"If you want to make enemies, try to change something."

No

And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.t.

It's a better idea than letting the community choose to send people to a summit that never say more than 5 sentences over three days or who ONLY speak when it's summit time and do **** all the rest of the year long term.

Yes but as the CSM is the voice if the players, don't you think it should be the players who decided that not CCP.

Uhh, unless I'm mistaken there is still a vote to decide who is ON the CSM, and the top 2 candidates still get to go to the summit regardless. So it seems your fears regarding "the players" voices being quashed are unsubstantiated.

Personally, it makes business sense to me, when you're flying 7 people halfway around the world to iceland for a summit, you should probably make sure they are the most knowledgeable or beneficial people regarding the upcoming topics. Otherwise you're missing out on valuable operational experience.

Also, it makes it so tagalongs don't get a free vacation.

Is the summit really a 'reward'? It's two days of jetlag and meetings. I don't think ccp will only choose to invite who they like, they'll pick who'll be the most useful for the topics under discussion

Hans would have been an auto-invite had the new system been in place last year.

Confirming that null sec does not impact high sec, and vice versa.

CCP has said their expansions will take a more holistic approach now, with themed changes to many areas of the game. Now, even more than before, they will be looking at having a wide range of opinions during the Summit meetings.

And even if they were focusing on only null sec, for example, it is in their best interests to have one person representing areas of space that would be affected by changes to moon goo and T2 production, for example.

10 hard-working people is still more than the 7 primary CSM members. As it stood before the change, the 7 were sent who had gained the most votes in an election over a half a year previously. Hardly representative of the work they had actually done on the CSM council--I'm familiar with some alternates who have done more work than primaries during their tenure.

In the new system, at least someone will be looking at contributions done during the year, even if it IS a company with a vested interest in how they're represented.

Is it perfect? No, no system is. One is governed by swayed and distant opinion of the masses, the other by the relationships of people who've worked together for months. Between the two, though, I think the newer system has more merit and will be the lesser of the two evils.

The Scope of the CSM

The purpose of the CSM is to suggest improvements to CCP designs and to suggest possible courses of future action . The scope of issues is restricted only to EVE, its ongoing development, and limited meta (out-of-game) issues which have direct relevance to the EVE universe. It is important to keep in mind that the CSM will not have formal powers within CCP, they will have a voice inside CCP.

And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.

It removes all incentives from the candidates to be frank with CCP and encourages brown nosing.

Now I would like to hear all the candidates points of view on the new voting system and well as the selection system compared to the old one.

And how many candidates actually know how the 2 decided by vote to go to Iceland is achieved.

So thank you those members of CSM 7 that created this travesty and all the resources that the CSM will have to use to fix it.

May you rot.

Going drinking with the devas is a lot more reward than working all year and getting nothing back.

How do you define most useful

The STV vote is re-run, except with two slots instead of 14. This raises the threshold to get one of the top two slots from integer([(total votes cast)/15]+1) to integer([(total votes cast)/3]+1); in an election with 100k votes cast, that means it goes from 6667 votes to snag a seat to 33,334. Aside from that change, the election is re-run as normal. Due to the exceptionally high vote requirement, of course, the idea of "transfer" would tend to lose meaning... a candidate who appeared on ten thousand ballots as the first choice in the election to choose the CSM would transfer 3333 votes (3333/10000 votes each) to the second preference candidates on each of those ballots, but of course would keep them all for himself in the top-two election. As there are two seats, the goal here is basically to appear on as many ballots as possible in as high a ranking as possible.

Based on the activity of the last few CSM's, it's actually hilariously easy - it's defined by those members that consistently articulate an intelligible point of view on the information we are provided with. Rarely is that number more than 7-9 out of the 14 elected and those people are easy to see standouts by the time of the first summit. By continuing this argument, you are effectively advocating for people that aren't doing the work in the first place.

You're right, under the assumption that the CSM is what it claims to be. However, under the more accurate perception of the CSM as a cheap system for product-testing wrapped up with a transparent customer sop, the new system makes a lot of sense.

Were I you, I would disabuse myself of my idealistic illusions about what is really going on, as there are no levers of power with which to change the situation. You may be ethically justified in staying this course, and more or less correct in your arguments, but it will ultimately prove fruitless because no one really cares.

Tl;DR You're right, but no one will care.

Is the summit really a 'reward'? It's two days of jetlag and meetings.

Nice STV mathematics. You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

Six days. One day flying there, one day recovering/prep, three days of meetings, one day flying back.


I did check with CCP Dolan when the devblog came out. Mynnna's interpretation is correct.

The ballots are processed by using Wright-STV twice. First with 14 winners to determine who the CSM delegates are, then again with 2 winners to determine the "top 2".

To get one of the top 2 slots you need broad support from the entire community.

Nice STV mathematics.

You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2687879#post2687879

In that post, they link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_system

That article says "Quota )Droop Quota(Q) means the number determined by dividing the Total Vote (Tv) by 1 more than the number of candidates required to be elected and by increasing the quotient (disregarding any remainder) (Q = integer(Tv/(1+No of Vacancies))+1)"

So, what I said was accurate. And CCP clarification on picking the two that go is unnecessary; from the devblog, "[...] and the final 2 attendees will be the "most preferred" candidates, chosen by reentering the election results into an STV election to select the top 2 candidates." So, just as I said before, the ballots are re-run through the STV election, with two slots up for grabs instead of 14.