Poetic Stanziel wrote:I'm waiting for the CSM's ASB to run out of boosters. They'll stop being in defense mode and maybe start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.
HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, highsec, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.
What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.
(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.)
start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadenedCSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.
At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.
At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.
What exactly is the problem?If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.
Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.
Why is reform necessary?Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.
If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.