Devilish Ledoux
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
53
   |
Posted - 2012.02.27 06:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
If I understand the OP's 'logic' correctly, it seems that he has a problem with an alliance's leadership explicitly telling the line members to "Vote for this guy." It would seem that he would prefer it is alliances just encouraged their people to vote without any recommendations, or at least without any explicit directives. This would allow candidates who wouldn't otherwise be able to garner a broad base of appeal the opportunity to get elected on the strength of their good ideas.
I have to say that this sounds like a really good idea until you think it. On the surface, it would seem to support candidates with good ideas, but without any particular influence with organized demographics (ie, alliances). The OP would have us believe that bloc-voting denies these lesser-known "idea" candidates a) exist and b) have such good ideas that they can't help but enrich the CSM as a player advocacy group.
The OP assumes "good ideas" are something a successful CSM candidate simply must have to better support their constituents. This is incorrect for several reasons, not least of all the fact that this method of CSM election was already tried, with craptacular results. Besides, if the CSM need ideas, they need only solicit them from the community. There's a whole forum just for this sort of thing. That someone with a really great idea for improving wormhole mechanics isn't going to withhold his ideas until he gets elected to the CSM. He spent time working on them and he's damned sure going to share them.
I've never been on the CSM, but I've paid enough attention to know that CCP doesn't come to the CSM delegates and ask "what do you think we should do to fix ________?" They come to the CSM delegates and say, "we're thinking of doing _________. What do you think?" It is for this reason that we need to elect organized, politically-minded critical thinkers who are able to take the dev team's ideas and improve upon them or - in some cases - explain why their implementation would be a bad thing for Eve in such a way that the dev team actually listens and agrees with the CSM.
In my mind, the successful CSM candidate:
Has the critical thinking skills to properly evaluate ideas brought up by CCP or community members.
Has the ability to persuade others that his/her evaluation is accurate.
Is organized enough to follow community discussions, both to solicit new ideas, gather feedback on existing gameplay mechanics and evaluate both for consistency and relevancy without getting bogged down in the chaos that are the forums.
Genuinely enjoys doing the job, to minimize the chances that they burn out.
Is it any wonder that bloc-level leaders in Eve find themselves uniquely suited to the role of CSM delegate? Is it any wonder that the people they already play Eve with - who know them to be intelligent, organized, charismatic and dedicated - endorce, campaign for and eventually vote for them?
TL;DR My impression of the OP: "Buhuu, you shouldn't tell people in your alliance to vote for a candiate, even if he's your CEO." |