These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Xenuria: CSM 10

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#161 - 2015-01-20 16:23:48 UTC
If you're a power-block FC it doesn't matter so many people know you that you'll probably get more votes then some no name highsec carebear. Limiting free speech for the voting process doesn't work very well either fyi. You also need to remember the CSM are not the decision makers, CCP is.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2015-01-20 18:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
....few people would disagree with my goal to reform the way in which the CSM functions.
I agree there is something wrong that null sec holds the majority of CSM seats.

This is the first time I have noticed your thread. Although ... your methods are ... interesting. Here is a bump. At least we agree there is something wrong with the voting mechanism.

I think you're both getting hung up on where the candidates came from and failing to notice that the nullsec candidates have been remarkably reliable in advocating changes all over EVE. There is clearly no great conspiracy here, and few of the nullsec candidates including none of the ones anybody including the CSM takes seriously are even pushing for changes that would directly benefit anyone in nullsec. Furthermore, even if the nullsec candidates were ruthless and were taking the seats only for self/blue-serving reasons, they still would be advocating changes that would help their own specific nullsec group while trying to hurt another specific nullsec group, without caring who outside of nullsec is affected in what way.

One thing is doubly certain: the nullsec candidates are no enemy to anyone outside of nullsec--unless you consider Providence to not be nullsec.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#163 - 2015-01-20 19:15:49 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
....few people would disagree with my goal to reform the way in which the CSM functions.
I agree there is something wrong that null sec holds the majority of CSM seats.

This is the first time I have noticed your thread. Although ... your methods are ... interesting. Here is a bump. At least we agree there is something wrong with the voting mechanism.

Big groups capable of voting in their candidate by majority popular vote? Democracy working like its supposed to? Oh no, whatever shall we do.

if you dont like who gets elected, vote for the other guys next time, if you still dont "win" then obviously the people you have a taste for arent what a majority of the players who give enough of a damn about EVE to vote want.
Xenuria
#164 - 2015-01-20 19:44:58 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
....few people would disagree with my goal to reform the way in which the CSM functions.
I agree there is something wrong that null sec holds the majority of CSM seats.

This is the first time I have noticed your thread. Although ... your methods are ... interesting. Here is a bump. At least we agree there is something wrong with the voting mechanism.

I think you're both getting hung up on where the candidates came from and failing to notice that the nullsec candidates have been remarkably reliable in advocating changes all over EVE. There is clearly no great conspiracy here, and few of the nullsec candidates including none of the ones anybody including the CSM takes seriously are even pushing for changes that would directly benefit anyone in nullsec. Furthermore, even if the nullsec candidates were ruthless and were taking the seats only for self/blue-serving reasons, they still would be advocating changes that would help their own specific nullsec group while trying to hurt another specific nullsec group, without caring who outside of nullsec is affected in what way.

One thing is doubly certain: the nullsec candidates are no enemy to anyone outside of nullsec--unless you consider Providence to not be nullsec.


At no point did I question the work done by these candidates.
I retain however that the system in it's present form is unfair.

CSM 12 Candidate
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2015-01-20 21:14:01 UTC
You posit that it is unfair and you back it up with speculation. Well statistics say it is fair. The happiness of the EVE playerbase with the CSM shows it is fair. The effectiveness of the CSM and the diversity in their moves show it is fair.

Your logic is not flawed. What is flawed is your perception of the way other people think. There is definitely room for people to take advantage of the CSM in a bad way, it is very much a theoretical possibility. But it hasn't happened yet and apparently isn't about to. You're wasting your breath trying to fight a theoretical menace when, statistically speaking, you getting your way is more likely to cause a negative disturbance than a positive one, even if the net potential for disruption is reduced.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
ChYph3r
A Murder Of Crows.
Homicidal Tendencies.
#166 - 2015-01-20 22:02:54 UTC
Xenuria wrote:

At no point did I question the work done by these candidates.
I retain however that the system in it's present form is unfair.



Then shouldn't you take this up with the developer. As they are the ones who construed this way of doing the votes. Being on the CSM cant fix that. As the CSM do not fix anything.

Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit http://evepodcasts.com @chyph3r  on Twitter
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#167 - 2015-01-20 22:44:26 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
At no point did I question the work done by these candidates.
I retain however that the system in it's present form is unfair.
This would be way more credible if you hadn't questioned their work before, and if you understood the election system.

So, people vote for the candidates they like, and do not vote for you. You say that's a problem with the election system, I say it fulfils the purpose. If your ego can't handle that people discard you for a joke candidate, you could stop being a joke candidate. In your case, I think it's easier to strike the candidate part than the joke part, though, so good luck.
Xenuria
#168 - 2015-01-20 22:58:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Xenuria
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
You posit that it is unfair and you back it up with speculation. Well statistics say it is fair. The happiness of the EVE playerbase with the CSM shows it is fair. The effectiveness of the CSM and the diversity in their moves show it is fair.

Your logic is not flawed. What is flawed is your perception of the way other people think. There is definitely room for people to take advantage of the CSM in a bad way, it is very much a theoretical possibility. But it hasn't happened yet and apparently isn't about to. You're wasting your breath trying to fight a theoretical menace when, statistically speaking, you getting your way is more likely to cause a negative disturbance than a positive one, even if the net potential for disruption is reduced.



I have cited my sources, please cite yours.
ChYph3r wrote:
Xenuria wrote:

At no point did I question the work done by these candidates.
I retain however that the system in it's present form is unfair.



Then shouldn't you take this up with the developer. As they are the ones who construed this way of doing the votes. Being on the CSM cant fix that. As the CSM do not fix anything.


Actually the CSM whitepaper is something the CSM works WITH devs to change and adapt. It is after all a living document.
I recommend you read the OP (Original Post) for more information.

CSM 12 Candidate
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#169 - 2015-01-21 04:39:35 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
You posit that it is unfair and you back it up with speculation. Well statistics say it is fair. The happiness of the EVE playerbase with the CSM shows it is fair. The effectiveness of the CSM and the diversity in their moves show it is fair.

Your logic is not flawed. What is flawed is your perception of the way other people think. There is definitely room for people to take advantage of the CSM in a bad way, it is very much a theoretical possibility. But it hasn't happened yet and apparently isn't about to. You're wasting your breath trying to fight a theoretical menace when, statistically speaking, you getting your way is more likely to cause a negative disturbance than a positive one, even if the net potential for disruption is reduced.



I have cited my sources, please cite yours.
ChYph3r wrote:
Xenuria wrote:

At no point did I question the work done by these candidates.
I retain however that the system in it's present form is unfair.



Then shouldn't you take this up with the developer. As they are the ones who construed this way of doing the votes. Being on the CSM cant fix that. As the CSM do not fix anything.


Actually the CSM whitepaper is something the CSM works WITH devs to change and adapt. It is after all a living document.
I recommend you read the OP (Original Post) for more information.

You cited you're sources but never showed evidence so I still think you are blowing smoke.
Hey look guys another read the original post comment how original.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2015-01-21 06:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
HarlyQ wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
I have cited my sources, please cite yours.

You cited you're sources but never showed evidence so I still think you are blowing smoke.

Xenuria, you may have cited sources for other information not related to the topic, but I was pointing out that your logic is flawed. There are no sources to cite for that except yourself, unless you have borrowed the logic from someone else that I'm not aware of.

I'm trying to help you see why you're flailing, and help you improve your presentation quality, and you are treating me as an opponent to be won against in a contest of writing command and knowledge of esoteric rules of convention.

ChYph3r wrote:
Then shouldn't you take this up with the developer. As they are the ones who construed this way of doing the votes. Being on the CSM cant fix that. As the CSM do not fix anything.
The entire purpose of the CSM is to help CCP hear the voices of the playerbase. The CSM is in fact the best place to go for CSM reform.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#171 - 2015-01-21 19:00:17 UTC
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Xenuria?

F

Would you like to know more?
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#172 - 2015-01-21 19:06:02 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Xenuria?

F

that statement is silly, what about "you mut rack up X killmails per day or your character is deleted", should we embrace that?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#173 - 2015-01-21 21:22:27 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Xenuria?

F

that statement is silly, what about "you mut rack up X killmails per day or your character is deleted", should we embrace that?

Bad red-herring is bad...

I'd actually like to hear from Xenuria himself on the spirit of the question though, if thats ok with you? (Unless your his campaign manager and I didn't get the memo?)

F

Would you like to know more?
Xenuria
#174 - 2015-01-21 21:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Xenuria
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Xenuria?

F

No
I reject the idea and here is why.

Conflict in EvE is a GOOD thing but absolutes in the flow of gameplay mechanics is a BAD thing.
No single mantra or conceptual ideal should shackle the collective creativity of the entire process.
Absolutes are dangerous because they are void of context by their definition. EvE and it's process is a garden of context.

Silly Example:
Would giving players the ability to instantly teleport their ships to any system provide conflict?
YES, it would provide a gratuitous amount of conflict.
Is it a good idea?
NO

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Xenuria, you may have cited sources for other information not related to the topic, but I was pointing out that your logic is flawed. There are no sources to cite for that except yourself, unless you have borrowed the logic from someone else that I'm not aware of.

I'm trying to help you see why you're flailing, and help you improve your presentation quality, and you are treating me as an opponent to be won against in a contest of writing command and knowledge of esoteric rules of convention.


I do not see you as an opponent.
Please list in specifics which sources I have not cited or which statements I have claimed to be factual and did not provide proper citation.

CSM 12 Candidate
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2015-01-21 22:49:41 UTC
Xenuria wrote:

Silly Example:
Would giving players the ability to instantly teleport their ships to any system provide conflict?
YES, it would provide a gratuitous amount of conflict.
Is it a good idea?
NO

Actually it would reduce conflict, as people would be more afraid to undock.



Xenuria wrote:
I do not see you as an opponent.
Please list in specifics which sources I have not cited or which statements I have claimed to be factual and did not provide proper citation.

What is the importance of who cited what sources? Any sources you have cited demonstrate nothing to support your points, if valid they are outside the scope of your presentation. And what sources do you wish for me to provide? Are there factual bits I've given that you wish to dispute? Point them out and I'll see what I can do.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Xenuria
#176 - 2015-01-21 22:59:38 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:



Xenuria wrote:
I do not see you as an opponent.
Please list in specifics which sources I have not cited or which statements I have claimed to be factual and did not provide proper citation.


What is the importance of who cited what sources? Any sources you have cited demonstrate nothing to support your points, if valid they are outside the scope of your presentation. And what sources do you wish for me to provide? Are there factual bits I've given that you wish to dispute? Point them out and I'll see what I can do.


I wish I could empty quote this.
I really can't take your criticisms seriously if you have no intention of standing by them when challenged.

CSM 12 Candidate
ChYph3r
A Murder Of Crows.
Homicidal Tendencies.
#177 - 2015-01-22 00:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: ChYph3r
Alphea Abbra wrote:
This would be way more credible if you hadn't questioned their work before, and if you understood the election system.

So, people vote for the candidates they like, and do not vote for you. You say that's a problem with the election system, I say it fulfils the purpose. If your ego can't handle that people discard you for a joke candidate, you could stop being a joke candidate. In your case, I think it's easier to strike the candidate part than the joke part, though, so good luck.


Wow, well said!

Want to find all the podcasts around EVE Online visit http://evepodcasts.com @chyph3r  on Twitter
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2015-01-22 00:46:29 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
And what sources do you wish for me to provide? Are there factual bits I've given that you wish to dispute? Point them out and I'll see what I can do.
I wish I could empty quote this.
I really can't take your criticisms seriously if you have no intention of standing by them when challenged.

Not empty quoting.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Tyrant Scorn
#179 - 2015-01-23 23:58:05 UTC
Your campaign post is really short and limited, being someone who did CSM interviews for CSM9 I've been able to get a better perspective on the process and the internal workings in the CSM and I just have to disagree with a lot of what you say.

Secondly, I know your name from somewhere but I just can't remember from what.

It would be very nice to write up a bit of background information about yourself, what you do in Eve Online, are you active in the Meta game, what is your current ingame activity... Just basic information...

I am not voting for someone who is a blank person, I would like to know a bit more about you.

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch
Tyrant Scorn
#180 - 2015-01-24 00:03:06 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
I haven't played WoW in years and when I did I lead the largest guild in the history of the game.


Look, if you're gonna brag about how big your pen*s is, let me just say that I don't really care, no one really cares.

I think this alpha male crap is bad for your campaign, if people make childish comments about WoW or what ever else they throw at you, you should just let them be.

The better man knows when to not respond to such childish comments.

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch