| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
    |
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:19:00 -
[1]
Sorry for the lame title of the thread, but I thought I should make it something entertaining rather than boring. If you have no idea what it's a reference to, check here
Anyway, back to the serious stuff.
I'm Omber Zombie aka Oz, or El Presidente Gallente to some. I'm running for a CSM position, ideally for the Chairperson position. I figure I may as well aim high. Some of you may know of me, I'm guessing most probably don't. This thread isn't really going to help give you a backstory on my life in eve, you can check my blog for more of that, but suffice to say, I've been here a long time and done a lot of various things and I think (and I hope you will think too) that I am the man for the job.
As you may, or may not, have noticed, I'm running under the campaign of 'No major political leanings, happy to listen to everyone (even the conspiracy theorists)' A lot of people seem to have issues with people saying they aren't biased and neutral about things. I can understand that concern as everyone has some form of bias, it's an inherent nature of us being human. So, I thought I would try and clarify my position and thoughts on the CSM in general with this wordy and lengthy post. I'll try and keep it below JadeÖ length, but it probably won't be.
1. What is the CSM?
To me, the CSM is about distilling the communities fears, desires and angst down to key issues and changes to be presented to CCP by a council of democratically elected peers. Its' mandate is to pass on community desires (or at least the 5% who voted agreeing with the issue) not debate their own pet projects.
2. Who should you vote for?
The obvious answer is me of course  But, that comes with a caveat. Don't vote for me if you don't think I can represent the community as a whole. To me a candidate should be able to argue for or against any topic raised at the CSM meetings. They need to be informed, experienced, and to be able to critically analyse the topics raised. They need to love eve for what eve is, and what it could be. If you see that in a candidate, but don't agree with their position to a specific topic, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for them. Vote for their ability to argue a case, for or against.
3. What power will the CSM members actually wield?
A lot of people have written the CSM off as pre-nerfed or toothless. Others have stated that it's just a free trip to Iceland for a bunch of celebrities. They are wrong. How's that for a stance?
Now, let me clarify - you, the players of eve, are voting 14 people to represent you to CCP. There's a lot of responsibility there, both from the community at large for electing the 'right' people for the job, and for the people that do get elected in representing the community faithfully. Of course at any point CCP can just veto an idea, but this will be the first time that they have to give a reason for that veto. What about the NDA I hear some people ask - well, unless CCP want to make a complete mockery of themselves not just to us, but to the general public, I'm guessing there is going to be very little they won't be able to elaborate on for fear of turning the CSM into a pure publicity stunt that will horribly backfire. I guess I'm optimistic on that one.
now that I have that out of the way...
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:20:00 -
[2]
4. Why doesn't Oz have a pet topic?
I do, but it's the CSM itself. I have some severe issues with it's current structure that I want changed. The details are as follows:
a. The voting system is flawed. The current structure doesn't allow people to weight their voting. For instance, I like Hardin, I would vote for him, but as I only have a single vote, I'll be voting for me. If the voting system was changed to a preferential system (specifically A Borda Count) you would see a more balanced vote across the community rather than specific power blocks voting in their candidates. Then there is the tied vote issues, or the lack of votes issues under the current system. What happens if 3 people all get 5000 votes - are they all the chairman? What if only 8 people get votes, the rest 0 - how do you get the other 6 members of the council?
b. The chairman should be selected by the council, not by the person who gets the most votes in a general vote. You elected the council to represent you as a combined unit, yet they cannot even select their own chairperson?
c. 2 weeks of voting - can we change our votes over the two weeks? What if I decided to vote for someone on day 1 of the vote casting period, and that candidate drops out- is our vote now null? What if I change my mind? This either needs to be changed to allow us to change our votes up until the last second, or we are given a single weekend to cast votes. As most people know, 2 weeks is a long time in eve.
d. The lack of a CSM campaign forum. At the moment, players are being forced to create out of game websites, threads to collate other threads and generally, spamming of the eve general forums. A CSM forum was promised, but how hard is it to implement a single forum to the actual campaign, where all the campaign threads can be kept and people can go to look at all the information without having to resort to searching through the forums needlessly?
and that leads on to...
e. "A dedicated electronic forum will be provided for voters to formally present
issues to CSM Representatives. Because this is a ôgathering placeö where topics
deemed important to society are heard and acted upon by democratically elected
Representatives, moderators must be present to keep discussions civilized,
ordered, relevant, and lawful."
Who is doing the moderating? Are you giving CSM members the power to moderate that section of the forum, or are you limiting their power by having CCP employees moderate a section of the forum that should be open to any and all ideas? Who decides what is relevent and not relevent? Wouldn't having CCP moderators in this section mean that they are removing this community based decision making from the community?
f. "A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council membersùin any combination
of Alternatives and Representativesùare present." Does this mean you can have a meeting without both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman? Hell, you could have a meeting witout both of those and both the secretary and vice secretary too. What kind of a minimal requirement is that? My suggestion is that a meeting would not be valid unless one of the Chairman or Vice-chairman is present along with at least one of the secretary or vice-secretary.
g. "The time limit of seven days applies to both Representatives and voters, meaning that a Representative cannot bring a topic up at a Council meeting without having it go through deliberation on the public forum. A 5% voter support is however not required for a Representative to bring up a topic to the Council."
Wait a second, so a topic can't be brought up at a council meeting uless 5% of the population vote for it to be brought up, unless of course a representitive wants to? Why bother having the vote at all?
tbc...
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:20:00 -
[3]
h."After each CSM member presents their opinion to support or disprove a motion, the matter is brought to vote; a majority rule passes the issue for escalation."
Again we have an issue here - the 'minimum'requirement for a meeting was 7 members, what if 8 turn up and there is a tied vote? Does the chairman get the deciding vote? Or the vice-chair if he's not present? What if neither are present? What's the order of precedent here?
I think that about sums up my issues for now. Again, I apologise for the length, but this is my pet 'issue' and I would love to see some feedback on it from everyone as my goal is to get this CSM to work whether I am elected to the council or not.
cheers,
Oz
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Exekias
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:28:00 -
[4]
I can think of no one who would better represent the community.
OZ will provide rock-solid leadership and represent the interests of the player base with the tenacity of the undead.
--------------
 |
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:12:00 -
[5]
Thanks Oz,
I have been wondering where you stood on "Issues"...
Each candidate has to have opinions on the issues they feel are important, it would also be nice to know what they really don't care about... That which candidate don't care about are the bargaining chips used to put forward what they do care about.
I also care about the CSM, I want it to succeed...
I disagree with your point on the preferential voting system because I would imagine it would give added power to large voting blocks, i.e. the Big Alliances, that now, if they split their vote among several candidates could mean they get no representation, where if they marshal their votes behind 1 candidate, they get 1 seatà
I agree with you that as of the release of the valid candidate names, another forum should have been opened for campaigning, questions and postsà I also agree that the Chairman (a Symbolic post at best) may as well be selected from the members presentà Also, the CSM needs a published set of rules like ôAll tie votes on issues are considered passedö and spelled out rules on what needs to occur to get an issue on the docketà 5% of the Eve Population (# of accounts) or Issue brought up by a Member of the CSM and approved by the majority of the CSM presentà
As I understand the voting system that Xhagen designed, only your last vote counts, not like real life voting where once you leave the polling place, your vote stands, you canÆt take it backà but I may be wrongà
Good Luck
--------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:36:00 -
[6]
Can only say I've known Omber as a fellow eve player for a long long time now and in my opinion he'd make an excellent Chairman for the CSM. Top guy, very trustworthy and definitely worth a vote from multi-account holders (as long as I can have one too!  )
Seriously though, good luck Omber, hopefully we'll both make it and help represent this community and change the game for the better.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:46:00 -
[7]
As a lackey who put in one year's worth of service under Ozzie's direction, I can say that he is intimately knowledgeable about the game, and honestly cares about how it evolves.
--
 |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:48:00 -
[8]
I think the CSM is a joke but then I've been around long enough to remember the joke that was CSM's. However what is not a joke, what should be taken seriously, is many of those who have stepped forward to chair the CSM committee. Granted there's a bit of self serving but in this ambition is a pre-requirement as no one can be forced into serving.
That being said, all that, my vote is going to Oz. I've known him a long time and one thing I do know; Not only will he tell you the truth but he'll say it even if you ain't going to like it. Imho, there will be a number of undeserving demagogues & bull**** artists that make it onto this council and you can be sure that the various alliances will be well represented by their offered stooges. Might as well make sure a working stiff is somewhere in that mess too.
A vote for Oz is a vote for the average Joe. Alliance or not, PvP'er or PvE'er, scum or not. Oz doesn't care about a damn one of you. He cares about the game.
And that's what it is supposed to be about.
To Shar -verb:
1 - To say what you mean.
2 - To say what it means.
3 - To say something mean. |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 06:06:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Omber Zombie on 24/04/2008 06:07:01
 Originally by: Hamfast
I disagree with your point on the preferential voting system because I would imagine it would give added power to large voting blocks, i.e. the Big Alliances, that now, if they split their vote among several candidates could mean they get no representation, where if they marshal their votes behind 1 candidate, they get 1 seatà
edit - damn forum ate my reply 
that's why I suggested the Borda system, it allows you to give everyone 'points' and means that to be successful you need to appeal to the widest audience, bot just a niche group. The big alliances may back their own candidate, but then they are forced to put in preferences for other people too.
If the system was based on say 9 preferences and the points were:
1st = 45 points
2nd = 40 points
3rd - 35 points
..
8th = 15 points
9th = 10 points
you would get a much better idea of community preferences as the vote starts to get distributed not just a one shot 'wham bamm thank you ma'am' style thing.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Elissianus
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 08:55:00 -
[10]
You get my vote, simply because you've already suggested changes to a number of things that made me dismissive of the CSM idea as a whole. |
|
Cruthensis
Gallente
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 09:35:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Cruthensis on 24/04/2008 09:34:54
As a dedicated and long-term fan of the Hokey Cokey, I could not vote for any candidate pushing any new fangled and, more importantly, unproven technology such as hokey pokey.
The Hokey Cokey, whilst admitedly antiquated, has never been bettered in its implementation of left/right foot in/out methodology.
I understand that the Hokey Cokey does overstate its ubiquity in this regard, after all, what other product openly states: "That's what it's all about". However, this in no way diminishes its usefulness in highly ordered group limb shaking.
1. Buy Vexor 2. Fit for Gank 3. Suicide ISK farmer 4. Grind sec 5. see 1. |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:31:00 -
[12]
lmao, thanks Cruthensis for that in-depth analysis 
back on topic though - does no one else have any suggestions/thoughts/ideas about these issues?
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:42:00 -
[13]
I think Oz's CSM reforms have a great deal of merit but I cant imagine people voting CSM reform in the first CSM election.
Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 19:49:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
I think Oz's CSM reforms have a great deal of merit but I cant imagine people voting CSM reform in the first CSM election.
why not? as mentioned above in my long list of things that are broken, the current system will not work in it's current state. There are too many holes in the system, why even bother with a CSM if it can be stopped by any number of those issues? Hell, I'd love most of this to be implemented before we even start voting on candidates. |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 16:19:00 -
[15]
and 2 more threads regarding topics in my rant/manifesto above:
Forum suggestion: CSM Q&A area
How is the CSM voting going to work?
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Arduron
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 17:41:00 -
[16]
I actually agree 100% with OZs CSM reforms. I think that the process seems well thought through, and will provide a better balanced selection process of the 9 candidates. I think he sounds like a very strong candidate for chair, and I for one (even as another candidate) would not in any way be dissapointed if he made that position. (Don't get me wrong, I would love the opportunity for the spot as well, but if I have to be beaten by someone OZ is definately on the top of my list.)
I like the idea of a Borda Count as it allows for a more general consensual decision (the highest overall rank from all voting members, not neccisarily the person with the most votes as #1) this tends to create a significantly better overall outcome in the eyes of the voters.
I also agree with the statements about the CSM's power. I feel the same way. Some may dismiss it as just idle figureheads, and perhaps that is the intent of CCP (althought I highly doubt it). But no matter the intent at all, if you put together a group of individuals who are passionate about the game and the community, Who volunteer their time to improve that community, and who work together as a team. Then add to that a formalized channel of communication from the masses of the community through that group. You will create a powerful system for isolating and identifying core needs of the community. It is in CCP's best interests to make the community happy, and fill their needs, because as they do so their player base will grow, and the game will improve (and profits for CCP). This is plain fact. Unfortunately it is difficult to establish "core needs" in the chaotic environment we have now. The CSM can do nothing but help that by providing a clear communication path which is supported by the community.
A couple bits of critical thinking for your proposed CSM changes (only to bring out more depth to the idea and beat out the wrinkles if any exist, not because I am countering the idea itself):
- The possibility of major alliances benefitting by running as many candidated as they can becomes possible. (it no longer becomes a problem of dividing their vote between their candidates, as long as everyone in that alliance puts all their members within their top 10 preference, then the chances of at least one of their members making it to top position is significantly high. This is called Strategic Nomination I believe...) Althought the problem is not really a concern in my eyes (these factions will likely get at least one member in anyway by focusing votes on a single candidate anyway, and the borda system at least gives their internal election a more fair balance). But what are your thoughts on this side of the borda system when applied to Eve specifically.
- What point assignment scheme would you be favoring? Using a traditional borda system or Nauru system tend to lean more to ballots where each voter must assign a rank to every candidate. In this case there are too many candidates for that to be reasonable. So would you adopt one of the systems to account for a truncated ballot, or would you favor a system like "everyone gets 10 votes and only 10 votes ranked from 1 to 10" like the Kiribati system?
- To what degree would we need to be concerned with Tactical Voting manipulation. (people deliberately manipulating their rankings to something other than their "true" order...). The borda system relies on voters being "honest with themselves" on the ballot. If voters say do things like put their #1 candidate in the #2 position, and put an alternate (randomly chosen) candidate into the #1 position, then put someone they actually DONT want to win into the last position, they can shift statistics (if done in great numbers) and either push out someone they don't want to win, or un-naturally elevate someone they want to win. Also if vast numbers of people attempt to Tactically Vote, it can sometimes create wierd results. do you think this is a concern?
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 17:49:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 25/04/2008 17:53:17
OZ: I grant you many of the changes should be implimented before hand. My thought is that until the system CCP already laid out is tested to see if it actually runs or not, neither they nor the community will make reform a #1 issue.
Instead, I expect they'll focus on and elect candidates who run on a platform of bread and butter issues they've been wanting CCP to hear, possibly for a while. Things like price caps on mins, creating more diverse pvp engagement, POS reform, the BACON/local issue.
I like your platform tbh. I just think, as an observer and voter, you could gain alot of support by diversifying it to include salient positions on other issues.
