I like the idea that some one posted earlier about limiting it the MAC address of your PS3.

I would go with a 2 way combo.

Account linked.

First part of the requirement is that the account has to be linked to a payment card via PSN. If the various data protection acts also allow it, the billing address of that payment card can only be used once. This prevents people 'buying' extra votes by having multiple payment cards on different account. This may require an opt-in giving CCP permission to use that data. Once an account passes that criteria there is a second one.

One vote per person.
A WP(Not skill point) minimum threshold would make the most sense. Justifiable in its similarities to the age restriction on voting seen in many modern democracies. 500,000 seems like a reasonable cutoff. Maybe lower, but not much.

Candidates should be established by a petition/nomination process within this forum. A minimum of 50 unique votes of support should be necessary to make the ballot. This process should be open for one week.

A week should then be taken to evaluate the candidates.

Once the ballot is set, we vote. As their are multiple positions to fill, multiple CPMs may be selected with a single vote. I think a simple "Select all candidates that you support" would be more manageable than a "rank in order of preference" system. If we had the time and manpower to tally the latter system it would be preferable, but I don't think we do. This process should also be open for one week.

In the event of a small margin of victory for the last CPM1 spot (>1%?), A runoff election should be held in FPTP style. This should be held immediately after the vote tally and should be over no later than a week after the initial election.

This process should take roughly a month.
Potential voters should be made aware of this process via the MOTD/patch screen that displays upon loading.
Ballots should be secret and CCP should take care to ensure that no fraud occurs

The MAC adress is a non-starter for me. You have households where multiple people use the same PS3 and I see no reason in disenfranchising them because they only own one PS3. Also, the voting process needs to be something completely in CCPs hands and that means in-game metrics. Same goes for the credit card idea, which in my opinion is also bad. You shouldn't have to provide a credit card number to vote in a free to play game.

Wow so many ideas on how to create an elitist voting regime, this is a free to play game correct?

I have played EVE long enough to know and realize whatever tricks you are trying to implement or avoid someone will figure out how to get an advantage from it. The bottom line don't be overly cute here, if you play you get to vote, if you are nerd enough to set up 50 psn accounts well you get fifty votes.

Do not ask me for my credit card info after both EVE and Dust514 recently suffered a ddos attack, PSN has a bad reputation and I buy the PSN cards at the store so they do not have my cc info in their system.

The war point idea is so bad .... let's say i play one day a week cuz i have a real life .... i should have no vote because someone else has 7 hours a day he can play?

Time to employ Occam's Razor, among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Just let players with accounts vote, end of story.


Power To The Players!

One vote per person.
A WP(Not skill point) minimum threshold would make the most sense. Justifiable in its similarities to the age restriction on voting seen in many modern democracies. 500,000 seems like a reasonable cutoff. Maybe lower, but not much.

No. I've been playing since slightly after open beta started. I've never gone AFK for SP. I have about half that. Maybe that's because I played Skirmish almost exclusively pre-uprising. But I play enough to hit the cap more often than not. This would disenfranchise me, and I think I've more than earned a right to vote. If people playing since BEFORE the official release can't even vote - the system is beyond screwed.

I know I have corp-mates that play less than me, don't cap, but still play for a few hours every week. If I'd lose my vote, they'd be losing theirs too. I think they play enough to have a vote too.

Use the WP cut-off for the Battle Academy if you must. If people are dedicated enough to make multiple accounts and play through battle academny... fine. It's better than that elitist BS you're suggesting.

I think potentially WP over a set period of time (maybe the last three months?) may work. I'm still concerned about people war point farming to get extra votes, but no system we come up will be perfect.

My only concern over the WP method is people who play low WP payout roles like dropship pilots. I don't want to end up not giving someone a vote because the game isn't rewarding their role properly in the first place.

I think potentially WP over a set period of time (maybe the last three months?) may work. I'm still concerned about people war point farming to get extra votes, but no system we come up will be perfect.

My only concern over the WP method is people who play low WP payout roles like dropship pilots. I don't want to end up not giving someone a vote because the game isn't rewarding their role properly in the first place.

Why not ignore WP altogether, and just go on time logged in-game. How long for part of a year does a person need to play to have an opinion that matters? Two months? Three months?

What's a fairly low expectation of time played? If a person's put in 8 hours of play in a week, they've basically logged as much as one day at a full-time job that week. That's about 64-96 hours in-game. That's enough for a vote in my opinion, assuming it's spread out over enough time.

I don't really care about their WP or battles. Dust claims to be about things like intrigue, espionage, and other non-battle-specific elements as well. If someone spent their time in channels recruiting or chatting people up, they're still in-game. Plus, some people are just really bad. If you spent three months getting pubstomped with a pittance of WP to show for it, then you should still get to vote.

If anything, your suffering is enabling the chest-beating of the pub-stompers. You're sort of an important part of the community at that point.

The MAC adress is a non-starter for me. You have households where multiple people use the same PS3 and I see no reason in disenfranchising them because they only own one PS3. Also, the voting process needs to be something completely in CCPs hands and that means in-game metrics. Same goes for the credit card idea, which in my opinion is also bad. You shouldn't have to provide a credit card number to vote in a free to play game.

At some point one, compromises will have to be made !
What's the percentage of players that would be left out with such mecanics ? Imo, not much.
Now, how many players could wrong the voting process with a WP mecanics through farming alt accounts ? Imo, a lot more.

Greater good > need of the few.

Took that from a friend. Sad but real.

In the end, I agree that not every member of the councils will pull their weight. Not all of them will seriously consider the workload that they have volunteered for, and some of them will simply be difficult to work with. But the advantages of having a council that gets its mandate from the community rather than CCP outweigh the drawbacks.

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.

Nova, you've got some valid points and have correctly listed the perils of any democratic system.

However.

The primary advantage of the player councils over the CCP community reps is the fact that they are player-chosen. This gives them a solid mandate to act on behalf of the players, and significantly increases the trust that the player body has in the council as a whole. I think an appointed body, while likely more active, would be no more effective than the existing CCP community reps because they would be exactly that: Community reps. Volunteer reps at that.

Nova, the fact that you don't see the point in the players directly electing who represents them to CCP makes me sad.

(Other stuff)

If CCP is choosing the members of the CPM, then the assumption is that they WILL be beholden to CCP in some way.