Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
6286
   |
Posted - 2017.03.31 20:16:03 -
[2] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:I never understand the criticism of the CSM and 'organized' groups. If you don't like organized groups of people voting against what you think are your interests, why aren't you organizing your own group?
(Rhetorical question, everyone knows the answer, which is that "impotent rage is easier than positive action") So your answer to the issue of blocs outvoting non-blocs is to create more blocs? That's as smart as saying people who don't like criminal gangs should start their own criminal gang. Better solution is to eliminate the manipulation from the vote. Which is why I use the term "impotent". You're literally saying "stop people from doing people things". That's stupid and undoable, if you believe what you are saying, why not find others who believe the same? No one says you have to fly with them. I know, another rhetorical question, because damn near no one agrees with you so why would they ever vote like you lol. Nope I'm saying the voting process needs a rethink. But nice strawman
Maybe you should study more than "basic political science". The issue of voting has been studied for a very long time, like 200 years or so. One of the first to look at voting in a rigorous manner was the Marquis de Condorcet. He came up with the Condorcet Paradox which notes that voting can lead to cycles even when individual preferences are not cyclic. Ever since then people have been trying to come up with better methods of voting and have pretty much failed. And along the way there have been a number of results suggesting that voting will always have problems. Such results as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, the Nakamura Number and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem.
The probelm is that voting systems are susceptible to what is called the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). This condition has to do with transitivity of preferences. In an individual if a person said I like apples to oranges and oranges to pears, but prefer pears to apples we'd consider that strange. That is the preference ordering apples P oranges P pears should imply, apples P pears. But voting is an aggregation of preferences so it is entirely possible that you get some violations of this. That is suppose we are voting on {apples,oranges} and the voting has apples P oranges, that is apples wins. Then we introduce pears then we get, oranges P apples simple due to the inclusion of pears.
In other words, the out comes of voting systems is not independent on the voting system. The outcomes will be decided, at least in part, by the voting mechanism itself. Further, voting should be thought of as cooperative games and with game theory, the resulting equilibrium need not be "optimal" or "desirable".
In short, what you want is not possible. Voting is always problematic as a way of making collective decisions.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
6286
|
Posted - 2017.03.31 20:20:58 -
[3] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:In my opinion the CSM is suppose to be a sounding board that not only provides feedback to CCP about their current and or future projects but also provides feedback to CCP about player ideas and issues pertaining to the game.
The problem I see is that CSM members are only doing the first part and are basically ignoring the second part.
There's a couple of sub-forums where the CSM should be very active but they, as well as CCP, rarely ever visit them. I'm talking about the sub-forums 'Assembly Hall' and 'Player Features And Ideas Discussion'. Maybe they're just stealth browsing the threads in those sub-forums so they don't give the impression of showing favoritism towards specific threads.
Now that sounds reasonable and I can understand why they would do that but personally I'd much prefer it if they actually participated in the thread discussion. They don't have to agree or disagree with the thread topic, just show some interest by asking a few questions. I think that would definitely let the player base know the CSM is at least doing something other than getting free trips to Iceland.
As for this thread and it's question - CSM: A Publicity Stunt Or Actually Useful? Currently it seems to me the correct answer is both.
DMC
Just by showing up they'll be advertising an idea as something that has caught a Dev's eye and thus shows a type of favoritism.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|