One option could be to restrict the number of CSM members that any Corp/Alliance can have seated, to 1.
If there is more than one candidate from a Corp/Alliance, only the one with most votes gets a seat.
Post election, this rule would continue, such that CSM cannot swap Corp/Alliance to raise the seats taken by any Corp/Alliance to more than 1.
That does restrict CSM autonomy, as a player/individual, but CSM are already expected to agree to terms of assuming the seat. This would be just one more such term.
Obviously there are ways around this depending on how the rule is drafted, but might help restore player confidence in CSM representation, when NOT seeing 3/10 CSM from Goonwaffe.
Consider the hypothetical (god forbid) that one year Goons get 6 CSM seats.
That would raise very serious questions about the election process/system, and the political allegiance of the CSM. Questions which already now are nascent.
I think this is a more efficient way of preventing undue representation on the CSM of any one Corp/Alliance, than setting up CSM quotas per HS/LS/NS/WHs, which are arbitrary anyways, as many players operate in several of those sectors, either now or in the past/future, and have different interests which they campaign on as CSM.
Also would result in better chances for independents to gain the seats, rather than alliances with their huge voting blocs.
The CSM is supposed to represent all players in EVE not just 0.0, take a look at the current CSM do you think it represents everyone?? Of course it doesnt.
The CSM is basically a special interest lobby backed by LOTS of people who vote as they are told and thus get what they want. In this case thats safety for their isk crabbing and thats all. âBalance passâ my ass.
Also I voted for years and I have never had a player I voted for get on the CSM. Not once. Are you surprised I donât vote anymore?
And the idea that people need to âcoordinate their votes betterâ is just BS. BS on two levels 1) People shouldnt need to coordinate votes, its meant to be democratic not an exercise in organisation, and 2) even if they did no way would it change anything. Its a numbers game, they have more.
Your loyalty to your masters makes me want to puke.
Despite all your idealism the EVIDENCE proves me right.
-CSM is loaded with 0.0 shills who DO NOT act or speak on behalf of the EVE community.
They again and again push for stuff that advances their game play, to the detriment of other game play. (Just take a look at the current âbalance passâ CCP are willing to destroy TWO forms of game play with only promises to pick up the pieces later.) THAT is what the CSM does.
Your inability to see those things doesnt make it less so. The CSM = BS and the sooner CCP drag that dog out back and shoot it the better.
The CSM is rigged towards the best organization, yes. The best organization wins, which is super evident. You can play the system and thatâs not necessarily a good thing. However, itâs also not the worst thing that could happen. At least, you have the option to organize yourself against it, which you can, just refuse to do.
If you do, please share.
Also lol at the idea that restricting seats to 1 per alliance. You will still end up with majority Nullsec, just that itâs not just goons anymore. Instead, we would have 1 GSF, 1 BSTN, 1 Init, 1 RA etc. instead. Your idea would do nothing and nothing at all.
That wouldnât seperate any bloc in any meaningful way and even if it would be enhanced to coalition levels, noone is stopping them from creating 1man corps⌠it would have to be manual checks of every single candidate and even then, with the way the internet works, you couldnât even be sure to get rid of âBlocingâ the CSM this way.
But then again, the problems with potential solutions were discussed ad nauseum. Just that Salvos, in his restricted âWisdomâ is not aware and doesnât play eve enough to know whatâs actually going on.
There are plenty of ways to get rid of the CSM, I suspect slow wheels are turning as we speak. EVE is a game, its owned by CCP, if they want to truly canvas the player base there are far better ways of doing that than elections dominated by power blocks. All they have to do is pull the plugâŚ
But you keep âbelievingâ if you want Lucas while myself and the majority of unaffiliated EVE players turn our backs on a system thats clearly and evidently broken through corruption and mismanagement.
But that right there is the problem with the current mechanics. You do not care, instead you produce so much Whine that no ammount of chese can keep up with it. You abandoned the CSM, yet you still cry because it doesnât work in your favor. Are you kidding, man?
If all of EVE only had two coalitions then we only had two CSM members, and theyâd be using their power only more to fight each other. And when large coalitions can only field one CSM member then theyâd be doing everything in their power to undermine the weaker coalitions, because they have to represent a lot more players than others, which also only brings more fighting into the CSM.
When then a large coalition manages to get all their members to vote and to bring many candidates to the CSM then this is very much the way of democracy. Those who arenât in the majority or who donât vote have to fail.
Besides, the CSM only has as much power as CCP is willing to give them. Any nonsense caused by stupid CSM members will get ignored by CCP anyway.
Talk about a question tailored to get a particular response⌠Anybody who thinks it could be better will vote no. Hell I would have. The question is fine though but to draw any conclusion (looking at you salvos) would be⌠Pointless
It shows out of a tiny sample size a majority think it shouldnât exist in itâs current form or function. I personally read that and went no because I think it could be improved. It means nothing as is though a greater sample size is needed
I only voted for one Null sec candidate and he made it, the rest were mostly WH and Low candidates, none of which were voted onto the CSM.
I have no issue with Null having the most reps on the CSM, but other areas of EVE need to be represented as well, by players that live in those other areas.
The only reason Steve gets elected year after year is because of his popular 3rd party sites. If he didnât have those, heâd join the others in the dumpster of losers.
Iâve stopped reading most of your comments. Theyâre just never friendly. I wonât care for what you explain or donât explain. My response was to the OP and his statement of âAny votes for having only 1 CSM member per coalition?â as this is his thread. You then calling my response to OP âFalseâ is just a troll attempt to me.
And then you tell others they are broken. Thanks for the tears FabRod