EVE General Discussion

And CFC candidates figured on the N3 ballot that was suggested by N3 leadership, but if you think that make Sion or Endie into N3 controlled puppets, you're officially an imbecile.

So no, that is not a source (But thanks for playing), and even if it was, it wouldn't prove what you think it does. 'Supporting' either those with whom you share the most concerns (About nullsec, moons, rebalances, jump changes etc.) even if they're dire enemies, or those whom you know to work hard to improve the game (Remember that plenty of WH and lowsec candidates also figured prominently on the nullsec coalitions' lists) is fairly sound politics, since it will maximise the sound input that CCP gets (Edit: From the perspective of the endorser, that is, since "sound" is a subjective metric). Should the CFC, or other nullsec groups, not do what the voting system (STV) enables them to do?

Again, why are you asking for some groups who already vote to be disenfranchised, just to level the playing field with groups who aren't voting (For whatever reason)?

If they can, then they absolutely should (just as we all would if we could).

In one way I actually think the level of representation of the null blocks is a strength of the system for the rest of us.

In it's current form, the CSM was partly designed to minimise the risk of another T20 situation; and if ever an issue arises again with the integrity of the system, just like with T20, the most likely group to benefit from that is one of the nullsec blocks.

DHB Wildcat demonstrated last year that even in a situation where something is kept quiet, it's possible that someone might want to take an issue to CCP. Not everyone might want to do that so publicly though. Having strong representation of the blocks on the CSM provides people that are potentially trusted enough by other members of their groups, that they could take suspicions to them to be raised with CCP.

That's a win for all of us if that ever occurred.

I think, similarly while the lowsec and highsec groups are less likely to benefit from another T20 like incident, the null block voting process always includes people like Steve Ronuken, Mike Azariah, Sugar and others that people within highsec and lowsec might also feel comfortable raising an issue with, even if they weren't prepared to go to internal affairs.

I think there are other stronger benefits of the CSM, but as for 'over representation' of the null blocks and null block voting tickets, they can be a positive depending on how you consider it.

Grrr freedom!

In other words, you chose GTFO because you got caught lying through your teeth and, as is usually the case when that happens, cant produce even the slightest shred of evidence to support your fantasy.


Why would you want to get your own thread locked? Is it because you accidentally revealed that it's just a bunch of baseless hot air and whinging without any substance or connection to reality?

No, since #5 (Of 14) is Bobmon, who did not get elected (Meaning that CFC got the 4 first spots on their list), or in other words 28%*, but moreover, because you haven't proven a thing. You could be linking us to the honest-to-God list of the actually best candidates in the eyes of ALL of EVE except you, until you actually give us some evidence to support your claims.
You're also neglecting names like Gorga, UAxDeath and Sort Dragon, who aren't CFC and who most likely got voted in by their own groups (Since the CFC voting machine stopped short of their #5).

You want to tell us that CFC is controlling 75% of the votes. As far as I can see, they're at most 28%, but even that is assuming that only CFC people voted for their first 4. I don't think that's true, but to even get to that 28% mark, you'll have to show that.
In short, you're not yet on your way to proving any of your ramblings.

Addendum: I also forgot that LAWN are CFC, meaning CFC got 3 on their own backs + corbexx. My bad, I missed that one.

*I know this number is sloppy, but it's quick and comparable to the 75% figure.

Edit: And back to the real issue: Why do you want to disenfranchise the currently voting groups to make them equal in voting power to the currently non-voting groups?

Wait, you took that literally?

That's what we call a pitch, over in PR circles. It's no different from a lawyer saying to a jury in his opening remarks, "you will find the defendant guilty because...". He's not telling them to find the defendant guilty, he's asserting with confidence that they will. You need to brush up on your PR skills.

That reddit post still has to plead its case. The person who posted it still has to be respectable enough to draw in a big enough group of people that will do as he suggests. There is a lot more at play here than mindless drones just doing what they're told. If all that was needed was a list, then all it would be is a list.

Same thing in sales - you don't ask a customer if they'd like something better than what they've picked, you direct them to something better and say, "nah, that's not what you want, this is." No one is actually telling them how to think, it's just a strategy used to assert and influence. Despite it being an effective one, one that anyone can use, people still have a mind of their own.

Hell, you could even go get their list, and with enough charisma and the right campaign of your own, establish an oppositional voting bloc.

Personal attacks removed. - ISD Fractal

So in an STV voting system, the Goons, who allegedly control 75% of the votes, provided an ordered list of whom to vote for, and we only have to go 5 people down on that list to find someone who wasn't elected.

I am forced to ask: Do you know how STV works?

Yes, that might make sense, if you don't understand how STV works. You should probably read up on it. Be a doll and livestream yourself while doing so, it would be nice if we could all catch the, "Ah, ****" face you're likely to make when you realize what the problem is.

The answer, for anyone who knows how STV functions, is "not at all silly", and simply counting who was/wasn't elected is like looking at the an Obama 2012 swingstate wishlist and then assuming the wishlist itself was what changed the outcome. In other words, such a count would be completely unhinged from reality and the voting system.
As I explained before, the CFC voting machine (If one such exists - nobody has proven to me that they vote in bloc) stopped short of their #5. But even that is assuming that all votes for the first 4 were CFC votes, which isn't a sure thing at all. We then have the result that an unproven minority (Again, how many out-of-CFC accounts to CFC players have?) should be the only ones voting for 4 candidates to even get to a 28%. This is really far fetched.

If you have less faith in the CSM after reading that list, then it's because you don't know how elections work. Your faith or lack thereof is a symptom of your own ignorance, and has nothing to do with the CSM.

But again, back to the real issue: Why should the groups that currently vote* be disenfranchised by you, just to make groups that do not currently vote* have a comparative voting power?

*I really should start adding "allegedly" to those, because you haven't even proven that much (Though to me it seems to be the case). It could actually be that the voters were genuinely hisec players, who just preferred nullsec candidates over hisec candidates. You might want to show that there's any problem except that your favourites do not get elected.

Frankly, the whole CSM thing has outstayed its welcome and it used more for meta stuff than actual use.