These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Announcing the Officers of CSM 7

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hrald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#101 - 2012-04-18 08:58:19 UTC
I doubt Mittani will run again. The anti-goon and e-honoure cliques dragged his name through the ******* mud, as did fellow CSM members like Darius III and Issler Dainze. Stalkers, threats against him and his dog and a plethora of media jumping on the bandwagon of a single, uncorroborated source that happened to exploit the fiasco for in-game political gain seems like a pretty good reason to flip the double bird to the community.
Harper Haberdash
#102 - 2012-04-21 19:59:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Harper Haberdash
Starbuck Raider wrote:
In light of Jester's blog , which, if those concerned aren't aware of they should take the time to read, I would like to invite those CSM members who have yet to do so, or who would like to say more, to go on record here to candidly explain their reasons for casting their votes as they did.

Two Step tells us that "one of the major changes CSM 7 will be making is to try to communicate with the player base in more depth and more often." The controversy surrounding the results of the internal officer election has primarily been fuelled by a failure of those involved to consider that the electorate may deserve an added degree of transparency in relation to this process and its outcome, which could only come through each of the delegates taking the time to post here, in the appropriate place, as to the reasons for their voting decision, specifically in regard to the position of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Only this can allay the existing concerns about possible backroom deals, coercion and go at least some way to helping everyone understand how you each made the decision to ignore the popular vote (which has a precedent for determining the right to the chair and was for a candidate who to appears to be held in nothing short of the highest regard by all) in spite of the discussed implications of this.

The dissent echoed by many of us who care deeply about this has received what amounts to rather patronising and ignorant handling by some of the CSM in recent days, having been labelled as "nonsense", "stupid drama", "a big bloody deal" and "tin-foiling" in apparant lack of respect for the legimatacy of the concern, which was given a very articulate and reasoned voice by Jester, one of this community's widely respected commentators. This hasn't done the CSM as a whole any favours and has only fuelled a boomerang of increasing anger in response.

As I am largely responsible for the blog being written, due to writing to Jester with my concerns about the 'whitewash' that I perceived, I feel it is only right to take the time to invite the necessary communication here, that, only which, can serve to resolve this issue without it dangerously undermining the CSM should it continue to be treated with flippancy and disregard.


You can put what you want in one hand, and drop a deuce in the other - which fills up first? Nobody has to explain *why* they voted the way they did. It is, frankly, none of your business - and you should be respecting people's privacy to their voting choices.

Since when, in *any* democratic voting - are the voters required to say why they voted? Answer: Never. It's personal, private. Just because you might think there's shenanigans going on doesn't give you the right to strip away privacies.

Your post is like the Patriot Act. "Hey, for the sense of security, let's remove privacy. You got nothing to hide, right?"
Starbuck Raider
Perkone
Caldari State
#103 - 2012-04-27 12:12:14 UTC
Harper Haberdash wrote:
Starbuck Raider wrote:
In light of Jester's blog , which, if those concerned aren't aware of they should take the time to read, I would like to invite those CSM members who have yet to do so, or who would like to say more, to go on record here to candidly explain their reasons for casting their votes as they did.

Two Step tells us that "one of the major changes CSM 7 will be making is to try to communicate with the player base in more depth and more often." The controversy surrounding the results of the internal officer election has primarily been fuelled by a failure of those involved to consider that the electorate may deserve an added degree of transparency in relation to this process and its outcome, which could only come through each of the delegates taking the time to post here, in the appropriate place, as to the reasons for their voting decision, specifically in regard to the position of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Only this can allay the existing concerns about possible backroom deals, coercion and go at least some way to helping everyone understand how you each made the decision to ignore the popular vote (which has a precedent for determining the right to the chair and was for a candidate who to appears to be held in nothing short of the highest regard by all) in spite of the discussed implications of this.

The dissent echoed by many of us who care deeply about this has received what amounts to rather patronising and ignorant handling by some of the CSM in recent days, having been labelled as "nonsense", "stupid drama", "a big bloody deal" and "tin-foiling" in apparant lack of respect for the legimatacy of the concern, which was given a very articulate and reasoned voice by Jester, one of this community's widely respected commentators. This hasn't done the CSM as a whole any favours and has only fuelled a boomerang of increasing anger in response.

As I am largely responsible for the blog being written, due to writing to Jester with my concerns about the 'whitewash' that I perceived, I feel it is only right to take the time to invite the necessary communication here, that, only which, can serve to resolve this issue without it dangerously undermining the CSM should it continue to be treated with flippancy and disregard.


You can put what you want in one hand, and drop a deuce in the other - which fills up first? Nobody has to explain *why* they voted the way they did. It is, frankly, none of your business - and you should be respecting people's privacy to their voting choices.

Since when, in *any* democratic voting - are the voters required to say why they voted? Answer: Never. It's personal, private. Just because you might think there's shenanigans going on doesn't give you the right to strip away privacies.

Your post is like the Patriot Act. "Hey, for the sense of security, let's remove privacy. You got nothing to hide, right?"



I disagree. Elected officials should be, and often are, held to account for their votes in circumstances which are not privy to a secret ballot, which this was not. This kind of transparency is fundamental to a democracy and so why the CSM members chose to vote the way they did is a 'valid question' as Jester wrote in his blog, and to which Alekseyev Karrde himself replied in the comments "Asking us why we voted how we did IS a fair question."

I also think you miss the point of my post, which, as I felt I had somewhat of a hand in the escalation of the controversy, was to try and bring about a resolve, through transparent discourse, for the good of the CSM going forward.

Personally, I think it's disappointing that they didn't choose to take the opportunity, and also that dialogue by, and with, the CSM is not centralized in one place at the current time (it was only through recently going to Seleene's personal blog that I found links to several different places, all off of the official Eve Forums, in which the CSM has been answering questions and engaging in discussion).
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-04-28 13:58:53 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Seleene wrote:
Yeah, that was the T3 Super Titans. Since they are modular, you can configure them specifically to do different things (combat, industry, exploration, etc...). Each configuration is very versitile seeing as how there are seven sub-systems. One of the exploration configurations allows you to place a 'Mass Generator' at each end of a Super Titan. You then fly the Super Titan into a wormhole and use the mid-ship sub-system to 'anchor' the ship in transit. Once this is done, you essentially have half of the Super Titan in the wormhole and outside of it in normal space. You then activate the mass generators on each end of the titan, thus creating a stabilization effect that keeps the wormhole from collapsing.

It's a very expensive solution but quite involved and awesome. Smile

There, now you have a name for it. Enjoy!

Nice troll, with the added benefit of avoiding the question.... In your blog, you stated that you had pretty strong feelings about this.



Have you, in fact, given up on the idea of introducing broken null-sec mechanics into WH's?

Thanks.

Any (serious) word on this?


Wormholes would like to know if the plan is for us to become "Null-Sec" lite....

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Frau Leinsmarch
Mimics
#105 - 2012-04-30 06:29:56 UTC
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
This is how democracies work.


Actualy it isn't how democracies work, in a democratic election the canidate who receieves the most votes forms a government under them. What has happened here is the formation of a coalition government, who's legitimacy is questionable at best.

Also, in a government the entire purpose of having a VICE president/chancellor/chariman is to accend to presidency/chancellorship/chairmanship if the leader should happen to become incapacitated/stepdown.

In most cases should this eventuality occur, so soon after an ellection, there would be a second round of public elections to gain maximum legitimacy. This would then also allow those who's votes were nullified to choose a different candidate.

Just sayin....
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#106 - 2012-05-02 00:52:42 UTC
Frau Leinsmarch wrote:
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
This is how democracies work.


Actualy it isn't how democracies work, in a democratic election the canidate who receieves the most votes forms a government under them. What has happened here is the formation of a coalition government, who's legitimacy is questionable at best.

Also, in a government the entire purpose of having a VICE president/chancellor/chariman is to accend to presidency/chancellorship/chairmanship if the leader should happen to become incapacitated/stepdown.

In most cases should this eventuality occur, so soon after an ellection, there would be a second round of public elections to gain maximum legitimacy. This would then also allow those who's votes were nullified to choose a different candidate.

Just sayin....

Mittens was basically impeached (if you want to go the "govt" route... But not everyone voted *just* for him either...

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#107 - 2012-05-02 01:01:10 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Mittens was basically impeached (if you want to go the "govt" route... But not everyone voted *just* for him either...


no he was not

stop thinking that there was any sort of democratic process in his removal

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#108 - 2012-05-02 19:00:53 UTC
Andski wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Mittens was basically impeached (if you want to go the "govt" route... But not everyone voted *just* for him either...


no he was not

stop thinking that there was any sort of democratic process in his removal

Stop acting like it 's a big deal... You guys aren't the only one's who voted for him.

Or do you take it seriously...?

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#109 - 2012-05-26 03:08:32 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Seleene wrote:
Yeah, that was the T3 Super Titans. Since they are modular, you can configure them specifically to do different things (combat, industry, exploration, etc...). Each configuration is very versitile seeing as how there are seven sub-systems. One of the exploration configurations allows you to place a 'Mass Generator' at each end of a Super Titan. You then fly the Super Titan into a wormhole and use the mid-ship sub-system to 'anchor' the ship in transit. Once this is done, you essentially have half of the Super Titan in the wormhole and outside of it in normal space. You then activate the mass generators on each end of the titan, thus creating a stabilization effect that keeps the wormhole from collapsing.

It's a very expensive solution but quite involved and awesome. Smile

There, now you have a name for it. Enjoy!

Nice troll, with the added benefit of avoiding the question.... In your blog, you stated that you had pretty strong feelings about this.



Have you, in fact, given up on the idea of introducing broken null-sec mechanics into WH's?

Thanks.

Any (serious) word on this?


Wormholes would like to know if the plan is for us to become "Null-Sec" lite....

STILL waiting to know if you've given up on wormhole stretchers, extenders, washers, dryers and permanent press WH's....

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.