Not only do most players in this game not care about the game or the CSM enough to vote, but it seems there are a fair few who don't understand how democracy works.

The solution is get some candidates that represent the folks being ignored. I encourage you to support

The Voice of Reason Party


I am hoping to get some candidates elected in CSM7 that aren't part of the large power blocks, that would champion parts of Eve CSM6 not only ignored but actively attempted to minimize or regress.

Issler

So 70% of a very small fraction of the total is a representative majority in your eyes?

You're living proof why some people shouldn't be allowed to vote in anything until they can pass a basic test.

And your thread, as admirable as it is, is proof positive that the selection process is faulty.

The responses to the thread are metagaming at it's worst and childish.

We're witnessing - yet again - an election process where everybody owns their own TV station and the "party" with the most TV stations wins.

There was no evidence of intimidation, voter fraud, harassment at the polls or any other reason for not voting other than "I don't want to vote."

Oh joyous. Proved my point yet again. It's not the VOTING that's faulty (3 clicks IS a no-brainer). It's the candidate SELECTION.

Democracies (and I quote Australia and the US as examples) have candidates that are selected within the party and the PARTY puts up the candidate and we vote for the PARTY and it's subsequent policies. In Aus, each electorate has approximately the same amount of people within it so it can never be a numbers game.

In the US, each state votes for their preferred PARTY representative and the best PARTY candidate stands for the top job.

Put simply, you CANNOT have the same PARTY standing and winning more than one candidate in the SAME electorate/seat as you can with the current CSM system. ie: Technically, the Goons (or any other such large alliance) could field ALL candidates and win ALL seats.

It's why the metagaming IS so easily abused and obviously so misunderstood.

We could have, as an example, a HS party, A LS party and a 0.0 party. Each "party" may field many candidates (usual scrum applies) but it guarantees that each sector WILL be represented at least once regardless of who wins.

Those who chose not to cast a valid vote have made the decision to cede their electoral power to those who choose to cast valid votes. Therefor, if 14% of the populace cast valid votes, the other 86% voted to abide by the votes of those 14%. There was no evidence of intimidation, voter fraud, harassment at the polls or any other reason for not voting other than "I don't want to vote."

If you're not invested in the game enough to click ~3 buttons, that's fine. Don't come crying to the forums when your interests aren't represented.

If you did vote and your candidate lost, don't come crying to the forums that you lost. That's how democracy works.

Oh joyous. Proved my point yet again. It's not the VOTING that's faulty (3 clicks IS a no-brainer). It's the candidate SELECTION.

Democracies (and I quote Australia and the US as examples) have candidates that are selected within the party and the PARTY puts up the candidate and we vote for the PARTY and it's subsequent policies. In Aus, each electorate has approximately the same amount of people within it so it can never be a numbers game.

In the US, each state votes for their preferred PARTY representative and the best PARTY candidate stands for the top job.

Put simply, you CANNOT have the same PARTY standing and winning more than one candidate in the SAME electorate/seat as you can with the current CSM system. ie: Technically, the Goons (or any other such large alliance) could field ALL candidates and win ALL seats.

It's why the metagaming IS so easily abused and obviously so misunderstood.

We could have, as an example, a HS party, A LS party and a 0.0 party. Each "party" may field many candidates (usual scrum applies) but it guarantees that each sector WILL be represented at least once regardless of who wins.

Put simply, you CANNOT have the same PARTY standing and winning more than one candidate in the SAME electorate/seat as you can with the current CSM system. ie: Technically, the Goons (or any other such large alliance) could field ALL candidates and win ALL seats.

[As a contrived example, the CSM currently represents Null-Sec and PvP. Given how many players are in high-sec, do you think that CCP could grow their player base by adding PvE content or more carebear friendly content? The CSM can't be trusted to answer that question because they don't represent hi-sec/PvE interests. CCP could be losing out on customers by catering to a null-sec/pvp oriented CSM.

As a contrived example, the CSM currently represents Null-Sec and PvP. Given how many players are in high-sec, do you think that CCP could grow their player base by adding PvE content or more carebear friendly content? The CSM can't be trusted to answer that question because they don't represent hi-sec/PvE interests. CCP could be losing out on customers by catering to a null-sec/pvp oriented CSM.

Valid points until you remember that Reality trumps Democracy. If the 14% who voted represent a "random sample" of the Eve player base then fine, the CSM could easily be described as having their finger on the pulse of the Eve player base. However, if the 14% represents just a few specific interests, then the CSM may be giving CCP "bad" or highly skewed advice.

If the CSM isn't representative of the Eve player base, then it reduces the CSM's usefulness to CCP.


