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

serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 12:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
dont agree with the second one as that would tip the balance into a landslide if conspired with other players. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
i got an idea why dont we do stv and when the loggin screen comes up so dose the ballot and all we have to do is click 3 names and send ?
if none of the three get through that you enter your votes are classed as null invoid and are lost from the system of votes.
to help this along there could be ts3 or something orginised for each candidate to chat with the people there going to focus on like a press conferance that everyone is invited to witch all of these can have an advert for at the login screen ? |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:serras bang wrote:i got an idea why dont we do stv and when the loggin screen comes up so dose the ballot and all we have to do is click 3 names and send ? Because those people who don't pay attention or vote now will just click the first three names they see (if you're talking about mandatory voting) or skip it to get into game (if not). It solves nothing.
there would be a no vot button but it would make more see it and maybe actualy have a look on the forums and see what is done if they dont wanna vote they will no longer have noone else to blame but themselves. also they may not actualy know the time of the election or that csm exists like some people i know already. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
digi wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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".
As a 2003 player, I sit here and wonder what exactly my CSM is doing. Why are you focusing on the election rather than the game itself? Your job is to represent the playerbase's interest for the game. This discussion is not in the player's interest. I won't say what I think it is but it has nothing to do with spaceships. I will go as far as to say this: this year's CSM has been the most ineffective by far and if it were possible to issue a vote of no-confidence then you and your team would surely have it. Go fix spaceships. Do your damn job.
this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
talking to me no im dyslexic if your not then fine and i usualy dont vote like rl im not really all that into politics. but this year ive decided to try and see :P |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Its disappointing, but not surprising, to see the CSM members have been so effectively played by a handful of alts shrieking incessantly about 'lack of representation' at every opportunity because they're incapable of rallying support or enthusiasm for their terrible candidates, and creating enough noise to give the impression that they represent anything more than that.
This is irrelevant navel-gazing of CSM1-era proportions.
tbh this isnt the problem go ask 100 random player in hi sec eve what csm is and half of em prolly wont have a clue. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. Alt alliances, been there; done that.
lol to bad i still win :P
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. Alt alliances, been there; done that. lol to bad i still win :P What?
alt alliances ect would also be taken into acount for this i aint that stupid to make a suggestion just to allow players to skip alliance at ellection time to another alliance to get in. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ted McManfist wrote:How is "One vote per account" a system that needs changing? Unless, of course, you only seek to remain in power and are looking for a way to manipulate votes to that end.
If hi-sec dwellers feel they aren't being represented, then they have the same opportunity as the rest of us to select a candidate that best represents their interests and rally behind them.
If they are disinterested, disorganized, or just too stupid to do that...tough. Why should the rest of us be marginalized because of inept publourdes?
the descusion aint about goons lets keeps on subject the descusion how to broadly make it fair but i say again a lot and i mean a lot of hi sec players do not know of csm. and i made a few suggestions further up up seams to have been over ridden by goons complaining (i wasnt gonna stoop to this but there it is).
but seriously even if this dosent get changed i think really what needs done is csm to be shoved out into the limelite on loggin and give the player to vote durring loggin pluss as i said other things of kinda a confrance for player to meet the people running for csm. |
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
and dose a player need more than 10% of votes ? unless desiding on a tie for head of csm ? |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:serras bang wrote:to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm Waiting for a point here.
point is even with missing vote from large alliances such as goons if there as popular as they say then they will still easily make the top position without diminishing there stake. (sorry goons for makeing you the example here). |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
Two step wrote:The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort.
As someone who was elected from a smallish community, my worry is that in the future there might be 4 or 5 wormhole dudes running, and I don't want to see that mean that nobody from w-space gets elected. Avoiding that sort of scenario is my #1 requirement for a new voting system. My other desired features:
2) Encourage a broad representation on the CSM. Having a FW guy, or a wormhole guy, or a highsec guy on the CSM is really useful when we need a POV on issues that pertain to those communities. 3) Make voting easier, or at least as easy as it is currently.
How about this for an alternate proposal:
Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part.
i like this guy he gets what the voters want.
also as i said before i think the csm has to be draged kicking and screaming into everyones mind that playes the game to get a true majority of the game voting.
however everyone should pick 3 candidates and the votes should never be in the candidates hands as that promots fixing if none of the 3 voted for guys make it the voter vote dosent get counted. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:serras bang wrote:however everyone should pick 3 candidates and the votes should never be in the candidates hands as that promots fixing if none of the 3 voted for guys make it the voter vote dosent get counted. You make absolutely no sense. Everyone should pick 3 candidates, but the candidates should be unable to tell people who to vote for, and none of the 3 guys people vote for doesn't get counted? I've literally no idea what the **** you're trying to get at, I can't deparse it. He means the VOTERS should choose alternates, not have candidates themselves do it. For example if a bunch of candidates choose one another.. but they're all too small all the votes go poof.
no the candidates never have the chance to pass on votes if none of the candidates the voter chosses get on csm the votes go poof
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote:i like this guy he gets what the voters want.
also as i said before i think the csm has to be draged kicking and screaming into everyones mind that playes the game to get a true majority of the game voting.
however everyone should pick 3 candidates and the votes should never be in the candidates hands as that promots fixing if none of the 3 voted for guys make it the voter vote dosent get counted. So you have to force the voters into things, that's what the voters want? Nice.
i never said force but a lot of people dont know about csm or what they do heance they never even get the option of voting |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:You can't make the CSM elections more public than last time without forcing everybody to vote.
really cause i heard squat i didnt even know the vote had come and gone. anyways i think im getting of point just making the say that it has be be put out plane smack in the face of everyone also. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 22:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:It's been publicized on the login screen, on the character select, on the homepage, on the forums. Several candidates have sent out evemail spam. If you willingly ignore all of that, there's nothing left to do save for forcing you to vote.
there was nothing that stood out to make me pay atention and i got no mail from anyone in this mass spam |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 01:03:00 -
[19] - Quote
RDevz wrote:serras bang wrote: there was nothing that stood out to make me pay atention and i got no mail from anyone in this mass spam
Did you even start the game client? How could you miss the big "vote" banner without being wilfully ignorant of the entire CSM process? It's reasonable to assume that someone who's managed to avoid all exposure to the CSM process, yet who is forced to vote, will pick candidates at random. This means that it'll artificially inflate the perceived number of people who voted for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate, while having no effect on the winner or their absolute margin of victory.
who said force anyone again though you want more proff of how lacking knowladge of csm is i know a 6 - 7 year old char under what you guys are saying it would be easy to assume he knew all about csm and when they voted ?
yet i could almost guarantee yah he dosent. how you explain that ? |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 01:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ?
noone has put in front of and explained it properly |
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ted McManfist wrote:serras bang wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ? noone has put in front of and explained it properly So because you aren't spoon-fed something, you think the people that actually pay attention should have their votes marginalized? If you are too lazy to make ISK, should the rest of us pay for you? Your entire argument seems to me that you can't be arsed to pay attention, and you are upset that your voice isnt heard. I have news for you: The system is working as it should.
hey i never voted last time i couldnt give a flying feck if my voice isnt heard this time atm im here playing devils advocate sticking my boot into this for hi sec in general and giveing a pov on this descustion that is open to everyone in eve. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Sal Volatile wrote:Ignoring legitimate criticism while vaguely referring to tinfoil hattery is extremely dishonest and I am extremely disappointed in both you and the other CSM members, Seleene. Many very serious and legitimate critiques have been made in this thread. Your dismissive attitude is patronizing and appalling. There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it. My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them.
well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in and if your now ready to read an idea through all the goons subtafuge and sabatage i think i may have a way to try getting it fair to the point that as many people as possible have a say.
my idea is as follows and yes it requires extra work by ccp on the fact of having to vet every candidate however i think this is needed or people are going to game the system .
have any system in place that you wish but split the seats up in a similar fasion to 2 seats for null sec representatives, 2 seats for low sec representatives, 2 for high sec and 2 for WH the rest of the seats would be allocated going on a similar bassis and im sure ccp could figure them out.
this can be gammed in many different ways but this is why i said at the top each character would have to go through a vetting procedure to ensure that new characters werent created for that purpose. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:21:00 -
[23] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote.
It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough ****. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot.
One avenue for the CSM: maybe trying to convince CCP to make voting an in-client component. Perhaps at login, an account is immediately presented with a modal window that describes the CSM and the voting process, and presents three buttons: "I wish to vote now", "I wish to abstain", "I will vote later." Until the account has voted or abstained, they are presented with this window every time they login to the client. If they wish to vote, they are presented with a list of the candidates, each with a short candidate-written summary of their platform. Simple as that. I bet that sort of in-client interface would increase voter turnout at least three-fold. (I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is the sort of thing that should be the focus of the CSM with regards voting, making it easier and more convenient for people to vote.)
i have made this suggestion already i also still say there has to be more promotion and things that draw peoples eyes or they will just miss it. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote?
when did i ever say that ? |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote? when did i ever say that ? Obviously you want my vote to count for less than yours, otherwise we can just keep the current system where we both have one vote, regardless of whom you or I wish to vote for.
i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:45:00 -
[26] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont. You said you're giving 2 seats to nullsec, 2 to low, 2 to high and 2 to WH. If you pigeonhole 20000 votes from the nullsec blocs into two seats, while 3000 votes from WH also get two seats, how do the 20000 votes not count for less than the 3000?
because under the kind of system im proposeing is to give everyone a fair say noone can any longer control large amounts of the council but tbh isnt you vote going to a candidate from null you want there already ?
then you vote isnt worth less as you would voted for em in the first place or you simply being forced into voting for someone ?
persides the more votes someone gets the more ikely they are to be heading csm that alone should give your vote more power this is if your corp/alliance/voting block is so powerfull.
or is it your all flooding the forums scared that you may lose influance in the grand sceam of things ?
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:46:00 -
[27] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:I like how the only thing CSM7 has done and will do is try to poorly devise a way to keep mittens off the CSM
hes not allowed to run for csm 8 anyways that was part of his punishment wasnt it ? to step down from this csm and unable to run for the next ? |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:57:00 -
[28] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:You said you're giving 2 seats to nullsec, 2 to low, 2 to high and 2 to WH. If you pigeonhole 20000 votes from the nullsec blocs into two seats, while 3000 votes from WH also get two seats, how do the 20000 votes not count for less than the 3000? because under the kind of system im proposeing is to give everyone a fair say noone can any longer control large amounts of the council but tbh isnt you vote going to a candidate from null you want there already ? If 20000 votes have to establish two seats, then each vote has decided on 1/10000th of a seat. If 3000 votes decide on 2 seats, then each vote has decided on 1/1500th of a seat. 1/10000th is less than 1/1500th. How exactly is my 1/10000th seat vote worth the same as your 1/1500th seat vote?
serras bang wrote:or is it your all flooding the forums scared that you may lose influance in the grand sceam of things ? nah we've already established that whatever you do we can game the system so that's nbd really[/quote]
i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. Except England, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't all send the same number of representatives into the Commons. For the record, I'm totally fine with giving the so-called "Highsec representatives" more seats because I have chars that have never set foot outside of Jita. So I should be able to vote for the highsec seat, right?
no that is correct but every region has its representative |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Konrad Kane wrote:If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above. How do you categorize people into the three voting "boroughs"? As I said above, there's no nullsec pilot who doesn't also have at least one highsec character, for market shenanigans or whatever reason. Do I get to vote on lowsec issues on my faction warfare alt? Can I vote for the highsec candidate with my L4 mission runner? Maybe I want to stand for the Highsec spot on the platform that L4s don't pay out enough and need to be buffed. Will I be allowed to, or am I "tainted" for having a nullsec character?
your votes do as you please with even a high sec char can vote for a nully if they wish but they would still only recieve 2 seats. |
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:13:00 -
[31] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. Except England, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't all send the same number of representatives into the Commons. For the record, I'm totally fine with giving the so-called "Highsec representatives" more seats because I have chars that have never set foot outside of Jita. So I should be able to vote for the highsec seat, right? no that is correct but every region has its representative So we'll get one representative for each of the EVE regions?
no i said 2 in my original proposal will it be 2 will it maybe be 3 from null i dunno its upto ccp im just putting up and outlining my suggestion. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:24:00 -
[32] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:As a Canadian I'm well aware of disproportionate regional representation. Putting aside the fact that huge swaths of the playerbase can't be pigeonholed to a single region, the idea that a 'wormholer vote' is worth ten times a nullsec player's vote and twenty times a highsec player's vote in terms of CSM representation is insulting.
but if you went on the bassis of everyone in the game voting (i know this dont happen but bear with me) a null sec and wh vote would infact be worth more as im sure hi sec could produce more possible canddates than null. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:25:00 -
[33] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What makes hisec need 2 representatives? What issues do they need to work on? Mining Ganking Incursions Jita CONCORD Can-flipping Ninja Salvaging
Mining and ganking is certianly 2 issues that would be good ones however my idea for mining and ganking may not neceseraly help or buff hi it may help people get into low but i wouldnt neceseraly help hi |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:30:00 -
[34] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What makes hisec need 2 representatives? What issues do they need to work on? Mining Ganking Incursions Jita CONCORD Can-flipping Ninja Salvaging Mining and ganking is certianly 2 issues that would be good ones however my idea for mining and ganking may not neceseraly help or buff hi it may help people get into low but i wouldnt neceseraly help hi Oh then I guess you can't be a "real" "highsec candidate".
and why you say that ? it depends what people do with what im thinking if ccp accepted it. it could also potentialy open up other carrer paths for hi sec player perside there may well be certian hi sec players that would like to get into null sec but cant due to certian barriers. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:31:00 -
[35] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Konrad Kane wrote:If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above. How do you categorize people into the three voting "boroughs"? As I said above, there's no nullsec pilot who doesn't also have at least one highsec character, for market shenanigans or whatever reason. Do I get to vote on lowsec issues on my faction warfare alt? Can I vote for the highsec candidate with my L4 mission runner? Maybe I want to stand for the Highsec spot on the platform that L4s don't pay out enough and need to be buffed. Will I be allowed to, or am I "tainted" for having a nullsec character? You have as many votes as you have accounts, not sure what the issue here is? Do you have one candidate now that is really addressing all you 0.0, FW, lvl4 mission running issues? The CSM isn't a cabinet, a government or some sort of parish council it's a customer advocacy group: using terms like election turnout doesn't change that. If they are concerned that all areas of the game aren't getting represented well I'm simply saying instead of this rather convoluted process where they try and juggle the votes to make it be as representatives as they feel it should be, they just split up seats into gaming styles and let people vote for say guys who do want to buff lvl4 missions standing for the high sec seat. I don't pretend it's perfect but it is pretty simple, which is what is needed here IMHO.
im glad at least one person is grasp what im saying |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:38:00 -
[36] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote:and why you say that ? it depends what people do with what im thinking if ccp accepted it. it could also potentialy open up other carrer paths for hi sec player perside there may well be certian hi sec players that would like to get into null sec but cant due to certian barriers. Oh, you've already started thinking ahead about the possible effects of changes. It's not too common in certain places...
always have thought ahead i cant turn brain of when it comes to possible outcomes of certian action just like the mining barges changes when people laughed at me when i told em straight up that what has happend would most likely happen. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:47:00 -
[37] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. My counter-proposal: don't change anything. Or if that's entirely out of the question for some reason: use any widely known voting system, not something you lot cobbled together over lunch and a couple of beers. ^ This Nothing needs to be changed except people's perceptions that votes for candidates who didn't make CSM were "wasted". A single vote, first-past-the-gate voting system makes it very easy to candidates to see (a) how popular they are, (b) how much harder they have to try next time, and (c) how everyone else gamed the system. Complex voting solutions outside the realm of "1-N preferential voting system" are not going solve any problems, but they will introduce new problems due to bugs in vote counting software, people not understanding the voting system, and candidates outright gaming the system. The simple solutions are not effective, and the effective solutions are not simple. Even worse, the effective solutions are not going to be that much better than single-vote first-past-the-post. The current system is broken, but at least we can all see and understand the brokenness. We just have to change the perception that votes for a candidate who didn't make CSM are somehow "wasted" any more than surplus votes for someone who made chairman. Those votes that went to candidates who didn't get into CSM mean that those voters didn't want the people that got into CSM. It's really as simple as that. Those are not "wasted votes". Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it. I'll butt out now, but that's my contribution to this topic.
the broken part is people do not feel that aspects of the game are represented within csm. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?
only reason im bringing this up is cause this seems to be my idea your commenting on the ide isnt to pidgeon hole players. the idea behind it is low null and hi sec generaly want seperate things right ? so the candidates would be pigeon holed not the voters if you get what i mean.
just cause someone dose mining all week and then gose into low for fw dosent make the differance if his views are more towards low hes more likely to vote for one of the low sec candidates nothing stopping him from that however if the views of a hi sec candidate intises him more he would vote for him.
was a thought of how to get a more broad representation of more gameplays into csm. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:38:00 -
[39] - Quote
serras bang wrote:[quote=Alekseyev Karrde]ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?
i see a hugh problem with this that may or may not see nothing but null sec players(such as goons test ect) that would get through the prelims on the 2 tier voteing bit |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
Klyith wrote:Lord Zim wrote:How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes?
What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias? To put it more bluntly, do you really think you can come up with a gamed system that the folks in GSF and TEST can't game right back? We're organized and have better information resources! Did anyone in the CSM ask CCP if they could implement real Single Transferable Voting? Or did Trebor & co look at it and say, "It's too fair, they'll still be able to use their 10k votes to out-elect my 1k votes. We need something like STV but from bizarro-world and dreamed up by Tammany Hall." Because real STV would be the best real voting system to make the votes of unaligned voters count.
the csm reprecentatives have already said that they have chatted to ccp and ccp also said that this descusion should happen. |
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:40:00 -
[41] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:I mean, basically this discussion isn't about what you want to discuss because we can't agree on what to discuss. Trebor wants to discuss a "fair" system, and by that he means one that disenfranchises the "right" number of 0.0 votes. I, on the other hand, would like to discuss a fair system, meaning one that results in the CSM best reflecting the preferences of the voters.
As long as the discussion is about the former rather than the latter, there is nothing to discuss except reject the premise and continue to emphasize it is illegitimate to have the goal of a voting system be to properly disenfranchise a specific group.
the preferance of people is to have an equal representation on the csm council |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:the preferance of people is to have an equal representation on the csm council So far, most people have expressed a disinterest in being represented on the CSM (by not voting).
perhaps the incident at fanfest has woken people up it did me also and unfortunately amongst a lot of those in hi sec enough wasnt done about that incident and has tarnished not just goons but those that COULD be assosiated with them i.e other alliances such as DNS and test with the same brush. |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:25:00 -
[43] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? 1. Overview standings bug: when titan bridging many people at once, often- many pilots will appear to have no standings towards their fleet members and be generically 'neutral'. This gets people shot and killed. 2. Frequent (20-30) disconnects and crashes when moving through gates or titan bridges in groups ranging from 10-256. 3. Module delay: somewhere on these forums someone else brought this up and frapsed it- I can lock a target, be in range, activate my warp scrambler, and he still warps away because my activation cycle delays, and even expresses the delay by starting off at 3/4 cycle rather than 99%. 4. Industry in null sec. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to do any industry in null sec compared to high sec. Ever. Everything is imported except basic frigate hulls. Unless things change. 5. Ghosts on overview. I will have entities linger on my overview for a good 5-7 seconds after they have left the system, jumped a gate, bridged out, warped away, etc. 6. Sometimes the overview gets really bugged and the 'ghosts' stay forever! I've had bombs linger on my overview and appear to be moving for 3,000+km. I'll write up more as they come to me  ive experienced some of those problems and you know what i think ccp know about them as most of them are bugs and guess what a restart of me comp and router generaly fixes them for me
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Here's another. Fourteen isk pyerite.
GO!
suply and demand |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully.
Sooooo more like an easy in field catch.
So there is nothing broken about farming alts raking in 10-15b isk a day in Loyalty points until 'Winter'. Awesome. I can totally see your point for changing the voting scheme now, no- wait. I can't.
things take time to program ccp will most likely be worklng on it remmeber ccp also have dust they would like to start getting active on the live server on the winter expansion also so they are actualy really quite busy there prolly still trying to work out the best way to solve it. persides if its really a big problem and legal why the hell aint goons doing it ? |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:35:00 -
[46] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Here's another. Fourteen isk pyerite.
GO! suply and demand CCP is already working hard to make sure highsec-obtainable minerals are cheap by making it easy (afk) and worry-free (less ganking). Thanks for all your hard work ~~
again why you care you have the low sec ore you make more isk that way by sitting behind a blue firewall and mining |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:36:00 -
[47] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote:things take time to program ccp will most likely be worklng on it remmeber ccp also have dust they would like to start getting active on the live server on the winter expansion also so they are actualy really quite busy there prolly still trying to work out the best way to solve it. persides if its really a big problem and legal why the hell aint goons doing it ? Who says we aren't? Thats like saying we shouldn't have been talking about tech causing an imbalance because it was a big thing and legal.
then if your takeing advantage of this dont complain and get more done before the fix come to stomp it out instead of argueing on the forums and being unproductive
|

serras bang
Lucien Coven
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 12:00:00 -
[48] - Quote
i got one last idea that will work for every NO MORE CSM |

serras bang
Lucien Coven
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 10:41:00 -
[49] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Well this thread is just another super whine maybe it needs moving to GD to go with the rest. But any way here is what I propose for future elections
- 1 Vote per account
- Candidates may select 1 candidate to receive their votes if they are knocked out using the lowest number of votes as a starting point and working up
- Only the votes received by a candidate may be passed on if elimination occurs.
- A fee of 2 Billion is is required for registration as a candidate
- Voting buttons as Per Poetic Stanziel suggested "One avenue for the CSM: maybe trying to convince CCP to make voting an in-client component. Perhaps at login, an account is immediately presented with a modal window that describes the CSM and the voting process, and presents three buttons: "I wish to vote now", "I wish to abstain", "I will vote later." Until the account has voted or abstained, they are presented with this window every time they login to the client. If they wish to vote, they are presented with a list of the candidates, each with a short candidate-written summary of their platform."
- Advertising in splash banners should start ASAP telling people what the CSM is and what it does.
- Update the "What is the CSM" page.
- In the case of disqualification, those people who voted for the candidate are subject to there votes disappearing down a black hole.
- Dev blogs like the winter expansion should have by lines acknowledging the work of the CSM.
- The CSM should continue it's wonderful transparency and communication with the playerbase.
These changes will effective make the number of votes required for lowest seats higher. They will also lessen the chance of joke candidates, as these people are supposed to be knowledgeable in the game and if they can not come up with a measly 2 Billion isk then they probably do not know how to play the game well enough. It will increase voter participation lessening the effect of minorities It will increase the CSMs profile within the player community. These are my suggestions but at the end of the day it is the CSMs job to decide for them selves what system they want to put into place. This is one of the tings they were voted in to do. Good luck and thank you for your hard work.
you game this by sending in so many reps that they all will be knocked up but instead of splitting the votes over 3 guys the others could orginize this so that 5 or more got through. also a fee to run is absalutely a bad idea as hi sec candidates may not have this thus again it all being dominated by people such as goons
|
|
|
|