These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#461 - 2013-04-01 14:35:38 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
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.

I will pass over the obvious "the graveyards are full of people who put their faith in the kindness of goons" troll and address this "mandate" thing. I believe you over-rate it. Mittens' vote total may have impressed some people in the community, but inside CSM you are judged by the quality of your work and your effectiveness at influencing CCP, and the size of your ballot has nothing to do with this. For example, one of the most influential members of CSM7 was Alekseyev Karrde, who came in 13th.

Also, if you do feel a mandate is important, you can just re-run the election with the same ballots and only one winner. That will tell you which candidate has the broadest support from the electorate. I plan on doing this and other analyses of the election, and expect there will be some surprising insights to be gleaned from it.

Snow Axe wrote:
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.

I fear we shall have to agree to disagree for now, but I believe that we can agree that by the end of the year, we'll have a better idea which position is correct.

I have always supported changes that I think will improve CSM's ability to influence CCP. If I come to the conclusion that the election and summit changes were a mistake, I will admit it and see what can be done to address the flaws.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#462 - 2013-04-01 15:21:04 UTC
I have a question. With the new 2 + the brown nose 5

Doesn't that sort of mean the chairman and the secretary need to be chosen out of the first 2 as they are the only ones guaranteed to be going to Iceland?

I mean you can hardly have a summit without the secretary or the chairman.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#463 - 2013-04-01 15:49:23 UTC
put a teddy at the head of the table in place of absent officers. the cutest chairman and the sweetest secretary <3
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#464 - 2013-04-01 16:05:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I will pass over the obvious "the graveyards are full of people who put their faith in the kindness of goons" troll and address this "mandate" thing. I believe you over-rate it. Mittens' vote total may have impressed some people in the community, but inside CSM you are judged by the quality of your work and your effectiveness at influencing CCP, and the size of your ballot has nothing to do with this. For example, one of the most influential members of CSM7 was Alekseyev Karrde, who came in 13th.


I don't really care whether or not you think a mandate has value. Mittens clearly thought it had value, which is why he did it. Your opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

As for the "faith and kindness in goons" thing, you either missed my point or you're being intentionally obtuse (bystanders might as well flip a coin). Your worst-case doomsday "please pay attention to my new system" scenario had the CFC gaining 3 seats on the council had we perfectly divided our votes (only we had the power to do that). It totally wouldn't have been in our interest to do it, but we COULD have, sure. The new council procedures makes it within our interest to do it, and the voting system gives us the tools to do a far better job at it, particularly when it comes to inter-coalition co-operation. It was never a matter of putting faith in us to do the "right" thing, when the "wrong" thing in this scenario is equal to what we're always going to do under this new system.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I fear we shall have to agree to disagree for now, but I believe that we can agree that by the end of the year, we'll have a better idea which position is correct.

I have always supported changes that I think will improve CSM's ability to influence CCP. If I come to the conclusion that the election and summit changes were a mistake, I will admit it and see what can be done to address the flaws.


excuse me but loooooooooooooooooooooool

When you came up with your system, no reservations, no bull, your creation not only made drastic alterations to STV, the alterations themselves bordered on systemic electoral fraud. Why would you make such massive, sweeping changes to STV if STV itself was even acceptable, let alone a good choice?

We're staring down a candidacy that's lower than it's ever been and concentrated on a far smaller group of players. A candidacy with no Faction Warfare candidate, and only 3* new non-bloc members running at all (before the pre-election results are even in, mind you). I think that speaks volumes itself - you may be selling the idea that these new changes are good for anyone but voting blocs, but the players aren't buying it.

* 4 if you either don't count ProviBloc or assume that Ali Aras isn't endorsed by them

"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["
Frying Doom
#465 - 2013-04-01 16:12:19 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
put a teddy at the head of the table in place of absent officers. the cutest chairman and the sweetest secretary <3

Hell maybe they might even get all the jobs of their office completed.Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#466 - 2013-04-01 16:53:45 UTC
i suppose you'd be here next year adamantly criticising a stuffed animal for its performance in its assigned role of inanimation
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#467 - 2013-04-01 18:31:47 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I will pass over the obvious "the graveyards are full of people who put their faith in the kindness of goons" troll and address this "mandate" thing. I believe you over-rate it. Mittens' vote total may have impressed some people in the community, but inside CSM you are judged by the quality of your work and your effectiveness at influencing CCP, and the size of your ballot has nothing to do with this. For example, one of the most influential members of CSM7 was Alekseyev Karrde, who came in 13th.


