These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

CSM Regional Election Format?

First post
Author
Vin Hellsing
#1 - 2011-09-07 13:30:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Vin Hellsing
These days, we've been seeing large alliances powerhousing their way into the CSM, and with the latest CSM being the starkest example of this yet - they've installed quite the incompetent (from my perspective) in the Chairman position, and I'd like to see this bullshit fixed. The credibility of the CSM is in deep trouble, way underwater, and pretty much torpedoed.

This means the CSM needs to be overhauled. Completely. Top to bottom.

So my suggestion is to have Regional Elections for each representative seat. The Chairman would be chosen by the duly-elected representatives. This ensures that representation is as level and balanced as possible without any unnecessary skewing towards any one agenda. Now, there are a lot of regions in New Eden, I know...this would be addressed by districting.

Here's how it would break down:

Right now, we have nine primary CSMs. We would have that number upped to around ten to twelve members.

High Sec Representation: We would have one representative from each Empire state - the Caldari, Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar, for a total of four. The requirements for meeting criteria would be that you'd have to be in a corporation that is strictly highsec/lowsec, or affiliated with one of the four Empires' Militias.

Low Sec/Wormhole Representation: We would have four people from lowsec and wormhole space to represent the specific interests of capsuleers from those sectors. It would be advisable to have both pro- and anti-pirate factions represented equally.

Nullsec Representation: We would have the remaining representatives be from nullsec, divided into the classical North/South categories, as well as Independents. This is primarily the category for "mega-alliances"...

To select a Chairman, the duly-elected regional representatives would meet at their first CSM Summit and discuss each other's agendas, and then do a hand vote to decide on who will become the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This ensures that all interests are appropriately and equally represented.


This is, in my personal opinion, the best route to rebuilding the CSM's credibility.

And yes, I am biased against the large alliances - I admit it, but I'm not going to be so biased to the point where it hurts their fun. Just keep your jollies out of my politics, thanks.

Addenum Edit: To help whittle down the field, we would have a series of votes - like a Primary system in the U.S. - to determine who will be representing particular interests (highsec/lowsec/wspace/nullsec). This way, there is a distributed and even representation across the entire cross-section of EVE.

It also should help cut down on the amount of large alliance representatives in the CSM.
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#2 - 2011-09-07 13:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Meryl SinGarda
+1 The next CSM will shatter icebergs and sink ships.

In other words, this is going to be different; the way it should be.

(meaning, I agree with this idea)
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#3 - 2011-09-07 13:48:40 UTC
You would need to separate low sec from wormholes. Wormholes are more null than nullsec and shouldn't be grouped with the faux-pirates and gate campers.

I was thinking something a little similar... equal numbers between the four.

3 CSM each from High sec, low sec, null sec and Anoikis.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Samantha Seraya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2011-09-07 13:55:38 UTC
+1

I like this Idea. The CSM definitely needs to be reformed.

Vin Hellsing
#5 - 2011-09-07 14:09:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vin Hellsing
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You would need to separate low sec from wormholes. Wormholes are more null than nullsec and shouldn't be grouped with the faux-pirates and gate campers.

I was thinking something a little similar... equal numbers between the four.

3 CSM each from High sec, low sec, null sec and Anoikis.



Good suggestion. Will consider it. In fact, I plan on putting it into the next Q&A asking if there will be plans to reform the CSMs to focus on regional categories to ensure equal representation.

P.S. What I intended to do with the lowsec/wormhole representation was that there would be 2 lowsec reps and 2 wormhole reps. That way, there'd be one lowsec pro-pirate rep, and one lowsec anti-pirate rep, and likewise for Wormholes. ;)
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#6 - 2011-09-07 16:16:38 UTC
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You would need to separate low sec from wormholes. Wormholes are more null than nullsec and shouldn't be grouped with the faux-pirates and gate campers.

I was thinking something a little similar... equal numbers between the four.

3 CSM each from High sec, low sec, null sec and Anoikis.



Good suggestion. Will consider it. In fact, I plan on putting it into the next Q&A asking if there will be plans to reform the CSMs to focus on regional categories to ensure equal representation.

P.S. What I intended to do with the lowsec/wormhole representation was that there would be 2 lowsec reps and 2 wormhole reps. That way, there'd be one lowsec pro-pirate rep, and one lowsec anti-pirate rep, and likewise for Wormholes. ;)


Each of the four should have an equal number of representatives, otherwise any one group will have too much say regardless imo. Split it up nice and even. I'm sure that pro- and anti- pirate people representing low sec would, for example, come together as a group if there were plans to nerf something in low, even though they may have other disagreements.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Vin Hellsing
#7 - 2011-09-07 18:04:46 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You would need to separate low sec from wormholes. Wormholes are more null than nullsec and shouldn't be grouped with the faux-pirates and gate campers.

I was thinking something a little similar... equal numbers between the four.

3 CSM each from High sec, low sec, null sec and Anoikis.



Good suggestion. Will consider it. In fact, I plan on putting it into the next Q&A asking if there will be plans to reform the CSMs to focus on regional categories to ensure equal representation.

P.S. What I intended to do with the lowsec/wormhole representation was that there would be 2 lowsec reps and 2 wormhole reps. That way, there'd be one lowsec pro-pirate rep, and one lowsec anti-pirate rep, and likewise for Wormholes. ;)


Each of the four should have an equal number of representatives, otherwise any one group will have too much say regardless imo. Split it up nice and even. I'm sure that pro- and anti- pirate people representing low sec would, for example, come together as a group if there were plans to nerf something in low, even though they may have other disagreements.


We can't have too many representatives in the same category, because there's a limit to how many people CCP is willing to fly out to Iceland for the summit.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#8 - 2011-09-07 19:23:32 UTC
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Vin Hellsing wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You would need to separate low sec from wormholes. Wormholes are more null than nullsec and shouldn't be grouped with the faux-pirates and gate campers.

I was thinking something a little similar... equal numbers between the four.

3 CSM each from High sec, low sec, null sec and Anoikis.



Good suggestion. Will consider it. In fact, I plan on putting it into the next Q&A asking if there will be plans to reform the CSMs to focus on regional categories to ensure equal representation.

P.S. What I intended to do with the lowsec/wormhole representation was that there would be 2 lowsec reps and 2 wormhole reps. That way, there'd be one lowsec pro-pirate rep, and one lowsec anti-pirate rep, and likewise for Wormholes. ;)


Each of the four should have an equal number of representatives, otherwise any one group will have too much say regardless imo. Split it up nice and even. I'm sure that pro- and anti- pirate people representing low sec would, for example, come together as a group if there were plans to nerf something in low, even though they may have other disagreements.


We can't have too many representatives in the same category, because there's a limit to how many people CCP is willing to fly out to Iceland for the summit.


Two each, three each, so long as it's equal.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2011-09-07 19:51:15 UTC
A lot of this problem would be avoided if the people in hisec actually voted. Also, trying to establish a category of "corp that operates only in hisec of xxx region" does not leave much choice. When I was only in hisec, I worked between Caldari, Gallente, and Minmatar space.

In any political election, it tends to have less to do with actual qualifications, but more with popularity and money. He(she) who has the gold makes the rules.

The best way to vote your displeasure with the current CSM is to vote (or run) in the next election.
Chunicha
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2011-09-07 20:06:10 UTC
This whole argument that somehow big alliances are bullying their way in to control CSM is such a steaming load of bull that its not even funny.... Every player has an equal opportunity to vote, most just choose not to do so. Whose fault is that? Whoever gets the most votes should be on the CSM, plain and simple.

From what I see there are a very few highly vocal anti-CSM hisec carebears who like to complain more than actually campaign. If you don't like the way things are being run on the CSM and actually think most people agree with you, then your response is simple: RUN FOR CSM. That way we can see exactly how many people really do agree with you. If there really are that many hisec residents who are angry about things, then it should be a landslide in the next CSM vote. I, however, suspect this isn't the case and the seats on it shouldn't be manipulated so you can achieve through structuring what you have so far continually fail to get through the ballot box.
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#11 - 2011-09-07 21:56:41 UTC
I don't think it's that people don't care to vote - I think it's more lots of people don't know anything about voting. If you don't regularly visit the website or forums, I doubt this is something that crosses your mind.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#12 - 2011-09-07 22:06:38 UTC
The solution isn't division of the Eve universe. The solution (if there is a problem to solve) is to organize and GET PEOPLE TO VOTE. If you think highsec carebears and the wormhole alliances need representation, let them (us) demand it by voting.

If you think I'm shilling for the nullbears currently running the CSM, you're wrong. I do feel like they're out of touch with the needs and wants of those of us who choose an existence other than being a cog in their machines. But we won't fix that problem by arbitrarily enforcing rules on them to make things "fair". That's not how democracy works, and it's certainly not how Eve should work.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Vin Hellsing
#13 - 2011-09-07 22:38:55 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
The solution isn't division of the Eve universe. The solution (if there is a problem to solve) is to organize and GET PEOPLE TO VOTE. If you think highsec carebears and the wormhole alliances need representation, let them (us) demand it by voting.

If you think I'm shilling for the nullbears currently running the CSM, you're wrong. I do feel like they're out of touch with the needs and wants of those of us who choose an existence other than being a cog in their machines. But we won't fix that problem by arbitrarily enforcing rules on them to make things "fair". That's not how democracy works, and it's certainly not how Eve should work.


You've never heard of districting, have you?
Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2011-09-08 12:08:44 UTC
I have a highsec character and I can create a wormhole character. Now what?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#15 - 2011-09-08 14:28:28 UTC
We're constantly told that over 70-80-90% of players live in hi-sec. Why can't they vote in as many CSM members as they wish under the current system? What's to stop them?

Why should people who don't bother to spend 30 seconds once per year clicking a button on a web-page get special treatment?

I think the answer is that the OP is using the "silent majority" fallacy: he wishes us to believe that everyone who stays silent thereby agrees with him, because he is unable to get sufficient numbers to speak up and agree with him. It is far more logical to assume that the people who don't bother voting see no need to because they're either satisfied with the current situation, or are indifferent to it. In neither case is there a reason to "give them" such a massive voice on the CSM.

I say "give them", but of course what the OP really means is give him that voice.

If the OP and people like him truly believe that they represent the common hi-sec dweller, then he's perfectly free to stand for election, run a campaign, enjoy the massive inherent voting advantage of a larger consituency and take his well deserved seat on the CSM.

Likewise, if he can't get a seat on the CSM in this way, what on earth would be the justification for taking a seat from someone who got more votes than him and giving it to the OP? Just because he "represents hi-sec"? Special treatment much?

Not supported.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

maya ibuki2
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2011-09-08 14:41:10 UTC
Vin Hellsing wrote:
stuff.



i am going to go ahead and point out that the reason that the csm is filled with 0.0 representatives is because the majority of voters voted for them.

the reason they voted for them, admittedly, is because these voters are nullsec pilots.

have you asked why tthat was the case?

the answer is that the immediately preceding csm's the majority have been high sec based with highsec experience, and sought to "improve" nullsec with frankly terrible idea's that punished nullsec pilots for being in nullsec alliances, without providing any continued incentive.

now, considering this, and the fact that the nullsec "endgame" is what has been the single greatest selling point of eve over time, i think it is fair to say that high sec csm's with no nullsec experience and knowledge cannot be trusted with the promoting the interest of the game per se to ccp.

the rest of the problem with your proposal is pretty decently explained by malcanis.
Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#17 - 2011-09-08 14:58:03 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
We're constantly told that over 70-80-90% of players live in hi-sec. Why can't they vote in as many CSM members as they wish under the current system? What's to stop them?

Why should people who don't bother to spend 30 seconds once per year clicking a button on a web-page get special treatment?

I think the answer is that the OP is using the "silent majority" fallacy: he wishes us to believe that everyone who stays silent thereby agrees with him, because he is unable to get sufficient numbers to speak up and agree with him. It is far more logical to assume that the people who don't bother voting see no need to because they're either satisfied with the current situation, or are indifferent to it. In neither case is there a reason to "give them" such a massive voice on the CSM.

I say "give them", but of course what the OP really means is give him that voice.

If the OP and people like him truly believe that they represent the common hi-sec dweller, then he's perfectly free to stand for election, run a campaign, enjoy the massive inherent voting advantage of a larger consituency and take his well deserved seat on the CSM.

Likewise, if he can't get a seat on the CSM in this way, what on earth would be the justification for taking a seat from someone who got more votes than him and giving it to the OP? Just because he "represents hi-sec"? Special treatment much?

Not supported.

this.

A thought came to me while reading this post... Maybe the nullsec players are voting more because they are more experienced in the game... and also, as they have spent more time in-game... actually care more about the game. I've been around for a while (since 2006 or something absurd like that - and I participated in the beta), and when I talk with newer players, many of them have no idea of the direction of the game, why new features are important... and even what the CSM is...

Ask someone who has been around long enough to survive and flourish in nullsec.... and they know about the direction of the game, why new features are important, what the CSM is.. and might even be able to name a few CSM members.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#18 - 2011-09-08 15:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
Malcanis wrote:
We're constantly told that over 70-80-90% of players live in hi-sec. Why can't they vote in as many CSM members as they wish under the current system? What's to stop them?


A good chunk of them are null sec alts. So... why would we vote for improving high sec? I'd much rather do everything in null than have to carry multiple alts like this.
Vin Hellsing
#19 - 2011-09-08 19:30:51 UTC
One of the goals of this format is to reduce the impact alts have on the elections by reducing the pool of representatives in each sub-section of EVE by the time of the main election.
maya ibuki2
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2011-09-09 01:29:45 UTC
another of the goals, seemingly, is to decrease the value of the votes of those that voted, by limiting the effect a representative brought in by those votes can have.


because i assume that each rep is worth the same? so a nullsec rep with 10k votes is worth the same as a minmatar empire rep with 400? if not, how are you going to balance them?
12Next page