These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

One Human/One Vote, Candidates-Only CoSM forum, debates
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-01-29 18:55:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiply Rustic
One Human/One Vote

Within the constraints of multiple CCs under different names and multiple IP addresses, why are we not restricting CSM votes to actual human beings and not secondary/tertiary/quaternary/ad nauseum accounts held by the same person?

Chicago-style "Vote early, vote often" politics are not only distasteful but are pure "pay to win". While it may make some sense from a CCP profit motivated perspective to operate on the one account/one vote basis, it is not remotely representational from a player perspective.

Candidate's CoSM Forum

With the upcoming elections I propose the creation of a new forum where threads can only be started by those candidates who clear the initial "likes" hurdle. Here they can deliver their positions on issues and respond directly to questions from the voting public to maximize exposure to their views and allow for a more informed voting public. Yes, it's true that forum posters are not the majority of the player base, but such threads would provide easy links to drop into channels in-game and provide candidates a way to advertise their own in-game channels for real time dialogues.

Debates

Moderated debates, with a list of questions directed to each candidate, in the Candidate's Forum...with posting in those threads limited to the candidates...would provide us all with additional insights as to the direction each potential CSM intends to take on various issues. It will also serve, down the road, as a way to help each CSM's voters to hold them accountable for acting on their stated positions.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#2 - 2012-01-29 20:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Hiply Rustic wrote:
While it may make some sense from a CCP profit motivated perspective (i.e. every account is potentially...but not necessarily, those paying with in-game ISK acquired Plex do not line CCPs coffers...money in their pockets so favoring the multiple account holder can be justified from that perspective)

Well someone has to buy the Plex which was sold for isk. I'm sure this is of course more than obvious. Perhaps there was some other source of plex that does not ultimately come from CCP which you are referring to? There are authorized resellers of GameTimeCards, those also make CCP money, of course.

That said, as you have noted, the point of carrying out X over Y is for profit. Now of course you can make short-term vs long-term profits, but comparing them is also quite intuitive with the time value of money principle.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-01-29 21:02:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiply Rustic
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Hiply Rustic wrote:
While it may make some sense from a CCP profit motivated perspective (i.e. every account is potentially...but not necessarily, those paying with in-game ISK acquired Plex do not line CCPs coffers...money in their pockets so favoring the multiple account holder can be justified from that perspective)

Well someone has to buy the Plex which was sold for isk. I'm sure this is of course more than obvious. Perhaps there was some other source of plex that does not ultimately come from CCP which you are referring to? There are authorized resellers of GameTimeCards, those also make CCP money, of course.

That said, as you have noted, the point of carrying out X over Y is for profit. Now of course you can make short-term vs long-term profits, but comparing them is also quite intuitive with the time value of money principle.


It's only intuitive if you posit a definable and agreed-to future value of that money. I think it's fair to say that's not an easy task in today's economy...in or out of game. However, if that's the basis for the current practice then I would agree that it's short term thinking.

To your first point, yes...you are quite correct in your assertion that Plex=CCP profit no matter who the purchaser is and my logic there was faulty. Since that really wasn't even germaine to the post I'm editing to reflect that.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#4 - 2012-01-29 21:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Hiply Rustic wrote:
It's only intuitive if you posit a definable and agreed-to future value of that money. I think it's fair to say that's not an easy task in today's economy...in or out of game. However, if that's the basis for the current practice then I would agree that it's short term thinking.

To your first point, yes...you are quite correct in your assertion that Plex=CCP profit no matter who the purchaser is and my logic there was faulty. Since that really wasn't even germaine to the post I'm editing to reflect that.

Actually, for a company like CCP, they would have their own internal value of money. There are general measures people use (LIBOR) but a company like CCP should/would have a higher rate, the USA government a lower one. Problems also occur if your liabilities are denominated in another currency (which I believe famously happened with Icelandic banks).

They're apparently privately held, and no idea if they have issued debt, however they should have a good idea of their own Internal Rate of Return (IRR). There's also weighted average cost of capital (WACC), though hopefully, the first is higher than the second (resulting in profits). As an important statistic, doubtless their CFO would have this number readily to mind and equally doubtless would never reveal it (having these things secret is one advantage of not being publically held).

Calculating from the required reporting from a public company is not too taxing.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
None ofthe Above
#5 - 2012-01-29 23:19:14 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Hiply Rustic wrote:
One Human/One Vote

Within the constraints of multiple CCs under different names and multiple IP addresses, why are we not restricting CSM votes to actual human beings and not secondary/tertiary/quaternary/ad nauseum accounts held by the same person?

Chicago-style "Vote early, vote often" politics are not only distasteful but are pure "pay to win". While it may make some sense from a CCP profit motivated perspective to operate on the one account/one vote basis, it is not remotely representational from a player perspective.

...



While this sounds like a good idea, certainly fairer in some respects, exactly how would this be accomplished?

Limiting likes/votes to one paying account seems simple enough, but limiting to one actual human seems near impossible without physical polling stations and biometric authentication.

Poorly done this would limit honest people to one vote, and allow professional fraudsters the run of the election.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#6 - 2012-01-29 23:57:42 UTC
I would imagine the laziest way would be one vote per paying account on an IP.

Actually, it would be to just do nothing and continue with the already established manner of voting, ignoring proposals that would take :effort:

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-01-30 02:16:52 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
I would imagine the laziest way would be one vote per paying account on an IP.

Actually, it would be to just do nothing and continue with the already established manner of voting, ignoring proposals that would take :effort:



Well yes, that (doing nothing) would certainly the laziest way to handle it. Is it the best way, or the right way?

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
None ofthe Above
#8 - 2012-01-30 02:41:38 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
I would imagine the laziest way would be one vote per paying account on an IP.


Congrats, you've just handed the CSM to the botters and scammers who already have reasons to hide their identity. Getting multiple IP addresses is trivial for the technically inclined.

Like I said, if done wrong could further disenfranchise your average player.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#9 - 2012-01-31 01:23:05 UTC
Well 4chan did hack the time magazine and rigged it for their dude to win person of the year, I dont know what CCP could do against that type of thing you guys are suggesting. But CCP did state they would authorize alot of the candidates and such. I imagine that means none of the behavior you guys are talking about.

But still like in the alliance tournament there could be some meta gaming that slips in to turns thing topsy turvy. Seems no way to handle it well till it pops up or so.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne