These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

CSM voting metric (a request to CCP)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#1 - 2012-03-29 17:50:03 UTC
Was the "Mittani Mandate" manufactured? Did Darius squeak by through voting shenanigans? So much tinfoil going around right now, I have an idea to (hopefully) put an end to it.

With the debate over how many short-term accounts were created to influence the votes, I think it would be telling to see a breakdown of how many votes went to each candidate from accounts that were less than 52 days old. It would be even more interesting to see a report on how many of those accounts are still active 31 days after elections closed.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Aranakas
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-03-29 18:33:11 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Was the "Mittani Mandate" manufactured? Did Darius squeak by through voting shenanigans? So much tinfoil going around right now, I have an idea to (hopefully) put an end to it.

With the debate over how many short-term accounts were created to influence the votes, I think it would be telling to see a breakdown of how many votes went to each candidate from accounts that were less than 52 days old. It would be even more interesting to see a report on how many of those accounts are still active 31 days after elections closed.


Seconded.

Aranakas CEO of Green Anarchy Green vs Green
ConXtionS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-03-29 19:04:57 UTC
Perhaps, your char should have to be at least a year old (paid for the year) to vote in the election. Why someone with 2 weeks in eve can vote anyway doesnt make sense. If he really is only 2 weeks old he doesnt know where the eve rest rooms are, much less what the game is about.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#4 - 2012-03-29 19:41:20 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
ConXtionS wrote:
Perhaps, your char should have to be at least a year old (paid for the year) to vote in the election. Why someone with 2 weeks in eve can vote anyway doesnt make sense. If he really is only 2 weeks old he doesnt know where the eve rest rooms are, much less what the game is about.

I believe voting was limited to players older than 31 days.

I would suggest the limit be 120 days. That requires significantly more planning and money. At this point though any such discussion is moot because we don't know the facts. It might be a non-issue, with far less vote rigging that some people suspect.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Rashar Khan
WarpCorp
#5 - 2012-03-29 20:13:51 UTC
I think votes should be issued by real players and not accounts. Otherwise we're back in the old "pay to win" scenario we already fought against (remember jita riots?) :P
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#6 - 2012-03-29 20:15:52 UTC
ConXtionS wrote:
Perhaps, your char should have to be at least a year old (paid for the year) to vote in the election. Why someone with 2 weeks in eve can vote anyway doesnt make sense. If he really is only 2 weeks old he doesnt know where the eve rest rooms are, much less what the game is about.



So all those accounts by next year will be..... one year old....

So if there were shenanigans this time, you're fixing it how?

.
ConXtionS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-03-29 20:21:44 UTC
Personally I cant afford to keep 100's of accounts ACTIVE for a year just to rig an election.. I suppose others can.

However you are correct.. Perhaps 1 vote per PAID ACCOUNT or 10 dollars a vote with the proceeds going to charity???

I honestly dont know how to stop the XTRA voters, just like I dont know how to stop the AFK miners... sorry sir
None ofthe Above
#8 - 2012-03-30 01:04:43 UTC
Rashar Khan wrote:
I think votes should be issued by real players and not accounts. Otherwise we're back in the old "pay to win" scenario we already fought against (remember jita riots?) :P


So we should all send out passports in to CCP in order to vette our personhood?

Its a fine idea, but we have to figure out how to implement it in a fair fashion. Without an implementation strategy its just blue sky ideology.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-03-30 04:06:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#10 - 2012-03-30 13:55:35 UTC
Rashar Khan wrote:
I think votes should be issued by real players and not accounts. Otherwise we're back in the old "pay to win" scenario we already fought against (remember jita riots?) :P

If someone is consistently paying for multiple accounts, I have no problem with them getting multiple votes.

Two rules I'd definitely have if they were mine to make:

Only accounts that have paid for at least 4 billing cycles can vote. This significantly raises the cost of creating accounts just to cast votes. The extra $45 or 3 plex per account would be quite prohibitive.
Accounts which have been identified as botters lose voting privileges permanently. This could be a penalty for the second strike if necessary.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-03-30 15:12:41 UTC
You could do it on the following categories:

Per account.
Account has to be X age.
Account subscription has to be uninterrupted for X number of months.

So you could say:

1 Vote per account
Account has to be 3 months old minimum.
Account has to have an uninterrupted subscription period to EVE for 3 months.

That way you could make it so you cannot make an account, vote, deactivate and then only reactivate for 1 month every year to get votes.

Its not fool proof but would help. The 1 vote per person thing would fail.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-03-30 15:14:54 UTC
ConXtionS wrote:
Personally I cant afford to keep 100's of accounts ACTIVE for a year just to rig an election.. I suppose others can.


Mittani could have done...but I doubt he did. There are allot of people in the CFC, individuals, not just mains + alts and Mittani had a good track record within the player base and at CCP.

Now Darius on the other hand...Brick squad are like a poor mans Goons and universally unpopular.
Rashar Khan
WarpCorp
#13 - 2012-03-30 15:23:52 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Rashar Khan wrote:
I think votes should be issued by real players and not accounts. Otherwise we're back in the old "pay to win" scenario we already fought against (remember jita riots?) :P


So we should all send out passports in to CCP in order to vette our personhood

Its a fine idea, but we have to figure out how to implement it in a fair fashion. Without an implementation strategy its just blue sky ideology.


Oh I think devs know very well which accounts are owned by the same player. Remember they can ban ALL of your accounts if you break the EULA, that means they keep some sort of record. Maybe this is the case when you pay for several accounts with the same credit card, not sure if they can detect account ownership for accounts that have been paid with plex only.

But there's the IP address detection too, if you're playing with several accounts at the same time, all of them have the same IP address. Maybe an statistical analysis of accounts/IP address can give solid information about account ownership.
Rashar Khan
WarpCorp
#14 - 2012-03-30 15:34:35 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Rashar Khan wrote:
I think votes should be issued by real players and not accounts. Otherwise we're back in the old "pay to win" scenario we already fought against (remember jita riots?) :P

If someone is consistently paying for multiple accounts, I have no problem with them getting multiple votes.

Two rules I'd definitely have if they were mine to make:

Only accounts that have paid for at least 4 billing cycles can vote. This significantly raises the cost of creating accounts just to cast votes. The extra $45 or 3 plex per account would be quite prohibitive.
Accounts which have been identified as botters lose voting privileges permanently. This could be a penalty for the second strike if necessary.


Well, is it fair that someone that can afford 10 accounts have more rights than someone who can afford only 2 or even 1? I think in an election we should be all equal and with same rights. Because CSM members should be representing Eve real players, not accounts or economic might. In and outside game. It's my point of view...
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#15 - 2012-03-30 16:45:27 UTC
Rashar Khan wrote:
Well, is it fair that someone that can afford 10 accounts have more rights than someone who can afford only 2 or even 1? I think in an election we should be all equal and with same rights. Because CSM members should be representing Eve real players, not accounts or economic might. In and outside game. It's my point of view...


The CSM represents the subscriber base, not the player base. If I pay $150 a month for 10 accounts (I don't) then I represent a larger portion of CCP's income and it's in their best interest for me to have more representation.

Instead of thinking of it as a democracy, think of it as owning shares in a company. If I own 10% of the shares, I get 10% of the votes when board members are chosen. I get more votes because I've invested more money into the system and I (and the company) have more to lose if things don't go in my interest.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Banderlei Shiiba
SSAP KG
#16 - 2012-03-30 16:57:08 UTC
Rashar Khan wrote:
Well, is it fair that someone that can afford 10 accounts have more rights than someone who can afford only 2 or even 1? I think in an election we should be all equal and with same rights. Because CSM members should be representing Eve real players, not accounts or economic might. In and outside game. It's my point of view...


I think this would be a far more relevant issue if there was just one seat on the council. With 14 total seats, an almost nonexistant barrier for becoming a candidate, and such a small number of votes required to get at minimum, a lower seat, it's really quite hard to not end up with someone representing you or your interests.

Don't get too hung up in the 'who ranks where' game, especially not in the era of CSM members cooperating. All this ZOMG VOTER FRAUD!!!!! stuff is just an extension of in-game biases, whether the target is EVIL GOONIES or THAT JERK DARIUS.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#17 - 2012-03-31 13:40:14 UTC
CCP has our billing info, why not just have one vote per set of unique billing information, on accounts that are more than 30 days old? (or have had at least one confirmed payment made). Most people have alts that are linked to the same paypal account/credit card, this should stop most casual multi-voting.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#18 - 2012-03-31 15:59:39 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arkon Olacar wrote:
CCP has our billing info, why not just have one vote per set of unique billing information, on accounts that are more than 30 days old? (or have had at least one confirmed payment made). Most people have alts that are linked to the same paypal account/credit card, this should stop most casual multi-voting.

I know of more than one instance of family members playing Eve together. Would you deny them their votes because they live in the same house and pay the bills with the same credit card?

What's more, I could easily game this system without any sort of fraud. I couldn't do it on a large scale, but I could certainly get by with 3-4 accounts going undetected by your system. Multiply that by hundreds of goons (just for example, nobody get your panties in a bunch) and you see that the potential problem still exists.

Any solution which punishes the honest while rewarding the dishonest isn't acceptable. And besides, see my previous post regarding shareholders.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#19 - 2012-03-31 16:29:00 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
CCP has our billing info, why not just have one vote per set of unique billing information, on accounts that are more than 30 days old? (or have had at least one confirmed payment made). Most people have alts that are linked to the same paypal account/credit card, this should stop most casual multi-voting.

I know of more than one instance of family members playing Eve together. Would you deny them their votes because they live in the same house and pay the bills with the same credit card?

What's more, I could easily game this system without any sort of fraud. I couldn't do it on a large scale, but I could certainly get by with 3-4 accounts going undetected by your system. Multiply that by hundreds of goons (just for example, nobody get your panties in a bunch) and you see that the potential problem still exists.

Any solution which punishes the honest while rewarding the dishonest isn't acceptable. And besides, see my previous post regarding shareholders.


There is no ideal solution.

While this system is easily manipulatable, it is far harder than the current system, where people who already have alts - industrial alts, neutral hauler/logi alts, scanning alts etc etc - can double or treble the impact of their vote with no effort at all. And to be honest, most people who try to get around multi accounting rules on other games claim "It wasn't me, it was my brother" is just a bad liar.

The current system allows en masse voting with alts. While implicating a 'one credit card one vote', or a 'one IP one vote' rule will inconvinence some people, and will be exploited by a few more, it will reduce multi-voting by far more, so the overall effect will be fairer.

However, if you can think of a better solution, please do suggest it, my post was just an idea, and it does have problems, as you have pointed out.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#20 - 2012-03-31 17:11:23 UTC
Arkon Olacar wrote:
The current system allows en masse voting with alts. While implicating a 'one credit card one vote', or a 'one IP one vote' rule will inconvinence some people, and will be exploited by a few more, it will reduce multi-voting by far more, so the overall effect will be fairer.

However, if you can think of a better solution, please do suggest it, my post was just an idea, and it does have problems, as you have pointed out.


You base your whole proposal on the notion that each player deserves only one vote. As I said, I disagree. It's in CCP's interest as a business to grant more votes to those who contribute the most to the game. If I have 10 accounts and you have 1, guess which opinion matters most to CCP? If you don't get your way, they lose $15 a month. If I don't get my way, they lose $150 a month.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
12Next page