These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
First pagePrevious page8910
 

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Alekseyev Karrde
Capitalist Army
Streamfleet
#181 - 2012-09-11 15:54:39 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

...


thanks for taking the time to post here

although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked

1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is?

2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea?

3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like?


i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements


while you are here ! ;)

I already answered your questions

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Cede Forster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#182 - 2012-09-11 15:56:34 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

...


thanks for taking the time to post here

although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked

1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is?

2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea?

3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like?


i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements


while you are here ! ;)

I already answered your questions


you did? i somehow missed that - can you link it maybe so i can add it to the overview?
Alekseyev Karrde
Capitalist Army
Streamfleet
#183 - 2012-09-11 16:31:21 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

...


thanks for taking the time to post here

although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked

1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is?

2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea?

3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like?


i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements


while you are here ! ;)

I already answered your questions


you did? i somehow missed that - can you link it maybe so i can add it to the overview?

Considering your trolling of CSMs in these threads? No. Go into my post history and find it your damn self.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Cede Forster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#184 - 2012-09-11 16:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
for what reason exactly are you being rude to me?

i asked the question very politely, i stated that i think i can see your answer between the lines but it was not clear

and now you accuse me for trolling because i care about the discussion? because i took the effort to clear up what the CSM members position on the proposal was?

maybe you are used to a different attitude around here but please accept my apology if i offended you.
i honestly would like to know your answer on the subject, i am having difficulties to go through the text and find a clear answer. it would be really nice if you could just answer a clear yes or no instead of accusing me of trying to "troll" csm members


i am very disappointing to see that you took the time to offend me but did not care to help with the answers


ah well, i wont fight with you over this - i added your answer as good as possible to list - thank you for your time anyhow even if that was very unkind
Alekseyev Karrde
Capitalist Army
Streamfleet
#185 - 2012-09-11 18:11:22 UTC
I will humor you for the only reason that I enjoy laying people out line by line.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the only CSM who hasn't accepted that the "nerf goons" aspect of the proposal is not a good idea during the course of the related threads is the person who posted it.

Unwilling to accept victory, then calls became "while it's still there, edit it!" which I'd be happy to oblige A. If i had Trebors log in and B. If I thought it'd actually help anything. Hans has spent the better part of 8 pages trying to be the bigger man and easily 50% of replies are still ad hominem attacks, straw men, or just repeating "**** goons" over and over as if a significant portion of the CSM is still standing behind it.

It's time to realize: they're not. I'm not.
Hans isn't. Seleene isn't. Two Step isn't. Dovi isn't. The list goes on. By any objective standard Goons have "won" but Goonrushing past the endzone isn't much of a peace plan. Saying nothing needs to be changed is a perfectly legitimate piece of feedback, but I don't wholely agree.

From this thread, less than a full page before you vomited out your little copy/paste troll.

1. No.

2. No.

I even bolded it for you. I"M SO NICE.

3.
Cede Forster wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde:
The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank.

See, you did read my answer. It's on the front page of this thread, your first reply.

So yea Ms. Victim, you are a very obvious, very bad, need a little more practice troll. Leave it to the professionals bro.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2012-09-11 18:21:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
The question "do you guys actually support this?" was asked and left unanswered for more than two days, the only one which sort of indicated that he'd changed his mind was Hans, and he did it in a way which, to me, smelled more of a "oh dear they don't like it run away" move. You were the first one to say, unequivocally, that the CSM reps who'd posted in here (apart from Trebor) did not support it. It took more than 2 days and tons of repeating that one question to get an answer which wasn't word-lawyered.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Alekseyev Karrde
Capitalist Army
Streamfleet
#187 - 2012-09-11 18:55:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Lord Zim wrote:
The question "do you guys actually support this?" was asked and left unanswered for more than two days,

It was answered by roughly page 25 of the original thread (by me anyway), you just kept repeating the question till no one, including and especially us, wanted to talk about it anymore. You can keep saying we didn't say anything against the proposal or acknowledge the negative feedback against the anti-bloc features but that doesn't make it true.

Obviously it was not clear enough for your liking until my post on this thread, but it's intellectually dishonest to say we were being silent or evasive. I *did* try, and I wasn't alone (Two Step, Seleene, etc).

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Cede Forster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#188 - 2012-09-11 19:54:55 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:


1. No.

2. No.

I even bolded it for you. I"M SO NICE.

3.
Cede Forster wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde:
The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank.

See, you did read my answer. It's on the front page of this thread, your first reply.

So yea Ms. Victim, you are a very obvious, very bad, need a little more practice troll. Leave it to the professionals bro.



as i said before, i am pretty sure it was clear between the lines but hey what is the big deal to ask for a straight forward yes or no answer on such an important subject -it is not like a CSM will jump in your face just for asking ...

as for the reply in the other thread, the thread is a mess, you know that as much as anyone who tried to read though it and clear statements on the proposal and the restriction #3 were quite hard to nail down to an yes/no


i am quite disappointed by your continuous personal attacks against me even after i told you in all honesty that this is not intended to troll you. when personal attacks happen against CSM members in other thread, this was considered not acceptable, yet here you are doing just the same thing. the justification you seem to offer is because i am somehow inferior, just a troll in your eyes and therefore this warrens to be handled that way? okay - not quite right in my eyes, specially considering your function in the system but who am i to tell you to be nicer to people who are interested in the changes of the voting system. you are perfectly in your rights to behave just as you are



i am still happy that you took the time to clear this up so, thank you for the reply
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#189 - 2012-09-11 19:57:13 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
It was answered by roughly page 25 of the original thread (by me anyway), you just kept repeating the question till no one, including and especially us, wanted to talk about it anymore. .


You might want to re-read your posts around those pages because you never actually answered the question, you just did the whole "This is just Trebor's idea, but this discussion is really important!" thing that you flavoured with that wonderful "But guys you lost Mittani's 10k votes! Why are you so upset about this :(" canard that fooled absolutely nobody.

This is of course after you and Hans had already trolled anyone who had a problem with Trebor's suggestion by the 2nd page (Seleene followed up on that by like page 10-15). Nobody had legitimately answered the question at all until Hans in this very thread. I'm sure you feel that you actually answered the question, but really you just tried to deflect it into conversation about something else and then resorted to even more trolling when that didn't work.

It doesn't much matter anymore, as CCP Xhagen's thread has some actual discussion going (largely because it didn't start off with a crackpot power grab disguised as a political system). That said, if you and other CSM's still think that you had nothing to do with that thread exploding the way it did, then you've got some serious interpersonal communication issues you should work on fixing sooner rather than later.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2012-09-11 20:17:07 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
The question "do you guys actually support this?" was asked and left unanswered for more than two days,

It was answered by roughly page 25 of the original thread (by me anyway), you just kept repeating the question till no one, including and especially us, wanted to talk about it anymore. You can keep saying we didn't say anything against the proposal or acknowledge the negative feedback against the anti-bloc features but that doesn't make it true.

Skimmed from page 17 to page 28, at no point there did you say "I disagree with the minimum requirement as laid out in the first post", and I can't be arsed to go back further.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Obviously it was not clear enough for your liking until my post on this thread, but it's intellectually dishonest to say we were being silent or evasive. I *did* try, and I wasn't alone (Two Step, Seleene, etc).

Actually, you guys were. Some were silent, some were evasive, and it wasn't until the thread was more than 2 days old that you said, unequivocally, that the others didn't support it. Hans washed his hands of the thread after 2 or 3 pages of opposition and Seleene wordlawyered out a response. "Intellectually dishonest to say [we] were evasive", indeed.

I said multiple times in the two threads what you guys should do, you refused to do it so now CCP Xhagen has done it for you. And lo and behold, that thread is a lot better and more productive, quite simply because it is trying to get an actual response/discussion, instead of starting off with "we want to change the voting system into a system which nerfs goons, here's our suggestion for how to do it".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#191 - 2012-09-11 21:38:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Obviously it was not clear enough for your liking until my post on this thread, but it's intellectually dishonest to say we were being silent or evasive. I *did* try, and I wasn't alone (Two Step, Seleene, etc).

You're getting better at simply claiming your evasiveness does not exist.

It's too late at this point though. Anyway, for all the CSM bringing ideas to/from CCP/the players, guess they had to do it because something ~went wrong~ due to the usual principal-agent conflicts.

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 ?

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#192 - 2012-09-11 21:52:07 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Seleene wrote:
A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'.


mail sent

Quote:
Hi,

Seleene seems to be under the impression that he is a legitimate Chairman and not voted third in the CSM elections, only receiving the position because the first and second choices removed themselves from the position. He, along with Trebor, feels he has a popular mandate to disenfranchise candidates and voting groups who received far more votes then he himself did.

This notion of theirs was disabused when they decided to go public with it. Hard. And now the legitimacy of the CSM is called into question on a level unlike any before.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unread

As the CCP coordinator of the CSM, what are your feelings on the current conflict before the situation escalates further and more publicly?

Regards,

Helping Hoper

Nicolo da'Vicenza


Please share the reply if you get one. I would very much like to see it.


I can't repost private CCP correspondance, but I can assure you Xhagen was very grateful for my help in communicating the concerns of the playerbase with your CSM council. Not only that, but he seems to have acted on it by creating a new thread in which CCP and the players can communicate their feelings directly, with much less petty trolling, weasel words and non-committal answers from certain 'representatives'. Everyone seems much happier with the new dialog that has begun.

So I guess that letter answered my hopes and totally did help, and we now have a productive dialog going on between Xhagen and the EVE player base now.

Just what Nicolo da'Vicenza 7 is all about, providing a medium for which CCP and the players to communicate through.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#193 - 2012-09-11 21:58:21 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
I can't repost private CCP correspondance, but I can assure you Xhagen was very grateful for my help in communicating the concerns of the playerbase with your CSM council. Not only that, but he seems to have acted on it by creating a new thread in which CCP and the players can communicate their feelings directly, with much less petty trolling, weasel words and non-committal answers from certain 'representatives'. Everyone seems much happier with the new dialog that has begun.

So I guess that letter answered my hopes and totally did help, and we now have a productive dialog going on between Xhagen and the EVE player base now.

Just what Nicolo da'Vicenza 7 is all about, providing a medium for which CCP and the players to communicate through.

Please run for the next CSM I think you can do a good job.

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 ?

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2012-09-11 22:15:49 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
I can't repost private CCP correspondance, but I can assure you Xhagen was very grateful for my help in communicating the concerns of the playerbase with your CSM council. Not only that, but he seems to have acted on it by creating a new thread in which CCP and the players can communicate their feelings directly, with much less petty trolling, weasel words and non-committal answers from certain 'representatives'. Everyone seems much happier with the new dialog that has begun.

So I guess that letter answered my hopes and totally did help, and we now have a productive dialog going on between Xhagen and the EVE player base now.

Just what Nicolo da'Vicenza 7 is all about, providing a medium for which CCP and the players to communicate through.

Please run for the next CSM I think you can do a good job.


I unironically agree.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2012-09-11 22:18:45 UTC
Sal Volatile wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
I can't repost private CCP correspondance, but I can assure you Xhagen was very grateful for my help in communicating the concerns of the playerbase with your CSM council. Not only that, but he seems to have acted on it by creating a new thread in which CCP and the players can communicate their feelings directly, with much less petty trolling, weasel words and non-committal answers from certain 'representatives'. Everyone seems much happier with the new dialog that has begun.

So I guess that letter answered my hopes and totally did help, and we now have a productive dialog going on between Xhagen and the EVE player base now.

Just what Nicolo da'Vicenza 7 is all about, providing a medium for which CCP and the players to communicate through.

Please run for the next CSM I think you can do a good job.


I unironically agree.

Thirded.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Cede Forster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#196 - 2012-09-12 06:39:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Sal Volatile wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
I can't repost private CCP correspondance, but I can assure you Xhagen was very grateful for my help in communicating the concerns of the playerbase with your CSM council. Not only that, but he seems to have acted on it by creating a new thread in which CCP and the players can communicate their feelings directly, with much less petty trolling, weasel words and non-committal answers from certain 'representatives'. Everyone seems much happier with the new dialog that has begun.

So I guess that letter answered my hopes and totally did help, and we now have a productive dialog going on between Xhagen and the EVE player base now.

Just what Nicolo da'Vicenza 7 is all about, providing a medium for which CCP and the players to communicate through.

Please run for the next CSM I think you can do a good job.


I unironically agree.

Thirded.


considering that communication between players and ccp is one (or the) main concern of the csm, i think they are right Blink
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
#197 - 2012-09-18 21:21:27 UTC
Just back from a RL vacation (the Reno National Air Races).

I prefer the "every voter ranks the candidates for preference" suggestion made by several other folks the best.

Issler
Prince Kobol
#198 - 2012-09-19 10:46:43 UTC
The current method of voting is not the issue.

The issue is why approx 85% of Eve players do not vote / do not care about the CSM.

I am damn sure that if that number was at least halved you would find that block voting would become more less of an issue simply because of the number of players voting will not be in those blocks.

Of course some people (myself included) would say that the current members (and maybe some previous members) of the CSM do not want more people to vote as it would make it much more difficult for themselves and others in their power to win seats on the CSM.

For once I would like to see a CSM actually tackle this problem head on
First pagePrevious page8910