EDIT: for instance, the top issues I'm concerned about are the status of local and the diversification/deblobbing of PVP, mostly because that affects my daily EVE life and my interests as a CEO. Improving CSM functionality is a concern, but a more distant one. If the CSM did not deliver on the aformatntioned issues for whatever reason, then I am more inclined to view structural reform as vital.
Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 20:45:00 -
[18]
woot, discussion \o/
First off thanks for this Arduron, I was beginning to think no-one was actually reading these ramblings
Originally by: Arduron
- The possibility of major alliances benefiting by running as many candidates as they can becomes possible. (it no longer becomes a problem of dividing their vote between their candidates, as long as everyone in that alliance puts all their members within their top 10 preference, then the chances of at least one of their members making it to top position is significantly high. This is called Strategic Nomination I believe...) Although the problem is not really a concern in my eyes (these factions will likely get at least one member in anyway by focusing votes on a single candidate anyway, and the borda system at least gives their internal election a more fair balance). But what are your thoughts on this side of the borda system when applied to Eve specifically.
A lot of people seem to forget that members of large Alliances are community members too. Yes, they have a voting block power to elect their own people to the council, but the Borda system was created for that reason - there are enough minority groups (and yes, even the largest alliances are minorities) that they will balance each other out. as you mentioned further on, the borda system can be manipulated, but it needs to be done on a scale that I don't think is possible in eve without long (or even short) time in-game enemies collaborating.
Quote:
- What point assignment scheme would you be favoring? Using a traditional borda system or Nauru system tend to lean more to ballots where each voter must assign a rank to every candidate. In this case there are too many candidates for that to be reasonable. So would you adopt one of the systems to account for a truncated ballot, or would you favor a system like "everyone gets 10 votes and only 10 votes ranked from 1 to 10" like the Kiribati system?
Ideally, I'd like people to nominate a top 9. First ranked gets 45 points, second 40, and so on down to 9th which gets 5 points. Once the initial tally is done, if there are any candidates on identical point amounts, a countback goes into effect where the point distribution is looked at so that the candidate with the higher number of 1st nominations wins, if that is identical, the amount of 2nd nominations, and so on until the tie is resolved. I know there is the slight chance that this system may produce a 'tie' vote, but that chance is extremely small and I am highly doubtful of it occurring.
Quote:
- To what degree would we need to be concerned with Tactical Voting manipulation. (people deliberately manipulating their rankings to something other than their "true" order...). The borda system relies on voters being "honest with themselves" on the ballot. If voters say do things like put their #1 candidate in the #2 position, and put an alternate (randomly chosen) candidate into the #1 position, then put someone they actually DONT want to win into the last position, they can shift statistics (if done in great numbers) and either push out someone they don't want to win, or un-naturally elevate someone they want to win. Also if vast numbers of people attempt to Tactically Vote, it can sometimes create weird results. do you think this is a concern?
To some extent, any type of ranking system will have some form of manipulation involved. Most people will vote for who they like and not for those they dislike, with a truncated nomination list, it will make it a lot harder to assign points to people you don't want to win and makes it harder to manipulate the system.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 20:54:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde
Instead, I expect they'll focus on and elect candidates who run on a platform of bread and butter issues they've been wanting CCP to hear, possibly for a while. Things like price caps on mins, creating more diverse pvp engagement, POS reform, the BACON/local issue.
I like your platform tbh. I just think, as an observer and voter, you could gain a lot of support by diversifying it to include salient positions on other issues.
EDIT: for instance, the top issues I'm concerned about are the status of local and the diversification/deblobbing of PVP, mostly because that affects my daily EVE life and my interests as a CEO. Improving CSM functionality is a concern, but a more distant one. If the CSM did not deliver on the aforementioned issues for whatever reason, then I am more inclined to view structural reform as vital.
It's a fair enough point, and I completely understand it, but my return point is that why debate issues when the framework behind resolving them, or at least passing them on for resolution is broken. I could create massive posts about why I think all mineral price caps should be removed from the market (market trading is pvp, it shouldn't be restricted), why current fleet warfare is mind-numbingly boring and impossible to scale under current server conditions, hell, I want to personally know why share tracking is still not in this game after 5 years of shares being in the game. They are great topics for discussion, but I am hoping that people elect me because I want to make the CSM a powerful tool for the players and help them to voice their concerns or help to get their ideas implemented (as long as they benefit the entire community), rather than a platform for my own gaming agenda.
I know I won't get votes for choosing this stance, I know I could get more votes for appealing to specific groups regarding their agendas, but as I have said before - I want the new CSM experiment to succeed and if it means not being elected in this first election to get these changes through, so be it.
The CSM is something that is intended to run for a long time, if I don't make it in this time, all I can hope for is for my changes to make it through so that the first CSM succeeds and I can run for the second one.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Arduron
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:29:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
woot, discussion \o/
First off thanks for this Arduron, I was beginning to think no-one was actually reading these ramblings
No problem at all! I am always up for some good old intelligent discussion! :)
Originally by: Omber Zombie
A lot of people seem to forget that members of large Alliances are community members too. Yes, they have a voting block power to elect their own people to the council, but the Borda system was created for that reason - there are enough minority groups (and yes, even the largest alliances are minorities) that they will balance each other out. as you mentioned further on, the borda system can be manipulated, but it needs to be done on a scale that I don't think is possible in eve without long (or even short) time in-game enemies collaborating.
Do you think that the large alliances will remain a minority though, given that not all players will vote? (considering the alliances will provide strong pressure on all their members to vote for the "alliance choice"). What do you think the vote saturation will be like? How many people do you suspect will actually vote?
And do you think there is anything CCP can do to ensure a high saturation of voters?
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Ideally, I'd like people to nominate a top 9. First ranked gets 45 points, second 40, and so on down to 9th which gets 5 points. Once the initial tally is done, if there are any candidates on identical point amounts, a countback goes into effect where the point distribution is looked at so that the candidate with the higher number of 1st nominations wins, if that is identical, the amount of 2nd nominations, and so on until the tie is resolved. I know there is the slight chance that this system may produce a 'tie' vote, but that chance is extremely small and I am highly doubtful of it occurring.
I agree you have an extremely small chance of a tie, and even then it only matters if that tie is for first place, 9th place, or 14th place. A tie anywhere else is not relevant. I think that system should work.
Why did you choose the numbers 45, 40 and so on? (as in why a 5 point shift between levels, why not a 1 point shift between levels). Any reason at all? or simply random? |
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:56:00 -
[21]
It would seem to me you've pretty well established your status as the CSM reform candidate. Letting people know what you think about those other issues out there, not nesc super posts rather well thought out but conceise stated positions, will help you round out your candidacy.
It may be different here in the states with how elections run, but generally single-issue candidates are pushed to the margins in favor of candiates with multiple issues on their platform. Letting people know what your position would be if elected, even if it's not your #1 message, is critical to becoming personable to voters and broadening your base so that your agenda of change can be implimented.
I'll try to illustrate with a loose example:
Candiate X is a hard line anti-immigration candidate. He beleives in the immidiate round up and deportation of all non nationalized citizens and a 2 year moritorium on immigration.
Candidate Y beleives reforming the national educational system is paramount to the future of the country, and makes expanding the educational budget by 200% and reforming oversight mesures their platform issue.
Both candidates are running in an parlimentary election with multiple issues of high public interest, albeit by different sections of the population. Immigration, the economy, healthcare, education, military spending, and morality issues are all cared about by large portions of the population.
If you are Candiate Y Oz, you will get the votes of people who agree that education is the #1 priority for the country. But what of people who agree, but feel it's not the only issue that they care about? They dont know how you stand on raising or lowering taxes because your campaign doesnt talk about the economy. A cadidate with a similar position on education but who also has a message about the economy that speaks to voters combines the hardline supporters of both groups along with those that care about both issues.
If your election standard of 9 ranked votes is indeed implimented, appealing to a broader section of the EVE community and demonstrating you're not a single minded/one hit wonder candiate will be even more paramount. I imagine, and I certainly do, that voters will want to know not just what their candidate is committed to seeing done in the CSM but how he or she would react and affect the many issues its sure to face both at the start and as time goes by.
Could be as simple as doing a buffet-blog. Take a sample of the issues you see as "hot" and give a short summery of your feeling on em. NPC mineral price controls for instance; judging by your earlier statement you think they're bad. When the issue comes up, would you advocate for a complete removal of price ceilings? etc, etc, I'm not your campagn manager just an intrigued citizen.
Right now I lean to Jade Constantine because he has clear position on many issues, the majority of which i either agree with or think it's a step in the right direction. Is he everything I want? No. Is he more things I want than any candidate I've come accross? So far...
Long post yarrrr  |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 00:01:00 -
[22]
I do believe you have just one my vote, good sir. You're the first and only candidate so far to have addressed the real and first issue- the CSM system itself. As the first ever council, you guys will be the testing ground for how this will be set up in the future. Without all the electees having a clear idea of what a CSM should be, its set up for disaster.
If I have to read one more CSM thread about "When I'm elected, I'll fix [this] bug, and implement [this] feature", I'll go nuts. CSMs will not be designing or fixing the game, period. |
Max Torps
Gallente
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 01:13:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Patch86
If I have to read one more CSM thread about "When I'm elected, I'll fix [this] bug, and implement [this] feature", I'll go nuts. CSMs will not be designing or fixing the game, period.
That's something I've been saying since the beginning actually. You can thank certain other candidates for misleading the voting public. Think about that for a minute.
EvE blogspace, free! Max Torps CSM Candidate |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 01:42:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Patch86
If I have to read one more CSM thread about "When I'm elected, I'll fix [this] bug, and implement [this] feature", I'll go nuts. CSMs will not be designing or fixing the game, period.
Well what you're actually seeing in most cases is CSM candidates (myself included) demonstrating our interests, our areas of competence and showing exactly how we intend to fulfill the CSM requirement to engage and interact with the Eve community. Remember that elected CSM reps have a pretty serious responsibility for deciding exactly which issues will be escalated for CCP council attention:
CSM reps can make their own decisions on personal judgement and raise items for debate, they can highlight existing threads/topics and mark for attention and ultimately a majority vote of the CSM will decide which general motions from the player base will get taken to Iceland for CCP council feedback. Even at that council meeting its going to come down to debating skill, persuasion, vision and good humour to make progress.
So its vital that the Eve electorate get appropriate insight into the mindset, thought processes, and general interests and debating style of the CSM candidates over the next three weeks if they are to make an informed voting decision and choose the right nine candidates to join the inaugural CSM.
When you're looking at my threads for example, you shouldn't be reading "this is going to happen if you elect Jade Constantine" but rather "this is the kind of game Jade Constantine's player is interested in and if you like this stuff too then come and have a debate and express your opinions." Judge me on how I handle feedback, judge me on the kind of ideas and vision I have for the game, judge me by my interests and awareness of critical issues and good development ideas. You're going to be trusting me to support motions you agree with if you elect me to CSM, you need to decide if I'm worthy of that trust by getting some insight in advance.
CSM role is all about enthusing and empowering eve player opinion and bringing good suggestions and critical items of interest to CCP's attention via the council mechanism. These threads let you assess candidate performance under scrutiny alongside the core interests close to the candidates heart.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Hardin
Amarr
Force Liberatrice du Quebec
Lonetrek Industrial Mining Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 01:48:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
I'm Omber Zombie aka Oz, or El Presidente Gallente to some. I'm running for a CSM position, ideally for the Chairperson position
Gah....shameless self promotion
That said if I wasn't running myself, Omber would probably be the first choice for my three votes...
I certainly hope that if I am fortunate enough to be elected that Omber is too! He's a good chap (despite being an Aussie ) and would make a great asset on the CSM team!
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Max Torps
Gallente
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 02:02:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Omber Zombie
I'm Omber Zombie aka Oz, or El Presidente Gallente to some. I'm running for a CSM position, ideally for the Chairperson position
Gah....shameless self promotion
That said if I wasn't running myself, Omber would probably be the first choice for my three votes...
I certainly hope that if I am fortunate enough to be elected that Omber is too! He's a good chap (despite being an Aussie ) and would make a great asset on the CSM team!
Well. Hardin. If not for myself, I think I would vote for you in all seriousness. You have the discussion skills as easy going nature that I think is important for a CSM.
EvE blogspace, free! Max Torps CSM Candidate |
Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 03:07:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
As you may, or may not, have noticed, I'm running under the campaign of 'No major political leanings, happy to listen to everyone (even the conspiracy theorists)' A lot of people seem to have issues with people saying they aren't biased and neutral about things.
Well OZ, I don't know if you'd call me a "conspiracy theorist," but you've probably noticed that I'm one of those who has issues with those who claim to be "unbiased." As such, I have a few questions for you. I'm asking them sincerely as I believe they are important, and I hope they come across in a respectful manner, please take them to be intended as such.
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Vote for their ability to argue a case, for or against.
Please tell me how we are supposed to judge your ability to do this if you refuse to take sides on any of the issues and argue your view on them? As I see it, part of the candidates' involvement in discussion of issues is their demonstration of this ability. You seem to avoid such demonstration altogether.
On that note, what is your response to the idea that if you have no stated opinion on any issues, it implies that you are uninformed of the issues currently in the game and disconnected from the playerbase, and therefore would make a poor representative?
I think Jade put it rather well:
Originally by: Jade Constantine
...its vital that the Eve electorate get appropriate insight into the mindset, thought processes, and general interests and debating style of the CSM candidates over the next three weeks if they are to make an informed voting decision and choose the right nine candidates to join the inaugural CSM.
OZ, the problem is that candidates like you are a blank slate. You won't give any insight into your mindset or interests. Players have no idea what issues you consider important, and therefore no way of knowing if you will truly be representing them or not. They don't know if your vote on the council will be an acurate representation of their will. You can claim to want to represent everyone, but when it comes down to a vote within the CSM, you'll be left to your own judgement. Why should people take a chance in voting for you when your mind is completely unknown? Even if you have the ability to argue a case, what does that matter if no one knows what side of the case you will argue? The fact is that you can't represent everyone, as the playerbase will always be divided on an issue. You will have to take sides. Your voters deserve some indication of which side you intend to take.
If you have no opinion, how do you expect to make these decisions, and what can players expect you to do?
If you have no position, you have no platform. What then are you running on?
On a different note:
Originally by: Omber Zombie
that's why I suggested the Borda system, it allows you to give everyone 'points' and means that to be successful you need to appeal to the widest audience, bot just a niche group. The big alliances may back their own candidate, but then they are forced to put in preferences for other people too.
If the system was based on say 9 preferences and the points were:
1st = 45 points
2nd = 40 points
3rd - 35 points
..
8th = 15 points
9th = 10 points
you would get a much better idea of community preferences as the vote starts to get distributed not just a one shot 'wham bamm thank you ma'am' style thing.
Apparently, you don't fully understand the ramifications of the Borda system in an election like this. The point distribution allows for a large enough group to split their vote between multiple candidates and get them all elected, whereas in a straight vote they would be more likely to have to concentrate behind one candidate. Those points that big alliances will have to give can go to second or third candidates from their own alliance and gain disproportionate influence in the coundil. I'd reconsider this one if I were you.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Frontier Trade League
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 04:06:00 -
[28]
Well having dealt with OZ some during the time I bought shares on the Eve Galactic Stock Exchange he's probably the only one I'd vote for, the only other possible one would be Tornsoul. No offense but I don't know any of the rest of you :).
I'm skeptical of what politicians say, if you know American politics you know why :)
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 06:59:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Arduron
Do you think that the large alliances will remain a minority though, given that not all players will vote? (considering the alliances will provide strong pressure on all their members to vote for the "alliance choice"). What do you think the vote saturation will be like? How many people do you suspect will actually vote?
And do you think there is anything CCP can do to ensure a high saturation of voters?
Voting blocks always have a limited form of power, they can influence results but ultimately it's a numbers game. My personal view is that you may get 30-40% of the playerbase voting, about half of which will be alliance members. Those numbers may be a little optimistic though as voting is not mandatory and (please don't take this the wrong way CCP) Xhagen & co don't seem to be pushing very hard to get people informed about what the CSM is, who is running for it, or even making it easy for candidates to get their messages out.
Quote:
Why did you choose the numbers 45, 40 and so on? (as in why a 5 point shift between levels, why not a 1 point shift between levels). Any reason at all? or simply random?
I like the number 5 Any numbers will do really, I just thought 100 was too high and 9 was too low.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 07:07:00 -
[30]
Quote:
Apparently, you don't fully understand the ramifications of the Borda system in an election like this. The point distribution allows for a large enough group to split their vote between multiple candidates and get them all elected, whereas in a straight vote they would be more likely to have to concentrate behind one candidate. Those points that big alliances will have to give can go to second or third candidates from their own alliance and gain disproportionate influence in the council. I'd reconsider this one if I were you.
Actually, I think I have a pretty good grasp on this system, I'm not sure the complexity of it comes across. By allowing people to distribute points, even with multiple candidates the spread is split among them and even with entire alliances backing specific candidates they need to appeal to people other than those within their alliances. It allows for those alliance members who are compelled to vote for their "alliance mate" to then vote for other candidates they like as secondary options rather than just a single nominee.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
|
Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:30:00 -
[31]
Sorry OZ, that was a lot of political double-speak that really didn't answer many of my questions.
It is impossible to represent "everyone," as everyone is divided on most issues. Claiming you can is either naievete on your part, or willful deception and political pandering. You can't change the fact that at some point or another you will have to choose sides in a discussion. On the CSM, when an issue is discussed, you will have to cast a vote one way or the other. Or do you intend to constantly abstain? Frankly, you are not inspiring confidence in your decision-making abilities, and you sound too much like a politician avoiding the issues and instead using flowery, idealistic speech in an attempt to garner favor with everyone.
I will restate the question directly: How do you plan to represent "everyone" when the playerbase has differing opinions on the issues?
As a sub-question: Since it is impossible to truly represent everyone, why don't you feel that voters deserve some insight into your thoughts, some indication on what you consider important? You claim that you do in fact have opinions on the issues, if this is true, why should you not share these opinions? Do you feel that they are unpopular and will prevent your election? Frankly, I'd think that not giving voters the whole picture would do more to hurt your chances than being open and honest about your ideas. Unless of course they are so far out there and essentially damaging to the game as a whole, in which case you'd have no business being on the CSM in the first place.
As to your ideas on the Borda system, your theory only holds true as long as each alliance is limited to one candidate. The moment a large organized alliance can put forth multiple candidates, the system breaks down. It is possible to distribte votes in such a fashion that they can elect multiple members of their group. For example, even with the single vote system in place now, it is mathematically feasible for the GoonSwarm to put a few of their six candidates on the CSM. With the Borda system, they would have an even stronger ability to do so, and could probably successfully elect a larger number of their representatives.
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 16:23:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Talkuth Rel
It is impossible to represent "everyone," as everyone is divided on most issues. Claiming you can is either naievete on your part, or willful deception and political pandering. You can't change the fact that at some point or another you will have to choose sides in a discussion. On the CSM, when an issue is discussed, you will have to cast a vote one way or the other. Or do you intend to constantly abstain?
No I intend to ignore my personal stance and hear the arguments from all sides and then make a decision based on facts rather than my original personal opinion.
Quote:
Frankly, you are not inspiring confidence in your decision-making abilities, and you sound too much like a politician avoiding the issues and instead using flowery, idealistic speech in an attempt to garner favor with everyone.
Fair enough. If you think my decision making abilities are completely based on how I personally feel about subjects then please don't vote for me. The CSM is a political entity, I thought being a politician is part of the job description of a council member. Specifically "an individual who is involved in influencing public decisionmaking through the influence of politics or a person who influences the way a society is governed through an understanding of political power and group dynamics. "
Quote:
I will restate the question directly: How do you plan to represent "everyone" when the playerbase has differing opinions on the issues?
As above
Quote:
As a sub-question: Since it is impossible to truly represent everyone, why don't you feel that voters deserve some insight into
your thoughts, some indication on what you consider important? You claim that you do in fact have opinions on the issues, if this is true, why should you not share these opinions? Do you feel that they are unpopular and will prevent your election? Frankly, I'd think that not giving voters the whole picture would do more to hurt your chances than being open and honest about your ideas. Unless of course they are so far out there and essentially damaging to the game as a whole, in which case you'd have no business being on the CSM in the first place.
I do share my opinions, I just choose not to make my own threads about them. I think you'll find a reply of mine in every thread regarding issues asking for CSM candidate opinions.
Quote:
As to your ideas on the Borda system, your theory only holds true as long as each alliance is limited to one candidate. The moment a large organized alliance can put forth multiple candidates, the system breaks down. It is possible to distribte votes in such a fashion that they can elect multiple members of their group. For example, even with the single vote system in place now, it is mathematically feasible for the GoonSwarm to put a few of their six candidates on the CSM. With the Borda system, they would have an even stronger ability to do so, and could probably successfully elect a larger number of their representatives.
It is currently mathematically possible for goonswarm to hold a majority on the council (5 seats) under the current system. Hell they could mathematically hold all 14 positions depending on voter turnout. While I don't like the thought of that as I would rather a diverse group of players across the eve community, if the rest of the community is so apathetic as to allow that to happen - so be it. They are a part of the community too, and if elected they will either do their job or be removed by CCP and a new election will be held.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 17:43:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Originally by: Talkuth Rel
It is impossible to represent "everyone," as everyone is divided on most issues. Claiming you can is either naievete on your part, or willful deception and political pandering. You can't change the fact that at some point or another you will have to choose sides in a discussion. On the CSM, when an issue is discussed, you will have to cast a vote one way or the other. Or do you intend to constantly abstain?
No I intend to ignore my personal stance and hear the arguments from all sides and then make a decision based on facts rather than my original personal opinion.
Wanting to make an informed decision is fine, but once informed you have to make a judgement based on your ideas, understanding, experience, views, and opinions. Every case will have facts on both sides. How you plan to evaluate those facts is what I'm asking for.
There are already many issues currently being discussed by the playerbase. If you do not have enough information for a decision, it is not for a lack of available information, but willful ignorance. If you cannot evaluate facts now, why should you be believed capable of doing so later? Originally by: Omber Zombie
Quote:
Frankly, you are not inspiring confidence in your decision-making abilities, and you sound too much like a politician avoiding the issues and instead using flowery, idealistic speech in an attempt to garner favor with everyone.
Fair enough. If you think my decision making abilities are completely based on how I personally feel about subjects then please don't vote for me. The CSM is a political entity, I thought being a politician is part of the job description of a council member. Specifically "an individual who is involved in influencing public decisionmaking through the influence of politics or a person who influences the way a society is governed through an understanding of political power and group dynamics. "
Now you're really pushing it, you've turned my words backwards and taken my comments completely out of context. I do not believe that your decision making ability is based on how you "feel." Just the opposite, I believe that your rational, informed opinions are evidence of your decisions and the process by which you form those ideas. I did not say the problem was "being a politicion," did I? I said it was being "like a politician avoiding the issues and instead using flowery, idealistic speech in an attempt to garner favor with everyone." It is a complete phrase, you can't take one word and ignore the rest, it loses its meaning. Somehow I don't think that avoiding issues is part of CSM duties.
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Quote:
I will restate the question directly: How do you plan to represent "everyone" when the playerbase has differing opinions on the issues?
As above
And here you've done it again, completely ignored a direct question and left it unanswered.
For the third time: An issue is presented. Points for and against have been given. Facts on both sides have been shown. There are players on both sides of the issue. How do you choose which side to support? How can you represent "everyone" when "everyone" is divided? If you say "I'll do what's best for the game," then that's another cop out, as the future effects are unproven and unknown, and so the decision becomes largely one of opinion. Opinions which you refuse to disclose. We want to know what you think is best for the game before we trust you to do it.
|
Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 17:44:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Quote:
As a sub-question: Since it is impossible to truly represent everyone, why don't you feel that voters deserve some insight into
your thoughts, some indication on what you consider important? You claim that you do in fact have opinions on the issues, if this is true, why should you not share these opinions? Do you feel that they are unpopular and will prevent your election? Frankly, I'd think that not giving voters the whole picture would do more to hurt your chances than being open and honest about your ideas. Unless of course they are so far out there and essentially damaging to the game as a whole, in which case you'd have no business being on the CSM in the first place.
I do share my opinions, I just choose not to make my own threads about them. I think you'll find a reply of mine in every thread regarding issues asking for CSM candidate opinions.
Then post them on your campaign site. Make them loud and clear. Let people know where you stand. The only reason not to do so is if you fear your opinions would be damaging to your campaign.
|