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

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)
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.15 23:21:00 - [1] What? I'm currently developing a website based on the dutch StemWijzer, a website that allows you to compare different political parties. I plan to have this operational before the CSM4 voting starts. The website presents the user with a list of statements ("PvP should be optional", "Trade orders should have a 1000 ISK minimum increment", etc), and compares the answers the user gives to the answers given by CSM candidates. Using this comparison the website then calculates a match percentage, neatly identifying which candidate represents the user's views the best. How? The website works in the following way: Candidates receive a password that allows them to log on to the website. Here they can answer the statements, their answers are stored in the database. They can edit this information at a later time(1). The answer options are "strongly disagree", "disagree", "no opinion", "agree", "strongly agree". While we are gathering candidate profiles, user matching will be disabled, as they can only get reliable results when all candidates have finished their profiles. These profiles illustrate the vision of each candidate. Once all (within reason) candidates have filled in their profile, matching will be enabled. Users fill in the same questionaire as the candidates did, and we calculate a match percentage. Additionally, we display a table of all questions and all candidates that shows the user where his questions match and differ from the candidates. Development version A current test version (don't mind the domain name) is located at http://www.mindsoup.org/profiler/. And yes I know the visual design isn't great. I'm a programmer not a designer. It contains some dummy candidates and dummy questions. What we need Statements! I'm looking for at least 30 and preferrably 50 statements about the game for use on the website. These statements need to cover all dimensions of the game equally in order to give all candidates fair representation. Statements also should be carefully formed so they do not show bias. For example "Goonswarm should be disbanded" (shows bias towards or against an ingame entity, and is not a CSM issue) and "CCP should ban more isk farmers" (nobody would disagree with this) are both bad questions. Good examples are "It is more important to fix mining than it is to fix low sec" or "Bombs and warp disruption fields should be usable in low sec". If you have any suggestions for statements, do not hesitate to post them in this thread. Any other feedback is also appreciated. Questions (1) Should candidates be able to edit their answer profile after matching has been enabled? (2) Ranking/scoring mechanic (see post below) Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.15 23:26:00 - [2] reserved Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Aynen	Posted - 2009.10.15 23:31:00 - [3] I would recommend not only adding questions directly about gameplay issues but also about the methods, philosophies and requirements of the candidates themselves. With this I mean questions like 'Should CSM prioritize issues solely based on the number of votes it received on the forum?' or 'Should a proper candidate be part of a 0.0 alliance?'
Mrs Trzzbk Mothership Connection Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.16 00:38:00 - [4] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Statements also should be carefully formed so they do not show bias. For example "Goonswarm should be disbanded" (shows bias towards or against an ingame entity, and is not a CSM issue) STRONGLY AGREE I happen to like that question, mister. _________________________________________________________ it's good to have land Trust me, I'm a Spacebert.
Bunyip Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.10.16 05:13:00 - [5] Thanks for putting this together for the good of the Eve community, Dierdra. The fact that you've already served your two terms shows how much you care for the game, and not for the trip to Iceland, et al. Kudos. "May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
Mynxee Minmatar Hellcats The Bastards.	Posted - 2009.10.16 13:13:00 - [6] This sounds very interesting! Can't wait to see it in action. Here are some proposed statements (obviously biased toward my play style!): The 15-minute GCC for outlaw actions is too long. Boosts to low sec should conform to the intended "personality" of that space, e.g., profit opportunities should come primarily from black market and "organized crime" rather than industrial activities. New players should be given a limited opportunity to experience PvP with each other as part of the tutorial. Unnecessarily cumbersome game mechanics related to contracts, the market, and science/industry should be streamlined or eliminated. Pirating as a profession needs some love from CCP. Bounty Hunting as a profession needs some love from CCP. Bump It! \| My Blog: Life in Low Sec
Laedla Ququve	Posted - 2009.10.16 17:51:00 - [7] This is a very good idea. Gives the CSM election a chance to also be about policy, not just politics or persons. One question: who gets to formulate the statements? Since you are not rerunning for the CSM (but has some inside experience) I trust in your abilities to do this - but perhabs make a thread for others to post suggestions for statements.
Che Biko Polytechnique Gallenteenne	Posted - 2009.10.16 19:02:00 - [8] I don't have any statements ATM. But I can think of an addition to this. I'd like to see candidates say how much experience they have in the various things in eve; PvP, roleplay, mining, etc. I would not vote for a candidate who lacks experience in a field I think needs improvement.
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.16 19:21:00 - [9] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 16/10/2009 19:25:00 Originally by: Che Biko I don't have any statements ATM. But I can think of an addition to this. I'd like to see candidates say how much experience they have in the various things in eve; PvP, roleplay, mining, etc. I would not vote for a candidate who lacks experience in a field I think needs improvement. This wont happen because there is nothing we can do to prevent a candidate from marking himself as being an expert in all areas, even if this is not the case. To quote a certain fictional doctor: everybody lies. The website displays the links to the candidate webpages (on step 3 and step 4), as well as the candidate's description taken from the official eve online candidate page (step 4). This provides extra information on each character. It is the goal of this guide to help people figure out what candidate(s) match their own vision the best. We cannot actually assess the quality of a candidate - this is still up to the individual. Originally by: Laedla Ququve One question: who gets to formulate the statements? Since you are not rerunning for the CSM (but has some inside experience) I trust in your abilities to do this - but perhabs make a thread for others to post suggestions for statements. If you read post #1, you'll see: "If you have any suggestions for statements, do not hesitate to post them in this thread. Any other feedback is also appreciated.". I will also be contacting current and former CSM members, and post statement seeking topics on the special interest forums (mining, crime and punishment, etc). This will be done once I move the website to the new host. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.16 22:27:00 - [10] based on feedback I've made the following changes: - Candidate maintenance page now remembers a candidate's previous choices - Display candidate avatar on step 3 and step 4 - Display candidate real name, corp and alliance on step 4 Also, the website should receive a visual overhaul soon(tm). Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Epitrope The Citadel Manufacturing and Trade Corporation	Posted - 2009.10.16 23:29:00 - [11] Well done, I was just considering doing something along these lines. I have a few suggestions about the site itself: Have candidate profile pages, which would show their answers without requiring the user to answer the questions themselves. (There seems to be a link on the recommendations page, but right now it 404s.) Ask for a link to a public skillsheet site like Chribba's eveboard.com Ask the candidates' character date of birth, to see how long they have been playing Some of the questions I came up with don't fit well with the agree/disagree pattern, but they could perhaps be adapted: In what space do you spend most of your time? Highsec Lowsec 0.0 W-space How do you make most of your money? Trading Building Mining Missioning Pirating Exploration Ratting Other? I'm having trouble coming up with specific statements to suggest, but something along the lines of "what areas of the game need love", including perhaps some of the above, but also the API and POSs.
Bunyip Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.10.17 04:16:00 - [12] Here are some questions I could think of: Now that Sovereignty is being overhauled, what area of the game desperately needs attention next? Market/Trade, Mining, Wardecs, Lowsec, PvP, other Many complain that level 4 missions are too profitable. What should be done to balance this? Move level 4 missions to low-security space; Remove T1 Meta 0 loot from missions; Reduce payout of NPCs; Increase mission difficulty; Other; Nothing I'll update this list as I think of new questions. "May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.17 12:52:00 - [13] please keep in mind that the only answers should be ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. We're not looking at various options. Just statements that people agree or disagree with. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.10.17 20:13:00 - [14] Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 17/10/2009 20:14:58 Great idea, will try to toss a few statements your way. Selection is biased to my platform but i tried to keep the wording neutral: Improving the processes/outcomes of and customer relationship with the GM department is important for CCP's long term success. Station docking areas should be made to more closely match their models Activating a positive remote effect someone (remote repair) should cause a one minute delay on docking/jumping and keep your ship in space for up to fifteen minutes after a disconnect, just like aggression. The strength of sensor dampeners on T2 Gallente EWAR ships is inadequate. Information Warfare links should be rebalanced or redesigned. Target Painters are not frequently used because they are not frequently useful. Targeted ECM mechanics make them overpowered compared to other forms of electronic warfare 0.0 infrastructure should only be vulnerable to large fleets of organized players supported by capital ships. The most enjoyable PVP consists of less than 30 players a side. Market competition is a form of PVP. Indefinite cloaking is an issue that should be addressed. The interface for customizing your overview tabs is easy to understand and use. Suicide ganking should be a viable tactic. Suicide gankers should not receive a full insurance payout. Corporation and Alliance chats should have Messages of the Day similar to other chat channels. Price ceilings and floors undermine EVE's free market. Mercenaries are an important part of the game and the hiring process should be supported by in-game mechanics or tools. CSM Representatives should be held to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary players. --- Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.10.17 22:24:00 - [15] I was going to do another voter information service like I did in the last election, but this is way better than that, so I'll just give you some possible questions. - Amarr are currently overpowered. - Caldari are currently overpowered. - Gallente are currently overpowered. - Minmatar are currently overpowered. - CCP should make the user interface openly moddable by players. - Scamming should be prohibited. - Epic arcs do not currently live up to their promise, and need more work. - Action needs to be taken to remove 0.01 isk order bumping from the game. - There should be explicit in-game support for coalitions of alliances, beyond setting standings. - Tech 1, meta 0 loot should not be dropped by NPCs. - Players should be able to set their own skill levels on the test server. - The CSM does not communicate with players enough at present. - Local chat should be changed to delayed mode immediately. - POS mechanics are fundamentally broken, and need a complete overhaul. - All level 4 missions should be moved to low-security space. - Jammers are too powerful compared to painters, dampeners, and tracking disruptors. Will add more if I think of them.
Laedla Ququve	Posted - 2009.10.18 07:46:00 - [16] Edited by: Laedla Ququve on 18/10/2009 07:47:57 Originally by: Dierdra Vaal If you read post #1, you'll see: "If you have any suggestions for statements, do not hesitate to post them in this thread." I must have been very tired since I managed to miss the obvious :). Anyways a few suggestions: - Kill rights should be tradeable - Player piracy in low sec currently isnt worthwhile
Che Biko Polytechnique Gallenteenne	Posted - 2009.10.18 23:41:00 - [17] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal This wont happen because there is nothing we can do to prevent a candidate from marking himself as being an expert in all areas, even if this is not the case. To quote a certain fictional doctor: everybody lies. Does this mean you've found a way to prevent a candidate from being dishonest about his views on the statements?
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.19 02:33:00 - [18] Originally by: Che Biko Originally by: Dierdra Vaal This wont happen because there is nothing we can do to prevent a candidate from marking himself as being an expert in all areas, even if this is not the case. To quote a certain fictional doctor: everybody lies. Does this mean you've found a way to prevent a candidate from being dishonest about his views on the statements? no but being dishonest about his statements just means people who feel the same way as he does will not match him, while people who feel differently will. So while he will gain matches with different-thinking players, he will lose a (supposedly equal) amount of matches with like minded players. A draw. This system isn't about testing someone's competency in ingame related matters, its just a way to chart their position on the eve-political spectrum and match them with people who feel the same way. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2009.10.19 18:27:00 - [19] Great work. This is really useful, and if used by all candidates, this would greatly help me make a choice. If some candidates are not bothered to use tools like this, or at least post a good resume on the forum, i am probably not going to end up voting for them. Please note that initiative, such as this, is noted as well, and i am more likely to vote for an active CSM candidate that puts effort into his campaign, into clearly stating his views, rather then for someone who does not take this proses seriously. Fix Destroyers
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.19 21:00:00 - [20] update: website moved to the correct host. New address is now http://match.eve-csm.com Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
iP0D	Posted - 2009.10.19 22:34:00 - [21] It's always surprised me that CCP themselves did not come up with a similar system, great work this. You need a few exposure mechanisms though, since the big bulk of voters rarely pokes their heads outside their internal forums, and the eve forum carries limited exposure options in threads outside of the CSM and C&P sections really. If all candidates stick their heads in this webapp and the exposure is slapped in the face (so to speak, regular ISD articles / In Game Advert on login / magic sigs for people to use to show their preference / stuf like that) then perhaps it is possible to make the voting patterns a little bit less like "this is our guy, y'all vote for him, he tells us what to plan for, screw NDA".
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.10.20 13:43:00 - [22] Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 17/10/2009 20:14:58 Great idea, will try to toss a few statements your way. Selection is biased to my platform but i tried to keep the wording neutral: Improving the processes/outcomes of and customer relationship with the GM department is important for CCP's long term success. Station docking areas should be made to more closely match their models Activating a positive remote effect someone (remote repair) should cause a one minute delay on docking/jumping and keep your ship in space for up to fifteen minutes after a disconnect, just like aggression. The strength of sensor dampeners on T2 Gallente EWAR ships is inadequate. Information Warfare links should be rebalanced or redesigned. Target Painters are not frequently used because they are not frequently useful. Targeted ECM mechanics make them overpowered compared to other forms of electronic warfare 0.0 infrastructure should only be vulnerable to large fleets of organized players supported by capital ships. The most enjoyable PVP consists of less than 30 players a side. Market competition is a form of PVP. Indefinite cloaking is an issue that should be addressed. The interface for customizing your overview tabs is easy to understand and use. Suicide ganking should be a viable tactic. Suicide gankers should not receive a full insurance payout. Corporation and Alliance chats should have Messages of the Day similar to other chat channels. Price ceilings and floors undermine EVE's free market. Mercenaries are an important part of the game and the hiring process should be supported by in-game mechanics or tools. CSM Representatives should be held to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary players. Some great questions there! However it will be difficult giving them all a 'rating' to distinguish between different gameplay styles and interests I'm afraid? 169 dead caps caught on video
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.10.20 14:39:00 - [23] As I get it those questions currently listed on the site are there for the test only but some of them are perfect examples of how questions shouldn't be formulated because they can yield completely opposite answers depending on how person will interpret them: - Tech 1, meta 0 loot should not be dropped by NPCs. I'll say "strongly agree" if this is supposed to remove mineral income from loot reprocessing to leave it to the miners but I'll answer "strongly disagree" if all meta 0 drops are supposed to be replaced with higher meta drops as we don't need to increase mission profitability even higher. - Action needs to be taken to remove 0.01 isk order bumping from the game. I'll answer "strongly agree" because "0.01 isk order bumping" looks stupid and if there will be a replacment mechanics to allow buyers to make their choices based on something other than the price but I'll answer "strongly disagree" if this is only aimed against people who are able to "babysit" their orders and supposed to nerf their advantage in front of those who logs in and check their orders once a day. - Suicide gankers should not receive a full insurance payout I'll answer "strongly agree" as it's unbelievable what suicide gankers get insurance but only if condord responce time will get nerfed in same proportion. But I'll answer "strongly disagree" if this is a plain nerf to suicide ganking as I believe what suicide ganking was never as "overpowered" as some people claim. So final questions should be checked and formulated in the way to disallow different interpretations. And some question ideas: 1. Point income sources like R64 moons and static complexes were main conflict drivers and their nerfs were wrong. 2. Core combat model of EVE lacks complexity and too simple. 3. Development of EVE should focus on the expanding of existant activities and not on bringing new ones like plantary interaction, incarna or dust. (I know this is dictated by strategic marketing and quite an utopian dream as this isn't something what can be influenced by CSM or even probably out of control of most devs but I think it will be useful to know if there are candidates who share similar thoughts)
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.10.20 15:55:00 - [24] Gripen, I get your complaints, but no simple system deals with them effectively. We're asking simple questions on complex issues, and that will always have flaws. But everyone knows what is meant by these questions, and so the answers are still relevant. If DV wants to give candidates the option of adding a link at the bottom to explain their answers, that might help. I'd prefer it that way, really. But even if that's not how it works, I think it'll be fine.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.10.20 16:09:00 - [25] Maybe, Herschel, but Gripen's item 1 is a very far reaching impact factor, in terms of 0.0 affinity and perspective. If properly diversified to put (for lacking of a better description) "something that makes you want to scream 'epic'" next to different levels of 0.0 play this is probably the most important question for a 0.0 pvp viewpoint imaginable.
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.20 16:40:00 - [26] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 20/10/2009 16:45:57 Gripen, some good points and some over thinking (in my opinion). I rephrased the 0.01 isk issue to "The minimum trade order increase/decrease should be 2% of the item value.". However, I think you are overthinking the meta 0 question. All it states is to remove the loot, it does not mention replacing it with higher value items or more isk bounties. Judge it purely on what it states. Basically, if you can only agree to a question if you have to say "Agree, but only if..." then you do not agree with the statement as is and should select disagree. We will need to evaluate the questions we add carefully (your 0.01 isk explanation was a good one), but ultimately you have to take them at face value. ADDED: Herschel, I will not add a specific "explanation" link to the candidate data - but I do include the candidate website (as entered on the official eve online candidacy list). Candidates can post their explanation on their own website. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Jonathan Dawnchaser Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.10.20 21:07:00 - [27] Dierdra how are candidates supposed to get passwords? I was going to evemail you, but your bio said to not bother since it would get lost in the volume. Is the best way to just address book you and then wait until we are both on at the same time? Also, I would appreciate it if questions weren't too broad. Some may want bombs to work in high sec but not the disruption spheres or vice versa (with concord reacting appropriately if used on a bystander). But when grouped, a person can only say yes to both or no to both.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente Eleutherian Guard	Posted - 2009.10.20 23:18:00 - [28] More questions: * Level 4 missions are not challenging enough, Level 5 missions should be available in Highsec. * CSM candidates should be able to get re-elected indefinately, instead of being bound by a two-term restriction. * POSes in Wormhole Space should be exposed to more danger. * There should be more varied, dynamic PVE content instead of just the static missions and exploration sites we have now. * CCP is not doing enough to punish macroers. * Players banned from the forums should not be able to run for CSM, and get booted if this happens during their term. ---
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 00:39:00 - [29] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 21/10/2009 00:42:30 Elementary question needs to be added to survey: Do you think EVE is dying? EDIT: I run the survey and it seems I can't get the list of other candidates score offered at step 4. Are you the only CSM candidate in database so far?
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2009.10.21 01:12:00 - [30] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 21/10/2009 01:12:44 Originally by: Jonathan Dawnchaser Dierdra how are candidates supposed to get passwords? I was going to evemail you, but your bio said to not bother since it would get lost in the volume. We will initially evemail the password to all candidates Originally by: Caldor Mansi EDIT: I run the survey and it seems I can't get the list of other candidates score offered at step 4. Are you the only CSM candidate in database so far? I was. I added 2 more dummy candidates. However, the website is still just in testing so right now everything you see is purely for demonstration only. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
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
Takseen	Posted - 2009.11.22 18:57:00 - [61] Thanks for the site, found it very helpful in deciphering the candidate's positions.
Nektor Toff	Posted - 2009.11.23 09:45:00 - [62] Just used this system, worked very good!
Solo Player	Posted - 2009.11.25 19:22:00 - [63] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal 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 :) Thanks. Looking forward to it :)
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.30 08:09:00 - [64] Just decided to say (don't ask why i haven't said that earlier because i don't know) I used that vote match thing after i voted for candidate i have chosen... (I didn't need it to choose candidate) Actually vote match best result was that candidate who i voted for... Maybe it really works... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.