These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Considering running CSM Vote Match! again, need statements for it. You can help!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#1 - 2012-01-25 19:41:50 UTC
So, for several CSM elections now I've run my Vote Match! website. For those of you who don't know it, it's a website that aims to match the user to a CSM candidate based on both of their answers on a questionaire. The concept is based on the real world dutch Stemwijzer and the british Vote match. For Eve it can be especially useful because of the large number of candidates in each election can be quickly reduced to a shortlist of people that match your outlook on Eve.

I'm planning on running it again this year but I want to update the questionaire to more accurately reflect the state of the game, the state of the CSM and CCP and as such better reflect the various positions of the candidates. You can find the questionaire for the previous elections here, for reference.

This is where you, pilots of Eve, come in. I'm looking for suggestions for statements that I can use in my questionaire. Statements need to follow these rules:

  • Statements should be unambiguous (meaning: no more than one interpretation)
  • Statements should not have only one reasonable answer (the goal is to show differences between candidates, which doesn't work if everyone answers it the same way)
  • Statements are preferably about divisive issues (see above)
  • Answer range is ONLY 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', 'no opinion', 'agree', 'strongly agree'. As such statements need to be simple. No multi-part statements, no open questions.


I can only make the questionaire as good as the questions on it, and if that is based only on what I can come up with we're all in trouble.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#2 - 2012-01-25 20:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Seismic Stan

  • Live events are an important part of EVE's gameplay.
  • Incarna development (WiS) should continue.
  • Continuation of the lore and backstory of New Eden is important.


Edit: Thanks for running your Vote Match service DV. It's a great tool for narrowing the options down.

EVE Online: The Text Adventure --- GameSkinny Correspondent --- Freebooted Blogger
Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-01-25 20:19:53 UTC
- Hi-sec needs more attention for iteration of current content and expansion content.
- Mining is neglected, and largely overpowered by minerals from the drone regions.
- Current null-sec sovereignty mechanics are in dire need of a revision and update.
- Null-sec wields too much of an influence upon the CSM.
- There should be "PvP-safe" zones in Hi-sec.


(As a note, I do not personally agree with several of these statements, and am only proposing them as ideas for the questionaire)
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#4 - 2012-01-25 20:34:32 UTC
Zagam wrote:

- There should be "PvP-safe" zones in Hi-sec.


OK but no trolling here...OK

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-01-25 20:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
A few divisive topics I've seen discussion about recently:

Titans are overpowered.

Super Carriers are overpowered.

Hybrids need a niche.

Missiles mechanics should be overhauled.

Tier 3 BCs are balanced.

The drake is balanced.

Faction Warfare should be different than sov warfare in null.

NPE should be better protected from interference by other players.

Incursions should be redistributed to be more common in low sec than high sec.

Sov warfare iteration should be a major focus in the next expansion.

Faction Warfare iteration should be a major focus in the next expansion.

Mission iteration should be a major focus in the next expansion.

Changes to income mechanics to reduce botting should be a major focus in the next expansion.

Fleet travel in W-space should be made easier.

Moon Ore should be overhauled.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#6 - 2012-01-25 21:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Morganta
beer = how much will you consume in Iceland?
ponies = would you want them on ships?
pew = does it need to be cheaper?
tears = are there enough, can there ever be enough?
FW = does it exist?
FIS = is this your priority?
Aylat
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-01-25 21:45:07 UTC
Bagehi wrote:

Titans are balanced.

Super Carriers are balanced.


Not only people who think that titans or supercarriers are too weak but also those who think they are too strong will disagree with this statements.

There should also be a statement that reflects the candidate's opinion about the fact that sub capital blobs can only be killed if you have a bigger sub capital blob.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-01-25 22:18:02 UTC
Aylat wrote:
Bagehi wrote:

Titans are balanced.

Super Carriers are balanced.


Not only people who think that titans or supercarriers are too weak but also those who think they are too strong will disagree with this statements.

There should also be a statement that reflects the candidate's opinion about the fact that sub capital blobs can only be killed if you have a bigger sub capital blob.


Fair point. Fixed.
Factor Fett
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-01-25 23:37:02 UTC
I do not believe in surveys that can be manipulated, I would rather see candidates past actions, read the candidates plan of actions, and take my own choice.
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#10 - 2012-01-26 10:57:54 UTC
thanks for the suggestions everyone. keep them coming!

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Raid'En
#11 - 2012-01-26 11:57:28 UTC
* a revamp of the science and industry UI is a priority

* you should be able to have sov only on a system you use

* low sec need to be something by itself, and not only something between high and null
WarProfit
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-01-26 15:17:29 UTC
CSM should have no corporate / alliance affiliation as that would present a conflict of interests. Each member should be part of a CSM corporation and alliance only. If you say they wont be able to play the game with there friends in that corporation then I say you are wrong. Let them roll an alt and then they can play. Its like putting Herman Cain in office while he is still CEO of godfathers, before you know it godfathers would be served in every school lunchroom, granted im sure the kids would love it but pizza hut would be pissed.


Oh boy here come the Trolls :)
Tiberius Sunstealer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-01-26 15:28:21 UTC
WarProfit wrote:
Oh boy here come the Trolls :)

They have come but they are not trolling. I agree with this statement. I also believe that only one person per alliance should be a member of the CSM.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-01-26 15:35:43 UTC

  • NPC owned null sec should be developed into providing its own unique PvP combat experience, different from player sovereignty warfare and low sec.
  • Titans and mother ships should no longer be able to enter low security system.
  • Pirate NPC faction agents in low sec.
  • Moon materials deplete and redistribute.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#15 - 2012-01-26 15:38:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Just make My Little Pony references and it won't matter what your positions are you'll get loads of votes from dribbling, basement dwelling neckbeards.

Like me.
ShipToaster
#16 - 2012-01-26 15:44:04 UTC
I would like to see some questions about the core fundamentals of the EVE universe as these appear to be changing. Something like these.

Rewards should always scale based on risk with no exceptions.
EVE must remain primarily a PvP focused game.
Consensual PvP must never be allowed into EVE.
EVE should remain a sandbox with player designed goals, not CCP imposed goals.

EVE was a harsh place once.It is soft now. HTFU. CCP should.

WarProfit wrote:
CSM should have no corporate / alliance affiliation as that would present a conflict of interests. Each member should be part of a CSM corporation and alliance only. If you say they wont be able to play the game with there friends in that corporation then I say you are wrong. Let them roll an alt and then they can play. Its like putting Herman Cain in office while he is still CEO of godfathers, before you know it godfathers would be served in every school lunchroom, granted im sure the kids would love it but pizza hut would be pissed.

Oh boy here come the Trolls :)


Not really the thread for this type of comment.

.
Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2012-01-26 15:56:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jafit McJafitson

  • Eve is a PvP game

  • The CSM is a corrupt shadow illuminati of nullsec alliances trying to get CCP to stack the odds in their favour


It saddens me that I have to suggest these as serious questions, but have you read these forums lately?

Oh... and even in this very thread:

WarProfit wrote:
CSM should have no corporate / alliance affiliation as that would present a conflict of interests. Each member should be part of a CSM corporation and alliance only. If you say they wont be able to play the game with there friends in that corporation then I say you are wrong. Let them roll an alt and then they can play. Its like putting Herman Cain in office while he is still CEO of godfathers, before you know it godfathers would be served in every school lunchroom, granted im sure the kids would love it but pizza hut would be pissed.


Oh boy here come the Trolls :)

Given that this is one of those morons who think that the definition of a 'troll' extends to anyone who disagrees with their ridiculous ideas, it's not surprising that his idea is colossally stupid.

CSM member should have no corporate/alliance affiliation, but they can still have alts in whatever corp/alliance they want.... What does that accomplish?


  • Are the Eve Online forums full of idiots?


If elected to CSM I will strive to implement some kind of basic IQ test or critical thinking exam before people are allowed to post on the Eve-O forums.
Valei Khurelem
#18 - 2012-01-26 16:04:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
Quote:
What's the point?


It's called PR, I do agree with you though, CSM are pretty much acting on their own and doing as they damn well please, pretty much reminds me of most western governments in real life really so I don't know why anyone is surprised about this.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
#19 - 2012-01-26 16:08:14 UTC
Raid'En wrote:

* you should be able to have sov only on a system you use


This is a really silly statement mainly because there's is so many ways to define "use". EVE is a sandbox and many things can happen, an system with no apparent ratting or mining in it can easily be the home of an entire capital fleet logged off in space.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#20 - 2012-01-26 16:14:46 UTC
No microtransactions in Eve Ever. This includes game-effects and so-called "vanity" items.

Alliance/corp logos should be provided in the client for the regular subscription fee.

Ship skins should be provided within the client for the regular subscription fee + gameplay - earned through faction lp stores for example.

The NeX store should be scrapped and all clothing resources moved to the character designer.

Low sec requires immediate attention and detailed improvements.

All moon mineral mineral harvesting should be moved away from POS's and made a player led profession. This will involve moon-mining barges sucking up the minerals that are vulnerable to counter action.

Faction warfare needs to expand to involve pirate factions against empires.

CCP should hire a proper RP events team again.

System security level should be dynamic and change under certain player led actions.

Outposts should explode.

Blob-fighting needs some kind of nerf to targetting efficiency.

Local chat should become a paid service for sovereignty holders (default off/delayed w-space style)

Transferable kill rights need implementing right now.

Soverignty system REQUIRES targets that small gang warfare can interact with.

Shooting structures with massive hitpoint buffers should never again be part of game design.

Occupancy should create sovereignty. Absenteeism should lose it.



The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
12Next page