These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM elections: I think Mittens had it right in these 2 paragraphs...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gotch Urarse
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#21 - 2013-03-20 19:11:03 UTC
silens vesica wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
The fact is that getting the HighSec player base to band together to do anything is like herding cats.

Herding cats is easy: Open a can of tuna in the place where you want the cats to be.

Hi-Sec'ers, on the other hand, are magnetic mono-poles. They repel each other violently, so can consequently can only go in opposition of their own best interests.


maybe if there was only one ice belt in hi-sec...
Whitehound
#22 - 2013-03-20 19:11:15 UTC
Those who do not like the system can try beating it by getting the most votes. If this is too much effort then they are doing it wrong.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#23 - 2013-03-20 19:12:27 UTC
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
CCP ... they would never let the CSM jeopardize the subscription income brought in by the high sec players.

Implying that high-sec players are a majority that are not majorly WH, low-, and null-sec alts.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#24 - 2013-03-20 19:16:32 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Those who do not like the system can try beating it by getting the most votes. If this is too much effort then they are doing it wrong.

Beating the system by submitting to it? That makes no sense at all.

Only way to express your displeasure with the CSM its system is to vote abstain.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#25 - 2013-03-20 19:17:22 UTC
Gotch Urarse wrote:
silens vesica wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
The fact is that getting the HighSec player base to band together to do anything is like herding cats.

Herding cats is easy: Open a can of tuna in the place where you want the cats to be.

Hi-Sec'ers, on the other hand, are magnetic mono-poles. They repel each other violently, so can consequently can only go in opposition of their own best interests.


maybe if there was only one ice belt in hi-sec...
Gods... James 315 would spoodge. And so would gankers of every stripe. It'd be 'Burn Jita' all day, every day.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#26 - 2013-03-20 19:18:56 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
CCP ... they would never let the CSM jeopardize the subscription income brought in by the high sec players.

Implying that high-sec players are a majority that are not majorly WH, low-, and null-sec alts.


CCP doesn't have to cater to either null or high. They can just do what they do now. Leave it like it is and get both incomes.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2013-03-20 19:19:43 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Those who do not like the system can try beating it by getting the most votes. If this is too much effort then they are doing it wrong.

Beating the system by submitting to it? That makes no sense at all.

Only way to express your displeasure with the CSM its system is to vote abstain.
Which is not true at all.
Democracy is bullshit from the getgo, but not voting at all just signals:
Hey, do whatever you want. We don't care about us anyways.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#28 - 2013-03-20 19:20:10 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
CCP is well aware of how the CSM is shifted in favour of nullsec.

CCP's number one priority is to keep all players "comfortable" to the degree they can without scaring away any specific group and they would never let the CSM jeopardize the subscription income brought in by the high sec players.



I take it you base this premise of CCP Infallability because of CCP's awesomeness & spectacluar history of never making anything unbalanced Blink

I do believe it was CCP Soundwave in a Ten Ton Hammer Interview that derailed the ideals of anyone in Eve getting 'too comfortable' and promotes mixing things up ( doctorines, mechanics, ships,etc.. ) every so often
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#29 - 2013-03-20 19:20:15 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
"CSM Member" is a position that bloggers who think they're awesome "communicators" aspire to.

Smile Yep, which makes sense. Eloquent communication, both to CCP and to the community is pretty much the name of the game. That and a solid understanding not only of the game mechanics, but of how people use (or will use) them.

Not sure if you missed the sarcasm or detected it and cleverly rebutted with additional sarcasm. <_<

I "saw" your sarcasm and raised you a "but that's not actually a bad thing".

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Whitehound
#30 - 2013-03-20 19:28:43 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Those who do not like the system can try beating it by getting the most votes. If this is too much effort then they are doing it wrong.

Beating the system by submitting to it? That makes no sense at all.

Only way to express your displeasure with the CSM its system is to vote abstain.

I was actually referring to the Single Transferable Vote as it was quoted in the OP.

I personally do not vote for the CSM, because the only candidates I know happen to be players who I do not see myself represented by. I then do not share the fear of high-sec being under-represented.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Alara IonStorm
#31 - 2013-03-20 19:29:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Organization is the greatest skill in EVE, it dominates all other when it comes to power and influence.

Just the fact that so many share the same channel is in itself the best tool for getting your guy elected. Null Sec can exert influence on Hi Sec with ganks and market manipulation and wars while the reverse can not and it sure isn't because Hi-Seccers are pacifists. Lots of Hi-Seccers can fight fine, it is because there is no unifying force to united the masses and probably never will be.

