These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

How to get more people to Vote for CSM

First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#41 - 2012-01-28 14:02:49 UTC
met worst wrote:
Tippia wrote:
2bhammered wrote:
the whole system is fail anyway so who cares.

In what way?

Because met worst said so. Problem?


So all we have to do is to put you on ignore and that's all it will take to make the CSM unfail.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Gregor Marethel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2012-01-30 19:34:08 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

Just because someone is a member of a null-sec alliance does not mean that they only represent nullsec interests. For example, I have two main characters; Trebor is currently in DNS, which does small-gang PVP in lowsec and null, and also runs a lot of Incursions; my other main is a hisec/wormhole industrialist. And if you look at my record as part of CSM5 and CSM6, you'll see that I've always represented the broad interests of all players.

Bullshit.

Not only is it impossible to represent all players, who often have contradictory desires, this CSM has clearly prioritized null-sec fixes over hi-sec concerns (which is completely understandable, since that's what you know and care most about).

I'm sure you want examples, here's a few: the CSM pushed hard for time dialation, a great and much needed feature that only improves the game for null-sec residents. Mining, mission running, and ganking are the primary activities in hi-sec, and CSM6 hasn't made any of them a priority.

Mining might get some help if drones stop dropping their compounds, but only because the CSM wants to nerf a section of null they don't like (maybe doing the right thing for the wrong reason still counts, though). The "rebalance" of the drake hurts mission runners and makes it a better pvp ship (higher dps that's any damage type ftw). Loss of insurance is more than offset by the introduction of a ganker's wet dream: the Tornado.
Pavel Bidermann
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-01-30 19:46:49 UTC
Look, the CSM Chairman has already stated multiple times that he doesnot and will not represent you unless you are one of his chosen few. Can you reasonably expect anyone to change this after that standard has been set? Nobody ever raises the bar. It just gets lower. So if you're expecting representation you might just be setting yourself up for some real disappointment. CSM is a PR/meta-gaming stunt that could have been good. I suppose that would have been by accident though.
Ai Shun
#44 - 2012-01-30 21:14:05 UTC
Gregor Marethel wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
...Other lies...

They may have some players from null-sec, but they're not a null-sec only CSM.

Yes they are. This is a list of the CSM6, tell me which ones are not Null sec.

CSM Member --------- Alliance ----------------------- Null Systems
The Mittani ----------- Goonswarm Federation -- 118
Vile Rat --------------- Goonswarm Federation -- 118
UAxDEATH ---------- Legion of xXDEATHXx ---- 113
White Tree ----------- Elite Space Guild ----------- 12
Seleene -------------- Pandemic Legion ----------- 3
Trebor Daehdoow -- Dirt Nap Squad. ------------ 2
Draco Llasa --------- Initiative Mercenaries ------ 1
Killer2 ----------------- CORE. --------------- Non-Sov Null PvP Alliance according to KB: http://killboard.evekb.co.uk/?a=alliance_detail&all_ext_id=223369706
Meissa Anunthiel -- Rooks and Kings ---- Non-Sov Null PvP Alliance according to KB: http://rooksandkings.com/killboard/?a=home



I take offense at you calling me a liar; when I was listing items from the recent CSM minutes with CCP. That is a much more useful gauge of what they are effectively doing than a list of their alliances.

Do you really judge people based on their virtual skin colour instead of their deeds?

Is that the type of person you are?
Ai Shun
#45 - 2012-01-30 21:18:36 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:

The same CSM that argued against STV

Stranglethorn Vale?

in my EVE?


:laughs: Single Transferable Vote. This is the excerpt on it:

CSM Minutes wrote:

The third change proposed was changing the election system from the current form to a single transferrable vote (STV) (i.e. any surplus or unused votes are transferred according to the voter's stated preferences should their highest preference not need them or not make it in). The timeframe for this change would be the election in 2013 (thus, no changes would be made for the next CSM election).

In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM. Also, with the current situation the only thing the STV would do is to potentially get a ‘smaller’ candidate into one of the lower seats. Furthermore, by making the voting system more complicated (as an STV would do) the risk of driving away voters exists. Continuing, the CSM commented that only with a substantially larger number of voters would the STV system be appropriate


More than our dear little Gregor Marethel missed in his biased dislike.
Gregor Marethel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2012-01-30 21:54:16 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
I take offense at you calling me a liar; when I was listing items from the recent CSM minutes with CCP. That is a much more useful gauge of what they are effectively doing than a list of their alliances.

Do you really judge people based on their virtual skin colour instead of their deeds?

Is that the type of person you are?

I take offence at you blantently lying in a thread I created. I noticed you didn't try to prove me wrong, you just went straight to the personal attacks.

WTF does anything in this thread have to do with skin colour? I judge you based entirely on the lies and condescension you've written so far, I couldn't care less what colour you or your avatar are.
Ai Shun
#47 - 2012-01-30 22:11:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ai Shun
Ai Shun wrote:
You mean the CSM that helped with Incursion balance, took stock of the economy as a whole, worked on improving conflict across all spheres and aspects of the game, localization, client and graphics updates, and other features that benefited the player base as a whole?

The same CSM that argued against STV as it would be too easy to manipulate and create unreasonable power blocks, argued for rebalancing of moons, partial skill respecs, reinstatement of team gridlock, Super Capital rebalance, modules, ships, etc.

The same CSM that wanted more variety and diversity in Incursion spawns - in general, improving the experience as the CSM sees this as having valuable social aspects and support further iterations into it.

I'm not even going to bother picking up points past page 15. There's another 29 or so to go.

They may have some players from null-sec, but they're not a null-sec only CSM.


Gregor Marethel wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
I take offense at you calling me a liar; when I was listing items from the recent CSM minutes with CCP. That is a much more useful gauge of what they are effectively doing than a list of their alliances.

Do you really judge people based on their virtual skin colour instead of their deeds?

Is that the type of person you are?

I take offence at you blantently lying in a thread I created. I noticed you didn't try to prove me wrong, you just went straight to the personal attacks.

WTF does anything in this thread have to do with skin colour? I judge you based entirely on the lies and condescension you've written so far, I couldn't care less what colour you or your avatar are.



I don't need to prove you wrong, applecheeks. It is in the CSM Minutes that is accessible to EVERYONE. Here you go, go read them. So no, no lies, no condescension. I am just showing you that what you say is not what is actually happening.

And what does skin colour have to do it? You are juding the CSM by their alliances, instead of by their deeds. That is the type of mindset that creates racism, divides between people and so forth.

Go read the minutes. Educate yourself and learn what has actually happened, not what you imagined based off their alliances. You'll end up being a better person for taking stock of what is really happening, instead of judging people off factors that hold no real relevance.
J Kunjeh
#48 - 2012-01-30 22:11:48 UTC
Gregor Marethel wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
I take offense at you calling me a liar; when I was listing items from the recent CSM minutes with CCP. That is a much more useful gauge of what they are effectively doing than a list of their alliances.

Do you really judge people based on their virtual skin colour instead of their deeds?

Is that the type of person you are?

I take offence at you blantently lying in a thread I created. I noticed you didn't try to prove me wrong, you just went straight to the personal attacks.



And I take offense that someone is taking offense to something said in a game forum on the intertubes. Garsh darnit!

"The world as we know it came about through an anomaly (anomou)" (The Gospel of Philip, 1-5) 

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-01-31 00:28:41 UTC
Gregor Marethel wrote:
Not only is it impossible to represent all players, who often have contradictory desires, this CSM has clearly prioritized null-sec fixes over hi-sec concerns (which is completely understandable, since that's what you know and care most about).

I'm sure you want examples, here's a few: the CSM pushed hard for time dilation, a great and much needed feature that only improves the game for null-sec residents.

TiDi originated with CCP; the CSM pushed it because it's a good idea that helps solve a general infrastructure problem. Oh, and BTW, TiDi has turned on in Jita on occasion.

Quote:
Mining, mission running, and ganking are the primary activities in hi-sec, and CSM6 hasn't made any of them a priority.

Before the dark days of September, there were few resources available for FiS fixes. When CCP reshuffled, they knew they could only plan for "little things", which is why you saw a lot of general improvements -- especially to the UI and general features -- that were broadly useful to everyone.

Over the next 6 months, you'll see more of that, plus bigger things that are generally applicable. For example, Team Game of Drones is working on big improvements to the way you manage your inventories.

Sure, there are conflicting interests, and each CSM has their own personal priorities. In the end, based on feedback they get from players and from CSM, CCP makes resource allocation decisions. There are lots of areas of the game that are broken, and even with the new resources CCP is throwing at it, hard decisions have to be made -- and often, factors like "how can we market this?" perhaps have a higher priority that some might like. But that's just life.

For my part, I will continue to push for more resources to be put into general game improvements (such as the UI, or doing a rewrite of POS's and Industrial mechanics), because they would be good long-term improvements to the game that would impact large numbers of players. But at the same time, effort has to be put into fixing more focused areas of the game, like FW, missions, mining, sov, etc., etc -- and the blunt reality is that it can't all be done at once.

CSM has not yet seen what CCP is going to be working on as their headline feature for the summer expansion but I would not be at all surprised if it's something related to FW and/or highsec wars. Several CSMs, myself included, pointed out in December that FW was overdue for some love (or perhaps, more overdue than some other things) and that doing something innovative there could provide insights on how to "fix" nullsec sov.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2012-01-31 01:46:40 UTC
Gregor Marethel wrote:
This seems obvious, so perhaps I just couldn't find the thread that suggests this:

Add a screen at login where you can vote for your choice for CSM (and have a link to more info about them). Include a button to skip voting (but the screen comes back at the next login) and a button to abstain from voting (so the screen doesn't come back until next year).

Perhaps it's too late to code such a screen for this election, but making it easier to vote and harder to forget about when you need to vote are the low hanging fruit for improving voter turnout. After that we can work on getting better candidates :)




give us aurum for voting, that'll go over great Twisted

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Previous page123