These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

NULL whiners mantra is getting tedious... and CSM lacks HI SEC representation

First post First post
Author
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#1001 - 2012-09-06 19:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Malcanis wrote:

Obviously I'd be happier if more EVE players cared to vote, but I'm unconvinced that more of them will. Go prove me wrong.


I doubt more of them will vote with the current popular vote election process TBH too.


Was interesting that in the minutes CCP brought up the stake holder subject & the following was put out there too:
"CCP Xhagen: My official stance on the voting system is that I don't think we can solve it here and now, but I do think we should commit to starting a thread on the internal forums and get the most basic ideas there, and then take it out to the public.

(snip)
CCP Xhagen: One other thing I want to make perfectly clear is that I don't want to commit to changing the voting system just to change it. I want to achieve something with the change."

I think they were more concerned with the scammingof votes though if I got the gist of the timing of that conversation right.

So sounds like an internal form thread may have been started in CCP I have not heard of anything brought out to the public.
I think the addressing the appearce of an imbalance in the CSM would be a worthwile reason for a change in the current voting system & I recall adeadline of around Chrismas to makesuch a change was thrown out there in the whitepaper part of the minutes.
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1002 - 2012-09-06 19:53:20 UTC
Thread moved from General Discussion to Jita Park Speakers Corner.

Thanks.

[b]ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1003 - 2012-09-06 20:11:07 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Obviously I'd be happier if more EVE players cared to vote, but I'm unconvinced that more of them will. Go prove me wrong.


I doubt more of them will vote with the current popular vote election process TBH too.


Was interesting that in the minutes CCP brought up the stake holder subject & the following was put out there too:
"CCP Xhagen: My official stance on the voting system is that I don't think we can solve it here and now, but I do think we should commit to starting a thread on the internal forums and get the most basic ideas there, and then take it out to the public.

(snip)
CCP Xhagen: One other thing I want to make perfectly clear is that I don't want to commit to changing the voting system just to change it. I want to achieve something with the change."

I think they were more concerned with the scammingof votes though if I got the gist of the timing of that conversation right.

So sounds like an internal form thread may have been started in CCP I have not heard of anything brought out to the public.
I think the addressing the appearce of an imbalance in the CSM would be a worthwile reason for a change in the current voting system & I recall adeadline of around Chrismas to makesuch a change was thrown out there in the whitepaper part of the minutes.


Yes yes yes, let's try explaining this once again:

If you reserve CSM seats for specific constituencies, then in essence you're pretty much handing those seats to whatever large, well-organised group cares to take them. This is because reserved seats will by definition have a smaller electorate, and policing that electorate to make sure that only "real" missioners/miners/whatever vote is virtually impossible. To do so would pretty much take a GM audit of every single voting account, which is an insane administrative burden to impose.

The current system is actually the least friendly to the large voting bloc. To get a CSM seat, any given constituency need only muster the 14th highest vote total out of those running. In reserved consituencies, fewer candidates will qualify, and only 1 can be elected. If 1 more goon alt than "real" hi-seccer votes for the reserved position, that's it: the goon candidate will own that seat. Whereas in the last election, those 10,000 goon votes only elected one candidate, leaving the other 13 seats open to be contested by other demographics.

It really does bear repeating: "hi-sec" isn't under-represented because "hi-seccers" are disbarred or discouraged or unable or too ignorant to vote. It's because very few credible candidates have run on a "hi-sec" platform. As it is, the current CSM has 2 out of 14 seats explicitly representing a hi-sec POV (Keldruum, Issler). That's actually pretty good, given that there are plenty of non-sec specific constituencies - small-gang PvP isn't sec specific, but why should it be less represented than "hi-sec"? Industry isn't sec-specific, but why should it be less represented than hi-sec? And so on.

