These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

How's this for improving the CSM and the election process?

Author
Vyl Vit
#1 - 2012-03-05 20:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
I see the current dissatisfaction with the CSM is two-fold. A.) Few people believe any candidates will actually represent the wider interests of the player base. B.) The size of New Eden precludes a familiarity with the candidates. The solutions to these are simple. Though, initially it may take someone a wee bit of effort, it will be nothing akin to rewriting code, or changing game mechanics.

People who shop in Rens don't have a great deal to do with the area that is served by Jita and Amarr. I should even mention that Rens, Amarr and Jita are the three major market hubs. A lot of people don't even know this. Rens is Minmatar. Amarr is...guess who? Jita is Caldari. Gallente use Diodixie, which is a significant hub in itself, though not on the scale of the other three. They also use Jita, or Amarr, depending on "where they live." It's quite a leap from Jita to Rens, and the distance between those and Amarr is significant as well, so not a lot of people find themselves having much to do with any regions around the more distant market hubs.

Just in Empire Space, it logically follows, there's a natural division into three distinct regions that are for the most part populated by people whose concerns are focused on the events and conditions happening there. (These may be shared by all players New Eden-wide, but it's difficult to tell if you don't spend a great deal of time in these areas.)

And, as we all know, the Rens area can be further broken down into possibly four distinct areas where player activity focuses, though to which obviously isn't limited. It would logically follow a representative government which membership is plucked from these three regions would have a representative that could be said to have some knowledge of their specific area, while at the same time fill the assertion the entirety of Empire Space has representation.

Yet we also know these three major regions can then be broken down into smaller regions. The "geography" of the map has naturally segregated itself as sets of convenient systems where Empire players can find pretty much all they need without having to wander very far afield. The Rens example again; Heimatar, Metropolis, Molden Heath. For the sake of brevity, and discussion we can operate with the assumption Amarr and Jita have this same sort of division. And, by this we can deduce at the very least, one representative from each of these divisions would comprise nine representatives on the CSM to cover the vast majority of Empire Space.

But, don't stop there. We also have null and low sec areas that can be seen as viable zones for these purposes. I play high sec EVE. I don't pretend to know the exigencies of playing in null or low, but from what I've heard only. Input from these areas, with this representative object in mind would further nail down how many representatives would be needed to claim these areas have a voice in the CSM as well.

And, you can already see what I'm getting at here. Districting to ensure all players have representation is the core function of a governing body. This may just be an advisory body, but this method would ensure everyone would have the opportunity to be heard through their representative. This isn't to say the CSM representatives that have actual sit-downs with CCP in Iceland has to comprise the entire set of reps. It does offer the chance to have one of those reps chair (if you will) the larger groups of reps in their area. You have a lesser house, and a major house. Lesser house votes on the agenda to be presented to CCP by the major house reps in their perview. This would satisfy A.

B. would be satisfied by making the areas candidates have to physcially campaign in much smaller and more accessible so they can have an effective live campaign during the season, thus allowing players direct contact with them through regional. In fact, for the duration of the campaign, a campaign channel could be designated for each major region so the candidates can address a larger, relevant audience without having to skip continually from system to system in endless engagements through local.

All these details can, and should be worked out by the CSM in the form of EVE Legislation. We can even have the Gallente areas perennially screaming about unjustly being lumped into other groups! The upshot? Divide the map into regions (Dotlan). Have a minor house that hashes out the agenda for their major region. Have a major house who takes this to CCP during their meetings. Reduce, and organize at the same time the breadth of New Eden candidates have to traverse to make themselves known to the voters.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#2 - 2012-03-05 20:38:40 UTC


That would be great!

Then we'd get census takers to go around to every pilot in every system and ask them what system they live in, and then ONLY count their votes in their assigned precincts. Or did you not think about how there is no such thing as a home address with which to draw these arbitrary lines to start with?

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Vyl Vit
#3 - 2012-03-05 20:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
War Kitten wrote:


That would be great!

Then we'd get census takers to go around to every pilot in every system and ask them what system they live in, and then ONLY count their votes in their assigned precincts. Or did you not think about how there is no such thing as a home address with which to draw these arbitrary lines to start with?

You only take steps like that when taxation and expenditure accompanies representation. We all can only vote once per toon as it is now. We have to assume people vote their own interests as they see them, and we wouldn't want to be that restrictive. Or, didn't you think of that?

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#4 - 2012-03-05 20:52:32 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
And, you can already see what I'm getting at here. Districting to ensure all players have representation is the core function of a governing body. This may just be an advisory body, but this method would ensure everyone would have the opportunity to be heard through their representative.
…except that the representative I want wouldn't be from my district. Your assumption that geography has anything to do with interest is flawed so unless all larger “political factions” are represented in each area, you end up with everyone being less well represented… of course, allowing for that would mean that the big factions can get more seats than they can now, so you've just made recreated the exact same structure we have now, only even more skewed towards special interests.

Also, how do you determine which district a person belongs to?

More crucially, though, what's the actual problem?
Vyl Vit
#5 - 2012-03-05 21:11:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:
And, you can already see what I'm getting at here. Districting to ensure all players have representation is the core function of a governing body. This may just be an advisory body, but this method would ensure everyone would have the opportunity to be heard through their representative.
…except that the representative I want wouldn't be from my district. Your assumption that geography has anything to do with interest is flawed so unless all larger “political factions” are represented in each area, you end up with everyone being less well represented… of course, allowing for that would mean that the big factions can get more seats than they can now, so you've just made recreated the exact same structure we have now, only even more skewed towards special interests.

Also, how do you determine which district a person belongs to?

More crucially, though, what's the actual problem?

You don't need to decide. Voters decide on their own self-interests. If you know the area where I play, I know if you know by what you say. All I need is that conversation, and it doesn't take long. If you live on the other side of the universe, but you represent my interests, fine by me. Let the voters decide. Much of the slicing up of the map is to limit the amount of people CCP has to deal with directly. To get the representation playerbase wide would of necessity involve way more people than they could hope to fly to Iceland for a beer bust.

It would also change the criteria. Certain people would be constrained to mention things to CCP even though they really don't want to. Like a well-known professional suicide ganker would HAVE to mention to CCP suggestions to cut down on suicide ganking of miners, for instance. All elections are skewed to special interests...it's getting the group of special interests to more accurately represent a majority of the playing styles, which really aren't that many. At present only certain gamestyles are being heard out.

SO...if someone is interested in it being accurate representation...where's the "maybe this'll work," instead of "this'll never work"?

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#6 - 2012-03-05 22:00:08 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
You don't need to decide. Voters decide on their own self-interests. If you know the area where I play, I know if you know by what you say. All I need is that conversation, and it doesn't take long.
So why bother with this whole slicing up geography nonsense? What purpose does it serve?

Quote:
Much of the slicing up of the map is to limit the amount of people CCP has to deal with directly. To get the representation playerbase wide would of necessity involve way more people than they could hope to fly to Iceland for a beer bust.
Not really, no. They already have a limited amount of people they need to deal with directly and slicing space up does nothing to “solve” that because the problem doesn't exist. I don't see why they'd need to add more people to get better representation — they need more people caring and interacting and just adding pointless layers of bureaucracy and intermediaries won't help with that.

Quote:
It would also change the criteria. Certain people would be constrained to mention things to CCP even though they really don't want to. Like a well-known professional suicide ganker would HAVE to mention to CCP suggestions to cut down on suicide ganking of miners, for instance.
He wouldn't have to do it more (or less) than he does now. The top layer would still have to sort and prioritise the issues they think are worth brining to CCP so the “small guy” wouldn't have any more voice — in fact, his voice is more likely to be lost in the bureaucracy. It doesn't strike me as any more efficient than simply talking to the 9 (or whatever) main CSM reps.

The kind of setup you're talking about works if communication is hampered or limited by distance. This is not the case in EVE. Hell, it's hardly even the case in real life any more… It's a legacy system from when all we had were telephones, picket-lines at the general goods store, and town meetings.

Quote:
SO...if someone is interested in it being accurate representation...where's the "maybe this'll work," instead of "this'll never work"?
Accurate representation comes from participation. I don't see anything in your suggestion that improves that or helps people get their issues brought before CCP. I see additional layers of bureaucracy where things will be lost in a pointless and unnecessary game of telephone.
Karn Dulake
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-03-05 22:03:14 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
OP nice ideas but for most of the playerbase this is just a game and they dont care

Edit: Personal attack removed, CCP Phantom
I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion.
Ai Shun
#8 - 2012-03-05 22:51:36 UTC
I play in low and high sec across my current 3 accounts with 5 characters spread across them across a number of different regions. One of my characters is an explorer and travels far and wide. Some aspects I will have a regional interest in, but for the greater part I care more for EVE Online as a whole. There are also portions of the game that is essentially region independent.

How would you handle my vote, Vyl?
Vyl Vit
#9 - 2012-03-05 23:02:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
Ai Shun wrote:
I play in low and high sec across my current 3 accounts with 5 characters spread across them across a number of different regions. One of my characters is an explorer and travels far and wide. Some aspects I will have a regional interest in, but for the greater part I care more for EVE Online as a whole. There are also portions of the game that is essentially region independent.

How would you handle my vote, Vyl?

I'd say the collective spread of input over a wider range would likely cover your stomping grounds. However, it's always a mistake to see democracy as an efficient form of government. The idea should generate more input with a gamewide character to it, rather than a Goonswarm tilt (which I understand is a new dance craze,) or a view that EVE is only PvP.

But, the problem (therefore your solution) would lie with you. Which candidate represents your views? That's who you vote for. In fact, if you get around as much as you say, you'd likely encounter more candidates than the average player.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

None ofthe Above
#10 - 2012-03-05 23:08:28 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:

You don't need to decide. Voters decide on their own self-interests. If you know the area where I play, I know if you know by what you say. All I need is that conversation, and it doesn't take long. If you live on the other side of the universe, but you represent my interests, fine by me. Let the voters decide. Much of the slicing up of the map is to limit the amount of people CCP has to deal with directly. To get the representation playerbase wide would of necessity involve way more people than they could hope to fly to Iceland for a beer bust.

It would also change the criteria. Certain people would be constrained to mention things to CCP even though they really don't want to. Like a well-known professional suicide ganker would HAVE to mention to CCP suggestions to cut down on suicide ganking of miners, for instance. All elections are skewed to special interests...it's getting the group of special interests to more accurately represent a majority of the playing styles, which really aren't that many. At present only certain gamestyles are being heard out.

SO...if someone is interested in it being accurate representation...where's the "maybe this'll work," instead of "this'll never work"?


The idea is interesting on some levels. The council in someways cries out for narrower constituencies. But that is happening anyway, with people declaring themselves Miner's Friend, Faction Warfare, Block candidates, etc.

You would have them self-declare? Not sure that really changes anything much, while causing more work for the people to manage, so at present a non-starter.

This "constrained to mention" thing sounds ... troublesome and unenforceable.

There may be a good idea in here (and oft discussed) but it needs work to find a way to really bring a benefit that would make it worth doing.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#11 - 2012-03-05 23:12:37 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
]However, it's always a mistake to see democracy as an efficient form of government.

Astute observation there. We need an omniscient social planner.

Certainly, they would be induced to calculate the optimal point with a high weightage of certain groups' utility ..

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Vyl Vit
#12 - 2012-03-05 23:12:41 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:

You don't need to decide. Voters decide on their own self-interests. If you know the area where I play, I know if you know by what you say. All I need is that conversation, and it doesn't take long. If you live on the other side of the universe, but you represent my interests, fine by me. Let the voters decide. Much of the slicing up of the map is to limit the amount of people CCP has to deal with directly. To get the representation playerbase wide would of necessity involve way more people than they could hope to fly to Iceland for a beer bust.

It would also change the criteria. Certain people would be constrained to mention things to CCP even though they really don't want to. Like a well-known professional suicide ganker would HAVE to mention to CCP suggestions to cut down on suicide ganking of miners, for instance. All elections are skewed to special interests...it's getting the group of special interests to more accurately represent a majority of the playing styles, which really aren't that many. At present only certain gamestyles are being heard out.

SO...if someone is interested in it being accurate representation...where's the "maybe this'll work," instead of "this'll never work"?


The idea is interesting on some levels. The council in someways cries out for narrower constituencies. But that is happening anyway, with people declaring themselves Miner's Friend, Faction Warfare, Block candidates, etc.

You would have them self-declare? Not sure that really changes anything much, while causing more work for the people to manage, so at present a non-starter.

This "constrained to mention" thing sounds ... troublesome and unenforceable.

There may be a good idea in here (and oft discussed) but it needs work to find a way to really bring a benefit that would make it worth doing.

The voters set the standard. If a candidate doesn't say what I want to hear, he/she don't get my vote. It's not a RULE...it's a good idea...tell me what I want to hear, then show me what I want to see...or don't get the job...or lose the job.

Anybody thinking this turns into a telephone call affair has missed out on a boatload of digital magic that could be called into service to facilitate what has been characterized (dogmatically) as "layers of beauracracy". So what if the CSM has to do a bit more than show up to Iceland and get drunk? If they want the job, they can have a job to do. It's easy to make a list of things your alliance wants and ignore the rest of the game. If the CSM at present has too much of anything, it's too much power for too little effort.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Raiz Nhell
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#13 - 2012-03-05 23:18:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Raiz Nhell
I'm all for the CSM but I don't think that you couldn't possibly split it on any in-game boundaries...
And I might be in the minority, but I'm going to vote for the candidate that I think will be best for the game rather then my interests... I don't want invincible Hulks and no suicide ganking, that would make a boring days rock shooting completely unbearable.

I think having a larger CSM would help get a better representation, being a bigger sample size...

I think the vote should be decided at fan-fest, all the candidates in a room, lights off, half brick in the middle, last man(or women) standing :) Stream that live and CCP won't need to sell PLEX.

There is no such thing as a fair fight...

If your fighting fair you have automatically put yourself at a disadvantage.

Ai Shun
#14 - 2012-03-05 23:20:28 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
But, the problem (therefore your solution) would lie with you. Which candidate represents your views? That's who you vote for. In fact, if you get around as much as you say, you'd likely encounter more candidates than the average player.


Then - why not simply keep a system where people vote for the candidate that best represent their views? All that would need, without the regional slicing of EVE Universe, is a single place for candidates to be known.

Do you not think it is the responsibility of someone engaging in a vote to ensure they know who or what they are voting for? Ask questions, get around, etc.

Otherwise, what value has their vote got?
Vyl Vit
#15 - 2012-03-05 23:27:16 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:
But, the problem (therefore your solution) would lie with you. Which candidate represents your views? That's who you vote for. In fact, if you get around as much as you say, you'd likely encounter more candidates than the average player.


Then - why not simply keep a system where people vote for the candidate that best represent their views? All that would need, without the regional slicing of EVE Universe, is a single place for candidates to be known.

Do you not think it is the responsibility of someone engaging in a vote to ensure they know who or what they are voting for? Ask questions, get around, etc.

Otherwise, what value has their vote got?

I'd refer you to point A. The CSM is seen as not representing their views, and B. the size of New Eden makes it impossible to familiarize yourself with the candidates. Who these people are...which ones actually represent narrow, alliance interests but say in their blurb how for the playerbase they are? The present system has packed the CSM with people who, the net result is, are viewed by the majority as having nothing to do with them....at the risk of repeating myself.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#16 - 2012-03-05 23:28:21 UTC
election time comes,, you need to vote,, you log in to be greeted with a you must vote option before being let log into the game, you read each candidates short proposal and vote for which ever one suits your needs or wants within the game.

each candidate represents an alliance/corp, each alliance/corp can only put forward a candidate once every 3 years.

just an idea, maybe it would work.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#17 - 2012-03-05 23:30:00 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
each candidate represents an alliance/corp, each alliance/corp can only put forward a candidate once every 3 years.

One sec, does CONCORD get paid when people make new corps? Or new alliances for that matter.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#18 - 2012-03-05 23:38:04 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
each candidate represents an alliance/corp, each alliance/corp can only put forward a candidate once every 3 years.

One sec, does CONCORD get paid when people make new corps? Or new alliances for that matter.



wtf has concord (an npc entity) got to do with CSM candidates ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#19 - 2012-03-05 23:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vyl Vit wrote:
I'd refer you to point A. The CSM is seen as not representing their views, and B. the size of New Eden makes it impossible to familiarize yourself with the candidates.
The size of New Eden is pretty irrelevant. If people can't be bothered to familiarise themselves with the candidates of the galaxy, they won't be bothered with familiarising themselves with the candidates of their district. It's not impossible — people just don't care. What you're basically asking for is the creation of rotten boroughs, and as we all know, those work wonders for the legitimacy of the system…

Creating a two-tiered system where the same people sit at the top (because you don't want to overload CCP with representatives) will still mean that those views will not be represented, and people will just have the perception that their views get lost in the bureaucracy. It already is the easiest thing in the world to lobby an idea to the CSM, so one really has to question where that view comes from.

Quote:
The present system has packed the CSM with people who, the net result is, are viewed by the majority as having nothing to do with them....at the risk of repeating myself.
Remains to be proven. If the majority views the representatives as having nothing to do with them, then the majority have no-one to blame but themselves and can stop whining. They're a majority — they can vote someone in who does represent them. If they can't, then (as is often suspected), they're not actually a majority after all, but rather a small group of people who can't stand the idea that maybe their grand perspective isn't shared by that many people…

xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
election time comes,, you need to vote,, you log in to be greeted with a you must vote option before being let log into the game, you read each candidates short proposal and vote for which ever one suits your needs or wants within the game.

each candidate represents an alliance/corp, each alliance/corp can only put forward a candidate once every 3 years.
People who don't care about voting don't care about voting and forcing them to “care” just makes them annoyed as well. It doesn't particularly improve representation because people will just shun further contact with the CSM even more due to the annoyance factor it has now introduced. Tying representation to corps is pretty senseless because it disqualifies good candidates from participating and/or it just makes the system insanely easy to game.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#20 - 2012-03-05 23:40:02 UTC
Vyl, obviously you put some time and thought into your OP.

I'll give you props for that.

What everybody seems to be missing in these 'how to make things better' threads though, is that none of it matters. The CSM is a sham to placate and distract those who can be bothered to follow the politics of this game. CCP will do as they always have. Just exactly what they want.

What they are good at, nay superb at, is doing what they do and spinning it to make it seem as if it was the players decision.

For example: Mittens and his minions strutting around like they had some influence in CCP's decision to hold off on WIS. WIS was broken and rushed. CCP knew it and released just enough to **** people off. Then they did their little Icelandic summit and 'caved' to the wishes of the unwashed masses. Now they are everyone's darlings instead of a big bad game company pulling unfinished content promised for years.

This is how it's always been and how it always will be. The election is pointless. The CSM is pointless. People should just stop trying to figure out ways to fix it.

Mr Epeen Cool
123Next page