These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why your CSM8 vote doesn't matter...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#21 - 2013-04-05 10:23:12 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.



You're looking at it backwards.


except if 80% of people aren't voting then i'm sure you can see the point i'm about to make....
Alexandros Balfros
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#22 - 2013-04-05 11:07:52 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
I feel no compulsion to be the enabler of someone else's bloated sense of entitlement, self-importance and alcohol problems.


in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.


Sure we do, CCP is the one that makes the changes to the game, do you honestly think the CSM carries the right to veto bad ideas :P

Nope, and CCP will do whatever they want, the CSM is just there to make it look like we have a voice on minor issues but in reality dont forget this is CCP's sandbox we play in, i wont be complaining to the CSM about something i dont like as they didn't cause it and nor would they have had the power to prevent it :)
Reuben Johnson
Gal-Min Industries
#23 - 2013-04-05 11:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Reuben Johnson
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner
Liberty is a well armed sheep

Democracy is over-rated when the masses are asses.

Vote 14 times? Someone at CCP from Chicago?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-04-05 11:33:20 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
You're no Ross Perot.

So until your balls descend, please don't tell others they're trolling or stupid.

What's stupid is acting as an independent.


do you have evidence that he is not an independent candidate

because well he is and you don't have any evidence v0v

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#25 - 2013-04-05 11:55:58 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Calathorn Virpio wrote:
cause all the contenders ulimately work for goonswarm?


Sum of it.

Not any independents in the bunch.


You're either stupid or you're trolling and stupid. Which is it?


You're no Ross Perot.

So until your balls descend, please don't tell others they're trolling or stupid.

What's stupid is acting as an independent.


Well since you're actively supporting the goonswarm campaign by discouraging people to vote for other candidates, I'm going to go with stupid.

Let me know when you've internalised the revolutionary concept of judging ideas on their merits, rather than their source.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Prince Kobol
#26 - 2013-04-05 11:56:50 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
I feel no compulsion to be the enabler of someone else's bloated sense of entitlement, self-importance and alcohol problems.


in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.


Why because the CSM have any kind of say on what CCP does?

If the CSM mattered or had any kind of control or say no matter how small on the direction that CCP takes or the decisions that CCP make then yeah you have no right to moan if you did not vote.

However since the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and is full of people who have terrible ideas (yes Trebor I am looking at you) or a chairman that has been awol for the past 4 months then you vote doesn't matter as it makes no difference.
Dave Stark
#27 - 2013-04-05 12:08:36 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
I feel no compulsion to be the enabler of someone else's bloated sense of entitlement, self-importance and alcohol problems.


in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.


Why because the CSM have any kind of say on what CCP does?

If the CSM mattered or had any kind of control or say no matter how small on the direction that CCP takes or the decisions that CCP make then yeah you have no right to moan if you did not vote.

However since the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and is full of people who have terrible ideas (yes Trebor I am looking at you) or a chairman that has been awol for the past 4 months then you vote doesn't matter as it makes no difference.


being cynical doesn't make you right.
Prince Kobol
#28 - 2013-04-05 12:18:09 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
I feel no compulsion to be the enabler of someone else's bloated sense of entitlement, self-importance and alcohol problems.


in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.


Why because the CSM have any kind of say on what CCP does?

If the CSM mattered or had any kind of control or say no matter how small on the direction that CCP takes or the decisions that CCP make then yeah you have no right to moan if you did not vote.

However since the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and is full of people who have terrible ideas (yes Trebor I am looking at you) or a chairman that has been awol for the past 4 months then you vote doesn't matter as it makes no difference.


being cynical doesn't make you right.


Doesn't make me wrong either Blink
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#29 - 2013-04-05 13:08:27 UTC
Hope the coronation party at Fanfest for the new "King of Space" is fun... and will there be Thorrablot ?

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Dave Stark
#30 - 2013-04-05 13:16:22 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Doesn't make me wrong either Blink


this made me smile.
Artctura
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2013-04-05 13:20:46 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
I feel no compulsion to be the enabler of someone else's bloated sense of entitlement, self-importance and alcohol problems.


in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.


Why because the CSM have any kind of say on what CCP does?

If the CSM mattered or had any kind of control or say no matter how small on the direction that CCP takes or the decisions that CCP make then yeah you have no right to moan if you did not vote.

However since the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and is full of people who have terrible ideas (yes Trebor I am looking at you) or a chairman that has been awol for the past 4 months then you vote doesn't matter as it makes no difference.


I think that if you believe that the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and a group that CCP ignores outright, you missed the entirety of CSM6.

CSM 7's problems (as well documented as they are) come from a lack of leadership at the outset, mostly due to the fact that everyone expected the Mittani to return for a second term as chair, coupled with what people see as a missing chair now.

The thing to understand about the CSM, is that it can't simply be an "I win" button. Even if null sec candidates sweep all 14 spaces, to think that they would act in a way detrimental to other portions of space is ludicrous. You don't make null sec better by destroying high sec. You don't improve w-space living at the expense of faction warfare players. I see so many people out there that believe if the entire nullsec candidate slate is elected, that they'd simply turn around and go with the following thought process blindly.


  1. Does it make high sec life more miserable? If yes, push it as the CSM's agenda.
  2. Discuss any ideas that have no idea on high sec, and come up with a real opinion.


No where is that the case. Turning the game into a miserable experience for a group of players should not be done through the very representation of those players, regardless of who they voted for. The CSM still stands to represent all of the players and act in their best interests, and if council members behave otherwise, they shouldn't be part of the CSM.

Artctura for CSM 2013
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#32 - 2013-04-05 13:22:25 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
I feel no compulsion to be the enabler of someone else's bloated sense of entitlement, self-importance and alcohol problems.


in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.


Why because the CSM have any kind of say on what CCP does?

If the CSM mattered or had any kind of control or say no matter how small on the direction that CCP takes or the decisions that CCP make then yeah you have no right to moan if you did not vote.

However since the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and is full of people who have terrible ideas (yes Trebor I am looking at you) or a chairman that has been awol for the past 4 months then you vote doesn't matter as it makes no difference.


Consider Pascal's wager.

If the CSM is utterly useless, then your maximum loss is a couple of minutes spent voting

If the CSM does have some influence, then your maximum gain is being able to be represented by someone who will advocate your point of view.

Since you've already spent longer than it would take to vote explaining why you're not voting, you are irrational unless you can demonstrate that voting would actively harm you.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2013-04-05 13:23:39 UTC
Artctura wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
I feel no compulsion to be the enabler of someone else's bloated sense of entitlement, self-importance and alcohol problems.


in that case you have pretty much 0 right to complain about anything for the next 12 months, or however long the csm is.


Why because the CSM have any kind of say on what CCP does?

If the CSM mattered or had any kind of control or say no matter how small on the direction that CCP takes or the decisions that CCP make then yeah you have no right to moan if you did not vote.

However since the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and is full of people who have terrible ideas (yes Trebor I am looking at you) or a chairman that has been awol for the past 4 months then you vote doesn't matter as it makes no difference.


I think that if you believe that the CSM is nothing more than a PR exercise and a group that CCP ignores outright, you missed the entirety of CSM6.

CSM 7's problems (as well documented as they are) come from a lack of leadership at the outset, mostly due to the fact that everyone expected the Mittani to return for a second term as chair, coupled with what people see as a missing chair now.

The thing to understand about the CSM, is that it can't simply be an "I win" button. Even if null sec candidates sweep all 14 spaces, to think that they would act in a way detrimental to other portions of space is ludicrous. You don't make null sec better by destroying high sec. You don't improve w-space living at the expense of faction warfare players. I see so many people out there that believe if the entire nullsec candidate slate is elected, that they'd simply turn around and go with the following thought process blindly.


  1. Does it make high sec life more miserable? If yes, push it as the CSM's agenda.
  2. Discuss any ideas that have no idea on high sec, and come up with a real opinion.


No where is that the case. Turning the game into a miserable experience for a group of players should not be done through the very representation of those players, regardless of who they voted for. The CSM still stands to represent all of the players and act in their best interests, and if council members behave otherwise, they shouldn't be part of the CSM.


It's also worth noting that even the Goon/HBC voting list contains a couple of "hi-sec" candidates.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-04-05 13:24:42 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
It's also worth noting that even the Goon/HBC voting list contains a couple of "hi-sec" candidates.


Mangala and Psychotic Monk aren't pro-themepark WoW in Space candidates, so they're not true hisec candidates!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#35 - 2013-04-05 13:25:33 UTC
Artctura wrote:
No where is that the case. Turning the game into a miserable experience for a group of players should not be done through the very representation of those players, regardless of who they voted for. The CSM still stands to represent all of the players and act in their best interests, and if council members behave otherwise, they shouldn't be part of the CSM.
…and tbh, the only members that have shown any such behaviour are self-professed “highsec candidates” (which comes as no surprise since someone who has only ever experienced highsec has a hideously limited view of the game and simply can't represent the playerbase and its interests).
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-04-05 13:27:23 UTC
oh yeah the jump bridge nerf that came about when CCP asked hisec miner CSMs "well how do you guys feel about jump bridges"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dave Stark
#37 - 2013-04-05 13:30:02 UTC
Andski wrote:
oh yeah the jump bridge nerf that came about when CCP asked hisec miner CSMs "well how do you guys feel about jump bridges"

in what way were they nerfed?
(i think i'm too new to know about that nerf)
Artctura
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2013-04-05 13:35:28 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Andski wrote:
oh yeah the jump bridge nerf that came about when CCP asked hisec miner CSMs "well how do you guys feel about jump bridges"

in what way were they nerfed?
(i think i'm too new to know about that nerf)


They were changed from allowing 2 in a system to 1.

Previously null sec players in large alliances travelled via JB's mostly and gates at the ends, or when they needed to switch JB chains. Now they have to jump a gate between each bridge.

It was put in the game in the belief that it would cause more PvP at the gates. In reality, its simply made people watch intel channels more, use alternate routes and has hurt PvP because of the reduced capability of reaction fleets to catch up or encircle hostiles as well as doubling travel time for roaming fleets to get to hunting grounds.

Artctura for CSM 2013
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#39 - 2013-04-05 13:37:43 UTC
Artctura wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Andski wrote:
oh yeah the jump bridge nerf that came about when CCP asked hisec miner CSMs "well how do you guys feel about jump bridges"

in what way were they nerfed?
(i think i'm too new to know about that nerf)


They were changed from allowing 2 in a system to 1.

Previously null sec players in large alliances travelled via JB's mostly and gates at the ends, or when they needed to switch JB chains. Now they have to jump a gate between each bridge.

It was put in the game in the belief that it would cause more PvP at the gates. In reality, its simply made people watch intel channels more, use alternate routes and has hurt PvP because of the reduced capability of reaction fleets to catch up or encircle hostiles as well as doubling travel time for roaming fleets to get to hunting grounds.


Someone point this post out to ccp. Send it in a mail called UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES lol.
Dave Stark
#40 - 2013-04-05 13:37:51 UTC
Artctura wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Andski wrote:
oh yeah the jump bridge nerf that came about when CCP asked hisec miner CSMs "well how do you guys feel about jump bridges"

in what way were they nerfed?
(i think i'm too new to know about that nerf)


They were changed from allowing 2 in a system to 1.

Previously null sec players in large alliances travelled via JB's mostly and gates at the ends, or when they needed to switch JB chains. Now they have to jump a gate between each bridge.

It was put in the game in the belief that it would cause more PvP at the gates. In reality, its simply made people watch intel channels more, use alternate routes and has hurt PvP because of the reduced capability of reaction fleets to catch up or encircle hostiles as well as doubling travel time for roaming fleets to get to hunting grounds.


i see.
not as horrific as it could have been but still a rather pointless change.
thanks.