Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
302
   |
Posted - 2013.11.16 19:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Not sure if this is covered in the thread somewhere but I offer a quick comment and a suggestion to the CPM.
Comment: no matter how much planning and you, CCP, and the involved player base do the election will have friction, be messy, there will be hurt feelings, and there will be excited folks. You know...like real elections. Whatever voting mechanic is chosen is pretty much fine with me (within reason) and we can build from this.
One thing I do feel deeply about is that the CPM elections have a system that catches a bit more of cross section of the Dust population. It will give diversity to the perceptions and collaboration with CCP and gives the community the protection of having a few elites or special interest folks having the only direct line to CCP.
Recommendation would be to tier the CPM slots by either SP or WP. Have three tiers, 20+ mil SP, 20 to 15mil , and 15 to 10mil SP. Instead of just running for the CPM in general you are running for a specific "seat".
Some basic rules would need to be no more than 1x player from a corp can be elected to the CPM and the length of position should not last more than 6months. I also think it wouldn't be a bad idea that the some of the positions are off-set in there election timing so you are starting from scratch after every election; we probably need to give 2 positions a 6 month offset (recommend it be one of high SP tier CPM and one of the low SP tier members).
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
323
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 01:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kevall Longstride wrote:While I'm in favour of a minimum WP or SP count being required for both being able to stand for the CPM and vote for it, the idea of 'tiers' would be a concern to me.
It would naturally lead to a presumed sense of hierarchy within the CPM by those that vote for them ie, the guy I voted for is more important than your guy. Wouldn't work.
And I favour the MAC address being the determining factor for a vote.
I see your point and I think the term tier might be inaccurate - my fault. Tiering implies different value levels as you noted; running for a board seat is different. Many political (and business) structures are shaped this way. House of Commons / House of Lords; Senate / Congress, ect.
The concern I have is that the process might homogenize the candidates a bit and having a broad spectrum of experince within some well defined bands would be an incredibly useful thing. The CPM isn't a governing body...they are a conduit of communication and physical connection from CCP to the community. The range of perspectives and interests is something i would like to have included in the mechanics.
The key is that their imput value to CCP is effectively the same. The some in the player base might think there is a higherarchy but it would be quickly very apparent that there isn't one, or at least the communication link the individual CPM member provides starts with the same value. No matter who is in the seats their actions will ultimately be the thing that they are judged by. Currently we have some CPM members that are not very active (or active at all) and some are. Some communicate better or more consistently and that's apparent.
Imagine the positive discussion between the 30mil SP vet with the good and bad baggage all the way from closed Beta and fresher eyes of someone with 12mil SP but equally committed looking at the problems or issues with simply a different point of view. Could be a powerful tool for the whole community (CCP and Players). |