Jita Park Speakers Corner

My 0.02 ISK.

There is a problem with CSM not being very representative of Eve population, completely missing out on many known categories of players, that much is obvious. It's been worse in the past, but the current CSM is not really substantially different. However, the root of this problem isn't the voting system itself, but player awareness. I.e. voter participation, as has been said numerous times in the past.

The root of that problem, in turn, is that there are no information channels which would unify every Eve player, or even a majority of Eve players. They just don't exist. Not the official site, nor these forums are actually universal. (Otherwise, I wouldn't consistently be the first to hear random Eve news in every group I've ever been a member of, no matter how small or large.) The intra-alliance channels for large alliances might cover really large chunks of the population, but that instead leads to the same kind of unfair representation when these are used for campaigning.

The obvious solution of nagging people through the client has the obvious counterargument that people don't like nagging and will probably just abstain to get rid of whatever popup that shows up.

Well, don't nag them. What is needed instead is some kind of a working in-client news service, that would serve as a platform for candidates campaigning, announcing election events, live events, NPC universe flavour, major player activity reports, presented as some kind of a constantly running, unobtrusive feed ticker, which would provide links to in-depth stories, something that everyone could not avoid hearing about by the virtue of being exposed to it more or less constantly, or at least often and for extended periods, but nobody would have to study in depth unless they are so inclined. I'd even say 'a built-in talk radio humming in the background', but there are obvious technical reasons not to do that. If the Incarna had some kind of social environment, playing that feed on video displays in it would do, but it doesn't. Put that ticker on the ship spinning screen then, everyone spends a lot of time docked anyway... At the moment, whatever feeds exist are only visible on the main site, cleverly hidden out of sight and not promoting player awareness in any way.

Until that, the discussion of various voting policies is largely academic and will have comparatively little effect on the end result.

I think they meant "There is a problem with CSM not being very representative of the majority of Eve population's wants and needs, completely missing out on many known categories of players, that much is obvious."

And before you say it, have you seen anyone champion Mission running? So many people do it and it is suicidally boring, It needs a major fix and has barely ever had any resources spent on it.

Frankly it effects more people than Null and has had a lot less spent on it so far and it is so boring.

Fun fact: people in null run missions too.

I have made quite a few posts saying that missions need to be radically improved (along with the rest of EVE's horrible PvE)

But no one actually champions it is my point, even Two Step says He bugs CCP about PVE but there is a lot that covers PVE.

As to the candidates maybe you can show me a post were anyone in the peramble to the last election was going out for missions.

As I said missions are sad, probably so sad no one knows where to begin. Not to mention other areas of the game in need of help.

But as usual the main focus for fixes is being pushed for a small amount of the population again.

So yes I recognise that the CSM is a political body but "If the mission runners in the game had something specific to be unhappy about, they should organize themselves and get a rep onto the CSM." is a bit rough isn't it... Oh and Null sec did not elect you Two Step so should that imply by your statement that you should be pushing for WH resource expenditure?

I'm not going to bother digging out Issler's candidacy post (I have the feeling you're having one of those convenient blank spots, considering you were practically stumping for her), but she was going to be the champion for high sec bears - "hear the bears roar", and all of that. Mining and Missions were two prominently mentioned categories.

Again, the problem is not one of actual representation, it's of poor representation. You can't make the system compensate for poor representation. If there's an elected candidate who should be backing whatever issue you think they should be, get on them about it. Don't just sit idly by and whine about invisible conspiracies and coming up with new catchphrases (first it was "nullsec lobby group", then calling moon mining a "welfare program"), do something about it, and your efforts don't bear fruit, share it with your fellow players that Candidate Whoever is not actually on their side.

Do you have any specific suggestions? Automatic EVE mail to all players? A better voting page with more descriptive text per candidate?

Some countries reserve a certain number of seats in their legislature for those who would otherwise never gain a voice. Could something similar be rigged up for the CSM? A dedicated WH seat and a dedicated Highsec seat?

I do have to say that I don't understand this whole concern with disenfranchisement, save in the case of nullifying over 10k of votes. ;)

Yeah, as I wrote it I figured that verification would be difficult. But I suppose the possibility of representation would be better than only highly-organized large voting blocs making up the CSM from their point of view. I figure CSM 6 did a great job without all the whining we've been seeing.

One person one vote. Open registration 8 weeks before election.
Proof of I.D. and address or some other verification process.

Then we should really get an idea of the realistic numbers who actually vote.

I'd really like him to answer this.....