|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Pipa Porto
971
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
In the US, we generally call the idea of Candidates directing their votes after they lose "The Corrupt Bargain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824
This ****** idea is bringing up issues that the US last dealt with almost 200 years ago and is proposing to institutionalize the thing that was deemed "corrupt" when it happened. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1021
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Borisk Zeltsh wrote:Why 85% dont vote? maybe becouse couldnt give a fu#k just want log in kill **** or wotever els they do in game and cant be botherd with eve politics same resone most ppl dont go 0.0 and become sheep
Great. Then don't complain when the CSM doesn't do what you like. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1051
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Borisk Zeltsh wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Borisk Zeltsh wrote:Why 85% dont vote? maybe becouse couldnt give a fu#k just want log in kill **** or wotever els they do in game and cant be botherd with eve politics same resone most ppl dont go 0.0 and become sheep Great. Then don't complain when the CSM doesn't do what you like. who's complaining?
If you're not, great.
There are a number of very loud posters who proudly boast that they didn't vote when they complain about the activities of the CSM. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1060
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 07:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:If you really want to change the voting system then how about this
********Disclaimer*********
I am fully aware that I will flamed to Hell and Back but this is something I would actually support
****************************
I would keep the CSM but remove the whole voting for candidates.
Instead I would have say the 10 largest Alliance each put forward 1 Candidate with 1 Assistant and make the CSM up with that.
Why?
Well the most 2 important things for me anyway is that these alliances will actually care a great deal about how the game is developed,and will have a very good understanding how the game mechanics work.
The only problems I see with that are:
They won't necessarily know about WH mechanics, as not all alliances have WH wings.
HS people will whine despite likely being better represented.
It's undemocratic (of course, as this is an advisory, rather than parliamentary body, that may not be a problem). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1068
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 10:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:If you really want to change the voting system then how about this
********Disclaimer*********
I am fully aware that I will flamed to Hell and Back but this is something I would actually support
****************************
I would keep the CSM but remove the whole voting for candidates.
Instead I would have say the 10 largest Alliance each put forward 1 Candidate with 1 Assistant and make the CSM up with that.
Why?
Well the most 2 important things for me anyway is that these alliances will actually care a great deal about how the game is developed,and will have a very good understanding how the game mechanics work. The only problems I see with that are: They won't necessarily know about WH mechanics, as not all alliances have WH wings. HS people will whine despite likely being better represented. It's undemocratic (of course, as this is an advisory, rather than parliamentary body, that may not be a problem). What a lot of people who have only ever lived HS need to realise is that if a lot of problems in null are fixed then by default HS will improve. You can also argue that people have had years to put together a dedicated HS lobby group and have failed to do so. You can solve the WH issue by simply inviting a couple of members for various well know WH Alliances / Corps. Yes it undemocratic but I do not see the CSM as anything other as a advisory body anyway, so you might as well put people who have a good knowledge of all aspects of the game and a solid fundamental understanding of the game mechanicals in that advisory body.
Yes. That's about what I said. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1069
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sunfang Armer wrote:Call me a simple minded Brutor if that's your thing, but after reading all these... lets call them opinions, I am still wondering what the CSM actually is and does. I believe I can represent myself to a larger community better than someone who holds a mere "writ of passage" can, but I commend the effort to brainstorm with the voters and get them to do your job for you.
Also, why is it that all elected canadates seem to go into one all powerful ruling body *sniff, sniff* (I smell a despot!) rather than have a 2, 3 or 4 party system. Then people can vote for their party's elected ministers, 4 months later the ministers vote for a leader to represent them and 4 months after that is the CSM election. 4 months later, rinse and repeat.
Of course, the people are right and any system put in place will be gamed to the max. And since this is just a game, give the voters what they want. Hold a Battle Royale!!!
If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1070
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Sunfang Armer wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power). Well I won't correct you. But two major parties (eg: Red, Blue) and several independant parties would make an effective electoral roll. CSM could act as a neutral moderater rather than a glorified accountant sending/receiving "issues" to and from CCP and players. Plus, a player run EVE governmet (aka: intense headache) would be more interesting than a puppet council doing CCP's bidding, i'd imagine 
So form a party. Get people to vote for you. When your party gains power through coordinated voting, you'll attract rival parties.
The CSM is an advisory body. It's job is to provide a sanity check on CCP's ideas (something this CSM has failed miserably at). It is not a parliamentary body.
The sending/recieving issues hemi-demi-parlimentary process was dropped like 4 CSMs ago.
What's there to govern? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1071
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 03:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I hate to agree with you but yeah the main defining characteristics of all the CSM's has been a failure to guide CCP away from monumental mistakes and blunders.
Difference being that previous CSMs were not consulted or ignored on the big blunders of their tenancy. This CSM endorsed them (wardecs, FW plexing). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1087
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.
In what way is it exploitable? The candidates who have the most support among the voting populace win. It you're unable to get those people already prepared to vote to vote for you, try convincing people who otherwise wouldn't vote to vote for you. Something like 80% of the server population is up for grabs... grab it.
Just because you got stomped doesn't mean that the advantage your opponents have, "Popularity," is an unfair one or an exploitative one. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |

Pipa Porto
1147
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 05:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Now now, some people might have misclicked...
A Cat on the keyboard is a vote for Xenuria. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|

Pipa Porto
1186
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: --- Assume standard STV system, where players designate their own votes: How do you reassign overvotes fairly? For example, suppose Trebor received 1000k overvotes.... which of his 1000 voters' votes get reassigned? Is it random, is it a FIFO or LIFO system? And why does anyone get their votes reassigned?? Everyone that voted for trebor is getting their preferred candidate in, so their votes are perfectly placed!!!!
It's proportional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Example
If the candidate has 1000 votes and the bar threshold is 900, the remaining 100 are reassigned in proportion to the second choices of all 1000 votes. At this point, there's no problem with having fractional votes assigned (as in, 1 guy has candidate Z as his 2nd choice, so candidate Z gets .1 vote assigned).
The point of reassigning votes is to better match the preferences of everyone. Not just people with minority held opinions. That's why you reassign surplus votes.
By the way, stop calling Trebor's terrible idea STV-anything. It's not. It's simply his attempt at disenfranchising his political opponents (as he said outright in his OP). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
|
|