Jita Park Speakers Corner

Truth be told, there is more wealth in Null sec then anywhere else... because of the ISK "wells" they have cultivated.



There, is that better wording for you?
You know damn well what I am talking about, although you choose to dilute it for your own purposes.

Pointlessly complicated. Just say that it's easier to earn iSK.
When you use terms that mean something drastically different than how you use them, I'm not sure I do, and more importantly, I'm not sure you do.

Ofc Tippia is right, but that is hardly post-worthy when the thing in question is so elementary and obvious.

So Eternum rephrased that to "there is more wealth in Null sec then anywhere else". Well, is there? High sec has practically unlimited production slots, and, to a good approximation, every item in game gets produced there. You would imagine the high sec industrialists are making quite good isk compared to the paltry numbers reached by production poses in null.

Now take the big alliances individually and lets assume they don't make crazy money off tech (because only a select few with supercapital dominance do). Main source of income are usually per-member fees paid by corps, which in turn get their isk from individual ratting taxes (a thing unheard of in > 0.4). In high sec, the only comparable entity large enough (excluding EVE UNI and RvB) is the incursion runner community and we all know the numbers that are flowing there. Even the mission runners make comparable isk to null if they are doing it right, and that is without taxes, upgrade costs etc. Life for an average alliance grunt could be quite harsh if you are living outside of Deklein. So, who has more wealth at their disposal?

Oppinion

Though I haven't actually taken part in any of the previous CSM elections, I highly doubt there is any rigging involved. If the goal of the CSM is to have players have a vote in the direction the game development takes with the aim of improving it and making it more appealing to its player base then rigging it would defy its very purpose.

If people like The Mittani have an easy, but not guaranteed, spot on the council it's because a vote for him is more appealing than a vote for the other candidates. This can be the case because he can draw more on internal resources such as the members of his corporation/alliance, because his ideas are more in tune with the EVE community or simply because he is better at public relations than the other candidates but that's one of the core principles of a western democratic system to begin with.

And while it is true that people with more accounts can have more votes, they also make out a larger portion of the player base either because they spend more time at EVE or because they pay more at their monthly subscriptions. Essentially this makes the election somewhat of an oligarchy, rather than a democracy but who is to say that people with a lesser impact on EVE should have an equal amount of influence in elections.

Proposal

This doesn't take away the fact that a player who is more familiar with 0.0 is more suitable to represent the best interests of 0.0 while a high sec player would be better aware of high sec issues.

Instead of changing the way the votes are being cast it would be more to the point if the CSM, with its pre-determined number of spots, would be divided between those elected for the improvement of high sec and those elected for the improvement of 0.0/low sec, the division based upon a measurable variable such as system traffic.

For example if there are 10 seats on the council and 60% of the player traffic goes through high sec systems and 40% goes through 0.0 or low sec then there would be 6 members on the council representing the interests of high sec and 4 members representing the interests of 0.0 or low sec.

High sec CSM members would discuss matters of high sec, 0.0/low sec CSM members would do the same for low sec. Issues that involve the entirety of the game would be discussed by all CSM members simultaneously. Eventually the conclusions that need to be drawn from the results of these discussions should remain with CCP, deciding on wether to follow the advice, put it in a poll to the community or dismiss it altogether.

Just an idea.

e: cleaning up wall of text

Little Known CSM Factoid #4

Pressing "Abstain" does absolutely nothing, registers no opinion anywhere and will be disregarded as merely a number of number who clicked it.

Actually Abstaining but not clicking ANYTHING would be the most powerful act if everybody would actually do it.
Sadly, some people quite enjoy an all expenses party in Iceland too much for that.

Yeah there is alot to lose by abstaining, no icelands like ya said, as well as no talking to devs and CEO about issues and such.

Almost a catch 22 really, if you dont want to talk to devs and such why play the game at all? If you abstained from election it would almost like cancelling account or close to it. No reason to talk to the people who make the game, doesnt sound like you enjoy it either.

I like that you can't attack any of Tippia's arguments so you just settle for insults.

Although I would have to guess that someone who doesn't even know what wspace probably doesn't have much credibility to stand on in terms of game mechanics.

That would be a waste of three good votes. You see, Mittani is going to make it automatically, and I think Vile Rat, too. If you want a unified CSM that speaks with one voice, you should vote for the non-endorsed goons like Andski or Lyris Nairn.
Less opposition for Mittani means more Mittani for your votes.

The best part about relying on threadnoughts to be better then the CSM is that the US supreme court ruled that threadnoughts are people too just in time for this election. What is better then a threadnought on this forum, is a threadnought that has a free flight to iceland to talk to the devs.

Well I think I'm living proof its possible for an independent from a small corp/alliance to win the CSM elections. I was the first chair of the CSM defeating Darius Johnson of Goonswarm and Hardin of the CVA who both had huge alliance blocs behind them simply by running a high profile campaign and doing a lot of hard work on the campaign trail (and having an excellent team behind me).

So it is possible.

But that said, I do think its got harder for independent candidates recently to compete with the alliance blocs and there has been some evidence of "rigging" (4 hour trial accounts etc) I guess "exploiting weaknesses in the voting system" might be closer to the mark since what Goonswarm did last time is the virtual equivilence of lorry driving in homeless people from another state and registering them to vote for a particular candidate in exchange for a bottle of hooch to play havoc with the ordinary voting demographics.

This is pretty easy to fix. Trial accounts don't get a vote.
I'd be inclined to say that there should be a minimum age of character that should vote too. Maybe 1 month. It won't entirely solve election manipulation but it'll help.

But the bigger issue is that 0.0 alliance blocs will always find it easier to pressgang their members into voting than the vast unwashed hoards of highsec. And in a system where minority actually vote you get fringe mentalist candidates dominating the story.

I think CCP need to take a leaf from Australia's voting system and make voting mandatory for every eve player who is on a full account and has existed for one month. During the voting period you get a pop up on the launcher that prompts you to cast a vote. CCP already has the ability to randomize the order of candidates on the voting page - so no alphabetic favouritism and let the candidates stand on their message. (abstain should be an option of course)

In exchange for the inconvenience a six pack of quafe zero arrives in the hanger of the person who just voted.

Everyone wins, democracy triumphs - no more CSM chairs with complete dominance of the council voted by a tiny fraction of the player base.