As a contrived example, the CSM currently represents Null-Sec and PvP. Given how many players are in high-sec, do you think that CCP could grow their player base by adding PvE content or more carebear friendly content? The CSM can't be trusted to answer that question because they don't represent hi-sec/PvE interests. CCP could be losing out on customers by catering to a null-sec/pvp oriented CSM.


tl;dr A 14% voter turnout potentially creates a CSM heavily slanted towards minority interests, thereby limiting the value of the CSM's input to CCP.

ITT: Someone who is mad that larger groups of people are by definition better represented in a democracy.

>> SAVE THE GAME - KILL THE CSM

Dump them. Sack them. Kiss 'em off.


Find a method that represents ALL players and let's not have another year of self-congratulatory BS served in ego-wrap.

Follow the path taken with Crucible, listen to the majority when they speak (i.e. Jita Riots) and refuse to acknowledge the self-servers who claimed credit for what YOU, CCP, ultimately did.

IGNORE the morons that did everything they could to BRING THE GAME INTO DISREPUTE with public "foot stamping" - the same people that pushed for game changes for the betterment of their own alliances. A MINORITY of EVE.

CSM 6 is corrupt, biased and downright dangerous for THE GAME.

WE DO NOT want a repeat.

CONSIDER random surveys from random players ad hoc to draw opinions/direction.


>> SAVE THE GAME - KILL THE CSM

The CSM minutes contradict that belief. Their approach is fairly even handed across EVE as a whole.

BS. There are several examples where the CSM - within those minutes- is using it's 0.0 bias as a "majority" to get
changes to highsec that DO NOT represent highsec interests.

ONE case was some arbitrary amount of a gankees insurance going BACK to the ganker ffs!!

Stop using democracy as the term to describe this CSM. It's not.

In ANY democratic system a candidate HAS to appeal to ALL sectors to win the absolute majority. You cannot vote for the selection of ANY candidate in an electorate you are not a resident of.

EG: A Jita marketer is an Deklein alt and he can vote for his preferred 0.0 candidate. His vote, and that of the metagaming community sitting in Jita, can prevent a majority vote for an alternate candidate who may actually have Jita's interests at heart.

Worse, the current system says that a different marketer in Jita might have to chose between only 7 null candidates because no other candidate was able to come forward due to being blobbed by the 0.0 blob metagaming. His choice is to choose someone he either does not know or care about or simply to not vote at all.

It's then called apathy when in fact the "I didn't vote" is due to dissaffection.

We already know the vote will always be split between mulitple candidates in highsec so no candidate can field a "numbers" majority to beat a 0.0 candidate with all his mates. Highsec AND lowsec should be guaranteed seats on the CSM and the candidates voted on by the residents.

Even more important, if you don't live in "Amarr regions" you should not be able to vote for anyone OUTSIDE of your electorate.

That was not an unanimous idea or decision nor was it implemented and I doubt ever will be as it is moronic. And why should null-sec bears try to represent high-sec? That is not their job.

Though I will admit some are laughably near sighted. High sec needs to get high sec leadership if it wants that voice. You seem very energetic about this, go out and form a high sec power bloc.

ONE case was some arbitrary amount of a gankees insurance going BACK to the ganker ffs!!

1. You don't ave to appeal to everyone in a democracy, only to a majority of voters. End of story. That's how every democracy works.

You are very good at selective reading and representing that as a cohesive view, which is ******* dishonest. The lead in to the entire section states that it is a free-format discussion where ideas were thrown around. Yes, you will get bad ideas in such a discussion. Yes, a fair bit of the initial part was around null sec and a bit around low sec because those are areas that are stagnating in terms of EVE participation. The earlier discussions about jumps, player spread and so forth point at that.

However, the core of that discussion was around the concept of risk versus reward, which is a core principle of EVE Online and that was one idea tossed out to try and encourage more conflict in the game.

Yet you are painting this as if it was a concerted effort from the CSM to focus exclusively on null sec.

Just when I thought the OP couldn't get any dumber

Democracy, in its purest sense, is "rule of the people." 14% isn't democracy.

While the CSM may be providing valuable feedback, ideas and input to CCP, in no way shape or form should CCP consider the CSM to be representative of a significant fraction of the player base.

(However all bets are off if everyone who voted has seven accounts and only voted with their main.)

No I wasn't. What I was pointing out was why, this concept, freeform or otherwise, even the THOUGHT of such an idea - is in the mix is totally disconnected from the reality.

It's stupid and merely points out that many areas of the minutes had NOTHING to do with highsec and what WAS in there was about nerfing/ripping off/killing them.

14% was enough to deliver a majority to anyone interested enough to bother with voting. I still fail to see a problem.

If there are so many unrepresented highseccers who are being held down by the oppressive tyranny of a nullsec CSM, why don't they just vote? Clearly since there are so many of you (lol) you should easily win?

(Anybody think Ai Shun was just a tad patronizing...just a tad?)