|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
314
   |
Posted - 2013.03.19 13:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why do we need to talk about voting? The War Council will work with CCP to figure out if voting will be needed and how it will be run. And there won't be any voting happening for a long time anyway, so this is completely pointless. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
314
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 13:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Captain-Awesome wrote:Django Quik wrote:Why do we need to talk about voting? The War Council will work with CCP to figure out if voting will be needed and how it will be run. And there won't be any voting happening for a long time anyway, so this is completely pointless. well - they'll be talking about a voting process, that's the purpose of the initial council, so I'm asking your opinions on a workable approach (or if you don't think it's possible)
They might not be talking about a voting process - they said they'll help figure out how the next council is chosen. This doesn't necessarily mean voting.
I think the best way to do it is how it's being done with this first council. Democracy is just a nonsense way to make everyone feel included but when everyone gets a vote, the votes are skewed by the fact that at least half of voters have no idea about anything and just vote for who they like or who sounds nice or who they're friends, family or background votes for. The War Council does not need to be democratic - it needs to be the best people for the job, not whoever can campaign best or is the most popular. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
316
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 14:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Captain-Awesome wrote:
yeah, one of the guys I was speaking to about this was saying the same thing, ultimately it came to "what's more important, community representation or ccp choosing the people they think would be best for the job"? even though the latter would be more effective, I think the community might still prefer the former (my personal opinion)
Of course the community would prefer representation but that's a total misnomer because that's not really what the War Council is for. They are there to help CCP make the game better. The forums allow player the representation to put forward their thoughts on things and CCP will always have people working on that side of community interaction. The War Council is for knowledgeable and impartial players to analyse CCPs ideas and plans and advise them in certain areas. As players, they can give the kind of feedback that devs can't objectively give themselves and provide a different perspective.
These people would act almost as game analyst/designers - a games studio would never have someone elected to work as an analyst for them; they'd search and vet and select the person best for the job. Politics and popularity should be absolutely kept out of this. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
318
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 14:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Okay, all points taken into consideration, maybe the War Council could be partially appointed and partially elected, a bit like the UK House of Commons and House of Lords. The elected members are there to represent the player community but the appointed members are there to make sure the elected members aren't douches and try to push silly or biased agendas through.
The method of voting will always be a contentious issue though. Even doing it by activity or SP, someone could simply create loads of accounts (even on different PSN IDs) and play 1 game a week on each for weeks or months to make it look like they were all separate active accounts. Making it something you have to pay for would cause outrage because many people don't ever want to put any money whatsoever iinto this game and some other people have far too much real life money to throw around anyway, so will happily pay many times (using different credit cards or whatever) to ensure they get voted in. Trying to identify alts through locational data could easily be circumvented by using proxy servers. |
|
|
| |
|