These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2012-09-10 19:17:59 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

See, that wasn't so hard after all.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-09-10 19:19:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Lord Zim wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I personally was elected despite bloc power and don't have a vested stake in controlling the influence of one group or another, but I know that many players have concerns about this issue (they just usually don't get brought up except during campaign season). If it can be widely determined that this isn't something players want changed, I have no reason to push for reform.

How many people have been in favor of the changes you guys've proposed in that thread?

I mean, since you guys keep saying "there's wide-spread acknowledgement that this is An Issue", why isn't there more people in favor of the change in that thread, or any change for that matter?

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

RIP Vile Rat

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-09-10 19:22:26 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
(answer)


That's an awful lot of wiggle room, but it's better than anything we've gotten from any other CSM member so far. Thank you, Hans. I genuinely mean that.
Cede Forster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2012-09-10 19:24:25 UTC
yes, this was somehow much more productive then anticipated, thanks a lot for clearing this up
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2012-09-10 19:26:40 UTC
CliveWarren wrote:
Hey Hans, why didn't you just share that opinion in the discussion thread instead of trying to blame the idea on Trebor?

Better yet, why not go post it there right now? And while you're at it, maybe try to get other CSM members to answer the question as well. You know, for discussion's sake!


If a discussion is what people were after, very few in that thread are making an effort about it. Character attacks, calling the CSM useless, telling us to **** off, accusing us of power grabs, and incessantly, impatiently posting over and over without giving even the slightest pause for response in between hostile comments in no way tells me that this is a crowd that actually cares about what I had to say.

From the beginning I articulated how I felt vs. what the post said, and my words were deliberately misconstrued as defense of the specific proposal, and not defense of civil conversation itself. Given that I was called a flip-flopper, backpedaller, and other names that don't even begin to describe what I actually wrote, what in the world would encourage me to continue making more posts if people weren't going to read them?

And yes, some of that same behavior spilled into this thread as well, but Cede has been quite amicable about all this and there's no reason he should be ignored because other folks want to be dickheads.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#46 - 2012-09-10 19:28:13 UTC
Sal Volatile wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
(answer)


That's an awful lot of wiggle room, but it's better than anything we've gotten from any other CSM member so far. Thank you, Hans. I genuinely mean that.


You're welcome.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-09-10 19:33:36 UTC
Shockingly, when receiving a response that wasn't completely dismissive from the start, discourse became much more civil.
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-09-10 19:39:44 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
If a discussion is what people were after, very few in that thread are making an effort about it. Character attacks, calling the CSM useless, telling us to **** off, accusing us of power grabs, and incessantly, impatiently posting over and over without giving even the slightest pause for response in between hostile comments in no way tells me that this is a crowd that actually cares about what I had to say.


Hans, YOU (you being CSM) were the ones after a discussion, apparently. You also bothered to participate in the thread, decided against answering the question that you just answered now, all the while trotting out the same line about how the thread was just for discussion.

The entire proposal from Trebor was a straightforward attack. You may not realize this, and it certainly may not be your fault, but your complete refusal to even acknowledge that up until this point combined with you participating in the thread anyway was rightfully seen as you being complicit. Had you actually shared this opinion you have when the thread was still just getting started, the thread itself may have been avoided (though your colleagues going for the dismissal/denial wouldn't have helped regardless). Either way, you were a very direct part in creating the problem, whether you're willing to admit that or not.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
From the beginning I articulated how I felt vs. what the post said, and my words were deliberately misconstrued as defense of the specific proposal, and not defense of civil conversation itself. Given that I was called a flip-flopper, backpedaller, and other names that don't even begin to describe what I actually wrote, what in the world would encourage me to continue making more posts if people weren't going to read them?


Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.

Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".


This was your first post in that thread. At no point does it share your opinion on Trebor's "Requirement #3", and in fact is downright mocking of anyone who found a problem with it. The thread was a page and a half long and you already had it pegged as an "invasion" and called anyone seeing Requirement #3 for what it is "continuing down a rabbit hole of stupidity".

But yeah, nice try, you totes were just trying to be The Nice Guy and mean goons just didn't let you get a word in edgewise!

Cede Forster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2012-09-10 19:41:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
well once the pitchforks are out, things get heated, on both sides

on the plus side, he came out clear and loud against "screwing organized voters" which no one else has done so far, so maybe the time is to leave the floor to some other csm / candidates and not dwell in the past
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-09-10 19:44:20 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
well once the pitchforks are out, things get heated, on both sides

on the plus side, he came out clear and loud against "screwing organized voters" which no one else has done so far, so maybe the time is to leave the floor to some other csm / candidates and not dwell in the past

I wouldn't go so far as to say he came out "loud and clear against screwing organized voters".

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

RIP Vile Rat

CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-09-10 19:46:28 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
well once the pitchforks are out, things get heated, on both sides

on the plus side, he came out clear and loud against "screwing organized voters" which no one else has done so far, so maybe the time is to leave the floor to some other csm / candidates and not dwell in the past


Full credit to Hans for even attempting to answer the question when literally nobody else from the CSM can be bothered to, but it's equally important to discuss how that thread turned so sour and why it continues to be the same way. As good as it is that he acknowledged and answered the question now, he had a distinct role in that thread turning into the shitstorm that it did.
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-09-10 19:49:25 UTC
Every single CSM response in that thread contained some kind of putdown, except maybe Dovinian's "Hay guyz I'm still kinda drunk," and some of them were nothing but putdowns (every post by Seleene, many posts by Alekseyev Karrde). Basically, the CSM members did everything they could to escalate hostilities and made no real attempt to engage the people affected by this proposal.
EvilweaselFinance
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2012-09-10 19:49:46 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The proposal was an example, saying I don't approve or approve of it until hearing feedback isn't weaseling out of anything. Convince me its a horrible idea, and I'll fight it. As for the requirements, I certainly agree with 1 and 2, and 3 in as much that I don't see the need for a large voter bloc to control, allocate, and split votes to obtain multiple seat coverage.

