CSM didn't significantly affect them so they pretty much ignored it.

Then CSM5 said "hey removing jump bridges is a great idea" and CCP said "coolio".


And the current CSM is different how?

They've done essentially the same with Worm hole stabilizers, Drake nerf/refocusing/buff, and using FW as a test bed to avoid breaking null. All bad ideas greeted enthusiastically by the CSM according to the minutes.

We should be outraged and rallying behind those that take this seriously.
[/quote]


I'm not familiar with "worm hole stabilizers", Drakes do need adjusted and as Selene explained the idea isn't to use FW as a test bed to avoid breaking null but was instead assuming it would be more practical to get changes/improvements pushed through on one system (or at least two similar systems) than two completely different systems.

Of course whether they are bad idea's or not is a value judgement. My point isn't whether or not removing jump bridges was/wasn't a good/bad idea but rather that until a change significantly affected the null blocks they weren't all that interested in the CSM. But once it did they banded together and worked to ensure that they weren't affected in such a way by people they consider clueless again.

If the CSM were to for instance push for the removal of concord from high sec, I suspect that the High seccers could indeed organize a response capable of changing the makeup of the CSM the same for substantial changes to wormholes.

The reason high sec players aren't currently all that influential on the CSM is because they are too diverse a group with too many divergent interests. High sec industrialists might be interested in revamping the war dec system to make wardecs harder to instigate and maintain but high sec merc outfits would be against that, Miners might want all refinable module drops removed from mission drop tables but mission runners would be against such a change. The list goes on and on.

The point being that there aren't that many rallying cries but you can be fairly certain if such a rallying common cause were to come into being then High sec would assert itself.


My point stands the null blocks that annoy the the butt hurt crybabies like the OP spent the better part of 5 years ignoring the CSM and only after a change was endorsed that adversely affected then did they get active.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#193 - 2012-02-20 20:08:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Null sec bias will erode the decision process of the game. There is a prevalent idea that high sec should be ruined so that they are forced out into low and null sec for the null players to kill.
They will do it incrementally, examples:

  • a little ore nerf here,
  • an ice removal there,
  • a bit more tax over here,
  • drop the pay out on the Incursions,
  • put data ribbons or T3 things in null rats,
  • move the research and industry services to low sec
  • cut high sec into four areas split buy low sec for "Role Playing reason"


Far better would be some GMs that have played the game, read the suggestions forums and are impartial. Then they can maybe finally realise that "different stroke for different folks" and just try improving each area of space according to the players that dwell there.

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.

Skex Relbore
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#194 - 2012-02-20 20:53:37 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Null sec bias will erode the decision process of the game. There is a prevalent idea that high sec should be ruined so that they are forced out into low and null sec for the null players to kill.
They will do it incrementally, examples:

  • a little ore nerf here,
  • an ice removal there,
  • a bit more tax over here,
  • drop the pay out on the Incursions,
  • put data ribbons or T3 things in null rats,
  • move the research and industry services to low sec
  • cut high sec into four areas split buy low sec for "Role Playing reason"


Far better would be some GMs that have played the game, read the suggestions forums and are impartial. Then they can maybe finally realise that "different stroke for different folks" and just try improving each area of space according to the players that dwell there.



No one is impartial. Anyone who claims to be in a liar. At best one can be uninterested but being impartial regarding something you're familiar with the arguments for/against is impossible unless you have absolutely no prior experiences or convictions.

The only Ore nerf I've heard suggested from this CSM (at least from the Chairman) is replacing drone poo with bounties. This would actually be a ore buff for people who harvest their ore by shooting rocks since the market is currently saturated by people who harvest their ore by shooting rats.

Considering how much pleasure The_Mittani derives from terrorizing Ice Miners I don't see him endorsing any action that would remove those targets from highsec.

The thing I consistently see pushed regarding incursions isn't a flat nerf to income potential but a balancing of different incusions so that there would be more incentive to run something other than vangards.

In fact most of the idea's you propose are not things the null blocks would care all that much about. I mean sure we'd rather be more self sufficient so we wouldn't have to spend so much time importing things out of high sec but that's a far cry from ruin high sec.

For the most part those are idea's that have been suggested/pushed by either CCP themselves (NPC tax, Removing Ice from highsec) or from low sec fail pirates.

Also the fact remains, if you have problems with the advice you see the CSM providing, your best solution would be to organize others who share your convictions and try to put your own "voice" on the panel.

Of course as wrong headed as you are about most of the things I've seen you post you'd be hard pressed to find enough fellow morons to accomplish anything.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#195 - 2012-02-20 21:04:25 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
... you'd be hard pressed to find enough fellows to accomplish anything.


... and yet it takes but a few minutes to find one that shares my views.

Always the little ad hominem at the end? *Shakes head disapprovingly.*

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.

HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#196 - 2012-02-20 21:10:08 UTC
Its only fair that nullsec gets to dominate the CSM since its by far the most important part of Eve.

None ofthe Above
#197 - 2012-02-20 21:56:13 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:


I strongly believe that "None of the Above" protest vote sends a hell of a lot stronger message than an abstention. Meanwhile, if there are good candidates, its probably better to vote for them. So I'll be voting for Hans and perhaps a few others.


You believe wrongly.


No you do. :P

Quote:

None-of the above would not gain significant votes because most of the people who currently abstain do so out of a lack of interest rather than a lack of candidates.


That maybe true. My point was that abstention as an organized protest was indistinguishable from apathy. It will have no affect. If there is a significant votership that disproves strongly with what's going on here and votes None of the Above, then you have a statement. Same number of voters not voting makes no significant statement.

If there are good enough candidates and approval of the existence of the CSM, then yes it would have no effect, except to provide an opportunity to say that the electorate approved, so "Disband the CSM" types are proven to be in the minority.

I think perhaps we are working at tangents but actually agreeing, sort of.

Anyway, responses to other points to follow since forums can't handle the number of quotes required in one post...

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Skex Relbore
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#198 - 2012-02-20 22:01:52 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Skex Relbore wrote:
... you'd be hard pressed to find enough fellows to accomplish anything.


... and yet it takes but a few minutes to find one that shares my views.

Always the little ad hominem at the end? *Shakes head disapprovingly.*



Who? The OP, Mr I should be able to fly through your space with no risk? good luck with that. Most people who think like that end up quitting anyway so it's not like it's a massive constituency waiting to follow you.

But hey prove me wrong. Make me eat my words. hoist your petard and see if you can get enough butthurt carebears to get a seat on the CSM.

Of course you know you can't do it. That's why you come here and whine about how horrible democracy is because people who care enough to participate get a voice while whiners like yourself get marginalized and laughed at.

By the way calling someone a moron isn't automatically an ad hominem.

If I were to say you are a moron so your idea's are wrong.. that's an ad hominem.

Saying you are a moron because your ideas are wrong is not an ad hominem it's an evidence based conclusion.
None ofthe Above
#199 - 2012-02-20 22:02:31 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:

Those who are active politically are generally the people who are dissatisfied and effected significantly enough by the status quo that the value of their time spent on affecting change is greater than their alternatives. The corollary being that those who are least active are those who are generally satisfied with the status quo.

Here is a brief history lesson of how CSM6 came about. For the first 5 cycles of the CSM program the null blocks generally ignored it as being a mostly irrelevant PR whitewash by CCP in the wake of the t20 debacle. The CSM didn't significantly affect them so they pretty much ignored it.

Then CSM5 said "hey removing jump bridges is a great idea" and CCP said "coolio".

None ofthe Above wrote:

And the current CSM is different how?

They've done essentially the same with Worm hole stabilizers, Drake nerf/refocusing/buff, and using FW as a test bed to avoid breaking null. All bad ideas greeted enthusiastically by the CSM according to the minutes.

We should be outraged and rallying behind those that take this seriously.


I'm not familiar with "worm hole stabilizers", Drakes do need adjusted and as Selene explained the idea isn't to use FW as a test bed to avoid breaking null but was instead assuming it would be more practical to get changes/improvements pushed through on one system (or at least two similar systems) than two completely different systems.


Wormhole stabilizers: device that allows nullsecers to move supercaps into wormholes and solve the "Citadel Systems" problem by making WH-space an extension of null. Essentially paving over WH space as we know it.

Drakes: No you! The idea of finding whatever is working in this game and beating it with a nerf bat until its works as poorly as everything else is misguided. Turning the Drake into a big Caracal is not going to make this game better.

And yes, I read Selene's back-pedal. Not sure I buy it. Selene may be sincere in this but I don't think Mittani is.

Skex Relbore wrote:

Of course whether they are bad idea's or not is a value judgement. My point isn't whether or not removing jump bridges was/wasn't a good/bad idea but rather that until a change significantly affected the null blocks they weren't all that interested in the CSM. But once it did they banded together and worked to ensure that they weren't affected in such a way by people they consider clueless again.

If the CSM were to for instance push for the removal of concord from high sec, I suspect that the High seccers could indeed organize a response capable of changing the makeup of the CSM the same for substantial changes to wormholes.

The reason high sec players aren't currently all that influential on the CSM is because they are too diverse a group with too many divergent interests. High sec industrialists might be interested in revamping the war dec system to make wardecs harder to instigate and maintain but high sec merc outfits would be against that, Miners might want all refinable module drops removed from mission drop tables but mission runners would be against such a change. The list goes on and on.

The point being that there aren't that many rallying cries but you can be fairly certain if such a rallying common cause were to come into being then High sec would assert itself.

My point stands the null blocks that annoy the the butt hurt crybabies like the OP spent the better part of 5 years ignoring the CSM and only after a change was endorsed that adversely affected then did they get active.


Yep, time for others to get organized before they get stomped. This is the way of EVE. Calls for complacency and abstention aren't helping, or rather help the stompers not the potential stompees.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Skex Relbore
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#200 - 2012-02-20 22:44:26 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:

That maybe true. My point was that abstention as an organized protest was indistinguishable from apathy. It will have no affect. If there is a significant votership that disproves strongly with what's going on here and votes None of the Above, then you have a statement. Same number of voters not voting makes no significant statement.

If there are good enough candidates and approval of the existence of the CSM, then yes it would have no effect, except to provide an opportunity to say that the electorate approved, so "Disband the CSM" types are proven to be in the minority.

I think perhaps we are working at tangents but actually agreeing, sort of.

Anyway, responses to other points to follow since forums can't handle the number of quotes required in one post...



I understand your point and to some extend I agree with your sentiment.

I'm just pointing out that from a practical standpoint such an option would actually have no bearing on the eventual outcome of such a contest.

For one while the representatives may be selected in something resembling a democratic manner the existence of the CSM is by the sole will of CCP. CCP declared "THE CSM SHALL BE" so even if a "none of the above" option won the majority it would simply be discarded and the next runner up selected.

Even ignoring that, I still maintain that there just aren't that many people who are interested in the process yet are unwilling to get behind some candidate or another because most of those abstaining aren't doing so in protest, they're doing so because they can't be arsed to pay attention.

I know it's only natural to assume that because you think a thing that there must be some silent army out there who agree with you, but most the time that just isn't the case.

Consider this, only a very small minority of the player base cares enough to even bother reading the forums, of that minority only a small minority bother following the CSM elections at all. Of that tiny minority only a vanishingly small minority support your "non of the above" option.

I mean if you really want to lodge a protest vote just vote for one of the joke candidates and be done with it. Or hell just do a Richard Pryor from Brewster's Millions and run your own joke campaign. You have the name for it after all.

Oh wait you did, just missed it at first since your candidacy post is sitting on page 3, Which should give you a decent indicator on how much good such an option on the ballot would do.

You couldn't even garner the 100 votes needed to get on the ballot after the Goons were told to go support every long shot troll to put up a candidacy in order to dilute the butthurt vote. and if you can't get as many votes for you as the joke candidates like Xenuria or the racists like Fon Revedhort what makes you think there are enough people who'd be bothered to vote "none of the above" to affect anything?