Jita Park Speakers Corner

Perhaps adding a specific purpose to each of the positions would go a long way to making the current system work for us better. Ultimately voting, by nature, is a majority rule system so there is really no reason to not keep the actual voting mechanic the somewhat the same.

CCP could specify each slot in the counsel for a specific gameplay archetype (examples include: Null Sec, Low Sec, High Sec, Wormholes, PvE, PvP, Industry, Role Play, etc) they are looking to have represented. You can ideally have as many CSM members as you would need and could also combine similar or related gameplay archetypes into a single candidacy slot (e.g.; Low Sec, Piracy, and Factional Warfare) to keep the overall slot numbers down. Each voter will vote for each candidacy slot based on who they think will fit best. Ideally this would also funnel CSM feedback and ideas to the proper channels post election.

Example guidelines for candidacy
- Candidates can only run for a single counsel slot.
- Only X amount of members from the same Alliance/Corporation can be on the ballad in any given slot.
- Only X amount of members from the same Alliance/Corporation can be on the counsel in any given slot.
- Each candidacy slot ballad will only have a maximum of X candidates.
- Candidates must prove that their knowledge, experience, and presence will add value to the counsel. (Example: Candidates must create some sort of work that could be approved by the current counsel, CCP, or a third party.)
- Only the top X number of players voted in go to Iceland and the rest attend via remote conference.

With this you could have an alternate for each position based on votes. In a case where the alternate would breach any of the candidacy guidelines above (specifically but not limited to the one regarding "Only X amount of members from the same Alliance/Corporation can be on the given counsel in any given slot" and any others that are ironed out after the system is iterated on) you would move to the next person as an alternate.

This would alleviate the potential for a single bloc to "Own" the entire counsel but still give them a well deserved presence on it as most large entities have what can be considered "SMEs" in most gameplay archetypes available in EVE Online (Like it or not, the truth is that these large entities form the core of most of the emergent gameplay seen in Eve Online as well as the core of what makes Eve Online, Eve Online). This allows for the elected to represent an area that is transparent to those he is representing and also provides a focal point to the person elected.

Granted this is a very basic and raw example of what could become solid building blocks making an already great CSM system better. I purposely left it as basic and vague as possible because it’s honestly not worth anyone putting a ton of capital in until the system is selected by someone who knows what they are doing to iterate on.

No, that's not me blaming the messenger, that's what people in hisec are saying today. And, that's with a return to a CSM with representatives from almost (if not all) walks of EVE, as opposed to what CSM6 was.

i think they do tbh i mean if there there to represent the people then the people should know essential as ive said in the previous descusion a diffeerent way of voting would be nice but you have to push it in the faces of people. i know many new people that know nothing of it and 6 year old chars that still know nothing about it.

there has to be something big and eye catching and something so that people will want to click on it and read about the candidates.

i also still say haveing at least 1 chair (preferably 2) for each space i.e hi/low/null and wormhole would give a bassis of getting as many views as possible.

i do not think that candidates themselves should every have control of peoples votes either people pick a set number of candidates and if none get through there vote isnt counted or they do one and if that guy dont get through there vote isnt counted there and then.

Yes. This is called Democracy. There is no realistic voting system that will prevent large "organised groups" from getting seats, and it's not clear to me why you'd want to disenfrancise large organised groups, either. If 10000 players want this guy elected, why shouldn't he be elected? Why should their votes mean less just because there's more of them?

The only way that you're going to prevent organisations like the CFC from getting a CSM rep is to advocate that CCP directly choose CSM reps without going through a player voting process.

What you need to understand is that the current system is pretty much the least friendly to large voting blocs, because it's not a "first past the post" system; it's a "first 14 past the post" system. That means that large voting blocs will spend a disproportionate amount of their votes on a candidate (mittens' 10,000 votes would have been enough to elect 3 candidates instead of 1). As soon as you start introducing reserved seats, then you are opening the door for the system to be more efficiently gamed, and who do you think will be most effective at doing that? What do you suggest CCP if the "Hi sec mission CSM Rep" reveals that "hahah I am a goon alt trololol" immediately after he gets elected? Do you think it is a good idea for CCP to disqualify CSMs merely based on which alliance they belong to?

- How do you know that most of the CSM does't belong to the same bloc to begin with?
- CCP. the CSM, or a third party can help with screening the candidates not the voters. The consequences of candidates screwing with the CSM can be pretty severe.
- Answered previously, but yes...everyone gets to vote for every slot.
- Restrictions aren't placed on the voters. Restrictions are placed on the candidates.

How do you screen a character who's in a 1-man corp and paid for with PLEX?

If everyone gets to vote for every slot, then surely the big organised voting bloc will easily win every slot with its candidate of choice. Don't forget that every alliance has at least dozens of players who maintain empire alts with (deliberately) no obvious connection to their "REAL" alliance.

All you're doing is replacing the one "14th past the post" election, which any bloc will struggle to get more than 1 place in and certainly can't get all of them, with 14 "First past the post" which will be trivially easy for the CFC to win every one. Do you seriously think that the CFC don't have some highly skilled industrialists, incursioners, missioners, etc etc within their out-of-alliance ranks?

I mean if that's what you want, fine, but you should maybe consider the consequences.

The same way you screen any other character. The plex came from somewhere. The connection used to register the account, buy the plex, transfer the plex, connect to the game, post on the forums, register as a candidate, vote on a candidate.

I honestly done care what bloc the CSM counsel serves from as long as they know about the subject they are representing. And yes, the bigger entities will have more organized voting power, but that's the way voting works. The thing is, that the votes will be focused on a per slot basis and not spread out between 50 people that want to run. Sure the nullsec guys might get a large number of votes for a person, but if the entirety of the rest of the voters want someone in they will have the ability to field more votes than a bloc could and focus them into more meaningful choices.

And I doubt your ignorant enough to think that consequences weren't considered. As stated in the original post, it was mainly just an idea to be discussed and hardly an end all solution.



That was the point of the response. If people want to get all Mel Gibson on the subject than where do the current CSM members REALLY stand?

Let's imagine how the elections will work under an artifiical 'categorical' divide of seats

"Well the nullsec slot is filled by the CFC guy, so I guess that leaves UAXdeath and the thousands of voters in the EVE Russian community out of luck. But there's an empty seat in the 'Roleplay' seat so let's welcome back CSM Jade Constantine"
"Well there's only one ship balancing seat and two candidates (Seleene and Elise Randolph), but there's an empty seat in Incarna so goodbye Elise Randolph, hello CSM Xenuria."

Assuming that the now much lower voting threshhold for specific chairs isn't gamed somehow by something nefarious like 'strategic voting'. This you see is the ideal 'categorical voting' situation.

Even this assumes that CCP wouldn't choose Mittens, or say Aryth, or corestwo, on the merits. After all, if you're playing (and occasionally, breaking) the game at that level, you probably have some insight that CCP would be interested in hearing.

As long as they aren't the only voice on CSM, having at least one large nullsec alliance rep is Working As Intended: They're a significant part of the game, and they should have a voice.

What highsec residents need to understand is that, while there is an overarching contempt of highsec residents, as a justification for putting up with the additional @*(%)@#$ of life in sov null, the engine that fuels it is precisely the dependence that nullsec alliances have on highsec particularly and Empire generally. They see it as a teat that they resent having to suckle, that they would like to be weaned from--particularly when their reds are taking advantage of it. Since they "have" to suckle the highsec teat because true independence would put them at a stark competitive disadvantage, the ready solution becomes "nerf highsec!" So whenever I see that, I read "buff nullsec!" or "fix nullsec!" which both mean the same thing, more or less.

yeah, you probably want the guys who are best at breaking stuff under NDAs and giving you the info on the broken stuff before it goes live, in neat math form that explains just how hilariously broken it is