Real ID verification. Not like its going to matter. Bigger alliances are just going to stack the election with multiplerepresentatives, same as the CSM

WP based requirement to vote

Still this solution has a downside as well. As soon as the WP requirement for the first election will be known, active players will raise their alt characters to that level over time, expecting to use those to vote multiple times during the first (if doable) or at least the second election.

Thus, the WP requirement would need to be raised year after year to avoid people slowly building up many many alt accounts. It would work as a counter measure but hurt new players willing to invest themselves in the entire community mechanics and CPM election as in a few years the WP requirement would be way too high for them to catch up (especially if it grows every year).

I would propose a slight variation; instead of raising the required total WP each year, how about we go by WP earned in the last year? It requires the player to be active, weeds out anybody who just started playing, but doesn't create the long term issues of just raising the cap.

+1 this

Oh god no, whoever suggested the Real Life ID & Aurum ideas needs to be told to stop coming up with bad ideas.

If you have a voting system that has a benchmark requirement to vote that is say, spitballing here so take it with a pinch of salt, 20mil WarPoints it caters to the players who put effort into the game, and actually care about the "trivial" thing such as a CPM vote.

Figuring out the best level to set that bar at is the tricky part.

I would propose a slight variation; instead of raising the required total WP each year, how about we go by WP earned in the last year? It requires the player to be active, weeds out anybody who just started playing, but doesn't create the long term issues of just raising the cap.

Oh god no, whoever suggested the Real Life ID & Aurum ideas needs to be told to stop coming up with bad ideas.

If you have a voting system that has a benchmark requirement to vote that is say, spitballing here so take it with a pinch of salt, 20mil WarPoints it caters to the players who put effort into the game, and actually care about the "trivial" thing such as a CPM vote.

Figuring out the best level to set that bar at is the tricky part.

Voting for CPM shouldnt be restricted to people who care about meta-game or the position itself. It should be opened to anyone who has an interest for the game and enough knowledge to pick out a candidate that promotes specific aspects of the game one would want to see improved or worked on.

As for real life ID, it's only a way to avoid elections becoming a race to who's got the largest amount of supporters with alt accounts. A simple fake credit card transaction used to register name and avoid another vote from the same person would work.

The others are pretty abusable or limiting.

I like WP and R/L verification.

For WP, that would be fairly easy to abuse, but it would also make people work for it. Set the limit decently high so that dedicated abuses can only be like 1-10 votes at most.

For R/L however some people have alot of credit cards. But I guess its good to limit them to 1-7 votes rather then 3000000

I think that is the best thing, is just try to limit these people to as few votes as possible. You won't be able to stop fraud, but if you get a core group of bandits who want to mess up the system and if there are 50 of them and they all vote 10 times, thats only 500 votes rather then like 1,000-5,000 votes.

I think that we're never going to get a verifiable 1 vote per RL person. Even in Eve, the vote is 1 per non-trial account, and some people are running 8 or more accounts. Those people, theoretically, have 8 votes, if I'm not mistaken.

I think the goal should be to keep people from spamming votes. While it is possible for people to have 8-10 votes in Eve, it isn't common, and no one has 80, 800, or 8000 votes. Straight voting on PSN accounts allows for spamming huge numbers of votes with little effort. The WP/year requirement does not eliminate multiple votes per person, but it makes it difficult to spam huge numbers of votes.

I also think that the purchasable citizenship has some merit, but I don't think it should be AUR only. I think that an Isk option, say 2,000,000 Isk, would provide an equivalent "alt speedbump" to a 5-10 Aur option. The problem with this option, however, is that as soon as player-player isk transfers are enabled, a rich player can enfranchise several other accounts. This problem is similar to playing an alt enough that it has enough WP to vote, but the isk option may not require the same time commitment.

Either method, however, should provide enough of a barrier to prevent a player from spamming an election with hundreds of votes.

Good suggestion dude.
I guess it could be done by CCP as a back-end information. Or perhaps add a statistic "this year WP" in the char screen. Would indeed kill one of the issues.

Yet, one problem remains : How do you get new motivated players to reach that WP requirement ? And still make it discouraging enough to avoid people farming a lot of voting accounts ?

I guess we would need to see average WP earned per month to discuss a number as it's quite difficult without hard data.

The activity/warpoints earned over a period of time seems the best option. ......


Also wouldnt the MAC address of the PS3 be an option to limit votes by? 1 vote per PS3.

No need to reinvent the wheel. CCP dumps the players names and their total WP into a spreadsheet at the time of the election. The next year, they collect the data again, but subtract the WP that existed for each player from the year before. All that's left will be the WP earned since the data was last collected.

As far as what the benchmark should actually be, I would suggest CCP determine the average total WP of all players, then cut that number in half. For future elections that value should be based on WP earned in the last year, not overall total. I think that should be a high enough hurdle to keep out spammers and rookies. However, I don't think that should be the only requirement.

One vote per PSN ID is a no brainer, and if CCP can make it 1 vote per PS3, I would be in favor of that as well; I know it could be an issue for a few people, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and most of us won't be sharing a PS3 with another Dust player. Also, for reasons others have mentioned, I am completely opposed to using credit card info as identification. I don't like basing it off of Aurrum either, but it doesn't make my skin crawl as much as giving up my card info.

I'd say none the csm are a waste of time and proved time and time Again not to be of any real value. I totally against they csm they are all self serving the next and best vote will be to do away with the whole thing.

1 vote per 3 million SP you have

That doesn't really work at all and is full of issues.

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

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?

Power To The Players!

I say time based. make sure someone has been posting on the forums for 2 months.

Definitely need to make sure the people use the forums as a qualifier for knowing what is going on. I've had so many talks with players about hearsay. One guy last night just quoted a forum post I made without knowing it came from me, because it was second-hand information.

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.

Nova, your post sums up my thoughts entirely. The entire STRUCTURE of the CPM is flawed, so how the members are selected is almost a moot point IMO.

I'm interested in more detail on this. Can you clarify?

From my perspective, CPM0 is chosen by CCP, and according to Nova, has a 100% active group and is productive. Nova is happy with the situation as it is at the moment, compared to experiences on the CSM. CPM1+ as it is planned will have elected members, but will otherwise be similar in structure to CPM0. That structure is several (8?, I can't remember) people chosen from the player community who have direct access to the development studio for the purposes of improving the game.

In what way do you believe that it is flawed? How would you change it? Now's the time to speak up, since things are in flux.

This can't be stressed enough. The CPM needs to be beholden to the community it represents.

This can't be stressed enough. The CPM needs to be beholden to the community it represents.

We are in an age of ubiquitous instant communication. It would be non-trivial, but still easy, to set up several CPMs around each issue that needs feedback. A core "generalist" CPM could persist, but I could easily see a Planetary Conquest CPM set up of 20 people and 3 devs with a term of 4 weeks or an EVE Integration CPM of 5 dusters, 5 eve players, and 5 devs that meets 1/month for 2 years.

This is beginning to sound more like a government than an advisory council. Best to keep it simple, in my view.

I think a good compromise would be for CPM members, once elected, to set up focus groups for areas of the product that need work. These groups could be defined however the CPM member wished, but would likely be a selected group of volunteers who have direct experience with the game mechanic in question. The CPM member would chair and manage the focus group, and then present the results to CCP and the rest of the CPM.

In this way, the burden of setting up these groups falls to the players, instead of CCP, who are fairly busy.

can CCP "devs" input something into the game when you first get on that asks you to vote, and only allows you to vote once per account "not character"

I agree with this.

Also, it does sound like a government and that's because it is like a government - a government is a body of people that represents the population of the country; the CPM is a group of people that represent the population of this game. We need ways to make sure the people who are best at representing us are picked, not the people who are best at making friends.

I think a good compromise would be for CPM members, once elected, to set up focus groups for areas of the product that need work. These groups could be defined however the CPM member wished, but would likely be a selected group of volunteers who have direct experience with the game mechanic in question. The CPM member would chair and manage the focus group, and then present the results to CCP and the rest of the CPM.

Use the unique console ID that every ps3 has. One vote per Ps3.

I didn't read through the thread so it may have already been suggested.

This issue is due to a security leak this can now be spoofed.

ok, adding my two cents then,,,

the best way would be some form of real life identification vote, but for a free to play game this has issues...

but just like CPM/CSM give there real names is a great way of weeding out 90% trolls so too would having to give your details to vote...

so maybe only a psn account with a credit card attached to it?

if people get all pissy about it cus they dont have a credit card (they will have to ask mother)

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.

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.

We can debate the alternatives till the end of time but, what we really need, are deadlines from CCP.

- When do election methods need to be finalized?
- When is the deadline for candidate applications?
- When do elections need to begin?

Without this, we will just end up dragging this out and leaving no time for what really needs to be done. While we might not end up with the optimal election, it will be better than nothing or only having a couple days to elect the CPM.

PS3 MAC adress limitation, suggested by sammus420

Seems like the best one to me. I can get a friendly CC to use, but I just have a personal thing against having to use them. I try to only use bitcoin for online purchases when possible.

I am surprised people are even talking about the bad methods such as WP limitations and such.

So you donGÇÖt think that my wife should have a Vote? Or is it I that you donGÇÖt think should have a vote?

Lesser of 2 Evils I've got +13 PSNs they take 15 mins to cook up, I just need the time to beat time to beat WPs I'll let corpmates borrow them and run logi just to max out the WP requirements... or AUR which would be P2W... MAC is the most reliable deterrence of fraud.