These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The voting reform discussion

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2012-09-11 23:11:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Bloodpetal wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:

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.


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.



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.

Eve isn't missioning, it isn't PI, it isn't hauling, it isn't salvaging, it isn't warping, it isn't manufacturing, it isn't mining, it isn't shooting red crosses, it isn't scamming. It's all of these, in a nice and nonsensical mix.

Single issue candidates will never be able to represent this aspect of EVE.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#122 - 2012-09-11 23:19:58 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

Simplify the topics that each CSM is expected to run on, let them state their exact intentions for each topic with no bullshit and then have them campaign against each other on those topics and get players to vote for them based on the topic they want to push in the CSM.


You seem to be posting this idea multiple times per page and its still terrible. Direction should come from the CSM to CCP rather than the other way around. Issues are not neatly resolved in one CSM term. Things being discussed this term may not be implemented until next term or the one after.

What about issues CCP doesn't even think exist but the players are keen on? Which of your platform CSMs would represent those?


The reality is CCP is whacking all the major issues that the old CSM's have been banging their feet about for years. Thank you.

Yes, they've made progress, and progress still won't come to fruition until another CSM year goes by. However, you're quickly running into the arena where the old CSM's goals ARE being resolved in a tangible way and in a progressive way every day from the efforts of some Herculean CCPers. CCP's best incentive to get AHEAD of the curve is to simply lay out what they're going to be doing for the next 12 months and lay the platform down for the right people to get up into the position of CSM by stating what they want their opinions on, that doesn't exclude these people from working in other parts of the game or carrying opinions over from other people to the relevant parts of CCP.

Otherwise the CSM is going to be doomed to "Catch up with CCP" for the last 12 months, rather than be prepared for the next 12 months. This method of communication doesn't only tell the CSM what to expect from the next 12 months, it lets players know what they should be focusing on and it becomes a more collaborative effort in discovering what the players really WANT from this.

EVE players care about CCPs direction, they don't care about the CSM individual in the matter. At the end of the day, they want to see a cause and effect nature to the whole process so they know what's happening. If you force CSM candidates onto platforms to state their case, it will become day and night as to who I will want representing which of my opinions onto the CSM and directly to CCP. Rather than the quasi-popularity, quasi-nullsec bloc voters, quasi-detached hi-sec situation that seems to be the highlight of the CSM democratic process at the moment.



Where I am.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#123 - 2012-09-11 23:20:44 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Eve isn't missioning, it isn't PI, it isn't hauling, it isn'g salvaging, it isn't warping, it isn't manufacturing, it isn't mining, it isn't shooting red crosses, it isn't scamming. It's all of these, in a nice and nonsensical mix.

Single issue candidates will never be able to represent this aspect of EVE.



I agree.

Who says someone should be running on a single issue?

Where I am.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#124 - 2012-09-12 00:02:00 UTC
Once again, here is my proposal for a new voting system:

1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space. Three seats are allocated to the highest-priority issues which CCP plans to deal with in the upcoming releases - this might be a POS issues seat, a frigate rebalancing seat, etc. - up to CCP to decide. CCP can opt to add more issue-specific CSM seats, as they choose, ofc.

2. Candidates are allowed to run for a single seat only.

3. Each player receives three "for" votes, which he/she can use to support a candidate running in the three areas/issues of greatest importance to the player.

4. Each player receives one "against" vote, which he/she can use to vote against a single candidate, running for any seat.

I believe that this system might do a better job of presenting CCP with a wider representation of the player base, as well as provide specific representation & feedback for the most immediate upcoming changes and/or features.

The purpose of (4), ofc, is to allow the diffuse majority to dilute the concentrated power of the minority voting blocks, and thus encourage more players to participate in voting.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#125 - 2012-09-12 01:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Sizeof Void wrote:
Once again, here is my proposal for a new voting system:

1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space. Three seats are allocated to the highest-priority issues which CCP plans to deal with in the upcoming releases - this might be a POS issues seat, a frigate rebalancing seat, etc. - up to CCP to decide. CCP can opt to add more issue-specific CSM seats, as they choose, ofc.

2. Candidates are allowed to run for a single seat only.

3. Each player receives three "for" votes, which he/she can use to support a candidate running in the three areas/issues of greatest importance to the player.

4. Each player receives one "against" vote, which he/she can use to vote against a single candidate, running for any seat.

I believe that this system might do a better job of presenting CCP with a wider representation of the player base, as well as provide specific representation & feedback for the most immediate upcoming changes and/or features.

The purpose of (4), ofc, is to allow the diffuse majority to dilute the concentrated power of the minority voting blocks, and thus encourage more players to participate in voting.


Wouldn't it be far less arbitrary to just have CCP give the players more notice on what is going into the year's worth of work and encourage the candidates to actually document the fact that they are capable of speaking on those sections of the game? I'm pretty sure we can figure out who knows about wormholes or mining or corp management and decide who the best person to represent those issues.

But that's besides the point. CCP doesnt exactly *know* what will go into every expansion in a given term a year in advance. Those issues the experts were elected on may become irrelevent due to a change in course in EVE's development. The players can't afford to be left with a set of niche candidates that can't be advocates for the game at large. There is simply far too much work and responsibility across the entire breadth of the game to only need feedback on specific issues.

I also think it places too much emphasis on what candidates know, as supposed to their ability to lead. You don't want to elect a think-tank. Think-tanks go into closed rooms, generate original ideas, and give specific recommendations - they don't collate feedback. We need CSM representatives that interact with the community on a regular basis and can encourage players to participate and provide feedback, and who are approachable enough that players trust them enough to talk to them in the first place. Social skills are as critical as game knowledge, and I think this is lost to a degree the minute we start looking at issues instead of character.

Candidates need to be able to go into a year blind, having no clue what CCP will surprise them with (because they do surprise us, all the time.) They need to be have the time and energy to provide kick-ass feedback when things are going well, and have the guts to hold them accountable when they start to screw stuff up. These qualities matter far more than the agenda to be covered in the coming year, based on what I've seen from experience so far.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-09-12 02:41:38 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Is the current system sufficient? Or should we focus more on matters to reduce the number of candidates on the ballot and not change the election system itself?
I don’t personally see voting blocs as a problem. If you're a group that is motivated and well-organized, you're going to dominate any election. Motivation and organization are two traits that should be encouraged. We want to see people passionate about the political process. For those concerned with organized voting blocs, the only legitimate way to dilute their voting power is by adding more voters to the process. We should want to see the number of voters increase, year-by-year.

Let's do some CSM6 and CSM7 comparisons. CSM7 did see a substantial increase in voting numbers, so we should expect to see the voting bloc influence somewhat diluted.

For CSM6, 49096 votes were cast out of 344533 eligible accounts. 26366 votes were cast for nullsec candidates, or 53.7% of the total vote.

CSM7 saw an increase of 10000 voters, up to 59109 out of 355436 eligible accounts. 24695 votes were cast for nullsec candidates, or 41.8% of the total vote.

The larger voting blocs were still able to push their candidates into CSM seats, but we saw a marked dilution of their vote, as candidates with smaller bases won seats. The increase in voter turnout tended to favour non-nullsec candidates. In the end, nullsec did not dominate the final results, only garnering six of the fourteen available spots (a loss of four seats from CSM6.) Of areas of the game that saw new and renewed representation, industry got their candidate in Issler Dainze, faction warfare got their candidate in Hans Jagerblitzen, mercenaries and pirates got Alekseyev Karrde, highsec got Kelduum Revaan, wormholes got Two Step, and the everyman got Trebor.

===============

The current voting system is fine, as is.

CCP and the CSM should be working to improve voter turnout. One step in that direction would be reducing the number of candidates in some way, while not reducing the quality of the candidates. I'm not sure how that might be successfully achieved, but I'm sure the community here has ideas.
Rengerel en Distel
#127 - 2012-09-12 02:44:17 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Wouldn't it be far less arbitrary to just have CCP give the players more notice on what is going into the year's worth of work and encourage the candidates to actually document the fact that they are capable of speaking on those sections of the game? I'm pretty sure we can figure out who knows about wormholes or mining or corp management and decide who the best person to represent those issues.

