Yes.
It does show that.
It was false.
Even if there are only 2 coalitions in EVE, nothing would prevent players in neither of those two from running for CSM, thus filling the remaining 8 seats, while both of those coalitions fills one, each.
You didnt realize that.
The initial proposal for 1 seat max per Corp/Alliance/Coalition was mine in this thread.
I introduced it here, and there was nothing âunfriendlyâ about it. Just an ontopic proposal, and explanation of it.
Like I said, no fucks given on what you post, Salvos. Youâre just trolling.
3 Likes
Fair enough, but your response was false.
If there was only 2 coalitions in EVE, with a 1max system, that does not mean there would be only 2 CSM.
The remaining 8 seats would be filled by candidates whom are in neither coalition.
You made a logic fail.
Thats ok, but it was a fail and you should recognize that.
The CSM is a direct reflection of the game and community.
If there will be people in Imperium that are organized to vote for someone, it will be reflected in votes.
As there is no vote for removing CSM mechanism entirely, it is not reflected in pool.
A coalition is completely vaguely defined. Itâs not like an alliance that one can actually see who is part of it and who is not. So who would define the coalitions?
The actual problem is that people not organize and then cry because others do. Thatâs almost always the issue. And no amount of changing the rules to force an outcome will change that as all this can simply be gamed and it will be gamed by people who again organize and the people who donât care to do anything will keep crying.
This is seriously a completely stupid discussion
4 Likes
No. I said specifically âIf all of EVE only had two coalitions then we only had two CSM membersâ.
Youâve misread this as âIf EVE had two coalitions then we only had two CSM membersâ.
1 Like
The CSM doesnt represent my interests, thank gods.
Can you imagine?
So many spikes⌠So much fire⌠So cant be bothered
2 Likes
Those are the same.
And thatâs why youâre a troll.
2 Likes
The only difference there was saying " all of EVE", instead of âEVEâ.
Those mean the same in this context.
Accusing me of âtrollingâ isnt going to change that, and that you overlooked that the remainder of the seats would be filled from outside either coalition.
Own your fail, and we can move on.
But you are.
His hypothetical was that all of eve only had two coalitions and then you sprouted on about NPC Corps.
In the hypothetical that doesnât exist. There are only 2 coalitions. Nothing else.
2 Likes
No, it stated that only 2 coalitions exist.
Not that there arent players whom are in neither of those 2 coalitions.
Are you sure?
1 Like
Just stop lying, making false claims and covering for lies and falsehoods and you wont have to deal with me correcting them.
Welcome back @Lucas_Kell. Have missed you and I hope, after the demise of CO2, youâve found somewhere else to enjoy the game.
2 Likes
Next CSM will have 10/10 Imperium candidates.
North is completely defeated! Imperium will farm them for content. Fate of north is Rocket League from now or being content for Goons.
Thatâs what they mean to you, indeed. The context is however defined by me and not by what only you can understand.
When I say âall of EVEâ and then follow with another part, then these need to be understood as one and not in parts.
I say âall of EVEâ to describe the entirety of EVE, meaning all of EVEâs players. And when those players consisted of only two coalitions then we only had two CSM members. This statement then was only made to describe a situation, from which further problems arise and which Iâve made to show that there can be other evils, too.
Its pretty hard to argue that CSM is not compromised by ingame politics, when 3/10 CSM are currently tagged GoonWaffe/GSF.
CSM, by its edict and white paper founding, should not be affected/influenced by ingame lobbying and politics.
So it says that specifically?
Can you quote or link that please? Id like to read it.