These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM sector representation as an unalienable right
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#81 - 2012-02-03 10:34:55 UTC
Regulated voting? No thanks I would vote against that. Your plan is more dangerous than your conspiracy . . .... how did you do that OP?



Would like to see a more up front form of politics. A forum just for CSM and CSM nominees to debate the issues in with no one else being allowed to do any thing beyond look and like.
I would like to see political party's form that are more detached from the corps and alliances, but that will happen with time.

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-02-03 10:43:35 UTC
High sec dwellers don't vote because they don't care.

Take my rl buddy. Two accounts nearing 100m sp each, enough isk to buy a titan, but just wants to run missions and do carebear stuff by himself.

He never votes, doesn't do forums, doesn't do the meta game, he's one of the majority.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2012-02-03 10:54:17 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
The Apostle wrote:


EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you.


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

I'll disregard the obvious exaggeration but it still leaves the clear question why this bothers you? If all seats are represented regardless of vote, as is Lowsec and WH's, why would it matter how many voted for Highsec?

there is one problem here: if some change/boost/nerf will be welcomed by one side (let's say high-sec) and not welcomed by other (let's say 0.0 space) then you comparing votes of 8 and 1000 people (just for example).
Current system says: 1000 people are more important than 8.
Yours: 1000 people equal to 8.

I prefer current system.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Karn Dulake
Doomheim
#84 - 2012-02-03 11:07:39 UTC
Im sure that someone is going to post. "My Granddaddy died fighting Nazis so you could vote boy"

1. get jobs
2. get girlfriends
3. taste the fresh air
4. talk to a human face to face
I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#85 - 2012-02-03 11:10:36 UTC
Karn Dulake wrote:
Im sure that someone is going to post. "My Granddaddy died fighting ***** so you could vote boy"

1. get jobs
2. get girlfriends
3. taste the fresh air
4. talk to a human face to face


Actually not funny. As my GD did die in World War II as an a member of the RAF.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2012-02-03 14:51:49 UTC
I'm still waiting for that evidence which shows how the current CSM neglects hisec.
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
#87 - 2012-02-03 16:30:37 UTC
Isn't it more concerning that EVE has fragemented to a state where the various security states (hi,lo,nul,wh) are so divergent that they are essentially unrelated?

C.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#88 - 2012-02-03 16:39:39 UTC
Cailais wrote:
Isn't it more concerning that EVE has fragemented to a state where the various security states (hi,lo,nul,wh) are so divergent that they are essentially unrelated?

C.


It isn't concerning at all to me. What concerns me is that the pussies want to resolve their differences with votes instead of turrets, launchers, smartbombs, and drones.

They only think they're unrelated because they belive the lie of the vote.

If they voted with their weapon and spaceship skills, the illusion of separation would vanish like an approaching mirage.

The solution isn't more organization or votes. It's more balls and less Discovery Channel Style Empire ISK Hoarders.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2012-02-03 20:50:34 UTC
ThisIsntMyMain wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

TLDR; Any sector candidate can stand in any sector seat.


So you're not trying to exclude the Mittani. Under your proposal He can in-fact stand as a Hi-Sec candidate, get 5000 goons to vote for him and then repeat the feat next year.

I fail to see your point and repeat my question.

Correct. But while he stands for Highsec he's not standing for Nullsec and if he really wants to corner the Nullsec voice he has to chose. It puts competition directly in the face of the candidates.

Which seat is going to be most important and influential to him? He can't split all votes across all seats to win.

Incidentally, I HAVE in fact answered this question multiple times in a myriad of ways long before you asked. (I used 10,000 possible votes taking alts into account - go look)

By "seating" the CSM, bloc voting is reigned in and representatives will be more inclined to actually represent their seat for real reasons than for lolz.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2012-02-03 20:52:58 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
The Apostle wrote:


EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you.


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

I'll disregard the obvious exaggeration but it still leaves the clear question why this bothers you? If all seats are represented regardless of vote, as is Lowsec and WH's, why would it matter how many voted for Highsec?

there is one problem here: if some change/boost/nerf will be welcomed by one side (let's say high-sec) and not welcomed by other (let's say 0.0 space) then you comparing votes of 8 and 1000 people (just for example).
Current system says: 1000 people are more important than 8.
Yours: 1000 people equal to 8.

I prefer current system.

And I'm seeing a lot of the CSM could do this/that and doing it this way does not represent "the whole".

Firstly, the CSM can't DO anything. They are a representative body and even their own "charter" as it were states that a consensus must be formed for presentation to CCP. So Highsec can't "steamroll" the issues regardless of how many votes. Their voice is simply to make sure Highsec interests are HEARD and CONSIDERED.

Secondly, that same CSM white paper also states that ANY proposal put forward to CCP can be thrown out if CCP thinks it does not take into account he whole picture.

The CSM is NOT a ruling body. It's power is limited, it's influence could be far better.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
Solhild
Doomheim
#91 - 2012-02-03 21:05:21 UTC
Seems like a sound idea to me. Votes/constituencies should be based on population. If people don't choose to vote then so be it, that's a statement about the candidates.
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#92 - 2012-02-03 21:23:51 UTC
Cailais wrote:
Isn't it more concerning that EVE has fragemented to a state where the various security states (hi,lo,nul,wh) are so divergent that they are essentially unrelated?

C.

And I think that reality is very true. There is a lot of "us and them" prevalent in Eve - whether that's a natural rivalry or a part of Eve is broken is something I can't put my finger on.

But it sort of highlights my point that the current CSM process is more about THE CANDIDATE rather than THE SECTOR.

Getting the different candidates together, representing their sectors, not their alliance, will surely offer more of a glimpse of the whole than the blinkered view so intrinsic - and obvious - in alliance based selection.

Perhaps if more Highseccers actually understood the concerns of Nullsec and visa vie, the entire game improves and the current segregation changes to something far more worthy of exploration.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
GondriA
A Totally Anal Conceited Organization
#93 - 2012-02-03 21:40:43 UTC
"Our Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress."

Isocrates 436 BC - 338 BC
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2012-02-03 23:33:29 UTC
No inane "system" of representation is going to get highsec dwellers interested in the CSM. They are ignorant of anything outside of their wallet blinking and thinking up new ways to mine or mission without actually having to be tabbed in to the game. This is the reason I bot report every single miner or autopiloting hauler I suicide gank. It is pointless to keep harping for equal representation when there is no equality. Most of your peers simply are not that interested in Eve Online; they play the "the money icon is blinking!!!" game. The small number of highsec players that are interested in the CSM are a minority group. A very small, incredibly noisy minority group. Pilots that live primarily in lowsec have far more cause for CSM representation as they at least play the game.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
GondriA
A Totally Anal Conceited Organization
#95 - 2012-02-04 00:20:37 UTC
now go back to your cave Lol
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#96 - 2012-02-04 00:30:31 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

You're believing that the candidates put forward by sheer weight of numbers is both representative and democratic? You're also believing that they are both objective and impartial?

As I've said, how can a Nullsec entity be a representative of ME - a highseccer? They neither care NOR do they know of my concerns.

But alas, point is being missed. Tell me, how is your presidential candidate (I assume you're American) selected? Does the candidate elect require a majority of states in order to stand for president or do they simply add all the states votes together and declare a winner?

Please correct me if I am wrong but Romney (for example) could win 35 states and still have LESS then the majority vote making him the presidential candidate? (Ignore the obvious reality - even Australia knows Newt is moot) Blink



Representative and Democratic? YES! Because that's the definition of democracy. Rule by sheer weight of numbers.

Objective and Impartial? Of Course not. Was never meant to be. And your suggestion actually codifies the lack of impartiality you seem to be concerned about.

There's an Electoral College system that assigns each state a value. There's a growing movement represented by an interstate compact (like a contract) that will essentially replace this system with a direct vote, because it's a stupid system that hurts small states.

As for how the Republican Party (a private organization) chooses its candidate, I don't really know or care.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Rory Orlenard
Eve Pilots Revolutionary Army
#97 - 2012-02-04 00:50:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rory Orlenard
The Mittani wrote:
you deleted your insane forum trolling alt and then re-made it, which is why you're back to 0 likes

cute

This is from the guy who claimed that the CSM was responsible for Hilmars refocusing on Eve content and completely ignored the effect of the many players who unsubbed from the game they loved. Some even biomassed to emphisize thier concern with the way CCP management was heading.
Yet you Mattani never said one word about the players who unsubbed. Lets repeat that - you Mattani claimed responsibilty for Hilmars refocusing while never mentioning the players who unsubbed.
This is my main, i will supply API to anyone.
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2012-02-04 05:40:45 UTC  |  Edited by: The Apostle
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
No inane "system" of representation is going to get highsec dwellers interested in the CSM. They are ignorant of anything outside of their wallet blinking and thinking up new ways to mine or mission without actually having to be tabbed in to the game. This is the reason I bot report every single miner or autopiloting hauler I suicide gank. It is pointless to keep harping for equal representation when there is no equality. Most of your peers simply are not that interested in Eve Online; they play the "the money icon is blinking!!!" game.

Hey lookatmeimabadboy - stop rubbing Mittens teckles for 2 seconds and go look around - it's a Misguided view. Misinformed. Wrong.

At least 66% of Eve are "wallet blinkers". Less than 5% are Goons. Who you kidding?!

Quote:

The small number of highsec players that are interested in the CSM are a minority group. A very small, incredibly noisy minority group.

Getting too noisy perhaps? Seems to be a lot of smack posts coming from people who boast how much they "don't care".

Quote:

Pilots that live primarily in lowsec have far more cause for CSM representation as they at least play the game.

BOO. I did say give them representation too.

..............

I love this type of vitriole coming from bullheaded morons who reckon they play Eve better than anyone - you're a fooking genius Tarsus and your commentary is welcome to any thread I ever make...

Vindication is worth much more than revenge anyday. You're a toy.

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2012-02-04 06:10:18 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
CCP. Bring forth unalienable geographic representation into the CSM selection process.

As an example:-

2 Highsec candidiates.
1 Lowsec candidate.
1 Wormhole candidate.
2 Nullsec candidiates.
1 Chairman Elect - non sector specific.

- Candidates must nominate their position in advance.
- Chairman Elect is a declared position.
- No candidate may stand for nor claim to represent more than one position.
- Each candidate must reach out and identify issues within their sector to form the basis for their candidacy manifesto.
- Maximum term of no more than 2 years.

Discussion points
By it's very nature, such a system ensures sector candidates enjoy a standing opposition and cannot use their own sector benefits/strength to enhance/reduce the benefits of other sectors except:-

- Where members reach a consensus on an issue across all sectors. From this, CCP is to take that consensus as a given.

In deference to cross sector dissatisfaction:-

- Where sector A might disagree with changes sought by sector B then a debate on merits alone must be endured. There should not be change to a sector without a clear and unequivocable consensus.

This is open for discussion and whilst I accept the inevitable troll, the rationale behind this thread is one of concern for all players - the current CSM has suffered from percieved injustices bought about by an ingame idiosyncracy.

No blame. No shame. Discuss.



Impossible.

How do you expect to make 0.0 people vote for 0.0 representitives only?

I just have to jumpclone to jita so i can vote my nullsec candidate into a highsec seat?

Or do i just use my perminant jita alt to cast the vote? Or what about my trade-only accounts that do nothing but sit in highsec and trade? I'm still a 0.0 guy but some of my accounts may let me vote otherwise.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
The Apostle
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2012-02-04 06:21:49 UTC  |  Edited by: The Apostle
Terminal Insanity wrote:

Impossible.

How do you expect to make 0.0 people vote for 0.0 representitives only?

I just have to jumpclone to jita so i can vote my nullsec candidate into a highsec seat?

Or do i just use my perminant jita alt to cast the vote? Or what about my trade-only accounts that do nothing but sit in highsec and trade? I'm still a 0.0 guy but some of my accounts may let me vote otherwise.

I know it's a big ask but go have a read. It's been asked and been answered.

But I'll TLDR for you. You CAN vote for whoever you like but if you and your ally mates want to guarantee you get the nullsec seats are you gonna risk playing tiddlywinks voting for highsec seats? The blocs can only split the vote in so many ways.

That's why I leave this glimmer of wisdom for you to ponder. I dare you.

Me thinks the people raging at this are VERY aware of the implications and they will not be able to slamdunk the CSM if it gets any traction. I hope it does.

The tree needs a shake to get the monkeys out.

PSST>> Secret of the day. MOST highseccers ALSO have multiple alts. Not in 0.0 or in low - ALL of them in highsec. Scarey thought yeah?

Nullsec democracy is an oxymoron. Bloc voting for alliance candidates is Democracy for Morons 101. Let them perish in their self-interest.

Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.