EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-09-10 03:10
  • First Forum Visit: 2012-01-16 00:35
  • Number of Posts: 40
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Sal Volatile

Security Status 0.0
  • Garoun Investment Bank Member since
  • Gallente Federation Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • R.I.P. Vile Rat in EVE Communication Center

    I try to have hope for the world but sometimes it isn't easy. RIP Vile Rat. My thoughts and prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones in this tragedy.


    Edit: I have snipped out part of your post, which given the obvious emotion in the thread, I would consider to be innapropriate - ISD BiscuitThief

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Alavaria Fera wrote:
    Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
    I can't repost private CCP correspondance, but I can assure you Xhagen was very grateful for my help in communicating the concerns of the playerbase with your CSM council. Not only that, but he seems to have acted on it by creating a new thread in which CCP and the players can communicate their feelings directly, with much less petty trolling, weasel words and non-committal answers from certain 'representatives'. Everyone seems much happier with the new dialog that has begun.

    So I guess that letter answered my hopes and totally did help, and we now have a productive dialog going on between Xhagen and the EVE player base now.

    Just what Nicolo da'Vicenza 7 is all about, providing a medium for which CCP and the players to communicate through.

    Please run for the next CSM I think you can do a good job.


    I unironically agree.

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    I want to address this issue separately:

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

    If splash screen ads are to be allowed at all, let them be free of charge, limit each candidate to one and randomize the day they can have it posted. These should not become tools to give the wealthy an edge over candidates that want to run based on their experience, expertise, and character.


    I think it might be reasonable to limit them to a certain number per candidate and make sure that enough spots are available for everybody, but I absolutely think they should charge for them. There's been a lot of discussion about candidate viability and limiting the field, and honestly if you can't raise a couple billion isk (or whatever) from your supporters then how are you going to convince literally thousands of people to vote for you?

    I disagree with Frying Doom's idea for the up front charge for candidacy, but expenses that can narrow the field once the ball gets rolling seem like a very good idea.

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

    I hope to hell this never comes to the CSM elections - attack ads, paid publicity, and drama are all some of the *worst* aspects of RL politics. Just because we are elected using a political process does not mean we should make the CSM overly political. In the end, once elected we're not on seperate parties, we're not at each other's throats, and we're not bargaining with each other or exchanging favors or vetoing or doing any of the competitive, obnoxious stuff that impedes progress in the real world.


    Nobody "makes" things political. Either they're political, or they're not. Anyone who's been paying attention for the past two years knows that the CSM is political as hell. You can either accept that fact or you can put your head in the sand.

    Quote:

    Would attack ads get people to the polls? Sure. Do they make for informed voters? No. Do they help the "underdogs" in the election, those that lack finances or a push-button voting bloc? No. Drama is fun, and very EVE-like, but internet spaceship politics is srs bizness to a lot of players and we shouldn't encourage it to slide further into sideshow territory.


    They would get people interested and involved. They are a starting point. People need some kind of narrative in order to care about something. There needs to be a story, with sides that they can take. Every single proposal that calls for serious consideration of the merits of various people in terms of representing blah blah blah is going to reduce participation if implemented. Most people are not interested in who will make the best student council president. Most people are interested in making sure our guy beats that jerk from the side we hate.

    It just so happens that those negative impulses can get people to take positive action, like becoming more informed and engaged. Not always, maybe not even most of the time, but it's that or apathy.

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    CCP Xhagen wrote:

    Regular polling - I'll note that down and think about it.

    It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?


    I was thinking it would be during the period between the time that the candidates have cleared whatever hurdles have been set up to limit the field, and the actual votes are cast. I may be misremembering but I thought it was at least a few weeks or a month. It may not be realistic to run more than a couple of informal polls but I think it could be very beneficial.

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    EvilweaselFinance wrote:

    The real trouble with preference ranking (which you need for STV) is the increased complexity of the ballot may discourage turnout. That's hard to measure in a side run test. The advantage to preference ranking systems is lowered tactical voting which leads to a better reflection of the voter's preferences, but the downside is the increased complexity of the ballot compared to "pick one".


    I think it's also worth pointing out that if you have the candidates designate the recipients of their transferred votes should they fail, tactical voting turns into 11 dimensional chess. If I vote for A, but A loses, he'll give my vote to B, but I freaking hate B. C, on the other hand, is not too bad, and will give my vote to D, who is tolerable, but if D loses then my vote goes back to B and I just couldn't live with myself if my vote went to B...

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    A nice thing about regular polling of some kind leading up to the election is that, in addition to contributing to the drama/excitement and telling the public who's viable and who's not so viable, it is also valuable feedback to the candidates themselves and can facilitate a kind of vote transfer similar to the one that has been discussed, only before the election, through drop-outs and endorsements.

    Suppose I'm from lowsec and one of my primary issues has to do with Crimewatch changes to gate guns. I've been campaigning hard and I have built up some very committed supporters. However, the polls keep telling me that my numbers just aren't enough to put me on the CSM. I can choose to admit defeat and lend my support to another candidate who has stated similar views on gate guns. The nice thing about this is that, unlike candidate designated vote transfer, my supporters can choose whether or not to follow my recommendation.

    While there were certainly a number of vanity campaigns for CSM7, it may be that if more of the candidates had some actual information about their chances, they might have worked together to get at least one person representing their views through. Then again, I may just be hopelessly optimistic in that regard!

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    If you look at what drives elections in the real world, it's not really a bunch of people suddenly feeling the need to perform their civic duty. It's hype and drama.

    If you look at the external news coverage of Eve, for the most part it's hype and drama. I think a fair number of people get into this game because they hear about all the crazy drama and politics. And, if you look at CSM politics, any time the CSM has been interesting there's been a fair amount of hype and drama.

    Now, we could talk about civic virtue, or give people nag screens until they vote, or give them free mining implants for voting, or some other BS like that. We could say that we want to rise above the hype and drama of the CSM and make it all about civic duty. But what if we just embrace hype and drama instead, and make the hype and drama accessible to the average player who doesn't follow forums?

    What if we have a fabulous new isk sink: CSM candidates can buy splash screen ads! We're talking attack ads here. Why not? Maximum drama, maximum hype.

    What if there was some kind of regular polling that people could follow? Uh oh, looks like the nullsec candidates are poised to sweep this thing! Holy ****, I'm biting my nails here, guys! Better donate more isk to the highsec miners so they can buy more attack ads!

    I'm just spitballing here, but it seems to me that if you want to get Eve players more interested in the CSM elections, it might be worthwhile to make them more like the rest of Eve. It would also probably make your job a lot more interesting!

  • The voting reform discussion in Council of Stellar Management

    I have to second the support for better minimum thresholds for candidates. I would argue that many of the "wasted" votes (a term I'm not entirely comfortable with but will use for convenience's sake) were given to candidates that were never really viable. For those who followed the elections, it was fairly easy to get a sense of which candidates were serious and likely to get a decent number of votes. To someone suddenly faced with a ballot and no prior knowledge of the candidates, it may have been hard to determine the viability of any given candidate over another, aside from the most obvious gimmicks.

    A larger proportion of low information voters is both a result of and a requirement for increased participation, so the more that can be done to beef up the requirements for ballot access without making them too onerous, the more efficient the voting will be.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    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.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    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.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    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.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

    Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post.


    It's exactly what he said in his post. It was very clear. I think everyone would be willing to consider that it's not what he meant to say in his post, but if that's the case he should retract it and say what he actually meant.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    You can't even really discuss the merits of any particular proposal when the parameters for the discussion of proposals include the requirement that all proposals must, at minimum, reduce the influence of organized voters.

    Hans, do you understand why I can't negotiate in good faith with someone who starts off the conversation with, "I refuse to consider any deal that is not harmful to you." That's the "attack" part of Trebor's post.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    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.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Shockingly, when receiving a response that wasn't completely dismissive from the start, discourse became much more civil.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    (answer)


    That's an awful lot of wiggle room, but it's better than anything we've gotten from any other CSM member so far. Thank you, Hans. I genuinely mean that.

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

    3.) It's too early to tell. Surely its not the last you'll hear from the CSM on the issue, I was simply pointing out that bombarding a thread with 39 pages of essentially the same question and interlacing it with character attacks is a good way of sending the message you're not there to talk. Outside of that thread, however much this continues will be dependent in large part on whether the players themselves are interested in this, and whether or not anyone tries to drown out a real conversation with aggressive posting tactics the next time this comes up.


    Gosh, what's a good way to stop people from asking the same question over and over again? I know, deflect, dodge, dissemble!

    Guys, why isn't it working???

  • Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM in Council of Stellar Management

    Apparently demanding a yes or no answer about the explicitly stated intent of a proposal and refusing to accept deflection or obfuscation is "obvious thread destruction" to the craven members of CSM7.

    Even for a space video game student council, the level of intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice here is appalling. Please prove me wrong and take a position on your own position, if that's not too much to ask.

  • Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform in Council of Stellar Management

    I may be wrong, but something tells me goons' response to getting shafted by the CSM and/or CCP will not be to create exciting new in-game content like Burn Jita.