Jita Park Speakers Corner

it's called affirmative action and it's AWSOME

Hey guys, i just updated my signature to have an statistically accurate wording.

I was doubting between saying 0% hisec or 100% non-highsec, but somehow 100% non-Highsec drives a stonger point.

I expect to put a "7" instead of the 6 to update my signature after the election.

Look up the Queen of Spoons if you want to know why people don't trust highsec reps to do anything good. She kinda ruined it for highsec advocates.

The problem is a highsec/newbie player is focused on the short term. Nullsec players, especially leaders out here, have to think long term because they have an empire to run.

I support having a highsec rep or 2 on the CSM, but catering to that crowd will kill eve the same way catering to that crowd killed the only other major sandbox MMO out there(SWG), and is currently killing WOW.

Any game company that prioritizes players who don't have a long term investment in the game is planning on failing.

Edit: not to detract from Issler, I hear he is actually a great candidate, and an excellent choice as a highsec player who has a long term investment in the game.

My personal thanks to the little bees for keeping this thread on page one.

Character three voted for Issler.

Mr Epeen

Yes, that is certainly true, she is and does.




I hope EVE voter turnout for the CSM7 election is high. Voting is easy, just sign in to CCP's candidate / voting page http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4913&tid=1 and vote for the candidate of your choice... It's a fun game and I hope it's players like it enough to give a few clicks to it's direction.



This is an interesting article (by Tzuzeku de'Tirisfal of The White Rose Conveticle blog [except for some statistics and two sentences I took out]) about how the breakdown of the CSM6 votes played out and, really, the importance of voting at all as shown by result:

---

If one is concerned by the the poor representation of High and Low Sec interests on the CSM, the first necessary order of business ought to be to dispose, once and for all, of the myth that Empire Space is poorly represented "because Empire votes are divided among too many High and Low Sec candidates."

A simple, open-eyed look at the voter turnout and results from the last CSM election suggests, to the contrary, that the truth is more that there are barely any Empire Votes to divide, unless you are moonstruck enough to believe there's any circumstance in which the diverse interests of Empire citizens -- High and Low; Miner, Mission Runner, Faction Warrior; Ganker and Gankee -- and transitive Wormholers could be somehow magically united behind one candidacy.

For CSM6, 49,096 votes were cast by 14.25% of the approximately 344,533 eligible votes.


Aside from what must be called a low overall participation rate given how long-advertised is the annual polling, the most telling fact, here, is that the winning delegates and alternates received a whopping 68.5% of the votes actually cast.

Basically, if your character(s) voted at all, the odds are 2 to 1 you were more or less happy with the outcome. The top four winning candidates, by themselves, received a combined vote total greater than all the disappointed votes combined.

As the 15461 disappointed votes doubtless include a good number of votes for lesser 0.0 vanity candidates, just as the happily rewarded 33625 votes doubtless include a good number of Empire votes for winning Nullsec candidates, it is simply, by the numbers, unreasonable to expect Empire candidacies to pull enough votes to win out of what is objectively a rather small pool of participating dissatisfied Empire voters.

The rude rough truth, statistically speaking, may well be this: Nullsec votes; Few else bother.

---

So, participate, Empire voters! If you like this game we play, give it a couple easy clicks!


btw : There are 40 candidates standing for CSM7, the top 7 will get a full place on the Council, with the next 7 top-vote-getters being the alternates. Players can vote in the CSM election until March 21. There are a lot (most, unfortunately) of eligible EVE voters who don't vote at all...so please encourage others to vote, no matter who it is they choose to vote for.

I will admit I never considered Goons newbie friendly, mostly because I had a goon try to scam me for admittance to the corp when I was a newbie. This might be a change for the goons, maybe you have forbidden the scamming of new players.

My largest concerns are for the future of this game and of industry (subsequently my votes for Issler). I would love to see more done to help miners by either another concerted effort in removing bots(Which the Goons Ice Blockade showed how bad the bots are), or a level playing field so I can use bots as well legally.

We need more to draw in newbies whether thats a Wis WoW like add on to the game and definitely even more tutorials and such to help newbies into it. The one comment I have read over and over about this game is the steep learning curve this needs to be softened for Newbies.

And Thanks for your Polite and Considered reply

Frying Doom

DAMN DAWG.... wow-like wis and legalization of bots in the same reply, that aint cool yo, ISSLER U GONNA ROLLE WIT DAT?

This is simply drawing a conclusion that the most popular candidates won in a voting process and that 12 of the highest constintuted the highest proportion of votes. Why should we be suprised by this, would we seriously expect the proportion of votes to be comprised of the candidates who weren't elected?



Which also mean 1 in 3 who voted didnt get the representation they wanted.



There is no evidence to support your claims here. Citation needed to support them please, otherwise its mere speculation.


The conclusions drawn however can be supported simply by population distributions. But it uncertain how the division of alts and other interests vary with regional preferences. So whilst it is probabale based on this understanding it is no way clear to draw area distinctions with behaviour of voting. If you think it is, then please provided the numbers to support the claims of how the allocation of each voter's area is attributed accordingly from general numbers.


The only valuable statistic provided was that less than 15% voted. Which shows a poor turn out and a poor representation mandate for the CSM. So yes Apathy can be seen as a problem for the CSM.

Figure come from a sticky above:



So yes, things do look more effective that more interest may be apparent to the process. But like I said it may be due to voting habits that people are voting earlier, not that there are more of them.

Since 33,854 as the last reported figure of this years voting is still 68 percent of the last years 49,096 CSM6 voting number.

So although voting appears to be more active, and I really hope it is, since I have personally invested time into this as you can see from my sig. It is still too early to draw any certain conclusions that there is more "total" electorate this year. We need to wait for this years numbers to surpass previous years totals for real conclusions to be drawn.

I do hope so, but it is only using a figure to base projections that behaviour wll remain linear over the whole election period based on the first day. That isnt a poor speculation I have to say, but it still may not conclude that there will be more electorate or that it will follow a straight line pattern all the way through.

Personally, I'm waiting to see what happens this weekend, as I have an incling a lot of people who play at weekends will then be voting. Though of course they may have voted anyhow. But if players are using IG reminders then anyone who is a "weekend" player may only register their interest at this point.