Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP. Bring forth unalienable geographic representation into the CSM selection process.
As an example:-
2 Highsec candidiates. 1 Lowsec candidate. 1 Wormhole candidate. 2 Nullsec candidiates. 1 Chairman Elect - non sector specific.
- Candidates must nominate their position in advance. - Chairman Elect is a declared position. - No candidate may stand for nor claim to represent more than one position. - Each candidate must reach out and identify issues within their sector to form the basis for their candidacy manifesto. - Maximum term of no more than 2 years.
Discussion points By it's very nature, such a system ensures sector candidates enjoy a standing opposition and cannot use their own sector benefits/strength to enhance/reduce the benefits of other sectors except:-
- Where members reach a consensus on an issue across all sectors. From this, CCP is to take that consensus as a given.
In deference to cross sector dissatisfaction:-
- Where sector A might disagree with changes sought by sector B then a debate on merits alone must be endured. There should not be change to a sector without a clear and unequivocable consensus.
This is open for discussion and whilst I accept the inevitable troll, the rationale behind this thread is one of concern for all players - the current CSM has suffered from percieved injustices bought about by an ingame idiosyncracy.
No blame. No shame. Discuss. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2829
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
you deleted your insane forum trolling alt and then re-made it, which is why you're back to 0 likes
cute The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Solstice Project
Cult of Personality
1329
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Second. Inappropriate signature removed. Spitfire |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:you deleted your insane forum trolling alt and then re-made it, which is why you're back to 0 likes
cute I'm still insane. I'm still an alt. I'm not trolling.
As for "likes". They are an abomination. I seek it's irrelevance. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
162
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
OMG its mittinz?!?!? is it him the Kwisatz Haderach!?!?!?!? :P die ingame.... |
Aiwha
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
123
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
So you'd have two nullsec candidates with several hundred votes, and two highsec candidates with four votes each.
Sounds fair guiz! Regards,
LCpl. Aiwha-á Senior Recruiter |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:So you'd have two nullsec candidates with several hundred votes, and two highsec candidates with four votes each.
Sounds fair guiz! Incorrect. The position itself is unalienable. The likelihood of a mere 4 votes per sector would be rather impossible when transferable preferences are taken into account (as has been suggested).
To ensure both pre-selection and re-election a candidate must stand and act with the interests of the sector he stands for as a priority.
Example:
The Mittani himself could stand for Highsec if he wished and be assured of hundreds of votes. Goons could easily do that - but by using their vote to do so - who would then vote for the Goons nullsec candidates? It will require a certain cleverness to win in more than one sector.
Under this scenario, with this unalienable right, Highsec will vote - if nothing more than to ensure The Mittani votes are wasted trying to win a seat he does not appeal to by voting for a different candidate.
Even further, The Mitanni could of course appeal to the Highsec electorate for preselection but he must also act favourably on their behalf to ensure reselection by the majority of highsec residents next time around.
Thus, your premise is wrong.
EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
558
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:The Mittani wrote:you deleted your insane forum trolling alt and then re-made it, which is why you're back to 0 likes
cute I'm still insane. I'm still an alt. I'm not trolling. As for "likes". They are an abomination. I seek it's irrelevance. I'm going to like every post I see of yours.
On topic, I don't think this will work. Most of HS doesn't vote, other than alts. The "carebears" tend to not even notice or care about the CSM.
As it stands, this still would not prevent someone from going in on a platform they never intend to follow. |
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
90
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:31:00 -
[9] - Quote
You obviously view high sec as being worth more than low sec and whiskey space. That's hardly good for the game since both need some work to improve them while high has a decent amount of love as it is. in other MMO's stupid people are annoying. In EVE they are a valuable resource /facebrick for those times when /facepalm just isn't enough
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
299
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:39:00 -
[10] - Quote
mains in one line, alts in another |
|
Nephilius
Grey Legionaires
308
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
I've proposed something similiar before, but more along the lines of 3 CSMs for Hisec, Losec, and Nulsec each. Abolish the chair, there should never be one elavted above another. It's a game, not American politics. As for WH space, all CSMs should have a say there, as WH generally abuts all regions and it can be a reflection of all three sections of Eve Space. Equal representation for all if this is implemented, and no one will have any excuse to make future posts on the forums concerning lack of misrepresentation. To stand before a man at an inquisition, knowing that he will rejoice when we die, knowing that he will commit us to the stake and its horrors without a moment's hesitation or remorse if we do not satisfy him, is not an experience much less cruel because our inquisitor does not whip us or rack us or shout at us. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:The Apostle wrote:The Mittani wrote:you deleted your insane forum trolling alt and then re-made it, which is why you're back to 0 likes
cute I'm still insane. I'm still an alt. I'm not trolling. As for "likes". They are an abomination. I seek it's irrelevance. I'm going to like every post I see of yours. On topic, I don't think this will work. Most of HS doesn't vote, other than alts. The "carebears" tend to not even notice or care about the CSM. As it stands, this still would not prevent someone from going in on a platform they never intend to follow. This is a fair comment but I'm convinced a large part of the "reason" why highsec doesn't vote is because of the - quite possibly incorrect assumption - of not being able to vote against the blocs. For them to have a guaranteed standing in the CSM should, by all intents and purposes, give them motivation.
Those that do care will be represented in their subsequent sectors irrespective of how many actually vote. It is then on the sector representatives to make their position an enviable one. There is certainly no harm in trying and if highsec still proves to be an obstinate and indifferent beast then on their head be it.
And by all means, any candidate can stand on a false premise just to get the airplane ride and a free steam bath but voters will show their dissatisfaction next time around. The dodgy highsec politcian will pay the ulitmate price - that of trust. He may well be able to stand on a lowsec/WH/0.0 ticket next time but sure as hell, he will not get the highsec ticket again.
It's the primary advantage of unalienable positions. You can only mess with the sector you intend to stand for once and once only.
And if you add the minimum of 2 candidates in the major sectors, even the charlatan will have to tread carefully lest he be found out. Maybe "impeachment" needs to be added to ensure loss of tenure between elections? Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
J Kunjeh
362
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:04:00 -
[13] - Quote
*Inalienable
Fixed that for ya. "The world as we know it came about through an anomaly (anomou)" (The Gospel of Philip, 1-5)-á |
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
435
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:I've proposed something similiar before, but more along the lines of 3 CSMs for Hisec, Losec, and Nulsec each. Abolish the chair, there should never be one elavted above another. It's a game, not American politics. As for WH space, all CSMs should have a say there, as WH generally abuts all regions and it can be a reflection of all three sections of Eve Space. Equal representation for all if this is implemented, and no one will have any excuse to make future posts on the forums concerning lack of misrepresentation.
Uhm, no. W-space is its own separate thing, and needs its own separate representation. You aren't qualified to speak on proper development direction regarding w-space if the sum total of your experience was 'i was in a wormhole once' - that's how we get awful ideas like wormhole stabilizers discussed with CCP .
regardless, this whole thread is a bit silly. All the 'big' powerbloc candidates would just try and work together and run in separate categories to ensure they all got elected anyway, so we'd have the exact same situation as we do now. |
Zirse
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
260
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:09:00 -
[15] - Quote
The Apostle wrote: Example:
The Mittani himself could stand for Highsec if he wished and be assured of hundreds of votes. Goons could easily do that - but by using their vote to do so - who would then vote for the Goons nullsec candidates? It will require a certain cleverness to win in more than one sector.
Under this scenario, with this unalienable right, Highsec will vote - if nothing more than to ensure The Mittani votes are wasted trying to win a seat he does not appeal to by voting for a different candidate.
So nullsec bloc A could run for highsec, bloc B could run for lowsec etc.
What we have today is virtually identical except the votes are divided along alliance lines rather than something dumb like an area you may or may not live in.
Not a good idea nor is the premise behind the idea well thought out either.
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:11:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nephilius wrote:I've proposed something similiar before, but more along the lines of 3 CSMs for Hisec, Losec, and Nulsec each. Abolish the chair, there should never be one elavted above another. It's a game, not American politics. As for WH space, all CSMs should have a say there, as WH generally abuts all regions and it can be a reflection of all three sections of Eve Space. Equal representation for all if this is implemented, and no one will have any excuse to make future posts on the forums concerning lack of misrepresentation. 3 CSM's would be diffcult to implement in that they must augment each other in this, a single shard universe.
And a chair is required in any committee to break stalemates and keep things on track.
However, I've emphasised it not being sector specific in that they cannot stand as a candidate for any particular sector if they chose to be chair. Their role is purely for the preservation of committee integrity and rest assured, the minutes will reflect any bias come next election. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Chaos Incarnate wrote:Nephilius wrote:I've proposed something similiar before, but more along the lines of 3 CSMs for Hisec, Losec, and Nulsec each. Abolish the chair, there should never be one elavted above another. It's a game, not American politics. As for WH space, all CSMs should have a say there, as WH generally abuts all regions and it can be a reflection of all three sections of Eve Space. Equal representation for all if this is implemented, and no one will have any excuse to make future posts on the forums concerning lack of misrepresentation. Uhm, no. W-space is its own separate thing, and needs its own separate representation. You aren't qualified to speak on proper development direction regarding w-space if the sum total of your experience was 'i was in a wormhole once' - that's how we get awful ideas like wormhole stabilizers discussed with CCP . regardless, this whole thread is a bit silly. All the 'big' powerbloc candidates would just try and work together and run in separate categories to ensure they all got elected anyway, so we'd have the exact same situation as we do now. WH is represented by at least one candidate. I'd prefer to see 2 for each sector but CCP have called for and it seems they are convinced that 7 is fine - that's a quorum. My view is that by having 2 candidates, both need to be united on a point so "stand-ins" are automatically opposed if they decide to be stupid about things.
But on the rest, you need to have a think about that statement. A split vote is a split vote. As it stands you vote for candidate X and he wins by an overall majority.
With this proposal, if you decide to get your "highsec rep" in then who is going to vote for your "nullsec rep"? More's the point, why would you risk your nullsec candidate to ensure you get in the highsec candidate?
I've said you'd need to be pretty clever to make such a move and get away with it. Sure, it's open to some fraudulent misadventure but it does make such an act very, very risky. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Jita Alt666
889
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
100 out of corp goon alts stand for high sec post diluting the pool to the point of ridiculousness. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
Zirse wrote: So nullsec bloc A could run for highsec, bloc B could run for lowsec etc.
What we have today is virtually identical except the votes are divided along alliance lines rather than something dumb like an area you may or may not live in.
Not a good idea nor is the premise behind the idea well thought out either.
Absolutely. But in my example, which you dropped in the quoting, if The Mittani DID run for highsec, he can't run for nullsec and "his" bloc vote is already split before he even starts.
But really, why would he stand for highsec in the first place? Making any representations for/against highsec to benefit Nullsec wouldn't be very effective way to manage Nullsec affairs now would it?
To be quite blunt, it's in Mittens best interests to try and secure BOTH Nullsec seats else who gets the second one may be a rather undesirable outcome?
Ask yourself, how far is the CFC prepared to go if they are forced to split their voting bloc?
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3072
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
.... short answer is no. Dont make me get a long answer.
|
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jita Alt666 wrote:100 out of corp goon alts stand for high sec post diluting the pool to the point of ridiculousness. Some alt is not going to be of particular relevance to gather the needed votes for preselection simply because splitting the votes to get him up (as it were ) you could risk other candidates.
Really, not much point advocating Nullsec changes from a Highsec position. Be pretty bloody obvious don't you think? Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:.... short answer is no. Dont make me get a long answer. From that I assume you're happy with the status quo. So be it.
My stance on this stems from the intrinsic risk to bloc voting this scheme entails. I expect opposition to same, understandably. But change is in the air, it's obvious. Voter dissatisfaction and apathy doesn't come from a working system.
Nonetheless, I'm not "siding" here, I've put this up for debate so your "long answer" is most welcomed. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Roosterton
Shattered Star Exiles SpaceMonkey's Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:46:00 -
[23] - Quote
Quote:My stance on this stems from the intrinsic risk to bloc voting this scheme entails. I expect opposition to same, understandably. But change is in the air, it's obvious. Voter dissatisfaction and apathy doesn't come from a working system.
What voter dissatisfaction? I still haven't seen any complaints with what the CSM has done apart from "they're all nullsec/goons/griefers!!!!!"
They're doing a great job, and if hisec can't be bothered to vote, then clearly most people think hisec is doing well as it is, so thus the candidates who get elected should be from nullsec, as people there evidently feel the need to improve it. |
Aiwha
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
124
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:Aiwha wrote:So you'd have two nullsec candidates with several hundred votes, and two highsec candidates with four votes each.
Sounds fair guiz! Incorrect. The position itself is unalienable. The likelihood of a mere 4 votes per sector would be rather impossible when transferable preferences are taken into account (as has been suggested). To ensure both pre-selection and re-election a candidate must stand and act with the interests of the sector he stands for as a priority. Example: The Mittani himself could stand for Highsec if he wished and be assured of hundreds of votes. Goons could easily do that - but by using their vote to do so - who would then vote for the Goons nullsec candidates? It will require a certain cleverness to win in more than one sector. Under this scenario, with this unalienable right, Highsec will vote - if nothing more than to ensure The Mittani votes are wasted trying to win a seat he does not appeal to by voting for a different candidate. Even further, The Mitanni could of course appeal to the Highsec electorate for preselection but he must also act favourably on their behalf to ensure reselection by the majority of highsec residents next time around. Thus, your premise is wrong. EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you.
Exactly. And all eight of the highsec bears who care about the CSM will vote. Regards,
LCpl. Aiwha-á Senior Recruiter |
Karadion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
376
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:02:00 -
[25] - Quote
Bad idea when you started typing. |
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
435
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:06:00 -
[26] - Quote
The Apostle wrote:WH is represented by at least one candidate. I'd prefer to see 2 for each sector but CCP have called for and it seems they are convinced that 7 is fine - that's a quorum. My view is that by having 2 candidates, both need to be united on a point so "stand-ins" are automatically opposed if they decide to be stupid about things.
i was referring to his specific idea that w-space is enough like other forms of space that it doesn't need its own representation. On that front, your idea is fine.
Quote:
But on the rest, you need to have a think about that statement. A split vote is a split vote. As it stands you vote for candidate X and he wins by an overall majority.
With this proposal, if you decide to get your "highsec rep" in then who is going to vote for your "nullsec rep"? More's the point, why would you risk your nullsec candidate to ensure you get in the highsec candidate?
I've said you'd need to be pretty clever to make such a move and get away with it. Sure, it's open to some fraudulent misadventure but it does make such an act very, very risky.
You're not understanding. What i'm saying is that there's nothing that prevents CSM candidates from different alliances/powerblocs from coordinating together and running in different categories so as to not directly compete with one another, which pretty much guarantees an entirely nullsec-based CSM (again), despite your attempt to fix it.
Granted, as it stands it's not very ideal either, but under yours they can just game the system even worse. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:14:00 -
[27] - Quote
Aiwha wrote:The Apostle wrote:
EDIT: Besides. If 4 is "the majority" in Highsec. What of it? You only need to make sure you get your candidate in where he best represents you.
Exactly. And all eight of the highsec bears who care about the CSM will vote. I'll disregard the obvious exaggeration but it still leaves the clear question why this bothers you? If all seats are represented regardless of vote, as is Lowsec and WH's, why would it matter how many voted for Highsec?
It's represented isn't it? So is "your" sector regardless of how many vote?
I mean, Highsec (like this will ever happen!) could get organised one day and actually win ALL CSM seats but we know Nullsec is not bothered by this because
1) They know it won't. 2) The current system still allows for 0.0 bloc voting and because it's not sector specific it's irrelevant "who" they're voting for so even if "Highsec" got in - they could still be all Nullseccers.
The scheme being presented would ROFLstomp this possibility. Simple maths will provide the neccessary proof of this.
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
Chaos Incarnate wrote:You're not understanding. What i'm saying is that there's nothing that prevents CSM candidates from different alliances/powerblocs from coordinating together and running in different categories so as to not directly compete with one another, which pretty much guarantees an entirely nullsec-based CSM (again), despite your attempt to fix it.
Granted, as it stands it's not very ideal either, but under yours they can just game the system even worse. OK so I'll put this in numbers to try and put some relevance to it.
(I make the assumption that highseccers are not voting because they are very aware of the bloc/metagaming techniques used and cannot find a way to work around it. This should change. It is an assumption however, granted.)
But let's say the CFC can muster 10,000 votes.
They can plant 5,000 into each Nullsec seat to win both. They will have to fight other Nullseccers for this so they need to tread carefully about vote positioning from the get-go.
They might also run a Highsec candidate (why bother but let's entertain the thought anyway) so they are going to need to draw a sizeable vote away from securing the Nullsec seats to win this seat. They effectively put all seats (or some) at risk by doing so.
Now let's say they want BOTH Highsec seats (to force bilateral agreement on Highsec issues?) then the vote has to be split even more. The more they interfere the greater the risk.
Even if they win one seat with their ring-in, they are still going to have definitive opposition from the "real" highsec candidate. They will find it hard to get a consensus from there. (Assuming that both candidates need to be in approximate agreeance on issues before presentation).
Now let's put it in context - under the auspice that CFC DID win all seats. (Likelihood??)
They front the first CSM meeting, half are Nullseccers in disguise. CCP says "Let's discuss Highsec gentlemen". The first one to open his mouth has his comments recorded for posterity so what exactly is he going to say? Nerf Highsec! Reduce Incursion payouts?
It'll come across as pretty bloody obvious immediately, and come NEXT CSM election, this candidate is blown so the Nullsec power players have to go back, find another Highsec alt and start all over again.
Only the tried and true are going to keep coming back. Charlatans will be exposed very quickly.
Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
That's a vivid imagination you have there fella. I took a lot of acid when I was young too. |
The Apostle
The Black Knights of Destiny
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
Alexandra Delarge wrote:That's a vivid imagination you have there fella. I took a lot of acid when I was young too. Perhaps you took too much if this is representative of a "vivid imagination".
Try harder. C'mon, you can do it. Bring back Eve. OUR Eve.
I respectfully stand before you. Humble in servitude. TA
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |