Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:20:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote:Xolve wrote:I still maintain that the problem isn't with the voting system, but with the visibility that the CSM has among the player base. Increase player awareness and even give out little gimmicky not game breaking rewards for pushing a button.
The idea for pay for splash ads is pretty neat, and should more than likely be a thing- this game already has one of the most creative groups of players in any MMO, why not tap into it- toss up that 'any submitted artwork is property of CCP' clause and get free advertising material. Absolutely - despite the dramas and the things EVE players create you guys are amazing (no homo). if you do this please please please please please allow attack ads Technetium Lord |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:21:00 -
[62] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: The real trouble with preference ranking (which you need for STV) is the increased complexity of the ballot may discourage turnout. That's hard to measure in a side run test. The advantage to preference ranking systems is lowered tactical voting which leads to a better reflection of the voter's preferences, but the downside is the increased complexity of the ballot compared to "pick one".
I think it's also worth pointing out that if you have the candidates designate the recipients of their transferred votes should they fail, tactical voting turns into 11 dimensional chess. If I vote for A, but A loses, he'll give my vote to B, but I freaking hate B. C, on the other hand, is not too bad, and will give my vote to D, who is tolerable, but if D loses then my vote goes back to B and I just couldn't live with myself if my vote went to B...
|
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
268
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:24:00 -
[63] - Quote
The Groundskeeper wrote:CCP Xhagen wrote: So, putting Trebors idea aside for the moment, what election system would suit the CSM?
Hint: a system which views engaged and motivated groups of voters as a problem is not fair nor is it democratic. If you view the situation where those who care and bother to engage with the process - the nullsec blocs, in general - as a problem then you are doomed to create drama as the people whose votes you attempt to discount are the ones who, by definition, care mst and are most liable to make their opinions known across the gaming space. I don't see the engaged population of EVE as a problem. Far from it. What I want to try and achieve is a fair representation of all EVE players. It is however difficult to represent someone that doesn't want to participate in choosing the representation - I freely admit that.
So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.
Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far? CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
636
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:24:00 -
[64] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:A nice thing about regular polling of some kind leading up to the election is that, in addition to contributing to the drama/excitement and telling the public who's viable and who's not so viable, it is also valuable feedback to the candidates themselves and can facilitate a kind of vote transfer similar to the one that has been discussed, only before the election, through drop-outs and endorsements.
Suppose I'm from lowsec and one of my primary issues has to do with Crimewatch changes to gate guns. I've been campaigning hard and I have built up some very committed supporters. However, the polls keep telling me that my numbers just aren't enough to put me on the CSM. I can choose to admit defeat and lend my support to another candidate who has stated similar views on gate guns. The nice thing about this is that, unlike candidate designated vote transfer, my supporters can choose whether or not to follow my recommendation.
While there were certainly a number of vanity campaigns for CSM7, it may be that if more of the candidates had some actual information about their chances, they might have worked together to get at least one person representing their views through. Then again, I may just be hopelessly optimistic in that regard! The very organized groups are able to do polls like this. For a small time candidate like me, i wouldn't know where to start or how to reach people beyond those already paying attention to my campaign. Instead of CCP-end polling, how about looking into tools that would make poll generation and distribution more accessible to candidates in general? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
838
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:25:00 -
[65] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Bloodpetal wrote: #1 - Platforms.
This basically assumes the CSM is a parliament instead of a sounding board. How able candidates will be to understand what a proposal does in practice matters much more than what their "stance" on things is.
This doesn't assume anything of the sort.
The current system has no expectation of a candidate understanding what a proposal does anymore than the idea presented above. You also presume that people that are on the CSM currently as sounding boards are all useful. I believe Darius III is on there purely to troll the CSM.
The system does the following ::
#1 - It lets CCP pick what they want to hear about (this can be dangerous, but I'm sure CCP would like the opportunity to do this already)
#2 - It lets candidates take a clear stance on what matters to them and not dilute their message or feel they have to compete with people that aren't on their platform.
#3 - It lets Voters pick an opinion that is similar to theirs on the topics that matter to them. Which means that they get to pick which sounding board they want CCP to hear from.
#4 - It lets candidates know why they were voted into an office
#5 - It lets voters know what they should expect from the candidates
#6 - It lets CCP know what they should be listening to from specific people
#7 - It lets CSM know the best way to communicate to people on topics that they have represented
#8 - It reduces voter dilution by limiting votes to topics of relevance
#9 - I can keep going...
The system as laid out needs the guts fleshed out into specifics and any loopholes and obvious game-able elements tweaked out of it, but the foundation is there for CCP and the CSM to manipulate.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:26:00 -
[66] - Quote
Vile rat wrote:You're a good man CCP Xhagen. I'm doing my best!! *hugz*!! CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:27:00 -
[67] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:A nice thing about regular polling of some kind leading up to the election is that, in addition to contributing to the drama/excitement and telling the public who's viable and who's not so viable, it is also valuable feedback to the candidates themselves and can facilitate a kind of vote transfer similar to the one that has been discussed, only before the election, through drop-outs and endorsements.
Suppose I'm from lowsec and one of my primary issues has to do with Crimewatch changes to gate guns. I've been campaigning hard and I have built up some very committed supporters. However, the polls keep telling me that my numbers just aren't enough to put me on the CSM. I can choose to admit defeat and lend my support to another candidate who has stated similar views on gate guns. The nice thing about this is that, unlike candidate designated vote transfer, my supporters can choose whether or not to follow my recommendation.
While there were certainly a number of vanity campaigns for CSM7, it may be that if more of the candidates had some actual information about their chances, they might have worked together to get at least one person representing their views through. Then again, I may just be hopelessly optimistic in that regard! Regular polling - I'll note that down and think about it.
It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'? CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
The Groundskeeper
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:28:00 -
[68] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP Xhagen wrote:[quote=Frying Doom]
- Advertising in splash banners should start ASAP telling people what the CSM is and what it does.
6. Me and the CSM are working on this.
It is extremely important, if this is done, that CCP keep tight control on it so that it doesn't become a way of entrenching the existing CSM. It could not possibly be done, for instance, during the last two or three months before an election without being viewed as extremely open to abuse.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
842
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:30:00 -
[69] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:CCP Xhagen wrote:Xolve wrote:I still maintain that the problem isn't with the voting system, but with the visibility that the CSM has among the player base. Increase player awareness and even give out little gimmicky not game breaking rewards for pushing a button.
The idea for pay for splash ads is pretty neat, and should more than likely be a thing- this game already has one of the most creative groups of players in any MMO, why not tap into it- toss up that 'any submitted artwork is property of CCP' clause and get free advertising material. Absolutely - despite the dramas and the things EVE players create you guys are amazing (no homo). if you do this please please please please please allow attack ads Also if I might suggest not just candidates but let any interest group buy splash time.
Then we can get some good scare campaigns going too, Like "Test want to turn your Mackinaws back to tinfoil, So they can watch you Die and collect your tears...Vote Candidate X to stop the tinfoil."
Things like that or even (Vote for a safe Hi-sec Candidate or concerns I have no idea about) ect... Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:31:00 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote: It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?
I think current CSM candidates already have too much of a leg up on appealing to underrepresented votes. If you're a highseccer you can consider voting for the guy who sounds bright but has an unproven record of getting in, or the Issler candidate who you don't really have any reason to believe is nearly as good, but might be able to get in. Entrenching that advantage doesn't help in getting the best people from those groups. Technetium Lord |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
838
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote:
So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.
Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far?
Low voter turnout is the discussion of every democracy on the planet.
Do what Australia does - if you don't vote for the CSM you get charged 50M ISK.
I think the major focus of this discussion is how to IMPROVE representation for the people that want to be represented. The current system is too flat for the dynamic landscape of EVE gameplay. The candidates often tout they are representing something, but I don't care to follow exactly what they are caring about. The platforms I described focuses on the candidates communicating to people what they should care about and how they should care about it in an encapsulated manner. This will improve the ability for the average person to relate to what matters to them, and focus less on candidates which are going to constantly either be vilified or politicized because they are standing out from the crowd. Focusing on the topics will let players say the next time they come around to voting, "Well, this dude didn't really do what I wanted, let's try this other guy" because they can see how their votes for their topic have mattered, and lets CSM communicate "Hey, I talked to CCP about my platform, and I made them understand why this matters to the people I'm representing". Etc. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:33:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote: Regular polling - I'll note that down and think about it.
It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?
I was thinking it would be during the period between the time that the candidates have cleared whatever hurdles have been set up to limit the field, and the actual votes are cast. I may be misremembering but I thought it was at least a few weeks or a month. It may not be realistic to run more than a couple of informal polls but I think it could be very beneficial. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4664
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:33:00 -
[73] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:I believe the voting system itself needs little in the way of major changes, but the election process needs to apply a more rigourous minumum threshold for candidates to weed out the no-hopers and stop the disorganised votes being spread too thinly (ie, not last year's hilariously low '100 likes' system) combined with publicity around election time so nobody has the excuse of not knowing it was election season. The CSM should be focused on demonstrating why they matter to the general populace who want Eve to be the best game it can be, not engaging in irrelevant navel-gazing on their own voting mechanisms, especially when that exercise appears to be ham-fistedly naked politicking of the sort that turns off voters even in real-world democratic processes.
The point has often been made that the CSM is not an Amateur Games Designer body, but by the same token, neither are they an Amateur Political Scientist body. Trebor has demonstrated that all too well. If you want a robust and representative system designed, maybe you should be looking for guidance from people with an actual academic background in political science? Hit one of the universities in Iceland up, I'm sure they'd have plenty to say.
I agree. The problem isn't quite the weight that bloc candidates carry, it's the crapflood of non-bloc candidates who end up absorbing enough votes to keep some good people off the CSM (see Korvin) - forum likes are up to 3 per account and that is ~dumb~ please leave |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:34:00 -
[74] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: This doesn't assume anything of the sort. ... The system does the following ::
Literally everything on that list reinforced my point. If you're electing someone for the CSM you want someone who understands an issue and can understand what a proposed change will do to that issue. How they stand on that issue is completely irrelevant. Technetium Lord |
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
Courthouse wrote:Xhagen, why are you so afraid of players having to take responsibility for their votes? There's no greater reason to keep the system as it is than with the last election. If people choose to vote for a candidate that gets banned, runs as a troll candidate, is issler, is trebor, is two step, is seleene, etc. then they deserve to have their votes reflect the cognitive retardation of their choice.
On the one hand the players ***** about our representatives being useless shitheels, but guess what, they got voted for. Informed voters produce good representatives. Maybe having some sort of post-CSM summit minutes impeachment process would inspire them to get off their self-congratulatory podiums and do some actual work. Interesting question you post here.
In fact I think you hit a certain spot there. In the real world I make the same comment to people when they complain about the government, i.e. "you have to take responsibility for what you do, including whom you voted for". So why do I not ask EVE players the same question? I think it has to do with the fact that you can simply leave EVE if things don't go your way. I'm not saying that I want to desperately hold on to every single customer via very means necessary - but perhaps I don't want to be responsible for the tipping point that makes them leave. This might all sound a bit far-fetched... maybe I just have to HTFU? CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2759
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:36:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote:Ahoy. The topic of the election system used to choose the CSM has been with it from the beginning. Just to make it clear, the recent discussion was done with my knowledge and approval GÇô for the purpose of discussion. I admit that having the CSM posting the idea was not the best move on my behalf, as it sends the wrong signal about the whole process. I will be the person determining whether a change will go through regarding the CSM or not. IGÇÖve always been the speaker for talks and discussion that is then followed by a decision. IGÇÖve done my very best to run the CSM with that in mind, you could easily dig up many things from the time when the concept of the CSM was being brought back into use in 2007 and surrounding most of the changes after the first election in 2008. This is no different. During CSM6 and CSM7 IGÇÖve brought up the topic of the election system with the CSM and now they felt comfortable enough to take it on and discuss possible changes to it. What I do not want is to change the election system just to change it GÇô I want to achieve a fairer representation on the CSM and the STV has often come up as a possible way. However, the answer has usually been GÇÿlarge voting blocks can easily game any advanced voting systemsGÇÖ, thus the idea of moving the votes from those who do not get enough, instead of moving the votes that exceed the necessary number to get on. The discussion on the election reform thread clearly paints that as unfair and I fully understand that criticism. Either you move all votes or none is the mandate (if IGÇÖm reading the thread correctly) GÇô when put like that is seems obviousGǪ So, putting Trebors idea aside for the moment, what election system would suit the CSM? A system that does not scare people away because of its complexity or added work for the voter (as voter apathy is a problem), but is still fair and good? Is the current system sufficient? Or should we focus more on matters to reduce the number of candidates on the ballot and not change the election system itself? I would appreciate your input on this matter.
I think there is one essential problem with the election system and that's voter apathy benefits large organized alliance voting blocs. Looking at transferable votes and complicated AV systems is moving the deckchairs around on the titanic to an extent and the real issue is getting people to vote. You have two options really -
1. Mandatory voting. During the election period the launcher prompts you to a "vote now" screen before you can continue to login. From this link you can view the candidates profiles and links and select one, select (abstain) or (defer choice) as long as you hit defer you'll come back to the screen each time you login until you make a choice (which can obviously include abstain).
or
2. Encourage voting by giving people a prize for voting (like a custom skinned shuttle or mining barge something). It doesn't need to be much but it'll probably increase the number of votes cast by a large multiplier.
Once you have many more people voting in the election and the minimum bar to get elected is 10,000 votes not 1,000 then you'll get a more representative council that isn't so easily dominated by the same tired old big alliance interests.
In my view increasing the number of votes cast from around 10-15% of the electorate is vital to making the system more democratic and representative. You want people elected on common trust in their abilities - not just because they have a couple of thousand alliance mates behind them.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:36:00 -
[77] - Quote
Andski wrote: I agree. The problem isn't quite the weight that bloc candidates carry, it's the crapflood of non-bloc candidates who end up absorbing enough votes to keep some good people off the CSM (see Korvin) - forum likes are up to 3 per account and that is ~dumb~
forum likes also aren't limited to a specific number of candidates, which is the real problem. Being able to 'like' several candidates is one thing, all of them not so much, so you can push everyone over a specific threshold.
However what you could do is only the top "x" liked threads get in. That's pretty gamable though (everyone: go like our guys, and the most unelectable nobodies or useless bodies that will say nothing if elected but leave off the actual challengers). Technetium Lord |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2165
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:37:00 -
[78] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:CCP Xhagen wrote: It would require, I think, that we know somewhat who is running well before hand... or should we just use the current candidates and ask 'which of them would you vote again'?
I think current CSM candidates already have too much of a leg up on appealing to underrepresented votes. If you're a highseccer you can consider voting for the guy who sounds bright but has an unproven record of getting in, or the Issler candidate who you don't really have any reason to believe is nearly as good, but might be able to get in. Entrenching that advantage doesn't help in getting the best people from those groups.
This is true, and it is also why some sort of transferrable vote system is far more important to the disorganized folks than to a group like Goons or TEST. Large groups do things like run internal primaries to narrow down their voting, and this is a huge advantage for you.
People should be able to vote for the best candidates without having to worry about tactical voting choices. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:37:00 -
[79] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:CCP Xhagen wrote: I've also been thinking about the following scenario: Hold regular elections for CSM8, using current voting mechanics. Make that dictate the results. On the side run an experiment on a new voting system and see the results from that using the voting data from CSM8 election. Investigate and spit-shine and use new voting system for CSM9 if viable.
Just a thought in terms of a possible implementation strategy.
The real trouble with preference ranking (which you need for STV) is the increased complexity of the ballot may discourage turnout. That's hard to measure in a side run test. The advantage to preference ranking systems is lowered tactical voting which leads to a better reflection of the voter's preferences, but the downside is the increased complexity of the ballot compared to "pick one". My suggestion if you implement preference ranking would be to have a person vote on their first choice. That's registered, and put into the system. They're then given the option to vote for their second, and that's then put into the system. Repeat until you get to the maximum number of candidates you'd like people to be able to rank. The advantage here is if I get bored and wander off after my first place ballot, it's not lost. After a brief search of multiple-winner voting methods, it seems the only real option is STV. All others would be too complex in practice (i.e. you have to rank too many people on your ballot), feature high levels of tactical voting, or rely on political parties. Good points. I will definitely keep this in mind. CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
340
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:38:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote: I don't see the engaged population of EVE as a problem. Far from it. What I want to try and achieve is a fair representation of all EVE players. It is however difficult to represent someone that doesn't want to participate in choosing the representation - I freely admit that.
So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.
Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far?
No, because your premise is flawed. How do you quantify what a "fair representation of EVE" is? You might, say, look at populations for representation by scale meaning that highsec gets a lion's share of the population even though they are generally the least engaged group. If you get a situtation like CSM6 where nearly all the reps are from nullsec you have the most highly engaged individuals, but also the least trusted. Does lowsec deserve a candidate even though a fraction of a percentage of the population actually lives there? Does FW constitute lowsec issues or highsec since they don't take sec hits for FW related activites. Are WH candidates even viable?
This last CSM spent an outrageous amount of time talking about how important they think they should be and wasted the collective EVE player's time, motivation and hopes for the future of the institution on what you've described almost flippantly as "naval gazing."
This is a political process and should be reflective of that reality. If highsec wants a candidate, make them get behind one. nullsec already has an advantage because it's forced to organize and until CCP decide to get off their asses and fix seleene's legacy we're stuck with nullsec coalitions and n+1 organizational institutions. Even more reason why the system should be left as is because someone has to light a fire under CCP's ass every year or so lest we head back towards space barbie bullshit again. |
|
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:38:00 -
[81] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:CCP Xhagen wrote:Xolve wrote:I still maintain that the problem isn't with the voting system, but with the visibility that the CSM has among the player base. Increase player awareness and even give out little gimmicky not game breaking rewards for pushing a button.
The idea for pay for splash ads is pretty neat, and should more than likely be a thing- this game already has one of the most creative groups of players in any MMO, why not tap into it- toss up that 'any submitted artwork is property of CCP' clause and get free advertising material. Absolutely - despite the dramas and the things EVE players create you guys are amazing (no homo). if you do this please please please please please allow attack ads I would absolutely want to keep things tasteful. Tasteful attacks are obviously possible. CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2165
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:39:00 -
[82] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Andski wrote: I agree. The problem isn't quite the weight that bloc candidates carry, it's the crapflood of non-bloc candidates who end up absorbing enough votes to keep some good people off the CSM (see Korvin) - forum likes are up to 3 per account and that is ~dumb~
forum likes also aren't limited to a specific number of candidates, which is the real problem. Being able to 'like' several candidates is one thing, all of them not so much. However what you could do is only the top "x" liked threads get in. That's pretty gamable though (everyone: go like our guys, and the most unelectable nobodies or useless bodies that will say nothing if elected but leave off the actual challengers).
The simple solution to this is to just run the regular election, with one vote per account, and the top X people are full candidates. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Lord Zim
1474
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:40:00 -
[83] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote:Courthouse wrote:Xhagen, why are you so afraid of players having to take responsibility for their votes? There's no greater reason to keep the system as it is than with the last election. If people choose to vote for a candidate that gets banned, runs as a troll candidate, is issler, is trebor, is two step, is seleene, etc. then they deserve to have their votes reflect the cognitive retardation of their choice.
On the one hand the players ***** about our representatives being useless shitheels, but guess what, they got voted for. Informed voters produce good representatives. Maybe having some sort of post-CSM summit minutes impeachment process would inspire them to get off their self-congratulatory podiums and do some actual work. Interesting question you post here. In fact I think you hit a certain spot there. In the real world I make the same comment to people when they complain about the government, i.e. "you have to take responsibility for what you do, including whom you voted for". So why do I not ask EVE players the same question? I think it has to do with the fact that you can simply leave EVE if things don't go your way. I'm not saying that I want to desperately hold on to every single customer via very means necessary - but perhaps I don't want to be responsible for the tipping point that makes them leave. This might all sound a bit far-fetched... maybe I just have to HTFU? You also have to contend with the fact that some of the accounts in the game are in the hands of people who just don't care enough to vote, and when one person can have multiple accounts, that could look worse on paper than it is in reality. |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
340
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:43:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote:Courthouse wrote:Xhagen, why are you so afraid of players having to take responsibility for their votes? There's no greater reason to keep the system as it is than with the last election. If people choose to vote for a candidate that gets banned, runs as a troll candidate, is issler, is trebor, is two step, is seleene, etc. then they deserve to have their votes reflect the cognitive retardation of their choice.
On the one hand the players ***** about our representatives being useless shitheels, but guess what, they got voted for. Informed voters produce good representatives. Maybe having some sort of post-CSM summit minutes impeachment process would inspire them to get off their self-congratulatory podiums and do some actual work. Interesting question you post here. In fact I think you hit a certain spot there. In the real world I make the same comment to people when they complain about the government, i.e. "you have to take responsibility for what you do, including whom you voted for". So why do I not ask EVE players the same question? I think it has to do with the fact that you can simply leave EVE if things don't go your way. I'm not saying that I want to desperately hold on to every single customer via very means necessary - but perhaps I don't want to be responsible for the tipping point that makes them leave. This might all sound a bit far-fetched... maybe I just have to HTFU? ...and you've just answered your thread's question. Can we get on to important topics now? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Two step wrote: The simple solution to this is to just run the regular election, with one vote per account, and the top X people are full candidates.
I know this is gameable but I'm not sure what level of information I'd need to game it properly. Technetium Lord |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:55:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote:Is the current system sufficient? Or should we focus more on matters to reduce the number of candidates on the ballot and not change the election system itself?
I would appreciate your input on this matter.
There's two sides to this; on one hand there does need to be a somewhat limited number of candidates on the final ballot or else you can end up with many wasted votes with little margin between them. On the other hand, fewer choices runs a risk of ending up with 'entrenched' CSM members who remain there each year by virtue of their previous experience. We could shake things up in that respect by removing the publicly-revealed real name requirement for candidates, provided that they still verify themselves with CCP. It's crazy how we're missing out on many potentionally great representatives because they're forced to give RL details to several hundred thousand nerds.
But at the end of the day this all comes down to voter motivation. If everyone was smart, informed and properly researched things then we'd always have the best CSM. If they're don't care about the CSM at all, at best they'll vote for gimmick options or the first one whose portrait / name they like. Then we're always going to end up with what we have - bloc candidates at the top spots and a random distribution of votes around the remaining hopefuls.
Perhaps the best approach is more information for voters, such as letting candidates write a very short summary on their goals on the voting page itself, along with a link to their more detailed thread. Otherwise it's just a list of names to click at. |
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
275
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:19:00 -
[87] - Quote
Courthouse wrote:CCP Xhagen wrote: I don't see the engaged population of EVE as a problem. Far from it. What I want to try and achieve is a fair representation of all EVE players. It is however difficult to represent someone that doesn't want to participate in choosing the representation - I freely admit that.
So the discussion seems to have gone to the direction of the current voting system being usable, if the ballot is trimmed beforehand, and that the problem lies in low voter turnout.
Is this a fair summary of the discussion so far?
No, because your premise is flawed. How do you quantify what a "fair representation of EVE" is? You might, say, look at populations for representation by scale meaning that highsec gets a lion's share of the population even though they are generally the least engaged group. If you get a situtation like CSM6 where nearly all the reps are from nullsec you have the most highly engaged individuals, but also the least trusted. Does lowsec deserve a candidate even though a fraction of a percentage of the population actually lives there? Does FW constitute lowsec issues or highsec since they don't take sec hits for FW related activites. Are WH candidates even viable? Perhaps you are right in that my premise is flawed. In fact I think you ARE right. I will have to think about this.
Courthouse wrote:This is a political process and should be reflective of that reality. If highsec wants a candidate, make them get behind one. nullsec already has an advantage because it's forced to organize and until CCP decide to get off their asses and fix seleene's legacy we're stuck with nullsec coalitions and n+1 organizational institutions. Even more reason why the system should be left as is because someone has to light a fire under CCP's ass every year or so lest we head back towards space barbie bullshit again. Could it be that high sec and null sec are just so different that they constitute two 'games' within EVE and therefore this differences arise? So if I designed a political system based on premises that really only considers null sec, wouldn't that automatically leave high sec out, or at least make it more difficult for them to participate? On the other hand I've maintained for a long time (although I haven't had the time to actually gather solid data to back it up - my fault I know) that null sec is valuable because players there create content that then other players 'use'. But this symbiotic relationship goes the other way as well I think.
But you are right - this is a political process and people should have to organize. CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
275
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:20:00 -
[88] - Quote
I have to leave for the day - so don't take my silence as me abandoning this subject... it is just that the family calls. CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:26:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote: Could it be that high sec and null sec are just so different that they constitute two 'games' within EVE and therefore this differences arise? So if I designed a political system based on premises that really only considers null sec, wouldn't that automatically leave high sec out, or at least make it more difficult for them to participate?
They're very different, but they're completely linked and changes to one affect the other. I care about highsec things because those impact 0.0, and highsec cares about 0.0 things to the extent they affect highsec (this tends to be a weaker link because highsec does not rely on 0.0 industry but 0.0 relies on highsec industry). In addition, due to the prevalence of alts many people use multiple parts of space. I have close to as many highsec characters as 0.0 ones.
It's true people organize differently in the two areas, but it's not really a different game. 0.0 simply requires you form an effective organization or you flounder into uselessness, while highsec can be done completely solo. Technetium Lord |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1700
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 17:50:00 -
[90] - Quote
After yesterday's spirited debate on voting reform. CCP Xhagen and CSM7, judging by the OP, feel that voter turnout is too low and that organized groups have too much influence on the Council as a result. Now you can take one of two conclusions from this - 1) That organizing and motivating players to vote is something that needs to be curbed (as Trebor seems to believe) or that 2) Goonswarm/nullsec blocs are better at motivating EVE players to vote then CCP and most of the CSM are capable of doing at present, and that CCP should strive to improve CSM election turnout as a whole to a level that nullsec blocs (and wormholes, and FW) have proven capable of achieving. Personally, I side with the latter.
This begs the question - what is wrong with the current CSM advertising process when it relates to the EVE everyman? Voting is simple and easily accessed (click a banner ad and choose a candidate), the CSM representatives offload reams and reams of documentation, maintain blogs, entertain interviews with third-party sites, post on forums. Yet, as Frying Doom bemoans, "education on the CSM" is woefully insufficient. Now, one can write off these bleats of highseccers as them being as uninterested in the CSM as they are in the EVE world as a whole beyond their veldspar roid belt, and that it's unavoidable. But I'd argue that the current CSM material, while certainly extremely thorough, is not sufficiently engaging to the casual viewer. How do we go about doing that?
This leads to another matter that has come up, the matter of low quality CSM candidates. I think Hans Jagerblitzen's brochure on his political platform was superb, and that material detailing one's stances should be mandatory to achieve CSM candidacy. One long form for detailed reading, one shortform that can be consumed in approximately a minute for casuals to decide if they feel the long form is woth reading or not. It's absurd that a thread in Jita Park can get locked for 'no content' but a bid for CSM candidacy cannot. Last election, a third party developed a CSM political questionairre for undecided voters to fill out and see which CSM candidate's positions best matched their own. I propose CCP take on such low-hanging fruit itself and integrate it with banner ads and the CSM candidates' short form candidacy bids. In order for anyone interested in the CSM right now to find out where they stand, they have to read through reams of material, hundreds of pages of CSM notes, sift through dozens of garbage candidates, etc. Is it any wonder that most lose interest, and the rest vote along lines of "he's in my alliance so I'll vote for him"? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |