These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM8 Election Statistics

First post First post
Author
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#141 - 2013-05-09 15:58:59 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
You are dodging the question.... why?


I'm not dodging it, I'm explicitly ignoring it because it's not relevant.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2013-05-09 16:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
What "hisec" self-identifiers should be concerned about is "casual" gameplay. That is one perspective that is hard to mesh with an imaginary space council. I would say it is literally impossible to be a "casual" player and be an effective CSM. Therefore, the self-identified "hisec" bloc should be voting for those candidates that purposefully and continuously acknowledge and listen to feedback from casual players. Only then can you hope that your playstyle won't be stomped into the mud by changes because no one in CCP or on the CSM even know what makes the game for you.

Unfortunately, casual players have long been spoken for by a select few hisec turbonerd forum warriors who are anything but casual, yet use an imagined conflict between security areas to attempt to protect their solo/afk/multiboxing hisec wealth generation, which has nothing to do with being "casual" and everything to do with wanting rewards without risk.

The sooner casual players divorce themselves from their unrepresentative unofficial crusaders, the sooner they can become a coherent voice for casual gameplay, and have people step up as representatives thereof.

nailed it
Ok, since you believe he 'nailed it' and he refuses to explain, perhaps you will.

Player A casual, highsec miner, five hours a week
Player B casual, highsec ganker, five hours a week.
Player C non-casual, highsec miner, 30 hours a week.

Why do you assume that A & B need a representative for them as a group? Other than the amount/frequency of time played, they have little shared interest... and few to none in game.

Players A & C have the common game interests.

You obviousness see it otherwise... why?
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2013-05-09 16:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
Varius Xeral wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
You are dodging the question.... why?


I'm not dodging it, I'm explicitly ignoring it because it's not relevant.
Lol You do love circular logic.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#144 - 2013-05-09 16:18:40 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
You do love circular logic.


Not really sure how that can be considered "circular logic", nor where I've demonstrated my love thereof before.

Just because you consider a question a valid extension of a discussion does not mean it is.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2013-05-09 16:21:07 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
You do love circular logic.


Not really sure how that can be considered "circular logic", nor where I've demonstrated my love thereof before.

Just because you consider a question a valid extension of a discussion does not mean it is.

Lol I simple asked you to explain you position... you considered that beneath you.

"So it is written so it shall be done."
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#146 - 2013-05-09 16:26:19 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Lol I simple asked you to explain you position... you considered that beneath you.

"So it is written so it shall be done."


Except I've made numerous posts explaining and clarifying my position, even repeating myself unnecessarily in my mind, over the last two pages, so that doesn't hold any water either.

So now that you've falsely accused me of both chronic illogicality and not supporting my statements, what's left?




Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2013-05-09 16:33:39 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha - Other than only spending a limited amount of time playing or playing infrequently, what is it that this group has in common?

Varius Xeral wrote:
[Other than the defining feature that dictates almost all of their game experience, what do they have in common? A banal question. They don't need anything more in common.
First, you comment is so horribly wrong it is hard to believe you posted it.

The number of hours you play a week does not dictate a players game experience, but what you do with that time.

A Goonswarm Federation member who spends five hours a week playing has more in common with other Goonswarm Federation members than he does with someone who runs level 2 for five hours a week. There game experience is totally different.

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2013-05-09 16:34:33 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Lol I simple asked you to explain you position... you considered that beneath you.

"So it is written so it shall be done."


Except I've made numerous posts explaining and clarifying my position, even repeating myself unnecessarily in my mind, over the last two pages, so that doesn't hold any water either.

So now that you've falsely accused me of both chronic illogicality and not supporting my statements, what's left?




I asked. You don't want to answer. No problem.


Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#149 - 2013-05-09 16:41:17 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
A Goonswarm Federation member who spends five hours a week playing has more in common with other Goonswarm Federation members than he does with someone who runs level 2 for five hours a week. There game experience is totally different.


No, it's not.

They both need to be able to interact with the game mechanics and other players within a limited schedule. If there isn't fun game content that they can interact with for short sporadic periods, they both suffer. If there isn't interactive gameplay, cooperative and/or competitive, they can interact with for short sporadic periods, then they both suffer.

Again, even CCP has realized that this is a much more insightful way of looking at playstyles and habits than dividing people up according to their security area; that you personally do not accept it is unfortunate, but the world will move on.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2013-05-09 17:04:26 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:


No, it's not.

They both need to be able to interact with the game mechanics and other players within a limited schedule. If there isn't fun game content that they can interact with for short sporadic periods, they both suffer. If there isn't interactive gameplay, cooperative and/or competitive, they can interact with for short sporadic periods, then they both suffer.