But that's besides the point. CCP doesnt exactly *know* what will go into every expansion in a given term a year in advance. Those issues the experts were elected on may become irrelevent due to a change in course in EVE's development. The players can't afford to be left with a set of niche candidates that can't be advocates for the game at large. There is simply far too much work and responsibility across the entire breadth of the game to only need feedback on specific issues.

I also think it places too much emphasis on what candidates know, as supposed to their ability to lead. You don't want to elect a think-tank. Think-tanks go into closed rooms, generate original ideas, and give specific recommendations - they don't collate feedback. We need CSM representatives that interact with the community on a regular basis and can encourage players to participate and provide feedback, and who are approachable enough that players trust them enough to talk to them in the first place. Social skills are as critical as game knowledge, and I think this is lost to a degree the minute we start looking at issues instead of character.

Candidates need to be able to go into a year blind, having no clue what CCP will surprise them with (because they do surprise us, all the time.) They need to be have the time and energy to provide kick-ass feedback when things are going well, and have the guts to hold them accountable when they start to screw stuff up. These qualities matter far more than the agenda to be covered in the coming year, based on what I've seen from experience so far.


So you think as the FW CSM member that your spot should have gone to a more generalist candidate? Or do you think perhaps it's fine to have certain specialists that cover specific parts of the game? I think it's fine to have generalists, but certain aspects need someone who actually does it. If you've never even entered a WH, how can you talk intelligently about the problems? Even getting feedback from the players is no different from what CCP already gets from the forums. You need candidates with their own firsthand knowledge to pitch their case to CCP, or atleast to filter the feedback of the chaff.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2012-09-12 02:44:40 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space.
I don't know why this idea keeps being brought up.

I, for instance, have moved from highsec to nullsec to lowsec in the span of a year.

There's no way to force anyone who runs as a highsec candidate to remain in highsec, or to actually care about highsec through the length of their term.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2012-09-12 02:53:03 UTC
Sal Volatile wrote:
If you look at what drives elections in the real world, it's not really a bunch of people suddenly feeling the need to perform their civic duty. It's hype and drama.

If you look at the external news coverage of Eve, for the most part it's hype and drama. I think a fair number of people get into this game because they hear about all the crazy drama and politics. And, if you look at CSM politics, any time the CSM has been interesting there's been a fair amount of hype and drama.

Now, we could talk about civic virtue, or give people nag screens until they vote, or give them free mining implants for voting, or some other BS like that. We could say that we want to rise above the hype and drama of the CSM and make it all about civic duty. But what if we just embrace hype and drama instead, and make the hype and drama accessible to the average player who doesn't follow forums?

What if we have a fabulous new isk sink: CSM candidates can buy splash screen ads! We're talking attack ads here. Why not? Maximum drama, maximum hype.

What if there was some kind of regular polling that people could follow? Uh oh, looks like the nullsec candidates are poised to sweep this thing! Holy ****, I'm biting my nails here, guys! Better donate more isk to the highsec miners so they can buy more attack ads!

I'm just spitballing here, but it seems to me that if you want to get Eve players more interested in the CSM elections, it might be worthwhile to make them more like the rest of Eve. It would also probably make your job a lot more interesting!

These ideas need to be looked at and considered. Drama is one way of attracting the interest of the average player. A lot of those players were drawn to EVE in the first place due to stories of drama and corruption and "foul" deeds.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#130 - 2012-09-12 03:09:50 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
So you think as the FW CSM member that your spot should have gone to a more generalist candidate? Or do you think perhaps it's fine to have certain specialists that cover specific parts of the game? I think it's fine to have generalists, but certain aspects need someone who actually does it. If you've never even entered a WH, how can you talk intelligently about the problems? Even getting feedback from the players is no different from what CCP already gets from the forums. You need candidates with their own firsthand knowledge to pitch their case to CCP, or atleast to filter the feedback of the chaff.


I don't really mind if people want to put me in a box as "the FW guy." That doesnt change the fact that I own and operate POS's, have been CEO of my corporation, I run missions, I mine, I build things, I take day-hikes into WH space, I PvP in 0.0. FW is by no means the only area of the game with which I've had to give feedback on. One layer of expertise in a field such as FW doesn't change the fact that most of us on the CSM right now have a pretty wide background as an EVE player and are quite comfortable speaking competently on topics other than our specialty.

You're absolutely right - filtering the feedback from the chaff is one of the important ways in which the CSM helps CCP. Its easy to say "just go to the forums" to CCP devs, but I think we all know the signal to noise ratio, and personally I'd much rather do the sifting myself and allow the developers to do what I can't do, which is draw, design, and build the spaceships.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#131 - 2012-09-12 03:16:50 UTC
Just think. All the time the CSM has spent on discussing this 'issue' and coming up with nonsensical ways of dealing with it they could have been working on the discussion of actual gameplay issues. Which if they really wanted to be reappointed would have been a much better use of their time.

tl;dr It seems like you have spent as much time on this issue than on the issues you were actually elected to deal with.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#132 - 2012-09-12 03:22:06 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I also think it places too much emphasis on what candidates know, as supposed to their ability to lead. You don't want to elect a think-tank. Think-tanks go into closed rooms, generate original ideas, and give specific recommendations - they don't collate feedback. We need CSM representatives that interact with the community on a regular basis and can encourage players to participate and provide feedback, and who are approachable enough that players trust them enough to talk to them in the first place. Social skills are as critical as game knowledge, and I think this is lost to a degree the minute we start looking at issues instead of character.

No, in fact, we don't want people who want to lead on the CSM. Leaders mostly talk, and they rarely listen, esp. once they view themselves as being in a position of apparent power. We're not electing leaders; we're electing representatives.

Think tanks generate ideas. Based on collated feedback. This is a good thing. And, this is exactly what the players are asking for, and what many have been complaining about, with regards to the current CSM.

And, sure, everyone wants the CSM to interact with the community. But, not to be told that they are always wrong, don't know how to post on forums, aren't privy to NDA information, and need to blindly trust that the CSM is looking out for them. This isn't interaction, son.

Players expect the CSM to listen to issues, discuss viable solutions, get feedback from the player base, and then present the solutions, irregardless of whether the CSM reps agree with the player base's preferred solutions or not, to CCP. That is what a "representative" does. But, a representative who lacks experience in the area under discussion is usually a pretty damn poor representative - knowledge and experience are much more critical than the ability to generate BS.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Candidates need to be able to go into a year blind, having no clue what CCP will surprise them with (because they do surprise us, all the time.) They need to be have the time and energy to provide kick-ass feedback when things are going well, and have the guts to hold them accountable when they start to screw stuff up. These qualities matter far more than the agenda to be covered in the coming year, based on what I've seen from experience so far.

Uh, no.

Blind, clueless and surprised representatives are not what we want. All of the issues which CCP has ever raised and proposed to address are issues which players have brought up over and over again. If a representative can't be bothered to know/learn the history of issues under discussion, then there is probably someone more qualified to hold the seat.

Representatives who cheer when things go well and point fingers when things go bad are also utterly useless. We see too much of this nonsense in the US, where "holding someone accountable" has become the cry of everyone who doesn't want to be part of the solution and needs someone else to blame.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#133 - 2012-09-12 03:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Garet Jackson wrote:
Just think. All the time the CSM has spent on discussing this 'issue' and coming up with nonsensical ways of dealing with it they could have been working on the discussion of actual gameplay issues. Which if they really wanted to be reappointed would have been a much better use of their time.

tl;dr It seems like you have spent as much time on this issue than on the issues you were actually elected to deal with.


Actually, it wasn't much time at all. There's not really much to talk about internally, its not our place to dictate election mechanics which is why Trebor simply threw out the one idea to get the conversation going.

You're absolutely right, the CSM is supposed to be doing this kind of stuff instead. Election reform is but one small blip on our radar....

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#134 - 2012-09-12 03:34:58 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space.
I don't know why this idea keeps being brought up.

I, for instance, have moved from highsec to nullsec to lowsec in the span of a year.

There's no way to force anyone who runs as a highsec candidate to remain in highsec, or to actually care about highsec through the length of their term.

Never said that a high sec candidate has to live in high sec, nor remain in high sec, nor care only about high sec.

A high sec representative should be someone who has experience with high sec specific issues, who is interested in listening to the folks who consider themselves to be high sec players, and who is interested in presenting these issues and discussing solutions with CCP.

It doesn't mean that a high sec representative would ignore or be ignorant of all other aspects of the game, just for the sake of high sec issues.

The purpose of having seats allocated to areas and issues is simply to better insure that more players believe that they will have a representative for their particular style of game play and areas of specific interest on the CSM. This encourages more participation in the election process, as compared to general elections.

Personally, I wouldn't care who sat in a particular seat, as long as he/she has agreed to be a conduit between players and CCP for that particular area on for that specific issue. For example, I believe that someone as competent as TheMittani could represent high sec carebear issues at least as well as anyone else, if he chose to do so.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#135 - 2012-09-12 03:39:37 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
No, in fact, we don't want people who want to lead on the CSM. Leaders mostly talk, and they rarely listen, esp. once they view themselves as being in a position of apparent power. We're not electing leaders; we're electing representatives.

Think tanks generate ideas. Based on collated feedback. This is a good thing. And, this is exactly what the players are asking for, and what many have been complaining about, with regards to the current CSM.


If that's how you define think tanks and representatives, I completely agree. When I said leadership I simply mean that if no one trusts you or respects you they're not going to give you the time of day, and the work of the CSM is not passive - it requires direct communication with the players. Marginalizing oneself or being unapproachable is a quick ticket to CSM irrelevency.

Quote:
Blind, clueless and surprised representatives are not what we want. All of the issues which CCP has ever raised and proposed to address are issues which players have brought up over and over again. If a representative can't be bothered to know/learn the history of issues under discussion, then there is probably someone more qualified to hold the seat.


I meant blind in that they don't know for sure which projects CCP will place before them, not blind as in they are uninformed as to the issues themselves. CSM's need to boy scouts - always prepared for anything. They can't afford to limit themselves to just one area of expertise.

Quote:
Representatives who cheer when things go well and point fingers when things go bad are also utterly useless. We see too much of this nonsense in the US, where "holding someone accountable" has become the cry of everyone who doesn't want to be part of the solution and needs someone else to blame.


Well, we certainly don't want reps that point fingers when things are going well, and cheer when things are going bad. Twisted

You're absolutely right - the CSM needs to be able to give credit where appropriate, criticize where appropriate, but above all remain calm, collected, and constructive. CSM reps need to keep their noses on the grindstone and be part of the solution, instead of just dogpiling on the latest public uproar which CCP is usually quite capable of detecting themselves.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hrald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#136 - 2012-09-12 03:41:03 UTC
I don't get why this whole "25% of the votes weren't for someone who was elected". Isn't that kind of the point of voting? At least the first round, you can have runoffs to determine who should get what position on the CSM where every vote goes towards someone, but democratic institutions basically mean that whomever loses those votes don't matter. Does not mean they are not represented, though. These players are there to represent all of us, even if they have not received your vote.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#137 - 2012-09-12 03:56:42 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

But that's besides the point. CCP doesnt exactly *know* what will go into every expansion in a given term a year in advance. Those issues the experts were elected on may become irrelevent due to a change in course in EVE's development. The players can't afford to be left with a set of niche candidates that can't be advocates for the game at large. There is simply far too much work and responsibility across the entire breadth of the game to only need feedback on specific issues.

Don't be silly.

Being known as the FW CSM rep doesn't mean that you have no experience in any other aspect of the game, nor does it mean that you are unqualified to provide any feedback on non-FW specific issues or on the game at large. Most non-noob players, even the experts in a specific area of interest, have a good breadth of experience and knowledge in the game.

And, ofc, CCP knows what they are going to be working on. No company blindly goes into a new fiscal year without a plan.

Ofc, they might change plans, if something unexpected of a higher priority comes up. So, let's say that you have a POS-specific representative on the CSM, and immediately after the elections, CCP decides to push POS changes back another year, in favor of prioritizing T2 ship balancing.

No big deal.

If the POS representative is equally capable of representing T2 ship issues, then nothing needs to change. There can be a player vote-of-confidence held, if CCP feels this would be necessary or advisable.

If the POS representative is incapable of representing T2 ship issues, then he/she can resign from the CSM or CCP can move the POS representative down to alternate status. A special election can then be held to fill the T2 ship balancing seat.
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#138 - 2012-09-12 04:05:22 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Actually, it wasn't much time at all. There's not really much to talk about internally, its not our place to dictate election mechanics which is why Trebor simply threw out the one idea to get the conversation going.

You're absolutely right, the CSM is supposed to be doing this kind of stuff instead. Election reform is but one small blip on our radar....


If it isn't your place to dictate election mechanics I have two questions about that.

A) Why are you talking about it at all? The common Eve user does not make the decision. You can talk all you like about having an open discussion, but at the end of the day it's the CSM and possibly CCP that decide any changes to election mechanics. So how can you say it's not your place to dictate election mechanics when you guys are making the decision. Heck, you guys are the ones that brought it up as a CSM.

B) Why was another CSM member stating that since we can't talk about it civilly that they were just going to have to internally hammer out a 'solution' to the problem. Also, since you don't dictate Election reform and said CSM member pretty much stated otherwise, who is right? Has said CSM member been talked to internally about his mistake? As an informed and active voter I would like to know.

2) Actually, it can be quite a bit of time. You all have more important things to deal with as you yourself had said and I see no threadnaughts there with CSMs trolling players and defending their ideas tooth and nail. Just this one.

3) That link? Hilarious. Of the open forum links almost one fourth of them are about election reform.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#139 - 2012-09-12 04:11:24 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Once again, here is my proposal for a new voting system:

1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space. Three seats are allocated to the highest-priority issues which CCP plans to deal with in the upcoming releases - this might be a POS issues seat, a frigate rebalancing seat, etc. - up to CCP to decide. CCP can opt to add more issue-specific CSM seats, as they choose, ofc.

2. Candidates are allowed to run for a single seat only.

3. Each player receives three "for" votes, which he/she can use to support a candidate running in the three areas/issues of greatest importance to the player.

4. Each player receives one "against" vote, which he/she can use to vote against a single candidate, running for any seat.

I believe that this system might do a better job of presenting CCP with a wider representation of the player base, as well as provide specific representation & feedback for the most immediate upcoming changes and/or features.

The purpose of (4), ofc, is to allow the diffuse majority to dilute the concentrated power of the minority voting blocks, and thus encourage more players to participate in voting.

Ok, one more thing I should point out.

This system is not intended to guarantee that we'll get better people on the CSM. I'm not suggesting we run Eve IQ tests on candidates.

The purpose of the system is to get more players to believe that there votes will count and that the elected representatives are specific to their areas of interest in the game. It is also intended to help defuse the belief that an independent candidate simply has no chance against a candidate who has the support of a voting block.

The goal of the system is to get more players to vote. A simple one-player, one-vote general election system will never accomplish this goal.
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#140 - 2012-09-12 04:22:32 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:


The purpose of the system is to get more players to believe that there votes will count and that the elected representatives are specific to their areas of interest in the game. It is also intended to help defuse the belief that an independent candidate simply has no chance against a candidate who has the support of a voting block.

The goal of the system is to get more players to vote. A simple one-player, one-vote general election system will never accomplish this goal.



Neither will this.

Let me show you why.
Large bloc makes alt corps (3) for every category.
Large bloc votes for themselves with each of their three votes.
Large bloc votes against the next highest person in each category (or through their extensive polling and research seems to be the next highest person)

Congrats, Largebloc has the entire CSM.