Jita Park Speakers Corner

the broken part is people do not feel that aspects of the game are represented within csm.

To be clear, I've never suggested it can't be gamed. It can be and if they introduce it I'm sure it will be just to prove it can be.

My only point is that the system they are suggesting to make the CSM more representative of playing styles rather than player numbers voting for people is far more complicated than simply dividing the seats between those styles and asking people to stand for those positions.

I suspect most people know why the CSM isn't suggesting that.

Here's the core of the issue. You're essentially trying to pretend that 0.0 blocks somehow "gamed" the system to get on, rather than having the most votes. The only thing that voting blocs can do is reduce the amount of "wasted" votes: exit polling and the like are ways to get us around the flaws of FPTP that would otherwise throw out large numbers of our votes.

The core of this "problem" isn't that the system has been "gamed". It's that the CSM, and some vocal minorities, are unhappy with what voters actually want and vote for.



No, we're not changing the subject here. The sole reasons you've offered for why 0.0 votes should be systematically be thrown out are allegations that they have been "gaming" the system by attempting to avoid their votes being thrown out, and that all people that a 0.0 alliance might put up are identical. Clearly, that's not the case: the CSM is under an NDA so people elected can't consult with other members of their alliance on a proposal they're not familiar with. So any organized effort to elect multiple candidates will always be geared towards electing very different people. 0.0 has focused on the CSM after many cases where an incompetent CSM didn't understand why proposals shouldn't go through, and focused on getting intelligent, effective people elected who can understand what proposals mean.

To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?

I'll be real honest, designing voting systems is not my area of expertise. I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen and I thought it would be better to lead with an idea to start things off. Mostly, I was looking forward to the discussion. Shooting holes in the original proposal has happened, but not a lot of constructive talk about what to do instead aside from keep things as is.

I dont think the system as-is does the job as well as it should. Players legit worry about giving their vote to a small candidate not because he or she doesn't match their views but because they feel their vote would be wasted. The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office.

Building voting systems isnt my thing. The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank. Most points wins first place, second most second etc. But that assumes people will know enough about 40+ players running for CSM to be able to sort out preferences like that which isn't really realistic. And even if it was, it would make voting more complicated/time consuming and voter turnout is already an issue.

So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. We have a very intelligent player community including large groups of players who love to game/break systems (CFC comes to mind but they're not alone by any means) so let's talk about what the solution should be.

AS AN ASIDE: Someone threw out the idea of each voter getting a "vote against" vote in addition to picking their preferred candidate. What do you guys think of that? Sounds very EVE-like..

ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?

I am supporting this proposal because I would like to see the next CSM composed entirely of GSF, CFC, and TEST bloc candidates, with 1 single empire / unaligned candidate whom all the other votes eventually collected to. Hopefully that last member will be Trebor himself; that way the CSM has a kind of mascot or jester available to mock. This will helpful to relieve tensions and improve workplace bonding, plus remind them of the stupidity of empire.

In other words, ahahahahahahahahahahaha look how dumb you are.

I think we might as well have Xenuria, they're very energetic when posting.

I mean it boils down to that sure, I'd like to discuss the issue, but given that the people discussing the issue are openly saying they intend to design the system to bias the results against the CFC my trust levels are rather low. I'm not willing to grant any legitimacy to that effort, and Trebor has made it clear that's what his goal is here.

"Why are you goons reacting negatively to an initial proposal which is specifically designed to keep you guys out of the running? I don't understand?"


The jury's still out on that one.


Tell me how your suggestion fixes this problem without literally assfucking a bunch of others (i.e. us).


Says who?


How about you guys working on something which'll actually benefit the game, i.e. GETTING CCP TO FIX THE GODDAMNED GAME, instead of resorting to petty politicking to try to disenfranchise huge swathes of the game's population which is actually enthused about the game?

No jury, it was decided behind closed doors. Something like a sealed military tribunal (the CSM).

He could be a much better politician if he learned to obfuscate a bit better.