| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dierdra Vaal
Veto.
Veto Corp
89
   |
Posted - 2012.03.03 14:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Vote Match
I have activated the matching process. You can go here if you want to get started right away!
What is Vote Match!
Vote Match! is a service that allows players to quickly compare their opinions on Eve Online with the opinions of the candidates in the CSM elections. It is based on real world services like Vote Match in the UK and Stemwijzer in the Netherlands. The service is particularly useful for those of you who do not know who to vote for: the resulting matches provide an easy way to cut down the fourty candidates to a shortlist of people who match your views on Eve. You can then use this shortlist as a guide for which candidates to look at in detail.
How does it work?
We have a collection of fourty statements about Eve Online, which can be answered with Strongly Disagree, Disagree, No opinion, Agree and Strongly Agree. Over the past ten days we have collected the answers of the CSM election candidates (all but three who despite multiple reminder evemails chose not to fill in a profile).
Once you fill in the questionnaire, we determine where your answers match those of the candidates, and calculate a match percentage from that. You are then able to see all the answers from all the candidates (ranked by highest to lowest match). In many cases, candidates have added an explanation of their answers, which you can see by hovering your cursor over it.
How do I start?
You can go here if you want to get started right away!
Veto #205
* * *
Director Emeritus at EVE University
* * *
CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
Mintrolio
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
359
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 15:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
CONFRIMIGN IT WORK TO.
ALSO TO BE VOTIGN A MACH FUR ME, PLEASE ANSEWR LIKE THESE:
A,C,D,C,C,A,C,D,E,B,B,C,D,A,D,C,C,B,B,B,E,A,A,D,C
KEEP UP GOD POASTIGN!
MINTROLIO FUR CSM7 |
Roc Wieler
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 15:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks for doing this. |
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
191
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 15:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
As always I approve of the scientific approach, good job sir.
Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM!
Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so..
Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7
An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68506 |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
5567
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vote match's algorithms are bullshit. You can answer that every area should be the highest priority, on the 'which zone should be the highest, above all others' questions - which is exactly what Seleene did, and voila.
It's a rationalist trap, p much.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Dierdra Vaal
Veto.
Veto Corp
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Vote match's algorithms are bullshit. You can answer that every area should be the highest priority, on the 'which zone should be the highest, above all others' questions - which is exactly what Seleene did, and voila.
It's a rationalist trap, p much.
Actually what you're saying is that the questions are bad. It's true that candidates are able to contradict themselves in their answers with the current questionnaire. How that reflects on said candidate is up to the user's own interpretation, though.
Veto #205
* * *
Director Emeritus at EVE University
* * *
CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
5568
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.
Rational Choice theory - and the nonsense it spawns like ~algorithms~ and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.
You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
1324
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
I just answered what I thought. If it would have let me list those issues in order of preference (which I've done elsewhere) I would have done that. When compared with some of the other things on the survey, I just didn't see anything else on there that I wanted to tag more than the four issues I tagged. v0v 
Suggestions for the future - maybe make some issues mutually exclusive and focus more on specific areas. Some of the questions are VERY generalized and you have little choice but to select one extreme or the other, which made me glad for the ability to comment and clarify. The issue with the comments, of course, is that they are not factored into the actual 'matching'.
Overall though, from what I can see, the 60-70% "match" range is the 'sweet spot'. Most folks I'd expect to agree with land in there so it's ~working~ in that respect. Anything near or above 80% and I guess you are twins with the candidate.
I still appreciate the effort put into this; nothing is absolute and this is another useful tool for the voters to narrow things down.
Seleene's Sandbox - My Blog, where I say stuff.
Follow Seleene on Twitter |
Dierdra Vaal
Veto.
Veto Corp
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.
Rational Choice theory - and the offshoot crap it spawns like ~algorithms~ , game theory and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.
You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.
You can actually opt out of the algorithm by not filling in any answers and simply hitting submit.
Veto #205
* * *
Director Emeritus at EVE University
* * *
CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
2007
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
Many thanks to Dierdra for taking the time this morning to correct my Vote Match survey. I appreciate you giving me a fair shot to be evaluated alongside the other candidates.
Voters - if you took the survey within the first couple hours of it being online, my results showed up as incomplete and you would have got an erroneously low score. In other words, if Vote Match told you not to vote for me, it was probably wrong. 
Please consider taking the survey a second time so you have a chance to see where I stand on these issues.
Regardless of who you vote for, the most important thing is that we get a record number of pilots to the polls this year!!
*Once voter participation exceeds a certain threshold, bloc candidates can no longer rely on their blocs to attain the numbers of votes needed to be elected.* Many people think the system is rigged, unfair, broken, and have grown apathetic while waiting for electoral reform. If you want more diverse representation, the solution is already available to us. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE!!
Increasing general voter turnout is the most effective tool we have to combat the effectiveness of bloc voting. Don't let it go to waste, spread the word and help get every single one of your corp and alliance members to the polls this year! |
Delici Feelgood
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.
Rational Choice theory - and the offshoot crap it spawns like ~algorithms~ , game theory and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.
You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.
Same for every candidate?
Why can't you assume that people can understand the value of the tool for themselves or entrust them to use it as they see fitting?
I would say most people are capable of understanding it as a guide. Where the more concientious voter will still seek out the issues as applicable.
Also why leave it till now to voice objections to something you have obviously willingly entered into, I didn't see any public dialouge in the other thread prior to this one? But I assume this is just the usual lack of accountability and anonymous brokering that occurs in Mittani politics. And whilst I recognise that the CSM white paper affords you private dialouge with individuals. If you had private dialouge on this issue, why not keep it there than leaving it to last minute to air objection to views publically?
tl;dr: Waaah, waah, control freak tears are best tears. |
Lunas Whisper
Chillwater Ltd
Imperial Ascension
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Many thanks to Dierdra for taking the time this morning to correct my Vote Match survey. I appreciate you giving me a fair shot to be evaluated alongside the other candidates. Voters - if you took the survey within the first couple hours of it being online, my results showed up as incomplete and you would have got an erroneously low score. In other words, if Vote Match told you not to vote for me, it was probably wrong. Please consider taking the survey a second time so you have a chance to see where I stand on these issues. Regardless of who you vote for, the most important thing is that we get a record number of pilots to the polls this year!! *Once voter participation exceeds a certain threshold, bloc candidates can no longer rely on their blocs to attain the numbers of votes needed to be elected.* Many people think the system is rigged, unfair, broken, and have grown apathetic while waiting for electoral reform. If you want more diverse representation, the solution is already available to us. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE!! Increasing general voter turnout is the most effective tool we have to combat the effectiveness of bloc voting. Don't let it go to waste, spread the word and help get every single one of your corp and alliance members to the polls this year!
I really liked this tool and thank you Diedra for making it.
Now a pubblie question that should help with vote turnout. Where do you vote at? |
Zirse
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 18:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.
Rational Choice theory - and the offshoot crap it spawns like ~algorithms~ , game theory and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.
You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.
Sorry, game theory isn't tautological nonsense despite what your law degree might tell you. |
Tarion Awessi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 19:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
Methodologically, this is a mess. The questions you're asking aren't suited to a Likert scale, and are ambiguous at best.
You need to go back and fix your questions. Take this one for example
Quote:Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.
If I strongly disagree with that, do I mean that Lowsec is fine and shouldn't be touched, or do I mean that I don't think its the single most important thing to be fixed? |
okst666
Bad Request
135
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 20:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
My top-candidate is 55% to my demands...
[X] < Nail here for new monitor |
None ofthe Above
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 21:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tarion Awessi wrote:Methodologically, this is a mess. The questions you're asking aren't suited to a Likert scale, and are ambiguous at best. You need to go back and fix your questions. Take this one for example Quote:Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements. If I strongly disagree with that, do I mean that Lowsec is fine and shouldn't be touched, or do I mean that I don't think its the single most important thing to be fixed?
I too found the questions hard to answer.
Areas like low sec I think are important, but to the exclusion of all else?
I've been advocating well rounded releases that don't focus exclusively on one area. Focus? Sure, but not exclusive.
Anyway... I would urge people to look past the simple results, and use this is part of the decision making process.
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 21:08:00 -
[17] - Quote
Not a surprise... the higher match is Issler Dainze albeit there were no questions on WiS. Only serious disagreement are Lvl5 missions (they're rotten dead in lowsec, remove them or move them to hisec!) and suicide ganking (seriously? Griefing should be a viable gameplay style? WTF?).
Also would match higher if I hadn't left many choices unanswered because of lack of interest on them.
EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec.
CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents.
EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about...-á |
Ursula LeGuinn
EVE University
Ivy League
145
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 21:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
Huh, I got 70% on Trebor Daehdoow. Hadn't even been considering him, but I read each of his Vote Match comments, and then his candidate website.
Designed Wizardry I-IV? ******* sold.
(Actually I'm still trying to decide between him and two other candidates I won't name, but still... Wizardry I-IV!)
"The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community."-áGÇö-áEVElopedia |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
Tactical Invader Syndicate
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
Lunas Whisper wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Many thanks to Dierdra for taking the time this morning to correct my Vote Match survey. I appreciate you giving me a fair shot to be evaluated alongside the other candidates. Voters - if you took the survey within the first couple hours of it being online, my results showed up as incomplete and you would have got an erroneously low score. In other words, if Vote Match told you not to vote for me, it was probably wrong. Please consider taking the survey a second time so you have a chance to see where I stand on these issues. Regardless of who you vote for, the most important thing is that we get a record number of pilots to the polls this year!! *Once voter participation exceeds a certain threshold, bloc candidates can no longer rely on their blocs to attain the numbers of votes needed to be elected.* Many people think the system is rigged, unfair, broken, and have grown apathetic while waiting for electoral reform. If you want more diverse representation, the solution is already available to us. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE!! Increasing general voter turnout is the most effective tool we have to combat the effectiveness of bloc voting. Don't let it go to waste, spread the word and help get every single one of your corp and alliance members to the polls this year! I really liked this tool and thank you Diedra for making it. Now a pubblie question that should help with vote turnout. Where do you vote at?
CSM page in the community web site. Once voting starts the link will be everywhere. |
Ray Mitar
Gankstas Inc
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
Interesting questions ...... Hans Jagerblitzen scored the highest for me of the major candidates .... 59% ...... thanks for this tool it is indeed helpful! .......... It confirmed why I am voting for Hans Jagerblitzen! |
Algia Knightstorm
Cloak and Daggers
Fidelas Constans
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:26:00 -
[21] - Quote
Hey it told me to vote for who I was already going to vote for. Hail Mittens, King of Space. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Cascade Imminent
442
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
i strongly disagreed with every option and got corebloodbrothers 59%
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Cascade Imminent
442
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:34:00 -
[23] - Quote
Now I voted "i don't know" on every option and my options were a three-way tie between psychobitch, mike azariah and the mittani |
Hustomte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 23:08:00 -
[24] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:...Rant...
You trollin' bro? 
representing Gëí-àGëí ߦ+ߦ¦ß¦+ߦ¦ß¦¦ß¦¦ in Ghana +¬(GùŦ«¦«¦âGÇó¦â)¦¦ |
Akuma Gouki
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 23:43:00 -
[25] - Quote
So Dovinian is legitimately the closest match to my own views (at 66%). Does this still mean that if I vote for him, I'm participating in a voting bloc and my vote should not be counted? |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
642
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 01:26:00 -
[26] - Quote
These questions are very poorly worded, betraying a skewed agenda. For example:
The industry side of Eve needs more game design attention and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements. Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements. 0.0 is most in need of further development, and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.
These are terrible questions. Answering honestly, you must disagree unless you think it is absolutely the most important thing no matter what, overriding all other concerns no matter the damage it may cause. The questions should be
The industry side of Eve needs more game design attention
Lowsec game mechanics need more game design attention
0.0 needs continued serious game design attention
Other questions, like
The war-dec system is unbalanced in favour of the agressor and should be changed to fix this.
betray a clear bias in opinion. For instance, if you are like me and believe that wars and war mechanics need serious attention, but KNOW that wars are absolutely not skewed in the aggressor's advantage... then there are no questions to show this. You just have to disagree.
Terrible questionnaire. Get someone to write you better questions.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Ursula LeGuinn
EVE University
Ivy League
146
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 02:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
I disagree, Widdershins. Gradated responses are well suited to counterbalance the all-or-nothing questions. For example:
Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.
- strongly agree = yes, it's the most important thing
- agree = it's very important, but not the most important
- no opinion = no opinion
- disagree = it may be an issue, but shouldn't be a priority
- strongly disagree = it's a non-issue, not worth addressing
To maintain a homogeneous answer format, it was necessary to word the questions that way GÇö or else the exact opposite way. With the questions written the way they are, every question can be answered with the "strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, strongly disagree" format.
"The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community."-áGÇö-áEVElopedia |
Kid Delicious
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 02:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
Quote:
Notice: Undefined index: grid in /home/fhlinux130/m/match.eve-csm.com/user/htdocs/step_3.php on line 65
Fatal error: Call to a member function getQuestions() on a non-object in /home/fhlinux130/m/match.eve-csm.com/user/htdocs/step_3.php on line 36
Get this fixed asap. (I'm using Firefox 10, with noscript and cookies disabled if that helps.)
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
643
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 10:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ursula LeGuinn wrote:I disagree, Widdershins. Gradated responses are well suited to counterbalance the all-or-nothing questions. For example: Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.
- strongly agree = yes, it's the most important thing
- agree = it's very important, but not the most important
- no opinion = no opinion
- disagree = it may be an issue, but shouldn't be a priority
- strongly disagree = it's a non-issue, not worth addressing
To maintain a homogeneous answer format, it was necessary to word the questions that way GÇö or else the exact opposite way. With the questions written the way they are, every question can be answered with the "strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, strongly disagree" format.
No.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Tarion Awessi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 12:35:00 -
[30] - Quote
Ursula LeGuinn wrote:I disagree, Widdershins. Gradated responses are well suited to counterbalance the all-or-nothing questions. For example: Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.
- strongly agree = yes, it's the most important thing
- agree = it's very important, but not the most important
- no opinion = no opinion
- disagree = it may be an issue, but shouldn't be a priority
- strongly disagree = it's a non-issue, not worth addressing
To maintain a homogeneous answer format, it was necessary to word the questions that way GÇö or else the exact opposite way. With the questions written the way they are, every question can be answered with the "strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, strongly disagree" format.
The problem with that is that when you say that you "Agree" that "improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do, and should have priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements", it doesn't matter whether you agree or strongly agree, you're saying it needs priority over all other areas of the game. That answer scale you're giving doesn't actually relate to the question you used as an example.
There's no legitimate way to answer that question to say that its important, but not the most important. Its written in an all or nothing format. Its basically a yes or no question. You can interpret the answers differently, but that's contrary to the actual wording of the question.
If you re-wrote the question to say
"Low Sec is in need of improvement and should be a priority to CCP" you're opening it up to actually using Likert scale. It actually works the way you think it does. I say I agree, I think it needs work. I say I strongly agree, I really think it needs work.
Better yet, stop asking two questions at once. You're asking if its broken and if it needs Dev attention. That's two questions. Split it up - "Lowsec is in need of improvement" would be one, and asking candidates to numerically order the issues they think should be a priority would be another. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |