Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2012-09-10 21:30:52 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion.


Sure it does, and you did discuss it. Lol

All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.


While you seem to be willfully ignoring it in favor of whinging about how everyone (not actually everyone) is attacking you and the CSM personally, it has been said, many times, that we do not agree with your objectives.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Goonswarm Federation
#102 - 2012-09-10 21:31:23 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion.


Sure it does, and you did discuss it. Lol

All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.


okay

sorry csm, i dont agree with the requirement and i would like a new thread to discuss this
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-09-10 21:33:02 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion.


Sure it does, and you did discuss it. Lol

All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.

"At a minimum" suggests very strongly that it's ... well, the minimum they'd prefer to see, and would prefer it to go further.

And at no point, I'll repeat, at no point during this discussion has the words "maybe that requirement is wrong" been uttered by anyone from the CSM.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Caldari State
#104 - 2012-09-10 21:34:14 UTC  |  Edited by: CliveWarren
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion.


Sure it does, and you did discuss it. Lol

All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.


I'll go through this point-by-point even though I know you're just being intentionally obtuse:

- Trebor makes a proposal that is quite hostile to one specific group of players (and makes no attempt to hide this)
- Said group of players object to the hostility and other aspects of his proposal
- CSM Alekseyev starts the "tinfoil" accusations, you continue the same trend on the next page (we're only at Page 2 here)
- The pertinent question ("why is disenfranchising a group of voters acceptable?") is asked ad nauseam and is either ignored or dismissed as tinfoil by every CSM active in the thread

If those are the makings of a discussion to you, seek help.

The even shorter version: Trebor's proposal started hostile, and when the group it was hostile towards objected, they were met with derision and dismissal from every CSM that posted in that thread.

The short, short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGp9P6QvMjY
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2012-09-10 21:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Sal Volatile
Seleene wrote:
Sal Volatile wrote:
Every single CSM response in that thread contained some kind of putdown, except maybe Dovinian's "Hay guyz I'm still kinda drunk," and some of them were nothing but putdowns (every post by Seleene, many posts by Alekseyev Karrde). Basically, the CSM members did everything they could to escalate hostilities and made no real attempt to engage the people affected by this proposal.


This is my first response post in the thread on page 18:

Quote:
All right, time for a few words. I'm sure I'll miss a few of the more inventive theories about this but that's fine.

Discussion about 'voting reform' in the CSM were coming up even early on in CSM 6 however, as most here remember, we got a tad distracted by other events. Even so, during the December summit last year we knew this was going to be something which would become a hot topic during the next CSM term. At Fanfest, post-election and pre-Jagerbomb Gate (pick your title), several of us that were on CSM 6 and newly re-elected to CSM 7 were in Islenski Barinn (one of the main bar hangouts) talking to Mittens about this very subject.

CCP hasn't been silent on this either and has very vocally supported the need to have this ~discussion~. The original white paper / CSM charter was 'masterminded' by a very small group of people with no player input. It's not surprising that CCP would want to give the community an opportunity to chime in on if they like the current process or believe it needs to be changed.

So just to be clear, this is not just some CSM 7 initiative.

As of right now, I plan to have the CSM and CCP try to take as much constructive feedback as possible to the December summit and put together a framework that can be refined even further before the CSM 8 elections.

The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.


I stand corrected. Your post did not consist entirely of insults; it just merely started out as disparaging and ended on the same note. Sandwiched in there, you made a claim that Mittani later disputed about the origins of this discussion, and tried to steer discussion away from the stated goals of the proposal to the idea of just having a proposal without acknowledging the blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters who support popular candidates. So I guess that's something.
Goonswarm Federation
#106 - 2012-09-10 21:35:48 UTC
Any CSM member feel like saying "after careful consideration we've decided to remove the third requirement of Trebor's original post"? No? Yeah thought so
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2012-09-10 21:36:33 UTC
Maybe trying to words lawyer your way out of this isn't the best plan.

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

Mercenary Coalition
#108 - 2012-09-10 21:37:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Cede Forster wrote:
1) do you support the "Trebor Proposal" ?

2) do you support the idea that there should be a "Penalty for organized voting groups"


1.) Word for word as presented? No.

2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.

I'm open to seeing the topic discussed, simple as.

Sirane Elrek wrote:
Seleene wrote:
In the argument of changing the system versus increasing voter awareness, I lean toward the later but see no problem with discussion of the former.

Nobody has a problem with good-faith discussion about voting system changes. What people have a problem with is the posted requirement that states: "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum: ... 3) Reduce ... the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs".
Can you please stop pretending you don't understand the difference, it's getting tiresome and it's insulting the intelligence of all those involved.


I'm not pretending anything and think I've made my personal preference clear on this issue by now - I'm fine with the way things are currently but have no problem seeing if the community believes the system could or should change. My long-ish post above made it pretty clear that it was a drafted proposal, where it came from, how it ended up being posted and that I would have preferred a different starting point. "Requirements" in a draft proposal don't carry the weight of law with myself or anyone else.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Goonswarm Federation
#109 - 2012-09-10 21:39:02 UTC
so how's the kæstur hákarl this time of year

i guess it's not winter so it's not particularly traditional to eat it right now but it's not like csm 7 is doing anything else this term so why don't we talk about shark
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2012-09-10 21:39:36 UTC
Dramaticus wrote:
Maybe trying to words lawyer your way out of this isn't the best plan.


I don't know, I haven't had a really good discourse analysis exercise since grad school. Maybe a point by point breakdown of some of this evasion, equivocation, and general BS would be an enjoyable evening activity.
Caldari State
#111 - 2012-09-10 21:43:10 UTC
Seleene wrote:
2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.



Quote:
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.


So is this the part where you quote me and say it doesn't use the word penalty so you're still right, or is it back under the pile of coats for an afternoon cuddle/cry with Hans?
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2012-09-10 21:43:24 UTC
Seleene wrote:
1.) Word for word as presented? No.

But in spirit, eh?

Seleene wrote:
2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.

Yeah, you're trying to word-lawyer yourself out of this one. While it may not use the word "penalty", it clearly outlines the need to "reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized blocs", which is, per definition, applying a penalty to a group of people.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Gallente Federation
#113 - 2012-09-10 21:47:35 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Seleene wrote:
2.) I don't see the word 'penalty' anywhere in the draft. As a general question though, no.

Yeah, you're trying to word-lawyer yourself out of this one. While it may not use the word "penalty", it clearly outlines the need to "reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized blocs", which is, per definition, applying a penalty to a group of people.


Actually, there is one way to reduce the advantages held by blocs without really penalizing them, and that's by increasing participation across the board. Because that's really all the specific bloc (not "blocs" -- come on) does to get results.
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2012-09-10 21:50:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Seleene wrote:
A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'.


mail sent

Quote:
Hi,

Seleene seems to be under the impression that he is a legitimate Chairman and not voted third in the CSM elections, only receiving the position because the first and second choices removed themselves from the position. He, along with Trebor, feels he has a popular mandate to disenfranchise candidates and voting groups who received far more votes then he himself did.

This notion of theirs was disabused when they decided to go public with it. Hard. And now the legitimacy of the CSM is called into question on a level unlike any before.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unread

As the CCP coordinator of the CSM, what are your feelings on the current conflict before the situation escalates further and more publicly?

Regards,

Helping Hoper

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Goonswarm Federation
#115 - 2012-09-10 21:55:44 UTC
as the members of csm 7 currently clamor to throw each other under the bus to avoid the political fallout from this series of trainwreck ideas and forum posts I wish to remind them to be careful when driving the bus and to watch out for low underpasses as they can be potentially damaging to your vehicle if you are not mindful of your vertical clearance. Check out http://11foot8.com/ to see some examples of such heedless driving, and observe all local, state and federal laws when throwing each other under the bus
Shadow Cartel
#116 - 2012-09-10 21:58:00 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Any CSM member feel like saying "after careful consideration we've decided to remove the third requirement of Trebor's original post"? No? Yeah thought so


So should we expect to see page after page of comments and questions on this until you convince every last member of the CSM to share your opinion on electoral reform, instead of acknowledging that some disagreement can exist even if a different proposal (or none at all) ends up being championed to CCP instead?

The original post was not a draft to congress made public for review. It was a conversation starter, and was explicitly described as such. There's no need for line-item vetoes on other people's beliefs.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Mercenary Coalition
#117 - 2012-09-10 21:59:18 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Seleene wrote:
A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'.


mail sent

Quote:
Hi,

Seleene seems to be under the impression that he is a legitimate Chairman and not voted third in the CSM elections, only receiving the position because the first and second choices removed themselves from the position. He, along with Trebor, feels he has a popular mandate to disenfranchise candidates and voting groups who received far more votes then he himself did.

This notion of theirs was disabused when they decided to go public with it. Hard. And now the legitimacy of the CSM is called into question on a level unlike any before.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unread

As the CCP coordinator of the CSM, what are your feelings on the current conflict before the situation escalates further and more publicly?

Regards,

Helping Hoper

Nicolo da'Vicenza


Please share the reply if you get one. I would very much like to see it.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Amarr Empire
#118 - 2012-09-10 22:00:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Seleene wrote:
]Please share the reply if you get one. I would very much like to see it.

No prob, given your uncanny political sensibilities displayed so far I'm sure it'll end well for all involved.
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2012-09-10 22:02:06 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
So should we expect to see page after page of comments and questions on this until you convince every last member of the CSM to share your opinion on electoral reform, instead of acknowledging that some disagreement can exist even if a different proposal (or none at all) ends up being championed to CCP instead?

as long as your electoral reform starts off with the premise that some players should have more relative influence than other players, there's nothing to discuss really
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2012-09-10 22:05:20 UTC
you see some people are more equal than others
Forum Jump