These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

[Proposal] Allow negative votes to be cast in CSM election
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nullbear Ranger
Doomheim
#21 - 2011-12-05 22:17:39 UTC
Andski wrote:
please tick in one or more of the below boxes

You are a:

[ ] Moron
[ ] Bitter supercapital pilot
[ ] Moron
[ ] Miner who lost a hulk
[ ] Moron
[ ] Gallente POS owner upset about high oxytope prices
[ ] Mouthbreather on the bitter about (goons/nullsec) bandwagon (circle one or both)
[ ] Moron


Because name-calling and ad hominem attacks make us feel special in our virtual world of virtual danger, amirite?

Hooray for goonlemmings and goonparrots, nullbear rangers all. o7

Goonbears perhaps?

YES! Goonbears it is!...Bear
"I wanna be a nullbear RANGER!!!    Living a life of virtual DANGER!!!  Sound off!..."
Nullbear Ranger
Doomheim
#22 - 2011-12-05 22:23:40 UTC
Andski wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game.


lmao


Agreed since clearly subscription numbers and retention numbers went up during this last CSM.

Oops, no they didn't...Roll
"I wanna be a nullbear RANGER!!!    Living a life of virtual DANGER!!!  Sound off!..."
Thredd Necro
Doomheim
#23 - 2011-12-05 22:25:36 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game. They have no incentive to look out for the best interests of the game (as CSM V did) or to act professionally (as CSM V did) because their constituency is composed of a bunch of ******** neckbeards.

Solution:

1. Strengthen the eligibility requirements for the next CSM election so that only active accounts that have been active for at least 6 months total are eligible to vote.

2. Give each eligible account 1 vote. That vote may be cast for or against any single candidate (not both.)

Any candidate with a negative vote total would not be eligible to serve on CSM in any capacity that cycle.


How about we just stick to voting for whom we like?

He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which. - Douglas Adams
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2011-12-05 23:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Orakkus
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game.


In other words, you are either:
A. Too obtuse to realize it.
B. Your supercap that you spent billions of isk on is no longer an "I Win" button.
C. A & B

(Personally, I am kinda voting for "C")

AkJon Ferguson wrote:
They have no incentive to look out for the best interests of the game (as CSM V did) or to act professionally (as CSM V did) because their constituency is composed of a bunch of ******** neckbeards.


Before I respond to this, I need proof that:
A. You aren't a ******** neckbeard yourself, and aren't just jealous that they got more popularity than you did.
B. That what they did wasn't in the best interests of the game.

So far, all I can tell about you is that you must be someone who loves the NeX store and prancing around in your quarters showing off your latest clothes, while the mutli-billion isk supercap that you got through RMT sits in the background unable to mine asteroids any longer.

AkJon Ferguson wrote:

Solution:

1. Strengthen the eligibility requirements for the next CSM election so that only active accounts that have been active for at least 6 months total are eligible to vote.


While I think you believe.. somehow, that this would limit vote blocs, it would not.. and it would likely alienate new players as well.

AkJon Ferguson wrote:

2. Give each eligible account 1 vote. That vote may be cast for or against any single candidate (not both.)

Any candidate with a negative vote total would not be eligible to serve on CSM in any capacity that cycle.


So, instead of voting for whom I want, now you can censure my vote if you don't like it? Oh, HELL no. I don't want some NeX prancing, supercap mining, RMT using carebear having the ability to block my vote because they don't like it. I know WHY I'm voting, I don't know WHY you get to take it away.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Nullbear Ranger
Doomheim
#25 - 2011-12-06 00:48:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Nullbear Ranger
Darn forum hiccup double post...X
"I wanna be a nullbear RANGER!!!    Living a life of virtual DANGER!!!  Sound off!..."
Nullbear Ranger
Doomheim
#26 - 2011-12-06 00:48:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nullbear Ranger
Orakkus wrote:
...a few things that made sense then made a sad attempt to make himself feel special


Damnit first it was the nullbears, (and goonbears), and now it's the nullbeards. What's next, "goonbeards?"...

What is with all you people who feel so special for how you play online GAME where there is no real risk or consequences?LolPRollBear
"I wanna be a nullbear RANGER!!!    Living a life of virtual DANGER!!!  Sound off!..."
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-12-06 05:19:25 UTC
Nullbear Ranger wrote:
Andski wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game.


lmao


Agreed since clearly subscription numbers and retention numbers went up during this last CSM.

