These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So what happens if we feel the CSM does not represent us?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#21 - 2011-09-07 06:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Steph Wing
Flamespar wrote:
Can we, the players that they claim to represent, ask them to step down?


You can ask, but they don't have to listen. They were elected by a majority after all. This is how elections work.

Don't want them to be on the CSM next year? Elect somebody else.
Ezeria Mistanta
House Of Serenity.
#22 - 2011-09-07 06:35:59 UTC
The Republic Majority in the US congress doesn't really represent me or my interest.... Representative Democracy works this way..
Flamespar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-09-07 06:38:07 UTC
Steph Wing wrote:
Flamespar wrote:
Can we, the players that they claim to represent, ask them to step down?


You can ask, but they don't have to listen. They were elected by a minority after all. This is how elections work.

Don't want them to be on the CSM next year? Elect somebody else.


Corrected for you. From memory somewhere between 10-15% of players voted. Which is a minority.
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#24 - 2011-09-07 06:51:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Steph Wing
Flamespar wrote:
Corrected for you. From memory somewhere between 10-15% of players voted. Which is a minority.


A minority of players may have voted, but how can you expect your views to be represented if you don't vote? I honestly don't understand this view that somehow, even if you don't vote, your vote should somehow be magically counted anyway by some kind of mind-reading electoral ballot. If you don't exercise your right to vote, you forfeit it. It's that simple. Don't want Mittens to be CSM? Then get off your lazy ass and vote for somebody else.

Of the players who voted, the CSM held a majority. Of the players who didn't vote, well, those players didn't vote, so their votes don't count.
Flamespar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-09-07 06:53:42 UTC
Steph Wing wrote:
A minority of players may have voted, but how can you expect your views to be represented if you don't vote? I honestly don't understand this view that somehow, even if you don't vote, your vote should somehow be magically counted anyway by some kind of mind-reading electoral ballot. If you don't exercise your right to vote, you forfeit it. It's that simple. Don't want Mittens to be CSM? Then get off your lazy ass and vote for somebody else.


Never said I didn't vote. But the point is, what can we do if those people have been voted in let their power and influence go to their head?
BLACK-STAR
#26 - 2011-09-07 06:56:36 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
Never said I didn't vote. But the point is, what can we do if those people have been voted in let their power and influence go to their head?

you seriously have no idea what you're talking about ... do you?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2011-09-07 06:56:43 UTC
yes, how do we curtail the godlike powers that the CSM are imbued with?
Flamespar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2011-09-07 06:58:48 UTC
BLACK-STAR wrote:
Flamespar wrote:
Never said I didn't vote. But the point is, what can we do if those people have been voted in let their power and influence go to their head?

you seriously have no idea what you're talking about ... do you?


Whoops, I meant to include a line about how it is a question you can ask of any political process.
Jita Alt666
#29 - 2011-09-07 07:05:04 UTC
I suggest the OP does some reading on political systems. Democracy is the best system humanity has managed to put into practise. One of the side effects is that if you don't like the results you have very options other than to attempt to ensure the results are different next time.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2011-09-07 07:07:09 UTC
I for one would prefer a system where I can blame the attack on the Jita Monument on the CSM and seize power as Chancellor for the greater good.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#31 - 2011-09-07 07:09:08 UTC
A second thread about this. No wonder Jita and Nic and so worked up. Big smile

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jita Alt666
#32 - 2011-09-07 07:10:45 UTC
Just doing our bit to educate the ignorant masses.
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#33 - 2011-09-07 07:13:02 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
Whoops, I meant to include a line about how it is a question you can ask of any political process.


Ah, now that's a different question.

Real world politicians can be impeaced, if they actually break any laws while in office. They can also resign from office under political pressure, usually following the publication of something embarassing that they didn't want to get out. Otherwise, when the people who elected you say "Stop doing such-and-such or we won't vote for you in the next election" is usually a pretty solid tactic that elected officials respect. They have to; if they didn't they'd be out of a job.

Of course, the CSM is different from real-world politicians. Notably, they don't actually have any power. They're an oversight comittee, or they are in theory, but let's not get into that. The best way to get a CSM member to resign would be to the second or third method mentioned above, since there is very little power for them to actually abuse.
Flamespar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-09-07 07:35:21 UTC
Steph Wing wrote:
, since there is very little power for them to actually abuse.


Which then begs the question. Why have a CSM? Lol

But I do think CSM has influence, hence why I'd rather use it responsibly and thoughtfully rather than mouthing off some poorly articulated arguments at the media.

To be clear, I'm not anti-CSM. I am specifically not happy with the Mittani's behaviour.
Jita Alt666
#35 - 2011-09-07 07:38:51 UTC
Exactly what about the Mittani's recent behaviour are you not happy about?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2011-09-07 07:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Flamespar wrote:
Steph Wing wrote:
, since there is very little power for them to actually abuse.


Which then begs the question. Why have a CSM? Lol

The CSM was created by CCP intended to be a PR tool to smooth a fiasco where developers were caught favoring a null alliance and Goons threatened to unsub en masse unless something was done. It is intended to assure customer confidence in CCP's product through an elected consumer advocacy board. This is also likely why null players vote in far greater numbers over the CSM then the rest of the eve player base.

However, CCP has began to act as if that the CSM is a PR tool whose purpose is to promote CCP's ventures; while Mittani's declaration is proving that the CSM can just as easily be used to generate negative PR if CCP forces its hand.
The Old Chap
Doomheim
#37 - 2011-09-07 08:03:12 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Flamespar wrote:
Steph Wing wrote:
, since there is very little power for them to actually abuse.


Which then begs the question. Why have a CSM? Lol

The CSM was created by CCP intended to be a PR tool to smooth a fiasco where developers were caught favoring a null alliance and Goons threatened to unsub en masse unless something was done. It is intended to assure customer confidence in CCP's product through an elected consumer advocacy board. This is also likely why null players vote in far greater numbers over the CSM then the rest of the eve player base.

However, CCP has began to act as if that the CSM is a PR tool whose purpose is to promote CCP's ventures; while Mittani's declaration is proving that the CSM can just as easily be used to generate negative PR if CCP forces its hand.


Problem is that the large nullsec alliances can wield a big block vote, and take over the CSM just like they can own nullsec in-game. Other players are in a majority but their votes are spread over other candidates... weren't there about 50 last time?

Maybe the CSM voting system should only allow one toon to stand from each alliance, and only allow main characters to stand, the one with the most SP's on an account?

Look into my eyes...   and tighten that sphincter, kid.
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2011-09-07 08:05:23 UTC
The CSM was never to represent you. I know its sold that way but its PR.

Their only real function is to be a firewall between players and management. Remember the CSM does not make management decisions. They are only asked if this or that is better when consulted and only consulted on what CCP chooses to consult them on.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2011-09-07 08:09:19 UTC
The Old Chap wrote:
Problem is that the large nullsec alliances can wield a big block vote, and take over the CSM just like they can own nullsec in-game. Other players are in a majority but their votes are spread over other candidates... weren't there about 50 last time?

Maybe the CSM voting system should only allow one toon to stand from each alliance, and only allow main characters to stand, the one with the most SP's on an account?

There's really no way to stop people from forming political parties with shared goals based on mutual self-interest.
If you figure one out pass it on to Syria quick.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#40 - 2011-09-07 08:11:27 UTC
Steph Wing wrote:
Flamespar wrote:
Can we, the players that they claim to represent, ask them to step down?


You can ask, but they don't have to listen. They were elected by a majority after all. This is how elections work.




ah ha! sarcasm! good one.

iven as far as Ive seen/heard the only majority these guys were voted in my was Goon majority.

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.