Jita Park Speakers Corner

He was hoping for anti-goons to be you-know-whating him over this amazing way to make sure those damn goonies wouldn't get their honeyed hands on their pure CSM again.

Instead he got badly stung. Har ~

Take a look at Jita Park Speakers Corner. Look at how many topics and suggestions the CSM is looking for discussion on. Look at how many announcements (other than the 70+ page 'minutes' - that's not what minutes are btw) on priorities there are.

Understand now why this looks bad (besides the fact that it's a biased power grab)? If noone knows what you're doing and you post this drivel you should expect to get a nuclear reaction.

Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.

Diplomat of my heart.

I'm waiting for the CSM's ASB to run out of boosters. They'll stop being in defense mode and maybe start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS

I'm curious why the CSM feels reform is an important part of their mandate, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, highsec, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.

What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.



(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.)

They'll just dock their threadnaught.

You bring goons into my thread, I dock.

Kill the goodpost. Call that a troll. Argh, dock dock. Sorry I welped the voting system "reform". Post lossmails, I want to see how badly the goons got us, I bet it was at least 30 pages.

The Karl Rove of the CFC, ladies and gentlemen.

Trebor's made no secret that his RL job was as an importer of animes.

If they want to come down to our level the least we can do is beat the snot out of them with experience.

start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.
As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.

I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened
CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.

At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed. This needs to be handled more elegantly.

At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both. How many people didn't vote for Korvin because while they agreed with him he didn't have a chance of peeling enough Russian votes away from the -A- and DRF candidates to win?

What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.

Why is reform necessary?

Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world, an experiment which has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.

If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.