These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#441 - 2013-03-31 21:49:21 UTC
In compiling these recommendations, I am not giving any weight to how the candidates play EVE, how much they agree or disagree with me, and whether or not they are also supporting me. My major criteria is "do I think this person will do a good job if they are elected?" I expect that all of these candidates will be hard-working team players who will strongly but fairly advocate for the entire community.

None of my recommendations are bloc candidates. This is not because there aren't excellent bloc candidates this year, it's simply that their blocs will ensure they get elected, and supporting them isn't tactically wise under STV. I want a diverse CSM that represents all areas of the game.

My recommended ballot for CSM8 (Version 1.0)

1. Trebor Daehdoow. My polling indicates that 35% of my voters are voting for me because I'm experienced, 31% because I work hard and get results, 18% because they are old and/or bald like me, and 16% because they want to annoy Poetic Stanziel.

2. Tie: Ripard Teg is knowledgeable, hard-working, and a great writer, while Malcanis is probably the all-time champion goodposter on these forums -- he's been around forever and nobody has a bad word to say about him.

4. corebloodbrothers impressed me when he ran for the first time last year, but the voting system conspired against him. With any luck, the change to STV will mean the second time will be the charm.

5. Tie: Nathan Jameson and James Arget would be great voices for Wormhole residents. If the stars align, both of them will be.

7. I have served on CSM with both the major Russian candidates, and I like both of them personally, which makes choosing between them painful. However, I think Korvin is the better choice given the challenges and opportunities that CSM 8 will face.

8. Ali Aras is a rare bird, the experienced newbie. I want CCP to put more resources into making EVE more newbie-friendly, and her voice will help convince them to do that.

9. Mangala Solaris brings yet another important perspective to the table, and is well-respected in his community.

10. Given how much crap I've taken from his supporters, you may be surprised to learn that Psychotic Monk is going to be on my ballot. I disagree with some of his positions, but he argues them fairly -- and anything we do agree on is likely to be correct. I am hoping he will be CSM 8's Alekseyev Karrde.

11. Unforgiven Storm is a good industrialist candidate who has the bad luck to be a Goon who is running as an independent. That means he probably won't get much love from bloc voters, and a lot of other people won't vote for him because he's a Goon. If he doesn't make it, I hope he does well enough to try again next year. If so, he could be the corebloodbrothers of CSM 9.

12. Roc Wieler will either be a decent CSM, or he'll be able to role-play a decent CSM. Either works for me.

13. Mike Azariah wants to represent the casual player, and has shown he can work hard on community-related projects.

14. To Be Determined. I am really undecided about who to put in my final slot, and I want to sleep on it. Think you know who it should be? If so, post in this thread and tell me why.

Or perhaps another candidate will make me an offer I can't refuse -- Politics makes strange bedfellows, after all. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Wescro2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#442 - 2013-04-01 00:11:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro2
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
12. Roc Wieler will either be a decent CSM, or he'll be able to role-play a decent CSM. Either works for me.

13. Mike Azariah wants to represent the casual player, and has shown he can work hard on community-related projects.

14. To Be Determined. I am really undecided about who to put in my final slot, and I want to sleep on it. Think you know who it should be? If so, post in this thread and tell me why.


Struggling with those last three blurbs, it seems.

Also, when you say,
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My major criteria is "do I think this person will do a good job if they are elected?"
it gets me thinking, and this is an important question,

What is the CSMs job in your opinion?
Frying Doom
#443 - 2013-04-01 00:29:53 UTC
Ok I do have a question, ignoring the fact that no one seems to be able to tell me what you did during CSM 7 except the parts I consider an abomination.

So here is my question.

Given the levels of expertise that will be on CSM 8, what areas of your expertise do you feel that you should go to Iceland for Summits?

In another words, in what areas are you better than the rest of the CSM candidates?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#444 - 2013-04-01 02:06:00 UTC
if voting for bloc candidates is tactically unwise why do you endorse two bloc candidates

i'm also not talking about unforgiven storm or malcanis

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#445 - 2013-04-01 02:36:37 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
None of my recommendations are bloc candidates. This is not because there aren't excellent bloc candidates this year, it's simply that their blocs will ensure they get elected, and supporting them isn't tactically wise under STV.


So CSM elections are but a dog and pony show?

Which bloc with the most votes wins?

And candidates have to worry about assasination if they actually did vote their conscious?

I thought this was a sandbox game, not American politics!

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell

Frying Doom
#446 - 2013-04-01 02:45:41 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
None of my recommendations are bloc candidates. This is not because there aren't excellent bloc candidates this year, it's simply that their blocs will ensure they get elected, and supporting them isn't tactically wise under STV.


So CSM elections are but a dog and pony show?

Which bloc with the most votes wins?

And candidates have to worry about assasination if they actually did vote their conscious?

I thought this was a sandbox game, not American politics!

Well like real life politics, the STV system means if you don't vote for a party candidate (A block) then you are pretty much voting for an independent.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#447 - 2013-04-01 02:56:23 UTC
You should make Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha your 14th slot candidate.

With all the hard work you do, you deserve to have some fun every now and then.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#448 - 2013-04-01 03:03:05 UTC
Andski wrote:
if voting for bloc candidates is tactically unwise why do you endorse two bloc candidates

i'm also not talking about unforgiven storm or malcanis

Perhaps he doesn't consider wormholes or the provi-bloc "real" blocs.

Ace Uoweme wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
None of my recommendations are bloc candidates. This is not because there aren't excellent bloc candidates this year, it's simply that their blocs will ensure they get elected, and supporting them isn't tactically wise under STV.


So CSM elections are but a dog and pony show?

Which bloc with the most votes wins?

And candidates have to worry about assasination if they actually did vote their conscious?

I thought this was a sandbox game, not American politics!


If his recommendations are anything like Ripard's, it's something like "There are some good bloc candidates and some of them will even be listed high up on their bloc's lists, thus they don't need my help, and if I give them my help, that spills more votes over to their lower tiers, which I might not think as well of."

In short, anyone who thinks STV "does away with" tactical voting is foolish and naive.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#449 - 2013-04-01 03:50:23 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My recommended ballot for CSM8 (Version 1.0)

1. Trebor Daehdoow. My polling indicates that 35% of my voters are voting for me because I'm experienced, 31% because I work hard and get results, 18% because they are old and/or bald like me, and 16% because they want to annoy Poetic Stanziel

Is it possible to be in more than one of these categories? Though admittedly... that last one does appeal the most... Twisted
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#450 - 2013-04-01 04:17:47 UTC
mynnna wrote:


In short, anyone who thinks STV "does away with" tactical voting is foolish and naive.


Since tactical voting can't be stopped, the system instead gives everyone the same tactical voting opportunity even if they are independents lacking the resources the blocs have.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#451 - 2013-04-01 04:44:57 UTC
Friggz wrote:
Since tactical voting can't be stopped, the system instead gives everyone the same tactical voting opportunity even if they are independents lacking the resources the blocs have.


And it does this at the cost of essentially forcing organized voting blocs to use their 'tactical voting opportunity' to its fullest, whereas before the potential gains of the blocs was purely hypothetical stuff based on best-case results of what would have effectively been gambling.

That's the ***** about trying to defeat organization with a system - it doesn't work without going to "Trebor's systemic voter fraud disguised as a STV variant" levels, which nobody sane will go to.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

None ofthe Above
#452 - 2013-04-01 05:38:24 UTC
Cerulean Ice wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My recommended ballot for CSM8 (Version 1.0)

1. Trebor Daehdoow. My polling indicates that 35% of my voters are voting for me because I'm experienced, 31% because I work hard and get results, 18% because they are old and/or bald like me, and 16% because they want to annoy Poetic Stanziel

Is it possible to be in more than one of these categories? Though admittedly... that last one does appeal the most... Twisted


I am pretty sure I am in all of those categories.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#453 - 2013-04-01 05:59:43 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Friggz wrote:
Since tactical voting can't be stopped, the system instead gives everyone the same tactical voting opportunity even if they are independents lacking the resources the blocs have.


And it does this at the cost of essentially forcing organized voting blocs to use their 'tactical voting opportunity' to its fullest, whereas before the potential gains of the blocs was purely hypothetical stuff based on best-case results of what would have effectively been gambling.

That's the ***** about trying to defeat organization with a system - it doesn't work without going to "Trebor's systemic voter fraud disguised as a STV variant" levels, which nobody sane will go to.


So... you want me to believe that Goonwarm either doesn't have the ability to organize votes, or they won't out of the goodness of their hearts. That's why they are attacking the new system and trying to suppress voter turn out, because Goons just care about whats best for the game and are very upset that the rules have changed to benefit them.

Are you going to try to get me to pay a 500m isk recruitment fee and contract my stuff for you to move out to null, too?
Frying Doom
#454 - 2013-04-01 09:40:21 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

Accomplishments during CSMs 5-7

As vice-secretary of CSM 5, secretary of CSM 6, and vice-chairman of CSM 7, I was a primary author and/or editor of almost all CSM Blogs and Summit Reports.

In CSMs 5 and 6, I raised, championed and pushed through significant CSM proposals aimed at benefiting broad groups of EVE players (in particular, User Interface related issues), such as the Removal of Learning Skills, the User Interface - Big Wins, Fan Favorites and Low Hanging Fruit Proposal, the Planetary Interaction Omnibus Proposal, and the Possibly Practical POS Performance Proposal. Elements of many of these proposals have found their way into the game.

I created, developed and managed the concept of Prioritization Crowdsourcing, which was used to poll the players and determine what items on the CSM in-process list should be given the highest priority in negotiations with CCP. When CCP shifted their focus back to Flying-in-Space development in the Fall of 2011, these lists helped determine what got developer time.

Furthermore, I have steadfastly pushed for CCP to deliver on their promise to make CSM a full stakeholder in the development process. I spearheaded the production of CSM 7's Development Strategy document, which influenced the creation of CCP's new development model, and resulted in CSM becoming intimately involved in the Release Planning for new expansions at the earliest stages. Slowly and methodically, I have expanded the ability of the CSM to influence the evolution of the game in directions that reflect the wishes of the community.

Note: My main campaign info page contains a version of this document with extra details.

Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
If any one CSM member ever takes credit for an addition, bugfix, feature, modification, or whatever, call bullshit on them. No one person has in my memory been responsible for the inclusion of something in Eve, not even me. It has never been a case where one of us wrote down a stone tablet, laid it down at CCP's feet while being jealously watched by the other CSM member, their eyes filed with silent hatred at not being able to say "I did this!" should CCP pick it up. We theorycraft, we mention problems, possible solutions, relative priorities, explore alternatives, we go back and forth between ourselves, with different people at CCP. If an idea has traction, it gets worked on, elaborated, refined by all, and sometimes it gets implemented, sometimes after a couple of years, sometimes fairly directly. A side note to this is that the first half of the stuff CCP produces during a term is after the output of the previous CSM, not the current. Be very wary of people taking credit with "I did this"...

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Frying Doom
#455 - 2013-04-01 09:58:40 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
How much work as a CSM member do you do if you are an alternate?

Starting with CSM7, there are no alternates; it's just "top 7 available go to Iceland". Most of the mains in CSM5 made a big effort to give alternates a real voice, and this continued to evolve in CSM6. One of the hardest-working members of CSM6 was Two Step, who was an alternate.

Posted: 2012.02.09 12:14

While he was Secretary of CSM 6

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#456 - 2013-04-01 10:07:13 UTC
mynnna wrote:
In short, anyone who thinks STV "does away with" tactical voting is foolish and naive.

I think you're conflating tactical voting with strategic voting.

When people talk about tactical voting, they typically mean "I like B better than A, but A is more electable -- and if I vote for B, that might mean C (who I hate) will beat A. So I am forced to vote for A". STV deals with that issue.

What is happening in this election is strategic in nature. CFC/HBC/etc are cross-endorsing each other, and other groups are doing the same.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#457 - 2013-04-01 10:22:37 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

Accomplishments during CSMs 5-7

As vice-secretary of CSM 5, secretary of CSM 6, and vice-chairman of CSM 7, I was a primary author and/or editor of almost all CSM Blogs and Summit Reports.

In CSMs 5 and 6, I raised, championed and pushed through significant CSM proposals aimed at benefiting broad groups of EVE players (in particular, User Interface related issues), such as the Removal of Learning Skills, the User Interface - Big Wins, Fan Favorites and Low Hanging Fruit Proposal, the Planetary Interaction Omnibus Proposal, and the Possibly Practical POS Performance Proposal. Elements of many of these proposals have found their way into the game.

I created, developed and managed the concept of Prioritization Crowdsourcing, which was used to poll the players and determine what items on the CSM in-process list should be given the highest priority in negotiations with CCP. When CCP shifted their focus back to Flying-in-Space development in the Fall of 2011, these lists helped determine what got developer time.

Furthermore, I have steadfastly pushed for CCP to deliver on their promise to make CSM a full stakeholder in the development process. I spearheaded the production of CSM 7's Development Strategy document, which influenced the creation of CCP's new development model, and resulted in CSM becoming intimately involved in the Release Planning for new expansions at the earliest stages. Slowly and methodically, I have expanded the ability of the CSM to influence the evolution of the game in directions that reflect the wishes of the community.

Note: My main campaign info page contains a version of this document with extra details.

Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
If any one CSM member ever takes credit for an addition, bugfix, feature, modification, or whatever, call bullshit on them. No one person has in my memory been responsible for the inclusion of something in Eve, not even me. It has never been a case where one of us wrote down a stone tablet, laid it down at CCP's feet while being jealously watched by the other CSM member, their eyes filed with silent hatred at not being able to say "I did this!" should CCP pick it up. We theorycraft, we mention problems, possible solutions, relative priorities, explore alternatives, we go back and forth between ourselves, with different people at CCP. If an idea has traction, it gets worked on, elaborated, refined by all, and sometimes it gets implemented, sometimes after a couple of years, sometimes fairly directly. A side note to this is that the first half of the stuff CCP produces during a term is after the output of the previous CSM, not the current. Be very wary of people taking credit with "I did this"...


Well which is it? Either Trebor is exceptionally bad for not producing results, or he's exceptionally bad for producing a list of results.

You can't criticise a leader for not executing enough criminals one minute and then condemn capital punishment the next.



"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#458 - 2013-04-01 11:31:35 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
mynnna wrote:
In short, anyone who thinks STV "does away with" tactical voting is foolish and naive.

I think you're conflating tactical voting with strategic voting.

When people talk about tactical voting, they typically mean "I like B better than A, but A is more electable -- and if I vote for B, that might mean C (who I hate) will beat A. So I am forced to vote for A". STV deals with that issue.

What is happening in this election is strategic in nature. CFC/HBC/etc are cross-endorsing each other, and other groups are doing the same.

Maybe it's both. "I like A, B is okay too, but they have enough votes; if I endorse A it might spill over enough to elect C, who I hate." Blink

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#459 - 2013-04-01 11:54:19 UTC
A somewhat related question is: if the situation was reversed and he believed three to five WH candidates would be elected, but only one nullsec bloc candidate would, would he be encouraging people to include one of the later and none of the former?

Since we are not going to see that situation anytime soon, one could be very cinical about his answer to the above.

:sand:  over  :awesome:

Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#460 - 2013-04-01 12:05:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Friggz wrote:
So... you want me to believe that Goonwarm either doesn't have the ability to organize votes, or they won't out of the goodness of their hearts. That's why they are attacking the new system and trying to suppress voter turn out, because Goons just care about whats best for the game and are very upset that the rules have changed to benefit them.


No, what I'm saying is that under the old system, we COULD have potentially organized votes for multiple candidates, but there was little reason to actually do it until now. Last year, we were perfectly content to dump all of our votes behind one strong candidate and let them use that big, fat number next to their name as a mandate. The big reason for this is that nothing within the CSM itself was parliamentary - there were no votes on roles, membership, anything. Top 7 votes went to Iceland, Top votes got chair. The most efficient solution? Hardly, but it had the wonderful benefit of reducing the amount of bickering a council can even get up to.

This system decimates both of those things - STV basically does away with the idea of that big, fat number next to your name by only giving you enough to win and then transferring, and the new "council chooses chair, council potentially has say in 5 of 7 Iceland seats" change. This means that not only is the "one strong candidate with a big mandate" impossible, it also means that having a dominant and friendly presence on the council is important. The 2+5 to Iceland also makes positioning a lot less important, which also feeds into "more council members = better than", unlike before.

I could go on and explain why those are unironically bad things (especially when trying to sell the legitimacy of the CSM to the rest of the non-bloc-aligned players), but if you don't know why that is at this point, you never will.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["