Jita Park Speakers Corner

There is. You simply need to look at the weaknesses of a system then look at improvements. For example, straight off the bat you could try to ensure that the people are competent before they stand for election

There are theoretical systems that have not been tried yet. One reason being that they threaten the way that democracy currently controls people while giving them a placebo "feel good" affect.

Minister of Transport that studied history and political science, sit in the back with a newspaper while driven, never did logistics, worked in the traffic department and can not even change a tire - would you consider that a ringing endorsement of competency?

Well a response at least.

Probably because I am not saying that?

Go ahead, have a party, inflate their egos but ultimately pay them lip service, as they are not good for EVE.

What a surprise, at a glance, Test Alliance x2 , Noir, Volition Cult, AAA, Goons x2, Pandemic x2, xxDeath, Razor, Darkside - another year to look forward to with null sec dominance of CSM.

GMs would be more impartial, especially since they usually apply for a public relations and not a gaming job. They could play in Jove space to get the hang of the game and understand which ideas are good to put forward from the forums., while greeting new players.

During the course of this thread, I have come to a realisation; that I have no faith in the CSM. I can understand the intentions of CCP in starting the CSM. However, the problem is that is has become a tool of meta-gaming both in terms of alliance status and in terms of trying to manipulate the game for short sighted reasons. Candidates stand and are voted for based on sides, interests and bias.
Thus, I believe that CSM detriment to EVE far out weighs any benefit and request the following voting options:

• Abstain /suspend - actively declaring no confidence in the candidates or CSM and possibly having no CSM for a year.
• Removal - believing that the system is irredeemable and should be withdrawn entirely.

See, the problem might not be that people are too lazy to vote. They simply don't want any of those people involved in the decision process of their game.

We should have the option to say, "I do not support this system and or group," or, "These people do not represent me."

As a reply:
"For now, the votes are similar to these 'Like' buttons. People can only say that they agree, they have no voice to say that they disagree or do not like who is being put forward"



There are some fundamental problems with democracy.

Tribes or groups of people will vote for a particular person associated with them.

For example, in South Africa, the Zulus, which is the largest group always vote for the ANC party which comprises of people from their tribe. They will even vote in a new leader who has forcefully removed the previous leader before the end of his term and is up on corruption, arms dealing and indecent assault charges prior to the election.

Null sec voting blocks.

Your control as a voter is usually an illusion.

Even in the best of conditions, your choices narrow down to only a few candidates that are usually chosen for you. You do not get to elect the entire bureaucracy, who make the day to day decisions. You have no recourse if those people do not follow through with their promises and have only told you what you wanted to hear.
There is no "neither" option on the ballots.

CCP developers and the CSM system.

Money and propaganda machines.

There are people financially well off and connected enough to basically shout louder than anyone else. They have the resources to hire people to go about spreading their information and making a lot of flashy displays.

Alliances with the ISK cushion; that can dedicate people to forums and favour trading in game instead of being distracted with the struggle to be viable.

Charisma is not the same as aptitude.

Politicians are not required to undergo IQ or personality tests. They do not have to write particular exams or prove their competency. All they simply have to do is convince you to vote for them.

Alliance or corporation leader are not necessarily good CSM material.

Tangents

There seems to be a growing tendency to destroy high security and worm hole space. There seems to be large vocal groups who instead of working as people to improve their social groups or to get their area of space made better for them, seek only to sabotage the other options so that people are left with no other choice than to go out there and be slaughtered as victims.

I would like to see areas being improved for the people that are there and enjoy that play style instead of breaking things to force others there.

There are some individuals that you might think are okay or that you like but have a look at the groups that they lead. They wouldn't be leading them if they were not liked and are similar to those people.

Edit:

that last one was fake. i made it. can you tell?

e2; an abstain option is cool i guess, why the hell not vOv

you're right, eve is dying(is it?) because someone(hopefully us!) killed your retriever. it's also the csm's fault for not making pvp a bannable offence.

remember! nullsec players want to kill all of highsec! even wormholes!!!


on a related but still terrible note, did you just accuse the largest alliances in the game of paying members to **** up forums? i think you did.

Alliances with the ISK cushion; that can dedicate people to forums and favour trading in game instead of being distracted with the struggle to be viable.

We actually have forum ops with FCs telling us what to post on Teamspeak, and our alliance runs a post replacement program for posts that get deleted by CCP Phantom.