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?

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.

Sir do you have any proof to support the opinions you are presenting here as facts? Any proof at all? I for the life of me cannot understand what seems like an irrational fear of what the "lesser than me players" might vote for. The player with less wps, with less cash, without even a CEO to endorse him. They are all somehow "lesser" so quite naturally they should get less right? Less chance to be elected, less chance to even run?

What are you afraid of?

One Account, One Vote!

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.

So you admit you have no proof that your notions about fraud preventions are nothing more than, how did you say it "Conjured from the ether".

I don't drink Mountain Dew and the number of people who do vastly dwarfs the number of people who play Dust 514 so that straw man of false equivalence is a no go from the start.

Yes I have been on the internet once or twice before, in fact I am old enough to have been on it's since its invention, and long before console games were played on it. It is extremely naive and foolishly arrogant to think because someone does not agree with you it means they have no experience.

I play EVE, and a trickier, smarter, more scams and exploits per minute of game time group of players I defy anyone to find online, and yet we have elections without all the BS that is being proposed here.

You sound both massively ignorant and paranoid running around like chicken little screaming about the fraud is coming, the fraud is coming! Get a grip, man up, and have a little more confidence in people and their ability to see through BS. The last election in EVE produced a very effective current CSM.

I firmly stand for not putting fear based barriers between players and the opportunity for them to vote for those who would represent them with CCP. The Matchmaking snafu just implemented demonstrates how desperately Dust 514 DEVs need player input.

I believe in my fellow players, why are you so afraid of them?

One Account, One Vote!

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.

I was hoping for an exchange of ideas not a flaming troll fest with an EMO juvenile intellect, your personal attacks do not better support your whimsical ethereal naive positions, youngster you are dismissed.

To surpress massive multiple online voting bots the CPM voting site should have some form of interactive verification of the individual with a preset limit on the number of free accounts they can hold and cast ballots with, which should be included in the EULA. Make bot ballot stuffing a violation of the EULA subject to ban.

Because someone can not afford to pay a poll tax is no reason to disenfranchise their vote. I am open to all ideas that do not create elitist categories that imbue some players with a more valued voter status than any other player has an equal opportunity to achieve. Prior to the election a voter qualification period could be instituted where a preset number of hours per voting account must be completed to qualify as a voting player within a small time frame to disable multiple bot accounts controlled by one person having the time to complete.

Example: I complete the matches in the small time frame required to register to vote with account A, prior to casting my ballot I have to complete an additional three or any preset number of matches on the day i vote, these matches are set up to boot any player that does not actively involve themselves in the match from start to finish. Being booted from any match for non-activity would disable that account from being qualified to vote for a specific period of time, hours or days.

One Account, One Vote! aka One Person, One Vote.

PS3 MAC adress limitation, suggested by sammus420

Would serve the same purpose as a "real life ID". Limiting one vote per PS3. Sony aldready uses that system to keep track of how many different ps3 DLed a game for example. If doable, probably the best solution to counter multi-votes.

I've suggested this in more than one thread already. Glad that you recognized one of the people suggesting this.

Personally, I'm not so concerned with "how people vote", so much as "who can be voted for". There needs to be some kind of filter process that ideally uses player and CCP judgement alike to weed out the "I wanna be on the CPM just cuz" crowd. I feel strongly that politics should have no place in this, and that campaigning should be expressly forbidden (or frowned upon) If someone submits their name (even if someone may not like them) an observer should be able to say "Yeah, this guy/girl has done a lot." without the person having to spam the forums/social media saying "Hey everyone I support everything you love and hate everything you hate!" which is something I find incredibly aggravating and unproductive, since these people usually won't do anything they promise.

Take for example : ContraBanJoe. I love this man to death, and whatever election system was implemented, if he wanted to run PXRXO could've easily gotten him into the CPM regardless of the fact that he'd be terrible for it. This is something I desperately wish to avoid.

Any and all candidates eligible for the final ballot should have a strong history of doing /something/ to involve themselves and make themselves a productive member of the community. This is not an attempt to silence 'power blocs' however, as most of these blocs would likely have a diplomat who is dedicated to maintaining a positive community presence, and these are the kinds of people who generally do well in a 'council' environment. (In most cases) All this does is create a more defined barrier to entry so that only those who fully understand what they are getting themselves into and will positively contribute (for better or worse) will be able to get elected.

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.

It's a good one indeed. If it's doable it's probably the best solution to counter multi-accounts voting.