EVE Search - Why isn't the CSM run on the parliamentary model?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why isn't the CSM run on the parliamentary model?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kevric Lament of the Phoenix The Covenant.	Posted - 2011.07.19 18:55:00 - [1] For example we have 4 different areas of the game in which to live: 1) hisec 2) lowsec 3) 0.0 4) WH Why not come up with a model that says x% of the Eve population live in each area so each area will get x% of the seats on CSM. It could even be divided up further, or differently, based on the amount of players that enjoy mining, industry, pvp, etc. I think the way it is done now, where the big RMT, er, 0.0 alliances can vote en masse to fill the CSM with people to represent their interests is broken and in need of repair. Thoughts?
So'rren	Posted - 2011.07.19 18:58:00 - [2] Because this is a video game and a business. Send your complaints to CCP directly.
George Wilkes Hill	Posted - 2011.07.19 18:58:00 - [3] Originally by: Kevric For example we have 4 different areas of the game in which to live: 1) hisec 2) lowsec 3) 0.0 4) WH Why not come up with a model that says x% of the Eve population live in each area so each area will get x% of the seats on CSM. It could even be divided up further, or differently, based on the amount of players that enjoy mining, industry, pvp, etc. I think the way it is done now, where the big RMT, er, 0.0 alliances can vote en masse to fill the CSM with people to represent their interests is broken and in need of repair. Thoughts? I think that's a pretty good idea to be honest. For exactly the reason you posted in your second to last line. In all previous elections you may as well not even vote because you pretty much have an idea of who will win already, by just looking at the alliance they're in.
Miilla Minmatar Hulkageddon Orphanage	Posted - 2011.07.19 18:58:00 - [4] You do realise the CSM is nothing more than a Public Relations aka Baby Pacifier for ~~customers~~ players?
Kevric Lament of the Phoenix The Covenant.	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:00:00 - [5] Originally by: So'rren Because this is a video game and a business. Send your complaints to CCP directly. u mad?
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:06:00 - [6] Originally by: Kevric I think the way it is done now, where the big 0.0 alliances can vote en masse to fill the CSM with people to represent their interests is broken and in need of repair. I agree with the representation of the different players should be more noticeable, but i'm not sure i support the system you suggest. The system used now with representative democracy does not seem to work, you votes for members based on promises more then a actual plans for how they are going to make the change happen. The CSM seems to believe that the goal justify the means, and as long as they get what they want don't don't care about anyone else. The CSM should try and improve the game for everyone, not just the players who live in one specific area of eve.
Joe SMASH You Got A Purty Mouth	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:10:00 - [7] Originally by: Kevric For example we have 4 different areas of the game in which to live: 1) hisec 2) lowsec 3) 0.0 4) WH Why not come up with a model that says x% of the Eve population live in each area so each area will get x% of the seats on CSM. It could even be divided up further, or differently, based on the amount of players that enjoy mining, industry, pvp, etc. I think the way it is done now, where the big RMT, er, 0.0 alliances can vote en masse to fill the CSM with people to represent their interests is broken and in need of repair. Thoughts? A good % of Eve players have multiple accounts. I have pilots in a 0.0 alliance. I have a wormhole pilot (+scanning alts!). I have a hisec mission running/industrial pilot. If I were to run for CSM, what "party" would I run under? Point being, many people (maybe most?) in 0.0 alliances have other pilots who do other aspects of the game. You just do not know if the real person behind the keyboard of the mission runner is also in a fleet deep in 0.0. If you do not like the CSM, make sure to vote them out of 'office' next go around. The minority always complains how they are not being listened to. Problem is... You're a minority. You say 0.0 Alliances can vote en masse and sway the votes? Isn't that exactly how it is supposed to work? Larger group of players get their reps in office because they hold a larger number of votes. Welcome to the voting process. CCP will also cater to the larger groups because they are the subscription generators. You want your voice heard, make sure enough people agree with you to vote for you. Of course, the problem with getting a 'hisec' CSM is that the vast majority of high sec couldn't care less and the ones who do care are fragmented across many candidates. 0.0 alliances are organized around a few powerful leaders/FCs/personalities that hundreds (sometimes thousands) of players will follow (usually blindly). Therefore those few powerful people can get many votes. TL;DR: Stop *****ing, this is how voting works. Want hisec pubbies represented, figure out how to make them care and unite them under one candidate. ----------------------------------- More stuff goes here.
EmmaFromMarketing	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:23:00 - [8] Quote: Why not come up with a model that says Why not go out and canvas some votes? Or does that require :effort:
Pok Nibin Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:29:00 - [9] Edited by: Pok Nibin on 19/07/2011 19:33:15 Originally by: Kevric u mad? Didn't you get the memo? This cliche joined "groovy" on the ash heap of history two months ago, bro. If you've managed to stomach following the U.$. Congre$$'$ attempt to deal with their "debt ceiling", you'd have a healthy mistrust of the parliamentary system. Why not one-player-one-vote? Use this technology for something other than bovine scatology. Please wait as this sig- nature finishes loading
Janos Saal Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:43:00 - [10] Edited by: Janos Saal on 19/07/2011 19:44:49 Originally by: Kevric I think the way it is done now, where the big RMT, er, 0.0 alliances can vote en masse to fill the CSM with people to represent their interests is broken and in need of repair. Please explain what prevents hisec livers (who constitute 75%+ of EVE's population as I recall) from getting members elected to the CSM under the current model. If anything 0.0 needs to be better represented on the CSM, since advertising nullsec activities form the backbone of CCP's marketing strategy, and we need to make sure it works as well as possible. "Surround yourself with the faithful, stand together, for there is no strength like it under the heavens."
Kevric Lament of the Phoenix The Covenant.	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:47:00 - [11] Originally by: Pok Nibin Edited by: Pok Nibin on 19/07/2011 19:33:15 If you've managed to stomach following the U.$. Congre$$'$ attempt to deal with their "debt ceiling", you'd have a healthy mistrust of the parliamentary system. The US Congress is not run under the parliamentary system. It's what we have currently for electing CSMs.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:53:00 - [12] Originally by: Janos Saal Please explain what prevents hisec livers (who constitute 75%+ of EVE's population as I recall) from getting members elected to the CSM under the current model. If anything 0.0 needs to be better represented on the CSM, since advertising nullsec activities form the backbone of CCP's marketing strategy, and we need to make sure it works as well as possible. The current system as it is don't prevent any group of players from trying to get a CSM candidate elected, but it does heavily favor large established groups, such as alliances or large corporation.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:55:00 - [13] If highsec dwellers don't care enough about the game to get a proportional number of high-sec reps on the CSM to begin with, then why would they care about what direction the CSM ends up advocating? ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.19 19:58:00 - [14] I like the outside the lines thinking, but I'm not sure that would work until we get a much larger chunk (and diversity) of the player base voting (say, 40%?). But I have another question...why aren't we using a better voting system, such as Instant-runoff voting? ~Gnosis~
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.07.19 20:04:00 - [15] Originally by: J Kunjeh But I have another question...why aren't we using a better voting system, such as Instant-runoff voting? Because it's not proportional and because it only selects one winner ù not a group. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Xercodo Amarr Xovoni Directorate	Posted - 2011.07.19 20:05:00 - [16] agreed +1 -------------------------------------------------- The drake is a lie
edith prickley	Posted - 2011.07.19 21:00:00 - [17] Originally by: Tippia If highsec dwellers don't care enough about the game to get a proportional number of high-sec reps on the CSM to begin with, then why would they care about what direction the CSM ends up advocating? I'm not sure it's entirely a question of who cares most. Null-sec is organized into alliances, which have a strong incentive to vote as a block for their own candidates. High-sec is much less coherent. They're more like independent candidates running against party candidates, which is hard to do in the real world as well. And then there's a selection effect which is actually built into the game. Anyone who's that interested in the political side of Eve is probably naturally drawn to null-sec. So high-sec ends up with disproportionately fewer organized and highly motivated politicians for the voters to support.
Barakkus	Posted - 2011.07.19 21:28:00 - [18] I would like to see the CCP version of question time. - [SERVICE] Corp Standings For POS anchoring
Holy One Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.19 21:29:00 - [19] Did anyone else read that as paramilitary? BBQ makes me hungry for more...
Ildus Hekx Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2011.07.19 21:31:00 - [20] Originally by: Miilla You do realise the CSM is nothing more than a Public Relations aka Baby Pacifier for ~~customers~~ players? Really? I mean, reading you is like a big ôwhat if Ankhesentapemkah sucked a lemon and went pirate?ö **** Parliamentary? The way things are going perhaps we should just let the richest 6 players in EVE serve as the player board of directors. They can finally just be that dictatorship the game keeps floating toward. In truth, the biggest thing is finding a way to convince more people to vote or simply integrate a polling mechanism into the game so that an elected committee is not needed. Sure the CSM's most valuable roll is in public relations right now.
Gerald Sphinx Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.07.19 22:03:00 - [21] Originally by: Kevric Originally by: Pok Nibin Edited by: Pok Nibin on 19/07/2011 19:33:15 If you've managed to stomach following the U.$. Congre$$'$ attempt to deal with their "debt ceiling", you'd have a healthy mistrust of the parliamentary system. The US Congress is not run under the parliamentary system. It's what we have currently for electing CSMs. The two-house system of the US Congress is based off of the parliamentary system that the British have. In Parliament, you have the house of Lords and the house of Commons. In the US, there is the House of Representatives and the house of the Senate. Both systems have two different forms of representation (Reps. representing a certain number of people in a given state and a Sen. who represents the state as a whole). The Founding Fathers created the US Congress in that manner (and the British wondered why we copied them). So far, a bi-chamber system such as either the US Congress or Parliament have a nasty tendency of bickering and delaying at the expense of the people they represent. Originally by: Janos Saal Edited by: Janos Saal on 19/07/2011 19:44:49 Originally by: Kevric I think the way it is done now, where the big RMT, er, 0.0 alliances can vote en masse to fill the CSM with people to represent their interests is broken and in need of repair. Please explain what prevents hisec livers (who constitute 75%+ of EVE's population as I recall) from getting members elected to the CSM under the current model. If anything 0.0 needs to be better represented on the CSM, since advertising nullsec activities form the backbone of CCP's marketing strategy, and we need to make sure it works as well as possible. With the amount of resources that 0.0 alliances have compared to the high-sec dwellers and with the level of propaganda they can manage to spew out in the public, it's easy for the population in high-sec to be swayed into voting people who are against their interests. That is the obvious downside of a Council. The best way to remedy this, based on my observations of past and present politics of the real world, is to simply inform as many people as possible about the facts. The problem with this is method (even the best ideas are not perfect) is that how can one tell apart a truth from a lie? Well, what can I say? That's the hard part. Even if one does manage to find evidence of the truth, how can one avoid having the truth being flooded by a pack of lies? So, no matter what system of representation we have, it will always get corrupted. But that doesn't mean we should do away with it altogether. If there is a way to fix it, then fix it.
Kevric Lament of the Phoenix The Covenant.	Posted - 2011.07.19 22:29:00 - [22] Originally by: Gerald Sphinx Originally by: Kevric Originally by: Pok Nibin Edited by: Pok Nibin on 19/07/2011 19:33:15 If you've managed to stomach following the U.$. Congre$$'$ attempt to deal with their "debt ceiling", you'd have a healthy mistrust of the parliamentary system. The US Congress is not run under the parliamentary system. It's what we have currently for electing CSMs. The two-house system of the US Congress is based off of the parliamentary system that the British have. In Parliament, you have the house of Lords and the house of Commons. In the US, there is the House of Representatives and the house of the Senate. Both systems have two different forms of representation (Reps. representing a certain number of people in a given state and a Sen. who represents the state as a whole). The Founding Fathers created the US Congress in that manner (and the British wondered why we copied them). So far, a bi-chamber system such as either the US Congress or Parliament have a nasty tendency of bickering and delaying at the expense of the people they represent. I probably should have been clearer when I said parliamentary system. What I meant was going to a more proportional representational system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation Sorry for the confusion.
Kerrisone	Posted - 2011.07.19 22:30:00 - [23] Originally by: Joe SMASH Originally by: Kevric For example we have 4 different areas of the game in which to live: 1) hisec 2) lowsec 3) 0.0 4) WH Why not come up with a model that says x% of the Eve population live in each area so each area will get x% of the seats on CSM. It could even be divided up further, or differently, based on the amount of players that enjoy mining, industry, pvp, etc. I think the way it is done now, where the big RMT, er, 0.0 alliances can vote en masse to fill the CSM with people to represent their interests is broken and in need of repair. Thoughts? A good % of Eve players have multiple accounts. I have pilots in a 0.0 alliance. I have a wormhole pilot (+scanning alts!). I have a hisec mission running/industrial pilot. If I were to run for CSM, what "party" would I run under? Point being, many people (maybe most?) in 0.0 alliances have other pilots who do other aspects of the game. You just do not know if the real person behind the keyboard of the mission runner is also in a fleet deep in 0.0. If you do not like the CSM, make sure to vote them out of 'office' next go around. The minority always complains how they are not being listened to. Problem is... You're a minority. You say 0.0 Alliances can vote en masse and sway the votes? Isn't that exactly how it is supposed to work? Larger group of players get their reps in office because they hold a larger number of votes. Welcome to the voting process. CCP will also cater to the larger groups because they are the subscription generators. You want your voice heard, make sure enough people agree with you to vote for you. Of course, the problem with getting a 'hisec' CSM is that the vast majority of high sec couldn't care less and the ones who do care are fragmented across many candidates. 0.0 alliances are organized around a few powerful leaders/FCs/personalities that hundreds (sometimes thousands) of players will follow (usually blindly). Therefore those few powerful people can get many votes. TL;DR: Stop ***ing, this is how voting works. Want hisec pubbies represented, figure out how to make them care and unite them under one candidate. You are on point about how people break up their accounts and any 'hi sec' candidate is easily a possible alt for any other type of player or gameplay. Only a forum history of posting positions/opinions that endorse or recognize the alleged position would work to 'verify' the candidate's claims if not e-fame in EVE. Even that would be subject to manipulation IF someone were bent on creating such a 'candidate' by making the proper position posts. Of course large groups of like minded people are supposed to get their voices heard when they join together to make a stand but here in EVE there is one 'side' or 'group' that is by definition setup to be a larger group than nearly any other in game. 00 Alliances benefit like no other from being 'huge' and aren't penalized as other groups would be if they tried to unite like that. Empire makes joining together an invitation to endless wars, griefing, etc the kind of gameplay that is often what 00 is all about. A method to unite for communication without the drawbacks of doing so in EVE would help the problem, like a EVE 'party' system or some other grouping that didn't open up wardecs or compromise 'security' with access. Originally by:** Tippia If highsec dwellers don't care enough about the game to get a proportional number of high-sec reps on the CSM to begin with, then why would they care about what direction the CSM ends up advocating? That makes an assumption that may or may not be true but since people in hisec are almost universally looked down on they rarely get any candidates that make an effort to speak to their POV, being fragmented doesn't help either. Obviously everyone cares about the direction the game goes and those who would be talking to CCP about their POV or perception of players desires. Originally by: Ghoest Ill watch what you do not what you say.
Kalaed Lyosk	Posted - 2011.07.19 23:01:00 - [24] Originally by: Kerrisone A method to unite for communication without the drawbacks of doing so in EVE would help the problem, like a EVE 'party' system or some other grouping that didn't open up wardecs or compromise 'security' with access. Bring real politics to Eve? That sounds kind of interesting.
Kerrisone	Posted - 2011.07.19 23:07:00 - [25] Originally by: Kalaed Lyosk Originally by: Kerrisone A method to unite for communication without the drawbacks of doing so in EVE would help the problem, like a EVE 'party' system or some other grouping that didn't open up wardecs or compromise 'security' with access. Bring real politics to Eve? That sounds kind of interesting. We already have real 'politics' in EVE but really only one 'party' has the tools built into the game to support their ability to get out the vote based on their play style. Originally by: Ghoest Ill watch what you do not what you say.
Gerald Sphinx Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2011.07.19 23:11:00 - [26] Originally by: Kevric I probably should have been clearer when I said parliamentary system. What I meant was going to a more proportional representational system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation Sorry for the confusion. Ah, I see. Like dividing the Council of Stellar Management into three parts according to the current trends of the game: Each part representing Highsec, lowsec/nullsec, and wormholes respectively while sizing them up according to the current distribution of the Eve population. Did I get that right?
Kevric Lament of the Phoenix The Covenant.	Posted - 2011.07.19 23:26:00 - [27] Originally by: Gerald Sphinx Originally by: Kevric I probably should have been clearer when I said parliamentary system. What I meant was going to a more proportional representational system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation Sorry for the confusion. Ah, I see. Like dividing the Council of Stellar Management into three parts according to the current trends of the game: Each part representing Highsec, lowsec/nullsec, and wormholes respectively while sizing them up according to the current distribution of the Eve population. Did I get that right? Yes, that's what I was meaning. It doesn't even have to be based that way. I like the idea of members creating parties that fit their interests and then voting for the parties which could then fill the number of seats they win with likeminded people. This would actually set up a whole new level of gameplay with coalitions of parties working together to fill the CSM.
OHU812	Posted - 2011.07.20 00:29:00 - [28] Seriously? I have a question. Why even have the CSM? An idea was given by AnzacPaul in another post. Why not do away with the CSM? Instead of having the few represent the whole, let everyone who logs in have a voice. New and yes...the old stinky vets too. A simple pop-up during login with maybe a quick 1-3, maybe even 5 questions as to where they think EVE needs to head from here. Doesn't have to be complicated, just collect simple yes no and/or multiple choice questions for easy compilation into a database. This option allows input from the whole of the player base, not the few.... Not to mention it would save on commercial airline tickets, motel rooms, beer, and nuts. See! Now you have a little extra cash for development or whatever. With this idea ^^^ Thanks to AnzacPaul^^^ the whole of EVE can be represented... not the few.
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.20 06:53:00 - [29] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: J Kunjeh But I have another question...why aren't we using a better voting system, such as Instant-runoff voting? Because it's not proportional and because it only selects one winner ù not a group. Good points. Ok then, how about Single Transferable Vote? ~Gnosis~
Rhes Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.07.20 06:58:00 - [30] A much better solution is to let The Mittani remain chairman for life and allow him to pick the rest of the CSM. Pubbies can't be trusted with things like voting.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.