These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Xenuria: CSM 10

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#241 - 2015-02-07 03:00:04 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Furthermore, the CSM being an elective process at all is at odds with the idea of meritocracy. Each voter has their own idea of merit and many of those ideas are mutually exclusive.
From a political science perspective, the metric for merit in an election is fairly simple: Getting voted for is the objective standard for how well you're doing. The road to reach the votes is the hard thing to measure, and where much disagreement lies, and of course what to do when then elected, but the election itself is largely that simple.
In a sense, this is because all elections are popularity contests that require a reputation good enough to entice people voting for you - although in some democracies, the bar is very low due to other candidates being really bad or the rules being bent in one way or the other. When Xenuria tells us it doesn't want to work for this reputation, it shows either some lack of understanding, or a lack of desire to win a seat (For whatever reason)


Your evaluation from a purely political science perspective is accurate - elections assume that popularity and merit are one in the same. Therefore, when someone indicates they wish to have a "meritocracy rather than a popularity contest" they necessarily must be using a different definition of merit and by extension not wish to have an elective process at all. It therefore follows that Xenuria is running on a platform of eliminating the elective process in favor of having a CSM appointed accoring to some unexplained measure of merit, by some undetermined individual, body, or process.

Quote:
I understand your point but I think you are misunderstanding the context of my statements.
Being new is not better merit wise, I didn't mean to come across that way.
I mean to say that in an ideal world people would be voted on not because of what alliance or corp they are from but because of what they can offer. Ideals and Actuals are not the same. That said it helps to consider them both.


While this is a good clarification, you run into a new problem - we do not live in an ideal world. People vote the way they vote and no amount of electoral reform can stop the electorate from voting on the factors they deem important to vote on. To do so would, in fact, destroy the purpose of having elections.

As I explained above, it seems that you are running on a platform of objecting to the process of election for CSM candidates. This conclusion is simply unavoidable based on your stated positions. While non-elective processes are not automatically without merit - elections are not automatically good just because they are elections, and non-elective procedures have certain theoretical merits- actual practice in history tends to indicate that since we do not live in an ideal world, elective process is the best thing available to us.

It is, however, possible, that the CSM is an exception. Given your objection to the realities inherent in elections, who do you feel should appoint the CSM? Should certain CCP devs do so? If so, which ones?

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Xenuria
#242 - 2015-02-07 03:16:42 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Furthermore, the CSM being an elective process at all is at odds with the idea of meritocracy. Each voter has their own idea of merit and many of those ideas are mutually exclusive.
From a political science perspective, the metric for merit in an election is fairly simple: Getting voted for is the objective standard for how well you're doing. The road to reach the votes is the hard thing to measure, and where much disagreement lies, and of course what to do when then elected, but the election itself is largely that simple.
In a sense, this is because all elections are popularity contests that require a reputation good enough to entice people voting for you - although in some democracies, the bar is very low due to other candidates being really bad or the rules being bent in one way or the other. When Xenuria tells us it doesn't want to work for this reputation, it shows either some lack of understanding, or a lack of desire to win a seat (For whatever reason)


Your evaluation from a purely political science perspective is accurate - elections assume that popularity and merit are one in the same. Therefore, when someone indicates they wish to have a "meritocracy rather than a popularity contest" they necessarily must be using a different definition of merit and by extension not wish to have an elective process at all. It therefore follows that Xenuria is running on a platform of eliminating the elective process in favor of having a CSM appointed accoring to some unexplained measure of merit, by some undetermined individual, body, or process.

Quote:
I understand your point but I think you are misunderstanding the context of my statements.
Being new is not better merit wise, I didn't mean to come across that way.
I mean to say that in an ideal world people would be voted on not because of what alliance or corp they are from but because of what they can offer. Ideals and Actuals are not the same. That said it helps to consider them both.


While this is a good clarification, you run into a new problem - we do not live in an ideal world. People vote the way they vote and no amount of electoral reform can stop the electorate from voting on the factors they deem important to vote on. To do so would, in fact, destroy the purpose of having elections.

As I explained above, it seems that you are running on a platform of objecting to the process of election for CSM candidates. This conclusion is simply unavoidable based on your stated positions. While non-elective processes are not automatically without merit - elections are not automatically good just because they are elections, and non-elective procedures have certain theoretical merits- actual practice in history tends to indicate that since we do not live in an ideal world, elective process is the best thing available to us.

