April 06, 2008

A Mechanism for bias?

The CSM already has a stated mechanism (5% rule) for pushing through ideas with popular support for CSM review. Once it's at the CSM for review, how it's voted by the CSM candidates for progression to CCP is out of our hands. Like any system, this has abilities to be 'gamed' by large alliances, by wealthly players, by the people who shout the loudest.

(un)Popular Support
If you're good at getting your ideas marketed and 5% popular support, you probably don't need me to do that. What I can deliver to EvE players, is an ability to raise your ideas in the CSM vote, that may be wierd and wacky (Alliance Rankings? IPOs?) yet are genuinely good ideas that you are not able to bring to popular attention. I can bring those ideas directly to the CSM for you.

Alliance (de)Bias
If you're in an enormous alliance able to vote-in it's own ideas, you probably don't need me for that. You need me as a person you can trust to ensure the other alliances don't get an unfair upper hand.

Two additional transparency mechanisms for the CSM.
So far so good - but how do we go about ensuring that the majority of the 9 votes at the CSM is unbiased? In my experience, the best way to get a transparency is to reveal the supporters behind the candidate at the CSM table.

To this end, together with players i know in RL, I've established and guarantee two additional candidates.
If you will not be voting for me, then I recommend;
  • Vox Pop, whos vote at the CSM table will be governed by IGB polling on each issue.
    You'll know the voice of the players is heard, because you will be making that vote.

  • Yusra whos vote at the CSM table will be governed by Per.Capita shareholders votes.
    Let the wealthy hold their power, but give us all a hand in sharing that wealth and seeing what the wealthy support.
IMHO, the best part of these mechanisms is that it doesn't need a CSM to push it to CCP. The players make the rules (hence my support for more tools .. that's another post).

So with these additional mechanism in place, what will I bring to the table?
Firstly you can trust me to combine my knowledge of EvE with my RL experience of leadership, process management and business analysis to ensure ideas are stated clearly and evaluated thoroughly and transparently.

Secondly, I'll provide oversight (combined with a healthy public audit) to this trinity of votes.


Anonymous said...

Answer how that is not the same as hedging your bets and putting your buddies onto the CSM? Seems like you are tarring all of the other candidates to get in.

Serenity Steele said...

It's hedging the bets for all EvE players ... Vox PoP and Yusra will execute their roles as stated with total transparency, regardless of whether I succeed or not.

In the event either of the 2 are in, and I am not, I stand to gain a more balanced council, the same as other EvE-Players. If all three , then I stand to gain nothing more, but the EvE players gain a more independent council.

There are many good candidates standing. This mechanism is not to "tar" the others, it is to reduce the 'game' factor from a group of 9 people being unduly biased by any particular alliance or power-block within EVE.

Paddy said...

I'm pretty curious about Per.Capita. I could be reading this the wrong way, but it sounds like a vehicle for creating a profitable business out of your rights to vote in, and operate as part of, the CSM.

In most real democracies they have a term for that, and the folk involved generally end up in a 6x6 cell...or dragged in front of judicial hearing for years on end to explain themselves and the contents of those weird brown paper bags being passed underneath tables.

That you recommend such a system (as I'm currently reading it) and finance it simply manages to disqualify you and your two recommendations entirely from my voting list as being a blight upon the future of Eve's budding democracy.

Serenity Steele said...

It should come as no suprise that expectations of EvE's budding bureaucracy should should be laden with RL pre-/mis-conceptions about the democratic process.

Per.Capita is transparent representation of players choosing to leverage money as power and the distribution of that money using a market mechanism.

We will know what interests are at heart when a Per.Capita vote is made in the CSM.

To draw analogies to RL democracy relies on false assumptions that are, IMO regrettably, also
false in RL

Business financing democracy is not legal in the real world
This is plainly false as;
- RL political candidates raise their campaign funds by donations from business individuals with vested interest in certain policy changes.
- Politicians are paid
- Transactions enabling wealth-as-power is hidden from view and motivations unknown as long as donations fall below a legal "anonymous" threshold.

The transparency provided by Per.Capita is not to be found in RL.

There is a "right" or "wrong" to approach to the CSM
- It is entirely up to players to decide whether or not to invest in and vote for Per.Capita.
- If no such players exist, and there is no market demand for such a candidate, then it will simply not exist.
- If players invest, then they must believe in the approach or at least think others will.

I present the idea as a method to balance, and guarantee that the Per.Captia IPO will be executed as stated. The rest is up to players to choose, now they actually have a choice.

A "budding democracy" in a virtual world should follow RL
- EVE has none of the laws of RL and few of the draw-backs (for players) of failure.

I'd suggest that EVE's representative democracy needs to learn from RL.

We have some golden opportunities here that don't exist in RL:
- The CSM can't suffer from gerrymandering
- Every voter is connected to an electronic voting system to enable polling on each issue
- The penalty for failure falls onto CCP larger than the players

Serenity Steele said...

In short; I'm not convinced EvE needs a CSM to effectively represent and filter the ideas of the players.

Is should be possible to create tools where players can achieve that themselves.

And we need to design and test mechanisms that will work.