We will be publishing all of the ballots cast in this year's election along with a myriad of graphs and info in a Dev Blog by CCP Veritas on Monday April, 27th.

I see you are continuing the fiction of the "peace time council." I had two friends not vote for the first time this year. It was directly related to the complicated voting method and problems with the system. They gave up after trying. I like STV, but not the method of voting presented.

Edit: Also who were the two with the highest votes that get to go to Iceland automatically?

...
The STV has got to go.

"This drop in voting has provided us with a new perspective on CSM interest from the playerbase..." then goes on to list some inane reasons as to why people didn't vote. I personally didn't vote because of the new STV system - it's horseshit imo and I don't have the time or the inclination to go through every. single. nominee. and *rank* them in order. Are you f**king kidding me?? It's time-consuming enough to go through the list and the matching programs etc. to pick just one.

So why didn't you just pick one? Please donGÇÖt tell us you did not know you could pick any number <14 of candidates?

As the figures show, a lot of people did not want to battle through that system to chose even one person.

The STV system was the worst thing to happen, now even less people care about the CSM.

I kinda miss the numbers, how will we know how much support every candidate had? Imagine Jester says something stupid tomorrow and is banned from the CSM, what are we going to write in our sigs?

STV is good. CCP getting out the vote? Very, very bad... Hoping for much more next year.

I see you are continuing the fiction of the "peace time council." I had two friends not vote for the first time this year. It was directly related to the complicated voting method and problems with the system. They gave up after trying. I like STV, but not the method of voting presented.

That was the most CCP had ever done to get people to vote, by a long shot.

What stopped them from just picking one guy they wanted to get in and voting for him?

Oh I don't know, Incarna was a pretty epic effort in that respect.

Well, I'm certainly glad they didn't go THAT far!

Interesting role model in your sig. I take it you know what happened to his kingdom...

The vote was down for a number of reasons:

1. The mechanics of this "voting" system, if you can call it that, are a disaster. Enough people have commented on that.

2. Many people I imagine recognized that this system was geared to produce the result we got: a massive amount of people elected who are NOT interested in improving the game, but only motivated in increasing the income streams the for null sec cartels. Given the enormous amount of these streams today, one can only wonder if the motivation for goes beyond "ingame" uses of the cash.

3. The goons plastered over high sec a poster designed to suppress the high sec vote, where they broke the EULA and impersonated CCP, using the CCP logo, and it may have worked.

I am sure that all the graphs and spin that CCP will provide tomorrow will try to bury the fact that not only was the raw vote down 16% over last year, but the vote as a percentage of the overall electorate was down even more dramatically.

CCP, the electorate has spoken. They are tired of the gerrymandering and pandering to the null sec contingent, and the fact that the CSM is viewed quite rightly so as merely a lobbying instrument for the null sec cartels.

Until CCP actually has the CSM made up of people that more accurately represent the demographics of its customer base, the CSM will be viewed with the contempt that the player base demonstrated yet again by NOT voting.

"This drop in voting has provided us with a new perspective on CSM interest from the playerbase..." then goes on to list some inane reasons as to why people didn't vote. I personally didn't vote because of the new STV system - it's horseshit imo and I don't have the time or the inclination to go through every. single. nominee. and *rank* them in order. Are you f**king kidding me?? It's time-consuming enough to go through the list and the matching programs etc. to pick just one.

3. The goons plastered over high sec a poster designed to suppress the high sec vote, where they broke the EULA and impersonated CCP, using the CCP logo, and it may have worked.

Eh? Seriously? Any details on this? If this really happened then I would be surprised that no one posted about it on the forums. Or it would mean that no one in the affected high-sec areas haunts the forums, which would be equally surprising.

/pics-or-it-didn't-happen

I find it hard to believe anybody capable enough to handle eve interface and game play would be unable to handle this CSM vote mechanics.

voters as % of subscribers
% of subscribers

IIRC, one page was sorted by char name and the other by player name
...Having to drag a pick from the bottom of the ballot and relying on the page to automatically scroll up was slow

What stopped them from just picking one guy they wanted to get in and voting for him?

[quote=Malcanis]It is funny to think of all the worry and theory crafting on the "best" and "most fair" voting system when the voter turnout is so abysmal...

congratulations. well done. yay. woop, woop.

another csm filled to the brim with nullbears and toons that think like they do.

yawn.

how much will they try to nerf high sec this time? let me guess, the following expansions will also only benefit the nullbears and toons that like their playing style?

All i know is that he became a synonym for wisdom and he had over 1000 girlfriends.

There is a simply way to fix the poor voter turnout: COMPULSORY SUFFERAGE

I do hope CSM8 also becomes known as CSM (Last) as its a rather pointless exercise.

With the majority of income CCP receive funding free to play PlayStation Dust players the future direction of Eve will be around Dust and not Eve. It will be Dust players that control the future direction / investment / content within Eve not some silly little CSM.

For those that won have a nice jolly but remember it wont make any difference.

Hahaha it's amusing that so many of you argue about a "fair" voting system when the voting rate is near rock bottom. Do you want to know WHY voting is near null? It's because the same people constantly get voted in due to it being much easier to have alliance mates vote in their master than it is to actually convince random people to vote for you. What it comes down to is the number of votes, and it is far easier to get the votes of those already loyal to you, so the same people will always win as long as they remain in power.

Congratulations to all who won.

But peace time council, that has to be the worst spin job ever done. CCP was told by everyone that the STV system would be a huge drag on voter numbers, now after the largest campaign by CCP to get people to vote for the CSM, we end up 10,000 votes short of last year.

Yes CSM7s lack of transparency and communication will not have helped but

The STV has got to go.

Edit: Also who were the two with the highest votes that get to go to Iceland automatically?

If there are that many more US players then the rest of the world why do you idiots continue to run your stupid live evens in euro time only.

Maybe the disenfranchised 10k voters of last year were also an issue. Although hisec forumbears believe otherwise, The Mittani got a lot of votes from people not affiliated with Goons and not even living in null, including one of mine. Some people may not have bothered to vote after their vote was just thrown into the trash bin last time.

A great idea, if the image of GM's having to deal with more angry "I can't log in" petitions than votes gets you all excited.

You really are going to go there?

You who said STV is a good system if we get a higher voter turn out. Instead of focusing on getting a higher voter participation?

If your left leg doesn't work, are you going to cut off your right to compensate? Why bother with surgeries and physical therapy, am I right?

Terrible. You really think that going back to FPTP is going to fix anything?

We are going to delay the publishing of the CCP Veritas stats Dev Blog by a day. We have some more graphs that we would like to add.

Will these graphs include the number of page views of the voting page vs the number of actual votes?

That could be an interesting teller, I bet they keep that internal though.

Will these graphs include the number of page views of the voting page vs the number of actual votes?

Yeah really! Not only would this information be worthless without past years' data to compare to, Frying Doom here can intentionally misrepresent it to prove his point!

CCP MAKE IT HAPPEN

Yes because in your fantasy world, people go to the voting page and keep reloading it.

But now I suppose is where you tell me a voter turn out of 12.12% is actually really good.

Nah, just meant there's more than one reason someone can go to a page and not vote. I know what you'll say - it'd be evidence of how everyone hates STV and STV ruined the election, much like you've been trying to do since the day the results came out.

Is this the part where you tell everyone what IS a good percentage turnout for an unprecedented video game advisory council?

I wonder if that is because the voting percentages stunk, and players have said it stinks. Why would people go to the voting page other than to vote? I think you are grasping at straws, now that you have realized that STV is good for organized blocks and Null sec as a whole.

Well after CCP did the most advertising it has ever done in a CSM campaign, a higher percentage would have be good.

Nice try, but no.

Voting numbers were going to be down no matter what the voting system - this CSM failed bigtime in engaging with players and convincing us that we should care about the CSM. CCP dropped the ball there bigtime as well (well, until they finally came out and actually said what the CSM meant to them, way too late to make a difference this year). I don't deny that STV turned some people off, but it's nowhere near the factor you think it is.

Page refreshes aren't just useless because you don't know why someone went to the page and then left, they're also useless without historical context. You can't say something is "better" or "worse" without any kind of baseline.

And this leads us to...

That's not what I asked. I asked you what percentage of voters for such a thing would be "good" by your standards? I mean, if 12.12% is horrific, then what's good?

Did I say I was looking at a trend, no but it would be nice to know how many people actually went to the page, and then did not vote. I will not say CCP did a good job, but it was still a better job than they have ever done before.

Translation: I have no clue how to actually read this data, but just give me a number so I can point and shriek "SEE THIS WAS ALL STV"

I'll give you a hint as to why I said that: for the numbers of visits without votes to mean anything, you'd need to know what the same total was in prior years. Without that, you just have a number with no frame of reference at all.

Voting systems? Seriously?

Nothing like trying to come up with a solution when you can't even clearly identify what the problem is.

Forgive me if this comes off confrontational, but shouldn't the first step have been trying to get a real idea of what people ACTUALLY think of the current voting system before even considering a discussion about changing it?

Or better yet, not even think about changing it until you've got your voting numbers where you want them to be (or at least to where you think it's as good as it's going to get). You don't decorate your house until you're finished building it.

Good to see you are now such a strong supporter of STV now that you know it helps the null candidates.

Ahh, Frying Doom logic. I'm not screaming that STV is solely responsible for a drop in votes, so I must be supporting it!

I'll spoil something for you: literally any voting system is going to be good for an organized bloc. We can make pretty much whatever work in our favour. STV, FPTP, anything. Doesn't matter. STV makes the organization easier, sure, but I'm not the one doing said organization so I truly couldn't give a ****. Personally my opinion is unchanged from those quotes - it's still way too early for STV. That beign said, STV has been chosen and, given this is CCP, it's not going to change, certainly not back to FPTP, and we certainly won't see any reversion in how the chair is chosen or how the Iceland seats are chosen either (which honestly are the truly damaging parts of the equation, far moreso than STV).

What I am saying, though, is that your myopic focus on STV is wrong. Was it a net positive? That's up for debate. CSM 7's failure to promote themselves and CCP's failure to promote the CSM in general is what caused the drop, not the voting system, no matter how much you want that to be.

We are going to delay the publishing of the CCP Veritas stats Dev Blog by a day. We have some more graphs that we would like to add.

Is it possible ETA on this?

I think within one day of when he posted that would be the ETA, since that's the "E".

Will these graphs include the number of page views of the voting page vs the number of actual votes?

As people seem to hate the STV system yes, that is one of the general problems with an STV system, the added complexity plus the fact that people don't know who they actually voted for.

If my left leg doesn't work, I might try to remove the dead weight STV is from it before I would worry about surgery. After all CCP and the CSM tied an anchor to the voting numbers, threw it over the side and now don't seem to have any idea why it is sinking.

Yes I think leaving the simpler system, and returning voter interest by making our votes count for who goes to Iceland, then a full year of things from CCP and the CSM as to why the CSM is important, are necessary. As well as a lot of transparency and communication from CSM8. To try to undo this mess.

So 7000 accounts less than 30 days old. It's even the biggest age group. All created for the election ?

What? That makes no sense...

.. .oh I see where you are getting that and your misunderstanding.

That's 7768 voting accounts between 30 and 250 days old. Accounts less than 30 days old are not allowed to vote.

From my experience last year, age here is date past activation, btw. I had one alt account that had been created > 30 days but activated <30 days at election time in the last election and could not vote. I petitioned it based on the creation date, and was clarified.

Still experiencing some technical difficulties formatting all this stuff into our dev blog system. I apologize for the delay.

So 7000 accounts less than 30 days old. It's even the biggest age group. All created for the election ?

I bow in the presence of one that could humble Einstein.

Ahh, Frying Doom logic. I'm not screaming that STV is solely responsible for a drop in votes, so I must be supporting it!

I'll spoil something for you: literally any voting system is going to be good for an organized bloc. We can make pretty much whatever work in our favour. STV, FPTP, anything. Doesn't matter. STV makes the organization easier, sure, but I'm not the one doing said organization so I truly couldn't give a ****. Personally my opinion is unchanged from those quotes - it's still way too early for STV. That beign said, STV has been chosen and, given this is CCP, it's not going to change, certainly not back to FPTP, and we certainly won't see any reversion in how the chair is chosen or how the Iceland seats are chosen either (which honestly are the truly damaging parts of the equation, far moreso than STV).

What I am saying, though, is that your myopic focus on STV is wrong. Was it a net positive? That's up for debate. CSM 7's failure to promote themselves and CCP's failure to promote the CSM in general is what caused the drop, not the voting system, no matter how much you want that to be.

That sounds suspiciously like something a reptillian would do, Malcanis. Would you care to comment on that?

Still experiencing some technical difficulties formatting all this stuff into our dev blog system. I apologize for the delay.

We will be publishing all of the ballots cast in this year's election along with a myriad of graphs and info in a Dev Blog by CCP Veritas on Monday April, 27th.

If you want to increase voter turnout next year, you need to start now.

Maybe a lot of people, such as myself, have come to the conclusion that the CSM is an irrelevant CCP Public Relations tool that doesn't matter one whit in the larger scheme of things. There is nothing short of discounted game time that could convince me to waste a single second of my time with the voting process. It just doesn't matter.

A delay?

The devblog says:



So personally I wasn't expecting anything before 2015...

Still experiencing some technical difficulties formatting all this stuff into our dev blog system. I apologize for the delay.

26 hours later.

So still formatting?

Today was a holiday there, so can't really expect much from them when they're not actually at work.
It's amazing they get anything done with the amount of holidays and vacations they get.

That's right. Not a single genuine new player from the period of EVE's greatest ever subscriber growth voted. It was all alts specially created.

Congratulations to the Council. I will do my best to get along with my fellow elected officials.

As for the Goon vote suppression, that was definitely a thing that happened. See here.

On the one hand, the use of the CCP brand makes it a little across-the-line because, while vote-scamming is legal, I'm pretty sure that impersonating the developers to gain an advantage is not (much like cutting the power to someone's house is not).

On the other hand, I think it's more satire than actual voter suppression. Anyone who fell for that definitely has bigger problems than not being represented on the CSM.

Heh, that is funny. However, CCP cannot let people abuse the CCP "brand" or otherwise undermine CCP's reputation and/or authority. That's just asking for trouble.

I would expect those involved to get dinged for violating rule 8 of the ToS: "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer."

Heh, that is funny. However, CCP cannot let people abuse the CCP "brand" or otherwise undermine CCP's reputation and/or authority. That's just asking for trouble.

I would expect those involved to get dinged for violating rule 8 of the ToS: "You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer."

Unless whoever posted it explicitly said they were a CCP staffer or CCP volunteer, that won't happen. The image isn't enough (especially when you take into account the GSF bee in the bottom left corner).

Still experiencing some technical difficulties formatting all this stuff into our dev blog system. I apologize for the delay.

Congratulations to the new CSM and to all of you for having this fine group of people representing you. I look forward to getting familiar with our new CSM and working with them on good things.

Ok people, give them some slack. The results will come asap.
Please just don't start throwing around rumors and slander. Thanks.

Post the vote tallies within 48 hours or I join the resistance!

Aren't you already the rebel alliance? Fighting to get your tiara back?

So.... we're not allowed to imply that Goons rigged the election (despite the numbers that suggest it) until CCP says it's ok to admit it? I know I'm not allowed to suggest that you're anything other than impartial, but COME ON.

So.... we're not allowed to imply that Goons rigged the election (despite the numbers that suggest it) until CCP says it's ok to admit it? I know I'm not allowed to suggest that you're anything other than impartial, but COME ON.

So.... we're not allowed to imply that Goons rigged the election (despite the numbers that suggest it) until CCP says it's ok to admit it? I know I'm not allowed to suggest that you're anything other than impartial, but COME ON.

So.... we're not allowed to imply that Goons rigged the election (despite the numbers that suggest it) until CCP says it's ok to admit it? I know I'm not allowed to suggest that you're anything other than impartial, but COME ON.

Blogs done, and technical difficulties resolved. Should be going out tomorrow, and delays explained.

Where are the ballots?

If there are that many more US players then the rest of the world why do you idiots continue to run your stupid live evens in euro time only.

So why didn't you just pick one? Please donGÇÖt tell us you did not know you could pick any number <14 of candidates?