Jita Park Speakers Corner

Forgot to add:

Should I point out the while there were ten nullsec representatives on CSM6, there are only six nullsec representatives on CSM7? CSM7 embodies a much larger demographic than CSM6 did. Representation of the varied playstyles of EVE Online has actually improved.

Well CCP is already making this sound like a complicated affair with having multiple alternates, double bonus elimination rounds and championing "under represented votes." What exactly is an under represented vote anyway? Did you vote? Great your vote got represented, it may not have won but that's democracy for you. Any vote cast is a vote represented. The idea of one voting making a difference is a farce, political campaigns have always focused on bringing constituencies together to win elections. The only time one vote makes a difference is in a dictatorial system where the one vote lies with the dictator, that and American Idol. Neither institution has done mankind any good.

So we have our beloved democracy which certainly is imperfect, but it is pure in the sense the voting representation is as good as it gets outside some political scientist's day dream. The peril for the minority in a democracy is well known, documented and accounted for in our current system. A smaller group that knows it would take a beating running a candidate by itself has a few options. It can run the ball up the middle and wage a fierce campaign to gather support from a larger community, it would take the right confluence of charisma and events to pull off. That's where the options of gathering constituents or trading votes comes into play. Your candidate can opt to find similar groups sharing the same views and offer them a larger tent to come under, promising representation and advocacy upon election. Maybe your candidate can't pull together any constituents or enough to directly challenge more popular candidates. Here is where trading votes comes into play, a candidate approaches another promising a bloc of votes in return of advocacy and representation. A deal gets made and suddenly a more popular candidate ends up pushing your agenda and gains the needed votes to win the day.

So what happens to those groups that don't avail themselves to these options, or for that matter candidates not savvy enough to engage in the necessary politics to make victory a reality? Their reward is to find themselves on the outside looking in, their vote wasn't wasted it was heard, it just wasn't popular. A more cynical observer would comment that it is not the vote that was wasted, but Democracy that was wasted on the voter. What political commentators often term as "throw away" votes are just that, they are for bad candidates with bad policies. That's what happens in democracies, the Loon Party, Communist Party, Green Party and Anarchist parties don't see the light of day. I name these parties as they often push their own agenda and rarely if ever approach larger viable candidates to trade off votes for representation, also the candidates spawned from their respective echo chambers are equally appalling as leaders.

So what happens if we decide that an "under represented vote" is a fiction worth believing in? Well it can certainly mean the EVE equivalent of having a bad candidate from constituency that narrowly reflects EVE get on the CSM. Remember that in elections the candidate and their leadership qualities is as much an issue as their respective stances on issues. So on top of having potentially bad positions represented on the CSM, you can have people with little recognizable leadership ability. Bad policies and bad leaders are perfect justifications for not having a CSM, making CSMs player presentation impotent or simply turning it into a rubber stamp committee.

Imagine having a group of people who wandered into the CSM because through the process of elimination several dead votes found new life in a candidate so milquetoast they were able to win. They are pliant, suggestible and overwhelmed when they are locked in a room with CCP. 8 hours later gold ammo becomes a good idea and Empire is a WoW like theme park where meaningful consequences no longer exist.

I also find it strange that CCP thinks an organized player base when it comes to elections is a bad thing. I would think you would want the people who care about the game in a position to give input and advice on matters that will effect the subscriber base. Even for those who can't gather 10K votes, they would certainly arm themselves with as much knowledge as possible and seek out candidates that can reach the CSM and represent them.

CCP gave a great example of if the CFC so wanted they could have 3 people on the CSM as if its some glaring failure in the democratic system of electing people to the CSM. That the only way to correct this glaring problem is this new system being proposed. 10K in votes was what like 3% of EVE give or take? So the reality is could a bloc of 10K votes get shot down, sure if people organized or put down in-game political differences. 10K is not some golden unassailable number. Apathy, ignorance and inability should always be unable to assail and obtain positions of leaderships. Instead of creating this "participation award democracy" where you get less than you hoped for by voting by resurrecting inferior candidacies and niche constituent interests to frustrate the purpose of the CSM, why can't CCP remind the players the obligation to effect change in EVE rests on them. This game is driven by player created content, its what makes EVE unique and viable as an MMO.

As you go to write angry reply about me being a Goon, Goons, CFC, HBC or the MiB think about these two parallels. The nerfing of Hi Sec into a theme park MMO and now the proposed nerf to democracy for CSM elections. Maybe you can live with a theme park MMO, but do you really want a theme park CSM for EVE?

As members of Goonswarm have pointed out they would just spam the the candidate list and just make things about the same or the minorities would get even more representation.

To be honest positive and negatives would be horibbly complicated for the average person.

The method by the CSM is at least simple a candidate just says who gets his/her votes if he/her is knocked out. A lot of this kind of preference voting exists around the world, or I think The US is you get a running mate to boost your appeal, not 100% sure on the USA it never interested me that much.

riverini

That would fall under the Incarna issues seat, I believe. :)

Perception is a powerful tool in politics.

"People are stupid, they will believe what you tell them because they think it is true, or they fear it is." ~ Terry Goodkind

While this sentiment comes from a fantasy novel it is essentially the backbone of politics. If I as a candidate were to run, on the grounds of being a new player to Eve, and having experienced in small part all different aspects of the game then I would run as a true representative of a small but growing population in the game true? Let's have a little experiment.


Well let’s say that I pander with amazing abandon to the Miners, Industrialists, and Something for nothing groups in high sec. Well what would my platform be? Simple, null and low sec are Evil! They bully us all into being here, and make it "not fun" to try to play the game! I mean just look at them PVPing all the time, and blowing up my "hard earned" ship. Clearly brethren of high sec, we must fight this evil. If you elect me to CSM as a new player representative then I promise I will push CCP to make high sec as safe as it should be! I mean CONCORD would never let someone fly in their space with guns active right? So why not push to get that fixed. Elect me and I'll make it happen. Further, I promise if you elect me I will argue Industrialization for high sec. I mean clearly you must realize that the best place for doing anything would be the "most developed” So with that being the case, I will pressure CCP to increase refining efficiency in high sec, and reduce manufacture times to an all time low. It is after-all the best space, the most developed space, and the safest space. Elect me for your CSM 8 rep.

In this platform I've given examples of things that I know the care bears want. They want high sec to be I win space, and they want a way to "play" eve where there is no risk but all reward. I've used a few very obvious phrases that most would say are cliché and base, but they will work to stir masses. Why, because I've shown them a place where their goals can be accomplished. I've done things in this "platform" that politicians of ages have done to great effect, I've created a common goal, a common enemy, and made myself seem harmless, but firm. I've lied, and given them what they think to be true, people are stupid.

Now as I've stated I'm new to Eve, my reg date is just this summer past, but I do know a thing or two about games and about how to keep them interesting. This game is interesting because it's risk versus reward in a place where you know to be cold and heartless, Space.

You don't come to Eve online to mine, play industry, and log off. You come to Eve because space is interesting, you know it's dangerous, and you know there's a pay off for taking the risks you will take to succeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq2oxt7Nrxo

This is a prime example of the 'key selling points" of Eve. You will affect everything in space, with just one voice, just one action, just one moment in time. Space is a cold dark place, where risk is there. If you want to play a safe game there are tons in the market.

You don't think one person matters; I propose a name to you The Mittani.
Checkmate.

True story, but he did offer a single good quote that I've used with wonderful effectiveness.

December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).

If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.


A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.

You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.


On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.


If I really wanted to disenfranchise some people, I'd suggest a literacy test.

Beer, the ultimate friend of persuasion, next to perhaps tequila, depending on the individual of course.