define too high?

.

The null blocks do put in effort. That's why there are so many of our delegates on the CSM

I completely agree you have a good sized number base and Null is very organized, as with out it you would have a much smaller representation.

But also the New voting system now makes that organization even more valuable but with so many In hi-sec not knowing or caring about the CSM it will remain a Null and maybe now a WH dominated CSM until the casual and hi-sec players are educated as to why they should vote or for that matter care.

Well at least you've identified what the problem is.

Has it occurred to you that you could use all the energy you spend ranting and raving on the forums to try to effect some progress on those goals?

I think we need something different then the CSM representation we have had up till now., or maybe something in addition to the CSM. This years pool was rather small and the serious candidates were pretty much the choir.

I think a lot could be helped if we could get attention to the value and potential of CSM and poke some different types of candidates.

This is always going to be the case. The CSM is mostly fluff anyway, it's not a position of real power. The large power blocks will continue to have the biggest influence, and ultimately get more people placed on the actual CCP staff as they have in the past, furthering their agenda. The rich get richer and all that.

The players you're referring to, the ones who represent a different mindset, are not going to run for CSM. Ever. They're too busy playing and enjoying the game.

I might be wrong but I see EVE as still slowly bending more and more towards the elite player class.

I used to be anti-null bear.

The truth is, null players have their fingers into everything:

- High sec ganking/war deccing
- High sec industry
- FW farming and FW alts
- Low sec piracy alts

In other words, players like to publicly label themselves as being affiliated with null sec, but spend the majority of their time in other areas of space. Why? Because they're bored. Their mains are doing little besides swelling their wallets, which they use to fund alt activities.

The CSM is skewed to null voting power blocks anyway. Let them have the CSM and all the changes they're asking for in null. Maybe that way they'll go back to playing their mains.

This is not an attack on the quality of null representation. Its a well known fact that some of the best players are active in null.

The point was that other aspects of the game is already pretty niche and overlooked.

On the one hand I definitely agree with you that a balanced CSM with a diverse range of experience and viewpoints is a better tool for improving the game. I point you to my own voter recommendation list in my sig as an example.

On the other hand, Empire has seen the vast majority of dev effort since 2009. Candidly, it's nullsec's turn for some dev love, and if that's what the CSM is going to be advising CCP on, then it's good that null is "over-represented". That's not to say that a pure 0.0 CSM would be the best choice, even if only to make sure that empire/W-space activity doesn't get 'stepped on' out of pure ignorance.

Seems to me like the STV voting has made the organised null voting even more powerful, even though I think CCP kept claiming it would make it less of an issue

I don't mind though, it's not as if I want highsec carebear reps anyway

STV does not make organized null voting more powerful; what it does is it permits null to get the representation its share of the voters deserves

the "problem" is that empire eveo forumwarriors don't realize just how many voters the null candidates represent compared to the highsec ones because null alliances have their own forums and don't really tend to form communities here, so people who do their posting here think far more of the voters and players are worthless highseccers than they actually are

I used to be anti-null bear.

The truth is, null players have their fingers into everything:

- High sec ganking/war deccing
- High sec industry
- FW farming and FW alts
- Low sec piracy alts

In other words, players like to publicly label themselves as being affiliated with null sec, but spend the majority of their time in other areas of space. Why? Because they're bored. Their mains are doing little besides swelling their wallets, which they use to fund alt activities.

The CSM is skewed to null voting power blocks anyway. Let them have the CSM and all the changes they're asking for in null. Maybe that way they'll go back to playing their mains.

That is, in essence, my platform

That's why I put you at number 2 behind Mangala.

Also I have never really been a member of any of the main power blocs, but they generally play Eve the same way I play Eve so despite my high sec living area, I still vote for them. I voted for the Mittani because at the time his platform made sense and he was generally good for the game. I've voted for Mangala Solaris first this year, because he will be a voice of highsec reason, but the majority of the candidates I put on my list are from big 0.0 blocs.

While I would normally be against a null-bloc dominated CSM, the fact is that we need it. Null-sec is horribly broken, and apart from a few regions, pretty much a deserted wasteland. This needs to change.

The real danger is ending up with a CSM which is entirely controlled by the blue donut, the very people who have contributed to the sorry state of Null-sec.

The blue donut will obtain a majority in the CSM thanks to the new STV system. CCPs options for picking the most feature-relevant councilmembers for a trip to Iceland will be seriously limitted.
CCP changed the voting system because they realised they needed better feedback. Similtaneously CCP also tried to obtain feedback trough other channels. They have since monoclegate put a lot of effort into informing us through dev-blogs and discussion threads and reading our feedback posted on the forums. The upcomming election failure will make the CSM less relevant and is a victory for those of us who try to supply usefull feedback through the forums.

[CSM] Is representation of null going to be high enough?


http://i.imgur.com/ufSvgCn.png

[CSM] Is representation of null going to be high enough?


http://i.imgur.com/ufSvgCn.png

So awesome.

And in answer to the thread title: Representation of null will be nearly exactly what it should be.

i would like to see some numbers on your claims. Not just HS chars vs NS chars I mean voters too.

Note2: Which of course will be completely unrepresentative of EvEs playerbase as a whole, and most likely more unrepresentative than any time in the CSMs past.

It will be literally impossible to be less representative than CSM6 unless none of the WH guys vote. Literally, impossible (no pirates, no war decers, no serious industrialists, WH guy in an alt spot).

As for the EVE player base as a whole....so what? It will be representative of the EVE voterbase as a whole and as long as the only thing stopping the player base from being the voting base is their own ignorance or apathy, then that's what matters.

As for the EVE player base as a whole....so what? It will be representative of the EVE voterbase as a whole and as long as the only thing stopping the player base from being the voting base is their own ignorance or apathy, then that's what matters.

It will be literally impossible to be less representative than CSM6 unless none of the WH guys vote. Literally, impossible (no pirates, no war decers, no serious industrialists, WH guy in an alt spot).

As for the EVE player base as a whole....so what? It will be representative of the EVE voterbase as a whole and as long as the only thing stopping the player base from being the voting base is their own ignorance or apathy, then that's what matters.

Note 1: In comparison to the total number of votes cast.
Note2: Which of course will be completely unrepresentative of EvEs playerbase as a whole, and most likely more unrepresentative than any time in the CSMs past.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

As far as the CSM is concerned they represent whoever wants to vote. It's just the way that it is. And null currently needs representation to both push for fixes to and give feedback on the bottom up income, sov grind and tech issues.

But my question is where did you get the numbers from? With the exception of the passing comment in the CSM minutes, there is no concrete data on where characters live and more importantly what % are alts of null sec players in high sec.

Thank you. A google search did not reveal this info (perhaps because I am at work).

As to what I am going on about, you said that the votes are not representative of the whole player base. I like to see all of the information to make an argument based on fact rather than blind thought (unlike most people I actually care about facts when I make opinions).

The reason I am curious as to the % of null alts in high, that directly influences the representation of players. If the overwhelming majority do solely live in high sec with no null or low sec characters, then you are indeed correct and the CSM is not representative of the playerbase. If it swings the other way, then the CSM is representative of the player base. At the end of the day until we get this information there is no evidence either way.

I do happen to agree that the STV system benefits the organised null players (and I also don't see an issue with that), but I am wondering why it's such a bad thing?

I think this is the pie chart referred to:

Click here for PIE!!

And this is the breakdown for CSM 7 votes:

ZOMG..Vote!

Ah, the State of the Economy one?

EN24 had a roundup of the tasty pie charts:

Yummy Apple Pie!

[CSM] Is representation of null going to be high enough?

http://i.imgur.com/ufSvgCn.png

Except CSM6 had alternates so the most Null could have was 9 full members, now it is true that the lines were blurred in CSM6 for alternates, but they were still alternates.

So you guys thought that an STV system would be a good idea, with so many people not voting?

I will ask you, as Trebor will not respond to this question, who on CSM7 actually backed the STV idea?

1. Your alternate/full member argument is irrelevant. Those roles didnt exist in 6 nor 7. They were formally gotten of for CSM8. Now the null blocs dont even have an "Iceland 7" to shoot for since 5 conference table seats are now variable.

2. Yes. I think STV is a good voting system regardless of turnout; CCP agreed aparently. That it is bad because of low turnout is your opinion, which you are entitled to have but not to casually pass off as fact.

3. Trebor's responded to you more than you probably merit. I supported transitioning to STV, as did most of CSM7 but i dont have the time to do your research for you.

the peoples 2

aka "the bloc's 2"

STV does not make organized null voting more powerful; what it does is it permits null to get the representation its share of the voters deserves

the "problem" is that empire eveo forumwarriors don't realize just how many voters the null candidates represent compared to the highsec ones because null alliances have their own forums and don't really tend to form communities here, so people who do their posting here think far more of the voters and players are worthless highseccers than they actually are

After CSM7, that is all we have left.

So I am looking on the bright side, even though that bright side is not very big.

That's actually quite a good point.