These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
51 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-09-08 15:35:10 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
serras bang wrote:
i got an idea why dont we do stv and when the loggin screen comes up so dose the ballot and all we have to do is click 3 names and send ?

Because those people who don't pay attention or vote now will just click the first three names they see (if you're talking about mandatory voting) or skip it to get into game (if not).

It solves nothing.


there would be a no vot button but it would make more see it and maybe actualy have a look on the forums and see what is done if they dont wanna vote they will no longer have noone else to blame but themselves. also they may not actualy know the time of the election or that csm exists like some people i know already.
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-09-08 15:35:11 UTC
Firstly wrote:

That said, I wholeheartedly support election reform as the opportunity for large blocs to "lock down" CSM seats is an issue that is only growing more obvious with time. If left unchecked, this will become increasingly destructive to the integrity and legitimacy of the Council as the CSM grows in influence and relevance.


True, also the ability of the Republican and Democrat parties in the US to "lock down" states is an issue we desperately need to solve.
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2012-09-08 15:35:32 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.

Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".



As a 2003 player, I sit here and wonder what exactly my CSM is doing. Why are you focusing on the election rather than the game itself? Your job is to represent the playerbase's interest for the game. This discussion is not in the player's interest. I won't say what I think it is but it has nothing to do with spaceships.

I will go as far as to say this: this year's CSM has been the most ineffective by far and if it were possible to issue a vote of no-confidence then you and your team would surely have it.

Go fix spaceships. Do your damn job.
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2012-09-08 15:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Firstly wrote:
That said, I wholeheartedly support election reform as the opportunity for large blocs to "lock down" CSM seats is an issue that is only growing more obvious with time. If left unchecked, this will become increasingly destructive to the integrity and legitimacy of the Council as the CSM grows in influence and relevance.


Large organized groups of voters are less relevant because

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Caldari State
#45 - 2012-09-08 15:37:47 UTC
digi wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.

Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".



As a 2003 player, I sit here and wonder what exactly my CSM is doing. Why are you focusing on the election rather than the game itself? Your job is to represent the playerbase's interest for the game. This discussion is not in the player's interest. I won't say what I think it is but it has nothing to do with spaceships.

I will go as far as to say this: this year's CSM has been the most ineffective by far and if it were possible to issue a vote of no-confidence then you and your team would surely have it.

Go fix spaceships. Do your damn job.


this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2012-09-08 15:39:22 UTC
serras bang wrote:

this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform

It's about twenty badposters who continually post out of outrage nobody recognizes their genius and elects them to the csm by acclaim. that's it.
The Bastion
#47 - 2012-09-08 15:40:10 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Firstly wrote:

That said, I wholeheartedly support election reform as the opportunity for large blocs to "lock down" CSM seats is an issue that is only growing more obvious with time. If left unchecked, this will become increasingly destructive to the integrity and legitimacy of the Council as the CSM grows in influence and relevance.


True, also the ability of the Republican and Democrat parties in the US to "lock down" states is an issue we desperately need to solve.


I agree with this as well. Both parties are exceedingly well organized, but host platforms that accurately represent only a very small percentage of the public.

But then again, this is a thread about spaceship politics.
Shadow Cartel
#48 - 2012-09-08 15:41:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Like STV has its merits. STV, with an addition that exists nowhere else that is specifically designed to diminish the voting power of specific groups with no explanation? that's when I start breaking out the tinfoil.


Like Trebor said,

Quote:
However, standard STV systems do not meet our first goal. Implementing classic STV would require significant work by CCP to update the system, would require extra effort by voters (which would tend to favor highly organized groups), and may not be publicly verifiable.

Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote.

In this system, voters vote for a single candidate, just as they do now. However, each candidate publicly states which other candidates they want their votes to be transferred to if they are eliminated from the election.

CD-STV, while not providing the full spectrum of choice that STV does, does meet all the goals. The amount of work CCP will have to do to implement it is small (listing the candidates' preferences on their profile and voting page), it is no more difficult to use than at present, and anyone can run the raw vote totals through an election simulator.


This is just one proposal, out of a hundred ways to approach this, and everyone is certainly welcome to disagree about whether or not it is an improvement over traditional STV systems. Trebor's approach stems from his interest in keeping things simple.

Regarding the diminishing of voting power for specific voting blocs, this is an excellent question.

Quote:
for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.


Obviously here Trebor is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.

Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?

And the more important question is - what is the significance of obtaining more than one seat on the council, per large entity, in the first place? This would have to assume that the CSM uses a voting system internally to determine policy, or that CCP somehow gives an idea more weight if 2-3 CSM members agree as supposed to only one. My experience has shown so far though that even a single CSM seat can make more of a difference than three others in terms of influence, as long as that seat is filled by someone competent, articulate, and who makes good suggestions.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2012-09-08 15:42:40 UTC
serras bang wrote:
digi wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I just wanted to state, for the record, that I could give no ****'s whether a Goon is elected to a future CSM. They represent a large portion of the active, involved player base, and most people would agree that if they can muster the most votes for a candidate, they deserve to be on the council.

Despite the hilarity of the Goons instantly invading the thread assuming that this is all somehow directed at them, that doesn't change the fact that players have been, for many elections now, frustrated with the electoral process and expressed desire to iterate upon it.

If you note the title of the thread, it is a call for discussion. You know, where you bring ideas and share them and discuss their merits. I hope we can all keep this in mind before we continue down the rabbit hole of stupidity that is either "You just want to suppress Goon influence" or "you just want to make sure you all get re-elected".



As a 2003 player, I sit here and wonder what exactly my CSM is doing. Why are you focusing on the election rather than the game itself? Your job is to represent the playerbase's interest for the game. This discussion is not in the player's interest. I won't say what I think it is but it has nothing to do with spaceships.

I will go as far as to say this: this year's CSM has been the most ineffective by far and if it were possible to issue a vote of no-confidence then you and your team would surely have it.

Go fix spaceships. Do your damn job.


this descusion is in the players intrest if you have been reading the forum seing your such an old player you will relaise people are screaming out for reform


I'm going to assume that your English is poor. That's fine, I translated.

If people are screaming for reform then remember this: YOU elected the current CSM. Compare last year's CSM with the current group and you will see clearly where the reform needs to be. Things got done last year. Changes were made, the entire playerbase had a say. This year? What has the CSM done?

I thought Hans was a pretty standup guy and I would be the first to admit that his platform held a lot of merit but he has proved no better than the rest. Bird of a feather, I guess.

If you want reform, vote for people that will do their job and keep CCP on task. It's quite simple.
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-09-08 15:44:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
CD-STV, while not providing the full spectrum of choice that STV does, does meet all the goals. The amount of work CCP will have to do to implement it is small (listing the candidates' preferences on their profile and voting page), it is no more difficult to use than at present, and anyone can run the raw vote totals through an election simulator.
[...]
Assuming for a moment that any large entity was capable of and succeeded in achieving 3/14 seats on CSM. This is over 20% of council representation. I think most players can understand that there might be something unfair about any group that holds less than 20% of the player population covering 20% of the council. Does anyone see any reason for that discrepancy to exist, or have an explanation as to how that discrepancy benefits the players?

So in other words, this CSM is doing exactly the same as CCP has been doing the last few years, i.e. look upon a "problem", then spend months contemplating a solution, and then coming up with a solution which makes the problem worse because it can be gamed even harder.

:golfclap:

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Caldari State
#51 - 2012-09-08 15:46:12 UTC
talking to me no im dyslexic if your not then fine and i usualy dont vote like rl im not really all that into politics. but this year ive decided to try and see :P
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-09-08 15:46:12 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Obviously here Trebor is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.


Deliberate mischaracterization of the other side's point of view is an extremely dishonest form of discourse. Shame on you. What is the difference between "taking an interest" and "taking it personally" other than where you sit in terms of the other side's point of view? There is none. It's all about how you want to (mis-)characterize those with whom you disagree. Facing this level of intellectual dishonesty, it's natural to start questioning the motives of those engaging in it.
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2012-09-08 15:46:25 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Like STV has its merits. STV, with an addition that exists nowhere else that is specifically designed to diminish the voting power of specific groups with no explanation? that's when I start breaking out the tinfoil.


Like Trebor said,

What you've done here is admit exactly what we've been charging: this is not an attempt to make a "fair" system. This is an attempt to specifically bias the system against the CFC.

The deliberate change to STV to throw out overvotes doesn't simplify anything. It's merely an attempt to bias the system in a way that's unjustifiable and can't stand up to the light of scrutiny: hence your outrage that goons would "invade" this thread pointing it out because it's indefensible so all you can do is try to shut the discussion down.

The change that's clear electoral tampering isn't candidate-selected STV: it's throwing out overvotes.
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2012-09-08 15:46:30 UTC
Its disappointing, but not surprising, to see the CSM members have been so effectively played by a handful of alts shrieking incessantly about 'lack of representation' at every opportunity because they're incapable of rallying support or enthusiasm for their terrible candidates, and creating enough noise to give the impression that they represent anything more than that.

This is irrelevant navel-gazing of CSM1-era proportions.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Goonswarm Federation
#55 - 2012-09-08 15:48:04 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Obviously here Trebor is referring to the CFC. There's no need to pretend otherwise, unless I'm mistaken they are the only bloc that engaged in highly sophisticated exit-polling. And no attempt at electoral reform should never be directed at any one specific voting bloc in particular, but the bottom line is that if Goonswarm didn't exist there would be some other group in the pole position, and the issue would still exist. This is why I say there is no reason for the Goons to take this so personally, this just happens to be an issue that affects any alliance or group in the game with the largest member-base.

"we are deliberately biasing this system against the CFC, but the CFC shouldn't take it personally because we would try to bias the system against anyone who threatens our political power"

yeah uh that's not a great defense there
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-09-08 15:48:23 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Its disappointing, but not surprising, to see the CSM members have been so effectively played by a handful of alts shrieking incessantly about 'lack of representation' at every opportunity because they're incapable of rallying support or enthusiasm for their terrible candidates, and creating enough noise to give the impression that they represent anything more than that.

This is irrelevant navel-gazing of CSM1-era proportions.


tbh this isnt the problem go ask 100 random player in hi sec eve what csm is and half of em prolly wont have a clue.
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-09-08 15:48:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Alchenar
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
And the more important question is - what is the significance of obtaining more than one seat on the council, per large entity, in the first place? This would have to assume that the CSM uses a voting system internally to determine policy, or that CCP somehow gives an idea more weight if 2-3 CSM members agree as supposed to only one. My experience has shown so far though that even a single CSM seat can make more of a difference than three others in terms of influence, as long as that seat is filled by someone competent, articulate, and who makes good suggestions.



Hey guys what if there was a correlation between being in the leadership of the most successful and largest coalition in the game and being competent, articulate and making good suggestions?
Shadow Cartel
#58 - 2012-09-08 15:50:01 UTC
Sal Volatile wrote:
I think it's very interesting that you've characterized posting and critiquing as "invading." It demonstrates that this is not a politically neutral idea, and that you are not interested in genuine criticism.


You're absolutely right. Invading was a poor choice of words, it implies that Goons don't have a right to be here. Thank you for pointing this out as it was not my intention. I was commenting more on the speed and force with which they responded.

Every player has a stake in how the elections are reformed, and is welcome to speak up about this.

I appreciate you holding me accountable, Sal.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Amarr Empire
#59 - 2012-09-08 15:52:25 UTC
Shadow Cartel
#60 - 2012-09-08 15:52:29 UTC
Alchenar wrote:
Hey guys what if there was a correlation between being in the leadership of the most successful and largest coalition in the game and being competent, articulate and making good suggestions?


I'd say the chance of that correlation existing is extremely high. Cool

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

51 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump