Alt alliances, been there; done that.

It is, essentially, a way to get a weighted sample of the EVE population. If you just want lots of viewpoints you can post on the forums, and you'll get all of them. However by voting, we know which of these have real heft behind them and which are just being sockpuppeted into relevance.

Trebor is trying to bias it in favor of his preferred players, so they seem to be much more relevant than they actually are. He's not interested in a fair sample: he's deliberately trying to bias it. All viewpoints aren't equally relevant: that's the great thing about the CSM. We can seperate out the platforms people care about - that of, say, The Mittani - from those people do not, the perennial losers.

STV allows those perennial losers, to the extent they have legitimate support but poor organization, to get that representation. Fixing that is laudible. But what Trebor's trying to do isn't get better representation, it's to try and disenfranchise the voters he doesn't like so the representation is more to his liking.

However by voting, we know which of these have real heft behind them and which are just being sockpuppeted into relevance.

Trebor is trying to bias it in favor of his preferred players, so they seem to be much more relevant than they actually are. He's not interested in a fair sample: he's deliberately trying to bias it.

Trebor clearly implied his proposal was that of the CSM (as I pointed out when I showed him doing it three times in two sentences). Could you confirm that's not the case?

Perhaps you should explain to us what is broken about the current system? And why The Mittani's votes are any less valid than your own votes or Trebor's votes? Hell, Kelduum's votes are valid, even if he turned out to be a useless teet.

In the interest of neutrality, can I request that we stop referring to the CSM's proposed electoral system as "STV"? It isn't STV and has just been named as such to hide the fact that there's some additional clauses which haven't been proposed or reviewed in the real world.
As for my opinion on the electoral system: If you want to replace the current partial block voting with a different system, choose one that has seen public scrutiny, preferably one that's also been widely debated in literature, rather than making a system up on the spot that has the express intention of disenfranchising voters ("Reduce ... the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs"), and then pretending it's basically a widely studied system.

Depends, I mean Mittani already said he wouldn't cover or comment on anything the CSM said or did to remain professional, so no themittani.com article on it. However, it will remain at the top of the park for quite a while so long as we keep discussing it, and it will come to the attention of people that just browse for evenews anywhere. I wouldn't count on Riverini covering this on "EN-24", so we can't count on that exposure either. Ah well, at least we were able to let our displeasure with the proposal known.

There are rules about that though...

I'm assuming they will at least have to exlpain how they want this system to work. That thread will also go for a fair few pages if they decide to go with this model. So in short, there will be exposure, even if we have to figure out creative ways to make it happen. The problem will of course be the TL:DR groups, but meh I assume most of them wont vote anyways.

Why is disenfranchising a large portion of ANY organized voting bloc, whether it's Eve-U, the CFC, the HBC, or some future, not-yet-created bloc, okay. Answer that, it's the question you've been dancing around the whole ****ing thread.

it's perfectly fine because our chosen candidate still gets in right?

I mean sure it makes only three fifths of the votes for the top guy relevant in this "candidate designated STV" but that's ~democracy~

I think everyone is forgetting two important variables, CFC and HBC bad at Eve.. good at politics.

It's not STV. Stop calling it STV.

I have a question for Trebor et. al:

Why do you feel the need to focus on reforming the election process and how is your point about the BIG BAD VOTING BLOCKS valid?

Changes for the sake of changes would be the innocent assumption here but I can see how that is not the case.

i like this guy he gets what the voters want.

also as i said before i think the csm has to be draged kicking and screaming into everyones mind that playes the game to get a true majority of the game voting.

however everyone should pick 3 candidates and the votes should never be in the candidates hands as that promots fixing if none of the 3 voted for guys make it the voter vote dosent get counted.

You make absolutely no sense.

Everyone should pick 3 candidates, but the candidates should be unable to tell people who to vote for, and none of the 3 guys people vote for doesn't get counted?

I've literally no idea what the **** you're trying to get at, I can't deparse it.

It's reasonable to assume that someone who's managed to avoid all exposure to the CSM process, yet who is forced to vote, will pick candidates at random. This means that it'll artificially inflate the perceived number of people who voted for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate, while having no effect on the winner or their absolute margin of victory.

So because you aren't spoon-fed something, you think the people that actually pay attention should have their votes marginalized? If you are too lazy to make ISK, should the rest of us pay for you?

Your entire argument seems to me that you can't be arsed to pay attention, and you are upset that your voice isnt heard. I have news for you: The system is working as it should.

This system removes the amount of votes the candidate receives from the pool of votes, not the quota. The quota could be 10 votes and a candidate receives 20. The 20 in this case is subtracted from the pool leaving 10 votes wasted. This disenfranchises voters by throwing their votes away.

All this has pretty much been stated in the thread but I just thought I'd put it all in one easy to read post so its a bit more understandable why this is so outrageous.

Nobody really cares about your attitude when your actions, specifically the way you state things in your posts, are the way they are. You have not attempted to actually engage, you have simply been dismissive and patronizing in a belated attempt to control the narrative.

I can see why someone this bad at politics would feel the need to undermine democracy.

You said you're giving 2 seats to nullsec, 2 to low, 2 to high and 2 to WH. If you pigeonhole 20000 votes from the nullsec blocs into two seats, while 3000 votes from WH also get two seats, how do the 20000 votes not count for less than the 3000?

I like how the only thing CSM7 has done and will do is try to poorly devise a way to keep mittens off the CSM

What makes hisec need 2 representatives? What issues do they need to work on?

Mining and ganking is certianly 2 issues that would be good ones however my idea for mining and ganking may not neceseraly help or buff hi it may help people get into low but i wouldnt neceseraly help hi

and why you say that ? it depends what people do with what im thinking if ccp accepted it. it could also potentialy open up other carrer paths for hi sec player perside there may well be certian hi sec players that would like to get into null sec but cant due to certian barriers.

There is no tinfoil here: every charge leveled at this plan has been proven to be accurate and been admitted by Trebor. Trebor has openly admitted this is not aimed at a more fair system: it is aimed at trying to make the CSM more to his liking because he dislikes the results of the votes. To do this, the CSM proposes that certain votes be thrown out, to reduce the input of undesired groups.

To be clear, I've never suggested it can't be gamed. It can be and if they introduce it I'm sure it will be just to prove it can be.

My only point is that the system they are suggesting to make the CSM more representative of playing styles rather than player numbers voting for people is far more complicated than simply dividing the seats between those styles and asking people to stand for those positions.

I suspect most people know why the CSM isn't suggesting that.

I am supporting this proposal because I would like to see the next CSM composed entirely of GSF, CFC, and TEST bloc candidates, with 1 single empire / unaligned candidate whom all the other votes eventually collected to. Hopefully that last member will be Trebor himself; that way the CSM has a kind of mascot or jester available to mock. This will helpful to relieve tensions and improve workplace bonding, plus remind them of the stupidity of empire.

In other words, ahahahahahahahahahahaha look how dumb you are.

You seem to think that we're posting here as an alliance and not as individuals. Would you prefer it if I tabbed into Jabber and sent out a coalition-wide broadcast about this trainwreck of a thread? ;p

The jury's still out on that one.

Gee I don't know that might have a lot to do with the wording of the OP which explicitly states:

If you think that saying "we want to nerf teh goonNOOB vote" fairly explicitly isn't going to draw our attention, I don't know what to say.

That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence.

That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence.

The core of the problem is that they seem to believe that members of "huge voting blocs" do not have free will and are somehow coerced into voting for a chosen candidate, despite the fact that the CSM vote is through a secret ballot.

Who gets to decide how many seats we "deserve"? Shouldn't that be the entire point of having a vote? Otherwise CCP could just appoint people to the CSM.

i see a hugh problem with this that may or may not see nothing but null sec players(such as goons test ect) that would get through the prelims on the 2 tier voteing bit

Because given the context of Trebor's OP - "how do we lower the voting power of all those people who didn't vote for us?" - hopes of carrying out a debate in good faith are left in serious doubt. Frankly after Trebor's suggestion/attempts to subvert democracy, we don't really trust you people to represent our interests in good faith. With such ill-intent revealed, many feel it's best not to let you anywhere near the election process in any capacity. Please stay away from tampering with it.

Trebor: "Hey howabout we round up all you undesireables into boxcars and railroad you off into a camp somewhere"
Players: "Howabout no, being sent to a camp sounds bad."
Seleene: "Crazy conspiracy idiots tinfoiling about how we want to 'send them into a camp somewhere. Sheesh. Now let's get into those boxcars!"
Player: "But Trebor said it. RIght here."
Seleene: *leaves thread, goes on to bungle some other eve related thing*
Aleksander: "Okay okay, maybe we don't have to send people off in boxcars off somewhere, but what's wrong with having a little open debate about increasing public transportation over rail? Right?"

Holy ****. Contact themittani.com and EN24 ... some people don't win elections.

Are we in grade five now, where everyone must be a winner?

It was talked about as "a problem" at the CSM meet in may/june. The CSM came up with this abortion of a suggestion, birthed out of the abortion of a set of minimum requirements, 3 months later.

You've spent 3 months on this.

I suggested that last year. As was shown to me, that is exceptionally game-able. Seleene and Two Step could kiss any future CSM goodbye were that implemented.

What does The Mittani's resignation have to do with the voting process? Nothing at all, in case you were wondering.

Don't drop oranges into the apple cart, please.

I don't think all the trolling in the thread by the CSM is helping their case.

How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced?

Ok, here's a question! When you guys came up with this "**** goons" voting system, did you do it because you thought it'd rouse the totally-real-and-not-at-all-made-up Silent Pubbie Majority into voting for you, or did you do it because you really just have a problem with goon candidates in and of themselves?

I have to say, I admire how Darius III's commitment to not contributing to the CSM at all is so thorough he's even passing up an opportunity to troll goons.

Perhaps the matter of a CSM Candidate Replacement in the event of an elected member's removal could be its own separate thread, that way productive discussion could be had on a legitimate issue without it getting mired in this attempt to meddle with the electoral process. It would come across as an earnest attempt at dialogue instead of being inserted as a distraction from a larger issue. If you want to make the thread on it, I'd be happy to talk about it (and probably support it)

You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him!

Holy ****, someone page Issler Dainze and Darius III to this thread, they are now the CSM members I have the most respect for and I really want to hear what they have to say. The rest of you deflecting BS artists can get out.

If he starts answering questions now, he'll probably get asked some really annoying question about the relation between the Dominion sov system and full-on learning disabilities and it'd all just go downhill from there.

Normally just dropping out of discussion like this would have consequences, but hey, nobody but the blocs care about the CSM at all anyway, and if he gets his way, there's even less they'll be able to do about it!

Just because their current idea is crap, doesn't mean you should make stuff up about their previous work. The UI and FW both had their issue brought up before they went live. If anything, it shows more that CCP really doesn't think the current CSM is in touch enough to even know when something is totally ****ed up.

"oh god questions! quick, ~back to tweeting~"

Remove the **** goons requirement from the "minimum requirements", and we can begin to have a chat about what the system should be.

Aren't you supposed to be working on fixing the game, instead of figuring out how to hold on to power?

Let's review what CSM 7 has been spending their time on according to their own notes, shall we?

1 - CSM: Introduction and White Paper discussions
2 - What is a Stakeholder?
=========
Total: 40 pages


Industry and mining
Starbase rework
EVE/Dust link
EVE UI
Null sec
Ship balance and iteration
Content
========
Total: 35 pages

Like you wouldn't believe.

I'm being 100% serious when I say I'd listen to DBRB for days on end rather than even attempt to read the summit minutes again.

Do you guys think if you pass some kind of petulance high water mark that your ideas will cease to be bad or something?

you're right there is basically nothing wrong with the game that is worth taking time away from serious issues like "how can we effectively implement a no mittanis rule"

As the CSM 7 summit notes showed, the problems with industry & science, the UI, ship balancing and nullsec combined (35 pages) all took a backseat to the real pressing problem - lowering the voting power of groups who didn't vote for them (40 pages).

1. Overview standings bug: when titan bridging many people at once, often- many pilots will appear to have no standings towards their fleet members and be generically 'neutral'. This gets people shot and killed.

2. Frequent (20-30) disconnects and crashes when moving through gates or titan bridges in groups ranging from 10-256.

3. Module delay: somewhere on these forums someone else brought this up and frapsed it- I can lock a target, be in range, activate my warp scrambler, and he still warps away because my activation cycle delays, and even expresses the delay by starting off at 3/4 cycle rather than 99%.

4. Industry in null sec. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to do any industry in null sec compared to high sec. Ever. Everything is imported except basic frigate hulls. Unless things change.

5. Ghosts on overview. I will have entities linger on my overview for a good 5-7 seconds after they have left the system, jumped a gate, bridged out, warped away, etc.

6. Sometimes the overview gets really bugged and the 'ghosts' stay forever! I've had bombs linger on my overview and appear to be moving for 3,000+km.

I'll write up more as they come to me

Hey Alekseyev - if you guys truly think you're doing a really good job, where does the need to disenfranchise voting blocs come from?

So there is nothing broken about farming alts raking in 10-15b isk a day in Loyalty points until 'Winter'.

Awesome.

I can totally see your point for changing the voting scheme now, no- wait. I can't.

suply and demand

things take time to program ccp will most likely be worklng on it remmeber ccp also have dust they would like to start getting active on the live server on the winter expansion also so they are actualy really quite busy there prolly still trying to work out the best way to solve it. persides if its really a big problem and legal why the hell aint goons doing it ?

lol remember when the Amarr FW team complained to Hans, "the FW rep" about Amarr LP payouts being totally ****** for some mysterious reason and his response was "u just bitter that us minnies are stomping u bitches"?

that's an alekseyev karrde csm7 success story

then if your takeing advantage of this dont complain and get more done before the fix come to stomp it out instead of argueing on the forums and being unproductive

Literally every issue on that list is several orders of magnitude more important than a new voting system.

This **** GOONS VOTING SYSTEM is proposing to marginalize him for having the audacity to be a part of an organized group of players already. Good work doing it for him, intrepid CSM 7 member!

[quote=Alekseyev Karrde]You almost as bad at profiling as your are at counter-argument.

I'm certainly not mad about my FW Alt Farm, nor is it my 'priority' in game- it's just too good to pass up. Being 'space-rich' in the past was talked about in inner circles with personal tech moons being the highest metric to measure space wealth, now its faction warfare alts, that if used properly and efficiently, can make a tech moons monthly income in 2 days in one of the two factions that continuously spike T5 warzone control.

Continue speaking on matters that arn't as important as a voting reform.

Excuse us, while we all laugh at your ignorance and stupidity.

Maybe you should be spending your forum time using your IRL Political and Social skills to calmly discuss and win people over to your way of thinking rather than playing trollesque forum games with people who disagree with you.

You are a CSM. You are supposed to represent us. Act like it.

the 'downfall' parody video is practically writing itself at this point

What? Don't dress up your passe trolling catchphrases, chiding of other players and dodging of questions as "protecting the voting power of players" because that's really just a terrible attempt to insult our intelligence.

TL;DR Leave the system alone. Worry about problems that actually are in game and don't be so worried about staying in your CSM seat. Love him or hate him, Mittani actually worked to make nullsec better.

What really needs to be written at this point?

Aleks: You were not elected simply to raise issues with CCP and hope for eventual fixes. You are tasked with getting timely fixes to pressing issues, and CSM7 has NOT delivered on that front. On top of that, the majority of the communication that has come from CSM7 to the player base has been about the CSM as an entity, not about what you guys have actually gotten done. Do you seriously not understand why players are dissatisfied with your (as a group) performance?

"We don't like the public's opinion, so we're going to go full steam ahead, anyway."

More like "The Public said we were incompetent, I have no argument; let's **** it up for the next CSM so we won't be so bad".

Are you trying to paint your and your fellow CSMs' posts as conceding the point that the Proposal is **** Goons and also Crappy? Because all it looks like you're doing is defending it.

Pretty sure this is exactly what CCP said internally every time they decided to push a change thru that ended in a public apology.

Translation: There's actually people active in these forums that are smart enough to see through our transparent bullshit, so we're just going to quit and force whatever through anyway.

The underlying problem being, they can muster the :effort: to push a ****** voting reform through; but can't be asked to even think about bothering with literally anything of any importance (bugs, imbalances, broken mechanics, etc). Even after asking for examples, still didn't see the error in their judgment.

It's a sad day for anyone that voted for Trebor or Aleks.

the discussion was there, it just didn't deliver the results you hoped for

Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.

I'm waiting for the CSM's ASB to run out of boosters. They'll stop being in defense mode and maybe start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over mobilizing the playerbase to vote.

CSM6 was also nullsec's response to CSM5's "**** nullsec" attitude. CSM7 was a return to a more balanced CSM - only without the mittani at the helm it looks like it's a CSM which is going full steam ahead to derpville.

Would this system fit within the minimum requirements as laid out by "The CSM" to make sure goons are properly ****** come election day?

How many people's votes were you planning to throw out with the bathwater just to "make sure the ebul goonies can't be organized"?

So instead you guys decide to bring forth a system to basically try to **** goons, because we're "many" and "well-organized".

And, when we tell you to remove the **** goons requirements, you basically tell us to go **** ourselves, and you have the audacity to complain that we're not being productive?

Didn't want that CSM anyway, amirite?

And here we sit at page 40, with no real progress beyond being accused of "tinfoil" for believing the exact words in the opening post about the limitations of this discussion.

that is still a good result to deal with the "problem" then

This discussion has been posted on a forum which is usually dead and unread except for the month or so of election season every year, hence the usual FuckGoons sockpuppets aren't really present.

The more cynically minded may infer that this discussion was deliberately presented on a dead forum to slip it under the radar with minimal discussion before CCP rubber-stamping.

If I were a ruling member of the CFC, I'd actually be pushing to get a carebear representative on the CSM, rather than 3 CFC members. I'd want the carebear issues to be heard and properly addressed by CCP, so that they keep on playing and provide me and mine with more targets to shoot and tears to harvest, whenever we want to run amok through high sec.

On a lighter note, has anyone seen the old Richard Pryor version of "Brewster's Millions"?

How about adding "None of the Above" to the candidate list?

At the very least, it would be interesting to see how many players *actively* vote against all of the candidates, as compared to how many players just don't vote at all.

I don't care about all this crap I am going to go all McCarthy on all yo asses and crucify (politically) every single one of you barbie loving deviants.

As opposed to the current... oh nevermind...

The real reason that this stupid trainwreck of a thread even came up is because highsec is so smothered in cotton wool and bubble-wrap that the bulk of the residents there have no reason to lift a finger to improve their place in-game, and so aren't motivated to vote, let alone organise to determine the most effective candidate to articulate their non-existent concerns.

Highsec, deep down, knows how good they have it compared to the rest of the game, and so the only real 'platform' that its' occupants could rally around would be "CCP, please leave everything exactly the same as it is now forever and ever".

Personally I think anybody who did cast a vote for Xenuria should have their accounts deleted and IP's perma banned but that just me