EVE Search - CSM Vote Match - a candidate comparison website for CSM4

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Vote Match - a candidate comparison website for CSM4

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
small chimp	Posted - 2009.10.21 02:14:00 - [31] That site is just what we need. Its too boring to read all the lenghty introductions of all canditates. Also that site is easy to use and seems to look nice and well designed! I should vote the op just because of that site!
MailDeadDrop The Collective	Posted - 2009.10.21 06:38:00 - [32] Moon mining should be permitted in 0.4 security status systems. Player activity should affect system security. Market trades should work as a marketplace and not a brokerage (i.e. players buy from chosen sellers, not from the lowest priced item in the market). All items should have market buy/sell "slots" (exceptions: assembled ships, used BPOs, and all BPCs).
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:04:00 - [33] Many thanks Dierdra and a good job. If it would be possible to have the candidates list issues in order of preference it would tell us far more about them. EG: Bounty Hunting as a profession needs some love from CCP. Game mechanics should be developed to support a banking system in Eve. Mining in it's current form is not profitable enough. It is easy for 3 candidates all choose strongly agree because they want the pvp vote, trader vote and mining vote however if they were asked to rank these issues in order of importance we could see which issues the candidate cares about most (and would therefore be likely to bring up with CCP). _________________________________________________ Lifeboat ----> + Human
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:12:00 - [34] candidates can mark a specific number of questions as 'important'. This is weighed when calculating a user's fidelity with that candidate. It is also displayed in the results. Letting people sort 30 questions from most important to least important is not going to happen though. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence The Purge Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.21 17:42:00 - [35] Looking forward to my mail. :) Want to know more?
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2009.10.22 00:33:00 - [36] Good initiative, Dierdra. While many of the issues discussed at the time are no longer relevant, you might get a few more statement ideas from this thread dating back to CSM1. /Ben
Mike Azariah	Posted - 2009.10.22 04:38:00 - [37] So when will this go live? mike
dethleffs Red Federation	Posted - 2009.10.22 09:12:00 - [38] nice and very handy tool. one thing though, if i answer "?" to an item and a delegate has the "?" opinion aswell it registers as blue - "good match" while it should be a "perfect match" - green methinks.
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.22 12:16:00 - [39] Originally by: dethleffs nice and very handy tool. one thing though, if i answer "?" to an item and a delegate has the "?" opinion aswell it registers as blue - "good match" while it should be a "perfect match" - green methinks. this is definately an interesting issue - one I thought about a lot. While yes you have exactly the same choice as the candidate, on the other hand, it is not really a choice, but more the absence of a choice (you both have no opinion or dont know). I have chosen not to award the full fidelity bonus because this issue apparently doesnt matter to the user. You match with the candidate, but because it is on an issue that neither of you care about, it is only a weak match. I would be open to discussion about this however, that is what this topic is for! Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
dethleffs Red Federation	Posted - 2009.10.22 15:25:00 - [40] i see your point but i still think no opinion really IS an opinion. When a delegate thinks a topic is not interesting and i think its not interesting aswell, id say its a good canditate to vote for - A candidate that shares my interests and "non-interests".

Sybilla Prior	Posted - 2009.10.23 02:58:00 - [41] Edited by: Sybilla Prior on 23/10/2009 02:59:25 Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: dethleffs nice and very handy tool. one thing though, if i answer "?" to an item and a delegate has the "?" opinion aswell it registers as blue - "good match" while it should be a "perfect match" - green methinks. this is definately an interesting issue - one I thought about a lot. While yes you have exactly the same choice as the candidate, on the other hand, it is not really a choice, but more the absence of a choice (you both have no opinion or dont know). I have chosen not to award the full fidelity bonus because this issue apparently doesnt matter to the user. You match with the candidate, but because it is on an issue that neither of you care about, it is only a weak match. I would be open to discussion about this however, that is what this topic is for! I'd argue that not knowing how to deal with an issue doesn't mean you don't care about it. Far from it. As a candidate I strive to be a democrat, acting whatever way my surveys tell me to, so I can't know in advance what issues I'll be championing or how I would vote on things. How does such an approach factor into your program as it is now? Edit: sorry about the character mixup, I'm Aynen, I just sometimes forget to switch to that character as it has this one automatically selected.
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.23 12:44:00 - [42] It is less about the candidate voting no opinion and more about the user voting 'no opinion/dont care'. If an issue doesnt matter to the user, one could argue that the answer of a candidate has no effect on the fidelity score one way or another: If I dont care about bombs in low sec, it doesn't matter if a candidate supports the idea, doesn't support it or also doesnt care because... well whatever it turns out to be - I dont care! However, I choose to award a lower, but positive fidelity score if both you and the candidate dont care. I admit that I do feel a candidate should be knowledgable in all parts of the game, even if it is only the basics. If an issue comes up that you dont know about, you should research it to form a proper opinion. The CSM process needs people who can make informed descisions to support or not support an issue, not people who dont care or dont know and just roll the dice (remember, as a councillor you can only agree or disagree with an issue, there is no 'dont care' option in our meetings). As such, I want to encourage candidates to take an actual position on issues. Afterall, the only thing you show as a candidate who votes a lot of 'dont know/dont care' is that you know or care very little about the game. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
small chimp	Posted - 2009.10.31 18:05:00 - [43] Edited by: small chimp on 31/10/2009 18:06:06 When is this tool ready? And when have the canditates posted their responses?
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.11.01 19:02:00 - [44] Originally by: small chimp Edited by: small chimp on 31/10/2009 18:06:06 When is this tool ready? And when have the canditates posted their responses? candidates are currently filling in their profiles. It'll most likely stay this way for at least a week to make sure all candidates have a chance to fill in their profile. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Hallan Turrek Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.11.01 20:12:00 - [45] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal You match with the candidate, but because it is on an issue that neither of you care about, it is only a weak match. Does every candidate who answers the questionnaire know about this? If not, then one(not me mind you) could accuse you of fixing the results towards someone you want to win. I think you should take out the "don't care" option entirely if you don't think it's indicative of a good CSM member. Especially if. That's skewing the results towards the kind of person you think should be in the CSM. Either that or have it be a perfect match. ________________________________________ A merry life and a short one shall be my motto. Bartholomew Roberts Check out my blog.
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.11.01 21:50:00 - [46] Originally by: Hallan Turrek Originally by: Dierdra Vaal You match with the candidate, but because it is on an issue that neither of you care about, it is only a weak match. Does every candidate who answers the questionnaire know about this? If not, then one(not me mind you) could accuse you of fixing the results towards someone you want to win. I think you should take out the "don't care" option entirely if you don't think it's indicative of a good CSM member. Especially if. That's skewing the results towards the kind of person you think should be in the CSM. Either that or have it be a perfect match. the calculations are listed and explained in this thread, so any candidate that wants to know how it works has full disclosure. Taking out the No Opinion option is not a good idea, because it'll force people to form (or fake?) a change in opinion if there is an issue they really have no opinion on. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Hallan Turrek Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.11.01 23:26:00 - [47] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Taking out the No Opinion option is not a good idea, because it'll force people to form (or fake?) a change in opinion if there is an issue they really have no opinion on. Then it should be a perfect match, not weak. You've got an idea that not knowing or not caring about an issue makes the candidate less viable. Not knowing I can see, not caring I don't. If the person who is looking for a candidate that represents his interests does not care about a thing, and the guy that's going to try to change things doesn't care either... they're perfectly matched. It is only your opinion that makes them not so, and that shouldn't enter into it. ________________________________________ A merry life and a short one shall be my motto. Bartholomew Roberts Check out my blog.
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.16 10:39:00 - [48] I'm getting this: Quote: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.11.16 15:23:00 - [49] Originally by: Chi Quan I'm getting this: Quote: Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. just try again, server hickups sometimes. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
T'Amber ships of eve	Posted - 2009.11.17 04:23:00 - [50] Edited by: T''Amber on 17/11/2009 04:24:32 This is a great tool Dierdra, and although I won't be using it as it doesn't cover alot of issues that I am covering I hope to see this tool developed further and used for future CSMs. I wonder if theres someone at CCP we can bribe to adverte your site on the Eve startup screen -T'amber Click here to Vote T'amber as your CSM Representative

Ashina Sito Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.17 07:14:00 - [51] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal It is less about the candidate voting no opinion and more about the user voting 'no opinion/dont care'. If an issue doesnt matter to the user, one could argue that the answer of a candidate has no effect on the fidelity score one way or another: Not sure how I missed this thread but, I felt I needed to respond to this. 'no opinion/dont care' can also mean "it is not important" or "fine as is". Originally by: Dierdra Vaal remember, as a councillor you can only agree or disagree with an issue, there is no 'dont care' option in our meetings You can Abstain. Ashina Sito for CSM
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.11.17 15:04:00 - [52] Originally by: Ashina Sito You can Abstain. no you cant - CSM2 decided that and we continued this rule in CSM3. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.17 18:25:00 - [53] Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 17/11/2009 18:35:25 Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Ashina Sito You can Abstain. no you cant - CSM2 decided that and we continued this rule in CSM3. CSM2 didnt decide anything, it was all rather dubious, with just the loudmouths deciding that it was agreed upon, which it was not. Plus it's the most ******ed administrative thing the CSM ever 'decided', every normal council or parliament allows its members to abstain. Should be one of the top administrative things CSM4 should fix. And your vote match is very useful but your interpretation of "neutral" is fundamentally flawed, as it always counts as a non-match. Thus it is always better to list a for or against opinion, because then no matter what the players tick, the candidate cannot lose more than you lose with a "neutral", but you can win 50% or 100% if the player happens to tick the same box. A "neutral" is always counted as a loss. Not my problem though, Z0D already 'optimized' his spreadsheet, I noticed. In my opinion the amount of points should be decided based on how far away your opinion is. So if you list neutral and the player ticks for, then its -1. Equal to if you say 'very for' and the player just lists 'for'. 'For' and 'Against' are two boxes apart because neutral is in between, so thats -2, not -1 or whatever it is now. --- Click banner for info!
Ashina Sito Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.11.17 19:23:00 - [54] Edited by: Ashina Sito on 17/11/2009 19:25:00 Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Ashina Sito You can Abstain. no you cant - CSM2 decided that and we continued this rule in CSM3. CSM2 didnt decide anything, it was all rather dubious, with just the loudmouths deciding that it was agreed upon, which it was not. Plus it's the most ****ed administrative thing the CSM ever 'decided', every normal council or parliament allows its members to abstain. Should be one of the top administrative things CSM4 should fix. And your vote match is very useful but your interpretation of "neutral" is fundamentally flawed, as it always counts as a non-match. Thus it is always better to list a for or against opinion, because then no matter what the players tick, the candidate cannot lose more than you lose with a "neutral", but you can win 50% or 100% if the player happens to tick the same box. A "neutral" is always counted as a loss. Not my problem though, Z0D already 'optimized' his spreadsheet, I noticed. In my opinion the amount of points should be decided based on how far away your opinion is. So if you list neutral and the player ticks for, then its -1. Equal to if you say 'very for' and the player just lists 'for'. 'For' and 'Against' are two boxes apart because neutral is in between, so thats -2, not -1 or whatever it is now. Bah, pyramid quoting. My full post was eaten by the forum and I did not think the Abstain comment needed further definition. I guess I have to retype it. First though the idea that you can not abstain from a vote is plain nutty. I have never heard of such a thing. I agree with Ankhesentapemkah in that this should be something that is corrected with the first CSM4 meeting. Any representative should have the ability to abstain from a vote. Simply at a basic level not everyone can know everything about everything. An uninformed vote chosen with a flip of a coin is not beneficial to any sort of elected body. Now the response to this would be that every candidate should make the effort to understand every issue so they can make an informed vote. It is always possible that a CSM issue is of an arcane nature and you can not really come to a justifiable position on it. I would rather have a counsel member abstain then make an uninformed vote in that situation. There is also the issue of having a conflict of interest. There could be a situation where a consul member would abstain because their vote would be seen as self serving. While this is a bit less likely within Eve it still exists. As to your valuation of the "neutral" position in your survey. I have already stated my issue with your stance but, I will requote Ankhesentapemkah Quote:** Not my problem though, Z0D already 'optimized' his spreadsheet, I noticed. If you can game your survey then it is not functioning properly. Thanks for your time, Ashina Edit: my comment about Z0D is not intended to be a negative comment about him or what he did. It is simply a statement that the survey as designed has an issue. Ashina Sito for CSM
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.11.18 02:11:00 - [55] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 18/11/2009 02:15:56 Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah And your vote match is very useful but your interpretation of "neutral" is fundamentally flawed, as it always counts as a non-match. Thus it is always better to list a for or against opinion, because then no matter what the players tick, the candidate cannot lose more than you lose with a "neutral", but you can win 50% or 100% if the player happens to tick the same box. A "neutral" is always counted as a loss. Not my problem though, Z0D already 'optimized' his spreadsheet, I noticed. In my opinion the amount of points should be decided based on how far away your opinion is. So if you list neutral and the player ticks for, then its -1. Equal to if you say 'very for' and the player just lists 'for'. 'For' and 'Against' are two boxes apart because neutral is in between, so thats -2, not -1 or whatever it is now. I do base the points on how far away your opinion is. Scoring is explained in detail in the 2nd post of this thread (and was open for discussion at the time of posting). The survey cannot be gamed, although you can get futher into the extremes (higher AND lower scores) with less "don't know / no opinion". But if someone has that many issues that dont know about they really shouldnt be on the CSM to begin with. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Solo Player	Posted - 2009.11.20 22:14:00 - [56] Hmmm... For the first time, I have not participated in this forum in the run-up to this election (I was planning on voting for Issler and very disappointed she wasn't allowed to run), so I quickly got to your vote match site once I saw the dev blog about voting. Too bad it's so little help. More than half the candidates are somewhere between 55 and 65 per cent matches, with the closest at 67% and several major issues in diametric contradiction. I don't know if others had the same problem, but I reckon this might profit from some clustering of issues into more general ideologies. Several statements could then position a candidate at a certain stance between two fundamentally opposing concepts, as for example: pvp vs pve sandbox vs theme park realistic consequences vs fun gameplay pro solo player vs. pro group player (figures...) fix the game vs. add cool new stuff boost endgame vs. improve npe etc. Now if I just knew who Issler endorsed...
wert668	Posted - 2009.11.20 22:53:00 - [57] For next add "lvl5 mission to 00 NPC space" and "lvl5 mining and courier missions" Thanks to this I decided who to vote for.
Snowflake Tem	Posted - 2009.11.21 01:21:00 - [58] Originally by: Solo Player Hmmm... ... Too bad it's so little help. More than half the candidates are somewhere between 55 and 65 per cent matches, with the closest at 67% and several major issues in diametric contradiction. ... Now if I just knew who Issler endorsed... If you have already made your mind up what are you using a tool like this for? this is the first attempt i've seen to correlate candidates opinions in a framework for comparison. it's flawed like every other thing on planet, including every system of government in existence, but it is better than nothing. I want to see MOAR of this stuff going on.
Omber Zombie Gallente Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2009.11.21 03:21:00 - [59] Abstaining was not removed by CSM2, just enforced by it. That rule is in the original CSM documents prepared by Xhagen. Personally I agree with it - either you want to bring something up with CCP or you don't. If you don't know about the issue, part of your job is to learn about it. If you can't be bothered to do that or don't have the time to do that, you shouldn't be on the CSM. ---------------------- My Blog
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.11.21 21:40:00 - [60] Originally by: Solo Player pvp vs pve sandbox vs theme park realistic consequences vs fun gameplay pro solo player vs. pro group player (figures...) fix the game vs. add cool new stuff boost endgame vs. improve npe etc. this is actually something I was thinking about in the early design - but the feature didnt make it into the website. Maybe the next version though :) Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.