CSM Campaigns

So you're whole idea is that the CSM needs reform. Show me how the system is broken in the first place. Then show me how your supposedly going to fix it.

Oh when I say show I mean give me proof, not by saying null blocs have power and they shouldn't. Give me evidence to back your claims.

I rest my case.

Bunch of information he can't put sources to..

Perhaps I can provide an example of an answer. I will take the antagonist position in the debate and attempt to demonstrate that the CSM is good and does not have any drawbacks. I am debating against Xenuria's claims, as an example of how to do a proper demonstration of a point. My specific point will be to suggest that the voting system that is used by the CSM negates political treachery rather than facilitates it.

My first attempt to persuade my audience will come in the form of a brief explanation of the voting system:
The Council of Stellar Management in EVE Online uses the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system to distribute votes to the candidates. In this system, each voter selects several candidates and ranks them in order of choice, from 1 (most important) and down. Each player only gets to use one vote but when the votes are tallied, a player's vote only counts toward a winning candidate. Their vote will be automatically transferred to a candidate ranked lower in their list as needed to ensure their vote counts.

This prevents the old "Go ahead, throw away your vote!" mentality from preventing tertiary parties from getting votes. Should the voters be interested in a new candidate, they can freely rank the candidate on their list without giving up the chance to vote on the lesser of two evils should it become the only option.



My second attempt to persuade my audience will come in the form of examples in which the system has demonstrated itself:
The Single Transferable Vote system has seen real-world use in several countries, including the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, and more recently, in Iceland. These nations have seen a staggering change in politics with the introduction of STV, with fresh new candidates cycling in and pushing out the old and unwanted parties, and with politicians learning that they must address the concerns of their voters, since merely defaming the competition is no longer a successful method of collecting votes.

This contrasts starkly with two-party systems in nations not using STV, such as the USA or Canada. These countries see a wide variety of new and interesting candidacies die quickly since everyone is afraid to vote for anyone but one of the two primary candidates. It fuels hatred and animosity between supporters of either party, while all of the voters begin to feel trapped and powerless to effect change in their failing economy.



Note how I have made separations and highlights in my post to make it easier to read and digest. It is also clear and direct. Not everyone will understand it or believe it, but it both states my position in the debate and provides others with my reasoning for my position. This is a reasonable starting point but I still need to be prepared to answer questions asked about my position, even if I have answered them previously. If they didn't understand it the first time, either I have not described it in a way they understand, or I have hidden it too deeply in my rant and they have failed to locate it.

What I suggest for you, Xenuria, is to write up a campaign letter similar to mine, only in reverse. State clearly what specific problems you see with the system, then give examples that suggest your position is correct. Now I realize you have stated that the voting system caters to nullblocs and have used the prevalence of Goonswarm candidates as a supporting example, but you have not yet presented this in a clear and concise manner. Try writing it in the format I used above, or something similar and equally clear.

Then you are strongly recommended to finish with an explanation of how you intend to solve the problem. If voters are to take you seriously as a candidate, they need to know that you not only agree with them but that you are going to support them. Recognizing the problem is not enough by itself. If you do not yet have a functional solution, perhaps your answer can be that once elected, you intend to present your evidence of corruption first-hand to the candidates of the CSM and work closely with them to explore other possibilities, pushing minor changes as they are discovered to gradually reform the system.

Ultimately you need to convince your potential voters that if you won a seat on the CSM, your presence there would have a positive impact on EVE.

You're too busy assuming these people are trolling and not putting enough time and energy into listening to them. I don't think you read my post very carefully. I mentioned the voting system as an example but my real point was that you haven't formulated your points in a way that makes them easy for people to understand and respond to. Your entire stance on your issues are difficult to decipher as even the issues you present are unclear.

I am listening to your podcast right now and your talking about purchasing accounts for votes do you have proof about that? Can you get a link to show your evidence?

Also since this game is an MMO and a sandbox should we not be able to pay people to vote for us?
Why should we not be allowed to do that?

When you talk about connectivity what would you do to improve that?

Yeah dotlan wow such an answer.

So you are talking about eve players and non eve players in an example. Such a great way to make us understand.

Red herring

Emasculated with my presence

Can we get proof of your work so we know you are not talking outta your but?

Also you just sound like your all Grr goons and about taking us down.

I too listened to that interview. I have a couple of questions:

1) You seem to not understand STV (or as you call it, SVT). Listing a candidate at the bottom of your ballot *never* hurts that candidate, it can only (possibly) help them. If you want to reform the voting system, you ought to at least understand it. You never said which vote counting system you would prefer, can you please explain which one you would choose and why?

2) You claim to be a consultant IRL, but a simple Google search of your real name (from previous elections), turns up your Linked-In page which claims you are currently employed as a Security Officer at McRoberts Protective Agency. Is that incorrect? What sort of consulting work do you do (other than the work you described as "looking at things" in the interview)?
(A note to ISD, I know forum rules usually prohibit posting of personal information, but in this case the information was provided by Xenuria during his previous CSM campaigns)

3) What *specific* changes to the white paper would you make. You mentioned prohibiting vote buying. How would this be enforced? Why shouldn't people be able to buy votes in a game where one can buy loyalty (supposedly)?

what a politician says, and what its interpreted at the individual voter level, are separate things. all politicians though stand for their OWN interests, thats whats wrong with politicians.

as for your comment on goonswarm, I can honestly say, as a avid supporter of almost everything anti-goon, that until BNI shows up, they were THE best place in nullsec for noobs, lots of teaching/leading, low skill point barrier for entry, generally flew in cheap replaceable ships. They were and are new player friendly. Now if a newbie thinks that means goonswarm would advocate for giving every noobie a free skill-unrequired supercarrier for havign a steam version of EVE or something, thats entirely the fault of the VOTER, not the candidate.

in fact, most of the issues you and everyone else have ever had with the CSM system isnt with the system itself, its with the voters, and youll run into the same issue regardless of what system you use to "correct it", short of CCP arbitrarily replacing and refusing candidates "just because" and "for balance in representation we wont clarify", which isnt really voting at all, its more the american system where everybody votes, then those votes are thrown in a furnace and an electoral college makes the decisions. (which would be bad for EVE)

Golf clap

btw xenuria I'm a consultant also just a different security firm. But our "consultants" are called security guards.

absolutely, here you go, based on your interview on Cap Stable this is what I got out of it.

1 GRR GOONS
2 Im gonna change the world of eve.
3 GRR GOONS