Citadel Announcement

[Tygaland]

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think LJ Scott was just trying to use STA as an example of an alliance who's leadership (specifically Tyga) is the sole sovereign and so it is reasonable for an outsider assume that Tyga's opinion is as good as STA's opinion on any given matter. Most Citadel alliances, on the other hand, are more democratic and therefore the opinions of our respective leaders are much less important in determining our actions and policy than those of Tygaland in determining STA's course.

[edit]So while it wouldn't make much sense for a dictatorial alliance like STA to have 2 conflicting votes on an issue, it makes sense for the more democratically leaning in Citadel.

No, he was insulting my alliance and her membership because someone from the STA dared ask a question of Citadel. I don't think "sheep" and reference to me ramming things down my members' throats was necessary for a purely comparative reference.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Tygaland

[Random]

Perhaps those in STA may be sheep and follow every single word Tiga shoves down their throats, but we in Citadel are much different. Each alliance that makes up Citadel prides itself on their respective democracies and ability to discuss things at length, allowing us to capture the thoughts of all members. I'd like to think that we're all pretty opinionated on every issue that comes up from discussion, and so you will have those whom argue on one side, and those on the other perhaps.

I believe I explained why in my edit that your system would not work very well. Though I do wonder who this "Tiga" is that you speak of..Very interesting.

[Tygaland]

I believe I explained why in my edit that your system would not work very well. Though I do wonder who this "Tiga" is that you speak of..Very interesting.

Tiga is three in Indonesian. Other than that, I'm not sure. Maybe another long lost relative to go with my Inuit cousin Tyag.

[Beauty]

This is very sad to see, Wish the best for OG

[Sileath]

Maybe another long lost relative to go with my Inuit cousin Tyag.

Hahahhaa I lol'd

He's probably at the pub with your Irish cousin, O'Tyghe.

[Kowalski]

I don't see what the issue is here, other than anti-Citadel feelings coming from the usual sources. OG had politically taken a different path from the rest of the Citadel and it appeared were also falling short of some internal requirements for Citadel membership.

[hizzy]

Really, LJ?

Somehow, with all this explanation on how an alliance may split their vote to represent a perfect 50/50 internal vote, I'm still willing to wager that nobody did this.

And furthermore, something tells me Umbrella especially would not have liked it if someone did do this, so for you to talk about Tyga ramming things down someone's throat is pretty laughable and quite frankly you're talking out of your $@!.

[HellAngel]

Really, LJ?

Somehow, with all this explanation on how an alliance may split their vote to represent a perfect 50/50 internal vote, I'm still willing to wager that nobody did this.

And furthermore, something tells me Umbrella especially would not have liked it if someone did do this, so for you to talk about Tyga ramming things down someone's throat is pretty laughable and quite frankly you're talking out of your $@!.

Ill have to agree with this. Such a comment is over the line and definitely does not represent Citadel public opinion.

[LJ Scott]

If you are going to insult me, my alliance and her members then at least spell my name correctly.

I'm fine with my choice Tiga.

So, if you have a domestic vote that is 55% in favour of expulsion you'd cast one vote for and one vote against expulsion in Citadel effectively negating your alliance's vote there and ignoring the actual majority so as to appear to represent both sides of your alliance's domestic vote? lol

A split vote does not negate an alliances vote. As for ignoring the "actual majority", in most Citadel alliances you're talking about 2/3 people being that 5%. Speaking for Umbrella, I doubt we would ever split our vote, but the option is there should for some reason another Citadel member wish to utilise it for whatever reasons.

No, he was insulting my alliance and her membership because someone from the STA dared ask a question of Citadel. I don't think "sheep" and reference to me ramming things down my members' throats was necessary for a purely comparative reference.

I think you'll find I said 'words' and not 'things'. If you're shoving any other objects down your members throats and they're opening their gullets wide to accept you, then that's the business of you and your membership. What you guys do in your free time doesn't interest me.

[Sileath]

I think you'll find I said 'words' and not 'things'. If you're shoving any other objects down your members throats and they're opening their gullets wide to accept you, then that's the business of you and your membership. What you guys do in your free time doesn't interest me.

LJ I like you a lot but I don't endorse the level of disrespect you're showing to Tygaland. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of as to why you're showing such hostility?

[Taget]

You're right, lets kick Argent, and if they then join another Cit member we can kick them too.

If you think about it would be the perfect formula for finally creating one huge super Citadel alliance. Or would that one last remaining mega Citadel alliance be forced to expel themselves?

Anyway best of luck to both OG and their former bloc mates in Citadel.

[Tygaland]

I'm fine with my choice Tiga.

Whatever makes you makes you comfortable.

A split vote does not negate an alliances vote.

Ah, so having 2 votes available and voting yes with one and no with the other does not negate your vote overall? Really?

As for ignoring the "actual majority", in most Citadel alliances you're talking about 2/3 people being that 5%. Speaking for Umbrella, I doubt we would ever split our vote, but the option is there should for some reason another Citadel member wish to utilise it for whatever reasons.

Whether it is 2 or 3 members or 5 or 6 members, it is still a majority and by voting null for all intents and purpose, you are ignoring that majority vote.

I think you'll find I said 'words' and not 'things'. If you're shoving any other objects down your members throats and they're opening their gullets wide to accept you, then that's the business of you and your membership. What you guys do in your free time doesn't interest me.

Well, you brought the STA up as a topic so it must interest you in some way. I'm not sure words are objects but if they are, as you imply by your use of "other" preceding the word "objects", then "thing" is just another word for "object". Meaning my reference to things was a valid one in the context of your post. But arguing semantics to avoid a topic you brought up wouldn't be your style now, would it?

Edited June 26, 2009 by Tygaland

[Blue Lightning]

No, he was insulting my alliance and her membership because someone from the STA dared ask a question of Citadel. I don't think "sheep" and reference to me ramming things down my members' throats was necessary for a purely comparative reference.

Fair enough, whether it was insulting or not is obviously up to you, I was just trying to further explain the point that he was trying to make between said insults (if you take them as such) because I think it is a valid point. I don't condone his choice of words, however.

I think you'll find I said 'words' and not 'things'. If you're shoving any other objects down your members throats and they're opening their gullets wide to accept you, then that's the business of you and your membership. What you guys do in your free time doesn't interest me.

I have to agree with HellAngel and Sileath here. I think you're being unnecessarily hostile and are not representing Citadel in a way that I can condone.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Blue Lightning

[Tygaland]

Fair enough, whether it was insulting or not is obviously up to you, I was just trying to further explain the point that he was trying to make between said insults (if you take it as such) because I think it is a valid point. I don't condone his choice of words, however.

I didn't say I was insulted, just that his intent was to insult as is plainly obvious by the rest of his posts since that point in time.

I'm not sure his point is valid either because unless the vote is a tie domestically then splitting the two Citadel votes is not representing your alliance anymore than my opinion represents my alliance. Ignoring the fact LJ Scott has no clue how the STA operates, of course.

[Diomede]

Apologies, I seem to have lost it somewhere... Why is how Citadel voted important? Not that I bring this up because I don't like the current discussion, I just seem to have lost it's track.

[Tygaland]

Apologies, I seem to have lost it somewhere... Why is how Citadel voted important? Not that I bring this up because I don't like the current discussion, I just seem to have lost it's track.

The voting system was raised here which then raised questions for some about the process.

[enderland]

It takes a lot more character and is far more difficult to ignore bait than it does to simply take it and run with it.

And like the above poster, I am not entirely sure that the STA has anything to do with Citadel and why it is being discussed in this thread is a mystery to me...

[enderland]

Also, unless the overall vote needs a simple majority, a split vote does have more of a negative effect than positive (for two members voting at least).

[HeinousOne]

Heinous you live up to your reputation......never mind the man behind the curtain he pretends to know more then he does......

we tried to be as forth-coming as possible but yet....I'll stop there to keep it civil....

Why thank you derrrwood, I most certainly appreciate the compliment even if you did not mean it as such. Yet again, another Umbrella comment directed towards me that does not deny the little statement that I slipped in. Thank you for that.

Yah I know it doesn't quite cover anything, and lets face it, it never will. Without being within citadel you'll never understand it all, and we'll never be able to explain it all. It is for that reason that I just wish you'd say, "hey best of luck OG and hope everything works out for the best." You know I'll always tell it how it is and I'm not one to sugar coat things. Instead of speculating here you know my door is always open and you're more then welcome to come ask what you may have questions about. This is just an announcement and like many things in CN the majority of it won't be understood and is left up to mere speculation. My best advice is to just go to the source if you have questions then piddle around on these boards to let the trolls feed on.

Fact is it's not something easily explained. Out of respect for me I ask that all you do is wish OG well in their future and have hope in your hearts. A new CN is upon us and lets all just be more friendly people. As I said to Hizzy if you're confused about anything my door is always open and I welcome questions or inqueries about the daily meanderings of CN in all respects.

I may indeed approach you later but for now it seems the folks in Umbrella really did not like my statement that I made about them and have decided to make this personal. For that I suppose I shall just focus on them.

From my short time in STA, and observations of the posts of the members since then, Tygaland is very good at posting what is in the best interests of STA, and most members simply acknowledge that. If Tygaland's posts were illogical, and the high agreement rate between his members and his posts still existed, then one could characterize that as being sheep. So, until/unless such an illogical post is made, and is accompanied by dogmatic adherence, I cannot criticize STA membership for said agreement rate.

tl;dr - STA agrees with Tygaland because he's generally "right" in the perception of STA

Yes, I edited my post. So what, you want to fight about it?

This is the jist of it. Since the day tyga invited me to come to STA I have paid close attention to STA decisions and how he runs things. As of yet I have zero complaints. To me I find it very liberating to have a guy running things that I seem to always agree with. It leave me free to do other things, such as hearing about you guys telling Citadel it is either OG that goes or Umbrella leaves.

They told us.

This I don't know. All I heard was that they basically just voted 'yes' on whatever the gov told them to do. IMO even with responsible leaders, this is a HUGE liability for any alliance (we Citadel guys highly value activity and active participation, you see) and any blocs that the alliance is part of. It also allows the gov to run wild with their decisions, which can be much more nakedly influenced by personal grudges or aspirations.

So you voted to remove OG because you were told that they do everything that they are told thus basically you were told that they were not wanted in Citadel because of such? Is there really much difference or was this just worded in a way that leads to a false appearance of similarity?

LJ I like you a lot but I don't endorse the level of disrespect you're showing to Tygaland. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of as to why you're showing such hostility?

The context is that he is not willing to directly attack what I said so now he is just lashing out at our alliance and it's most respected leader.

[hizzy]

Apologies, I seem to have lost it somewhere... Why is how Citadel voted important? Not that I bring this up because I don't like the current discussion, I just seem to have lost it's track.

Cause someone earlier said something about OG still having friends among the remainder of Citadel, and I pointed out that depending on how people voted, OG would have at most just 1 friend (also pointing out at the same time that they hold treaties with 3 people).

However since then someone pointed out each alliance gets 2 votes. Now, before I say anything further, I'm just going to say that any alliance that votes yes and no at the same time on 1 issue needs to get punched in the spleen for making life that much more complicated.

However, also in reply to Tyga, voting yes AND no does not simply null the vote.

If you have a total of 6 votes, with 4 ayes and 2 nays (66% aye), and an alliance comes in and votes aye and nay, the new final result will be 62.5% in favour (5 aye, 3 nay). So it's not exactly a null vote, but in terms of percentages it works in favour of which ever side is losing at the time of the vote.

Now, that is only in terms of numbers. Realistically speaking, an alliance can't vote yes and no without screwing over the majority of that alliance's voters. Unless an alliance's internal vote comes out to a perfect 50/50, then voting yes and no will marginalize the majority's voice.

[Blue Lightning]

Ah, so having 2 votes available and voting yes with one and no with the other does not negate your vote overall? Really?

Whether it is 2 or 3 members or 5 or 6 members, it is still a majority and by voting null for all intents and purpose, you are ignoring that majority vote.

I'm not a Citadel lawyer so don't quote me on this but as I understand it, if an alliance null votes, their votes are not counted towards the 100% of which a 67% majority is the threshold to pass.

So, if the full five of six Citadel alliances vote on an expulsion (the alliance being expelled does not vote), ten votes would be cast, of which at least seven must be "Yay" in order for the vote to pass (>67%). So if three alliances cast two "Yay" votes each, then the motion would require one of the remaining alliance's four votes (two each) to be Yay in order to pass. So either alliance could submit one Yay and one Nay and the vote would pass.

However, if one of the five voters abstains (withdrawing themselves from the vote) then there will only be eight votes cast, leaving the crucial 67% threshold at just six. Therefore, if the same three of the remaining voting alliances cast two Yay votes each, then the motion would pass and the remaining alliances' vote would not change the result.

[Tygaland]

I'm not a Citadel lawyer so don't quote me on this but as I understand it, if an alliance null votes, their votes are not counted towards the 100% of which a 67% majority is the threshold to pass.

So, if the full five of six Citadel alliances vote on an expulsion (the alliance being expelled does not vote), ten votes would be cast, of which at least seven must be "Yay" in order for the vote to pass (>67%). So if three alliances cast two "Yay" votes each, then the motion would require one of the remaining alliance's four votes (two each) to be Yay in order to pass. So either alliance could submit one Yay and one Nay and the vote would pass.

However, if one of the five voters abstains (withdrawing themselves from the vote) then there will only be eight votes cast, leaving the crucial 67% threshold at just six. Therefore, if the same three of the remaining voting alliances cast two Yay votes each, then the motion would pass and the remaining alliances' vote would not change the result.

Casting one vote in favour of expulsion and one against, while adjusting the percentage of votes in favour of expulsion overall, does not reflect the view of the alliance membership unless the alliance domestic vote is precisely 50/50 on the issue. Which was the point I was making as not taking the majority opinion of the membership into account is not taking the majority opinion into account whether you fudge the interpretation of a majority in a vote or a "dictator" makes the decision on the membership's behalf.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Tygaland

[LJ Scott]

LJ I like you a lot but I don't endorse the level of disrespect you're showing to Tygaland. Perhaps there is some context that I'm unaware of as to why you're showing such hostility?

I don't believe I owe him any respect, and as to the question, perhaps people should grow thicker skin if they think I'm being hostile.

Well, you brought the STA up as a topic so it must interest you in some way. I'm not sure words are objects but if they are, as you imply by your use of "other" preceding the word "objects", then "thing" is just another word for "object". Meaning my reference to things was a valid one in the context of your post. But arguing semantics to avoid a topic you brought up wouldn't be your style now, would it?

No, it wouldn't

Ignoring the fact LJ Scott has no clue how the STA operates, of course.

Actually I had a friend whom was a member of STA. Sounds like a terrific place btw.

I may indeed approach you later but for now it seems the folks in Umbrella really did not like my statement that I made about them and have decided to make this personal. For that I suppose I shall just focus on them.

Oh no!

This is the jist of it. Since the day tyga invited me to come to STA I have paid close attention to STA decisions and how he runs things. As of yet I have zero complaints. To me I find it very liberating to have a guy running things that I seem to always agree with. It leave me free to do other things, such as hearing about you guys telling Citadel it is either OG that goes or Umbrella leaves.

Brilliant paraphrase there btw.

For our next trick, Umbrella will leave Citadel lest TOP betray Gremlins.

The context is that he is not willing to directly attack what I said so now he is just lashing out at our alliance and it's most respected leader.

How could I attack what I had not read?

[threefingeredguy]

I may indeed approach you later but for now it seems the folks in Umbrella really did not like my statement that I made about them and have decided to make this personal. For that I suppose I shall just focus on them.

I've liked everything you said. I may not agree with everything, but I see no reason for anyone (including Umbrella members) to get petty over this and wish they wouldn't.

So you voted to remove OG because you were told that they do everything that they are told thus basically you were told that they were not wanted in Citadel because of such? Is there really much difference or was this just worded in a way that leads to a false appearance of similarity?

Well I deliberately worded it vaguely because I didn't want to risk breaking any security rules, but I can definitely see how it can be interpreted that way. A member of OG posted in the general membership section of the Citadel boards that the OG membership voted repeatedly and blindly for whatever the gov told them to vote for. In contrast, the decision to expel OG was made after long debates, both on the individual alliances' boards and on the Citadel boards. Another way of putting it is that OG supported their gov unquestioningly when they really should have started questioning things at some point whereas members of other Citadel alliances (with the exception of FCC and their admirable King, I think) take advantage of their democracies to vote in leaders they feel represent their viewpoints and vote on policy by examining the facts and arriving at their own personal conclusions. I hope that helps clarify my statement. If it doesn't I'd be happy to take another whack at it.

The context is that he is not willing to directly attack what I said so now he is just lashing out at our alliance and it's most respected leader.

I definitely agree with you on this. It boggles my mind at how little self-restraint some people seem to have.

[enderland]

Casting one vote in favour of expulsion and one against, while adjusting the percentage of votes in favour of expulsion overall, does not reflect the view of the alliance membership unless the alliance domestic vote is precisely 50/50 on the issue. Which was the point I was making as not taking the majority opinion of the membership into account is not taking the majority opinion into account whether you fudge the interpretation of a majority in a vote or a "dictator" makes the decision on the membership's behalf.

By that logic, no vote (barring an exact, perfect vote split with the correct number of total voters, and votes cast in each direction) will ever reflect an alliance's views on a democraticly determined issue, as the percentages will almost never align correctly unless exactly split.