We've had some brief internal discussion about it, but the bottom line is that it is inappropriate for the CSM to decide for itself, what the next election rules should be. It would be unethical for us to have some month-long pow wow, decide what we think is best, and than try to push that agenda on the public.

This is exactly why Trebor put out an idea that he's put some time and energy into, as a starting point for discussion, not a formal proposal we want double checked before we push it on CCP. As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread.

They're probably in their lil Skype channel talking about how to approach this trainwreck of a thread

We're totally happy with the CSM trying to get people to vote. What we aren't happy about is that they're instead trying to arbitrarily change the electoral system with the stated intent to **** us over.


Bullshit. There is real discussion on the matter. Just because we don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean there isn't.

I see. So this isn't about disenfranchising bloc voters at all, even though that was the explicitly stated intention of the changes. And you're basing that on "well the other candidates probably don't like D3".


I agree. So get more people to vote instead of changing the rules arbitrarily, then calling the new electoral system something it isn't to trick people into believing it's a widely deployed system.

Edit: Oh and also I'm against changing electoral rules on the basis of "I don't like guy X and bloc Y has too much influence too", but that should be obvious by now.

from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/09/csm7-voting-reform.html
One avenue for the CSM: maybe trying to convince CCP to make voting an in-client component. Perhaps at login, an account is immediately presented with a modal window that describes the CSM and the voting process, and presents three buttons: "I wish to vote now", "I wish to abstain", "I will vote later." Until the account has voted or abstained, they are presented with this window every time they login to the client. If they wish to vote, they are presented with a list of the candidates and short candidate-written summary of their platform. Simple as that. I bet that sort of in-client interface would increase voter turnout at least three-fold. (I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is the sort of thing that should be the focus of the CSM with regards voting, making it easier and more convenient for people to vote.)

Ranked voting methods

In a typical ranked ballot, a voter is instructed to place the candidates in order of preference.

Also known as preferential voting methods, these methods allow each voter to rank the candidates in order of preference. Often it is not necessary to rank all the candidates: unranked candidates are usually considered to be tied for last place. Some ranked ballot methods also allow voters to give multiple candidates the same ranking.

The most common ranked voting method is instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as the "alternative vote" or simply preferential voting, which uses voters' preferences to simulate an elimination runoff election without multiple voting events. As the votes are tallied, the option with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. In successive rounds of counting, the next preferred choice still available from each eliminated ballot is transferred to candidates not yet eliminated. The least preferred option is eliminated in each round of counting until there is a majority winner, with all ballots being considered in every round of counting.

The Borda count is a simple ranked voting method in which the options receive points based on their position on each ballot. A class of similar methods is called positional voting systems.

Other ranked methods include Coombs' method, Supplementary voting, Bucklin voting, and Condorcet method.

Condorcet methods, or pairwise methods, are a class of ranked voting methods that meet the Condorcet criterion. These methods compare every option pairwise with every other option, one at a time, and an option that defeats every other option is the Condorcet winner sometimes called the pairwise champion. An option defeats another option if more voters rank the first option higher on their ballot than the number of voters who rank the second option higher. This is called a pairwise defeat.

These methods are often referred to collectively as Condorcet methods because the Condorcet criterion ensures that they all give the same result in most elections, where there exists a Condorcet winner. The differences between Condorcet methods occur in situations where no option is undefeated, implying that there exists a cycle of options that defeat one another, called a Condorcet paradox or Smith set. Considering a generic Condorcet method to be an abstract method that does not resolve these cycles, specific versions of Condorcet that select winners even when no Condorcet winner exists are called Condorcet completion methods.

A simple version of Condorcet is Minimax: if no option is undefeated, the option that is defeated by the fewest votes in its worst defeat wins. Another simple method is Copeland's method, in which the winner is the option that wins the most pairwise contests, as in many round-robin tournaments.

As long as we're throwing out ideas to be stepped on, flamed and trolled, here's my proposed system:

1. CSM seats are allocated to specific areas and issues in the game. One seat each is allocated to high-sec, low-sec, null-sec and WH space. Three seats are allocated to the highest-priority issues which CCP plans to deal with in the upcoming releases - this might be a POS issues seat, a frigate rebalancing seat, etc. CCP can opt to add more issue-specific CSM seats, as they choose.

2. Candidates are allowed to run for a single seat only.

3. Each player receives three "for" votes, which he/she can use to support a candidate running in the three areas/issues of greatest importance to the player.

4. Each player receives one "against" vote, which he/she can use to vote against a single candidate, running for any seat.

I believe that this system might do a better job of presenting CCP with a wider representation of the player base, as well as provide specific representation & feedback for the most immediate upcoming changes and/or features.

The purpose of (4), ofc, is to allow the diffuse majority to dilute the power of the minority voting blocks.

Under my proposed system, any minority block spamming the candidate list in an attempt to game the election would encourage the larger diffuse majority to apply its "negative" vote against their candidate(s), reducing their chances of getting elected for specific seats.

Whereas the positive value of the "for" votes does requires a coordinated effort in order to get a specific candidate elected, the negative value of the "against" votes requires no coordination in order to lower the chances of a generally undesirable candidate from being elected.

For example, if Weaselior decided to run for an issues seat, specific to representing proposed changes to mining ships making them even less gankable, he might arrange to get all of the "for" votes from the CFC, yet it is likely that his chances of winning the seat would be greatly diluted by the "against" votes from all of the victims of Hulkageddon and the Ice Interdiction, even if they did not actively organize an effort to vote against him.

Note: For the record, I do respect Weaselior and Co. I think they make mining more... interesting... for everyone. :)

The US is a perfect example of this, wherein lobby and special interest groups exert disproportionally large power given the relatively small number of people they actually represent. As an additional bit of hard cold fact, neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties actually represent a majority of the US citizens of voting age - both major parties are also actually minority groups. Most Americans choose not to exercise their right to vote, because they don't care for either of the two major political parties and don't see that their single vote can do anything to dilute the effective power of these minority voting blocks.

Also.. if we are minorities are us, why do we even need a change to the system? I mean if we're the minorities then what the **** would it matter that the current system is as it is? It wouldn't, because we the "minorities" wouldn't have any say in who makes the CSM would we? Interesting... tell me more about how we're the minority.

Yet again I'm forced to come back and re-type the same thing. The problem is not the system, it is the voters. If you CBF to give a damn about the goings on and the meta of Eve then we don't need to hold your hand all the way to the voting platform. Candidates make announcements if you want votes. CCP, keep using splash screens for weeks leading up to CSM elections. Then finally post a stickied :HOW TO VOTE FOR DUMMIES: thread in the Eve O general forum and all the subsequent relevant forums.

If this doesn't fix the problem then well I suppose there's an addage for that, "You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If the horse doesn't want to drink.. let the bastard thirst to death.

GǪthe problem is still the voters not caring, as shown by this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GǣcontrolledGǥ and that it has nothing but nullsec representation, when neither is true and who can't be bothered to find out what it actually is.

GǪand yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities.

This is why I liked the summer minutes where it was full disclosure except what was covered by NDA. It gave you an idea of what if anything was being discussed. Strange though that in no point during the summer minutes did the voting for CSM come up, and yet it's been a constant concern. I don't pretend to know though, I'm still just another newbie who likes the meta.

Trebor expressed his desire for changes in the way the CSM is elected and operates. In his opinion, both the role of the CSM and the required skillset of effective CSM members has changed over the last few years, and the political environment of the elections has also significantly evolved.
Seleene listed a number of topics CSM members had raised during summit prep (CSM made extensive use of EtherPad for this note-taking): voting systems, election of officers, summit changes, required duties and the future of the Assembly Hall.
CCP Diagoras asked if CSM had done similar prep for all the meetings. Short answer: "yes".
Trebor trolled CCP Diagoras: Just because he does not see the CSM working doesn't mean they aren't actually working. And come to think of it, CSM never sees him working...
Election Reform: Seleene mocked the "like" system. CCP Xhagen characterized it as "easily exploitable". Trebor asked CCP Xhagen if he remembered what advice CSM gave him about this before the elections. Seleene noted however that the number of candidates significantly declined vs. the CSM 6 election. Two step questioned if this was relevant: only two people didn't get enough likes.
CCP Xhagen noted that a side-effect was that you had to go to the effort of putting up a forum thread.
Two step stated that unless the voting system was changed to reduce the number of wasted votes (undervotes), the best alternative was something that would reduce the number of candidates. He suggested a primary system might be worth looking at.

An irrelevant number of them, since the question was one of representation.

Oh yes you did. Specifically, you said GÇ£So yes I am in favour of thisGÇ¥ (referring to CD-not-at-all-STV). So you most certainly are approving a system that favours the minority.

Actually I DID read the last minutes and even parodied them on twitter because they were completely the worst thing that I've ever read, bar none.

But still, "the CSM" does not mean "the Mittani" and trying to attribute it as such is hilariously dumb.

EDIT: Also, calling it "STV" is completely disingenuous as it's not like actual STV at all and actually disenfranchises voters.

So, tell me, why shouldn't this thread be destickied, locked, and completely ignored, and you guys go back to doing what you're supposed to do, i.e. push CCP into fixing the game?

Yes? What part are you having problem with? Is it the part about representation that is tripping you up again? The part for which the space-home of players is utterly irrelevant?

Why is discarding majority votes good but discarding minority votes bad? In fact, let's just go for the big one:
Why is voting reform needed?

Okay, then. Let's change the system into the FuckMittani/goons/test system, which is easier gameable than today's system, so when the entire CSM is literally nothing but CFC/Test, we can say "we told you so".

Because that works out so well
http://i.imgur.com/wzkXy.jpg

Thread still useless, CSM still useless.

I suspect that most of the anti-Goon sentiment is actually invented and generated by the Goons themselves. And I would not be surprised if most of the anti-Goon forum posters turned out to be Goon alts.

Is this all just another clever scheme of TheMittani? Goon membership sure doesn't seem to be suffering - I suspect that the number of applications have gone way up, ever since the so-called anti-Goon sentiment started.

But, then, I do enjoy conspiracy theories....

There really isn't much of an anti-goon crowd except for a handful of NPC corp alts and Frying Doom. Who probably needs to be shown to room 101.

The dismissive way that you refer to 'minorities' and the indifference you show towards disenfranchising them is very telling.

Disfranchisement

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable requirements.

First-past-the-post voting systems

Under the first past the post (FPTP) single member voting system the highest polling candidate is elected as opposed to a candidate that has an absolute majority of votes. A candidate can be elected with less than 50% support with the majority of voters remaining unrepresented. As an example, if three candidates receive 40%, 32% and 28% of the vote respectively, the candidate with 40% of the vote is elected whilst 60% of the electorate go unrepresented. FPTP is used in most jurisdictions in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

It's almost as if you've no idea how much the proposed system could be gamed by us to **** them right back.

Much like CCP's latest incarnation of game mechanics, so too are CSM's idea of voting mechanics hilariously gameable. But don't let that stop you from believing that we're bitching about the voting mechanic because of what it does, instead of what it intended to do.

Isn't this what voting is about: winners and losers?

It's an election, it's a confrontation between candidates - some will win and some will lose. Any system you create where everyone is a winner is going to be absurd.

If the CSM want every vote to carry weight maybe they should run referenda?

Oh good to see we are up to the disenfranchising catch phrase.

you game this by sending in so many reps that they all will be knocked up but instead of splitting the votes over 3 guys the others could orginize this so that 5 or more got through. also a fee to run is absalutely a bad idea as hi sec candidates may not have this thus again it all being dominated by people such as goons

So form a party. Get people to vote for you. When your party gains power through coordinated voting, you'll attract rival parties.

The CSM is an advisory body. It's job is to provide a sanity check on CCP's ideas (something this CSM has failed miserably at). It is not a parliamentary body.

The sending/recieving issues hemi-demi-parlimentary process was dropped like 4 CSMs ago.

What's there to govern?

Difference being that previous CSMs were not consulted or ignored on the big blunders of their tenancy. This CSM endorsed them (wardecs, FW plexing).

Golly I can't wait to get my vote invalidated because I haven't kept the same IP over the course of a five day period.

Frankly if I have 18 accounts I should have 18 shares in the direction of Eve. Your stupid assumption that a bunch of people reregged to vote is just silly. Did it happen on a small basis? I'm sure. Did it happen enough to swing any elections? I kinda doubt it.

I find it amusing that you guys can't wrap your mind around the fact that a person like The Mittani could rake in 10,000 votes honestly so you have to make up conspiracies. Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

I hear tinfoils are back in fashion. Get your tinfoils here, $5 a pop. Only the finest quality tinfoil used! Guaranteed to block out the meanest of government mind control/reading rays!

Tell me about these ... statistics.


I've no idea what you're trying to get at here.


Nor here.

Because much like US voter fraud ... it's not actually a problem.

So you're concerned with how people might be voting with more than 1 account, yet don't feel like coughing up any statistics backing up this concern as a major problem?

Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.

I encourage everyone else to quote this on every reply he makes to this thread until he does that.

I'm going to just assume that unless Frying Doom brings some actual, specific, numbers to the table and tells us exactly what it is he sees in them, that he's trying to say that I, personally, paid for each and every vote Mittens got, and that this is "the problem" of which he speaks.

That's now how this works. You made a claim, it's on you to prove it. This should really be easy since, as you've said, you posted the data in other places apparently. Go find it and repost it!

Until then

So you're saying I paid CCP 300k USD just to try to get mittens to win?

You have to prove that (a) a loophole exists and (b) it's being exploited before you can make this claim. Lucky for you, there's one way to do that!

So just exactly what are you accusing me of, then?

Dammit, I thought we were making progress. Oh well.

So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"?

So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"?

I'm going to just take that as "I don't know how much it is exploited, if at all, but I'm going to arrghlebarrghle about it anyways".

When I say "cite them", I don't just mean show the numbers. I mean point out how these numbers prove your claim to be true.

I've seen them, I know them. I want to know what numbers you're using and how you read them. This is a pretty simple request and we're going on 3 pages of you doing whatever you can to avoid doing that. This is all made even shadier by you saying that you've cited these "somewhere else", and yet refuse to find them (you'd know best where you said them, as opposed to us) and even just simply c/p or link.

So yeah, consider this put up or shut up time. Cite or **** off forever and stop poisoning the discourse of this forum with your babbling nonsense.



He doesn't even know if anything is being exploited at all, or that an exploit even exists in the first place.

He doesn't even know if anything is being exploited at all, or that an exploit even exists in the first place.

The lowest bracket measured in ANY of those numbers is between 30-249 days, aka between 1 and 8 1/3 months. Unless you've got a more accurate breakdown of the votes within that category, you've still got nothing.

I could also point out that the percentage of this "young" category has dropped over 7% since CSM 5 (the last time the percentage of young accts was over 20%), but you'll probably just dismiss all of this as "defending the loophole", all the while dodging explaining your own interpretation (because it's bulllshit).

And yet the results of every election from CSM 1-5 have been drastically different. 6 and 7 weren't even all that similar, save for Mittani winning the chair both times (the first time anyone from Goonswarm or Goonwaffe had ever won the chair, and only the 3rd time that a Goon candidate had even broken the top 3, by the way), and they had the lowest young account turnout percentage by far.

You going to take another swing at this or...?

What do you put into the phrase "a null sec joke"?

And yet, 5-6-7 all had quite drastic shifts in who actually won anything! Null was nonexistant in 5, dominant in 6 and 7's diverse as hell (and will be even more diverse now that the DRF doesn't exist and HBC is A Thing). Also, as I said before, until you've got a breakdown of that 30-249 day category, you've got no idea how old those accounts actually were.

The only thing you've proven so far is that you can't read stats for ****.

You didn't explain what you put in the phrase "a null sec joke".

Also, you missed a spot:


No not goonswarm specifically no, I think it is a problem all over the voting spectrum, except maybe TEST as they got sold off


Which part of this is a problem, and how do you solve it?

Could it be that the publicity around the CSM vote gets more new players interested in Eve and the drop-off rates in terms of subscriptions reflect the usual drop-off in players after 1 month?

He doesn't even have any numbers of drop-offs of voting accounts, or how long accounts were subbed before they voted. He just talks like he does.

That's right, keep hanging yourself with that rope. It's all a conspiracy, just one whose perpetrators shift year to year to what is apparently an exacting standard. Save us from ourselves, Frying Doom!

Or you know, **** off and stop poisoning this forum with your goddamn nonsense.



And also tells anyone under 3 months old (or god forbid anyone who resubbed and hasn't been around 90 days yet) that they have no part to play, all because Frying Doom decided that there's a problem!

Let's assume CCP does this, and the numbers still go up, what then?

Also, you missed a spot:

So as long as they "pay enough", anything goes?

You said the CSM was a null sec joke. Explain what you mean by that.

Let's make it 6 months then.

Where do you think the most work needs to be done to eve?

Let's make sure we're just getting people who are properly enthusiastic about voting, shall we?

Me personally my top 3 are

1. POs's
2. Corporate Management
3. Null sec

In that order but as I am part of a minority as well I presume the Majority would argue with me as I am sure Mission runners would like some new missions as repeating the current set over and over is enough to want to make you kill yourself.
Also I am sure the lo-sec guys will tell you it is lo-sec and FW still needing a lot more work

And lets not forget War decs, so unbelievable stuffed that if they put the old system back it would be a ten fold improvement.

You wanted it closed, let's do it properly, then. 6 months.


So if the CSM having a few people from nullsec alliances hasn't gotten CCP to focus squarely on nullsec, what's the problem? Why ***** about how the CSM is a "null sec joke"?

Nice, another conspiracy theory!

Issler

You keep arguing like the job of CSM members is to push for this portion of the population or that population depending on who voted them into office. Read the white paper. Our obligation is to represent the playerbase, not special interests, to CCP.

So instead of trying to categorize everyone and label us as lobbyists for one party or another, why don't you take a deep breath, and start over by explaining why you don't think 0.0 deserves attention after several years of neglect? Maybe you can also explain why the CSM as a whole would need to push FW when CCP's already agreed to work on it, and they get expert council from myself (and making unprecedented use of my feedback as well)? Where is the sense of urgency where the CSM needs to waste their unanimous voice promoting something that's already happening?

Do you think its responsible for CCP to spend an entire year working on something that affects a small portion of the population, when they could be fixing an area of space that affects multiple times that many players and subcriptions and potential subscriptions? Surely these are tough questions for other Faction Warfare enthusiasts to hear from someone like myself, but we have to be honest with ourselves here. Don't get me wrong - I'm incredibly grateful that they dedicated the resources they have to Faction Warfare and other gameplay systems that affect lowsec. I believe they were dollars well-spent. But CCP needs to spend a well rounded amount of time on a well rounded number of players groups - and its just simply fact that 0.0 pilots have received some of the least development attention of any for years now.

These are objective issues - how much development time has been spent on which area of space is easily researched and demonstrated. You continued attempts to politicize this and turn it into "these people" sticking up for "that group" demonstrate either a lack of understanding or a lack of care for the responsibilities of the CSM - who get elected through votes but should always serve the needs of the community and the game as a whole.

Nullsec needs serious work. Mining and Industry need serious work. POS's need serious work. These really aren't facts that are debated much amongst savvy, informed players who understand the game at its core. And thus we must make these realities clear to CCP, regardless of what player group we belong to.

Issler