These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#861 - 2012-09-05 11:40:56 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
See points made above.
Which ones?

Quote:
If it was true that there was no way to get the apathetic to vote, why do they try so hard in RL?
They try hard in EVE as well.

The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation?
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#862 - 2012-09-05 11:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Tippia wrote:
[quote=Frying Doom]

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?


Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots.
Tippia why I have this picure of you in my head saying well just let HI SEC eat cake. Lol

When I look atthe CSM I just don't see them representing me. I have a feeling that most of Eve agrees with me? Do you think i CCP's polls asked questions about the CSM is would be overwelmingly positive?
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'
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#863 - 2012-09-05 11:46:33 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots.
What is that statistic based on?
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#864 - 2012-09-05 11:49:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots.
What is that statistic based on?


I'm sure I could find that stat somewhere if CCP Diagoras was still tweeting Roll
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'
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#865 - 2012-09-05 11:52:24 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots.

You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#866 - 2012-09-05 11:53:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
See points made above.
Which ones?

Quote:
If it was true that there was no way to get the apathetic to vote, why do they try so hard in RL?
They try hard in EVE as well.

The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation?

Asked and answered.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#867 - 2012-09-05 11:53:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DarthNefarius wrote:
I'm sure I could find that stat somewhere if CCP Diagoras was still tweeting Roll
Probably not, since it's a statistic they can't collect, at least not algorithmically or by querying the data base.

So the representation isn't actually a problem, then, just the imagined perception?

Frying Doom wrote:
Asked and answered.
No, just asked. The lack of an answer leads to the conclusion “nothing”.
Frying Doom
#868 - 2012-09-05 12:01:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Frying Doom wrote:
Asked and answered.
No, just asked. The lack of an answer leads to the conclusion “nothing”.

Just because you can not understand the answer it does not mean it was not supplied.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#869 - 2012-09-05 12:07:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation?

They're not saying "buff hisec" and "nerf nullsec".

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#870 - 2012-09-05 12:10:07 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation?

They're not saying "buff hisec" and "nerf nullsec".

Well not something I would say but if that is what you wantLol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#871 - 2012-09-05 12:12:11 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The fundamental question remains: what's wrong with the current representation?

They're not saying "buff hisec" and "nerf nullsec".

Well not something I would say but if that is what you wantLol

Well, if the CSM had been saying "yes, nerf hisec, it's for the good of the game and here's why: [long list of reasons]", hisec would still go "YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING ME!!!!!!!!! FILTHY NULLSEC SCUM!!!!!!!!!!!!"

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#872 - 2012-09-05 12:12:41 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Just because you can not understand the answer it does not mean it was not supplied.
No, the fact that you didn't answer it means that it wasn't supplied.

You've made a lot of grandiose claims. You've proved none of them. You haven't even been able to show that a problem exists to be solved. Thus the implied answer: nothing is actually wrong with the current representation. All you're doing now is evading the question in the hopes that this answer will be made less clear (hint: it does the exact opposite).
Frying Doom
#873 - 2012-09-05 12:19:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Just because you can not understand the answer it does not mean it was not supplied.
No, the fact that you didn't answer it means that it wasn't supplied.

You've made a lot of grandiose claims. You've proved none of them. You haven't even been able to show that a problem exists to be solved. Thus the implied answer: nothing is actually wrong with the current representation. All you're doing now is evading the question in the hopes that this answer will be made less clear (hint: it does the exact opposite).

As to your grandiose claims you were going to answering what games had what specific player interaction levels lower than EvEs and whether they had player elected representatives.

Oh and I have answered that question about 5 times, so maybe you need further education.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#874 - 2012-09-05 12:26:28 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
As to your grandiose claims
Which ones?

Quote:
you were going to answering what games had what specific player interaction levels lower than EvEs and whether they had player elected representatives.
No I wasn't, because I didn't say anything about specifics and because it doesn't actually matter: engagement is engagement; interaction is interaction. You use what's available to you and the conventional wisdom is that ~1% of the players are active on any given game's forum with another ~9% visiting but not being active.

Quote:
Oh and I have answered that question about 5 times.
Prove it.

What's wrong with the current representation?
Frying Doom
#875 - 2012-09-05 12:30:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
As to your grandiose claims
Which ones?

Quote:
you were going to answering what games had what specific player interaction levels lower than EvEs and whether they had player elected representatives.
No I wasn't, because I didn't say anything about specifics and because it doesn't actually matter: engagement is engagement; interaction is interaction. You use what's available to you and the conventional wisdom is that ~1% of the players are active on any given game's forum with another ~9% visiting but not being active.

Quote:
Oh and I have answered that question about 5 times.
Prove it.

What's wrong with the current representation?

So what you are saying is that you are unable to back up any of the claims you made in this thread with actual figures and now you are making up even more figures.

As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#876 - 2012-09-05 12:34:54 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So what you are saying is that you are unable to back up any of the claims you made in this thread
No. I'm saying that the 1% rule has been well-established for, oh, closer to a decade now. Hell, it's pretty much the internet version of the Pareto principle which is a century old. If there are any other claims you have problems with, please enumerate them.

Quote:
As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting.
I didn't ask for a count. I asked you to prove it. Should I interpret this as your being unable to do so?
Frying Doom
#877 - 2012-09-05 12:36:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So what you are saying is that you are unable to back up any of the claims you made in this thread
No. I'm saying that the 1% rule has been well-established for, oh, closer to a decade now. Hell, it's pretty much the internet version of the Pareto principle which is a century old. If there are any other claims you have problems with, please enumerate them.

Source?

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting.
I didn't ask for a count. I asked you to prove it. Should I interpret this as your being unable to do so?

Again you asked and it has still been answered.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#878 - 2012-09-05 12:41:59 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Lord Zim wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots.

You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts?


Yeah sure Roll

Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
As to your grandiose claims
Which ones?



The ones where you claim HI SEC is well represented by a bunch of NUL/LO/WH CSMs that populate CSM7, or the group of CSM6ers, etc to the original CSM1
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
#879 - 2012-09-05 12:43:35 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Many look at the CSM & just see space rich NULL Alliance heads controlling 70%+ of the CSM when 70% of Eve is part of the poor unwashed have nots.

You mean the 70% which is 75% nullsec alts?


If that was the case that would make Null sec the most Apathetic lot out there.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#880 - 2012-09-05 12:45:25 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
As to how many times I have answered that question try reading for a change, rather than just commenting.

I've yet to see much other than "waah the CSM doesn't have hisec representation", without any proper categorization of what a hisec representative should be like.

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

RIP Vile Rat