Jita Park Speakers Corner

Apparently demanding a yes or no answer about the explicitly stated intent of a proposal and refusing to accept deflection or obfuscation is "obvious thread destruction" to the craven members of CSM7.

Even for a space video game student council, the level of intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice here is appalling. Please prove me wrong and take a position on your own position, if that's not too much to ask.

1.) I think that discussion should take place in a public forum and be highly informed by the players. With the CSM as well as in-game content, CCP should listen to the feedback the players provide and make decisions with respect to these concerns. The CSM's role should be helping to communicate these ideas back and forth, not authoritative in the sense that we decide what's best for the players. The CSM should be allowed to have their opinions like any free-thinking person, and the players should be allowed to disagree.

2.) I'm a big fan of simple. Other than that, I don't have one particular system in mind at this time. That's why I showed up in the thread, to hear people's ideas and listen to the pros and cons of the various electoral systems. Hopefully there will be a chance for that conversation to take place.

3.) It's too early to tell. Surely its not the last you'll hear from the CSM on the issue, I was simply pointing out that bombarding a thread with 39 pages of essentially the same question and interlacing it with character attacks is a good way of sending the message you're not there to talk. Outside of that thread, however much this continues will be dependent in large part on whether the players themselves are interested in this, and whether or not anyone tries to drown out a real conversation with aggressive posting tactics the next time this comes up.

I personally was elected despite bloc power and don't have a vested stake in controlling the influence of one group or another, but I know that many players have concerns about this issue (they just usually don't get brought up except during campaign season). If it can be widely determined that this isn't something players want changed, I have no reason to push for reform.

4.) There are aspects of it that have merit, such as the transparency given by candidates stating where they would prefer their votes to go if not elected, helping to expose some of the underlying reasons for candidacy and help voters better understand who they are voting for and who they represent. I also think players have brought up some legitimate concerns about the overvotes reducing the size of the pool for the next round of selection, though I'm unsure how this is all that different from the system we have currently where you can excessively vote a candidate into office and not be able to apply those excess votes to another candidate. If after hearing feedback I decide to support or reject the proposal, I'll be more than happy to say so. In the meantime, my job is to listen and learn.

I guess the new CSM tactic is "literally ignore the negative questions". What's next when this one fails to shut anyone up?

thank you for your answers again

i think i will carefully step out of the way now and leave you to the guys with the pitchforks and torches, they seem to have some questions too regarding "limiting the influence of power blocs/political parties" and i really wouldn't want to get in anyone's way ... i am sure you understand

or maybe a last question


considering the recent outrage, do you support limiting the discussion proposals for a new election system to systems that have a required negative impact on powerblocs or would you encourage proposals that do not meet such a requirement? (i know the question might have come up before, but never hurts to ask politely)

LA LA LA LA LA WE'RE NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA LA

Once again Hans,

If Trebor's statements on behalf of 'the CSM7' wasn't truly voicing your beliefs when issuing demands, merely say so.
If you don't think such an undemocratic demand should be 'required as a minimum', merely say so.

You evading the issue, as you have been, is recognized as having no objections or issue with the offical "CSM"'s position. Don't get upset when people react accordingly and aren't interested in sharing a dialogue about 'election reform' with a group that says disenfranchising those who didn't vote for them is a required mininum (ie: you).

Hope for the CSM's sake that pile of coats they keep hiding under when non-softball questions are asked is comfortable!

Selected members of the CSM have tried to claim it was "Trebor's proposal" instead of the "CSM proposal" which it was presented as in the original post. I want to know which one is true, because either Trebor is putting words in the mouthes of other CSM members, or the CSM as a whole agrees with the post.

No, I don't.



The proposal was an example, saying I don't approve or approve of it until hearing feedback isn't weaseling out of anything. Convince me its a horrible idea, and I'll fight it. As for the requirements, I certainly agree with 1 and 2, and 3 in as much that I don't see the need for a large voter bloc to control, allocate, and split votes to obtain multiple seat coverage. This is different to me, by nature of the means used to achieve the ends, than the situation where multiple candidates are elected through conventional campaigning and who happen to be part of the same player group (As was the case with Elise and Seleene). I fully acknowledge that the need for "Requirement 3" is highly debatable because these tactics were not used in the previous election, to the public's knowledge. I do feel that many voting systems do place the election at risk for these kinds of tactics though, and I don't see the benefit in providing an opportunity for them to be used since candidates should be electable on their own merits without a coordinated, push-button effort.

That being said, the CSM should always be free to express their opinion publicly, whether or not that is the recommendation we take to CCP. I don't have any problem with Trebor posting those "in my name" as long as he put the disclaimer that they are opinions and examples and not absolute principles which we are using to somehow shape all future policy. I'm more than capable of speaking to my individual perspective as it intersects with his post, because I know most people here are intelligent enough to be able to separate personal opinions from pushed agendas.

Hey Hans, why didn't you just share that opinion in the discussion thread instead of trying to blame the idea on Trebor?

Better yet, why not go post it there right now? And while you're at it, maybe try to get other CSM members to answer the question as well. You know, for discussion's sake!