|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
695
   |
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've given a lot of thought to this and read just about everything anyone's said on the forums on the subject and see a lot of merit in many different approaches but I tend to agree with Nova on that the selection method however it is done absolutely must give us a productive CPM and not a popularity contest with all the nonsense politics it would bring.
There are two ways I could see this working:
1) Have an entirely open voting process - for this method it really doesn't matter if people vote multiple times - and anyone who gets over a certain % of the vote gets put forward as a candidate. That way people get to 'have their say', as so many seem to insist they want. From the list of candidates CCP then vet and interview in much the same way as they did CPM0, making sure that the people that eventually get selected are actually capable and willing to put the work in.
2) Have a 2 house system: The Upper House - a small number of players appointed by CCP and the outgoing Upper House/CPM; and The Lower House - a slightly larger number of purely elected individuals (however the elections should be done is another matter). Anyone can be appointed to the Upper House, including previous members of the Lower House, and they are primarily there to keep the lower house in check, i.e. they can sack members of the Lower House if they aren't being productive. This way the playerbase has its portion of representatives but the CPM has some form of self-maintenance/control mechanisms. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
697
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 07:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Klivve Cussler wrote:This is beginning to sound more like a government than an advisory council. Best to keep it simple, in my view.
I think a good compromise would be for CPM members, once elected, to set up focus groups for areas of the product that need work. These groups could be defined however the CPM member wished, but would likely be a selected group of volunteers who have direct experience with the game mechanic in question. The CPM member would chair and manage the focus group, and then present the results to CCP and the rest of the CPM.
In this way, the burden of setting up these groups falls to the players, instead of CCP, who are fairly busy.
I agree with this.
Also, it does sound like a government and that's because it is like a government - a government is a body of people that represents the population of the country; the CPM is a group of people that represent the population of this game. We need ways to make sure the people who are best at representing us are picked, not the people who are best at making friends. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
697
|
Posted - 2013.06.20 16:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Wolfica wrote:can CCP "devs" input something into the game when you first get on that asks you to vote, and only allows you to vote once per account "not character"
Accounts are free and anyone can make as many as PSN accounts they create, so limiting it to one vote per account would not have any impact. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
744
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 11:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
I think that ultimately both the players and CCP must have a reasonable say in who gets into the CPM. Like I mentioned briefly before - allow a more or less free vote (maybe WP restricted or MAC address but the minimum checks really) for the playerbase to select a large pool of candidates that CCP then chooses from by vetting and interviews like they did CPM0. We get to have our say but also CCP can ensure that morons with lots of friends don't get voted into positions they won't be productive in. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
769
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 17:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Django Quik wrote:I think that ultimately both the players and CCP must have a reasonable say in who gets into the CPM. Like I mentioned briefly before - allow a more or less free vote (maybe WP restricted or MAC address but the minimum checks really) for the playerbase to select a large pool of candidates that CCP then chooses from by vetting and interviews like they did CPM0. We get to have our say but also CCP can ensure that morons with lots of friends don't get voted into positions they won't be productive in. And how do you suppose all those players who got the most support would feel if CCP selected 10 candidates that garnered only 100 total votes and didn't select any of the 10 that accumulated 80% of all votes collectively? I like my idea better because it gives us the final say.
Obviously candidates would only get through the player vote if they reached a reasonable percentage of the vote. Now that specific percentage is dependent on the number of applicants and number of positions available but rest assured that CCP would never get the chance to choose someone who only got a tiny number of votes. Otherwise there'd be no point in having the player vote in the first place.
In Eve the CSM applicants have to get a certain number of nominations to become eligible candidates for the vote - this is essentially that idea developed a little. |
Django Quik
R.I.f.t
783
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 10:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Vavilia Lysenko wrote:There is only one option for Voting in the Elections.
Everyone who has an account gets a vote. One Vote per account.
Use the same "STV" system as EvE.
There is no other alternative. I respectfully disagree. Why do you think a wp requirement would not help us to enable one vote per player vs allowing one player with 20 accounts, or 100, to have more say than the guy who was honest and didn't use alts?
Anyone suggesting totally open voting clearly hasn't thought it through at all. |
|
|
| |
|