I don't really care whether or not you think a mandate has value. Mittens clearly thought it had value, which is why he did it. Your opinion on the subject is irrelevant.



I beg your pardon, but it isn't. Trebor had a year to observe first hand whether the "mandate" converted to any additional influence within the CSM-CCP relationship. You didn't. His opinion clearly counts for more than yours because he has better access to the data.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#468 - 2013-04-01 18:36:14 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I have always supported changes that I think will improve CSM's ability to influence CCP. If I come to the conclusion that the election and summit changes were a mistake, I will admit it and see what can be done to address the flaws.


Is that why you tried to get an obviously unfair and broken voting system in place?

CCP Xhagen wrote:
I want to achieve a fairer representation on the CSM and the STV has often come up as a possible way. However, the answer has usually been ‘large voting blocks can easily game any advanced voting systems’, thus the idea of moving the votes from those who do not get enough, instead of moving the votes that exceed the necessary number to get on. The discussion on the election reform thread clearly paints that as unfair and I fully understand that criticism. Either you move all votes or none is the mandate (if I’m reading the thread correctly) – when put like that is seems obvious…

So, putting Trebors idea aside for the moment, what election system would suit the CSM?
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#469 - 2013-04-01 18:46:13 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I beg your pardon, but it isn't. Trebor had a year to observe first hand whether the "mandate" converted to any additional influence within the CSM-CCP relationship. You didn't. His opinion clearly counts for more than yours because he has better access to the data.


Except it is, because the point is not whether or not Trebor or whoever thinks it'd be worth it, it's whether or not we think it'd work. Clearly, we did, hence voting Mittens as the only candidate. I could also point out that "Trebor observed" is objectively wrong, as Mittens didn't end up on CSM 7 for reasons we're all aware of, so there's nothing he could have "observed" about it.

Even that's beside the point. I said that we (being the CFC, aka the largest voting bloc in the last election) felt a powerful mandate would be a valuable tool and acted as such. This is 100% true, as we literally did that during CSM 7's elections (and likely would have done the same for CSM 8 had there not been a change in voting system). Trebor giving his opinion on its efficacy is irrelevant to the point I was making. If you wouldn't have been in such a rush to show deference to PROVEN PERFORMER TREBOR DAEHDOOW'S opinion simply because it exists, you'd have seen that.

"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["
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#470 - 2013-04-01 18:59:38 UTC
Hatori Agrue wrote:
-pssst-

Obvious poetic is obvious.

He is taking you for a ride.
Dude. I post on my main. I don't a ******* alt to ***** about Terrible Trebor.
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
#471 - 2013-04-01 21:00:54 UTC
Txs for endorsements Trebor.
It was a pleasure to work with you in CSM5, and I hope to see you on CSM8.

Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#472 - 2013-04-01 21:43:09 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
I beg your pardon, but it isn't. Trebor had a year to observe first hand whether the "mandate" converted to any additional influence within the CSM-CCP relationship. You didn't. His opinion clearly counts for more than yours because he has better access to the data.


Except it is, because the point is not whether or not Trebor or whoever thinks it'd be worth it, it's whether or not we think it'd work. Clearly, we did, hence voting Mittens as the only candidate. I could also point out that "Trebor observed" is objectively wrong, as Mittens didn't end up on CSM 7 for reasons we're all aware of, so there's nothing he could have "observed" about it.

Even that's beside the point. I said that we (being the CFC, aka the largest voting bloc in the last election) felt a powerful mandate would be a valuable tool and acted as such. This is 100% true, as we literally did that during CSM 7's elections (and likely would have done the same for CSM 8 had there not been a change in voting system). Trebor giving his opinion on its efficacy is irrelevant to the point I was making. If you wouldn't have been in such a rush to show deference to PROVEN PERFORMER TREBOR DAEHDOOW'S opinion simply because it exists, you'd have seen that.



I think perhaps we're using different definitions of "relevance". If you mean it in the sense of "motivating people to vote", then fair enough. If you mean it in the sense of "eliciting results from CCP" then not.

PS I'm too old and fat to be in a rush to do anything much these days.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#473 - 2013-04-01 21:50:25 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Hatori Agrue wrote:
-pssst-

Obvious poetic is obvious.

He is taking you for a ride.
Dude. I post on my main. I don't a ******* alt to ***** about Terrible Trebor.


Oh relax Ptolemaic Schnitzle. Take a Valium or something. Crap, you get all worked into a lather sometimes. That post was less about you and more about FD and how he seems to feel he has been touched inappropriately by Trebor, a trait you both seem to hold in common.

"Can you show me on the dolly where the bad Trebor touched you?"

"Here." (points to the whole doll)

In an aside to Snow Axe, in reference to said mandate. It was not a mandate by the player base, but a mandate by the EVE players of somethingaweful.com, which is a useful distinction.

. . and on aside note, personally, if it takes three Goons on the CSM this next year or at some point in the future to get the uninterested and voluntarily disenfranchised majority of EVE to pay attention to who is representing them in EVE, so be it.
Also, Mitten's propaganda, attempts to shape perception and dialog, and general dog wagging is glorious to behold in y'all's alliance update. It is nice to see a master at his work.
Frying Doom
#474 - 2013-04-01 21:51:27 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
i suppose you'd be here next year adamantly criticising a stuffed animal for its performance in its assigned role of inanimation

No as the stuffed animal wouldn't have chosen the role and then failed to do it. It would be assigned rather than decided itself to do the role badly.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#475 - 2013-04-01 22:00:48 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
i suppose you'd be here next year adamantly criticising a stuffed animal for its performance in its assigned role of inanimation

No as the stuffed animal wouldn't have chosen the role and then failed to do it. It would be assigned rather than decided itself to do the role badly.


Grammar and sentence structure. Use it.

You should have run for CSM. Maybe next year. Then you can do a better job of updating the wiki instead of pushing for useful improvements to the game such as the NPE, UI improvements, POS fixes, null fixes, realization of the CSM's stakeholder status and use thereof. . .etc, etc.
Frying Doom
#476 - 2013-04-01 22:03:13 UTC
Tcar wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Hatori Agrue wrote:
-pssst-

Obvious poetic is obvious.

He is taking you for a ride.
Dude. I post on my main. I don't a ******* alt to ***** about Terrible Trebor.


Oh relax Ptolemaic Schnitzle. Take a Valium or something. Crap, you get all worked into a lather sometimes. That post was less about you and more about FD and how he seems to feel he has been touched inappropriately by Trebor, a trait you both seem to hold in common.

"Can you show me on the dolly where the bad Trebor touched you?"

"Here." (points to the whole doll)

In an aside to Snow Axe, in reference to said mandate. It was not a mandate by the player base, but a mandate by the EVE players of somethingaweful.com, which is a useful distinction.

. . and on aside note, personally, if it takes three Goons on the CSM this next year or at some point in the future to get the uninterested and voluntarily disenfranchised majority of EVE to pay attention to who is representing them in EVE, so be it.
Also, Mitten's propaganda, attempts to shape perception and dialog, and general dog wagging is glorious to behold in y'all's alliance update. It is nice to see a master at his work.

Your comment should be directed to the whole of EvE

As the new voting system and the brown nose 5 concept, giving players less reason to vote, handing the CSM8 elections to Null sec almost completely and reducing the power of everyone's vote, he has managed to bend over every player in eve and **** them good.

And the worst part is it will now be those same Null players who end up fixing the mess CSM 7 has left, if CCP will allow it, as they may not give the EvE populous back the power of the CSM that CSM 7 just threw away.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#477 - 2013-04-01 22:08:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Tcar wrote:
In an aside to Snow Axe, in reference to said mandate. It was not a mandate by the player base, but a mandate by the EVE players of somethingaweful.com, which is a useful distinction.


For the purposes of this conversation, it really isn't. The purpose of even mentioning it was to point out that we (at least) were perfectly fine to put all of our eggs in one basket, both for the purposes of a mandate AND because there was really no point in having more than one representative. The new rules changed both of those unique aspects. That's the point.

Tcar wrote:
. . and on aside note, personally, if it takes three Goons on the CSM this next year or at some point in the future to get the uninterested and voluntarily disenfranchised majority of EVE to pay attention to who is representing them in EVE, so be it.
Also, Mitten's propaganda, attempts to shape perception and dialog, and general dog wagging is glorious to behold in y'all's alliance update. It is nice to see a master at his work.