Why? Well there are a lot of Hi Sec Corps who do get powerful, so they have 100 members, they then join with 8 more corps to get 500 members and are looking into wormholes and low sec and defending from war. At some point they notice that they are no longer a Mom and Pop operation and in search of greater opportunities they set them self up in wait for it... Null Sec. Or Wormholes some times.

Hi Sec isn't inducive to power because all the Hi Sec people who can organize themselves do and then they leave. So like the real world if you want to influence elections get organized.
Destru Kaneda
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#32 - 2013-03-20 19:37:32 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Only way to express your displeasure with the CSM its system is to vote abstain.


Only way? Yes, big changes happen from a dissenting minority doing practically nothing. Wait, that doesn't sound right.

If you really wanted to send a message you'd run as an abstaining candidate, get all the like-minded people to vote for you, somehow win the election and then tell CCP to sit and spin.

But it would mean actually doing something, so **** that.

I like it best when the beats are naked.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#33 - 2013-03-20 19:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Abrazzar wrote:
Only way to express your displeasure with the CSM its system is to vote abstain.



That is one reason why I believe Compulsary Sufferage should be instituted into these elelections so we get a truer idea of how many share your displeasure or just don't know any better.
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#34 - 2013-03-20 19:55:36 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
"CSM Member" is a position that bloggers who think they're awesome "communicators" aspire to.

Smile Yep, which makes sense. Eloquent communication, both to CCP and to the community is pretty much the name of the game. That and a solid understanding not only of the game mechanics, but of how people use (or will use) them.

Not sure if you missed the sarcasm or detected it and cleverly rebutted with additional sarcasm. <_<

I "saw" your sarcasm and raised you a "but that's not actually a bad thing".

Except when said blogger has an over-inflated sense of their "communication" skills. Also, the bolded part makes me laugh even though I now realize we're not talking about the same person.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#35 - 2013-03-20 20:27:23 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
"CSM Member" is a position that bloggers who think they're awesome "communicators" aspire to.

Smile Yep, which makes sense. Eloquent communication, both to CCP and to the community is pretty much the name of the game. That and a solid understanding not only of the game mechanics, but of how people use (or will use) them.

Not sure if you missed the sarcasm or detected it and cleverly rebutted with additional sarcasm. <_<

I "saw" your sarcasm and raised you a "but that's not actually a bad thing".

Except when said blogger has an over-inflated sense of their "communication" skills. Also, the bolded part makes me laugh even though I now realize we're not talking about the same person.

I'll freely admit some are much better at all of the above than others. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#36 - 2013-03-20 21:18:54 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Alara IonStorm wrote:


Why? Well there are a lot of Hi Sec Corps who do get powerful, so they have 100 members, they then join with 8 more corps to get 500 members and are looking into wormholes and low sec and defending from war. At some point they notice that they are no longer a Mom and Pop operation and in search of greater opportunities they set them self up in wait for it... Null Sec. Or Wormholes some times.

Hi Sec isn't inducive to power because all the Hi Sec people who can organize themselves do and then they leave.


While I think this is 1 reason why HI SEC isn'tinductive to large organizations I don't hink its the only one...

  • NULL SEC is by game mechanics design for large organizations to afford Titans & supers & to fend off large Mongo hordes.
  • Industrial/mining HI SEC corps are disadvantaged from joining/forming large corps because itmales them bigger targets for war decc'ing
  • Incursioners' HI SEC corps are disadvantaged from joining/forming large corps because it makes them bigger targets for war decc'ing
    • etc 
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#37 - 2013-03-20 23:13:09 UTC
why do you capitalize "hisec"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dave Stark
#38 - 2013-03-20 23:16:00 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Hi-sec will get representation, James 315.


i'm going to laugh so hard if he gets on to the CSM.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#39 - 2013-03-20 23:59:27 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
CCP is well aware of how the CSM is shifted in favour of nullsec.

CCP's number one priority is to keep all players "comfortable" to the degree they can without scaring away any specific group and they would never let the CSM jeopardize the subscription income brought in by the high sec players.



I take it you base this premise of CCP Infallability because of CCP's awesomeness & spectacluar history of never making anything unbalanced Blink


No I base it on Null sec players being the biggest moaners over how things are now but at the same time being the players least likely to leave the game for another game.

Catering to the null sec community at the cost of the high sec community doesn't make sense financially because the null sec players aren't going anywhere but the high sec players are a flaky group of mixed industrialists, skittish miners, mission runners and new players. If they are fed to the null sec wolves, CCP could stand to lose a great deal of money.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Mike Mulder
Imperial Phoenix Legion
#40 - 2013-03-21 00:01:04 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Vaju Enki wrote:
Hi-sec will get representation, James 315.


i'm going to laugh so hard if he gets on to the CSM.


Actually, James decided today to not run for CSM.