These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

I see no reason to vote in the next CSM, but what to do see is a need for a
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-03-01 11:38:39 UTC
We do have a button called abstain.

It's basically a vote that tells CCP that you are aware of the CSMs and you find all current candidates to your dissatisfaction.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
Maelle LuzArdiden
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-03-01 12:59:58 UTC
ITT: people being publicly ignorant about the CSM, too lazy to read up on the candidates' views and way too pathetic and worthless to stand up for themselves.

People who don't vote always get what they deserve, standing as wall decorations when those with spine and a pair take care of the world.

Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-03-01 14:42:13 UTC
clearly CSM is broken.


clearly this is eve we will never agree upon a fix are self's

there for its time for CCP to go ahead and ether fix the CSM or break it some more, ether way there will be tears.





i still say we need -votes, because making people hate you would be a good way to get allot of -Votes.
Maelle LuzArdiden
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-03-01 14:50:52 UTC
Clearly Stonecrusher Mortlock is an advanced shiptoasting bot. It is not yet capable of screen-reading, but it composes word structures resembling some human language and posts them at random intervals.

They still need to work on the details, like content and grammar, but on the other hand it is very convincing simulation of a real ******.

Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#45 - 2012-03-01 15:06:07 UTC
An unvote option is ridiculous.

Why should your vote be able to erase my opinion and resulting vote?

An active "None of the Above" option would be far more suitable. It would show the amount of people willing to vote but who don't see any representative which could be their voice a lot more.
bilingi
Grandeur Illusions
#46 - 2012-03-01 15:11:17 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
An unvote option is ridiculous.

Why should your vote be able to erase my opinion and resulting vote?

An active "None of the Above" option would be far more suitable. It would show the amount of people willing to vote but who don't see any representative which could be their voice a lot more.


Why do you think your opinions better then mine?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2012-03-01 15:25:19 UTC
bilingi wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:
An unvote option is ridiculous.

Why should your vote be able to erase my opinion and resulting vote?

An active "None of the Above" option would be far more suitable. It would show the amount of people willing to vote but who don't see any representative which could be their voice a lot more.


Why do you think your opinions better then mine?


An "unvote" option is much more effective than a vote. If there are 10 candidates and I "unvote" him, then I have had the same effect as 9 other people each voting once for all the others.

In short, they're not equivalent, nor is an unvote fair, any more than me asking that instead of a pay rise, I can have the same amount subtracted from a colleague's wage would be fair. Choose to vote for whom you please. Choose to vote for no one if it pleases you better. But leave my vote alone, please.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Calfis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2012-03-01 15:51:59 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
bilingi wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:
An unvote option is ridiculous.

Why should your vote be able to erase my opinion and resulting vote?

An active "None of the Above" option would be far more suitable. It would show the amount of people willing to vote but who don't see any representative which could be their voice a lot more.


Why do you think your opinions better then mine?


An "unvote" option is much more effective than a vote. If there are 10 candidates and I "unvote" him, then I have had the same effect as 9 other people each voting once for all the others.

In short, they're not equivalent, nor is an unvote fair, any more than me asking that instead of a pay rise, I can have the same amount subtracted from a colleague's wage would be fair. Choose to vote for whom you please. Choose to vote for no one if it pleases you better. But leave my vote alone, please.


This, Malcanis, the voice of reason Blink
Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-03-01 15:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Stonecrusher Mortlock
Malcanis wrote:
bilingi wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:
An unvote option is ridiculous.

Why should your vote be able to erase my opinion and resulting vote?

An active "None of the Above" option would be far more suitable. It would show the amount of people willing to vote but who don't see any representative which could be their voice a lot more.


Why do you think your opinions better then mine?


An "unvote" option is much more effective than a vote. If there are 10 candidates and I "unvote" him, then I have had the same effect as 9 other people each voting once for all the others.

In short, they're not equivalent, nor is an unvote fair, any more than me asking that instead of a pay rise, I can have the same amount subtracted from a colleague's wage would be fair. Choose to vote for whom you please. Choose to vote for no one if it pleases you better. But leave my vote alone, please.




Clearly your 1 vote is unfair as it puts the 1 guy your voting for above the 9 others.


who would of ever thought that 1 - 1 = +9
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#50 - 2012-03-01 16:24:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Killer Gandry
bilingi wrote:

Why do you think your opinions better then mine?


Because my opinion makes sense.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#51 - 2012-03-01 18:03:56 UTC
Nephilius wrote:
Term limits would be a good start to making the CSM relevant again.

Gotta hitch up my sleeves and edumicate myself on the candidates now.


There used to be a 2 term limit and they removed that when they made the term a full year.

The reason to extend it was CCP and the CSM felt there would only be a limited number of players that would make the commitment. With the increase in term to a year and looking at the number of candidate we seem to get these days, maybe the 2 term limit would make sense again.

Issler
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#52 - 2012-03-01 18:37:51 UTC
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
bilingi wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:
An unvote option is ridiculous.

Why should your vote be able to erase my opinion and resulting vote?

An active "None of the Above" option would be far more suitable. It would show the amount of people willing to vote but who don't see any representative which could be their voice a lot more.


Why do you think your opinions better then mine?


An "unvote" option is much more effective than a vote. If there are 10 candidates and I "unvote" him, then I have had the same effect as 9 other people each voting once for all the others.

In short, they're not equivalent, nor is an unvote fair, any more than me asking that instead of a pay rise, I can have the same amount subtracted from a colleague's wage would be fair. Choose to vote for whom you please. Choose to vote for no one if it pleases you better. But leave my vote alone, please.




Clearly your 1 vote is unfair as it puts the 1 guy your voting for above the 9 others.


who would of ever thought that 1 - 1 = +9


I already told you how you can unvote. Your failure to acknowledge it means you aren't that serious about unvoting the CSM.

Change requires sacrifice.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-03-01 19:08:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nephilius
Andski wrote:
Nephilius wrote:
Term limits would be a good start to making the CSM relevant again.

Gotta hitch up my sleeves and edumicate myself on the candidates now.


So you'd keep people like Trebor and Meissa off the CSM because "oh no mittens ganked my hulk" or whatever


Who?

I'd keep the Good Lord Jesus off of the CSM if he had served one term. I give no f*cks about ganks, hulks, Super Cap nerfs, buffs, or anything in between. As for Mittani, I care less about Hibears, Lobears, or Nulbears. As far as I am concerned, the only difference between them is that Hibears at least keep their noses in their own trashcan while everyone else covets theirs AND begs CCP to give them what the Hibears have too.

For that reason and more, the CSM needs two things to make it about the playerbase as a whole:

1 - 3 CSMs for each region, Hi, Lo, and Nul. No Chair at all, all are equal and all concern themselves ONLY with their regions.
2 - Term Limits so that no one group of players can push their thought process on the game as a whole, and give others a chance to serve the playerbase as well.

Until that point, the CSM has become nothing more than a Stalin-eqsue regime that is too self-serving to actually make the game better as a whole. Until that point, we might as well be playing Second Life, cause that's the system we have in First Life.
"If."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#54 - 2012-03-01 19:23:21 UTC
Nephilius wrote:
Andski wrote:
Nephilius wrote:
Term limits would be a good start to making the CSM relevant again.

Gotta hitch up my sleeves and edumicate myself on the candidates now.


So you'd keep people like Trebor and Meissa off the CSM because "oh no mittens ganked my hulk" or whatever


Who?

I'd keep the Good Lord Jesus off of the CSM if he had served one term. I give no f*cks about ganks, hulks, Super Cap nerfs, buffs, or anything in between. As for Mittani, I care less about Hibears, Lobears, or Nulbears. As far as I am concerned, the only difference between them is that Hibears at least keep their noses in their own trashcan while everyone else covets theirs AND begs CCP to give them what the Hibears have too.

For that reason and more, the CSM needs two things to make it about the playerbase as a whole:

1 - 3 CSMs for each region, Hi, Lo, and Nul. No Chair at all, all are equal and all concern themselves ONLY with their regions.
2 - Term Limits so that no one group of players can push their thought process on the game as a whole, and give others a chance to serve the playerbase as well.

Until that point, the CSM has become nothing more than a Stalin-eqsue regime that is too self-serving to actually make the game better as a whole. Until that point, we might as well be playing Second Life, cause that's the system we have in First Life.


You, too, have the "unvote" option. Sounds like you'll need it.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Dylan McDermit
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-03-01 19:26:54 UTC
I have yet to figure out if the CSM actually does anything, or if they are the same as the "Student Government" back in high school.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2012-03-01 19:32:07 UTC
Nephilius wrote:
Until that point, the CSM has become nothing more than a Stalin-eqsue regime .

lol wut
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#57 - 2012-03-01 19:42:31 UTC
^ yeah stalin did care for at least 3% of the russians, that is 3% more then CSM do.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Ai Shun
#58 - 2012-03-01 20:47:05 UTC
Nephilius wrote:
1 - 3 CSMs for each region, Hi, Lo, and Nul. No Chair at all, all are equal and all concern themselves ONLY with their regions.
2 - Term Limits so that no one group of players can push their thought process on the game as a whole, and give others a chance to serve the playerbase as well.


Dear Lord Jesus,

Please never ever ever ever have this person gain any form of influence as he has control issues and his ideas are terrible.

Amen
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#59 - 2012-03-01 20:48:51 UTC
Nephilius wrote:
Andski wrote:
Nephilius wrote:
Term limits would be a good start to making the CSM relevant again.

Gotta hitch up my sleeves and edumicate myself on the candidates now.


So you'd keep people like Trebor and Meissa off the CSM because "oh no mittens ganked my hulk" or whatever


Who?

I'd keep the Good Lord Jesus off of the CSM if he had served one term. I give no f*cks about ganks, hulks, Super Cap nerfs, buffs, or anything in between. As for Mittani, I care less about Hibears, Lobears, or Nulbears. As far as I am concerned, the only difference between them is that Hibears at least keep their noses in their own trashcan while everyone else covets theirs AND begs CCP to give them what the Hibears have too.

For that reason and more, the CSM needs two things to make it about the playerbase as a whole:

1 - 3 CSMs for each region, Hi, Lo, and Nul. No Chair at all, all are equal and all concern themselves ONLY with their regions.
2 - Term Limits so that no one group of players can push their thought process on the game as a whole, and give others a chance to serve the playerbase as well.

Until that point, the CSM has become nothing more than a Stalin-eqsue regime that is too self-serving to actually make the game better as a whole. Until that point, we might as well be playing Second Life, cause that's the system we have in First Life.


Out of interest, what exactly do you suppose the powers of the CSM chair to be?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ares Renton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#60 - 2012-03-01 20:55:00 UTC
People just vote for their alliance leader.

It's like if elections were held for presidency of Earth. Who would win? Probably some Asian or Russian guy. Who would then proceed to export all of America's wealth to the East.

Why?

Because that's democracy.