Except that's not what's going to happen. People aren't going to be motivated or rallied by this. It's just going to be one more reason on the list for anyone outside of a voting bloc not to care about the CSM. The majority of the playerbase barely cares as it is for a variety of reasons, one of which is the perception that nobody outside of a voting bloc will have a voice. Why on Earth would you think a council makeup basically confirming that would help things? I mean I know that Going To Bat For Trebor is pretty much your raison d'etre in this thread, but damn, take a step back and look at the big picture. ****'s ugly if you care about the acceptance of the CSM growing.

Besides, we're also not even running 3 goons, just 2 :v

"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["
Frying Doom
#478 - 2013-04-01 22:45:20 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel CSM 6 wrote:

The changes to the CSM
I'm not a big fan of the idea of there being 7 members only, especially since the top 7 are usually representatives of large 0.0 alliances, but it's not something I can do much about (budget is budget). I insisted vehemently that STV would be a very bad thing until voter turnout increases, because with low voter turnout, STV gives an advantage to blocs (you can read the rest of my argument in the minutes :p). That message was well received, at least for now...

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#479 - 2013-04-01 22:59:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tcar
Snow Axe wrote:


For the purposes of this conversation, it really isn't. The purpose of even mentioning it was to point out that we (at least) were perfectly fine to put all of our eggs in one basket, both for the purposes of a mandate AND because there was really no point in having more than one representative. The new rules changed both of those unique aspects. That's the point.


Except that's not what's going to happen. People aren't going to be motivated or rallied by this. It's just going to be one more reason on the list for anyone outside of a voting bloc not to care about the CSM. The majority of the playerbase barely cares as it is for a variety of reasons, one of which is the perception that nobody outside of a voting bloc will have a voice. Why on Earth would you think a council makeup basically confirming that would help things? I mean I know that Going To Bat For Trebor is pretty much your raison d'etre in this thread, but damn, take a step back and look at the big picture. ****'s ugly if you care about the acceptance of the CSM growing.

Besides, we're also not even running 3 goons, just 2 :v


I'm inclined to disagree. In CSM 6 you guys ran two, Mittens and VR. Last year you folks were more than content to put all eggs in on basket partially because Mittens had gotten so much brand recognition and "goodwill" (in the business sense) for the Monoclegate emergency summit etc. Your internal reasons, I have no effing clue. . . No one, including him, foresaw him getting plastered and spectacularly putting his foot in his mouth. I think Mittens believes he has more influence in EVE with that website (and more income from said website) than as a CSM.


. . . And yes, I am looking at the big picture but perhaps not the same one you are.

Putting on the tinfoil hat in best (fat Fox News Network Talking Head Name Redacted) style, it's certainly in Goonswarm's interest to see the rest of the voting population uninterested in voting and disinclined to care about the CSM vote, to better stack the CSM with Goon candidates and affiliated puppets to push a Goon-centric agenda in the CSM and in the further development of EVE, especially with the CSM gaining unprecedented access in the development cycle in the last year. . because obviouly Goons are a CIA front and there is going to be a Bay of Pigs type operation in Iceland to coincide with EVE Online's 10th anniversary. . as a plot by the Illuminati and Nahtzi's on the moon, to control the worlds supply of Atlantic Cod. Lol

Actually in all seriousness, it likely is in the Goons interest to see the majority of EVE uninterested in voting, but those reason have nothing to do with Atlantic Cod and more to do with dictating the (meta) game.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#480 - 2013-04-01 23:02:41 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:

Except that's not what's going to happen. People aren't going to be motivated or rallied by this. It's just going to be one more reason on the list for anyone outside of a voting bloc not to care about the CSM. The majority of the playerbase barely cares as it is for a variety of reasons,

Probably true, so far us hi seccers had an easy and enjoyable year. There is almost no reason to have a CSM voice anymore with how nice it is.

Only main reason, is to keep the null seccers from ruining our paradise. But that might not even be needed, depending on what CCP thinks.

I mean the only way I can see people getting motivated to vote is either if CCP screws up, or they feel they have a lot of good ideas that could be worked on.

Also Mittens wasn't really bad all the time, so even having goons on the CSM might not be so bad. But the CSM I suppose can screw up and that would motivate people to vote as well. I imagine if CCP had allowed mittens to stay on the CSM, more people would be voting. But since he is off, no one cares.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne