|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2847
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2847
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Like STV has its merits. STV, with an addition that exists nowhere else that is specifically designed to diminish the voting power of specific groups with no explanation? that's when I start breaking out the tinfoil.
Like Robert said,
Quote:However, standard STV systems do not meet our first goal. Implementing classic STV would require significant work by CCP to update the system, would require extra effort by voters (which would tend to favor highly organized groups), and may not be publicly verifiable.
Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote.
In this system, voters vote for a single candidate, just as they do now. However, each candidate publicly states which other candidates they want their votes to be transferred to if they are eliminated from the election.
CD-STV, while not providing the full spectrum of choice that STV does, does meet all the goals. The amount of work CCP will have to do to implement it is small (listing the candidates' preferences on their profile and voting page), it is no more difficult to use than at present, and anyone can run the raw vote totals through an election simulator.
This is just one proposal, out of a hundred ways to approach this, and everyone is certainly welcome to disagree about whether or not it is an improvement over traditional STV systems. Robert's approach stems from his interest in keeping things simple.
Regarding the diminishing of voting power for specific voting blocs, this is an excellent question.
Quote:for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
Obviously here Robert is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.
Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?
And the more important question is - what is the significance of obtaining more than one seat on the council, per large entity, in the first place? This would have to assume that the CSM uses a voting system internally to determine policy, or that CCP somehow gives an idea more weight if 2-3 CSM members agree as supposed to only one. My experience has shown so far though that even a single CSM seat can make more of a difference than three others in terms of influence, as long as that seat is filled by someone competent, articulate, and who makes good suggestions. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2848
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote: I think it's very interesting that you've characterized posting and critiquing as "invading." It demonstrates that this is not a politically neutral idea, and that you are not interested in genuine criticism.
You're absolutely right. Invading was a poor choice of words, it implies that Goons don't have a right to be here. Thank you for pointing this out as it was not my intention. I was commenting more on the speed and force with which they responded.
Every player has a stake in how the elections are reformed, and is welcome to speak up about this.
I appreciate you holding me accountable, Sal.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2848
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alchenar wrote: Hey guys what if there was a correlation between being in the leadership of the most successful and largest coalition in the game and being competent, articulate and making good suggestions?
I'd say the chance of that correlation existing is extremely high.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.
No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount.
What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You know why the response was what it was? It was because it was FW farmville level of openly gameable, and the fact that it's so openly designed with one specific goal in mind (nerf CFC) makes it even worse. It's seriously like going back to the ankh-era of navelgazing combined with CCP-quality game mechanics design of the past few years (titans own subcaps? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW was gameable as all hell? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW is now farmville? shucks, didn't see that one coming.)
What does the farmability of FW have to do with any of this? I specifically asked about the market price determination formula long before Inferno's release and many of us on the CSM warned them about the likelihood of this being abused. Surely it doesn't suprise you that CCP doesn't always take the CSM's advice. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:You've found that to be unacceptable
I haven't found anything unacceptable. Trebor wrote the proposal, I'm just here to discuss its merits and drawbacks just like the rest of you. The whole point is to allow the community to shape a set of recommendations that we can take to CCP. It may be that the recommendation we get from the community is that we change nothing at all.
I'm pretty open-minded in general. If you don't like something Trebor said, convince me that its bad. I'm listening. There's no need to argue in the meantime as if this was something every one of the CSM members is personally trying to mandate.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount. What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM? Wrong question. The better question is, what percentage of the VOTING player base does CFC represent. I would say we are well under represented when we only elected a single person.
Good point. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.
I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea.... Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable?
We've had some brief internal discussion about it, but the bottom line is that it is inappropriate for the CSM to decide for itself, what the next election rules should be. It would be unethical for us to have some month-long pow wow, decide what we think is best, and than try to push that agenda on the public.
This is exactly why Trebor put out an idea that he's put some time and energy into, as a starting point for discussion, not a formal proposal we want double checked before we push it on CCP. As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially?
I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:06:00 -
[13] - Quote
Aryth wrote:You mean how it seems like half the CSM minutes are related to the election/Mittens in some form? That meeting took place months ago. So clearly this has been being kicked around for months.
It seems that way, but they aren't. A lot of that stems from the fact that the first session was documented using the transcript format we later decided was cumbersome, and tossed out. This left a lot of the players with the misunderstanding that the CSM cares more about its own internal bureaucratic structure than about the actual issues existing in the game.
Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially? I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal. Because he's an unperson.
An excellent point. I wish I could confirm Trebor's humanity, but I can't. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it. No offense, but why wouldn't they assume this is directed at them when Trebor makes mention of them twice as reasons that the voting system has to change? Quote:. . . some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate. Quote:. . . for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:20:00 -
[16] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: You wrote it, you defend it. Man up, and stop letting your CSM-mate take all the heat.
Relax, Poe. I stand by the things I've said, and those alone. I don't really care if people yell at me for things Trebor said, doesn't bother me one bit. Thanks for the white knight though.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3357
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 23:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Because it acting like a Null sec lobby is not doing much for the CSM its self and really is minimalising its role and usefulness to the community.
Although it has managed to achieve in areas where it is has some members like mining and FW these are not the areas that the CSM as a whole push. So if it wishes to be a community representative it needs to act like one not just a Null lobby with some rouge agents that manage to get things done.
You keep arguing like the job of CSM members is to push for this portion of the population or that population depending on who voted them into office. Read the white paper. Our obligation is to represent the playerbase, not special interests, to CCP.
So instead of trying to categorize everyone and label us as lobbyists for one party or another, why don't you take a deep breath, and start over by explaining why you don't think 0.0 deserves attention after several years of neglect? Maybe you can also explain why the CSM as a whole would need to push FW when CCP's already agreed to work on it, and they get expert council from myself (and making unprecedented use of my feedback as well)? Where is the sense of urgency where the CSM needs to waste their unanimous voice promoting something that's already happening?
Do you think its responsible for CCP to spend an entire year working on something that affects a small portion of the population, when they could be fixing an area of space that affects multiple times that many players and subcriptions and potential subscriptions? Surely these are tough questions for other Faction Warfare enthusiasts to hear from someone like myself, but we have to be honest with ourselves here. Don't get me wrong - I'm incredibly grateful that they dedicated the resources they have to Faction Warfare and other gameplay systems that affect lowsec. I believe they were dollars well-spent. But CCP needs to spend a well rounded amount of time on a well rounded number of players groups - and its just simply fact that 0.0 pilots have received some of the least development attention of any for years now.
These are objective issues - how much development time has been spent on which area of space is easily researched and demonstrated. You continued attempts to politicize this and turn it into "these people" sticking up for "that group" demonstrate either a lack of understanding or a lack of care for the responsibilities of the CSM - who get elected through votes but should always serve the needs of the community and the game as a whole.
Nullsec needs serious work. Mining and Industry need serious work. POS's need serious work. These really aren't facts that are debated much amongst savvy, informed players who understand the game at its core. And thus we must make these realities clear to CCP, regardless of what player group we belong to.
Issler Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
|
|