Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Mike Azariah
Gallente Benevolence Association
320
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 07:32:00 -
[91] - Quote
Karsa Egivand wrote:Overall, STV did splendidly the first time. Very much looking forward to how it works out for CSM9, when more people get how it works and maybe more people vote.
Lowsec/FW won't repeat this years LACK of participation. That's a "new" bloc.
I also predict a carebear/high-sec bloc/party for the next CSM election that'll get 2+ seats - basically new voters (not even Mike Azariah really represents them, although he comes closest). Not that I like that too much, but its probably appropriate.
And more voters - I guess - will shuffle their bloc ballots a bit on personal preference (which isn't that bad for the bloc in question, as long as it's mostly its candidates in front).
I agree that this time around was a learning experience for everybody and I know some folks are already making plans for how to 'do better' next time.
Good.
That high-sec might actually get organized and form their own block, unlikely but good as well.
I am finding it funny that I keep being the dark horse who proves things didn't work as planned in the election because you cannot figure out who the hell voted for me. I lack a bloc yet I got enough to get elected.
Hard to imagine that maybe . . . . juuuuust maybe I managed to convince enough of all the blocs that I was a decent kind of guy without a political axe to grind? That maybe having such a guy on the council might be a good thing to have? Nah. That goes against all the back room plans and mathematical models that a normal guy could manage such a thing without massive backing.
Oh wait . . . you can buy into the ECCE conspiracy, I was part of a secret organization of non bloc folks that could amass all the votes . . . .from whom? The high-sec voters who reportedly didn't take part?
Bah, what does it matter?
either . . .
a) the CSM has no power so who cares, we didn't want those seats anyways b) what difference can one guy make? our boys will just relegate him to the corner where he can be properly ignored or c) great! way to go, Mike. Don't tell my alliance but I voted for you, too
It's late . . . I have a lot of reading to do to catch up on what has happened in the past so I can be best informed about where we are going next. Run the numbers, make hats out of tinfoil, whatever.
I have work to do
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
8118
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 07:40:00 -
[92] - Quote
Graphs graphs graphs!
|
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1302
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 08:19:00 -
[93] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:I am finding it funny that I keep being the dark horse who proves things didn't work as planned in the election because you cannot figure out who the hell voted for me. I lack a bloc yet I got enough to get elected.
Once you actually look at the candidates list and break down who's who, it's pretty easy to see why you got in. The short version: there were barely any candidates at all, and less than half of them weren't bloc members.
Since this thread is "show and tell stuff", this is how I worked it out:
Unaffiliated Ripard Teg, Mangala Solaris, Trebor Daehdoow, Ali Aras, Psychotic Monk, corebloodbrothers, riverini, Mike Azariah, Steve Ronuken, Roc Weiler, Psychobitch
HBC Malcanis, Banlish, Sort Dragon, Sala Cameron, Awol Aurix
CFC Kaleb Rysode, Mynnna, Kesper North, Unforgiven Storm*, Arctura, DaeHan Minhyok
N3 progodlegend, Travis Musgrat
Wormhole Chitsa Jason, Nathan Jameson, James Arget, Ayeson, Cipreh
Russian Greene Lee, Korvin
First, some caveats. I counted Malcanis and Unforgiven Storm as bloc candidates despite their essentially running without official bloc support. My reasoning for this is that your average voter whose ear isn't too tight to the ground either (a) wouldn't know that or (b) wouldn't believe it.
One could also argue that both Ali Aras (Provibloc) and Mangala Solaris (RvB) could be considered bloc candidates, though I kept it just to 0.0 blocs that we know would organize (or attempt to, in the HBC's case), since the "null" vs "other" ideological divide is probably the most important one.
The Russian bloc is also something I feel kind of weird about including since I don't speak Russian and thus have no idea who their community backed at all.
Either way, I'll show the numbers with both versions of these factors.
This leaves: 11 Unaffiliated voters, 13 if Malcanis and Unforgiven Storm are considered independent, 15 if Russian doesn't count 13 from the 3 major 0.0 blocs, 11 without Malc/Unforgiven 5 Wormhole 2 Russian (if you count it)
That means anyone who didn't want to vote a null bloc candidate had, AT MOST 15 people to choose from and a 14 slot ballot to fill out, and that's before you even start to factor in the obvious qualitty of candidates (think the likes of riverini, who stopped campaigning after the false positive thing in the primary, and psychobitch who was psychobitch). Account for some personal choices and the general name visibility you'd get from Podside and maybe even your blog, and it's not hard to see how you got elected at all, actually. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9190
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 08:29:00 -
[94] - Quote
If you look at the numbers, I really didn't get a lot of support from the HBC. Sort R.U.N.N.O.F.T. with ~75% of their "voting power". I got maybe a couple of hundred effective votes from them - less than I got from the "Ripard Slate".
Disclaimer: I am bad at numbers.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1302
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 08:33:00 -
[95] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:If you look at the numbers, I really didn't get a lot of support from the HBC. Sort R.U.N.N.O.F.T. with ~75% of their "voting power". I got maybe a couple of hundred effective votes from them - less than I got from the "Ripard Slate".
Well, the HBC didn't have a lot of votes on what I'm presuming is their official ticket in the first place - 1639 votes are abysmal. That said, Banlish getting shunted down below Sort and Sala is probably the only reason you even got any of them.
Still though, my list was sort of trying to capture a picture of what things were like going into the election - we know now that you really didn't get a lot of bloc support at all (and that you didn't need it either), but going into the election that was kind of up in the air. I do find it kind of funny that you were higher ranked on the CFC ticket than the HBC ticket though :v
"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Green Gambit
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
12
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 08:39:00 -
[96] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Basically, I'm saying that I think the people who were claiming that STV is all about rigging it for nullsec (ya'll know who you are) can put down their tinfoil hats. If anything we're under represented.
Actually the biggest mouthpiece for "null will control the council with STV' was your alliance leader, on the fan-site where you're also a writer.
http://themittani.com/features/csm8-election-early-analysis wrote:I advocated against a STV system as I believe it would allow nullsec to completely rig the election with maximal efficiency
Oops! |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
270
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 08:47:00 -
[97] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:In before someone who's good at maths (not me) uses this to prove I shouldn't have been elected.
nn all.
No math or proof required for that, it's a well known fact. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1303
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 08:49:00 -
[98] - Quote
He advocated against it during CSM 6, which had just been by-and-large swept by nullsec with just FPTP. With those circumstances it probably would have been worst-case scenario. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Green Gambit
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
12
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 08:59:00 -
[99] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Out of curiosity has anyone run the base numbers through to see what the council would have looked liked using FPTP?
As already stated you can't, but to give a more concrete example - take a look at mynnna and Kesper North.
Obviously the Goons were told in this election to vote for the two in that order, and if you look at the run-downs you can see all the run-off votes from mynnna going to Kesper using STV.
Looking at the first-place votes though, mynnna gets 5782 and Kesper gets 918. So using the STV vote to derive FPTP results means you get a result where mynnna is elected and Kesper falls short.
Whereas looking at this as a pure FPTP election, using the above numbers Goons control 6700 votes. The Goons are also really good at exit-polling their members. So after they get enough exit poll results - say 4000 - for mynnna, they tell their members to vote for Kesper - which gives Kesper 2700 votes and gets him a seat on the council too.
The Goons could've done this for CSM7 - and probably managed to get 3 seats (maybe 4?) on the council from FPTP - if their vote hadn't been part of Mittens vanity "get most votes ever" project.
Note that this is why STV is much better than FPTP for these elections. Everybody gets the same ability to transfer votes that the Goons have, without needing to setup web sites, exit poll and alter voting instructions as the election proceeds. The big danger with FPTP was that more null-sec alliances started copying the Goons and the council become almost completely null-sec dominated. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1303
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:02:00 -
[100] - Quote
Green Gambit wrote:The big danger with FPTP was that more null-sec alliances started copying the Goons and the council become almost completely null-sec dominated.
And how does this explain CSM 7? CSM 6 was null dominated as it was the first time null ever really came out in force to vote for the CSM. CSM 7 on the other hand was about as diverse a CSM as you can get without picking the members by hand.
"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
|
Green Gambit
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
12
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:16:00 -
[101] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:And how does this explain CSM 7? CSM 6 was null dominated as it was the first time null ever really came out in force to vote for the CSM. CSM 7 on the other hand was about as diverse a CSM as you can get without picking the members by hand.
Well I actually answered that question before I posed the line you quoted.
Please at least read before trying to troll.
|
Frying Doom
2478
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:18:00 -
[102] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Green Gambit wrote:The big danger with FPTP was that more null-sec alliances started copying the Goons and the council become almost completely null-sec dominated. And how does this explain CSM 7? CSM 6 was null dominated as it was the first time null ever really came out in force to vote for the CSM. CSM 7 on the other hand was about as diverse a CSM as you can get without picking the members by hand. CSM7 still had too many Null sec players to be representative of the game.
But it is a lot more representative than what we have now.
I mean it is very representative of the voters, but almost the opposite of representing the player base as a whole. Any spelling and grammatical errors are because frankly, I don't care!! |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1303
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:39:00 -
[103] - Quote
Green Gambit wrote:[Well I actually answered that question before I posed the line you quoted.
Please at least read before trying to troll.
I read it. It didn't answer why the CSM somehow became even more balanced despite this obvious danger of "more null-sec alliances copying the Goons", which is an especially stupid statement in the wake of this election data proving that a null bloc isn't necessarily any better organized (HBC) or motivated (N3) than anyone else in the game. Hell, in HBC's case it turned out to be even worse. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
1119
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 10:54:00 -
[104] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Karsa Egivand wrote:Overall, STV did splendidly the first time. Very much looking forward to how it works out for CSM9, when more people get how it works and maybe more people vote.
Lowsec/FW won't repeat this years LACK of participation. That's a "new" bloc.
I also predict a carebear/high-sec bloc/party for the next CSM election that'll get 2+ seats - basically new voters (not even Mike Azariah really represents them, although he comes closest). Not that I like that too much, but its probably appropriate.
And more voters - I guess - will shuffle their bloc ballots a bit on personal preference (which isn't that bad for the bloc in question, as long as it's mostly its candidates in front).
I agree that this time around was a learning experience for everybody and I know some folks are already making plans for how to 'do better' next time. Good. That high-sec might actually get organized and form their own block, unlikely but good as well. I am finding it funny that I keep being the dark horse who proves things didn't work as planned in the election because you cannot figure out who the hell voted for me. I lack a bloc yet I got enough to get elected. Hard to imagine that maybe . . . . juuuuust maybe I managed to convince enough of all the blocs that I was a decent kind of guy without a political axe to grind? That maybe having such a guy on the council might be a good thing to have? Nah. That goes against all the back room plans and mathematical models that a normal guy could manage such a thing without massive backing. Oh wait . . . you can buy into the ECCE conspiracy, I was part of a secret organization of non bloc folks that could amass all the votes . . . .from whom? The high-sec voters who reportedly didn't take part? Bah, what does it matter? either . . . a) the CSM has no power so who cares, we didn't want those seats anyways b) what difference can one guy make? our boys will just relegate him to the corner where he can be properly ignored or c) great! way to go, Mike. Don't tell my alliance but I voted for you, too It's late . . . I have a lot of reading to do to catch up on what has happened in the past so I can be best informed about where we are going next. Run the numbers, make hats out of tinfoil, whatever. I have work to do m
Well said Mike. There's very little chance that the ECCE conspiracy supporters would even bother to get the actual facts for themselves. For such, it's a case of "No! It's my way or the highway". That will never change.
Glad to see you in the CSM as well.
o7
Personnel Division Director --áBene Gesserit Chapterhouse
"The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another." - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
33
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 11:38:00 -
[105] - Quote
More analysis ("name recognition"):
How many unique ballots contained a given candidate's name in any position?
20740 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED*** 17961 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED*** 14935 "Unforgiven Storm" 13928 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED*** 13824 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED*** 13404 "mynnna" ***ELECTED*** 13362 "Banlish" 13212 "Psychotic Monk" 12373 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED*** 12121 "Awol Aurix" 12005 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED*** 11381 "Kaleb Rysode" 11245 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED*** 10954 "Artctura" 10863 "Nathan Jameson" 10494 "James Arget" ***ELECTED*** 10448 "DaeHan Minhyok" 9911 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED*** 8651 "Korvin" ***ELECTED*** 8484 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED*** 8288 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED*** 7021 "Roc Wieler" 6694 "Corebloodbrothers" 6474 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED*** 6435 "Steve Ronuken" 6314 "Travis Musgrat" 6293 "riverini" 5783 "Ayeson" 5720 "Cipreh" 4138 "Greene Lee" 3329 "PsychoBitch"
How about just counting top 4 votes rather than full 14? 8235 "mynnna" ***ELECTED*** 7295 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED*** 6743 "Kaleb Rysode" 6709 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED*** 5871 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED*** 5408 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED*** 5292 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED*** 5148 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED*** 4942 "Banlish" 4661 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED*** 4275 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED*** 4235 "Nathan Jameson" 4129 "James Arget" ***ELECTED*** 3948 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED*** 3679 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED*** 3490 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED*** 3110 "Korvin" ***ELECTED*** 2751 "Steve Ronuken" 2531 "riverini" 2453 "Psychotic Monk" 2357 "Cipreh" 2285 "Travis Musgrat" 2228 "Unforgiven Storm" 2147 "Greene Lee" 1969 "Roc Wieler" 1961 "Corebloodbrothers" 1910 "Ayeson" 1890 "Awol Aurix" 1251 "PsychoBitch" 1081 "Artctura" 687 "DaeHan Minhyok" Proud independent player and member of Provibloc. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2907
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 12:17:00 -
[106] - Quote
June Ting wrote:In light of that, I'm tempted to ask the question "what if next year's election were simplified, and you could just vote your top two candidates"? It would be trivially gamed. On CSM, masochism is not an option -- it's a requirement! |
June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
34
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 12:17:00 -
[107] - Quote
For fun, here's who was on the BOTTOM HALF of votes most often (as a fraction of their total unique ballots appeared on).
Based on this, we can conclude that Storm, Monk, and DaeHan had plenty of name recognition, just needed to convince people to rank them higher to have a chance. On the flip side, it shows that the people that did rank FuzzySteve (for example) ranked him highly, but that there simply weren't enough of them.
11519 (0.705173) "Unforgiven Storm" 11234 (0.47988 ) "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED*** 10411 (0.533542) "Malcanis" ***ELECTED*** 9594 (0.656494) "Psychotic Monk" 9483 (0.553009) "James Arget" ***ELECTED*** 9233 (0.831278) "DaeHan Minhyok" 7056 (0.546088) "Awol Aurix" 4928 (0.456296) "progodlegend" ***ELECTED*** 4198 (0.361367) "Artctura" 4037 (0.476455) "Roc Wieler" 3991 (0.489213) "Corebloodbrothers" 3499 (0.46088 ) "Travis Musgrat" 3394 (0.323701) "Korvin" ***ELECTED*** 2761 (0.345298) "riverini" 2739 (0.240242) "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED*** 2667 (0.337083) "Steve Ronuken" 2426 (0.175011) "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED*** 2418 (0.184665) "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED*** 2415 (0.240107) "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED*** 2345 (0.188732) "Nathan Jameson" 2066 (0.21343 ) "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED*** 1953 (0.148112) "Kesper North" ***ELECTED*** 1845 (0.267935) "Ayeson" 1804 (0.12462 ) "mynnna" ***ELECTED*** 1783 (0.274308) "Cipreh" 1701 (0.116387) "Banlish" 1637 (0.107 ) "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED*** 1544 (0.363893) "PsychoBitch" 1478 (0.0985399) "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED*** 1268 (0.222651) "Greene Lee" 1165 (0.0971886) "Kaleb Rysode" Proud independent player and member of Provibloc. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9194
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 12:36:00 -
[108] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Green Gambit wrote:The big danger with FPTP was that more null-sec alliances started copying the Goons and the council become almost completely null-sec dominated. And how does this explain CSM 7? CSM 6 was null dominated as it was the first time null ever really came out in force to vote for the CSM. CSM 7 on the other hand was about as diverse a CSM as you can get without picking the members by hand. CSM7 still had too many Null sec players to be representative of the game. But it is a lot more representative than what we have now. I mean it is very representative of the voters, but almost the opposite of representing the player base as a whole.
As has been asid many times, there is no voting system which ensures representation for those who refuse to vote.
I wholly agree that CSM 7 could have done more to raise their profile and perceived value, and that CCP could have done more to publicise the elction and communicate the value of the CSM to the players, but the fact is, very many players who were fully aware of the election declined to participate ( there was at least one such in my corp, to my great frustration).
It's their right not to vote, of course, but they have no claim to your sympathy or mine for not being "represented".
1 Kings 12:11
|
OrlandoFurioso
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 13:04:00 -
[109] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Null bloc votes, as identified by Two Step: 9823+10957+5999 = 26799, 53.9% of the votes Null bloc candidates: Five (Myself, Kesper, Sort, Sala and Progodlegend), which is about 35% of the council. I suppose you could count Malcanis as well, as the HBC ballot was instrumental in electing him and he is technically part of the bloc, but even that's only 42%. Basically, I'm saying that I think the people who were claiming that STV is all about rigging it for nullsec (ya'll know who you are) can put down their tinfoil hats. If anything we're under represented.
simplified view of the CSM makeup ftw.
Please tell us, apart from Mang, how many CSM members are from highsec? |
Friggz
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
124
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 13:48:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Dolan wrote:
That's probably the most pessimistic way you could look at who had an enfranchised vote in the CSM7 and CSM8 election, but I will work with it I guess.
Looking at things from the most pessimistic way possible is kinda Frying Doom's thing. The Evolution of the Stealth Bomber, and the story of the first Black Ops Capital Kill in EvE.
https://truestories.eveonline.com/ideas/969 |
|
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
108
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 13:53:00 -
[111] - Quote
OrlandoFurioso wrote:simplified view of the CSM makeup ftw.
Please tell us, apart from Mang, how many CSM members are from highsec? A simplified answer to that simplified question would be: All. Every single one.
(There are no non-hisec starter systems)
A more elaborate answer is: I'm sure there a few on the CSM who haven't at least tried out several aspects of the game, in several kinds of space. Also, "hisec" is only an area in space. You should not be asking for the area, but for the playstyles. You have ratters and carebears in every kind of space, you have hunters in all kinds of space (but of course using different approaches). If a Goon candidate is spending most of his active playtime ganking in Uedema or trading in Jita, is he "from highsec" or "from nullsec"? |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
845
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:06:00 -
[112] - Quote
What "hisec" self-identifiers should be concerned about is "casual" gameplay. That is one perspective that is hard to mesh with an imaginary space council. I would say it is literally impossible to be a "casual" player and be an effective CSM. Therefore, the self-identified "hisec" bloc should be voting for those candidates that purposefully and continuously acknowledge and listen to feedback from casual players. Only then can you hope that your playstyle won't be stomped into the mud by changes because no one in CCP or on the CSM even know what makes the game for you.
Unfortunately, casual players have long been spoken for by a select few hisec turbonerd forum warriors who are anything but casual, yet use an imagined conflict between security areas to attempt to protect their solo/afk/multiboxing hisec wealth generation, which has nothing to do with being "casual" and everything to do with wanting rewards without risk.
The sooner casual players divorce themselves from their unrepresentative unofficial crusaders, the sooner they can become a coherent voice for casual gameplay, and have people step up as representatives thereof. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1089
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:12:00 -
[113] - Quote
June Ting wrote:More analysis ("name recognition"):
How many unique ballots contained a given candidate's name in any position? 23410 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED*** 19513 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED*** 17148 "James Arget" ***ELECTED*** 16335 "Unforgiven Storm" 15299 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED*** 14999 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED*** 14615 "Banlish" 14614 "Psychotic Monk" 14476 "mynnna" ***ELECTED*** 13862 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED*** 13186 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED*** 13094 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED*** 12921 "Awol Aurix" 12425 "Nathan Jameson" 11987 "Kaleb Rysode" 11617 "Artctura" 11401 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED*** 11107 "DaeHan Minhyok" 10800 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED*** 10485 "Korvin" ***ELECTED*** 10058 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED*** 9680 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED*** 8473 "Roc Wieler" 8158 "Corebloodbrothers" 7996 "riverini" 7912 "Steve Ronuken" 7592 "Travis Musgrat" 6886 "Ayeson" 6500 "Cipreh" 5695 "Greene Lee" 4243 "PsychoBitch"
How about just counting top 4 votes rather than full 14? 11545 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED*** 11216 "mynnna" ***ELECTED*** 9178 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED*** 7924 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED*** 7835 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED*** 7753 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED*** 7653 "Kaleb Rysode" 7088 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED*** 6783 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED*** 6448 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED*** 6214 "Banlish" 6054 "Nathan Jameson" 5954 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED*** 5722 "James Arget" ***ELECTED*** 5695 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED*** 4771 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED*** 4705 "Korvin" ***ELECTED*** 4019 "riverini" 3908 "Steve Ronuken" 3611 "Psychotic Monk" 3598 "Greene Lee" 3379 "Unforgiven Storm" 3338 "Travis Musgrat" 3242 "Corebloodbrothers" 3239 "Cipreh" 3063 "Roc Wieler" 3010 "Ayeson" 2825 "Awol Aurix" 1993 "PsychoBitch" 1556 "Artctura" 1054 "DaeHan Minhyok"
Both of these are really bizarre because of the top 2 results, especially the first one. The rule of thumb for that is (or was supposed to be) "appearing anywhere is an advantage for top 2" yet Ripard and I got it, with no less than eight candidates above us who had more appearances anywhere.
I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mmorpg lol
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:28:00 -
[114] - Quote
I may be misunderstanding the way this voting system works, but I think it is because while # of ballots said candidate is on is important; placement on the ballot is also extremely important.
So, if candidate A has twice the number of ballots as candidate B but all of B's ballots list B first and A second while A has only 25% of his ballots listing him first; then B is much more likely to be elected, particularly if B has very few overvotes.
This is why mynnna and Rip get the 1 and 2 spots even though lots of others had more ballots than them; note that on the list of top 4 places on ballots they move up to 2 and 3, showing that they have a high primary vote placement. |
June Ting
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
34
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:35:00 -
[115] - Quote
The top 4 one is an artifact of the goon ballot. Because it was CFC1, CFC2, CFC3, HBC1, HBC2, HBC3 (or vice versa), the net result of any analysis that aggregates top 4 is that CFC1 and HBC1 will both be inflated because a very particular set of ballots was created with that pattern. Proud independent player and member of Provibloc. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2912
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:43:00 -
[116] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Both of these are really bizarre because of the top 2 results, especially the first one. The rule of thumb for that is (or was supposed to be) "appearing anywhere is an advantage for top 2" yet Ripard and I got it, with no less than eight candidates above us who had more appearances anywhere.
I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive. It's quite simple. You need to appear on a lot of ballots, but appearing higher is better. If your average position is higher, and in particular if you have a lot of first-place votes, you will survive elimination longer.
To give an absurd example, a candidate who appeared on every ballot, but always in 14th place, would be the first eliminated.
Here's a quick table (sorry for the horrible formatting, pity we don't have code tags on this forum....) that shows, for each candidate, how many first place ballots they had, how many times they appear on a ballot, their strength (1/average position on ballot) and power (average position * number of appearances)
# Firsts # Appearances Strength Power Awol Aurix 656 12921 .131 1699.00 PsychoBitch 703 4243 .197 837.00 Mike Azariah 1707 10058 .240 2414.00 Greene Lee 1678 5695 .360 2049.00 Trebor Daehdoow 2034 13094 .247 3230.00 Banlish 1213 14615 .213 3114.00 Ayeson 710 6886 .172 1181.00 DaeHan Minhyok 244 11107 .082 907.00 Korvin 2065 10485 .263 2758.00 Kaleb Rysode 380 11987 .221 2647.00 Ali Aras 2113 11401 .268 3057.00 Malcanis 1497 19513 .173 3381.00 Sala Cameron 1550 15299 .268 4101.00 Cipreh 589 6500 .178 1155.00 Nathan Jameson 1616 12425 .212 2629.00 Roc Wieler 793 8473 .140 1182.00 Artctura 691 11617 .143 1662.00 James Arget 1624 17148 .164 2808.00 Kesper North 918 13186 .289 3811.00 Corebloodbrothers 1487 8158 .244 1989.00 Ripard Teg 4181 13862 .372 5152.00 riverini 860 7996 .199 1590.00 Chitsa Jason 1668 9680 .240 2328.00 Mangala Solaris 2681 23410 .181 4244.00 mynnna 5782 14476 .484 7000.00 progodlegend 2328 10800 .271 2925.00 Psychotic Monk 1525 14614 .154 2246.00 Unforgiven Storm 902 16335 .124 2033.00 Sort Dragon 3263 14999 .342 5137.00 Travis Musgrat 958 7592 .226 1719.00 Steve Ronuken 1286 7912 .218 1725.00
On CSM, masochism is not an option -- it's a requirement! |
Green Gambit
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
12
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:47:00 -
[117] - Quote
mynnna wrote:I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive.
Well taking Mangala as top of the list for votes anywhere - he was down near the bottom of the CFC and HBC ballots. He also appeared somewhere in the middle of a lot of suggested lists of people like Ripard, Trebor etc. In fact I don't think I saw many suggested lists that didn't include him somewhere.
Whereas for yourself, you got a lot of support from CFC and HBC, where you appeared at the top of the list. So you got enough #1 votes to guarantee your place, but not the depth of support from elsewhere.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1386
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 14:55:00 -
[118] - Quote
mynnna wrote:June Ting wrote:More analysis ("name recognition"):
How many unique ballots contained a given candidate's name in any position? 23410 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED*** 19513 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED*** 17148 "James Arget" ***ELECTED*** 16335 "Unforgiven Storm" 15299 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED*** 14999 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED*** 14615 "Banlish" 14614 "Psychotic Monk" 14476 "mynnna" ***ELECTED*** 13862 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED*** 13186 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED*** 13094 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED*** 12921 "Awol Aurix" 12425 "Nathan Jameson" 11987 "Kaleb Rysode" 11617 "Artctura" 11401 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED*** 11107 "DaeHan Minhyok" 10800 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED*** 10485 "Korvin" ***ELECTED*** 10058 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED*** 9680 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED*** 8473 "Roc Wieler" 8158 "Corebloodbrothers" 7996 "riverini" 7912 "Steve Ronuken" 7592 "Travis Musgrat" 6886 "Ayeson" 6500 "Cipreh" 5695 "Greene Lee" 4243 "PsychoBitch"
How about just counting top 4 votes rather than full 14? 11545 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED*** 11216 "mynnna" ***ELECTED*** 9178 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED*** 7924 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED*** 7835 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED*** 7753 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED*** 7653 "Kaleb Rysode" 7088 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED*** 6783 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED*** 6448 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED*** 6214 "Banlish" 6054 "Nathan Jameson" 5954 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED*** 5722 "James Arget" ***ELECTED*** 5695 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED*** 4771 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED*** 4705 "Korvin" ***ELECTED*** 4019 "riverini" 3908 "Steve Ronuken" 3611 "Psychotic Monk" 3598 "Greene Lee" 3379 "Unforgiven Storm" 3338 "Travis Musgrat" 3242 "Corebloodbrothers" 3239 "Cipreh" 3063 "Roc Wieler" 3010 "Ayeson" 2825 "Awol Aurix" 1993 "PsychoBitch" 1556 "Artctura" 1054 "DaeHan Minhyok"
Both of these are really bizarre because of the top 2 results, especially the first one. The rule of thumb for that is (or was supposed to be) "appearing anywhere is an advantage for top 2" yet Ripard and I got it, with no less than eight candidates above us who had more appearances anywhere. I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive.
If you have enough votes to survive the first few elimination phases, you can begin to really stack on the secondary votes. Place 14 isn't any use to anyone in a 2 vote system, as they'll be the first eliminated. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9206
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 15:06:00 -
[119] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:What "hisec" self-identifiers should be concerned about is "casual" gameplay. That is one perspective that is hard to mesh with an imaginary space council. I would say it is literally impossible to be a "casual" player and be an effective CSM. Therefore, the self-identified "hisec" bloc should be voting for those candidates that purposefully and continuously acknowledge and listen to feedback from casual players. Only then can you hope that your playstyle won't be stomped into the mud by changes because no one in CCP or on the CSM even know what makes the game for you.
Unfortunately, casual players have long been spoken for by a select few hisec turbonerd forum warriors who are anything but casual, yet use an imagined conflict between security areas to attempt to protect their solo/afk/multiboxing hisec wealth generation, which has nothing to do with being "casual" and everything to do with wanting rewards without risk.
The sooner casual players divorce themselves from their unrepresentative unofficial crusaders, the sooner they can become a coherent voice for casual gameplay, and have people step up as representatives thereof.
*CHEERING, LOUD APPLAUSE*
Also I have been championing hi-sec as the venue for casual-not-carebear play since 2011...
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9206
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 15:07:00 -
[120] - Quote
Green Gambit wrote:mynnna wrote:I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive. Well taking Mangala as top of the list for votes anywhere - he was down near the bottom of the CFC and HBC ballots. He also appeared somewhere in the middle of a lot of suggested lists of people like Ripard, Trebor etc. In fact I don't think I saw many suggested lists that didn't include him somewhere. Whereas for yourself, you got a lot of support from CFC and HBC, where you appeared at the top of the list. So you got enough #1 votes to guarantee your place, but not the depth of support from elsewhere.
Mynnna was on quite a few independent lists, including mine.
Honestly, I'm pretty pleased at the overall quality of the people I'm working with in the CSM channel.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |