| Author |
Topic |
Tusko Hopkins
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded |
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:24:00 - [ 1]
With 11% participation during the 2 week election process, despite all the campaigning and advertising, I think the 5% support level (approximately 11.000 support votes) required to force the council to present an issue is way too high, probably unreachable.
In the light of the voting statistics it should be lowered to a more reasonable level. |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:26:00 - [ 2]
As I suggested in another thread, we should base the % on the amount of votes for the main election. And then say that an issue need like 10% support in order to come in.
At this point, that is 2,2k votes. Seems very reasonable to me. |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:28:00 - [ 3]
Agreed, it should be a lower total based on a percentage of those who voted in the election.
|
Heartstone
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:32:00 - [ 4]
Agreed I don't think there is ever going to be a topic that gets than many votes apart from the standard whine-a-thon topics we now get in General
|
Gorobom
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:33:00 - [ 5]
Agreed. On practice, it won't ever happen that way anyway. |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:34:00 - [ 6]
I'm in favor of the 10,000 views methodology, if you've seen it, you've had time to object. |
Saju Somtaaw
Gallente
Diiamond Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:41:00 - [ 7]
11% turnout for CSM and 5% needed for an issue, doesn't make sense at all base it on turnout from the election not total population. |
Ishina Fel
Caldari
R E D E M P T I O N
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:48:00 - [ 8]
It is sad that we got so few voters, but yeah, I don't think they can carry through with the 5% bar.
Basing the number required on the numebr of voters seems sensible. |
Cosmar
Gallente
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:56:00 - [ 9]
It should be like 2% with at least 1% not belonging to the same corp/alliance.
It's a legitimate concern that if you lower the numbers too much you can get one entity to basicly force anything into the CSM agenda.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:01:00 - [ 10]
 Originally by: LaVista Vista
As I suggested in another thread, we should base the % on the amount of votes for the main election. And then say that an issue need like 10% support in order to come in.
At this point, that is 2,2k votes. Seems very reasonable to me.
Sounds like a good idea to me. |
Illaria
Gallente |
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:02:00 - [ 11]
Against.
It shouldn't be allowed that a small, though very active, minority should get so much influence on the CSM agenda.
The active forum community isn't representative of the EvE population in general. 0.0 alliances and more hardcore players are probably more forum active than empire dwellers and rather casual players. Removing the 5% clause would mean that this minority could set a CSM agenda to the detriment of the not so much forum attending majority much more easily.
Also note that many players are not forum active, because they may not have the necessary proficiency in the English language to participate on these forums (there are many corps and even alliances that are language based).
All in all abandoning the 5% rule would put to much power in the hands of a vocal forum minority. |
Piitaq
Gallente
19th Star Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:03:00 - [ 12]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
As I suggested in another thread, we should base the % on the amount of votes for the main election. And then say that an issue need like 10% support in order to come in.
At this point, that is 2,2k votes. Seems very reasonable to me.
I support this |
Siona Windweaver
Placeholder Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:21:00 - [ 13]
I agree completely. |
Sally Bestonge
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:23:00 - [ 14]
Edited by: Sally Bestonge on 22/05/2008 17:24:28
it should be made up of a percentage of the people who voted now this is not to lessen the number of voters but only to represent the active community in a better way as there are many people who would never vote in the first place as shown by this election and the 5% rule they have in place which would mean more then half of the people who voted in the election would have to vote on a single issue. |
Shuckstar
Gallente
Hauling hogs
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:59:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Saju Somtaaw
11% turnout for CSM and 5% needed for an issue, doesn't make sense at all base it on turnout from the election not total population.
 |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:59:00 - [ 16]
Agreed |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:05:00 - [ 17]
The way I see it, you've got 3 of the 9 CSMers already having posted in support of this. Get 2 more, and make it a rule within the Council - CCP's rule will be there as a backstop against a future Council getting a bit more tyrannical, but the Council should have the right to make its own operating procedures if the rules of order being used are anything like that used by any other body I know of. Say you'll automatically consider any motion with more than X votes, or X% of election voters, or whatever, and stick to it. This is how parliamentary bodies evolve. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:06:00 - [ 18]
|
Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:16:00 - [ 19]
Edited by: Draygo Korvan on 22/05/2008 18:16:59 Originally by: Jade Constantine
Agreed, it should be a lower total based on a percentage of those who voted in the election.
Because it takes 2.2k votes to force the CSM, couldnt you as chair set up your own rule saying any issue thread with significant support should be brought up even if it doesn't reach the required votes? |
Malar
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:49:00 - [ 20]
I support this with all my alts.
im just too lazy to log in with them right now :) |
Voculus
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:42:00 - [ 21]
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:52:00 - [ 22]
5-10% of voters sounds like reasonable enough to me... so, make that 0.5%-1% instead of 5%  |
Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society |
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:27:00 - [ 23]
Originally by: Malar
I support this with all my alts.
im just too lazy to log in with them right now :)
I sense another flaw in this system.  |
Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Vanguard Venture Alliance |
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:37:00 - [ 24]
Two things:
1. The 5% requirement is what is needed to *force* the CSM to actively consider a topic. The alternative is that *one* member of the CSM must accept the topic and announce they will take it to a meeting of the CSM. I will guarantee here and now that if, in my opinion, there is sufficient and clear support for a topic to be brought to the CSM then I *will* bring it to the Council even if the 5% level has not been reached.
2. The 5% was set as a percentage of *accounts* whereas posting on these forums is by *pilot name*. The two are not directly convertible by the CSM and would require CCP to validate the list of pilots who had supported a topic here and how many accounts they represented (clearly always fewer, but no idea by how much). As such the 5% percentage is impossible to police at this time unless and 'out of game' interface is created (very unlikely)
Inanna Zuni
|
Avalira
Caldari
N'Th'Rack Squadron
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:18:00 - [ 25]
If 5% means 11000 votes, each vote is a post and each page is 30 posts then an issue brought up requires a thread of 367 pages.
Something definitely wrong here...
I have never seen nor do I think I'll never see a thread of 367 pages. Even if it is to force CSM's to take on the subject, that amount of posts is ridiculous and outright impossible. So whoever made the 5% rules either didn't do his maths or doesn't actually want any issue to be forced onto CSM's. I think a 50 page thread is already enough, that's 1500 posts (if all vote in favour). |
Stellar Reaper
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:31:00 - [ 26]
Agreed!
I think they should recalculate the percentage, or come up with a more attractive multi language in game advertisement system to bring more attention to the issues! |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:48:00 - [ 27]
Sounds like a catch 22 to me. |
Hoshi
Eviction.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:50:00 - [ 28]
11.000 support votes means the thread will need to reach at least 370 pages (assuming everyone is supporting the issue). Wonder if the forum software support that :) |
MongWen
The Devil's Right Hand
MACHI MISCHIEF
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:53:00 - [ 29]
I must agree with the op |
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries |
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:20:00 - [ 30]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Two things:
1. The 5% requirement is what is needed to *force* the CSM to actively consider a topic. The alternative is that *one* member of the CSM must accept the topic and announce they will take it to a meeting of the CSM. I will guarantee here and now that if, in my opinion, there is sufficient and clear support for a topic to be brought to the CSM then I *will* bring it to the Council even if the 5% level has not been reached.
This I think is the key point. The Council is free to choose the topics that they see as being most important based on what they see here. Lobby groups should not be able to force their issue on the CSM without conciderable support from the player base. If half of those who voted in the last election what to *force* the CSM to review an issue, then I think it reasonable for the CSM to be *required* to review that issue. If a lobby groups is able to get 25% of the voting population behind them, that 2% of the player base should not be able to *force* the CSM to redirected their limited time to that issue if the CSM believes that their time is better spend addressing issues important to the silent majority. Remember that the key here is *forcing* the CSM to spend its limited resources on an issue. If the barrier of entry is too low, then the CSM will be *forced* to spread itself to thin across the issues. I doubt that we will see the CSM ignoring issues that are officially backed by 4% of the player base.  |
All Channels
[Issue] 5% rule way too strict
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Screenshots & Art
