Jita Park Speakers Corner

of course they are not restricting my freedom of speech, to say it in the original words

"Let me fix that for you. You can comment all you want now. You should have been doing all that on an alt, not your Uni character - I dont restrict freedom of speech. I just reserve the right to kick people in the head when they make an ass of themselves in public." -Kelduum Revaan-

apologies to anyone who was offended by my postings, specially to Alekseyev Karrde who i assume was the one complained to Kelduum Revaan to get me fired


well, in war and politics everything is allowed i guess - not really the behavior i expected - but the more you know

---

now back to the topic at hand



i guess the point that changing the voting system allows for too much abuse in the process is a very valid point indeed. on the other hand, the voting system we have is already quite skewed due to "over-voting" for a candidate (votes irrelevant because he already has enough), even more then "under-voting" (votes irrelevant because he did not make it)

For truth!

Voting systems? Seriously?

Nothing like trying to come up with a solution when you can't even clearly identify what the problem is.

No, too few voters absolutely is NOT the clearly defined problem. That's like saying that a failing business' clearly defined problem is "too few customers". It's a symptom of the problem.

What IS the problem? Nobody knowing about the CSM? People knowing but not caring? If it's the latter, WHY don't they care, and can that be fixed/changed? That is the discussion that needs to be have well before you can even begin to talk about how to allocate votes beyond the sheer simplicity of FPTP.

That's why there was so much outrage at the CSM's proposal - they skipped the most important part of the conversation and went directly to the new "system", which coincidentally nerfed the only bloc that didn't vote for ANY of them while giving them a far better chance of getting re-elected, no matter how utterly inept they've been. The only truly sad part about all of this is that CCP Xhagen's given the idea of even needing a new voting system legitimacy by creating this thread, instead of a thread that would start the discussion where it truly needs to start. (edited to add: please note that I'm not blaming CCP Xhagen or anything of the sort, just lamenting about how the "how to move forward and grow" discussion was hijacked by opportunists looking to protect their own position of "power")

---

The one idea I do support, however, is voting in-client. Not to make voting easier, mind you, but to make abstaining easier. Think of it like this - let's say I'm a player with say, 3 alt accounts. I want nothing to do with the CSM, I don't care about it as an entity, I have no interest in voting. Currently, if I wanted to show this and abstain from the vote, I'd have to log into the website, abstain, log out, and repeat for all my characters. No way in hell would I even bother doing that. If the voting screen pops up in client, I could just as easily abstain whenever my characters log in.

This would at least start to give you a rough idea of who cares vs. who doesn't (assuming of course anyone actually wants the answer to that question).

I've been steering clear of this whole thing as its been an unmitigated train-wreck, as I expected, but as thing have died down now, for the record:

- I'm for a voting system which would be harder for coalitions or large groups to game, while avoiding wasted votes, which typically means a version of STV, although I dislike the CD-STV option originally mentioned for a number of reasons.
- I'm very strongly for more or the player-base voting. Various methods are available to get a higher percentage to vote, although you still want the electorate to be informed or they will just vote for people they know.
- I'm also against voting scams (e.g.: I'll give you a PLEX if you vote for me), as they don't benefit anyone.
- Adding stuff in-client, or making the voting more complex will cost CCP development time. I'd love to see close integration and fancy vote ranking systems, but in the end it depends how much resource there is available within CCP.

^ Sadly I find myself supporting poetic 34%ish.

When I first started reading Kelduum's response, I was hoping he was talking about the free speech issues, his university has more then the junk posts this thread spawns.

I just want CCP to install cameras in our Stations and put minmitar turrents to our heads, so we all show up to vote, and we all have a good time doing it.

Voting for a Prime Minister or the like isn't your average in-life thing either. I can't remember the last time and I'm almost convinced that the bugger has found some way to extend his term through various loopholes that nobody has questioned. Seems like 10 years from now he could still be there, and it has already been long enough. (Canada).

I'm for a means of directing players in-game to the voting. It is the "Council of Stellar Management" and can be easily presented in-game as a legitimate council of elected pod pilots that have some measure of authority with the various factions in game. They don't need actual authority, just the lore behind it to make it mesh with the back story.

Can't possibly be hard to do that.

From there, the players could vote based on a very simple in-game mechanism, or take it to the forums and vote based on the individuals presentation in this forum.

All legitimate candidates should have a stickied thread for their presentation so it stays at the top of the forum, and this should be linked from the in-game voting box by means of the browser.

Information for in-game, (un-informed, immersion based), voting should list the candidates affiliations area of representation and the like. This will tell enough in most cases, with regard to the candidates area of interest, and linked info will allow them to check the bio and previous corporation membership, security status, see bounties if existing, etc..

These are factors we already use when determining how we should react to or treat another player in game, or in deciding how trustworthy they are. They work in my experience, in most cases, even if they are limited in telling us about the real person behind the character.

Bio information can then be used by the candidate to direct interested voters to the appropriate thread, or the candidates own site if they have one. there is already limited immersion in peoples bios, so this shouldn't make any difference. It may also bring a player to that thread when the voting system doesn't, while in the process of checking out the candidate.

Another thing that could be done is to add a means of spotting CSM candidates in game; even adding information to their info and links. These would be blank for most people, and become available when a player is determined to be an eligible candidate.

The process for reviewing eligible candidates should also be reviewed. There should be a set of sensible requirements, (both in game, and out of game), and a system to eliminate the potential for excessive numbers of candidates. I agree that a great number of candidates results in inappropriate dispersion of votes.

One example system is a means of setting up a countable polling system for interested candidates. This could be done in game as well. Obviously, it would still be easier for Nullsec players than Highsec players as Highsec players tend not to give each other the time of day.

That's their own problem, if that's how they want to do it, they can vote or not vote for those that make it in.

The poll minimum requirement shouldn't be less than 1000. It shouldn't be likes; they mean nothing and have very little to do with the interest of one player, in another being their representative. Nothing in fact. They also extend beyond the period of candidacy in both directions, so mean even less with respect to the potential for candidacy of a given player.

That's my input I guess.

Yes. They did. Other than Dovinian taking part in the first session (and one can understand why he didn't participate in any more sessions, given the asshattery of that first session), nobody else could be bothered. There are a few good dudes on this CSM, but it's mostly chafe ... and any voting reform that might help the chafe get re-elected should be balked at by the player base.

You could make a loaf of chaff bread and try to sell it as a great and healthy improvement over regular bread.

Literally the best thing since (wheat-based) sliced bread, eh?

Thanks.