These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Dev Blog: CSM 11 Election Results

First post First post
Author
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#21 - 2016-05-14 16:31:47 UTC
Huang Mo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

What if people didn't vote because they think it's the best way to show you they don't think the CSM represent them anyway?


I voted but am discouraged from doing it in the future as _none_ of my candidates made it. Block voting is killing the election but I don't have any idea what to do about it :-(



Rally other people to vote for the people you want on?

The blocks don't have any secret. Just numbers. And if you don't vote, then you're just ceding the election to them

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Dreamer Targaryen
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2016-05-14 16:33:05 UTC
I have a few questions:

In the devblog you write:
Quote:
In total, we had 22, 345 votes cast in the election for CSM 11.


Regarding accounts created by year, you list the following numbers (2003 - 2016)
Quote:
224 309 441 893 1082 1268 1679 1739 1836 2484 3506 3283 3162 459
Which equals to 22365 votes.

Regarding the day people voted on (1-26) you list these numbers:
Quote:
2955 3848 2377 1307 783 952 700 524 641 473 407 331 283 790 283 284 146 447 290 241 292 309 733 1008 1420 542
Which equals to 22366 votes.

Now if I manually go through the votes.blt-file I get 22366 votes. Even if I get rid of the votes that only voted for Apothne and no-one else (23), I still can't see how you get to the number of 22345 votes cast.


Secondly: If someone drops out of the csm, how do you determine who he gets replaces with?

Do you modify the votes.blt-filt to the following:
53 14
-1 -[dropout]

(which might lead to someone else getting kicked out, too due to the svt-system)
Or do you just exclude every member and let it run for 1 seat:
53 1
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -13 -17 -19 -21 -29 -31 -38 -41 -46 -51

Or do you determine the replacement in a different way (if so: how)?
Callista Jael
Black Science Navigators
#23 - 2016-05-14 19:54:12 UTC
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
The very low turnout is rather disappointing, and I believe it is the cause of the overwhelming number of 0.0 bloc candidates on the council (3 goons, 4 pl, and all but one I can identify as 0.0 pilots) which makes me worry for the representation of other gameplay areas by the CSM.

I would like to know what CCP plans to do the coming year (not just during the election) to raise the profile of the CSM with the non-bloc playerbase, as the messaging this election was woefully lacking.


Also @ CCP Guard

You've been around for a while so maybe you can address what I'm fixing to say. I don't mean this to come across as an attack, but to throw out a few concerns that may or may not have been considered.

How many people are so emotionally invested in this game that they're explicitly concerned about its inner development? For instance, I'm happy with the game. I like to see it improve. I like to read peoples input on what should be a focus for expansion. But at the end of the day I occasionally just want to spend an hour or so and relax with a little entertainment, and I would argue that the majority of people feel the same, as opposed to having the resources to absorb ourselves in a gaming universe - whether that happens inside or outside of its reality. Many of us just don't have that luxury, and even if we did there's truth in too much of a good thing, and we burn ourselves out in the process. In a list of priorities there are so many things infinitely more important.

Granted, I fully understand the benefits associated with a player elected council. I think it's an awesome idea - IF - the whole campaign process weren't so ridiculous. When I participated in voting on the 2nd council (my first and last voting experience) I remember that not one candidate could introduce himself without an accompanying life story. It was all irrelevant and so very tiring, and I didn't have the time to sift through all of that just to discover that our common interests never went beyond Black Ops battleships and modular stations. I don't care if he was engaged and married to a fellow EVE player. I don't care if he fought in a space battle on the opposite side of the universe. And I don't care if he experienced the Jita rebellion.

As far as I'm concerned, low voter turnout is a direct result of an uncaring attitude about the game and its players. We can throw all of our university knowledge and experience to the problem all day long and analyze it until we're crippled, but you'll never get the results you're looking for until the game starts to dramatically affect players lives.
Huang Mo
Tianxia Inc
Band of Boogers
#24 - 2016-05-15 02:11:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Huang Mo
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The blocks don't have any secret. Just numbers


They have overwhelming numbers, that's the point. The candidates that didn't made it did their very best to rally people behind them but to no avail
Rimstalker
Aesirian Industry and Mining
#25 - 2016-05-15 04:32:03 UTC
Most people do not vote if they think they do not actually have a say. The most surefire way to cement that idea is to not listen to anything that the people say. We see it all of the time around here...

So CSM is going to do what? What exactly are they going to actually do? Take our concerns to a group of people at CCP who have provided more than ample examples of not giving a damn?:)

Maybe they will "fight for our right to party"? Or pass on incredible insights and awareness along to CCP who has established that they can and will do whatever they want and the player be damned?

Maybe they will represent us so that we have a voice at CCP? Maybe they will do a whole lot of nothing again? I cannot really name 3 things the CSM has ever really done.

Here is a question for the CSM's and CCP and let us see what they are doing or have done:

Name three things that the CSM took from the players and got CCP to do that has improved the game.

That is really their jobs there at the CSM correct? Or are we still clinging to the notion that they get things fixed? Like Fleet Mechanics...how is that coming along? Maybe they are coming up with another awesome mini-game like research the crap cell garbage that is so boring, uneventful that the best part of it was when I realized I didn't have to do and could remove it from my neocom like I do with so much other garbage they have wedged into it.

Maybe they are getting rules standardized so that everyone uses the same set of rules? How amazing would that be? Maybe we could get them to do something about punishments standardized so if someone breaks the rules they get the same punishment applied to them vs. having a friend or two pull some strings and some people get no punishment for violations of rules that get other people banned. Now, that would be progress.

This next CSM election cycle? Vote for me...apparently I am one of the few who does tell the truth.
Erika Mizune
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
#26 - 2016-05-15 05:00:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Erika Mizune
That "What If" Apoth hadn't dropped results *sniffles*

Nice to see the full results however, was fun to look through them all and getting to see how I did too!

Congrats to the new council :)

#Erika4CSM12

Former DJ & Manager of Eve Radio | Blog | Sounds of New Eden | Twitch | Twitter

CCP Guard
C C P
C C P Alliance
#27 - 2016-05-15 10:42:49 UTC
Callista Jael wrote:
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
The very low turnout is rather disappointing, and I believe it is the cause of the overwhelming number of 0.0 bloc candidates on the council (3 goons, 4 pl, and all but one I can identify as 0.0 pilots) which makes me worry for the representation of other gameplay areas by the CSM.

I would like to know what CCP plans to do the coming year (not just during the election) to raise the profile of the CSM with the non-bloc playerbase, as the messaging this election was woefully lacking.


Also @ CCP Guard

You've been around for a while so maybe you can address what I'm fixing to say. I don't mean this to come across as an attack, but to throw out a few concerns that may or may not have been considered.

How many people are so emotionally invested in this game that they're explicitly concerned about its inner development? For instance, I'm happy with the game. I like to see it improve. I like to read peoples input on what should be a focus for expansion. But at the end of the day I occasionally just want to spend an hour or so and relax with a little entertainment, and I would argue that the majority of people feel the same, as opposed to having the resources to absorb ourselves in a gaming universe - whether that happens inside or outside of its reality. Many of us just don't have that luxury, and even if we did there's truth in too much of a good thing, and we burn ourselves out in the process. In a list of priorities there are so many things infinitely more important.

Granted, I fully understand the benefits associated with a player elected council. I think it's an awesome idea - IF - the whole campaign process weren't so ridiculous. When I participated in voting on the 2nd council (my first and last voting experience) I remember that not one candidate could introduce himself without an accompanying life story. It was all irrelevant and so very tiring, and I didn't have the time to sift through all of that just to discover that our common interests never went beyond Black Ops battleships and modular stations. I don't care if he was engaged and married to a fellow EVE player. I don't care if he fought in a space battle on the opposite side of the universe. And I don't care if he experienced the Jita rebellion.

As far as I'm concerned, low voter turnout is a direct result of an uncaring attitude about the game and its players. We can throw all of our university knowledge and experience to the problem all day long and analyze it until we're crippled, but you'll never get the results you're looking for until the game starts to dramatically affect players lives.


This actually touches on something I've said quite a often which is that we as developers never actually have a direct line of communication or a "relationship" with all our players at once. There are sections of the community that are more invested in the surrounding community and events, and there are others who just log in to play the game and don't mind the other stuff so much. And that's perfectly normal and fine.
Our goal with a project such as the CSM is to try to make it as valuable as possible in the eyes of the invested members of the community, and help the CSM deliver value to all EVE players whether they know much about it or not. And another goal is always to increase awareness and interest in the CSM and get more people into the "engaged" segment of the community in general.

In short I'm ok with not everybody caring about the CSM but I'd like to give more people a reason to.

CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer | @CCP_Guard

Circumstantial Evidence
#28 - 2016-05-15 13:51:21 UTC
CCP Guard, a few CSM10 members have written publicly and extensively about their experiences, and I hope you will take that feedback into consideration. If you're "doing it well" it can be a burn-out unpaid job.

One thing I like about the CSM as a whole is if I have a question that seems to get lost in thousands of other forum postings, I can usually get an answer. They can act as a question filter for developers. Instead of "ask a dev" - "ask a CSM" should be an equally trusted and viable Q&A pathway.

I think CCP uses the CSM appropriately as a body of player experts that can respond to feature ideas and proposed changes, and feedback-gatherers for their areas of interest. Beyond that, CCP may over-sell to the players that the CSM can get changes made in the game, resulting in disappointment when a particular CSM's advocacy for a specific narrow change is not implemented. CSM10 saw a few shout-outs by developers regarding particular CSM's proposed ideas that got implemented, reinforcing the idea that the CSM should be able to "get things done." These few shout-outs were a very rare exception over the course of the year to the daily grind of the CSM's sounding-board feedback job. But a lot of what the CSM tells CCP will not get done: ideas turn out to be very cheap, (or unbalanced,) implementing them is expensive: a harsh reality of software development.

I expect that this term CCP will hear a lot about the concerns of null-sec residents (although that may unfairly brand some CSM11 "null-block" members who do have broad interest in other areas,) resulting in some disappointment by CSM voters, when CCP seems to "ignore" some of their feedback, in order to work on features and changes outside most of CSM11's area of interest.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#29 - 2016-05-15 16:59:12 UTC
Rimstalker wrote:
Most people do not vote if they think they do not actually have a say. The most surefire way to cement that idea is to not listen to anything that the people say. We see it all of the time around here...

So CSM is going to do what? What exactly are they going to actually do? Take our concerns to a group of people at CCP who have provided more than ample examples of not giving a damn?:)

Maybe they will "fight for our right to party"? Or pass on incredible insights and awareness along to CCP who has established that they can and will do whatever they want and the player be damned?

Maybe they will represent us so that we have a voice at CCP? Maybe they will do a whole lot of nothing again? I cannot really name 3 things the CSM has ever really done.

Here is a question for the CSM's and CCP and let us see what they are doing or have done:

Name three things that the CSM took from the players and got CCP to do that has improved the game.

That is really their jobs there at the CSM correct? Or are we still clinging to the notion that they get things fixed? Like Fleet Mechanics...how is that coming along? Maybe they are coming up with another awesome mini-game like research the crap cell garbage that is so boring, uneventful that the best part of it was when I realized I didn't have to do and could remove it from my neocom like I do with so much other garbage they have wedged into it.

Maybe they are getting rules standardized so that everyone uses the same set of rules? How amazing would that be? Maybe we could get them to do something about punishments standardized so if someone breaks the rules they get the same punishment applied to them vs. having a friend or two pull some strings and some people get no punishment for violations of rules that get other people banned. Now, that would be progress.

This next CSM election cycle? Vote for me...apparently I am one of the few who does tell the truth.



Which fleet mechanics are you talking about, btw?

If it's boosting, then there is a change coming for that. It just needed CCP to switch out the dogma implementation, and introduce brain in a box, before it was feasible to do. But it's coming, now that the first two are done.


Then there's the fleet api that was recently introduced. It's seeing use in a few places.

How about the market data API? How about the update for it, which will let you get an entire region at once? (the second is coming)

Stuff does happen. Maybe not as far as some people would like, but there are technical blockers on some things.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#30 - 2016-05-15 17:08:14 UTC
Huang Mo wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The blocks don't have any secret. Just numbers


They have overwhelming numbers, that's the point. The candidates that didn't made it did their very best to rally people behind them but to no avail



Some of them did. Some of them didn't.

I'm proof that you don't need a null block behind you to get onto the CSM. Just engaged players. (Engaged with the community. That can be part of the problem when it comes to, say, getting votes from highsec mission runners. They don't need to be as engaged as, say, someone who PvPs out in Nullsec.

An important point I keep making: People have to know who you are. If they don't, you will _not_ get elected. That's not a flaw in the system, or the electorate. It's a flaw in the candidate. The time to start campaigning is now. Make sure people know who you are, before they even get close to the ballot box.

I've seen some people complaining that the CSM is a popularity contest. Or that it only has celebrities on it. I understand where the complaint is coming from, and it's not wrong. But it is misguided. It's _always_ going to be that way, and there's no good way to stop it. Because to stop it, you need a motivated electorate, who _all_ go out and research every candidate. Yes, there are people who do it. But there's also a large number who can't be bothered. So they just vote for who they know. So make sure your name is in the mouths of others.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Black Pedro
Mine.
#31 - 2016-05-15 20:58:30 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Huang Mo wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
The blocks don't have any secret. Just numbers


They have overwhelming numbers, that's the point. The candidates that didn't made it did their very best to rally people behind them but to no avail



Some of them did. Some of them didn't.

I'm proof that you don't need a null block behind you to get onto the CSM. Just engaged players. (Engaged with the community. That can be part of the problem when it comes to, say, getting votes from highsec mission runners. They don't need to be as engaged as, say, someone who PvPs out in Nullsec.

An important point I keep making: People have to know who you are. If they don't, you will _not_ get elected. That's not a flaw in the system, or the electorate. It's a flaw in the candidate. The time to start campaigning is now. Make sure people know who you are, before they even get close to the ballot box.

I've seen some people complaining that the CSM is a popularity contest. Or that it only has celebrities on it. I understand where the complaint is coming from, and it's not wrong. But it is misguided. It's _always_ going to be that way, and there's no good way to stop it. Because to stop it, you need a motivated electorate, who _all_ go out and research every candidate. Yes, there are people who do it. But there's also a large number who can't be bothered. So they just vote for who they know. So make sure your name is in the mouths of others.

If it is always going to be that way isn't something fundamentally flawed though? If most "communities" and game "niches" are too small to reach critical mass and instead we just get nullsec candidates 1-12 or 13 each year, wouldn't we all be better served by some other system? The goal is not to elect the most popular or space famous, rather it is to elect a representative council of the player-base. While the current council was elected completely fairly, it is in no way representative of the current playerbase. 13/14th of the players are not in large nullsec blocks and that is a problem.

Telling people to get more space famous is not a solution. No offense, but space famous people are not automatically good representatives nor experts in the game. Nor is it feasible for some play styles to ever get sufficient numbers to pass the bar set by the large nullsec player groups to be the minimum even if they get every single player on board. Wouldn't it be better to have a single representative of the space truckers on the CSM say instead of the 4th PL candidate?

Of course, the hard part is engineering a better system but it is clear that if the goal of the CSM is to represent the players, than it has failed this year. Actually it has failed almost every year with many playstyle under-represented, or never represented. You can tell the failed and prospective candidates to "get gud" so they get elected, but that isn't going to bring any more legitimacy to your organization that is rightly regarded by many players not to represent them or stop your council's continued slide into irrelevancy.
Huang Mo
Tianxia Inc
Band of Boogers
#32 - 2016-05-16 06:06:58 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to have a single representative of the space truckers on the CSM say instead of the 4th PL candidate?


^this
Circumstantial Evidence
#33 - 2016-05-16 09:07:18 UTC
An idea to put the CSM in front of more players: How about a CSM button on all station service panels? While that would leave out POS residents, POS's are going away in about the same amount of time it would probably take to decide what a "CSM button" should do, and code it in.

I think this should at minimum display an info panel paragraph about the CSM, forum links (external web browser), the current slate of reps, preferred methods of contact, & a statement of their areas of interest (if they provided one.).

Additionally this feature could expose in-game (or link to external web browser) the ability to nominate oneself for the next term, record a text statement & other info required by CCP, and IF accepted by CCP in a periodic review process, a separate info panel would list approved nominees and their statements. Players could begin privately sorting candidates as the year progresses. (Access to the CSM voting UI year 'round, for the private sorting. That would have to be stored with a player's account, not a web browser cookie.) Players could be alerted (optional notification) on a monthly basis that newly approved nominees statements, contact info, and/or forum thread are available for their review. Notification frequency would increase in the two months prior to an election.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2016-05-16 14:32:41 UTC
Huang Mo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

What if people didn't vote because they think it's the best way to show you they don't think the CSM represent them anyway?


I voted but am discouraged from doing it in the future as _none_ of my candidates made it. Block voting is killing the election but I don't have any idea what to do about it :-(

bloc voting has no particular power in stv besides 'fill out all of your ballot, morons' expanding the voting power of bloc voters slightly compared to people who effort out at three

you can't blame this on the big bad blocs, we won fair and square because the overwhelming majority of people support us

well, support one of us, we sure don't support each other :v:
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
#35 - 2016-05-17 13:51:42 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Logibro
Dreamer Targaryen wrote:
I have a few questions:

In the devblog you write:
Quote:
In total, we had 22, 345 votes cast in the election for CSM 11.


Regarding accounts created by year, you list the following numbers (2003 - 2016)
Quote:
224 309 441 893 1082 1268 1679 1739 1836 2484 3506 3283 3162 459
Which equals to 22365 votes.

Regarding the day people voted on (1-26) you list these numbers:
Quote:
2955 3848 2377 1307 783 952 700 524 641 473 407 331 283 790 283 284 146 447 290 241 292 309 733 1008 1420 542
Which equals to 22366 votes.

Now if I manually go through the votes.blt-file I get 22366 votes. Even if I get rid of the votes that only voted for Apothne and no-one else (23), I still can't see how you get to the number of 22345 votes cast.


Secondly: If someone drops out of the csm, how do you determine who he gets replaces with?

Do you modify the votes.blt-filt to the following:
53 14
-1 -[dropout]

(which might lead to someone else getting kicked out, too due to the svt-system)
Or do you just exclude every member and let it run for 1 seat:
53 1
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -13 -17 -19 -21 -29 -31 -38 -41 -46 -51

Or do you determine the replacement in a different way (if so: how)?


On line 76 you can find 21 total votes for Apothne and only Apothne (that is, people with only one preference vote with that preference being Apothne). 22366-21 is 22345. Where are you getting 23 from?

As to your second question, as he was withdrawn before the results were announced, we used the first method (and you can see this present in the given ballot file - it's the -1). The second method you outlined is a new method we are considering for replacing resigning council members (rather than the current system of taking the next last person to be eliminated).

CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics

@CCP_Logibro

Dreamer Targaryen
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2016-05-17 19:50:38 UTC
CCP Logibro wrote:
On line 76 you can find 21 total votes for Apothne and only Apothne (that is, people with only one preference vote with that preference being Apothne). 22366-21 is 22345. Where are you getting 23 from?

Shocked You are right. (I accidently looked for his candidate-numer in the whole-line instead if excluding the number of votes, resulting in 3856 and 7402 added to his 21 votes. Ugh)

Quote:
The second method you outlined is a new method we are considering for replacing resigning council members (rather than the current system of taking the next last person to be eliminated).

Thank you :)
Eleanor Malle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2016-05-21 17:01:09 UTC
I voted and congratulations to the new members of the CSM 11.

However, you should change the rules so as to have a better representation.

Currently, 14 positions available, 7 belong to 2 alliances (4 Pandemic and 3 Goonswarrn)

Below, an example of modification you might make at the next election to get a better representative of the players :

- In the future, I would suggest you to have for the CSM, only 1 delegate for an Alliance or Corpo. If several members of the same alliance want to be elected, the one with the most votes will be win and go to CSM.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#38 - 2016-05-21 17:12:10 UTC
Eleanor Malle wrote:
I voted and congratulations to the new members of the CSM 11.

However, you should change the rules so as to have a better representation.

Currently, 14 positions available, 7 belong to 2 alliances (4 Pandemic and 3 Goonswarrn)

Below, an example of modification you might make at the next election to get a better representative of the players :

- In the future, I would suggest you to have for the CSM, only 1 delegate for an Alliance or Corpo. If several members of the same alliance want to be elected, the one with the most votes will be win and go to CSM.



While this sounds like a simple solution, what would you do, if, say, they ran on an alternate character, which was in a different corp?

Or multiple people from the same coalition, but different alliances? (Like Lawn and Goonswarm, for example)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Chrystal Aideron
Fwaction Warfare Corporwation
#39 - 2016-06-08 18:02:02 UTC
Katrina Bekers wrote:
Third worst election in terms of participation.

Is this something to worry about?


I think most players are not thrilled that CCP is going to give some players nda information when they are all but explicitly saying they will use it for in game advantage.

E.g.,
Aryth:
"What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans.
Good things for us that's what."

I realize CFC pretty much wants to have csm ended and it is playing in their hands for players to disavow it. But sadly that is a fact of the player base that they will indeed put people like this on the csm. CCP shouldn't pretend different.
Previous page12