These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

( ABSTAIN at very bottom) CSM is only a meta game with ramifications - other options when voting.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#121 - 2012-02-16 19:06:05 UTC
I will never understand how some people can have class and inferiority complex issues in a video game
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-02-16 19:17:12 UTC
Haves versus have nots.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#123 - 2012-02-16 19:24:08 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:

So what you are saying is ...

In my experience, neither in real life nor on the Internet does the statement immediately following "So what you are saying is ..." tend to accurately represent what the quoted speaker had previously said.

Poor form. Ten points from Gryffindor.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn
RUS Comannder
Writing Memoirs
#124 - 2012-02-16 19:29:52 UTC
Well, thank you very much - I won my bet with a friend !!

I bet him that my post (which he approved) would be answered by GoonyToons with personal attacks (stupid, lazy fat butt, etc) instead of the basic theme that the system is not working. and cannot work regardless of who is elected or where they come from.

Now here is what I really think.

I want CCP to be successful. I want all their employees to be well compensated so they may prosper at a nice standard of living. I want CCP to get input from their customers so they can react to customer wants. I am using the terms corporation and customer purposefully to connote the real relationship each person with a subscription has with CCP, and vice versa.

I urge CCP to use the same methods to determine customer satisfaction as the rest of the successful corporate world does. I urge them to abandon the folly of these elections and go with a quality marketing firm.

Name me one corporation in the top one hundred (or thousand, or ten thousand) most successful corporations in the entire world which has an advisory body elected by the customers. Customer advisory boards? Yes, but not elected by the customers. Please do not confuse this with public corporations required by the regulations of the country in which they are based or have shares traded publicly to have elections with shareholders voting, one vote per share owned, to elect a board of directors.

Use a marketing firm to produce quality questionnaires for customers to complete. Being web based makes it a natural! Use the demographics of your customer base to guide your decision making processes. It might even be less costly than the current Icelandic Tour and CSM Drinking Contest now used. It will certainly be less divisive than this current inefficient method which can only be useful if every delegate acts in a completely altruistic manner while perforning their delegate duties. However, ANY elected delegate will most likely be human, so that sets it back a ways from actually happening.

Be a corporation! Act like a corporation! Act like a successful corporation.

Hold beauty contests if you like and give out one off ships or even special monocles!

But FIRST - get your customer satisfaction information in a reliable, time tested fashion - the same way as successful corporations over the world do!

Ok - go ahead, I know I have a grammatic/spelling error in there somewhere as I knocked it out in first draft form, so attack that if you cannot come up with anything of substance to debate the issue. Or, you can just attack me personally to divert the attention away from the issue because - OMG - we would much rather be sidetracked with nonsense than look at the issue!
Prince Kobol
#125 - 2012-02-16 19:46:05 UTC
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:

So what you are saying is ...

In my experience, neither in real life nor on the Internet does the statement immediately following "So what you are saying is ..." tend to accurately represent what the quoted speaker had previously said.

Poor form. Ten points from Gryffindor.


I have re-worded my post :)
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#126 - 2012-02-16 21:43:51 UTC
RUS Comannder wrote:
Well, thank you very much - I won my bet with a friend !!

I bet him that my post (which he approved) would be answered by GoonyToons with personal attacks (stupid, lazy fat butt, etc) instead of the basic theme that the system is not working. and cannot work regardless of who is elected or where they come from.

Now here is what I really think.


Whoa, look at this puppetmaster. I wonder what he really thinks. Unfortunately I can't read the rest until my eyes unroll.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#127 - 2012-02-16 22:38:40 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:

So are you are saying is that it is wrong for a group of people who all share the same goals to vote for a person who is acting as a spoke persons for their group?


I am saying that the voting system is creating a bias and a group, which I believe is more detrimental than good for the game.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#128 - 2012-02-16 22:47:51 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:

So what you are saying is ...

In my experience, neither in real life nor on the Internet does the statement immediately following "So what you are saying is ..." tend to accurately represent what the quoted speaker had previously said.

Poor form. Ten points from Gryffindor.


I have re-worded my post :)

High five!

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn
Prince Kobol
#129 - 2012-02-17 10:25:19 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:

So are you are saying is that it is wrong for a group of people who all share the same goals to vote for a person who is acting as a spoke persons for their group?


I am saying that the voting system is creating a bias and a group, which I believe is more detrimental than good for the game.


Yet inst that democracy?

You have a group of people who share the same goals and idea's who then choose a spoke person to stand on their behalf.

Yes those candidates who are part of a large alliances stand a better chance of getting elected simply because they are already part of a group who share the same goals and idea's. however this does not mean that if you are not part of a large alliance you can not get elected.

Also its all well and good saying the current voting system does not work but I do not see you proposing an alternative.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#130 - 2012-02-17 12:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Prince Kobol wrote:

Yet inst that democracy?

You have a group of people who share the same goals and idea's who then choose a spoke person to stand on their behalf.

Yes those candidates who are part of a large alliances stand a better chance of getting elected simply because they are already part of a group who share the same goals and idea's. however this does not mean that if you are not part of a large alliance you can not get elected.

Also its all well and good saying the current voting system does not work but I do not see you proposing an alternative.


Which is why I have settled on this idea of actively abstaining. I do not believe that players can be impartial and will stumble consciously or subconsciously.

Thus, we should have the option to say, "I do not support this system and or group." or "These people do not represent me."

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#131 - 2012-02-17 13:14:19 UTC
i agree with anything that removes more useless pubbie input
Prince Kobol
#132 - 2012-02-17 15:28:35 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:

Yet inst that democracy?

You have a group of people who share the same goals and idea's who then choose a spoke person to stand on their behalf.

Yes those candidates who are part of a large alliances stand a better chance of getting elected simply because they are already part of a group who share the same goals and idea's. however this does not mean that if you are not part of a large alliance you can not get elected.

Also its all well and good saying the current voting system does not work but I do not see you proposing an alternative.


Which is why I have settled on this idea of actively abstaining. I do not believe that players can be impartial and will stumble consciously or subconsciously.

Thus, we should have the option to say, "I do not support this system and or group." or "These people do not represent me."


If you do not agree then with any of the candidates then you do not vote.

Also of course players are not impartial, why should they be?

Part of running for CSM is because you want aspects for the game changed, if people agree with you then you will be elected, if people do not agree with you then you wont be.

If only a handful of the New Eden vote then it will show and a re-think will be needed.

It all depends on what CCP class as an acceptable percentage of the game population voting before they consider a re-think.
None ofthe Above
#133 - 2012-02-17 15:43:58 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
RUS Comannder wrote:
CCP - Give us the "NONE OF THE ABOVE" voting option so we can vote out the whole twisted from its original intention CSM system. Or give us the option to vote for OR AGAINST each delegate.

What we have come to is a table full of people who represent their own individual interests and not the interests of the players, except the players who share their interests by some sheer accident.

Every government attempting a representational form of government has realized that an elected body of "at-large" delegates cannot represent anything but the single line of thought which elected them, so you can have one or one million representatives, but they are all representing only one slice of thought, which is far from the majority, of the constituents.

You must devise a way to to have delegates elected by different portions of the players in order to represent more than one line of thought. governments do this by region determined by residence. We have a problem establishing residence in space, but it would not be impossible to determine where a player has spent 75% of their time between one election and the next. Computers can do this by always knowing if a player is in null, low sec or high sec WHILE LOGGED ON and doing some mouse and/or keyboard activity during the period. Knowing some activity is happening is important or candidates will just park a toon in a different region to "rig" the election. Then when players attempt to vote, the candidates who can only represent the region in which they have residency, will be shown on their ballot. To keep with the representational method of most governments, the number of representatives would be determined by the number of residents of each region, thus giving each player equal representational opportunities.

As it is now, voter apathy leads to a few people backed by large alliances getting elected to their Icelandic Vacation Program. Every year, I keep waiting to see a candidate whose platform has anything on it which seems of interest to the quite popular segment of players who pursue the same type of game play as I prefer.

If you intend to keep it as it is now - simplify it and let the five largest alliances send 3 delegates each. You will most likely get the same guys as you have now.

Give us the "none of the above" or the "yes or no" vote and see how much voter apathy there is then.


Couldn't agree more.

EDIT: To be clear I am mean this in the literal sense of agreeing with the premise, and the trollish sense of vote for me!

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#134 - 2012-02-17 15:54:42 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Mintrolio wrote:
Confirming this is for real?

Also now we start abstaining? Are you serious?

Additionally, confirming that 300 000 accounts did not vote last year. If more are abstaining it will just mean the same candidates get in again. Nothing changes! Instead we need more votes. More votes for fringe candidates such as Trebor, Elsie, Seleena and myself.

I really do not understand your position. You do not like the situation then change it. Make more votes.

Not voting is just not an option.

I declare that I want to hear no more about this. Truly I am very angry about this.


I believe that it does not matter who gets voted into the CSM. I think the merit in an abstain shows CCP how many people did make the effort to vote but have no faith in CSM or the candidates.

Thus, it would demonstrate how seriously CCP should regard the options of the CSM based on how many people are saying, "These people do not represent me."


Have to say I agree, deliberate abstention is indistinguishable from indifference. If you truly feel that this process does not represent you, then you need to motivate people to vote for someone who will carry that message. To not do this plays into the bloc strategy of alienation and promoting indifference in order to magnify their strength.

My own candidacy was set up for this purpose and perhaps you could check out my collegue:

Tiger Would
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=66277

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Skye Aurorae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#135 - 2012-02-17 15:59:48 UTC
Democracy doesn't work because people vote for people 'like them' - and most people are idiots, so politicians end up being experts at appealing to to dumb people.

Eve is full of smart people, people who should seriously consider voting for a candidate who's smart, a candidate who has a track record of contributing to sci-fi universes, a candidate who's education allows them to understand and model complex systems and a candidate who by trade writes software.

That would be me.

Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21 - oh well.
Mu'ad Diib
Nul-Bridge Industrial Technologies
#136 - 2012-02-17 16:11:46 UTC
Whilst I really do understand the cynicism, I still believe that it's possible to have decent candidates voted onto the CSM.

I guess that's kinda why I'm standing, (or at least trying to find enough nominations to at least make the shortlist so that I can stand). If you want to change things then you could get rid of it completely, this is definitely true. However you could also choose to support the people who are standing as independent candidates, like myself.

Vote Mu'd Diib for CSM - http://tinyurl.com/Vote4MD

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. When I die, all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Tyrion Struan
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2012-02-17 16:14:31 UTC
Skye Aurorae wrote:
Democracy doesn't work because people vote for people 'like them' - and most people are idiots, so politicians end up being experts at appealing to to dumb people.

Eve is full of smart people, people who should seriously consider voting for a candidate who's smart, a candidate who has a track record of contributing to sci-fi universes, a candidate who's education allows them to understand and model complex systems and a candidate who by trade writes software.

That would be me.


Ummh, how far out are you? You've just listed why the Mittani is chair of the CSM.

Seriously, people here seem to have missed an important part of this election thing. Look at all the forum activity it creates. Pubbies are raging like there was no tomorrow, goons are, well, being goons, and eve is alive and thrive not only ingame - but also on the forums. For CCP this is a gigantic success, there's created tons of attention. Sure CCP can get feedback from a select group of customers. But they quoted doing that when Greyscale messed up the POS thing by talking to "people". This way they get a more or less representative sounding board, which they balance with talking to other players, and then they get all of you to go :spacemad: and created threadnoughts about the elections and how goons are bad. (We are.) All while you are strengthening your emotional connection to the game. For CCP this is nought but win. As for questioners, in some three months I've replayed to at least one through the newsletter thing, you must seriously not be paying attention if you've managed to miss it.


Jenshae Chiroptera
#138 - 2012-02-17 16:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Prince Kobol wrote:

If you do not agree then with any of the candidates then you do not vote.


Not the same thing. Passively abstaining can be dismissed as laziness. Actively, voting and abstaining would show CCP how many people believe that the CSM is not representing the best interests of the game as a whole.

For now, the votes are similar to these "Like" buttons. People can only say that they agree, they have no voice to say that they disagree or do not like who is being put forward.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#139 - 2012-02-17 17:08:03 UTC
Tyrion Struan wrote:


Ummh, how far out are you? You've just listed why the Mittani is chair of the CSM.



The current CSM, and Mittani did well this time because of two key things:

The understanding of Agile project management, the ability to prioritise realistically.
They know what the players wanted changed and could articulate that to CCP.

Its exactly why it might be a plan to vote back in the most of the current CSM. They actually did a good job for anyone who plays this game.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#140 - 2012-02-17 17:21:56 UTC
'nerf charismatic attractive people, they get too many votes'

~hi~