These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP - make the call

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#121 - 2012-01-27 09:40:43 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
14.25% turnout. The winners received a total 27,580 votes, which means only 56.2% of 14.25% voted for them. Ergo, the CSM represents 8% of the player base.
And the question is: is that a problem? If so, how?
Quote:
Democracy, in its purest sense, is "rule of the people." 14% isn't democracy.
It is if the remaining 86% understand what they're lack of voting is voting for.

Just because only 14% vote doesn't mean that the CSM will be feeding CCP slanted input — it just means that the CSM will feed them input from those interested — the ones not being represented are the one who have no interest in it, so their lack of input is pretty darn irrelevant because it wouldn't exist even if they were represented.

met worst wrote:
In ANY democratic system a candidate HAS to appeal to ALL sectors to win the absolute majority.
No. A candidate only needs to appeal to a majority of the sectors to win the majority. Moreover, a majority isn't needed to simply fill a seat in a proportional vote (which is what the CSM is) — all that's needed is more votes than the next guy to win that particular seat.

Quote:
Has anyone considered that "highsec disinterest" is because of the current system. It's being used as a reason to maintain the status quo when in fact it could be the cause.
Since the current system has proven to have no problems voting highsec reps into the CSM, no. It's far more likely that it's just pure disinterest (both from voters and from candidates).

…oh, and the claim your claim of highseccers having no trust in the system is about as flimsy as the claim that the current CSM seeks some kind of status quo. So far, very little in the way of proof or reasoning for this has been presented (and it directly contradicts what the CSM has actually done).

Ai Shun wrote:
66% according to CCP, but character numbers are meaningless. You guess more humans in HiSec. I'm guessing the likelyhood is stronger for a null/lowsec pilot to cross to hisec than there is for a hisec pilot to cross to low/nullsec. But those are just guesses.
That is a far more interesting question. Based on my experience, a 66% character count for highsec would mean that ~40% of players live in highsec.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#122 - 2012-01-27 09:47:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Ai Shun wrote:
66% according to CCP, but character numbers are meaningless. You guess more humans in HiSec. I'm guessing the likelyhood is stronger for a null/lowsec pilot to cross to hisec than there is for a hisec pilot to cross to low/nullsec. But those are just guesses.
That is a far more interesting question. Based on my experience, a 66% character count for highsec would mean that ~40% of players live in highsec.

Just to chime in here, but last I heard the CCP released number was 80% in highsec, not 66%, as of last fanfest.

I could be remember wrong, however.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#123 - 2012-01-27 10:12:01 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
My only objection with the CSM is that it's something I doubt half the playerbase even knows about. Their presence should be known to the general public of Eve. There should be voting interfaces build into the client.


That's a good idea.

Furthermore, each candidate should be forced to write a "mission statement" in X characters or less, maybe 500.

In an effort to get more pilots/accounts to vote, there could be a popup where 6 randomly candidates is chosen, each with his or her 500 characters statement visible, and the account being forced to vote on one of these. This is in addition to the active vote that each account can exercise, with this active vote able to go to which ever eligible candidate the account's owner wishes to vote for.

But basically give everyone 2 votes, and force them to use one of them upon log-in.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#124 - 2012-01-27 10:15:47 UTC
Salpad wrote:
Black Dranzer wrote:
My only objection with the CSM is that it's something I doubt half the playerbase even knows about. Their presence should be known to the general public of Eve. There should be voting interfaces build into the client.


That's a good idea.

Furthermore, each candidate should be forced to write a "mission statement" in X characters or less, maybe 500.

In an effort to get more pilots/accounts to vote, there could be a popup where 6 randomly candidates is chosen, each with his or her 500 characters statement visible, and the account being forced to vote on one of these. This is in addition to the active vote that each account can exercise, with this active vote able to go to which ever eligible candidate the account's owner wishes to vote for.

But basically give everyone 2 votes, and force them to use one of them upon log-in.

Why do so many people think mandatory voting is a good idea?

When you do mandatory voting, the votes cast by those who would not have in the first place, for the most part, are votes for whoevers name came up first in the list, had the shiniest avatar, or some equally dumb factor decides their vote.

Ultimately, this does more harm than good to the process.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#125 - 2012-01-27 10:29:06 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Salpad wrote:
Black Dranzer wrote:
My only objection with the CSM is that it's something I doubt half the playerbase even knows about. Their presence should be known to the general public of Eve. There should be voting interfaces build into the client.


That's a good idea.

Furthermore, each candidate should be forced to write a "mission statement" in X characters or less, maybe 500.

In an effort to get more pilots/accounts to vote, there could be a popup where 6 randomly candidates is chosen, each with his or her 500 characters statement visible, and the account being forced to vote on one of these. This is in addition to the active vote that each account can exercise, with this active vote able to go to which ever eligible candidate the account's owner wishes to vote for.

But basically give everyone 2 votes, and force them to use one of them upon log-in.

Why do so many people think mandatory voting is a good idea?

When you do mandatory voting, the votes cast by those who would not have in the first place, for the most part, are votes for whoevers name came up first in the list, had the shiniest avatar, or some equally dumb factor decides their vote.

Ultimately, this does more harm than good to the process.


Read my suggestion before commenting on it.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#126 - 2012-01-27 10:41:15 UTC
Salpad wrote:

Read my suggestion before commenting on it.


I did.

If the first, mandatory vote actually means anything at all, then my comment still applies. If it doesn't mean anything, then why bother?

And if you mean to use it as a filter, CCP has already come up with a solution. In order for your name to make it onto the ballot, your post announcing that you are running has to get 100 likes for CSM7.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#127 - 2012-01-27 10:41:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Ai Shun wrote:
66% according to CCP, but character numbers are meaningless. You guess more humans in HiSec. I'm guessing the likelyhood is stronger for a null/lowsec pilot to cross to hisec than there is for a hisec pilot to cross to low/nullsec. But those are just guesses.
That is a far more interesting question. Based on my experience, a 66% character count for highsec would mean that ~40% of players live in highsec.

Just to chime in here, but last I heard the CCP released number was 80% in highsec, not 66%, as of last fanfest.

I could be remember wrong, however.


Latest stats can be found here: http://t.co/r8lRlvtg

67% of +5M SP characthers in hisec. Total number is much higher, probably that 80%, but mostly alts.

For example I have 5 "dumb" trade alts spread around in empire.

Of the 88K characters in Jita, only 21.46% had over 5M SP. This hints that majority of Jita residents are nothing more than trade alts.

I also have one 15+mil SP "real" alt currently in hisec, even I'm in hisec at the moment, only my PI character is at home in lowsec.

So I'd say a considerable amount of hiseccers are indeed not hiseccers, or not main accounts.

Additional stat source: CCP_Diagoras on Twitter

.
seany1212
M Y S T
#128 - 2012-01-27 10:53:34 UTC
met worst wrote:
I'M THE OP AND I SPEND MORE TIME CRYING ON THE FORUMS ABOUT THE CSM THAN ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, I ALSO LIKE TO HIDE BEHIND FORUM ALTS BECAUSE HEAVEN KNOWS I CAN'T SAY IT MYSELF


I see what you did there. Lol
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#129 - 2012-01-27 11:35:27 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Salpad wrote:

Read my suggestion before commenting on it.


I did.


No you didn't. I foresaw the problems you mentioned and included workarounds in my post, which you ignored. You didn't reply to my post. You replied to the general idea of mandatory voting.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#130 - 2012-01-27 12:10:37 UTC
Salpad wrote:
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Salpad wrote:

Read my suggestion before commenting on it.


I did.


No you didn't. I foresaw the problems you mentioned and included workarounds in my post, which you ignored. You didn't reply to my post. You replied to the general idea of mandatory voting.


I read it, but it still changes nothing.

Your elaborate system of having each potential candidate write an essay and then putting them in front of the average player isn't going to help. People will mostly do whatever it takes to get that out of their face as quickly as possible, and reading 3000 words is far from the fastest way. The fastest way is to hit the X in the upper right of that sub window, or to just pick an entry and click it at random.

Since human behavior is never truly random, but rather dictated by our subconscious, that means a number of completely irrelevant factors will come into play.

I did read your post, but I saw nothing new of any substance in it, just more idea that boil down to trying to force people to make an educated decision, which is impossible.

Oh, and before you say, yet again, that I didn't, I did see the part about a second, normal election taking place, but that just makes your whole proposal even more pointless.

So, small words, short post, what is the point, since I am apparently too slow to understand with you overly complicated high brow post? Roll

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2012-01-27 12:11:17 UTC
+1 'Like' to the OP.

Having +100 'Likes' on a post announcing candidacy just to be eligible to run for CSM is just plain stupid.

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#132 - 2012-01-27 12:18:29 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
+1 'Like' to the OP.

Having +100 'Likes' on a post announcing candidacy just to be eligible to run for CSM is just plain stupid.

So you'd prefer it if the supposedly underrepresented highsec views stay underrepresented because people can't rally around a smaller number of actually viable candidates?
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#133 - 2012-01-27 12:21:15 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
+1 'Like' to the OP.

Having +100 'Likes' on a post announcing candidacy just to be eligible to run for CSM is just plain stupid.

in the CSM 6 election, something like 50 people ran, and most of the highsec candidates got 10-50 votes each. If those candidates had not been on the ballot to water down the highsec vote, and only 2-3 of them had been on the ballot, at least 1 of those 2-3 would likely have gotten on the main CSM.

How is facilitating that stupid, praytell?

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#134 - 2012-01-27 12:21:30 UTC
stoicfaux wrote: wrote:

14.25% turnout. The winners received a total 27,580 votes, which means only 56.2% of 14.25% voted for them. Ergo, the CSM represents 100% of the player base who bothered to vote.


Italics are mine.

Fixed that for you to make it truthful of the facts as they happened, not as a "only 8% of the playerbase" type of representation you portray. Easy to mess with numbers to make them look good for your own points of view.

Furthermore, even if it's only 8% of the playerbase who voted, who is to blame for that ? Blame the CSM ? Get real.
It's about apathy and people calling out to others not to vote.
It's about a large majority of EvE players who are simply not bothered with this side of EvE, that being these forums.
Ignorance and apathy and then when the unhappiness trickles-in, there's cries of foul, cries of unfair election process, cries of a "corrupt" CSM.

What a load of twaddle.

Vote for a candidate, inspire your friends ingame who do not otherwise bother with these forums to vote, but VOTE !

Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind - and it's blowing back onto you.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#135 - 2012-01-28 14:25:56 UTC
Please do not create spam threads.

Thread locked.

Discussions about the CSM as whole can be continued here.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer