These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#301 - 2012-09-09 13:46:02 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null?
An irrelevant number of them, since the question was one of representation.

Quote:
And no
Oh yes you did. Specifically, you said “So yes I am in favour of this” (referring to CD-not-at-all-STV). So you most certainly are approving a system that favours the minority.
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#302 - 2012-09-09 13:49:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Haquer
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.


Actually I DID read the last minutes and even parodied them on twitter because they were completely the worst thing that I've ever read, bar none.

But still, "the CSM" does not mean "the Mittani" and trying to attribute it as such is hilariously dumb.

EDIT: Also, calling it "STV" is completely disingenuous as it's not like actual STV at all and actually disenfranchises voters.
Frying Doom
#303 - 2012-09-09 13:55:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So how many members on CSM 6 were from Null?
An irrelevant number of them, since the question was one of representation.

Quote:
And no
Oh yes you did. Specifically, you said “So yes I am in favour of this” (referring to CD-not-at-all-STV). So you most certainly are approving a system that favours the minority.

Funny first it was "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."
and yet when asked for a fact it is irrelevant.

As to the I am in favour of this it was to the STV as it will not favour minorities but actually favour candidates who have the ability to stand on approximately the same concepts.

Eg people who want lo-sec fixed might compete against each other for votes but if they both lose the one with the high number of votes might be able to get in but it will also increase the absolutely pathetic number of votes needed to attain a seat, so in the long run it will make it harder for minorities and easier for candidates running in one area to support each other.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#304 - 2012-09-09 13:57:57 UTC
Haquer 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.


Actually I DID read the last minutes and even parodied them on twitter because they were completely the worst thing that I've ever read, bar none.

But still, "the CSM" does not mean "the Mittani" and trying to attribute it as such is hilariously dumb.

EDIT: Also, calling it "STV" is completely disingenuous as it's not like actual STV at all and actually disenfranchises voters.

He was referring to the minute from CSM 6. I would ask how it disenfranchises voters but I will just get some babble back.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#305 - 2012-09-09 13:58:41 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Haquer 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.


Actually I DID read the last minutes and even parodied them on twitter because they were completely the worst thing that I've ever read, bar none.

But still, "the CSM" does not mean "the Mittani" and trying to attribute it as such is hilariously dumb.

EDIT: Also, calling it "STV" is completely disingenuous as it's not like actual STV at all and actually disenfranchises voters.

He was referring to the minute from CSM 6. I would ask how it disenfranchises voters but I will just get some babble back.


Overvotes for candidates are thrown out. This disenfranchises voters.
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#306 - 2012-09-09 14:01:08 UTC
Haquer wrote:

Overvotes for candidates are thrown out. This disenfranchises voters.


Seems fairly understandable to me.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-09-09 14:03:14 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow 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).

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.

Today's system means we'd have to make sure to split the votes of however many candidates to make sure they get in. STV means we'd just stick, say, 3-4 candidates in, tell everyone to vote for one to be the csm chair, all the excess votes would slosh over to his secondary, and to his secondary, and to his secondary, meaning we'd end up with however many we wanted on the CSM. Revote-CSM7 (I'm rebranding CD-STV into Revote-CSM7) would just mean we'd end up in a ton of hisec voters to soak up some excess votes (and point them to our goon alts), and we'd just have to make sure to never let our prime candidates get elected with too large a margin so as to waste as few votes as possible.

Given that our exit polls were pretty goshdarned accurate, do you not think we'd be able to game the **** out of this system, even though you've tried to slip in a "**** goons/test" rule?

Trebor Daehdoow 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.

1) 55+25+25=?
2) So if we're "no worse off", and we can still game the **** out of the system, then why go to the trouble of changing the system?

Also, for ****'s sake, stop calling it STV, it's not STV. This is just a Revote-CSM7 system which is going to fail if it's ever put into production.

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.

Did the variety of the "representation" increase in CSM7? Yes. Last I checked there were more candidates with a more diverse background than ever before. Has this translated into a more effective CSM? No. You have no bite, you have seemingly no weight to lean on CCP with to get them to be less ********, and you seem to be more enamored with playing intra-CSM politics instead of pushing CCP to fixing the game.

Two step wrote:
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.

Straight up STV would be an advantage to us, which is probably why it was rejected. Revote-CSM7 is just as easily gameable, it just takes a bit more care to not throw away a fucktonne of votes unnecessarily.

So, tell me, why shouldn't this thread be destickied, locked, and completely ignored, and you guys go back to doing what you're supposed to do, i.e. push CCP into fixing the game?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Remnant Madeveda
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#308 - 2012-09-09 14:06:23 UTC
So when they change this system we can't be banned for saying I told you so.
Frying Doom
#309 - 2012-09-09 14:08:27 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:


So, tell me, why shouldn't this thread be destickied, locked, and completely ignored, and you guys go back to doing what you're supposed to do, i.e. push CCP into fixing the game?

Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#310 - 2012-09-09 14:09:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Frying Doom wrote:
Funny first it was "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."
and yet when asked for a fact it is irrelevant.
Yes? What part are you having problem with? Is it the part about representation that is tripping you up again? The part for which the space-home of players is utterly irrelevant?

Quote:
As to the I am in favour of this it was to the STV as it will not favour minorities but actually favour candidates who have the ability to stand on approximately the same concepts.
No, it will favour people who would otherwise not get a voice because there's too few of them and at the same time discarding majority votes because… well, just because.

Why is discarding majority votes good but discarding minority votes bad? In fact, let's just go for the big one:
Quote:
Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles.
Why is voting reform needed?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#311 - 2012-09-09 14:16:10 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:


So, tell me, why shouldn't this thread be destickied, locked, and completely ignored, and you guys go back to doing what you're supposed to do, i.e. push CCP into fixing the game?

Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles.

Okay, then. Let's change the system into the FuckMittani/goons/test system, which is easier gameable than today's system, so when the entire CSM is literally nothing but CFC/Test, we can say "we told you so".

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#312 - 2012-09-09 14:26:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Funny first it was "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."
and yet when asked for a fact it is irrelevant.
Yes? What part are you having problem with? Is it the part about representation that is tripping you up again? The part for which the space-home of players is utterly irrelevant?

And what did we mostly hear about during CSM 6 TiDi, fixes for Null sec and then the War focus for the following cycle...hmmm looks like where the candidates are from is very relevant.

Tippia wrote:

Why is discarding majority votes good but discarding minority votes bad? In fact, let's just go for the big one:
Quote:
Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles.
Why is voting reform needed?

The current system is to easy to exploit, given that a large part of this is due to people not voting but the other is the current system is to easily manipulated. Ok the STV might be going a bit far with the multiple recipients but I believe that a failed candidate passing over his votes would be a good thing and a lot harder to game than the system is now. This would mean that if you fail to get in your votes go to the candidate you chose before hand and if that gets him in great if not his vote(not those passed to him) go to the person of his choice. Plus of course the 3 month continuous subscription.

Fairly simple and easy to use gives better representation to what the voters were voting for and it means that people who vote for the wrong candidate get a second chance on their votes.

If one lone nutter getting someone elected is not cause for voting reform, you will never believe there is a need.Lol

But all in all the CSM needs to grow a pair and realize they will never get a discussion on these forums with the populous as people are generally drowned out here and just implement the voting system they believe needs to be done. Just like when elected representatives move area boundaries, they are the elected representatives they need to knuckle down and make the call. Then we will find out in December what it was and you guys can rage against how making the voting forms blue is discriminating against you.Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#313 - 2012-09-09 14:27:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:


So, tell me, why shouldn't this thread be destickied, locked, and completely ignored, and you guys go back to doing what you're supposed to do, i.e. push CCP into fixing the game?

Because voting reform much like player education are important parts of the CSM roles.

Okay, then. Let's change the system into the FuckMittani/goons/test system, which is easier gameable than today's system, so when the entire CSM is literally nothing but CFC/Test, we can say "we told you so".

They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable.

And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#314 - 2012-09-09 14:33:09 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Just like when elected representatives move area boundaries, they are the elected representatives they need to knuckle down and make the call.


Because that works out so well
http://i.imgur.com/wzkXy.jpg
Frying Doom
#315 - 2012-09-09 14:35:02 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Just like when elected representatives move area boundaries, they are the elected representatives they need to knuckle down and make the call.


Because that works out so well
http://i.imgur.com/wzkXy.jpg

But it is their call, if the populous disagree with it they can bring it up by voting.

Much like this

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#316 - 2012-09-09 14:37:32 UTC
******** Pubbie wrote:
And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.


Err, there's actually no CFC members and only one TEST guy on the CSM right now, but good try guy!
Vincent VanDamme
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#317 - 2012-09-09 14:42:16 UTC
Ever thought of using Alternative Vote?


Quick runthrough

Each voter ranks candidates in order. 1- X

1st votes are added up.

The lowest candidate is removed, and the next preference votes are reallocated

Repeat until only X candidates remain. Which fit the available seats.


Simple system. But stops the undervote issue.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2012-09-09 14:46:40 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
A simple on the log in 3 buttons and a little blurb about the CSM is all it needs.

We keep telling you that what would happen if they did this: tons of people would just click abstain or vote randomly, just to get past the obstacle to playing the game.

Frying Doom wrote:
They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable.

Trust me, this system would be a fuckup on the same scale of most CCP game mechanic changes the past 2 years.

Frying Doom wrote:
And as to the literally the whole CSM is nothing but CFC/Test so nothing new there then.

So you're trying to say the CSM, right now, is nothing but CFC/Test?

I see. Is there something special in the water where you live?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#319 - 2012-09-09 14:50:58 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
They are the elected representatives it is after all there call and if they screw it up the next election will indeed hold them accountable.

By that reasoning you can justify a voting reform consisting of "Only members of the incumbent CSM will have the ability to vote", after all if that's not what the constituents want they can change it next election.
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#320 - 2012-09-09 15:02:04 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow 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).


I think what you fail to realize is the simple fact that the morale majority has always been able to swing the vote, Plenty of people outside of GSF voted for Mittens, simply because he's an effective candidate and can allocate swathes of personal time to CSM matters.

If any entity in this game, can have 5000+ active members and coincidentally sway all 5000 of those people to vote for him, then he should be in office, it's basic politics 101. Of course, you must realize even Mittens who is literally the King of Space, has to do more than just snap his fingers to awaken the hive to do his bidding (there needs to be a wordy Jabber Broadcast, and at least a 20 minute speech).

Set aside your personal vendetta and your poor play at 'GoonSwarm' as an example (which is just "Hurrrr the largest alliance in the game has alot of votes") and realize that if someone can muster 5000+ votes, that person probably has more of an ear for what's happening and how in the game than the rest of the candidates.

So again- is there any reason for this change?