It started out in a troll thread but i figured what the heck i think its worth a discusion.

A watchdog group for a watchdog group.

God bless good ole fashioned bureaucracy.

Okay for the real feedback on this. I applaud the effort Mith but in truth its a redundant effort. Ultimately the real issue is getting an elected CPM and for that to occur CPM needs a charter of ideals, bylaws, and mechanisms for not only election but removal and no-confidence votes.

However a thing to remember about unfiltered democracy and the underpinning on why America(the example i know best) was established as a republic, Mob rule is bad, especially when in the hands of an uninformed electorate. Unlike MMO troll FPS trolls are the masters of public assassinations and smear campaigns(sure mmo guys do it well, but FPS guys are ruthless).

This means if no-votes and recall is a mechanism in the hands of the people it becomes very easy for savvy political operators to begin to create discontent by pushing hot button issues and swelling up a mob through disinforamtion, half truth and isolation(aka the FOX News model).

There was a reason why the Senate prior to the 17th amendment was appointed by state legislature instead of directly elected because the position of power(only 2/state) was too great to put in the hands of mob rule.

This is why im a proponent that a part of the charter CPM test the idea(for future consideration to possibly CSM) a bicameral approach in which part of the seats are popularly elected and 1 maybe 2 seats are appointed by CCP after interview with the candidates, seeking the post. It serves as a sanity check for CCP but also ensure the council is truly balanced on all effects.

Why this instead of all full player elected seats? Because politics are a dirty business and power blocks begin to form and mud begins to fling. Having 1-2 appointees at least ensure CCP person(s) they feel can serve as perhaps a mediatior when opposing and vocal elected officials begin to clash behind closed doors and serves as a check against wildly changing attitudes and fluctuating demographics that are likely to occur in a F2P FPS community.


Edit- Just like a congress does, the CPM should be looking to tap expert panels or perhaps CCP should be the one to appoint these panels, To gather data from individuals of a particular role well known throughout the community in that regard and give write a well thoughtout and well documented argument for the role.

An example is the threads genereated by Mavadao, Caeli, Slap, Noc, and others( these are the ones ive read from a long while ago) on the state of tankers. This panel and its "findings" then needed to have a counter rebuttal presented by an expert panel of AV specialists.

Point is thats how governments work you move people into positions of power and then they delegate and find 'experts" to present findings and provide critiques and then you balance them with counter debate. Then you present the whole thing to CCP. Its delegation 101.

Of course the question becomes define "expert" and should they really be the only ones to voice an opinion or should they be seeking to empower others and give their opinion to. Or does this simply create a needless and potentially dangerous filter?

Discuss.