You could make an argument that this runs against "Free to play", but I think there's a difference between F2P and Free to Vote or participate in the company liaison group. A person can fully enjoy the game AND provide feedback to CCP without spending any money at all. However, I think it gets into sketchy territory when we say someone will join a organization dedicated to telling CCP how their game should be (and devote many hours in service) but they're unwilling to pay a dollar/euro/yen/etc. towards the game. Even a tiny pay wall like a small aurum purchase will discourage fraud, trolls, etc.

4) No voting at all. Players accept that an elected council serves as little more than a PR stunt, and push for a more legitimized, properly used feedback entity.

Completely avoids all of the nightmare about how to make sure elections are 'fair'

Provides CCP with a more rounded source for feedback based on what they actually need feedback on at the time (No sending a bunch of logistic dudes to summits if the entire dev cycle for that time period is devoted to vehicles, etc)

Almost completely removes the drama, ego, and politics from the feedback cycle, which have no place there to begin with.

[/list]

None of these options are going to be universally liked, and they're all messy, ugly options that will leave some people pissed no matter what CCP does. The sad fact is : Having any sort of 'fair', unabusable voting system for something like this is basically a pipe dream for a free-to-play game. Most of the measures CCP would have to take to restrict rigging would end up harming legitimate voters, and are almost all easily bypassed by people with the know-how and willingness.

IMO, People need to stop pushing for a system that isn't ideal in the first place and open their minds to a better way.

I never presented my opinions as facts. I also never presented a CEO as the only means of nominating someone. I did however posit "reasons" why I thought aurum might make a good mechanism for deterring fraud. The WP requirement is also a fraud deterrent, but represents time spent in-game (i.e. - experience to have a relevant opinion, equivalent to being old enough to vote). The exact figure comes from CCP, since they don't think of "recruits" as mature till 100k WP.

Do I have proof that people will attempt to sway elections fraudulently? Or do I have evidence of the argument of "lesser" players you've conjured from the ether?

Have you been on the internet before? Did you see the Mountain Dew poll people screwed with to name a new flavor "[the leader of WW2 Germany] did nothing wrong"? Have you see one determined troll spam the Dust boards... filling them with threads about other games? Even AFTER they put in a play-time requirement?

Or is it the idea that you don't believe Dust players will exploit mechanics? You can find in this very thread people in corps/alliances that keep PC districts locked by attacking themselves for profit, and you the forums are awash with people that AFK or melee-glitch in battle. The Dust community has proven a willingness to exploit whenever possible. Hedging against that is a priority in any meaningful election discussion.

People screw with elections and polls - especially on the internet. You'd be naive to believe otherwise. I think anyone going "one account, one vote" is either massively ignorant of how things like this tend to go on the internet or planning to abuse the system themselves. The methods I suggest are more likely to have a "one person, one vote" effect than an account-based policy, which would likely reach into a "who can make the most accounts" contest.

Red herring and False Presumption. Your bit about "lesser players" was the part conjured from ether, as it was never a claim I made. Then again, ideas by their nature are ephemeral and in that sense they are conjured from the ether, but that has nothing to do with their validity as concepts. Your statement here is meaningless.



You just made a straw man argument yourself here, as the example related to Mountain Dew had nothing to with a comparison of the player base to Mountain Dew drinkers with respect to size.



Appeal to Authority - also a logical fallacy.



Non-support. EVE has pay walls on their elections (subscriptions), and thus already has some degree of fraud protection you'd deny Dust players.

Irrelevant Conclusion. Seeing through BS here is exactly why I can recognize that system you ask for would be open to EASY exploitation.

"Seeing through BS" doesn't mean you magic away election fraud anymore than being aware your doctor is screwing your wife makes it stop happening.



You firmly stand for naivety then. It's not fear, it's common sense. CCP had player input, they failed to fully inform the CPM of the nature of the matchmaking changes (look it up).

Have you seen entire teams go AFK exploiting in-game mechanics? People will attempt to exploit mechanics. Rather than have open exploitation field-days as an EVE-player like yourself appears to prefer, we can try to clamp down on something we know people will try to screw with.

One person, one vote.