Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2251
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 12:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Over the past few CSM elections, it has become increasingly clear that the simple "vote for one candidate" election system should be revisited in the hopes of finding a system that produces a CSM that better represents the electorate (ie: those members of the community who care enough to vote).
In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost "undervotes", coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.
Since it is in everyone's long-term interest for the CSM to broadly represent the electorate, a strong case can be made that the election system should be reformed. CSM elections should not only be fair, but should be seen to be fair.
This posting is the first step in that process, and it is our hope that it will spark a serious discussion of the topic and provide the CSM with community guidance as we solidify our recommendations to CCP.
Goals of a Reformed System
It has been mathematically proven that there is no perfect voting system. However, "The perfect is the enemy of the good", and there are many election systems that are clearly better than the current one.
The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:
1) Be easy to implement (by CCP), use (by the voters) and permit public verification of the results given the published raw vote totals.
2) Reduce the need for tactical voting ("I like A better than B, but I have to vote for B because I think she's more electable"). This is typically done by reallocating votes cast for candidates that are eliminated from the election to other candidates, thus reducing or eliminating undervotes.
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
Below we present one possible system that attempts to meet the above goals. We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement.
Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote
The most common "better" election system is Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Typically in STV systems, voters rank the candidates (or some subset of them) in order of preference, and if their first candidate is eliminated from the election, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on.
However, standard STV systems do not meet our first goal. Implementing classic STV would require significant work by CCP to update the system, would require extra effort by voters (which would tend to favor highly organized groups), and may not be publicly verifiable.
Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote.
In this system, voters vote for a single candidate, just as they do now. However, each candidate publicly states which other candidates they want their votes to be transferred to if they are eliminated from the election.
CD-STV, while not providing the full spectrum of choice that STV does, does meet all the goals. The amount of work CCP will have to do to implement it is small (listing the candidates' preferences on their profile and voting page), it is no more difficult to use than at present, and anyone can run the raw vote totals through an election simulator.
The Nitty-Gritty:
Currently, once the final list of approved candidates is published by CSM, there is a 2 week campaign period before voting starts. In the new system, candidates will have to disclose to CCP and publish in the first post of their campaign thread and on any campaign websites who their preferred alternate candidates are before the end of the first week. After that, they are locked in and cannot be changed -- thus there will be a week for voters to comment on these choices and decide how best to allocate their votes (troll and feeder candidates will be fairly obvious).
Candidates should specify somewhere between 3 and 6 alternates in order of their preference (their "preferences"), so that if one or more of their preferred candidates has already been elected or knocked out, their votes will not be wasted.
On the actual voting page, there would be a list of the alternate candidates so that when actually voting, people will know where their vote will go.
The determination of the results is straightforward:
In each round:
* If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round)
* If this does not happen, then the bottom candidate is eliminated, and her votes are reallocated to the topmost candidate in her preference list that is still in the race.
This process continues until everyone has either been elected or eliminated, at which point we have our rankings.
The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2251
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 12:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Some possible variants to consider:
* Instead of just using a candidate's preferences, you can also use the preferences of his preferences.
So if Alice prefers Beth, Charlie and Dave, then you extend her preferences to be Beth, Charlie, Dave, Beth's Preferences, Charlie's Preferences, Dave's Preferences (eliminating duplicates). This would reduce the chance that votes would be unused.
* When votes are transferred, they can either inherit the preferences of their new "owner", or retain the preferences of the original "owner". The latter choice arguably best represents the choices of the original voters.
* If CCP can allocate the resources to provide individual voters with full STV ballots, then the preferences of individual voters can be extended using the preferences of their preferred candidates. This would still permit the simplicity of "vote for one candidate" but provide extra flexibility for interested voters.
We have written a simple election simulator written in Python that implements CD-STV (using the results of the previous CSM election and random candidate preferences). It (and some sample output) can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a4t1811l3pej2pc/election.zip
Sincerely, Trebor Daehdoow CSM 7 Vice-Chairman
The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2251
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 12:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
Reserved for replies The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 12:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
dont agree with the second one as that would tip the balance into a landslide if conspired with other players. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
725
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 12:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
This was actually the worst issue from last election. It has come back too soon. Makes me want to run away. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1884
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 13:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ground floor of what should be a nice, calm discussion. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
118
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 13:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Yeah, this totally won't backfire when the candidates end up working together instead of the voters. |
Lord Zim
1302
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Let's see how badly this will get gamed, and how much whining will come off it when hisec still doesn't have "enough representation", even though people can't seem to be able to figure out what "enough representation" is, or what "hisec representation" should look like. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
528
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ahh, yes, the anti-Mittens crusade ruleset. I was wondering how long it would take the CSM to get around to doing something this year. I see you totally have your priorities straight and are focusing on such weighty topics as "How can we keep Mittens style candidates off the CSM"
Hint, you can't. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
It seems like this is a transparent attempt to game the system so the CSM dictates the results rather than the voters. |
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
also, unlike actual STV, this system is deliberately designed to penalize overvotes by eliminating ALL of the votes for an elected candidate
that's utterly unacceptable and must be removed |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:07:00 -
[12] - Quote
Quote:* If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round)
this is the portion I'm talking about, the change from the STV system that the CSM hoped nobody would notice
the proper way to do a STV is transfer the "excess" votes of anyone who obtains a seat |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
here is the only acceptable STV mechanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Counting_the_votes
Quote: Finding the winners An STV election proceeds according to the following steps: 1) Any candidate who has reached or exceeded the quota is declared elected. 2) If a candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate's surplus votes are transferred to other candidates. Votes that would have gone to the winner instead go to the next preference listed on their ballot. 3) If no one new meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are transferred. This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates.
The quota is (votes/15)+1. |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm glad to see the CSM has spent its time discussing issues that affect EVE as a whole, as opposed to immediately jumping down the line of "how can we make sure Mittens doesn't get elected to the #1 spot on the CSM for the third consecutive term?"
~ |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1395
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4532
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
RDevz wrote:I'm glad to see the CSM has spent its time discussing issues that affect EVE as a whole, as opposed to immediately jumping down the line of "how can we make sure Mittens doesn't get elected to the #1 spot on the CSM for the third consecutive term?"
To be fair it screams "how do we ensure that we stay on the CSM and not get mobbed out by bloc candidates next term" rather than "how do we keep the bloc candidates off entirely" please leave |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Ascendance.
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
Round 15 votes should have gone to Seleene right not Green Lee or did i miss a rule.
Edit: Read it wrong leboes vote trasfer put Green Lee over the top. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
628
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:41:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mitanni would still have been elected under this, or probably any, voting system. Robert's post is more concerned at looking at the bottom end of the voting than the top.
And the CSM hasn't decided anything, we talked about it a bunch (hint, we can read and reply to several forum threads at a time, shocking i know) and felt the discussion reached an appropriately structured place that we could start a good conversation with the EVE player base.
Goons would probably be better served engaging in that discussion rather than inventing things to tinfoil hat about. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
358
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
I'd rather they list all canditates, and you pick the 7 or whatever candidates you would put on the council. It's a council, you shouldn't be limited to just 1 or 2. Different candidates have different attributes, and you shouldn't have to decide which part is more important to you for a year.
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Goons would probably be better served engaging in that discussion rather than inventing things to tinfoil hat about.
Nah, we're instead discussing in our jabber channels how best to get multiple candidates on board and sink all the pubbie votes that you guys are trying to prioritize.
No worries, dude. |
|
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1398
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Goons would probably be better served engaging in that discussion rather than inventing things to tinfoil hat about.
The Man once again telling me how to think |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
538
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:47:00 -
[22] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Mitanni would still have been elected under this, or probably any, voting system. Robert's post is more concerned at looking at the bottom end of the voting than the top.
And the CSM hasn't decided anything, we talked about it a bunch (hint, we can read and reply to several forum threads at a time, shocking i know) and felt the discussion reached an appropriately structured place that we could start a good conversation with the EVE player base.
Goons would probably be better served engaging in that discussion rather than inventing things to tinfoil hat about.
The CSM Minutes and this new "system" highlights the CSM motivations quite well. Do you really believe any system you invent cannot be gamed by highly organized player blocks? Especially multiple 10k+ blocks of players? All this system is going to do is ensure we vote in 4 of the 7 candidates instead of 1 or 2. We already have a couple ways to blow this system up too, in the span of 15 minutes. Good luck with that. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:48:00 -
[23] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Mitanni would still have been elected under this, or probably any, voting system. Robert's post is more concerned at looking at the bottom end of the voting than the top.
And the CSM hasn't decided anything, we talked about it a bunch (hint, we can read and reply to several forum threads at a time, shocking i know) and felt the discussion reached an appropriately structured place that we could start a good conversation with the EVE player base.
Goons would probably be better served engaging in that discussion rather than inventing things to tinfoil hat about. Could you explain who suggested overvote penalties that do not exist in STV and why? |
Wibla
Tactical Narcotics Team
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:51:00 -
[24] - Quote
I can't wait to game the **** out of this system.
Maybe I should run for CSM next year? I do like icelandic girls.... |
Lord Zim
1310
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
It does strike me that this year's CSM is lacking a certain something, something we got used to having with CSM6. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:01:00 -
[26] - Quote
If anything this increases the need for tactical voting. If I want to vote for A (who I think has no chance of getting elected) but under no circumstances would vote for B (who A has listed as their alternate) I have to find a C to vote for. It gets even worse if I think neither A or B will be elected and I wouldn't vote for D who is B's alternate. Having to follow a complicated tree of vote reassignments in order to figure out who I might end up unwittingly supporting is stupid.
You either need to get the resources from CCP to do proper voting reform or not do it at all. Moving to something this stupid because you don't have the coding time is a terrible idea. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2847
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:06:00 -
[28] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
Perhaps you could explain the overvote penalty that's been added into the STV vote system with no explanation or justification? |
Lord Zim
1317
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:07:00 -
[29] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. And we're discussing a certain aspect of the suggestion. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
Like STV has its merits. STV, with an addition that exists nowhere else that is specifically designed to diminish the voting power of specific groups with no explanation? that's when I start breaking out the tinfoil. |
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
We've been discussing how stupid it is and also wanting to know why you guys added things into the STV that didn't exist in it before. |
Groperson
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:10:00 -
[32] - Quote
I for one welcome our eternal triumvirate rather than our president for life :twisted: :smug: |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:17:00 -
[33] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
But they have been discussing it, while current CSM members have been posting extremely defensively, like your post above. I think that's very telling.
I think it's very interesting that you've characterized posting and critiquing as "invading." It demonstrates that this is not a politically neutral idea, and that you are not interested in genuine criticism. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
545
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:21:00 -
[34] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
Sure! Explain your reasoning on the overvote penalty then. For those who may not realize the implications of such. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:23:00 -
[35] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
Perhaps you could comment on why this is a goal then?
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: 3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
As far as I know no serious electoral reform has ever had "reduce the impact of voter and candidate organisation", why are internet spaceship governments special? Surely organised candidates make better CSM members and organised voters are more likely to have a greater investment in the process and the game in general. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
"We are posting this idea as a call for discussion"
*people start a discussion on why the idea is bad*
"Grr why are people INVADING and TINFOILING this thread, we wanted a discussion" Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
i got an idea why dont we do stv and when the loggin screen comes up so dose the ballot and all we have to do is click 3 names and send ?
if none of the three get through that you enter your votes are classed as null invoid and are lost from the system of votes.
to help this along there could be ts3 or something orginised for each candidate to chat with the people there going to focus on like a press conferance that everyone is invited to witch all of these can have an advert for at the login screen ? |
Firstly
Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
Wow! It's like you guys read my mind; I wrote a post about this a couple of days ago.
That said, I wholeheartedly support election reform as the opportunity for large blocs to "lock down" CSM seats is an issue that is only growing more obvious with time. If left unchecked, this will become increasingly destructive to the integrity and legitimacy of the Council as the CSM grows in influence and relevance.
That said, I don't agree that your current reform suggestions are consistent with the "keep it simple, stupid" paradigm you're trying to espouse. I DO agree that voting only for one member of a 14-seat council is counter-productive to achieving adequate representation of the citizens of New Eden, and would like the opportunity to support more than one candidate for election. As it was correctly stated, the current system often forces players to have to choose between their particular "voting issues" as to which they hold more dear. Consequently, the current election system does a poor job of representing even a single player, let alone the body politic.
Regardless, thank you for taking issue with the current system and refusing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Despite the tinfoil already lining the walls of this thread, this is truly an important and relevant issue. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:32:00 -
[39] - Quote
serras bang wrote:i got an idea why dont we do stv and when the loggin screen comes up so dose the ballot and all we have to do is click 3 names and send ? Because those people who don't pay attention or vote now will just click the first three names they see (if you're talking about mandatory voting) or skip it to get into game (if not).
It solves nothing. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:35:00 -
[40] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:serras bang wrote:i got an idea why dont we do stv and when the loggin screen comes up so dose the ballot and all we have to do is click 3 names and send ? Because those people who don't pay attention or vote now will just click the first three names they see (if you're talking about mandatory voting) or skip it to get into game (if not). It solves nothing.
there would be a no vot button but it would make more see it and maybe actualy have a look on the forums and see what is done if they dont wanna vote they will no longer have noone else to blame but themselves. also they may not actualy know the time of the election or that csm exists like some people i know already. |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:35:00 -
[41] - Quote
Firstly wrote: That said, I wholeheartedly support election reform as the opportunity for large blocs to "lock down" CSM seats is an issue that is only growing more obvious with time. If left unchecked, this will become increasingly destructive to the integrity and legitimacy of the Council as the CSM grows in influence and relevance.
True, also the ability of the Republican and Democrat parties in the US to "lock down" states is an issue we desperately need to solve. |
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:35:00 -
[42] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
As a 2003 player, I sit here and wonder what exactly my CSM is doing. Why are you focusing on the election rather than the game itself? Your job is to represent the playerbase's interest for the game. This discussion is not in the player's interest. I won't say what I think it is but it has nothing to do with spaceships.
I will go as far as to say this: this year's CSM has been the most ineffective by far and if it were possible to issue a vote of no-confidence then you and your team would surely have it.
Go fix spaceships. Do your damn job. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4537
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:37:00 -
[43] - Quote
Firstly wrote:That said, I wholeheartedly support election reform as the opportunity for large blocs to "lock down" CSM seats is an issue that is only growing more obvious with time. If left unchecked, this will become increasingly destructive to the integrity and legitimacy of the Council as the CSM grows in influence and relevance.
Large organized groups of voters are less relevant because please leave |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:37:00 -
[44] - Quote
digi wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
As a 2003 player, I sit here and wonder what exactly my CSM is doing. Why are you focusing on the election rather than the game itself? Your job is to represent the playerbase's interest for the game. This discussion is not in the player's interest. I won't say what I think it is but it has nothing to do with spaceships. I will go as far as to say this: this year's CSM has been the most ineffective by far and if it were possible to issue a vote of no-confidence then you and your team would surely have it. Go fix spaceships. Do your damn job.
this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
serras bang wrote: this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform
It's about twenty badposters who continually post out of outrage nobody recognizes their genius and elects them to the csm by acclaim. that's it. |
Firstly
Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:40:00 -
[46] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Firstly wrote: That said, I wholeheartedly support election reform as the opportunity for large blocs to "lock down" CSM seats is an issue that is only growing more obvious with time. If left unchecked, this will become increasingly destructive to the integrity and legitimacy of the Council as the CSM grows in influence and relevance.
True, also the ability of the Republican and Democrat parties in the US to "lock down" states is an issue we desperately need to solve.
I agree with this as well. Both parties are exceedingly well organized, but host platforms that accurately represent only a very small percentage of the public.
But then again, this is a thread about spaceship politics. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2847
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Like STV has its merits. STV, with an addition that exists nowhere else that is specifically designed to diminish the voting power of specific groups with no explanation? that's when I start breaking out the tinfoil.
Like Robert said,
Quote:However, standard STV systems do not meet our first goal. Implementing classic STV would require significant work by CCP to update the system, would require extra effort by voters (which would tend to favor highly organized groups), and may not be publicly verifiable.
Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote.
In this system, voters vote for a single candidate, just as they do now. However, each candidate publicly states which other candidates they want their votes to be transferred to if they are eliminated from the election.
CD-STV, while not providing the full spectrum of choice that STV does, does meet all the goals. The amount of work CCP will have to do to implement it is small (listing the candidates' preferences on their profile and voting page), it is no more difficult to use than at present, and anyone can run the raw vote totals through an election simulator.
This is just one proposal, out of a hundred ways to approach this, and everyone is certainly welcome to disagree about whether or not it is an improvement over traditional STV systems. Robert's approach stems from his interest in keeping things simple.
Regarding the diminishing of voting power for specific voting blocs, this is an excellent question.
Quote:for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
Obviously here Robert is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.
Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?
And the more important question is - what is the significance of obtaining more than one seat on the council, per large entity, in the first place? This would have to assume that the CSM uses a voting system internally to determine policy, or that CCP somehow gives an idea more weight if 2-3 CSM members agree as supposed to only one. My experience has shown so far though that even a single CSM seat can make more of a difference than three others in terms of influence, as long as that seat is filled by someone competent, articulate, and who makes good suggestions. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
serras bang wrote:digi wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.
Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.
If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".
As a 2003 player, I sit here and wonder what exactly my CSM is doing. Why are you focusing on the election rather than the game itself? Your job is to represent the playerbase's interest for the game. This discussion is not in the player's interest. I won't say what I think it is but it has nothing to do with spaceships. I will go as far as to say this: this year's CSM has been the most ineffective by far and if it were possible to issue a vote of no-confidence then you and your team would surely have it. Go fix spaceships. Do your damn job. this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform
I'm going to assume that your English is poor. That's fine, I translated.
If people are screaming for reform then remember this: YOU elected the current CSM. Compare last year's CSM with the current group and you will see clearly where the reform needs to be. Things got done last year. Changes were made, the entire playerbase had a say. This year? What has the CSM done?
I thought Hans was a pretty standup guy and I would be the first to admit that his platform held a lot of merit but he has proved no better than the rest. Bird of a feather, I guess.
If you want reform, vote for people that will do their job and keep CCP on task. It's quite simple.
|
Lord Zim
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
So in other words, this CSM is doing exactly the same as CCP has been doing the last few years, i.e. look upon a "problem", then spend months contemplating a solution, and then coming up with a solution which makes the problem worse because it can be gamed even harder.
:golfclap: |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:46:00 -
[50] - Quote
talking to me no im dyslexic if your not then fine and i usualy dont vote like rl im not really all that into politics. but this year ive decided to try and see :P |
|
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:46:00 -
[51] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Obviously here Trebor is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.
Deliberate mischaracterization of the other side's point of view is an extremely dishonest form of discourse. Shame on you. What is the difference between "taking an interest" and "taking it personally" other than where you sit in terms of the other side's point of view? There is none. It's all about how you want to (mis-)characterize those with whom you disagree. Facing this level of intellectual dishonesty, it's natural to start questioning the motives of those engaging in it.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:46:00 -
[52] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Like STV has its merits. STV, with an addition that exists nowhere else that is specifically designed to diminish the voting power of specific groups with no explanation? that's when I start breaking out the tinfoil. Like Trebor said, What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.
The deliberate change to STV to throw out overvotes doesn't simplify anything. It's merely an attempt to bias the system in a way that's unjustifiable and can't stand up to the light of scrutiny: hence your outrage that goons would "invade" this thread pointing it out because it's indefensible so all you can do is try to shut the discussion down.
The change that's clear electoral tampering isn't candidate-selected STV: it's throwing out overvotes. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
762
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
Its disappointing, but not surprising, to see the CSM members have been so effectively played by a handful of alts shrieking incessantly about 'lack of representation' at every opportunity because they're incapable of rallying support or enthusiasm for their terrible candidates, and creating enough noise to give the impression that they represent anything more than that.
This is irrelevant navel-gazing of CSM1-era proportions. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:48:00 -
[54] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Obviously here Trebor is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.
"we are deliberately biasing this system against the CFC, but the CFC shouldn't take it personally because we would try to bias the system against anyone who threatens our political power"
yeah uh that's not a great defense there |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:48:00 -
[55] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Its disappointing, but not surprising, to see the CSM members have been so effectively played by a handful of alts shrieking incessantly about 'lack of representation' at every opportunity because they're incapable of rallying support or enthusiasm for their terrible candidates, and creating enough noise to give the impression that they represent anything more than that.
This is irrelevant navel-gazing of CSM1-era proportions.
tbh this isnt the problem go ask 100 random player in hi sec eve what csm is and half of em prolly wont have a clue. |
Alchenar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:And the more important question is - what is the significance of obtaining more than one seat on the council, per large entity, in the first place? This would have to assume that the CSM uses a voting system internally to determine policy, or that CCP somehow gives an idea more weight if 2-3 CSM members agree as supposed to only one. My experience has shown so far though that even a single CSM seat can make more of a difference than three others in terms of influence, as long as that seat is filled by someone competent, articulate, and who makes good suggestions.
Hey guys what if there was a correlation between being in the leadership of the most successful and largest coalition in the game and being competent, articulate and making good suggestions? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2848
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote: I think it's very interesting that you've characterized posting and critiquing as "invading." It demonstrates that this is not a politically neutral idea, and that you are not interested in genuine criticism.
You're absolutely right. Invading was a poor choice of words, it implies that Goons don't have a right to be here. Thank you for pointing this out as it was not my intention. I was commenting more on the speed and force with which they responded.
Every player has a stake in how the elections are reformed, and is welcome to speak up about this.
I appreciate you holding me accountable, Sal.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Pheniox Nugs
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:52:00 -
[58] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/LOGcG.gif |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2848
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:52:00 -
[59] - Quote
Alchenar wrote: Hey guys what if there was a correlation between being in the leadership of the most successful and largest coalition in the game and being competent, articulate and making good suggestions?
I'd say the chance of that correlation existing is extremely high.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
221
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:53:00 -
[60] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: This is just one proposal, out of a hundred ways to approach this, and everyone is certainly welcome to disagree about whether or not it is an improvement over traditional STV systems. Trebor's approach stems from his interest in keeping things simple.
A google search for "Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote" returns this 5 hour old thread on the front page. Voting reform is quite a hot topic in a number of countries at the moment but you guys are the only people to even suggest something like this. Either you're smarter than every single politically minded person in the world or your idea is so stupid it was dismissed almost immediately in every serious discussion.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?
Every single member of the current CSM holds a higher percentage of the council seats than their percentage of players because of the abysmal voter turnout. These changes do nothing to alter that (and potentially make things worse due to being confusing as **** and throwing away votes needlessly). You're also assuming that a block of voters is putting forwards multiple candidates just for ***** and giggles rather than having a number of specialists they feel would meaningfully contribute to the CSM. |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Ascendance.
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:56:00 -
[61] - Quote
The read of the full simulated election was interesting. While not an accurate way to evaluate how the election would have gone becouse we do not know how the rest of the candidits would have placed as there second choices it still elected 11 of the 12 current CSM but not in the same order.
Will there be a run using the Goons desired formule? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:57:00 -
[62] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.
No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4538
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:58:00 -
[63] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?.
So did your votes come from 7% of the player population? please leave |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:01:00 -
[64] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount. |
Lord Zim
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:02:00 -
[65] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:You're absolutely right. Invading was a poor choice of words, it implies that Goons don't have a right to be here. Thank you for pointing this out as it was not my intention. I was commenting more on the speed and force with which they responded. You know why the response was what it was? It was because it was FW farmville level of openly gameable, and the fact that it's so openly designed with one specific goal in mind (nerf CFC) makes it even worse. It's seriously like going back to the ankh-era of navelgazing combined with CCP-quality game mechanics design of the past few years (titans own subcaps? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW was gameable as all hell? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW is now farmville? shucks, didn't see that one coming.)
How long have you guys been discussing this topic, anyway? Since the whole CSM "how can we vote someone off the CSM?" meeting where the CSM meeting minutes were from?
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Every player has a stake in how the elections are reformed, and is welcome to speak up about this. Good thing you're not coming in here telling us to shut up because we're not positive enough, then. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1405
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:03:00 -
[66] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:"We are posting this idea as a call for discussion"
*people start a discussion on why the idea is bad*
"Grr why are people INVADING and TINFOILING this thread, we wanted a discussion"
goons INVADING my thread |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:05:00 -
[67] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different?
It would, as now, systematically throw out votes for qualified and effective candidates because those are a political threat.
Currently, if I vote for Eminiently Qualified Candidate, and you vote for Random Shirtlord Running A Vanity Campaign, but my Eminiently Qualified Candidate already has a quota, you throw out my vote. However, your Random Shirtlord Running a Vanity Campaign vote is preserved (and moved to Random Shirtlord #2). That's what's going on here that's unacceptable. |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:05:00 -
[68] - Quote
A "bloc" of players (however you define it) might also have internal divisions which, while agreeing on most issues, might disagree on a few things or just have different priorities.
Additionally, organized blocs do not even have to run candidates themselves to be powerful. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what would happen if a large coalition like the CFC or HBC pointedly did not run candidates or make official endorsements, but strongly encouraged their members to vote, and see what the overall shift to the political landscape would be as CSM candidates tried to court their votes.
Suppose this did happen, and an otherwise completely independent candidate managed to court a huge overvote without intending to. Under the proposed system, all those overvotes will have to be thrown out. How is that fair to the voters who independently cast them?
Essentially, this proposal seems to take as a given the often asserted but patently ridiculous idea that voters in large blocs do not actually have free will and are just toeing the party line, rather than making a conscious choice to express their concerns in participatory democracy. This proposal quite openly designates their votes as less valuable.
The proposal is, itself, dehumanizing, and I can see why people might actually "take it personal |
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:05:00 -
[69] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.
No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
How is this even a problem? Before you laugh, understand that I ask this question honestly. What exactly can you lay at the feet of the current system? You are on the CSM right now. It's up to you to fix represent us. How has the current system influenced the game since you've been appointed to the CSM? If there are issues internally to the CSM, you have no one but yourselves to blame. That isn't a player problem, it's a CSM problem. If you are trying to pin your current failures on the CFC, then good luck, because it's not the CFC's fault you are ineffective at your job.
Here's a tip about voting: the majority wins. I know this is a strange concept but there will always be a majority. Democracy is crazy, right?
The voting system isn't broken. You and the rest of the CSM are broken. I'm disappointed in you. I could say many things about the majority of the CSM, but I had hope for you and you've flubbed it.
Again, I reiterate: do your damn job. Leave this thread and go make our game work.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
550
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:05:00 -
[70] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Alchenar wrote: Hey guys what if there was a correlation between being in the leadership of the most successful and largest coalition in the game and being competent, articulate and making good suggestions? I'd say the chance of that correlation existing is extremely high.
I would also say the chance of people being competent/good that are in smaller organizations with with no record of success probably also correlates. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:07:00 -
[71] - Quote
well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:08:00 -
[72] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount.
What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
David Carel
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
261
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:08:00 -
[73] - Quote
serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance.
Alt alliances, been there; done that. |
Kitty Vintner
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:08:00 -
[74] - Quote
Andski wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?. So did your votes come from 7% of the player population?
Assuming 350,000 subscribers Hans' votes (2,439) come from .7% of the player population. That's 7 tenths of 1 percent. Mittens' 10,058 votes represent approximately 3% of the player population. |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:08:00 -
[75] - Quote
THERE ARE NO SECOND CLASS CITIZENS IN NEW EDEN
except fweddit Follow me on twitter |
Lord Zim
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:09:00 -
[76] - Quote
serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. The system is setup to nerf the voting power of the CFC. How many alliances are within the CFC? How does this affect your suggestion? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:10:00 -
[77] - Quote
David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. Alt alliances, been there; done that.
lol to bad i still win :P
|
David Carel
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
261
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:10:00 -
[78] - Quote
serras bang wrote:David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. Alt alliances, been there; done that. lol to bad i still win :P What? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4539
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:10:00 -
[79] - Quote
Kitty Vintner wrote:Andski wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?. So did your votes come from 7% of the player population? Assuming 350,000 subscribers Hans' votes (2,439) come from .7% of the player population. That's 7 tenths of 1 percent. Mittens' 10,058 votes represent approximately 3% of the player population.
It was a rhetorical question. Of course everyone in the CSM is "over-representing" their individual "constituencies." please leave |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
764
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:11:00 -
[80] - Quote
serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance.
We split Goonswarm into Goonswarm1, Goonswarm2, Goonswarm3 etc and field one candidate fro each.
What on earth do you expect? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1303
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:11:00 -
[81] - Quote
David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. Alt alliances, been there; done that. So we'd have to have, what FA, FCON, SMA, EXE, LAWN, TNT, C0NVICTED, RZR ? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:11:00 -
[82] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM?
This system is intended, deliberately, to throw out overvotes. Large blocs, voting in clearly qualified candidates, produce overvotes. Those are thrown out.
STV is designed to ensure nobody's votes are thrown out. You've found that to be unacceptable: the voters, it seems, keep not voting the way you think they should. So you're designing the system to throw out the votes you don't like, and keep the votes you do like.
It's a laudible goal to move to STV to reduce wasted votes. It's a crass undemocratic powergrab to deliberately design the system to only preserve the votes you want to preserve and throw out those you don't. |
Brooson
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:11:00 -
[83] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.
No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council. Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different?
All I got form this is, Goons are terrible and have control of the voting process and I am going to complain about it because I secretly wish I had the support of a tight-knit community. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:12:00 -
[84] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You know why the response was what it was? It was because it was FW farmville level of openly gameable, and the fact that it's so openly designed with one specific goal in mind (nerf CFC) makes it even worse. It's seriously like going back to the ankh-era of navelgazing combined with CCP-quality game mechanics design of the past few years (titans own subcaps? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW was gameable as all hell? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW is now farmville? shucks, didn't see that one coming.)
What does the farmability of FW have to do with any of this? I specifically asked about the market price determination formula long before Inferno's release and many of us on the CSM warned them about the likelihood of this being abused. Surely it doesn't suprise you that CCP doesn't always take the CSM's advice. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
764
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:12:00 -
[85] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Let's say the CFC disappeared overnight, and another group rose to take its place? How would Trebor's proposal treat that other large entity any different? Here's what you're not getting, Hans: if the CFC vanished into a black hole overnight, so would all those 'concerned citizens' sockpuppet threads about voter representation. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Lord Zim
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:13:00 -
[86] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote:You know why the response was what it was? It was because it was FW farmville level of openly gameable, and the fact that it's so openly designed with one specific goal in mind (nerf CFC) makes it even worse. It's seriously like going back to the ankh-era of navelgazing combined with CCP-quality game mechanics design of the past few years (titans own subcaps? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW was gameable as all hell? shucks, didn't see that one coming. FW is now farmville? shucks, didn't see that one coming.) What does the farmability of FW have to do with any of this? I specifically asked about the market price determination formula long before Inferno's release and many of us on the CSM warned them about the likelihood of this being abused. Surely it doesn't suprise you that CCP doesn't always take the CSM's advice. You're missing the point, read it again. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:13:00 -
[87] - Quote
David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. Alt alliances, been there; done that. lol to bad i still win :P What?
alt alliances ect would also be taken into acount for this i aint that stupid to make a suggestion just to allow players to skip alliance at ellection time to another alliance to get in. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
551
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:13:00 -
[88] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount. What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM?
Wrong question. The better question is, what percentage of the VOTING player base does CFC represent. I would say we are well under represented when we only elected a single person. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4539
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:15:00 -
[89] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount. What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM?
Can you demonstrate how a bloc-level candidate only represents the interests of his coalition (say, The Mittani and the CFC) rather than the overarching interests of nullsec players? How did his membership in the CSM further the CFC's goals? please leave |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:15:00 -
[90] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:What does the farmability of FW have to do with any of this? I specifically asked about the market price determination formula long before Inferno's release and many of us on the CSM warned them about the likelihood of this being abused. Surely it doesn't suprise you that CCP doesn't always take the CSM's advice. That CCP doesn't listen to you is your failure. If you spent time working on being persuasive, working on ways to show CCP that an idea is flawed, and worked on ways to expand your influence, then they'd listen. That's what an effective CSM does. It doesn't whine that nobody listened to it and give up.
You couldn't demonstrate to CCP an obviously and hilariously flawed system was broken. How the hell are you going to persuade them of anything less obvious? |
|
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:16:00 -
[91] - Quote
Why do people think there isn't dissent within large coalitions?
Why are voters who choose popular candidates less worthy of representation than those who choose unpopular candidates?
How is this proposal anything other than dehumanizing to some voters, by making their votes worth less than others? |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:17:00 -
[92] - Quote
I am extremely glad that the CSM is tackling hard hitting topics like "How can my pubsec friend nobody's heard of get more votes without people actually voting for them". |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:18:00 -
[93] - Quote
don't disenfranchise me bro This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Ted McManfist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:19:00 -
[94] - Quote
How is "One vote per account" a system that needs changing? Unless, of course, you only seek to remain in power and are looking for a way to manipulate votes to that end.
If hi-sec dwellers feel they aren't being represented, then they have the same opportunity as the rest of us to select a candidate that best represents their interests and rally behind them.
If they are disinterested, disorganized, or just too stupid to do that...tough. Why should the rest of us be marginalized because of inept publourdes? |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
769
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:20:00 -
[95] - Quote
serras bang wrote:David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:David Carel wrote:serras bang wrote:well heres another thought to represent the player base a little better how about only allowing one candidate from each alliance. Alt alliances, been there; done that. lol to bad i still win :P What? alt alliances ect would also be taken into acount for this i aint that stupid to make a suggestion just to allow players to skip alliance at ellection time to another alliance to get in. So you're saying that, for an elected body intended partly to hold CCP accountable to its playerbase, that CCP (Or someone else? Who?) should be able to arbitrarily rule particular candidates illegible because they are part of an "alt alliance"?
And you seriously don't instantly see the gaping cavernous hole in that argument? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:20:00 -
[96] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:You've found that to be unacceptable
I haven't found anything unacceptable. Trebor wrote the proposal, I'm just here to discuss its merits and drawbacks just like the rest of you. The whole point is to allow the community to shape a set of recommendations that we can take to CCP. It may be that the recommendation we get from the community is that we change nothing at all.
I'm pretty open-minded in general. If you don't like something Trebor said, convince me that its bad. I'm listening. There's no need to argue in the meantime as if this was something every one of the CSM members is personally trying to mandate.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Alchenar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:21:00 -
[97] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen: "The CSM voting system should be weighted to produce members who are smart, articulate and make good suggestiong because that's what makes CCP listen"
"CCP don't listen to any of my ideas and that's why I haven't got anything done"
|
Lord Zim
1323
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:22:00 -
[98] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:What does the farmability of FW have to do with any of this? I specifically asked about the market price determination formula long before Inferno's release and many of us on the CSM warned them about the likelihood of this being abused. Surely it doesn't suprise you that CCP doesn't always take the CSM's advice. Actually, I'll just spell it out for you:
CCP has, the last year or three, been known to release game mechanics which have been gameable as all hell, chief amongst has been FW and, say, the wardec system.
Everybody told CCP that the wardec ally system was going to get dogpiled, they still implemented it. A lot of people told CCP that linking LP rewards to things which people could affect would be exploited, CCP still implemented it. FW LP generation is now farmville central, and I'm sure we'll see people telling CCP about this as well before FW was released, but I can't be arsed to search the forums for bad posts. Most of these things were identified and plans for their exploitation was cooked up within a very short timeframe.
Compare this to you guys' idea of a "voting reform", and it's CCP quality all over again, i.e. we'd shot huge holes in it within 15 minutes because of one minor detail which you guys (apparently deliberately, with a very, very specific purpose it now seems) put in there. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:23:00 -
[99] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I'm pretty open-minded in general. If you don't like something Trebor said, convince me that its bad. I'm listening. There's no need to argue in the meantime as if this was something every one of the CSM members is personally trying to mandate.
It's bad because it has a rule that exists for no other reason except to throw out the votes of a specific group. That, alone, is enough. What is your position on disenfranchising voters? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:23:00 -
[100] - Quote
Ted McManfist wrote:How is "One vote per account" a system that needs changing? Unless, of course, you only seek to remain in power and are looking for a way to manipulate votes to that end.
If hi-sec dwellers feel they aren't being represented, then they have the same opportunity as the rest of us to select a candidate that best represents their interests and rally behind them.
If they are disinterested, disorganized, or just too stupid to do that...tough. Why should the rest of us be marginalized because of inept publourdes?
the descusion aint about goons lets keeps on subject the descusion how to broadly make it fair but i say again a lot and i mean a lot of hi sec players do not know of csm. and i made a few suggestions further up up seams to have been over ridden by goons complaining (i wasnt gonna stoop to this but there it is).
but seriously even if this dosent get changed i think really what needs done is csm to be shoved out into the limelite on loggin and give the player to vote durring loggin pluss as i said other things of kinda a confrance for player to meet the people running for csm. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:25:00 -
[101] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: No, what I said was that Trebor's proposal biases the system against the single most powerful voting bloc achieving higher-than proportional representation on the council.
Trebor's proposal is to ensure that voting blocks achieve lower-than-proportional representation. It's not intended to ensure we have a fair amount of representation: it is an attempt to make sure we have an unfairly low amount. What percentage of the player base does the CFC represent, and how does this proposal ensure that they receive less that that percentage of coverage on the CSM? Wrong question. The better question is, what percentage of the VOTING player base does CFC represent. I would say we are well under represented when we only elected a single person.
Good point. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Lord Zim
1324
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:26:00 -
[102] - Quote
serras bang wrote:the descusion aint about goons lets keeps on subject the descusion how to broadly make it fair The "discussion" is about one very, very specific part of the suggestion, i.e. the part which basically throws votes out the window for no good reason. |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:27:00 -
[103] - Quote
serras bang wrote: the descusion aint about goons lets keeps on subject the descusion how to broadly make it fair but i say again a lot and i mean a lot of hi sec players do not know of csm. and i made a few suggestions further up up seams to have been over ridden by goons complaining (i wasnt gonna stoop to this but there it is).
Since when has "pointing out the holes in your logic so large it could comfortably accommodate a space shuttle" been "complaining"?
~ |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:28:00 -
[104] - Quote
and dose a player need more than 10% of votes ? unless desiding on a tie for head of csm ? |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:28:00 -
[105] - Quote
you're going to regret making this thread when we elect arghy as csm8 chair Follow me on twitter |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Ascendance.
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:29:00 -
[106] - Quote
The issue is finding a way to easily see why a person has selected another person to get there votes and see if they are gaming the system.
Voting blocks have been talked about alot how about identify voting block and not another person. The person with highest number of votes and selecting that block gets the marginailized votes. There is more transperancy this way. |
Lord Zim
1324
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:29:00 -
[107] - Quote
serras bang wrote:and dose a player need more than 10% of votes ? unless desiding on a tie for head of csm ? What does this have to do with anything? |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:30:00 -
[108] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Good point. Good point. I can understand how that would be frustrating.
Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.
E: Heh, nice edit dude |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:32:00 -
[109] - Quote
to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm
|
Lord Zim
1324
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:33:00 -
[110] - Quote
serras bang wrote:to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm Waiting for a point here. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:33:00 -
[111] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.
I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea.... Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:34:00 -
[112] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:serras bang wrote:to get on csm i doubt that a player rarely needs even 5% of all total votes on the bassis of 20 people running for csm Waiting for a point here.
point is even with missing vote from large alliances such as goons if there as popular as they say then they will still easily make the top position without diminishing there stake. (sorry goons for makeing you the example here). |
Lord Zim
1324
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:35:00 -
[113] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Haquer wrote:Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.
I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea.... Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable? |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:35:00 -
[114] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Haquer wrote:Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.
I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea....
You as in the collective "you" of the CSM.
Stop politicking and either stop defending this **** like you have for the past 5 pages, or get the **** out and make Trebor and Seleene defend it, as they're the ones who obvious support this hilariously stupid suggestion. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:37:00 -
[115] - Quote
Now I eagerly await Hans coming back stating that he doesn't represent the CSM as a whole.
Don't let me down, Hans. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
108
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:37:00 -
[116] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Haquer wrote:Know what else is frustrating? You skirting every post asking you why disenfranchising voters is a good idea.
I didn't realize that I said that disenfranchising voters was a good idea.... Is it a bad idea or a bad thing? |
Aryndel Vyst
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:39:00 -
[117] - Quote
I have a proposal: How about we let accounts vote for the person they want to, the end? Then, and here's the kicker, at the end of the voting period we count the votes, now bear with me here, and we decide the winners based on who got the most votes.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:39:00 -
[118] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable?
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.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
134
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:41:00 -
[119] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable? 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.
You have 5 reverse gears and one forward, much like a French tank. |
Tomytronic
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
224
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:42:00 -
[120] - Quote
Aryndel Vyst wrote:I have a proposal: How about we let accounts vote for the person they want to, the end? Then, and here's the kicker, at the end of the voting period we count the votes, now bear with me here, and we decide the winners based on who got the most votes.
You know that's not fair. In that theoretical system, active players with a vested interest in the game would get someone who represents them to make decisions about their game for them.
You know that can't possibly work.
|
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:44:00 -
[121] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread.
So you're saying you have absolutely no opinions of your own on the subject? |
Brooson
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:45:00 -
[122] - Quote
As representatives of the Community and our collective interests, instead of a implementing something stupid like reforming a simple voting policy can we put our effort into a system where we can reject the decisions of the CSM. Poor decisions such as this one?
The idea of removing the long standing democratic tradition of one man one vote (or in this case 1 account one vote) is childish and a clear grab of implementing a voting structure that can be manipulated by those wishing to ignore votes for personal gain.
I am ashamed that the standing CSM would feel they have a right to degrade my vote, and I am applaud that CCP would consider this as anything less then a desperate attempt to illegitimate a large portion of the PAYING user-group. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9403
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:45:00 -
[123] - Quote
The reason STV is GÇ£the better systemGÇ¥ is exactly because it is complicated. You can't have it both ways.
If you want a simple system, it will be flawed. The current one is flawed in that votes on lower-end candidates are wasted because the candidates (and thus the votes) get culled. The suggested system is flawed in that votes on higher-end candidates are wasted because those votes get culled. At least the former makes some kind of democratic sense GÇö not enough people agree with your fringe stance so it won't be part of the process GÇö but the latter is justGǪ weird. GÇ£Sorry, too many people agree with you so your voice doesn't matterGÇ¥.
If you want voting reform, bite the bullet and make it difficult because that's the only way to improve any voting system. It's just the nature of the beast (oh, and it's not all that difficult to either run or report, especially since it's done electronically GÇö it's a simple iterative process with one edge case that already has a given solution). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
556
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:45:00 -
[124] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
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,
You mean how it seems like half the CSM minutes are related to the election/Mittens in some form? That meeting took place months ago. So clearly this has been being kicked around for months. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
Antoine Jordan
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:46:00 -
[125] - Quote
To the CSM: Instead of directly disenfranchising large blocs of voters because you feel they make up too much of the voting base, instead consider making more players aware of and engaged in the CSM. That way, rather than reducing the number of people who have a voice, you're increasing it. |
Lord Zim
1327
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:46:00 -
[126] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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. So you've all had a chat about it, and none of you thought this was a gameable as all hell mechanic? Or did you avoid answering that question for a reason?
And given the vehemence with which you guys spent making sure you discussed, in great detail, how you could kick someone off the CSM team makes me dubious as to your claim of how little time has been spent on drafting this suggestion.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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. So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially?
Okay, then. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
661
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:47:00 -
[127] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable? 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.
Here's your takeaway, then: A large coordinated voting bloc thinks that this system is **** because it would disenfranchise a portion, perhaps a large portion, of that bloc for no good reason. While historically there has only ever been one bloc (which is what makes the motives here questionable at BEST), this system would also quash any future attempts at coordinating votes by other groups as well.
tl;dr, it's ****, drop it.
Antoine Jordan wrote:To the CSM: Instead of directly disenfranchising large blocs of voters because you feel they make up too much of the voting base, instead consider making more players aware of and engaged in the CSM. That way, rather than reducing the number of people who have a voice, you're increasing it. Yeah seriously this. The CFC has so much voting power because we comprise an enormous percentage of the voting population. If you want to dilute our power, a better way to do it is roleplay like you're an american democrat and get more people to vote, instead of roleplaying like you're an american republican and we're all inner-city *******. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Lord Zim
1327
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:50:00 -
[128] - Quote
Antoine Jordan wrote:To the CSM: Instead of directly disenfranchising large blocs of voters because you feel they make up too much of the voting base, instead consider making more players aware of and engaged in the CSM. That way, rather than reducing the number of people who have a voice, you're increasing it. Ask Frying Doom about how to do this, he's been harping on and on about how this is the only solution. |
Alchenar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:50:00 -
[129] - Quote
Tippia wrote:The reason STV is GÇ£the better systemGÇ¥ is exactly because it is complicated. You can't have it both ways. .
This isn't STV. It's STV with a special addon specifically designed to disenfranchise voters.
People aren't complaining that it's complicated. They are complaining that the proposal is deliberately designed to be undemocratic. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4541
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:52:00 -
[130] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Antoine Jordan wrote:To the CSM: Instead of directly disenfranchising large blocs of voters because you feel they make up too much of the voting base, instead consider making more players aware of and engaged in the CSM. That way, rather than reducing the number of people who have a voice, you're increasing it. Ask Frying Doom about how to do this, he's been harping on and on about how this is the only solution.
To be fair that's one thing he's been right about (on its own, anyway) please leave |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4541
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:53:00 -
[131] - Quote
Alchenar wrote:Tippia wrote:The reason STV is GÇ£the better systemGÇ¥ is exactly because it is complicated. You can't have it both ways. . This isn't STV. It's STV with a special addon specifically designed to disenfranchise voters. People aren't complaining that it's complicated. They are complaining that the proposal is deliberately designed to be undemocratic.
Tippia is distinguishing between this proposed system and true STV. please leave |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:55:00 -
[132] - Quote
TL:DR - Changing the voting system to trivialize votes will just anger the people that are invested in making the game better and insure we affect the game more. CSM will be shuffled, and it will be made up of people who care about fixing the game rather than fixing and election.
Alright, so the CSM as a whole has decided to pitch an idea to some of the most devious, intelligent, and outright evil minds in the gaming world. They want to "adapt the voting system to get better representation" or so is the spirit of the idea, but they do so poorly. You've seen throughout the past 5 or so pages that everyone that plays eve with any real desire to influence the game will find a way to influence it. Within minutes of this post diplomats and strategists were already thinking of ways to make this work to their advantage. However, instead of just gaming the system, since you can be punished for doing so now, they chose to reveal the logical flaws in this system. Yet these same individuals "the concerned" are the ones that will be ignored in this new system of voting unless we game it, and it's more than mildly offensive that a "meet this quota and it doesnGÇÖt matter" system was even concocted.
This system will make it so that we as a whole must endeavor to do so in a new and creative way but rest assured, as these same gamers represent the most "concerned" individuals we will game you. The system will be explained, and the holes will be found, as they already have been. Then the diplomats, because those actually exist in this game, will sit down together and figure out how to make the same people that the CSM is so against getting elected take their jobs then surprisingly do them better.
I promise if this goes through it wont be the end of Eve, it wont be a 'change for the better" instead it will just be a further reflection that the b******* individuals are simply too lazy to actually vote, and the ones that want to will do so, but considering how the CSM tried to game us, it's only fair that we return the favor. Really sit down, do some actual work on something that affects the game and not the seat of prestige that you all currently hold. You want to know what the concerns are of the player base, read the forums, hell use local in system to find out. Communicate, plan, evaluate, test, re-evaluate, and release. That's the process, it's not hard. This is the communication, this system is terrible because it trivializes players, and is just as easy as any to game.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9403
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:58:00 -
[133] - Quote
Alchenar wrote:This isn't STV. It's STV with a special addon specifically designed to disenfranchise voters.
People aren't complaining that it's complicated. They are complaining that the proposal is deliberately designed to be undemocratic. GǪyou mean, exactly like I was saying. In fact, this proposal isn't STV in any form (with our without addons) GÇö it's a normal voting system with the GÇ£vote discardingGÇ¥ rule turned on its head. If anything, it's more close to some screwy kind of parallel-voting first-past-the-post system with a bias towards candidates close to the cut-off point. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:58:00 -
[134] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially?
I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Vile rat
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1407
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:58:00 -
[135] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
And the more important question is - what is the significance of obtaining more than one seat on the council, per large entity, in the first place? This would have to assume that the CSM uses a voting system internally to determine policy, or that CCP somehow gives an idea more weight if 2-3 CSM members agree as supposed to only one. My experience has shown so far though that even a single CSM seat can make more of a difference than three others in terms of influence, as long as that seat is filled by someone competent, articulate, and who makes good suggestions.
This is going to be really crazy so I need you to sit down for a minute. Are you seated? I'm glad, this is going to blow your god damn mind.
It turns out that candidates aren't all equal! I know right? I learned something really crazy when I ran that I hope to share with you. Candidates, even those from the same alliance, can have different playing styles, points of focus, interests, and things they feel need to be fixed in Eve. People don't vote for an alliance, they vote for a person. A person who they feel will best represent those interests that matter most to them. I hope this has been helpful to you and I thank you for your time kind sir. God bless! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1409
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:02:00 -
[136] - Quote
HVAC Repairman wrote:you're going to regret making this thread when we elect arghy as csm8 chair
With such motions as "i don't think i'm getting enough sex" and "hey guys what do you think of my homework" |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1409
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:02:00 -
[137] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially? I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
but we invaded |
Lord Zim
1327
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:03:00 -
[138] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal. He's not taking flak personally because it was published as a CSM-wide publication. In fact, it's in the very wording of the first posts.
Now you're pointing at Trebor and saying "it wasn't the CSM, it was his idea!" because there's a bit of a backlash because it's about as gameable as most CCP-induced game mechanics the past few years. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
198
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:05:00 -
[139] - Quote
Someone is gonna get the albatross hung around their neck some election time and Hans is now making sure it isn't him This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:05:00 -
[140] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially? I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
Because he's an unperson. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:06:00 -
[141] - Quote
Aryth wrote:You mean how it seems like half the CSM minutes are related to the election/Mittens in some form? That meeting took place months ago. So clearly this has been being kicked around for months.
It seems that way, but they aren't. A lot of that stems from the fact that the first session was documented using the transcript format we later decided was cumbersome, and tossed out. This left a lot of the players with the misunderstanding that the CSM cares more about its own internal bureaucratic structure than about the actual issues existing in the game.
Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4545
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:06:00 -
[142] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially? I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
now let's not throw Trebor under a bus because this thread backfired! please leave |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2155
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:08:00 -
[143] - Quote
The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort.
As someone who was elected from a smallish community, my worry is that in the future there might be 4 or 5 wormhole dudes running, and I don't want to see that mean that nobody from w-space gets elected. Avoiding that sort of scenario is my #1 requirement for a new voting system. My other desired features:
2) Encourage a broad representation on the CSM. Having a FW guy, or a wormhole guy, or a highsec guy on the CSM is really useful when we need a POV on issues that pertain to those communities. 3) Make voting easier, or at least as easy as it is currently.
