Dev Blog: A closer look at the CSM 13 voting numbers

Yeah, I am shedding some voter for the fact I was not allowed to vote against CSM like I wanted.

Since even a saint can’t do good in a crook club, the best candidate is the one that does nothing. Could you point me to such a candidate please?

ED: Actually, we need 6 or more of such candidate since they would need a majority, so when (or if) you find one, start looking for 5 more.

@CCP_Guard iirc the first runner up is not automatically appointed to replace someone on the csm that has to vacate their seat. For csm x I was the first runner up… but when the people quit or got removed, the elections were recalculated… and the votes via the STV were reassigned. so I never got in.
Under that system, the only way to know who would get in, is to recalculate it. And that probably depends on who ends up leaving.

3 Likes

Sure, look in the mirror. You could be sitting in the CSM and do nothing. But no, we didn’t get you as a candidate, did we?

“None of the above” should be a valid option.

10 Likes

You’re really starting to get it! Now remember how it ended for people who went with “do nothing” platform before. Hint: they never made it to ballot because CCP Con was there to protect his beers supply.

1 Like

I don’t care how you explain yourself. You could have done something if you think you’re a better candidate. Yet you didn’t, which only shows how badly you fail at using the system to your advantage.

Like what? Drawing a fake candidacy promise to make it to ballot, do nothing, get removed within a month or two, and we’re back to elite RMT speculation leaks club? What is the best possible outcome of playing by the crooks rules you can see here?

1 Like

Why not? That’s how the Goons got it.

Wow. Querns has always seemed like a cool poster on the forums and reddit and all, but… that quote you just made… he sounds like the next Republican National Committee chair in waiting. Dishearten the “enemy” and rake in the votes from your smaller portion of the population that’s more engaged in voting… good thing there’s no gerrymandering in EVE CSM elections, I guess? Well… if there’s a way, they’ll find it.

Talk about EVE being real.

1 Like

Oh I see, you’re from the propagoonda division. Nobody else would be crapped over enough to capitalize gewnies.

I sincerely do not care who got on it. It could have been gewns, it could have been some hisec L4 carebears, what’s the bloody difference, if CSM is going to do RMT regardless of who’s sitting there?

Yes, and now you complain about it, because you don’t care.

I complain about it, not about who’s on it. But since you’re propagoonda, I now know you understand what I’m talking about, but just derail it on purpose by pretending to be an idiot.

Shoo.

So you have proof of what you claim to be true?

image

Congrats to all who won.
Now get to work, scrubs!
:grin:

Proof of what exactly?
That CCP Con removes every candidate he doesn’t personally like, explaining himself with “company policies” he never shows to anyone? Fact.
That CSM is a RMT speculation leaks club? There’s plenty of speculation evidence prior to every market-affecting dev blog release in the last 2 years, who else could have known?
That you are propagoonda? You capitalized gewns and got burned.
That you understand what I’m talking about but derail on purpose into line that I just don’t like that gewnies beers to CCP Con paid off? Even a donkey could’ve understood my point by now, surely you do.

Like I said, shoo, propagoonda. You’re not here to discuss, just to derail, so buzz off.

So you have none. That’s a great start for you into a political career, don’t you think?

  • Show me the proof!
  • (sounds of proof being shown)
  • (didn’t read lol) Your proof is invalid.

I know this is internet and your carefully selected arguments can be ignored, but you just lost it.

You’ve only provided your own words, but not proof.

“(didn’t read lol) Your proof is invalid.”

Your stupidity is none of my concern. You have been shown proof, if you can’t get it, go be a tantrum toddler somewhere else.

No, you have given me only your words and it seems we are getting down to your problem. Who provided you with the information? Where can I get to learn what you believe is true?

If your proof cannot be verified, then it just isn’t worth anything. Do you know how proof works?