In short, the fallacy is to assume that the only metric of a character's interests and opinions that counts is what sec area a character resides in.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Frying Doom
#1004 - 2012-09-06 23:54:13 UTC
Welcome to the Jita Park Graveyard "NULL whiners mantra is getting tedious... and CSM lacks HI SEC representation"

We expect a reasonable number of to visit the grave yard in about 5 months. Please be patient while you Rot.

o7

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Frying Doom
#1005 - 2012-09-07 03:36:23 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Yes yes yes, let's try explaining this once again:

If you reserve CSM seats for specific constituencies, then in essence you're pretty much handing those seats to whatever large, well-organised group cares to take them. This is because reserved seats will by definition have a smaller electorate, and policing that electorate to make sure that only "real" missioners/miners/whatever vote is virtually impossible. To do so would pretty much take a GM audit of every single voting account, which is an insane administrative burden to impose.

The current system is actually the least friendly to the large voting bloc. To get a CSM seat, any given constituency need only muster the 14th highest vote total out of those running. In reserved consituencies, fewer candidates will qualify, and only 1 can be elected. If 1 more goon alt than "real" hi-seccer votes for the reserved position, that's it: the goon candidate will own that seat. Whereas in the last election, those 10,000 goon votes only elected one candidate, leaving the other 13 seats open to be contested by other demographics.

It really does bear repeating: "hi-sec" isn't under-represented because "hi-seccers" are disbarred or discouraged or unable or too ignorant to vote. It's because very few credible candidates have run on a "hi-sec" platform. As it is, the current CSM has 2 out of 14 seats explicitly representing a hi-sec POV (Keldruum, Issler). That's actually pretty good, given that there are plenty of non-sec specific constituencies - small-gang PvP isn't sec specific, but why should it be less represented than "hi-sec"? Industry isn't sec-specific, but why should it be less represented than hi-sec? And so on.

In short, the fallacy is to assume that the only metric of a character's interests and opinions that counts is what sec area a character resides in.

Personally I would like to see players for parties for the elections and put up a candidate, not like the minority blocks we have now where most of their votes are just from people being told to vote for this person or that person in the election, but people forming parties where they come up with like minded ideas and then choose a candidate to run for said party.

But anyway, the current election system is a joke. It is to easy to manipulate the small number of voters you require to get a seat, not to mention the account needs to be over 30 days old stick. I have quite a few old characters myself lying around that are inactive that I could reactivate just to vote and I am not a large alliance with massive funding.

The current system I suppose is not good for power blocks, it is good for minorities.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
#1006 - 2012-09-07 09:04:50 UTC
ISD TYPE40 wrote:

Now lets see if we can keep this discussion healthy - ISD Type40.



With all due respect there is nothing healthy about this discussion.

It is being perpetuated by basically 2 individuals arguing with practically everyone else. There are no sensible proposals (or any solid proposals really) and this thread has been going round in circles for the last couple of days.

A healthy discussion would include proposals, counter proposals and logical debate of the benefits of those proposals. However I'm starting to feel this is like getting blood out of a stone on the EVE-O forums.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Signal11th
#1007 - 2012-09-07 09:12:54 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
ISD TYPE40 wrote:

Now lets see if we can keep this discussion healthy - ISD Type40.



With all due respect there is nothing healthy about this discussion.

It is being perpetuated by basically 2 individuals arguing with practically everyone else. There are no sensible proposals (or any solid proposals really) and this thread has been going round in circles for the last couple of days.

A healthy discussion would include proposals, counter proposals and logical debate of the benefits of those proposals. However I'm starting to feel this is like getting blood out of a stone on the EVE-O forums.



Yep this, time for this thread to be locked for all the reasons above, same people arguing the same stuff with neither side really proposing anything.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!

Frying Doom
#1008 - 2012-09-07 09:17:24 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
ISD TYPE40 wrote:

Now lets see if we can keep this discussion healthy - ISD Type40.



With all due respect there is nothing healthy about this discussion.

It is being perpetuated by basically 2 individuals arguing with practically everyone else. There are no sensible proposals (or any solid proposals really) and this thread has been going round in circles for the last couple of days.

A healthy discussion would include proposals, counter proposals and logical debate of the benefits of those proposals. However I'm starting to feel this is like getting blood out of a stone on the EVE-O forums.

Well I actually proposed that the masses of eve needed to be educated and went on to explain why and how, while you seemed to have contributed gems like this

Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Roime wrote:
I vote for DarthNefarcious to be disbanded



Seconded.

Yes it would be nice to have an actual debate but it is very unlikely when you face a group of people who are meta gaming and wish to hold on to the power they have, actually even room on that was made but it is always an uphill battle to propose anything the largest pack of players dislike or to oppose something this same pack wants.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1009 - 2012-09-07 09:49:38 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Well I actually proposed that the masses of eve needed to be educated

And we've told you, time and time again, that the problem isn't education, it's motivation. People are plenty educated (if they don't ignore all the information CCP basically throws in their faces), the problem is that they're not motivated or even interested. You seem to have a hard time assimilating this information, maybe you're not motivated to accept the reality.

Frying Doom wrote:
and went on to explain why and how

Yes, yes, the "vote/abstain" dialog box upon login, which'll get more people to select abstain just to get into the game. Productive.

Frying Doom wrote:
Yes it would be nice to have an actual debate but it is very unlikely when you face a group of people who are meta gaming and wish to hold on to the power they have, actually even room on that was made but it is always an uphill battle to propose anything the largest pack of players dislike or to oppose something this same pack wants.

We've told you, time and time again, that switching over to a different way of selecting people (hisec rep, lowsec rep, etc) would be much easier to game by the larger powerblocs, so that won't work. We've also told you, time and time again, that the "problem" with today's participation is that the rest of the people just don't give a ****, and you can't force them to vote sensibly. At best you'll get a lot of abstains, at worst you'll get people just selecting a random candidate, just to get the nagging vote bullshit out of the way, basically nullifying the validity of the entire process.

The only way you can get people to vote, is if they actually take an interest in the outcome of the process, and that isn't something you can force them to.

Actually, since you're so fired up about educating people about the CSM, how about you start working on that right now, and educate the playerbase?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Frying Doom
#1010 - 2012-09-07 11:24:41 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
And we've told you, time and time again, that the problem isn't education, it's motivation. People are plenty educated (if they don't ignore all the information CCP basically throws in their faces), the problem is that they're not motivated or even interested. You seem to have a hard time assimilating this information, maybe you're not motivated to accept the reality.

Yes but because you repeat something over and over does not make it a fact. If advertising was not a cure for Apathy then governments would not spend millions on it every year.Yes people have got to want to vote and Yes they need something to stand behind for their Vote but in the end Education helps.

Lord Zim wrote:

Yes, yes, the "vote/abstain" dialog box upon login, which'll get more people to select abstain just to get into the game. Productive.

No again I disagree, but both of these are but opinions as we have no facts, other than those conserning countries where people are required to vote, where the turnouts are generally in to 80% region and the abstains below 3%, so next...


Lord Zim wrote:

We've told you, time and time again, that switching over to a different way of selecting people (hisec rep, lowsec rep, etc) would be much easier to game by the larger powerblocs, so that won't work. We've also told you, time and time again, that the "problem" with today's participation is that the rest of the people just don't give a ****, and you can't force them to vote sensibly. At best you'll get a lot of abstains, at worst you'll get people just selecting a random candidate, just to get the nagging vote bullshit out of the way, basically nullifying the validity of the entire process.


You can hardly use the vote/abstain one minute saying more people will abstain and then the next to say they will do more than they have to by voting.

Education is the way to go and as I have said a hell of a lot only the minorities would feel worse off as they are surrounded by the majority.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
#1011 - 2012-09-07 11:39:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kryss Darkdust
I think Lord ZimBig smile EDIT: Frying Doom is under the impression that if there are more voters than the results of the election and the representation on the CSM would be more diverse as a result because the people who don't vote are in fact carebears (aka the other 97% of players). I seriously doubt that given the state of the game today. After 7 years of focusing on PvP element based development, if the large majority of players where not interested in PvP, this game would have disappeared long ago. I believe that the majority of Eve's population is already represented by the CSM and as such has no reason to get involved in voting. Why vote for candidates in an election they are already winning by a land slide?

Its a mute conversation anyway, pretty much everything Lord Zim has described as "what should be done" is a fantasy that will never happen. There would be more people on the forums bitching about being forced to vote, than people actually suddenly doing a 180 and getting interested in voting.

The reality of Eve is that, if you don't love it like it is today, you should probobly go ahead and unsub. 

Frying Doom
#1012 - 2012-09-07 11:41:33 UTC
Personally I think we will see a lot more people running and voting, education or not, if they start nerfing Hi-sec.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
#1013 - 2012-09-07 11:47:33 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Personally I think we will see a lot more people running and voting, education or not, if they start nerfing Hi-sec.


If there is one thing that Eve's history has proven is that people don't care until you give them something to care about. So I agree with you, when CCP and the CSM do something that the majority of players don't like people will start voting... This however supports the idea that people have no reason to get up in arms as the CSM's vision are in line with the majority opinion. Which is why when High Sec gets nerfed, insignificant amounts of people will actually get pissed and insignificant amount of people will attempt to vote and ultimately lose to the significant amount of people that agree that High Sec needs to be nerfed.

The reality of Eve is that, if you don't love it like it is today, you should probobly go ahead and unsub. 

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1014 - 2012-09-07 11:51:27 UTC
Kryss Darkdust wrote:
I think Lord Zim is under the impression that if there are more voters than the results of the election and the representation on the CSM would be more diverse as a result because the people who don't vote are in fact carebears (aka the other 97% of players). I seriously doubt that given the state of the game today. After 7 years of focusing on PvP element based development, if the large majority of players where not interested in PvP, this game would have disappeared long ago. I believe that the majority of Eve's population is already represented by the CSM and as such has no reason to get involved in voting. Why vote for candidates in an election they are already winning by a land slide?

Its a mute conversation anyway, pretty much everything Lord Zim has described as "what should be done" is a fantasy that will never happen. There would be more people on the forums bitching about being forced to vote, than people actually suddenly doing a 180 and getting interested in voting.

Are you mistaking me for Frying Doom? Because I'm under absolutely no illusion that forcing people to vote will have anything other than a detrimental effect...

(PS: it's moot, not mute.)

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
#1015 - 2012-09-07 11:54:20 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Kryss Darkdust wrote:
I think Lord Zim is under the impression that if there are more voters than the results of the election and the representation on the CSM would be more diverse as a result because the people who don't vote are in fact carebears (aka the other 97% of players). I seriously doubt that given the state of the game today. After 7 years of focusing on PvP element based development, if the large majority of players where not interested in PvP, this game would have disappeared long ago. I believe that the majority of Eve's population is already represented by the CSM and as such has no reason to get involved in voting. Why vote for candidates in an election they are already winning by a land slide?

Its a mute conversation anyway, pretty much everything Lord Zim has described as "what should be done" is a fantasy that will never happen. There would be more people on the forums bitching about being forced to vote, than people actually suddenly doing a 180 and getting interested in voting.

Are you mistaking me for Frying Doom? Because I'm under absolutely no illusion that forcing people to vote will have anything other than a detrimental effect...

(PS: it's moot, not mute.)

Yeah my bad.. I meant Frying Doom .... oh and I did actually always think it was Mute... weird...

The reality of Eve is that, if you don't love it like it is today, you should probobly go ahead and unsub. 

Frying Doom
#1016 - 2012-09-07 11:57:31 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Kryss Darkdust wrote:
I think Lord Zim is under the impression that if there are more voters than the results of the election and the representation on the CSM would be more diverse as a result because the people who don't vote are in fact carebears (aka the other 97% of players). I seriously doubt that given the state of the game today. After 7 years of focusing on PvP element based development, if the large majority of players where not interested in PvP, this game would have disappeared long ago. I believe that the majority of Eve's population is already represented by the CSM and as such has no reason to get involved in voting. Why vote for candidates in an election they are already winning by a land slide?