Oops, no they didn't...Roll


you either haven't paid attention or you're just making **** up, tons of people resubbed for crucible

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#28 - 2011-12-08 10:51:24 UTC
Andski wrote:
you either haven't paid attention or you're just making **** up, tons of people resubbed for crucible


Emphasized the important part of the statement. Crucible is not the CSM. How many people would have resubscribed if the CSM is not as it is now? Truly, we'll never know for sure, leaving lots of leverage for guesswork...
Tomytronic
Perkone
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-12-08 11:10:41 UTC
Crucible is a laundry list of changes proposed and developed BY the CSM. This is the only expansion so far that has directly been the result of CSM recommended changes and, surprise surprise, people are resubbing in massive numbers. Perhaps this CSM actually works and makes the game enjoyable?

But I'm just blue-skying here, I'm sure it's all a goonie conspiracy and we're all out to ruin everything for everyone.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#30 - 2011-12-08 20:19:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Rina Asanari wrote:
Andski wrote:
you either haven't paid attention or you're just making **** up, tons of people resubbed for crucible


Emphasized the important part of the statement. Crucible is not the CSM. How many people would have resubscribed if the CSM is not as it is now? Truly, we'll never know for sure, leaving lots of leverage for guesswork...


Crucible is the embodiment of the sixth CSM's insistence on a focus on FiS. Without the CSM, it's pretty damned likely that this expansion would have just been Incarna 2.0.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#31 - 2011-12-08 20:22:31 UTC
Andski wrote:
Rina Asanari wrote:
Andski wrote:
you either haven't paid attention or you're just making **** up, tons of people resubbed for crucible


Emphasized the important part of the statement. Crucible is not the CSM. How many people would have resubscribed if the CSM is not as it is now? Truly, we'll never know for sure, leaving lots of leverage for guesswork...


Crucible is the embodiment of the fifth CSM's insistence on a focus on FiS. Without the summer of rage, and the mass unsubscriptions that occurred, it's pretty damned likely that this expansion would have just been Incarna 2.0.


FYP
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#32 - 2011-12-08 20:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Andski wrote:
Rina Asanari wrote:
Andski wrote:
you either haven't paid attention or you're just making **** up, tons of people resubbed for crucible


Emphasized the important part of the statement. Crucible is not the CSM. How many people would have resubscribed if the CSM is not as it is now? Truly, we'll never know for sure, leaving lots of leverage for guesswork...


Crucible is the embodiment of the fifth CSM's insistence on a focus on FiS. Without the summer of rage, and the mass unsubscriptions that occurred, it's pretty damned likely that this expansion would have just been Incarna 2.0.


FYP


I realize that you're a moron, but you have to give the CSM credit for many of the Crucible changes, most notably supercapital balancing. Or are you bitter about that particular aspect?

I mean if the CSM was so useless, why the hell would you be making such terrible posts about them?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#33 - 2011-12-08 20:44:33 UTC
Andski wrote:
I realize that you're a moron, but you have to give the CSM credit for many of the Crucible changes, most notably supercapital balancing. Or are you bitter about that particular aspect?

I mean if the CSM was so useless, why the hell would you be making such terrible posts about them?


I realize that you're a troll, but for the benefit of the others:

Yes, I'm willing to give CSM VI credit for nerfing supercaps, POS fuel pellets and time dilation (none of which are what the vast majority of players are happy about.) The mass unsubscriptions get credit for everything else (most notably, the fact that this expansion was overwhelmingly a FiS expansion ). CCP watched what we did (unsubscribed in droves.) They didn't listen to what CSM VI said.

And if you weren't trolling and had read the OP, you'd know I didn't say the CSM was 'so useless.' Let me try again: "To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game."
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-12-08 20:52:39 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Andski wrote:
I realize that you're a moron, but you have to give the CSM credit for many of the Crucible changes, most notably supercapital balancing. Or are you bitter about that particular aspect?

I mean if the CSM was so useless, why the hell would you be making such terrible posts about them?


I realize that you're a troll, but for the benefit of the others:

Yes, I'm willing to give CSM VI credit for nerfing supercaps, POS fuel pellets and time dilation (none of which are what the vast majority of players are happy about.) The mass unsubscriptions get credit for everything else (most notably, the fact that this expansion was overwhelmingly a FiS expansion ). CCP watched what we did (unsubscribed in droves.) They didn't listen to what CSM VI said.

And if you weren't trolling and had read the OP, you'd know I didn't say the CSM was 'so useless.' Let me try again: "To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game."


why are you unhappy about these things, they own

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Amarr Champine
Doomheim
#35 - 2011-12-09 02:12:48 UTC
Andski wrote:
please tick in one or more of the below boxes

You are a:

[ ] Moron
[ ] Bitter supercapital pilot
[ ] Moron
[ ] Miner who lost a hulk
[ ] Moron
[ ] Gallente POS owner upset about high oxytope prices
[ ] Mouthbreather on the bitter about (goons/nullsec) bandwagon (circle one or both)
[ ] Moron


Is this the Goonwaffe recruitment checklist?

Figures a goon would complain against this. We need stricter limits on the CSM, there should either be no recurring terms nor more then one CSM from the same alliance. Otherwise, we have the sad situation that we have today. Which is kiling eve imo. Its a lil silly when the largest alliances get to continually pick the CSM.
Amarr Champine
Doomheim
#36 - 2011-12-09 02:16:09 UTC
Andski wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Andski wrote:
I realize that you're a moron, but you have to give the CSM credit for many of the Crucible changes, most notably supercapital balancing. Or are you bitter about that particular aspect?

I mean if the CSM was so useless, why the hell would you be making such terrible posts about them?


I realize that you're a troll, but for the benefit of the others:

Yes, I'm willing to give CSM VI credit for nerfing supercaps, POS fuel pellets and time dilation (none of which are what the vast majority of players are happy about.) The mass unsubscriptions get credit for everything else (most notably, the fact that this expansion was overwhelmingly a FiS expansion ). CCP watched what we did (unsubscribed in droves.) They didn't listen to what CSM VI said.

And if you weren't trolling and had read the OP, you'd know I didn't say the CSM was 'so useless.' Let me try again: "To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game."


why are you unhappy about these things, they own



Once again, these changes directly benefit your alliance and not eve as a whole. Many pilots were uphappy about these changes. What a coincidence that the alliance who doesnt use supers daily would have an issue with them.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#37 - 2011-12-09 05:10:10 UTC
Amarr Champine wrote:
Once again, these changes directly benefit your alliance and not eve as a whole. Many pilots were uphappy about these changes. What a coincidence that the alliance who doesnt use supers daily would have an issue with them.


the majority of players don't own supercapitals and aren't in alliances that field them on a daily basis, moron

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Veilo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2011-12-09 06:11:24 UTC
A lone andski stands against the the unwashed hordes of ignorant pubbies, swelling in great numbers of bad posts, conflicted implications and conclusions that touch greedily upon the quantities of being wrong and/or dumb.

It seems a lost cause - what can a lone, albeit a good poster do against such masses ?

Never fear however, your homelands will be defended and our likes will blot out the badpoasters.
Borisaurus
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#39 - 2011-12-09 15:03:43 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
(BTW, the idea that this CSM is responsible for CCP's change of direction is laughable. The summer of rage, in conjunction with thousands unsubscribing, did that. They're just trying to take credit for the movement they tried to diminish every chance they got.)


I'm going to point out why you're worthless. Here goes:

You say that this CSM is not responsible for influencing CCP's direction.

You say that this CSM "represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game".

I find it interesting that you can be so against the CSM and how it gets elected when your position is contradictory. It simply isn't possible for the CSM to not be responsible for influencing CCP's direction yet at the same time be doing anything detrimental. You know, since they don't have influence. With what influence do you see them being a detriment?

If you're interested in proposing a new election process for the CSM, then cool. But if you're trying to take swings at this group and their positions/motives, it's often helpful to do so without having a self defeating argument.



Also:

Nope.jpeg.png.bmp.gif.flv.mov.wmv.mp4
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#40 - 2011-12-09 17:47:13 UTC
Borisaurus wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
(BTW, the idea that this CSM is responsible for CCP's change of direction is laughable. The summer of rage, in conjunction with thousands unsubscribing, did that. They're just trying to take credit for the movement they tried to diminish every chance they got.)


I'm going to point out why you're worthless. Here goes:

You say that this CSM is not responsible for influencing CCP's direction.

You say that this CSM "represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game".


Since you seemingly struggle with reading comprehension (or you need a history lesson) I'll try to help you out:

Alex, the goon spai/leader CSM chair went to Stoffer, the goon spai eve developer and basically said: 'Brosef, I know you have almost no resources for FiS, just give me a supercap nerf, time dilation, and make POS fueling easier and we're good.' And Stoffer said 'Ya brosef, we shall never again have significant resources for FiS, but of course your request will be at the top of the list.'

Incarna happened.

Players raged. Bitter vets were bitter. CSM tried to mollify the playerbase and white knight for CCP to little effect. Massive unsubscriptions were massive.

CCP watched what the players did and CHANGED DIRECTION.

Crucible, instead of being a horrible expansion with nothing but space barbies and Alex's 3 requests filled was a mediocre expansion thrown together in 7 weeks but dedicated to FiS because of the summer of rage.

Now, do you see how CSM can 'represent their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game' without causing the 'change in CCP direction' that occurred? Great. You're welcome. Run along.
Previous page123Next page