How about this for an alternate proposal:
Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:08:00 -
[144] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.
Unless you have a vote on electoral reform all you really know is a couple of people want electoral reform really loudly.
Two step wrote: Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part.
Again I'll say, if you don't have the resources to do electoral reform properly, don't do it at all. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:08:00 -
[145] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially? I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal. Because he's an unperson.
An excellent point. I wish I could confirm Trebor's humanity, but I can't. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:10:00 -
[146] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
"Trebor's proposal" is specifically presented as a CSM suggestion:
Quote:Below we present one possible system that attempts to meet the above goals. We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement.
Could we get some clarity on if Trebor was wrong to imply this was CSM backed or if the rest of the CSM actually supports it? Given the clear wording of his post, your statements that "this is just Trebor's proposal!" means one of you is being deceptive. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4545
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:10:00 -
[147] - Quote
Two step wrote:The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort.
As someone who was elected from a smallish community, my worry is that in the future there might be 4 or 5 wormhole dudes running, and I don't want to see that mean that nobody from w-space gets elected. Avoiding that sort of scenario is my #1 requirement for a new voting system. My other desired features:
2) Encourage a broad representation on the CSM. Having a FW guy, or a wormhole guy, or a highsec guy on the CSM is really useful when we need a POV on issues that pertain to those communities. 3) Make voting easier, or at least as easy as it is currently.
How about this for an alternate proposal:
Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part.
i have a solution for increasing voter turnout:
encourage people to vote please leave |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:10:00 -
[148] - Quote
arghy as a csm chair would be cool because he'd be the only csm member ever detained for running up and down an airplane aisle naked Follow me on twitter |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:11:00 -
[149] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.
Unless you have a vote on electoral reform all you really know is a couple of people want electoral reform really loudly.
What kind of vote should we have on electoral reform? First past the post? Single transferrable vote? Alternative vote? Condorcet cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping? :ohdear: ~ |
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:11:00 -
[150] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: So you're going to make sure Trebor catches all the flak for this one, and you'll swivel your cape to catch the most wind, despite the fact you came in guns blazing to defend the thread initially? I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
You don't see it as taking flak because you don't really care about your voters.
There's no point in attacking Trebor as a person because one only attacks when they don't have an argument. That isn't the case since none of you can do any of the things that you promised to do.
Read that again. You have not delivered. You are the do-nothing CSM. You've contributed nothing of note and you have failed in representing us. You and your fellow CSM representatives are failures.
This isn't classified as an attack because it's truth. This thread is proof that you are the do-nothing CSM. A waste of our faith and our time.
|
|
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:12:00 -
[151] - Quote
While we're at it lets make MInmatar only get 3/5ths of a vote. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:15:00 -
[152] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:While we're at it lets make MInmatar only get 3/5ths of a vote.
Damn, son. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:24:00 -
[153] - Quote
You know, something to consider, Look at this post, look at who has posted, and look at the likes, from those derive who actually cares about the CSM and voting. Wow, looks like we've just accomplished a huge goal for voting reform, we know who votes, who gives a ****, and who doesn't know their Back side from a hole in the ground.
Now that we've covered that, we can move on to more important things. How are those POS changes coming? How about the rebalance of Null/Low/High? Have we made any ground on attending to the concerns of the WH space? Have we improved the new player experience? Is there any chance of not punishing players for past misdeeds because they told you about an issue, then when you ignored it, they gamed the system, and proved you incorrect? Finally as a last question, what is the next serious goal for the CSM? |
Vile rat
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1412
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:27:00 -
[154] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:what is the next serious goal for the CSM?
We need to have a serious discussion about the in game font. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1078
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:31:00 -
[155] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it. No offense, but why wouldn't they assume this is directed at them when Trebor makes mention of them twice as reasons that the voting system has to change?
Quote:. . . some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.
Quote:. . . for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM. Caldari Militia |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9403
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:37:00 -
[156] - Quote
Two step wrote:The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort. GǪbut again, that's pretty much unavoidable.
The thing is, almost all standard voting systems are meant to elect one candidate, and pretty much all the mechanisms in elections these days revolve around turning that single vote into a ranking (usually by counting who got the one vote the most) or some kind of proportional distribution. The reason STV is so handy is because it is in and of itself a ranking system that is also a single vote (for that proportion-counting part), so you get the bit you wanted in the end for freeGǪ
GǪexcept that ranking is inherently more complicated than voting for one thing. The CSM is a ranked body; the difficulties of ranking are thus inherent and inescapable so the only question is how flawed you want it to be. Anyway, the standard way of simplifying STV is to reduce the number of ranking slots. Once you get down to two or three, it's not particularly difficult at all on either end of the process. Likewise, there are simplifications that can be done in the counting process GÇö whether or not to do a full recount between rounds or not GÇö that reduce the work load on that end.
Picking three slots isn't much more effort than picking one, and the proposed system still requires you to understand both the candidate you're voting for and the candidate s/he is GÇ£votingGÇ¥ for with the transfer, so the one thing that really keeps people from voting GÇö reading up on the candidates GÇö is still there. Those who are interested in voting to begin with will not be all that deterred if they have to pick their top three rather than just their top one (and the entire point GÇö that you vote is much less likely to be wasted GÇö is still there and is still a strong argument to pull new voters in). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1078
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:39:00 -
[157] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players? Because nowhere near 100% of the playerbase votes? Instead of rigging the vote to disenfranchise Goon votes, why not figure out how to get more players to participate in the voting process? That will lessen the impact of the Goon bloc.
The Goon bloc is so powerful because such a small percentage of the overall playerbase votes.
Work at getting players to the polls, don't work at rigging the voting rules.
Caldari Militia |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:39:00 -
[158] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it. No offense, but why wouldn't they assume this is directed at them when Trebor makes mention of them twice as reasons that the voting system has to change? Quote:. . . some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate. Quote:. . . for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Vile rat
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1413
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:43:00 -
[159] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?
Come on son. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:43:00 -
[160] - Quote
Oh and as to how to get players to vote, three things: First: Send everyone in Game an Evemail that it's time to vote Second: Annoy people reminding them it's time to vote. (Splash updates on the loading screen, propoganda videos etc.) Third: Hold the Election. |
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:43:00 -
[161] - Quote
As I've said before, how is "we would disenfranchise anyone who threatened our political power, not just you" a defense?
I'd also like my answer on if the CSM supports this proposal, considering that Trebor clearly presents it as a CSM proposal, not a personal one. |
Alchenar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:43:00 -
[162] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it. No offense, but why wouldn't they assume this is directed at them when Trebor makes mention of them twice as reasons that the voting system has to change? Quote:. . . some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate. Quote:. . . for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM. I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?
I'm going to write a law that says 'All people called Hans Jagerblitzen must be killed on sight'.
Sure, you happen to be the only person effected by this law but it isn't targetted at you because some other person could change their name to Hans Jagerblitzen. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
954
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:43:00 -
[163] - Quote
Stop trying to control the players.
The system works, if we wanna throw 10k votes at a candidate, let us. We all pay (in some form) to play EVE just like anyone else. Our vote should count towards the candidate we want in and not towards a runner up.
In any event, according to Jade, empire has more 'characters' than any part of EVE, so this shouldn't ever happen, right?
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2254
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:48:00 -
[164] - Quote
I'm glad this has sparked a lively discussion, and I hope it continues to evolve. To clarify one point, election reform is something the CSM has been discussing for years, and I have taken the point role in pushing the discussion forward (as was discussed at the May 2012 summit).
EvilweaselFinance wrote:also, unlike actual STV, this system is deliberately designed to penalize overvotes by eliminating ALL of the votes for an elected candidate The preferred candidate of those voters got elected, so their vote was not wasted -- exactly the same result as under the current system.
And IIRC, the noted political philosopher T.H.E. Mittani was one of the people who observed, at the December 2011 CSM Summit, that pure STV would be "heaven for the powerblocks" and "would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM".
CD-STV is an attempt to address former Chairman Mittani's concerns.
Permitting overvotes to transfer would automatically optimize the voting power of large, organized blocs without any risk of miscalculation, giving them even more voting power than they currently enjoy under the present system. They can still do it if they want (using the tools that were developed for vote tracking in recent elections), but with a certain element of uncertainty. This still gives them a significant edge over smaller groups who cannot effectively track votes for their candidates.
Also keep in mind that the purpose of the CSM elections to elect a council of representatives who can give CCP the best possible advice, and this is not exactly the same goal as in a RL election. Having multiple essentially identical voices on the CSM isn't optimal, which is likely one reason the CFC, who could have easily placed 2 or even 3 candidates into the top 7 in the last election, instead chose to concentrate their votes on a single candidate.
Under CD-STV, the large organized blocs are no worse off; they maintain their voting power, and can still use their information advantage to split votes if they so desire. The major differences in outcome vs. the current system will be likely be seen in slots 10-14.
PS: If the candidates in the previous election would care to let me know what their preferred alternate representatives were, I would be happy to update the simulator to reflect these. For the record, mine would have been: Seleene, Hans, Two Step, Meissa, Alek, leboe and corebloodbrothers. The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:51:00 -
[165] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:CD-STV is an attempt to address former Chairman Mittani's concerns..
Good joke dude! |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1079
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:51:00 -
[166] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Currently, if I vote for Eminiently Qualified Candidate, and you vote for Random Shirtlord Running A Vanity Campaign, but my Eminiently Qualified Candidate already has a quota, you throw out my vote. However, your Random Shirtlord Running a Vanity Campaign vote is preserved (and moved to Random Shirtlord #2). That's what's going on here that's unacceptable. Eminiently Qualified Candidate = The Mittani Random Shirtlord Running A Vanity Campaign = Kelduum
I'd hope The Mittani makes it onto the CSM every day of the week. We should be limiting the Kelduum vote, not The Mittani vote.
Caldari Militia |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:52:00 -
[167] - Quote
Also, since you reappeared to spout some more bullshit, why don't you let us know why disenfranchising bloc voters is okay, please. |
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:53:00 -
[168] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:I'm glad this has sparked a lively discussion, and I hope it continues to evolve. To clarify one point, election reform is something the CSM has been discussing for years, and I have taken the point role in pushing the discussion forward (as was discussed at the May 2012 summit).
Trebor... Is this all you have to show for your time on the CSM? Seriously?
Go do your job. Jesus. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:53:00 -
[169] - Quote
It is astronomically bizarre that the two most petty CSM's have been the two without Goons. I wonder what we take away from that. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Lord Zim
1334
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:54:00 -
[170] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:And IIRC, the noted political philosopher T.H.E. Mittani was one of the people who observed, at the December 2011 CSM Summit, that pure STV would be "heaven for the powerblocks" and "would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM". 1) Citation needed. 2) So you're taking today's system, which has which problem with it again? ... and you're switching it over to a system which is gameable, with a modification which makes it even more gameable?
Okay then. |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
230
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:55:00 -
[171] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:stuff
Block voting is present in almost every current real world electoral system but none of them have tried to "solve" it. Why is it only an issue in internet spaceship politics? |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1079
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:57:00 -
[172] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:You've found that to be unacceptable I haven't found anything unacceptable. Trebor wrote the proposal, I'm just here to discuss its merits and drawbacks just like the rest of you. The whole point is to allow the community to shape a set of recommendations that we can take to CCP. It may be that the recommendation we get from the community is that we change nothing at all. I'm pretty open-minded in general. If you don't like something Trebor said, convince me that its bad. I'm listening. There's no need to argue in the meantime as if this was something every one of the CSM members is personally trying to mandate. So far Trebor is not responding to any of this ... why is he so willing to let you take all the heat?
You need to stop responding, and let the man with the plan step up to defend his voting scheme.
Caldari Militia |
Lord Zim
1334
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:57:00 -
[173] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:stuff Block voting is present in almost every current real world electoral system but none of them have tried to "solve" it. Why is it only an issue in internet spaceship politics? Because:
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:58:00 -
[174] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Permitting overvotes to transfer would automatically optimize the voting power of large, organized blocs without any risk of miscalculation, giving them even more voting power than they currently enjoy under the present system. They can still do it if they want (using the tools that were developed for vote tracking in recent elections), but with a certain element of uncertainty. This still gives them a significant edge over smaller groups who cannot effectively track votes for their candidates.
In other words: allowing an accurate, fair vote would help those who would be elected by an accurate, fair vote. As the people want something that you don't want, we cannot allow that. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:00:00 -
[175] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: Also keep in mind that the purpose of the CSM elections to elect a council of representatives who can give CCP the best possible advice, and this is not exactly the same goal as in a RL election. Having multiple essentially identical voices on the CSM isn't optimal, which is likely one reason the CFC, who could have easily placed 2 or even 3 candidates into the top 7 in the last election, instead chose to concentrate their votes on a single candidate..
Ahh, here is the rub. You see, all people from the CFC are identical, ergo we can't allow that.
Why aren't all highsec candidates identical? Why shouldn't we be making sure only one highsec candidate gets elected? |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1079
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:03:00 -
[176] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC? Fortunately, that would not happen, because it's only complete ignorance that gets Kelduum any votes. This term of his on the CSM has made that more than clear. The dude is ineffective and useless at his "job" on the CSM.
Caldari Militia |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:04:00 -
[177] - Quote
For example, I - as Goonswarm's CFO - have a huge amount of experience in everything industry and money related. The Mittani, as Goonswarm's CEO, has a huge amount of experience in 0.0 sovwar, diplomacy, and running a successful alliance. I know virtually nothing about the areas Mittani is an expert in, and he knows very little about the areas I am an expert in.
We are both in Goonswarm. Do we bring identical things to the table? Am I to be excluded, were I to run, because in your esteemed opinion I am a clone of The Mittani? |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1080
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:05:00 -
[178] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:I'm glad this has sparked a lively discussion, and I hope it continues to evolve. To clarify one point, election reform is something the CSM has been discussing for years, and I have taken the point role in pushing the discussion forward (as was discussed at the May 2012 summit). You have taken the point role? Haha. Why you letting poor Hans take all the heat in this discussion thread then? By page three, people forgot you wrote the original post, since only Hans is "defending" it.
You wrote it, you defend it. Man up, and stop letting your CSM-mate take all the heat.
Caldari Militia |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
662
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:06:00 -
[179] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?
Your proposal would disenfranchise not only many CFC voters but also any alternative blocs that attempted to organize. You seem to think that the CFC being organized means no one else can be, when in fact you could see Eve-U, the HBC, the Solar Fleet bloc, the -A- bloc, and so on organizing and directing their votes, all at once. Your proposal cramps any and all effort to do this, not just ours. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9406
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:09:00 -
[180] - Quote
Come to think of it, the voting system isn't the actual problem.
The problem is that what we're voting for is undefined. The CSM is not a decision-making body, so proportionality doesn't matter. it may be a ranked body, but only the top and the bottom four(?) positions are of any relevance.
So what relevant factor is it the votes are supposed to decide? Before this is answered, there's no way to pick a matching voting system. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:14:00 -
[181] - Quote
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. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
565
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:18:00 -
[182] - Quote
The obvious bias element is one thing.
Take it a step further. How many blocks do you think have perfect exit polling and excellent voter coordination? Where they can optimize their results using their IT infrastructure.
This new system will be game-able, by only those blocks with that ability. You are going to make your problem a whole lot worse. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1305
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:18:00 -
[183] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: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. Well that's what the smoke and mirrors is for, there's a hidden lens there to distort things.
But the claim is that it's optimal to distort things... I guess we could use more miners' friends (you know what I mean) around.
EvilweaselFinance wrote: 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. Basically instead of sockpuppeting with thread spamming and/or alts, you do it "legitimately" via a new voting mechanism. Excellent. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2849
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:20:00 -
[184] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: You wrote it, you defend it. Man up, and stop letting your CSM-mate take all the heat.
Relax, Poe. I stand by the things I've said, and those alone. I don't really care if people yell at me for things Trebor said, doesn't bother me one bit. Thanks for the white knight though.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:21:00 -
[185] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: You wrote it, you defend it. Man up, and stop letting your CSM-mate take all the heat.
Relax, Poe. I stand by the things I've said, and those alone. I don't really care if people yell at me for things Trebor said, doesn't bother me one bit. Thanks for the white knight though. 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? |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1080
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:22:00 -
[186] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:PS: If the candidates in the previous election would care to let me know what their preferred alternate representatives were, I would be happy to update the simulator to reflect these. For the record, mine would have been: Seleene, Hans, Two Step, Meissa, Alek, leboe and corebloodbrothers. Nobody had better have Kelduum on their preferred alternates list.
Caldari Militia |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1305
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:23:00 -
[187] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: You wrote it, you defend it. Man up, and stop letting your CSM-mate take all the heat.
Relax, Poe. I stand by the things I've said, and those alone. I don't really care if people yell at me for things Trebor said, doesn't bother me one bit. Thanks for the white knight though. 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? I hope they'd all have done their homework to ensure that the people voting for them would get a "leg up" via the new system.
Otherwise you'd look pretty silly. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Lord Zim
1334
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:26:00 -
[188] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: You wrote it, you defend it. Man up, and stop letting your CSM-mate take all the heat.
Relax, Poe. I stand by the things I've said, and those alone. I don't really care if people yell at me for things Trebor said, doesn't bother me one bit. Thanks for the white knight though. So what you're saying is that in other words, Trebor incorrectly wrote the entire starting post as something the CSM as a whole stood behind, but it's just Trebor which should be lynched, and while you defended it initially, you've now turned coat 180 degrees and are now against it? |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1081
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:31:00 -
[189] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Relax, Poe. I stand by the things I've said, and those alone. I don't really care if people yell at me for things Trebor said, doesn't bother me one bit. Thanks for the white knight though. You haven't said anything, though.
You've pretended that this change isn't about the CFC by throwing out complete flights of fancy (i.e., what if Kelduum controlled the largest powerbloc in the game, then this new voting proposal would be good, right? What if cows wearing ridiculous hats ran for the CSM, and those cows duped humans into voting for them?)
Actually, I'm not sure what this proposal is meant to solve? For CSM7 ... the CFC threw all their votes behind one candidate. Only one CFC candidate would be on the CSM right now (had he not resigned.) Because they chose NOT to game the system.
Under this new proposal, The Mittani would have been voted King, plus two people he deemed as alternates in the Queen and Prince positions. Without even trying to game the system, the CFC would now have three candidates on the CSM.
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.
Caldari Militia |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
156
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:32:00 -
[190] - Quote
let us not forget: the csm also has decided the people cannot be trusted to elect the Chairman and has decided that should be taken away from the voters as well |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1305
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:33:00 -
[191] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: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.
Well one's own votes are always more valid.
Besides, if it's now about The Mittani we can go back and dig up/necro the old threads by, what was it, a couple of CSM members demonizing him? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:34:00 -
[192] - Quote
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. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:37:00 -
[193] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Under this new proposal, The Mittani would have been voted King, plus two people he deemed as alternates in the Queen and Prince positions. Without even trying to game the system, the CFC would now have three candidates on the CSM. No, without trying to game the system exactly that wouldn't have happened, because all of the surplus Mittani votes would have been thrown out. You see, that's the entire intention of calling the proposal "STV-CD": you associate it with STV, where you have an idea how it works. Yet it doesn't work like that, because it isn't STV.
|
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
221
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:37:00 -
[194] - Quote
When election time comes around Im gonna link the **** out of this thread to remind people how the CSM couldn't make up their mind whether they did or did not want to actively toss out the votes of people because they don't like who they are voting for. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1306
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:38:00 -
[195] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote: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. Presumably the hope is that, in Jita Park, it would not recieve too much attention which is then just whitewashed as "ah it was discussed" (as per the topic) and then they use it to help ensure they get to stay and stay CFC free.
Perhaps not, but hey, how many people are going to see this, other than a few people noting it's not a great idea. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:48:00 -
[196] - Quote
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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1306
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:50:00 -
[197] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote: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. I would imagine before the people come in (near voting season) the thread would be long dead, and anyone who tries to bring it up will find it locked for "necro".
As long as we never not post and keep it up, perhaps not, but there's months to go for us to get tired. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:51:00 -
[198] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Remnant Madeveda wrote: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. I would imagine before the people come in (near voting season) the thread would be long dead, and anyone who tries to bring it up will find it locked for "necro". As long as we never not post and keep it up, perhaps not, but there's months to go for us to get tired.
There are rules about that though... |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
221
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:52:00 -
[199] - Quote
What about a Poll Tax? We can RP it in terms of needing to fund the voting infrastructure. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1307
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:54:00 -
[200] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Remnant Madeveda wrote: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. I would imagine before the people come in (near voting season) the thread would be long dead, and anyone who tries to bring it up will find it locked for "necro". As long as we never not post and keep it up, perhaps not, but there's months to go for us to get tired. There are rules about that though... Perfect, so it'll be long "discussed" "settled" and "approved" in time to maximize their voters' potential. Excellent. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:58:00 -
[201] - Quote
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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1308
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:13:00 -
[202] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote: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. Note that the whole discussion is framed already as " there are many election systems that are clearly better than the current one."
This should not be simply accepted as given. Of course having votes transfer means you can have an ideal situation where you split all your votes N ways, and have alternatives in a ring so you'll get the most number of people in. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:18:00 -
[203] - Quote
Given that in Eve the meta-game is as important or moreso than the game itself it seems silly to believe the current system is flawed at all. If you really consider what goes on and how much time is put into the work of gaining recognition as a competant individual then you see these people, generally, deserve to be on CSM if they are elected. With that being said after losing a member of their team the current CSM appears to have lost an extra bit of guidance that would potentially allow them to be more cohesive, competant, and perhaps effective as a team.
So, my contention is leave the system as it is, and attempt to educate the playerbase you are so concerned with being underrepresented. If they are concerned about it at all, and it's not just sockpuppet arguements, then they will get people on CSM. I mean they keep saying that highsec is where most of the game is, if that's the case then it clearly should be able to dominate any election. Jesus, you'd think someone might realize that and make a voting system based on each person who cares having an opinion and using it to elect an official without any extra bullshit. You know a true democracy..oh wait...
This is a simple form of democracy, it does not need to be ******* rocket science. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
665
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:22:00 -
[204] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?
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. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1313
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:27:00 -
[205] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?
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. Because people working together is bad.
This is EVE, where "group mining" is a multiboxed fleet.
I should add, having friends is bad (sea of blues), and having friends who like to undock together is even worse (blob!). Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4556
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:31:00 -
[206] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I asked why they felt it targeted the CFC in particular and not "whichever group in the game has the most organized power". In other words, if your worst nightmare came true and Kelduum metagamed EVE University into the largest, most organized player entity in the game, how would Trebor's proposal treat EVE Uni any different than the CFC?
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~ please leave |
Brooson
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:32:00 -
[207] - Quote
I want proof that this STV idea was discussed in previous CSM.
If not I am going to assume that we are being lied to by our current CSM. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1313
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:32:00 -
[208] - Quote
Andski wrote: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~ Yeah, they gotta make sure "we" never get in otherwise we'll play the same game and then next time they'll get no one in. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:34:00 -
[209] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Andski wrote: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~ Yeah, they gotta make sure "we" never get in otherwise we'll play the same game and then next time they'll get no one in.
I think everyone is forgetting two important variables, CFC and HBC bad at Eve.. good at politics. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1313
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:41:00 -
[210] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Andski wrote: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~ Yeah, they gotta make sure "we" never get in otherwise we'll play the same game and then next time they'll get no one in. I think everyone is forgetting two important variables, CFC and HBC bad at Eve.. good at politics. Politics are so amusing sometimes.
You almost CAN'T get blueballed in Forums Online. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:43:00 -
[211] - Quote
Until we get banhammered or the thread gets locked.. but I suppose we would just make a new discussion thread then eh? |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:44:00 -
[212] - Quote
Brooson wrote:I want proof that this STV idea was discussed in previous CSM. It's not STV. Stop calling it STV. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1314
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:48:00 -
[213] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Brooson wrote:I want proof that this STV idea was discussed in previous CSM. It's not STV. Stop calling it STV. Let's call it candidate-driven vote trading - CDVT
Or better yet, Politicians Trading Your Votes - PTYV Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4557
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:48:00 -
[214] - Quote
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. please leave |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1314
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:53:00 -
[215] - Quote
Andski wrote: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 also want to know if it's indeed "et al".
There's been some evasion about how much consensus there is that this system should be stealth-introduced before people are paying attention to Jita Park. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:05:00 -
[216] - Quote
Two step wrote:The issue I have with STV is that making voting *harder* isn't going to increase voter turnout numbers. Certainly the system Trebor proposed has some downsides, but one thing it does get right is that the voters wouldn't have to expend much more effort.
As someone who was elected from a smallish community, my worry is that in the future there might be 4 or 5 wormhole dudes running, and I don't want to see that mean that nobody from w-space gets elected. Avoiding that sort of scenario is my #1 requirement for a new voting system. My other desired features:
2) Encourage a broad representation on the CSM. Having a FW guy, or a wormhole guy, or a highsec guy on the CSM is really useful when we need a POV on issues that pertain to those communities. 3) Make voting easier, or at least as easy as it is currently.
How about this for an alternate proposal:
Run the election like true STV, but people pick a candidate and that candiate's list becomes their STV vote. It would also be nice to support people picking their own STV vote list, but that would take more dev time on CCP's part.
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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1314
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:12:00 -
[217] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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. So you have to force the voters into things, that's what the voters want?
Nice. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Lord Zim
1335
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:20:00 -
[218] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1314
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:27:00 -
[219] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:serras bang wrote: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. He means the VOTERS should choose alternates, not have candidates themselves do it.
For example if a bunch of candidates choose one another.. but they're all too small all the votes go poof. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:45:00 -
[220] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:serras bang wrote: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. He means the VOTERS should choose alternates, not have candidates themselves do it. For example if a bunch of candidates choose one another.. but they're all too small all the votes go poof.
no the candidates never have the chance to pass on votes if none of the candidates the voter chosses get on csm the votes go poof
|
|
Holander Switzerland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:46:00 -
[221] - Quote
So what exactly is stopping people from gaming this poorly thought out, purposely misleading, pseudo-STV system? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:46:00 -
[222] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote: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. So you have to force the voters into things, that's what the voters want? Nice.
i never said force but a lot of people dont know about csm or what they do heance they never even get the option of voting |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:50:00 -
[223] - Quote
You can't make the CSM elections more public than last time without forcing everybody to vote. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
958
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:51:00 -
[224] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Aryth wrote:You mean how it seems like half the CSM minutes are related to the election/Mittens in some form? That meeting took place months ago. So clearly this has been being kicked around for months. It seems that way, but they aren't. A lot of that stems from the fact that the first session was documented using the transcript format we later decided was cumbersome, and tossed out. This left a lot of the players with the misunderstanding that the CSM cares more about its own internal bureaucratic structure than about the actual issues existing in the game. Discussion about electoral reform has been kicked around for much longer than a few months, this is hardly some new, strange obsession of CSM7's. Players have been talking about this for years, and will very likely continue until we actually see electoral reform.
What's your stance on it? You typically remain politically neutral and never take a side on any argument. Are you for or against reform?
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:57:00 -
[225] - Quote
Would prefer they do away with CSM and find some other way of creating a census with the userbase.
CSM7 Skype Leak
|
Lord Zim
1335
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:59:00 -
[226] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:What's your stance on it? You typically remain politically neutral and never take a side on any argument. Are you for or against reform? Looks like he was for it, until he saw the way the wind was blowing, then he switched over to "It's not mine! Nuh uh!". |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
958
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:09:00 -
[227] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Zagdul wrote:What's your stance on it? You typically remain politically neutral and never take a side on any argument. Are you for or against reform? Looks like he was for it, until he saw the way the wind was blowing, then he switched over to "It's not mine! Nuh uh!".
Sounds about right.
He played the same game with Greyscale's new gate gun mechanics.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4558
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:10:00 -
[228] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:Would prefer they do away with CSM and find some other way of creating a census with the userbase.
CSM 6 did a good job, so eliminating it outright because of two bad examples (CSM 5, CSM 7) is silly. please leave |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:13:00 -
[229] - Quote
Andski wrote:CSM 6 did a good job, so eliminating it outright because of two bad examples (CSM 5, CSM 7) is silly. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of CSMs so far were utterly ****. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:28:00 -
[230] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:You can't make the CSM elections more public than last time without forcing everybody to vote.
really cause i heard squat i didnt even know the vote had come and gone. anyways i think im getting of point just making the say that it has be be put out plane smack in the face of everyone also. |
|
Lord Zim
1335
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:32:00 -
[231] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:You can't make the CSM elections more public than last time without forcing everybody to vote. really cause i heard squat i didnt even know the vote had come and gone. anyways i think im getting of point just making the say that it has be be put out plane smack in the face of everyone also. Bravo, you've ignored the email, the logon splashscreen, the evemails, the local spam, the press in gaming media, etc etc etc. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:33:00 -
[232] - Quote
It's been publicized on the login screen, on the character select, on the homepage, on the forums. Several candidates have sent out evemail spam. If you willingly ignore all of that, there's nothing left to do save for forcing you to vote. |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:33:00 -
[233] - Quote
Andski wrote:Revolution Rising wrote:Would prefer they do away with CSM and find some other way of creating a census with the userbase.
CSM 6 did a good job, so eliminating it outright because of two bad examples (CSM 5, CSM 7) is silly.
meh, Mittani just does what he wants and leaves 90% of the playerbase to rot, these guys seem kind of powerless ineffectual...
Half these candidates ran on a platform of reforming industry - next expansion is called "War"... enough said ?
I have lost all faith in it. CSM7 Skype Leak
|
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:45:00 -
[234] - Quote
nada CSM7 Skype Leak
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 22:08:00 -
[235] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:It's been publicized on the login screen, on the character select, on the homepage, on the forums. Several candidates have sent out evemail spam. If you willingly ignore all of that, there's nothing left to do save for forcing you to vote.
there was nothing that stood out to make me pay atention and i got no mail from anyone in this mass spam |
Katsumi Shimazu
Eternal Darkness. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 22:53:00 -
[236] - Quote
just get the game fixed, then worry about "voting reform"
|
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 23:20:00 -
[237] - Quote
serras bang wrote: there was nothing that stood out to make me pay atention and i got no mail from anyone in this mass spam
Did you even start the game client? How could you miss the big "vote" banner without being wilfully ignorant of the entire CSM process?
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. ~ |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1315
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 23:55:00 -
[238] - Quote
RDevz wrote: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. Let's just also assume there's an infinite number of morons there (to vote for) so the person bring forced to vote, who votes at random, has an effect that approaches zero. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 00:28:00 -
[239] - Quote
Whenever politicians discuss making changes to the ways of voting one and all should be very very wary. I say the current system should be left alone. You want my vote? Earn it. Sell yourself to me like a used ho bag |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
358
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 00:32:00 -
[240] - Quote
As I said like 10 pages ago, the simplest solution is still to just list the 12 candidates and let people pick 7. If a large bloc wants to improve their odds, they get more candidates in the 12. The large bloc would most likely get all their candidates in, but that's how voting works, the people with the most backing get in. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't agree that people in general have a problem with it. CSM should be dominated by the active player base, whether it covers the majority of the player base or not. In reality, there are very few issues that really matter to high sec that aren't an issue in low/null/WH as well.
|
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 01:03:00 -
[241] - Quote
RDevz wrote:serras bang wrote: there was nothing that stood out to make me pay atention and i got no mail from anyone in this mass spam
Did you even start the game client? How could you miss the big "vote" banner without being wilfully ignorant of the entire CSM process? 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.
who said force anyone again though you want more proff of how lacking knowladge of csm is i know a 6 - 7 year old char under what you guys are saying it would be easy to assume he knew all about csm and when they voted ?
yet i could almost guarantee yah he dosent. how you explain that ? |
Lord Zim
1341
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 01:05:00 -
[242] - Quote
Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 01:28:00 -
[243] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ?
noone has put in front of and explained it properly |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
668
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:09:00 -
[244] - Quote
So I still haven't heard Hans justify how disenfranchising members of an organized bloc, whether it's the CFC or some other mythical group, is okay.
We're waiting, Hans. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Ted McManfist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:11:00 -
[245] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ? noone has put in front of and explained it properly 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.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4562
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:24:00 -
[246] - Quote
corestwo wrote:So I still haven't heard Hans justify how disenfranchising members of an organized bloc, whether it's the CFC or some other mythical group, is okay.
We're waiting, Hans.
They're probably in their lil Skype channel talking about how to approach this trainwreck of a thread please leave |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1318
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:25:00 -
[247] - Quote
Ted McManfist wrote: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. If anything we hear your voice.
It's nothing, because you couldn't be bothered to take even step #1. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:26:00 -
[248] - Quote
It's ice hypnosis. Once you've stared at the glow of the mining lasers for too long, it's all you really see.
|
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1052
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 02:58:00 -
[249] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote::words:
Trebor I for one, appreciate you completely undermining any chance you had at weaseling into CSM8.
Make sure you spam Jita extra hard this year.
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 04:50:00 -
[250] - Quote
I'm laughing at the fact that Trebor and his team have wasted a CSM term and now suddenly come up with "voting reform" to set all those wrongs right. Screw fixing the game mechanics, it's the CFC's fault that we don't do our jobs! Next year will be different after we reform this voting system!
I mean, the voters are clearly to blame for this year's ineffective CSM, right Trebor? The results of the last election is THE reason why you haven't done ANYTHING! Boggles the mind but there you have it!
I seriously cannot look at Trebor and not see Smeegle cuddling his precious votes.
|
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
810
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 05:21:00 -
[251] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Zim wrote: Were you against this suggestion? How many months have you guys spent on drafting this? Did you guys really think it wasn't gameable? 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. Did you honestly think that any reform you put out will not be met by a wall of Goonswarm trying to tell you how bad it is.
The facts of the matter are that Goonswarm represents 3% of Eves account holders in their block. So any attempt to alter the voting system by getting people to vote or altering the way the voting is done will produce a thread naught about how badly off they would be.
Now with all things like this the CSM must decide if you just go off the forums you will have a campaign by Goonswarm to prevent any real discussion on the matter.
It is however only natural for them to defend what they consider as theirs but it is more importantly your responsibility to represent the WHOLE game and not just minority groups.
For example you need to make the voting less riggable by introducing. Minimum subscribed times (like 3 moths prior to the elections, also not that hard to add to code its just an algorith and database field
As to voting reform itself the Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote does have merits, it will be gamed but with everyone still only getting one vote the fact that is that this would allow smaller groups of people to band together into their own minority block allowing smaller voices to be heard and hopefully removing the fact that at this point the lowest CSM seat is only worth 1/3 of 1% of the populous of EvE.
So yes I am in favour of this, as game it all you want players only get 1 vote per account.
Oh and you should have named this thread "How to get minorities out of the woodwork" Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
810
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 05:24:00 -
[252] - Quote
Andski wrote:corestwo wrote:So I still haven't heard Hans justify how disenfranchising members of an organized bloc, whether it's the CFC or some other mythical group, is okay.
We're waiting, Hans. They're probably in their lil Skype channel talking about how to approach this trainwreck of a thread It is only a train wreck as minorities would like everything to stay as they are. Isn't it amazing how this thread looks like what happens in RL when political parties talk about reducing funding or interest group access. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 05:41:00 -
[253] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So any attempt to alter the voting system by getting people to vote or altering the way the voting is done will produce a thread naught about how badly off they would be. 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.
Frying Doom wrote:Now with all things like this the CSM must decide if you just go off the forums you will have a campaign by Goonswarm to prevent any real discussion on the matter. Bullshit. There is real discussion on the matter. Just because we don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean there isn't.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
810
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 05:48:00 -
[254] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So any attempt to alter the voting system by getting people to vote or altering the way the voting is done will produce a thread naught about how badly off they would be. 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. Frying Doom wrote:Now with all things like this the CSM must decide if you just go off the forums you will have a campaign by Goonswarm to prevent any real discussion on the matter. Bullshit. There is real discussion on the matter. Just because we don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean there isn't. You might try to think this out rather than screaming against it, this proposal by its self will do nothing to stop 10,000 votes from getting someone on the CSM. It would however reduce candidates like Darius III getting re-elected as he would have less chance of scamming another candidate out of their votes.
But the main problems facing the CSM are not even this they are more to do with re-activating old accounts (or making new ones) to vote and the lack of people who actually vote. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 06:15:00 -
[255] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:You might try to think this out rather than screaming against it, this proposal by its self will do nothing to stop 10,000 votes from getting someone on the CSM. It would however reduce candidates like Darius III getting re-elected as he would have less chance of scamming another candidate out of their votes. 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".
Frying Doom wrote:But the main problems facing the CSM are not even this they are more to do with re-activating old accounts (or making new ones) to vote and the lack of people who actually vote. 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. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1086
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 06:26:00 -
[256] - Quote
from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/09/csm7-voting-reform.html
The tl;dr for todays post is that the problem with CSM voting is not the people who vote, but the number of people who can't be bothered to vote. Read the last three paragraphs if you're an exceptionally busy person.
Today the CSM posted a voting reform thread. Basically it's just a single idea they all pulled from their collective asses. They didn't present a voting system from existing sources, the sort of voting system already successfully implemented somewhere in the world, a system that's known to work. They didn't present a new voting system that's been debated on by scholars for years, that has a lot of statistical analysis and theory behind it. No, the CSM decided, in their great wisdom, that they could create a new, never-seen-before voting system. You know, because these guys all have doctorate degrees in Sociology, Statistics and Political Science.
That's their first win of the day.
Two reasons that the CSM gives for this reform are enlightening:
- Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
- . . . that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.
They're not responding to any actual problem from the CFC/HBC (the two groups they're targeting as problematic), they're responding to tinfoil-hattery, problems they think could/might happen, but have not actually happened.
(Spreadsheet: CSM6/CSM7 Representation)
In each of CSM6 and CSM7, the CFC/HBC bloc voted two candidates to positions on the CSM. I fail to see how this is a problem. Are they to be punished because a) they're motivated voters, and b) they are highly organized? Pandemic Legion (who generally pride themselves on being independent) voted two candidates into CSM seats for CSM7. Are their votes any worse (or better) than the CFC?
Heaven forbid that the CSM actually elect individuals who have strong aptitudes for organizing and motivating large groups of people. What the CSM needs more of are the Meissa Anunthiels, Issler Dainzes, Darius IIIs and Kelduum Revaans, invisible people who are more interested in the vanity of a CSM position than actually doing anything useful for the playerbase.
That's the CSM's second win of the day.
If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote.
It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough ****. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot.
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.) Caldari Militia |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
813
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 06:38:00 -
[257] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Frying Doom wrote:You might try to think this out rather than screaming against it, this proposal by its self will do nothing to stop 10,000 votes from getting someone on the CSM. It would however reduce candidates like Darius III getting re-elected as he would have less chance of scamming another candidate out of their votes. 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". Frying Doom wrote:But the main problems facing the CSM are not even this they are more to do with re-activating old accounts (or making new ones) to vote and the lack of people who actually vote. 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. Actually what I read was "3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM."
So no it says to reduce the advantages of bloc voting to prevent them holding multiple seats to cover their particular minority
As to the other That is logic, the voting system spoken about would not in any way shape or form alter the ability of getting a candidate in with 10,000 votes. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
813
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 06:49:00 -
[258] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/09/csm7-voting-reform.htmlOne 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.) I could not agree more the login script would be awesome, but wait for the oh no it won't from the usual suspects.
Please feel free to delete my comment off you blog if you wish it was more for info. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
814
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 07:29:00 -
[259] - Quote
I have always been preferable to
Wikipedia wrote: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.
But it really is a bit to much work for CCP
But as the CSM is the voice for not only the vocal crowd of the forums but the whole populous they need to figure out what voting system to use as the cannot have a discussion with the whole populous just the minorities.
The Kemeny-Young method, the Schulze method (also known as "Schwartz sequential dropping", "cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping" or the "beatpath method") and Ranked pairs are recently designed Condorcet methods that satisfy a large number of voting system criteria. These three Condorcet methods either fully rank, or can be used to fully rank, all the candidates from most popular to least popular. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Seismic Stan
273
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 08:08:00 -
[260] - Quote
I'd welcome any improvement to the voting system that would result in ensuring that successful candidates are ones who are effective and knowledgeable (as I believe the majority of CSM7 are). However, for voting to be attractive to a wider demographic, the process needs to be simple and clear. I'm not sure a convoluted process as described in Trebor's original post would provide that - it sounds like an exercise in riddle solving. You might get a few more Sudoku fans voting though. ;)
Better Candidate ScreeningIf the aim is to avoid electing ineffective CSM members (who damage the CSM image and put more pressure on positive contributors), I can certainly get behind that in principle. But perhaps a more robust candidate screening process would do more to weed out those ill-equipped or unwilling to contribute to the CSM effort than putting the onus on voters.
Moving the voter perception away from the concept of playstyle representation would make concerns about "too many bloc candidates" a moot point. After all, aren't all CSM candidates meant to be representing the EVE Online playerbase as a whole? If the most effective candidates are ones who choose to live in null-sec, that shouldn't be an issue, but if a candidate doesn't have any knowledge of the game beyond his preferred playstyle then perhaps he shouldn't be eligible to run in the first place.
Areas of specialist knowledge are fine, but refusal to represent or learn about other playstyles is surely counter to the principles of the CSM.
Improving Voter Confidence in the CSMJudging by the hackneyed "powerless" and "useless" mantras voiced by some, I think there's a general misconception that the CSM is some kind of player mutiny that should have the power to veto some areas of game development whilst demanding work be undertaken on others.
A concise and defined bullet-point list of CSM powers and responsibilities might help the misinformed to understand how the CSM contributes to improving their game experience. Players who are over-invested in a particular playstyle seem to struggle to move beyond the misguided idea that the CSM is a platform for personal agendas rather than an approachable player body with access and opportunity to contribute to the CCP think-tank on their behalf. Freebooted - Tech4 News - Incarna: The Text Adventure - Guild Launch EVE Correspondent |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1087
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 08:09:00 -
[261] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:from http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/09/csm7-voting-reform.htmlThe tl;dr for todays post is that the problem with CSM voting is not the people who vote, but the number of people who can't be bothered to vote. Read the last three paragraphs if you're an exceptionally busy person. Today the CSM posted a voting reform thread. Basically it's just a single idea they all pulled from their collective asses. They didn't present a voting system from existing sources, the sort of voting system already successfully implemented somewhere in the world, a system that's known to work. They didn't present a new voting system that's been debated on by scholars for years, that has a lot of statistical analysis and theory behind it. No, the CSM decided, in their great wisdom, that they could create a new, never-seen-before voting system. You know, because these guys all have doctorate degrees in Sociology, Statistics and Political Science. That's their first win of the day. Two reasons that the CSM gives for this reform are enlightening:
- Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
- . . . that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.
They're not responding to any actual problem from the CFC/HBC (the two groups they're targeting as problematic), they're responding to tinfoil-hattery, problems they think could/might happen, but have not actually happened.
(Spreadsheet: CSM6/CSM7 Representation)In each of CSM6 and CSM7, the CFC/HBC bloc voted two candidates to positions on the CSM. I fail to see how this is a problem. Are they to be punished because a) they're motivated voters, and b) they are highly organized? Pandemic Legion (who generally pride themselves on being independent) voted two candidates into CSM seats for CSM7. Are their votes any worse (or better) than the CFC? Heaven forbid that the CSM actually elect individuals who have strong aptitudes for organizing and motivating large groups of people. What the CSM needs more of are the Meissa Anunthiels, Issler Dainzes, Darius IIIs and Kelduum Revaans, invisible people who are more interested in the vanity of a CSM position than actually doing anything useful for the playerbase. That's the CSM's second win of the day. If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote. It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough ****. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot. 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.) Forgot to add:
Should I point out the while there were ten nullsec representatives on CSM6, there are only six nullsec representatives on CSM7? CSM7 embodies a much larger demographic than CSM6 did. Representation of the varied playstyles of EVE Online has actually improved. Caldari Militia |
Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1815
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 08:29:00 -
[262] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Goals of a Reformed SystemIt has been mathematically proven that there is no perfect voting system. However, "The perfect is the enemy of the good", and there are many election systems that are clearly better than the current one.
What is the problem you are trying to solve? 25% votes "wasted" on candidates who didn't get a seat is not a problem, just as votes adding to the tally of a candidate who did get a seat aren't wasted either.
The more complex a voting system you look for, the easier it will be for those who specialise in gaming the system, to game the system. The first-past-the-post system is easily comprehensible, provides little opportunity for gaming the system (there's the bleedingly obvious "instruct our alliance to vote for these two candidates", then the less obvious "field a dozen candidates who claim to stand for hisec").
No change is required: everything you do will be broken. Everything more complex than first-past-the-post will be broken in more complex ways.
So again: what is the problem that you are trying to solve?
I would suggest that mandatory voting would "solve" the perceived "problem" of bloc candidates getting thoroughly too much of the representation pie. But it would add the problem of forcing all accounts to vote. Otherwise, if the nullsec bloc want to stack the CSM with more of their own representatives, good for them. They get to work a second unpaid job on our behalf.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Scooter McCabe
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 08:59:00 -
[263] - Quote
Well CCP is already making this sound like a complicated affair with having multiple alternates, double bonus elimination rounds and championing "under represented votes." What exactly is an under represented vote anyway? Did you vote? Great your vote got represented, it may not have won but that's democracy for you. Any vote cast is a vote represented. The idea of one voting making a difference is a farce, political campaigns have always focused on bringing constituencies together to win elections. The only time one vote makes a difference is in a dictatorial system where the one vote lies with the dictator, that and American Idol. Neither institution has done mankind any good.
So we have our beloved democracy which certainly is imperfect, but it is pure in the sense the voting representation is as good as it gets outside some political scientist's day dream. The peril for the minority in a democracy is well known, documented and accounted for in our current system. A smaller group that knows it would take a beating running a candidate by itself has a few options. It can run the ball up the middle and wage a fierce campaign to gather support from a larger community, it would take the right confluence of charisma and events to pull off. That's where the options of gathering constituents or trading votes comes into play. Your candidate can opt to find similar groups sharing the same views and offer them a larger tent to come under, promising representation and advocacy upon election. Maybe your candidate can't pull together any constituents or enough to directly challenge more popular candidates. Here is where trading votes comes into play, a candidate approaches another promising a bloc of votes in return of advocacy and representation. A deal gets made and suddenly a more popular candidate ends up pushing your agenda and gains the needed votes to win the day.
So what happens to those groups that don't avail themselves to these options, or for that matter candidates not savvy enough to engage in the necessary politics to make victory a reality? Their reward is to find themselves on the outside looking in, their vote wasn't wasted it was heard, it just wasn't popular. A more cynical observer would comment that it is not the vote that was wasted, but Democracy that was wasted on the voter. What political commentators often term as "throw away" votes are just that, they are for bad candidates with bad policies. That's what happens in democracies, the Loon Party, Communist Party, Green Party and Anarchist parties don't see the light of day. I name these parties as they often push their own agenda and rarely if ever approach larger viable candidates to trade off votes for representation, also the candidates spawned from their respective echo chambers are equally appalling as leaders.
So what happens if we decide that an "under represented vote" is a fiction worth believing in? Well it can certainly mean the EVE equivalent of having a bad candidate from constituency that narrowly reflects EVE get on the CSM. Remember that in elections the candidate and their leadership qualities is as much an issue as their respective stances on issues. So on top of having potentially bad positions represented on the CSM, you can have people with little recognizable leadership ability. Bad policies and bad leaders are perfect justifications for not having a CSM, making CSMs player presentation impotent or simply turning it into a rubber stamp committee.
Imagine having a group of people who wandered into the CSM because through the process of elimination several dead votes found new life in a candidate so milquetoast they were able to win. They are pliant, suggestible and overwhelmed when they are locked in a room with CCP. 8 hours later gold ammo becomes a good idea and Empire is a WoW like theme park where meaningful consequences no longer exist.
I also find it strange that CCP thinks an organized player base when it comes to elections is a bad thing. I would think you would want the people who care about the game in a position to give input and advice on matters that will effect the subscriber base. Even for those who can't gather 10K votes, they would certainly arm themselves with as much knowledge as possible and seek out candidates that can reach the CSM and represent them.
CCP gave a great example of if the CFC so wanted they could have 3 people on the CSM as if its some glaring failure in the democratic system of electing people to the CSM. That the only way to correct this glaring problem is this new system being proposed. 10K in votes was what like 3% of EVE give or take? So the reality is could a bloc of 10K votes get shot down, sure if people organized or put down in-game political differences. 10K is not some golden unassailable number. Apathy, ignorance and inability should always be unable to assail and obtain positions of leaderships. Instead of creating this "participation award democracy" where you get less than you hoped for by voting by resurrecting inferior candidacies and niche constituent interests to frustrate the purpose of the CSM, why can't CCP remind the players the obligation to effect change in EVE rests on them. This game is driven by player created content, its what makes EVE unique and viable as an MMO.
As you go to write angry reply about me being a Goon, Goons, CFC, HBC or the MiB think about these two parallels. The nerfing of Hi Sec into a theme park MMO and now the proposed nerf to democracy for CSM elections. Maybe you can live with a theme park MMO, but do you really want a theme park CSM for EVE? |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 09:07:00 -
[264] - Quote
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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
814
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 09:22:00 -
[265] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: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. As members of Goonswarm have pointed out they would just spam the the candidate list and just make things about the same or the minorities would get even more representation. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:18:00 -
[266] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As members of Goonswarm have pointed out they would just spam the the candidate list and just make things about the same or the minorities would get even more representation. 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. :) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
815
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:25:00 -
[267] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As members of Goonswarm have pointed out they would just spam the the candidate list and just make things about the same or the minorities would get even more representation. 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. :) To be honest positive and negatives would be horibbly complicated for the average person.
The method by the CSM is at least simple a candidate just says who gets his/her votes if he/her is knocked out. A lot of this kind of preference voting exists around the world, or I think The US is you get a running mate to boost your appeal, not 100% sure on the USA it never interested me that much. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:30:00 -
[268] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: 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.
I play the game entirely to touch myself while moving the breast size slider in the character creator. Where is my representative? |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:31:00 -
[269] - Quote
Yeep wrote:I play the game entirely to touch myself while moving the breast size slider in the character creator. Where is my representative? riverini |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:37:00 -
[270] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: To be honest positive and negatives would be horibbly complicated for the average person.
lol... perhaps. But, Eve isn't exactly the easiest game to play either. I don't see any reason to dumb down the game, so I also don't see any reason why we need to dumb down the CSM election process.
Frying Doom wrote: The method by the CSM is at least simple a candidate just says who gets his/her votes if he/her is knocked out. A lot of this kind of preference voting exists around the world, or I think The US is you get a running mate to boost your appeal, not 100% sure on the USA it never interested me that much.
Unfortunately, it is exactly this sort of "simple for the masses" system which is so easily gamed by minority blocks.
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.
|
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:38:00 -
[271] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: 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.
I play the game entirely to touch myself while moving the breast size slider in the character creator. Where is my representative? That would fall under the Incarna issues seat, I believe. :) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
815
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 10:41:00 -
[272] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:
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.
