Jita Park Speakers Corner

Since half of those "representation discussions" were about skewing the voting system so that ~hi sec players~ got ~hi-sec candidates~ and not ~evil goons~ on the CSM then No - we shouldn't open the book again.

Goons aren't "manipulating the electorate" any more than I am by shiptoasting in bad threads. If somebody thinks that the Mysterious Illuminati of goonswarm leadership, the secret leaders of PL, or the high command of CVA can somehow force members of those respective player groups to vote for candidate A, then I cant help them.

Maybe you should answer Malcanis' points too.

So you opt out of replying to Malcanis by saying you "don't want to discuss democratic political theory" - in a thread that you started, with the purpose of debating how you think a group of people are manipulating a political process i.e. discussing democratic political theory.

I point out to you that a group of people acting in similar ways doesn't mean there's any ~conspiracy~ to manipulate a political process and this is just how democracy and people work i.e. There's no "enforced representation" going on here - and you say that I'm the one missing the point

Yeah, you're right - I have no f**ing idea what it is that you're trying to say here.

guys guys guys, people voting in an election is a manipulation

(assuming you don't like them, and there's more of them than you)

The irony of Grumpy Owly accusing others of manipulating the ~electorate~ while having a "stop CSM apathy" blog trying to do exactly what he is outlining does not escape me.

all GOONS are forced to get vaKKKcinated when they join by the enforcement directive in addition to a "security" deposit which is spend on ships for the directors. not for DISEASE which the vakkkcines actually CAUSE, but for CONTROL OF VOTES with advanced computer algorithms perfected by the mayans.

Also, for future reference, posting is the only goon tactic.

Also to add to the conspiracist- Just add raising CCP pay to the platform, and magically you make chairman. Also make real life political donations to iceland politics to make it better for businesses.

If I understand the OP's 'logic' correctly, it seems that he has a problem with an alliance's leadership explicitly telling the line members to "Vote for this guy." It would seem that he would prefer it is alliances just encouraged their people to vote without any recommendations, or at least without any explicit directives. This would allow candidates who wouldn't otherwise be able to garner a broad base of appeal the opportunity to get elected on the strength of their good ideas.

I have to say that this sounds like a really good idea until you think it. On the surface, it would seem to support candidates with good ideas, but without any particular influence with organized demographics (ie, alliances). The OP would have us believe that bloc-voting denies these lesser-known "idea" candidates a) exist and b) have such good ideas that they can't help but enrich the CSM as a player advocacy group.

The OP assumes "good ideas" are something a successful CSM candidate simply must have to better support their constituents. This is incorrect for several reasons, not least of all the fact that this method of CSM election was already tried, with craptacular results. Besides, if the CSM need ideas, they need only solicit them from the community. There's a whole forum just for this sort of thing. That someone with a really great idea for improving wormhole mechanics isn't going to withhold his ideas until he gets elected to the CSM. He spent time working on them and he's damned sure going to share them.

I've never been on the CSM, but I've paid enough attention to know that CCP doesn't come to the CSM delegates and ask "what do you think we should do to fix ________?" They come to the CSM delegates and say, "we're thinking of doing _________. What do you think?" It is for this reason that we need to elect organized, politically-minded critical thinkers who are able to take the dev team's ideas and improve upon them or - in some cases - explain why their implementation would be a bad thing for Eve in such a way that the dev team actually listens and agrees with the CSM.

In my mind, the successful CSM candidate:

Has the critical thinking skills to properly evaluate ideas brought up by CCP or community members.

Has the ability to persuade others that his/her evaluation is accurate.

Is organized enough to follow community discussions, both to solicit new ideas, gather feedback on existing gameplay mechanics and evaluate both for consistency and relevancy without getting bogged down in the chaos that are the forums.

Genuinely enjoys doing the job, to minimize the chances that they burn out.

Is it any wonder that bloc-level leaders in Eve find themselves uniquely suited to the role of CSM delegate? Is it any wonder that the people they already play Eve with - who know them to be intelligent, organized, charismatic and dedicated - endorce, campaign for and eventually vote for them?

TL;DR My impression of the OP: "Buhuu, you shouldn't tell people in your alliance to vote for a candiate, even if he's your CEO."

Interesting, 2 long winded campaign posts by Goons that have completley missed the point of the thread.

Please go on, turn this topic into a soap box if you like, but all your demonstrating is a misscomprehension to what is being talked about.

Any candidate can in fact legitimatley campaign how they wish (given CCPs guidance) in order to encourage people to vote for them. Be a pretty redundant and boring process without debate and discussion on the issues in trying to determine those things. So thankyou for defending those principles of democracy, it's encouraging to see.

The point laid out by this topic is to do with dictatting how people should exercise their vote and in this case is NOT atrributable to the Goon alliance anyhow, it was focussed towards other alliances. And as such was to do with trying to influence how others should exercise their voting.

And since we have had a number of debates about freedom to vote for who we choose, which is a common message echoed from the Goon community it was therefore a hypocritical view to take. And as such could be viewed as a double standard which could undermine the validity of that previous argument's platform for how the electorate system is supposed to work as a result.

The question that was posed that I found interesting is why is it so much of a potential problem for the Goons to all of a sudden attempt to discredit this freedom of voting as a result with their own interpretation which contradicts their previous position. However, the question was asked and confirmed not to be the case so, isn't an issue as I understand it? Unless of course your now saying you wish to retract those views and suggest that democratic freedoms should be curtailed.

At this stage I'll put it down to being drunk, as was remarked by one, or not understanding the points made, as seems the obvious interpretation based on comments.

Attempt at a shorter revised form about the thread to help with explanation:

Lets keep voting free and refrain from "dictating" how we should apply voter choice.

Obviously as part of election campaigning you are allowed if not encouraged to "inform" about candidacy positions to influence said voter choice.

We talked a lot about voting practices, models and free voting in a number of threads which supported the above idea in principal. And is consistent with CCP guidelines as set out in the CSM white paper.

As such to maintain the integrity of those views can we please respect democratic choices.