DUST Search - Election process mecanics thoughts. Discussion welcome.

Django Quik wrote:

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.

edit - also, just read through your idea again and it's not too disimilar but I really think the order is important here. If CCP chose the candidates for the election, people would complain that their favourites weren't an option and claim that CCP fixed the whole process by giving us only their favourites to choose from. My way round, no one can really complain.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zatara Rought TeamPlayers EoN. 312	Posted - 2013.06.25 08:24:00 - [1] - Quote I like the lively discussion I just read. I think while Nova's idea has much pragmatic merit, it must ultimately be rejected. I think this has been brought up in the alternate thread he made promulgating his idea to abolish an elected CPM, and that begins with his statements concerning screening CCP's candidates using "trusted" sources. I think we all know the problem with this. I agree somewhat that the majority of the community is naive. However I don't think we can justify denying the right of the community to elect its officials on the assertion that they are unworthy of voting. I think the best and most well known minds will inevitably appear when the election time arrives. One problem however is whether we want the people who are contributing the most. For example look at Zeylon Rho's post earlier, a rebuttal of Fiddle's idea for WP's. Crass and derogatory, his tact and lack of professionalism would not be received kindly by a CCP dev. However he has 976 forum points. He contributes. A lot. But is he knowledgeable about the game? Would he nerf a weapon he himself uses? Is he humble enough and impartial enough to accept when he's wrong and to rectify his views? How would he react to the responsibilities of his life and dust if he was elected? How are we the electorate supposed to judge?Skype townhalls? Sorry to single him out but look perhaps at Nikia's post. Nikia is a successful CEO, but he is prone to insults and trolling. Has he forgotten the CPM was responsible for securing the respecs? Does he assume this was worthless to the playerbase? Enough. Have you ever even noticed the CPM? Read every comment they posted here, and with the exception of Spero's politically charged sarcastic retort to Nova, they disagree amiably. This is my conundrum with an elected CPM. How do we find someone who will have the most success accomplishing the players demands, and yet have the spine to know when the players are wrong? To oppose them? I can name a few relatively unknown players that are super intelligent guys, have played the game 5x as much as all the CPM combined, and can gather feedback from the players and conceptualize it well enough that when he posts the idea, its clarity suffices all involved. If he's wrong he admits it and tries to improve. There are more like him, and honestly I doubt he'll ever want to wade the forums enough to be recognized. There are others I would value input from, and some I'd want to hear more from to decide. I guess this post is irrelevant to the conversation, but I think I just lack the idea that would encourage people like these to be elected, and get the focus off of who votes however many times. To justify this posts extreme tangent I submit that I wish CCP collected the group of applicants for CPM, cut the group down to a lower amount of applicants internally themselves based on merit, and then we voted based off WP's. If people want to spend the time to accumulate 200k WP's then so be it. Furthermore, CCP could introduce a rule that would protect somewhat against alt users by making wins within say a couple hundred votes grounds for a revote, this time with just the candidates that obviously had the largest support. Of course if they implemented this you would have to have a write in option, at every level, say to check CCP's power to influence the pool of CPM aforementioned. For your consideration.
Zatara Rought TeamPlayers EoN. 319	Posted - 2013.06.26 16:23:00 - [2] - Quote 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.
Zatara Rought TeamPlayers EoN. 341	Posted - 2013.06.28 18:45:00 - [3] - Quote Django Quik wrote: 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. edit - also, just read through your idea again and it's not too disimilar but I really think the order is important here. If CCP chose the candidates for the election, people would complain that their favourites weren't an option and claim that CCP fixed the whole process by giving us only their favourites to choose from. My way round, no one can really complain. I agree it's similar I just like mine better because it gives the players the final say. CCP just weeds out the crappy like farmers and people they know won't be effective. But we are similar. I disagree that CCP should be able to refuse the player that gets the highest number of votes, your way provides that option to them.
Zatara Rought TeamPlayers EoN. 418	Posted - 2013.07.01 02:32:00 - [4] - Quote 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?