Bit the same now with so few people not voting as they believe they cannot brake the Null minority hold on the CSM. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 11:29:00 -
[273] - Quote
Perception is a powerful tool in politics.
"People are stupid, they will believe what you tell them because they think it is true, or they fear it is." ~ Terry Goodkind
While this sentiment comes from a fantasy novel it is essentially the backbone of politics. If I as a candidate were to run, on the grounds of being a new player to Eve, and having experienced in small part all different aspects of the game then I would run as a true representative of a small but growing population in the game true? Let's have a little experiment.
Well letGÇÖs say that I pander with amazing abandon to the Miners, Industrialists, and Something for nothing groups in high sec. Well what would my platform be? Simple, null and low sec are Evil! They bully us all into being here, and make it "not fun" to try to play the game! I mean just look at them PVPing all the time, and blowing up my "hard earned" ship. Clearly brethren of high sec, we must fight this evil. If you elect me to CSM as a new player representative then I promise I will push CCP to make high sec as safe as it should be! I mean CONCORD would never let someone fly in their space with guns active right? So why not push to get that fixed. Elect me and I'll make it happen. Further, I promise if you elect me I will argue Industrialization for high sec. I mean clearly you must realize that the best place for doing anything would be the "most developedGÇ¥ So with that being the case, I will pressure CCP to increase refining efficiency in high sec, and reduce manufacture times to an all time low. It is after-all the best space, the most developed space, and the safest space. Elect me for your CSM 8 rep.
In this platform I've given examples of things that I know the care bears want. They want high sec to be I win space, and they want a way to "play" eve where there is no risk but all reward. I've used a few very obvious phrases that most would say are clich+¬ and base, but they will work to stir masses. Why, because I've shown them a place where their goals can be accomplished. I've done things in this "platform" that politicians of ages have done to great effect, I've created a common goal, a common enemy, and made myself seem harmless, but firm. I've lied, and given them what they think to be true, people are stupid.
Now as I've stated I'm new to Eve, my reg date is just this summer past, but I do know a thing or two about games and about how to keep them interesting. This game is interesting because it's risk versus reward in a place where you know to be cold and heartless, Space.
You don't come to Eve online to mine, play industry, and log off. You come to Eve because space is interesting, you know it's dangerous, and you know there's a pay off for taking the risks you will take to succeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq2oxt7Nrxo
This is a prime example of the 'key selling points" of Eve. You will affect everything in space, with just one voice, just one action, just one moment in time. Space is a cold dark place, where risk is there. If you want to play a safe game there are tons in the market.
You don't think one person matters; I propose a name to you The Mittani. Checkmate. |
Lord Zim
1343
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 11:30:00 -
[274] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:~ Terry Goodkind This author can't write believable characters to save his life. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 11:37:00 -
[275] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Remnant Madeveda wrote:~ Terry Goodkind This author can't write believable characters to save his life. True story, but he did offer a single good quote that I've used with wonderful effectiveness. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:20:00 -
[276] - Quote
Ted McManfist wrote:serras bang wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Most people know the earth is round, but this old guy I know says the earth is flat. how you explain that ? noone has put in front of and explained it properly 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.
hey i never voted last time i couldnt give a flying feck if my voice isnt heard this time atm im here playing devils advocate sticking my boot into this for hi sec in general and giveing a pov on this descustion that is open to everyone in eve. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2255
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:20:00 -
[277] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:1) Citation needed. December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"
Lord Zim wrote:2) So you're taking today's system, which has which problem with it again? ... and you're switching it over to a system which is gameable, with a modification which makes it even more gameable? The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.
EvilweaselFinance wrote:For example, I - as Goonswarm's CFO (or one of our other finance directors) - have a huge amount of experience in everything industry and money related. The Mittani, as Goonswarm's CEO , has a huge amount of experience in 0.0 sovwar, diplomacy, and running a successful alliance. I know virtually nothing about the areas Mittani is an expert in, and he knows very little about the areas I am an expert in.
We are both in Goonswarm. Do we bring identical things to the table? Am I to be excluded, were I to run, because in your esteemed opinion I am a clone of The Mittani? Or should he be excluded, as a clone of me? A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.
Andski wrote: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? On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.
Dramaticus wrote:What about a Poll Tax? We can RP it in terms of needing to fund the voting infrastructure. If I really wanted to disenfranchise some people, I'd suggest a literacy test. The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1816
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:26:00 -
[278] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.
But they will be better off under the candidate nominated STV, since the dozen or so hisec joke candidates they fielded soak up some of the "25% wasted votes that elected noone" and feed them to the CFC's actual candidates, further cementing their hold and perhaps boosting that "first of the bottom 7" position to the "bottom of the first 7". Which has more influence: someone sitting on the other side of a NDA-covered forum, or someone sitting in the same bar as CCP Soundwave et al merrily drinking away until 4am in the Icelandic night? Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:38:00 -
[279] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off. But they will be better off under the candidate nominated STV, since the dozen or so hisec joke candidates they fielded soak up some of the "25% wasted votes that elected noone" and feed them to the CFC's actual candidates, further cementing their hold and perhaps boosting that "first of the bottom 7" position to the "bottom of the first 7". Which has more influence: someone sitting on the other side of a NDA-covered forum, or someone sitting in the same bar as CCP Soundwave et al merrily drinking away until 4am in the Icelandic night?
Beer, the ultimate friend of persuasion, next to perhaps tequila, depending on the individual of course. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:39:00 -
[280] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off. So you yourself concede that your new proposed system is as trivially gameable as the old one. Why exactly is it important that we change the old system now? Especially why is it necessary to change the old and proven system to one that you have made up on the spot, that hasn't ever been proposed in literature, never been discussed by mathematicians? One that you even had the gall to call "CD-STV", as if you wanted people to think you were proposing a slight modification to "classic" STV?
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council. What are your quality criteria in candidates? And how does changing the electoral system improve the quality of the candidates? |
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:42:00 -
[281] - Quote
From reading this entire thread I believe the criteria they are basing this off of is :notgoons: and :fucktest:. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:46:00 -
[282] - Quote
Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"
Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?
And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".
Massive Sperglord wrote:The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
It will be hilariously gameable, as already pointed out. Also, why is it fine to disenfranchise voters if they overvote?
Literally The Worst CSM Member wrote:If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.
"Casual statements"? Really? We prove multiple times that it's gameable and you still keep your fingers in your ears shouting LA LA LA LA?
Robert Woodhead Backward (so clever!) wrote:A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.
We would simply split the vote between 4 or more candidates with them all picking one another for their undervotes to transfer to, allowing the eliminated ones to shove the non-eliminated into the top 7. Why do you keep ignoring this?
Trebor "Hilariously Useless" Woodhead oh man I mean Daehdoow wrote:On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.
How exactly does voting reform that screws over big blocs help you improve the quality of the candidates by allowing even more useless fluff like yourself onto the CSM? |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:50:00 -
[283] - Quote
How long until Mr. Woodhead comes and either completely ignores my post or responds like the snide child he is?
STAY TUNED TO THE EVE ONLINE DOT COM FORUMS TO SEE WHAT'S NEXT ON DRRAAAGGGONNN BALLLLLL ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:53:00 -
[284] - Quote
Oh I know I propose the following as CSM 7's stance. http://soundcloud.com/shutupandshave/****-goons (explicit language) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
818
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 12:58:00 -
[285] - Quote
This really is minorities are us.
Have you guys considered working for lobby groups.
Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet.. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:01:00 -
[286] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Have you guys considered working for lobby groups. Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet.. We could, but that wouldn't really be debating in good faith anymore, would it? Aside from having nothing to do with the scope of the current thread. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:01:00 -
[287] - Quote
Nah I'll leave that one to the highsec carebears that are whining "OMG These mining nerfs are trash!" (In regards to the most recent barge changes.) |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Have you guys considered working for lobby groups. Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet..
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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9415
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:10:00 -
[289] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Yes, that's why it's a bad suggestion.
A good suggestion would be one where the majority doesn't get discounted just because it's a majority. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
818
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:18:00 -
[290] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Frying Doom wrote:This really is minorities are us. Have you guys considered working for lobby groups. Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet.. 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. Well the number of votes cast in total is a small minority of EvEs population, less than 1/5 that is what makes you a minority mathmatics.
If you are minorities (which you are see above point) then a system run by minorities is a bad thing. (See USA war with Afghanistan).
So yes the system needs changing, the populous needs to be more engaged into the system and part of that is making it possible for people to believe that it is possible to have a CSM that represents the whole population.
Actually the mistake that the CSM made was posting this here and actually expecting a discussion on it rather than just the lobby groups.
This should have been sent as a poll to the whole of EvE as it would have reached more people, all of which are Voters. Yes a lot of people would have ignored it, but it would have still given opinions wider than those who already vote. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:24:00 -
[291] - Quote
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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:32:00 -
[292] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote: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. Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been, with the current splash screens ect.. we are leading the horse to water and the horse thinks it is poison.
A simple on the log in 3 buttons and a little blurb about the CSM is all it needs.
The fact that most games do not consider the forums part of the game is part of the problem, the lobby groups are the other.
Most of what you said above only shows to those who use the forums, the rest don't know what it is or believe it is Null sec poisoned water not for bothering with.
But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9416
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:35:00 -
[293] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been 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.
Quote:But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities. GǪand yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2156
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:36:00 -
[294] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".
See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:38:00 -
[295] - Quote
Still comes back to the if they CBF to care we can't make them. Further I did recommend splashscreens, and adverts in game, which reminds me it is impossible to leave local, so...
In any case, it's moot to continue debating the validity of the incompetence of the vast majority of Eve, we need only look to the General forums to bask in it's glory. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:40:00 -
[296] - Quote
Two step wrote:Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we". See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.
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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:40:00 -
[297] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been 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. Quote:But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities. GǪand yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities. So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null?
And no I was just saying myself time with the inevitable reply I would get. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:43:00 -
[298] - Quote
My the Ego you have to pretend to know my mind. I prefer if more people vote, hell I'd love for the game to have a fully active playerbase. The sad fact of the matter is it doesn't where the meta game is concerned. CSM is, whether you like it or not, a big part of that Meta. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:45:00 -
[299] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Two step wrote:Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we". See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them. 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.
CSM Summit 2012 Minutes wrote: 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.
And it goes on for pages. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9417
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:46:00 -
[300] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null? 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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
152
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:49:00 -
[301] - Quote
Two step wrote:Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we". See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.
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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:55:00 -
[302] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null? 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. Funny first it was "this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GÇ£controlledGÇ¥ 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." and yet when asked for a fact it is irrelevant.
As to the I am in favour of this it was to the STV as it will not favour minorities but actually favour candidates who have the ability to stand on approximately the same concepts.
Eg people who want lo-sec fixed might compete against each other for votes but if they both lose the one with the high number of votes might be able to get in but it will also increase the absolutely pathetic number of votes needed to attain a seat, so in the long run it will make it harder for minorities and easier for candidates running in one area to support each other. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:57:00 -
[303] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Two step wrote:Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we". See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them. 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. He was referring to the minute from CSM 6. I would ask how it disenfranchises voters but I will just get some babble back. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:58:00 -
[304] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Haquer wrote:Two step wrote:Haquer wrote:Massive Pubbie wrote:December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM" Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh? And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we". See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them. 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. He was referring to the minute from CSM 6. I would ask how it disenfranchises voters but I will just get some babble back.
Overvotes for candidates are thrown out. This disenfranchises voters. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:01:00 -
[305] - Quote
Haquer wrote: Overvotes for candidates are thrown out. This disenfranchises voters.
Seems fairly understandable to me. |
Lord Zim
1344
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:03:00 -
[306] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive. Today's system means we'd have to make sure to split the votes of however many candidates to make sure they get in. STV means we'd just stick, say, 3-4 candidates in, tell everyone to vote for one to be the csm chair, all the excess votes would slosh over to his secondary, and to his secondary, and to his secondary, meaning we'd end up with however many we wanted on the CSM. Revote-CSM7 (I'm rebranding CD-STV into Revote-CSM7) would just mean we'd end up in a ton of hisec voters to soak up some excess votes (and point them to our goon alts), and we'd just have to make sure to never let our prime candidates get elected with too large a margin so as to waste as few votes as possible.
Given that our exit polls were pretty goshdarned accurate, do you not think we'd be able to game the **** out of this system, even though you've tried to slip in a "**** goons/test" rule?
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off. 1) 55+25+25=? 2) So if we're "no worse off", and we can still game the **** out of the system, then why go to the trouble of changing the system?
Also, for ****'s sake, stop calling it STV, it's not STV. This is just a Revote-CSM7 system which is going to fail if it's ever put into production.
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council. Did the variety of the "representation" increase in CSM7? Yes. Last I checked there were more candidates with a more diverse background than ever before. Has this translated into a more effective CSM? No. You have no bite, you have seemingly no weight to lean on CCP with to get them to be less ********, and you seem to be more enamored with playing intra-CSM politics instead of pushing CCP to fixing the game.
Two step wrote:See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them. Straight up STV would be an advantage to us, which is probably why it was rejected. Revote-CSM7 is just as easily gameable, it just takes a bit more care to not throw away a fucktonne of votes unnecessarily.
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? |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:06:00 -
[307] - Quote
So when they change this system we can't be banned for saying I told you so. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
819
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:08:00 -
[308] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:
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?
Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9418
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:09:00 -
[309] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Funny first it was "this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GÇ£controlledGÇ¥ 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." and yet when asked for a fact it is irrelevant. 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?
Quote:As to the I am in favour of this it was to the STV as it will not favour minorities but actually favour candidates who have the ability to stand on approximately the same concepts. No, it will favour people who would otherwise not get a voice because there's too few of them and at the same time discarding majority votes becauseGǪ well, just because.
Why is discarding majority votes good but discarding minority votes bad? In fact, let's just go for the big one:
Quote:Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles. Why is voting reform needed? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Lord Zim
1346
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:16:00 -
[310] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
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?
Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles. 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". |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
820
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:26:00 -
[311] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Funny first it was "this supposed belief that CSM is something that is GÇ£controlledGÇ¥ 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." and yet when asked for a fact it is irrelevant. 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? And what did we mostly hear about during CSM 6 TiDi, fixes for Null sec and then the War focus for the following cycle...hmmm looks like where the candidates are from is very relevant.
Tippia wrote:Why is discarding majority votes good but discarding minority votes bad? In fact, let's just go for the big one: Quote:Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles. Why is voting reform needed? The current system is to easy to exploit, given that a large part of this is due to people not voting but the other is the current system is to easily manipulated. Ok the STV might be going a bit far with the multiple recipients but I believe that a failed candidate passing over his votes would be a good thing and a lot harder to game than the system is now. This would mean that if you fail to get in your votes go to the candidate you chose before hand and if that gets him in great if not his vote(not those passed to him) go to the person of his choice. Plus of course the 3 month continuous subscription.
Fairly simple and easy to use gives better representation to what the voters were voting for and it means that people who vote for the wrong candidate get a second chance on their votes.
If one lone nutter getting someone elected is not cause for voting reform, you will never believe there is a need.
But all in all the CSM needs to grow a pair and realize they will never get a discussion on these forums with the populous as people are generally drowned out here and just implement the voting system they believe needs to be done. Just like when elected representatives move area boundaries, they are the elected representatives they need to knuckle down and make the call. Then we will find out in December what it was and you guys can rage against how making the voting forms blue is discriminating against you. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
820
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:27:00 -
[312] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
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?
Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles. 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". They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable.
And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:33:00 -
[313] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Just like when elected representatives move area boundaries, they are the elected representatives they need to knuckle down and make the call.
Because that works out so well http://i.imgur.com/wzkXy.jpg |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
820
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:35:00 -
[314] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Just like when elected representatives move area boundaries, they are the elected representatives they need to knuckle down and make the call. Because that works out so well http://i.imgur.com/wzkXy.jpg But it is their call, if the populous disagree with it they can bring it up by voting.
Much like this Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:37:00 -
[315] - Quote
******** Pubbie wrote:And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.
Err, there's actually no CFC members and only one TEST guy on the CSM right now, but good try guy!
|
Vincent VanDamme
EVE University Ivy League
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:42:00 -
[316] - Quote
Ever thought of using Alternative Vote?
Quick runthrough
Each voter ranks candidates in order. 1- X
1st votes are added up.
The lowest candidate is removed, and the next preference votes are reallocated
Repeat until only X candidates remain. Which fit the available seats.
Simple system. But stops the undervote issue. |
Lord Zim
1347
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:46:00 -
[317] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:A simple on the log in 3 buttons and a little blurb about the CSM is all it needs. We keep telling you that what would happen if they did this: tons of people would just click abstain or vote randomly, just to get past the obstacle to playing the game.
Frying Doom wrote:They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable. Trust me, this system would be a fuckup on the same scale of most CCP game mechanic changes the past 2 years.
Frying Doom wrote:And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then. So you're trying to say the CSM, right now, is nothing but CFC/Test?
I see. Is there something special in the water where you live? |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:50:00 -
[318] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable. By that reasoning you can justify a voting reform consisting of "Only members of the incumbent CSM will have the ability to vote", after all if that's not what the constituents want they can change it next election. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1053
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 15:02:00 -
[319] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
I think what you fail to realize is the simple fact that the morale majority has always been able to swing the vote, Plenty of people outside of GSF voted for Mittens, simply because he's an effective candidate and can allocate swathes of personal time to CSM matters.
If any entity in this game, can have 5000+ active members and coincidentally sway all 5000 of those people to vote for him, then he should be in office, it's basic politics 101. Of course, you must realize even Mittens who is literally the King of Space, has to do more than just snap his fingers to awaken the hive to do his bidding (there needs to be a wordy Jabber Broadcast, and at least a 20 minute speech).
Set aside your personal vendetta and your poor play at 'GoonSwarm' as an example (which is just "Hurrrr the largest alliance in the game has alot of votes") and realize that if someone can muster 5000+ votes, that person probably has more of an ear for what's happening and how in the game than the rest of the candidates.
So again- is there any reason for this change?
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 15:07:00 -
[320] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote: The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
I think what you fail to realize is the simple fact that the morale majority has always been able to swing the vote, Plenty of people outside of GSF voted for Mittens, simply because he's an effective candidate and can allocate swathes of personal time to CSM matters. If any entity in this game, can have 5000+ active members and coincidentally sway all 5000 of those people to vote for him, then he should be in office, it's basic politics 101. Of course, you must realize even Mittens who is literally the King of Space, has to do more than just snap his fingers to awaken the hive to do his bidding (there needs to be a wordy Jabber Broadcast, and at least a 20 minute speech). Set aside your personal vendetta and your poor play at 'GoonSwarm' as an example (which is just "Hurrrr the largest alliance in the game has alot of votes") and realize that if someone can muster 5000+ votes, that person probably has more of an ear for what's happening and how in the game than the rest of the candidates. So again- is there any reason for this change? And those speeches are the best ones to hear. I always manage to look forward to the sotg speeches. I'm just hoping that TEST has a speaker that will do something similar. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4564
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 15:09:00 -
[321] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So any attempt to alter the voting system by getting people to vote or altering the way the voting is done will produce a thread naught about how badly off they would be. 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. Frying Doom wrote:Now with all things like this the CSM must decide if you just go off the forums you will have a campaign by Goonswarm to prevent any real discussion on the matter. Bullshit. There is real discussion on the matter. Just because we don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean there isn't. You might try to think this out rather than screaming against it, this proposal by its self will do nothing to stop 10,000 votes from getting someone on the CSM. It would however reduce candidates like Darius III getting re-elected as he would have less chance of scamming another candidate out of their votes. But the main problems facing the CSM are not even this they are more to do with re-activating old accounts (or making new ones) to vote and the lack of people who actually vote.
look at you white knighting this **** almost as hard as you white knighted issler dainze
tell me how this is POSSIBLY a good idea at all please leave |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9418
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 15:28:00 -
[322] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:And what did we mostly hear about during CSM 6 Fixing the broken sov system that made null a no-go for everyone but the established actors; fixing the broken tech situation, which broke the game for everyone; cleaning up after Incarna and delivering stuff that everyone wanted.
So yeah, having representatives that look at the bigger picture is quite important. Where they're from is much less so.
Quote:The current system is to easy to exploit, given that a large part of this is due to people not voting but the other is the current system is to easily manipulated. It's by far the least exploitable voting system there is, due to its simplicity. The actual problem is that it doesn't match what it's being used for, since voting power means nothing in a non-decision-making context. The other problem is that some people don't care about voting but care a lot about complaining about how they didn't vote. STV is the proposed CD-FPTP (because calling it CD-STV is a gutbustingly bad joke since it does the exact opposite of STV) is even more exploitable, but only because the small size of the CSM and the lack of constituencies.
The problem with the proposal is that it does the exact same thing as the current system GÇö it wastes votes GÇö but it's much worse than the current system because the votes wasted are the ones that represent a larger consensus, rather than the ones that represent pointless minority fringe votes.
So no, the current system being the least exploitable of the options is not a good reason to reform the voting system.
Quote:If one lone nutter getting someone elected is not cause for voting reform, you will never believe there is a need. So now you're against the proposal, I take it, in spite of being for it before? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 15:53:00 -
[323] - Quote
Oh hey I see we're still trying to prop up a brazen attempt by this CSM to throw away the votes of paying subscribers because they do not like who they'll be voting for! This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:05:00 -
[324] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Oh hey I see we're still trying to prop up a brazen attempt by this CSM to throw away the votes of paying subscribers because they do not like who they'll be voting for!
B-b-b-but bloc votes andandandand (((((( |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:06:00 -
[325] - Quote
I mean, I have 3 accounts and if my 3 votes got thrown out man I would be PISSED OFF |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
671
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:26:00 -
[326] - Quote
Still haven't seen a reason justifying disenfranchising voters. C'mon girls, knuckle up and come up with something. Even our Republicans have the stones to claim that they do what they do to combat voter fraud. Voter fraud doesn't happen, but that's their excuse!
Also I find it amusing that Trebor thinks that Mittani was "concerned" about STV voting allowing a bloc to dominate the voting. If you think he was concerned you're either willfully misinterpreting the statement, or are simply ignorant. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Lord Zim
1347
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:46:00 -
[327] - Quote
So let's do some :img-timeline:.
During the CSM meeting, the CSM made sure to whine about how voting was "easy to game. Now, several months later, Trebor suddenly unveils a new system which we might as well call FuckMittani/Goons/Test, but which is even easier to game.
Alekseyev, Hans, Seleene and Two Step have all stepped in to defend it (although Seleene hasn't done so here, but on twitter), and Hans quickly disavowed the entire thing as "it's Trebor's thing".
And they still don't seem to be able to elucidate why it should be a-okay to blatantly try to rig the system against one or two specific entities in the game, even to the point of specifically saying so in the proposal.
:our CSM:. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:06:00 -
[328] - Quote
I am somewhat annoyed by the sparse CSM participation in this thread. I'd have thought a topic that touches on the voting process of the CSM -- the foundation of their legitimization -- would have warranted more than one post a day, especially since all of the hard questions have been carefully avoided. Instead we get some snarky answers brushing off concerns ("If I really wanted to disenfranchise some people, I'd suggest a literacy test"). |
Lord Zim
1349
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:09:00 -
[329] - Quote
I actually forgot to address that one, but I would've thought a literacy test would affect the average pubbie more than it would us. |
Konrad Kane
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:12:00 -
[330] - Quote
I'll be honest I've never really been a huge fan of the CSM and it's bemusing to me that I'm going to comment here, but given the frankly astonishing cynicism or stupidity of this idea (I'm not sure which) I feel compelled.
The CSM has many people trapped in the logical fallacy that the CSM is a constituency based body: it's not. Because when I vote for someone in the real world typically they have a constituency. If I vote for my local politician that person is courting my vote as a constituency so generally keeps the majority view in mind when in office. If they don't someone else appeals to the same constituency and wins people over to vote for them. That's what makes representative democracy work.
CSM voting seems to be on tribal grounds. I vote for you for screw guy A or because they are in alliance B. They are only called 'null sec' members (for example) after they are voting in. There isn't a formal null sec position on the CSM, as there isn't a low sec, high sec, wormhole, PvE, etc. A 'null sec' CSM member isn't representing null sec in general, they are representing their little corner of it and that play style.
So my first question is:
Why aren't the CSM suggesting creating positions based on actual constituencies?
Why not have a CSM made up for formal null sec, high sec etc positions that the player base vote for? If you want the players game play styles to be represented build the CSM around the play styles. I guess because turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Here are my criticisms of this proposal:
1. I'm willing to bet if EN24 listed 10 things in a poll on their site that the CSM urgently had to address voting reform would be last, behind the lack of choices of sock on the store. I'm sure lots of people look at this and scratch their head: how about focusing on the game and not concocting ways to make the CSM better for the CSM?
2. You remove the relationship between my vote and who I vote for because they can give it to someone else.
3. The bizzare notion that an automated system where I rank my candidate preference is LESS efficient than some manual vote distribution base on blog and forum posts is obviously wrong.
4. Last, but not least, you aren't doing away with 'the block' you're creating a system where the CSM members form blocks to make sure their chums get on. You take that power off the players and give it to the CSM.
Really, if you want the CSM to be representative of the various play styles in EVE align the CSM to those play styles formally. Create positions for high, low and null sec, for industry and wormwholes, for faction warfare and PVE, etc. Then you'll have a representative player advocacy with people there that represent large chunks of that play style.
The fact you've gone out of your way not to do this but create a convoluted system in which the CSM can determine it's own composition smells of a disingenuous attempt to make sure the only thing that changes is that you get to pick who is on the next CSM is.
Given the CSM doesn't seem to doing that much I'm not sure it matters anyway. All I know is if you bring this system in I'm not even going to bother voting in it.
|
|
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:13:00 -
[331] - Quote
It's not literacy that is our failing most of the time it's a complete disregard for spelling, grammar, and things of that nature. Or it could just be an unwillingness to read every post like it's a ******* term paper for all errors. I mean don't get me wrong proof-reading what you wrote is a good idea, but most people would just skim what they wrote. Thereby probably missing or just auto brain correcting any small errors.
I'm pretty sure we as a whole are literate, but then again :effort:. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1090
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:06:00 -
[332] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council. Where's some evidence to back this statement up? You just thinking it, or saying it, is not PERSUASIVE at all.
Caldari Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1090
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:12:00 -
[333] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:... the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM. This statement is a complete load of ****.
If you look at the current candidates and who they represent, the lower slots are far more diverse, representationally, than the upper slots. (You obviously don't want to mention that, since you're in the upper slots.)
(Spreadsheet: CSM6/CSM7 Representation)
Your scheme solves no current problem that actually exists with the CSM. No bloc gamed the system this year. No bloc gamed the system last year.
Get more people to vote ... don't try to stifle the existing vote. Stop being a fascist, Trebor. Caldari Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1090
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:18:00 -
[334] - Quote
Haquer wrote:How exactly does voting reform that screws over big blocs help you improve the quality of the candidates by allowing even more useless fluff like yourself onto the CSM? Trebor wants more limp-wristed candidates. More Kelduums. More Isslers. More Meissas. Because these people are so meek, that they listen to Trebor. They look up to Trebor. The Mittani never gave Trebor the time of day, and Trebor definitely does not want more Mittani's on the CSM to work with.
Caldari Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1090
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:21:00 -
[335] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:. . .it is possible to have a CSM that represents the whole population. CSM7 has some broad representation happening. Doesn't matter if some of those representations are useless teets, they still were voted to represent certain areas of the game. Votes were cast, people were chosen.
(Spreadsheet: CSM6/CSM7 Representation) Caldari Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1090
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:24:00 -
[336] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote: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. This is just Trebor's yearly make-work project. He needs to step away from each CSM feeling as though he contributed something unique. Last year it was his crowd-sourced voting thing. This year it is voting reform.
Caldari Militia |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1090
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:25:00 -
[337] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null? Ten.
There are six null candidates on CSM7.
Caldari Militia |
Lord Zim
1349
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:25:00 -
[338] - Quote
I don't think, for a second, that Hans' "it was squarely trebor's idea!" backpedalling has any root in reality, this reeks more of something the entire CSM has come up with. Just look at the few CSM rep posts in here, all of them have been in defense of the idea (except Hans, which turned his coat to suit the way the wind blew vOv), and Seleene has even tweeted about it, saying "I consider it a first stab at things. Do you think it should remain as is? Plenty of time for ~change~.", "ItGÇÖs good, right! Let me know if you spot an ~less mad~ post with some actual ideas in it. :) " and "Where are all the other good ideas or proposals tho? the whole point is to see where the community stands on this. "
Yeah, no, this was CSM-wide.
And here's an idea: resign. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:39:00 -
[339] - Quote
It's also quite interesting that Seleene doesn't even have the balls to defend the proposal in this forum, and instead retreats to twitter. |
Space Hog
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:05:00 -
[340] - Quote
This thread is strong with the goon.....
1.Drink..... 2.Drink........... 3. post....... Free Beer next go round. |
|
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:12:00 -
[341] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I don't think, for a second, that Hans' "it was squarely trebor's idea!" backpedalling has any root in reality, this reeks more of something the entire CSM has come up with. Just look at the few CSM rep posts in here, all of them have been in defense of the idea (except Hans, which turned his coat to suit the way the wind blew vOv), and Seleene has even tweeted about it, saying "I consider it a first stab at things. Do you think it should remain as is? Plenty of time for ~change~.", "ItGÇÖs good, right! Let me know if you spot an ~less mad~ post with some actual ideas in it. :) " and "Where are all the other good ideas or proposals tho? the whole point is to see where the community stands on this. "
Yeah, no, this was CSM-wide.
And here's an idea: resign.
Doesn't someone have to second a motion there at the CSM ?
CSM7 Skype Leak
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1547
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:35:00 -
[342] - Quote
So let's get this straight, the CSM wants to lessen the power of the largest group of voters in the CSM election, who just happened to not for any of them, and they're flabbergasted when they wind up being accused of attempting to rig the vote to favor themselves. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1092
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:37:00 -
[343] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:So let's get this straight, the CSM wants to lessen the power of the largest group of voters in the CSM election, who just happened to not for any of them, and they're flabbergasted when they wind up being accused of attempting to rig the vote to favor themselves. But ... but ... The Mittani wanted this too!
Caldari Militia |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:38:00 -
[344] - Quote
Hey Seleene no one is offering up any 'good proposals' because what we have works and you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Hope this helps. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1887
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:46:00 -
[345] - Quote
All right, time for a few words. I'm sure I'll miss a few of the more inventive theories about this but that's fine.
Discussion about 'voting reform' in the CSM were coming up even early on in CSM 6 however, as most here remember, we got a tad distracted by other events. Even so, during the December summit last year we knew this was going to be something which would become a hot topic during the next CSM term. At Fanfest, post-election and pre-Jagerbomb Gate (pick your title), several of us that were on CSM 6 and newly re-elected to CSM 7 were in Islenski Barinn (one of the main bar hangouts) talking to Mittens about this very subject.
CCP hasn't been silent on this either and has very vocally supported the need to have this ~discussion~. The original white paper / CSM charter was 'masterminded' by a very small group of people with no player input. It's not surprising that CCP would want to give the community an opportunity to chime in on if they like the current process or believe it needs to be changed.
So just to be clear, this is not just some CSM 7 initiative.
As of right now, I plan to have the CSM and CCP try to take as much constructive feedback as possible to the December summit and put together a framework that can be refined even further before the CSM 8 elections.
The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:49:00 -
[346] - Quote
Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. My counter-proposal: don't change anything. Or if that's entirely out of the question for some reason: use any widely known voting system, not something you lot cobbled together over lunch and a couple of beers. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:50:00 -
[347] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. My counter-proposal: don't change anything.
This, unless you want to TRY to make voters more aware, that I am okay with. |
Lord Zim
1351
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:50:00 -
[348] - Quote
Seleene wrote:this is a discussion that needs to be had Why?
Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. What's wrong with the old system? |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1887
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:52:00 -
[349] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Trebor wants more limp-wristed candidates. More Kelduums. More Isslers. More Meissas. Because these people are so meek, that they listen to Trebor. They look up to Trebor. The Mittani never gave Trebor the time of day, and Trebor definitely does not want more Mittani's on the CSM to work with
Gotta call BS on this one, Poe. Mittens and Trebor actually got along very well on CSM 6. They often bounced ideas and statements off each other to great beneficial effect. Saying that Mittens didn't know how to solicit advice or work with the rest of us is wrong. Had Mittens been able to stay on CSM 7, that would have been just fine by most of us as well. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:53:00 -
[350] - Quote
Ignoring legitimate criticism while vaguely referring to tinfoil hattery is extremely dishonest and I am extremely disappointed in both you and the other CSM members, Seleene. Many very serious and legitimate critiques have been made in this thread. Your dismissive attitude is patronizing and appalling. |
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1887
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:55:00 -
[351] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Seleene wrote:this is a discussion that needs to be had Why?
I explained that earlier. Because CCP threw the original system together with no player oversight. Due to discussions over the past couple of years, CCP is open to evolving the system if players believe that needs to happen.
Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. What's wrong with the old system?[/quote][/quote]
Maybe nothing. Possibly everything. I guess we will find out.
CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1548
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:57:00 -
[352] - Quote
Very well, let's discuss this.
Voting reform is generally recognized as legitimate only when the current group proposing it came to power by way of a popular vote. The current CSM makeup was only achieved by CCP stripping the person who received by far the most votes out of anyone of their chairman position and CSM membership. For the remaining CSM members to then start pushing forward legislation to "limit the power of organized voting" (code for: that guy who got all the votes instead of us) is extremely suspect, inappropriate and comes off as intended to serve the personal interests of the CSM members rather then to benefit the player base as a whole.
Frankly, I'd like to hear if The Mittani would have actually supported this STV initiative if he was still the CSM chairman, which your peers are trying to infer but as shying away from actually claiming. He can post, right? |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1887
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:58:00 -
[353] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:Ignoring legitimate criticism while vaguely referring to tinfoil hattery is extremely dishonest and I am extremely disappointed in both you and the other CSM members, Seleene. Many very serious and legitimate critiques have been made in this thread. Your dismissive attitude is patronizing and appalling.
There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.
My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:59:00 -
[354] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Seleene wrote:this is a discussion that needs to be had Why? I explained that earlier. Because CCP threw the original system together with no player oversight. Due to discussions over the past couple of years, CCP is open to evolving the system if players believe that needs to happen. Lord Zim wrote:Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. What's wrong with the old system? Maybe nothing. Possibly everything. I guess we will find out.
Well in the past 18 pages we've seen quite a few examples of why this system isn't bad, it's the voters. Now with that being said we've also seen how the proposed potential changes could, and would, be gamed if they were implimented just so we could make a point.
True democracy, when each voice is equal and counts toward an end goal. The best possible outcome in a sandbox environment. |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:59:00 -
[355] - Quote
Seleene wrote: If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with
Proposal 1: Don't change anything.
If you're going to insist on change for change's sake, or to avoid "disenfranchising" the people who've voted for the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate,
Proposal 2: Single Transferrable Vote. I've even found a GPL python implementation for you, in order to minimise the effort in implementing it.
~ |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:02:00 -
[356] - Quote
Seleene wrote:There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it. Fine. Explain to me why it's tinfoil hattery to expect that this proposed system is designed to **** over large voting blocs. Because that's what the proposal had as its premise:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs.
|
Lord Zim
1356
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:06:00 -
[357] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Seleene wrote:this is a discussion that needs to be had Why? I explained that earlier. Because CCP threw the original system together with no player oversight. Due to discussions over the past couple of years, CCP is open to evolving the system if players believe that needs to happen. So, in other words, what you should've done was post a thread asking the players if they wanted the voting changed, and if they had an idea. Instead, you came up with this **** goons/test suggestion.
:golfclap:
Seleene wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What's wrong with the old system? Maybe nothing. Possibly everything. I guess we will find out. That's not what you guys said in the first post. In the first post you guys basically said "hey so guys, goons have organizational advantages and we're going to remove that, here's how we're going to do it".
Do you have a better reason why the system should be changed? Because right now it's either changes specifically to **** with us, or changes just to make changes, neither of which are good reasons. |
Lord Zim
1356
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:08:00 -
[358] - Quote
Seleene wrote:There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it. You can take that "I'm annoyed by the tinfoil BS" and stuff it where the sun don't shine. The system YOU PROPOSED is specifically designed to counter us. There's no tinfoil about it, that's just facts, and you're even saying so in the first post (you're just not saying "let's **** goons" outright).
Actually, just the fact that you insist on saying "tinfoil BS" is troubling. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1551
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:09:00 -
[359] - Quote
Yeah Seleene, it's not like some sort of crazy conjecture. You guys actually said it. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1095
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:11:00 -
[360] - Quote
If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote.
It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough ****. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot.
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, each with a 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.) Caldari Militia |
|
Konrad Kane
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:15:00 -
[361] - Quote
Before the CSM think about the voting method maybe they need to think about what they want to achieve?
Wanting every vote to count and wanting every major play style represented aren't the same thing. The proposed system means people aren't going to be sure if the person they vote for will get their vote. It just seems a recipe for confusion and bitterness.
This is a Massive Multiplayer game so trying to nerf the votes of groups that have massive numbers by essentially creating a weighting system were votes for less popular CSM candidates carry more weight than votes for more popular ones isn't going to be popular and pretty much guarantees someone tries to break it just to prove it can be broken.
This system doesn't address fair representation question either as there still isn't clear requirements for play styles to be represented, people get voted in then say they are representing whichever style they choose to.
I still think that it would be easier to categorise the play styles into broad areas, assign two seats to each category. The people getting the highest two vote counts get those seats. Can it be gamed? Probably. Is it simple to understand, yes.
Wrapping this topic is pseudo political science isn't really helping. You're trying to find a way experts in play styles can represent those styles issues effectively to CCP. Work that out first, then suggest a voting method. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1551
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:15:00 -
[362] - Quote
The real problem is expecting an election in a video game where players can legally have multiple identities and frequently go comatose for weeks if not months on end is really meant to have comparable voter turn out to real life elections over things that actually effect people's lives like social services and foreign policy. |
Lord Zim
1358
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:15:00 -
[363] - Quote
Regarding tinfoil, just to make it blatantly clear:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost "undervotes", coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate. We all know who some candidates are.
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:
[...]
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM. Again, we all know what you mean by "highly organized voting blocs", and "one voting bloc".
Tinfoil BS my big, fat, lardy arse. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:22:00 -
[364] - Quote
Yeah it's pretty transparent that "highly organized voting blocs" are the CFC and TEST, and claiming a hypothetical voting powerhouse of Eve University would be hit just as hard, as Hans tried earlier, is as dishonest as it gets: it's purely hypothetical, and the only people directly (and not just potentially) impacted by the proposed change are CFC/TEST. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
672
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:38:00 -
[365] - Quote
Seleene wrote: The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it.
The intent being to minimize the power of organized voting blocs was mentioned several times, by "you guys". Calling it tinfoil is disingenuous, and you know it.
Quote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.
Change nothing except to reach out to more voters. Have a login screen popup that allows you to vote or abstain, something along those lines. If, as you claim, you want to reduce the power of organized voting blocs, diluting that power by adding more voters is the proper way to do it. Do anything else, and we'll just find a way to game it. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:48:00 -
[366] - Quote
Don't **** on our head and tell us its raining This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1553
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:50:00 -
[367] - Quote
Either CSM Chairman Seleene is backing propositions without having actually read them, or is really bad at deceiving the player base he is meant to represent. Which is it? |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
672
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:01:00 -
[368] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Either CSM Chairman Seleene is backing propositions without having actually read them, or is really bad at deceiving the player base he is intended to represent. Which is it?
Perhaps both. Seleene is not exactly known for his political acumen... This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Isphirel
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:12:00 -
[369] - Quote
Hi, we're having democratic elections here. What do you mean, the number of voters backing a given position might have an impact on the outcome? Okay, are we absolutely sure we need to have democratic elections? Well, ****, listen, what we're gonna do is... |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:20:00 -
[370] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Sal Volatile wrote:Ignoring legitimate criticism while vaguely referring to tinfoil hattery is extremely dishonest and I am extremely disappointed in both you and the other CSM members, Seleene. Many very serious and legitimate critiques have been made in this thread. Your dismissive attitude is patronizing and appalling. There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it. My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them.
well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in and if your now ready to read an idea through all the goons subtafuge and sabatage i think i may have a way to try getting it fair to the point that as many people as possible have a say.
my idea is as follows and yes it requires extra work by ccp on the fact of having to vet every candidate however i think this is needed or people are going to game the system .
have any system in place that you wish but split the seats up in a similar fasion to 2 seats for null sec representatives, 2 seats for low sec representatives, 2 for high sec and 2 for WH the rest of the seats would be allocated going on a similar bassis and im sure ccp could figure them out.
this can be gammed in many different ways but this is why i said at the top each character would have to go through a vetting procedure to ensure that new characters werent created for that purpose. |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:21:00 -
[371] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:If there are 400K active accounts in EVE Online, and only 60K accounts took the time to cast a vote for CSM7, then the problem seems clear to me. The CSM should not be focusing on trying to invalidate votes from certain segments of the EVE Online population, rather they should be working harder, trying to come up with ways to increase voter turnout. The CSM should be encouraging the sort of motivated voter we see in nullsec, trying to figure out how to motivate voters across the board. The goal should not be to limit a segment of the nullsec vote.
It seems to me, the 60K accounts that took the time to vote, they are being properly represented. Of the other 340K accounts? Tough ****. They don't vote, they don't get represented. It's as simple as that. Their complaints are moot.
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, each with a 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.)
i have made this suggestion already i also still say there has to be more promotion and things that draw peoples eyes or they will just miss it. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:23:00 -
[372] - Quote
serras bang wrote:well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:24:00 -
[373] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Frankly, I'd like to hear if The Mittani would have actually supported this STV initiative if he was still the CSM chairman, which your peers are trying to infer but as shying away from actually claiming. He can post, right?
He doesn't touch anything CSM-related with a ten-foot pole and I wouldn't hold my breath for him to state an opinion on it publicly (or privately, for that matter) please leave |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:25:00 -
[374] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote?
when did i ever say that ? |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:26:00 -
[375] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote? when did i ever say that ? Obviously you want my vote to count for less than yours, otherwise we can just keep the current system where we both have one vote, regardless of whom you or I wish to vote for. |
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
141
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:27:00 -
[376] - Quote
Seleene wrote:
There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.
You should be annoyed. This thread has nothing to do with fixing our spaceship game. What the hell are you people doing on the CSM?
Go fix our game. You were elected to do a job. Go do it. This thread should have never happened.
|
Holander Switzerland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:27:00 -
[377] - Quote
I honestly don't understand how the CSM thought this was a good idea. Even more so when they admit in the proposal itself that the reason for these changes are meant to disenfranchise bloc level votes. All while later in the thread admitting that the proposed changes wouldn't actually work. In fact let me quote it:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: 3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.
You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.
And this is with your estimates of the game ability of your system. Nerds who know way more about this stuff than me have already figured out how to game the proposed system even harder than the current.
I mean, how bad at your job are you. You didn't even get the voting system's name right because you changed it to be pretty much the exact opposite of what the system actually is. I'm going to spell this all out very clearly. An STV voting system is based on the idea of not wasting votes. In a normal STV system whenever a candidate reaches the quota of votes, they are elected and the quota is subtracted from the voting pool. Leaving whatever votes went over the quota for that candidate to go down the list and not be wasted. This is not the case with the proposed system:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: The determination of the results is straightforward:
In each round:
* If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round)
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. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:28:00 -
[378] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:well said anyway my honest opinion to make it as fair at least as at the election process that only a certian number of people from each place actively gets in Why do you think my vote should only count for 60% of your vote? when did i ever say that ? Obviously you want my vote to count for less than yours, otherwise we can just keep the current system where we both have one vote, regardless of whom you or I wish to vote for.
i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1319
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:33:00 -
[379] - Quote
Holander Switzerland wrote: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. This is reminding me of real-life politics.
So I guess next is trying to jerrymander which sec you're "part of"? Actually wait, people have already been doing that in GD. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:33:00 -
[380] - Quote
Seleene wrote: There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it.
My attitude with regard to the actual discussion of this subject has been anything but dismissive. Just because I'm not doing a point by point on all of the critiques made does not mean I have not read them.
May I point out that Trebor is the one who posted the thread, so if "there IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists" then maybe you should take it up with him instead of acting in the entirely dismissive and patronizing manner in which you are acting.
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. |
|
DaiTengu
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:37:00 -
[381] - Quote
Look. It's ******* simple.
1 person. 1 vote.
5 accounts. 5 votes.
Changing the system makes it un-democratic. Quit worrying about how you might not get re-elected next year you shitdicks, and do what you're elected to: Fix our goddamn game.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:38:00 -
[382] - Quote
serras bang wrote:i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont. 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? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1320
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:39:00 -
[383] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:Seleene wrote:There IS a lot of tinfoil BS in this thread with regard to why this thread exists and I make no apologies for being annoyed by it. 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. I recall the last time people were talking about tinfoil.
So much so they renamed an important corp to Tinfoil. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1320
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:40:00 -
[384] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont. 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? Because voting is magic. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1561
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:41:00 -
[385] - Quote
EVE makes a point of being a "single-shard" game. I fail to see how making player representation effectively 'sharded' is a desirable thing. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:42:00 -
[386] - Quote
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 |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:45:00 -
[387] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont. 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?
because under the kind of system im proposeing is to give everyone a fair say noone can any longer control large amounts of the council but tbh isnt you vote going to a candidate from null you want there already ?
then you vote isnt worth less as you would voted for em in the first place or you simply being forced into voting for someone ?
persides the more votes someone gets the more ikely they are to be heading csm that alone should give your vote more power this is if your corp/alliance/voting block is so powerfull.
or is it your all flooding the forums scared that you may lose influance in the grand sceam of things ?
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:46:00 -
[388] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: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
hes not allowed to run for csm 8 anyways that was part of his punishment wasnt it ? to step down from this csm and unable to run for the next ? |
Tango Zulu
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:47:00 -
[389] - Quote
Guys, guys... it's obvious we have a problem with bloc voting, so we need to find a compromise. It's readily apparent that most of bloc voting happens in null sec. Also easy to see, is that for groups that favor small, roving gangs, Minmatar ships like Lokis and Vagabonds are favored; also for large battles, artillery is king, and many people fly Maelstroms (and occasionally Typhoons). Because of these unfair powerhouses, I recommend, in the spirit of fairness, that every Minmatar pilot be counted at 60% of a vote. This would help balance null-sec power blocs, with the general apathy and ignorance found in high-sec.
We could call it a "Three-Fifths Compromise." |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:47:00 -
[390] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: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 hes not allowed to run for csm 8 anyways that was part of his punishment wasnt it ? nah he can run for the next one if he wants |
|
Lord Zim
1365
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:48:00 -
[391] - Quote
serras bang wrote:because under the kind of system im proposeing is to give everyone a fair say noone can any longer control large amounts of the council but tbh isnt you vote going to a candidate from null you want there already ? You mean "fair say" after we've gamed the system to get 4+ people on the CSM because we're better organized than the average pubbie, and the CSM's attempt to block us from "taking over" is a **** attempt made by **** wannabe politicians?
Okay then. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:52:00 -
[392] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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?
because under the kind of system im proposeing is to give everyone a fair say noone can any longer control large amounts of the council but tbh isnt you vote going to a candidate from null you want there already ?[/quote] If 20000 votes have to establish two seats, then each vote has decided on 1/10000th of a seat. If 3000 votes decide on 2 seats, then each vote has decided on 1/1500th of a seat. 1/10000th is less than 1/1500th. How exactly is my 1/10000th seat vote worth the same as your 1/1500th seat vote?
serras bang wrote:or is it your all flooding the forums scared that you may lose influance in the grand sceam of things ? nah we've already established that whatever you do we can game the system so that's nbd really |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:57:00 -
[393] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote: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? because under the kind of system im proposeing is to give everyone a fair say noone can any longer control large amounts of the council but tbh isnt you vote going to a candidate from null you want there already ? If 20000 votes have to establish two seats, then each vote has decided on 1/10000th of a seat. If 3000 votes decide on 2 seats, then each vote has decided on 1/1500th of a seat. 1/10000th is less than 1/1500th. How exactly is my 1/10000th seat vote worth the same as your 1/1500th seat vote?
serras bang wrote:or is it your all flooding the forums scared that you may lose influance in the grand sceam of things ? nah we've already established that whatever you do we can game the system so that's nbd really[/quote]
i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1320
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 21:58:00 -
[394] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: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 Ironically, they might succeed because I think The Mittani isn't interested in running. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1561
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:02:00 -
[395] - Quote
In the UK, people can't hold multiple citizenships in several regions simultaneously nor can they teleport from one end of the nation to the other as needed.. Such things need to be accounted for before trying to implement some sort of federalist election import from real life. Apples and Oranges.
There is no democratic solution to the 'problem' CSM7 has with lots and lots of legitimate votes going towards people who aren't them. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:05:00 -
[396] - Quote
serras bang wrote:i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. Except England, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't all send the same number of representatives into the Commons. |
Konrad Kane
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:06:00 -
[397] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i never said that either you would get your vote dosent mean to say your guy will get on but that may not be the case in the first place not every politicion gets into government infact a lot of them dont. 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?
Really depends one what the CSM is trying to be.
If the CSM is there for individuals with no clear mandate but are voted in on their PR/Alliance Numbers/etc keep the system the same as it is now.
If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above.
The problem with the proposal is it doesn't address either and does appear to be specifically designed to keep out one group from having 'too many CSM people in the top' which really doesn't seem to end up with the worst of both Worlds.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:10:00 -
[398] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above. How do you categorize people into the three voting "boroughs"? As I said above, there's no nullsec pilot who doesn't also have at least one highsec character, for market shenanigans or whatever reason. Do I get to vote on lowsec issues on my faction warfare alt? Can I vote for the highsec candidate with my L4 mission runner? Maybe I want to stand for the Highsec spot on the platform that L4s don't pay out enough and need to be buffed. Will I be allowed to, or am I "tainted" for having a nullsec character?
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:11:00 -
[399] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. Except England, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't all send the same number of representatives into the Commons. For the record, I'm totally fine with giving the so-called "Highsec representatives" more seats because I have chars that have never set foot outside of Jita. So I should be able to vote for the highsec seat, right?
no that is correct but every region has its representative |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:12:00 -
[400] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. Except England, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't all send the same number of representatives into the Commons. For the record, I'm totally fine with giving the so-called "Highsec representatives" more seats because I have chars that have never set foot outside of Jita. So I should be able to vote for the highsec seat, right? no that is correct but every region has its representative So we'll get one representative for each of the EVE regions? |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:12:00 -
[401] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Konrad Kane wrote:If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above. How do you categorize people into the three voting "boroughs"? As I said above, there's no nullsec pilot who doesn't also have at least one highsec character, for market shenanigans or whatever reason. Do I get to vote on lowsec issues on my faction warfare alt? Can I vote for the highsec candidate with my L4 mission runner? Maybe I want to stand for the Highsec spot on the platform that L4s don't pay out enough and need to be buffed. Will I be allowed to, or am I "tainted" for having a nullsec character?
your votes do as you please with even a high sec char can vote for a nully if they wish but they would still only recieve 2 seats. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:13:00 -
[402] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:i dunno were you from but over in the uk we have regional votes witch dictate who has seets in the government dictated by region yes its a bit of a stretch of a comparison but the bassic same underlaying thought and result is achieved by my suggestion. Except England, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't all send the same number of representatives into the Commons. For the record, I'm totally fine with giving the so-called "Highsec representatives" more seats because I have chars that have never set foot outside of Jita. So I should be able to vote for the highsec seat, right? no that is correct but every region has its representative So we'll get one representative for each of the EVE regions?
no i said 2 in my original proposal will it be 2 will it maybe be 3 from null i dunno its upto ccp im just putting up and outlining my suggestion. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:15:00 -
[403] - Quote
serras bang wrote:no i said 2 in my original proposal will it be 2 will it maybe be 3 from null i dunno its upto ccp im just putting up and outlining my suggestion. Why do you think my vote should count for less than your vote? |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:16:00 -
[404] - Quote
What makes hisec need 2 representatives? What issues do they need to work on? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1567
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:18:00 -
[405] - Quote
As a Canadian I'm well aware of disproportionate regional representation. Putting aside the fact that huge swaths of the playerbase can't be pigeonholed to a single region, the idea that a 'wormholer vote' is worth ten times a nullsec player's vote and twenty times a highsec player's vote in terms of CSM representation is insulting. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:19:00 -
[406] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:What makes hisec need 2 representatives? What issues do they need to work on? Mining Ganking Incursions Jita CONCORD Can-flipping Ninja Salvaging Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:24:00 -
[407] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:As a Canadian I'm well aware of disproportionate regional representation. Putting aside the fact that huge swaths of the playerbase can't be pigeonholed to a single region, the idea that a 'wormholer vote' is worth ten times a nullsec player's vote and twenty times a highsec player's vote in terms of CSM representation is insulting.
but if you went on the bassis of everyone in the game voting (i know this dont happen but bear with me) a null sec and wh vote would infact be worth more as im sure hi sec could produce more possible canddates than null. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:25:00 -
[408] - Quote
serras bang wrote:but if you went on the bassis of everyone in the game voting (i know this dont happen but bear with me) a null sec and wh vote would infact be worth more as im sure hi sec could produce more possible canddates than null. If I went on the basis of me having a billion dollars I wouldn't have to work anymore either, but I don't so I won't go to my boss and tell him to go **** himself tomorrow. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:25:00 -
[409] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What makes hisec need 2 representatives? What issues do they need to work on? Mining Ganking Incursions Jita CONCORD Can-flipping Ninja Salvaging
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 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:27:00 -
[410] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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 Oh then I guess you can't be a "real" "highsec candidate". Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Zudrag
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:28:00 -
[411] - Quote
I think this system that you/the CSM/whoever is proposing is a step in the wrong direction in terms of trying to do what you're trying to do. This system from what I have seen and from what I have seen discussed will just be abused more than the current system. I don't think it should be implemented, and I think the system should stay the way it currently.
I also think that any suggested "required voting" would be in poor judgement, because to vote correctly you need to be informed about the candidates sufficiently. If you just go off a blurb and think "oh I like how that person sounds" then you're going to elect someone who most likely will not properly represent what you want, and will probably just not get the job done. Having the thread that is the voting platform and having as much information out about the candidate is a good idea, and those who at least make an effort to be somewhat informed will vote.
I'd also like to touch on something that stuck out at me:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
The only time I would see this goal as acceptable is if you were a business that would be threatened by organized groups of consumers. In this situation, it is an attempt by a large amount of consumers trying to get their demands through to the business they consume from. CCP wants to know what the majority of their subscribers want.
What this attempt to reduce the power of organized voting blocs seems to be is an attempt to promote whoever's minority to be as important as one of the larger groups. CCP is running a business, and what people in wormholes, for instance, want is probably going to have less of an impact than what say, highsec AFK ice miners want, because the miners make up a much larger portion of the overall subscriber base. CCP prioritizes content production if I am correct something along the lines of how long something takes to make, and how much of an impact it's going to have on players. If a small number of players are affected by it, then it's probably going to be a low priority idea to implement. As such, if a group can't get the votes to have a representative of their interests elected with a high enough vote count, then tough; that's how voting works.
If you are worried about special interest groups being drowned out by the larger masses, then I do have a suggestion:
You could have the runners-up to the CSM collaborate and prepare some concise issues to bring up with the CSM that goes to talk directly to CCP. Time could be set aside to discuss these issues, as I'm sure at least one person at the meeting will have a decent understanding of the issues brought up by the smaller interest group. This is just a quick and not very fleshed out suggestion, and can obviously be expanded upon. |
Konrad Kane
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:30:00 -
[412] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Konrad Kane wrote:If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above. How do you categorize people into the three voting "boroughs"? As I said above, there's no nullsec pilot who doesn't also have at least one highsec character, for market shenanigans or whatever reason. Do I get to vote on lowsec issues on my faction warfare alt? Can I vote for the highsec candidate with my L4 mission runner? Maybe I want to stand for the Highsec spot on the platform that L4s don't pay out enough and need to be buffed. Will I be allowed to, or am I "tainted" for having a nullsec character?
You have as many votes as you have accounts, not sure what the issue here is? Do you have one candidate now that is really addressing all you 0.0, FW, lvl4 mission running issues?
The CSM isn't a cabinet, a government or some sort of parish council it's a customer advocacy group: using terms like election turnout doesn't change that.
If they are concerned that all areas of the game aren't getting represented well I'm simply saying instead of this rather convoluted process where they try and juggle the votes to make it be as representatives as they feel it should be, they just split up seats into gaming styles and let people vote for say guys who do want to buff lvl4 missions standing for the high sec seat.
I don't pretend it's perfect but it is pretty simple, which is what is needed here IMHO. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:30:00 -
[413] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What makes hisec need 2 representatives? What issues do they need to work on? Mining Ganking Incursions Jita CONCORD Can-flipping Ninja Salvaging 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 Oh then I guess you can't be a "real" "highsec candidate".
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. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:31:00 -
[414] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Konrad Kane wrote:If the CSM is trying to create a system where general play styles are represented a fixed number of places per. game style will mean that you get the scenario you outline above. How do you categorize people into the three voting "boroughs"? As I said above, there's no nullsec pilot who doesn't also have at least one highsec character, for market shenanigans or whatever reason. Do I get to vote on lowsec issues on my faction warfare alt? Can I vote for the highsec candidate with my L4 mission runner? Maybe I want to stand for the Highsec spot on the platform that L4s don't pay out enough and need to be buffed. Will I be allowed to, or am I "tainted" for having a nullsec character? You have as many votes as you have accounts, not sure what the issue here is? Do you have one candidate now that is really addressing all you 0.0, FW, lvl4 mission running issues? The CSM isn't a cabinet, a government or some sort of parish council it's a customer advocacy group: using terms like election turnout doesn't change that. If they are concerned that all areas of the game aren't getting represented well I'm simply saying instead of this rather convoluted process where they try and juggle the votes to make it be as representatives as they feel it should be, they just split up seats into gaming styles and let people vote for say guys who do want to buff lvl4 missions standing for the high sec seat. I don't pretend it's perfect but it is pretty simple, which is what is needed here IMHO.
im glad at least one person is grasp what im saying |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:35:00 -
[415] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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. Oh, you've already started thinking ahead about the possible effects of changes.
It's not too common in certain places... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:35:00 -
[416] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:If they are concerned that all areas of the game aren't getting represented well I'm simply saying instead of this rather convoluted process where they try and juggle the votes to make it be as representatives as they feel it should be, they just split up seats into gaming styles and let people vote for say guys who do want to buff lvl4 missions standing for the high sec seat. What I'm arguing is that whatever kind of arbitrary seat arrangement you'll end up with, you can't avoid getting the system gamed by the "large organized voting bloc" (CFC/TEST, let's not tiptoe around the issue here). We haven't gamed either of the CSM elections so far, even though it would have been trivial to do so (our exit polls were accurate to a frightening level), so I don't quite see why people are trying to force electoral reform. |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:37:00 -
[417] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:they just split up seats into gaming styles and let people vote for say guys who do want to buff lvl4 missions standing for the high sec seat. At which point we'd say "well, we want L4s to get nerfed" so we take that seat and tell CCP that L4s can happily be nerfed to balance against low/null. Cue hisec whining yet again because "they're not being represented". |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:38:00 -
[418] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote: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. Oh, you've already started thinking ahead about the possible effects of changes. It's not too common in certain places...
always have thought ahead i cant turn brain of when it comes to possible outcomes of certian action just like the mining barges changes when people laughed at me when i told em straight up that what has happend would most likely happen. |
Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1817
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:44:00 -
[419] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. My counter-proposal: don't change anything. Or if that's entirely out of the question for some reason: use any widely known voting system, not something you lot cobbled together over lunch and a couple of beers.
^ This
Nothing needs to be changed except people's perceptions that votes for candidates who didn't make CSM were "wasted". A single vote, first-past-the-gate voting system makes it very easy to candidates to see (a) how popular they are, (b) how much harder they have to try next time, and (c) how everyone else gamed the system.
Complex voting solutions outside the realm of "1-N preferential voting system" are not going solve any problems, but they will introduce new problems due to bugs in vote counting software, people not understanding the voting system, and candidates outright gaming the system.
The simple solutions are not effective, and the effective solutions are not simple. Even worse, the effective solutions are not going to be that much better than single-vote first-past-the-post.
The current system is broken, but at least we can all see and understand the brokenness. We just have to change the perception that votes for a candidate who didn't make CSM are somehow "wasted" any more than surplus votes for someone who made chairman. Those votes that went to candidates who didn't get into CSM mean that those voters didn't want the people that got into CSM. It's really as simple as that. Those are not "wasted votes".
Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it.
I'll butt out now, but that's my contribution to this topic.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:47:00 -
[420] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. My counter-proposal: don't change anything. Or if that's entirely out of the question for some reason: use any widely known voting system, not something you lot cobbled together over lunch and a couple of beers. ^ This Nothing needs to be changed except people's perceptions that votes for candidates who didn't make CSM were "wasted". A single vote, first-past-the-gate voting system makes it very easy to candidates to see (a) how popular they are, (b) how much harder they have to try next time, and (c) how everyone else gamed the system. Complex voting solutions outside the realm of "1-N preferential voting system" are not going solve any problems, but they will introduce new problems due to bugs in vote counting software, people not understanding the voting system, and candidates outright gaming the system. The simple solutions are not effective, and the effective solutions are not simple. Even worse, the effective solutions are not going to be that much better than single-vote first-past-the-post. The current system is broken, but at least we can all see and understand the brokenness. We just have to change the perception that votes for a candidate who didn't make CSM are somehow "wasted" any more than surplus votes for someone who made chairman. Those votes that went to candidates who didn't get into CSM mean that those voters didn't want the people that got into CSM. It's really as simple as that. Those are not "wasted votes". Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it. I'll butt out now, but that's my contribution to this topic.
the broken part is people do not feel that aspects of the game are represented within csm. |
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:47:00 -
[421] - Quote
Seleene wrote: The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.
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.
Reducing wasted votes is fine. Deliberately wasting votes is not. If the CSM believes we should move from FPTP to STV, that's fine. Moving to STV but then modifying it to start throwing out the votes of undesirables, not so much. Technetium Lord |
Konrad Kane
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:49:00 -
[422] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote: What I'm arguing is that whatever kind of arbitrary seat arrangement you'll end up with, you can't avoid getting the system gamed by the "large organized voting bloc" (CFC/TEST, let's not tiptoe around the issue here). We haven't gamed either of the CSM elections so far, even though it would have been trivial to do so (our exit polls were accurate to a frightening level), so I don't quite see why people are trying to force electoral reform.
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. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
251
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:56:00 -
[423] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it.
The problem is this CSM is heavy on pettiness and short on ability. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
195
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:02:00 -
[424] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).
Here's the core of the issue. You're essentially trying to pretend that 0.0 blocks somehow "gamed" the system to get on, rather than having the most votes. The only thing that voting blocs can do is reduce the amount of "wasted" votes: exit polling and the like are ways to get us around the flaws of FPTP that would otherwise throw out large numbers of our votes.
The core of this "problem" isn't that the system has been "gamed". It's that the CSM, and some vocal minorities, are unhappy with what voters actually want and vote for.
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system?
No, we're not changing the subject here. The sole reasons you've offered for why 0.0 votes should be systematically be thrown out are allegations that they have been "gaming" the system by attempting to avoid their votes being thrown out, and that all people that a 0.0 alliance might put up are identical. Clearly, that's not the case: the CSM is under an NDA so people elected can't consult with other members of their alliance on a proposal they're not familiar with. So any organized effort to elect multiple candidates will always be geared towards electing very different people. 0.0 has focused on the CSM after many cases where an incompetent CSM didn't understand why proposals shouldn't go through, and focused on getting intelligent, effective people elected who can understand what proposals mean. Technetium Lord |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:04:00 -
[425] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: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. T1nf01L (CSM.)
Konrad Kane wrote: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. Would be hilarious if the "mining" person was there with the "sov mechanics" person, and the former had 1/10th the votes. Great image.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:05:00 -
[426] - Quote
To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?
I'll be real honest, designing voting systems is not my area of expertise. I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen and I thought it would be better to lead with an idea to start things off. Mostly, I was looking forward to the discussion. Shooting holes in the original proposal has happened, but not a lot of constructive talk about what to do instead aside from keep things as is.
I dont think the system as-is does the job as well as it should. Players legit worry about giving their vote to a small candidate not because he or she doesn't match their views but because they feel their vote would be wasted. The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office.
Building voting systems isnt my thing. The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank. Most points wins first place, second most second etc. But that assumes people will know enough about 40+ players running for CSM to be able to sort out preferences like that which isn't really realistic. And even if it was, it would make voting more complicated/time consuming and voter turnout is already an issue.
So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. We have a very intelligent player community including large groups of players who love to game/break systems (CFC comes to mind but they're not alone by any means) so let's talk about what the solution should be.
AS AN ASIDE: Someone threw out the idea of each voter getting a "vote against" vote in addition to picking their preferred candidate. What do you guys think of that? Sounds very EVE-like..
ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:07:00 -
[427] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?.
Trebor Daedoow wrote:The most common "better" election system is Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Typically in STV systems, voters rank the candidates (or some subset of them) in order of preference, and if their first candidate is eliminated from the election, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on.
'Eliminated from the election' does not translate to 'removed from position post-election'. And I'm sure Trebor had that in mind when he was wording the proposal.
hth |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:08:00 -
[428] - Quote
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. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:08:00 -
[429] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? We're not. That's a problem. That's a problem Trebor is specifically leaving in because he wants those votes thrown out. Technetium Lord |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:10:00 -
[430] - Quote
Klyith wrote: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. I think we might as well have Xenuria, they're very energetic when posting. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:11:00 -
[431] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same.
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 please leave |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:11:00 -
[432] - Quote
I mean it boils down to that sure, I'd like to discuss the issue, but given that the people discussing the issue are openly saying they intend to design the system to bias the results against the CFC my trust levels are rather low. I'm not willing to grant any legitimacy to that effort, and Trebor has made it clear that's what his goal is here. Technetium Lord |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:12:00 -
[433] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? We're not. That's a problem. That's a problem Trebor is specifically leaving in because he wants those votes thrown out. im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:12:00 -
[434] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? "Why are you goons reacting negatively to an initial proposal which is specifically designed to keep you guys out of the running? I don't understand?"
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen The jury's still out on that one.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office. Tell me how your suggestion fixes this problem without literally assfucking a bunch of others (i.e. us).
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. Says who?
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:so let's talk about what the solution should be. How about you guys working on something which'll actually benefit the game, i.e. GETTING CCP TO FIX THE GODDAMNED GAME, instead of resorting to petty politicking to try to disenfranchise huge swathes of the game's population which is actually enthused about the game? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:13:00 -
[435] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. 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 Better yet, make sure everyone knows it's our first test of the new CTA system.
Forums CTA. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:14:00 -
[436] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen The jury's still out on that one. No jury, it was decided behind closed doors. Something like a sealed military tribunal (the CSM). Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:15:00 -
[437] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same.
Gee I don't know that might have a lot to do with the wording of the OP which explicitly states:
Quote:3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
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. please leave |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:16:00 -
[438] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same. Gee I don't know that might have a lot to do with the wording of the OP which explicitly states: Quote:3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM. 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. He could be a much better politician if he learned to obfuscate a bit better.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:16:00 -
[439] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? Nope, I didn't think "hey we should change the voting system" when Mittens got banned and I still don't believe we should change it now. Especially considering that the first proposed "solution" had "diminish the influence of the CFC" right there in the premise. If you start off with a suggestion that disenfranchises part of the electorate, don't be surprised if you get a ton of backlash by that part.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. We have a very intelligent player community including large groups of players who love to game/break systems (CFC comes to mind but they're not alone by any means) so let's talk about what the solution should be. STV would work fine to ameliorate the problems you've mentioned, albeit with the drawback that Joe Public won't have as easy a time of understanding the results. The problem is that the proposal brought forward by you (as in "by the CSM") isn't STV. Not even close.
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:17:00 -
[440] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same.
Well, the CSM posts we've got have been Trebor's open admissions he wants the system biased against the CFC, Hans saying nothing with many posts, and Seleene calling objecting to that "tinfoil": there's not really any feeling that the CSM is interested in a discussion over the best voting system. I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. Technetium Lord |
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:20:00 -
[441] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. 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. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1569
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:22:00 -
[442] - Quote
So Aleks what is your reaction on Trebor's proposal now that you've been informed on the CSM council you are apparently a part of a) states openly that the intent behind it is to thwart the 'organized voting' of large player blocs and b) does not in any way address the situation where Mittani was removed from the CSM, which you were somehow led to believe it did. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:25:00 -
[443] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. 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. "any others" is a fairly large set (in fact, the whole set minus the current voting system). It's highly likely at least one system exists that is better than he current one.
But since it's already been clearly demonstrated and admitted that the people selecting systems are looking for one that will be biased to be worse, yes, it is irrational to expect if they come up with a next alternative, it will not just have a better way of masking that it wants to get rid of our evil ganker blobber structure-shooter votes. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Nymblar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:26:00 -
[444] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.
I'd rather see STV over FPTP. I don't buy the argument "Hurr it's hard to implement" - ideally the voting system should not be done by CCP at all but by a trusted third party with player and CCP oversight. I'm also not convinced that it's hard to provide accountability - If my country's government can provide me with raw vote data on election night, so can CCP.
I really don't want to see a system designed to lessen my influence because I happen to have friends, and I find it sickening that the that is the main design goal. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:28:00 -
[445] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? "Why are you goons reacting negatively to an initial proposal which is specifically designed to keep you guys out of the running? I don't understand?" Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen The jury's still out on that one. Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office. Tell me how your suggestion fixes this problem without literally assfucking a bunch of others (i.e. us). Alekseyev Karrde wrote:So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. Says who? How about you guys working on something which'll actually benefit the game, i.e. GETTING CCP TO FIX THE GODDAMNED GAME, instead of resorting to petty politicking to try to disenfranchise huge swathes of the game's population which is actually enthused about the game? 1. Maybe we should do that literacy test XD I didnt say anything about the negative Goon reaction (that's expected and i said as much in the post you quote), I'm surprised they think everything is fine with the status quo
2. Well it shouldn't be. Agitation to look at election reform is nothing new, previous CSMs have talked about it, current CSM has talked about it, CCP thinks it's a an appropriate conversation.
3. I didn't explicitly say in my post but if a voter can rank his or her preferences and 1 of those preferences gets canned, at least it's not all eggs in one basket. It doesn't really screw GSF over at all unless I'm missing something.
4. We're working on several fronts to push CCP to "fix the goddamned game." I can also walk and chew gum AND talk on the phone simultaneously. You'd be amazed (evidently).
Hisec **** posters think i'm either literally TheMitanni or his at least his puppet acintg as an agent of an antihighsec goon conspiracy, CFC **** posters think I'm an antigoon zealot acting as an agent of an antigoon highsec conspiracy. Cant get a break lol. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:28:00 -
[446] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available. 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. Isn't willing to distance?
It seems more like they're hugging it, taking it home and exclaiming that it's their new best friend and you're evil for disapproving. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:28:00 -
[447] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?
only reason im bringing this up is cause this seems to be my idea your commenting on the ide isnt to pidgeon hole players. the idea behind it is low null and hi sec generaly want seperate things right ? so the candidates would be pigeon holed not the voters if you get what i mean.
just cause someone dose mining all week and then gose into low for fw dosent make the differance if his views are more towards low hes more likely to vote for one of the low sec candidates nothing stopping him from that however if the views of a hi sec candidate intises him more he would vote for him.
was a thought of how to get a more broad representation of more gameplays into csm. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:29:00 -
[448] - Quote
Nymblar wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote: I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.
I'd rather see STV over FPTP. I don't buy the argument "Hurr it's hard to implement" - ideally the voting system should not be done by CCP at all but by a trusted third party with player and CCP oversight. I'm also not convinced that it's hard to provide accountability - If my country's government can provide me with raw vote data on election night, so can CCP. I really don't want to see a system designed to lessen my influence because I happen to have friends, and I find it sickening that the that is the main design goal.
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. please leave |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:32:00 -
[449] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:So Aleks what is your reaction on Trebor's proposal now that you've been informed on the CSM council you are apparently a part of a) states openly that the intent behind it is to thwart the 'organized voting' of large player blocs and b) does not in any way address the situation where Mittani was removed from the CSM, which you were somehow led to believe it did. I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.
I still think the conversation needed a starting place. I'm less concerned with where it started than where it goes. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:33:00 -
[450] - Quote
Andski wrote: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. So they're liberating us by making the votes count for less? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:34:00 -
[451] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system. 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. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
678
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:36:00 -
[452] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? Mittens getting thrown out and thus those 10k votes wasted had nothing to do with the way that the voting system works and you know it. Stop throwing out straw men. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:37:00 -
[453] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve."
We put all of two candidates on the council in CSM 6.
Perhaps that "substantial" portion of the game (more likely a bunch of sockpuppets but whatever) should focus their time on getting more people to vote rather than trying to diminish the influence of a motivated 0.0 voting bloc. please leave |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:37:00 -
[454] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system. 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. Oh dear, I guess tat's how it works, the major blocs can all vote for two seats, while the unaligned people get to throw all their votes towards five or something. That'll show them.
You're evil people, you can put your votes towards one seat, the "evil seat". Upstanding highsec missioners have two seats, and miners get two. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:38:00 -
[455] - Quote
serras bang wrote:[quote=Alekseyev Karrde]ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?
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 |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:41:00 -
[456] - Quote
serras bang wrote: 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
You are correct, primaries would be a bad idea, blocs would be able to pack the field and force unaligned candidates out of the race. Possibly an even worse system than FPTP.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:41:00 -
[457] - Quote
serras bang wrote:serras bang wrote:[quote=Alekseyev Karrde]ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas? 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 Yes, just require more of the voter. This'll allow them plenty of time to become tired out by the process and needing to be called up not just once, but now at least twice by the candidate.
There's no reason to hide that this will of course require us to have two sets of jabber broadcasts, one for each "tier". Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:46:00 -
[458] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system. 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. Oh dear, I guess tat's how it works, the major blocs can all vote for two seats, while the unaligned people get to throw all their votes towards five or something. That'll show them. You're evil people, you can put your votes towards one seat, the "evil seat". Upstanding highsec missioners have two seats, and miners get two. Heh i never said it was fair, just stating how they feel.
The two goons on CSM4 were two of the most insightful people around the table at the summit meeting and Mitten was the most effective CSM Chair yet. To me, that's a pretty good track record when it comes to the CSM, but that's a lot of personal bias on my part.
And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:46:00 -
[459] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.
I still think the conversation needed a starting place. I'm less concerned with where it started than where it goes. So that's why "The CSM" started this whole conversation with this?
Quote:The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:
[...]
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes?
What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias? |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:48:00 -
[460] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response No, those 10k wasted votes have fuckall to do with your wish to "reduce (but not eliminate) the advantagese held by highly organized voting blocs".
You're just making that up now. |
|
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:48:00 -
[461] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response
Uh, surely it's to do with placating the fourth estate, given they weren't wasted (except for, possibly, the overvotes) until after the results had been announced? ~ |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:49:00 -
[462] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes? A requirement which, I might add, hasn't been rescinded yet; nor even questioned by other CSM members. |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:51:00 -
[463] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Lord Zim wrote:How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes? A requirement which, I might add, hasn't been rescinded yet; nor even questioned by other CSM members. Actually, the fact we've dared question it has been scoffed at scornfully, by the CSM chair, as "tinfoil BS". |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
678
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:52:00 -
[464] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response
Yeah you're going to have to justify that one. Mittens getting booted off simply meant that the next alternate took his place. Presumably, ANY such system would have alternates, so I don't see how it has anything to do with the voting system. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:55:00 -
[465] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias? Surprise me cupcake. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:55:00 -
[466] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response
Yeah you're going to have to justify that one. Mittens getting booted off simply meant that the next alternate took his place. Presumably, ANY such system would have alternates, so I don't see how it has anything to do with the voting system. No alternate took his place. We started the term with 13 CSM members instead of 14 "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:57:00 -
[467] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Sirane Elrek wrote:Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. My counter-proposal: don't change anything. Or if that's entirely out of the question for some reason: use any widely known voting system, not something you lot cobbled together over lunch and a couple of beers. ^ This Nothing needs to be changed except people's perceptions that votes for candidates who didn't make CSM were "wasted". A single vote, first-past-the-gate voting system makes it very easy to candidates to see (a) how popular they are, (b) how much harder they have to try next time, and (c) how everyone else gamed the system. Complex voting solutions outside the realm of "1-N preferential voting system" are not going solve any problems, but they will introduce new problems due to bugs in vote counting software, people not understanding the voting system, and candidates outright gaming the system. The simple solutions are not effective, and the effective solutions are not simple. Even worse, the effective solutions are not going to be that much better than single-vote first-past-the-post. The current system is broken, but at least we can all see and understand the brokenness. We just have to change the perception that votes for a candidate who didn't make CSM are somehow "wasted" any more than surplus votes for someone who made chairman. Those votes that went to candidates who didn't get into CSM mean that those voters didn't want the people that got into CSM. It's really as simple as that. Those are not "wasted votes". Please, let's have a clear definition of the "problem" before you start trying to solve it. I'll butt out now, but that's my contribution to this topic.
This is yet another very good response that will be dismissed as "tinfoil" by our increasingly intellectually dishonest CSM.
|
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:57:00 -
[468] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes?
What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias? To put it more bluntly, do you really think you can come up with a gamed system that the folks in GSF and TEST can't game right back? We're organized and have better information resources!
Did anyone in the CSM ask CCP if they could implement real Single Transferable Voting? Or did Trebor & co look at it and say, "It's too fair, they'll still be able to use their 10k votes to out-elect my 1k votes. We need something like STV but from bizarro-world and dreamed up by Tammany Hall." Because real STV would be the best real voting system to make the votes of unaligned voters count. |
Nymblar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:58:00 -
[469] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:" I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs.
Maybe the CSM should start by adressing it in a way where the goal is fair elections instead of actively trying to disenfranchise the majority of voters. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
678
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:58:00 -
[470] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:corestwo wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response
Yeah you're going to have to justify that one. Mittens getting booted off simply meant that the next alternate took his place. Presumably, ANY such system would have alternates, so I don't see how it has anything to do with the voting system. No alternate took his place. We started the term with 13 CSM members instead of 14
Ah. And presumably its the fault of this voting system, somehow. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:59:00 -
[471] - Quote
Klyith wrote:Lord Zim wrote:How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes?
What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias? To put it more bluntly, do you really think you can come up with a gamed system that the folks in GSF and TEST can't game right back? We're organized and have better information resources! Did anyone in the CSM ask CCP if they could implement real Single Transferable Voting? Or did Trebor & co look at it and say, "It's too fair, they'll still be able to use their 10k votes to out-elect my 1k votes. We need something like STV but from bizarro-world and dreamed up by Tammany Hall." Because real STV would be the best real voting system to make the votes of unaligned voters count.
the csm reprecentatives have already said that they have chatted to ccp and ccp also said that this descusion should happen. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:01:00 -
[472] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: I still think the conversation needed a starting place. I'm less concerned with where it started than where it goes.
I disagree: where it starts from matters and affects where it goes. If we have to spend our time arguing just for the principle that the system shouldn't be designed to disenfranchise us, our best case scenario is we wind up with only a moderate amount of deliberate disenfranchisement.
We're only willing to have a discussion about a fair voting system, not one that also involves "well a voting system should be biased against the CFC" principle as well. Technetium Lord |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:03:00 -
[473] - Quote
Nymblar wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:" I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Maybe the CSM should start by adressing it in a way where the goal is fair elections instead of actively trying to disenfranchise the majority of voters. I think that point's been made like 15+ pages ago dude. Catch up with the rest of us. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:03:00 -
[474] - Quote
To be fair, the current CSM is actually pretty strong evidence that the existing voting system does not produce a very good CSM. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:04:00 -
[475] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:We're only willing to have a discussion about a fair voting system. So have it? One paragraph from an IDEA the OP used to start a conversation 20+ pages ago has you speging out like crazy. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:05:00 -
[476] - Quote
Nymblar wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:" I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Maybe the CSM should start by adressing it in a way where the goal is fair elections instead of actively trying to disenfranchise the majority of voters. Maybe the CSM should stop believing that we're against it because it's bad for us. Maybe we're against it because Terbor's proposal is the stupidest voting system ever committed to words. Election by augury of the guts of sacrificed bulls was a better method.
serras bang wrote: the csm reprecentatives have already said that they have chatted to ccp and ccp also said that this descusion should happen.
CCP said this discussion should happen, but the discussion started out with real STV being thrown out as beyond CCP's capabilities. I'd like to know if that was actually CCP's response or words being put into their mouth. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:05:00 -
[477] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:We're only willing to have a discussion about a fair voting system. So have it? One paragraph from an IDEA the OP used to start a conversation 20+ pages ago has you sperging out like crazy. It's not merely an idea. It's clearly stated that the CSM is considering it as a requirement for any voting system. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:06:00 -
[478] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:We're only willing to have a discussion about a fair voting system. So have it? One paragraph from an IDEA the OP used to start a conversation 20+ pages ago has you sperging out like crazy.
chiding everyone who disagrees with you isn't productive hth~ please leave |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
679
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:07:00 -
[479] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:To be fair, the current CSM is actually pretty strong evidence that the existing voting system does not produce a very good CSM.
By Alekseyev's own admission, then, the more gameable (by goons), the better!
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
The two goons on CSM4 were two of the most insightful people around the table at the summit meeting and Mitten was the most effective CSM Chair yet. To me, that's a pretty good track record when it comes to the CSM, but that's a lot of personal bias on my part.
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:13:00 -
[480] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:We're only willing to have a discussion about a fair voting system. So have it? One paragraph from an IDEA the OP used to start a conversation 20+ pages ago has you sperging out like crazy. Well, if the OP had agreed it was a bad idea and dropped it instead of popping back up today to reiterate his intent to try and disenfranchise us, then this would be a better point. Technetium Lord |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
679
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:21:00 -
[481] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:We're only willing to have a discussion about a fair voting system. So have it? One paragraph from an IDEA the OP used to start a conversation 20+ pages ago has you sperging out like crazy. Well, if the OP had agreed it was a bad idea and dropped it instead of popping back up today to reiterate his intent to try and disenfranchise us, then this would be a better point. To elaborate a bit, Trebor's brilliant approach to us having "too much power" is to make sure we can't vote, when a much better approach would be to take measures to get more people voting, instead. This fact will be true regardless of how the voting system works, frankly. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:21:00 -
[482] - Quote
can someone explain Trebor's idea that voters who vote for candidates who later lose are "disenfranchised" please leave |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:23:00 -
[483] - Quote
I think it's pretty clear the proposed system is a non-starter. The CSM should just admit that and close this thread down and start over. If you really want ideas on a new system, ask us for ideas, don't start it with a proposal stating you want to bend over alliances for being organized.
|
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:23:00 -
[484] - Quote
Andski wrote:can someone explain Trebor's idea that voters who vote for candidates who later lose are "disenfranchised"
Well, you see, I voted for John McCaine in 2008, and as he's not currently President, I'm disenfranchised. ~ |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:27:00 -
[485] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Lord Zim wrote:What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias? Surprise me cupcake. Here's the surprise: you can take that criteria and you can shove it riiiiiiight where the sun don't shine.
You people have spent, what, 3 months thinking up this system, and it's pretty evident by the defensive posting that you guys really, really want to make sure us goons get to the back of the bus. There doesn't exist a single system, which will throw out votes in the fashion you guys want, which I will accept.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:So have it? One paragraph from an IDEA the OP used to start a conversation 20+ pages ago has you sperging out like crazy. Uh, it's not "one paragraph" from "an idea", it permeates the requirements which you put forth as the minimum, requirements which are basically set there with the intent to **** goons.
Frankly, I'm wondering which universe you think this would be met with anything other than "what are you thinking?", and the way you, seleene, trebor and hans (well, until he basically threw trebor under the bus, real upstanding, high-quality CSM member right there, exactly what we need when CCP comes running to you guys with a **** idea :golfclap:) have basically scoffed scournfully at us for even daring to voice an opposing opinion is, to me, deeply worrying. |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:28:00 -
[486] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:I think it's pretty clear the proposed system is a non-starter. The CSM should just admit that and close this thread down and start over. If you really want ideas on a new system, ask us for ideas, don't start it with a proposal stating you want to bend over alliances for being organized.
It's not just the proposal, it's the basic rules they put forth as minimum requirements.
To paraphrase: 1) Be easy for CCP to implement 2) Buff small voters 3) **** goons |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:30:00 -
[487] - Quote
I mean, basically this discussion isn't about what you want to discuss because we can't agree on what to discuss. Trebor wants to discuss a "fair" system, and by that he means one that disenfranchises the "right" number of 0.0 votes. I, on the other hand, would like to discuss a fair system, meaning one that results in the CSM best reflecting the preferences of the voters.
As long as the discussion is about the former rather than the latter, there is nothing to discuss except reject the premise and continue to emphasize it is illegitimate to have the goal of a voting system be to properly disenfranchise a specific group. Technetium Lord |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:37:00 -
[488] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:
You people have spent, what, 3 months thinking up this system, and it's pretty evident by the defensive posting that you guys really, really want to make sure us goons get to the back of the bus. There doesn't exist a single system, which will throw out votes in the fashion you guys want, which I will accept.
you are bad at forums. Specifically reading posts that go in them. Specifically my posts "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:40:00 -
[489] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:I mean, basically this discussion isn't about what you want to discuss because we can't agree on what to discuss. Trebor wants to discuss a "fair" system, and by that he means one that disenfranchises the "right" number of 0.0 votes. I, on the other hand, would like to discuss a fair system, meaning one that results in the CSM best reflecting the preferences of the voters.
As long as the discussion is about the former rather than the latter, there is nothing to discuss except reject the premise and continue to emphasize it is illegitimate to have the goal of a voting system be to properly disenfranchise a specific group.
the preferance of people is to have an equal representation on the csm council |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:43:00 -
[490] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:I mean, basically this discussion isn't about what you want to discuss because we can't agree on what to discuss. Trebor wants to discuss a "fair" system, and by that he means one that disenfranchises the "right" number of 0.0 votes. I, on the other hand, would like to discuss a fair system, meaning one that results in the CSM best reflecting the preferences of the voters.
As long as the discussion is about the former rather than the latter, there is nothing to discuss except reject the premise and continue to emphasize it is illegitimate to have the goal of a voting system be to properly disenfranchise a specific group. This approach just confuses me. I don't see how Trebor's views on what a voting system should be doing and what your view on a voting system should be doing can't coexist in a discussion space about voting systems. They cant both WIN that discussion but why does the existence of disagreement between you and Trebor, me and Trebor, and/or me and you translate to nothing to discuss?
It sounds like there's plenty to talk about. If you (and the Goon you) want to reject the discussion as illigitimate i mean...like ok go ahead (no Goon voted for me anyway so w/e) but i dont see how it works in your favor and i'd certainly prefer to have what Goon brings to the table in terms of organization, numbers, and a knack for breaking systems involved in the debate "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:43:00 -
[491] - Quote
serras bang wrote:the preferance of people is to have an equal representation on the csm council So far, most people have expressed a disinterest in being represented on the CSM (by not voting). |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:46:00 -
[492] - Quote
snip halfhearted troll about the TEST rep on the CSM "you/we" thing "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:47:00 -
[493] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:serras bang wrote:the preferance of people is to have an equal representation on the csm council So far, most people have expressed a disinterest in being represented on the CSM (by not voting).
perhaps the incident at fanfest has woken people up it did me also and unfortunately amongst a lot of those in hi sec enough wasnt done about that incident and has tarnished not just goons but those that COULD be assosiated with them i.e other alliances such as DNS and test with the same brush. |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:47:00 -
[494] - Quote
serras bang wrote:the preferance of people is to have an equal representation on the csm council
Everybody gets to be on the CSM!
http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/26044_o.gif
|
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
199
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:54:00 -
[495] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: This approach just confuses me. I don't see how Trebor's views on what a voting system should be doing and what your view on a voting system should be doing can't coexist in a discussion space about voting systems. They cant both WIN that discussion but why does the existence of disagreement between you and Trebor, me and Trebor, and/or me and you translate to nothing to discuss?
A discussion about voting systems is how to best structure the system to achieve the goals that we want. When we don't agree on the goals, there is no point in discussing the system because the system varies based on what goals you have. Various voting systems do better or worse at representing voters. Other voting systems do a better or worse job at disenfranchising people. How are we to discuss voting systems if we can't agree on if the goal is fair representation or disenfranchisement? Technetium Lord |
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:55:00 -
[496] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I don't see how Trebor's views on what a voting system should be doing and what your view on a voting system should be doing can't coexist in a discussion space about voting systems. So it's just Trebor's view, now, and not "The CSM"? Even though "The CSM believes"?
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:It sounds like there's plenty to talk about. As long as you guys insist on keeping the minimum requirement of "bloc voters need to go to the back of the bus", there's nothing to talk about.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:If you (and the Goon you) want to reject the discussion as illigitimate i mean...like ok go ahead (no Goon voted for me anyway so w/e) but i dont see how it works in your favor and i'd certainly prefer to have what Goon brings to the table in terms of organization, numbers, and a knack for breaking systems involved in the debate The discussion is illegitimate as long as you guys insist on keeping the minimum requirement of "bloc voters need to go to the back of the bus". |
Dovinian
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1107
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:56:00 -
[497] - Quote
Now that I'm back from sailing and still a little drunk.
Hello people! I need to catch up on all the pages on this thread but I'll get it done soon.
Basically, changing the voting system isn't really a bad thing as long as it's done intelligently. EVE Players are almost always against any form of change historically. But after the dust settles and they get a chance to get used to it, all is well (most of the time anyways) |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:57:00 -
[498] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:I think it's pretty clear the proposed system is a non-starter. The CSM should just admit that and close this thread down and start over. If you really want ideas on a new system, ask us for ideas, don't start it with a proposal stating you want to bend over alliances for being organized.
It's not just the proposal, it's the basic rules they put forth as minimum requirements. To paraphrase: 1) Be easy for CCP to implement 2) Buff small voters 3) **** goons
That's what i mean, because they even said, if another bloc of voters got together like the goons, they'd try and **** them over too. That's a non-starter. The goal should be for candidates to form coalitions of like-minded individuals in order to secure their election.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4568
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:57:00 -
[499] - Quote
Andski wrote:chiding everyone who disagrees with you isn't productive hth~
just quotin myself again please leave |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:58:00 -
[500] - Quote
Dovinian wrote:Now that I'm back from sailing and still a little drunk.
Hello people! I need to catch up on all the pages on this thread but I'll get it done soon.
Basically, changing the voting system isn't really a bad thing as long as it's done intelligently. EVE Players are almost always against any form of change historically. But after the dust settles and they get a chance to get used to it, all is well (most of the time anyways) Can I take that as confirmation that you're backing Trebor's proposal? |
|
Lord Zim
1373
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:00:00 -
[501] - Quote
Dovinian wrote:Now that I'm back from sailing and still a little drunk.
Hello people! I need to catch up on all the pages on this thread but I'll get it done soon.
Basically, changing the voting system isn't really a bad thing as long as it's done intelligently. EVE Players are almost always against any form of change historically. But after the dust settles and they get a chance to get used to it, all is well (most of the time anyways) Starting off a discussion with "we'll **** over voters in big blocs" isn't a good starting point. Find a new starting point. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1570
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:01:00 -
[502] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: This approach just confuses me. I don't see how Trebor's views on what a voting system should be doing and what your view on a voting system should be doing can't coexist in a discussion space about voting systems. They cant both WIN that discussion but why does the existence of disagreement between you and Trebor, me and Trebor, and/or me and you translate to nothing to discuss?
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 are low of carrying out a debate in good faith are left in serious doubt. Frankly after Trebor's suggestion, we don't really trust you people to represent our interests in good faith.
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?"
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1100
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:04:00 -
[503] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM Holy ****. Contact themittani.com and EN24 ... some people don't win elections.
Are we in grade five now, where everyone must be a winner?
Caldari Militia |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:14:00 -
[504] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: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?" In serious doubt? I don't think anyone looking at this can say there's any doubt that they're trying to kick us off their little tour bus.
Next time don't state openly you're going to try and rip off people. Even if you have to blatently lie and say it's totally fair, put your efforts towards making a fiendishly complicated system. Not that it'll save you when the likes of CFC leadership are examining it. But at least you'd make it less obvious than saying "put your vote into the shredder."
At least put a little sign on the shredder that says "ballot box". Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:14:00 -
[505] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Frankly after Trebor's suggestion/attempts to subvert democracy, we don't really trust you people to represent our interests in good faith.
Come on man. That's racist ;p "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Richter Enderas
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:14:00 -
[506] - Quote
This is really dumb and candidates who seriously wanted to get elected would find ways to get on the CSM.
Also if you think patriotism is bad you should biomass IRL. The only person at fault for a publord noname candidate not getting elected is himself for not getting support or having a terrible platform and/or grasp on things. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:14:00 -
[507] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM Holy ****. Contact themittani.com and EN24 ... some people don't win elections. Are we in grade five now, where everyone must be a winner? Going by the articles at themittani.com, a lot of people lose. Sometimes it's us Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Lord Zim
1374
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:19:00 -
[508] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
You people have spent, what, 3 months thinking up this system, and it's pretty evident by the defensive posting that you guys really, really want to make sure us goons get to the back of the bus. There doesn't exist a single system, which will throw out votes in the fashion you guys want, which I will accept.
you are bad at forums. Specifically reading posts that go in them. Specifically my posts 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. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:21:00 -
[509] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Players legit worry about giving their vote to a small candidate not because he or she doesn't match their views but because they feel their vote would be wasted. And yet, you, Hans, Issler (and Trebor to a lesser degree) were voted in. Seems like the small candidates did fine.
Trebor was definitely on the outs this year, and worked hard to pull in the vote. And the rest of you that I named, your bases are all reasonably small, and there was no guarantee any of you would win seats.
Caldari Militia |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:22:00 -
[510] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
You people have spent, what, 3 months thinking up this system, and it's pretty evident by the defensive posting that you guys really, really want to make sure us goons get to the back of the bus. There doesn't exist a single system, which will throw out votes in the fashion you guys want, which I will accept.
you are bad at forums. Specifically reading posts that go in them. Specifically my posts 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 think the suggestion quite capably satisfies their requirements. If it didn't, we wouldn't worry about them trying to shred our votes.
Next time, try and spend a month on how you'll "sell" it. Hint: Telling us upfront you want to shred our votes isn't going to cut it. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1888
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:23:00 -
[511] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
You people have spent, what, 3 months thinking up this system, and it's pretty evident by the defensive posting that you guys really, really want to make sure us goons get to the back of the bus. There doesn't exist a single system, which will throw out votes in the fashion you guys want, which I will accept.
you are bad at forums. Specifically reading posts that go in them. Specifically my posts 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.
You are my favorite poster in this thread because you know exactly what is going on and don't hesitate to let the people know. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:24:00 -
[512] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:AS AN ASIDE: Someone threw out the idea of each voter getting a "vote against" vote in addition to picking their preferred candidate. What do you guys think of that? Sounds very EVE-like. 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.
Caldari Militia |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:25:00 -
[513] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:AS AN ASIDE: Someone threw out the idea of each voter getting a "vote against" vote in addition to picking their preferred candidate. What do you guys think of that? Sounds very EVE-like. 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. Ooh, might want to take a step back from that one then. Wouldn't want to be standing in front of the voting blob. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:26:00 -
[514] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? 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.
Caldari Militia |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:26:00 -
[515] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?
I'll be real honest, designing voting systems is not my area of expertise. I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen and I thought it would be better to lead with an idea to start things off. Mostly, I was looking forward to the discussion. Shooting holes in the original proposal has happened, but not a lot of constructive talk about what to do instead aside from keep things as is.
I dont think the system as-is does the job as well as it should. Players legit worry about giving their vote to a small candidate not because he or she doesn't match their views but because they feel their vote would be wasted. The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office.
Building voting systems isnt my thing. The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank. Most points wins first place, second most second etc. But that assumes people will know enough about 40+ players running for CSM to be able to sort out preferences like that which isn't really realistic. And even if it was, it would make voting more complicated/time consuming and voter turnout is already an issue.
So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough. We have a very intelligent player community including large groups of players who love to game/break systems (CFC comes to mind but they're not alone by any means) so let's talk about what the solution should be.
AS AN ASIDE: Someone threw out the idea of each voter getting a "vote against" vote in addition to picking their preferred candidate. What do you guys think of that? Sounds very EVE-like..
ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas? Guarantee you i didnt spend 3 months on that rofl. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1573
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:26:00 -
[516] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Lord Zim wrote: 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.
You are my favorite poster in this thread because you know exactly what is going on and don't hesitate to let the people know. CSM Chairman treating us to some more b-grade shitposts. Asking him some questions usually sends him scurrying off. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:27:00 -
[517] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? 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. Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:29:00 -
[518] - Quote
I don't think all the trolling in the thread by the CSM is helping their case.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:30:00 -
[519] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? 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. People were supposed to kneejerk go "oh that's right" and then let them break your arm.
Get with the program ~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1888
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:30:00 -
[520] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Seleene wrote:Lord Zim wrote: 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.
You are my favorite poster in this thread because you know exactly what is going on and don't hesitate to let the people know. CSM Chairman treating us to some more b-grade shitposts. Asking him some questions usually sends him scurrying off.
No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:30:00 -
[521] - Quote
Andski wrote:We put all of two candidates on the council in CSM 6.
Perhaps that "substantial" portion of the game (more likely a bunch of sockpuppets but whatever) should focus their time on getting more people to vote rather than trying to diminish the influence of a motivated 0.0 voting bloc. Hey! Stop summarizing my walls of text into two coherent sentences! :)
Caldari Militia |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:31:00 -
[522] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes.
How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced? ~ |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:31:00 -
[523] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:I don't think all the trolling in the thread by the CSM is helping their case. They're hoping it looks enough like a discussion so they can get it through and say it was settled long ago by the time elections arrive.
Maybe they might need some help to get posts deleted that point out how biased the system is though. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:32:00 -
[524] - Quote
RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes. How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced? It would do so by making sure that person didn't get in in the first place. (That would be us, we're the bad people). Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:37:00 -
[525] - Quote
Seleene wrote:No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over.
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? |
Lord Zim
1375
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:38:00 -
[526] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Guarantee you i didnt spend 3 months on that rofl. You know, the bit about the literacy test? You might want to take one.
When I talk about "you", I talk about "you, the CSM". Unless, of course, you want to do what Hans did, and throw Trebor out the window and basically say that Trebor is lying when he's saying "The CSM believes".
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes. Your strawman's on fire. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:40:00 -
[527] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed? 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. Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes. It had nothing to do with the VOTING PROCESS. Trebor is trying to change the VOTING PROCESS.
His proposal speaks to NOTHING about what to do with the votes of an ousted candidate after the election has been run and the votes counted. Caldari Militia |
Lord Zim
1375
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:40:00 -
[528] - Quote
Seleene wrote:No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over. 1) In which universe did you believe that this "voting system revamp" would go down well, at all, given the minimum requirement of **** goons? 2) When are you going to rescind the **** goons minimum requirement, and apologize for letting such a bad first system even be put out to the public? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:40:00 -
[529] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Seleene wrote:No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over. 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? You're looking at it wrong.
The idea is you don't need to rouse the Silent Pubbie Majority, you just need to nerf the Active Goon Blobbers, then you can achieve the desired result without having to do the impossible. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:41:00 -
[530] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:I don't think all the trolling in the thread by the CSM is helping their case. Disappointing. The CSM is good at typing out their own opinions, communicating those opinions to us ... very bad at discussing their opinions. Caldari Militia |
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:41:00 -
[531] - Quote
RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes.
How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced? Why are you quoting me with that question? I already said I don't think it does in two posts.
There does need to be an acceptable way to deal with that circumstance though, the Mitanni's case should not be repeated. If it's not on the candidate end, something on the voter end then. Perhaps an "emergency preference" where your vote would go to that second guy if and only if your first choice was somehow incapacitated?
Throwing out ideas for the handful of people reading/replying constructively. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1575
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:44:00 -
[532] - Quote
bye seleene.... |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:44:00 -
[533] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:I don't think all the trolling in the thread by the CSM is helping their case. Disappointing. The CSM is good at typing out their own opinions, communicating those opinions to us ... very bad as discussing their opinions.
They aren't even all that good at the second part. Wasn't that long ago they practically had to be shamed into giving updates as to the progress of the CSM minutes. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1103
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:44:00 -
[534] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:bye seleene.... LOL. Questions asked, Seleene vanishes. Caldari Militia |
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:47:00 -
[535] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote: In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM.
So you're saying that the current CSM election process is 90-100% more representative than any national election in the United States?
|
Lord Zim
1376
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:49:00 -
[536] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:bye seleene.... Quick, to the tweet machine. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1577
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:50:00 -
[537] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes.
How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced? Why are you quoting me with that question? I already said I don't think it does in two posts. There does need to be an acceptable way to deal with that circumstance though, the Mitanni's case should not be repeated. If it's not on the candidate end, something on the voter end then. Perhaps an "emergency preference" where your vote would go to that second guy if and only if your first choice was somehow incapacitated? Throwing out ideas for the handful of people reading/replying constructively. 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) |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:50:00 -
[538] - Quote
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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1321
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:54:00 -
[539] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote: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. Is he fishing, or what was it? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:58:00 -
[540] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Seleene wrote:Lord Zim wrote: 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.
You are my favorite poster in this thread because you know exactly what is going on and don't hesitate to let the people know. CSM Chairman treating us to some more b-grade shitposts. Asking him some questions usually sends him scurrying off. No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over.
You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him! |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 01:58:00 -
[541] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: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) Would be hilarious when Real Candidate jumps from last to first because Front Man did something to get themselves kicked. Surprise !
That would mean not throwing our votes out, clearly not the way to go. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:00:00 -
[542] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him! Ask an easier question like "why is CCP so great and why should we continue paying sub/buying plex from people that bought them from CCP".
I hear they really liked the improved UI and thought FW was a great idea - just like CCP did, in fact. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:00:00 -
[543] - Quote
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.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:01:00 -
[544] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote: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.
As long as Issler isn't afraid that some bored dreadnaughts will blow up their structures again. Ah, good times. CSM "littlerally attacking", if I remember the leak.
Sorry, it's not as awesome now that we've had all the Makalu leaks. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:02:00 -
[545] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him!
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!
Sal Volatile wrote: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.
Darius could post that he backed this idea just to make goons angry and I'd still respect him the most of the bunch because he was at least honest about it. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
360
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:03:00 -
[546] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sal Volatile wrote:You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him! Ask an easier question like "why is CCP so great and why should we continue paying sub/buying plex from people that bought them from CCP". I hear they really liked the improved UI and thought FW was a great idea - just like CCP did, in fact.
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.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:04:00 -
[547] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Sal Volatile wrote:You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him! 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! Oh ho ~ but will he get his way?
Could've tried to be stealthier, this is like the time that enemy FC warping his bombers to the blob at zero and they died. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1322
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:06:00 -
[548] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Sal Volatile wrote:You haven't answered a single damn question in the whole thread. Look at this chairman, ladies and gentlemen, just look at him! Ask an easier question like "why is CCP so great and why should we continue paying sub/buying plex from people that bought them from CCP". I hear they really liked the improved UI and thought FW was a great idea - just like CCP did, in fact. 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. I definitely remember seeing links to posts by them saying the improved UI was good.
Then hilarity when the FW person was caught because of the trillions worth of LP being farmed.
Yeah, just say it doesn't exist, that's fine. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:07:00 -
[549] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote: Darius could post that he backed this idea just to make goons angry and I'd still respect him the most of the bunch because he was at least honest about it.
I unironically agree with this. And Issler could say anything and I'd know it was just Issler being Issler. |
Lord Zim
1379
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:11:00 -
[550] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Seleene wrote:No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over. 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?
Lord Zim wrote:Seleene wrote:No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over. 1) In which universe did you believe that this "voting system revamp" would go down well, at all, given the minimum requirement of **** goons? 2) When are you going to rescind the **** goons minimum requirement, and apologize for letting such a bad first system even be put out to the public?
"oh god questions! quick, ~back to tweeting~"
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:bye seleene.... |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1323
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:15:00 -
[551] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:CliveWarren wrote: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? Lord Zim wrote:Seleene wrote:No, I tend to answer things I'm asked. That you don't like or believe the answers is something I have no control over. 1) In which universe did you believe that this "voting system revamp" would go down well, at all, given the minimum requirement of **** goons? 2) When are you going to rescind the **** goons minimum requirement, and apologize for letting such a bad first system even be put out to the public? "oh god questions! quick, ~back to tweeting~" Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:bye seleene.... Wonder when they'll declare Mission Accomplished: Concensus Achieved, new voting system is greenlighted? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:21:00 -
[552] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Wonder when they'll declare Mission Accomplished: Concensus Achieved, new voting system is greenlighted?
Depends how many more excuses in the face of all this they want to go through. They've already tried blaming the idea on Trebor, trying to say this thread is just for open-ended discussion, and straight up trolling dissenting opinions (i.e. all of them) when the first 2 ideas didn't work. I'm curious what's even left at this point.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2157
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:31:00 -
[553] - Quote
There have been a bunch of folks asking about using real STV for voting. The reason I don't like that solution is not because Goons would be able to exploit it (though it would certainly help large organized blocs), I don't like it because it requires *more* effort from voters who have already shown that clicking a couple of buttons is far too much work for them. Asking them to rank 5 or so people would probably reduce the turnout, which is not a good thing.
As I said like 20 pages ago, my concern with the current system is that it penalizes smaller communities running more than one candidate. If there were 4 or 5 wormhole folks running, none of us would have been elected. Possible other alternatives: 1) A true primary system, where the normal voting system is used to narrow down the candidate list. 2) Some sort of reserved seat system where each community is allocated seats. I don't like this because I don't see how you could possibly decide how many seats nullsec gets vs w-space. It is quite clear to most folks that the population stats aren't all that meaningful. 3) My previous suggestion, where candidates rank all the other candidates and a real STV system is run using candidate choices in place of voter choices. I think this is worth discussing, and could even be extended if CCP is able to devote development resources into a true STV system, where people can either use a candidate's preferences or enter in their own.
Any other actual ideas? I think it is quite clear that some folks don't like the system proposed in the OP, so lets talk alternatives. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
143
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:35:00 -
[554] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes.
How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced? Why are you quoting me with that question? I already said I don't think it does in two posts. There does need to be an acceptable way to deal with that circumstance though, the Mitanni's case should not be repeated. If it's not on the candidate end, something on the voter end then. Perhaps an "emergency preference" where your vote would go to that second guy if and only if your first choice was somehow incapacitated? Throwing out ideas for the handful of people reading/replying constructively.
No. Our 10k voted towards our candidate. Our candidate did a Goony thing and those votes and his appointment were removed. Increment CSM by one, alternate becomes a main. Where is the problem in this? It was fair and that shouldn't mean that we lose representation, it just means that someone from our bloc is not on the council.
Do you believe that our views are not being represented? We are Eve players and you are supposed to be representing us. You are supposed to be conveying our view of the game to CCP in an effort to improve the overall game. None of us asked to change the voting system but we did ask you to represent the playerbase to CCP. What part of this is hard for the CSM to understand? Why don't you function?
Having the current CSM is basically the same as having no CSM at all.
Tell us about flying spaceships. Stop pontificating because you don't have a Mittani to carry you. Do your job. |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:41:00 -
[555] - Quote
Two step wrote:Any other actual ideas? I think it is quite clear that some folks don't like the system proposed in the OP, so lets talk alternatives.
I think this whole voting system thing is a smokescreen for the true problem, which is abysmal voter turnout and general apathy towards the CSM. Talking about voting system changes in the face of that is akin to carefully planning the decoration of a party that nobody's attending anyway. |
Lord Zim
1381
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:41:00 -
[556] - Quote
Two step wrote:Any other actual ideas? I think it is quite clear that some folks don't like the system proposed in the OP, so lets talk alternatives. Remove the **** goons requirement from the "minimum requirements", and we can begin to have a chat about what the system should be. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1324
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:44:00 -
[557] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Two step wrote:Any other actual ideas? I think it is quite clear that some folks don't like the system proposed in the OP, so lets talk alternatives. Remove the **** goons requirement from the "minimum requirements", and we can begin to have a chat about what the system should be. Maybe they should consider closing the discussion to goons and "goon alts".
I'm sure after removing all those undesirables, the clear agreement of the masses for the new "fairer" system will be obvious. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:56:00 -
[558] - Quote
And now Two Step goes to hide under the same pile of coats as Seleene. Dodging discussions - it's CSM7's anti-drug! |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7739
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:56:00 -
[559] - Quote
I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.
I think it is unfortunate that this CSM is so afraid of popular voting that they would invent a new system while trying to pass it off under the guise of 'STV'; I can understand their fear of bloc voting and I respect their opinion, but trying to imply that I somehow support this policy shows that they have a lot of growing up to do. The popular opinion is that the CSM should be focusing on game-related issues and getting results instead of fretting about who 'controls' the CSM itself - after all, who cares who controls a CSM if it accomplishes nothing?
This will be my only comment on the issue. Please do not try to involve me in your proposals again; if you must bring up whether I supported X, Y or Z in the past, we're all in a Skype channel together so there's no excuse for not conferring with me about what I support/do not support before making a public assertion to that effect. Good luck in your future endeavors! ~hi~ |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
165
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:00:00 -
[560] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.
I think it is unfortunate that this CSM is so afraid of popular voting that they would invent a new system while trying to pass it off under the guise of 'STV'; I can understand their fear of bloc voting and I respect their opinion, but trying to imply that I somehow support this policy shows that they have a lot of growing up to do. The popular opinion is that the CSM should be focusing on game-related issues and getting results instead of fretting about who 'controls' the CSM itself - after all, who cares who controls a CSM if it accomplishes nothing?
This will be my only comment on the issue. Please do not try to involve me in your proposals again; if you must bring up whether I supported X, Y or Z in the past, we're all in a Skype channel together so there's no excuse for not conferring with me about what I support/do not support before making a public assertion to that effect. Good luck in your future endeavors!
Thank you for this post.
It was hilarious of them to try and say you supported this. |
|
Pirokobo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:02:00 -
[561] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.
In summary...
"I've heard what you're saying. You know nothing of my work." Secretary - Goonswarm Federation Corps Diplomatique |
Rek Esket
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:03:00 -
[562] - Quote
The CSM was better when it was accomplishing things instead of whining about things. |
Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:04:00 -
[563] - Quote
If you're gonna start shoving words in people's mouths, be ready to eat some too. Jade Constantine, self-made space harlot. News at 11. http://bit.ly/LTW5gW |
whaynethepain
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:06:00 -
[564] - Quote
I believe voting should not be fixed.
I also believe each voter should have a representative. Getting you on your feet.
So you've further to fall. |
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:06:00 -
[565] - Quote
Posting for Dear Leader. |
Kaleb Rysode
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:06:00 -
[566] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:The Mittani wrote:I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not. In summary... "I've heard what you're saying. You know nothing of my work."
To continue on that, "We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us." "The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns." |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1582
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:08:00 -
[567] - Quote
Likes for "redo democracy" proposal: 5 within 2 days Likes for "eat a phallus csm7" proposal: 45+ within 10 minutes |
Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:09:00 -
[568] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Yeah, this totally won't backfire when the candidates end up working together instead of the voters.
This, this and this.
|
mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:10:00 -
[569] - Quote
Is genuinely saddens me that the CSM has turned into a bunch of cry babies, instead of the panel that actually set up requirements towards CCP. |
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:11:00 -
[570] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Likes for "redo democracy" proposal: 5 within 2 days Likes for "eat a phallus csm7" proposal: 45+ within 10 minutes
Let them hate so long as they fear. |
|
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:12:00 -
[571] - Quote
This is a silly way to run a vote.
The current system of players (and or there alt accounts) casting a vote for who they want to represent them in the CSM is a good enough system.
If you are not popular enough to gain enough votes by the players of eve then you better rethink your election campaign for the next time around.
Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Senex Legio Recruiter Team |
Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:13:00 -
[572] - Quote
Nerf organized voting ITT Jade Constantine, self-made space harlot. News at 11. http://bit.ly/LTW5gW |
Kaleb Rysode
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:15:00 -
[573] - Quote
SavageBastard wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Likes for "redo democracy" proposal: 5 within 2 days Likes for "eat a phallus csm7" proposal: 45+ within 10 minutes Let them hate so long as they fear.
Caligula was just misunderstood. "The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns." |
Trendon Evenstar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:17:00 -
[574] - Quote
What have you done for us lately CSM?
Get the overview standings bug fixed and quit screwing around with votes. |
Javajunky
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:17:00 -
[575] - Quote
Can I vote you're ********? Where is that in the ballot. Because seriously... you're f'ing ********.
This is about as useful as the CSM notes you published... you know the things no one could bother to possibly read because it was the textbook definition of TLDR.
Log in - Vote - Speak you mind - it's that simple.
The voting system works fine as it is. You just don't agree with a majority of voters and want a way to game the system. You must be a democrat.
If I could I would neg rep ***** slap you across the rooom for epic f'ing stupidity...
Get f'ed |
Eric Xallen
The New Era C0NVICTED
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:21:00 -
[576] - Quote
This is a pretty bad proposal. At a minimum only the voter should be able to control preferences, allowing candidates to allocate votes to other candidates is just ******** and does the opposite to what the system is supposed to be intended for (unless its meant to be a corrupt system, then its doing what's on the box)
In RL countries where preferential votes are used, the people running can suggest preferences, but always, always, always, it is up to the voter where to direct preferences and candidates should never have any control over this past suggesting. |
No More Heroes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1341
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:24:00 -
[577] - Quote
If a certain cross section of the player base doesn't feel like they are being accurately represented by the CSM, they ought to organize, mobilize, and vote.
To do anything else implies that the cross section is crippled in some way and must be propped up by artificial means. http://www.themittani.com Bringing balance to the world of Eve news |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
297
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:24:00 -
[578] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.
I think it is unfortunate that this CSM is so afraid of popular voting that they would invent a new system while trying to pass it off under the guise of 'STV'; I can understand their fear of bloc voting and I respect their opinion, but trying to imply that I somehow support this policy shows that they have a lot of growing up to do. The popular opinion is that the CSM should be focusing on game-related issues and getting results instead of fretting about who 'controls' the CSM itself - after all, who cares who controls a CSM if it accomplishes nothing?
This will be my only comment on the issue. Please do not try to involve me in your proposals again; if you must bring up whether I supported X, Y or Z in the past, we're all in a Skype channel together so there's no excuse for not conferring with me about what I support/do not support before making a public assertion to that effect. Good luck in your future endeavors!
Don't worry folks, the CSM's hard at work redefining democracy. We'll get to critical issues as relates to gameplay after the winter summit. Summit notes to follow shortly after CSM 8 elections conclude. |
Mr Disco
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:27:00 -
[579] - Quote
Aren't you supposed to be working on fixing the game, instead of figuring out how to hold on to power? |
Win Sui
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:40:00 -
[580] - Quote
This whole fiasco was so badly thought out and so cluelessly communicated (you really didn't expect people to have an issue with this?) that it brings into question the competence of the current CSM.
What's more, given this is the ONLY significant initiative we've heard of from them. Other than the 67 pages of 'notes' that were released, because noone could be arsed to actually parse what might be important to the community, or, more likely, simply didn't know.
Here's a hint - your job description doesn't include figuring out how to ensure you get to stay in power, it's to advocate to CCP for changes to the game that the players are asking for.
You haven't been in power for 25% of your term and this is your highest priority? wtf? |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1326
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:41:00 -
[581] - Quote
Mr Disco wrote:Aren't you supposed to be working on fixing the game, instead of figuring out how to hold on to power? EVE Online is bigger than just what occurs after you click the login button. They're playing it right now. On these forums. With us.
And it's starting to look like a welp. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Mr Disco
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:47:00 -
[582] - Quote
Say what you want about the people in CSM 6. There are plenty of people with grudges out there. But if you compare the accomplishments of CSM 6 with the nonsense being spewed forth by CSM 7, it's all a joke. CSM 6 was truly the good ol' days. |
Gossamer DT
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:49:00 -
[583] - Quote
I don't often get into power, but when I do, I like making rules that ensure I stay there. who is your main, and what does he do? |
Shingyoku
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:49:00 -
[584] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Can I vote you're ********? Where is that in the ballot. Because seriously... you're f'ing ********.
This is about as useful as the CSM notes you published... you know the things no one could bother to possibly read because it was the textbook definition of TLDR.
Log in - Vote - Speak you mind - it's that simple.
The voting system works fine as it is. You just don't agree with a majority of voters and want a way to game the system. You must be a democrat.
If I could I would neg rep ***** slap you across the rooom for epic f'ing stupidity...
Get f'ed
While you're right on everything else it's the republicans trying to disenfranchise voters to try to win the election. If you're going to use a RL annology please get it right. |
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:50:00 -
[585] - Quote
Courthouse wrote:The Mittani wrote:I do not normally comment on CSM issues, but regrettably some in the CSM have invoked my name in a way that would imply or infer that I advocate for or otherwise support this proposal, which I do not.
I think it is unfortunate that this CSM is so afraid of popular voting that they would invent a new system while trying to pass it off under the guise of 'STV'; I can understand their fear of bloc voting and I respect their opinion, but trying to imply that I somehow support this policy shows that they have a lot of growing up to do. The popular opinion is that the CSM should be focusing on game-related issues and getting results instead of fretting about who 'controls' the CSM itself - after all, who cares who controls a CSM if it accomplishes nothing?
This will be my only comment on the issue. Please do not try to involve me in your proposals again; if you must bring up whether I supported X, Y or Z in the past, we're all in a Skype channel together so there's no excuse for not conferring with me about what I support/do not support before making a public assertion to that effect. Good luck in your future endeavors! Don't worry folks, the CSM's hard at work redefining democracy. We'll get to critical issues as relates to gameplay after the winter summit. Summit notes to follow shortly after CSM 8 elections conclude.
So long as the game is broken in a way that reflects the Founding Fathers' vision, I feel like logging in is worth my time. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1056
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:51:00 -
[586] - Quote
Mr Disco wrote:Say what you want about the people in CSM 6. There are plenty of people with grudges out there. But if you compare the accomplishments of CSM 6 with the nonsense being spewed forth by CSM 7, it's all a joke. CSM 6 was truly the good ol' days.
In before someone calls you a Goon alt.
Dear CSM Members (not of my heart)-
For all the people touting on and on about how many terms they've served on the CSM there sure isn't a lot being done. Simply stated, do what people voted you in to do- stop CCP from screwing up our beloved space pixels, and stop trying to fix things that aren't broken when there is literally a mountain of broken mechanics to fix (although this alone alludes that half of you worthless nitpickers even know which mechanics are broken). Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Theodoric Darkwind
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:51:00 -
[587] - Quote
Voting for the loser does not equal disenfranchisement, voting for the loser happens all the time in pretty much every democracy in the world.
If your attempt with a transferable vote system is to try to keep CFC and HBC candidates off the CFC then you didn't look at the CSM7 election results. Had the votes for MBIII and Akeri (sp) been transferred to Dovinian then he would have been quite a few spots higher on the CSM.
Frankly I dont know of any version of the transferable vote that isn't ripe for exploitation. The "one account one vote" system is probably the most fair to everyone, if you vote for a loser then welcome to democracy. And before anyone cries "alts", remember every one of those alts is a paid for account (trial accounts of course should be forbidden from voting), the person with multiple accounts has more time and money invested into EVE no reason why they shouldn't get a vote for each account. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1585
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:57:00 -
[588] - Quote
Mr Disco wrote: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 |
SpudderNut
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:59:00 -
[589] - Quote
People voted for you to fix the game, not game the voting system which got you elected. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1327
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:59:00 -
[590] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Mr Disco wrote: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 If I read them, will I be very disappointed ? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Ghazu
144
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:01:00 -
[591] - Quote
hey where's issler pants dainze |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:02:00 -
[592] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:If I read them, will I be very disappointed ?
Like you wouldn't believe. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1585
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:02:00 -
[593] - Quote
new chairman, new person for issler to throw under the bus
(luv u miner's friend) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1327
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:04:00 -
[594] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:If I read them, will I be very disappointed ? Like you wouldn't believe. I'll do it next time I'm on a DBRB op.
Hey guys, let me tell you about the CSM's brave new voting system :shobon: Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:07:00 -
[595] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:I'll do it next time I'm on a DBRB op.
Hey guys, let me tell you about the CSM's brave new voting system :shobon:
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. |
Skeith Oumis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:09:00 -
[596] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote: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.
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:09:00 -
[597] - Quote
Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1339
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:09:00 -
[598] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:I'll do it next time I'm on a DBRB op.
Hey guys, let me tell you about the CSM's brave new voting system :shobon: 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. Ok, so I cheated, it seems I only go on bomber ops nowadays, where you can't talk in mumble because the poor FC has to listen to command chat (ie: Boat, you can hear him sometimes in the background when FC is speaking). Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:10:00 -
[599] - Quote
Seleene wrote:If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with.
Two step wrote: Any other actual ideas? I think it is quite clear that some folks don't like the system proposed in the OP, so lets talk alternatives.
I don't know if you've been reading all of the posts in this thread, but here's the link back to my proposal on page 14:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1898558#post1898558 |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1589
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:10:00 -
[600] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:[ If I read them, will I be very disappointed ? you would realize two step is the best nullsec representative in CSM7 despite not even living there |
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:10:00 -
[601] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em?
Xolve wrote:For all the people touting on and on about how many terms they've served on the CSM there sure isn't a lot being done. Simply stated, do what people voted you in to do- stop CCP from screwing up our beloved space pixels, and stop trying to fix things that aren't broken when there is literally a mountain of broken mechanics to fix (although this alone alludes that half of you worthless nitpickers even know which mechanics are broken).
Not much to say but "llllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll" |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1589
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:12:00 -
[602] - Quote
bye aleks.... |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4580
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:12:00 -
[603] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em?
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" please leave |
Major Spag
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
129
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:12:00 -
[604] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Name em?
If you don't already know what these are, then seriously what the hell are you doing on the CSM?
Edit: Ninja'd by the devilishly handsome Andski. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:13:00 -
[605] - Quote
There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failgin to address to CCP" "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4580
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:14:00 -
[606] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
it's easier to answer "which ones have you addressed?" please leave |
argleblargle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:15:00 -
[607] - Quote
The OP of this thread basically reads "nerf organization." Great job, CSM. |
Major Spag
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
129
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:16:00 -
[608] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread
Any of the ones that makes "destroying the voting system to maintain power" a higher priority? |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:16:00 -
[609] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread
Do you guys think if you pass some kind of petulance high water mark that your ideas will cease to be bad or something? |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1058
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:16:00 -
[610] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread
Funny that your wardec system that you love so much remains absolutely fucktardedly broken.
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
|
Ghazu
146
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:17:00 -
[611] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? I need you and all the CSM members to solely renounce and rebuke all supporters of the 'non-gameplay' IMVU-2ndlife model of wis because if all they want to do is emote each other they can take their freakshow somewhere else please. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:19:00 -
[612] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread Do you guys think if you pass some kind of petulance high water mark that your ideas will cease to be bad or something? That's like.. Grothsmore, Xenuria, Riverini and so on.
I heard we're losing Dek. I don't believe it though, since EN24 is so wonderfully unbiased. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1593
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:19:00 -
[613] - Quote
Major Spag wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread Any of the ones that makes "destroying the voting system to maintain power" a higher priority? 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). |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:20:00 -
[614] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? 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" We'll have to get Boat to represent us then. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:21:00 -
[615] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Major Spag wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread Any of the ones that makes "destroying the voting system to maintain power" a higher priority? 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). I guess they really wanted to make sure they had a few more terms to work it all out, "rite?"
Hahaha.... yeah sure. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1058
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:21:00 -
[616] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:I heard we're losing Dek. I don't believe it though, since EN24 is so wonderfully unbiased.
A few Februarys ago amirite? Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:22:00 -
[617] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread
I'll knock this one right out of the park.
Faction Warfare. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:22:00 -
[618] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread Funny that your wardec system that you love so much remains absolutely fucktardedly broken. On wardecs I had a rather serious public and private engagement with CCP Soundwave over dissatisfaction with some aspects of the dec system, and despite not being physically present spear headed the war dec meeting at the CSM summit in which several outstanding issues were raised. Whether CCP will iterate on issues, which ones, and how is still an ongoing discussion in prep for the Winter Expansion
Try again. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
No More Heroes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1343
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:22:00 -
[619] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em?
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
http://www.themittani.com Bringing balance to the world of Eve news |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1058
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:24:00 -
[620] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Faction Warfare.
Man- there's nothing wrong with people making 1.5b ISK an hour (on 2 day old alts, thanks 51 day friend referral) in the most exploitable implementation to the game since pre-nerf incursions... wait- it's like pre-nerf incursions multiplied by Incarna-esque 'Greed is Good' pants on head retardation. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:24:00 -
[621] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? 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 CCP already promised fixes. Now lets return to making sure your vote doesn't count.
:trollface:
... wait a sec, you get delays of 3/4th a cycle even when you've prefired the warp scram? Seriously? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:25:00 -
[622] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread I'll knock this one right out of the park. Faction Warfare. Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully.
Sooooo more like an easy in field catch. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:25:00 -
[623] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? 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 ive experienced some of those problems and you know what i think ccp know about them as most of them are bugs and guess what a restart of me comp and router generaly fixes them for me
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:26:00 -
[624] - Quote
Guys, let's play catch.
We list problems, and he'll make excuses about why they haven't screwed up. Let's go ! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:27:00 -
[625] - Quote
Hey Alekseyev - if you guys truly think you're doing a really good job, where does the need to disenfranchise voting blocs come from? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:27:00 -
[626] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Hey Alekseyev - if you guys truly think you're doing a really good job, where does the need to disenfranchise voting blocs come from? Because mittanis will screw up everything they've done, don't you see.
Evil bees ~~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:28:00 -
[627] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread I'll knock this one right out of the park. Faction Warfare. Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully. Sooooo more like an easy in field catch.
Sooooo what you're saying is that you(the CSM collectively) is just bad at your task and instead switched to something less taxing. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1058
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:28:00 -
[628] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:On wardecs I had a rather serious public and private engagement with CCP Soundwave over dissatisfaction with some aspects of the dec system, and despite not being physically present spear headed the war dec meeting at the CSM summit in which several outstanding issues were raised. Whether CCP will iterate on issues, which ones, and how is still an ongoing discussion in prep for the Winter Expansion
Try again.
So this isn't as important as changing the CSM voting process?
This abomination of a thread pretty much sealed your chances of making sure you won't be on the next one- So why don't you sir, Try Again. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:29:00 -
[629] - Quote
Here's another. Fourteen isk pyerite.
GO! This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1058
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:30:00 -
[630] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully.
Sooooo more like an easy in field catch.
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. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
|
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
290
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:30:00 -
[631] - Quote
Javajunky wrote:Can I vote you're ********? Where is that in the ballot. Because seriously... you're f'ing ********.
This is about as useful as the CSM notes you published... you know the things no one could bother to possibly read because it was the textbook definition of TLDR.
Log in - Vote - Speak you mind - it's that simple.
The voting system works fine as it is. You just don't agree with a majority of voters and want a way to game the system. You must be a democrat.
If I could I would neg rep ***** slap you across the rooom for epic f'ing stupidity...
Get f'ed Aren't you busy losing jump freighters in lowsec? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:31:00 -
[632] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Here's another. Fourteen isk pyerite.
GO!
suply and demand |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:32:00 -
[633] - Quote
Xolve wrote: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. You can. They need a "boost" to be sure they can stay in.
Certainly, the boost isn't from their amazing performance on the job, eh Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4588
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:33:00 -
[634] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Here's another. Fourteen isk pyerite.
GO! suply and demand
you're right, pyerite, which is in hilarious abundance throughout highsec which is full of newly buffed exhumers, is in low "suply" please leave |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:34:00 -
[635] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully.
Sooooo more like an easy in field catch.
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.
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 ? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:34:00 -
[636] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Here's another. Fourteen isk pyerite.
GO! suply and demand CCP is already working hard to make sure highsec-obtainable minerals are cheap by making it easy (afk) and worry-free (less ganking). Thanks for all your hard work ~~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:35:00 -
[637] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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 ? Who says we aren't?
Thats like saying we shouldn't have been talking about tech causing an imbalance because it was a big thing and legal. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:35:00 -
[638] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Here's another. Fourteen isk pyerite.
GO! suply and demand CCP is already working hard to make sure highsec-obtainable minerals are cheap by making it easy (afk) and worry-free (less ganking). Thanks for all your hard work ~~
again why you care you have the low sec ore you make more isk that way by sitting behind a blue firewall and mining |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1597
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:35:00 -
[639] - Quote
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 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4590
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:35:00 -
[640] - Quote
serras bang wrote:why the hell aint goons doing it ?
yeahhhh about that please leave |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1121
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:36:00 -
[641] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? Of all the replies posted since your last reply ... this is the one you choose to acknowledge? (Where is the facepalm emote?) Caldari Militia |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
260
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:36:00 -
[642] - Quote
Man this guy is hella illiterate
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:36:00 -
[643] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote: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 ? Who says we aren't? Thats like saying we shouldn't have been talking about tech causing an imbalance because it was a big thing and legal.
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
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:36:00 -
[644] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? 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 Man that's the bar for *serious* game issues? yeesh:
1. Yeah that'd be very annoying. What's your response on your bug report? 2. Same. CSM cant debug CCP's code but there's a whole wing of CCP that does that. 3. Activation delay is inherent to EVE and playing EVE over a global network afaik. I could be wrong, but either way it's certainly not a "serious game issue" on the level of say how ****** the sov system is. 4. This was talked about on the summit and followed up on via the CCP/CSM forums. CCP wants to look at nullsec but it's down the line their dev plan. A plan designed with CSM6 in office after summer of rage, which thankfully moves development back to flying in spaceships but still can't get everything done at once. However there may be some improvements to nullsec industrial quality of life to be had during the POS revamp which will be coming next year, a process started/encouraged by CSM7 which i'd list as a major initiative. 5. Super annoying bug, no lie. Pretty sure it's on the radar though. 6. Pretty much 5.
1, 2, 5 hardly seem like the kind of "chest sucking wounds" CCP needs to prioritize or the kind of development/gameplay things the CSM could provide meaningful feedback on how they address the issue (but yes they are annoying things). 3 is just how it is. 4 we did. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:37:00 -
[645] - Quote
serras bang wrote:again why you care you have the low sec ore you make more isk that way by sitting behind a blue firewall and mining
Actually only 2 nullsec ores (Ark and Merc) are worth more than Scordite (or even Plagioclase) and they aren't anywhere near as abundant. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:37:00 -
[646] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: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 Well they taught the people who made those trillions of isk worth of LP, didn't they :smug: Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:37:00 -
[647] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? Of all the replies posted since your last reply ... this is the one you choose to acknowledge? (Where is the facepalm emote?) is there one in particular you'd like me to reply to? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4590
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:38:00 -
[648] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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
yeah uh most of us aren't really in a financial position to worry about the game currency we're not making when we're posting on a forum please leave |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
260
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:38:00 -
[649] - Quote
Also why is the Zealot not red? This is literally a more pressing issue and concerns more people than a few power-tripping do-nothing CSM members. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:38:00 -
[650] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1, 2, 5 hardly seem like the kind of "chest sucking wounds" CCP needs to prioritize or the kind of development/gameplay things the CSM could provide meaningful feedback on how they address the issue (but yes they are annoying things). 3 is just how it is. 4 we did.
Literally every issue on that list is several orders of magnitude more important than a new voting system. |
|
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1059
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:39:00 -
[651] - Quote
serras bang wrote: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 ?
Because letting one game burn while working on another totally didn't kick them in the teeth in the past.
Everyone with any desire for easy income is abusing the hell out of the broken FW mechanics. It just requires 2 extra accounts, that after the first day have enough earning potential to earn a PLEX for both accounts every 15 minutes. Two races (Amarr and Gallente) have NPC's with tracking so bad any of the newly buffed mini-interceptor attack frigates can speed tank indefinitely.
All the people complaining about the incursion nerf, inflation, or ships/mods just being too expensive are absolutely 100% affected by this. Something require an immediate fix, this is one of them.
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:39:00 -
[652] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:serras bang wrote: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 ? Who says we aren't? Thats like saying we shouldn't have been talking about tech causing an imbalance because it was a big thing and legal. 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 Because it'll be fixed if no one says anything. Right. Good stuff.
Isn't the point to get imbalances fixed? You'd rather we just abuse it then. Alright, now to wait for the next big heist or whatever to go off in FW. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:40:00 -
[653] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1, 2, 5 hardly seem like the kind of "chest sucking wounds" CCP needs to prioritize or the kind of development/gameplay things the CSM could provide meaningful feedback on how they address the issue (but yes they are annoying things). 3 is just how it is. 4 we did. Literally every issue on that list is several orders of magnitude more important than a new voting system. Pfft, he distracted us from his no CFCs voting system didn't he.
Oh not thanks to this poster. Good job ! Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:41:00 -
[654] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully.
Sooooo more like an easy in field catch.
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. That problem was raised and will be addressed. You're mad about it not being able to happen tomorrow, but pretend that it not happening overnight means that nothing was said about it or will happen to fix it.
Sooo you've p much marginalized your self. Good work. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:43:00 -
[655] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: Pfft, he distracted us from his no CFCs voting system didn't he.
Oh not thanks to this poster. Good job !
You're bad at forums too. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:43:00 -
[656] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:That problem was raised and will be addressed. You're mad about it not being able to happen tomorrow, but pretend that it not happening overnight means that nothing was said about it or will happen to fix it.
Sooo you've p much marginalized your self. Good work.
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! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:45:00 -
[657] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:That problem was raised and will be addressed. You're mad about it not being able to happen tomorrow, but pretend that it not happening overnight means that nothing was said about it or will happen to fix it.
Sooo you've p much marginalized your self. Good work. 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! You are bad at using forums. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1066
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:46:00 -
[658] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: That problem was raised and will be addressed. You're mad about it not being able to happen tomorrow, but pretend that it not happening overnight means that nothing was said about it or will happen to fix it.
Sooo you've p much marginalized your self. Good work.
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. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1354
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:47:00 -
[659] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:That problem was raised and will be addressed. You're mad about it not being able to happen tomorrow, but pretend that it not happening overnight means that nothing was said about it or will happen to fix it.
Sooo you've p much marginalized your self. Good work. 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! Yeah, might as well just let you break our arms then. Here.
You could at least pretend "it's for your own good" or "the claimed bias does not exist". Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:48:00 -
[660] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums.
awwwwww, poor muffin, we're not appreciating how totally hard he and his **** goons friends are kind-of-sort-of-not-really advocating on our behalf!
|
|
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:48:00 -
[661] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums.
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.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1353
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:48:00 -
[662] - Quote
Xolve wrote:[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. Could we get Xenuria in, I think they'd be able to do better.
At least they can just act insane and we won't know if it's trolling, covering up something, or genuine. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1353
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:49:00 -
[663] - Quote
Garet Jackson wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums. 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. Ahaha, and you're awesome at forums pvp?
No. They are representing all the badposters who form the majority of eve. All good posters need to be reeducated into the new way of posting. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1124
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:49:00 -
[664] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Dramaticus wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:There's tons of things wrong with the game. I'd like to know which of them we are "failing to address to CCP"
The lack of having an answer on hand says a lot about the whine on this thread I'll knock this one right out of the park. Faction Warfare. Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully. I will agree with Aleks here. Hans is doing a lot of work with CCP to try to improve FW.
Caldari Militia |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1606
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:50:00 -
[665] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EDIT: Just realized I'm trying to protect the voting power of players who don't want help of any kind. Enjoy Trebor. the 'downfall' parody video is writing itself at this point |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:53:00 -
[666] - Quote
No More Heroes wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? 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
I know you guys are dog piling Alekseyev Karrde, but he's been doing a relatively good job based on what I've seen. More so than most pubbies.
The overview standings bug, and Nullsec Industry are things that need attention. Alliances need bottom up income, and they need people who live in their space. Our coalition imports almost everything from highsec. We rely heavily on Highsec, and sadly, we need highsec. We also rely on the wormhole community for our tengu stuffs. It would be nice to see some nullsec industry boosts beyond mining things. It would be nice to see alliances have the option to tax make more miners before they go to refine. Refining taxes are easily avoidable via NPC pockets and standings. There is no real advantage to building in nullsec versus highsec. Nullsec is largely about pvp, but there is just more to it in general. It is its own entity.
I can talk about nullsec industry problems all day long, but mainly about how I just stopped everytime I tried to get started. I ended up settling with building rigs, ammo, and fuel blocks in nullsec because nothing else is really worth my time. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4594
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:54:00 -
[667] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EDIT: Just realized I'm trying to protect the voting power of players who don't want help of any kind. Enjoy Trebor.
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. please leave |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1353
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:54:00 -
[668] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EDIT: Just realized I'm trying to protect the voting power of players who don't want help of any kind. Enjoy Trebor. the 'downfall' parody video is practically writing itself at this point Ahahahahaha, he trying to "protect" our voting power. That's just... hahahah
I mean, wow. Let's get writing that 'downfall' parody video now. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Garet Jackson
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:55:00 -
[669] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Garet Jackson wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums. 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. Ahaha, and you're awesome at forums pvp? No. They are representing all the badposters who form the majority of eve. All good posters need to be reeducated into the new way of posting.
I totally get that. And in no way am I super awesome at forums PVP.
However, if the guys hope is to win people over to his way of thinking, he is doing the exact opposite by what he is posting.
While I admit that CSMs aren't real life politicians or anything that is remotely srs bizness, I don't expect them to try to disenfranchise voters simply because they don't like a large power bloc. The way the CSM is done now isn't broken enough in a way that you should prioritize it over the many listed larger problems OF THE ACTUAL GAME. Wait... I mean, it's not broken unless you don't like goons. And then I am sure these people think its really broken.
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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:55:00 -
[670] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EDIT: Just realized I'm trying to protect the voting power of players who don't want help of any kind. Enjoy Trebor. 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. So from "i'm not trying to shred your vote, though the system should shred your vote", now it's "we're protecting your vote by putting it in the shredder".
Keep it up, now try to be smoother in your presentation. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4599
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:55:00 -
[671] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Let's get writing that 'downfall' parody video now.
What really needs to be written at this point? please leave |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:55:00 -
[672] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums. awwwwww, poor muffin, we're not appreciating how totally hard he and his **** goons friends are kind-of-sort-of-not-really advocating on our behalf! ::hands Clive a tissue::
All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:56:00 -
[673] - Quote
Garet Jackson wrote: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. Mittani also most likely will just sit on the side playing Tanks or MWO or something now.
Truly, the end of an age. And now we have this. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1070
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:56:00 -
[674] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums.
Better than just being all around bad I would say, still patiently waiting for your arguement- or have you ducked out to Twitter to amass your "constituents".
Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:57:00 -
[675] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Let's get writing that 'downfall' parody video now. What really needs to be written at this point? *cough*
"We will introduce some voting reforms." "How can we keep that secret?" *points at map* "We will introduce it months ahead of the elections and try to sneak it thought" *waving around on map.* "What about if the goons learn about it?"
"Mein CSM member, the goons are already in the thread." .... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Antoine Jordan
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:58:00 -
[676] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Xolve wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Despite not being on the CSM, Hans Jagerblitzen was a main player in providing feedback for FW reforms going into Inferno. Since he's been elected he's worked tirelessly in public and in private to improve the experience of FW players by being in near constant contact with that community shuttling between them and CCP. Despite having to do it by chat, Hans was very vocal during the FW meeting at the CSM summit. There's pages and pages of feedback on the CCP/CSM forums since then about upcoming iterations on FW coming in the Winter patch with Hans, Elise, and many others engaging successfully.
Sooooo more like an easy in field catch.
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. That problem was raised and will be addressed. You're mad about it not being able to happen tomorrow, but pretend that it not happening overnight means that nothing was said about it or will happen to fix it. Sooo you've p much marginalized your self. Good work. 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? |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:59:00 -
[677] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.
"you guys are jerks so we're just going to do what we want anyway!"
Be honest. This thread was never about a discussion, you and your fellow CSM just tried to retcon it into one after the detailed-but-awful proposal in the OP was being thoroughly ripped to shreds.
We've also told you many times why we can't simply drop the point and move on, but I guess reading comprehension isn't the CSM's strong suit. |
Smoke Adian
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:00:00 -
[678] - Quote
This is the most self-obsessed, useless CSM in history.
It's like watching a group of bystanders gathered around a burning car crash. As the car burns they stand and wonder:
"What's our purpose in this situation?" "How do we ensure that we remain the only group of passerby's with the power to save this burning person while not actually saving them?"
"And most importantly, who wants to write up an incident report over 11,000 reams of paper in size detailing this discussion about ourselves followed by another 5,000 reams in which we whole-heartedly agree with the fire department's plan to air drop two inflatable swimming pools full of grade-A jet fuel on the burning car?" |
RDevz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:00:00 -
[679] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
"We don't like the public's opinion, so we're going to go full steam ahead, anyway." ~ |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:02:00 -
[680] - Quote
Antoine Jordan wrote: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? No, but CCP is getting great use of them. For example, we can scream at them instead of CCP. An excellent flameshield.
However, never mind that, the shield enjoys being roasted, and needs to make sure someone who can actually put out the fires, who isn't them, will not come in to take their place. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Rh'jamiz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:02:00 -
[681] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums. awwwwww, poor muffin, we're not appreciating how totally hard he and his **** goons friends are kind-of-sort-of-not-really advocating on our behalf! ::hands Clive a tissue:: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.
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. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1070
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:03:00 -
[682] - Quote
RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
"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". Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:03:00 -
[683] - Quote
RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
"We don't like the public's opinion, so we're going to go full steam ahead, anyway." You should've just done that from the start.
So ram though the Anti-goons voting system. I'm sure you'll have fun. Better start trying to draft some form of reeducation camp subforum too. As everyone knows from the goonfleet forums what a hellban is, hahaha Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1365
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:04:00 -
[684] - Quote
Xolve wrote:RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
"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". No, no.
They will be the next CSM. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Win Sui
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:05:00 -
[685] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums. awwwwww, poor muffin, we're not appreciating how totally hard he and his **** goons friends are kind-of-sort-of-not-really advocating on our behalf! ::hands Clive a tissue:: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.
You just don't get it do you? It's not about whether we've successfully made a good point, it's about the fact that you (the CSM) seem to feel that this election proposal is more important than other issues. It's not. Your job isn't to raise bugs to CCP - we've done that. It's to agitate and drive changes so the game improves - to articulate that something like an overview bug, while not a sucking chest wound - is still pretty ******. And then to drive hard on the sucking chest wounds.
Every second spent on this asinine proposal was a second not spent on something useful. That's why people think it's a joke and you're incompetent. The **** goons aspect was just icing on the "keep us in power" cake. |
Smoke Adian
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:05:00 -
[686] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
Pretty sure this is exactly what CCP said internally every time they decided to push a change thru that ended in a public apology. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1370
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:05:00 -
[687] - Quote
Rh'jamiz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
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. He's not defending it, just letting us know to bend over because it'll just be rammed so far up ...
you know what I mean. They desire a very one sided interaction. They dictate, we shred our votes. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:06:00 -
[688] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes.
How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced? Why are you quoting me with that question? I already said I don't think it does in two posts. There does need to be an acceptable way to deal with that circumstance though, the Mitanni's case should not be repeated. If it's not on the candidate end, something on the voter end then. Perhaps an "emergency preference" where your vote would go to that second guy if and only if your first choice was somehow incapacitated? Throwing out ideas for the handful of people reading/replying constructively. 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) Missed this one.
I had considered it. But at this point, it feels a little hard to believe any further attempt at engagement would be anything other than toxic. It wasn't really a distraction before, the issue was p much settled as far as i could see. If it wasnt enough to get some real discussion going, i dont see how its own thread would help. Probably just get the same people posting the same kind of spergy replies in there too. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1370
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:07:00 -
[689] - Quote
Smoke Adian wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
Pretty sure this is exactly what CCP said internally every time they decided to push a change thru that ended in a public apology. Can someone link me that "greed is good" memo.
I mean seriously, you shouldn't be saying this openly to us. Just convince CCP in private that they should help you rig the elections. Thus far, you've been an excellent CSM for CCP, saying things, not trying to push them and taking all the heat.
I'm sure they'll oblige. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:10:00 -
[690] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I had considered it. But at this point, it feels a little hard to believe any further attempt at engagement would be anything other than toxic. It wasn't really a distraction before, the issue was p much settled as far as i could see. If it wasnt enough to get some real discussion going, i dont see how its own thread would help. Probably just get the same people posting the same kind of spergy replies in there too.
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. |
|
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1071
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:13:00 -
[691] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:I mean seriously, you shouldn't be saying this openly to us. Just convince CCP in private that they should help you rig the elections. Thus far, you've been an excellent CSM for CCP, saying things, not trying to push them and taking all the heat.
I'm sure they'll oblige.
This thread has literally gone the way of every American Political Spoof (read: The Campaign, The Dictator, et al)
"Who do we have that is utterly controllable, mold-able, stupid, and will do as we say?" Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Win Sui
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:13:00 -
[692] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:RDevz wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote: Poetic Stanziel: Happy CCP threw out 10,000 votes.
How does CD-"STV" stop CCP from dismissing someone after the election results have been announced? Why are you quoting me with that question? I already said I don't think it does in two posts. There does need to be an acceptable way to deal with that circumstance though, the Mitanni's case should not be repeated. If it's not on the candidate end, something on the voter end then. Perhaps an "emergency preference" where your vote would go to that second guy if and only if your first choice was somehow incapacitated? Throwing out ideas for the handful of people reading/replying constructively. 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) Missed this one. I had considered it. But at this point, it feels a little hard to believe any further attempt at engagement would be anything other than toxic. It wasn't really a distraction before, the issue was p much settled as far as i could see. If it wasnt enough to get some real discussion going, i dont see how its own thread would help. Probably just get the same people posting the same kind of spergy replies in there too.
Look dude - why is this even a priority? Seriously. A satisfactory answer as to why the CSM is even working on this vs. almost anything else has yet to be produced. How about you start there? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1370
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:14:00 -
[693] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I had considered it. But at this point, it feels a little hard to believe any further attempt at engagement would be anything other than toxic. It wasn't really a distraction before, the issue was p much settled as far as i could see. If it wasnt enough to get some real discussion going, i dont see how its own thread would help. Probably just get the same people posting the same kind of spergy replies in there too. 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. Smarten the *** Up, and next time be better at the following skills: 1) Not being so obvious when putting down your intentions 2) Lie early, often and never admit that you're caught in it 3) Don't mess around when many people start pointing out you're wrong. 4) Simply leave (can we think of people that have done this, in this thread?) when it's clearly a lost cause 5) Always have another route you can take to (more effectively) sneak though or just go straight for the objective. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:15:00 -
[694] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em?
There's this news website making millions of dollars by reporting EVE events in a biased manner I think something should be done. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1071
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:15:00 -
[695] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote: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. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:16:00 -
[696] - Quote
Win Sui wrote:You just don't get it do you? It's not about whether we've successfully made a good point, it's about the fact that you (the CSM) seem to feel that this election proposal is more important than other issues. You're right, i dont get it. Because nothing was done to signal Trebors election proposal was more important than any other issue and I have no idea how someone would get that impression unless they wanted that to use as ammo for trolling. There was no fanfare, no promotion, no hype, nothing. Trebor threw something together so discussion could get started, a thread was put up, and it exploded. If anything, the criticism should be we didn't spend ENOUGH time on it since there's 35 pages of people shitting on the initial idea instead of using it as a jump off point for a larger discussion as I had originally hoped.
It wasn't our most important issue and it still isn't. While I personally feel making some improvements between now and the next election is important and this conversation is worthwhile, the most important thing CSM is doing would be our current engagement in the stakeholder experiment. Unfortunately we cant make detailed threads about that yet for obvious reasons, we're pretty much just allowed to say the experiment/trial laid out in the minutes has now started.
I dunno, implying it was our most important thing or that we tried to make it our most important thing just seem out of place. I wouldnt even put "electoral reform" in the top 3 of active discussions going on right now (or at least before this thread blew up). "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4606
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:16:00 -
[697] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.
the discussion was there, it just didn't deliver the results you hoped for please leave |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1384
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:17:00 -
[698] - Quote
Xolve wrote:CliveWarren wrote: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. Well I'm sure in the bright and sunny future, anyone that won't can send their vote directly to:
Department of Secure Disposal Jita Park CCP EVO Forums, The Internet Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:17:00 -
[699] - Quote
"Quick CSM brothers! To EVERadio! We're not being pandered to enough, we need more gladhanding, someone call FunkyBacon! Fire up the tweetfleet cannon! Get Arydanika on the line! We've got some self-congratulatory circlejerking to do! Tally Ho~" (The last part is what I imagine Trebor adding to the conversation.) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1384
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:18:00 -
[700] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed. the discussion was there, it just didn't deliver the results you hoped for He was hoping for anti-goons to be you-know-whating him over this amazing way to make sure those damn goonies wouldn't get their honeyed hands on their pure CSM again.
Instead he got badly stung. Har ~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:24:00 -
[701] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CliveWarren wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:You are bad at using forums. awwwwww, poor muffin, we're not appreciating how totally hard he and his **** goons friends are kind-of-sort-of-not-really advocating on our behalf! ::hands Clive a tissue:: All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.
Possibility of looking like out of touch authoritarian avoided! Phew! |
Win Sui
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:24:00 -
[702] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Win Sui wrote:You just don't get it do you? It's not about whether we've successfully made a good point, it's about the fact that you (the CSM) seem to feel that this election proposal is more important than other issues. You're right, i dont get it. Because nothing was done to signal Trebors election proposal was more important than any other issue and I have no idea how someone would get that impression unless they wanted that to use as ammo for trolling. There was no fanfare, no promotion, no hype, nothing. Trebor threw something together so discussion could get started, a thread was put up, and it exploded. If anything, the criticism should be we didn't spend ENOUGH time on it since there's 35 pages of people shitting on the initial idea instead of using it as a jump off point for a larger discussion as I had originally hoped. It wasn't our most important issue and it still isn't. While I personally feel making some improvements between now and the next election is important and this conversation is worthwhile, the most important thing CSM is doing would be our current engagement in the stakeholder experiment. Unfortunately we cant make detailed threads about that yet for obvious reasons, we're pretty much just allowed to say the experiment/trial laid out in the minutes has now started. I dunno, implying it was our most important thing or that we tried to make it our most important thing just seem out of place. I wouldnt even put "electoral reform" in the top 3 of active discussions going on right now (or at least before this thread blew up).
Take a look at Jita Park Speakers Corner. Look at how many topics and suggestions the CSM is looking for discussion on. Look at how many announcements (other than the 70+ page 'minutes' - that's not what minutes are btw) on priorities there are.
Understand now why this looks bad? If noone knows what you're doing and you post this drivel you should expect to get a nuclear reaction. |
Rh'jamiz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:27:00 -
[703] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Win Sui wrote:You just don't get it do you? It's not about whether we've successfully made a good point, it's about the fact that you (the CSM) seem to feel that this election proposal is more important than other issues. You're right, i dont get it. Because nothing was done to signal Trebors election proposal was more important than any other issue and I have no idea how someone would get that impression unless they wanted that to use as ammo for trolling. There was no fanfare, no promotion, no hype, nothing. Trebor threw something together so discussion could get started, a thread was put up, and it exploded. If anything, the criticism should be we didn't spend ENOUGH time on it since there's 35 pages of people shitting on the initial idea instead of using it as a jump off point for a larger discussion as I had originally hoped. It wasn't our most important issue and it still isn't. While I personally feel making some improvements between now and the next election is important and this conversation is worthwhile, the most important thing CSM is doing would be our current engagement in the stakeholder experiment. Unfortunately we cant make detailed threads about that yet for obvious reasons, we're pretty much just allowed to say the experiment/trial laid out in the minutes has now started. I dunno, implying it was our most important thing or that we tried to make it our most important thing just seem out of place. I wouldnt even put "electoral reform" in the top 3 of active discussions going on right now (or at least before this thread blew up).
A discussion happened, it just didn't go the way you wanted it to go, and you didn't like its conclusion. So you've decided to rebrand it as "trolling" and push ahead regardless of the negative feedback you've received, instead of listening, ditching the proposal, and using your time to do something more useful. |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
309
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:28:00 -
[704] - Quote
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. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1617
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:29:00 -
[705] - Quote
Rh'jamiz wrote: A discussion happened, it just didn't go the way you wanted it to go, and you didn't like its conclusion. So you've decided to rebrand it as "trolling" and push ahead regardless of the negative feedback you've received, instead of listening, ditching the proposal, and using your time to do something more useful.
Truly they have learned well from CCP. |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:31:00 -
[706] - Quote
Courthouse wrote: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.
Diplomat of my heart. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
No More Heroes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1346
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:32:00 -
[707] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Man that's the bar for *serious* game issues? yeesh:
My point was: There are quite a few issues out there ranging from minor annoyance to potentially gamebreaking:
Null sec industry (or lack thereof). Low sec, what is it good for? Alliance level income, faction war farm-fest complete with cash out days, etc.
Why must we have high sec, low sec, wh and null CSM guys? Why can't the CSM in it's current iteration relay the complete player bases' interests accurately?
http://www.themittani.com Bringing balance to the world of Eve news |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1131
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:35:00 -
[708] - Quote
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.
HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.
What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.
(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.) Caldari Militia |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1399
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:35:00 -
[709] - Quote
Courthouse wrote: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. Wondering how you knew he was a "yaoiboi". I also will not google that ...
It will be interesting to see them concoct some really complex thing to keep us out and then see what the experts on our side some up with. Remember, the harder to try to make it for us, the easier it is to slip up.
And if you can ram things through, well we'll see how people like that. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1399
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:38:00 -
[710] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: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. They'll just dock their threadnaught.
You bring goons into my thread, I dock.
Kill the goodpost. Call that a troll. Argh, dock dock. Sorry I welped the voting system "reform". Post lossmails, I want to see how badly the goons got us, I bet it was at least 30 pages. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4614
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:40:00 -
[711] - Quote
As for the CSM being somehow surprised (really?) at the apparent backlash from this proposal, I have a simple question:
What else do you expect after posting minutes which literally have more nonsense about CSM politics than stuff people actually read the minutes for (i.e. 'eve online') - and then, after posting a proposal like this, trolling anybody who isn't highly optimistic about the proposal and utterly ignoring those who propose alternatives?
You can't be serious. please leave |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4614
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:41:00 -
[712] - Quote
Courthouse wrote: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.
The Karl Rove of the CFC, ladies and gentlemen. please leave |
Magnus Orin
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:50:00 -
[713] - Quote
******** idea. Ya, let the candidate decide where by vote goes if they don't get elected.
**** off. Seriously. |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:02:00 -
[714] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Courthouse wrote: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. Wondering how you knew he was a "yaoiboi". I also will not google that ... Trebor's made no secret that his RL job was as an importer of animes. |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:06:00 -
[715] - Quote
The saddest thing about this thread is how the CSM members have consistently and continuously avoided participating in the debate in anything other than the most petty snipping. While, at the same time, bemoaning the lack of a constructive debate.
It is both intellectually offensive and dishonest. I might suggest, before you continue to carry on in this unbecoming manner, that you consult the following http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/ so that you may debate with slightly more skill than a child of twelve.
A good start would be something along the lines, "I understand our original proposal was deeply flawed, we apologize. Here are our criteria for an acceptable system. Before we begin to approach the complex topic at hand, let us first discuss the implications of our assumptions and whether or not they are indeed valid."
That is assuming that this is a discussion that needs to happen now and in this fashion, which is in serious doubt. |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:08:00 -
[716] - Quote
If they want to come down to our level the least we can do is beat the snot out of them with experience. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:09:00 -
[717] - Quote
Courthouse wrote: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.
:911: |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:10:00 -
[718] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: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 the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.
HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, highsec, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.
What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.
(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.)
start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote. As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.
At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.
At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.
What exactly is the problem? If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.
Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.
Why is reform necessary?
Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.
If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Ghazu
148
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:14:00 -
[719] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: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 the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.
HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, highsec, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.
What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.
(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.) start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few. I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadenedCSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about. At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed. At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both. What exactly is the problem?If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified. Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind. Why is reform necessary?Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves. If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter. God damn that issler dainze i knew that pants crazed freak was gonig to be useless.
|
Urziel99
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:14:00 -
[720] - Quote
Courthouse wrote:If they want to come down to our level the least we can do is beat the snot out of them with experience.
"This would not be inconsistent." -Courthouse
Remind me to never **** you off. |
|
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:19:00 -
[721] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.
At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.
So the guy we voted for committed a gaffe and was unfit for office for this term. How is that the fault of the system? Do we not have alternates?
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.
Again, one representative, in your opinion, did not do his job well. Not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the voter. Nothing you have said has made me say "gee, he's right! This system is obviously terrible!" |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:20:00 -
[722] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.
At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.
At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.
What exactly is the problem? If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.
Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.
Why is reform necessary?
Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.
If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.
1.] What leads you to believe that it is a statistically insignificant exception and not a trend?
2.] Ignoring the obvious question of what you base this opinion on; How does increased complexity in any case, and the increased complexity of Faux-STV specfically solve this issue?
3.] Just as arguments to traditional authority are fallacious, so are appeals to novelty. Why are you sure that you can do better given previous performance? |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4622
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:21:00 -
[723] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.
A "no D3s" rule could easily be implemented on the white paper without introducing a sham of an election system with the "STV" label slapped on it longwise.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.
Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.
While I see the issue with "hoooly **** 10k votes went down the drain" there are plenty of ways to prevent that in the future without telling voters "well you're not just voting for this guy, but these other guys who you may not like as well"
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.
The problem is that you're reinventing the wheel. There is no reason why CCP cannot implement true STV. please leave |
Ghazu
148
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:23:00 -
[724] - Quote
Darius III is a hero, instead of waiting for CCP to nerf incursions he did something about it. Also 420 Raidendot lol never forget those brave brave Bricksquad hero bubbles. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:33:00 -
[725] - Quote
Samahiel Sotken wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.
At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.
At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.
What exactly is the problem? If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.
Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.
Why is reform necessary?
Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.
If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.
1.] What leads you to believe that it is a statistically insignificant exception and not a trend? 2.] Ignoring the obvious question of what you base this opinion on; How does increased complexity in any case, and the increased complexity of Faux-STV specfically solve this issue? 3.] Just as arguments to traditional authority are fallacious, so are appeals to novelty. Why are you sure that you can do better given previous performance? 1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with.
2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue.
3. I'm not sure I understand your question (that's not an attack, feel free to ask it a different way) "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:38:00 -
[726] - Quote
Andski wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both. A "no D3s" rule could easily be implemented on the white paper without introducing a sham of an election system with the "STV" label slapped on it longwise. Alekseyev Karrde wrote:If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.
Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind. While I see the issue with "hoooly **** 10k votes went down the drain" there are plenty of ways to prevent that in the future without telling voters "well you're not just voting for this guy, but these other guys who you may not like as well" Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves. The problem is that you're reinventing the wheel. There is no reason why CCP cannot implement true STV. 1. Yeah it probably could, but what is the best way to do it?
2. Also agreed. But again, what's the best way? If there IS some kind of STV, even pure STV, that would impact this discussion. If we stick with 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate then how DO we address this problem?
3. I can't speak for CCP, but if it was technically doable and the community really got behind it, maybe. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:42:00 -
[727] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: 1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with.
This is irrelevant if this council doesn't deliver results. You can bleat about ~CSM Minutes~ this or ~This was talked about~ that, but you haven't *delivered* anything that the playerbase can attribute to this CSM yet.
Quote:2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue.
Your solution doesn't actually fix anyt of the issues you mention though. Darius can still scam a seat. Issler would redirect it's votes to some ****** that no one could comprehend like Xenuria or some ****. Riverini would cast votes towards a political adversary and not a "best candidate."
So again, what are you trying to fix here? If you want diversity then deliver political parties, require candidates register as high/low/null sec and take the top vote recipient registered to each that maybe isn't represented in the top 7 and make them alternate #1/2 and watch me register our CFC rep as lowsec and laugh FW all the way back to irrelevance.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1139
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:44:00 -
[728] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:What exactly is the problem? If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified. But it did reflect the preferences of the 60K voters very accurately (The Mittani's forced resignation notwithstanding.)
You're assuming to how the other 340K players might vote, and attempting to jury-rig the voting system to reflect something unknowable.
If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.
Caldari Militia |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:51:00 -
[729] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.
There's also too many large questions about why this many people aren't participating. Is it lack of knowledge of the CSM? Apathy? Would they participate if it wasn't for certain factors?
Until you actually attempt to find the answers to these questions, changing the voting system will only affect current voters. The changes proposed in the OP of this thread were very hostile to a certain group of players while showing no actual benefit to any other group of players, let alone the massive majority that doesn't participate. That's why you're getting hostility on two fronts - not only because you tried to **** a group of players over, but also because the idea is just plain bad and doesn't really solve anything. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:55:00 -
[730] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:What exactly is the problem? If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified. But it did reflect the preferences of the 60K voters very accurately (The Mittani's forced resignation notwithstanding.) You're assuming to how the other 340K players might vote, and attempting to jury-rig the voting system to reflect something unknowable. If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote. Where in that quote do i assume how anyone will vote? Where in my answer is the word "participation"?
EDIT bolded for convinience:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:09:00 -
[731] - Quote
Also, since I know Aleks has at least suggested he doesn't agree with Trebor's idea, this section needs to be re-read by him (and any other CSM who doesn't agree):
Quote:The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:
1) Be easy to implement (by CCP), use (by the voters) and permit public verification of the results given the published raw vote totals.
2) Reduce the need for tactical voting ("I like A better than B, but I have to vote for B because I think she's more electable"). This is typically done by reallocating votes cast for candidates that are eliminated from the election to other candidates, thus reducing or eliminating undervotes.
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
Option #3 is of particular interest, as it's the source of 95% of the rage in this thread. He suggests that voting blocs need to have their power "reduced" by systemic methods while giving zero justification for this. He also starts this entire section off by saying "The CSM" considers these options to be a MINIMUM. Not "I" think, not "Trebor" thinks, "The CSM" thinks that voting blocs need to have their power removed via systemic methods AS A MINIMUM. This language trend also continues on throughout his post - it's full of "we think" and "we've created". Whether it's just his idea or the CSM's idea, he's very clearly trying to represent it as the latter.
It is also the major reason you're not seeing any kind of true discussion about alternative voting systems, since the CSM's minimum baseline (as said to us by CSM member Trebor and not refuted yet by anyone else, including Hans, Seleene, Two Step or Aleks who have all posted in this thread) is completely unreasonable and unworkable. Until that changes, don't expect anything but what you're already getting.
If Trebor has misrepresented the entire CSM here, your problem lies with him (and also with your Chairman Seleene for allowing such an impression to continue on). Every angry poster in this thread has been 100% justified by the above quote alone. |
Cede Forster
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:18:00 -
[732] - Quote
Just so i get this right:
essential you want to make it possible to transfer the votes of people who do not make it to somebody else
Let me just make a really wild guess here:
The current CSM will endorse such "low chance candidates" in order to get on their list in return, feeding them more votes and reducing the chance that they get dropped out by a "newcomer" since "low chance candidates" wont have endorsement by others?
So this is just like any other vote change idea, trying to fortify the position of the already elected person and prevent others to take their place?
please correct me, i'd be glad to be wrong here |
Lord Zim
1427
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:24:00 -
[733] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed. You people haven't redacted the **** goons requirement, you guys haven't apologized for trying to slip the **** goons requirement past us, and I strongly doubt you guys would have accepted any voting suggestion which didn't try to **** goons.
Where's the middleground, when the **** goons requirement is still there? |
Lord Zim
1427
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:30:00 -
[734] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Trebor threw something together so discussion could get started, a thread was put up, and it exploded. So this is all Trebor's fault, yet the CSM are all defending it (well, except Hans, he bravely ran away, away when the going got tough (well ok, before then, even)). Good thing he kept saying "The CSM" and "we", and that you guys seem to be very much on the same page about the **** goons requirement.
But okay, sure, it's all Trebor's fault.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:It wasn't our most important issue and it still isn't. While I personally feel making some improvements between now and the next election is important and this conversation is worthwhile, the most important thing CSM is doing would be our current engagement in the stakeholder experiment. Unfortunately we cant make detailed threads about that yet for obvious reasons, we're pretty much just allowed to say the experiment/trial laid out in the minutes has now started.
I dunno, implying it was our most important thing or that we tried to make it our most important thing just seem out of place. I wouldnt even put "electoral reform" in the top 3 of active discussions going on right now (or at least before this thread blew up). And yet you don't seem to be willing or able to even consider removing the **** goons requirement which "The CSM" are all in agreement on. |
Lord Zim
1427
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:32:00 -
[735] - Quote
Courthouse wrote: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. :mydirectorate: :swoon: |
Katarina Reid
Blackwater Company.
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:33:00 -
[736] - Quote
So because the voters vote for the wrong people you want to put a system in place to get others elected. |
Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1821
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:35:00 -
[737] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:What exactly is the problem? If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.
In preferential voting systems, people end up voting 1 for their chosen candidate, then numbering the rest in order of least-hated-first. With first-past-the-post voting there are no complications with an outlier surprisingly coming first because they managed to be third-least-hated by a large group of people (e.g: voting for the racist lunatic candidate as 4 because you wat to put the two major party candidates last at 5 and 6)
Transferable voting systems end up causing problems, and they still do not solve the problem of a candidate getting disqualified or dying. This requires some work in the white paper (the constitution of the council), not a rejigged voting system. Transferable votes don't solve the problem of some people's votes GÇ£not countingGÇ¥: we end up with 14 selectees one way or the other.
The main purpose of transferable voting systems is to allow political parties to do deals on preference trading. We do not need to introduce this level of meta gaming into the CSM. Getting more people involved in the elections will have more impact than inventing the perfect most awesome voting mechanism. One account, one vote, one chance. We are not playing for sheep farms.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Why is reform necessary?
Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world, an experiment which has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CSM has yet to show that the system is, indeed, broken. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:40:00 -
[738] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CSM has yet to show that the system is, indeed, broken.
Exactly, and given their first suggestion involved attempting to screw over a specific group of players (and failing miserably), it begs the question of whether or not they can even be trusted to attempt to fix this kind of problem, should it ever occur. |
Hykke
Free Imperial Vikings Monkey Circus
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:44:00 -
[739] - Quote
There are some problems, lets say the number of CSM slots is just 1, making n=1 then you would need 1/1 of the votes to be elected. I think it's better if n=number of CSM slots PLUS 1, so you would need a total of 1/2 of the votes to get the last seat, and not 1/1 of the votes.
But I find the system still a bit weird: to make an example, consider 4 players competing for the last seat on the CSM
Candidates A sends votes to C if not elected. B, C and D sends their votes to A if they are not elected
Lets say the votes are:
A: 40 votes B: 500 votes C: 560 votes D: 900 votes
And the winner is? Well 2000 votes and 2000/2 = 1000, so none of them get the seat immediately Now A is eliminated, as holding the least number of votes His votes go to C, that now has 600 votes At second elimination, B is eliminated, sending 500 votes to A erm but A has already been eliminated
At this point one of two things can happen
1: The votes are sent to C, because that's where A wanted lost votes to go 2: The votes are truly lost
Consider 1: 500 votes go to C, and C now has enough votes to be elected Consider 2: With 500 votes lost, 1/n of the remaining votes drop to 750 votes, and D is elected
What would have happened of A had instead chosen B as the recipient of lost votes? Well A and B would still be eliminated in the first two rounds, and their votes have nowhere to go, since none of them has pointed to a "surviving" candidate to receive votes. At this point the votes would have to be removed, and D would be the winner.
Even so I actually like this system ... not for the reasons given by the CSM but because it means candidates of the CSM will have to do a campaign to get as many referrals as possible from other candidates. In fact I think candidates should be FORCED to not decide their referral before the first week of campaigning is done, giving the other candidates time to win them over. The good thing is that the other candidates will have time to consider which of the other candidates would best represent their views ... we might even get a genuine high sec dweller on the CSM |
Lord Zim
1427
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:45:00 -
[740] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few. Except if they're in a powerbloc, then the votes which are deemed "excessive" are deemed unworthy of further usage and as such chucked out the window, but those who are for the weak, the few, the unorganized, they ... they will be cared for, nurtured, and brought forth to make sure the goons stay properly ******.
It is known.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about. I've yet to see any actual reason for this "reform" other than "them goons, they sure are organized. we'll have to try to get that nerfed.", sprinkled with "oh well it's for the little guy (bend over and take it, you stupid goons)".
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed. This needs to be handled more elegantly. This has fuckall to do with the election system. If Obama was shot the day after he was voted into office, would USA suddenly go "OH HOLY **** GUYS WE MUST REFORM THE VOTING MECHANISM SO THE LITTLE GUY CAN GET HIS VOICE HEARD"? No. No they wouldn't.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:How many people didn't vote for Korvin because while they agreed with him he didn't have a chance of peeling enough Russian votes away from the -A- and DRF candidates to win? 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"?
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified. 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? |
|
Lord Zim
1427
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:49:00 -
[741] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with. 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 healm it looks like it's a CSM which is going full steam ahead to derpville.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue. Would this system fit within the minimum requirements as laid out by "The CSM" to make sure goons are properly ****** come election day? |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
834
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:52:00 -
[742] - Quote
Well this thread is just another super whine maybe it needs moving to GD to go with the rest.
But any way here is what I propose for future elections
- 1 Vote per account
- Candidates may select 1 candidate to receive their votes if they are knocked out using the lowest number of votes as a starting point and working up
- Only the votes received by a candidate may be passed on if elimination occurs.
- A fee of 2 Billion is is required for registration as a candidate
- Voting buttons as Per Poetic Stanziel suggested "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, each with a short candidate-written summary of their platform."
- Advertising in splash banners should start ASAP telling people what the CSM is and what it does.
- Update the "What is the CSM" page.
- In the case of disqualification, those people who voted for the candidate are subject to there votes disappearing down a black hole.
- Dev blogs like the winter expansion should have by lines acknowledging the work of the CSM.
- The CSM should continue it's wonderful transparency and communication with the playerbase.
These changes will effective make the number of votes required for lowest seats higher. They will also lessen the chance of joke candidates, as these people are supposed to be knowledgeable in the game and if they can not come up with a measly 2 Billion isk then they probably do not know how to play the game well enough. It will increase voter participation lessening the effect of minorities It will increase the CSMs profile within the player community.
These are my suggestions but at the end of the day it is the CSMs job to decide for them selves what system they want to put into place. This is one of the tings they were voted in to do.
Good luck and thank you for your hard work.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:53:00 -
[743] - Quote
Hykke wrote:we might even get a genuine high sec dweller on the CSM
The current CSM already has 2 (Kelduum and Issler). |
Lord Zim
1427
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:56:00 -
[744] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:What exactly is the problem? If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified. But it did reflect the preferences of the 60K voters very accurately (The Mittani's forced resignation notwithstanding.) You're assuming to how the other 340K players might vote, and attempting to jury-rig the voting system to reflect something unknowable. If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote. Where in that quote do i assume how anyone will vote? Where in my answer is the word "participation"? It may not be in the answer, explicitly, but since you haven't done anything to even try to deal with the **** goons minimum requirement put in by "The CSM", it is implied that the "big blocs will vote a certain way", and this "certain way" is something which you're trying to game into a voting result which you people find more acceptable.
It has been asked of you, time and time again, to remove the **** goons minimum requirement. This has not been done, and from what I've seen the past few days, no matter how much you people keep saying "this is Trebor's idea", this is still something which "The CSM" is behind.
But hey, if you absolutely want to pull a Hans and throw Trebor under the bus then that's your choice, I guess. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1140
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:58:00 -
[745] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with. The only CSMs that matter in this discussion are CSM5, CSM6, and CSM7. Everything before CSM5 was ignored, for the most part, by the playerbase and CCP.
You stated elsewhere that you believe CSM7's broad representation to be an outlier and not the norm.
I have a strong feeling that CSM6 is actually the outlier, and that 10 nullsec representatives on a single CSM is not the norm.
I haven't checked every CSM5 candidate's background yet (perhaps someone else can), because I am tired ... but just looking at the list of names, it would look like it too has a similarly broad base of representation, similar to CSM7. (Again, this has not been confirmed.)
If CSM5 representation proves to be similar to CSM7's, would you agree that CSM6's representative profile is indeed the outlier? And if you agree with that, would you then agree that voting reform is unnecessary?
AGAIN, MY STANCE ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT WE NEED TO MOTIVATE AND EDUCATE PLAYERS TO VOTE IN FUTURE CSM ELECTIONS. THAT IS THE SUREST WAY OF REALIZING THE SORT OF REPRESENTATION YOU WANT. Caldari Militia |
Konrad Kane
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 08:07:00 -
[746] - Quote
A few comments
Two step wrote: 2) Some sort of reserved seat system where each community is allocated seats. I don't like this because I don't see how you could possibly decide how many seats nullsec gets vs w-space. It is quite clear to most folks that the population stats aren't all that meaningful.
I think this is where this proposal gets itself in a muddle. You either align the CSM to gaming areas (null,low,high,wh,ming etc) or to player votes as the current system. You can't have both without making a hugely complex system.
If you align to gaming areas why do you need to to weight the seats to player population? Why would three null sec seats be more effective than two? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that most null sec alliances agree on 70% of the topics of how null sec could be improved and lets be honest the CSM hasn't a hope in hell of addressing 10% of the issues in a term.
Two step wrote: 3) My previous suggestion, where candidates rank all the other candidates and a real STV system is run using candidate choices in place of voter choices. I think this is worth discussing, and could even be extended if CCP is able to devote development resources into a true STV system, where people can either use a candidate's preferences or enter in their own.
The moment you let candidates distribute their 'spare' votes aren't you just moving the organised block into the CSM? Indeed wouldn't that just make it easier for very large alliances to game the system. Frankly I simply won't vote in a system where the candidate can give my vote to one of their chums to get them in as well.
I really the think if the CSM want to look at this they should start with discussing how they are structured to represent the players once they understand that then they can talk about voting. |
Sebastian Hoch
Black Lance Fidelas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 08:31:00 -
[747] - Quote
What truly surprises me about this is that anyone of moderate intelligence would believe that a system that leverages votes differently by design and intent is at all political viable. This is a non-starter. Try to stuff this down people's throats and they will gag and throw it up.
The current system might leverage votes, but its by the voters choice to put support behind an unlikely candidate. It is something that happens, not something that is designed. There is nothing wrong with this. it is a fallacy that a vote for a failed candidate is wasted as its only by such action and support can a new movement gain political momentum.
As has been stated you can't have simple and comprehensive. If you want to make this better, you have shoulder STV, or primary elections that give more fragmented blocks the ability to organize around their candidate. |
Harataka
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 08:56:00 -
[748] - Quote
Other people have mostly said what I wanted to say about this, but honestly people, I understand you don't like us very much. Not liking us is not a valid reason for blatant manipulation of a voting system to fit some conjured equity. If the demographic groups you are so worried about not getting representation cannot organize to get a candidate in, then maybe they don't care enough?
Like others have said, instead of taking ultimate choice out of the voter's hands and putting it into a system ripe for collusion between candidates, think of ways to educate people on the importance of voting. Oh wait, you guys have gotten jack **** done this time so convincing people of how important the CSM is is going to be really hard isn't it?
Also, in the United States, what happens when the President gets impeached? There isn't some crazy re-shuffling of votes or any other dumb stuff. Everyone just moves up a spot, just like what happened in CSM7. I'm sure it's similar in other countries as well. There is no need to change what works for the real world just because something happened people weren't expecting.
Shelve this dumb proposal and actually get some real work done, instead of trying to fix what isn't broken in the first place. Stop wasting the time your constituents gave you to address their issues on your silly grudge matches. |
Katarina Reid
Blackwater Company.
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 08:57:00 -
[749] - Quote
Can i get a list of the CSM members that dont support this idea? So i know who to vote for next time. |
Lord Zim
1428
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:04:00 -
[750] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:Can i get a list of the CSM members that dont support this idea? So i know who to vote for next time. Here's the list of CSM members who don't support this idea: |
|
Lord Zim
1429
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:06:00 -
[751] - Quote
Okay, that's an incomplete list, Hans quickly distanced himself from the idea very early on by saying it was Trebor's idea. |
DaiTengu
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:37:00 -
[752] - Quote
Jesus christ how is this thread still going?
Doing anything other than 1-character = 1 vote is stupid.
If you're upset over voting blocs or whatever, start your own. In the real world, that's what political parties are for. |
Holander Switzerland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 09:44:00 -
[753] - Quote
Why should my vote count for less because I happen to be part of a group that shares similar views? |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:34:00 -
[754] - Quote
here we go this is how csm delegates should be determined
change sisi so it never goes offline, remove all stations, outposts, and POSes
throw every person who wants to run on the server and lock everyone else out
put those people into rifters and let them fight it out and the last eight people alive are the csm
my idea is only slightly less ******** than the one currently presented Follow me on twitter |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:38:00 -
[755] - Quote
Your idea has the added advantage that Goonswarm would never again get a seat because we're terrible at this game. So it should be perfectly acceptable to the CSM! |
Lord Zim
1430
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:38:00 -
[756] - Quote
but but but how can hisec be represented when the metric to be measured by is pvp? :confused: |
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:49:00 -
[757] - Quote
how is10% of the game even holding the game hostage the math just doesn't add up
oh wait there's no isk/hour in voting lalalala Follow me on twitter |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
283
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 10:56:00 -
[758] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:Two step wrote: 2) Some sort of reserved seat system where each community is allocated seats. I don't like this because I don't see how you could possibly decide how many seats nullsec gets vs w-space. It is quite clear to most folks that the population stats aren't all that meaningful.
If you align to gaming areas why do you need to to weight the seats to player population? Why would three null sec seats be more effective than two? Keep in mind that the CSM is a representative body, intended to act as an interface between CCP and the playerbase. It is not a legislative or ruling body.
Based on this premise, null sec (and any other area) does not need more than one seat, in order to represent all null sec specific issues to CCP and provide them with a conduit for getting feedback from the null sec playerbase.
However, allowing the CSM members to choose the seat allocation would be a conflict of interest and a general player vote on seat allocation would be counter-productive, since using the current popular voting system would end up gaming the results in favor of minority blocks in the same fashion as the general CSM elections.
The obvious and practical method for seat allocation, by area or issue, is to let CCP decide, based on what they consider to be their priorities of the game's future development and whose gameplay POV they most want to solicit, from members of the CSM. |
Cass Lie
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:04:00 -
[759] - Quote
Serious proposal incoming.
Let me start off by saying that I think the current system is fine and the best way to "improve" it is to increase voter participation.
With that out of the way, let's look at the CSM arguments for changing the system. First: 25% of votes getting lost. I personally don't see this as a problem in itself. Second: If two strong candidates from a certain playstyle are running, say for wh, fw or incursions, chances are neither will be elected. I can see how that could be a problem, for instance when you get a null/empire centric CSM, which typically doesn't have much experience with wormholes and isn't thus much use to CCP on this topic. And I hope being a better use to CCP is what this CSM wants to achieve.
OK, with that premise, the original proposal makes some sense, but there are fears of the system being overly complicated and prone to gaming. So what if there was only one person the unsuccessful candidate could transfer votes to and not the whole amount was transferred but only a half (for example). Determination of the results would stay the same as in the original proposal. That way a voter would still lose something for voting for an unsuccessful candidate, but it would hopefully somewhat mitigate the second problem mentioned above. If there were three strong candidates running and couldn't agree on a single person to eventually push through, that would be their fault and their voters. High sec could also get a strong vote if all the small candidates running could agree on a few strong candidates who would eventually make it.
Gaming the system would be somewhat harder and if all the various high sec candidates ended up listing as their candidate a goon alt, well tough luck, at least he campaigned well and is supposedly not ignorant.
This way a vote for unsuccessful candidate can be worth half a vote, while an excess vote for an overly successful candidate is basically lost - you can try similar mechanism for transfering overvotes, but here I am not sure if it would not be overcomplicating things and prone to further gaming.
This whole designing voting system business is dubious anyways, since the purpose and the power of the CSM is vaguely defined. Goons/nullsec wouldn't much "benefit" for getting 80% of seats since there is no voting mechanic, same as someone won't benefit from getting 3000 more votes than was actually needed, since there is no formal power derived from that.
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:04:00 -
[760] - Quote
HVAC Repairman wrote: put those people into rifters and let them fight it out and the last eight people alive are the csm
I think this is the system used by political candidates in Taiwan, except that they do it on the RL server.... :) |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1421
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:32:00 -
[761] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with. 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. Perhaps Derpville is where we should be going? I mean, just because a lot of people don't think so doesn't mean they know anything unlike the CSM that has already thought a lot about it, and not just making sure they can keep other people from trying to get us to somewhere else, like awesomeville.
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue. Would this system fit within the minimum requirements as laid out by "The CSM" to make sure goons are properly ****** come election day? It could, as long as they are smarter about not letting us know about it by writing it down in such an obvious manner. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1421
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:35:00 -
[762] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:How many people didn't vote for Korvin because while they agreed with him he didn't have a chance of peeling enough Russian votes away from the -A- and DRF candidates to win? 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"? Us, anyone like us, anyone who likes us ...
Lord Zim wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified. 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? Well, gonna make them work to get to ***ing goons. We will soon pass 40 pages of "caught ya". Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 12:00:00 -
[763] - Quote
i got one last idea that will work for every NO MORE CSM |
Holander Switzerland
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 12:07:00 -
[764] - Quote
serras bang wrote:i got one last idea that will work for everyone NO MORE CSM Holy ****, you actually do know you can capitalize letters. |
Tolmar
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:04:00 -
[765] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em?
Where to start... Where to start:
Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot. Amarr Stations bugging out Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them. Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through. Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible) So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting So Few types of Escalations So few types of models for Player built stations Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible
There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws
|
Pinky Feldman
Gank Bangers Moar Tears
332
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:14:00 -
[766] - Quote
Tolmar wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? Where to start... Where to start: Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot. Amarr Stations bugging out Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them. Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through. Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible) So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting So Few types of Escalations So few types of models for Player built stations Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws
I hear random socket errors and having to relog because grid doesn't load when you jump through a gate is pretty fun as well. \o/
The moar you cry the less you pee |
Tolmar
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:16:00 -
[767] - Quote
Pinky Feldman wrote:Tolmar wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em? Where to start... Where to start: Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot. Amarr Stations bugging out Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them. Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through. Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible) So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting So Few types of Escalations So few types of models for Player built stations Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws I hear random socket errors and having to relog because grid doesn't load when you jump through a gate is pretty fun as well. \o/
O god, YES! that really should have been at the top of the list! :) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
834
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:17:00 -
[768] - Quote
Well at least the CSM has decided that they need to do this without the minor minority discussion. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 13:49:00 -
[769] - Quote
CliveWarren wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.
There's also too many large questions about why this many people aren't participating. Is it lack of knowledge of the CSM? Apathy? Would they participate if it wasn't for certain factors?
Could it possibly be because EVE is a video game and not everyone who plays makes it the central focus of their life or online time? |
Samahiel Sotken
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:22:00 -
[770] - Quote
So when will a member of the CSM be making a contribution to this discussion other than insults, hand waving, and defensive sniping? You have stated your position, received feedback and criticism, and been given more than enough time to reevaluate your position.
How do you intend to change or moderate your proposal to address the legitimate concerns expressed? It is time for you to put on your big boy pants and participate seriously in this dialectic.
|
|
Lord Zim
1443
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:23:00 -
[771] - Quote
Literally the only thing they have to go back on to start to get a productive conversation going, is to remove the goonfucking requirement. |
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:40:00 -
[772] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.
"Trebor's proposal" is specifically presented as a CSM suggestion: Quote:Below we present one possible system that attempts to meet the above goals. We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement. Could we get some clarity on if Trebor was wrong to imply this was CSM backed or if the rest of the CSM actually supports it? Given the clear wording of his post, your statements that "this is just Trebor's proposal!" means one of you is being deceptive.
You underlined the key points of Trebor's post you quoted but it doesn't seem like you read them. He doesn't state that the CSM is backing anything. Point of fact he states, that its presented simply as an example for discussion and improvement and that it is not something that has been decided upon by the CSM. There is no 'proposal' being made. There was a post made to spark open discussion.
With that out of the way I support the call made by Lord Zim to remove the goonfucking requirement of any proposal thats put forward. There are those that don't like the goon "Family". But for an instant to not believe that it is and will continue to be one of the vital player bloc's for this game is stupid beyond belief. |
Pinky Feldman
Gank Bangers Moar Tears
335
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 14:42:00 -
[773] - Quote
I am the most disturbed by the lack of Darius III in this thread. The CSM needs to stop using :words: and admit that he is the missing piece to CSM7 and NOT Senor Mittani. As the candidate that represents player apathy, he is the only one with the power to reform the process in a way that eliminates that apathy, the Ying to balance out the Yang.
To quote the most recent Star Trek movie, I feel like this thread and current CSM7 in regards to Darius III can be summed by a quote that Future Spock makes regarding Kirk and his younger self.
"Because you needed each other. I could not deprive you of the revelation of all that you could accomplish together, of a friendship that will define you both in ways you cannot yet realize."
Obviously, D3 is Kirk and CSM7 is Spock.
Sadly, we're still at the part where Kirk is on Earth wasting his life and hasn't even signed up for the Academy. (This connection should be obvious) Meanwhile, Spock is back on Vulcan having difficulty reconciling his Human mother and Vulcan heritage, which represents the CSM struggling to balance the concerns of the people and its own personal concerns.
The moar you cry the less you pee |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:07:00 -
[774] - Quote
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT wrote:You underlined the key points of Trebor's post you quoted but it doesn't seem like you read them. He doesn't state that the CSM is backing anything. Point of fact he states, that its presented simply as an example for discussion and improvement and that it is not something that has been decided upon by the CSM. There is no 'proposal' being made. There was a post made to spark open discussion.
Hi! You're illiterate!
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:
...
3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.
I bolded the important part for you! I also left in the 3rd ~MINIMUM~, which is for the 978th time, the part that's simultaneously making everyone angry and making any kind of constructive discussion worthless so long as it exists. There hasn't been a single CSM member that has actually addressed this in going on 40 pages when EvilWeaselFinance has been pointing it out since the thread was still in the single digits page-wise. |
Lord Zim
1445
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:38:00 -
[775] - Quote
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT wrote:You underlined the key points of Trebor's post you quoted but it doesn't seem like you read them. He doesn't state that the CSM is backing anything. I was going to point out your fallacy, but I see CliveWarren did that for me. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
576
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:24:00 -
[776] - Quote
I don't think the CSM could put in a system robust enough to achieve they're goals. I don't have ABSOLUTE faith in the "gaming" abilities of the CFC, but quite a healthy respect.
In fact, *IF* the CSM were to get something like this pushed through - I think the CSM, CCP and the NEXT CSM would be in for one hell of a goddam surprise...
Testies, Goonies and friends are "motivated" enough when they aren't getting pissed on. My mind balks at the absolute mayhem that would result if someone actually, deliberately (and with malice aforethought) schat on them in public.
Volcanoes erupting would be subtle in comparison.
Don't schat on the CFC.
(P.S. - for anyone mentally challenged enough not to know how to check corp history, no, I'm not a goon/goon alt/whatever).
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:34:00 -
[777] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote: Testies, Goonies and friends are "motivated" enough when they aren't getting pissed on. My mind balks at the absolute mayhem that would result if someone actually, deliberately (and with malice aforethought) schat on them in public.
Fear of reprisal is not a good reason to be opposed to this proposal. The explicitly stated intent to disenfranchise voters is really the only reason anyone needs. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
277
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:35:00 -
[778] - Quote
I mean there is something to be said for deliberately antagonizing the one(large) portion of your playerbase that is organized enough and well connected enough to make a public show over it. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:42:00 -
[779] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.
This is close, really close to admitting that maybe, just maybe, something in the initial post was wrong. You want your serious discussion, well, oddly enough, so do a lot of us. But while Trebor's "minimum requirement number 3" sits unchallenged and unrevoked by any member of the CSM, we can't consider that any of you want an honest debate on the matter, and that discussion isn't going to happen (as you must have noticed by now).
So, come on, in the interest of having this discussion you say you want, lets make it easy for you. Say this: "It is not, and should not be a minimum requirement of any proposal in this discussion, that large posting blocks be penalised for being organised and being enthusiastic".
There you go. Its not many words, you can tailor them to your own style, as long as you say it, unequivocally, without evasion (as you have), without trolling (as Seleene tried), or without deflection (as Two Step and Hans opted for). Dress it how you like, but just say it. And it doesn't even force you personally to support schemes that don't penalise posting blocks, if thats what you want to do. It just opens up the conversation, without slapping a giant **** off on the wrapper like trebor's original post did. Give it a go.
|
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:48:00 -
[780] - Quote
Hi Thar!
Quote:Trebor's proposal is specifically presented as a CSM suggestion.
Quote:We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement.
He stated that the CSM believes xyz. ThatGÇÖs fine. They can believe anything they want and should have the opportunity to present it for discussion. I think people jump to the conclusion that OMFG they've already decided that this is what they are going to try and accomplish and are only interested in presenting here so that seems impartial. Then they can get on with the serious assfucking they've been planning all along.
I know-ish Trebor. I know that he has a personal dislike TheMittani. I also think that he's a mature enough guy thatGÇÖs not going to allow his dislike for of one person to lead him on a path that refuses to allow compromise on a topic he's specifically asked for feedback on.
I don't think that itGÇÖs his intent nor the CSM as a whole to anally abusing the GoonNation. They believe that there is an issue with the voting system. TheyGÇÖve talked about and came up with this (In my opinion) Clusterfuck of a voting system that allows your votes to transfer or whatever and they are asking for input on their ideas.
I think itGÇÖs fair and right that people including you and myself have the chance to state that any attempt to specifically alienate a huge block of players in such a way that there seems to be an active 'Them' out to get an 'Us' is stupid and will lead not to helping the game out but in denying it monies in the form of loss of subscriptions as well as a feeling of **** it I'm not logging in to that ****** game which denies the player driven conflict that is the mother's milk of EVE. |
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
118
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:51:00 -
[781] - Quote
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT wrote:I also think that [Trebor is] a mature enough guy thatGÇÖs not going to allow his dislike for of one person to lead him on a path that refuses to allow compromise on a topic he's specifically asked for feedback on.
I don't think that itGÇÖs his intent nor the CSM as a whole to anally abusing the GoonNation. They believe that there is an issue with the voting system. It's fine. All they have to do to open discussion on the voting system, rather than the stated requirements, is to drop the one that has almost unanimously gone down badly (the "fuckgoons requirement"). |
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:56:00 -
[782] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT wrote:I also think that [Trebor is] a mature enough guy thatGÇÖs not going to allow his dislike for of one person to lead him on a path that refuses to allow compromise on a topic he's specifically asked for feedback on.
I don't think that itGÇÖs his intent nor the CSM as a whole to anally abusing the GoonNation. They believe that there is an issue with the voting system. It's fine. All they have to do to open discussion on the voting system, rather than the stated requirements, is to drop the one that has almost unanimously gone down badly (the "fuckgoons requirement").
I agree. As stated above [quote] any attempt to specifically alienate a huge block of players in such a way that there seems to be an active 'Them' out to get an 'Us' is stupid and will lead not to helping the game out but in denying it monies in the form of loss of subscriptions as well as a feeling of FUCKIT I'm not logging in to that horribadshitty game which denies the player driven conflict that is the mother's milk of EVE. |
Lord Zim
1448
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:59:00 -
[783] - Quote
So that begs the question, why don't they do it, then? |
CliveWarren
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:01:00 -
[784] - Quote
So many things wrong with that, I'm not even going to bother with a quotes nest, I'll just do a quick point-by-point.
1. Nobody cares how nice a guy Trebor is, or what his intentions might truly have been. We care about what he actually said, and what he actually said was that the GSF voting bloc needs to have its power reduced via a system. That's not a reaching interpretation or anything, he actually SAID IT.
2. The issue we had was brought up very early, and instead of being acknowleged as a thing, was met with Hans trying to pin the entire idea on Trebor, Two Step trying to say the entire thread's true goal was "discussion", Seleene calling it all "tinfoil" and Alekseyev trying his best to use Mittani's removal from this CSM as a strawman ("BUT BUT YOU GUYS LOST 10,000 VOTES! WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ~HELP~!"). How can the CSM reasonably expect discussion when the initial attempt at such was met with derision and dismissal?
3. If their system was not designed with reducing the power of the GSF voting bloc, then why was the extreme case of GSF success in this past election used as a benchmark? There isn't a single other bloc in the game who can even approach that kind of power right now, and yet there's an attempt to nerf that power. It's not reaching in the slightest to take the CSM proposed sugggestion as a direct attack on the GSF, because guess what? IT IS. |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:02:00 -
[785] - Quote
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.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:02:00 -
[786] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So that begs the question, why don't they do it, then? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're trying to arrive at a joint decision in their Skype channel or whereever they debate things, instead of just trying to sit this out until the bad people go away. |
Lord Zim
1449
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:06:00 -
[787] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So that begs the question, why don't they do it, then? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're trying to arrive at a joint decision in their Skype channel or whereever they debate things, instead of just trying to sit this out until the bad people go away. You would've thought it would take less than two days to do this.
CliveWarren wrote:So many things wrong with that, I'm not even going to bother with a quotes nest, I'll just do a quick point-by-point.
1. Nobody cares how nice a guy Trebor is, or what his intentions might truly have been. We care about what he actually said, and what he actually said was that the GSF voting bloc needs to have its power reduced via a system. That's not a reaching interpretation or anything, he actually SAID IT.
2. The issue we had was brought up very early, and instead of being acknowleged as a thing, was met with Hans trying to pin the entire idea on Trebor, Two Step trying to say the entire thread's true goal was "discussion", Seleene calling it all "tinfoil" and Alekseyev trying his best to use Mittani's removal from this CSM as a strawman ("BUT BUT YOU GUYS LOST 10,000 VOTES! WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ~HELP~!"). How can the CSM reasonably expect discussion when the initial attempt at such was met with derision and dismissal?
3. If their system was not designed with reducing the power of the GSF voting bloc, then why was the extreme case of GSF success in this past election used as a benchmark? There isn't a single other bloc in the game who can even approach that kind of power right now, and yet there's an attempt to nerf that power. It's not reaching in the slightest to take the CSM proposed sugggestion as a direct attack on the GSF, because guess what? IT IS. Also this, from start to finish. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
577
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:25:00 -
[788] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote:Fear of reprisal is not a good reason to be opposed to this proposal. The explicitly stated intent to disenfranchise voters is really the only reason anyone needs. Fear?
**** that.
Let it go through *JUST LIKE IT IS*.
Burn jita would look like a sleepover in 4th grade. Monoclegate would be look like a rain-shower compared to a hurricane. And I for one (and tonnnes of others, even those who, like me, aren't testes/goonies fanbois) would join in whatever organized mayhem they decided on.
Not only that, can you imagine the vote rigging that *would* go down if anything like that happened? Better to just sit in the corner and p and moan about how "organization > disorganization".
Besides, I'm an American. Disenfranchised voters are nothing new to me...
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
760
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 17:46:00 -
[789] - Quote
Why ? |
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:01:00 -
[790] - Quote
I may be wrong, but something tells me goons' response to getting shafted by the CSM and/or CCP will not be to create exciting new in-game content like Burn Jita.
|
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:03:00 -
[791] - Quote
Oh I'm sure we'll provide exciting new in-game and out-of-game content when people keep trying to **** us over, but that's neither here nor there in the context of this discussion. |
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:21:00 -
[792] - Quote
The OP looks good enough to me. It opens the possibility, without enforcing it, for candidates to form political parties if so they wish.
I posted a different way of changing the election process here, which have the benefit of a built-in public exit polling.
A couple suggestions: - Changing the election process is one side of the equation. The other side that is equally important is to increase the awareness and visibility in the client. A one-time ad in the login screen that people skip so fast they don't even read it is not enough. If you do manage to get some dev time, also request them to improve things on this. For instance, they could add an icon in the neocon during the election period that points to the voting page and also a notification (similar to completed skills) that the currently logged account still didn't vote.
- Since this will probably be updated in the CSM white paper, you can add a paragraph stating that the new election process, whichever it may be based on this discussion, will be evaluated during the following elections and if it doesn't accomplish what it was intended to or some other flaws are discovered it may be reverted back or further iterated. :sand: -áover -á:awesome: |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
803
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:28:00 -
[793] - Quote
By engaging in this vacuous navel-gazing exercise in public, in stark contrast to the months of near radio silence, CSM7's only real achievement in this thread is to cement the public perception that their institute is a self-obsessed talking shop with no relevance to the playerbase as a whole and not worth the time spent on bothering to vote.
If the CSM wants "more representative" voting they would do better to enthuse the general population by demonstrating that they are focused on impartially tackling issues that players care about. Ham-fisted scheming on ways to marginalise those who do bother to vote demonstrates the exact opposite.
Congratulations, you idiots. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:49:00 -
[794] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:The most common "better" election system is Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Typically in STV systems, voters rank the candidates (or some subset of them) in order of preference, and if their first candidate is eliminated from the election, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on. However, standard STV systems do not meet our first goal. Implementing classic STV would require significant work by CCP to update the system, would require extra effort by voters (which would tend to favor highly organized groups), and may not be publicly verifiable.
Meh. Take the time to do it right, or don't do it at all. We already have a compromised voting system; we don't need another one. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1150
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:49:00 -
[795] - Quote
What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons. Caldari Militia |
Xolve
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
1099
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:50:00 -
[796] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:If the CSM wants "more representative" voting they would do better to enthuse the general population by demonstrating that they are focused on impartially tackling issues that players care about. Ham-fisted scheming on ways to marginalise those who do bother to vote demonstrates the exact opposite.
Congratulations, you idiots.
Didn't want that CSM anyway, amirite? Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:53:00 -
[797] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:If the CSM wants "more representative" voting they would do better to enthuse the general population by demonstrating that they are focused on impartially tackling issues that players care about. Ham-fisted scheming on ways to marginalise those who do bother to vote demonstrates the exact opposite.
Congratulations, you idiots. Didn't want that CSM anyway, amirite? No, they want it. You can clearly see how much they want that next CSM.
As to the benefits to us, well *shrug*. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:59:00 -
[798] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons.
Not taking a "pro-" or "anti-" Goon stance myself, but my hope is that the "anti-Goon" side realizes that installing a broken voting system to spite one alliance is the very model of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Nobody who takes the CSM even half seriously wants a broken voting mechanism. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1441
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:01:00 -
[799] - Quote
Sal Volatile wrote: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. There's good progress.
We are all now quite aware that, with a high probability, they are not just morons but actively trying to bend us over and do some very bad things to us. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
811
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:57:00 -
[800] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons.
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. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
Sebastian Hoch
Black Lance Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:57:00 -
[801] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:
If the CSM wants "more representative" voting they would do better to enthuse the general population by demonstrating that they are focused on impartially tackling issues that players care about. Ham-fisted scheming on ways to marginalise those who do bother to vote demonstrates the exact opposite.
Congratulations, you idiots.
You have it all wrong. By putting forward this proposal they are motivating thousands to make sure they vote in the next CSM exection. Though I am afraid it may not be for what or whom they expected. |
Cede Forster
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:07:00 -
[802] - Quote
Sebastian Hoch wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:
If the CSM wants "more representative" voting they would do better to enthuse the general population by demonstrating that they are focused on impartially tackling issues that players care about. Ham-fisted scheming on ways to marginalise those who do bother to vote demonstrates the exact opposite.
Congratulations, you idiots.
You have it all wrong. By putting forward this proposal they are motivating thousands to make sure they vote in the next CSM exection. Though I am afraid it may not be for what or whom they expected.
that is still a good result to deal with the "problem" then |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:15:00 -
[803] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:Sebastian Hoch wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:If the CSM wants "more representative" voting they would do better to enthuse the general population by demonstrating that they are focused on impartially tackling issues that players care about. Ham-fisted scheming on ways to marginalise those who do bother to vote demonstrates the exact opposite.
Congratulations, you idiots. You have it all wrong. By putting forward this proposal they are motivating thousands to make sure they vote in the next CSM exection. Though I am afraid it may not be for what or whom they expected. that is still a good result to deal with the "problem" then But the idea was to make sure people were voting for them.
Sounds like someone forgot to specify to the electoral systems genie what they wanted ~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
811
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:16:00 -
[804] - Quote
Sebastian Hoch wrote:You have it all wrong. By putting forward this proposal they are motivating thousands to make sure they vote in the next CSM exection. Though I am afraid it may not be for what or whom they expected.
Indeed.
One thing has been made glaringly clear by this thread, and that is maintaining a CFC presence on the CSM is as critical for our continued survival as our economic or military might, because with both CSM5 and now CSM7 we've seen exactly what happens when we're absent.
Expect at least 3 of us in CSM8, maybe more. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:16:00 -
[805] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons. 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. The reality mindedd will observe that it's a failure on both accounts. All the goons are here (and not enough of the ***goons), and now all of us are aware of this. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
813
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:18:00 -
[806] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. The reality mindedd will observe that it's a failure on both accounts. All the goons are here (and not enough of the ***goons), and now all of us are aware of this. CSM7 may be many things, but skilled in political scheming they are not. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
368
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:12:00 -
[807] - Quote
You can be anti-goon and be against idiotic proposals. They're not mutually exclusive.
|
Align Planet1
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:17:00 -
[808] - Quote
"In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost 'undervotes', coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate."
The logic of this argument is appalling. No one is disenfranchised when his or her vote is counted, and is given the same weight as every other individual vote. Whether the particular candidate wins or loses is immaterial to the question of enfranchisement: the analysis begins and ends with the voting power of the individual relative to other individuals.
That groups of individuals may choose to organize to elect a particular candidate is also immaterial to the question of enfranchisement. Punishing such groups for leveraging their organizational capacity only reduces the political clout of the individuals within the organization.
The CSM proposes to address the potential for manipulating the current voting system by implementing a system that is at once obtuse and unnecessarily complicated, and thus even more prone to manipulation. That's absurd.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1156
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:22:00 -
[809] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:And this is by far the best way to improve things, in my opinion. How to increase voter turnout, and how to reform the election process itself, are slightly separate monsters. But I believe, as Seleene does, that if you succeed in the former, the latter is unnecessary. Glad to see you coming around to the CORRECT way of thinking.
Let's show how increased voter turnout affected CSM7 compared to CSM6.
(This is part of a post I'm writing, but it seemed worthwhile to post it as a separate bit here on the forums.)
One major complaint of the CSM election process are the voting blocs. This was an especially loud complaint during CSM6, where nullsec candidates took ten of the fourteen available CSM seats.
I donGÇÖt personally see voting blocs as a problem. If you're a group that is motivated and well-organized, you're going to dominate any election. Motivation and organization are two traits that should be encouraged. We want to see people passionate about the political process. We should want to see the number of voters increase, year-by-year. For those concerned with organized voting blocs, the only legitimate way to dilute their voting power is by adding more voters to the process.
Let's do some CSM6 and CSM7 comparisons. CSM7 did see an substantial increase in voting numbers, so we should expect to see the voting bloc influence somewhat diluted.
For CSM6, 49096 votes were cast out of 344533 eligible accounts. 26366 votes were cast for nullsec candidates, or 53.7% of the total vote.
CSM7 saw an increase of 10000 voters, up to 59109 out of 355436 eligible accounts. 24695 votes were cast for nullsec candidates, or 41.8% of the total vote.
The larger voting blocs were still able to push their candidates into CSM seats, but we saw a marked dilution of their vote, as candidates with smaller bases won seats. The increase in voter turnout tended to favour non-nullsec candidates. In the end, nullsec did not dominate the final results, only garnering six of the fourteen available spots (a loss of four seats from CSM6.) Of areas of the game that saw new and renewed representation, industry got their candidate in Issler Dainze, faction warfare got their candidate in Hans Jagerblitzen, mercenaries and pirates got Alekseyev Karrde, highsec got Kelduum Revaan, wormholes got Two Step, and the everyman got Trebor.
As you can see, dilution of voting blocs can only continue as long as voter participation continues to increase. That should be where the CSM focuses its efforts. Not on artificial ways to disenfranchise voters (i.e. voting reform), but through increasing actual democracy. The more voters, the more varied the representation will be. Caldari Militia |
DaiTengu
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:53:00 -
[810] - Quote
Here's why this is coming up.
CSM7 hasn't done anything of note. CSM6 was all over gaming news websites, blogs & twitter.
CSM7 is worried that they will be labeled ineffective, and that the giant voting blocks will oust them from their "positions of power"
Hence, they're trying to re-do the voting system so this can't happen.
Power corrupts.
|
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:04:00 -
[811] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:One thing has been made glaringly clear by this thread, and that is maintaining a CFC presence on the CSM is as critical for our continued survival as our economic or military might, because with both CSM5 and now CSM7 we've seen exactly what happens when we're absent.
Expect at least 3 of us in CSM8, maybe more. I don't see a problem with CFC maintaining a presence on the CSM. They are, without a doubt, one of the more significant and representative group of null sec players. And, under any proposed voting system, a CFC member is always likely to win a seat.
However, I do not believe that it should be necessary or advisable for CFC to hold 3 seats, just to establish their presence and present their game issues. One seat should be sufficient.
After all, CSM is not intended to be a voting body, in of itself, and the CSM should not be allowed to internally prioritize issues presented to CCP, according to the private agendas of specific CSM members. The lobbyist and political party system doesn't work all that well in the US, with regards to optimally and efficiently prioritizing government resources, according to the benefit of the US population as a whole - I don't see why we, or CCP, would want to copy such a failure here.
So, let's hypothesize a situation where all of the CSM seats were held by CFC members, who (not TheMittani) happened to be dumb enough to try to push a CFC-specific agenda down CCP's throat. And, let's assume that CCP was actually dumb enough to think that the CFC-specific agenda represented the wishes of the entire playerbase and made sweeping changes to the game based on this agenda.
The net result? You'd end up with about 5,000 happy players, and about 10,000 vocally pissed off unsubs, plus another 100,000+ WTF unsubs. Note, too, that I said only 5,000 happy players, because I suspect that a good chunk of the CFC would actually be among the WTF unsubs, after they realize how unbalanced - and boring - the game has become because CCP was dumb enough to overly bias the game in their favor.
In order to keep the game fun and challenging, there has to be a balance, not a bias. The game needs to constantly change to attract new and different players to *all* aspects of the game, not just null sec PVP (or any other single game style). After all, if no one bothered to mine, run missions, or haul stuff around, there would be no targets of opportunity for ganking... and we'd lose a colorful and entertaining part of what makes Eve our game of choice.
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. After all, if the only decent players remaining in the game are all in the CFC, who would there be around worthy enough to be properly spanked? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:08:00 -
[812] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: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. Yes, the highsec miners got Issler. Remember what happened when we shot the tower, and harvested the tears?
Ah. Good stuff. No, we're not buying that argument that we love ganking so much we're fine with letting people burn down our home or break our arms. Especially since people would be just trying to get CONCORD buffed or not when we leave our burning home and start making ships explode.
All of us are probably glad that you aren't a "ruling member of the CFC". Of course you're also imagining you can force us to do idiotic things if you were a "ruling member."
Maybe you could if you were on the CSM. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:12:00 -
[813] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: However, I do not believe that it should be necessary or advisable for CFC to hold 3 seats, just to establish their presence and present their game issues. One seat should be sufficient.
The CFC has never held 3 seats, nor could we. As Trebor well knows, a significant chunk of Mittani's votes came from outside the CFC which could not be allocated "perfectly". Much of what Trebor has said is deliberate half-truths designed to obscure what's going on.
In addition, we do not elect "a CFC representative". If we have qualified people we want to put up for election, we have as much right to have them compete for votes on a level playing field with everyone else. Technetium Lord |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:13:00 -
[814] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: After all, CSM is not intended to be a voting body, in of itself, and the CSM should not be allowed to internally prioritize issues presented to CCP, according to the private agendas of specific CSM members. The lobbyist and political party system doesn't work all that well in the US, with regards to optimally and efficiently prioritizing government resources, according to the benefit of the US population as a whole - I don't see why we, or CCP, would want to copy such a failure here.
every single csm member, even the most useless and most virulently opposed to goonswarm, have admitted that no goonswarm member who has been elected to the csm has ever done this, and have repeatedly championed issues that would help the game but hurt goonswar, Technetium Lord |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
253
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:20:00 -
[815] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: After all, CSM is not intended to be a voting body, in of itself, and the CSM should not be allowed to internally prioritize issues presented to CCP, according to the private agendas of specific CSM members. The lobbyist and political party system doesn't work all that well in the US, with regards to optimally and efficiently prioritizing government resources, according to the benefit of the US population as a whole - I don't see why we, or CCP, would want to copy such a failure here.
every single csm member, even the most useless and most virulently opposed to goonswarm, have admitted that no goonswarm member who has been elected to the csm has ever done this, and have repeatedly championed issues that would help the game but hurt goonswar,
Its almost as if Goonswarm is an alliance of smart people who all vote for other smart people because they have good ideas.
Perhaps instead of regional constituencies we should do IQ constituencies. I mean there are really really stupid people who play Eve and we can't have them underrepresented on the CSM. |
Hrald
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:22:00 -
[816] - Quote
I miss CSM 6.
the_mittromney 2013 |
Kylana Haginen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:31:00 -
[817] - Quote
Align Planet1 wrote:"In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost 'undervotes', coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate."
The logic of this argument is appalling. No one is disenfranchised when his or her vote is counted, and is given the same weight as every other individual vote. Whether the particular candidate wins or loses is immaterial to the question of enfranchisement: the analysis begins and ends with the voting power of the individual relative to other individuals.
That groups of individuals may choose to organize to elect a particular candidate is also immaterial to the question of enfranchisement. Punishing such groups for leveraging their organizational capacity only reduces the political clout of the individuals within the organization.
The CSM proposes to address the potential for manipulating the current voting system by implementing a system that is at once obtuse and unnecessarily complicated, and thus even more prone to manipulation. That's absurd.
No man, 48% of American voters were disenfranchised in the 2008 election because their guy didn't win. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:51:00 -
[818] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: After all, CSM is not intended to be a voting body, in of itself, and the CSM should not be allowed to internally prioritize issues presented to CCP, according to the private agendas of specific CSM members. The lobbyist and political party system doesn't work all that well in the US, with regards to optimally and efficiently prioritizing government resources, according to the benefit of the US population as a whole - I don't see why we, or CCP, would want to copy such a failure here.
every single csm member, even the most useless and most virulently opposed to goonswarm, have admitted that no goonswarm member who has been elected to the csm has ever done this, and have repeatedly championed issues that would help the game but hurt goonswar, I don't believe that I said that they did.
In fact, I think TheMittani did a fine job of representing not just null-sec issues, but several other neglected issues, as well. I, too, voted for him, in the last election because of this.
However, I don't think that all CSM members can be said to be as broad-minded. Some have specifically stated that they are on the CSM to solely represent their "constituency". One seat per constituency is ok; multiple or all seats from one constituency - not so good. |
digi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
156
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:21:00 -
[819] - Quote
Thread still useless, CSM still useless.
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
370
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:23:00 -
[820] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: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. Yes, the highsec miners got Issler. Remember what happened when we shot the tower, and harvested the tears?
You guys hiring another alliance to destroy low sec towers -- because you couldn't be bothered -- doesn't have much to do with Issler representing mining though, does it? It has little to do with any voting reform either.
|
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:26:00 -
[821] - Quote
Gonna fullquote a post from the other thread here because it's relevant:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:we've got a specific beef with the "nerf goons" plank of the discussion and the only engagement on the merits we've gotten is one treborpost and some vauge discussion by hans where he doesn't take much of a position As far as I'm aware, the only CSM who hasn't accepted that the "nerf goons" aspect of the proposal is not a good idea during the course of the related threads is the person who posted it. Unwilling to accept victory, then calls became "while it's still there, edit it!" which I'd be happy to oblige A. If i had Trebors log in and B. If I thought it'd actually help anything. Hans has spent the better part of 8 pages trying to be the bigger man and easily 50% of replies are still ad hominem attacks, straw men, or just repeating "**** goons" over and over as if a significant portion of the CSM is still standing behind it. It's time to realize: they're not. I'm not. Hans isn't. Seleene isn't. Two Step isn't. Dovi isn't. The list goes on. By any objective standard Goons have "won" but Goonrushing past the endzone isn't much of a peace plan. Saying nothing needs to be changed is a perfectly legitimate piece of feedback. I don't wholely agree, I think there's somethings we could do better at. Having a smaller field of strong candidates so voters aren't flooded with choice by joke candidates is one area (which may help improve diversity, improve quality of elected councils, and increase voter turn out) and better handling a "Mitannigate" situation where an elected CSM can't take office, specifically. None of those have anything to do with "**** goons." I don't have the ability to edit posts Trebor makes, in the CSM's name or otherwise. Neither does Hans or anyone else. If you are mad at Trebor because he won't retroactively go back and wipe that line from his OP, be mad. But, at least in my mind, the issue is closed and that concept is a non-starter. I am fairly certain the overwhelming majority of the CSM would share that view at this point. I don't see how his post still existing is a legitimate reason to completely shout down any discussion about other areas of disagreement or potential improvements in how we elect our CSMs or treating like **** CSM like Hans who are trying to talk in good faith. I was, am, and will be dismissive and flippant about those that continue on shouting when the "other side" has already conceded the point. Hans is a lot more patient than I am in that regard, actually engaging with people and doing his best to pick out the sensible comments amid a sea of trolling. Even Seleene took time out of dealing with his RL to try to reengage this discussion with a good starting point and talk reasonably with people seeing red. They are both still getting **** on, and posters like Poetic wonder why other CSM aren't lining up to speak. To quote Rainbow Dash: "Yeah, it's a mystery." So the only person on the CSM who still wants the fuckgoons clause is Trebor, everyone else is now recanting it. Progress! |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
838
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:32:00 -
[822] - Quote
digi wrote:Thread still useless, CSM still useless.
It is so nice to hear from a member so Goonswarm that does not care about the CSM altering the voting mechanics.
As to the rest of the members of Goonswarm in this thread, you complain a lot when some one other than you threatens to game the system and this is not even that it is more about making minorities, minorities. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:36:00 -
[823] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote: The CFC has never held 3 seats, nor could we.
I wasn't responding to any statement - true or otherwise - by Trebor, but to this quote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:Expect at least 3 of us in CSM8, maybe more.
EvilweaselFinance wrote:If we have qualified people we want to put up for election, we have as much right to have them compete for votes on a level playing field with everyone else. I wasn't arguing against anyone's right to compete for votes. I am arguing for a broader spectrum representation of the playerbase. Given the limited number of CSM seats, I believe that they do need to be allocated to specific areas/issues, candidates need to run for a specific seat, and that attempts to fill the CSM with a singular POV need to be deterred.
For example, I don't disagree that null sec has issues that are of high priority to null sec players, and that such issues need to be presented to CCP, again and again, until they get fixed. However, there are many other areas and aspects of the game which also deserve to be represented within the CSM and presented to CCP, and cannot be best represented by a null sec centric PVP player. Such as high sec mining - I don't know of any null sec PVP players who currently belong to a high sec mining fleet, except possibly as a spy. If CCP proposes to fix mining, then I'd like to see a full-time miner on the CSM, vetting those proposed changes, rather than two null sec experts/proponents, who happen to think that mining is the most boring thing in the game (which it is, IMO).
And, just out of curiousity, how many of the current CSM members do regularly fly the mining barges and exhumers which were changed in the last patch? I know that the devs don't fly them. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1159
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:38:00 -
[824] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:So the only person on the CSM who still wants the fuckgoons clause is Trebor, everyone else is now recanting it. Progress! It is too bad Trebor has decided not to run for CSM again. He won't know crushing defeat.
Caldari Militia |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 02:39:00 -
[825] - Quote
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. |
Kaleb Rysode
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 03:21:00 -
[826] - Quote
digi wrote:Thread still useless, CSM still useless.
Digi bad posting...Digi still badposting. "The reality is that the sandbox is amoral. You don't have to like it, but...reality owns." |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
731
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 03:57:00 -
[827] - Quote
threadnought, threadnought, You can do it. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1465
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 04:07:00 -
[828] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: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. That would be interesting. Wouldn't be good though, if it appears a majority of the players seem to not want a CSM (or at least a CSM consisting of any of the candidates presented). Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Ghazu
157
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 04:10:00 -
[829] - Quote
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. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1465
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 04:12:00 -
[830] - Quote
Ghazu wrote: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. And here I was going to make some horrible bad taste joke about XXYY not included in the barbie set. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
Trendon Evenstar
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 05:15:00 -
[831] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons.
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. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 05:39:00 -
[832] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: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. That would be interesting. Wouldn't be good though, if it appears a majority of the players seem to not want a CSM (or at least a CSM consisting of any of the candidates presented). lol... that is sort of the point I was trying to make, after following this thread ... :)
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 05:48:00 -
[833] - Quote
Trendon Evenstar wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons. 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. 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.... |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1692
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 06:32:00 -
[834] - Quote
alex jones listener alert |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
839
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 06:38:00 -
[835] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Trendon Evenstar wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons. 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. 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.... Yes I confess I am a goon alt
But seriously, yes the goons do need to be the center of the universe which is why such a small number of players make so much noise and now a website too, whats next Goonswarm the cereal Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
832
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 06:39:00 -
[836] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As to the rest of the members of Goonswarm in this thread, you complain a lot when some one other than you threatens to game the system and this is not even that it is more about making minorities, minorities.
The dismissive way that you refer to 'minorities' and the indifference you show towards disenfranchising them is very telling. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
839
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 06:39:00 -
[837] - Quote
Trendon Evenstar wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:What's interesting about this thread, is that I think the CSM expected an outpouring of support for this proposal from the anti-Goon crowd (which usually seems substantial), yet where are they? Is there any support for the CSM's proposal in this thread? Maybe it can be assumed that even the anti-Goon crowd believes this to be a bad idea. The anti-Goon crowd has never not taken an opportunity to sh*t on Goons. 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. Actually I hate to break your illusions but Goonswarm as an Alliance, I could take or leave but you do swallow bait really well on the forums. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
839
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 06:52:00 -
[838] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As to the rest of the members of Goonswarm in this thread, you complain a lot when some one other than you threatens to game the system and this is not even that it is more about making minorities, minorities. The dismissive way that you refer to 'minorities' and the indifference you show towards disenfranchising them is very telling. Oh good to see we are up to the disenfranchising catch phrase.
So
Wikipedia wrote: 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.
So in the last CSM election 59,109 Accounts voted and only 34238 accounts were counted towards the candidates with 24,871 voters Disfranchised.
Yeah so the voting system you so want to keep because it is good for your minority while 42% of the voters where disfranchised in the last election.
But Goonswarm and Test member complain because things might be set to a fashion that is not so much in the way of their favour. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
1468
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 07:31:00 -
[839] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:But Goonswarm and Test member complain because things might be set to a fashion that is not so much in the way of their favour. 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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
839
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 08:17:00 -
[840] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:But Goonswarm and Test member complain because things might be set to a fashion that is not so much in the way of their favour. 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. So you admit fully that the problem with the proposed mechanic is Goonswarm. A few pages ago I suggested a different system might you tell me how you would game that?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1902106#post1902106 Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Konrad Kane
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 08:19:00 -
[841] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: So in the last CSM election 59,109 Accounts voted and only 34238 accounts were counted towards the candidates with 14813 voters Disfranchised.
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?
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
839
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 08:32:00 -
[842] - Quote
Konrad Kane wrote:Frying Doom wrote: So in the last CSM election 59,109 Accounts voted and only 34238 accounts were counted towards the candidates with 14813 voters Disfranchised.
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? Maybe you should have read the top of the post as well I was responding to someone
Frying Doom wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As to the rest of the members of Goonswarm in this thread, you complain a lot when some one other than you threatens to game the system and this is not even that it is more about making minorities, minorities. The dismissive way that you refer to 'minorities' and the indifference you show towards disenfranchising them is very telling. Oh good to see we are up to the disenfranchising catch phrase. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
839
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 08:34:00 -
[843] - Quote
Actually All the CSM need to do if look at current voting systems and pick the best one, maybe that it is what we currently have maybe it is lower candidates passing their votes to one person.
But the main aim needs to be More people voting and a in window system like Poetic suggested. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
342
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 09:22:00 -
[844] - Quote
Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The large alliances dominate CSM spots because they are the main drivers of voter turnout.
Tell them that motivating their members to vote is not worth the trouble and your turnout will drop like a stone - and this will not only make for extremely bad PR, it will also affect the mandate of the CSM as a whole. I'm a NPC corp alt, any argument I make is invalid. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 10:41:00 -
[845] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Well this thread is just another super whine maybe it needs moving to GD to go with the rest. But any way here is what I propose for future elections
- 1 Vote per account
- Candidates may select 1 candidate to receive their votes if they are knocked out using the lowest number of votes as a starting point and working up
- Only the votes received by a candidate may be passed on if elimination occurs.
- A fee of 2 Billion is is required for registration as a candidate
- Voting buttons as Per Poetic Stanziel suggested "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, each with a short candidate-written summary of their platform."
- Advertising in splash banners should start ASAP telling people what the CSM is and what it does.
- Update the "What is the CSM" page.
- In the case of disqualification, those people who voted for the candidate are subject to there votes disappearing down a black hole.
- Dev blogs like the winter expansion should have by lines acknowledging the work of the CSM.
- The CSM should continue it's wonderful transparency and communication with the playerbase.
These changes will effective make the number of votes required for lowest seats higher. They will also lessen the chance of joke candidates, as these people are supposed to be knowledgeable in the game and if they can not come up with a measly 2 Billion isk then they probably do not know how to play the game well enough. It will increase voter participation lessening the effect of minorities It will increase the CSMs profile within the player community. These are my suggestions but at the end of the day it is the CSMs job to decide for them selves what system they want to put into place. This is one of the tings they were voted in to do. Good luck and thank you for your hard work.
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
|
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P C C P Alliance
255
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 11:03:00 -
[846] - Quote
I've put up a new thread here regarding this.
Thank you all for this lively discussion and I appreciate the effort you've put into this. CCP Xhagen | Senior Researcher CSM Project Manager
|
|
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
565
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 11:28:00 -
[847] - Quote
No matter which voting system is used, interested enough to vote, organized voting will always beat not interested non voters, and quite rightly so. You want fries with that? |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
839
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 12:38:00 -
[848] - Quote
serras bang wrote:
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
As this thread has moved on I will make this quick.
There is no voter creation so yes the blocs might catch a few more votes via this system but not many while a lot of the 24% whos votes were lost would count, so as I said the ability for a candidate to pass his votes to 1 other candidate would just increase the minimum number needed.
As to the 2 Billion, I would be worried if someone who wants on the CSM cannot easily come up with that small amount. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 16:49:00 -
[849] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As to the rest of the members of Goonswarm in this thread, you complain a lot when some one other than you threatens to game the system and this is not even that it is more about making minorities, minorities. The dismissive way that you refer to 'minorities' and the indifference you show towards disenfranchising them is very telling. Oh good to see we are up to the disenfranchising catch phrase. So Wikipedia wrote: 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.
So in the last CSM election 59,109 Accounts voted and only 34238 accounts were counted towards the candidates with 14813 voters Disfranchised. Yeah so the voting system you so want to keep because it is good for your minority while 24% of the voters where disfranchised in the last election. But Goonswarm and Test member complain because things might be set to a fashion that is not so much in the way of their favour.
|
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
572
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 10:44:00 -
[850] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: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. The reality mindedd will observe that it's a failure on both accounts. All the goons are here (and not enough of the ***goons), and now all of us are aware of this. CSM7 may be many things, but skilled in political scheming they are not.
No disrespect intended, but, mittens, good at politics?
Any half decent 'politican' would not have thrown away some 10,000 votes.
Damn good CSM chappie though. You want fries with that? |
|
Lord Zim
1485
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 11:11:00 -
[851] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:No disrespect intended, but, mittens, good at politics?
Any half decent 'politican' would not have thrown away some 10,000 votes. I think erasing someone's deeds because of one mistake is a mistake. |
Theosis Kraton
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 15:54:00 -
[852] - Quote
The system proposed by CCP is actually known as modified d'Hondt. It combines the worst features of the d'Hondt system with STV and returns incomprehensible results.
It was used for 2 elections for the legislative assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. It was a plain unmitigated disaster. It was gamed extensively, took literally months to count and produced a hopelessly unrepresentative assembly. The one area that CCP departs from modified d'Hondt is that candidates instead of voters determine the preferences, a feature which projects CD-STV into the wilder reaches of electoral reform.
There are a number of off the shelf STV programs available and a number of organisations which will happily conduct genuine STV elections, the Australian Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society in the UK are 2 examples. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, with the cool new feature of being square instead of round, can I suggest that the solution is to buy an off the shelf program or use an organisation.
I have counted some quite large STV elections using paper ballots and I have drafted regulations for use with SRV elections. Obviously that is not an option here, but there are reasons that STV takes the form it does and departing from that form does not give happy results. |
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 21:31:00 -
[853] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Jake Rivers wrote:Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP. Name em?
Well Alex right off the bat we have the overview which has some serious problems. The #1 thing that gets me all the time is the standings that get screwed up. Blues should not be showing up as neutrals, and when you are in a fleet engagement this is a real pain in the ass. But sometimes its just a minor engagement, and unless the person's name jumps out at you, its shoot first and ask questions later.
Then sometimes the modules freeze, and you have to move them to another location to get them working again, although this is not always a surefire way to fix the problem, and a session change is needed. A common problem for myself is clicking off the siege cycle on my dread and sometimes the button will stay green, but the timer stops, and there is always someone in fleet going on about modules not working.
There are a bunch of other minor issues with overview/ui but those 2 above are the ones I run into the most when playing, and I would think more fuss would be raised about this.
Personally, I would like to be able to vote for more than one candidate at a time, and think being able to vote on 1/3rd or 1/2 of the total CSM panel would be great, but it sure the hell isn't as pressing an issue as game play is.
Senex Legio Recruiter Team |
Sinead Arzi
The Vendunari End of Life
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 23:31:00 -
[854] - Quote
Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV
what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.
STV sucks
in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM.
|
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 02:10:00 -
[855] - Quote
Sinead Arzi wrote:Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV
what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.
STV sucks
in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM.
As opposed to the current... oh nevermind...
CSM7 Skype Leak
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4605
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 10:25:00 -
[856] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:Sinead Arzi wrote:Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV
what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.
STV sucks
in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM.
As opposed to the current... oh nevermind...
The trouble with freedom and democracy is that people don't always do what you think they ought to or vote for who you think would be best.
I suggest that the classical solution, which is to ~Deal with it~, is still the best. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 13:53:00 -
[857] - Quote
Theosis Kraton wrote: There are a number of off the shelf STV programs available and a number of organisations which will happily conduct genuine STV elections, the Australian Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society in the UK are 2 examples. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, with the cool new feature of being square instead of round, can I suggest that the solution is to buy an off the shelf program or use an organisation.
This is not a new problem. I'm not sure why CCP and subscribers feel they have to solve it themselves. The question we should be asking is what existing organisation do we trust to count our votes and how much do they charge for the service.
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
376
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 12:46:00 -
[858] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Over the past few CSM elections, it has become increasingly clear that the simple "vote for one candidate" election system should be revisited in the hopes of finding a system that produces a CSM that better represents the electorate (ie: those members of the community who care enough to vote). In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost "undervotes", coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate. Since it is in everyone's long-term interest for the CSM to broadly represent the electorate, a strong case can be made that the election system should be reformed. CSM elections should not only be fair, but should be seen to be fair. This posting is the first step in that process, and it is our hope that it will spark a serious discussion of the topic and provide the CSM with community guidance as we solidify our recommendations to CCP. Goals of a Reformed SystemIt has been mathematically proven that there is no perfect voting system. However, "The perfect is the enemy of the good", and there are many election systems that are clearly better than the current one. The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum: 1) Be easy to implement (by CCP), use (by the voters) and permit public verification of the results given the published raw vote totals. 2) Reduce the need for tactical voting ("I like A better than B, but I have to vote for B because I think she's more electable"). This is typically done by reallocating votes cast for candidates that are eliminated from the election to other candidates, thus reducing or eliminating undervotes. 3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM. Below we present one possible system that attempts to meet the above goals. We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement. Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable VoteThe most common "better" election system is Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Typically in STV systems, voters rank the candidates (or some subset of them) in order of preference, and if their first candidate is eliminated from the election, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on. However, standard STV systems do not meet our first goal. Implementing classic STV would require significant work by CCP to update the system, would require extra effort by voters (which would tend to favor highly organized groups), and may not be publicly verifiable. Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote. In this system, voters vote for a single candidate, just as they do now. However, each candidate publicly states which other candidates they want their votes to be transferred to if they are eliminated from the election. CD-STV, while not providing the full spectrum of choice that STV does, does meet all the goals. The amount of work CCP will have to do to implement it is small (listing the candidates' preferences on their profile and voting page), it is no more difficult to use than at present, and anyone can run the raw vote totals through an election simulator. The Nitty-Gritty: Currently, once the final list of approved candidates is published by CSM, there is a 2 week campaign period before voting starts. In the new system, candidates will have to disclose to CCP and publish in the first post of their campaign thread and on any campaign websites who their preferred alternate candidates are before the end of the first week. After that, they are locked in and cannot be changed -- thus there will be a week for voters to comment on these choices and decide how best to allocate their votes (troll and feeder candidates will be fairly obvious). Candidates should specify somewhere between 3 and 6 alternates in order of their preference (their "preferences"), so that if one or more of their preferred candidates has already been elected or knocked out, their votes will not be wasted. On the actual voting page, there would be a list of the alternate candidates so that when actually voting, people will know where their vote will go. The determination of the results is straightforward: In each round: * If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round) * If this does not happen, then the bottom candidate is eliminated, and her votes are reallocated to the topmost candidate in her preference list that is still in the race. This process continues until everyone has either been elected or eliminated, at which point we have our rankings.
if I could anti-like posts this would get it. No, no no. Making the voting system more convoluted and dumb (and lets face it, massively biased in favour of certain individuals) is a terrible idea. One vote used for a single candidate is simple and effective. Deal with it. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1479
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 02:51:00 -
[859] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:Sinead Arzi wrote:Sadly the Irish political voting system is based on STV
what it results in is more n more clowns getting in to government because of STV and look at the state of the irish economy :(.
STV sucks
in eve STV would just see more n more clowns getting into CSM. As opposed to the current... oh nevermind... Imagine if they were all like ... a miners' friend and a WiS person with a weird way to thinking about how humans interact. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Prince Kobol
618
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:40:00 -
[860] - Quote
Here is an idea, how about you concrete on finding out why the what, 85% is it, of the Eve population who actually doesn't give a flying **** about the CSM and don't vote, why they don't.
Once you accomplish this and maybe say half that figure then the issue of block voting will most likely become much less of an issue as many more eve players who are not part of those coalitions will be voting.
I say this knowing that the CSM will most likely never tackle this problem head on as it would mean they would find it much more difficult to be re-elected which after all is what this is all about.
It has nothing to do with making the voting system fairer or helping the "disenfranchise voter". It is simply a way to further help to ensure that certain CSM members get re-elected so they continue on their little power trips and feel more important then everyone else.
Whilst I am not a goon and have no particular feelings towards kittens, I have to admit that when he was chairman of the CSM they certainly appeared to accomplish a lot more then any other CSM and there was a lot more game issues discussed then pointless threads like this one.
As I said before, instead of trying to pass this off as a discussion on making the voting system fairer, trying finding out why approx 85% of Eve players don't vote and get that number down.
Once you have accomplished this then take another look at the voting system and see if it needs changing. |
|
Lilli Tane
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:40:00 -
[861] - Quote
So let me try to rationalize thisGǪ We now have a system were each voter, vote for their chosen candidate, (it doesnGÇÖt matter how they did the choice, maybe the candidate offered cookies, or ships or whatever), and, in the end the X people whit more votes get the X available seats.
In my book that is the candidates chosen by the majority of the voters.
And you what to change to a system were, the people that gets the least votes can get a chair instead of the people whit the most votes, by accumulation of votes that were not on himself?
So if candidate A gets 10.000 votes he will lose to candidate B that had 5.000 and accumulated the 4.000 of candidate C and the 2.000 of candidate D. What? Sorry I fail to understand the fairness of that.
Want a fair and democratic voting system, here it goes. Each active account is allowed to one vote. (You can set a time for how long that account has to be active prior to the voting) In the end you count the number of votes each candidate had. The most voted candidate becomes the chairman. The X most voted candidates get the X remaining seats (replace the X for the number of seats) In the event of something happen to the chairman, his replaced in order of most voted by the next candidate.
HumGǪ this is what we are already doing, right?
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
614
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:54:00 -
[862] - Quote
Ultimately its ccps game and they can account for this themselves.
They can consider the way a candidate came to be elected in how much weight they give to that candidates ideas.
If a candidate was elected by a bunch of mindless drones who don't really know any of the issues, but were just told to elect their in game CEO, then I think CCP can weigh that when they talk to the person.
Somone else who runs on actual ideas for the game and is elected by players who are informed about the ideas and support them based on that instead of what alliance they happen to belong to can be given greater weight by ccp.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Pipa Porto
971
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:27:00 -
[863] - Quote
In the US, we generally call the idea of Candidates directing their votes after they lose "The Corrupt Bargain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824
This ****** idea is bringing up issues that the US last dealt with almost 200 years ago and is proposing to institutionalize the thing that was deemed "corrupt" when it happened. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mars Theran
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:57:00 -
[864] - Quote
Isn't the single major problem with transferable votes cast by candidates, the fact that you can have 15 candidates who all enter and cast there votes to each other to guarantee a higher majority vote for one of them? Maybe I was actually sleeping in front of my computer and dreamed I posted. Certainly, it's not there now. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
852
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 20:45:00 -
[865] - Quote
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". Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1509
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:25:00 -
[866] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote: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". Wrong. Now CCP needs to buff freighters, or better yet just nerf ganking.
Again. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Prince Kobol
620
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 14:50:00 -
[867] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote: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".
Whilst there is some truth to this when you look at the numbers its not just HS dwellers who are not voting.
For what ever reason the vast majority of Eve players appear to have no interest in the CSM.
I am sure that the reasons are varied and people will speculate what those reasons are but until CCP actually do something to find out we can not know for sure.
What I would like to see is CCP send out a survey as they do anyway, asking people what their opinion of the CSM is, if they vote and there reasons why do / do not
Maybe then we can have a proper discussion with some facts instead of conjecture.
|
Shantetha
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 03:01:00 -
[868] - Quote
Personally i would like to vote for the 7 candidates that i think would be good for the council, i have varied interests in the game and no single candidate covers all of those interests. If everyone votes for who they think would make the best council in the game, then we might actually see a more diverse council with slightly less bloc control. Plus people wouldn't feel as disenfranchised when choosing someone they like vs someone who actually has the in-game clout to get elected based on the popularity contest/bloc backing stuff.
Also accounts should be force upon logging on during voting time to either pick their 7 candidates or choose "i abstain from the vote" via the login screen rather then signing onto the website. But that requires extra CCP work and they might not want to do that just yet.(especially since the discussion appears to be CCP effort neutral changes)
I do like the idea of CCP doing a quick survey to all accounts of
- did you vote in the last CSM election? Y|N
- why did you choose that way {comment box}
- what would make you more likely to vote in the CSM election {comment box}
- would you prefer voting for each of the 7 primary seats of the CSM or 1 single candidate as it is current? {A|B}
- any other suggestions/thoughts/feelings {comment box}
Then make the active CSM tally the survey and release the data on fourms/newsfeed/cq screen and then have a community discussion AMA on eve-radio.. which again would be publicized on the log in news feed. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
866
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:16:00 -
[869] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:What I would like to see is CCP send out a survey as they do anyway, asking people what their opinion of the CSM is, if they vote and there reasons why do / do not The people who can't be bothered to vote for the CSM and will ignore all publicity and prompting to do so are exactly the same people who wouldn't be bothered to participate in a survey about it.
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Borisk Zeltsh
Alcohlics Anonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:47:00 -
[870] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Here is an idea, how about you concrete on finding out why the what, 85% is it, of the Eve population who actually doesn't give a flying **** about the CSM and don't vote, why they don't.
Once you accomplish this and maybe say half that figure then the issue of block voting will most likely become much less of an issue as many more eve players who are not part of those coalitions will be voting.
I say this knowing that the CSM will most likely never tackle this problem head on as it would mean they would find it much more difficult to be re-elected which after all is what this is all about.
It has nothing to do with making the voting system fairer or helping the "disenfranchise voter". It is simply a way to further help to ensure that certain CSM members get re-elected so they continue on their little power trips and feel more important then everyone else.
Whilst I am not a goon and have no particular feelings towards kittens, I have to admit that when he was chairman of the CSM they certainly appeared to accomplish a lot more then any other CSM and there was a lot more game issues discussed then pointless threads like this one.
As I said before, instead of trying to pass this off as a discussion on making the voting system fairer, trying finding out why approx 85% of Eve players don't vote and get that number down.
Once you have accomplished this then take another look at the voting system and see if it needs changing.
Why 85% dont vote? maybe becouse couldnt give a fu#k just want log in kill **** or wotever els they do in game and cant be botherd with eve politics same resone most ppl dont go 0.0 and become sheep |
|
Pipa Porto
1021
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:50:00 -
[871] - Quote
Borisk Zeltsh wrote:Why 85% dont vote? maybe becouse couldnt give a fu#k just want log in kill **** or wotever els they do in game and cant be botherd with eve politics same resone most ppl dont go 0.0 and become sheep
Great. Then don't complain when the CSM doesn't do what you like. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Borisk Zeltsh
Alcohlics Anonymous
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:45:00 -
[872] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Borisk Zeltsh wrote:Why 85% dont vote? maybe becouse couldnt give a fu#k just want log in kill **** or wotever els they do in game and cant be botherd with eve politics same resone most ppl dont go 0.0 and become sheep Great. Then don't complain when the CSM doesn't do what you like.
who's complaining?
have seen many many nurfs in my 6-7 years of eve not all good nurfs eaither but just adapt move on
so who's complaining
i do think sentry gun chang would kill small pvp in lo-sec becouse most fights in lo-sec happen at gates
but if it changes il just adapt do somthing els
ccp change things in game all time and mostly do it blind eve is still in Beta and we are the tester's |
Pipa Porto
1051
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:59:00 -
[873] - Quote
Borisk Zeltsh wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Borisk Zeltsh wrote:Why 85% dont vote? maybe becouse couldnt give a fu#k just want log in kill **** or wotever els they do in game and cant be botherd with eve politics same resone most ppl dont go 0.0 and become sheep Great. Then don't complain when the CSM doesn't do what you like. who's complaining?
If you're not, great.
There are a number of very loud posters who proudly boast that they didn't vote when they complain about the activities of the CSM. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
757
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 04:16:00 -
[874] - Quote
^ And thats me I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Prince Kobol
621
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 07:12:00 -
[875] - Quote
If you really want to change the voting system then how about this
********Disclaimer*********
I am fully aware that I will flamed to Hell and Back but this is something I would actually support
****************************
I would keep the CSM but remove the whole voting for candidates.
Instead I would have say the 10 largest Alliance each put forward 1 Candidate with 1 Assistant and make the CSM up with that.
Why?
Well the most 2 important things for me anyway is that these alliances will actually care a great deal about how the game is developed,and will have a very good understanding how the game mechanics work.
|
Pipa Porto
1060
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 07:35:00 -
[876] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:If you really want to change the voting system then how about this
********Disclaimer*********
I am fully aware that I will flamed to Hell and Back but this is something I would actually support
****************************
I would keep the CSM but remove the whole voting for candidates.
Instead I would have say the 10 largest Alliance each put forward 1 Candidate with 1 Assistant and make the CSM up with that.
Why?
Well the most 2 important things for me anyway is that these alliances will actually care a great deal about how the game is developed,and will have a very good understanding how the game mechanics work.
The only problems I see with that are:
They won't necessarily know about WH mechanics, as not all alliances have WH wings.
HS people will whine despite likely being better represented.
It's undemocratic (of course, as this is an advisory, rather than parliamentary body, that may not be a problem). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Lord Zim
1553
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 07:36:00 -
[877] - Quote
~rabble rabble rabble nullsec-dominated CSM rabble rabble rabble~ Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Prince Kobol
621
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 09:47:00 -
[878] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:If you really want to change the voting system then how about this
********Disclaimer*********
I am fully aware that I will flamed to Hell and Back but this is something I would actually support
****************************
I would keep the CSM but remove the whole voting for candidates.
Instead I would have say the 10 largest Alliance each put forward 1 Candidate with 1 Assistant and make the CSM up with that.
Why?
Well the most 2 important things for me anyway is that these alliances will actually care a great deal about how the game is developed,and will have a very good understanding how the game mechanics work. The only problems I see with that are: They won't necessarily know about WH mechanics, as not all alliances have WH wings. HS people will whine despite likely being better represented. It's undemocratic (of course, as this is an advisory, rather than parliamentary body, that may not be a problem).
What a lot of people who have only ever lived HS need to realise is that if a lot of problems in null are fixed then by default HS will improve.
You can also argue that people have had years to put together a dedicated HS lobby group and have failed to do so.
You can solve the WH issue by simply inviting a couple of members for various well know WH Alliances / Corps.
Yes it undemocratic but I do not see the CSM as anything other as a advisory body anyway, so you might as well put people who have a good knowledge of all aspects of the game and a solid fundamental understanding of the game mechanicals in that advisory body.
|
Prince Kobol
621
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 09:50:00 -
[879] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:~rabble rabble rabble nullsec-dominated CSM rabble rabble rabble~
You know.. good as it is only the null sec alliances that have the knowledge required to advise CCP.,
I have no allegiances to any of the big Null sec entities yet even I can see that a advisory council made of of people in those alliances will be able to give better advice to CCP then somebody who has never lived out of HS. |
Pipa Porto
1068
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 10:08:00 -
[880] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:If you really want to change the voting system then how about this
********Disclaimer*********
I am fully aware that I will flamed to Hell and Back but this is something I would actually support
****************************
I would keep the CSM but remove the whole voting for candidates.
Instead I would have say the 10 largest Alliance each put forward 1 Candidate with 1 Assistant and make the CSM up with that.
Why?
Well the most 2 important things for me anyway is that these alliances will actually care a great deal about how the game is developed,and will have a very good understanding how the game mechanics work. The only problems I see with that are: They won't necessarily know about WH mechanics, as not all alliances have WH wings. HS people will whine despite likely being better represented. It's undemocratic (of course, as this is an advisory, rather than parliamentary body, that may not be a problem). What a lot of people who have only ever lived HS need to realise is that if a lot of problems in null are fixed then by default HS will improve. You can also argue that people have had years to put together a dedicated HS lobby group and have failed to do so. You can solve the WH issue by simply inviting a couple of members for various well know WH Alliances / Corps. Yes it undemocratic but I do not see the CSM as anything other as a advisory body anyway, so you might as well put people who have a good knowledge of all aspects of the game and a solid fundamental understanding of the game mechanicals in that advisory body.
Yes. That's about what I said. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Sunfang Armer
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 05:33:00 -
[881] - Quote
Call me a simple minded Brutor if that's your thing, but after reading all these... lets call them opinions, I am still wondering what the CSM actually is and does. I believe I can represent myself to a larger community better than someone who holds a mere "writ of passage" can, but I commend the effort to brainstorm with the voters and get them to do your job for you.
Also, why is it that all elected canadates seem to go into one all powerful ruling body *sniff, sniff* (I smell a despot!) rather than have a 2, 3 or 4 party system. Then people can vote for their party's elected ministers, 4 months later the ministers vote for a leader to represent them and 4 months after that is the CSM election. 4 months later, rinse and repeat.
Of course, the people are right and any system put in place will be gamed to the max. And since this is just a game, give the voters what they want. Hold a Battle Royale!!! :)(: |
Pipa Porto
1069
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:41:00 -
[882] - Quote
Sunfang Armer wrote:Call me a simple minded Brutor if that's your thing, but after reading all these... lets call them opinions, I am still wondering what the CSM actually is and does. I believe I can represent myself to a larger community better than someone who holds a mere "writ of passage" can, but I commend the effort to brainstorm with the voters and get them to do your job for you.
Also, why is it that all elected canadates seem to go into one all powerful ruling body *sniff, sniff* (I smell a despot!) rather than have a 2, 3 or 4 party system. Then people can vote for their party's elected ministers, 4 months later the ministers vote for a leader to represent them and 4 months after that is the CSM election. 4 months later, rinse and repeat.
Of course, the people are right and any system put in place will be gamed to the max. And since this is just a game, give the voters what they want. Hold a Battle Royale!!!
If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Sunfang Armer
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 18:58:00 -
[883] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power).
Well I won't correct you. But two major parties (eg: Red, Blue) and several independant parties would make an effective electoral roll. CSM could act as a neutral moderater rather than a glorified accountant sending/receiving "issues" to and from CCP and players. Plus, a player run EVE governmet (aka: intense headache) would be more interesting than a puppet council doing CCP's bidding, i'd imagine
:)(: |
Pipa Porto
1070
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:40:00 -
[884] - Quote
Sunfang Armer wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power). Well I won't correct you. But two major parties (eg: Red, Blue) and several independant parties would make an effective electoral roll. CSM could act as a neutral moderater rather than a glorified accountant sending/receiving "issues" to and from CCP and players. Plus, a player run EVE governmet (aka: intense headache) would be more interesting than a puppet council doing CCP's bidding, i'd imagine
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? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
867
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 03:11:00 -
[885] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Sunfang Armer wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power). Well I won't correct you. But two major parties (eg: Red, Blue) and several independant parties would make an effective electoral roll. CSM could act as a neutral moderater rather than a glorified accountant sending/receiving "issues" to and from CCP and players. Plus, a player run EVE governmet (aka: intense headache) would be more interesting than a puppet council doing CCP's bidding, i'd imagine 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? I hate to agree with you but yeah the main defining characteristics of all the CSM's has been a failure to guide CCP away from monumental mistakes and blunders. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
1071
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 03:20:00 -
[886] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I hate to agree with you but yeah the main defining characteristics of all the CSM's has been a failure to guide CCP away from monumental mistakes and blunders.
Difference being that previous CSMs were not consulted or ignored on the big blunders of their tenancy. This CSM endorsed them (wardecs, FW plexing). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
867
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 03:26:00 -
[887] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I hate to agree with you but yeah the main defining characteristics of all the CSM's has been a failure to guide CCP away from monumental mistakes and blunders. Difference being that previous CSMs were not consulted or ignored on the big blunders of their tenancy. This CSM endorsed them (wardecs, FW plexing). Both war decs and the FW stuff were born during CSM 6 but yeah we should have had more screaming about them especially the war decs as the system is completely useless now.
If I wanted to defend against a war dec now I would just save my isk and create alts with plex to gank targets, it is so much cheaper and better than the current dreg. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Sunfang Armer
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 08:59:00 -
[888] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: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.
Ahh! Now that cleared things up. Thanks for the intel :)(: |
Xenuria
Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet
605
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 22:50:00 -
[889] - Quote
In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order. Xenuria CSM 8 |
Pipa Porto
1087
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:39:00 -
[890] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.
In what way is it exploitable? The candidates who have the most support among the voting populace win. It you're unable to get those people already prepared to vote to vote for you, try convincing people who otherwise wouldn't vote to vote for you. Something like 80% of the server population is up for grabs... grab it.
Just because you got stomped doesn't mean that the advantage your opponents have, "Popularity," is an unfair one or an exploitative one. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Prince Kobol
621
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 11:03:00 -
[891] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.
I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable" |
Silk daShocka
Lawn Dart Industries
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 11:27:00 -
[892] - Quote
Just be rid of the CSM and use feedback from your actual players to make your decisions.
IS this too hard? Cause last I checked that's what every other video game production company does.
No matter how you reform the CSM the fact stands that the large alliances will always have a huge voting advantage since they will band together to elect someone. Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't band together to vote for someone, what I'm saying is that the small corporations, the solo player etc. aren't going to have equal representation due to the fact that they aren't all banding together to mass their votes on one candidate.
Either way I'm fairly certain that you won't be scrapping the CSM, but good luck on making it something that isn't a majority representing a minority. |
Lord Zim
1563
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 11:28:00 -
[893] - Quote
Silk daShocka wrote:Just be rid of the CSM and use feedback from your actual players to make your decisions. Incarna. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Silk daShocka
Lawn Dart Industries
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:17:00 -
[894] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Silk daShocka wrote:Just be rid of the CSM and use feedback from your actual players to make your decisions. Incarna.
Yeah what about it? Last I checked Incarna happened although there was a CSM existant at the time. The only reason CCP changed direction was cuz of the protest of the actual players, not some CSM protest. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
888
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:59:00 -
[895] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Xenuria wrote:In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order. I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable" He means that people keep voting for candidates other than Xenuria. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Prince Kobol
621
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:57:00 -
[896] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Xenuria wrote:In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order. I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable" He means that people keep voting for candidates other than Xenuria.
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 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1530
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 01:26:00 -
[897] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Xenuria wrote:In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order. I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable" He means that people keep voting for candidates other than Xenuria. 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 Now now, some people might have misclicked... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
1147
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 05:36:00 -
[898] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Now now, some people might have misclicked...
A Cat on the keyboard is a vote for Xenuria. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
612
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 21:24:00 -
[899] - Quote
Here's my opinion:
I like the CD-STV system, as suggested in Trebor's original statement.
1.) To all those advocating the Droop Counting System.... get real.... its terrible!!! Votes don't need to be "Maximized"!!! In short, leave overvotes alone --- Assume standard STV system, where players designate their own votes: How do you reassign overvotes fairly? For example, suppose Trebor received 1000k overvotes.... which of his 1000 voters' votes get reassigned? Is it random, is it a FIFO or LIFO system? And why does anyone get their votes reassigned?? Everyone that voted for trebor is getting their preferred candidate in, so their votes are perfectly placed!!!! --- Assuming CD-STV, and we have an easily gamed system. Imagine a voting block like the goons put all 10k votes into the Mitanni. He had X thousand overvotes, which will be transfered to elect his second, and then potentially third choice. Rather than voting for the best candidate, all votes for the Mitanni become a vote for his entire bloc, which allows extremely easy gaming of the system to maximize bloc-votes. People should be voting for individual candidates, NOT candidate GROUPS.
The concept of an overvotes being a wasted vote is just ridiculous!!!!! We're talking about candidate elections here (not party elections), and any system centered around min-maxing the votes is begging to be gamed!!!!
2.) Will this system enable the CSM to be gamed.... potentially... For example, if Goons split up their 10k votes amoung 5 candidates, all with the right alternate transfer list, they may have easily ended with an overshare of CSM members.... However, depending on the placement of the uncounted 15k votes (most of which probably were not Goons), its very hard to tell how much influence they would end up with. Pretending all the Mittani votes were goons (which they obviously weren't), even if they split up their votes perfectly, their 10k out of 60k votes should get them 1/6th of the council seats. I see absolutely no problems with that, and by NOT maximizing overvotes, maximzing the votes of a Bloc becomes much more difficult. This makes it harder to game the system, while still allowing voting blocks to ensure their own representation. |
Pipa Porto
1186
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:41:00 -
[900] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: --- Assume standard STV system, where players designate their own votes: How do you reassign overvotes fairly? For example, suppose Trebor received 1000k overvotes.... which of his 1000 voters' votes get reassigned? Is it random, is it a FIFO or LIFO system? And why does anyone get their votes reassigned?? Everyone that voted for trebor is getting their preferred candidate in, so their votes are perfectly placed!!!!
It's proportional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#Example
If the candidate has 1000 votes and the bar threshold is 900, the remaining 100 are reassigned in proportion to the second choices of all 1000 votes. At this point, there's no problem with having fractional votes assigned (as in, 1 guy has candidate Z as his 2nd choice, so candidate Z gets .1 vote assigned).
The point of reassigning votes is to better match the preferences of everyone. Not just people with minority held opinions. That's why you reassign surplus votes.
By the way, stop calling Trebor's terrible idea STV-anything. It's not. It's simply his attempt at disenfranchising his political opponents (as he said outright in his OP). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
411
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 10:53:00 -
[901] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: --- Assume standard STV system, where players designate their own votes: How do you reassign overvotes fairly? For example, suppose Trebor received 1000k overvotes.... which of his 1000 voters' votes get reassigned? Is it random, is it a FIFO or LIFO system? And why does anyone get their votes reassigned?? Everyone that voted for trebor is getting their preferred candidate in, so their votes are perfectly placed!!!!
It's proportional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#ExampleIf the candidate has 1000 votes and the bar threshold is 900, the remaining 100 are reassigned in proportion to the second choices of all 1000 votes. At this point, there's no problem with having fractional votes assigned (as in, 1 guy has candidate Z as his 2nd choice, so candidate Z gets .1 vote assigned). The point of reassigning votes is to better match the preferences of everyone. Not just people with minority held opinions. That's why you reassign surplus votes. By the way, stop calling Trebor's terrible idea STV-anything. It's not. It's simply his attempt at disenfranchising his political opponents (as he said outright in his OP).
It's classic STV-Mom-stop-the-bad-mens-voting-for-anyone-except-me-and-my-friends-mom-it's-only-fair |
Mikaila Penshar
Take it Deep
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 06:09:00 -
[902] - Quote
What about 'representational votes' , a sort of electoral college if you will... basing your vote's weight on the main sp toon of an account and where it is based out of.
High-Sec Low-Sec Null-Sec Worm Hole
There has to be some mathematical equation to equalize votes for sectors of space that have fewer people in them and thus less representation. Just guessing here but if high sec has the most active accounts followed by null then low then wh space
again just an example: High sec votes count at 1: 0.5 Null sec votes at 1: 0.75 Low sec votes at 1: 1 Worm Hole votes at 1: 1.25
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
962
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 06:33:00 -
[903] - Quote
Mikaila Penshar wrote:What about 'representational votes' , a sort of electoral college if you will... basing your vote's weight on the main sp toon of an account and where it is based out of.
High-Sec Low-Sec Null-Sec Worm Hole
There has to be some mathematical equation to equalize votes for sectors of space that have fewer people in them and thus less representation. Just guessing here but if high sec has the most active accounts followed by null then low then wh space
again just an example: High sec votes count at 1: 0.5 Null sec votes at 1: 0.75 Low sec votes at 1: 1 Worm Hole votes at 1: 1.25 Why should some votes be worth more than others, exactly? And what happens with characters who aren't simply based out of one area of the game? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Mikaila Penshar
Take it Deep
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:02:00 -
[904] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Mikaila Penshar wrote:What about 'representational votes' , a sort of electoral college if you will... basing your vote's weight on the main sp toon of an account and where it is based out of.
High-Sec Low-Sec Null-Sec Worm Hole
There has to be some mathematical equation to equalize votes for sectors of space that have fewer people in them and thus less representation. Just guessing here but if high sec has the most active accounts followed by null then low then wh space
again just an example: High sec votes count at 1: 0.5 Null sec votes at 1: 0.75 Low sec votes at 1: 1 Worm Hole votes at 1: 1.25 Why should some votes be worth more than others, exactly? And what happens with characters who aren't simply based out of one area of the game?
It's a different philosophy of representation- votes where there are many people should carry less weight so that those voters in lower population densities can also be heard. It does one thing- level the playing field. As for your second question- there will always be a place where one spends more time... it can be calculated. |
Lord Zim
1847
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:06:00 -
[905] - Quote
Yes, let's do that so the hisec pubbies can whine even harder about nullsec taking over the CSM.
Awesome idea. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4961
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:59:00 -
[906] - Quote
How about people just accept that there are no barriers whatsoever to voting, and pretty trivial barriers to entering the race, and consequently the result we get is the result that's desired by people who actually spend the 30 damb seconds required to vote, even if you personally think that result "isn't representative" of this sec or that sec or underpants gnomes?
In CSM 7, a prospective candidate needed less than 1% of the eligible votes to get elected to the CSM. If you can't get even one percent of the electorate to briefly twitch a finger in order to vote for you, then you might need to consider that, no matter how much you clothe yourself in the colors of "hi-sec" or "miners" or whatever else bandwagon you jumped on, you're simply not a candidate that people want representing them all that much.
Sorry if this fact hurts your precious e-feelings, but all the crying in the world for CCP to make it so that everyone wins and gets a prize won't change it. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Mikaila Penshar
Take it Deep
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:24:00 -
[907] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:How about people just accept that there are no barriers whatsoever to voting, and pretty trivial barriers to entering the race, and consequently the result we get is the result that's desired by people who actually spend the 30 damb seconds required to vote, even if you personally think that result "isn't representative" of this sec or that sec or underpants gnomes?
In CSM 7, a prospective candidate needed less than 1% of the eligible votes to get elected to the CSM. If you can't get even one percent of the electorate to briefly twitch a finger in order to vote for you, then you might need to consider that, no matter how much you clothe yourself in the colors of "hi-sec" or "miners" or whatever else bandwagon you jumped on, you're simply not a candidate that people want representing them all that much.
Sorry if this fact hurts your precious e-feelings, but all the crying in the world for CCP to make it so that everyone wins and gets a prize won't change it.
lotsawerdz...
thanks for adding to the discussion?
Um, this thread is a place to kick around ideas for revamping the election process, right? What did you add to this discussion... exactly nothing but lotsawerdz... the Fail is strong with you Malcanis |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2028
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:31:00 -
[908] - Quote
yeah wormhole votes need extra weight so that guys like two step, the person who received the most votes out of anyone on the current CSM, have a chance for being represented
good stuff |
Lord Zim
1850
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:32:00 -
[909] - Quote
Mikaila Penshar wrote:Um, this thread is a place to kick around ideas for revamping the election process, right? What did you add to this discussion... exactly nothing but lotsawerdz... Implying there's merit to the idea of revamping the election process.
Mikaila Penshar wrote:the Fail is strong with you Malcanis More often than not, whomever utters this phrase is the one "failing". Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4973
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:46:00 -
[910] - Quote
Mikaila Penshar wrote:Malcanis wrote:How about people just accept that there are no barriers whatsoever to voting, and pretty trivial barriers to entering the race, and consequently the result we get is the result that's desired by people who actually spend the 30 damb seconds required to vote, even if you personally think that result "isn't representative" of this sec or that sec or underpants gnomes?
In CSM 7, a prospective candidate needed less than 1% of the eligible votes to get elected to the CSM. If you can't get even one percent of the electorate to briefly twitch a finger in order to vote for you, then you might need to consider that, no matter how much you clothe yourself in the colors of "hi-sec" or "miners" or whatever else bandwagon you jumped on, you're simply not a candidate that people want representing them all that much.
Sorry if this fact hurts your precious e-feelings, but all the crying in the world for CCP to make it so that everyone wins and gets a prize won't change it. lotsawerdz... thanks for adding to the discussion? Um, this thread is a place to kick around ideas for revamping the election process, right? What did you add to this discussion... exactly nothing but lotsawerdz... the Fail is strong with you Malcanis
My "idea" is that the current system is already pretty good, with it's only failing that it doesnt produce the results that some people feel they're entitled to. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
|
Prince Kobol
631
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:48:00 -
[911] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Yes, let's do that so the hisec pubbies can whine even harder about nullsec taking over the CSM.
Awesome idea.
Thing is.. nullsec already control the CSM and have done for a long long time and for good reason, they are the only group of players who actually really do care about Eve.
If other players outside of null sec alliances cared then they would of formed some sort of group, so far in they haven't. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4974
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:10:00 -
[912] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote: the top 10 Alliances in Eve
Defined by what metric? Members? Sov systems? Killboard stats? NPCs killed? How blue they are to me?
How about we just let players choose who they want to represent them by a free and anonymous vote, and make it so there's enough representative positions that even fairly small minorities can be represented if they're sufficiently motivated.
Well, job done! MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Lord Zim
1851
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:36:00 -
[913] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: the top 10 Alliances in Eve Defined by what metric? Members? Sov systems? Killboard stats? NPCs killed? How blue they are to me? Make the metrics for CSM memberships the number of macks and orcas killed. It'll be awesome during election months. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Prince Kobol
631
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:23:00 -
[914] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: the top 10 Alliances in Eve Defined by what metric? Members? Sov systems? Killboard stats? NPCs killed? How blue they are to me? Make the metrics for CSM memberships the number of macks and orcas killed. It'll be awesome during election months.
Damn that would be funny :) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4978
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 14:57:00 -
[915] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: the top 10 Alliances in Eve Defined by what metric? Members? Sov systems? Killboard stats? NPCs killed? How blue they are to me? Make the metrics for CSM memberships the number of macks and orcas killed. It'll be awesome during election months.
Your transparent attempt to disenfranchise the freighter ganking community has fooled no-one. Why do you hate democracy so much? MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Lord Zim
1851
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:09:00 -
[916] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: the top 10 Alliances in Eve Defined by what metric? Members? Sov systems? Killboard stats? NPCs killed? How blue they are to me? Make the metrics for CSM memberships the number of macks and orcas killed. It'll be awesome during election months. Your transparent attempt to disenfranchise the freighter ganking community has fooled no-one. Why do you hate democracy so much? I cannot possibly be asked to support such a huge isk sink as freighter ganking. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Mikaila Penshar
Take it Deep
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:19:00 -
[917] - Quote
NEW IDEA.... just for sh!ts and giggles... current CSM members must pass the torch by nominating their successors and we the populace of New Eden vote for the changes we want made. A CSM member may only ever serve two terms- be they consecutive or spaced apart. Every time we log in we are presented with a polling question that must be answered, thus generating a consensus of ideas, for what is wanted, or needed, or hated, or whatever. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc
439
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:32:00 -
[918] - Quote
Mikaila Penshar wrote:What about 'representational votes' , a sort of electoral college if you will... basing your vote's weight on the main sp toon of an account and where it is based out of.
High-Sec Low-Sec Null-Sec Worm Hole
There has to be some mathematical equation to equalize votes for sectors of space that have fewer people in them and thus less representation. Just guessing here but if high sec has the most active accounts followed by null then low then wh space
again just an example: High sec votes count at 1: 0.5 Null sec votes at 1: 0.75 Low sec votes at 1: 1 Worm Hole votes at 1: 1.25
So you're saying nullsec (and ls / whs) need more representation than they have? The highsec bears are going to love that idea lol |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4992
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 20:15:00 -
[919] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Mikaila Penshar wrote:What about 'representational votes' , a sort of electoral college if you will... basing your vote's weight on the main sp toon of an account and where it is based out of.
High-Sec Low-Sec Null-Sec Worm Hole
There has to be some mathematical equation to equalize votes for sectors of space that have fewer people in them and thus less representation. Just guessing here but if high sec has the most active accounts followed by null then low then wh space
again just an example: High sec votes count at 1: 0.5 Null sec votes at 1: 0.75 Low sec votes at 1: 1 Worm Hole votes at 1: 1.25
So you're saying nullsec (and ls / whs) need more representation than they have? The highsec bears are going to love that idea lol
I certainly wouldn't put both my mains into a wormhole then cast my vote MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 12:17:00 -
[920] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: By the way, stop calling Trebor's terrible idea STV-anything. It's not. It's simply his attempt at disenfranchising his political opponents (as he said outright in his OP).
I propose that it be called STD. Because it has about the same appeal.
I'm not sure that the current system needs any major changing - perhaps, maybe, MAYBE, if there's too much bleating of 'but highsec has no representation' reserve a single extra place for an assistant candidate/advisory position for a couple of major issues if they aren't represented in the main council, with the provo that these people aren't CSM members, but are expected to provide knowledge and info on topics. |
|
Sidrat Flush
Square Box Medical Inc.
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:08:00 -
[921] - Quote
The number of votes per character should represent the total number of seats.
This will allow every individual their votes to make up a council of people they believe can work well together as well as with CCP.
|
Steelzen
The Nine Gates Perigee Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 18:58:00 -
[922] - Quote
One ISP one vote.
Keeps those that create / activate multiple accounts just prior to elections then letting them lapse afterwards from manipulating the system.
Looking at the past election results shows some interesting data concerning voting manipulation. The election to a CSM position and the leader of the CSM needs to be a separate election, once the members of the CSM have been elected.
Better yet just disband the CSM, its not like they have been of much use other than trying to manipulate the game to the benefit of their own power block.
(We get enough of that ineffectual leadership in the RW don't care to deal with it in a game.)
|
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
892
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 04:20:00 -
[923] - Quote
Steelzen wrote:One ISP one vote.
Keeps those that create / activate multiple accounts just prior to elections then letting them lapse afterwards from manipulating the system.
Looking at the past election results shows some interesting data concerning voting manipulation. The election to a CSM position and the leader of the CSM needs to be a separate election, once the members of the CSM have been elected.
Better yet just disband the CSM, its not like they have been of much use other than trying to manipulate the game to the benefit of their own power block.
(We get enough of that ineffectual leadership in the RW don't care to deal with it in a game.)
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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
885
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 09:04:00 -
[924] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Steelzen wrote:One ISP one vote.
Keeps those that create / activate multiple accounts just prior to elections then letting them lapse afterwards from manipulating the system.
Looking at the past election results shows some interesting data concerning voting manipulation. The election to a CSM position and the leader of the CSM needs to be a separate election, once the members of the CSM have been elected.
Better yet just disband the CSM, its not like they have been of much use other than trying to manipulate the game to the benefit of their own power block.
(We get enough of that ineffectual leadership in the RW don't care to deal with it in a game.)
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. Actually it was not just the mittens vote that was suspect but if you look at the voting stats they don't lie, especially if you consider the alt accounts for voting are now over a year older at the last CSM election.
But I agree like a shareholder I have more than one share (account) so my vote should be worth accordingly more as I contribute more money to the upkeep of the game. But seriously SmilingVagrant 18 accounts lol, how do you find the time I cant deal with more than I have now. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2048
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 09:23:00 -
[925] - Quote
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! Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
885
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 09:32:00 -
[926] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: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! Statistics do not lie. try looking them up some time.
Or the CSM is the most newbie friendly part of the game with people learning to vote before they are learning to fly.
And once again if it was not happening why is there so much resistance to preventing people activating accounts just to vote? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 16:40:00 -
[927] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Statistics do not lie. try looking them up some time.
Funny how for every time you actually point out statistics, you never cite them. Not that I care, because nobody that's free and clear of learning disabilities would ever take you seriously, but when you throw things like "statistics don't lie" and then very deliberately avoid citing the statistics you're talking about, it's more than a little dishonest.
If you have a hope of being taken seriously, cite the actual statistics. Don't just say "go look" or "they're out there", cite them. This is the internet. Link the stats you're using and actually put more than 5 words of detail into the conclusions you've drawn from them. Until you do that as a baseline, you might as well be howling about birth certificates and secret black helicopters. |
Lord Zim
2051
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 17:18:00 -
[928] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: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! Statistics do not lie. try looking them up some time. Tell me about these ... statistics.
Frying Doom wrote:Or the CSM is the most newbie friendly part of the game with people learning to vote before they are learning to fly. I've no idea what you're trying to get at here.
Frying Doom wrote:And once again if it was not happening why is there so much resistance to preventing people activating accounts just to vote? Nor here. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:02:00 -
[929] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: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! Statistics do not lie. try looking them up some time. Tell me about these ... statistics. Frying Doom wrote:Or the CSM is the most newbie friendly part of the game with people learning to vote before they are learning to fly. I've no idea what you're trying to get at here. Frying Doom wrote:And once again if it was not happening why is there so much resistance to preventing people activating accounts just to vote? Nor here. Ok to simplify for you.
If there was not a problem of people activating old accounts to vote or creating new ones, there would not be so much resistance to measures being put in place to prevent this from occurring. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:13:00 -
[930] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:[Ok to simplify for you.
If there was not a problem of people activating old accounts to vote or creating new ones, there would not be so much resistance to measures being put in place to prevent this from occurring.
Hey look, if you want to oppress anyone who didn't have the good fortune to be in the game before (insert whatever fantasy cutoff time you'll invent this time around based on absolutely nothing), have at it. Don't be surprised if you get called on it, though. |
|
Lord Zim
2052
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 23:08:00 -
[931] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:If there was not a problem of people activating old accounts to vote or creating new ones, there would not be so much resistance to measures being put in place to prevent this from occurring. 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? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
910
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 05:11:00 -
[932] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Actually it was not just the mittens vote that was suspect but if you look at the voting stats they don't lie, especially if you consider the alt accounts for voting are now over a year older at the last CSM election.
But I agree like a shareholder I have more than one share (account) so my vote should be worth accordingly more as I contribute more money to the upkeep of the game. But seriously SmilingVagrant 18 accounts lol, how do you find the time I cant deal with more than I have now.
I have two accounts. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
910
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 05:12:00 -
[933] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:If there was not a problem of people activating old accounts to vote or creating new ones, there would not be so much resistance to measures being put in place to prevent this from occurring. 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?
Because much like US voter fraud ... it's not actually a problem. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 05:39:00 -
[934] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:If there was not a problem of people activating old accounts to vote or creating new ones, there would not be so much resistance to measures being put in place to prevent this from occurring. 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? Because much like US voter fraud ... it's not actually a problem. Any voter fraud is a problem and should be stamped out in the hope of obtaining a more representative CSM.
If we cannot have a balanced CSM, really what is there purpose, this years CSM is the most representative ever and it is still no way near the demographics within the game. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 05:41:00 -
[935] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:If there was not a problem of people activating old accounts to vote or creating new ones, there would not be so much resistance to measures being put in place to prevent this from occurring. 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? Actually the voting statistics are were they have always been, the fact that the numbers of new accounts voting is high is well known, if you are unfamiliar with them please feel free to examine them yourself. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:06:00 -
[936] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Actually the voting statistics are were they have always been, the fact that the numbers of new accounts voting is high is well known, if you are unfamiliar with them please feel free to examine them yourself.
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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:12:00 -
[937] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Actually the voting statistics are were they have always been, the fact that the numbers of new accounts voting is high is well known, if you are unfamiliar with them please feel free to examine them yourself. 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 have.
But strange how every time closing this loop hole comes up people from the same group constantly shout it down.
Even without stats your own actions prove that change is needed. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:33:00 -
[938] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Actually the voting statistics are were they have always been, the fact that the numbers of new accounts voting is high is well known, if you are unfamiliar with them please feel free to examine them yourself. 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 have. But strange how every time closing this loop hole comes up people from the same group constantly shout it down. Even without stats your own actions prove that change is needed.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I haven't seen those stats or tried to shout them down yet, so humor me and put up a link.
After all, people using extra accounts as some sort of voter fraud means they have to be paid accounts over a certain age. Since it takes thousands of votes to really sway things in the CSM, that means thousands of Plex or subscription payments. That is hundreds of billions of isk, or over $10,000. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:35:00 -
[939] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I have.
But strange how every time closing this loop hole comes up people from the same group constantly shout it down.
Even without stats your own actions prove that change is needed.
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up..
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:50:00 -
[940] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I have.
But strange how every time closing this loop hole comes up people from the same group constantly shout it down.
Even without stats your own actions prove that change is needed. Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.. As I said before, I have in multiple threads go look them up or better yet as it is supposedly not a problem stop arguing about this loop hole being closed.
For something that does not occur and is no problem, it gets a lot of defense when anyone wants to alter the system to prevent it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:54:00 -
[941] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:As I said before, I have in multiple threads go look them up or better yet as it is supposedly not a problem stop arguing about this loop hole being closed.
For something that does not occur and is no problem, it gets a lot of defense when anyone wants to alter the system to prevent it.
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:59:00 -
[942] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As I said before, I have in multiple threads go look them up or better yet as it is supposedly not a problem stop arguing about this loop hole being closed.
For something that does not occur and is no problem, it gets a lot of defense when anyone wants to alter the system to prevent it. Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.. How about you dig up the numbers and disprove my claims..Oh you can't
so to quote you "shut the **** up" Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:04:00 -
[943] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:How about you dig up the numbers and disprove my claims..Oh you can't
so to quote you "shut the **** up"
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:06:00 -
[944] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:How about you dig up the numbers and disprove my claims..Oh you can't
so to quote you "shut the **** up" Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.. Yes keep going the more you fight the change the more it looks like it is needed, if your actions don't show guilt, I don't know what does.
Covering up are we lol Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:06:00 -
[945] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Yes keep going the more you fight the change the more it looks like it is needed, if your actions don't show guilt, I don't know what does.
Covering up are we lol
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:08:00 -
[946] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Yes keep going the more you fight the change the more it looks like it is needed, if your actions don't show guilt, I don't know what does.
Covering up are we lol Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts or shut the **** up.. Prove me wrong or shut the **** up Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:09:00 -
[947] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:10:00 -
[948] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Prove me wrong or shut the **** up
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts (aka prove yourself right) or shut the **** up.. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:11:00 -
[949] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: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. Yes you paid.
But how many times that you paid, where only paid for that month, or 21 days/14 days and a plex? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:11:00 -
[950] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Prove me wrong or shut the **** up Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts (aka prove yourself right) or shut the **** up.. Prove me wrong or shut the **** up Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:12:00 -
[951] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Prove me wrong or shut the **** up
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
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts (aka prove yourself right) or shut the **** up.. [/quote] |
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:15:00 -
[952] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: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. Yes you paid. But how many times that you paid, where only paid for that month, or 21 days/14 days and a plex? So you're saying I paid CCP 300k USD just to try to get mittens to win? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:16:00 -
[953] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Prove me wrong or shut the **** up 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 Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts (aka prove yourself right) or shut the **** up.. Or I could just change the premise which is
With people fighting so hard to prevent people discussing the loop hole in voting, it really needs to be removed by making only accounts active for 3 or more continuous months at time of voting are eligible to vote.
As the amount of opposition it receives is obviously an indication that something while legal under the current system but unethical is occurring. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:17:00 -
[954] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: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. Yes you paid. But how many times that you paid, where only paid for that month, or 21 days/14 days and a plex? So you're saying I paid CCP 300k USD just to try to get mittens to win? Sorry did I say for all his votes, No
Next. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:18:00 -
[955] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Or I could just change the premise which is
With people fighting so hard to prevent people discussing the loop hole in voting, it really needs to be removed by making only accounts active for 3 or more continuous months at time of voting are eligible to vote.
As the amount of opposition it receives is obviously an indication that something while legal under the current system but unethical is occurring.
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!
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts (aka prove yourself right) or shut the **** up.. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:30:00 -
[956] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Or I could just change the premise which is
With people fighting so hard to prevent people discussing the loop hole in voting, it really needs to be removed by making only accounts active for 3 or more continuous months at time of voting are eligible to vote.
As the amount of opposition it receives is obviously an indication that something while legal under the current system but unethical is occurring. 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! Yes there is look, look at the amount of action taken to prevent this type of behavior occurring and that will pretty much tell you how big the loop hole is.
For example if Goonswarm wanted to seal up the next election, thanks to the tech welfare system your accounts stand at around 1.5 trillion.
So if you where to save from now to the elections you would have sufficient funds to cover all ongoing actions and still pay for 2500 votes enough to elect 2 people to the CSM without your active members even voting.
I am not saying you would do this or any more than a few thousand were done in total but it is a loop hole and it needs to be made harder but of course you disagree. For what reason I wonder, if not to protect this loop hole? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:31:00 -
[957] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: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. Yes you paid. But how many times that you paid, where only paid for that month, or 21 days/14 days and a plex? So you're saying I paid CCP 300k USD just to try to get mittens to win? Sorry did I say for all his votes, No Next. So just exactly what are you accusing me of, then? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:32:00 -
[958] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote: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. Yes you paid. But how many times that you paid, where only paid for that month, or 21 days/14 days and a plex? So you're saying I paid CCP 300k USD just to try to get mittens to win? Sorry did I say for all his votes, No Next. So just exactly what are you accusing me of, then? Did I accuse you of anything? Nothing other than protecting a loophole that needs to be closed to make the elections a fairer place. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:33:00 -
[959] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Yes there is look, look at the amount of action taken to prevent this type of behavior occurring and that will pretty much tell you how big the loop hole is.
For example if Goonswarm wanted to seal up the next election, thanks to the tech welfare system your accounts stand at around 1.5 trillion.
So if you where to save from now to the elections you would have sufficient funds to cover all ongoing actions and still pay for 2500 votes enough to elect 2 people to the CSM without your active members even voting.
I am not saying you would do this or any more than a few thousand were done in total but it is a loop hole and it needs to be made harder but of course you disagree. For what reason I wonder, if not to protect this loop hole?
Dammit, I thought we were making progress. Oh well.
Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts (aka prove yourself right) or shut the **** up.. |
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:33:00 -
[960] - Quote
So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:37:00 -
[961] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Yes there is look, look at the amount of action taken to prevent this type of behavior occurring and that will pretty much tell you how big the loop hole is.
For example if Goonswarm wanted to seal up the next election, thanks to the tech welfare system your accounts stand at around 1.5 trillion.
So if you where to save from now to the elections you would have sufficient funds to cover all ongoing actions and still pay for 2500 votes enough to elect 2 people to the CSM without your active members even voting.
I am not saying you would do this or any more than a few thousand were done in total but it is a loop hole and it needs to be made harder but of course you disagree. For what reason I wonder, if not to protect this loop hole? Dammit, I thought we were making progress. Oh well. Snow Axe wrote:Cite the actual numbers of new voting accounts (aka prove yourself right) or shut the **** up.. The numbers for previous elections are availble if you just search for them, I do not work for CCP customer service, so give reasons for this loophole not to be closed or move along.
As no one other than us will ever actually read this (It's in Jita Park), I do honestly hope they fix Null, it would be nice to have a reason to go there. I give you guys crap on the 20% but tbh that is because that is really what the CSM should be doing to get people more emotionally attached to the space you dwell in but anyway.
Close the loop hole. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:38:00 -
[962] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"? Anything more than 0% is to much in an election of any nature. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:39:00 -
[963] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"? Anything more than 0% is to much in an election of any nature. So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:40:00 -
[964] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"? Anything more than 0% is to much in an election of any nature. So to which extent is this "loophole" being "exploited"? do you mean to which extent or to what extent? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:43:00 -
[965] - Quote
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". Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:43:00 -
[966] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The numbers for previous elections are availble if you just search for them, I do not work for CCP customer service, so give reasons for this loophole not to be closed or move along.
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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:49:00 -
[967] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: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". Actually as new accounts have been in the top 3 sets of voters on the last 3 + elections I would say this behaviour has been going on for some years and the actual election resualts have been fixed since before CSM 5 to the tune of around 4-5000 votes.
So a hell of a lot of people creating new accounts only around voting time then the numbers seem to slip. Also there is a corresponding rise on the plex market at the same time.
Go have a look yourself. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:51:00 -
[968] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:The numbers for previous elections are availble if you just search for them, I do not work for CCP customer service, so give reasons for this loophole not to be closed or move along.
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. Lord Zim wrote: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". He doesn't even know if anything is being exploited at all, or that an exploit even exists in the first place. The numbers are here: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=886 http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28529 http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=763
But I am sure you will tell me newbies vote as huge percentages and then leave the game. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:53:00 -
[969] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:
He doesn't even know if anything is being exploited at all, or that an exploit even exists in the first place.
Actually your actions pretty much show that you are aware of the loop hole and are protecting it.
As why would you fight to protect a loop hole that does not exist? That really would not make any sense.
But to be honest this will probably just be left like so much and the CSM will continue to be the Minority with the rest of EvE laughing at it. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:58:00 -
[970] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:But I am sure you will tell me newbies vote as huge percentages and then leave the game.
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%, and the all time high number of young accounts voting), 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). |
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:01:00 -
[971] - Quote
Who do these newbies vote for? Who owns them? How many of those are owned by people who own other accounts which are older than 1 month?
And most importantly, what needs to be done to solve this "problem"? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:04:00 -
[972] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:But I am sure you will tell me newbies vote as huge percentages and then leave the game. 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). So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time.
Not that this really matters much, it's a loop hole, you know it, I know it but CCP make a nice pile of cash off it
That and it might be a worth while argument if the CSM ever got to be more than a Null sec joke. We have so many others this year from Hi-sec, lo-sec and wormholes and there 3 propositions are 1 for POS'S and 2 for Null.
So yeah it is still a Null sec joke. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:11:00 -
[973] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time.
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...? |
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:15:00 -
[974] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time. So what you're saying is, you're looking at the numbers and going all "it must be a goon conspiracy to keep the common eve player down"?
Frying Doom wrote:Not that this really matters much, it's a loop hole, you know it, I know it Which part of this is a problem, and how do you solve it?
Frying Doom wrote:That and it might be a worth while argument if the CSM ever got to be more than a Null sec joke. We have so many others this year from Hi-sec, lo-sec and wormholes and their 3 propositions are 1 for POS'S and 2 for Null.
So yeah it is still a Null sec joke. What do you put into the phrase "a null sec joke"? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:20:00 -
[975] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time. 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...? CSM 5 8598 21.80% CSM 6 7200 14.67% CSM 7 8447 14.29%
As I said that is a lot of newbies casting votes, people also even mentioned they were doing this subsequently the comment from a DEV that they had to wait a day before voting when activating an account with plex, most of the people on those threads however were faceless alts. So yes it does exist it was even posted by people do so, personally it needs to be closed to make this harder to achieve but as I said it wont be.
CSM 1-4 were of little interest to anyone, except maybe goonswarms picking on an old ex-chairman. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:26:00 -
[976] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote: So yeah it is still a Null sec joke.
What do you put into the phrase "a null sec joke"? The CSM has been for the last few years especially, more a lobby group for Null sec than an actual player representative council.
Yes Null is a trashed wasteland but so few live there, effectively yes the CSM should have a long term road map including Null but the majority especially the work of CSM 6 (see notes on their work) was a road map of Null with some things shoe horned in for other areas, because of the exceptional work of individuals, not the CSM itself.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:26:00 -
[977] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:CSM 5 8598 21.80% CSM 6 7200 14.67% CSM 7 8447 14.29%
As I said that is a lot of newbies casting votes, people also even mentioned they were doing this subsequently the comment from a DEV that they had to wait a day before voting when activating an account with plex, most of the people on those threads however were faceless alts. So yes it does exist it was even posted by people do so, personally it needs to be closed to make this harder to achieve but as I said it wont be.
CSM 1-4 were of little interest to anyone, except maybe goonswarms picking on an old ex-chairman.
Frying Doom wrote:So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time. .
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 ****. |
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:29:00 -
[978] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The CSM has been for the last few years especially, more a lobby group for Null sec than an actual player representative council.
Yes Null is a trashed wasteland but so few live there, effectively yes the CSM should have a long term road map including Null but the majority especially the work of CSM 6 (see notes on their work) was a road map of Null with some things shoe horned in for other areas, because of the exceptional work of individuals, not the CSM itself. You didn't explain what you put in the phrase "a null sec joke".
Also, you missed a spot:
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time. So what you're saying is, you're looking at the numbers and going all "it must be a goon conspiracy to keep the common eve player down"? Frying Doom wrote:Not that this really matters much, it's a loop hole, you know it, I know it Which part of this is a problem, and how do you solve it?
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:37:00 -
[979] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Frying Doom wrote:CSM 5 8598 21.80% CSM 6 7200 14.67% CSM 7 8447 14.29%
As I said that is a lot of newbies casting votes, people also even mentioned they were doing this subsequently the comment from a DEV that they had to wait a day before voting when activating an account with plex, most of the people on those threads however were faceless alts. So yes it does exist it was even posted by people do so, personally it needs to be closed to make this harder to achieve but as I said it wont be.
CSM 1-4 were of little interest to anyone, except maybe goonswarms picking on an old ex-chairman. Frying Doom wrote:So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time. . 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 ****. So Veto Corp, Agony Unleashed, Pandemic Legion, Shadow Kingdom, Rooks and Kings or Triumvirate, none of these are Null sec groups? Funny I thought some where as they where all on CSM 5
And yes CSM 6 and 7 have been diverse but given CSM6's primarily Null focus and now CSM 7 seeming to follow suite can you blame people for thinking the CSM is little more than a Null Lobby group and appart from Issler all that is really left of the CSM atm that is visible is Two Step, Trebor Daehdoow (sometimes), Seleene, Hans Jagerblitzen and Alekseyev Karrde. The rest seems to have vanished but with some of these people hogging the lime light or mic can you blame the rest.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:40:00 -
[980] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:The CSM has been for the last few years especially, more a lobby group for Null sec than an actual player representative council.
Yes Null is a trashed wasteland but so few live there, effectively yes the CSM should have a long term road map including Null but the majority especially the work of CSM 6 (see notes on their work) was a road map of Null with some things shoe horned in for other areas, because of the exceptional work of individuals, not the CSM itself. You didn't explain what you put in the phrase "a null sec joke". Also, you missed a spot: Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So as the number of votes has increased across the board this number has remained effectively static, hmm almost like the same set of people are buying the same amount of accounts to vote each time. So what you're saying is, you're looking at the numbers and going all "it must be a goon conspiracy to keep the common eve player down"? No not goonswarm specifically no, I think it is a problem all over the voting spectrum, except maybe TEST as they got sold off Frying Doom wrote:Not that this really matters much, it's a loop hole, you know it, I know it Which part of this is a problem, and how do you solve it?
The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:44:00 -
[981] - Quote
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.
Frying Doom wrote:[ The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive.
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! |
Arto Ruho
Caldari Gallente Concordance
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:46:00 -
[982] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive.
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? |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:48:00 -
[983] - Quote
Arto Ruho wrote: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. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:52:00 -
[984] - Quote
Arto Ruho wrote:Frying Doom wrote:The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive. 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? Most new people have no idea what the CSM is as was shown to me last year as I flew around. Either way around if the loophole is used or not it should still be closed.
Also new players that vote is great but as they would hardly know which way is up it would be more benifital to the game as a whole if they had to be 90 days old. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:54:00 -
[985] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Arto Ruho wrote: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. Strangely they don't release those numbers or really any numbers on anything these days.
And as I said if the loophole is not being used, great close it anyway. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:58:00 -
[986] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote: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. Frying Doom wrote:[ The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive. 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! Or just preventing vote abuse by people making everyone elses vote worth more Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:01:00 -
[987] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive. Let's assume CCP does this, and the numbers still go up, what then?
Also, you missed a spot:
Lord Zim wrote:You didn't explain what you put in the phrase "a null sec joke". Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:01:00 -
[988] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Strangely they don't release those numbers or really any numbers on anything these days. And as I said if the loophole is not being used, great close it anyway. Also you missed something: Veto Corp, Agony Unleashed, Pandemic Legion, Shadow Kingdom, Rooks and Kings or Triumvirate, none of these are Null sec groups? Funny I thought some where as they where all on CSM 5 Care to explain how no one from null was in CSM 5?
I ignored the groups because outside of PL, not a single one of those entities has appeared on CSM 6 or 7, so either they weren't part of the vote buying OR you're completely full of ****.
Also, closing the "loophole" with your solution screws people over. You don't screw people over unless it's necessary. You can't even show that a problem EXISTS, let alone that it's bad enough to necessitate screwing people over. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:04:00 -
[989] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive. Let's assume CCP does this, and the numbers still go up, what then? Then let them anyone paying almost 2 bill just to vote is worth it, also it might mean more actual people have decided to vote (possibly unlikely depending on the level of advertising permitted), actually I would like to see candidate banners intoduced as a huge add campaign would actually be fun to see.
Lord Zim wrote:Also, you missed a spot: Lord Zim wrote:You didn't explain what you put in the phrase "a null sec joke". No to be honest I just can not decipher what your meaning of the question is Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:08:00 -
[990] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:The problem is creating accounts just to vote and closing them when the plex expires a month later. How to solve it as stated above make accounts have to be active for 3 straight months prior to the election, so it can still be done but is 3 times more expensive. Let's assume CCP does this, and the numbers still go up, what then? Then let them anyone paying almost 2 bill just to vote is worth it, also it might mean more actual people have decided to vote (possibly unlikely depending on the level of advertising permitted), actually I would like to see candidate banners intoduced as a huge add campaign would actually be fun to see. So as long as they "pay enough", anything goes?
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:You didn't explain what you put in the phrase "a null sec joke". No to be honest I just can not decipher what your meaning of the question is[/quote] You said the CSM was a null sec joke. Explain what you mean by that. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:17:00 -
[991] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Then let them anyone paying almost 2 bill just to vote is worth it, also it might mean more actual people have decided to vote (possibly unlikely depending on the level of advertising permitted), actually I would like to see candidate banners intoduced as a huge add campaign would actually be fun to see.
So as long as they "pay enough", anything goes? No but an extra 2 bill for an account just to vote, people are quite likely to just keep the extra account up and running and actually do something with it to benifit the game its self, even if it is just PI or a research alt.
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote: No to be honest I just can not decipher what your meaning of the question is
You said the CSM was a null sec joke. Explain what you mean by that. I already did several posts ago just look on the previous page I think it is.
Or for the simple answer it is just a Null sec lobby group, yes it is more diverse now but the core seems to be focused on Null, see their latest document.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Ghazu
285
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:22:00 -
[992] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:
Or for the simple answer it is just a Null sec lobby group, yes it is more diverse now but the core seems to be focused on Null, see their latest document.
You supported Issler barbie lover lol. http://www.minerbumping.com/ |
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:26:00 -
[993] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Then let them anyone paying almost 2 bill just to vote is worth it, also it might mean more actual people have decided to vote (possibly unlikely depending on the level of advertising permitted), actually I would like to see candidate banners intoduced as a huge add campaign would actually be fun to see.
So as long as they "pay enough", anything goes? No but an extra 2 bill for an account just to vote, people are quite likely to just keep the extra account up and running and actually do something with it to benifit the game its self, even if it is just PI or a research alt. Let's make it 6 months then.
Frying Doom wrote:Or for the simple answer it is just a Null sec lobby group, yes it is more diverse now but the core seems to be focused on Null, see their latest document. Where do you think the most work needs to be done to eve? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:32:00 -
[994] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote: No but an extra 2 bill for an account just to vote, people are quite likely to just keep the extra account up and running and actually do something with it to benifit the game its self, even if it is just PI or a research alt.
Let's make it 6 months then. 6 moths would be a tad silly and players should have a fair knowledge after 3 with the ablity to make an informed vote.
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Or for the simple answer it is just a Null sec lobby group, yes it is more diverse now but the core seems to be focused on Null, see their latest document. Where do you think the most work needs to be done to eve? [/quote]
Me personally my top 3 are
[*POs's] [*Comporate Management] [*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. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:37:00 -
[995] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:6 moths would be a tad silly and players should have a fair knowledge after 3 with the ablity to make an informed vote. Let's make sure we're just getting people who are properly enthusiastic about voting, shall we?
Frying Doom wrote:Me personally my top 3 are
- POs's
- Corporate Management
- 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. So, how much of that has been worked on so far on this term, and how much of what has been worked on so far this term has been "nullsec only content"? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:42:00 -
[996] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:6 moths would be a tad silly and players should have a fair knowledge after 3 with the ablity to make an informed vote. Let's make sure we're just getting people who are properly enthusiastic about voting, shall we? Enthusiasm has nothing to do with it it is just closing a wound on the voting system.
Frying Doom wrote:Me personally my top 3 are
- POs's
- Corporate Management
- 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. So, how much of that has been worked on so far on this term, and how much of what has been worked on so far this term has been "nullsec only content"?[/quote] Yes sweet bugger all but that was not due to CSM 6 or CSM 7, CCP practically filtered out their Null sec requests and went for a lot of other things they pushed for (Well individuals pushed for mostly, FW being the big winner there).
From what was said by the CSM Null sec has now moved to the coming soon somewhere on the road map mark. Personally i would like to see it fixed but it has been stuffed so many times and some of these due to CSM ideas that it has not gotten the perception of beating a dead horse. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 11:46:00 -
[997] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Enthusiasm has nothing to do with it it is just closing a wound on the voting system. You wanted it closed, let's do it properly, then. 6 months.
Frying Doom wrote:Yes sweet bugger all but that was not due to CSM 6 or CSM 7, CCP practically filtered out their Null sec requests and went for a lot of other things they pushed for (Well individuals pushed for mostly, FW being the big winner there). As to POS and corp management they are in the coming soon but closer than Null pile.
From what was said by the CSM Null sec has now moved to the coming soon somewhere on the road map mark. Personally i would like to see it fixed but it has been stuffed so many times and some of these due to CSM ideas that it has not gotten the perception of beating a dead horse. 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"? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Ghazu
286
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 11:49:00 -
[998] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Enthusiasm has nothing to do with it it is just closing a wound on the voting system. You wanted it closed, let's do it properly, then. 6 months. Frying Doom wrote:Yes sweet bugger all but that was not due to CSM 6 or CSM 7, CCP practically filtered out their Null sec requests and went for a lot of other things they pushed for (Well individuals pushed for mostly, FW being the big winner there). As to POS and corp management they are in the coming soon but closer than Null pile.
From what was said by the CSM Null sec has now moved to the coming soon somewhere on the road map mark. Personally i would like to see it fixed but it has been stuffed so many times and some of these due to CSM ideas that it has not gotten the perception of beating a dead horse. 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"? because openthedoor
Issler http://www.minerbumping.com/ |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
888
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 11:55:00 -
[999] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Enthusiasm has nothing to do with it it is just closing a wound on the voting system. You wanted it closed, let's do it properly, then. 6 months. Frying Doom wrote:Yes sweet bugger all but that was not due to CSM 6 or CSM 7, CCP practically filtered out their Null sec requests and went for a lot of other things they pushed for (Well individuals pushed for mostly, FW being the big winner there). As to POS and corp management they are in the coming soon but closer than Null pile.
From what was said by the CSM Null sec has now moved to the coming soon somewhere on the road map mark. Personally i would like to see it fixed but it has been stuffed so many times and some of these due to CSM ideas that it has not gotten the perception of beating a dead horse. 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"? Because it acting like a Null sec lobby is not doing much for the CSM its self and really is minimalising its role and usefulness to the community.
Although it has managed to achieve in areas where it is has some members like mining and FW these are not the areas that the CSM as a whole push. So if it wishes to be a community representative it needs to act like one not just a Null lobby with some rouge agents that manage to get things done. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:49:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Because it acting like a Null sec lobby is not doing much for the CSM its self and really is minimalising its role and usefulness to the community.
Although it has managed to achieve in areas where it is has some members like mining and FW these are not the areas that the CSM as a whole push. So if it wishes to be a community representative it needs to act like one not just a Null lobby with some rouge agents that manage to get things done. From my POV, this CSM has been fairly limpwristed, and I don't put that down to where people in it come from, more how little they seem to be pushing CCP to fixing the right things.
How much of that is reality and how much of that is just the fact they haven't been as effective in communicating what they do to the playerbase, remains to be seen.
Issler Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5161
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 19:56:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Because it acting like a Null sec lobby is not doing much for the CSM its self and really is minimalising its role and usefulness to the community.
Although it has managed to achieve in areas where it is has some members like mining and FW these are not the areas that the CSM as a whole push. So if it wishes to be a community representative it needs to act like one not just a Null lobby with some rouge agents that manage to get things done. From my POV, this CSM has been fairly limpwristed, and I don't put that down to where people in it come from, more how little they seem to be pushing CCP to fixing the right things. How much of that is reality and how much of that is just the fact they haven't been as effective in communicating what they do to the playerbase, remains to be seen. Issler
Zim, you forgot to switch characters. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:04:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Zim, you forgot to switch characters.
Nice, another conspiracy theory!
Issler |
Lord Zim
2053
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 20:46:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Zim, you forgot to switch characters. I did not.
Issler
(in case you haven't caught on yet, it's a new mini-meme) Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
890
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 21:33:00 -
[1004] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Malcanis wrote:Zim, you forgot to switch characters. Nice, another conspiracy theory! Issler Now that would be really funny
Lord Zim = Issler Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3357
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 23:17:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Because it acting like a Null sec lobby is not doing much for the CSM its self and really is minimalising its role and usefulness to the community.
Although it has managed to achieve in areas where it is has some members like mining and FW these are not the areas that the CSM as a whole push. So if it wishes to be a community representative it needs to act like one not just a Null lobby with some rouge agents that manage to get things done.
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 Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
655
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 01:18:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Because it acting like a Null sec lobby is not doing much for the CSM its self and really is minimalising its role and usefulness to the community.
Although it has managed to achieve in areas where it is has some members like mining and FW these are not the areas that the CSM as a whole push. So if it wishes to be a community representative it needs to act like one not just a Null lobby with some rouge agents that manage to get things done. 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.
Well I think the potential of faction war is fading fast based on random changes that ccp made and the likelyhood that they will leave it behind. The potential was there, but lets be honest with ourselves, they are moving on without fixing it. Somehow they were unable to focus on the real problems. As soon as ccp moves to null sec and gives people crazy isk to go there (as is their mo for every new feature they bring out) fw will be the same as it ever was.
Its interesting to hear you say they are making "unprecedented use of [your] feed back" where as in all the fw community threads/blogs you minimize your impact.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: 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
The csm has not actually articulated what should be done in null sec, despite having a null sec based csm for most of the csm's history.
If they have some clear ideas great have ccp do it. But its a shame ccp is moving away from faction war without ever having a clear idea of what they were doing there to begin with, let alone fixing it. IMO The potential players who might be interested in faction war is much greater than null sec.
But this is actually a matter of opion not objective fact. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
890
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 03:41:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Because it acting like a Null sec lobby is not doing much for the CSM its self and really is minimalising its role and usefulness to the community.
Although it has managed to achieve in areas where it is has some members like mining and FW these are not the areas that the CSM as a whole push. So if it wishes to be a community representative it needs to act like one not just a Null lobby with some rouge agents that manage to get things done. 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
First very nice closing tag and you worry about other people labeling you.
So lets start this train wreck rolling
You said " Our obligation is to represent the playerbase, not special interests, to CCP. " Yes it is but as you are here to represent the player base doesnt that mean your actions should also be representative of the playerbase? 20% of the players where in Null at the last count, why do you believe it deserves more than 20% of the games resources?
As to your next point "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?" Now after so many wasted resources on such a small part of the games population, why do you think more resources should be wasted?
Oh as too "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. " No I don't sorry never have, maybe if you considered reading and thought about things, you would not have to worry about sticking your feet into your mouth. What I have said is that it is your job to represent the whole player base but that all that ever seems to come out of the CSM is Null sec crap and some rouge agents that actually manage to get other things done, despite the rest of the CSM.
"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. "
Ok on that one I laughed "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? "
You just argued that you should be working on Hi-sec and Null, lo and Wormholes should not get much as it would be irresponsible.
Next
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
890
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 03:47:00 -
[1008] - Quote
"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. " Yes that is true, what is also true is that most of the work done by CSM 5 and especially CSM 6 was about Null and not much else except by a few people.
"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." No it is you who seems to not understand your own job, you are there for as representatives of the whole player base not just Null So on that point how many resources have been dedicated to Hi-sec over the years? Is it 3 times the amount used on Null over the years? If not why are you not fighting harder for Hi-sec residence.
"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." I don't argue that at all, maybe if you read this thread you would understand that but as you have already stated that it would be irresponsible for CCP to work on Null, how about you prove me wrong and don't just try to get things done for Null
As you said "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?"
As 20% is a small portion of the population you are stating you should not be working on it. So why are you? Edit: I thought I better explain this for you 20% is a smaller amount than 60%. There are 3 times as many people in high than in Null. So Null is a small portion when compared to Hi-sec. Hope you could understand that. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
655
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 04:13:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Whats the matter with running on a platform of ideas? I mean instead of just constantly trying to guage what players are saying most recently and mirror that like the changing winds, why not say if I am elected I will push for x yand z. And then when/if you are elected push for x y and z.
The problem with just parroting what is popular at the instant is that as the game changes so will the playerbase and their views.
CCP can ask the players to take polls and find out what common views of the month are. But that doesn't mean its thought through.
If you don't have a vision for the game, or some aspect of it, why even run? Just to tell ccp what you think the players want, even though you don't do any scientific polls, and therefore just end up telling ccp what your buds want? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
BYRAN BRASSBALLS
The Generic Corp
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 19:05:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Sorry, but just kill the CSM. Let CCP send out up and down votes via cash playing players. It stop the silly stuff. ( I respect the CSM, I just think it is system that cannot work. ) |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5284
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 14:09:00 -
[1011] - Quote
BYRAN BRASSBALLS wrote:Sorry, but just kill the CSM. Let CCP send out up and down votes via cash playing players. It stop the silly stuff. ( I respect the CSM, I just think it is system that cannot work. )
How do you get the players to up and downvote each individual issue?
What makes you think that the process would achieve better average representation than asking them to just vote 1x a year?
How do you handle public voting on issues that have to stay confidential?
How exactly does the current system not work? MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
89
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 15:15:00 -
[1012] - Quote
This was the first year I voted for CSM and I really didn't like the way it was arranged. I think a better system would be to have specific interest slots and have people run for those areas. So null sec gets one slot, high one, low one, industry, faction warfare, mercenary.... whatever areas of the game that need to be included which is probably the most difficult part to narrow down.
Each player gets to vote for one third of the total number of slots. Whether they put all their votes on one candidate or spread them out is up to the player. In the end the candidates have to choose which area of the game they want to represent and the players should feel like their vote counted towards the areas they want to see improvements. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5284
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 15:25:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Ruareve wrote:This was the first year I voted for CSM and I really didn't like the way it was arranged. I think a better system would be to have specific interest slots and have people run for those areas. So null sec gets one slot, high one, low one, industry, faction warfare, mercenary.... whatever areas of the game that need to be included which is probably the most difficult part to narrow down.
Each player gets to vote for one third of the total number of slots. Whether they put all their votes on one candidate or spread them out is up to the player. In the end the candidates have to choose which area of the game they want to represent and the players should feel like their vote counted towards the areas they want to see improvements.
It has been repeatedly proven that this will hav the exact opposite effect that you intend, essentially you'll just hand all of the CSM to the largest voting bloc, rather than just a couple.
The current system is actually the most favourable for minority interests. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Lord Zim
2074
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 08:32:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Ruareve wrote:This was the first year I voted for CSM and I really didn't like the way it was arranged. I think a better system would be to have specific interest slots and have people run for those areas. So null sec gets one slot, high one, low one, industry, faction warfare, mercenary.... whatever areas of the game that need to be included which is probably the most difficult part to narrow down.
Each player gets to vote for one third of the total number of slots. Whether they put all their votes on one candidate or spread them out is up to the player. In the end the candidates have to choose which area of the game they want to represent and the players should feel like their vote counted towards the areas they want to see improvements. It has been repeatedly proven that this will hav the exact opposite effect that you intend, essentially you'll just hand all of the CSM to the largest voting bloc, rather than just a couple of seats. One word: ALTS. The current system is actually the most favourable for minority interests. EDIT: Unless of course that you're going to propose that CCP audit literally not only each candidate but every vote that's cast in order to make sure that only the "right" peiople can vote. Can you make a business case for the thousands of hours of work that this would take? Cheaper solution: Pretend to audit every vote, then just come up with random numbers which looks plausible. Voila, tons of money saved, the "correct" CSM members are selected, and you've had "a vote". Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
82
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 11:26:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Had any thought been given to a constituency type election model? [ Eve map divided into 14 constituencies, boundaries drawn up to ensure equal population via player med clone preference] Not saying this would be easy to implement or preferable over another electoral system, just interested if it was considered.
Has any thought also been given to increasing participation of the electorate in the voting process? I know that participation levels have been steadily increasing, however, is there a case to be made for enforced voting - maybe as part of the logon process? |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
644
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 11:52:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Had any thought been given to a constituency type election model? [ Eve map divided into 14 constituencies, boundaries drawn up to ensure equal population via player med clone preference] Not saying this would be easy to implement or preferable over another electoral system, just interested if it was considered.
How can you quantify what geographical areas of space deserve what representation without screwing over every style of gameplay whose geographical boundaries aren't easily divided into districts (i.e. FW, Wormholes, Incursions)? How does this work for nullsec alliances at war, and thus with clones in different places? Or mercenaries on contract?
Eve is just far too nomadic a game for something this static to work.
Kinis Deren wrote:Has any thought also been given to increasing participation of the electorate in the voting process? I know that participation levels have been steadily increasing, however, is there a case to be made for enforced voting - maybe as part of the logon process?
Getting voter participation up is a good thing and always will be something to strive towards. Enforced voting however isn't a good way to go. You want actual participants in the CSM process, people who weigh choices and have opinions they want heard, not people that are just clicking a thing so they can login. This is also the same reason why material rewards for voting is a bad idea as well. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1701
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 01:13:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Again. More voter awareness and education needed.
Reform is fine, if CCP is deadset on that direction, but vacating any work towards increased awareness is not an option. Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: [one page] |