Mittani for CSM7 Chair

FYP

The overriding factor in this is that it's a one or two round event, where you have loads of candidates all vying for 9 spots (or whatever). What ends up happening is you get people like Mittani who are part of large (often, nullsec) groups ... so they get a guaranteed 500 or 700 or however many votes (because, well, their alliance would vote for them). On the other hand, hisec has few (if any) large, organised groups where a single candidate can "count on" a few hundred votes from their alliance.

The Mittani will win the CSM7 chair position by virtue of the Goonswarm & Clusterfuck Coalition voting block, regardless of whether or not anyone reading the official EVE Online forums votes for him. Just sayin'.

Is there perhaps a proposal in this that could be taken to the CSM? Perhaps a change to the voting system to more resemble a proportional representation method, or a transferable vote?

Its hard to judge a proportional representation system, due to the nature of EVE.

As for why people whine about not getting what they want, after a politician lies to them... its human nature. Truth doesn't last in politics, because people don't like hearing bad things. They want to hear things that they like. A congressman may get elected by calling it like it is, but once they are in congress for a session, they learn very quickly that if they ever want to get reelected... they have to fudge things a bit here and there.

Hello space friends

I have a question for both the CSM7 candidates and the potential voters in the CSM7 elections. It is a very simple question that has been plaguing me for some time, because it is as evident in real life as it is in EVE Online. That question is: Why do we perpetuate a cycle of choosing candidates based on promises they make? Given that both in game and in real life any politician is limited severely by what he or she can reasonably accomplish in office, being that most politicians are members of decision making or decision influencing groups rather than solo decision makers, why is this what people do? You see it in both the CSM election behavior and in the behavior of people in real life. We pick among the promises that politicians make to us, and then we complain about the politicians we perceive did not give us what we want. Why?

I suppose all of this is rhetorical, because my primary point here is to suggest that an alternative exists and to me this alternative seems to be the most forthright and honest way for a politician to represent a constituency. That alternative is to simply ask the People what it is they want, with the only campaign promise being to represent the expressed interests of that constituency. Call me a starry-eyed dreamer, but isn't that what the plain language of most legislative bodies in real life claim that they are supposed to do? Represent the interests of the people. Not the interests of lobbyists, not the interests of power blocs, not the interests of a political or religious ideal. The interests of the people.

I'd like to challenge candidates in CSM7 to abandon the courtship of power blocs, ideology, and all other concerns. Ask the People what they want; embrace those desires as your own; passionately advocate on their behalf to CCP.

I'd like to challenge the voters in CSM7 to hold the candidates accountable to this standard; to not allow them to simply slough off comments and questions about their motivations, their personal interests, and so on; to demand that the candidates either represent the People or to simply laugh that candidate off the stage. You are the 99%. You control the flow of discussion and you hold the voting power. Make it happen.

The Mittani will win the CSM7 chair position by virtue of the Goonswarm & Clusterfuck Coalition voting block, regardless of whether or not anyone reading the official EVE Online forums votes for him. Just sayin'.

I have a question for both the CSM7 candidates and the potential voters in the CSM7 elections. It is a very simple question that has been plaguing me for some time, because it is as evident in real life as it is in EVE Online. That question is: Why do we perpetuate a cycle of choosing candidates based on promises they make? Given that both in game and in real life any politician is limited severely by what he or she can reasonably accomplish in office, being that most politicians are members of decision making or decision influencing groups rather than solo decision makers, why is this what people do? You see it in both the CSM election behavior and in the behavior of people in real life. We pick among the promises that politicians make to us, and then we complain about the politicians we perceive did not give us what we want. Why?

I'd like to challenge candidates in CSM7 to abandon the courtship of power blocs, ideology, and all other concerns. Ask the People what they want; embrace those desires as your own; passionately advocate on their behalf to CCP.

Hi Lyris

It's about damn time, and I second your motion.

You'll have my vote should you decide to run for CSM.

Then don't start such ... threads.

The Mittani will win the CSM7 chair position by virtue of the Goonswarm & Clusterfuck Coalition voting block, regardless of whether or not anyone reading the official EVE Online forums votes for him. Just sayin'.

...How democratic. That may very well be the EVE realpolitik, but I wonder how the players of EVE feel about that?

Yes please. But you shouldn't let goons play. They use unfair griefer tactics.

It's not that the suggestions would negatively impact life in nullsec if implemented, it's that CCP has limited attention span and limited development resources to devote to all possible things. The more things that are on the plate for consideration, the less likely any specific thing will be considered, developed and implemented; so, by putting forth proposals for non-nullsec improvements our dear friend here is lowering the total chance that other proposals which positively effect nullsec will be considered, developed and implemented.

What is to stop any other group of people from banding together and having a voice exactly as loud as or louder than the collective voice of Goonswarm? I can think of exactly two things: first, that other groups of people lack the necessary organization or group cohesion to do it; second, that enough other people do not exist. If the first is the case, then one can hardly blame Goonswarm and her allies for being successful. That is generally regarded as a good thing, ya know. If the latter is the case, and literally the voice of Goonswarm is the loudest because there are more of us than there are players in every other group combined, then we honestly deserve to get everything we want because that is how a democracy works. Welcome to the tyranny of the masses.

If you can contend to run for CSM 7 while having mittens be an automatic shoe in and deal with it fine more power to you.

I am usually entertained by his pillaging of the masses and such. And the game is the game. Be fun anyhow it goes I suppose.

Examples below in context in responce to the invalid claims above.

On gameplay:

That alternative is to simply ask the People what it is they want, with the only campaign promise being to represent the expressed interests of that constituency.

Then don't start such ... threads.

If you want votes, you will do what everyone else wanting votes does.

I think I made it clear that I have no intention of doing what everyone else wanting votes does.

This should be resolved soon enough.

Lyris, you should set up a website that tallies people's votes for issues under consideration, with you providing input to CCP based on the results.

But how will you be able to tell if the people voting even have Eve characters? Maybe have a specific thread, and correlate posts in the thread with votes on the site.

Aww, does that mean the pubbies won't get to have the satisfaction of having another person pander to their every internet spaceship game forum desires?