What YOU call YOUR PLACE is totally your call and I do NOT seek to change that much about the CSM selection process except to make it about THE PERSON IN THE PLACE - not THE PERSON WHEREVER.

The CSM selection process should focus on game areas; not on how fast CONCORD will respond.

What does CONCORD security status have to do with players and the CSM?

Let's be honest.

Security Status defines the speed of CONCORD response to aggression. It does not define how safe you are. You may be safter in 0.0 than in some areas of 0.9.

The activities in-game, such as mining, hauling, industrial production, scouting, combat fleets, planetary interaction and so forth are spread across all of New Eden.

The CSM selection process should focus on game areas; not on how fast CONCORD will respond.

I argue that it should focus on whatever metric the voters chose, as represented by their votes.

Oh get a grip - of the 7 seats proposed (not my preferred numbers) - only 2 have Concord. If we had my preferred seats it would be 2 out of 9.

But what of it, last I heard, Concord wasn't intending to field a candidate and they weren't going to vote either.

...You are the one trying to mandate voting along CONCORD response times...

I see what you did there.

Well, you want a set of High-Security candidates, a set of Low-Security candidates and a set of Null-Security candidates. What is that other than mandating voting along CONCORD response times?

You do realise people mine in high-sec, low-sec and null-sec? And that a candidate running for, for example, mining improvements will be able to impact on all of them? The same with Incursions, Production, well ... just about all aspects of EVE. Very few activities in EVE are restricted to a single security status.

So what would a "high-sec" candidate DO? Work on faster CONCORD response times?

Wow, just spent the whole thread liking every post by the Apostle... without bothering to read them.

Completely wrong, unfortunately.

The official CCP numbers says that 66% of CHARACTERS are in high-sec. You know as well as I do that people plant trade alts in the market hubs; there are high-sec mining alts for low / null sec players as with high-sec hauler alts, trade alts, etc. Which means you cannot directly skew and say PLAYERS.

So no, not 67% of PLAYERS. It is a meaningless number and trying to quote it as players is about as stupid as suggesting we need to separate the game into groups for CONCORD security status.

Since so many high-sec folks have multiple accounts, I believe it is only fair that their votes only count as 3/5 of a person.

One of my KEY points on this idea emphasised where multiple sectors have the SAME issue then CCP need to take it as a given. So mining, using your example, with it's inherent faults WOULD be represented properly across all sectors.

But you want HS examples. How about L4 missions. Many are just plain tedious, there have been no new ones added since I can't remember and it is NOT a nullsec/lowsec issue. So a highsec candidate can push for that to get changed/modified. If BOTH highsec candidates agree then it's clearly an issue and must be dicussed by the CSM.

If nullsec/lowsec candidates disagree with making any changes, which they might, and they can, they'd still need to show at least a modicum of reasoning behind any veto.

You see, this guarantees that topics will be at least HEARD from the perspective of the sector and debated AS A WHOLE. Even if the CSM has a weak moment and concedes to a change that is bad for the game then CCP will roflstomp it.

All this BS about democracy/vote diffusion etc. is just blowing smoke. The CSM is nothing more than a committee to represent the views of ALL players and my idea is a way to guarantee that ALL sectors are heard and "alliance politics" and "us and them" - is actually taken out of the equation...

.
.
.
.
Now if only we knew who they were.........
.
.
.
.