These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Last thread about CSM was closed for not being constructive... Take 2 on the CSM
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#21 - 2011-12-04 20:54:55 UTC
STV only works with broad, multi-district nationalities with an elected parliament and separated Executive. The CSM has no executive and only has a single district ("the game").

The CSM is a group representing the voices of the people playing the game to CCP, but has ABSOLUTELY no control over what is actually implemented or not. Stop treating it like its a ****ing "absolute decision maker" and treat it as it truly is.

And lastly, if PVE players want someone on the CSM to represent their interests, they damn well need to get off their lazy butts and put up a campaign and turn out their own constituents. This is how the nullsec and lowsec players get representation, not because the odds are favored against PVE content. Stop siting their mindlessly chewing through missions for every scrap of ISK you can muster and actually GET OUT AND VOICE YOUR OPINION if you want something.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#22 - 2011-12-04 21:01:19 UTC
Lykouleon wrote:
Stop siting their mindlessly chewing through missions for every scrap of ISK you can muster and actually GET OUT AND VOICE YOUR OPINION if you want something.

…and thus we have arrived at the reason why they are not being represented. Blink
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#23 - 2011-12-04 21:11:49 UTC
If the CSM only represents 15% of the players, that alone will discourage everyone else from messing into that 15%'s business.

Which apparently is what some posters here pretend by blaming the abstentionists of their own abstention and refuse to provide them an incentive to vote. "This is not your game because you refuse to play it our way ", does that sound familiar?

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Ai Shun
#24 - 2011-12-04 21:12:18 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
But I am quite sure that if someone told you that in his country they have a democracy yet 85% of the population never votes, you would be left wondering what kind of democracy is that...


A real one.

Everyone in the country had the opportunity to vote. 85% of them chose not to.

They exercised their democratic right not to vote and were happy to delegate that responsibility to the 15% that cared enough to vote.

Maybe you need to discover a platform, stand for it and see if you can convince any of those 85% to vote for you?

Then it would be a real democracy at work, rather than your "forced at gunpoint to vote" one.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-12-04 21:21:11 UTC
I love threads touting democracy by people who fundamentally misunderstand human behavior. I blame the autism spectrum.

STV is the absolute dream of nullsec blocs. With shared lists and deals cut to place each other's candidates in a ranked order on their tickets, blocs can ensure that no vote is wasted. People suggesting STV as a solution to ending bloc votes are advocating for the very thing that will make it easier for blocs. (Thanks, by the way!)

No one should be forced to vote. I'm not voting in the American presidential election in 2012 as I think elections beyond state/local level are utterly corrupt and I refuse to give some sheen of democratic legitimacy to the system by voting. That's my choice.

A lot more people will vote in CSM7 now that CSM6 has proved to all but the most bitter minority how critical the CSM is. Grand proposals to increase turnout don't matter much; what matters is an effective CSM..

~hi~
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2011-12-04 21:23:52 UTC
I'll note for everyone unaware that the OP is also a vehement pro-Incarna, anti-FiS forum troll, who wants more items in the NeX and more wandering around with pretty avatars at the expense of spaceships.

~hi~
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
#27 - 2011-12-04 21:25:36 UTC
I support compulsory voting in RL, but not in EVE.
- You cant force people to vote as they dont have to logon.
- Forcing people to do stuff is not fun.

Also, democracy leads to people playing politics, 0.0 are more organized and tight knit, it should be expected that they would have an advantage.

The challenge is there for the unorganized majority to do better, like some high sec supporters form an informal "party" and all stand behind one candidate rather than spreading the votes so thin.

Also, I think a preferential voting system would be better.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#28 - 2011-12-04 21:28:32 UTC
Ai Shun wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
But I am quite sure that if someone told you that in his country they have a democracy yet 85% of the population never votes, you would be left wondering what kind of democracy is that...


A real one.

Everyone in the country had the opportunity to vote. 85% of them chose not to.

They exercised their democratic right not to vote and were happy to delegate that responsibility to the 15% that cared enough to vote.

Maybe you need to discover a platform, stand for it and see if you can convince any of those 85% to vote for you?

Then it would be a real democracy at work, rather than your "forced at gunpoint to vote" one.



I will not discuss politics with you here, but I want to note that 10 out of 30 members of the OECD do have compulsory vote, being Australia an instance culturally close to you. Compulsory vote is not anti-democratic, rather is a solution that some democracies undertake when they face an abstentionist crisis and/or try to build a democracy to replace a non-democratical background.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Rocketman2
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-12-04 21:28:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rocketman2
The Mittani wrote:
I'll note for everyone unaware that the OP is also a vehement pro-Incarna, anti-FiS forum troll, who wants more items in the NeX and more wandering around with pretty avatars at the expense of spaceships.




/thread
Ai Shun
#30 - 2011-12-04 21:29:30 UTC
Ten Bulls wrote:
I support compulsory voting in RL


I'm curious. Why do you support this?

Asking because to a point, I do too, but only if the ballot paper had an option for "None of the above" in the cases where I don't find myself agreeing with the policies of any candidate.

Currently the only way to cast a no-confidence vote is either through a spoiled ballot or by not voting.


Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#31 - 2011-12-04 21:32:28 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
I'll note for everyone unaware that the OP is also a vehement pro-Incarna, anti-FiS forum troll, who wants more items in the NeX and more wandering around with pretty avatars at the expense of spaceships.



Wow, an ad-hominem AND a straw man fallacies from The Mittani himself. I feel honored.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Ai Shun
#32 - 2011-12-04 21:33:15 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
I will not discuss politics with you here, but I want to note that 10 out of 30 members of the OECD do have compulsory vote, being Australia an instance culturally close to you. Compulsory vote is not anti-democratic, rather is a solution that some democracies undertake when they face an abstentionist crisis and/or try to build a democracy to replace a non-democratical background.


You are discussing politics; namely those around the CSM elections. What is wrong with abstaining from a vote? If somebody is not motivated enough that is their choice. There is no need to remove that choice within the context of EVE Online.

Again.

Why are you not building a platform, campaigning and standing to be elected to the CSM?

Why are you not exercising your democratic rights within the context of EVE Online?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2011-12-04 21:35:57 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Roosterton wrote:

CSM already does represent every player who cares enough to be represented. ...


I don't think soo...


Well you're wrong

70% of the people who cared enough to spend 30 seconds clicking a button voted for a CSM rep who got elected. That's incredibly representative by RL standards.


All current the hurtte-butte about the CSM is based one one simple principle:

All the people who were "too cool to be fooled" into voting for the CSM have now seen that it does have an effect and it does matter who gets elected and they're bawwing like crazy because they want a slice of the pie. Or, more often, because they're desperately worried that next election, too many nasty dirty proles will have the insolence to once again vote for the wrong flavour of pie.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2011-12-04 21:37:46 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Which apparently is what some posters here pretend by blaming the abstentionists of their own abstention
Ugh Are you for real?!
Who else is to blame for their choice but themselves?

If they have no incentive to vote, why should anyone else provide them with one? Or, put another way, if you cannot provide them with an incentive to vote, why are you so surprised that they are not voting the way you'd like to see them vote? After all, those who did vote found an incentive to do so, cheered on by those they voted for. Again, the problem is that no-one in that group can be arsed to actually get involved and raise enough votes to get onto the council. That is no-one else's problem but their own.
Quote:
"This is not your game because you refuse to play it our way ", does that sound familiar?
Sure does. It is not what's at play here, though. What's at play here is “you are not representing me, so waaaah! (but for the love of god do not ask me to actually get involved in getting represented)”.

The problem here is you. You refuse to campaign for what you believe in. You refuse to gather the pitiful number of votes needed to get a seat. You are unable to raise awareness of the issue you're seeing and by doing so you are failing to provide an incentive to vote to those who currently aren't… hell, you're probably disincentivising them with your whinging.
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#35 - 2011-12-04 21:38:52 UTC
I think more people would participate if they allowed negative voting. Here's how it would work:

You get 1 vote per account that is currently active and that has been active for at least 6 months in total.

You can vote once for or against any single candidate. (Not both.)
Arjola Elongur
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2011-12-04 21:49:35 UTC
I'm pretty sure there will be a much higher participation rate in the next election.
After all the highsec dwellers will try to prevent another "nullsec CSM". Big smile
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#37 - 2011-12-04 21:54:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Roosterton wrote:

CSM already does represent every player who cares enough to be represented. ...


I don't think soo...


Well you're wrong

70% of the people who cared enough to spend 30 seconds clicking a button voted for a CSM rep who got elected. That's incredibly representative by RL standards.


All current the hurtte-butte about the CSM is based one one simple principle:

All the people who were "too cool to be fooled" into voting for the CSM have now seen that it does have an effect and it does matter who gets elected and they're bawwing like crazy because they want a slice of the pie. Or, more often, because they're desperately worried that next election, too many nasty dirty proles will have the insolence to once again vote for the wrong flavour of pie.



Wow, you're high on prejudices. I voted the current CSM with two accounts and my candidate was elected.

And so far here the only ones objecting that proles vote by being forced to are not on my gang, rather they are perfectly happy with a system were proles are to blame for not voting the nullsec overlords currently hotlined to Reyjkavik.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Ai Shun
#38 - 2011-12-04 21:56:55 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Wow, you're high on prejudices. I voted the current CSM with two accounts and my candidate was elected.


So the system works?

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
And so far here the only ones objecting that proles vote by being forced to are not on my gang, rather they are perfectly happy with a system were proles are to blame for not voting the nullsec overlords currently hotlined to Reyjkavik.


Yes, the system works. The people who wanted a voice at CCP got one. The ones who didn't care did not get one. This seems like everything is fine.

So what was the purpose of this thread again?
Ayianapa
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#39 - 2011-12-04 22:11:17 UTC
add a voting option "Disband CSM"
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#40 - 2011-12-04 22:12:27 UTC
Before throwing around ideas of forcing people to vote (when forcing people to do something is a very quick way for a game like Eve to lose customers), and before assuming that "85%" of the player base doesn't care to vote, would it be possible at all to get solid data on how many active unique players in Eve actually know that they *can* vote?

How many players join Eve and inundated with all the shiny of a new game totally miss the concept that they have a voice when it comes to what might be done with the game?

I do not support forced voting for something like Eve.
I would support an optional vote at the character select screen. Above or below the news feed on the right side of the select screen, you could place another box that has a list of current issues with simple yes/no radio button voting. Links could be provided to allow the users who want more info to view the related forum threads for more in-depth information on what they are voting on.

It is non-intrusive and doesn't force the players to do anything, but gets the issues in front of the players. It can be ignored or read as easily as the news feed. It allows for the players to vote for people running for CSM at that particular election time, and also allows the CSM to have guidance over which issues are presented to the players for vote.

Profit favors the prepared