These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

NULL whiners mantra is getting tedious... and CSM lacks HI SEC representation

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#841 - 2012-09-05 10:52:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Frying Doom wrote:
Governments try and succeed to some degree in every democratic election in the world. On top of that you have the candidates themselves advertising and trying to get people to vote. Now this is major money trying to get people involved in the voting process. If the people who study the voters believe that trying to continue to reach the apathetic voter why do you believe you are able to predict the reactions of voters to education and advertising better than a paid professionals.

Hint: Real life politics tends to be taken more seriously than internet spaceship politics.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#842 - 2012-09-05 10:55:22 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Governments try and succeed to some degree in every democratic election in the world. On top of that you have the candidates themselves advertising and trying to get people to vote. Now this is major money trying to get people involved in the voting process. If the people who study the voters believe that trying to continue to reach the apathetic voter why do you believe you are able to predict the reactions of voters to education and advertising better than a paid professionals.

Hint: Real life politics tends to be taken more seriously than internet spaceship politics.


Sounds like it was taken quite seriously when CCP stripped Mittani of his office in the CSM7
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#843 - 2012-09-05 10:58:15 UTC
Yeah and Bill Clinton was never banned for a month from congress after the monica scandal. Bill got off lightly.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#844 - 2012-09-05 10:59:18 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
My main point was the weak excuses used as to why the players should not be further educated can be used to deny anything at all from happening.

You can't further educate those who are already educated, but just don't give a ****.

Frying Doom wrote:
No but you can try to educate them. Falling not to is a worse crime than trying to educate them.

You can't further educate those who are already educated, but just don't give a ****.



I doubt it is an education issue TBH: I think its more of a look at who we got to vote for issue so many acreoss all of EVE do not vote. I BET IF WE HAVE -1 VOTES THEN WE'D SEE A SHARP INCREASE IN VOTINGAttention
And if in any year all the CSM candidates get negitive votes then we'd suspend the CSM for a year Shocked
Maybe we should have a general referendum and aNONE OF THE ABOVE voting option & if it exceeds the combined votes for all the candidates CSM would be suspended Idea

Trololo give us the option of a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE TO DISSOLVE THE CSM Twisted



You literally have no idea how a democracy is supposed to work do you?

What the hell does a -1 vote say? "I don't want him". That's nice but you just used your vote to tell us who you don't want, not who you want.

What if all the candidates end up with more -1s then +1s?

What if some unknown candidate you have never heard of gets 20 +1s and everyone else gets 100000+1s but also the same number of -1s? Should the guy who gets 20 votes be elected?

That is seriously the stupidest idea I have seen in this thread so far.

Put it this way: Currently everyone gets 1 vote. High sec players don't use them.

You change the system to anything else and I promise you the NullSec alliances would make you regret it. For example:

-1 votes? OK, you'll get an agreed "20 vote" candidate put forward and not even post while all the NullSec guys ruthlessly -1 vote anyone else, and while all the mud slinging goes back and forth the 20 vote candidates get elected: NullSec CSM.

Separated regions? That's nice, but High Sec turnout is still ridiculously low and you get 1 vote per account. We already know NullSec people will get elected in nullsec regions, so before the vote they can just more a massive chunk of people into hgih sec: NullSec CSM

In fact the ONLY system that isn't actually physically abusable is 1 account, 1 vote. Wait, isn't that what we already have? Oh yes.

No matter what anyone does right now the only "trick" there is to winnnig is to vote. So do that before you regret asking for a change which makes High Sec representation impossible rather then simply improbable due to high sec laziness.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#845 - 2012-09-05 11:01:35 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
My main point was the weak excuses used as to why the players should not be further educated can be used to deny anything at all from happening.

You can't further educate those who are already educated, but just don't give a ****.

Frying Doom wrote:
No but you can try to educate them. Falling not to is a worse crime than trying to educate them.

You can't further educate those who are already educated, but just don't give a ****.



I doubt it is an education issue TBH: I think its more of a look at who we got to vote for issue so many acreoss all of EVE do not vote. I BET IF WE HAVE -1 VOTES THEN WE'D SEE A SHARP INCREASE IN VOTINGAttention
And if in any year all the CSM candidates get negitive votes then we'd suspend the CSM for a year Shocked
Maybe we should have a general referendum and aNONE OF THE ABOVE voting option & if it exceeds the combined votes for all the candidates CSM would be suspended Idea

Trololo give us the option of a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE TO DISSOLVE THE CSM Twisted



You literally have no idea how a democracy is supposed to work do you?

What the hell does a -1 vote say? "I don't want him". That's nice but you just used your vote to tell us who you don't want, not who you want.

What if all the candidates end up with more -1s then +1s?

What if some unknown candidate you have never heard of gets 20 +1s and everyone else gets 100000+1s but also the same number of -1s? Should the guy who gets 20 votes be elected?

That is seriously the stupidest idea I have seen in this thread so far.

Put it this way: Currently everyone gets 1 vote. High sec players don't use them.

You change the system to anything else and I promise you the NullSec alliances would make you regret it. For example:

-1 votes? OK, you'll get an agreed "20 vote" candidate put forward and not even post while all the NullSec guys ruthlessly -1 vote anyone else, and while all the mud slinging goes back and forth the 20 vote candidates get elected: NullSec CSM.

Separated regions? That's nice, but High Sec turnout is still ridiculously low and you get 1 vote per account. We already know NullSec people will get elected in nullsec regions, so before the vote they can just more a massive chunk of people into hgih sec: NullSec CSM

In fact the ONLY system that isn't actually physically abusable is 1 account, 1 vote. Wait, isn't that what we already have? Oh yes.

No matter what anyone does right now the only "trick" there is to winnnig is to vote. So do that before you regret asking for a change which makes High Sec representation impossible rather then simply improbable due to high sec laziness.


WoW just wow. Good thread, good thread

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#846 - 2012-09-05 11:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

What the hell does a -1 vote say? "I don't want him". That's nice but you just used your vote to tell us who you don't want, not who you want.

What if all the candidates end up with more -1s then +1s?



Then it is a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CSM & IT SHOULD BE DISBANDED
A pure popular vote is a lazy non represnitive way just look at how unpopular it is: LESS THEN 20% OF EVE ACCOUNTS VOTED IN IT.

I hope the API soon includes how you voted in the elecion just so the NULL overlords can have a greater grip on all its peasants!
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#847 - 2012-09-05 11:07:07 UTC
From this thread I have gathered that hisec whiners are stupid. Stupid stupid stupid.

You have a vote, use it. If your fellow stupids don't use their vote, that is their fault. Not mine.
Frying Doom
#848 - 2012-09-05 11:07:32 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Governments try and succeed to some degree in every democratic election in the world. On top of that you have the candidates themselves advertising and trying to get people to vote. Now this is major money trying to get people involved in the voting process. If the people who study the voters believe that trying to continue to reach the apathetic voter why do you believe you are able to predict the reactions of voters to education and advertising better than a paid professionals.

Hint: Real life politics tends to be taken more seriously than internet spaceship politics.

Hint: The same characteristics of humans also apply in games played by humans.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#849 - 2012-09-05 11:08:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
DarthNefarius wrote:
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

What the hell does a -1 vote say? "I don't want him". That's nice but you just used your vote to tell us who you don't want, not who you want.

What if all the candidates end up with more -1s then +1s?



Then it is a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CSM & IT SHOULD BE DISBANDED
A pure popular vote is a lazy non represnitive way just look at how unpopular it is: LESS THEN 20% OF EVE ACCOUNTS VOTED IN IT.



Which then means no-one gets represented at all and that's even worse then having someone who tries to represent you but doesn't quite get what you need.

There is literally no other type of voting that makes sense other than popular vote, even a transferable vote system (where you rank candidates) is basically a popular vote.

The system isn't perfect, but it's better then everything else.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#850 - 2012-09-05 11:10:32 UTC
I vote for DarthNefarcious to be disbanded

.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#851 - 2012-09-05 11:10:57 UTC
Roime wrote:
I vote for DarthNefarcious to be disbanded



Seconded.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#852 - 2012-09-05 11:11:02 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

What the hell does a -1 vote say? "I don't want him". That's nice but you just used your vote to tell us who you don't want, not who you want.

What if all the candidates end up with more -1s then +1s?



Then it is a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CSM & IT SHOULD BE DISBANDED
A pure popular vote is a lazy non represnitive way just look at how unpopular it is: LESS THEN 20% OF EVE ACCOUNTS VOTED IN IT.



Which then means no-one gets represented at all and that's even worse then having someone who tries to represent you but doesn't quite get what you need.


Well if James315 got voted in on the CSM I would perfer no representation at all AttentionBlink
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Frying Doom
#853 - 2012-09-05 11:11:31 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

What the hell does a -1 vote say? "I don't want him". That's nice but you just used your vote to tell us who you don't want, not who you want.

What if all the candidates end up with more -1s then +1s?



Then it is a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CSM & IT SHOULD BE DISBANDED
A pure popular vote is a lazy non represnitive way just look at how unpopular it is: LESS THEN 20% OF EVE ACCOUNTS VOTED IN IT.



Which then means no-one gets represented at all and that's even worse then having someone who tries to represent you but doesn't quite get what you need.

So from Hi-sec needs more representation to
People need to be educated now to
Disband the CSM.

All in one thread.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#854 - 2012-09-05 11:11:39 UTC
Can someone insult a moderator or something already? This thread has trolled on far longer it should have.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#855 - 2012-09-05 11:13:26 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Sounds like it was taken quite seriously when CCP stripped Mittani of his office in the CSM7

By whom? CCP? Why, interestingly enough, that was due to real life politics.

By ingame pubbies? Sure, we have tons of people who we've stomped into the ground over the year, and some of them are apparently ever so slightly ~angry~.

DarthNefarius wrote:
Then it is a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CSM & IT SHOULD BE DISBANDED

You mean so you can have more monoclegates?

Sure, why not?

Frying Doom wrote:
Hint: The same characteristics of humans also apply in games played by humans.

Yes. A ton of hisec pubbies haven't been affected by a large majority of what CCP does, which means that they don't give a flying ****, and as such can't be arsed to vote. Whenever they get affected, however, they start to actually get interested in voting, because they think they'll actually have a reason to. Example: CSM5's ****-poor handling of nullsec coalescing nullsec into actually voting for, and putting up candidates on the CSM.

They've now had incursions get nerfed, I'm sure that'll convince some hisec pubbies to actually vote this time around.

Actually, I think I know about the best way to get hisec pubbies to vote: Remove L4s and add tons of taxes to sales, make sure the CSM is publically behind this. You'll see a record attendance for CSM8, almost guaranteed.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#856 - 2012-09-05 11:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Frying Doom wrote:


Which then means no-one gets represented at all and that's even worse then having someone who tries to represent you but doesn't quite get what you need.

So from Hi-sec needs more representation to
People need to be educated now to
Disband the CSM.

All in one thread.[/quote]

Other much longer (200+ pages) Goons threads I'm sure had such circles after they felt they lost 10,000 votes.
Way I see itwe've got around 200k votes lost last election with the apathy for 1 reason or another.


War Kitten wrote:
Can someone insult a moderator or something already? This thread has trolled on far longer it should have.



If you look at page 2 it was already locked once ( on accident P )
Interesting your comment in this thread is to just shut it down in hopes the ideas will just go away... that sounds more like CCCP's censorship style then CCP's

Lord Zim wrote:

Frying Doom wrote:
Hint: The same characteristics of humans also apply in games played by humans.

Yes. A ton of hisec pubbies haven't been affected by a large majority of what CCP does, which means that they don't give a flying ****, and as such can't be arsed to vote.


I honestly doubt that it appears to me the reason they don't vote is that they see the system is already rigged against them so if things do become too stacked I'd be more scaredof them voting with thier feet. I never hear in my circles that CSM does any good TBH
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#857 - 2012-09-05 11:24:02 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Actually, I think I know about the best way to get hisec pubbies to vote: Remove L4s and add tons of taxes to sales, make sure the CSM is publically behind this. You'll see a record attendance for CSM8, almost guaranteed.


That's why I think a NO confidence vote would be good bring it on in.
Most null whine threads advocate L4 removals, Incursion removals to NULL, etc
There's another thread that is tying lo sec dynamics to increased HI SEC sinks so it appears it is already happening with respect to taxes.
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Frying Doom
#858 - 2012-09-05 11:24:49 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Yes. A ton of hisec pubbies haven't been affected by a large majority of what CCP does, which means that they don't give a flying ****, and as such can't be arsed to vote. Whenever they get affected, however, they start to actually get interested in voting, because they think they'll actually have a reason to. Example: CSM5's ****-poor handling of nullsec coalescing nullsec into actually voting for, and putting up candidates on the CSM.

They've now had incursions get nerfed, I'm sure that'll convince some hisec pubbies to actually vote this time around.

Actually, I think I know about the best way to get hisec pubbies to vote: Remove L4s and add tons of taxes to sales, make sure the CSM is publically behind this. You'll see a record attendance for CSM8, almost guaranteed.

Actually even In null sec it is really only the large alliances really vote, by eduction (telling their members to vote and why.)

While the rest of the voting is done from the rest of EvE.

As to the value of nerfs they run the risk of unsubs not just deciding to vote.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#859 - 2012-09-05 11:36:14 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I have found the perfect reason why the CSM should not be the council of minorities.
Is it one?

Quote:
The same arguments could be used for why Null sec should stay the stagnant heap it is now.
Too bad that what you just listed are not the same argument.

Quote:
No but you can try to educate them. Falling not to is a worse crime than trying to educate them.
It's been tried. You'll be happy to know that it works too: the participation and engagement is absolutely massive.

In fact, we still haven't gotten a good answer for the fundamental question: what's wrong with the current representation?
Frying Doom
#860 - 2012-09-05 11:38:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I have found the perfect reason why the CSM should not be the council of minorities.
Is it one?

Quote:
The same arguments could be used for why Null sec should stay the stagnant heap it is now.
Too bad that what you just listed are not the same argument.

Quote:
No but you can try to educate them. Falling not to is a worse crime than trying to educate them.
It's been tried. You'll be happy to know that it works too: the participation and engagement is absolutely massive.

In fact, we still haven't gotten a good answer for the fundamental question: what's wrong with the current representation?

See points made above.

If it was true that there was no way to get the apathetic to vote, why do they try so hard in RL?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!