"i don't see why voters should be able to dictate the result of an election"

3 is unacceptable because it's a transparent attempt to reduce the voting power of people you don't like for the sole purpose of reducing their voting power

if you don't like the results of the election because they were not fair that is one thing: we can have many productive discussions about how to make them more fair and more representative

if you don't like the results of the election because the voters did things you don't like, the proper response is not to have a productive discussion with you about how best to supress their vote and the proper level of suppression: it is to make clear this is an illegitimate discussion that will not be had

you keep complaining about "character attacks" while you and the rest of the CSM keep confirming their validity: that this is a proposal aimed not at a "fair" voting system but at biasing it in a certain way. that's what the fuckgoons principle is, and that's why the discussion keeps going the way it's going
EvilweaselFinance
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2012-09-10 19:52:56 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

From the beginning I articulated how I felt vs. what the post said, and my words were deliberately misconstrued as defense of the specific proposal,

The specific proposal is not the problem: it's the requirement for any proposal to disenfranchise the "right" voters.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2012-09-10 19:56:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
CliveWarren wrote:
This is hilarious. No dogmatic statements? Trebor's entire first 2 posts were nothing BUT dogmatic statements, in particular the "These 3 things are what the CSM believes are a minimum for any new system" section. The fact that neither you or any other of the CSM is willing to even acknowledge its existence (let alone discuss its merits) is what killed discussion of actual systems. Don't try to pin the CSM's failings on the playerbase.
This is the crux of the entire issue.

The CD-"STV" proposal might have been an EXAMPLE, but the reasons for voting reform is definitely something that was supported by the ENTIRE CSM. (If any CSM members do not agree with the reasons for reform, they should speak up now. Hans is excluded from this, since he has spoke up to distance himself from the reasons for reform as posted by Trebor in the name of the CSM.)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-09-10 19:58:06 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
of the specific proposal

It was said, time and time and time again that the problem wasn't the proposal, the problem was that "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum

[...]

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs."
Remove that minimum requirement, and civil discussions can be had. Otherwise this is just an attack on "highly organized voting blocs" (and we all know who these "highly organized voting blocs" are).

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

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2012-09-10 19:59:43 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
(If any CSM members do not agree with the reasons for reform, they should speak up now.)

This question has been asked multiple times, and I've yet to see anything go closer to disagreeing with the reform than Hans', and even that was an exercise in evasive evasion.

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

RIP Vile Rat

EvilweaselFinance
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#58 - 2012-09-10 20:03:29 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Let me put this a different way:

Highsec candidates have a legitimate gripe that FPTP disadvantages them more than others: because they lack any good way to organize they are highly likely to waste their vote compared to bloc votes, who can use their information advantage to overcome the handicaps FPTP places on their voters. But those flaws are still there and should be corrected as well.

This is because FPTP is a system that essentially mandates tactical voting.

The solution is not to disenfranchise 0.0 voters: they're not doing anything wrong. It's to come up with a system that doesn't suffer from the same problems FPTP does. STV - actual STV, where both overvotes and undervotes are reallocated - does this. So people proposing a move to standard STV are fine: this is a system intended to better represent the public.

"modified" STV, as proposed, is not. It's a transparent attempt to game the system by deliberately favoring one group over another. If STV is implemented and 0.0 still dominates the CSM, that does not mean voting reform has failed. It means that that is what the voters want. Highseccers have convinced themselves that nobody could actually favor 0.0 candidates, and that it's all 0.0 cheating. But that's obviously not true.

The argument that Trebor uses that if we reallocated mittens 10k votes we could have had three candidates is transparently dishonest, because he knows the truth: thousands of those votes didn't come from us. We know that, Trebor knows that, and now you know that. If a 0.0 candidate appeals to people, like The Mittani does, outside his bloc all those votes are being deliberately wasted by this proposal. In other words it penalizes the 0.0 candidates with broad support in favor of those with narrow support that can easily be tracked and moved.

Either the system is designed to be fair: to best reflect the views of the voters, or it isn't. Anytime you want to have a discussion about fair systems, we can have that. Anytime you want to have a discussion about how to best bias the system against 0.0, well, then we get the other thread. That's not a discussion we're willing to grant legitimacy to.
Cede Forster
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2012-09-10 20:05:15 UTC
:tinfoilhat:

making a discussion thread and then making sure it is so controversial that it fails would be a way to justify not involving the public



Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Shadow Cartel
#60 - 2012-09-10 20:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
CliveWarren wrote:
The entire proposal from Trebor was a straightforward attack.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just not the type of person that treats an idea, on paper, as "a straightforward attack". If this were something being forcefully pushed, it may indeed represent a threat, but everyone should always feel free to put out ideas for discussion, even bad ones.

It was and still is unclear to me exactly how Trebor's proposal invalidates the overvotes at the top, if the person those people voted for actually takes office. That is why I started asking questions, and got buried for not "seeing the obvious" or siding with all those that felt that the proposal would "disenfranchise voters". I get it, everyone expects CSM members to have our minds made up about everything before we ever speak about it publicly, and come ready for battle with ammunition ready. This just wasn't one of those cases where I felt strongly one way or another and needed to know more about this before giving it patent endorsement.

Those that objected to the proposal would have done a better job of gaining support from me by simply saying, this is an unethical system, and here's why, breaking down the mechanics and discussing how it actually disenfranchises voters instead of simply being angry with the fact that it was even proposed in the first place. I think you'll find I'm actually quite reasonable and willing to listen.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary