EVE General Discussion

You could do that.

CCP could also state in their EULA that if you are caught doing that, these accounts will be perma banned. It is then up to you to decide if the risk is worth it or not, like one does when engaging in RMT for example.

As for your example of doing some activities in game, you are only pointing to risks' avoidance, hiding behind anonymous alts. Borat Guereen highlights this in his campaign thread.

How divorced from any sort of realistic perspective do you actually have to be to think that internet spaceship video-game politicians owe you a single scrap of their PII?

I'm pretty sure this is why they invented aerosol bitterant.

So what you're saying is...


Grr, goons.

How in the hell do I even find out who's running, what their premise is, and how to vote?

This is the kind of crap that CCP should be telling the players because a very large portion of us have no clue..
Myself included.

What? You expect a person who obviously has some form of computing device (because he's posting on this forum which also means he's paid some form of payment to CCP, because that's the only real way to be on this forum to begin with) to actually TWITCH his right index finger enough to scroll down to see that forum section that has a highlighted name?

This is 2016 sir. Therefore the only suitable solution is for an actual CCP employee to come to our homes and operate our computers for us. It's the only way to be sure.

If it's simple, your source should be readily available? Of course also including a way to check whether non-CFC votes for CFC, and to check whether CFC players use out-of-CFC accounts? Of course, they only have 3/13 seats, and IIRC corbexx joined CFC after getting elected - so you might also want to justify a 75% of the votes claim.
What seems most broken is actually your whining, but sure, the voter percentages are generally too low. I think it might be threefold: 1) CSM seems irrelevant to your daily play, so it's not something you care enough to vote for; 2) People often lie about the CSM-elections being rigged or controlled by nullsec coalitions (Or CFC specifically), and thus participating in the election is only adding legitimacy to the CFC control; 3) People lack awareness of what the CSM is/does, and don't care enough to look it up in the election cycle, while they're invisible inbetween, making many people forget.

Incidentally, where I meet the most people who know about the CSM and cares, is actually in the nullsec groups. It seems to me that those who actually do inform about the CSM, and stresses the importance of voting, are the nullsec coalitions. I think this is because the nullsec coalitions also have a better structure to inform about such matters, and because they generally have candidates who will hold Q&A's for their members, so rather like you're more likely to be informed about elections if you're in a political party, the same goes for the nullsec coalitions.
But why should that be the fault of those nullsec coalitions?

As far as I can see, you're condemning CFC for informing their members of a choice they have, to vote, and who the CFC leadership endorses. You're arguing, effectively, for disenfranchising people so that other non-voting groups are comparatively equal. Why?

It'd be much different if you argued for CCP sending out EVE-mails (As they've done), or splash banners on the login screen (As they've done), or dev. blogs about the importance of the CSM and how to vote (As they've done), or emails (As they've done), or banners on the launcher (As they've done), or other things that I currently can't remember.
Are these efforts doing enough to increase the amount of voters? No, sadly not. But that's not the fault of nullsec coalitions in general or the CFC in particular. Some of it is actually due to people who rant like you do, that the CSM is worthless or in perpetual control of nullsec coalitions. In other words, people who lie to make people disinterested in voting, since it seems like an impossibility to win.
Some of it, of course, is also structurally. Since groups are generally larger in nullsec, like larger political parties, they can bring more votes and thus are harder to do anything about. Since hisec aren't in the same big organisations, candidates have to built more of that organisation themselves. But since you think there are so many more hisec people, that should be counterweigted by the higher numbers, right?

Again, you turn your own failure around and blame it on nullsec in general or CFC in particular, when it's actually not their fault, and they in part try to do exactly what you ask, namely informing voters and raising voter participation. Don't ask for them to be disenfranchised because another group doesn't vote despite CCPs efforts.
I don't get why you blame the participating groups for getting seats relative to their support from the voting population.

Yeah, I don't agree with the "more shallow" direction, but:

- They've announced that major changes are coming, so people are waiting. Nobody's going to invest time, effort, and resources into a home or a war while the game mechanics are under construction.

- You're never going to change CCP's direction, even if you're in the CSM. CSM 10 seemed to be focused on null, but the year has passed and CCP has implemented... nothing. Honestly they appear to be on another 18 month vacation, which means we have to wait 6-9 more months.

So, whatever they implement, shallow or not, I want them to get a move on. So we can see it, and do another Burn Jita or have another half of the player base quit, or whatever the hell works to open their eyes.

CSM, even if we elect the "perfect" people, won't accomplish that.

"Go find all of my supporting evidence for me."

Link or GTFO, tbh.

So you have time to write long-winded "Grr, goons" soliloquies, but are too busy to support any of it?

That's convenient.

Yeah but it's not really the reason you can't support the claim that 75% of votes are the goons.

You know the real reason is that we don't have access to those raw numbers and the statement can't be supported by evidence. It's conjecture, irrespective of how accurate or not it might be.