Its undemocratic. What objection do you have to democracy?
1 Like
CSM advise/feedback CCP.
If 3/10 of CSM are GoonWaffe/GSF as now, or one day perhaps 6/10 GoonWaffe/GSF, its hard to argue that ingame politics are not compromising that advisory/feedback position.
Its not undemocratic.
All CSM would still be elected based on vote count.
It just wouldnt be more than one per Corp/Alliance tag. Those that run againstt each other with the same tag will have to get the majority of votes to get appointed, over their other likewise tagged competitors.
Im fascinated to see how you will claim limiting seats to one per party is democratic.
4 Likes
Are you saying Corps/Alliances are equivalent to political parties?
Be very careful what you answer now.
Tomato. 
4 Likes
In my proposal, everyone is still democratically elected by number of votes gained.
The change, however, is that any two or more candidates running under the same Corp or Alliance tag, will have to compete with others of that tag to occupy that Corp/Alliances max 1 seat on the CSM.
This is to mitigate the potential of Corp/Alliance influence in numbers of CSM seats, over the remainder of the CSM seats.
Take the 2 year corp history in consideration and also distribute seats by Area (HS, LS, NS, WH)
1 Like
Yes.
But as in my proposal, no Corp/Alliance can have more than 1 CSM with their tag.
This would be included in the terms CSM sign, inorder to become CSM, and extends for the entire period of them occupying that CSM seat.
Ergo, they cannot swap Corp/Alliance to the result of that Corp/Alliance having more than 1 CSM with that tag. One or more will have to drop the tag, with another one.
This would also apply if Alliance member Corps shift, such that there is more than one CSM with that tag.
Alts donāt have connections. And vote manipulation should be obvious.
Also, we all live with our corp history in the gameā¦
Wrong.
You can still run, but only the candidate, with the same tags, with the most votes, will be appointed.
For example:
GoonWaffe/GSF might produce three candidates. Those three, with the same tags, will compete amongst themselves for the 1 CSM max position for any Corp/Alliance, with the one gaining most total votes gaining that seat, unless they dont have enough votes against the remainder of candidates in EVE competing for the 10 CSM slots, in which case none of them have sufficient votes to be CSM.
Youāre honestly asking too much from him 
He couldnāt comprehend that Steve used all his Patreon donations on a part of the server fees (the rest being paid by his own means)
1 Like
Appearance is everything
1 Like
Sorry if Ive missed it but how many seats are there in this new CSM?
12 or 10 I think?
So the 10 corps with one seat each will be the ones with the most votes across all votersā¦
Hang on bar names isnt that exactly the same as now?
Sorry for slowness, reading and replying between things in work
1 Like
Its not names.
Its an actual tag which involves all mechanics and politics involved with being a part of that Corp/Alliance.
The tags are a concrete label of membership in thst organisation and with everything involved with that.
You know how I know you know nothing of business - including just eve business ? Cause if you did you would have known that when his expenses are higher than incomes then he is losing moneyā¦ it is pretty simple, really.
INCOME - EXPENSE = PROFITā¦ and negative profit means loss.
1 Like
How does one get a tag?
Woukd the McCandless Clan have one that Ma could assign to one of us?
2 Likes
Imo CSM should not be making any IRL money, in anyway, from any activity associated with EVE, even if via ādonationsā.
Whether the extent of that is great enough to be counted as profit, doesnt matter.
Unfortunatly that is not the case atm, but I think it should be. You can agree with that or not, I dont care.