It is, however, possible, that the CSM is an exception. Given your objection to the realities inherent in elections, who do you feel should appoint the CSM? Should certain CCP devs do so? If so, which ones?


I think at no point should CCP be in charge of hand picking or selecting who should be on the CSM.
Just because a system is flawed in no way means it should be thrown out in favor of something even more flawed.

CSM 12 Candidate
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#243 - 2015-02-07 12:20:54 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
If you think the CSM is a popularity contest that requires the grinding of "rep", maybe your playing the wrong MMO.
But then later, you say this:
Xenuria wrote:
I think at no point should CCP be in charge of hand picking or selecting who should be on the CSM.
Just because a system is flawed in no way means it should be thrown out in favor of something even more flawed.
These two statements are somewhat at odds with each other. In the first, you deny that the metric for merit in elections are popularity and your reputation as a candidate, while in the other, you implicitly acknowledge that very system and states that it is better than a system not based on popularity and reputation as a candidate.
Which statement do you think best represents your opinions?

Kiryen O'Bannon my quote and comment wasn't meant as a correction, but an elaboration. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.
Xenuria
#244 - 2015-02-07 18:21:03 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
If you think the CSM is a popularity contest that requires the grinding of "rep", maybe your playing the wrong MMO.
But then later, you say this:
Xenuria wrote:
I think at no point should CCP be in charge of hand picking or selecting who should be on the CSM.
Just because a system is flawed in no way means it should be thrown out in favor of something even more flawed.
These two statements are somewhat at odds with each other. In the first, you deny that the metric for merit in elections are popularity and your reputation as a candidate, while in the other, you implicitly acknowledge that very system and states that it is better than a system not based on popularity and reputation as a candidate.
Which statement do you think best represents your opinions?

Kiryen O'Bannon my quote and comment wasn't meant as a correction, but an elaboration. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.


Instead of playing shoots and ladders with logic how about you ask an actual question about my candidacy?
If you have nothing to ask I have nothing to say to you.

CSM 12 Candidate
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#245 - 2015-02-07 20:48:20 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
If you think the CSM is a popularity contest that requires the grinding of "rep", maybe your playing the wrong MMO.
But then later, you say this:
Xenuria wrote:
I think at no point should CCP be in charge of hand picking or selecting who should be on the CSM.
Just because a system is flawed in no way means it should be thrown out in favor of something even more flawed.
These two statements are somewhat at odds with each other. In the first, you deny that the metric for merit in elections are popularity and your reputation as a candidate, while in the other, you implicitly acknowledge that very system and states that it is better than a system not based on popularity and reputation as a candidate.
Which statement do you think best represents your opinions?

Kiryen O'Bannon my quote and comment wasn't meant as a correction, but an elaboration. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.


Instead of playing shoots and ladders with logic how about you ask an actual question about my candidacy?
If you have nothing to ask I have nothing to say to you.

You don't have to be so mean when someone points out you're logic is broken. I like the guy he's honest with you don't be such an ass just because you can not keep your own platform straight. Also he did ask you a question I trust you can find it. Hint it has a question mark at the end of it.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#246 - 2015-02-08 02:03:16 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
....few people would disagree with my goal to reform the way in which the CSM functions.
I agree there is something wrong that null sec holds the majority of CSM seats.

This is the first time I have noticed your thread. Although ... your methods are ... interesting. Here is a bump. At least we agree there is something wrong with the voting mechanism.
I think you're both getting hung up on where the candidates came from and failing to notice that the nullsec candidates have been remarkably reliable in advocating changes all over EVE. There is clearly no great conspiracy here, and few of the nullsec candidates including none of the ones anybody including the CSM takes seriously are even pushing for changes that would directly benefit anyone in nullsec. Furthermore, even if the nullsec candidates were ruthless and were taking the seats only for self/blue-serving reasons, they still would be advocating changes that would help their own specific nullsec group while trying to hurt another specific nullsec group, without caring who outside of nullsec is affected in what way.

One thing is doubly certain: the nullsec candidates are no enemy to anyone outside of nullsec--unless you consider Providence to not be nullsec.
At no point did I question the work done by these candidates.
I retain however that the system in it's present form is unfair.
I also believe there will always be a subconsious bias based on where you live and how you play.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#247 - 2015-02-08 15:40:16 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
I think at no point should CCP be in charge of hand picking or selecting who should be on the CSM.


All right, fair enough, but then who should? Or do you think that the the process should remain elective?

Quote:
Just because a system is flawed in no way means it should be thrown out in favor of something even more flawed.


Assuming that the current process is flawed and CCP simply picking CSM members is more flawed - the first of which we can stipulate to for purposes of discussion, and the second of which is a perfectly fair assumption for you to make, and one I would agree with - this statement is tautological. Clearly, if a problem exists we should not replace it with a worse problem.

However, if a system is imperfect but any identifiable alternative is even more imperfect then the present system is already is as good as its going to get and reform is not practical. On a better note for you, you identified 2 specific issues - potential vote-monitoring by power blocs and various means of vote manipulation, but you are not pushing those issues very hard and I haven't seen either a strong argument for why its important to fix them, nor hard data indicating the scope to which they are real problems rather than theoretical ones.

What I would like to know from you is specifically what a reformed CSM selection process would look like in your view, and why it would be a net advantage over the current system? What I am looking for especially is, is it an actual problem with this particular system, or are you running on a platform that essentially amounts to taking issue with the fact that certain people are getting elected?

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Xenuria
#248 - 2015-02-08 18:05:26 UTC
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
I think at no point should CCP be in charge of hand picking or selecting who should be on the CSM.


All right, fair enough, but then who should? Or do you think that the the process should remain elective?

Quote:
Just because a system is flawed in no way means it should be thrown out in favor of something even more flawed.


Assuming that the current process is flawed and CCP simply picking CSM members is more flawed - the first of which we can stipulate to for purposes of discussion, and the second of which is a perfectly fair assumption for you to make, and one I would agree with - this statement is tautological. Clearly, if a problem exists we should not replace it with a worse problem.

However, if a system is imperfect but any identifiable alternative is even more imperfect then the present system is already is as good as its going to get and reform is not practical. On a better note for you, you identified 2 specific issues - potential vote-monitoring by power blocs and various means of vote manipulation, but you are not pushing those issues very hard and I haven't seen either a strong argument for why its important to fix them, nor hard data indicating the scope to which they are real problems rather than theoretical ones.

What I would like to know from you is specifically what a reformed CSM selection process would look like in your view, and why it would be a net advantage over the current system? What I am looking for especially is, is it an actual problem with this particular system, or are you running on a platform that essentially amounts to taking issue with the fact that certain people are getting elected?



My platform doesn't amount to an issue with specific people getting elected. I am of the mindset that reform is a good thing so long as it is reasonable and affects people fairly. I appreciate your logic in the context of alternatives but I think your looking at reform as a all encompassing effect on the state of being of an entire process. If I have a car that is by far the best car when compared to all the alternative cars, this shouldn't mean I can't swap out parts of the car to make it better.

I don't wish to change the CSM in it's entirety, merely reform aspects of it that i feel are problematic. Vote manipulation by means of large scale account purchases and monitoring are in my view all part of the same theme as they relate to my platform. The process should be fair or at least as fair as an internet space election can be made.

CSM 12 Candidate
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#249 - 2015-02-08 19:04:19 UTC
But how, specifically?

Anyone over 21 can run
Anyone can vote for whoever they want.

What's not fair except that people are voting in a way you disapprove of?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Xenuria
#250 - 2015-02-08 21:49:38 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
But how, specifically?

Anyone over 21 can run
Anyone can vote for whoever they want.

What's not fair except that people are voting in a way you disapprove of?


Plenty.

There are currently no term limits.
The Erotica 1 Policies do not extend to CSM or CSM candidates
There are no rules or policies against buying votes with isk or other in-game items and services.
There are no rules or policies against coercing people to vote by ganking or camping.
There are no rules or policies against the wholesale purchase of eve accounts for the sole purpose of using them for vote padding.



This, is what I feel is unfair about the process and if elected I hope to change.

CSM 12 Candidate
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#251 - 2015-02-09 00:21:40 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
But how, specifically?

Anyone over 21 can run
Anyone can vote for whoever they want.

What's not fair except that people are voting in a way you disapprove of?


Plenty.

There are currently no term limits.
The Erotica 1 Policies do not extend to CSM or CSM candidates
There are no rules or policies against buying votes with isk or other in-game items and services.
There are no rules or policies against coercing people to vote by ganking or camping.
There are no rules or policies against the wholesale purchase of eve accounts for the sole purpose of using them for vote padding.



This, is what I feel is unfair about the process and if elected I hope to change.

Someone already did the math to make mass purchasing of accounts an issue for 5k accounts is 75k US. Also I'm pretty sure ccp would be ok with that since it adds money to the piggy bank so ccp wouldn't care "probably"

The other two are part of a sandbox game. If you don't like it play a different game. Why are you so against a way of playing a game? Also if people are doing a good job like most of the CSM9 have done why need a term limit other than to make it easier for you to get a chance at a free trip to CCP HQ?
Xenuria
#252 - 2015-02-09 04:16:40 UTC
HarlyQ wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
But how, specifically?

Anyone over 21 can run
Anyone can vote for whoever they want.

What's not fair except that people are voting in a way you disapprove of?


Plenty.

There are currently no term limits.
The Erotica 1 Policies do not extend to CSM or CSM candidates
There are no rules or policies against buying votes with isk or other in-game items and services.
There are no rules or policies against coercing people to vote by ganking or camping.
There are no rules or policies against the wholesale purchase of eve accounts for the sole purpose of using them for vote padding.



This, is what I feel is unfair about the process and if elected I hope to change.

Someone already did the math to make mass purchasing of accounts an issue for 5k accounts is 75k US. Also I'm pretty sure ccp would be ok with that since it adds money to the piggy bank so ccp wouldn't care "probably"

The other two are part of a sandbox game. If you don't like it play a different game. Why are you so against a way of playing a game? Also if people are doing a good job like most of the CSM9 have done why need a term limit other than to make it easier for you to get a chance at a free trip to CCP HQ?


I have asked you before to please stop flaming my thread. If you don't have any questions that aren't loaded with incendiaries than stop posting.

CSM 12 Candidate
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#253 - 2015-02-09 05:28:01 UTC
Here's a question that you obviously missed.

Why are you so against a way of playing a game?
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#254 - 2015-02-09 06:01:03 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
There are no rules or policies against buying votes with isk or other in-game items and services.
There are no rules or policies against coercing people to vote by ganking or camping.
There are no rules or policies against the wholesale purchase of eve accounts for the sole purpose of using them for vote padding.
A purely practical question, then:
How would you commit any of the above acts?

I personally know I won't do any, because 1 and 2 are impossible to verify (And why bribe/coerce people when you can't know that they did as bribed/coerced to?) and 3 because it's hilariously stupid due to the costs and because the organisations with enough ISK to buy PLEX wholesale already have the votes on hand.
So now my interest is piqued. How would you in practice do any of these?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#255 - 2015-02-09 09:10:17 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
But how, specifically?

Anyone over 21 can run
Anyone can vote for whoever they want.

What's not fair except that people are voting in a way you disapprove of?


Plenty.

There are currently no term limits.
The Erotica 1 Policies do not extend to CSM or CSM candidates
There are no rules or policies against buying votes with isk or other in-game items and services.
There are no rules or policies against coercing people to vote by ganking or camping.
There are no rules or policies against the wholesale purchase of eve accounts for the sole purpose of using them for vote padding.



This, is what I feel is unfair about the process and if elected I hope to change.


When I ran for CSM, lots of people I know in game cheerfully offered to sell me their votes for amounts varying between 100m and 1b per vote. That seemed to reflect the general perception of the going rate.
I counter-offered to beat any offer any other candidate made by at 1 ISK

IF memory serves, I believe I paid out a total of about 6 or 7 isk to get elected. Which was a relief, because I didn't actually have the 6 or 7 trillion isk it would have taken me at what they and you seem to think it should have, and it would have been a little embarrassing to have started my term with the biggest scam in EvE history.

"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.
#256 - 2015-02-09 09:15:34 UTC
Also what do you mean by "erotica1" policies? Breaking the EULA is a disqualification before, during or after election.

NB: Merely telling people what they don't want to hear is not yet an EULA violation.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Xenuria
#257 - 2015-02-09 15:00:04 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Also what do you mean by "erotica1" policies? Breaking the EULA is a disqualification before, during or after election.

NB: Merely telling people what they don't want to hear is not yet an EULA violation.


