Jita Park Speakers Corner

Firstly I would really like CCP to define what they want the CSM to do, it's not really clear to me. We vote, they talk about stuff that may or may not happen. CCP saying what they need to CSM to do may help progress this.

Anyway, I think you have two choices.

1. The CSM is a collection of individuals elected on whatever platform they choose. This is the current model and I can't see why you'd change the voting method.

2. The CSM represents predefined gaming styles. In this system you have - for example - two seats per game style and use either first past the post or some other system to elect them.

Frankly I don't care either way, I don't think the CSM voting system is a problem. The problem I have with the CSM is I really wouldn't miss it if it wasn't here. I don't know what it's doing and I'm not sure it actually achieves anything. Given a choice between reading a dev blog or the CSM minutes most people would read the blog.

That's not to say that the people are the CSM aren't working hard, but I personal don't see how they have any impact on the game I play: positive or negative. I'd say that's your problem.

With regards to pre-election. What do you guys think about a running fee. Something large like 50/100b ish. To be refunded in full upon election to office. This keeps the crazies out. The blocs will have no real issues getting the isk and the assumption is that they will vote the party line but the independents will have to go out and reach out to the player base and convince them that their ideas are credible and they know what they are doing.

I think it helps with some of the vote dilution and it also forces csm candidates to go out and Interact with more players and sell their platforms. We'll need to lengthen the nomination process to allow some fundraising to go on. More interactions = more awareness and hopefully an increase in voter turnout.

I believe the idea for eve-wide csm announcements from ccp is a good idea but I'm not too much of a fan of what trebor did. I think the fundraising/platform selling should happen at events and not via spam.

Not a fan of attack ads. Although I think it would be funny to see what everyone comes up with, I think that the csm election should be a positive thing not a mudslinging competition.

Two step, I still don't get why my vote should be transferred to a candidates list. A simple "these are the other candidates whom I think will be positive to new Eden" in the said candidates campaign platform to help highlight other candidates of note.

For example, I remember mittens saying in an interview that you were helpful with certain aspects of the past csm which then led me to do some research on you and had there been a STV in place for csm 7 you would have gotten my secondary vote.

FPTP or STV, I believe the power of the vote should always remain in the domain of the voter not the candidate.

I agree with this.

I'm going to +1 Bloodpetal's insistence that candidates run on their actual positions, because I would rather have 4% of the population casting more-or-less informed votes than 20% of the population casting whimsical votes based on irrelevant variables. The simple reason is that uninformed votes are just noise, and CCP will be less inclined to confer a meaningful stakeholder role to CSM if they're the 14 loudest clowns in the circus. A faint signal trumps a wall of noise every time.

The challenge, then, to reduce the influence of blocs like--wait for it--EVE University, is to get as much information out to as many voters as possible. And CCP's concerns about CSM being metagame notwithstanding, I think the best way to do that is in the client. Only a fraction of a fraction of the playerbase reads the forums.

Nobody "makes" things political. Either they're political, or they're not. Anyone who's been paying attention for the past two years knows that the CSM is political as hell. You can either accept that fact or you can put your head in the sand.



They would get people interested and involved. They are a starting point. People need some kind of narrative in order to care about something. There needs to be a story, with sides that they can take. Every single proposal that calls for serious consideration of the merits of various people in terms of representing blah blah blah is going to reduce participation if implemented. Most people are not interested in who will make the best student council president. Most people are interested in making sure our guy beats that jerk from the side we hate.

It just so happens that those negative impulses can get people to take positive action, like becoming more informed and engaged. Not always, maybe not even most of the time, but it's that or apathy.

The crux of the problem is that CCP will always assert a direction--it's their game--and it's up to the CSM to provide feedback. The feedback could very well be, "sod that, you're neglecting this crucial area," but the CSM is and has always been an advisory board. They do not make the game. They help CCP make the game.

As long as the categories are non-exclusive and non-binding, I don't really see the problem. If a candidate had to make a statement on each one, that would make sense. If the candidate believes that CCP is flat-out missing something, they should be able to list that as an additional item that they intend to run on, and lay out a case that they intend to plead to CCP.

if CCP gets blinders on and goes bumbling off in some self-destructive direction again, then we'll have That Year again. But nobody should want that to happen.

It also promotes the idea that Eve is a series of unconneted mini games (which it isn't obviously). Single issue candidates do not make good CSM members you want people with a broad view of whats best for the whole game. It also gives people the impression that the CSM is a game design council rather than an advisory and oversight board which leads to incorrect expectations of what the CSM can accomplish.

Categories are a terrible idea, constituencies are a terrible idea.

would you try to keep up, trebor's proposal is off the table

what is currently being discussed is real stv which does not suffer from the sorts of tactical voting arrangements fptp can

Why does it promote EVE is a series of unconnected mini-games?

You make that statement with completely no rational backing to it.

I'll trump your nonsensical statement with one of my own.

Snakes like to eat watermelons too.