Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Friday, November 11, 2011

Party time!

Let's get back to the topic of the CSM7 election.  Man, it's taking a long time to cover this topic.  I make no apologies.  It's been a busy couple of weeks.  ;-)

Last time, I talked about the interview that Hilmar gave Eurogamer in which he stated that he's receiving feedback that the CSM is "too pre-occupied by a certain playstyle".  In that post, I examined three key questions around that statement and concluded that Hilmar is over-reacting.  But hey, he's a company CEO and he has that right.  As I said, CEOs have a tendency to get what they want.  Which brings me to the fourth question I specified in that post but did not answer: "Should something be done about it?"

The key issue surrounding this for the CSM7 election is organization.  I've pointed out several times during and after the CSM6 election that sov-holding null-sec alliances have a big advantage when it comes to organization.  They're by far the largest groups of players, and the easiest to mobilize.  When it came to stacking the CSM, all they lacked -- until 2011 -- was the will.  CCP Greyscale gave them the will.  Mittens harnessed and directed it, and that was that.  The election itself was mere formality to find out which two or three people would join the null-sec bloc as full delegates, and who the alternates would be.

"The first time is always the hardest," as the saying goes.  The unanswered question is now that it's been shown that the null-sec alliances can control the CSM for as long as they care to, if the election mechanic remains unchanged, will they?  I put this question to Mittens directly, and he was good enough to respond that the null-sec bloc collectively feels like they accomplished what they set out to accomplish in 2011, and other than a care-taker role to prevent "Nuke jump bridges!" in the future, will not try to control CSM7.  Believe it if you like.  Expect this question to be a topic at the CSM December Summit, too.

Still, in the meantime, it's fun to speculate.  Will the CSM7 election mechanic change?  If so, what might be some good ways to change it?

I think it probably should be changed.  The biggest problem with the current mechanic is that it's not particularly friendly to specialized play-styles that should nevertheless be represented on the CSM.  Wormhole residents should have a seat.  Industry players should have a seat or two.  Dedicated high-sec players should have a seat or two.  Small-gang PvPers should have a seat.  Mittens did a great job of harnessing the large null-sec voting bloc, but how do these smaller groups harness the people who play EVE this way?

Mittens favors a "minimum signatures" initiative sort of like California's Voter Proposition system: if you collect enough signatures, you get on the ballot.  And that's certainly one approach.  It definitely has the virtue of producing a smaller number of more serious candidates.  However, what sort of players are going to have the easiest time getting those signatures?  The ones in null-sec sov-holding blocs, of course.  And the players that will have the hardest time are ones in smaller corps plying their more specialized trades.

"Let's bring in political parties!" a lot of people say instead, usually adding "and let's socialize their votes" while they're at it.  The basic idea is pretty simple: you start a "Carebear" party for the CSM7 election.  Anyone who promises to promote high-sec carebear concerns gets to join.  All of these candidates run, and all of them get at least a few votes.  When the votes are done being counted, if any of these candidates have enough votes to get a CSM seat, they get a seat.  Any votes that they received that they didn't need ("over-votes") then go back to the party.  The non-elected candidate with the most votes gets them, and perhaps those votes in addition to his own ensure that he gets a seat as well.

What if nobody in the Carebear party has enough votes by themselves to get a seat?  This is likely, in fact, since carebears will have the most difficult time mobilizing votes for individual candidates.  Their votes will be the most fractured, perhaps across two dozen or more candidates.  In that case, you take the Carebear candidate with the most votes and you keep applying the logic in the above paragraph over and over.  If need be, you give that candidate all of the other Carebear party votes.  If all of the votes together are enough to get the top vote-getting Carebear a CSM seat, then he gets that seat.

It's a system that has an immediate and obvious problem: how do you tell when you've won?  At the end of the election, a person has to sit in that CSM seat, not a party.  If you've got 15 political parties with 65 people across them, all of them with varying numbers of votes, then it will be harder to pick out the top nine of them that get on the CSM.  The most elegant solution that I've seen is: "You are guaranteed either a main seat or an alternate seat if you get 1/14th of the total votes."  Then you choose your mains by who hits that threshold hardest or first.  If 1/14th of the total vote is 7000 votes and you have 10,000, you're in (and your 3000 "over-votes" go back to your party).  If the Carebear party has 2/14ths of the total vote (even if that 2/14ths is spread across 25 candidates), then when all is said and done, two Carebears will be on the CSM, probably as alternates.  The only question is which two of the Carebears have the most votes and will get the seats.

I am not a mechanics expert and I'm sure that there are others that can work out the mechanics better than I can, but I think the overall system has a lot of merit.  It has the potential to produce a varied and diverse CSM without requiring massive organized blocs of players behind you to get a seat.  But it doesn't negate the power of organized blocs of players, either.  Had this system been in use for the CSM6 election, and had the seven null-sec bloc candidates formed a single political party, along with their three allies, they would have secured six out of 14 seats.  In the actual CSM6 election, they secured seven.  However, the remaining eight seats would probably have been somewhat different.

The main disadvantage to this system that I can see is that it will greatly reduce the likelihood of individual popular personalities securing full CSM seats.  Only after the parties have secured their seats would single individuals be considered.  And these individuals would then almost certainly be alternates.  If you go into such an election with no party (or more technically, a party of just yourself), then you're not going to get a full seat unless you get 1/14th of the total vote by yourself.  Four people have done this: Seleene and Trebor in CSM6, and Ankh and Mynxee in CSM5 (and Mynxee did it pretty easily: she got 10% of the vote all by herself).  But hey, maybe this is no bad thing.  The CSM shouldn't be a popularity contest, right?

And perhaps there are other disadvantages or obvious exploits to this idea that I'm not seeing.  Where are they?  Discuss.

32 comments:

  1. I am inclined to think along the lines of each segment of the game gets a representative. Low sec, null sec, fw, high sec, wh, etc... Each segment can have an election where as people who wish to represent this segment can enter the race, present their platform of issues and may the best person win. All winners of each segment are the CSM for that year.

    Runner ups of each segment can be alternates in case you end up with a situation where someone "claims" to represent high sec, for example, yet is merely a liar attempting to grief the position away from a legitimate candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think parties would just overcomplicate the system and make it harder for the eventual CSM to work together. I also don't think representation from every single constituency is as important as making sure that the people who are elected will expand their focus beyond a narrow playstyle.

    Why not an alternate vote?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

    Everyone votes by ranking the candidates, and you want to get a lot of 2nd and 3rd choice votes along with your 1st choice ones. This discourages candidates from focusing too strongly on one voter base at the expense of others.

    If for instance a highsec dweller is running for CSM they'd be best served by making themselves a viable 2nd or 3rd choice to the voter bases of the other highsec candidates as well as engaging the lowsec, w-space and nullsec community to get some 4th or 5th choice votes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

    I'd like to see voting change to this style.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The list based election system that you suggest works reasonably well in the real world, but is probably to easily manipulated to be useful in Eve. Outside of the null alliances I don't think the desire to organize is there unless it's a personality cult like Anhk's Take Care Party.

    I'd like to see Single Transferable Vote used. It provides an efficient way of aggregating the votes for the dozen or so carebear candidates without requiring them to organize a primary election or work out a ranking system among themselves.

    Quite likely the null alliances could still grab control of the CSM in any election where they cared to simply because they have the organization for a GOTV operation. I don't have a problem with that. If you can't be bothered to vote, in game or real life, you don't politically exist and no one in elective office has any reason to care about what you want.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The real issue here is lack of participation from the bulk of the players. You don't address that artifically by taking steps to "balance" their lack of participation, rather you address the core problem and try and get more of them voting.

    It should work fairly much exactly as it does now, except for being easier to vote and easier to get a tl;dr of the various candidates (preferably without leaving the game client)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why put artificial constraints on the player representative body? What is the problem you are trying to fix?

    Why should players who can't get off their arses to vote have any kind of representation? Hell, it's not like voting for CSM reps even takes any real effort.

    Any artificial constraints placed on the composition of the CSM will most easily be gamed by the people most able to coordinate their votes. You want a representative for w-space residents? Well look at that: the w-space resident with the greatest leaning towards null sec happens to get three times as many votes as any other w-space resident. What a coincidence! You want a representative for mission-runners? Well look at that: the mission-runner with the greatest fealty to DRF happens to get four times as many votes as any other mission-runner. What a coincidence!

    Artificial constraints will only serve the interests of the people the constraints are intended to diminish. By putting those constraints in place, you'll provide some level of comfort to people that it won't matter if they don't vote, so they won't.

    The only thing that will drive the disinterested to vote is exactly the same thing that drove null sec to vote en masse this time around: the perception that the incumbents in the CSM are going to ruin their game.

    Let's see if the non-nullsec turnout is any better next time, or whether the game continually gets shifted in particular directions by Wormtounge's continual whispering in the King's ear.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was talking to Mike Azariah the other day about this. One system I talked about was more of a set of delegations. Current CSMs number at nine seats I believe. For this example I will simplify it to three seats, but the same could apply to nine seats.

    First break up the available seats into EVE playstyles and/or professions. Lets call these delegations. In this overly simplified example, lets say Sovereignty Warfare, Carebearing, and Griefing.

    Next require each candidate to compete for one and only one delegation. Lets say Mittens is torn between the Sovereignty Warfare and Griefing delegations but eventually picks Sov.

    Next allow each player to only vote once per account. By this I mean forcing the player to pick a delegation seat to vote for. For example, if the player considers themselves a missioner they may find the carebear seat the most important. As such, they decide toyou pick from candidates running for the carebear delegation and never see Mittens on the ballot.

    Is it a perfect system? No, but it forces players to make decisions about where they want their vote to count. It also simplifies platforms and constituencies. Downsides? Lack of unity. Also with enough organization it could still be gamed. Hopefully making both the candidate's and voters decide on their delegation would have some mitigating effects, however.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Bel Amarr, you can always force people to participate by requiring a vote on login. Not really going to much more accurate, but would increase participation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I personally think the "minimum signature" plan is going to be the best, because it is the least intrusive of any other thoughts, and it still reduces the number of hack candidates. If there were 50 this last run, you can expect 100 the next.

    This having "Parties" doesn't work because, for it to work, you would have to "register" for it to make sense or have any identifiable value. And imagine having to "identify" yourself under a specific "class" in a game like Eve?!

    In addition, High-sec doesn't really need to be "represented". High-sec will never be messed with too much because the implications will be felt game-wide and quickly. It might be best to say CCP represents "high-sec" and that the rest of the players fight against them to keep the game going too soft.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think it's mostly the voting screen that needs to be changed. Last year, CSM happened when I recently joined the game. I didn't know what the CSM was, I didn't know any of the player there and didn't trust them. I didn't even know that the CSM could have an effect on the game, for me it was this out of the game thing and I only wanted to play the game - not go vote.

    I think it should give you a screen in game where you have a list of candidate sorted by their interest "wormhole, highsec, lowsec, null etc" with a brief quote from the candidate. The player could quickly select whoever they feel represents their need and quickly go back to playing.

    I honestly don't know what percentage of the player base really cares about the off-line stuff of EVE, but I would say it's rather low.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was going to post a long comment explaining how the Hugo nominations do it, and why I think that's awesome.

    Then I saw Raivi's link and realized the system has an official name, so here's one more link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

    ReplyDelete
  12. I like the idea of delegates running for a specific seat. Sort of like the various cabinet seats in the US. So there would be a null rep, high sec rep, WH, etc...

    Then to get on the ballot they would need to have a forum post with X number of Aye's or whatever key word that can be searched.

    Finally, all of the delegates with sufficient signatures are placed on a poll post and a link to the post is repeated in game as well as part of an email describing what the CSM is and what it's done for the players.

    All of the above I've seen before, but it's still the method I prefer. I'm guilty of not voting for the CSM last year but that was primarily because I had no idea what it really meant. There was the link at startup but without knowing anything about the CSM I didn't see the point in participating.

    Now though I'm ready to ensure my vote is placed. Not because the CSM did anything extraordinary but because I want people like Jester having a direct voice instead of someone like Mittens. I hate the idea that the only voice that is heard directly is from only one segment of the game and if I can help prevent that in the future I will.

    I know the CSM has little influence compared to things like profits, subscriptions, and CCP's will/whim but the tool is there so why not take the time to at least make sure it's representing the entire population and not just the vocal minority.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with Bleys above that if CCP and the general population wants more capsuleer participation which includes high sec participation then its very easy for CCP to put up a Voter login screen or a Vote on login however its done to get all that login to vote. You get more people login who actually participate. They can also limit voting to once per account holder.

    I'd honestly like to see a fair system of representation that represents everyone interests and playstyle in the game to make it fair to all that play the game and the betterment of the game as a whole. However In my view given the very nature of EVE and the mega large alliance that can easily muster votes to suite their own cause or as a block, elections can and always be easily stacked or manipulated for whatever the reason. I'd like to hope there is a good solution but thats beyond me to think of. I'm usually optimistic but somewhat more synical when it comes to the nature of EVE and finding a fair solution to this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ankh for CSM 7.... she's already running 6.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am a HS PvEr and both in the current form or in any of the proposed voting systems I am much more inclined to vote on a candidate that consistently engage on varied Eve activities than one that does HS Pve all the time (or that focus on a single play-style for that matter).

    I think that such candidate is more likely to be a better representative, everything else being equal (personal aptitude, commitment to the position, etc).

    Also, such candidate is slightly less likely to be metagaming.

    @Bleys: I think mandatory voting is a bad answer to this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Instant run off voting, as mentioned above, solves the problem elegantly.

    You essentially rank your choices, if your first vote doesn't win a spot, your vote passes to your second choice, etc. Thus, if all pubbies rank Empire candidates, the one with the most votes will win.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Since CSM members are allowed to metagame, there is no way to ensure that any particular candidate does what their particular interest group elected them to do. Getting paid to quit the race or paid to vote a certain way etc are all valid at the moment and even if they were specifically addressed by CCP there is absolutely no way to police them.

    If the core goal of the CSM structure is player input, that can easily be implemented in the form of the crowd sourcing used by the last two CSMs. The question here is, what is the point of the CSM? Opinions can be gathered in a number of ways. Having players fly to Iceland to metagame on CCP's dime and time doesn't seem like the best way to gather opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Without first taking a good look at some very basic fundamental requirements for any "body" to represent interests all you have by default is a king's election (so to speak).

    The way things are, nobody has any insight. Anywhere. A candidate can play the metagame and subsequently disappear or take the piss (just like he or she can do smart things, choices after all .. and this IS eve).

    Maybe it sounds wierd, but how can anyone really discuss things like party mechanisms or electional systems when the most basic things like transparancy are just simply not present.

    I voted for two candidates for CSM6. I have absolutely no idea whether these two (as both got elected) are representative for me. One has a blog which is very rarely used, and if it is used it says nothing on who does what or who screwed up or who got what right (etc). Nor does it show anything really tangible on the CCP side of interactions. The other is ... fuck knows. Missing. Well, he's resurfaced a bit now that the crisis with CCP is over and he comes across as trying to be the ship fitting master on failheap even though he is an alternate who disappeared during his term.

    We have no idea what goes on, other than what the politics (literally) desires to share. That is a completely different ballgame than the NDA, as should be abundantly clear to anyone. Part of EVE, sure, but even Iceland learned that politics requires transparancy and accountability to even have a meager chance at functioning without it turning into an online version of Jerry Springer at the Altar of Ego ;P

    You know, I miss the Mynxee / Trebor combo of CSM5. That was a CSM that worked. Shame of that chick pissing over the place in between, and shame it was too effective for the idiots at CCP to handle. At least those idiots are lying low these days, with all the focus on the winter mission.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Segregating votes in to play areas is a horribly bad idea, I wish people would stop suggesting it. It works in some cases, for some people, but ignores people who are more interested in the game as a whole than one particular area of it.

    Vote for people who match your preferred playstyle, and as a secondary consideration, vote for where they live. I want to see a game with less centralisation & more risk. I'll vote for any candidate thats supports that, it doesn't matter where they live.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Seleene had bloc backing in CSM6; the Southeast was instructed to vote for him, as he was in -A- at the time; he got ROL/-A-/SE/Coven et al.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Before CCP changes voting mechanics, it would be interesting to see what effects raising the election profile ingame would have. CSM6 enjoyed a lot of login ad coverage during their election (and just prior), but what if some more assertive measures were taken a month before campaigns started--esp things that would intro new players to the whole concept?

    Some ideas: have ISD or GMs oversee scheduled short debates in the Rookie help channel among candidates on a variety of topics, send mass email to players ingame, put MOTDs in ingame channels, maybe even present a candidate roster and vote buttons on login if an acct has not voted already in the current election. Skippable without voting and with a "Don't show this again" option, of course. But at least everyone who logs in would see it at least once and have an easy way to act if they wish.

    Part of the reason why CCP might be reluctant to do this is because they feel candidates and their supporters should take the lead in publicizing their own election--which makes a sort of sandboxy sense. Thing is, CCP controls most if not all of the ingame approaches that could reliably reach a majority of players who log in but may not visit the forums or pay attn to news items or dev blogs so it becomes a bit of a Catch-22 situation.

    Am interested to see if you decide to have a go at CSM7, Jester.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Now that I actually consider the type of effects that this change may have or may not have, it's interesting that I find myself gravitating for the Status Quo.

    If people don't vote, then why should their opinion matter. This discussion is really about disproportional amounts of players in different areas of the game namely null security space voting more than those in other security system, mainly high security space. But why should this matter?

    Those in High Security space don't have as much of stake in EVE Online compared to those in Low Security, Wormhole or Null security space, they don't have to deal with politics, they don't enjoy player made infrastructure, they are playing a game. This is an important concept, playing a game or EVE in this case. They do it for fun, whatever fun that might be, they have many reasons but they keep this as a game and not a lifestyle like some EVE players.

    So what it really comes down to is that 10% of the EVE population who is the hardcore gamer group are voting for 90% of the votes, because they feel like they have stake in the game, while those 90% are mainly playing the game for fun, and will let CCP do whatever it is they do because they couldn't give a crap. So why should we listen to them, if they didn't even vote in the first place? We don't, they have an chance to get some one elected they just have to have the intent on doing so. And trying to change that won't matter, hardcore players invest more time in games than casual player that's just a fact of life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The thing most people forget with CSM is that for CCP it is an experiment which needs to pay off to them. The second part of that imposes some interesting restrictions, since it has to serve their purpose (very visible from how they got their pants pulled down with "stakeholder CSM5" followed by "feedback CSM6" - which also pulled their pants down). CCP have no interest on a personal level in making CSM function as a well oiled machine.

    The first part of that statement has always been the instrument and/or excuse for that second part.

    I agree with comments above though, there is absolutely no point in any debate about elections or even composition without first taking care of the "institutional" side of things. Once upon a time weekly meeting minutes were required, they kept a lot of people interested and it helped to keep the interest present (sometimes for drama, other times for topics, sometimes for checking up on how members were doing, etc).

    CSM6 changed the CSM concept into a metagame element. That is part of EVE, absolutely, the question is not even whether that should be the only element of it (using the "experiment" angle so "it's all in the hands of you players / csm people bla bla". But really whether it is required to have methods in place which protect people from (effectively) their own "meta".

    As necessary as I think it to be to stabilise the functioning and use of CSM for both us and CCP, I just can't see either taking that on. It may be in the interest of CCP's customers, and in the interest of CCP, but it is not in the interest of individual people. And those not simply lead debate and influence, they make the effective decisions.

    Let's face it, the "democratic experiment" angle is far too easy an excuse for making sure matters are worked in such ways that they are less dangerous. It's why for CSM7 I expect a lot of focus on in game detail stuff, less room for any big pictures, and more room for personal altars and show. With CCP only showing the "good" side to CSM (and well, got to be honest again, it's never been them to cause crap ...).

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have to agree with Mara and Echo, it seems.

    To translate the situation to RL politics, this is like the Republicans turning out a huge vote, the Dems ignoring the election, but crying about the result -- a Republican President with a full-house Republican Congress...

    I agree it would be nice to have people who're actually FROM low/WH life to run for CSM, not just people who say "a lil lulsex love is important" in their candidate questionnaire... but I very carefully read statements and blogs and tried to read between the lines, as with ALL elections, and vote for whose stance most closely resembled my opinion.

    All of that took about half hour to an hour (process of elimination -- weed out the ones you absolutely WOULD NOT vote for, ahemcoughMittensahem, then do a lil deeper research on the "top 3", and make a choice -- IIRC I went with Trebor)... hell I spend easily twice as much time every couple days reading/commenting/(very occasionally) writing EVE blogs.

    If hisec bears are too busy grinding L4s or churning manfacturing slots/trade orders to worry about the CSM, I'd just as soon they DIDN'T vote. To me, that's FAR preferable than a vote cast without real research or knowledge on the candidate or issues, and MOST definitely better than a vote cast because "someone told you to" (also applies to real life -- how many people vote based on celeb or group endorsements rather than actually looking at a candidate's views, track record, etc?? I'd wager a fair fucking many).

    The only value inherent in changing the system (there will now be FIVE from the Worker caste, and 2 each from the Warrior and Religious castes, that they may help and guide the Worker caste), is the tears that will result: it'll prob get metagamed and flipped on its head -- the bears will vote for their "ideal" candidate only to find out that character was in the employ, or actually an alt of, a Goon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh come on, is this EVE or some high school course in democracy? I advocate that each account receives single, transferable "vote-voucher" (TM). These are - like PLEX - transferable to other players, can be listed on contracts, open markets, stolen, robbed and otherwise taken from players by any means. For people who don't give a hoot about the CSM (many), it will be a welcome cash bonus. For those who do, well, put your money where your mouth is and buy your vote-vouchers. And btw, this is likely the closest representation how democracy works in the US anyway, so we are back to a high-school course.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Let's not forget why the CSM exists in the first place: CCP cocked up royally and did nothing to fix the problem (T20). They created the CSM in order to restore player trust. The CSM is *supposed* to represent the interests of ALL EVE players. They are supposed to fight for ALL of us, to hold, as best they can, CCPs feet to the fire. To say that the experience/fun/whatever of players who didn't vote for the winning candidates, or players who didn't vote at all, doesn't or shouldn't interest the CSM is to become that which we most dislike about CCP.

    Sure, some things about the voting need to be changed - limiting, as much as possible, whim candidates, getting more players interested in CSM, etc - but please, for the love of God, let's not turn the CSM into some sort of RL mirror of Western Democracies.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Heretic

    CSM was not created to restore player trust. It was created to serve as an instrument which could buffer and channel player sentiments and communications. The part of "broken trust" in the aftermath of that affair was marketing, nothing more. If that had been a primary focus CSM would have seen tools over the years for direct insight and (at minimum) reports on oversight. They haven't, it has never been a topic at all even.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Seems I broke a limit for my comments. I put together some comments you may find of interest @ http://icankillabuzzard.blogspot.com/2011/11/csm-time-to-change-process.html

    Great topic. Thanks for posting. Got the ol cogs turning on this one. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  29. The only thing needed is that CCP comunicates to its player base the concept of how the CSM can benefit your personal gameplay. That it is important for each individual to have a look at it regardless if you are newbie or veteran.

    No vote/voucher system will hold, since this is EvE and we love to royally screw/metagame any existing rules to the point that whatever original design its final result is what the powerholders want. We must accept that fact plain and simple....no point in trying to "balance" anything, otherwise it wouldn't be EvE.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Transferable votes are the way to go, so no votes are wasted. No need for parties because similar minded candidates will vote each other anyway.

    This is the only problem in the current system and it is solved easy that way.
    Vote someone to vote for you who votes maybe somene who actually votes a new csm member.


    And btw, what is wrong with voting mittens as carebear? I voted for him, and I think I will vote him again, he is pure entertainment and high sec players will be anyway protected from cpp no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bah, parties. A horrible idea and superfluous anyway.

    First of all it´ll create the same corruption it does in RL, as the money-traders and other interest blocs will push their "sheeple" to vote a puppet into "power".
    And we have them NOW anyway, like Mittani´s election showed.

    No, the main problem here(like in RL) is to get enough people to GIVE A FüCK.

    Actually the current state is OK. It´s just anarchic enough to be able to self-organize itself into a barely working and useful entity.

    Which is just what the CSM is supposed to be, as CCP should be actually calling the shots anyway.
    That is, when they are done shooting themselves into the foot for 18+ months.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I want to give +1 to @Carole Pivarnik's suggestion of increasing visibility of the electorial process ingame. Forced voting, however, as someone else suggested...*meh*

    Any other rule can be metagamed, because this is EVE. Vote transfers bears potential, since it is bottom-up and parallel as opposed to any structure imposed top-down.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.