I am referring specifically to the misrepresentation portion of the policies that resulted from erotica 1.
Players are not allowed to impersonate other players or misrepresent themselves in the context of identity.

Example: A csm candidate could lie and say they are endorsed by somebody and the rules about misrepresentation would not apply to them.

CSM 12 Candidate
Dradis Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#258 - 2015-02-09 15:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Dradis Aulmais
My questions

1. There's a lot of back and forth over the supposed cloak camper issue, where do you stand on it?

2. CCP has stated the "POS code is scary" and haven't done much work on it. Is this something they should work on? Should they replace the pos system with something else? If so, what should the replace it with?

3. Since you started play what are some of the changes you liked? Dislike? What do you think could have been done better?

4. CCP had a disagreement with CSM member funky bacon. So the rest of CSM and CCP created a new skype channel for the purpose of his exclusion . If this happened to you or another CSM how would you handle that situation?

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#259 - 2015-02-09 16:23:22 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Also what do you mean by "erotica1" policies? Breaking the EULA is a disqualification before, during or after election.

NB: Merely telling people what they don't want to hear is not yet an EULA violation.


I am referring specifically to the misrepresentation portion of the policies that resulted from erotica 1.
Players are not allowed to impersonate other players or misrepresent themselves in the context of identity.

Example: A csm candidate could lie and say they are endorsed by somebody and the rules about misrepresentation would not apply to them.



Can you give an example of this occurring, or mattering if it did?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Xenuria
#260 - 2015-02-09 17:53:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Xenuria
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
My questions

1. There's a lot of back and forth over the supposed cloak camper issue, where do you stand on it?

2. CCP has stated the "POS code is scary" and haven't done much work on it. Is this something they should work on? Should they replace the pos system with something else? If so, what should the replace it with?

3. Since you started play what are some of the changes you liked? Dislike? What do you think could have been done better?

4. CCP had a disagreement with CSM member funky bacon. So the rest of CSM and CCP created a new skype channel for the purpose of his exclusion . If this happened to you or another CSM how would you handle that situation?



1. I am not very experienced with Cloaking or Camping so I would defer to somebody who was.

2. I think what they mean when they say that the code is scarey is that the amount of time it would take to actually "fix" it would take away from other problems being fixed. My understanding is that ~Legacy Code~ is a time vampire for CCP which means they will only really commit to it if there is no other choice.

3. I loved the removal of clone costs, I used to be very averse to PVP because of how expensive my clones had become and since the removal of clone costs I have been roaming alot more. I disliked some of the Faction Warfare changes, specifically the re-spawning of NPC rats. I would rather have had a single strong rat than a few that respawn over and over. The clothing could use some work, 32 X 64 texture resolution is just inexcusable at this point in the games history. If you can't make something that meets a minimal standard of looking better than Warcraft or some other muddy art style than don't waste time making it. Work on something else.

4. I am not picking sides but I will say that exclusionary tactics for the purposes of spite are foolish and counter productive. It's one thing to disagree with somebody and it's another thing to circumvent their ability to express themselves as a member of a team. If it happened to me I would keep my cool and try to address the issue through the proper channels. I am very interested in settling or resolving disputes, I think flaming or throwing mud only makes matters worse. As a member of the CSM I would put my personal feelings and affiliations aside for the benefit of the effort that the CSM stands for.

Malcanis wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Also what do you mean by "erotica1" policies? Breaking the EULA is a disqualification before, during or after election.

NB: Merely telling people what they don't want to hear is not yet an EULA violation.


I am referring specifically to the misrepresentation portion of the policies that resulted from erotica 1.
Players are not allowed to impersonate other players or misrepresent themselves in the context of identity.

Example: A csm candidate could lie and say they are endorsed by somebody and the rules about misrepresentation would not apply to them.



Can you give an example of this occurring, or mattering if it did?


I will give you a specific example.
Let's say I went to all the systems where the CFC has sov sitters, I tell everybody in local that I am the official first choice for the CFC ballot and that they should all vote for me because I was endorsed by le mittani face himself. I would be misrepresenting myself in the context of impersonation as it relates to the erotica 1 policies, however as a CSM candidate those rules do not apply to me. In the context of the CSM I am allowed to buy, cheat, scam, coerce all to get votes.

It's stupid, just because I wouldn't ever do something like this doesn't mean nobody will.

CSM 12 Candidate