|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:51:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 17:51:14
I've already stated my support for the concept of no-confidence votes in the other thread. For the same reasons set out there, I'll sign this thread; not because I support the removal of the Goonswarm members, but because I agree with the no-confidence idea.
Unfortunately, even real-life elections these days don't have majority turnout in all/many cases; elections here in England being an example of such. The real way to get more people to vote is to demonstrate that the CSM is a relevant entity; something that is in the hands of the community, CSM members and CCP.
Democracy is what you make of it. (Apologies, I've wandered off-topic)
|
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:21:00 -
[2]
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in many places within the various CSM-oriented debates concerning voting turnout etc.
A lot of emphasis has been placed on 0.0-related issues not being given appropriate representation on the CSM committee. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but...
1) Take a tight assumption (which I don't agree with) that the GoonSwarm CSM members, and only the GoonSwarm CSM members, are representing 0.0 interests). This represents 2/9, or c. 22% of the CSM.
2) According to the second economic report produced by CCP, only 19% of the "active accounts" within EVE (that moved system) entered 0.0.
Given that 22% > 19%, I *must* be missing something. As much for my own peace of mind as anything else, I'd quite like to know what it is.
|
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:31:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 18:32:05
I was never suggesting that the 22% was wrong, just for clarity; 22%>19% was not an argument that 22% was wrong. (I wouldn't make that argument because I don't agree that 22% is accurate, in any case.)
Fair enough though, you make perfectly good and valid points as to why members of large alliances may be considered to have more knowledge of the problems being discussed. I for one am quite happy with the range of different foci/opinions, on all sides of the debate.
(Editing, because the above post seems to have changed. I'm not really sure where the whole 11%<19% thing was coming from; I've never advocated or encouraged any change in CSM membership at all.)
|
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:15:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 19:16:55
I do realise the problems with the 19% figure I specified above, and in combination with:
1) There are only 9 representatives, so % targets are quite limited.
2) I don't accept the 22%, as I think candidates beyond the two GS candidates are prepared, and able, to look at 0.0 issues; in reality, I believe this to be far higher than 22%. I used this as an approximation because:
a) It's lower than what I think, so by using it I'm making a stronger case.
b) The likely deviance is for an underestimation, offsetting the underestimation in the 19%, whether in part or in full.
22% ~ 19%, and (22+a)% should be closer to (19+b)% than any other combination, hence my support, unless you either genuinely believe that only the GS candidates represent 0.0 issues or that the number of alts/random temporary players is massive. Unfortunately, the only publicly available data on 0.0 entry is a single data point, so the statistical significance, is, admittedly, limited.
|
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:20:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tolis Irithel on 22/05/2008 19:20:31
"Should CCP hire a political scientist"
Oh dear gods no!
|
Tolis Irithel
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:26:00 -
[6]
If I could thumbs up Gorobom's post just above this, I would.
Re: something being wrong with the election mechanic... I'm of two minds on this one. It's a whole other discussion though; I wasn't going for the mechanic, I was attempting to respond to specific concerns about the current members of the CSM. I'll be happy to contribute in an appropriate thread on that matter, but I don't think it's place is in here, already full of enough different topics.
|
|
|
| |
|