These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#441 - 2012-09-09 23:17:07 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

im referring to the previous 2 pages or so of people with Goon/TEST/CFC alliance tags saying keep things exactly the same.

Well, the CSM posts we've got have been Trebor's open admissions he wants the system biased against the CFC, Hans saying nothing with many posts, and Seleene calling objecting to that "tinfoil": there's not really any feeling that the CSM is interested in a discussion over the best voting system. I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#442 - 2012-09-09 23:20:11 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.

That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#443 - 2012-09-09 23:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
So Aleks what is your reaction on Trebor's proposal now that you've been informed on the CSM council you are apparently a part of a) states openly that the intent behind it is to thwart the 'organized voting' of large player blocs and b) does not in any way address the situation where Mittani was removed from the CSM, which you were somehow led to believe it did.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#444 - 2012-09-09 23:25:45 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.

That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence.

"any others" is a fairly large set (in fact, the whole set minus the current voting system). It's highly likely at least one system exists that is better than he current one.

But since it's already been clearly demonstrated and admitted that the people selecting systems are looking for one that will be biased to be worse, yes, it is irrational to expect if they come up with a next alternative, it will not just have a better way of masking that it wants to get rid of our evil ganker blobber structure-shooter votes.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Nymblar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#445 - 2012-09-09 23:26:07 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:

I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.


I'd rather see STV over FPTP. I don't buy the argument "Hurr it's hard to implement" - ideally the voting system should not be done by CCP at all but by a trusted third party with player and CCP oversight. I'm also not convinced that it's hard to provide accountability - If my country's government can provide me with raw vote data on election night, so can CCP.

I really don't want to see a system designed to lessen my influence because I happen to have friends, and I find it sickening that the that is the main design goal.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#446 - 2012-09-09 23:28:30 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?

"Why are you goons reacting negatively to an initial proposal which is specifically designed to keep you guys out of the running? I don't understand?"

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I supported this thread being started because, as Seleene said, this was a conversation that NEEDED to happen

The jury's still out on that one.

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
The system has no way of dealing with what happens when a successfully elected candidate becomes disqualified (banned, dead, whatever) before he or she takes office.

Tell me how your suggestion fixes this problem without literally assfucking a bunch of others (i.e. us).

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
So we cant have a system I'd consider perfect, but the current one isn't good enough.

Says who?

How about you guys working on something which'll actually benefit the game, i.e. GETTING CCP TO FIX THE GODDAMNED GAME, instead of resorting to petty politicking to try to disenfranchise huge swathes of the game's population which is actually enthused about the game?

1. Maybe we should do that literacy test XD I didnt say anything about the negative Goon reaction (that's expected and i said as much in the post you quote), I'm surprised they think everything is fine with the status quo

2. Well it shouldn't be. Agitation to look at election reform is nothing new, previous CSMs have talked about it, current CSM has talked about it, CCP thinks it's a an appropriate conversation.

3. I didn't explicitly say in my post but if a voter can rank his or her preferences and 1 of those preferences gets canned, at least it's not all eggs in one basket. It doesn't really screw GSF over at all unless I'm missing something.

4. We're working on several fronts to push CCP to "fix the goddamned game." I can also walk and chew gum AND talk on the phone simultaneously. You'd be amazed (evidently).

Hisec **** posters think i'm either literally TheMitanni or his at least his puppet acintg as an agent of an antihighsec goon conspiracy, CFC **** posters think I'm an antigoon zealot acting as an agent of an antigoon highsec conspiracy. Cant get a break lol.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#447 - 2012-09-09 23:28:33 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.

That's pretty much the entire problem I have with this proposal. It's not that FPTP is the be-all-end-all of voting systems, it's just that the CSM isn't willing to distance themselves from a system that's purposefully designed to diminish my influence.

Isn't willing to distance?

It seems more like they're hugging it, taking it home and exclaiming that it's their new best friend and you're evil for disapproving.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#448 - 2012-09-09 23:28:49 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?


only reason im bringing this up is cause this seems to be my idea your commenting on the ide isnt to pidgeon hole players. the idea behind it is low null and hi sec generaly want seperate things right ? so the candidates would be pigeon holed not the voters if you get what i mean.

just cause someone dose mining all week and then gose into low for fw dosent make the differance if his views are more towards low hes more likely to vote for one of the low sec candidates nothing stopping him from that however if the views of a hi sec candidate intises him more he would vote for him.

was a thought of how to get a more broad representation of more gameplays into csm.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#449 - 2012-09-09 23:29:55 UTC
Nymblar wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:

I think goons are wrong to prefer the current system over any others, but I cannot fault them for having reached the decision that given Trebor's approach, which the rest of the CSM has not disclaimed as it should have, the CSM cannot be trusted to make changes and so leaving the system alone is the best option of those available.


I'd rather see STV over FPTP. I don't buy the argument "Hurr it's hard to implement" - ideally the voting system should not be done by CCP at all but by a trusted third party with player and CCP oversight. I'm also not convinced that it's hard to provide accountability - If my country's government can provide me with raw vote data on election night, so can CCP.

I really don't want to see a system designed to lessen my influence because I happen to have friends, and I find it sickening that the that is the main design goal.


The core of the problem is that they seem to believe that members of "huge voting blocs" do not have free will and are somehow coerced into voting for a chosen candidate, despite the fact that the CSM vote is through a secret ballot.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#450 - 2012-09-09 23:32:01 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
So Aleks what is your reaction on Trebor's proposal now that you've been informed on the CSM council you are apparently a part of a) states openly that the intent behind it is to thwart the 'organized voting' of large player blocs and b) does not in any way address the situation where Mittani was removed from the CSM, which you were somehow led to believe it did.

I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.

I still think the conversation needed a starting place. I'm less concerned with where it started than where it goes.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#451 - 2012-09-09 23:33:07 UTC
Andski wrote:
The core of the problem is that they seem to believe that members of "huge voting blocs" do not have free will and are somehow coerced into voting for a chosen candidate, despite the fact that the CSM vote is through a secret ballot.

So they're liberating us by making the votes count for less?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#452 - 2012-09-09 23:34:50 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.

Who gets to decide how many seats we "deserve"? Shouldn't that be the entire point of having a vote? Otherwise CCP could just appoint people to the CSM.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#453 - 2012-09-09 23:36:37 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
To be honest, I'm VERY surprised at the number of Goonswarm posting that things should be kept exactly the same. You want to talk disenfranchisement, the over 10,000 votes for TheMitanni got thrown out because of his banning after he got elected. Are you guys sure you think NOTHING needs to be changed?

Mittens getting thrown out and thus those 10k votes wasted had nothing to do with the way that the voting system works and you know it. Stop throwing out straw men.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#454 - 2012-09-09 23:37:17 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve."


We put all of two candidates on the council in CSM 6.

Perhaps that "substantial" portion of the game (more likely a bunch of sockpuppets but whatever) should focus their time on getting more people to vote rather than trying to diminish the influence of a motivated 0.0 voting bloc.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#455 - 2012-09-09 23:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.

Who gets to decide how many seats we "deserve"? Shouldn't that be the entire point of having a vote? Otherwise CCP could just appoint people to the CSM.

Oh dear, I guess tat's how it works, the major blocs can all vote for two seats, while the unaligned people get to throw all their votes towards five or something. That'll show them.

You're evil people, you can put your votes towards one seat, the "evil seat". Upstanding highsec missioners have two seats, and miners get two.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#456 - 2012-09-09 23:38:13 UTC
serras bang wrote:
[quote=Alekseyev Karrde]ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?


i see a hugh problem with this that may or may not see nothing but null sec players(such as goons test ect) that would get through the prelims on the 2 tier voteing bit
Klyith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#457 - 2012-09-09 23:41:04 UTC
serras bang wrote:

i see a hugh problem with this that may or may not see nothing but null sec players(such as goons test ect) that would get through the prelims on the 2 tier voteing bit

You are correct, primaries would be a bad idea, blocs would be able to pack the field and force unaligned candidates out of the race. Possibly an even worse system than FPTP.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#458 - 2012-09-09 23:41:29 UTC
serras bang wrote:
serras bang wrote:
[quote=Alekseyev Karrde]ALSO AS AN ASIDE: Having people pidegon holed into particular activities or areas of residence works in the real world but does not translate into a virtual environment like EVE. Characters can move all over and nothing stops a player who PVPs all weekend from doing mining and manufacturing during the weekdays. BUT thinning down the number of people running is a good idea. Instead of doing this by forum likes (which are overly easy to get), what about a round of 1 account/1 vote pre-vote/primary vote? Any other ideas?


i see a hugh problem with this that may or may not see nothing but null sec players(such as goons test ect) that would get through the prelims on the 2 tier voteing bit

Yes, just require more of the voter. This'll allow them plenty of time to become tired out by the process and needing to be called up not just once, but now at least twice by the candidate.

There's no reason to hide that this will of course require us to have two sets of jabber broadcasts, one for each "tier".

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#459 - 2012-09-09 23:46:00 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.

Who gets to decide how many seats we "deserve"? Shouldn't that be the entire point of having a vote? Otherwise CCP could just appoint people to the CSM.

Oh dear, I guess tat's how it works, the major blocs can all vote for two seats, while the unaligned people get to throw all their votes towards five or something. That'll show them.

You're evil people, you can put your votes towards one seat, the "evil seat". Upstanding highsec missioners have two seats, and miners get two.

Heh i never said it was fair, just stating how some people feel.

The two goons on CSM4 were two of the most insightful people around the table at the summit meeting and Mitten was the most effective CSM Chair yet. To me, that's a pretty good track record when it comes to the CSM, but that's a lot of personal bias on my part.

And yes those 10k wasted votes have to do with how the election/voting system works. Kind of a "duh" response

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#460 - 2012-09-09 23:46:57 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I know there's a substantial portion of the game that has beef with the ability of Goons and other 0.0 bloc to put candidates on the council in greater proportion than they "deserve." I'm also not surprised any attempt to address that is met with much resistance by said blocs. Neither surprises me, and i did/do realize Trebor's post did not address a major problem I see with the existing electoral system.

I still think the conversation needed a starting place. I'm less concerned with where it started than where it goes.

So that's why "The CSM" started this whole conversation with this?
Quote:
The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:

[...]

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, 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.


How the **** do you think anyone'll come up with a system which will fit in the criterias which "The CSM" will approve of, without trying (and failing to) assfuck the CFC/HBC's votes?

What the **** kind of system can we possibly come up with which we'll find fair, given those criterias?

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

RIP Vile Rat