FYI: MA info about the voting system

[Mega]

Who has the better knowledge of how Tesco works, someone with 100 shares or someone who spends £2000+ a year in their shops.

I think Mindark can see who owns the CLD and has had to revise who and how voting works as a result of this.

Old timers remember the voting terminals. They didn't work when I joined in '06 but MA do want to know what we think (as any company does) but they seem to want a varied opinion of as many as possible.

And that is perfectly understandable.

 

[Profit]

So what are you saying there? Are you saying Mindark sold Calypso to the players for 6mil$(60.000 shares@100$/share) same amount that SEE virtual worlds was going to pay for Calypso, but without actually selling it? http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/0...lypso-for-6-million-talks-with-massively-for/

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying, how do you see it any other way?
I'm saying you're not share holders, so don't expect to be treated like one.
Why do you think you are a shareholder?

You are part of a revenue share system. That is all.
In noway what-so-ever, is a CLD like a share. So I don't understand why you think CLD holders "bought" a piece of Calypso. You didn't. You bought into a share of the revenue of Calypso, however you do not hold any share in Calypso.

So, your comparison in the opening post is moot, because you're comparing a CLD to a share, a comparison that is impossible to make.

Why weren't these voting rights explained from the very beginning, giving the initial impression they would only apply to shareholders or deedholders(if this terminology pleases you more). It gave the false impression that shareholders and only shareholders will have some form of control over the direction of the company they have actually bought but haven't actually bought as it turns out.

Your only right as a CLD holder and Mindark's only obligation to you, is to ensure you receive a portion of revenue from Calypso. NOTHING MORE.
Voting, land ownership etc... is all an added extra. Sure they made promises, but they didn't officially announce the introduction of anything outside of the revenue share system, yet.

So, Mindark are holding up their side of the bargain it's just that some people assumed some things, when there was no reason to assume them (eg: assuming you have a share of Calypso, when there's absolutely no reason to think you do, assuming only CLD holders would have voting rights when that was never stated as being the case, etc...) and now that their assumptions are not coming to pass, they're getting upset.

Black and white really.

 

[Mikass]

Well, yes, everybody with at least one cld should have a vote, people with no clds should not have a vote - this part is clear. What is not clear is how many votes somebody with 9 cld (to claim a plot of land) and any further cld-s will have. And I don't think any of MA wordings could really be said to grant holders of say 100 votes to a holder of 100 cld.

It could be something like:

1. one cld entitles you to a vote
2. 9 clds entitles you to two votes
3. any extra 9 clds gives you an extra vote

Why does this system remind me of socialist progressive taxation crap? How about give 1 vote /share and 100 votes/100shares and call it a day.

 

[Mikass]

Who has the better knowledge of how Tesco works, someone with 100 shares or someone who spends £2000+ a year in their shops.

I think Mindark can see who owns the CLD and has had to revise who and how voting works as a result of this.

Old timers remember the voting terminals. They didn't work when I joined in '06 but MA do want to know what we think (as any company does) but they seem to want a varied opinion of as many as possible.

And that is perfectly understandable.

Actually most shareholders in RL are more familiar with a company's products than a regular customer, since they'd risk investing in the company. And to say they're more familiar is actually an understatement in most cases.

And haven't you posted on forums plenty of feedback of filled out any of their emailed polls? Most players have done that. We're even doing it now in this thread. This is free feedback we're providing basically.

Asking customer feedback is one thing while charting course for the company, picking growth strategies is something totally different. Mixing the two is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Mikass]

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying, how do you see it any other way?
I'm saying you're not share holders, so don't expect to be treated like one.
Why do you think you are a shareholder?

You are part of a revenue share system. That is all.
In noway what-so-ever, is a CLD like a share. So I don't understand why you think CLD holders "bought" a piece of Calypso. You didn't. You bought into a share of the revenue of Calypso, however you do not hold any share in Calypso.

So, your comparison in the opening post is moot, because you're comparing a CLD to a share, a comparison that is impossible to make.



Your only right as a CLD holder and Mindark's only obligation to you, is to ensure you receive a portion of revenue from Calypso. NOTHING MORE.
Voting, land ownership etc... is all an added extra. Sure they made promises, but they didn't officially announce the introduction of anything outside of the revenue share system, yet.

So, Mindark are holding up their side of the bargain it's just that some people assumed some things, when there was no reason to assume them (eg: assuming you have a share of Calypso, when there's absolutely no reason to think you do, assuming only CLD holders would have voting rights when that was never stated as being the case, etc...) and now that their assumptions are not coming to pass, they're getting upset.

Black and white really.

Stop it, stop it. You gonna make me cry.

 

[Mega]

And haven't you posted on forums plenty of feedback of filled out any of their emailed polls? Most players have done that. We're even doing it now in this thread. This is free feedback we're providing basically.

Asking customer feedback is one thing while charting course for the company, picking growth strategies is something totally different. Mixing the two is a recipe for disaster.

No, I avoid people in the street with clipboards, I also dont fill in surveys and emails and the like.
Reason: they also like to collect personal data like address, telephone number, and they get sold on and your life is a misery from then on.

A forum will be the sole method I will give feedback.

I think Mindark can use company data to see "how things are going" and read forums like this one, and send emails out. I would use the info in that order.

It is up to them how much weight to give to the feedback they get from those three sources. Maybe there is wisdom in giving those who dont own any CLD, but have played for years, a verdict in how satisfied they are.

We'll see.

 

[Xavier Target]

Based on the OP quote, basically a CLD has little to nothing to do with the proposed voting system? I own one CLD, but don't play alot and don't deposit alot and have been around only 2 years hence my vote is worthless..... Well, I only own one CLD, so I thought my vote would be worthless anyway..... Dang, I was hoping I would wield insanely large voting power which I could sell to the highest bidder....

 

[aridash]

Who has the better knowledge of how Tesco works, someone with 100 shares or someone who spends £2000+ a year in their shops.

a poor example as the two have a conflict of interest, one wants maximum profits the other wants low prices, and neither really knows much about how Tesco works (that would be lower level managers).

Your only right as a CLD holder and Mindark's only obligation to you, is to ensure you receive a portion of revenue from Calypso. NOTHING MORE.
Voting, land ownership etc... is all an added extra. Sure they made promises, but they didn't officially announce the introduction of anything outside of the revenue share system, yet.

these are not added extras, they are part of the original proposal. the programme was announced as "a groundbreaking Citizenship System that includes Land Lot Deeds with an expected annual return on investment ". Deed holders would have the oppurtunity to enter a land grab event, build a house on a 9x9 plot and be "directly involved with decisions affecting the future development of Calypso, with voting power relative to the number of Land Lot Deeds held".

certinly they have not expanded the detail on either land grab or the voting, but one cannt dismiss these aspects of the CLD, they are fundemental to what was offered.

 

[billairboy]

Based on the OP quote, basically a CLD has little to nothing to do with the proposed voting system? I own one CLD, but don't play alot and don't deposit alot and have been around only 2 years hence my vote is worthless..... Well, I only own one CLD, so I thought my vote would be worthless anyway..... Dang, I was hoping I would wield insanely large voting power which I could sell to the highest bidder....

CLD will still be the most important factor, all CLD holders will at least have one vote. But they will have some limit of how many votes each individual can have. I my opinion a 100 vote limit/avatar could be good.

They could create system where 70 % of the votes are decided by how many CLD the avatars own, and 30 % on others factors such as online time spent on Calypso, estates owned on Calypso, amount of monthly depositing, skills and age of the avatar. If we only allows CLD holders to vote it could create problems when players that don't own them feels like secondary citizens and outsiders, that would not be good in the long term. The problem would only grow if and when we get more new players that joins the game and don't own any CLD.

Maybe the first vote would be made by the CLD holders to decide on how the voting system should work in the future.

 

[Magyar_Republic]

I've just stumbled upon this info about how shareholders will be allowed to vote:


http://www.entropiauniverse.com/bulletin/buzz/2012/4/12/Calypso-Land-Deed-Update.xml

I, for one, find it totally idiotic. In RL if you were to tell a shareholder such rules he'd quickly tell you to go plough yourself and no one would touch a company imposing such rules on shareholder voting rights. This would basically be the equivalent of say Apple give its own customers(aka every Iphone owner) voting rights in the board of directors. Imagine what a train wreck that would be. Funny, though, these terms weren't revealed from the very beginning but only at later point and I've totally missed it. I'm pretty sure many haven't seen this info(released in April 2012) either. I haven't found a thread discussing it in the CLD forum section.

They way I see it, they've just devised a clever system of smoke and mirrors so they'd make sure whole thing will be a dictatorship where current management has full and complete control, but I bet there will be plenty of gullible "little guys" and "dedicated" players with 1 or 2 shares or absolutely zero shares, praising such idiotic system. Though, this coming from MA is no real surprise. I have to give MA credit, yet again, for being a shrewd and savvy business man at the expense of investor confidence.

I agree. See my website here for my complete stance. Your purchase of a substantial amount of shares equals 1) a large stake in the success of the planet partner and 2) a large amount deposited or withheld from your personal finances.

That someone who just happened to be around before, you, but chose not to participate at all in the share system may be on equal voting power with you is absurd. They elected not to participate in the system, and are in essence being rewarded for that with the ability to participate in the system.

No, and no. Divide it up. A house of commons should exist, where everyone gets an equal vote, regardless of account age or share status. A senate should then exist where only shareholders get to participate, and they participate in the system with votes proportional to the amount of shares they control.

We dont have to reinvent the wheel, folks. This isnt exactly rocket science.

You cant +rep Mikass again... bleh.

 

[Konve]

I've just stumbled upon this info about how shareholders will be allowed to vote:


http://www.entropiauniverse.com/bulletin/buzz/2012/4/12/Calypso-Land-Deed-Update.xml

I, for one, find it totally idiotic. In RL if you were to tell a shareholder such rules he'd quickly tell you to go plough yourself and no one would touch a company imposing such rules on shareholder voting rights. This would basically be the equivalent of say Apple give its own customers(aka every Iphone owner) voting rights in the board of directors. Imagine what a train wreck that would be. Funny, though, these terms weren't revealed from the very beginning but only at later point and I've totally missed it. I'm pretty sure many haven't seen this info(released in April 2012) either. I haven't found a thread discussing it in the CLD forum section.

They way I see it, they've just devised a clever system of smoke and mirrors so they'd make sure whole thing will be a dictatorship where current management has full and complete control, but I bet there will be plenty of gullible "little guys" and "dedicated" players with 1 or 2 shares or absolutely zero shares, praising such idiotic system. Though, this coming from MA is no real surprise. I have to give MA credit, yet again, for being a shrewd and savvy business man at the expense of investor confidence.

My point is Iphone owners shouldn't be able to make decisions regarding the future path of Apple company. It is the shareholders who basically own Planet Calypso, not the participants. Shareholders should have all the say and 1 share should equal 1 vote to a maximum of 60.000 votes/60.000 shares representing 100% of total votes.

6mil $ was the sum SEE had to pay to MA to buy Calypso. MA decided to sell Calypso to willing parties for same amount, 6mil $. Now MA is saying shareholders are not really shareholders with full voting rights and that the participants will really call the shots on future development. Problem is MA is not doing this "communist democracy" out of their goodness of their heart but as scheme to secure control of current management for many years to come in a obfuscating scheme.

So what are you saying there? Are you saying Mindark sold Calypso to the players for 6mil$(60.000 shares@100$/share) same amount that SEE virtual worlds was going to pay for Calypso, but without actually selling it? http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/0...lypso-for-6-million-talks-with-massively-for/

Why weren't these voting rights explained from the very beginning, giving the initial impression they would only apply to shareholders or deedholders(if this terminology pleases you more). It gave the false impression that shareholders and only shareholders will have some form of control over the direction of the company they have actually bought but haven't actually bought as it turns out.

First of all. As Profit told you, CLDs are not "shares" at all. So from a governing perspective, you haven't earned an equal say in anything.

Secondly. I don't see anything to suggest non-CLD owners will have a vote. It's quite possible having at least one CLD will be required to vote. Or at least a formula heavily biased for CLD owners.

Third. Are you upset that it's based on a formula, and not 1 CLD = 1 vote? Maybe you should have done your homework and looked at how the voting booths used to work. The old system was also based on a formula where (IIRC) networth was the determining factor in how many votes you had.

 

[Akbar]

As I was reading the first part of your comment,
you gave exactly what I was telling myself in the 2nd part.

They way I see it, they've just devised a clever system of smoke and mirrors so they'd make sure whole thing will be a dictatorship where current management has full and complete control , but I bet there will be plenty of gullible "little guys" and "dedicated" players with 1 or 2 shares or absolutely zero shares, praising such idiotic system. Though, this coming from MA is no real surprise. I have to give MA credit, yet again, for being a shrewd and savvy business man at the expense of investor confidence.

 

[mastermesh]

Third. Are you upset that it's based on a formula, and not 1 CLD = 1 vote? Maybe you should have done your homework and looked at how the voting booths used to work. The old system was also based on a formula where (IIRC) networth was the determining factor in how many votes you had.

it's not 1 cld = 1 vote if I read the q & a sessions right. I think some dev said it would be, but another said otherwise? More confusion where the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing at Mindark so we end up with bugs galore and exploitpalooza...

 

[Etopia]

I dont see why CLD should give vote about what MA is doing...
It should give vote about what calypso is doing...

CLD are share of calypso not MA... or did i miss something ?

 

[Chrome]

I dont see why CLD should give vote about what MA is doing...
It should give vote about what calypso is doing...

CLD are share of calypso not MA... or did i miss something ?

Same difference...

MA runs Calypso.

 

[Wollongong]

Still, when the CLD were introduced, it was under the premiss that only CLD holders would vote.

Of course, mr. Newspeak came by, and all records of such a promise have been stripped from every official website. Doesn't mean it wasn't presented as such though...

 

[Naomi]

Another issue that has been raised relates to voting rights associated with the Calypso Land Deeds. Although the full details of the forthcoming citizenship system are not yet finalized, one solution we are strongly considering is a political system that includes all Entropia Universe participants, with each avatar’s voting power calculated based on a formula that includes various factors such as: account age, deposits, estate ownership, number of land deeds, level of activity, etc. A properly constructed formula will allow us to create a citizenship system that prevents any single participant from gaining an excessive amount of voting power simply by owning a large number of Land Deeds or having deposited large sums. Full details about the voting power formula will be provided as the release of the citizenship system draws closer.

The voting system is, according to MA, some kind of political system.
It has nothing to do with partly ownership of calypso.
The political system works for all of Entropia, not only Calypso. Other planets may issue land deeds in the future as well. Among others, cld's are a factor that has an effect on your voting power.
It is not correct to look at it upside-down, cld's is not buying decision power in MindArk, it is only a factor of the value of your account. Whether you have invested in cld's, Land Areas or other stuff, should not matter to an all-EU political system.

Naomi

 

[aridash]

The voting system is, according to MA, some kind of political system.
It has nothing to do with partly ownership of calypso.
The political system works for all of Entropia, not only Calypso. Other planets may issue land deeds in the future as well. Among others, cld's are a factor that has an effect on your voting power.
It is not correct to look at it upside-down, cld's is not buying decision power in MindArk, it is only a factor of the value of your account. Whether you have invested in cld's, Land Areas or other stuff, should not matter to an all-EU political system.

Naomi

as above, it was clearly stated that ownership of the CLD would endow the holder with access to a voting system. we know MA doesnt care to keep promises so it shouldnt come as a surprise if they change this, but it should be remembered none the lesss.

 

[SpikeBlack]

Still, when the CLD were introduced, it was under the premiss that only CLD holders would vote.

Of course, mr. Newspeak came by, and all records of such a promise have been stripped from every official website. Doesn't mean it wasn't presented as such though...

It probably was going to be that until one person bought 25000.

Any voting will be choosing 1 of 3 or 4 options set by the Calypso team which will only relate to Calypso as others have already said.

If the person owning 25000, or is it 20000 now, voted they'd dominate the vote over the rest of the owners. I think it was at this point the whole system took a different tack and was put back to the drawing board.

It's like the egg, it was probably going to be another section to the event and then ND goes and pays a huge amount for it and they had to scrap the entire thing. One person buying 25000 screwed the original plan and they've been left a mess to sort out.

 

[Chrome]

It's like the egg, it was probably going to be another section to the event and then ND goes and pays a huge amount for it and they had to scrap the entire thing. One person buying 25000 screwed the original plan and they've been left a mess to sort out.

<ahem> I'll quote myself...

I predict that voting will be just like the taming system...

We'll never see it.

 

[Konve]

as above, it was clearly stated that ownership of the CLD would endow the holder with access to a voting system. we know MA doesnt care to keep promises so it shouldnt come as a surprise if they change this, but it should be remembered none the lesss.

It would probably be best for someone to actually dig out an actual quote of that. Because atm people seem to be inventing what MA actually said.

I, for one, seem to remember it saying that CLDs would grant voting rights in a political system. One can have many voting rights, and you having "10" voting rights does in no way prevent me from having 0, 1 or 5000. For all we know, an avatar with no CLD might have 1 voting right, and one more for each CLD you hold. I do not recall them saying people without CLDs would have zero voting rights.

 

[Wollongong]

It probably was going to be that until one person bought 25000.

Any voting will be choosing 1 of 3 or 4 options set by the Calypso team which will only relate to Calypso as others have already said.

If the person owning 25000, or is it 20000 now, voted they'd dominate the vote over the rest of the owners. I think it was at this point the whole system took a different tack and was put back to the drawing board.

It's like the egg, it was probably going to be another section to the event and then ND goes and pays a huge amount for it and they had to scrap the entire thing. One person buying 25000 screwed the original plan and they've been left a mess to sort out.

Nope. They started backtracking on their statements before the big buyer showed up.



By the way, found a quote:

– MindArk, developer and publisher of the largest real money MMO, announced today that it will introduce a groundbreaking Citizenship System to Planet Calypso. The new system will provide revenue sharing to participants, and add a political system that will allow players to vote on major decisions affecting their virtual world, all for as little as $100 USD.
(...)

The new system grants users Planet Calypso citizenship and political voting rights. Citizens will also receive a share in the Planet Partner gross revenue of Calypso, paid weekly. Based on Planet Calypso’s performance over the last 12 months, the potential return of investment (ROI) is expected to be between 27% and 30% per year. Each planet in the Entropia Universe is a separate Planet Partner, and the revenue share paid to deed holders will come from the Planet Calypso revenue stream. Sixty thousand land lot deeds offered at $100 USD each are available exclusively through the Entropia Universe global auction and can be acquired by anyone after creating a free avatar.

Also note:

Q. How many votes in the forthcoming Political System will Land Lot deedholders receive?
A. Each individual Land Lot deed entitles the holder to one vote. Thus, each political issue will have a maximum of 60,000 potential votes.

http://www.entropiauniverse.com/bulletin/buzz/2011/11/16/Calypso-Land-Lot-Deeds.xml