These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#101 - 2012-09-08 16:23:51 UTC
Ted McManfist wrote:
How is "One vote per account" a system that needs changing? Unless, of course, you only seek to remain in power and are looking for a way to manipulate votes to that end.

If hi-sec dwellers feel they aren't being represented, then they have the same opportunity as the rest of us to select a candidate that best represents their interests and rally behind them.

If they are disinterested, disorganized, or just too stupid to do that...tough. Why should the rest of us be marginalized because of inept publourdes?


the descusion aint about goons lets keeps on subject the descusion how to broadly make it fair but i say again a lot and i mean a lot of hi sec players do not know of csm. and i made a few suggestions further up up seams to have been over ridden by goons complaining (i wasnt gonna stoop to this but there it is).

but seriously even if this dosent get changed i think really what needs done is csm to be shoved out into the limelite on loggin and give the player to vote durring loggin pluss as i said other things of kinda a confrance for player to meet the people running for csm.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#102 - 2012-09-08 16:25:46 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.

Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount.


What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM?


Wrong question. The better question is, what percentage of the VOTING player base does CFC represent. I would say we are well under represented when we only elected a single person.


Good point.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-09-08 16:26:35 UTC
serras bang wrote:
the descusion aint about goons lets keeps on subject the descusion how to broadly make it fair

The "discussion" is about one very, very specific part of the suggestion, i.e. the part which basically throws votes out the window for no good reason.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
RDevz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-09-08 16:27:42 UTC
serras bang wrote:

the descusion aint about goons lets keeps on subject the descusion how to broadly make it fair but i say again a lot and i mean a lot of hi sec players do not know of csm. and i made a few suggestions further up up seams to have been over ridden by goons complaining (i wasnt gonna stoop to this but there it is).


Since when has "pointing out the holes in your logic so large it could comfortably accommodate a space shuttle" been "complaining"?

~
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-09-08 16:28:42 UTC
and dose a player need more than 10% of votes ? unless desiding on a tie for head of csm ?
HVAC Repairman
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2012-09-08 16:28:49 UTC
you're going to regret making this thread when we elect arghy as csm8 chair

Follow me on twitter
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#107 - 2012-09-08 16:29:09 UTC
The issue is finding a way to easily see why a person has selected another person to get there votes and see if they are gaming the system.

Voting blocks have been talked about alot how about identify voting block and not another person. The person with highest number of votes and selecting that block gets the marginailized votes. There is more transperancy this way.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2012-09-08 16:29:28 UTC
serras bang wrote:
and dose a player need more than 10% of votes ? unless desiding on a tie for head of csm ?

What does this have to do with anything?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#109 - 2012-09-08 16:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Haquer
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Good point. Good point. I can understand how that would be frustrating.



Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.


E: Heh, nice edit dude
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#110 - 2012-09-08 16:32:09 UTC
to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2012-09-08 16:33:03 UTC
serras bang wrote:
to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm

Waiting for a point here.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#112 - 2012-09-08 16:33:15 UTC
Haquer wrote:
Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.


I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea....

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#113 - 2012-09-08 16:34:30 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
serras bang wrote:
to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm

Waiting for a point here.


point is even with missing vote from large alliances such as goons if there as popular as they say then they will still easily make the top position without diminishing there stake. (sorry goons for makeing you the example here).
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2012-09-08 16:35:18 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Haquer wrote:
Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.


I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea....

Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#115 - 2012-09-08 16:35:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Haquer
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Haquer wrote:
Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.


I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea....


You as in the collective "you" of the CSM.

Stop politicking and either stop defending this **** like you have for the past 5 pages, or get the **** out and make Trebor and Seleene defend it, as they're the ones who obviously support this hilariously stupid suggestion.
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#116 - 2012-09-08 16:37:04 UTC
Now I eagerly await Hans coming back stating that he doesn't represent the CSM as a whole.

Don't let me down, Hans.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#117 - 2012-09-08 16:37:53 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Haquer wrote:
Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.


I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea....

Is it a bad idea or a bad thing?
Aryndel Vyst
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2012-09-08 16:39:09 UTC
I have a proposal: How about we let accounts vote for the person they want to, the end? Then, and here's the kicker, at the end of the voting period we count the votes, now bear with me here, and we decide the winners based on who got the most votes.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#119 - 2012-09-08 16:39:40 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable?


We've had some brief internal discussion about it, but the bottom line is that it is inappropriate for the CSM to decide for itself, what the next election rules should be. It would be unethical for us to have some month-long pow wow, decide what we think is best, and than try to push that agenda on the public.

This is exactly why Trebor put out an idea that he's put some time and energy into, as a starting point for discussion, not a formal proposal we want double checked before we push it on CCP. As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#120 - 2012-09-08 16:41:58 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable?


We've had some brief internal discussion about it, but the bottom line is that it is inappropriate for the CSM to decide for itself, what the next election rules should be. It would be unethical for us to have some month-long pow wow, decide what we think is best, and than try to push that agenda on the public.

This is exactly why Trebor put out an idea that he's put some time and energy into, as a starting point for discussion, not a formal proposal we want double checked before we push it on CCP. As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread.


You have 5 reverse gears and one forward, much like a French tank.