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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 23 post(s)
Ellente Fervens Saiph Industries Talocan United 21	Posted - 2013.02.22 06:03:00 - [151] - Quote OK as someone who has been using a transferable voting system for the past 17 years. Pick a candidate you most like, put them at the top. Pick your next fave in 2, repeat until unsure. If more slots are available: rank all those you like but can't separate in the remaining spots and give them all the same number. If your fave only received your vote and no-one else your vote will got to your second place preference. Repeat until you vote is allocated. It really isn't hard. (Although I prefer to work from candidates I hate and work up.)
rodyas Tie Fighters Inc 1053	Posted - 2013.02.22 06:04:00 - [152] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14. And as to "The summit attendees will use a new 2+5 system, with CCP and the CSM working together to pick the 5 hardest working and most feature relevant CSMs being flown to each summit and the final 2 attendees will be the "most preferred" candidates" CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim. I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg. Aww, don't lose hope so easily. How is not being spammed by so many candidates on the voting form, and having to read enough to choose 14 of them, not a mass forced education camp? Its a hard way to educate people, but if they don't show any effort in doing it, I imagine things get harder for them. Also, for CCP and CSM picking candidates, we get to see what aspects, CCP takes seriously by which CSM member they pick. We could have an earlier insight to what is coming, as well as give us more time, to think of really funny and smart and pessimistic trolls as feedback. Think of the POS threads when a WH candidate isn't chosen to go to the Iceland Summit. If anything not much will change, once again CCP gets to choose things and start the race, then we get to troll them and give them **** the whole time and judge them for what they are choosing. For me, EVE will almost be the same really. Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Ellente Fervens Saiph Industries Talocan United 21	Posted - 2013.02.22 06:05:00 - [153] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14. And as to "The summit attendees will use a new 2+5 system, with CCP and the CSM working together to pick the 5 hardest working and most feature relevant CSMs being flown to each summit and the final 2 attendees will be the "most preferred" candidates" CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim. I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg. Totally, the whole point is that it is a tool to improve the game. It is not a voice, it is a tool. Then again the game might get improved. That game that you need an active account in to troll the forums?
Indahmawar Fazmarai 1083	Posted - 2013.02.22 07:53:00 - [154] - Quote mynnna wrote: Rhavas wrote: mynnna wrote: Malcanis wrote: Well done CCP for handing control of the CSM to the CFC and the HBC. Don't say you weren't warned long ago. Since I will directly benefit this time around I'm not even going to make too much of a fuss about it right now, but the outcome of this change is so obvious that I can't believe it isn't intended. That alone gives me much amusement. Seriously this. If you think this is going to get you a more varied CSM, I don't know what to say. I do not see this election ending well on that front. Election system monkeying alone is not going to do it for you, so I hope whatever your plans are for reaching out and getting more voter participation are good. I do have an honest question, though. The blog mentions that the top twenty eight candidates from the pre-election process get up for election, and what happens if there are fewer than twenty eight. But what happens if there are more - straight top vote getters are in, I assume? When someone calls "CFC and HBC own the CSM now" and the CFC candidate says "Yep" you should expect that this is truth. All you have to do is count the votes from last year. Mynnna should get far more than enough votes to get the top spot. After that, Mynnna's overvotes will all roll downhill, ensuring that several other sov null candidates are elected. HBC is even bigger than CFC, if perhaps less disciplined. So the two biggest blocs of coordinated voters will all be voting for the sov null candidates. At an unscientific guess, expect the top 4, if not 6 or more, candidates to be sov null candidates. Well, like I posted further up the page, Xhagen actually isn't terribly concerned with bloc voting, nor accurately representing the playerbase - only accurately representing those who actually vote. So in that, mission success. The onus on CCP is now, as before, to increase the size of the voting playerbase. If they successfully do that, I guess we'll see if they're also successful in the quest to more accurately represent those voters. Well, from a metareality point of view, the election system has become about the challenge to "softwarize" a STV system, which is what CCP Xhagen can do, and dismiss the way more difficult issue of why players don't involve with the CSM, which is nobody's field of expertise in CCP. CCP as a corporation has got software makers, so they found a software solution to an issue that can be resolved through software: accurately represent voter intent. Getting people to actually involve and vote is not a "softwarizable" issue and thus is left unresolved and unattended, even if the new complex election system is actually going to harm involvement. "I'm the IT guy, don't ask me how to reach out to the customers" comes to mind when trying to sumamrize this issue in a one-liner. 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? EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it.
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1001	Posted - 2013.02.22 08:40:00 - [155] - 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["
Finde learth Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 30	Posted - 2013.02.22 09:43:00 - [156] - Quote CCP Xhagen wrote: Granted we know this will generate discussions about the selection, but the flavor of it will be different from the discussions on the matter in the past. The voting rule in Pre-election is different from final ballot, right ?
Trebor Daehdoow Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad. 2641	Posted - 2013.02.22 10:55:00 - [157] - Quote Finde learth wrote: The voting rule in Pre-election is different from final ballot, right ? Yes. In the pre-election, you vote for a single candidate (just like the election last year). 200 votes gets a candidate on the final ballot. Re-elect Trebor to CSM8 GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó My CSM Blog
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 7778	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:08:00 - [158] - Quote Frying Doom wrote: So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14. And as to "The summit attendees will use a new 2+5 system, with CCP and the CSM working together to pick the 5 hardest working and most feature relevant CSMs being flown to each summit and the final 2 attendees will be the "most preferred" candidates" CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim. I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg. It's more important than ever to get people voting, assuming we want diversity in the CSM. It's just going to be harder work. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 7778	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:09:00 - [159] - Quote Snow Axe wrote: 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. Nicely put. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 7778	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:11:00 - [160] - Quote Ellente Fervens wrote: Malcanis wrote: Orisa Medeem wrote: Malcanis wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: After re-reading the devblog, I am reasonably positive that the new system is way too complex and will disengage potential voters trying to understand what are they doing or why. Hell, i'm not even sure to vote albeit I did the two last elections as i'm still not sure on what are supposed to be the potential consequences of ranking the candidates. Does it matter hwo I rank them? It's better to vote just one guy or should I vote two or more just in case? What happens with all the votes I don't give (i.e, I have 14 votes, what if I only give 4? Why should i be less represented that someone who uses all his 14 votes?) This basically sums up my questions. Should I just vote for me and get 14x the benefit of spreading my vote, or should I vote for 14 people and hope they reciprocate? I believe, as these two comments give plenty of evidence, that a lot of people will erroneous think they are giving a separate vote for each candidate they choose, while in reality they only have one vote (per account). The vote will go for their top-most choice, in case said candidate receive enough votes to be elected. Failing that, the vote is transferred to their second choice, if that candidate can be elected, so on, so on. But in no moment one vote is added to more than one candidate. Oh so its that system. Well in that case: bloc CSM it is then. Instead of "wasting" their votes on spending more than enough to get their guy elected, they can efficiently make sure that as many of their guys get elected as they have votes to achieve. Basically it will automatically perfectly co-ordinate bloc voting. Hilarious. Amused that the descendents of the criminal classes of Britain (Australians) can understand and use transferable votes yet EVE players and the current population of Britain can't see the benefits. Coming and going Malcanis. I especially like the way you run your mouth off about the system before trying to understand it....exhibiting great CSM potential right there. Don't worry you are not the only prospective candidate in that territory. This election will be qualitatively unlike Australian elections in several obvious ways. Not the least of which is the difference in election restrictions. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread

R0me0 Charl1e Easy A Industries 65	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:33:00 - [161] - Quote Considering I have to go through and mark down all of my preference for the senate ballot in Australia, which can add up to 50 to 60 candidates, this new ballot system will be a breeze to understand. What people need to do is to have their favorite candidates and their hated candidates worked out before they vote, makes voting easier. CCP, has the topic of compulsory voting for the CSM been discussed internally? It may be something to discuss since we are changing the voting system.
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 611	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:41:00 - [162] - Quote CynoNet Two wrote: Is there still no change to the policy of revealing candidate real names publically on the Internet? I wonder how many potentially great representatives we're missing out on because they don't want to be e-stalked for blowing up someone's Internet spaceship. Repeating this for great justice (and also an answer)
spookydonut GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 135	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:45:00 - [163] - Quote 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.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet 4570	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:52:00 - [164] - Quote ITT internet spaceships is serious business. Seriously people it's just a game. Low voting numbers here isn't the impending death of the western democracy. If people just want to play a game and ignore all the politics and the elections, let them. They're doing it right.
Aryndel Vyst GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 505	Posted - 2013.02.22 13:07:00 - [165] - 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.
Snow Axe GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1003	Posted - 2013.02.22 13:08:00 - [166] - 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["
Vera Algaert Republic University Minmatar Republic 813	Posted - 2013.02.22 15:17:00 - [167] - 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. accountability is king. I'm a NPC corp alt, any argument I make is invalid.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 858	Posted - 2013.02.22 15:45:00 - [168] - Quote Snow Axe wrote: 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. This pretty much sums up what has occurred. I do not believe this is good for EVE or the CSM, but hey, it isn't exactly bad for us (null) either so just going to roll with it. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 2873	Posted - 2013.02.22 18:22:00 - [169] - Quote Vera Algaert wrote: 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. accountability is king. And never mind the crazy people. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 2873	Posted - 2013.02.22 18:24:00 - [170] - Quote R0me0 Charl1e wrote: CCP, has the topic of compulsory voting for the CSM been discussed internally? It may be something to discuss since we are changing the voting system. I certainly think they should change their approach to make it seem more relevant. As it stands, a LOT of people don't vote because they feel like it doesn't matter. Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Chokichi Ozuwara Lucky Dragon Convenience 484	Posted - 2013.02.22 18:48:00 - [171] - Quote R0me0 Charl1e wrote: CCP, has the topic of compulsory voting for the CSM been discussed internally? It may be something to discuss since we are changing the voting system. Why would it be discussed? It's a horrible idea. Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Chokichi Ozuwara Lucky Dragon Convenience 484	Posted - 2013.02.22 18:50:00 - [172] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: R0me0 Charl1e wrote: CCP, has the topic of compulsory voting for the CSM been discussed internally? It may be something to discuss since we are changing the voting system. I certainly think they should change their approach to make it seem more relevant. As it stands, a LOT of people don't vote because they feel like it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, and it shouldn't matter. The CSM has no power, and that's a great thing. As soon as any power accrues to the CSM, you're going to see all of the corruption we get in real life politics. No thanks. Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 4545	Posted - 2013.02.22 20:49:00 - [173] - Quote Vera Algaert wrote: 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. accountability is king. i, too, believe accountability is best enforced though people with demonstrable mental problems that should be getting medical care
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 7784	Posted - 2013.02.22 20:51:00 - [174] - Quote Chokichi Ozuwara wrote: FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: R0me0 Charl1e wrote: CCP, has the topic of compulsory voting for the CSM been discussed internally? It may be something to discuss since we are changing the voting system. I certainly think they should change their approach to make it seem more relevant. As it stands, a LOT of people don't vote because they feel like it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, and it shouldn't matter. The CSM has no power, and that's a great thing. As soon as any power accrues to the CSM, you're going to see all of the corruption we get in real life politics. No thanks. You're adorable. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
Poetic Stanziel Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 1729	Posted - 2013.02.22 23:24:00 - [175] - Quote Trebor Daehdoow wrote: One system that isn't feasible is Schulze-STV. While it is a very good counting method, its computational complexity explodes as the number of candidates and seats goes up. A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that a Schulze-STV election with 14 seats and 28 candidates would take over 9 years to compute on a decent PC. Schulze runs in polynomial time, not exponential time. The Schulze algorithm is a widest path problem. It has a running time of N^3, where N is the number of candidates. It's quite an efficient algorithm for all candidate sizes. You're way off base here, Trebor. I realize though that your programming experience is circa-1981. Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 7797	Posted - 2013.02.22 23:26:00 - [176] - Quote And "you're" grammer is sub year six. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
Poetic Stanziel Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 1729	Posted - 2013.02.22 23:35:00 - [177] - Quote Malcanis wrote: And "you're" grammer is sub year six. Grammer. Thank you for the lesson. Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com

CCP Veritas C C P C C P Alliance 697	Posted - 2013.02.22 23:47:00 - [178] - Quote Poetic Stanziel wrote: Trebor Daehdoow wrote: One system that isn't feasible is Schulze-STV. While it is a very good counting method, its computational complexity explodes as the number of candidates and seats goes up. A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that a Schulze-STV election with 14 seats and 28 candidates would take over 9 years to compute on a decent PC. Schulze runs in polynomial time, not exponential time. The Schulze algorithm is a widest path problem. It has a running time of N^3, where N is the number of candidates. It's quite an efficient algorithm for all candidate sizes. You're way off base here, Trebor. I realize though that your programming experience is circa-1981. Schulze-STV is different than regular Schulze. They're similar in that they're both path-based, but Schulze-STV is based on all possible group outcomes, making the graph size grow combinatorially. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software

Poetic Stanziel Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 1732	Posted - 2013.02.23 00:18:00 - [179] - Quote CCP Veritas wrote: Schulze-STV is different than regular Schulze. They're similar in that they're both path-based, but Schulze-STV is based on all possible group outcomes, making the graph size grow combinatorially. Ah. I stand corrected, then. http://www.math.duke.edu/~bray/Courses/49s/Additional%20Reading/Schulze/Schulze3/schulze3.pdf Yeah, I see the issue now. And in samples ... a quarter the CSM's candidate/seat size ran in 1.0 second ... half the CSM's candidate/seat size ran in 4090 seconds ... scaled up to the CSM's requirements ... yeah, Trebor is probably in the ballpark, then. Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com
AkJon Ferguson JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance 175	Posted - 2013.02.23 00:30:00 - [180] - Quote I don't like the 'if the guy you picked had enough votes already, you get to vote again' idea. That's obviously catering to the big alliance blocs so that their votes won't be wasted. I DO like the 'if the guy you picked didn't have enough votes to win, you get to vote again' idea. As for people crying a river over Alex Gianturco, please stop. Nobody should be harassed irl, but nobody should be running around telling people to 'kill yourself irl' and encouraging people to harass a mentally ill person in an effort to get him to commit suicide, either. Alex Gianturco behaved terribly, apologized, and was removed from CSM. Drop it already.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20250513/0008
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.