Its a mute conversation anyway, pretty much everything Lord Zim has described as "what should be done" is a fantasy that will never happen. There would be more people on the forums bitching about being forced to vote, than people actually suddenly doing a 180 and getting interested in voting.

Are you mistaking me for Frying Doom? Because I'm under absolutely no illusion that forcing people to vote will have anything other than a detrimental effect...

(PS: it's moot, not mute.)

Strange how your views all through this thread have gone against reality. It maybe a computer game but peoples responses are pretty much what they are in the real world, with the inclusion on anonymity.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1017 - 2012-09-07 12:01:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Frying Doom wrote:
Strange how your views all through this thread have gone against reality. It maybe a computer game but peoples responses are pretty much what they are in the real world, with the inclusion on anonymity.

In which universe do people react with anything but scorn or disdain if they're forced to do anything?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
#1018 - 2012-09-07 12:01:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
Frying Doom wrote:

Well I actually proposed that the masses of eve needed to be educated and went on to explain why and how, while you seemed to have contributed gems like this


And as I already said I'd wholeheartedly support anyone encouraging all types of players to vote in an impartial way without letting their opinion of candidates be known.

CCP, in my opinion, has already done a lot to make the voting more accessible, and the suggestions you came up with were mostly vague other than forcing people to vote. Australia forces people to vote, ask them how much more healthy their democracy is for it.

Quote:


Yes it would be nice to have an actual debate but it is very unlikely when you face a group of people who are meta gaming and wish to hold on to the power they have, actually even room on that was made but it is always an uphill battle to propose anything the largest pack of players dislike or to oppose something this same pack wants.


The CSM is one of the few things in EVE that isn't a character but a player representing something.

I'm posting right now as "Inquisitor Kitchner", that persona is me. I may be putting on a persona, I might not, but the point is it's a character. My in game character will game and meta-game to get whatever I want.

When you consider the CSM though, you're talking about real life people with real life opinions of the game they played. Right now I'm enjoying curb-stomping NCDot out of Tribute, and if I destroyed a guy's carrier that he spent the last 12 months saving for I'd probably claim it was a victory.

When it comes to CSM suggestions I wouldn't suggest we do anything to remove said alliance, because thats changing the rules of the game which allow things I enjoy doing to happen. If I felt that destroying carriers too easily (note, too easily, not it should be hard) after someone saves for 12 months for them was common I'd argue it should be harder to do as it will make people quit the game.

The reason I'm so against having a designated "High Sec Rep" or any of the other rubbish suggested is because my personal opinion is it would be bad for the game as a whole. So much so in fact that I would purposefully go out of my way to get someone like James315 elected to that position just to prove I was right.

That's not metagaming, thats just caring about the game (and liking to prove I am right about stuff of course).

Educate High Sec people, fine. But CCP already go to a LOT of lengths to make the voting system accessible and put a lot of information out there. If you can suggest something they can specifically do to help educate people other than "force them to vote" I'm all ears.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Frying Doom
#1019 - 2012-09-07 12:17:11 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Well I actually proposed that the masses of eve needed to be educated and went on to explain why and how, while you seemed to have contributed gems like this


And as I already said I'd wholeheartedly support anyone encouraging all types of players to vote in an impartial way without letting their opinion of candidates be known.

CCP, in my opinion, has already done a lot to make the voting more accessible, and the suggestions you came up with were mostly vague other than forcing people to vote. Australia forces people to vote, ask them how much more healthy their democracy is for it.

I am Australian and frankly it is about the same as the USA people say how wonderful they would be in government, but you really know the truth.

Douglas Adams in Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy said something like "Those people who want to be in power are those least suitable for the position" and did he ever get this right.

In Australia we effective have the choice between a Giant Douche and a Tu*d Sandwich, so its basically the same as the US except we have a better voter turn out.



Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
The CSM is one of the few things in EVE that isn't a character but a player representing something.

I'm posting right now as "Inquisitor Kitchner", that persona is me. I may be putting on a persona, I might not, but the point is it's a character. My in game character will game and meta-game to get whatever I want.

