These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM sector representation as an unalienable right
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-02-03 04:56:02 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Why do you hate democracy, Apostle? When the will of the people is expressed, you rush towards authoritarianism to shy away from their chosen representatives.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh come now Mittens. A study of democracy shows there are many different types and most of them are NOT based on American democratic "standards" (and I use the term very loosely), fraught with might and money iWins. The "will of the people" was null and void when big business "donations" and media hyperbole became the new election methodology.

You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world. Your voice, attached to your region, is considered one of the best and fairest democratic electoral systems in the world. The seat itself - as one vote in the nation - is the valued position and can easily be owned by a non-aligned individual, not by a party. You may be unemployed, poor, green or gay, your vote is for your region.

It's not a vote - and never has been a vote - for poor, green, unemployed gays as this current CSM system clearly prefers.

And authortarianism is a big call. Do you mean by restricting specific sector candidates from claiming they represent people who they have no interest in?

For an apparently devout and declared communist Social Democrat I'm surprised you're even commenting given that this system will still guarantee you will remain on the CSM and at least one of your brethren. I'm just looking for ways to make sure OTHER sectors can be just as well represented.

I can certainly understand the enviable position you hold dear and will protect through metagaming/obfuscation or pure belligerence. My motivation is an undying belief in "the good of the game for ALL". Iceland truly does not interest me.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
Ghazu
#42 - 2012-02-03 05:05:11 UTC
lol NO to affirmative action

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2012-02-03 05:08:10 UTC
Ghazu wrote:
lol NO to affirmative action

Y'all best get dat pickup full of ammoontion boy, we gonna go get us some of dem bears.... Yeehawww

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#44 - 2012-02-03 05:11:47 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

unalienable right


1) That's not a word

2) Were you using the right word, it still would not mean what you think it means.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#45 - 2012-02-03 05:16:45 UTC
The Apostle,

You are trying to rationalise your belief in a faulty system of your own design and desires.
Is it not sufficiently evident from the responses to your post that your idea, no matter how good you try and make it sound - is flawed, bad and unworkable ?

Your concept leads not to Democracy, but to Authoritism in it's worst form. It's a form of Democratic suicide.
Given the total fracture of Highsec, I would rather not cast my vote for a highsec dweller who has not ever spent time out of Highsec or has not contributed to Eve in a significant manner. If you have not already done so, I urge you to read the CSM White paper.

I would far rather vote for The Mittani and pay 1 Billion ISK to do so, than to vote for someone like you and be given 1 Billion ISK as a reward. You fail to acknowledge the real work this CSM has done and the results achieved because your thoughts are clouded by hatred of individuals within it.



COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#46 - 2012-02-03 05:21:04 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
J Kunjeh wrote:
*Inalienable

Fixed that for ya.

"Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."

I did too.


Ok, so if the right to a specific organization of government you claim is inalienable actually is; how is it that the specific organization of government you espouse is not the current one?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#47 - 2012-02-03 05:21:46 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.


By Whom?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2012-02-03 05:26:54 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

unalienable right


1) That's not a word

2) Were you using the right word, it still would not mean what you think it means.

If we must.

Quote:
Webster's 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as "not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights" and inalienable as "cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another." The Declaration of Independence reads:

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law.


Further
Quote:
Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights, these rights cannot be abridged.


By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#49 - 2012-02-03 05:30:56 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
.... short answer is no. Dont make me get a long answer.

From that I assume you're happy with the status quo. So be it.

My stance on this stems from the intrinsic risk to bloc voting this scheme entails. I expect opposition to same, understandably. But change is in the air, it's obvious. Voter dissatisfaction and apathy doesn't come from a working system.

Nonetheless, I'm not "siding" here, I've put this up for debate so your "long answer" is most welcomed.


I think Ill cheat today and declare this to be my long answer.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=64821 TL;DR I think of eve as one sector entirely.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#50 - 2012-02-03 05:35:24 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights.

'Kay, so if the rights (to a specific form of governance) you claim we have are unable to be revoked/modified/removed, how is it that we do not have that specific form of governance right now?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2012-02-03 05:41:52 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.


By Whom?

Australians.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
destiny2
Decaying Rocky Odious Non Evil Stupid Inane Nobody
Looking for Trouble
#52 - 2012-02-03 05:47:05 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
you deleted your insane forum trolling alt and then re-made it, which is why you're back to 0 likes

cute


Correction He has 5 Likes. learn to count :)
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#53 - 2012-02-03 05:47:39 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.


By Whom?

Australians.


Ok, that means more people like the American system than like the Australian system.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2012-02-03 05:50:37 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights.

'Kay, so if the rights (to a specific form of governance) you claim we have are unable to be revoked/modified/removed, how is it that we do not have that specific form of governance right now?

Probably because metagaming was never considered as a way to create an ogligarchy under the auspice of democracy.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-02-03 05:52:41 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.


By Whom?

Australians.


Ok, that means more people like the American system than like the Australian system.

I think you might have TLDR'd my entire point inadvertently.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#56 - 2012-02-03 05:58:27 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

You'd know I am an Australian right? Our system is considered one of the best in the world.


By Whom?

Australians.


Ok, that means more people like the American system than like the Australian system.

I think you might have TLDR'd my entire point inadvertently.


I'm not sure what that sentence means....

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#57 - 2012-02-03 06:08:04 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

By making the positions UNalienable I call that they are unable to be revoked/modified/removed for any reason. Far too easy for some pretext to be manufactured to remove INalienable rights.

'Kay, so if the rights (to a specific form of governance) you claim we have are unable to be revoked/modified/removed, how is it that we do not have that specific form of governance right now?

Probably because metagaming was never considered as a way to create an ogligarchy under the auspice of democracy.


Eve has Players. In the CSM Elections, every player has an equal* opportunity to vote. How in the world is that not a democratic process.

That some players may band together to advance a candidate who represents a compromise between their ideals is called Tactical Voting. Tactical Voting, while not ideal from a game theoretical standpoint, does not rise to the point of making the election a farce, which your claim of an Oligarchy requires of the election.

An Oligarchy is a rule by few. 7000 is not few. 14 is. If the 14 CSMs were to decide they were no longer bound by the results of the election (and had some way to force the issue), you'd have an Oligarchy. But you don't. You got boring old representative democracy, and as in every other representative democracy, sometimes your guy gets beat and his opponent is such a slimeball he shrinks under salt.


*proportional to number of accounts

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#58 - 2012-02-03 06:15:06 UTC
Entered thread hoping for pictures of aliens. Left disappointed. Cry

Ronald Reagan: I do not like Sweden, they support communism. Minister: Sir, but Sweden are anti-communist, Sir.  Ronald Reagan: I do not care what kind of communists they are.
Ai Shun
#59 - 2012-02-03 06:21:33 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
If the CSM were a ruling body then this might be true and I am very concious of that.

But ultimately, the CSM no more than a representative body to put forward ideas to CCP. The game as a whole will always be represented by CCP and the CSM can only hope to represent the different sectors - in fairness - by sector representation.

I do find it extraordinary that this topic has been raised many times and invariably one of the most common retorts is "field a highsec candidate".

Strangely, that's exactly what I am advocating. Not by chance though, by enshrining the position to allow it to be so.


Again, I disagree with you. This is becoming a habit. The most effective way to have the CSM represent the different sectors is not to pick ONE or even TWO specialists from each sector. That is fundamentally flawed because players have cross overs between sectors, it is not as black and white as you paint it.

The whole concept of candidates by sector is flawed because players and in fact, EVE Online, is not just about a microcosm of one sector. The whole needs to be visible, viable and understood before any one voice can articulate what it means and what any change will mean.

What I want is for more active player participation to guide our elected representatives - irrespective of their sector - into the shape of EVE the player base wants. And that can only be done through education, participation and by reminding them of the power they have over the CSM.

It is not done by "affirmative action" to create a narrow minded viewpoint. That's just too negative for my taste.
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2012-02-03 06:26:15 UTC
Thorn Galen wrote:
The Apostle,

You are trying to rationalise your belief in a faulty system of your own design and desires.
Is it not sufficiently evident from the responses to your post that your idea, no matter how good you try and make it sound - is flawed, bad and unworkable ?

Your concept leads not to Democracy, but to Authoritism in it's worst form. It's a form of Democratic suicide.
Given the total fracture of Highsec, I would rather not cast my vote for a highsec dweller who has not ever spent time out of Highsec or has not contributed to Eve in a significant manner. If you have not already done so, I urge you to read the CSM White paper.

I would far rather vote for The Mittani and pay 1 Billion ISK to do so, than to vote for someone like you and be given 1 Billion ISK as a reward. You fail to acknowledge the real work this CSM has done and the results achieved because your thoughts are clouded by hatred of individuals within it.


Aside from the obvious side your bread is buttered on, a Highsec candidate does not need to know about "Nullsec" in the first instance but it's also highly likely (and may even form part of their manifesto) that they HAVE lived outside of Highsec and in fact may also be able to help identify WHY many Highseccers are now in Nullsec. I did state this point already.

And twice I've heard "authortarinism". How? A decree that says YOU, representing Nullsec cannot possibly represent ME, residing in Highsec (as you can under the current system) and thus you're ability to do so is hereby removed?

The white paper does nothing towards representing any sector and does nothing to remove the ability to or the perception of bloc voting. THAT much is evident.

In fact, the CSM must reach a consenus to present to CCP - how can a consensus be drawn on "Highsec" when most of the members neither reside nor have any interest in Highsec.

As we've seen, many CSM are far from objective when people bring forward ideas and how this trait translates into fair and equitable representation escapes me.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.