Again, even CCP has realized that this is a much more insightful way of looking at playstyles and habits than dividing people up according to their security area; that you personally do not accept it is unfortunate, but the world will move on.
Interesting response. We aren't talking about CCP, but a player Representative that runs on the platform "Everyone who plays five hours or less a week vote for me!"

You should note that the players who ran for CSM pointed out there experience... their knowledge as there strengths... not how many hours a week they played.

Note: I never mentioned anything about security status. Where did you get that? But since you did, Null Bear miners and Care Bear miners have more in common with each other than they do with pirates... regardless of how long the play each day. Their security status effects their gameplay, but their shared mining interest are stronger.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2013-05-09 17:08:47 UTC
We are never going to agree. You believe that the number of hours a week defines the player, while I believe it is what they do that defines them.


Do you wish to leave it here?

Big smile
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#152 - 2013-05-09 17:18:38 UTC
No, I believe that the overall game time is a drastically underrepresented factor in discussing players' interests from a game design perspective; that is it in fact the most important factor. Furthermore, this under-representation serves no one but the more hardcore gamers who can falsely conflate their selfish interests for risk/reward balance with the casual gamers interests for accessible and fun content that suits their limited playtime, where risk-reward balancing for them is actually a secondary ancillary choice after their playtime is factored in.

The core of the game is what people are actually doing when they log in in terms of actively engaging the game environment and/or other players. Whether that comes in the form of shooting spacerocks, red crosses or other players and the income that ultimately results therefrom is a distantly second consideration.

That you think someone who undocks in nullsec for 30 minutes to shoot red crosses differs from someone who does the same in hisec to shoot spacerocks shows a massive lack of exposure to the game as a whole, and a passive or active acceptance of the long-standing false confluence that I have been arguing against for three pages now.

You're welcome to disagree, but you're still wrong.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2013-05-09 17:32:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
Varius Xeral wrote:


You're welcome to disagree, but you're still wrong.
Lol

You are welcome to run for CSM next year with that platform.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#154 - 2013-05-09 17:45:40 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
You are welcome to run for CSM next year with that platform.


Even in the current state of the discourse, it might work. However, what I'm arguing for is a continental shift in the discourse itself, so that the discourse surrounding proceeding CSMs is more relevant to and representative of players' actual interests, so your comment is ultimately meaningless and in no way addresses my argument.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2013-05-09 17:49:19 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
You are welcome to run for CSM next year with that platform.


Even in the current state of the discourse, it might work. However, what I'm arguing for is a continental shift in the discourse itself, so that the discourse surrounding proceeding CSMs is more relevant to and representative of players' actual interests, so your comment is ultimately meaningless and in no way addresses my argument.
Big smile Wouldn't your arguments be more effective iif you were on the CSM?

What if you are right and there are tens of thousands of players wait for what you represent?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#156 - 2013-05-09 17:57:36 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Big smile Wouldn't your arguments be more effective iif you were on the CSM?

What if you are right and there are tens of thousands of players wait for what you represent?


And again you've gone so far off topic that I don't feel the need to respond.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2013-05-09 18:24:44 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Big smile Wouldn't your arguments be more effective iif you were on the CSM?

What if you are right and there are tens of thousands of players wait for what you represent?


And again you've gone so far off topic that I don't feel the need to respond.
Lol
So you know you are right... and others are wrong, but you aren't willing to put that to the test?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#158 - 2013-05-09 18:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
So you know you are right... and others are wrong, but you aren't willing to put that to the test?


First of all, I never said that I wouldnt be willing to put my argument to an appropriate test. Second, your suggested method of "testing" wouldn't be valid, for the reason that I just explained two posts ago. Finally, you're attacking a strawman about what CSM (edit:candidates) should be doing that I never argued for; I am arguing for a change in the very discourse, what happens with the CSM would be an issue that would come later and be dependent on the success of what I am actually arguing for.

Please though, continue trying to "get me" with off-topic arguments, as I'm pretty sure an ISD will just erase this tangential "discussion" eventually anyway.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#159 - 2013-05-09 18:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Che Biko
Great stats! As my ballot was unique in its composition, I was able to find it and see my vote was indeed not wasted like so many times before, even though I only had 3 people on it.Cool
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#160 - 2013-05-09 20:51:37 UTC
I'd like to see some statistics about people that voted for the pre-election, but didn't vote for the main election. In my understanding, it is very likely that people in these conditions misunderstood the process.

:sand:  over  :awesome: