These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

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

Author
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-03-08 03:16:35 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Har Harrison wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Yes, yes - winning a democratic election is 'skewed' because you don't like how the majority voted. The classic authoritarian line.

It's a shame you're so afraid of the will of the people!

The idea is to get the majority to vote, which you are well aware, has yet to happen.
Then, I can see why you'd ridicule the idea.

Then stop complaining and get out and do something about it. Rally support behind a high sec candidate that is running a serious campaign (e.g. Hans)

The issue here is that Mittens and a number of the null sec guys have 1) a large support base and 2) have put some thought into what they want to achieve
Alot of the high sec wannabes have not done this prep work and due to being part of high sec, whilst having a potentially greater number of potential voters, find they lack a way to reach them as 1) they are not aligned, 2) do not shaer a common communication platform (e.g. alliance forums/comms etc...).

Getting high sec to vote is like herding cats. Getting null sec to vote is like herding sheep

The onus needs to be on the people in high sec to find the QUALITY candidate that represents their interests amongs the trolls and fail candidates that are otherwise a waste of a vote

Hans is getting serious attention as he is running a real election campaign, not a "look at me, come vote for me" high school president popularity contest.

< tl ; dr > Get off your backside, vote for Hans and get your friends to and see what happens when a high sec grass roots movement takes hold.

It would take an epic case of myopia to glean "complaining" from the OP. As there's no shortage of this malady in EVE, I'm not surprised. Everybody agrees to "find the quality candidate..." all the OP is suggesting is a way to make the search doable, instead of the obvious needle in a haystack it is now.

Don't forget, or don't pretend otherwise, people lie in EVE for a living. Just because somebody puts a bunch of stuff about themselves on the "I'm a candidate" page, doesn't mean they can be believed. Albeit, (and I'm sure Vyl agrees) questioning a candidate in Regional might not reveal much, either. However, something can be done, or should be done to improve the process, or the minority taking advantage of the dysfunction will continue to have it all their way.

OR, we could all engage in my favorite passtime - ridiculing the CSM and CCP for pretending they amount to something other than very lucid figments of each other's imaginations.


From the Original Post - no. That was not complaining. However it WAS pushing a flawed idea that players live in high sec regions share certain interests. Eve players do not own homes. They have quarters in any station they dock at and a hanger to boot. There are those that are nomadic, following incursions or pvp. There are those that live in a region until someone comes along and pushes them out (null sec). Then there are people who DO stay in a region, but do different things - Mine, Mission, Industry, Scam in local (looking at Spaceship Barbie....). How could you ever expect a person to vote for a local candidate to represent them when location means NOTHING in eve, unlike in real life.

The reply I quote DID seem to imply a certain amount of QQ in the way it trys to respond to Mittens - "Yes yes, valid point, but you know high sec can't rally behind a candidate and most don't even know what the CSM is...It's not fair blah blah blah"

Vyl Vit
#42 - 2012-03-08 03:20:40 UTC
Har Harrison wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
Har Harrison wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Yes, yes - winning a democratic election is 'skewed' because you don't like how the majority voted. The classic authoritarian line.

It's a shame you're so afraid of the will of the people!

The idea is to get the majority to vote, which you are well aware, has yet to happen.
Then, I can see why you'd ridicule the idea.

Then stop complaining and get out and do something about it. Rally support behind a high sec candidate that is running a serious campaign (e.g. Hans)

The issue here is that Mittens and a number of the null sec guys have 1) a large support base and 2) have put some thought into what they want to achieve
Alot of the high sec wannabes have not done this prep work and due to being part of high sec, whilst having a potentially greater number of potential voters, find they lack a way to reach them as 1) they are not aligned, 2) do not shaer a common communication platform (e.g. alliance forums/comms etc...).

Getting high sec to vote is like herding cats. Getting null sec to vote is like herding sheep

The onus needs to be on the people in high sec to find the QUALITY candidate that represents their interests amongs the trolls and fail candidates that are otherwise a waste of a vote

Hans is getting serious attention as he is running a real election campaign, not a "look at me, come vote for me" high school president popularity contest.

< tl ; dr > Get off your backside, vote for Hans and get your friends to and see what happens when a high sec grass roots movement takes hold.

It would take an epic case of myopia to glean "complaining" from the OP. As there's no shortage of this malady in EVE, I'm not surprised. Everybody agrees to "find the quality candidate..." all the OP is suggesting is a way to make the search doable, instead of the obvious needle in a haystack it is now.

Don't forget, or don't pretend otherwise, people lie in EVE for a living. Just because somebody puts a bunch of stuff about themselves on the "I'm a candidate" page, doesn't mean they can be believed. Albeit, (and I'm sure Vyl agrees) questioning a candidate in Regional might not reveal much, either. However, something can be done, or should be done to improve the process, or the minority taking advantage of the dysfunction will continue to have it all their way.

OR, we could all engage in my favorite passtime - ridiculing the CSM and CCP for pretending they amount to something other than very lucid figments of each other's imaginations.


From the Original Post - no. That was not complaining. However it WAS pushing a flawed idea that players live in high sec regions share certain interests. Eve players do not own homes. They have quarters in any station they dock at and a hanger to boot. There are those that are nomadic, following incursions or pvp. There are those that live in a region until someone comes along and pushes them out (null sec). Then there are people who DO stay in a region, but do different things - Mine, Mission, Industry, Scam in local (looking at Spaceship Barbie....). How could you ever expect a person to vote for a local candidate to represent them when location means NOTHING in eve, unlike in real life.

The reply I quote DID seem to imply a certain amount of QQ in the way it trys to respond to Mittens - "Yes yes, valid point, but you know high sec can't rally behind a candidate and most don't even know what the CSM is...It's not fair blah blah blah"
And you are quite mistaken. Though, I'm not surprised you don't realize that. You'd have no hope to represent where I and about 125 other players reside...since '07. But, keep on guessing. You may get there...eventually.

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

Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-03-08 03:28:12 UTC
Never claimed where YOU live. But since you focused on Rens (which was high sec last time I checked), I used that as an example.
However, if I don't know where you live, is it safe to assume it is not near Rens? And therefore you just 'shop" there? And if so, then your proposal to tie voting to where you shop is really bad...

Serene Repose
#44 - 2012-03-08 03:56:04 UTC
Har Harrison wrote:
Never claimed where YOU live. But since you focused on Rens (which was high sec last time I checked), I used that as an example.
However, if I don't know where you live, is it safe to assume it is not near Rens? And therefore you just 'shop" there? And if so, then your proposal to tie voting to where you shop is really bad...

You take things a bit literally don't you? Before you start arguing a point, understand the point you're arguing...or which point at least. The reference was just to demonstrate EVE is already divided into natural areas or zones. He never said "have a representative from Rens." Politicians shouldn't be so dogmatically argumentative. It's bad for your "I'm on your side" image.

Showing you have difficulty in understanding simple ideas doesn't stimulate much confidence in your ability to lead, or represent. Ego is usually the main reason people run for offices...so...word to the wise....unless that falls on deaf "ears" too.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.

Ai Shun
#45 - 2012-03-08 04:11:11 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
The reference was just to demonstrate EVE is already divided into natural areas or zones.


Serious question. Which zones or natural areas are those?
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#46 - 2012-03-08 04:33:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Pok Nibin
Ai Shun wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
The reference was just to demonstrate EVE is already divided into natural areas or zones.

Serious question. Which zones or natural areas are those?

Pretty funny. At this point, if someone says "serious question," it's a setup.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

Ai Shun
#47 - 2012-03-08 05:10:54 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
The reference was just to demonstrate EVE is already divided into natural areas or zones.

Serious question. Which zones or natural areas are those?

Pretty funny. At this point, if someone says "serious question," it's a setup.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/


My understanding was that it is not an EVE System / Region; but a "natural" area or zone. E.g. something that could be larger / smaller than a CCP defined boundary.

Hence the question, smartarse. I find it is better to ask a question than carry on with a conversation remaining ignorant.
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-03-08 07:32:14 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Pok Nibin wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
Serene Repose wrote:
The reference was just to demonstrate EVE is already divided into natural areas or zones.

Serious question. Which zones or natural areas are those?

Pretty funny. At this point, if someone says "serious question," it's a setup.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/


My understanding was that it is not an EVE System / Region; but a "natural" area or zone. E.g. something that could be larger / smaller than a CCP defined boundary.

Hence the question, smartarse. I find it is better to ask a question than carry on with a conversation remaining ignorant.

Oh, I guess I mistook your sounding authoritative for something else...silly me.

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

Ai Shun
#49 - 2012-03-08 07:40:58 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:
Oh, I guess I mistook your sounding authoritative for something else...silly me.


Save us both the effort and troll someone else, please.
Gabriel DiCozza
Alpha-Cephei
Lyrae Alliance
#50 - 2012-03-08 09:47:36 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Gabriel DiCozza wrote:
[suggestion to take a look at the Pirate Party internal "liquid democracy" and plug for my post about it]

1) Your avatar looks just like a younger David Hasselhoff, so I'm not buying your claim of a lack of german decent for one red second.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Quote:
2) Elected representatives go back to ancient Greece, not merely the 1800s.

You understood what I meant. I am no specialist of Athenian democracy, but their version of it was dubbed "direct democracy" for a reason. They male citizens could all gather in the agora and speak out their mind. For logistical and other reasons, the modern democracies which have developed in the last few centuries focus on the election of permanent representatives. In this age of access, we have the opportunity to try out new methods. Not saying that Ancient Greeks or Founding Fathers were wrong, but they had more constraints than we do
I do not advocate removing the CSM or going all-direct. Even today, we have constraints to deal with and I believe dedicated individuals are needed at the end of the chain. But there is room for optimization and experimentation.

Quote:
3) I didn't bother looking at your blog because I'm blinded by your resemblance to David Hasselhoff.

"Image is what people perceive my life to be. It's nothing like the truth.
"There are many dying children out there whose last wish is to meet me.
<- I bothered enough to search for quotes by this guy.
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-03-08 23:39:49 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Har Harrison wrote:
Never claimed where YOU live. But since you focused on Rens (which was high sec last time I checked), I used that as an example.
However, if I don't know where you live, is it safe to assume it is not near Rens? And therefore you just 'shop" there? And if so, then your proposal to tie voting to where you shop is really bad...

You take things a bit literally don't you? Before you start arguing a point, understand the point you're arguing...or which point at least. The reference was just to demonstrate EVE is already divided into natural areas or zones. He never said "have a representative from Rens." Politicians shouldn't be so dogmatically argumentative. It's bad for your "I'm on your side" image.

Showing you have difficulty in understanding simple ideas doesn't stimulate much confidence in your ability to lead, or represent. Ego is usually the main reason people run for offices...so...word to the wise....unless that falls on deaf "ears" too.

That is a load of crap. The OP made an argument about representation based on some arbitary "boundaries" and used an example regarding shopping to illustrate it. You can't then claim "it was just an example". OP presented a stupid idea, got called for it and has any number of people in this thread doing so... He then QQ'd when Mittens called him saying getting high sec to vote is harder than null sec...

oustade Habalu
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2012-03-09 00:15:36 UTC
Replacement 234 wrote:
CCP - please kill this folly and hire a first rate marketing firm.

What corporation in the top ten thousand corps in the world has a customer advisory council elected by the customers? Customer advisory board, yes, but never elected by the customers.

All at large candidates? You end up with one view point or all individual viewpoints - nothing representational of the voter base!

Please modernize your business practices - this is more like a neighborhood association and just as petty.

Please don't take my abstention as voter apathy, but a lack of variety among the candidates.

I want a game I can play, not a system in which I must be a political organizer to get a decent game put together - That is not how a great many of your customers want to spend their game time.

Please, hire a first rate marketing firm, have them produce quality customer surveys and let the customers fill them out periodically. Use your knowledge of your demographics to appeal to new customers and quality assurance questionaires to keep in touch with your existing customers. You could select a slate of candates at random and get input as valid as you will from any group of people who are there representing their own interests as any CSM panel will do.

Just remember, the only people they represent are the ones who voted, so if you get a ten percent turnout, the "winners" will be representing just over half of that number and even if it is a landslide with the winners taking every vote cast, they will still be representing only ten percent of your customers. Take every non-vote as a "none of the above" vote.

It ain't apathy, it's disgust.

oustade Habalu
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2012-03-09 00:20:11 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
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

Taiwanistan
#54 - 2012-03-09 05:09:15 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
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

ohhhh i understand now, it was all about the incarna Cool

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2012-03-09 06:17:34 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Skye Aurorae wrote:
The most democratic election process would be for everyone to rank all candidates in order of preference, the nullsec blocs would of course vote up their blues and vote down their reds, weakening block voting.

But, most people could never be bothered ranking so many candidates so this isn't going to work.


Protip: the only serious issue that nullsec blocs disagree on is titan tracking. On almost every major issue of the day, all of nullsec unites come CSM-time. Single Transferable Vote systems are amusing, until you realize the reality - every bloc would collude.

Oh wait, we already do. I mean, we'd collude more.


Perhaps that is true. But what it means is that the colluding is more based on a truly agreed perspective, and less on not wanting to throw away one's vote.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Previous page123