Trebor has become the face of carebearism at the moment, fair or not. He made some arguments for no non-consensual wardecs in high sec and maybe other things like that
Okay, I'd really like to see some sourced quotes here. You know, specific words he said, and links to where he said them. Because so much of what I read about Trebor these days is accompanied by neither. Unfortunately, I think the big anti-Trebor thing to do these days is quote out of context, extrapolate positive claims from vague scraps of language, and propagate generalities sourced by hearsay in order to fit him into some tidy little "Enemy of PvP! Enemy of the Sandbox!" role for general drama purposes.
And when I see these anti-Trebor comments coming from people who effing LOVE James315 (like Poetic), well, that presents a major credibility issue for me.
I also quite like Ripard Teg as a candidate. The electorate demographic for Ripard and Trebor are quite similar. The difference is that
a) Ripard still plays EVE Online. (Trebor has 246 killmails in 4 years as a CSM candidate, and he's mostly been with PvP corporations.)
b) Ripard cares about game mechanics. (Trebor has decided that all he cares about are CCP's finances.)
c) Ripard is new and energetic and excited. (Trebor has decided to become a career spaceship politician, I'm sure his attitude to the process and the electorate is not much different than any politician who's been with the job too long.)
Okay, that's great. But with STV you have the ability to put Ripard higher on your vote list than Trebor, if you so choose, so the hatred can't be explained away as "I'd rather just vote for Ripard."
Not sure to what extent a killboard can really gauge how much you play EVE Online. By that standard, I play even less than Trebor, even though I'm on all the time.
Where's the support for the allegation that "all he cares about are CCP's finances"? More exaggeration with zero substance to back it up.
On that last point, which seems to be saying that no single candidate should have a long tenure in CSM, fair enough. That's a totally valid position to take, I suppose.
I'm going to go with his well publicized proposal to altering the way CSM votes are counted.
Attempting to disenfranchise your opposition with your sole rationale being "they have a lot of people voting with them" (aka "I don't like democracy") doesn't endear someone to me.
@Poetic: Okay, so can you point out what you're seeing in this that draws your objection? What I'm reading is a proposal for an election system that a) is easy to implement for CCP, b) frees players from having to make compromises in who they vote for based on pre-election likelihood of victory, and c) spreads the advantage that large voting blocs have (to "split" their votes strategically and get multiple candidates elected) to every player in EVE.
I had quite a different objection at the time Trebor posted this piece for public consumption. I didn't understand why he had jumped to the conclusion that a straight-up STV would be too difficult for CCP to implement. In fact, I thought the modification he suggested (having candidates announce to whom votes should be transferred in case of elimination) seemed more confusing and counterintuitive, and wouldn't have really satisfied his #2 condition in terms of user agency.
But it's telling that, in the end, general STV won out. We certainly got ourselves a better voting system in the end, and I think the discussion/debate that Trebor started was part of making that come about.
What about that post do you find so utterly offensive?
"3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs"
The only reason voting blocs have any advantage is because they are large compared to the total size of the electorate. Their level of organization isn't particularly significant.
The only way to reduce their power, therefor, is to disenfranchise* them in some way (which his proposal does).
*Weighting someone's vote differently (and less) based on who they vote for is just a different point on the disenfranchisement scale than ignoring it entirely.
@Ruby Porto: I guess I'm not seeing how the proposal seeks to "weight votes differently." An STV system, even the one Trebor proposes, merely gives the masses the power that a voting bloc enjoys. The only difference in Trebor's variation is who has agency over the vote transferal. He argues that it would be simpler to let candidates campaign with publicized vote transferal order, so players are just voting for one person, and then potentially for anybody on the candidate's transferal list. I disagree with his assessment there, but I don't see in it any grand scheme to "disenfranchise" Goons, or whatever.
@Poetic: How is tossing overvotes any different from the old standard method? The method suggested by Trebor solved the deeper problem of people outside large power blocs feeling as though any vote not for the core pack of "sure winners" would be wasted and ultimately pointless. I'm not sure that overvotes are really a problem, because if you vote for somebody and they win, then you presumably got what you wanted, no? I mean, I'm not going to argue with a standard STV system that transfers overvotes, either, but I'm not sure what's so patently offensive about one that doesn't. It's the way undervotes are handled that is essential to the STV system, because that is the central cause of voter apathy and alienation it seeks to remedy.
All of that said: do you have anything else? Or is it just this? I'm finding it sort of hard to believe that the rancor you've constantly displayed toward Trebor is based on such triviality.
If it were viable to throw away overvotes, then people smarter than Trebor would have determined that to be the viable STV system of choice. Since, not a single STV system throws away overvotes, I'll assume that people smarter than Trebor have examined the problems and situations and determined why it is not a good idea to disenfranchise large voting blocs.
Trebor had one goal, the undermine the voting power of the blocs. And that is what his proposal accomplished.
Trebor keeps yapping that the CSM doesn't represent the entire playerbase. He assumes that he knows how the people didn't vote, would vote. If they don't vote, then they don't want to be represented.
Well no, he had three goals. They're clearly listed in his post. The first goal turned out not really to be an issue, since we ended up with standard STV anyway. I think if there's anything wrong with Trebor's suggestion, it's that he overcooked it. He made a big assumption about what would or would not be trivial to CCP in terms of implementing a new voting system, and he overcomplicated his suggestion. And let's all please remember that it was a suggestion, and that he prefaced the whole post on opening a discussion about the issue. Do you honestly believe that Trebor figured, well shit, I'm gonna hatch this diabolical scheme and every single person on the EVE forums is going to agree with me 100% and support it? Of course he didn't. You may not like Trebor, but he's not dumb. He started a fruitful discussion, and lo and behold we've now got a new voting system being put in place. I think the dialogue he started about the issue was part of bringing that about.
As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure where you're picking that up in what Trebor wrote. It's a valid interpretation, if you don't happen to like Trebor, I suppose, but I'm not seeing that. He just doesn't come off nearly as diabolical as you seem to think he is. Your experience of Trebor is filled with exaggeration and dramatic snap judgments based on what you seem to want to be true, rather than what he actually has said or done. The only reasonable argument I think you've made about Trebor thus far is the one about limiting the tenure of CSM members. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with it, but I can see why someone would feel that way.
@Anon: In what possible way is throwing out overvotes for successful candidates but reallocating the votes from unsuccessful candidates not treating different votes differently based on how they voted?
You can either not reallocate votes (FPTP), or you can reallocate all votes (STV). You cannot legitimately reallocate only some votes, because treating different votes differently is unacceptable in a fair election system.
The issue isn't with the part of the proposal where the candidates direct their own votes. (Though that has issues as well)
Trying to defend his proposal based on what happened months later is laughable. He proposed something designed specifically to blunt the effect that a large proportion of the voting population has on the election. That's an attempt to disenfranchise his political opponents. Period.
The fact that everyone pointed out that his proposal was shit is also not a defense. He still proposed it. He still defended it. He is still responsible for it.
He also didn't do anything like start a fruitful discussion. In fact, he poisoned the well of discussion on that topic for months, resulting in CCP putting into place a new system (that is, incidentally, radically at odds with his proposal) without significant public input.
"Types fast. Terrible ideas." This would be a great slogan for the Poetic Discourse blog, why waste your propaganda promoting Trebor when you could be using it to draw more attention to yourself instead?
The other ads are great. Migrant worker = slave. Saltmines. Nice details on the poster, Poe.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the details really make this
DeleteHe doesn't just type fast. He also types A LOT ;p
ReplyDeleteSo, care to explain why you dislike Trebor? Specifics, please.
ReplyDeleteTrebor has become the face of carebearism at the moment, fair or not. He made some arguments for no non-consensual wardecs in high sec and maybe other things like that
DeleteOkay, I'd really like to see some sourced quotes here. You know, specific words he said, and links to where he said them. Because so much of what I read about Trebor these days is accompanied by neither. Unfortunately, I think the big anti-Trebor thing to do these days is quote out of context, extrapolate positive claims from vague scraps of language, and propagate generalities sourced by hearsay in order to fit him into some tidy little "Enemy of PvP! Enemy of the Sandbox!" role for general drama purposes.
DeleteAnd when I see these anti-Trebor comments coming from people who effing LOVE James315 (like Poetic), well, that presents a major credibility issue for me.
I also quite like Ripard Teg as a candidate. The electorate demographic for Ripard and Trebor are quite similar. The difference is that
Deletea) Ripard still plays EVE Online. (Trebor has 246 killmails in 4 years as a CSM candidate, and he's mostly been with PvP corporations.)
b) Ripard cares about game mechanics. (Trebor has decided that all he cares about are CCP's finances.)
c) Ripard is new and energetic and excited. (Trebor has decided to become a career spaceship politician, I'm sure his attitude to the process and the electorate is not much different than any politician who's been with the job too long.)
Okay, that's great. But with STV you have the ability to put Ripard higher on your vote list than Trebor, if you so choose, so the hatred can't be explained away as "I'd rather just vote for Ripard."
DeleteNot sure to what extent a killboard can really gauge how much you play EVE Online. By that standard, I play even less than Trebor, even though I'm on all the time.
Where's the support for the allegation that "all he cares about are CCP's finances"? More exaggeration with zero substance to back it up.
On that last point, which seems to be saying that no single candidate should have a long tenure in CSM, fair enough. That's a totally valid position to take, I suppose.
I'm going to go with his well publicized proposal to altering the way CSM votes are counted.
DeleteAttempting to disenfranchise your opposition with your sole rationale being "they have a lot of people voting with them" (aka "I don't like democracy") doesn't endear someone to me.
@RubyPorto In-context quote and link, please.
Delete@Anon4:20
Deletehttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917
@Poetic: Okay, so can you point out what you're seeing in this that draws your objection? What I'm reading is a proposal for an election system that a) is easy to implement for CCP, b) frees players from having to make compromises in who they vote for based on pre-election likelihood of victory, and c) spreads the advantage that large voting blocs have (to "split" their votes strategically and get multiple candidates elected) to every player in EVE.
DeleteI had quite a different objection at the time Trebor posted this piece for public consumption. I didn't understand why he had jumped to the conclusion that a straight-up STV would be too difficult for CCP to implement. In fact, I thought the modification he suggested (having candidates announce to whom votes should be transferred in case of elimination) seemed more confusing and counterintuitive, and wouldn't have really satisfied his #2 condition in terms of user agency.
But it's telling that, in the end, general STV won out. We certainly got ourselves a better voting system in the end, and I think the discussion/debate that Trebor started was part of making that come about.
What about that post do you find so utterly offensive?
There's the context, and here's the quote:
Delete"3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs"
The only reason voting blocs have any advantage is because they are large compared to the total size of the electorate. Their level of organization isn't particularly significant.
The only way to reduce their power, therefor, is to disenfranchise* them in some way (which his proposal does).
*Weighting someone's vote differently (and less) based on who they vote for is just a different point on the disenfranchisement scale than ignoring it entirely.
@Anon7:20
DeleteTrebor's "special STV" proposal throws out overvotes. The aim is to neuter large organized blocs like Goonswarm.
He doesn't suggest a tried and true STV system, but one created by his own imagination, with his own agenda.
@Ruby Porto: I guess I'm not seeing how the proposal seeks to "weight votes differently." An STV system, even the one Trebor proposes, merely gives the masses the power that a voting bloc enjoys. The only difference in Trebor's variation is who has agency over the vote transferal. He argues that it would be simpler to let candidates campaign with publicized vote transferal order, so players are just voting for one person, and then potentially for anybody on the candidate's transferal list. I disagree with his assessment there, but I don't see in it any grand scheme to "disenfranchise" Goons, or whatever.
Delete@Poetic: How is tossing overvotes any different from the old standard method? The method suggested by Trebor solved the deeper problem of people outside large power blocs feeling as though any vote not for the core pack of "sure winners" would be wasted and ultimately pointless. I'm not sure that overvotes are really a problem, because if you vote for somebody and they win, then you presumably got what you wanted, no? I mean, I'm not going to argue with a standard STV system that transfers overvotes, either, but I'm not sure what's so patently offensive about one that doesn't. It's the way undervotes are handled that is essential to the STV system, because that is the central cause of voter apathy and alienation it seeks to remedy.
All of that said: do you have anything else? Or is it just this? I'm finding it sort of hard to believe that the rancor you've constantly displayed toward Trebor is based on such triviality.
If it were viable to throw away overvotes, then people smarter than Trebor would have determined that to be the viable STV system of choice. Since, not a single STV system throws away overvotes, I'll assume that people smarter than Trebor have examined the problems and situations and determined why it is not a good idea to disenfranchise large voting blocs.
DeleteTrebor had one goal, the undermine the voting power of the blocs. And that is what his proposal accomplished.
Trebor keeps yapping that the CSM doesn't represent the entire playerbase. He assumes that he knows how the people didn't vote, would vote. If they don't vote, then they don't want to be represented.
Well no, he had three goals. They're clearly listed in his post. The first goal turned out not really to be an issue, since we ended up with standard STV anyway. I think if there's anything wrong with Trebor's suggestion, it's that he overcooked it. He made a big assumption about what would or would not be trivial to CCP in terms of implementing a new voting system, and he overcomplicated his suggestion. And let's all please remember that it was a suggestion, and that he prefaced the whole post on opening a discussion about the issue. Do you honestly believe that Trebor figured, well shit, I'm gonna hatch this diabolical scheme and every single person on the EVE forums is going to agree with me 100% and support it? Of course he didn't. You may not like Trebor, but he's not dumb. He started a fruitful discussion, and lo and behold we've now got a new voting system being put in place. I think the dialogue he started about the issue was part of bringing that about.
DeleteAs for your last paragraph, I'm not sure where you're picking that up in what Trebor wrote. It's a valid interpretation, if you don't happen to like Trebor, I suppose, but I'm not seeing that. He just doesn't come off nearly as diabolical as you seem to think he is. Your experience of Trebor is filled with exaggeration and dramatic snap judgments based on what you seem to want to be true, rather than what he actually has said or done. The only reasonable argument I think you've made about Trebor thus far is the one about limiting the tenure of CSM members. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with it, but I can see why someone would feel that way.
There's no defending Trebor here. Because we ended up with a proper STV system is no defense against what he wanted.
DeleteAnd what he wanted was not really controversial.
DeleteDo you have anything else, or is this really the only thing that's making you hate him?
@Anon: In what possible way is throwing out overvotes for successful candidates but reallocating the votes from unsuccessful candidates not treating different votes differently based on how they voted?
DeleteYou can either not reallocate votes (FPTP), or you can reallocate all votes (STV). You cannot legitimately reallocate only some votes, because treating different votes differently is unacceptable in a fair election system.
The issue isn't with the part of the proposal where the candidates direct their own votes. (Though that has issues as well)
Trying to defend his proposal based on what happened months later is laughable. He proposed something designed specifically to blunt the effect that a large proportion of the voting population has on the election. That's an attempt to disenfranchise his political opponents. Period.
The fact that everyone pointed out that his proposal was shit is also not a defense. He still proposed it. He still defended it. He is still responsible for it.
He also didn't do anything like start a fruitful discussion. In fact, he poisoned the well of discussion on that topic for months, resulting in CCP putting into place a new system (that is, incidentally, radically at odds with his proposal) without significant public input.
I have to admit these are really excellent campaign posters.
ReplyDelete"Types fast. Terrible ideas." This would be a great slogan for the Poetic Discourse blog, why waste your propaganda promoting Trebor when you could be using it to draw more attention to yourself instead?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is to be found in your own words, 'anonymous'.
Delete"Trebor" "Types" "Terrible"
"Poetic" "Propaganda" "Promoting"
"Anonymous" "Annoying" "Asshole"
OK, I have to admit, this literally made LOL. Well done.
ReplyDelete