Wednesday, January 11, 2012

CSM 7 - Electoral Reform?

So.... the elections for the Council of Stellar Management will be kicking off soon. Will it be pretty much the same? Probably.

I'd just like to point out I think the CSM 6 has done a great job. But the path that they have walked has been exceptional. The Crucible Expansion, of which I have no doubt that the current CSM had a heavy hand in, fixed a lot problems with the game for many, many people. But, the question is, would we have had Crucible if we didn't have the problems with Incarna, Monoclegate and the Summer of Unrest? Without those, the winter expansion would have been very different and would have probably been Incarna II.

Anyway back to the matter at hand. A while ago, in a blog banter, I proposed a different way to elect the CSM. I want to expand on that now. Part 1 of this blog looked into why 0.0 is not the end game of 0.0 and we need a more balanced CSM taking different player-bases and not just 0.0. This next part looks how we could get better representation on the CSM.

Again, I'm not CSM 6 bashing. My point is that the best person to represent an area of the game is someone who partakes in that area of the game.

Elected people in positions of power generally have an area of interest, so why not do that with the CSM. Make at least half the positions in the CSM "officer" positions like those on a normal committee or Government. Let them campaign on that area of interest. Lets get the CSM representing the wider player base and not just 0.0 where the big alliances can vote for their own.

So here are my suggested "officer" positions on the CSM with the area they concentrate on.... as well as how to identify them at the meetings....

Of course this will be Mittens. All he needs to do is ask his alliance "vote for me" and X thousand goons vote for him. I'd also like to point out that, whilst I may be in the minority in this view (when reading forums and social media), I don't personally have a problem with The Mittani. He appears to have done a very good job as chairman this year and keeps things interesting in-game. Anyway the role of the chairman is fairly obvious and they do chairman type things for the CSM.

At a CSM meeting they must........ have a chair like Dr Evil at the head of the table.

Minister for 0.0 Sovereignty
This position concerns the sov mechanics of 0.0. Capturing, holding and improving space is what this CSM'r cares about. So he's looking to fix any problems with that area, maybe it's making system capture more "fun" and all the other things that go with holding space in 0.0. Destructible stations? Personally I don't know as I'm not a 0.0 dweller, and that's my whole point.

At a CSM meeting they must........  be the first into the meeting room by 10 minutes and rope-off an area of the room for themselves and defend it at all costs.

Minister for 0.0 War
Closely linked to to the Minister for Sov, this position represents the interests of those in 0.0 who want PvP, war and general mass destruction. Super capitals are included in here as well as anything else that hands out pain on a mass-scale. Probably lag as well as that goes hand-in-hand with large-scale 0.0 battles.

At a CSM meeting they must........  turn up alone, but 2 minutes into the session 20 of their friends suddenly appear from nowhere whilst shouting "It's hot-drop o'clock!".

Minister for 0.0 Carebears
Obviously needs a better name but the one above sums it up nicely. A representative who knows all about carebearing in 0.0 and works for the benefit of that group in Eve. I guess that it will include mining, ratting, running sanctums etc.

At a CSM meeting they must........  bring home-baked cupcakes for everyone.

Minister for Yarrrrrrr!
A representative who understands the needs of those lovely low-sec pirates and campaigns on issues such as security status, aggression mechanics and the god awful 15 minute GCC. Oh and someone fix that standings hit when repping a pirate in militia! Has lots of arguments with the Minister for Carebears over high-sec ganking and CONCORD mechanics.

At a CSM meeting they must........  talk like a pirate all the time (either Captain Jack Sparrow or Steve the Pirate are acceptable). Also they are only allowed to drink rum during the meetings!

Minister for War
Covers all forms of war in low and high sec. This covers war dec's between corps and alliances and faction war. Issues such as voting mechanics to dropping the alliance to avoid a dec. Works closely with the Minister for 0.0 War.

At a CSM meeting they must........  attend CSM meetings dressed as the Vietnam Vet from Tropic Thunder and quote bad war anecdotes throughout.

Minister for Mining, Industry and Economy
Fairly obvious. Covers the aquistion of minerals and turning them into shiny ships and modules and then selling them. Could include POS mechanics as well as salvaging/looting? Frequently comes to blows with the Minister for Yarrrrrrrrrrrr!

At a CSM meeting they must........  practice what they preach. They have no chair to sit on at the CSM meetings, they have to build their own in advance from items found around the CCP offices.

Minister for Wormholes
A decent player-base lives in these strange locations. So lets give them a voice. I have only popped into a wormhole a few times so have no idea how "special" these special cases are. I've heard there are issues with things like stations or something. I guess this proves my point, these areas need someone who knows what the problems are, to campaign to fix them and to point out where a fix might break something else.

At a CSM meeting they must........ not physically attend the CSM meetings but have their voice projected from a hidden speaker as if errily crossing the void. Wooooooooo........

Minister for Carebears
Represents the interests of carebears of hi-sec and low-sec (Doesn't cover miners/industrialists as they are already covered). So mission runners, researchers, exploration, hacking, archaeology, deadspace complexes and the like.

At a CSM meeting they must........ come to the CSM meetings in a bear suit.

So there are 8 positions there that cover the vast majority of the Eve player-base. The Chairman will be Mittens, I mean the guy with the most votes, so will also be the representative for an area of the game (9 categories above including chair but one person will hold an officer position and the chair for getting most overall votes).

The final four positions are the four highest runners-up. Technically depending on the voting, this could be from a single category. For example if huge numbers of people vote for the 0.0 carebear representative then the four runner's up in that category may take the four "ordinary members" of the CSM if they get more votes than runners up in other categories. This seems fair as the area that gets the most votes, gets the most representation. However, every area is at least represented at some level.

That's just one way it could be done. I'm sure that not everyone in Eve is covered in there. The game is so big I'm sure I've missed some "professions" out. Also should the CSM only cover in-game? What about the community at large? Blogs, Facebook, the Tweetfleet on Twitter, websites, forums, Eve Gate. Do we need CSM representation there? Where do you stop?

It's a start and I'd be interested to know what other people think.

Yes, it's open to abuse. Yes, someone with good backing could put themselves forward for a category they know nothing about and don't care about. But there is no such thing as a perfect election mechanic.

Urghhhhh. I feel like a Liberal Democrat!


  1. Why would having only one person focus on an issue be better than the current style where *all* of the delegates focused on a single set of issues and still barely got (some of) their demands implemented?

  2. I’m not sure if its covered in your vote, but what was your preferred voting mechanic?

    I was thinking that each candidate can only stand in one category of his/her own choice, and that everyone can only vote for one person (and implicitly in one category only). This prevents one group of players from overly “griefing” people in other categories (Unless they command an overwhelming majority of the game)

    Is there a way of splitting up the posts to not explicitly be based on security statuses? I have been seeing interesting ideas about revamping the sec system, and having committee seats based on the current system potentially entrenches against any change.

  3. Mr A Mous - My personal view that getting a better spread of players in there can only be a good thing.

    Torja - This is just an idea as a starting point. You make good points and yes, you'd probably want to make it one delegate - one position. The sec status could be split but I feel you need to separate some bits. May be large alliance vs corp level as that would separate Empire and null some?

  4. I'm all in favor of the CSM requirements...

  5. In theory this would be great. A little bit of representation for each subset of Eve, and some seats left over to act as a representation of the population at large. Here's the problem though:

    If we vote for a ballot such as this, Mittens will put a Goon up in each slot. Many Goons have many alts in many different areas of Eve - I had a handful of Goons in my pirate corp, for instance. So now, instead of the Goons managing to smash in 3 representatives, they would likely control all but four seats.

    This is assuming, of course, that each voter selects a choice from each category, as opposed to a strict one-vote-per-account system. If you stick to one-vote, you may see some better representation, but you might also see someone elected to the CSM with something like 75 votes while people are denied seats in other sections but garnered 1000+.

  6. For the low/hi/null perhaps splits like Fleet versus small gang warfare. Concord and war dec to represent the security status issues. Sovereignty split from POS issues?
    Is there mileage in a specific New Player portfolio?

    It goes to a more interesting design question for CSM 7 if we go for specific portfolios, should these represent groups of people, or represent issues – Your list mixes both, although in real life we do tend to have both, with ministers for stat X, and ministers for issue X(trade or health for example).

    If we do go for issue based, there is no reason why CCP couldn’t state that these are our key issues we are interested in for the year, we would like to get specific representatives for these issues?