EVE Search - Dev Blog: CSM8 Elections GÇô Schedule and Election Process

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Dev Blog: CSM8 Elections GÇô Schedule and Election Process

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 23 post(s)
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1001	Posted - 2013.02.21 20:20:00 - [1] - Quote Another thing that someone mentioned on twitter that I'm going to pass on: It's not clearly stated how the actual voting works - the dev blog says you rank candidates 1 through 14 but doesn't mention at any point that you don't HAVE to choose 14, just that 14 is the max amount of candidates you can rank. Only the White Paper clearly spells that out (and thanks to the 6+ pages of filler that the White Paper starts with, you can be sure almost nobody is going to really read it). If one simply read the dev blog, they'd leave with the assumption that you must choose 14 candidates. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1001	Posted - 2013.02.22 08:40:00 - [2] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: But then, if we got the IT guy to find us a solution to a minor issue, and the bigger issue is left unattended or actually is harmed, who's fault is this? Except in the IT guy's own thread about voting reform, the dominant opinion was that low voter turnout was the real issue that needed fixing, and that the voting system itself wasn't the issue (and could actually be detrimental). In that case, it's not "our" fault at all that the IT guy only wanted a solution that could be coded into a website. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1003	Posted - 2013.02.22 13:08:00 - [3] - Quote spookydonut wrote: The fact that the mittani has had real life death threats as a result of his name being public makes a pretty clear case for this. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1007	Posted - 2013.02.24 06:42:00 - [4] - Quote Illest Insurrectionist wrote: Beyond that the buddy system could be easily abused for this. I'd venture a guess CCP would dish out bans but a buddy account is 'free' for the first 51 days. If it took a 52 day old account then sure, problem solved. As is i think the concern has some merit but won't matter in reality. It's obv. not mentioned in the doc, but I'm pretty sure the CSM 7 election had a special restriction for Buddy accounts - 60 days old or something like that, I can't remember off the top of my head. I do remember I had to petition when it turned out my 2 buddy alts were too young at the time (they were definitely older than 30 days, hence the petition). Perhaps if CCP is reading this (lol) they would be so kind as to clarify (looooooooooooooooool) for us. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1008	Posted - 2013.02.24 23:43:00 - [5] - Quote Yonis Kador wrote: I must've missed something. In the old system, a group with 4/14 of the votes got one seat because they had to ensure a win. In the STV system, they'll get 4 guys on the CSM. How does that not "help them?" Are we saying that a group with 4/14 of the votes cast deserves 4 seats? As a tool, a diverse CSM would be most useful. The other thing to remember is the new 2+5 go to Iceland and the council itself votes on the chair means that it's well within a group's interest to stack the council with as many friendly voices as possible, as opposed to the old "top 7 to Iceland, top votes get chair" system which not only reduced the value of having multiple members, it made putting all of your votes behind one strong candidate the preferable option. So in short CCP created new rules that would compel us to put as many members on the council as possible and then gave us a voting system that'll make it as easy as possible. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1021	Posted - 2013.02.26 07:46:00 - [6] - Quote rodyas wrote: That is mostly a myth you are talking about Yonis. But I suppose the two hi sec CSMs, weren't able to go to iceland, why people believe that myth. Kelduum went to Iceland for the Summer summit, so that's not even true either. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1021	Posted - 2013.02.26 08:12:00 - [7] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Can't get folk to vote once? Ask them to vote twice then. And make the second vote way more involving than before! I think the numbers I can't wait to see will be the primary candidacy votes vs the final election tally. Especially if the final tally has averages of how many candidates each voter ranked. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1026	Posted - 2013.02.26 20:32:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Dolan wrote: 1. Your definition of disenfranchisement is not how the term is used in modern voting theory. I suggest you look here for more information on its modern use. Particularly the sentence, "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." Alright, so for the sake of argument I'll say that your definition matches the above for fun (it doesn't). We just had an election where 74.9%* of the voting population ended up directly represented by a candidate. In what realm is that unacceptable? Particularly enough to warrant change? * For these numbers I'm counting Mittani's votes as successful, as his removal from CSM 7 had nothing to do with voting or a voting system and thus isn't relevant to the discussion. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1031	Posted - 2013.02.26 23:33:00 - [9] - Quote Yonis Kador wrote: I guess I don't understand why null players aren't more vocal over this. I'm still missing something. Instead of having a null delegation composed of individuals from many large groups, lots of voices and perspectives, won't the STV system favor an outcome whereby the null delegation is composed of multiple winners from only the largest groups? There was plenty of vocal opinion in the earlier Jita Park threads on the subject (this has been ongoing since September) and they were basically ignored. I wouldn't dare put words into anyone's mouth, but going on the opinions in these threads I think at this point the prevailing opinion is "if that's what CCP wants, we'll give it to them". "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1033	Posted - 2013.02.27 00:01:00 - [10] - Quote Yonis Kador wrote: I've really got to invest more time in visiting the other areas of the forums. I spend most of my limited forum time reading through GD (for its activity) and CCPs Information Portal (for the gospel.) I just recently added Features and Ideas to the list when the BC changes were brought to my attention (on EVE Radio.) Now I need to read Jita Park too? Geezus. Most of these areas used to be dead. lol Thanks for the heads up Snow. I'll make my way there to see what I've been missing. YK Honestly, you didn't miss much in those threads. The first thread was largely rebelling against an awful system proposed by CSM 7 member Trebor, and the second one was started by CCP Xhagen to presumably elicit feedback. The latter was the only one with value, and even though it seemed early on like Xhagen was actually open and receptive to considering other ideas (the primary one being that low voter turnout is the issue, not the FPTP voting system), he abruptly stopped responding to the thread. The next we heard out of CCP officially was this thread (though the Winter Summit minutes had Xhagen basically saying the system was going to be changed regardless). That's sort of Jita Park in a nutshell. "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["

Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1034	Posted - 2013.02.27 01:23:00 - [11] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Anyway, that's how its supposed to work to keep groups from becoming unrepresented, and large single blocks from dominating. Which of course depends on the high sec vote being organized enough to make sure they're all ranking the same candidates (not necessarily in the same order), when the problem that this system is apparently going to fix is that their vote is not organized at all. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1034	Posted - 2013.02.27 06:35:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Dolan wrote: I can guarantee that my mind wasn't made up on the subject until very recently, mostly because I wasn't a CCP employee or in any way involved with the CSM (aside from running for CSM7) until very recently. We recognize that voter turnout is a real issue, and we are taking steps to help increase turnout this year (as I have stated previously). However, First-Past-the-Post voting was still going to be an issue no matter the voter turnout. The existence of the voter turnout problem does not provide a compelling reason to let the problem with our voting system persist for another year. Up until this devblog this topic has been largely CCP Xhagen's baby with input from CCP Veritas. Did you have any hand in either the decision to change or the specifics of the change itself? Also, I'm curious to hear how much thought and consideration went into whether or not a drastic alteration of the voting system (from the flawed but incredibly simple FPTP with no primary to a far more complex STV with a primary) could seriously hinder your plans to increase voter turnout? "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1036	Posted - 2013.02.27 11:43:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Dolan wrote: I don't see a problem with a page that would appear once on start-up and allow you to abstain with a single click.. Ask the GM's who will have to handle the petitions in response to something like that if they agree. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1038	Posted - 2013.02.27 21:17:00 - [14] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Lets look at that case. ... 5 seats go to block G, about one third of the total. They also cast one third of the total votes, so they got proportional representation. Right, they get ~proportional representation~, and meanwhile one bloc has taken 1/3 of the seats. How many are left after the other 2 major blocs (HBC, N3) get their seats (3 if the Russian community has their own candidate)? It'll be an accurate tally of who's voting, sure, but it sure as hell won't be a diverse CSM, which will likely put a big fat dent in CCP's efforts to increase voter turnout (whatever those efforts may be). The old system, flawed as FPTP is, was moving towards a trend of blocs only putting forth a single official candidiate. This was in large part due to the fact that more than one candidate was completely unnecessary - there were no votes or anything of the sort, everything that needed to be decided (chair, who goes to Iceland) was decided before anyone took office, so "stacking the deck" was a pointless gesture. What this new system has done is introduce the CSM voting on things AND given a voting system that lends itself towards multiple candidates (or at the very least allowing nullsec to dictate who the majority of the council are), which undoes all of that. That's not really a good thing, especially when you're still trying to convince non-bloc-aligned people to actually care enough to participate. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1045	Posted - 2013.03.03 09:07:00 - [15] - Quote Bubbleboylol wrote: So why does it have to be that way? Just curious? .. Smells a bit like elections rigging.... It's not nefarious, it's just the closest some nerds* can come to solving a social issue with math. * I say this in an endearing way "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1045	Posted - 2013.03.04 07:59:00 - [16] - Quote DarthNefarius wrote: +1 What I was hoping for when I heard there was going to be an electoral change would be a way to allow regional voting so the CSM would be more diversely populated. What it sounds like we'll get is a tyrany of the minority providing CCP with wildly skewed representation of the customer base and I anticipate voter turnout percentage to plummet especiallywith non-bloc customer base. What's really funny is that the "minority" you refer to (obv. you mean nullsec) was pretty firmly AGAINST any kind of change to the voting system (you can check Xhagen's voting reform thread in Jita Park if you don't believe me). If CCP was swayed by anyone (and that's a big IF), it was by people like yourself and Frying Doom crying and screaming about NULL SEC LOBBY GROUPS and other such nonsense that would lead CCP to believe that the current population was not being fairly represented. So hey, congrats, I guess? "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1045	Posted - 2013.03.04 08:26:00 - [17] - Quote DarthNefarius wrote: And yet I guess CCP took what we said & gamed a system that'll do the exact opposite of what we are 'screaming' for Without compulsorary sufferage like in the country they are modelling the system over (Australia) this thing is missing a major component that would make it work. Notice that at no point did I say CCP's changes were good? I argued at great length against changing anything when the topic came up, precisely because the problem is the low voting turnout, not the voting system. What I'm saying is that at some point CCP got it into their heads to push full steam ahead with a voting system change, and it sure as **** wasn't nullsec interests pushing that attitude. Your attempts to pin that one on us are about as wrong as can be. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1045	Posted - 2013.03.04 08:38:00 - [18] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: You might want to read that thread again snow axe, while to start I did like the idea of a new voting system during part of tebors thread by the time CCP Xhagens was around I wanted a player awareness campaign, as on looking at a lot of the STV systems I realized it would further make the CSM filled with Null sec...So don't blame me for something I argued against. Yeah, you did, but when you say that sort of stuff in the same breath as all of your other garbage about the CSM being a nullsec lobby group (when it was about as diverse a CSM as you could get), the real message comes across loud and clear (i.e. the CSM is not fairly representing players). Besides, as we can see with these developments, by the time Xhagen's thread came around it was already too late - CCP was going to change the system and that was that. "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["
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1055	Posted - 2013.03.10 11:07:00 - [19] - Quote That actually brings up another interesting question that will no doubt be ignored by CCP and CSM alike - how exactly does one measure "hard work" in an advocacy group like this? Aside from specifics like finishing Summit minutes (twice a year) or say, the Secretary/Vice Secretary's work. What "work" is there that can be measured by how hard someone works at it? "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["

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