Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters
1011
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 11:31:00 -
[31] - Quote
Posting in a cartel thread. No trolling please |
KuroVolt
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1429
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 12:36:00 -
[32] - Quote
Hey Dinsdale, why not vote for a Provi candidate this year?
We represent a casual playstyle to EVE and we reject the large coalitions political scheming.
Or do you concider Providence to be a nullsec cartel aswell? BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2979
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 13:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
KuroVolt wrote:Hey Dinsdale, why not vote for a Provi candidate this year?
We represent a casual playstyle to EVE and we reject the large coalitions political scheming.
Or do you concider Providence to be a nullsec cartel aswell?
Everyone knows how easy it would be for one of the blocs to wipe out Provibloc and install renters in Providence instead. This doesn't happen, ergo there must be a reason, ergo you are in cahoots with the cartels. QED.
Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2518
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 13:56:00 -
[34] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:Meh, there is only one candidate worth voting and that is Sugar Kyle. There are going to be 14 people on the CSM. Even if only one candidate genuinely engages you, why deprive yourself of a say in who the other 13 are going to be? If nothing else, you can help stop someone you actively don't want on the CSM by voting for people that aren't them. I made the mistake of only placing three names on the ballot last year. From what I understand, this meant my vote had a high chance of being wasted. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13922
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 14:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
mynnna wrote:KuroVolt wrote:Hey Dinsdale, why not vote for a Provi candidate this year?
We represent a casual playstyle to EVE and we reject the large coalitions political scheming.
Or do you concider Providence to be a nullsec cartel aswell? Everyone knows how easy it would be for one of the blocs to wipe out Provibloc and install renters in Providence instead. This doesn't happen, ergo there must be a reason, ergo you are in cahoots with the cartels. QED.
Or they have vast reserves of wealth and power concealed from the public but known to the other blocs in which case Provi is by definition a cartel. The greatest cartel of all, in fact...
#throughthelookingglass #PalpatineisAmarr
1 Kings 12:11
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2288
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 14:49:00 -
[36] - Quote
KuroVolt wrote:Hey Dinsdale, why not vote for a Provi candidate this year?
We represent a casual playstyle to EVE and we reject the large coalitions political scheming.
Or do you concider Providence to be a nullsec cartel aswell?
Are there any yet? Ali Aras is now part of Noir. Who is the Provi bloc running as a candidate?
But I am tired and bored with the game. It has devolved into null sec being safer than high sec, https://twitter.com/midi2304/status/432495224875933696 (try doing that in Lanngisi) , where the hypocrisy of the cartels and stagnation of the Eve universe is something that CCP celebrates.
Regardless of what the cartel propagandists say, CCP MUST destroy the game mechanics that allow the cartels to flourish. But the voices of reason that would tell CCP this are muzzled at every level, be it by the goon thugs who derail every forum thread that speaks the truth of the game, or by flooding the CSM with voices that say "keep giving null sec more power is the key to CCP's long-term success", or with having as many CCP employees as possible sympathetic to the cartel agenda.
There is no hope for the casual player in CCP's world. The only hope CCP has for it's long term future is a slow decline in subs, followed by an overhaul of management, replaced with a team that has the vision and guts to turn this game upside down. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
273
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Are there any yet? Ali Aras is now part of Noir. Who is the Provi bloc running as a candidate? It's not that hard to miss really. Like last year, corebloodbrothers is running for Provi.
On that note, why do blocs/fangroups keep spamming those threads with +1s? I would say it even detracts 3rd party voters, as it makes it really annoying to find anything useful in those threads. Endorsements by known figures / former CSMs are on thing but serveral pages of alliance mates is just spam :S |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
872
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 16:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:But I am tired and bored with the game... There is no hope for the casual player in CCP's world.
Can I have your stuff? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2288
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 16:15:00 -
[39] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:But I am tired and bored with the game... There is no hope for the casual player in CCP's world.
Can I have your stuff?
My net worth is about what mynnna makes while going on a long weekend vacation. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
KuroVolt
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1430
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 17:43:00 -
[40] - Quote
mynnna wrote:KuroVolt wrote:Hey Dinsdale, why not vote for a Provi candidate this year?
We represent a casual playstyle to EVE and we reject the large coalitions political scheming.
Or do you concider Providence to be a nullsec cartel aswell? Everyone knows how easy it would be for one of the blocs to wipe out Provibloc and install renters in Providence instead. This doesn't happen, ergo there must be a reason, ergo you are in cahoots with the cartels. QED.
Lol, install renters in Providence!
Good one. BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty. |
|
Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.22 07:44:00 -
[41] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote: On that note, why do blocs/fangroups keep spamming those threads with +1s? I would say it even detracts 3rd party voters, as it makes it really annoying to find anything useful in those threads. Endorsements by known figures / former CSMs are one thing but serveral pages of alliance mates is just spam :S
This is spot on, started to read a couple of the threads and had to move on. I guess they don't need/want my vote anyway. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2723
|
Posted - 2014.02.22 17:00:00 -
[42] - Quote
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:Sephira Galamore wrote: On that note, why do blocs/fangroups keep spamming those threads with +1s? I would say it even detracts 3rd party voters, as it makes it really annoying to find anything useful in those threads. Endorsements by known figures / former CSMs are one thing but serveral pages of alliance mates is just spam :S
This is spot on, started to read a couple of the threads and had to move on. I guess they don't need/want my vote anyway. They might not. I do Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Black Legion.
41
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 00:31:00 -
[43] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:With a year of understanding and testing the STV system, and with a voting bloc numbering close to 50,000, what is the over/under on how many null sec cartel members are on CSM9?
7,9,10?
Not that is matters at all anymore. I wonder how many details will be given by CCP on the summer release, before the new CSM "election"? It is very likely those details will make this next CSM a moot point for the largest chunk of the sub base, that being high sec causal players.
same . |
Ali Aras
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
570
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 06:18:00 -
[44] - Quote
Megarom wrote: The only weakness in the that I suspect the voting system has is that when people need to be eliminated for lack of anyone having enough votes to be selected it only counts the #1 positions at that time (if I've understood correctly) which could lead in some cases to people being eliminated that have high number on #2 positions, but don't go quoting me on that Dinsdale because I have to recheck it.
This actually happened last year. Part of the reason why the CFC doesn't have more people on. If people rank their actual preference instead of sticking with a bloc vote (or if bloc candidates can appeal to voters outside their bloc), then they'll succeed more. Of course, then they'll actually *represent* more...
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Ali Aras is now part of Noir.
Still independent, if not more so ;-) Actually, I spent a good bit of time in highsec after making the corp hop...something about a bunch of people needing mercs to do things to pocos. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
4395
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 16:57:00 -
[45] - Quote
Between the vitriol of low/nul, anti highsec extremist and vocal, spiteful highsec supporters, it's hard to fathom that people haven't seen the bigger picture and instead just stay entrenched.
Eve doesnt need reps screaming nerf/buff playstyle x. Eve needs balance, someone who not only sees that both pve and pvp are needed, but has a plan to make both sides fun and useful AND has immediate steps to execute the plan.
Tl:dr stop with the fraking extremism. Especially you dinsdale. Im all for highsec fun for casuals and i try to do things in game to help it, as do others. But youre really not making our job easier.
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2299
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 18:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Between the vitriol of low/nul, anti highsec extremist and vocal, spiteful highsec supporters, it's hard to fathom that people haven't seen the bigger picture and instead just stay entrenched.
Eve doesnt need reps screaming nerf/buff playstyle x. Eve needs balance, someone who not only sees that both pve and pvp are needed, but has a plan to make both sides fun and useful AND has immediate steps to execute the plan.
Tl:dr stop with the fraking extremism. Especially you dinsdale. Im all for highsec fun for casuals and i try to do things in game to help it, as do others. But youre really not making our job easier.
Well, I am all for balance. And if you go far back enough in my posting history (have to go WAY back), I was not nearly so extremist. That shrillness is a direct result of the constant erosion that has occurred to the high sec casual gameplay over the past few years. CCP does not listen to reasoned, modulated responses (not that CCP listens to anything from any high sec casual player, especially me.)
From the 90% nerf in datacore research, to the introduction of the Catalyst and Talos as ganking ships, to the new ESS build, to the diversion of huge PoCo income to the goons, there has been an inexorable move to lowering high sec income potential while increasing null sec cartel income.
I know what endgame of the cartels' campaign against high sec look like. The ultimate question is how much CCP agrees with the cartels' vision of the game. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
878
|
Posted - 2014.02.24 20:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:From the 90% nerf in datacore research, to the introduction of the Catalyst and Talos as ganking ships, to the new ESS build, to the diversion of huge PoCo income to the goons, there has been an inexorable move to lowering high sec income potential while increasing null sec cartel income.
If by "90% nerf" you mean that they got rid of passive datacore farming, that was a good change (even though it screwed me, personally). Neither the cat nor the talos were introduced as ganking ships, the last I heard the ESS was only in nullsec and as for customs offices, do you have actual numbers to back up your claim of "huge" income? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3032
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 04:31:00 -
[48] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Well, I am all for balance. And if you go far back enough in my posting history (have to go WAY back), I was not nearly so extremist. That shrillness is a direct result of the constant erosion that has occurred to the high sec casual gameplay over the past few years. CCP does not listen to reasoned, modulated responses (not that CCP listens to anything from any high sec casual player, especially me.)
If we go far enough back in your posting history (winding up on the old forums) we can see you complaining about how CCP is nerfing wormholes and nullsec to drive people to highsec. And RMT, of course. You've never not tinfoiled about that. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
voetius
BITB Support Services
190
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 08:06:00 -
[49] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Between the vitriol of low/nul, anti highsec extremist and vocal, spiteful highsec supporters, it's hard to fathom that people haven't seen the bigger picture and instead just stay entrenched.
Eve doesnt need reps screaming nerf/buff playstyle x. Eve needs balance, someone who not only sees that both pve and pvp are needed, but has a plan to make both sides fun and useful AND has immediate steps to execute the plan.
Tl:dr stop with the fraking extremism. Especially you dinsdale. Im all for highsec fun for casuals and i try to do things in game to help it, as do others. But youre really not making our job easier.
Best post in the thread :)
Also, on the subject of datacores, I have 4 R&D agents and that hit me hard, but I still agree that it was the right thing to do. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10256
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:10:00 -
[50] - Quote
dinsdale has never actually explained the reasoning behind his belief that CCP is in cahoots with imaginary RMT cartels that sell isk for bitcoins or something, especially the crucial aspect of why CCP would be in cahoots with those imaginary RMT cartels Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2732
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:16:00 -
[51] - Quote
Andski wrote:dinsdale has never actually explained the reasoning behind his belief that CCP is in cahoots with imaginary RMT cartels that sell isk for bitcoins or something, especially the crucial aspect of why CCP would be in cahoots with those imaginary RMT cartels
No no no!
CCP aren't in cahoots.
The RMT cartels have suborned some employees and infiltrated some of their own people in.
[/tinfoil]
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10256
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 13:19:00 -
[52] - Quote
he also hasn't shown a shred of evidence for his RMT tinfoil because he doesn't have any beyond "well nullsec alliances work hard to secure income streams so it must be for RMT and not because things can happen in 0.0 that can turn out quite expensive" Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13958
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 14:52:00 -
[53] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Between the vitriol of low/nul, anti highsec extremist and vocal, spiteful highsec supporters, it's hard to fathom that people haven't seen the bigger picture and instead just stay entrenched.
Eve doesnt need reps screaming nerf/buff playstyle x. Eve needs balance, someone who not only sees that both pve and pvp are needed, but has a plan to make both sides fun and useful AND has immediate steps to execute the plan.
Tl:dr stop with the fraking extremism. Especially you dinsdale. Im all for highsec fun for casuals and i try to do things in game to help it, as do others. But youre really not making our job easier.
Fortunately, EVE doesn't get those reps.
Although Dinsdale's vision of the CSM is extremely exciting and entertaining, he does leave us secretly rather disappointed that it's also not true.
The reality of the CSM is much more mundane, alas.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Megarom
Illustrious Continuum
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 22:14:00 -
[54] - Quote
Megarom wrote: The only weakness in the that I suspect the voting system has is that when people need to be eliminated for lack of anyone having enough votes to be selected it only counts the #1 positions at that time (if I've understood correctly) which could lead in some cases to people being eliminated that have high number on #2 positions, but don't go quoting me on that Dinsdale because I have to recheck it.
I finally got round to analyzing the voting code and actually found a bug, My first though was to contact CCP privately about it, but while writing the message I realized it was not exactly feasibly exploitable and it was very easy for concerned voters to foil any exploitation attempt.
The problem is that you can't get eliminated if you have no votes. This is due to the vote counter accumulator not being initialized with 0. This can result in at least people being eliminated in the wrong order and potentially wrong people getting elected, but only if nobody votes for one of the candidates with their top votes so that when it comes to potential elimination situation someone else will get eliminated and the exploiting candidate will stay in the race. While it sounds bad it's really hard to pull off and getting together a group of people that will make sure everyone gets at least one #1 vote the exploitation attempt will instead lead to early elimination.
I also confirmed the only undesirable feature I suspected the voting code to have, so feel free to quote me on it Dinsdale. The decision to eliminate someone is done based on the number of votes which at first seems like a no brainer. The general problem with this is that candidate needs certain numbers of top votes to hang on in the race if elimination happens in addition of broad support that would get her elected later in the process. I acknowledge that only general fix would takes us to the voting system proposed last year that has unfeasible computation time. So there is no way of totally fixing this weakness, so it is something the candidates should make themselves aware of.
There is a tweak that I'm playing with to mitigate this problem a little bit. If the total number of ballots someone appears on is low enough they have very slim or no chance of being elected and could be eliminated first regardless of the number of votes they have. It is possible that someone with broad support in the lower spots would be saved from elimination if the people who have no hope of being elected are removed. The hard part is where to draw the line. It can't be the value of the quota at a specific point of the process because when partly filled ballots are exhausted the quota will be reduced accordingly. Maybe it's possible to calculate how low the quota can drop and use that. But then again maybe that number is so low that it would axe nobody anyway.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13998
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 22:34:00 -
[55] - Quote
Surely this flaw is trivially detectable by manual inspection?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Megarom
Illustrious Continuum
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 22:59:00 -
[56] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Surely this flaw is trivially detectable by manual inspection?
I only stumbled upon it while building pathological inputs to demonstrate the 'undesirable feature' mentioned in the post. I'll post the ballot exact ballot data I used tomorrow, but here are the main points. I had a candidate with no #1 votes, but plenty #2's to get elected, one that had exactly the quota to get elected straight away, and 2 others whose votes were crossed so that one of them it was a tie on the #1 votes and neither of them had total votes enough to fill the quota. 2 seats to be filled.
I had a big WTF moment at first because the guy I though was going to be screwed by the system got elected. When I started fiddling with the vote counts I noticed he was never up for elimination.
I've created my share of trivially detectable by manual inspection bugs so it's hard for me to blame Veritas for this. Mainly because people tend to vote themselves, any real life test data is unlikely to have this situation in it.
the fix btw is adding something like
for x in remainingCandidates: --ident-- accumulator[x] = 0.
after the accumulator is created. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
3297
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 23:48:00 -
[57] - Quote
Interestingly, my version of the wright-stv algorithm has exactly the same behavior as Veritas' does.
It is extremely unlikely that it would affect a real election, but it's a trivial thing to fix; you simply check before the election starts for candidates with no first-place votes, and process them as you would a withdrawn candidate.
I've updated my code to implement this, and would like to thank Megarom for his diligence in reviewing the code. Like any honest politician, "My door is always open, and my hand is always out" |
Lari Isayeki
Border Industrial Limited
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 04:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Interestingly, my version of the wright-stv algorithm has exactly the same behavior as Veritas' does.
It is extremely unlikely that it would affect a real election, but it's a trivial thing to fix; you simply check before the election starts for candidates with no first-place votes, and process them as you would a withdrawn candidate.
I've updated my code to implement this, and would like to thank Megarom for his diligence in reviewing the code.
Actually a candidate could have no first choice votes and still be viable and even elected.
In the most recent CSM election Kesper North had the majority of second votes from mynnna supporters (and vica versa). If swapped the positions of the two on all ballots with Kesper in first place then Kesper would still get elected.
I'm pretty sure that even if you eliminated all ballots with Kesper as the first choice he would still get elected. Of course this is kind of the point of STV as it can make use of a ballot's second (and sometimes later) choice in the case that the first choice has more than enough support.
Personally I'd like to see an STV implementation like Meeks or Warren which have better ways of dealing with the surplus votes than the more simple approach that the Wright system uses. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2323
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 06:00:00 -
[59] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Interestingly, my version of the wright-stv algorithm has exactly the same behavior as Veritas' does.
It is extremely unlikely that it would affect a real election, but it's a trivial thing to fix; you simply check before the election starts for candidates with no first-place votes, and process them as you would a withdrawn candidate.
I've updated my code to implement this, and would like to thank Megarom for his diligence in reviewing the code.
OK, at first reading of Megarom's post (it has some dense material that requires some study), and your post, there does seem to be a way to game the system, however unlikely. If you 2 have figured it out, I would expect the goons have as well, who have a huge vested interest in controlling the CSM totally (then again, it is easier to control the CSM when you have vassals like the RvB whores who try to appear to be non-cartel controlled).
If you believe there is a flaw in the voting system, and it can be described and demonstrated easily enough, why is CCP not making every effort to close this logical loophole?
I guess the over / under just moved up a notch.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Megarom
Illustrious Continuum
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 07:07:00 -
[60] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: It is extremely unlikely that it would affect a real election, but it's a trivial thing to fix; you simply check before the election starts for candidates with no first-place votes, and process them as you would a withdrawn candidate.
I agree that fix is trivial, but that is not the right one. Let's assume we have a block that has the votes to get 2 people elected and they all vote with identical ballots. With your fix only the one on the #1 spot would survive your fix and the block would get just one seat with the extra votes going to somebody that had at least 1 #1. In the real world it wouldn't make any difference because just one #1 vote would make the candidate survive the fix and as stated people tend to vote for themselves.
Conceptually the right thing to do is count the zero votes correctly in the vote counting step and if elimination comes it will eliminate the zeros first. In the example case above the blocks #1 guy would get elected and extra votes transferred to he #2 guy before we even have to consider any elimination so he would have the votes to survive the elimination.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:OK, at first reading of Megarom's post (it has some dense material that requires some study), and your post, there does seem to be a way to game the system, however unlikely. If you 2 have figured it out, I would expect the goons have as well, who have a huge vested interest in controlling the CSM totally (then again, it is easier to control the CSM when you have vassals like the RvB whores who try to appear to be non-cartel controlled).
If you believe there is a flaw in the voting system, and it can be described and demonstrated easily enough, why is CCP not making every effort to close this logical loophole?
I guess the over / under just moved up a notch.
I haven't checked but it's pretty safe to assume this didn't have any effect on the last years results because it's likely that everybody had at least 1 #1 vote.
It is also very likely that CCP will make every effort to close this loop hole by making a trivial change to the voting code. It's unfortunately difficult to fix things you didn't know were broken. As I said the flaw would not manifest with anything resembling a real life dataset for CSM election.
And finally, I this will be difficult to swallow, but just take my word for it: The over / under didn't move an inch.
Fixing the flaw is more likely to effect someone who takes the CSM vote code and runs an election with considerably smaller number of votes and seats than CSM elections, but that is big enough reason to fix it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |