Jita Park Speakers Corner

Maybe the client just needs a big message on the log on screen saying "if you don't vote a bunch of up-their-own-arses idiots will get elected and spend all their time suggesting ways to skew the csm election system in their favour or at least against groups/people they don't like, rather than actually doing anything that matters"

maybe that sentence has too many words for the average non-voting idiot though, it could be made a bit shorter and 'punchier' I suppose

Ohh such a burn for people that voted for them ~

Right now I hear alot of voter apathy because 'my vote doen't count since the CSM is for NULL SEC alliances not me in HI SEC'
of those that know what a CSM is.
Although TBH I almost as often hear 'What is a CSM?' question just as often if not more in HI SECwhere most of the voters are & Im willing to bet the lowest voing tun outs are too.

I was suggestioning that a electoral district may help so we'd have regional CSMs but of course the fear of gaming such a voting system is a justiiable retort to the idea of it unless there could be a way in the game mechanics to determine what region a account should vote in.

Voter apathy is typically related to those who think everything is running just fine. The impacts of decisions of the CSM and CCP affect high sec players far less then null sec where EVE is much more of a sandbox. Remember too that the CSM was borne out of a null sec incident and the politics of null sec.

The problem here isn't the voting system itself. The problem here is null sec alliances already have infrastructure for education and direction of their members out of necessity. This is the same infrastructure that allows null sec alliances to drive voter turnout. You can try and implement any type of voting system you want, but the result will be the same. The null sec alliances will drive their political will and do what is necessary to win, not because they want to be unfairly represented, but because they already have the infrastructure to do this.

The only solution to this problem, assuming it is even a problem, is to either organize a similar structure behind high sec candidates or disenfranchise your null sec voters. Considering that the latter is a completely unacceptable decision, the former is the answer. The problem is, anyone that builds such an infrastructure is then going to use it for exactly what they should use it for. Moving to null sec and supporting an organization out there.

This goes back to the original concern. That players in high-sec were wasting their votes on hopeless candidates who could never meet the threshold to win an actual seat. My suggestion then is that they instead look toward the diverse backgrounds of the game for a candidate that more closely matches them. Without the ability to do a single transferable voting system (Which also requires MASSIVE voter education, otherwise by the time 2 or 3 candidates are eliminated, players votes might as well be random), there isn't a solution that allows those voices to be heard.

So again, you need massive infrastructure or massive voter education to solve this, not just a different voting system. Considering that 99.9999% (Ok I made that number up, but it's a safe guess) of players take part in this game for their own enjoyment and relaxation, getting involved in more than a cursory look at the candidates and their opinions is beyond what we can expect of the player base. In programming terms, garbage in means garbage out. It doesn't matter what the system is, when a large number of people voting are doing so because their alliance told them to or they are just picking a name out of a hat (Or out of one of the sites that they put in their answers and see who lines up with them on the issues). Changing the system itself won't ever fix that. All it will do is drive people who you are trying to reduce the influence of to become further disaffected and either further influence the bloc voting in the next election or give up on the community entirely. And I don't think you'll find goons quitting EVE anytime soon.

ENGLISH. ENGLISH. ENGLISH.

This should be a requirement for all CSM members. I'm guessing it's a requirement for employment at CCP.

Currently, all meetings are conducted in English, online and Summit. English is the common language between CSM and CCP. If a CSM member cannot communicate with CCP face-to-face, then there is no communication. The CSM/CCP relationship is one that is based entirely upon the ability of the parties to communicate.

Unless CCP wants to foot the bill for translators, live and online.

And before a dev gives the "we don't want to exclude anyone" argument ... ask yourself what value there is to a CSM member if they cannot communicate effectively (or at all) with CCP?

They voted two people onto CSM7. Kelduum Revaan and Issler Dainze.

If they want a stronger voice, then they must vote. They don't get free representation by not showing up at the polls.

The lowest total candidate to received 1,282 votes out of 59,109 cast. This is 2.19% of the electorate. Think about that. Your ideals could be common to only 1 out of 50 EVE players, and you still get 1 out of 14 votes. That is a dramatic over representation of the voting block. We're so concerned about representing everyone that even with this low of a threshold is apparently not sufficient. I'm sorry, but no. You can't reduce the value of my vote any further than it is already being reduced just to put even more people into the CSM. I'm sorry, but at some point the balance tips from fair to unfair. Let's assume that the Mittani didn't go through what happened. I voted for him. My vote got me 7.14% of the voice of the CSM. 10,058 people got that 7.14% voice. My vote is equivalent to 0.007% in the voice of the CSM. Those who voted for Darius (1,282) had a vote that resulted in the voice of 0.055% of the CSM. Think about that. My vote got me 7.14% of the CSM, but because 10000 other people also voted for the Mittani, my vote was diluted. Those who voted for Darius III had an ORDER of magnitude more influence on the political situation then I did as part of a large bloc.

Despite this statistical truth, you (The CSM and CCP) feel it is an unfair situation and want to dilute my vote even further? How does this even remotely begin to represent the basic players of the game? As I stated before. The system is mostly fair. But to take what is a mostly fair system and make it unfair simply because of a perceived threat that has never come to fruition previously is wrong and stands against every single thing that the CSM was brought into existence to do. You'd be better off shutting it down.

CCP Fozzy is an employee of CCP, it would be a shame for him and his company not to do something because it will affect his current alliance. That would be seen as taking advantage from his part that just because one of the game creators he can have broken mechanics stay broke. So no, do not think of him as a regular player, because he is not. He is responsible to create a game that everyone can enjoy it.

Give 3 days of free game time to anyone who votes. Everybody would vote because they love free stuff and CCP wouldn't be out of pocket that much. Sure, most people won't research their candidates but they will at least see the short descriptions and be able to vote for "Hisec guy" or "nullsec guy" or whoever. Overall group representation will still skyrocket which is the desired outcome.

There is no point in changing the system to try and better represent the tiny minority of people who are actually voting. Just get more people to vote.

Lol, I do have the mental capacity to be a CSM and I know it, but in no way I am one of them. No idea with whom you are confusing me with, but I am in no way a CSM member. You may be saying it because the points I stated in my comment are true, and you know it.