Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:47:00 -
[421] - Quote
Seleene wrote: The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.
There is no tinfoil here: every charge leveled at this plan has been proven to be accurate and been admitted by Trebor. Trebor has openly admitted this is not aimed at a more fair system: it is aimed at trying to make the CSM more to his liking because he dislikes the results of the votes. To do this, the CSM proposes that certain votes be thrown out, to reduce the input of undesired groups.
Reducing wasted votes is fine. Deliberately wasting votes is not. If the CSM believes we should move from FPTP to STV, that's fine. Moving to STV but then modifying it to start throwing out the votes of undesirables, not so much. Technetium Lord |
Konrad Kane
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:49:00 -
[422] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote: What I'm arguing is that whatever kind of arbitrary seat arrangement you'll end up with, you can't avoid getting the system gamed by the "large organized voting bloc" (CFC/TEST, let's not tiptoe around the issue here). We haven't gamed either of the CSM elections so far, even though it would have been trivial to do so (our exit polls were accurate to a frightening level), so I don't quite see why people are trying to force electoral reform.
To be clear, I've never suggested it can't be gamed. It can be and if they introduce it I'm sure it will be just to prove it can be.
My only point is that the system they are suggesting to make the CSM more representative of playing styles rather than player numbers voting for people is far more complicated than simply dividing the seats between those styles and asking people to stand for those positions.
I suspect most people know why the CSM isn't suggesting that. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
251
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:56:00 -
[423] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it.
The problem is this CSM is heavy on pettiness and short on ability. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
195
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:02:00 -
[424] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: 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).
Here's the core of the issue. You're essentially trying to pretend that 0.0 blocks somehow "gamed" the system to get on, rather than having the most votes. The only thing that voting blocs can do is reduce the amount of "wasted" votes: exit polling and the like are ways to get us around the flaws of FPTP that would otherwise throw out large numbers of our votes.
The core of this "problem" isn't that the system has been "gamed". It's that the CSM, and some vocal minorities, are unhappy with what voters actually want and vote for.
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system?
No, we're not changing the subject here. The sole reasons you've offered for why 0.0 votes should be systematically be thrown out are allegations that they have been "gaming" the system by attempting to avoid their votes being thrown out, and that all people that a 0.0 alliance might put up are identical. Clearly, that's not the case: the CSM is under an NDA so people elected can't consult with other members of their alliance on a proposal they're not familiar with. So any organized effort to elect multiple candidates will always be geared towards electing very different people. 0.0 has focused on the CSM after many cases where an incompetent CSM didn't understand why proposals shouldn't go through, and focused on getting intelligent, effective people elected who can understand what proposals mean. Technetium Lord |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:04:00 -
[425] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:There is no tinfoil here: every charge leveled at this plan has been proven to be accurate and been admitted by Trebor. Trebor has openly admitted this is not aimed at a more fair system: it is aimed at trying to make the CSM more to his liking because he dislikes the results of the votes. To do this, the CSM proposes that certain votes be thrown out, to reduce the input of undesired groups. T1nf01L (CSM.)
Konrad Kane wrote:To be clear, I've never suggested it can't be gamed. It can be and if they introduce it I'm sure it will be just to prove it can be.
My only point is that the system they are suggesting to make the CSM more representative of playing styles rather than player numbers voting for people is far more complicated than simply dividing the seats between those styles and asking people to stand for those positions.
I suspect most people know why the CSM isn't suggesting that. Would be hilarious if the "mining" person was there with the "sov mechanics" person, and the former had 1/10th the votes. Great image.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:05:00 -
[426] - Quote
To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?
I'll be real honest, designing voting systems is not my area of expertise. I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen and I thought it would be better to lead with an idea to start things off. Mostly, I was looking forward to the discussion. Shooting holes in the original proposal has happened, but not a lot of constructive talk about what to do instead aside from keep things as is.
I dont think the system as-is does the job as well as it should. Players legit worry about giving their vote to a small candidate not because he or she doesn't match their views but because they feel their vote would be wasted. The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office.
Building voting systems isnt my thing. The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank. Most points wins first place, second most second etc. But that assumes people will know enough about 40+ players running for CSM to be able to sort out preferences like that which isn't really realistic. And even if it was, it would make voting more complicated/time consuming and voter turnout is already an issue.
So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. We have a very intelligent player community including large groups of players who love to game/break systems (CFC comes to mind but they're not alone by any means) so let's talk about what the solution should be.
AS AN ASIDE: Someone threw out the idea of each voter getting a "vote against" vote in addition to picking their preferred candidate. What do you guys think of that? Sounds very EVE-like..
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? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:07:00 -
[427] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?.
Trebor Daedoow wrote:The most common "better" election system is Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Typically in STV systems, voters rank the candidates (or some subset of them) in order of preference, and if their first candidate is eliminated from the election, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on.
'Eliminated from the election' does not translate to 'removed from position post-election'. And I'm sure Trebor had that in mind when he was wording the proposal.
hth |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:08:00 -
[428] - Quote
I am supporting this proposal because I would like to see the next CSM composed entirely of GSF, CFC, and TEST bloc candidates, with 1 single empire / unaligned candidate whom all the other votes eventually collected to. Hopefully that last member will be Trebor himself; that way the CSM has a kind of mascot or jester available to mock. This will helpful to relieve tensions and improve workplace bonding, plus remind them of the stupidity of empire.
In other words, ahahahahahahahahahahaha look how dumb you are. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:08:00 -
[429] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? We're not. That's a problem. That's a problem Trebor is specifically leaving in because he wants those votes thrown out. Technetium Lord |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:10:00 -
[430] - Quote
Klyith wrote:I am supporting this proposal because I would like to see the next CSM composed entirely of GSF, CFC, and TEST bloc candidates, with 1 single empire / unaligned candidate whom all the other votes eventually collected to. Hopefully that last member will be Trebor himself; that way the CSM has a kind of mascot or jester available to mock. This will helpful to relieve tensions and improve workplace bonding, plus remind them of the stupidity of empire.
In other words, ahahahahahahahahahahaha look how dumb you are. I think we might as well have Xenuria, they're very energetic when posting. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:11:00 -
[431] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same.
You seem to think that we're posting here as an alliance and not as individuals. Would you prefer it if I tabbed into Jabber and sent out a coalition-wide broadcast about this trainwreck of a thread? ;p please leave |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:11:00 -
[432] - Quote
I mean it boils down to that sure, I'd like to discuss the issue, but given that the people discussing the issue are openly saying they intend to design the system to bias the results against the CFC my trust levels are rather low. I'm not willing to grant any legitimacy to that effort, and Trebor has made it clear that's what his goal is here. Technetium Lord |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:12:00 -
[433] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? We're not. That's a problem. That's a problem Trebor is specifically leaving in because he wants those votes thrown out. im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:12:00 -
[434] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? "Why are you goons reacting negatively to an initial proposal which is specifically designed to keep you guys out of the running? I don't understand?"
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen The jury's still out on that one.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office. Tell me how your suggestion fixes this problem without literally assfucking a bunch of others (i.e. us).
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. Says who?
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:so let's talk about what the solution should be. How about you guys working on something which'll actually benefit the game, i.e. GETTING CCP TO FIX THE GODDAMNED GAME, instead of resorting to petty politicking to try to disenfranchise huge swathes of the game's population which is actually enthused about the game? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:13:00 -
[435] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You seem to think that we're posting here as an alliance and not as individuals. Would you prefer it if I tabbed into Jabber and sent out a coalition-wide broadcast about this trainwreck of a thread? ;p Better yet, make sure everyone knows it's our first test of the new CTA system.
Forums CTA. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:14:00 -
[436] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen The jury's still out on that one. No jury, it was decided behind closed doors. Something like a sealed military tribunal (the CSM). Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:15:00 -
[437] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same.
Gee I don't know that might have a lot to do with the wording of the OP which explicitly states:
Quote:3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
If you think that saying "we want to nerf teh goonNOOB vote" fairly explicitly isn't going to draw our attention, I don't know what to say. please leave |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:16:00 -
[438] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same. Gee I don't know that might have a lot to do with the wording of the OP which explicitly states: Quote:3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM. If you think that saying "we want to nerf teh goonNOOB vote" fairly explicitly isn't going to draw our attention, I don't know what to say. He could be a much better politician if he learned to obfuscate a bit better.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:16:00 -
[439] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? Nope, I didn't think "hey we should change the voting system" when Mittens got banned and I still don't believe we should change it now. Especially considering that the first proposed "solution" had "diminish the influence of the CFC" right there in the premise. If you start off with a suggestion that disenfranchises part of the electorate, don't be surprised if you get a ton of backlash by that part.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. We have a very intelligent player community including large groups of players who love to game/break systems (CFC comes to mind but they're not alone by any means) so let's talk about what the solution should be. STV would work fine to ameliorate the problems you've mentioned, albeit with the drawback that Joe Public won't have as easy a time of understanding the results. The problem is that the proposal brought forward by you (as in "by the CSM") isn't STV. Not even close.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:17:00 -
[440] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same.
Well, the CSM posts we've got have been Trebor's open admissions he wants the system biased against the CFC, Hans saying nothing with many posts, and Seleene calling objecting to that "tinfoil": there's not really any feeling that the CSM is interested in a discussion over the best voting system. I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. Technetium Lord |
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:20:00 -
[441] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1569
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:22:00 -
[442] - Quote
So Aleks what is your reaction on Trebor's proposal now that you've been informed on the CSM council you are apparently a part of a) states openly that the intent behind it is to thwart the 'organized voting' of large player blocs and b) does not in any way address the situation where Mittani was removed from the CSM, which you were somehow led to believe it did. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:25:00 -
[443] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence. "any others" is a fairly large set (in fact, the whole set minus the current voting system). It's highly likely at least one system exists that is better than he current one.
But since it's already been clearly demonstrated and admitted that the people selecting systems are looking for one that will be biased to be worse, yes, it is irrational to expect if they come up with a next alternative, it will not just have a better way of masking that it wants to get rid of our evil ganker blobber structure-shooter votes. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Nymblar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:26:00 -
[444] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.
I'd rather see STV over FPTP. I don't buy the argument "Hurr it's hard to implement" - ideally the voting system should not be done by CCP at all but by a trusted third party with player and CCP oversight. I'm also not convinced that it's hard to provide accountability - If my country's government can provide me with raw vote data on election night, so can CCP.
I really don't want to see a system designed to lessen my influence because I happen to have friends, and I find it sickening that the that is the main design goal. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:28:00 -
[445] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? "Why are you goons reacting negatively to an initial proposal which is specifically designed to keep you guys out of the running? I don't understand?" Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen The jury's still out on that one. Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office. Tell me how your suggestion fixes this problem without literally assfucking a bunch of others (i.e. us). Alekseyev Karrde wrote:So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. Says who? How about you guys working on something which'll actually benefit the game, i.e. GETTING CCP TO FIX THE GODDAMNED GAME, instead of resorting to petty politicking to try to disenfranchise huge swathes of the game's population which is actually enthused about the game? 1. Maybe we should do that literacy test XD I didnt say anything about the negative Goon reaction (that's expected and i said as much in the post you quote), I'm surprised they think everything is fine with the status quo
2. Well it shouldn't be. Agitation to look at election reform is nothing new, previous CSMs have talked about it, current CSM has talked about it, CCP thinks it's a an appropriate conversation.
3. I didn't explicitly say in my post but if a voter can rank his or her preferences and 1 of those preferences gets canned, at least it's not all eggs in one basket. It doesn't really screw GSF over at all unless I'm missing something.
4. We're working on several fronts to push CCP to "fix the goddamned game." I can also walk and chew gum AND talk on the phone simultaneously. You'd be amazed (evidently).
Hisec **** posters think i'm either literally TheMitanni or his at least his puppet acintg as an agent of an antihighsec goon conspiracy, CFC **** posters think I'm an antigoon zealot acting as an agent of an antigoon highsec conspiracy. Cant get a break lol. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:28:00 -
[446] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence. Isn't willing to distance?
It seems more like they're hugging it, taking it home and exclaiming that it's their new best friend and you're evil for disapproving. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:28:00 -
[447] - 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. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:29:00 -
[448] - Quote
Nymblar wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.
I'd rather see STV over FPTP. I don't buy the argument "Hurr it's hard to implement" - ideally the voting system should not be done by CCP at all but by a trusted third party with player and CCP oversight. I'm also not convinced that it's hard to provide accountability - If my country's government can provide me with raw vote data on election night, so can CCP. I really don't want to see a system designed to lessen my influence because I happen to have friends, and I find it sickening that the that is the main design goal.
The core of the problem is that they seem to believe that members of "huge voting blocs" do not have free will and are somehow coerced into voting for a chosen candidate, despite the fact that the CSM vote is through a secret ballot. please leave |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:32:00 -
[449] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:So Aleks what is your reaction on Trebor's proposal now that you've been informed on the CSM council you are apparently a part of a) states openly that the intent behind it is to thwart the 'organized voting' of large player blocs and b) does not in any way address the situation where Mittani was removed from the CSM, which you were somehow led to believe it did. I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.
I still think the conversation needed a starting place. I'm less concerned with where it started than where it goes. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:33:00 -
[450] - Quote
Andski wrote:The core of the problem is that they seem to believe that members of "huge voting blocs" do not have free will and are somehow coerced into voting for a chosen candidate, despite the fact that the CSM vote is through a secret ballot. So they're liberating us by making the votes count for less? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |