| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Crovan
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
    |
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:00:00 -
[1]
Recently, these forums have been awash with thread after thread about the CSM, and how this or that single detail needs serious review. Some of those concerns are valid, in my view, but many are based on faulty premises when translating the real world ideas of representation to the online community. CCP's undertaking means they are now charged with the unique challenge of predicting the outcome of something nobody has seen before. Be warned, this is not a short post, but the big bullet points will be bolded, so you can dodge parts of the incoming wall-o-text. My current concerns and suggestions are as follows:
1. Give Non-Forum, Non-EVE-Mail Means to Contact Representatives:
This is a practical point for the preservation of the sanity of those elected. Be it a separate Councilman (or woman) character, or a dedicated out of game e-mail, something as an alternative to in-game conversation and EVE-Mail spam will be critical to allow the CSM members to actually continue to enjoy playing the game.
2. Support and Facilitation of Pre-Election Discussion:
Make the candidate's chosen character names public. There are many player media outlets out there that would love to have a chance at setting up some interviews/discussions/debates, but we need the info in order to set it up. Also, since I understand that CCP may want to stay out of the campaigning and interviews with their own volunteers, make some other means on the official website to publish articles, link podcasts, and schedule debates. A sub-forum would be ideal.
3. Campaign Rules, or Lack Thereof:
It really matters little to me whether CCP does or does not regulate campaign tactics and financing, but what rules are present need to be firmly laid down and strictly followed. Any leeway in the first election will mean an ever-increasing number in the future. Two months is not long to campaign, as-is, and candidates should have their rules (or statement that there are no rules) ASAP.
4. Constituency:
While there are advantages to the universal representation scheme currently offered, constituency is something worth discussing. Constituencies are sub-divisions of the whole that would choose their own representatives. Most elected legislative bodies work this way. I generally like the idea of making sure that voices from various areas and walks of EVE life are heard, but I think this idea runs into a few problems. The biggest issue I see is the division of the constituencies themselves. There is no single way to divide EVE players into neat groups. Do you divide industrialists, miners, and pvpers? Many players are some combination of the above, and even those who are reasonably dedicated will often branch out into other fields. These are not hard and fast distinctions, as they depend solely on self-identity. Territorial and Empire vs. Alliance space distinctions bring up similar concerns. In short, this might be something to consider in the future, but I think CCP is wise to keep clear of it for now.
The Drone Bay Podcast
|
Crovan
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:01:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Crovan on 21/03/2008 15:05:33
5. Improved Referendum: While the system in the CSM for suggestions from the outside is not a true referendum, I think the term still works for what we have here. Basically, if five percent of the accounts in EVE vote that Issue X should be brought forth to the CSM and CCP, it simply happens. No approval of a CSM member is required. In an ideal situation, the CSM will be diverse enough that most worthy topics will make it through without recourse to referendum, but the best course is usually to expect the best and prepare for the worst. In this case, I am not sure a percentage is the right answer. It may work in the real world for this sort of thing, but EVE's populace is so small and ever-changing that five percent could vary by hundreds of votes from month to month. For the sake of the sanity of those monitoring the referendums at CCP, as well as simplicity's sake, I recommend a flat number that is reasonably achievable, say 7,500 as a ballpark.
6. Term Limits: Incumbency, combined with a lack of term limits, leads to stagnation of political innovation in the real world, as well as a significant boost to the grip that lobbyists have over representatives. With CCP being so keen on progress and new ideas, I believe a hard term limit of somewhere between two and four terms is ideal.
7. Realistic Expectations: The Virgin Worlds interview with PTtur +skarsson demonstrated to me that CCP has a realistic outlook, namely that the CSM will be an immense undertaking to organize and implement, and may well not be considered a "success" by the community within the first year. This is a good thing. I tend to agree that it is unlikely we'll see anything earth-shattering (at least in a good way) from the CSM for a year or so. Patience is key here.
My hope with posting this here, as well as in my blog is to get some discussion going, and perhaps get a comprehensive list of fixes and suggestions together. I have advocated that those of us not running for office, but who still have strong opinions should band together to have our voices heard, and this is my first attempt to do that. As you can see, my first few ideas here deal with largely practical concerns. I save the more contentious theory bits for later on. I honestly think that a dedicated sub-forum ASAP would greatly benefit this process, if for no other reason than it prevents me from sifting through the senseless whining that comprises a good half of General Discussion.
The Drone Bay Podcast
|
Crovan
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:06:00 -
[3]
Reserved for my personal entourage.
The Drone Bay Podcast
|
Waxau
The Fated
Odyssey.
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:10:00 -
[4]
Signed with all.
One very important thing you posted was the contacting of the representatives.
One of the reasons we can gain from this heavily, is the fact that OUR ideas as members of the community can be expressed more easily. If we have a template for example, of ship ideas and/or changes, then the reps can then work on those easily. And in turn, skip past the 'omg overpoweredwtf you suck whahahaha nublet' style of forum posts.
A dedicated email, or possibly web sites given by CCP, to include 'input' forms, to give information about issues and such. Its then the given representatives job to filter through them. Ofcourse, there would have to be heavy 'prerequisites' etc, so the rep isnt spammed to death with isk sellers 
 |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:14:00 -
[5]
1. This is up to each candidate, isnt it? I for one have provided my messenger adress on my campaign site(Which launched today \o/)
2. I agree fully.
3. Well, i agree. We are seeing tons of CMS threads pop up. And is it considered spam to post a thread saying "VOTE FOR ME KTHXPLZ"?
6. I agree, the limit that is in place isnt ideal. At least the Chairman should be secured 2 terms, so he can help the new people get a fell of how it all works. Also, if someone does a great job and DOES get elected again, it must be because hes doing a great job.
 |
Crovan
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:38:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
1. This is up to each candidate, isnt it? I for one have provided my messenger adress on my campaign site(Which launched today \o/)
I meant for those eventually elected, in which case, no, I don't think it should be.
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
The Drone Bay Podcast
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:39:00 -
[7]
Amusing to see several players all of a sudden make huge posts about the CSM, as if they're trying to get a bit more high profile to uhm... get elected?
Either that or it's because they have been heard already by CCP and are in the know.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 15:54:00 -
[8]
My suggestion would be for CCP to create a CSM forum. One place. All the candidates and info.
And most importantly, all the threads. :)
|
TimGascoigne
Imperium Forces
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 17:53:00 -
[9]
We need a vote for NO CSM. this is not Democratic because itĘs coming whether we like it or notą.. People vote no to CSM lol we can not
|
Crovan
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 22:50:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Crovan on 21/03/2008 22:50:39
Originally by: Tzar'rim
Amusing to see several players all of a sudden make huge posts about the CSM, as if they're trying to get a bit more high profile to uhm... get elected?
Either that or it's because they have been heard already by CCP and are in the know.
Originally by: Crovan
I have advocated that those of us not running for office, but who still have strong opinions should band together to have our voices heard, and this is my first attempt to do that.
Reading comprehensions ftw, eh? I am absolutely not running for CSM.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
The Drone Bay Podcast
|
|
Gideon Kross
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 14:49:00 -
[11]
Originally by: TimGascoigne
We need a vote for NO CSM. this is not Democratic because itĘs coming whether we like it or notą.. People vote no to CSM lol we can not
Too late... This Election is going to happen regardless.
If you're opposed to the CSM being implimented in it's newly proposed state, then you showed up at the party after the cake has been served... "None left, sorry."
I was contemplating the immortal words of Socrates; Who said '... I Drank What?!' |
Cailais
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 17:15:00 -
[12]
I fully support the introduction of a sub forum ASAP where candidates can outline their views, publish their opinions and generally grandstand to the masses.
My personal preference is that a candidate should entitle a thread with their own name and then they have a open forum with their supporters / detractors and independant commentators.
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Jelzid
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 21:01:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Jelzid on 01/04/2008 21:06:18
I second the motion for some sort of framework, such as a sub forum for nominated candidates to discuss their platforms and campaign on the popular issues. Please post link here if this comes into being!
Also, I've really enjoyed the pocasts so far on the CSM. Keep the discussion going!
I'm voting in the CSM election. Why aren't you? |
Imperator Jora'h
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.04.01 21:34:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Crovan
I honestly think that a dedicated sub-forum ASAP would greatly benefit this process, if for no other reason than it prevents me from sifting through the senseless whining that comprises a good half of General Discussion.
I wholeheartedly agree with a sub-forum for this.
I would add that this sub-forum be held to higher standards than the rest of the forums. That is obvious trolls and needless smack and such should be banned. The forum should be left for honest discussion and debate. The CSM does not need another mudpit of a forum like GD to wade through.
How the new forum would be policed I am not sure. Whether GMs handle it or leave it to posters to "report" a thread and enough reports gets a warning or leave it to the CSM to point out the obvious troublemakers I am not sure. Note this does *not* mean people you disagree with but only people who add nothing to the discussions and just drag the process down.
First a warning then a ban (only from that forum) would be in order. If this is not done I fear it will be a mirror of GD in which case what would be the point?
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Jelzid
|
Posted - 2008.04.02 19:30:00 -
[15]
How about the sub-forum be composed of pre-defined threads for discussion points:
1. candidate platforms (each person gets a post or two to explain what is most important to them, who's interests they represent, etc.)
2. question box (voters get to plop all questions here and identify issues they care about, no candidates allowed)
3. one follow up thread per question where all candidates get the chance to answer (no voters allowed)
4. catch-all thread for random questions about theoretical political science, etc.
Potential Rules:
- keep posts to the point of that specific thread (rules to be posted up front or as sticky thread)
- keep quotes to a minimum
Which candidate will be the first to supply us with flashy sigs to use as campaign posters? |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |