These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

suggestion ( new system for finding CSM Candidates )
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#1 - 2012-03-30 12:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
you may love this idea, you may hate this idea, but do please read and think before you reply.

Perhaps a new system is needed, one much like jury duty might be called for, one where you are called on to play your part for the community.


A simple system is all that is needed where you may or may not accept the role.

Everyone who is interested registers and is placed on a live roster.

You must be an active player in the game for more than 2 years to register for the live roster.

The standing CSM panel place all names from the live roster in a hat. Roll

A draw is made until all places are filled.

This way we get a more balanced system.

A better mix of CSM membership from the player base cannot be ignored.

Enough of this virtual political BS, The CSM should not be about virtual political gobshites who think they are president of some ones and zeros.

The CSM should be about bringing forward the players concerns, nothing more.


No flames please, I’ve been flame resistant for a long while now so you'll be wasting your time

This idea does not mean i am saying the current CSM or past did not do a good job, it's just my thoughts that maybe it's time for a new system.

thanks for reading.
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#2 - 2012-03-30 13:12:10 UTC
I sort of like this idea. I would add some sort of minimum number of endorsements by other players to be eligible for the draw. Anyone who gets above X votes will get their name in the hat or something like that. This way, there is some commentary from the player-base who can be trusted to do the job well, but it won't come down to who can get the most people to vote for him/her.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#3 - 2012-03-30 16:36:28 UTC
That's a really stupid idea. Randomly picking people (even people who have put their names in) to be on the CSM is a horrible way to pick people. There are way too many troll CSM candidates, it would end so badly it's sad.

Besides, I've spent enough time dealing with Eve's RNG to know that it delights in screwing over players as best it can, lol.
Conrin
Elucidated Brethren of the Ebon Knights
Elucidated Empire
#4 - 2012-03-30 16:45:58 UTC
Those who desire power and high office are precisely the ones who should not hold it..... so how about we do this and then just randomly pick from the rest of the population...

If I win a bid for one of your characters please evemail or convo me. While i try to keep reviewing my active bids its not always possible.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-03-30 16:56:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
mxzf wrote:
That's a really stupid idea. Randomly picking people (even people who have put their names in) to be on the CSM is a horrible way to pick people. There are way too many troll CSM candidates, it would end so badly it's sad.

Besides, I've spent enough time dealing with Eve's RNG to know that it delights in screwing over players as best it can, lol.


Agreed.

Its bad enough we have populairty ####storm votes....now we add randomization to the mix....no thanks.

Pass.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#6 - 2012-03-30 18:48:01 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
mxzf wrote:
That's a really stupid idea. Randomly picking people (even people who have put their names in) to be on the CSM is a horrible way to pick people. There are way too many troll CSM candidates, it would end so badly it's sad.

Besides, I've spent enough time dealing with Eve's RNG to know that it delights in screwing over players as best it can, lol.


Agreed.

Its bad enough we have populairty ####storm votes....now we add randomization to the mix....no thanks.

Pass.


I also agree....

While I understand your notion that those that seek power are often those that shouldn't have it, you method is extremely flawed.

First, the CSM doesn't exactly have POWER, but rather priveledge. As the release of Incarna proved, CCP can completely ignore what the CSM suggests/proclaims/demands, etc... They do have influence, as CCP has wisened up some to realize they aught to take the CSM suggestions, complaints, and warnings seriously. However, the CSM doesn't have veto power over anything... they only have the ear of CCP.

Secondly, if you don't have to be elected, then you don't need to put in any work into getting on the CSM. As such, the CSM could easily degenerate into a group of people looking to get free tickets to iceland and backstage passes to CCP, rather than a group of people dedicating their time to better the game. Currently, most CSM members actually put quite a bit of effort into being a CSM member, and I want that to continue. IMO, the only way to ensure the CSM's continued efforts is to require a certain amount of effort to become a member. With a voting process, people first have to convince thousands of people that they deserve to be there, and if they don't live up to expectations they wont be re-elected. Any moron with no real understanding of the game mechanics, game play, and current issues can toss his name into a raffle.

Frankly, there needs to be a vetting system to ensure a minimum quality of CSM members, and who better to vet the candidates than the players of EvE??


Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-03-30 18:58:16 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
mxzf wrote:
That's a really stupid idea. Randomly picking people (even people who have put their names in) to be on the CSM is a horrible way to pick people. There are way too many troll CSM candidates, it would end so badly it's sad.

Besides, I've spent enough time dealing with Eve's RNG to know that it delights in screwing over players as best it can, lol.


Agreed.

Its bad enough we have populairty ####storm votes....now we add randomization to the mix....no thanks.

Pass.


I also agree....

While I understand your notion that those that seek power are often those that shouldn't have it, you method is extremely flawed.

First, the CSM doesn't exactly have POWER, but rather priveledge. As the release of Incarna proved, CCP can completely ignore what the CSM suggests/proclaims/demands, etc... They do have influence, as CCP has wisened up some to realize they aught to take the CSM suggestions, complaints, and warnings seriously. However, the CSM doesn't have veto power over anything... they only have the ear of CCP.

Secondly, if you don't have to be elected, then you don't need to put in any work into getting on the CSM. As such, the CSM could easily degenerate into a group of people looking to get free tickets to iceland and backstage passes to CCP, rather than a group of people dedicating their time to better the game. Currently, most CSM members actually put quite a bit of effort into being a CSM member, and I want that to continue. IMO, the only way to ensure the CSM's continued efforts is to require a certain amount of effort to become a member. With a voting process, people first have to convince thousands of people that they deserve to be there, and if they don't live up to expectations they wont be re-elected. Any moron with no real understanding of the game mechanics, game play, and current issues can toss his name into a raffle.

Frankly, there needs to be a vetting system to ensure a minimum quality of CSM members, and who better to vet the candidates than the players of EvE??




By that logic...that would mean all of the CSM canndiates are already "vetted"

I'm going based on the definition that vetren implies time spent in game...expierence..age.
The issue here is personality...agenda...motives...etc.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#8 - 2012-03-30 19:21:36 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

While I understand your notion that those that seek power are often those that shouldn't have it, you method is extremely flawed.

First, the CSM doesn't exactly have POWER, but rather priveledge. As the release of Incarna proved, CCP can completely ignore what the CSM suggests/proclaims/demands, etc... They do have influence, as CCP has wisened up some to realize they aught to take the CSM suggestions, complaints, and warnings seriously. However, the CSM doesn't have veto power over anything... they only have the ear of CCP.

Secondly, if you don't have to be elected, then you don't need to put in any work into getting on the CSM. As such, the CSM could easily degenerate into a group of people looking to get free tickets to iceland and backstage passes to CCP, rather than a group of people dedicating their time to better the game. Currently, most CSM members actually put quite a bit of effort into being a CSM member, and I want that to continue. IMO, the only way to ensure the CSM's continued efforts is to require a certain amount of effort to become a member. With a voting process, people first have to convince thousands of people that they deserve to be there, and if they don't live up to expectations they wont be re-elected. Any moron with no real understanding of the game mechanics, game play, and current issues can toss his name into a raffle.

Frankly, there needs to be a vetting system to ensure a minimum quality of CSM members, and who better to vet the candidates than the players of EvE??




By that logic...that would mean all of the CSM canndiates are already "vetted"

I'm going based on the definition that vetren implies time spent in game...expierence..age.
The issue here is personality...agenda...motives...etc.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say... I'm not using "vetted" to imply veteran... although that is one defiinition.

I'm using "to vet" as in "to appraise; to verify; to check for accuracy, authenticity, validity, and/or ability".

The CSM candidates were "vetted" by CCP for their eligibility to run....
and
The CSM members were "vetted" by the players through the votes they received.

So, yes, I consider all CSM members (and alternates) already "vetted".

I don't consider them all veterans, I don't agree with some of their view points and play styles, and I don't think they are all ideal candidates to send to CCP! However, I think the support/votes they received says there is a sizeable portion of the player-base that does....

Is our current voting system the best possible method? No, but its WAY better than the raffle proposed!!!
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2012-03-30 20:07:57 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:



No flames please, I’ve been flame resistant for a long while now so you'll be wasting your time


Then you won't mind if we tell you that your idea is stupid and in no way would it reflect a balanced voice of the players.



Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2012-03-30 20:12:41 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

While I understand your notion that those that seek power are often those that shouldn't have it, you method is extremely flawed.

First, the CSM doesn't exactly have POWER, but rather priveledge. As the release of Incarna proved, CCP can completely ignore what the CSM suggests/proclaims/demands, etc... They do have influence, as CCP has wisened up some to realize they aught to take the CSM suggestions, complaints, and warnings seriously. However, the CSM doesn't have veto power over anything... they only have the ear of CCP.

Secondly, if you don't have to be elected, then you don't need to put in any work into getting on the CSM. As such, the CSM could easily degenerate into a group of people looking to get free tickets to iceland and backstage passes to CCP, rather than a group of people dedicating their time to better the game. Currently, most CSM members actually put quite a bit of effort into being a CSM member, and I want that to continue. IMO, the only way to ensure the CSM's continued efforts is to require a certain amount of effort to become a member. With a voting process, people first have to convince thousands of people that they deserve to be there, and if they don't live up to expectations they wont be re-elected. Any moron with no real understanding of the game mechanics, game play, and current issues can toss his name into a raffle.

Frankly, there needs to be a vetting system to ensure a minimum quality of CSM members, and who better to vet the candidates than the players of EvE??




By that logic...that would mean all of the CSM canndiates are already "vetted"

I'm going based on the definition that vetren implies time spent in game...expierence..age.
The issue here is personality...agenda...motives...etc.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say... I'm not using "vetted" to imply veteran... although that is one defiinition.

I'm using "to vet" as in "to appraise; to verify; to check for accuracy, authenticity, validity, and/or ability".

The CSM candidates were "vetted" by CCP for their eligibility to run....
and
The CSM members were "vetted" by the players through the votes they received.

So, yes, I consider all CSM members (and alternates) already "vetted".

I don't consider them all veterans, I don't agree with some of their view points and play styles, and I don't think they are all ideal candidates to send to CCP! However, I think the support/votes they received says there is a sizeable portion of the player-base that does....

Is our current voting system the best possible method? No, but its WAY better than the raffle proposed!!!



Erm...how is it any different than the current voting system?

We choose to vote whom we want....perhaps more info on the subject?

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#11 - 2012-03-30 23:32:02 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Frankly, there needs to be a vetting system to ensure a minimum quality of CSM members, and who better to vet the candidates than the players of EvE??


Erm...how is it any different than the current voting system?

We choose to vote whom we want....perhaps more info on the subject?


I was stating that there needs to be a vetting system inherent to the selection process, which the OPs proposal completely lacks. Our current method does that through the voting system. I wasn't proposing a new selection method...

I come from a small nullsec corp that had a CSM representative on CSM's 4 & 5. And while I think the current CSM voting blocks are mostly tilted towards large nullsec alliances, I don't think that's necessarily a problem with the system, but rather a problem with how candidates gain exposure to voters. If you're in a big alliance, you share forums, you share vent, and you have regular contact with a larger amount of people.... Smaller groups have to work much harder to gain the same exposure, although the debates, the forums, and player channels exist to help get your name out there....

Democracy has the most potential for being fair.... the problem is, people in general are ignorant, panicky, creatures of habbit. If there were a method for the cream to rise to the top of the selection process, I think it would improve people's view of the electron processes.

IMO, the biggest potential problem with our system is too many candidates can water down the system, leaving voting blocks supremely powerful. The solutions I can think of:

1.) Randomly select X number of candidates out of everyone who applies to appear in the official CCP election.... This would be a little closer to the Op, and would still allow the the playerbase to chose the final members... At the same point in time, I want to be able to re-elect candidates that did a good job, I want to reward people that put up a good election campaign, and I don't really care for a random selection process. The AT uses a lottery like this to select the initial candidates, so the event is manageable.

2.) Have a preliminary voting period, where the most viable 28 or so candidates can move on the the official election. I don't think we have enough candidates that this is a problem at the moment, but if there were 70+ candidates for an election of 14, it will be. The problem is, I don't think CCP wants to spend the extra resources to do this, hence the get-likes scheme they attempted. Also, voting blocks will still dominate this process...

3.) Partition the CSM into official seats and have candidates run for specific seats rather than for the general CSM membership... Unfortunately, dividing the seats into 9 or 14 areas that properly balance the eve playstyles is non-trivial. I think this is probably the best method if we start gettting an extreme number of candidates. Given 9 or 14 seats: How many for high sec, lowsec, nullsec? How many for PvE vs PvP? Sov? FW? WH? Indy? ... I think that CCP wisely left this up to the playerbase originally... If I were to implement it tomorrow, my "off the cuff" partition would be 3 highsec seats (1x indy, PvP, PvE), 3 lowsec seats (1x FW, PvP, Indy), 3 nullsec (1x Sov, Indy, PvP), and 1 WH seat, with 4 general election seats. Let people chose a seat to run for, top votes get Chair, Top 9 votes get official CSM seats, bottom 5 votes get alt seats.... You can only run for 1 seat, and every player would get 1 vote (maybe 2??) to cast. Voting blocks could still dominate this process...

None of these steps are necessary unless we start getting an extreme number of candidates running.... 40 for 14 places is not all that problematic... however it's getting up there... Reallly, there just need to be more aware voters, and good "media" sources so people can get exposure to the voters...

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#12 - 2012-03-31 00:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
Grath Telkin wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:



No flames please, I’ve been flame resistant for a long while now so you'll be wasting your time


Then you won't mind if we tell you that your idea is stupid and in no way would it reflect a balanced voice of the players.





nope i don't mind at all, but you are wrong in assuming that the system at the moment is a balanced voice of the players.

so what do you suggest then ?
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2012-03-31 00:38:33 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Frankly, there needs to be a vetting system to ensure a minimum quality of CSM members, and who better to vet the candidates than the players of EvE??


Erm...how is it any different than the current voting system?

We choose to vote whom we want....perhaps more info on the subject?


I was stating that there needs to be a vetting system inherent to the selection process, which the OPs proposal completely lacks. Our current method does that through the voting system. I wasn't proposing a new selection method...

I come from a small nullsec corp that had a CSM representative on CSM's 4 & 5. And while I think the current CSM voting blocks are mostly tilted towards large nullsec alliances, I don't think that's necessarily a problem with the system, but rather a problem with how candidates gain exposure to voters. If you're in a big alliance, you share forums, you share vent, and you have regular contact with a larger amount of people.... Smaller groups have to work much harder to gain the same exposure, although the debates, the forums, and player channels exist to help get your name out there....

Democracy has the most potential for being fair.... the problem is, people in general are ignorant, panicky, creatures of habbit. If there were a method for the cream to rise to the top of the selection process, I think it would improve people's view of the electron processes.

IMO, the biggest potential problem with our system is too many candidates can water down the system, leaving voting blocks supremely powerful. The solutions I can think of:

1.) Randomly select X number of candidates out of everyone who applies to appear in the official CCP election.... This would be a little closer to the Op, and would still allow the the playerbase to chose the final members... At the same point in time, I want to be able to re-elect candidates that did a good job, I want to reward people that put up a good election campaign, and I don't really care for a random selection process. The AT uses a lottery like this to select the initial candidates, so the event is manageable.

2.) Have a preliminary voting period, where the most viable 28 or so candidates can move on the the official election. I don't think we have enough candidates that this is a problem at the moment, but if there were 70+ candidates for an election of 14, it will be. The problem is, I don't think CCP wants to spend the extra resources to do this, hence the get-likes scheme they attempted. Also, voting blocks will still dominate this process...

3.) Partition the CSM into official seats and have candidates run for specific seats rather than for the general CSM membership... Unfortunately, dividing the seats into 9 or 14 areas that properly balance the eve playstyles is non-trivial. I think this is probably the best method if we start gettting an extreme number of candidates. Given 9 or 14 seats: How many for high sec, lowsec, nullsec? How many for PvE vs PvP? Sov? FW? WH? Indy? ... I think that CCP wisely left this up to the playerbase originally... If I were to implement it tomorrow, my "off the cuff" partition would be 3 highsec seats (1x indy, PvP, PvE), 3 lowsec seats (1x FW, PvP, Indy), 3 nullsec (1x Sov, Indy, PvP), and 1 WH seat, with 4 general election seats. Let people chose a seat to run for, top votes get Chair, Top 9 votes get official CSM seats, bottom 5 votes get alt seats.... You can only run for 1 seat, and every player would get 1 vote (maybe 2??) to cast. Voting blocks could still dominate this process...

None of these steps are necessary unless we start getting an extreme number of candidates running.... 40 for 14 places is not all that problematic... however it's getting up there... Reallly, there just need to be more aware voters, and good "media" sources so people can get exposure to the voters...



Might be due to my tiredness of my job at the end of the work week..or maybe I'm just dense due to migrain....but your idea...as elegant as it is....is not that much different than what we have here.

But I do get the sense of the spirit of what your pushing for.

Perhaps CSM needs to be more elaborate and inherity complicated..perhaps its just that easy to become a delegate...perhaps voting is too easily "fubar'd"

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2012-04-01 02:27:49 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:


nope i don't mind at all, but you are wrong in assuming that the system at the moment is a balanced voice of the players.

so what do you suggest then ?


I disagree that the current system is flawed.

Those that want to vote, vote, those that want to have a voice, use it, those that want to be that voice, volunteer. Thats the way a democracy works, and thats what the CSM is supposed to be, a democratically elected body of the players.

If you feel your voice is under represented you have a year or so to get a platform and following together for next year, my people on this coming CSM have shown that you don't need a 0.0 backing to get on, since of the 14 members, only 5 are from entrenched 0.0 entities.

This CSM has representation for every single facet of EVE, 0.0, WH space, low sec, and high sec, all fairly well represented. Your idea is called a lottery, and it can be used for many things, but electing the representation of the player base isn't it.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#15 - 2012-04-02 22:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
Grath Telkin wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:


nope i don't mind at all, but you are wrong in assuming that the system at the moment is a balanced voice of the players.

so what do you suggest then ?


I disagree that the current system is flawed.

Those that want to vote, vote, those that want to have a voice, use it, those that want to be that voice, volunteer. Thats the way a democracy works, and thats what the CSM is supposed to be, a democratically elected body of the players.

If you feel your voice is under represented you have a year or so to get a platform and following together for next year, my people on this coming CSM have shown that you don't need a 0.0 backing to get on, since of the 14 members, only 5 are from entrenched 0.0 entities.

This CSM has representation for every single facet of EVE, 0.0, WH space, low sec, and high sec, all fairly well represented. Your idea is called a lottery, and it can be used for many things, but electing the representation of the player base isn't it.


ah but you see, this is not a democracy, this is a game. CCP could end the CSM in a heart beat, where would your dream of this is a democracy be then. wake up, CCP is here to make money, to make it with pride and honour yes, to be leaders in the industry they represent yes, but here at the end of the day to make money.

democracy is born from revolution. not from a corporate decision.

ps: anyhow just an idea, like or dislike it, it's all good Big smile