>> 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

>> 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

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.

And you're claiming that this isn't in the interests of the majority of the playerbase?

Not this crap again.

Are you also still convinced CCP employees are doing RMT?

The problem is the assumption that the majority of the playerbase knows or understands who the CSM are or what they do. I'm not sure that it's safe to make that assumption. I'm not saying the CSM are bad, but the statement that they don't represent the majority of the playerbase is probably accurate if only because the majority of the playerbase probably don't even know they exist.

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.

The problem is the assumption that the majority of the playerbase knows or understands who the CSM are or what they do. I'm not sure that it's safe to make that assumption. I'm not saying the CSM are bad, but the statement that they don't represent the majority of the playerbase is probably accurate if only because the majority of the playerbase probably don't even know they exist.

How don't the majority of the playerbase know they exist? Every election it seems like there's a billion banners saying "make yourself heard in the CSM election!" and "take a moment to cast your vote" on the login screen. If you don't vote in the CSM election, it's either your fault for being ignorant to all of it, or you're just content with things how they are and don't care to vote. Either way; the majority of the playerbase which actually gives a damn is represented.

My only objection with the CSM is that it's something I doubt half the playerbase even knows about. Their presence should be known to the general public of Eve. There should be voting interfaces build into the client.

But then, I come from Australia, where everybody votes because it's compulsory, so maybe my world view is warped.

Still, the CSM appear to have done decent work. I'm more confident about the direction of the game now than when the current CSM came into office, which is about all you can really hope for.

There were 49,096 votes cast by eligible voters (i.e. older than 30 days and thus able to vote), amassing a turnout of 14.25% - once again a record turnout. Of the total votes cast, 659 voters (1.34%) chose to abstain. This abstain % is far lower than previous elections, indicating that players had a better idea of who they wished to vote for compared to previous elections.

>> 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

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=886


14.25% turnout. The winners received a total 27,580 votes, which means only 56.2% of 14.25% voted for them. Ergo, the CSM represents 8% of the player base.

*shrug*

How don't the majority of the playerbase know they exist? Every election it seems like there's a billion banners saying "make yourself heard in the CSM election!" and "take a moment to cast your vote" on the login screen.

How don't the majority of the playerbase know they exist? Every election it seems like there's a billion banners saying "make yourself heard in the CSM election!" and "take a moment to cast your vote" on the login screen. If you don't vote in the CSM election, it's either your fault for being ignorant to all of it, or you're just content with things how they are and don't care to vote. Either way; the majority of the playerbase which actually gives a damn is represented.

>> 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

How many apathetic non-voters "I don't care-disband the CSM" people (and others) have actually read and understood the entire White Paper about Eve, it's birth, politics, currency, life and structures ?

Go on, I dare you to read it away from your keyboard, no distractions. It's not that long and goes a long way to explaining what Eve really is and to a large extent, what the CSM is.

http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

How don't the majority of the playerbase know they exist? Every election it seems like there's a billion banners saying "make yourself heard in the CSM election!" and "take a moment to cast your vote" on the login screen. If you don't vote in the CSM election, it's either your fault for being ignorant to all of it, or you're just content with things how they are and don't care to vote. Either way; the majority of the playerbase which actually gives a damn is represented.

That was a very, very good read mate and explained a lot of the CSM. It makes the claims of some monkeys wanting to run for CSM even more laughable.

Thanks.

In all honesty, we who do post here in no way represent the majority of the playerbase.

>> 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

Players without a huge vote bloc that are in CSM are there because people take time to get to know their viewpoints/opinions on the issues.

The existence of this thread and other threads like it justifies every effort Goonswarm has ever made to rule the CSM.

Players without a huge vote bloc that are in CSM are there because people take time to get to know their viewpoints/opinions on the issues.

The problem is the assumption that the majority of the playerbase knows or understands who the CSM are or what they do. I'm not sure that it's safe to make that assumption. I'm not saying the CSM are bad, but the statement that they don't represent the majority of the playerbase is probably accurate if only because the majority of the playerbase probably don't even know they exist.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=886


14.25% turnout. The winners received a total 27,580 votes, which means only 56.2% of 14.25% voted for them. Ergo, the CSM represents 8% of the player base.

*shrug*

stopped reading after this, just ended the whole 'does the csm represent the players' debate for me :)

>> 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

Problem is: There aren't many members in the CSM without a huge vote bloc.

Interesting you picked Meissa Anunthiel for an example because of all the non-alternate members he seems (to me) to be the only one who was not elected just because of his huge block of alliance-voters.

The third change proposed was changing the election system from the current form to a single transferrable vote (STV) (i.e. any surplus or unused votes are transferred according to the voter's stated preferences should their highest preference not need them or not make it in). The timeframe for this change would be the election in 2013 (thus, no changes would be made for the next CSM election).
In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM. Also, with the current situation the only thing the STV would do is to potentially get a GÇÿsmallerGÇÖ candidate into one of the lower seats. Furthermore, by making the voting system more complicated (as an STV would do) the risk of driving away voters exists. Continuing, the CSM commented that only with a substantially larger number of voters would the STV system be appropriate.

>> SCREW THE GAME - KILL THE CSM

Dump them. Sack them. Kiss 'em off.


Find a method that represents ALL my views and let's not have another year of some often SENSIBLE ideas served in ego-wrap.

Follow the path taken with Crucible, listen to IME, ME, ME when I speak (i.e. whining threads) and refuse to acknowledge the self-servers who claimed credit for what YOU (fawn, pander, slurpy, slurp) CCP, ultimately did.

IGNORE the morons (anyone with a different play style) that did everything they could to BRING THE GAME INTO BALANCE with public "foot stamping" - the same people that pushed for game changes and for the betterment of game mechanics and playability. A MAJORITY of EVE.

CSM 6 is corrupt, biased and downright dangerous for THE GAME THAT SHOULD BE PLAYED MY WAY ONLY.

WE DO NOT want a repeat OF POSTS LIKE THIS.

CONSIDER random surveys from random players ad hoc to draw opinions/direction since they can't be bothered to vote this is bound to work.


>> SAVE THE GAME - KILL ME

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=886


14.25% turnout. The winners received a total 27,580 votes, which means only 56.2% of 14.25% voted for them. Ergo, the CSM represents 8% of the player base.

*shrug*

How don't the majority of the playerbase know they exist? Every election it seems like there's a billion banners saying "make yourself heard in the CSM election!" and "take a moment to cast your vote" on the login screen. If you don't vote in the CSM election, it's either your fault for being ignorant to all of it, or you're just content with things how they are and don't care to vote. Either way; the majority of the playerbase which actually gives a damn is represented.

My only objection with the CSM is that it's something I doubt half the playerbase even knows about. Their presence should be known to the general public of Eve. There should be voting interfaces build into the client.

But then, I come from Australia, where everybody votes because it's compulsory, so maybe my world view is warped.

Still, the CSM appear to have done decent work. I'm more confident about the direction of the game now than when the current CSM came into office, which is about all you can really hope for.

70% of the CSM votes went to people who got elected. That's pretty damb representative.

People who didn't vote might not be represented so well, but that's not CCPs fault, still less the CSM's.

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?)

I would try to explain the concept of brainstorming to you, but at this point I'm sensing you are trying to push a specific agenda, no matter how disconnected it may be from reality. All your statements thus far reflect an unreasonable bias and I honestly don't have the time anymore to try and reason with you when you have no desire to see anything but what you want to see.

Good luck with your campaign. I don't think you will get anywhere with it, but perhaps the venting is providing you with some sense of accomplishment and that is a good thing.

Idiot. It's the point of the thread. Highsec candidacy is fractured and is made of a thousands of individuals who think for themselves and don't vote like a bunch of ass-kissing morons. If highseccers HAD a guaranteed CSM position they WOULD care.

Highsec CANNOT get up as a majority because the system is faulty. You're applying quaint IRL methodologies to a virtual environment that simply would not work in IRL.

Should someone living in Rio be able to vote for the candidate you hate most in Texas? Seriously? You'd be bitching sweetheart, bitching loud.

What you're suggesting is making and enforcing Parties based on geographical divides. Preventing people who live in different areas from working together (And that's setting aside the issue of multiple characters in different areas of space per account). Parties organize based on ideals not geography. Hisec seems to be pretty committed to the ideal of "I don't feel like voting" and that's their prerogative.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

CCP have implemented a system where all of EVE's player base can vote for their favored candidates.

The candidates who get the most votes win.

Therefore, the more a candidate gets voted for by the playerbase, the more likely they are to be elected.

And you're claiming that this isn't in the interests of the majority of the playerbase?

Please explain to me logically and with words how this isn't representative of the playerbase.

Democratic voting IS based on geography.

eg: in Australia, I can ONLY vote for the candidates put forward in my electorate. Same in the UK and to the best of my knowledge, so to does Canada and all other democratic commonwealth countries. If I want a party to succeed, I need to make sure my candidate is from that party so they can garner majority support to govern. I could even chose a non-party specific as an independent.

In addition, each electorate must also contain approx. the same amount of people.

Regardless, I do not have any voting influence on areas outside of my own.

Our candidates must also reside in my electorate (although this can be abused somewhat). But I know whoever I vote for represents my area. He/she can still run under the party line but must represent my area while in power or they won't be voted in again - EVEN if selected by the party machine.

Even you, as a Republic (assuming US based) could not, as an Hawaiian resident, vote for a candidate in Texas?

So geography not being THE method for selection. I beg to differ.

Democratic voting IS based on geography.

eg: in Australia, I can ONLY vote for the candidates put forward in my electorate. Same in the UK and to the best of my knowledge, so to does Canada and all other democratic commonwealth countries. If I want a party to succeed, I need to make sure my candidate is from that party so they can garner majority support to govern. I could even chose a non-party specific as an independent.

In addition, each electorate must also contain approx. the same amount of people.

Regardless, I do not have any voting influence on areas outside of my own.

Our candidates must also reside in my electorate (although this can be abused somewhat). But I know whoever I vote for represents my area. He/she can still run under the party line but must represent my area while in power or they won't be voted in again - EVEN if selected by the party machine.

Even you, as a Republic (assuming US based) could not, as an Hawaiian resident, vote for a candidate in Texas?

So geography not being THE method for selection. I beg to differ.

well there is the things i've heard of people having many accounts and voting for themself, and friends with many accounts voting too. so where a person may have 10 friends supporting them, that may balloon out to 50 votes, now imagine that in an alliance of say 1000 people. All the sudden 1000 becomes 5000 (throwing random numbers here not everyone has 5 accounts).

Thats not how voting is supposed to work. But untill CCP can find a way to limit voting to once per human. Then there will always be ample room for "breaking" the system as it stands.


Players have almost limitless freedoms on the eve game server, they can shoot what they like, take what the like, scam what they like. CSM goes beyond the game server. CSM gets flown to iceland thats as real in the flesh as it gets. The people who go to iceland should be legitimately elected by the majority of humans not just the few with the richest friends. If the null sec blocs have more legit votes and still win then thats the way it rolls. Multi account selfvotes shouldnt happen

Idiot. It's the point of the thread. Highsec candidacy is fractured and is made of a thousands of individuals who think for themselves and don't vote like a bunch of ass-kissing morons

~80% of Characters live in Hisec. I doubt most of those are Nullsec alts. Because of that, I would guess that more humans spend their time in Hisec than the rest of EvE combined.

66% according to CCP, but character numbers are meaningless. You guess more humans in HiSec. I'm guessing the likelyhood is stronger for a null/lowsec pilot to cross to hisec than there is for a hisec pilot to cross to low/nullsec. But those are just guesses.

Maybe CCP will be kind to us and release the % of time per account spent, spread across security status and correlated to the size of the universe.

On to implementation problems with your idea (moving out of the conceptual):

Now a good example of what you're suggesting with voting by region is the house and the senate. If you give seats by population you marginalize areas with little population (The House does this). If you give a fixed number of seats by region, you magnify areas with little population (The Senate does this). Either way leads to bad things, so the US does both to balance. There being no way CCP will create a full blown legislature with checks and balances, there's no way to implement your idea fairly. Also, this being EvE, the players would all work on abusing your system. And we'd succeed.

It's rather pathetic to believe any real power or responsibility comes with being a CSM. For a game. On the computer. Over the internet.

It's rather pathetic to believe any real power or responsibility comes with being a CSM. For a game. On the computer. Over the internet.

This is where the "Australian" style differs greatly.

Our electorates are based on numbers within an electoratal boundary to provide fair balance. If there is any significant shift in population (urban growth etc.) the electortal boundary is shifted. ANY number of candidates can be put forward from any number of parties (including independents) and your vote ONLY counts for your electorate. Only one candidate can win in any one seat.

At all times, each seat has a reasonably fair across-the-board socio groups although there is a tendency occassionally for seats to be polarised by way of wealth but even then, the vote of a millionaire counts no more than the vote of the pauper.

The individual candidates MUST exhibit local sympathy AND because "his" seat may be the balance of power, the government at the national level must also be sympathetic to the candidates seat.

It's called the Westminster system and although occassional splinter politics is exhibited within the lower house (as we have now), we also have a senate running at different timing to effectively prevent absolute rule unless the people should want it.

A system I have been suggesting is a by pie-slicing the Eve Universe from the centre and "snapshotting" who is in what slice at a random point in time. THAT is their electorate and THAT is where they can either stand for a candidacy or vote for their preferred.

Power bloc voting is removed if the "slice line" and timing of the snapshot are kept mum and every slice will have a mix of null/low and high.

Not voting for your candidate within your "slice" is your own call then. No fault, no blame and very difficult to abuse.

This is where the "Australian" style differs greatly.

Our electorates are based on numbers within an electoratal boundary to provide fair balance. If there is any significant shift in population (urban growth etc.) the electortal boundary is shifted. ANY number of candidates can be put forward from any number of parties (including independents) and your vote ONLY counts for your electorate. Only one candidate can win in any one seat.

At all times, each seat has a reasonably fair across-the-board socio groups although there is a tendency occassionally for seats to be polarised by way of wealth but even then, the vote of a millionaire counts no more than the vote of the pauper.

The individual candidates MUST exhibit local sympathy AND because "his" seat may be the balance of power, the government at the national level must also be sympathetic to the candidates seat.

It's called the Westminster system and although occassional splinter politics is exhibited within the lower house (as we have now), we also have a senate running at different timing to effectively prevent absolute rule unless the people should want it.

A system I have been suggesting is a by pie-slicing the Eve Universe from the centre and "snapshotting" who is in what slice at a random point in time. THAT is their electorate and THAT is where they can either stand for a candidacy or vote for their preferred.

Power bloc voting is removed if the "slice line" and timing of the snapshot are kept mum and every slice will have a mix of null/low and high.

Not voting for your candidate within your "slice" is your own call then. No fault, no blame and very difficult to abuse.

Pretending for a second that this is both feasible and desirable:

That does nothing to solve your problem. Assuming everything is proportionate to EVE's universe you'd still have roughly the same number of disinterested highsec voters and more interested nullsec voters. All this would do is perhaps turn individual bloc candidates into general nullsec candidates.

Regardless, good luck explaining to every new player that they are part of a randomly selected group of people who can only vote for certain candidates in elections that are far too needlessly complex-- for no other reason than 'internet spaceship politics are serious business.'

I thought you wanted a seat for each different area of the game to avoid nullsec interests ruling through superior organizational skills. Now you want 7-9-whatever versions in miniature of what you're complaining about already?

Ignoring that sudden reversal, how would you deal with WH space, or the fact that each radial slice has different thicknesses of High, Low, and Null (west through ORE space is very thin Null, East into Drone space is very thick Null), or that Eve's population isn't evenly spread around the dial to begin with?

All of the ideas I am putting forward are potential alternatives. I don't claim to know the answers.

What I am sure of is what I see as the problem with highsec "apathy". It's an inherent fault in the system because of the Eve universe. A virtual envronment and it's subsequent sector constructs (which could NOT exist in IRL) is being applied to create an IRL structure using IRL methodologies.

It's flawed and fails the majority badly.

MAKE THE CALL!

Make the call, yo!

The fact that it's an idea not yet implemented means that, by definition, it's a potential alternatives. To be implemented, it needs to be judged a good idea. The way to determine that is (to start with) to see if it survives the most cursory attempts to destroy it, to see if it would serve the same (or a more desirable) social goal as the current system, and to see if it is feasible to implement. I'm not saying I'm the judge, I just have fun proctoring and writing the test.

So far, your ideas (you bring them up, they're yours, own them, hiding behind "They're only ideas" is ridiculous) have failed to stand up to the most cursory attempts at abuse, you have failed to show that they serve the same (or a more desirable) social goal, and (though I think several of them are) you have yet to show that they are feasible to implement (and that is your job, as they're your proposals).

Hisec apathy is caused by the lack of incentive to work together in a coherent group. I wouldn't be surprised if BTL Pub or TDF were to put together a consensus candidate and take a seat for the incursionbears this year, since incursions have given hisec incentive to work together. I'm not sure if that candidate will hold views that I agree with, but that's how Democracy works.

Actually, the environmental factors affecting voter participation are fairly well established in the real world. When people are less confident in their security (physical and financial), they are more likely to vote. Look at the US's flagging voter participation and compare it to turnout in South Africa after the fall of Apartheid, or Iraq and Afghanistan more recently; despite some danger (mitigated by outside promises of protection [specific fear of physical harm does reduce turnout, ofc]), the fact that the people felt that their continued safety relied on the correct outcome made people politically active. In the US, as people become safer and more secure in their lives (a trend that's been true since WW2), voter participation has declined. (I like parentheticals a lot, can you tell?)
tl;dr for the last paragraph: Safety reduces voter participation. HiSec is safe. HiSec's safety reduces voter participation.

Oi. I am standing behind my comments. I am posting them to be critiqued and ajudged if neccessary - I am NOT claiming they are right or definitive.

If you wish to haggle on any specific option I have put forward to draw out potential ideas then I am more than happy. But you first need to accept my view that the current system is flawed.

If you're rebuttals are merely to defend the current system as fine then no idea I put forward is going to be worthy.

I am NOT arguing that voting is wrong. I am NOT arguing that highseccers might be apathetic. I'm asking WHY they are.

There is no motivation and even if there was the system disavows the opportunity by default. I've already stated that I feel highsec has no need to form up in game (and probably because they are comfortable as you state) so they are automatically disqualified at CSM time.

THIS is then used as a reason for no highsec candidate when in fact they are more than aware of the likelihood of failure. I'm categorically stating that highsec fails even BEFORE the process can begin. It's inherent with highsec living versus 0.0 living.

The system favours 0.0 by it's very nature and this exacerbates the highsec apathy which fuels even more disenchantment and so on. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I see all these threads about how bad the current CSM is but I still haven't seen one single reason how they have hurt the game.

I've been accepting that premise without evidence, because insisting on evidence of that just invites a mass whine-in (like a love in, but higher pitched and more nasal).

I see thread after thread about how evil this CSM is but I have yet to see a single concrete example of how they have hurt the game. You'd think with the level of outrage I see on the forums that somebody could show me just one single instance of the CSM "destroying Eve" but so far...nothing.

I believe the major complaint is The Mittani and Darius III's suicide ganking campaigns. The Mittani's occasional scam comes up on occasion, as does every little damn thing anyone in GSF does.

The thing that get's glossed over is that in EvE, we call all that shit "Content"

14.25% turnout. The winners received a total 27,580 votes, which means only 56.2% of 14.25% voted for them. Ergo, the CSM represents 8% of the player base.

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

In ANY democratic system a candidate HAS to appeal to ALL sectors to win the absolute majority.

Has anyone considered that "highsec disinterest" is because of the current system. It's being used as a reason to maintain the status quo when in fact it could be the cause.

66% according to CCP, but character numbers are meaningless. You guess more humans in HiSec. I'm guessing the likelyhood is stronger for a null/lowsec pilot to cross to hisec than there is for a hisec pilot to cross to low/nullsec. But those are just guesses.

That is a far more interesting question. Based on my experience, a 66% character count for highsec would mean that ~40% of players live in highsec.

My only objection with the CSM is that it's something I doubt half the playerbase even knows about. Their presence should be known to the general public of Eve. There should be voting interfaces build into the client.

That's a good idea.

Furthermore, each candidate should be forced to write a "mission statement" in X characters or less, maybe 500.

In an effort to get more pilots/accounts to vote, there could be a popup where 6 randomly candidates is chosen, each with his or her 500 characters statement visible, and the account being forced to vote on one of these. This is in addition to the active vote that each account can exercise, with this active vote able to go to which ever eligible candidate the account's owner wishes to vote for.

But basically give everyone 2 votes, and force them to use one of them upon log-in.

Why do so many people think mandatory voting is a good idea?

When you do mandatory voting, the votes cast by those who would not have in the first place, for the most part, are votes for whoevers name came up first in the list, had the shiniest avatar, or some equally dumb factor decides their vote.

Ultimately, this does more harm than good to the process.

Read my suggestion before commenting on it.

Just to chime in here, but last I heard the CCP released number was 80% in highsec, not 66%, as of last fanfest.

I could be remember wrong, however.

I'M THE OP AND I SPEND MORE TIME CRYING ON THE FORUMS ABOUT THE CSM THAN ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, I ALSO LIKE TO HIDE BEHIND FORUM ALTS BECAUSE HEAVEN KNOWS I CAN'T SAY IT MYSELF

I did.

No you didn't. I foresaw the problems you mentioned and included workarounds in my post, which you ignored. You didn't reply to my post. You replied to the general idea of mandatory voting.

+1 'Like' to the OP.

Having +100 'Likes' on a post announcing candidacy just to be eligible to run for CSM is just plain stupid.

+1 'Like' to the OP.

Having +100 'Likes' on a post announcing candidacy just to be eligible to run for CSM is just plain stupid.

14.25% turnout. The winners received a total 27,580 votes, which means only 56.2% of 14.25% voted for them. Ergo, the CSM represents 100% of the player base who bothered to vote.