These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

[Proposal] Allow negative votes to be cast in CSM election
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#1 - 2011-12-04 22:18:31 UTC
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game. They have no incentive to look out for the best interests of the game (as CSM V did) or to act professionally (as CSM V did) because their constituency is composed of a bunch of ******** neckbeards.

Solution:

1. Strengthen the eligibility requirements for the next CSM election so that only active accounts that have been active for at least 6 months total are eligible to vote.

2. Give each eligible account 1 vote. That vote may be cast for or against any single candidate (not both.)

Any candidate with a negative vote total would not be eligible to serve on CSM in any capacity that cycle.
Tomytronic
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2011-12-04 23:52:46 UTC
Jita Bloodtear
Bloodtear Labs
#3 - 2011-12-05 02:07:30 UTC
Haha, as strange as it sounds I find this idea pretty amusing. I have nothing against this proposal.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-12-05 02:56:36 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game.


lmao

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-12-05 03:03:55 UTC
please tick in one or more of the below boxes

You are a:

[ ] Moron
[ ] Bitter supercapital pilot
[ ] Moron
[ ] Miner who lost a hulk
[ ] Moron
[ ] Gallente POS owner upset about high oxytope prices
[ ] Mouthbreather on the bitter about (goons/nullsec) bandwagon (circle one or both)
[ ] Moron

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-12-05 03:06:24 UTC
also there is already a negative vote, lol, it's called "voting for a candidate you support"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Goose99
#7 - 2011-12-05 03:44:40 UTC
3 posts in a row by the same goon. Must be desperate.Lol
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#8 - 2011-12-05 03:47:49 UTC
I can't think of a way that an organised group of 20k players could possibly exploit a negative voting option.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Goose99
#9 - 2011-12-05 03:51:38 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
I can't think of a way that an organised group of 20k players could possibly exploit a negative voting option.


Then they can't vote their own alliance candidate in, which is worth it.Cool
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2011-12-05 04:43:42 UTC
MATH CLASS TIME!

Voting for a candidate(+1) produces the same effect as negative-voting for his opponent(+ (- (-1))).

Goose99 wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
I can't think of a way that an organised group of 20k players could possibly exploit a negative voting option.


Then they can't vote their own alliance candidate in, which is worth it.Cool


So are you actually roleplaying an idiot?

 Though All Men Do Despise Us
Sephiroth Clone VII
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2011-12-05 04:51:34 UTC
actually the ideas fixed the game, do you play it?

Gallente much?
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#12 - 2011-12-05 05:17:04 UTC
Should I paint my garage a deep magenta or chestnut?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-12-05 05:36:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Goose99 wrote:
3 posts in a row by the same goon. Must be desperate.Lol


our two candidates won a landslide victory over the rest nobody's worried ;p

btw, all of the csm guys that won ran under their main characters, mr. alt posting coward

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#14 - 2011-12-05 08:40:59 UTC
0/10, poorly attempted troll. Seek mental help.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2011-12-05 09:11:25 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game.

They did fine. Why don't you run?
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#16 - 2011-12-05 09:37:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Problem: To the limited extent to which this pathetic excuse for a CSM has achieved any tangible results, they have represented their own selfish narrow interests to the detriment of the game. They have no incentive to look out for the best interests of the game (as CSM V did) or to act professionally (as CSM V did) because their constituency is composed of a bunch of ******** neckbeards.


Bitter? Sounds like it from your description of the "constituency" of the CSM. The pay their sub, they play the game and they could be bothered to vote, live with it. Please try and move past your prejudice against us Null sec residents.

This CSM has accomplished far more than previous CSM's who I might add were very HiSec delegate heavy and are remembered mostly for the backstabbing and infighting (good old fashioned EvE values it's true) and not for any particular achievement.

AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Solution:

1. Strengthen the eligibility requirements for the next CSM election so that only active accounts that have been active for at least 6 months total are eligible to vote.


No problem with that but please define active. How does logging in once a week to update your PI compare to logging in almost every night to mission or PvP?

AkJon Ferguson wrote:
2. Give each eligible account 1 vote. That vote may be cast for or against any single candidate (not both.)

Any candidate with a negative vote total would not be eligible to serve on CSM in any capacity that cycle.


Again I have no real problem with this although I doubt it will have the effect you want as so few EvE players actually bother with the voting process.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#17 - 2011-12-05 09:43:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
Damn double posts, sorry.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Iosif Dzughasvilli
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#18 - 2011-12-05 09:55:34 UTC
I think it won't matter what you do, only some players want to be actively engaged in this process and with such a low subscription count for such a huge world you inevitably have a low amount of people being actively engaged in politics.

Possible solutions:

- rewards for voting. Anyone who needs these rewards will most likely vote at random, people who do not need rewards and are not interested will still not bother. Unless you can make a reasonable incentive to voting along with public, thread based votes in which people must give a reason and limit corp/alliance voting for their own members along with a way to nullify votes which are obviously only for a reward. Understandably another council would need to be set up to overview the voting procedure and nullify votes which are deemed invalid by a set of rules. However this causes more complications, such as that council favoring certain candidates or taking bribes not to nullify votes for certain people. At any rate this is just another idea to add to the pile.

- forced voting. This would not work in my opinion. People would just vote at random and it would create a breakdown of the political game as the people who actually care would not be taken seriously.


In addition to the idea of negative votes the ability to impeach or remove CSM members by majority vote would be good. I think in conjunction with the CSM a judicial committee needs to be comprised of players to facilitate impeachment and/or dissolutions of the CSM.
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#19 - 2011-12-05 14:57:25 UTC
What are u whining about ? have u actually played the game post Crucible ? CSM6 is definately working as intended.
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#20 - 2011-12-05 19:06:40 UTC
Clarification: Active just means an account that's been paid for (either by subscription or PLEX or GTC.)

To those who think it wouldn't make a difference, let's try it then and find out. I think you'll be surprised.

EVE is (supposed to be, anyway) a harsh, but fair, PVP sandbox game.

It's time to make CSM elections a harsh, but fair, PVP sandbox game.

Let's move CSM elections out of hi-sec and into null-sec where we can shoot back at the clowns running the circus. No more docking games. I'd like my vote to count and I have no idea who the next Mynxee or Teadaze is, but I do know who the really awful members of CSM are.

No more rigged elections with thousands of 'buddy program' votes.

No more space politicians willing to alienate 90% of EVE because they have 10% of EVE in their pocket.

(BTW, the idea that this CSM is responsible for CCP's change of direction is laughable. The summer of rage, in conjunction with thousands unsubscribing, did that. They're just trying to take credit for the movement they tried to diminish every chance they got.)
123Next page