Jita Park Speakers Corner

Think of it as a form of automatic gerrymandering. Highsec, by having its votes spread out automatically so each candidate is as close to the quota as possible, gets over-represented. 0.0, by having its votes artificially concentrated, gets under-represented. The casual assumption that most highseccers bring is that all 0.0 representatives are the same. That's not at all the case. Each tends to be good at one thing, and if there's not someone who knows what they're talking about when something is presented, welp, the 0.0 people might as well not be there.

Highsec has never had a problem getting some representatives on the council and isn't even really that under-represented when you look at the "lost" votes, mostly on vanity campaigns or utter buffons. 0.0 doesn't even have a long history of significant representation. The CSM was largely ignored until minutes came out of several nerfs to 0.0 discussed by a bunch of highseccers who had no clue what they were talking about caused significant damage, and as a result they turned out the vote in CSM 6 to make sure that didn't happen again. In CSM 7 there hasn't even been a significant 0.0 bloc presence: there's PL and that's about it (and both got on due to significant outside support).

That's how these discussions go. Gotta "ignore" people who aren't convenient...

he repeatedly quotes people around me and ignores me :smith:

None of your comments are really on the substance: they're more "this is a discussion that should be had"

we've got a specific beef with the "nerf goons" plank of the discussion and the only engagement on the merits we've gotten is one treborpost and some vauge discussion by hans where he doesn't take much of a position

Like I said in the post I linked, nothing is even remotely close to being 'set in stone'. I'm fine with the current system. I personally don't see a need for something more complicated but I have no problem with (after seven election cycles) holding a public discussion on if there is a better way to do things.

I can't really answer as to why some of the other CSM members haven't voiced their opinions. There has certainly been enough internal discussion of this issue the past few days.

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.

I think there's somethings we could do better at. Having a smaller field of strong candidates so voters aren't flooded with choice by joke candidates is one area (which may help improve diversity, improve quality of elected councils, and increase voter turn out) and better handling a "Mitannigate" situation where an elected CSM can't take office, specifically. None of those have anything to do with "**** goons."

I don't have the ability to edit posts Trebor makes, in the CSM's name or otherwise. Neither does Hans or anyone else. If you are mad at Trebor because he won't retroactively go back and wipe that line from his OP, be mad. But, at least in my mind, the issue is closed and that concept is a non-starter. I am fairly certain the overwhelming majority of the CSM would share that view at this point.

I don't see how his post still existing is a legitimate reason to completely shout down any discussion about other areas of disagreement or potential improvements in how we elect our CSMs or treating CSM like Hans who are trying to talk in good faith like ****. I was, am, and will be dismissive and flippant about those that continue on shouting when the "other side" has already conceded the point. Hans is a lot more patient than I am in that regard, actually engaging with people and doing his best to pick out the sensible comments amid a sea of trolling. Even Seleene took time out of dealing with his RL to try to reengage this discussion with a good starting point and talk reasonably with people seeing red.

They are both still getting **** on, and posters like Poetic wonder why other CSM aren't lining up to speak. To quote Rainbow Dash: "Yeah, it's a mystery."

For all intents and purposes, it's been removed. It was removed as a viable idea like, 30 pages of posting ago.

What is your CTRL-V stuck?

hah well at least that's out in the open

bye Lord Zim

Nah, I'm not petty like that. I understood all along that there were valid concerns about the post and its implications, I just didn't feel like continuing to post in a thread where my honesty was rewarded by even more hostility and disbelief.

To be honest, I had figured you were one of thousands of players who cares just enough about an issue to make agitated forum posts, but doesn't care enough to actually talk to me and ask me where I stand before second-guessing my motivations. Like I tell all my constituents, if any of you really want to get an idea or message across to me, best way is just to add me on Skype or convo me in-game next time I log in and spend some time having a real chat, via text or voice. I'm more than happy to discuss any of these issues with any of you as long as it stays respectful.

For those of you that don't have me as a contact and want to keep in touch, here's my Skype name once again, I have it up 24/7:

Hans.Jagerblitzen

I may not have said it THAT explicitly but I tried several times to convey that message in the previous thread. I think it was a case of seeing red, or in Zim's case not taking me/us at my/our word.

But yes, you made your case well, loud, and clear. All I'm asking is that given that, can we have a fresh start with one another to find consensus on what could be improved, if anything?