EVE General Discussion

From that I assume you're happy with the status quo. So be it.

My stance on this stems from the intrinsic risk to bloc voting this scheme entails. I expect opposition to same, understandably. But change is in the air, it's obvious. Voter dissatisfaction and apathy doesn't come from a working system.

Nonetheless, I'm not "siding" here, I've put this up for debate so your "long answer" is most welcomed.

Exactly. And all eight of the highsec bears who care about the CSM will vote.

i was referring to his specific idea that w-space is enough like other forms of space that it doesn't need its own representation. On that front, your idea is fine.


You're not understanding. What i'm saying is that there's nothing that prevents CSM candidates from different alliances/powerblocs from coordinating together and running in different categories so as to not directly compete with one another, which pretty much guarantees an entirely nullsec-based CSM (again), despite your attempt to fix it.

Granted, as it stands it's not very ideal either, but under yours they can just game the system even worse.

OK so I'll put this in numbers to try and put some relevance to it.

(I make the assumption that highseccers are not voting because they are very aware of the bloc/metagaming techniques used and cannot find a way to work around it. This should change. It is an assumption however, granted.)

But let's say the CFC can muster 10,000 votes.

They can plant 5,000 into each Nullsec seat to win both. They will have to fight other Nullseccers for this so they need to tread carefully about vote positioning from the get-go.

They might also run a Highsec candidate (why bother but let's entertain the thought anyway) so they are going to need to draw a sizeable vote away from securing the Nullsec seats to win this seat. They effectively put all seats (or some) at risk by doing so.

Now let's say they want BOTH Highsec seats (to force bilateral agreement on Highsec issues?) then the vote has to be split even more. The more they interfere the greater the risk.

Even if they win one seat with their ring-in, they are still going to have definitive opposition from the "real" highsec candidate. They will find it hard to get a consensus from there. (Assuming that both candidates need to be in approximate agreeance on issues before presentation).

Now let's put it in context - under the auspice that CFC DID win all seats. (Likelihood??)

They front the first CSM meeting, half are Nullseccers in disguise. CCP says "Let's discuss Highsec gentlemen". The first one to open his mouth has his comments recorded for posterity so what exactly is he going to say? Nerf Highsec! Reduce Incursion payouts?

It'll come across as pretty bloody obvious immediately, and come NEXT CSM election, this candidate is blown so the Nullsec power players have to go back, find another Highsec alt and start all over again.

Only the tried and true are going to keep coming back. Charlatans will be exposed very quickly.

Perhaps you took too much if this is representative of a "vivid imagination".

Try harder. C'mon, you can do it.

"Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor."

I did too.

Something vaguely related to goons is happening. Obviously we need terrible apostle threads about it.

I disagree. A specialist is far less likely to see how a bigger picture will affect the entirety of New Eden. By dividing it up this way, you are creating special interest groupings that will most likely have a detrimental impact on the game as a whole, as well as creating further separation between the various sectors. Yes, they can potentially achieve a balance by being at loggerheads on various issues and eventually settling that way. But if every individual on the CSM had the ability to see the broader scope of New Eden you'd have less conflict and more progress.

Additionally, we, as the playerbase have the ability to influence and drive the CSM. This is done, primarily, through the election process. There everyone has an equal chance to be elected providing they can gather the support. Secondly, through submissions in the Assembly Hall and in supporting those. Up until recently I was unaware of this, so I can see that promoting these mechanisms and highlighting them more may be very beneficial for overall participation from the community.

But I'd think education, voter and player participation and involvement are better mechanisms for driving this than segregating and creating artificial blockages.

If someone could get elected more than once, let alone want to serve more than once, why stop them?

Too bad democratic corps are an insane method of business. So why bother treating the games subscribers as people with a passion and voice when they choose totalitarianism direction and lean on someone else's passion for some ultimate goal of schadenfreude...
Because deep down we all just love being awful and people do want goons around.
If highsec truly needed its own individual voice to save it and bring it out of some grim darkage, it would have bore a charismatic leader to unite the bears in a knee jerk fashion that EVE is known for quite awhile ago.
So don't panic highsec, and close your eyes. If you feel something throbbing on your backside, just tell yourself "at least its not incarna."