When you consider the CSM though, you're talking about real life people with real life opinions of the game they played. Right now I'm enjoying curb-stomping NCDot out of Tribute, and if I destroyed a guy's carrier that he spent the last 12 months saving for I'd probably claim it was a victory.

When it comes to CSM suggestions I wouldn't suggest we do anything to remove said alliance, because thats changing the rules of the game which allow things I enjoy doing to happen. If I felt that destroying carriers too easily (not, too easily, not it should be hard) after someone saves for 12 months for them was common I'd argue it should be harder to do as it will make people quit the game.

The reason I'm so against having a designated "High Sec Rep" or any of the other rubbish suggested is because my personal opinion is it would be bad for the game as a whole. So much so in fact that I would purposefully go out of my way to get someone like James315 elected to that position just to prove I was right.

That's not metagaming, thats just caring about the game (and liking to prove I am right about stuff of course).

Educate High Sec people, fine. But CCP already go to a LOT of lengths to make the voting system accessible and put a lot of information out there. If you can suggest something they can specifically do to help educate people other than "force them to vote" I'm all ears.

Ok educating the peasants, CSm specific emails, billboards in game, an actual lore for the CSM for the RP guys, Hell even an in game, in character spam mail from the relevant Empire governments going from asking (Gallante, Minmatar) to telling (Amarr, Caldari). Oh and nut cases flying around Hi-sec going Vote blah blah. Not sure if I want to do that as a scare campaign yet or not.

Plus more interaction by the CSM which I will admit I am pleased that they are doing and so much as well.

As to having a specific Rep I proposed that about 5 months ago and then realized how bad it stunk, We need more real voters not more rubbish.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
#1020 - 2012-09-07 12:38:01 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Inquisitor Kitchner

I am Australian and frankly it is about the same as the USA people say how wonderful they would be in government, but you really know the truth.

Douglas Adams in Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy said something like "Those people who want to be in power are those least suitable for the position" and did he ever get this right.

In Australia we effective have the choice between a Giant Douche and a Tu*d Sandwich, so its basically the same as the US except we have a better voter turn out.


Then that's a perfect example of why forcing higher voter turnout does no good ;)

I've always been against compulsory voting, it achieves nothing and hides over an indicator of real problems. You know you're in trouble when voter turnout is dropping, in Australia it looks like everyone is a civic minded citizen involved in the political process.


[quote wrote:
Ok educating the peasants, CSm specific emails, billboards in game, an actual lore for the CSM for the RP guys, Hell even an in game, in character spam mail from the relevant Empire governments going from asking (Gallante, Minmatar) to telling (Amarr, Caldari). Oh and nut cases flying around Hi-sec going Vote blah blah. Not sure if I want to do that as a scare campaign yet or not.

Plus more interaction by the CSM which I will admit I am pleased that they are doing and so much as well.

As to having a specific Rep I proposed that about 5 months ago and then realized how bad it stunk, We need more real voters not more rubbish.


OK to address those points:


  • CSM Specific Mails: One of the necessary evils of political campaigning is leaflets. I used to design mine to convey a message in the time it takes to pick it off the doormat and put it in the bin, because thats what people do with them so I disagree here. It's not like a traditional election where its hard to contact your candidate, no President posts on a forum or has a personal blog. The CSM do.
  • Billboards: I see no problem with this, and I think it should be on the TV in the Captains Quarters too. I would question how many people actually read billboards and read the TV screen that for some reason ignore the big banner at login and all the news article on it, but it couldn't hurt.
  • CSM Lore: Again, not sure it would have an effect but why not. Nothing stopping someone writing some piece about how Capsuleers elected a Council to negotiate issues of importance with CONCORD, DED and The Empires.
  • Spam Mail From Empire: I suppose ONE generic in character mail from DED/CONCORD reminding all capsuleers that voting is under way with a link to the information portal once a year isn't too bad. Any more is just annoying.
  • People spamming local with "Go vote": If you want to do that fair enough, but if I just had some NPC spamming local telling me to vote I'd be peeved.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli