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.

#1Posted: 2012.02.01 03:06 | Report
28
Hello space friends.

This thread is about a very specific topic which I have decided to include on my platform for the CSM. I want to talk to you about how the members of the CSM are elected, and what that means for the average player in EVE Online.

As it stands right now the CSM elections disproportionately favor those candidates whom are able to draw upon a large and very well organized voting bloc by means of their in game affiliation; for example, The Mittani and Vile Rat are on the CSM because of the organized voting message they were able to dictate to the Clusterfuck Coalition, that entity being the combined coalition of some of the largest Alliances in the game: Goonswarm Federation, TEST Alliance Please Ignore, and the dozens of other, smaller entities, that live in the Null Sec regions of Deklein, Fountain, Branch, Fade, Pure Blind, and the surrounding areas.

Because these entities were presented with very specific candidates towards which all of their votes were funneled, those few candidates were assured of a certain amount of votes from those players and their alt accounts. And because these specific entities each have communities that extend well beyond the in game culture of EVE Online, those being message boards such as Reddit, Something Awful, and 4chan, there was a very effective "grassroots" style drive to get out the vote, and it was very effective.

By contrast, the average EVE player was presented with a dizzying array of candidates, many of them with similar platforms, and the much larger combined vote of everyone else not aligned with the Clusterfuck Coalition was split among these other candidates. Though the total votes that were cast for non-Clusterfuck Coalition candidates were well in excess of those cast for Clusterfuck Coalition candidates, the records show us that many of these other candidates each received individually very poor vote totals which resulted in many of the votes cast for them being effectively "wasted".

My stance, which I would like to argue to CCP on behalf of You, dear EVE Online Player, is that we need voting reform.

Something that would benefit the vast majority of the EVE playerbase would be proportional representation and selected transferable votes because in the present system a big chunk of the voting share is effectively "wasted" by people voting for this or that candidate, each one of a dozen or more who receive fewer than the minimum needed to gain a seat. With transferable votes there would be a lot more representation of the non-Goon interest on the CSM, because people could then delineate their votes to go to Candidate Y in the event that Candidate X is not elected, and so on. Right now one of the big advantages that an organized voting bloc like the Clusterfuck Coalition has over the rest of the game is that all of their votes go to specified candidates which will almost surely win positions whereas the rest of the game's population is left to blindly pick one of the other horses in the race and is left with no recourse or representation once that horse loses.

Lyris Nairn, CSM seat of my heart :swoon:

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.

Examples below in context in responce to the claims above.

On gameplay:



On development priorities:



On power blocs and equality:



Hypocrasy is now also officially on record.

Unfortunately, people change. I preferred the Old Lyris, the one who posted these quotes and lead me to my first drake kill during a rifterswarm.

There's always the hyena of morality at the garden gate, and the real wolf at the end of the street.

David Herbert Lawrence

You might be interested in this more however:

Lyris Nairn is basically an EVE university spy that we have tolerated for far too long.

What is you position on walking in stations? Will you allow anymore locked doors to nowhere?

EVE University disavows any knowledge of alleged clandestine actions involving player "Lyris Nairn".

Open-mindedness to rational inquiry is a political style historically linked with liberalism...

I see your psuedo intel quote,,,,,,,,,,,and raise you this

Actually, I am sincerely not interested in pseudointellectual quotes referring to a game of internet spaceships, unless they emanate from my chairman and are somewhat related to the subject at hand.

Actions speak louder than words and I still see recent KB entries for GSF

The Mitttani can make his own quotes, that's how awesome he is.

What part of RIFTERSWARM do you not understand?

Rifters shoot things, they die often but they also do get on killmails, you know.

I really dont want to get drawn into a philosophical debate about rationalism, as your assuming that an open mind pervades to the idea that I must be wrong and must agree with you, what is so open minded about that? Whereas any "rational" person would question the history that Lyris represents, her current status and her ongoing efforts as a Goonswarm pilot. Seeing as there is some empirical evidence backing it up.

Actions speak louder than words and I still see recent KB entries for GSF and she still wears the badge and I like to measure a tree by it's fruits. The responsibility of proof is very much in Lyris' court not mine. And pandering with a whimsical view of telling us what we want to hear? Seriously not transparent enough for you?

Usual brainless Zombie Clown Goon.

A quotation by definition is something you do as attributable of someone else's work.

It's kind of like a chuck norris joke, you see,

You conveniently set the stage for a test in which it is impossible for me to prove my side. I cannot disprove a negative, which is what you are asking me to do by somehow showing that I am not the negative things you're saying about me.

Not my problem Lyris, you are the one wanting to stand for CSM.

I actually googled searched for that quote and robbed it from some political bloggers site sadly.

But lyris is a goon as ya said and it seems like you hate goons, I really dont know what more can come of this.

BTW any one want more psuedo intel quotes thrown in the pot?

But I can easily confirm I don't like the Goons ethics. As individuals IRL am sure they are "normal" people, well perhaps not "Mittens".