These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

NULL whiners mantra is getting tedious... and CSM lacks HI SEC representation

First post First post
Author
Frying Doom
#521 - 2012-09-03 15:01:41 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Tippia wrote:
…and annoying people is not the right way of doing it, nor should you really expect the numbers to be that much higher — hell, you shouldn't even expect them to be as high as ⅙ to begin with.

As I have said before 1 minute a year is not very annoying.

It won't have the effect you're looking for. My prediction is that the only thing a vast majority of people will do is press abstain, and then those who actually cares about voting will go to eve gate to vote there instead at a time of their choosing. When they're logging in, they're logging in to play. They're not logging in to be nagged at by some voting thing.

Yes that is possible and it is also possible more people will vote.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#522 - 2012-09-03 15:06:41 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Yes that is possible and it is also possible more people will vote.

Didn't Issler and Hanz make a route through high-sec doing some advertising? I also recall around that time a lot of people doing the same in local for their own pet candidate.

You might as well face the facts. People simply aren't going to vote, even if you force them, and you really don't want the willfully ignorant voting because they're just going to press the first button they see..

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#523 - 2012-09-03 15:06:51 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

And with your studies in politics did governments, individual parties or candidate try to get more people to vote via advertising, scare campaigns or just meet and greets?



It depends on the scale of an election.

Fighting a local election in the UK that is held once every 4 years means with even 8 months notice you can knock on every door in the Ward as ward sizes are probably a couple of thousand houses. Plus you can only spend £1000 on your campaign so a lot of it has to be going out and meeting people. At most it will be a few leaflets and knocking on doors.

To use the UK again the parties fun national campaigns at election time, yet even though the political system actually means you're voting for an individual most people vote based on which party that individual is for rather than their own opinions, voting history etc. In individual constituencies it will just be several leaflet drops (maybe 3-5) and even then targeted at specific groups that will maximise voter turnout for minimum effort. The national stage is mainly the Party Political Broadcast that every single party gets on the same channels, for the same length of time. Again strict spending limits apply. Most of the money for campaigning goes on "campaign experts" or "branding experts" and staffing costs. Plus printing costs as they buy the leaflets for each constituency.

Finally you have the US Presidential Elections which is the grand daddy of political campaign spending where they use all sorts of tactics and techniques. Millions and millions of dollars into providing TV ads, billboards, massive rallies etc. Pretty much everything goes as they call in all their favours from the well connected people in the media.

Turnout in these elections are as follows: approx. 30%, Approx 55%, approx. 51%. The US Presidential election has a lower turnout then pretty much the entire of Europe despite spending the most. Some countries in Europe don't even allow parties to acquire their own funding and have very strict rules on what they can and cannot campaign on.


That is for actual real life stuff. However, I answered your question but I have no idea what it has to do with the ridiculous suggestion that High Sec is hard done by because it's players don't vote. No amount of "voter outreach programs" will get people to vote if they don't care.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#524 - 2012-09-03 15:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
betoli wrote:
Are you serious? Missions... should require PVP fits not dedicated PVE fits so that people actually learn how to play. Mission AI? ? Boringness? Its only if your perspective is that missions are an intentional painful grind to make isk, that missions don't need love.


So when it comes to everything that's broken in eve, the only thing you can think of offhand that's broken is missions not requiring PVP fits?

As to how much of the CSM should be HS oriented, how many would it take, then? You have one representative which you guys've gotten in on it, which at least has claimed was going to work for a better hisec, how many more do you need?[/quote]

i have a lot of problems with this why should missions require pvp fits pve and pvp are 2 seperate things and missions that require pvp fits are called factional warfare.

as for csm being a blanket 100 of everyones views we should have a few null/lowhi sec representatives and the others to be made up from other aspects of the grame trader/manu factiorer ect personal dont totaly agree with this but this is only way that everyone would be happy.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#525 - 2012-09-03 15:36:53 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
No amount of "voter outreach programs" will get people to vote if they don't care.

It also helps voter turnout if the Highsec candidates stop acting like they have schizoaffective disorder, or tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#526 - 2012-09-03 15:39:15 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Yes that is possible and it is also possible more people will vote.

What's the likelihood?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#527 - 2012-09-03 15:40:22 UTC
serras bang wrote:
i have a lot of problems with this why should missions require pvp fits pve and pvp are 2 seperate things and missions that require pvp fits are called factional warfare.

Actually, it's called incursions.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#528 - 2012-09-03 16:12:16 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
Lord Zim wrote:
serras bang wrote:
i have a lot of problems with this why should missions require pvp fits pve and pvp are 2 seperate things and missions that require pvp fits are called factional warfare.

Actually, it's called incursions.


ok that also to a certian extent or rather its just a different setup obossed to the triditional missions.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#529 - 2012-09-03 17:33:40 UTC
serras bang wrote:
betoli wrote:
Are you serious? Missions... should require PVP fits not dedicated PVE fits so that people actually learn how to play. Mission AI? ? Boringness? Its only if your perspective is that missions are an intentional painful grind to make isk, that missions don't need love.


So when it comes to everything that's broken in eve, the only thing you can think of offhand that's broken is missions not requiring PVP fits?


Nope, you've quoted out of context - probably too much snippage. I answered 'whats wrong with missions, not whats wrong with eve.

serras bang wrote:

As to how much of the CSM should be HS oriented, how many would it take, then? You have one representative which you guys've gotten in on it, which at least has claimed was going to work for a better hisec, how many more do you need?


As I said above I'd leave that to CCP - they are the ones who need subscriptions and it should be their choice as to which of their customers they solicit interest from.

If it were me I would *start* by trying to make sure everything was represented by someone and see how it panned out. So I would split the 14 as 4 by geography (1 HS, 1 LS, 1 NS, 1 WH) and 4 by role (indy, pve, pvp, and CorporateIssues&Sov) and then have 6 floaters.

If it worked well, I'd bump numbers in important/popular areas and/or specific gameplay roles.

So depending on how you count that up.....

serras bang wrote:

i have a lot of problems with this why should missions require pvp fits pve and pvp are 2 seperate things and missions that require pvp fits are called factional warfare.


I don't want to get sidetracked into specific issues, there are plenty of other threads on this.

serras bang wrote:

as for csm being a blanket 100 of everyones views we should have a few null/lowhi sec representatives and the others to be made up from other aspects of the grame trader/manu factiorer ect


I quite agree.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#530 - 2012-09-03 17:44:50 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
serras bang wrote:
i have a lot of problems with this why should missions require pvp fits pve and pvp are 2 seperate things and missions that require pvp fits are called factional warfare.

Actually, it's called incursions.


Incursions are indeed better. Smile
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#531 - 2012-09-03 18:06:10 UTC
ERMAGERD TEH ENTERNEYT SPESSHIPS DUN HAS ENUFF REPRESNTSHUN

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#532 - 2012-09-03 19:09:23 UTC
not getting onto yah betoli but i never made half those quates pls dont miss quate me
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#533 - 2012-09-03 20:40:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
I still love the fact this is going on, and the argument seems to be:

1) There are 50% more high sec players as null sec players
2) There isn't enough high sec representation on the democratically elected CSM


??????


Go vote? I took a degree in politics, I've studying UK, European and American politics for about 5 years. I can argue with you till 2 in the morning about how you're basically complaining about something which is perfectly natural.

The minorities that are represented were elected because their players (voters) engage with the game. High Sec players by and large don't, because they tend to want the game to be their game and no-one else's. There are plenty of Null/Low Sec players who do that too, and I disagree with them, but they actually care enough to vote.


Go vote lol.

It seems that simple to you and me Inquisitor, because it IS that simple, because all we need for things to work out is oppurtunity.

Some people (in game and in real life) don't want oppurtunity, they want guranteed outcomes. So it doesn't matter to them that (for example) voting for csm or tanking their mining ship or flling their Tengu's EM hole, or being prepared for whatever an afk cloaker can bring ect ect is so ridiculasly easy as to take a few seconds and 2 or less braincells. No, what matters is that someone else , someone in power, should be fixing these things for them, because they want them means they must be right, of course.....

The people complaining about the csm and lack of high sec representation are relying on some powerful fallacy filled logic. They think that everyone in high sec is like them, this if more high sec people vote, high sec csm members will get elected and press their (un-eve-like) agenda.

They fail to realize that other people in high sec are not always like them, that some of those "awakened" high sec voters will STILL vote for null sec csm members because unlike the op and co, the awakened voter might not vote his/her "narrow interests", but instead might vote in favor of the established nature of the game.

Sometimes hate to bring real life into it, but recently a U.S. state had a recall election after a governor signed a law taking some power away from Labor Unions. The pro-union people were SURE they would win, but at the end of the day they found out that 37% of union house holds voted FOR the union busting governor, which put him over the top

The pro union people couldn't udnerstand that some people vote their BEILEFS and MORALITY rather than narrow political or material interests.

In other words OP, even if you did somehow succeed in getting ccp to somehow gerrymander the election process, that's no gurantee that the OUTCOME you want would even happen.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#534 - 2012-09-03 21:00:28 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Jenn aSide wrote:


In other words OP, even if you did somehow succeed in getting ccp to somehow gerrymander the election process, that's no gurantee that the OUTCOME you want would even happen.


The elections being a purely popular vote is already a Gerrymandering that favors Null SEC alliances.
CSMwas put into place because of the T40 scandal which was a NULL SEC scandle.
I see the current makeup as favoring NULL way too much & needs revamping.
I seriously doubt many HI SEC candidates would want the things I want in HI SEC but at leastwe'd see more input on things then the nerfs suggested here without Hi Sec representation on the CSM: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/09/03/reading-between-the-lines-high-sec-nerf/

How many other countries legislative groups have a pure popular vote? Pretty much none because it leads to bad one sided government. I recall CCCP had a pure popular vote but there was always only 1 person to vote for Straight
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#535 - 2012-09-03 21:37:58 UTC
betoli wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
serras bang wrote:
i have a lot of problems with this why should missions require pvp fits pve and pvp are 2 seperate things and missions that require pvp fits are called factional warfare.

Actually, it's called incursions.


Incursions are indeed better. Smile

And even after the nerf are still extremely overpowered as a means of highsec income.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#536 - 2012-09-03 21:42:17 UTC
serras bang wrote:
not getting onto yah betoli but i never made half those quates pls dont miss quate me

You misquoted me, apparently.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#537 - 2012-09-03 22:07:39 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


In other words OP, even if you did somehow succeed in getting ccp to somehow gerrymander the election process, that's no gurantee that the OUTCOME you want would even happen.


The elections being a purely popular vote is already a Gerrymandering that favors Null SEC alliances.
CSMwas put into place because of the T40 scandal which was a NULL SEC scandle.
I see the current makeup as favoring NULL way too much & needs revamping.
I seriously doubt many HI SEC candidates would want the things I want in HI SEC but at leastwe'd see more input on things then the nerfs suggested here without Hi Sec representation on the CSM: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/09/03/reading-between-the-lines-high-sec-nerf/

How many other countries legislative groups have a pure popular vote? Pretty much none because it leads to bad one sided government. I recall CCCP had a pure popular vote but there was always only 1 person to vote for Straight


In other words, the problem is democracy. I see.

How is a "purely popular vote" favoring null sec?

More to the point, why in hell does anyone thing the most protected and coddled space in the game needs input? high sec serves a purpose (it's a compromise to keep the game going through the subs of those who want to sub but don't like the player driven gameplay that is at the heart of EVE), but it's simply not the most important place in the game.

There is a reason you don't see ccp making vids about mission running or mining, but rather epic PLAYER battles. If anything, a "gerrymandered" voting scheme for EVE should favor the makers of content (aka pvp'rs and empire builders).
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#538 - 2012-09-03 22:24:34 UTC
serras bang wrote:
not getting onto yah betoli but i never made half those quates pls dont miss quate me


apols - though looks like the quoting was ****** up before I got there!
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#539 - 2012-09-03 22:41:04 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

More to the point, why in hell does anyone thing the most protected and coddled space in the game needs input?


As with everyone else, you assume 'input' means buffing income and preventing conflict.... It does not.

Jenn aSide wrote:

high sec serves a purpose (it's a compromise to keep the game going through the subs of those who want to sub but don't like the player driven gameplay that is at the heart of EVE), but it's simply not the most important place in the game.


To 60% of the player base it is. Does it occur that if those 60% went to low/null/wh the game might be better? That the churn players who play for 6 months then quit in boredom and frustration staying would make the game better? That without those 60% the economy would probably not function? That even the null seccers depend on it on a day to day basis? That actually player created content does exist in high sec? That actually just actually representing highsec players also entails representing highsec players who want to progress out of highsec?

Jenn aSide wrote:

There is a reason you don't see ccp making vids about mission running or mining, but rather epic PLAYER battles. If anything, a "gerrymandered" voting scheme for EVE should favor the makers of content (aka pvp'rs and empire builders).


No I'm not surprised they don't make vids there - they would be shockingly dull. That doesn't pove the point you wish it to, quite the opposite.

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#540 - 2012-09-03 22:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
betoli wrote:


Jenn aSide wrote:

There is a reason you don't see ccp making vids about mission running or mining, but rather epic PLAYER battles. If anything, a "gerrymandered" voting scheme for EVE should favor the makers of content (aka pvp'rs and empire builders).


No I'm not surprised they don't make vids there - they would be shockingly dull. That doesn't pove the point you wish it to, quite the opposite.



The problem is with PvE being such a grind for the most part. I'm glad to see FW complexes getting Sleeper AI's
HI/LO/NULL SEC Anoms with DED of 4+ with Sleeper AI's should be considered too (WH's already have them but they too probablycould use some new anom lov ). Level 5's were group mission & got pulled ou of HI & this further destroyed much of the cohesion of group fleets until Incursions came along. Now we see NULL peeps pushing to throw Incursions ( the only group PvE available now in HI ) out of Hi SEC into NULL just like level 5's

I beleive a HI SEC rep would push for such an improved mission agenda. I think CSM7 only mention missions in passing ( or did I miss a paragraph about mission grinding in all 200 pages? ) And CSM7 cheered on the decimation of incursions until CCP Soundwave pointed out that many ships do die no matter what the forum trolls say there is risk in Incursions in HI lo & null.

So my point is PvE would more likely be pushed by a HI CSM comprised of 90% spacerich, Null Alliance members
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'