Goons would probably be better served engaging in that discussion rather than inventing things to tinfoil hat about.

I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.

Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".

Good point. Good point. I can understand how that would be frustrating.

I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea....

We've had some brief internal discussion about it, but the bottom line is that it is inappropriate for the CSM to decide for itself, what the next election rules should be. It would be unethical for us to have some month-long pow wow, decide what we think is best, and than try to push that agenda on the public.

This is exactly why Trebor put out an idea that he's put some time and energy into, as a starting point for discussion, not a formal proposal we want double checked before we push it on CCP. As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread.

I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.

While we're at it lets make MInmatar only get 3/5ths of a vote.

CD-STV is an attempt to address former Chairman Mittani's concerns..

December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"

The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).

If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.

A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.

You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.

On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.

See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.

He was referring to the minute from CSM 6. I would ask how it disenfranchises voters but I will just get some babble back.

And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.

Oh hey I see we're still trying to prop up a brazen attempt by this CSM to throw away the votes of paying subscribers because they do not like who they'll be voting for!

I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.

I think it is unfortunate that this CSM is so afraid of popular voting that they would invent a new system while trying to pass it off under the guise of 'STV'; I can understand their fear of bloc voting and I respect their opinion, but trying to imply that I somehow support this policy shows that they have a lot of growing up to do. The popular opinion is that the CSM should be focusing on game-related issues and getting results instead of fretting about who 'controls' the CSM itself - after all, who cares who controls a CSM if it accomplishes nothing?

This will be my only comment on the issue. Please do not try to involve me in your proposals again; if you must bring up whether I supported X, Y or Z in the past, we're all in a Skype channel together so there's no excuse for not conferring with me about what I support/do not support before making a public assertion to that effect. Good luck in your future endeavors!