These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2012-09-09 12:39:40 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.

You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.

So you yourself concede that your new proposed system is as trivially gameable as the old one. Why exactly is it important that we change the old system now?
Especially why is it necessary to change the old and proven system to one that you have made up on the spot, that hasn't ever been proposed in literature, never been discussed by mathematicians? One that you even had the gall to call "CD-STV", as if you wanted people to think you were proposing a slight modification to "classic" STV?

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.

What are your quality criteria in candidates? And how does changing the electoral system improve the quality of the candidates?
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#282 - 2012-09-09 12:42:17 UTC
From reading this entire thread I believe the criteria they are basing this off of is :notgoons: and :f***test:.
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#283 - 2012-09-09 12:46:45 UTC
Massive Pubbie wrote:
December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?

And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".

Massive Sperglord wrote:
The current system is gameable by large organized groups. The example system can also be somewhat gamed; the question is, is it more or less gameable? STV with overvotes clearly is more gameable, but CD-STV may not be (and have the advantage of providing more diverse representation in the lower slots of the CSM).


It will be hilariously gameable, as already pointed out. Also, why is it fine to disenfranchise voters if they overvote?

Literally The Worst CSM Member wrote:
If you believe CD-STV is more gameable than the current system (by large groups with decent exit polling), then I have provided you with a tool you can use to make your point. I am honestly interested in what you (and others) come up with. Casual statements that "the system is more gameable" are not persuasive.


"Casual statements"? Really? We prove multiple times that it's gameable and you still keep your fingers in your ears shouting LA LA LA LA?

Robert Woodhead Backward (so clever!) wrote:
A reasonable point. But explain to me how you will be worse off than under the current system? Lets assume CFC can expect to have 10K votes to play with. Using your vote management systems (which Mittens was quite proud of last time around), you would simply allocate those votes between your two candidates. Doing it 60/40 or even 70/30 would have put both of you into the top 7. Let's assume you also want another CFC domain expert on CSM. Split your votes 55/25/25 and you'll get 1 in the top 7 and the other two into the bottom 7.

You can do this under the current system, and under CD-STV. You are no worse off.


We would simply split the vote between 4 or more candidates with them all picking one another for their undervotes to transfer to, allowing the eliminated ones to shove the non-eliminated into the top 7. Why do you keep ignoring this?

Trebor "Hilariously Useless" Woodhead oh man I mean Daehdoow wrote:
On a personal level, I want the CSM to be a more effective working body. I believe that by reforming the voting system, we can improve the overall quality of the candidates -- and the resulting council.


How exactly does voting reform that screws over big blocs help you improve the quality of the candidates by allowing even more useless fluff like yourself onto the CSM?
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#284 - 2012-09-09 12:50:41 UTC
How long until Mr. Woodhead comes and either completely ignores my post or responds like the snide child he is?

STAY TUNED TO THE EVE ONLINE DOT COM FORUMS TO SEE WHAT'S NEXT ON DRRAAAGGGONNN BALLLLLL ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2012-09-09 12:53:00 UTC
Oh I know I propose the following as CSM 7's stance. http://soundcloud.com/shutupandshave/****-goons (explicit language)
Frying Doom
#286 - 2012-09-09 12:58:52 UTC
This really is minorities are us.

Have you guys considered working for lobby groups.

Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet..Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2012-09-09 13:01:06 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
This really is minorities are us.

Have you guys considered working for lobby groups.

Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet..Lol

We could, but that wouldn't really be debating in good faith anymore, would it? Aside from having nothing to do with the scope of the current thread.
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#288 - 2012-09-09 13:01:31 UTC
Nah I'll leave that one to the highsec carebears that are whining "OMG These mining nerfs are trash!" (In regards to the most recent barge changes.)
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#289 - 2012-09-09 13:03:34 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
This really is minorities are us.

Have you guys considered working for lobby groups.

Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet..Lol


Also.. if we are minorities are us, why do we even need a change to the system? I mean if we're the minorities then what the **** would it matter that the current system is as it is? It wouldn't, because we the "minorities" wouldn't have any say in who makes the CSM would we? Interesting... tell me more about how we're the minority.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#290 - 2012-09-09 13:10:09 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
This really is minorities are us.
Yes, that's why it's a bad suggestion.

A good suggestion would be one where the majority doesn't get discounted just because it's a majority.
Frying Doom
#291 - 2012-09-09 13:18:01 UTC
Remnant Madeveda wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
This really is minorities are us.

Have you guys considered working for lobby groups.

Next you could accuse the CSM of racism or sexism or maybe of being a foul polluter of the planet..Lol


Also.. if we are minorities are us, why do we even need a change to the system? I mean if we're the minorities then what the **** would it matter that the current system is as it is? It wouldn't, because we the "minorities" wouldn't have any say in who makes the CSM would we? Interesting... tell me more about how we're the minority.

Well the number of votes cast in total is a small minority of EvEs population, less than 1/5 that is what makes you a minority mathmatics.

If you are minorities (which you are see above point) then a system run by minorities is a bad thing. (See USA war with Afghanistan).

So yes the system needs changing, the populous needs to be more engaged into the system and part of that is making it possible for people to believe that it is possible to have a CSM that represents the whole population.

Actually the mistake that the CSM made was posting this here and actually expecting a discussion on it rather than just the lobby groups.

This should have been sent as a poll to the whole of EvE as it would have reached more people, all of which are Voters. Yes a lot of people would have ignored it, but it would have still given opinions wider than those who already vote.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#292 - 2012-09-09 13:24:36 UTC
Yet again I'm forced to come back and re-type the same thing. The problem is not the system, it is the voters. If you CBF to give a damn about the goings on and the meta of Eve then we don't need to hold your hand all the way to the voting platform. Candidates make announcements if you want votes. CCP, keep using splash screens for weeks leading up to CSM elections. Then finally post a stickied :HOW TO VOTE FOR DUMMIES: thread in the Eve O general forum and all the subsequent relevant forums.

If this doesn't fix the problem then well I suppose there's an addage for that, "You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If the horse doesn't want to drink.. let the bastard thirst to death.
Frying Doom
#293 - 2012-09-09 13:32:03 UTC
Remnant Madeveda wrote:
Yet again I'm forced to come back and re-type the same thing. The problem is not the system, it is the voters. If you CBF to give a damn about the goings on and the meta of Eve then we don't need to hold your hand all the way to the voting platform. Candidates make announcements if you want votes. CCP, keep using splash screens for weeks leading up to CSM elections. Then finally post a stickied :HOW TO VOTE FOR DUMMIES: thread in the Eve O general forum and all the subsequent relevant forums.

If this doesn't fix the problem then well I suppose there's an addage for that, "You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink." If the horse doesn't want to drink.. let the bastard thirst to death.

Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been, with the current splash screens ect.. we are leading the horse to water and the horse thinks it is poison.

A simple on the log in 3 buttons and a little blurb about the CSM is all it needs.

The fact that most games do not consider the forums part of the game is part of the problem, the lobby groups are the other.

Most of what you said above only shows to those who use the forums, the rest don't know what it is or believe it is Null sec poisoned water not for bothering with.

But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#294 - 2012-09-09 13:35:38 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been
…the problem is still the voters not caring, as shown by this supposed belief that CSM is something that is “controlled” and that it has nothing but nullsec representation, when neither is true and who can't be bothered to find out what it actually is.

Quote:
But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities.
…and yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#295 - 2012-09-09 13:36:56 UTC
Haquer wrote:
Massive Pubbie wrote:
December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?

And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".


See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#296 - 2012-09-09 13:38:05 UTC
Still comes back to the if they CBF to care we can't make them. Further I did recommend splashscreens, and adverts in game, which reminds me it is impossible to leave local, so...

In any case, it's moot to continue debating the validity of the incompetence of the vast majority of Eve, we need only look to the General forums to bask in it's glory.
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#297 - 2012-09-09 13:40:17 UTC
Two step wrote:
Haquer wrote:
Massive Pubbie wrote:
December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?

And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".


See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.


This is why I liked the summer minutes where it was full disclosure except what was covered by NDA. It gave you an idea of what if anything was being discussed. Strange though that in no point during the summer minutes did the voting for CSM come up, and yet it's been a constant concern. I don't pretend to know though, I'm still just another newbie who likes the meta.
Frying Doom
#298 - 2012-09-09 13:40:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Given that the CSM has been controlled for the majority of its existance by Null sec and now for only the last few months it hasn't been
…the problem is still the voters not caring, as shown by this supposed belief that CSM is something that is “controlled” and that it has nothing but nullsec representation, when neither is true and who can't be bothered to find out what it actually is.

Quote:
But blah, blah, blah more people voting would be bad for the minorities.
…and yet, here you are, voicing your approval for a suggestion that is good for the minorities.

So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null?

And no I was just saying myself time with the inevitable reply I would get.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#299 - 2012-09-09 13:43:16 UTC
My the Ego you have to pretend to know my mind. I prefer if more people vote, hell I'd love for the game to have a fully active playerbase. The sad fact of the matter is it doesn't where the meta game is concerned. CSM is, whether you like it or not, a big part of that Meta.
Frying Doom
#300 - 2012-09-09 13:45:40 UTC
Remnant Madeveda wrote:
Two step wrote:
Haquer wrote:
Massive Pubbie wrote:
December 2011 Minutes, page 4: "In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the powerblocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM"


Oh boy, "the CSM" means "The Mittani" now, eh?

And here we've had other CSM members tripping over themselves to displace themselves from YOUR use of "we".


See, now you are just making it clear that you didn't read the past minutes. Before the most recent minutes, stuff that was said by the CSM was always attributed to "The CSM" or "A CSM member". In that case, yes, it was Mittens (and probably some other folks as well) who thought straight up STV would be an advantage to them.


This is why I liked the summer minutes where it was full disclosure except what was covered by NDA. It gave you an idea of what if anything was being discussed. Strange though that in no point during the summer minutes did the voting for CSM come up, and yet it's been a constant concern. I don't pretend to know though, I'm still just another newbie who likes the meta.

CSM Summit 2012 Minutes wrote:

Trebor expressed his desire for changes in the way the CSM is elected and operates. In his opinion, both the role of the CSM and the required skillset of effective CSM members has changed over the last few years, and the political environment of the elections has also significantly evolved.
Seleene listed a number of topics CSM members had raised during summit prep (CSM made extensive use of EtherPad for this note-taking): voting systems, election of officers, summit changes, required duties and the future of the Assembly Hall.
CCP Diagoras asked if CSM had done similar prep for all the meetings. Short answer: "yes".
Trebor trolled CCP Diagoras: Just because he does not see the CSM working doesn't mean they aren't actually working. And come to think of it, CSM never sees him working...
Election Reform: Seleene mocked the "like" system. CCP Xhagen characterized it as "easily exploitable". Trebor asked CCP Xhagen if he remembered what advice CSM gave him about this before the elections. Seleene noted however that the number of candidates significantly declined vs. the CSM 6 election. Two step questioned if this was relevant: only two people didn't get enough likes.
CCP Xhagen noted that a side-effect was that you had to go to the effort of putting up a forum thread.
Two step stated that unless the voting system was changed to reduce the number of wasted votes (undervotes), the best alternative was something that would reduce the number of candidates. He suggested a primary system might be worth looking at.


And it goes on for pages.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!