These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#701 - 2012-09-10 05:18:24 UTC
Andski wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves. This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.

the discussion was there, it just didn't deliver the results you hoped for

He was hoping for anti-goons to be you-know-whating him over this amazing way to make sure those damn goonies wouldn't get their honeyed hands on their pure CSM again.

Instead he got badly stung. Har ~

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 ?

SavageBastard
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#702 - 2012-09-10 05:24:05 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
You are bad at using forums.


awwwwww, poor muffin, we're not appreciating how totally hard he and his **** goons friends are kind-of-sort-of-not-really advocating on our behalf!

::hands Clive a tissue::

All this threadnought has accomplished has derailed any hope of public discussion and provided encouragement for CSM/CCP to figure things out ourselves.



Possibility of looking like out of touch authoritarian avoided! Phew!
Win Sui
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#703 - 2012-09-10 05:24:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Win Sui
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Win Sui wrote:
You just don't get it do you? It's not about whether we've successfully made a good point, it's about the fact that you (the CSM) seem to feel that this election proposal is more important than other issues.

You're right, i dont get it. Because nothing was done to signal Trebors election proposal was more important than any other issue and I have no idea how someone would get that impression unless they wanted that to use as ammo for trolling. There was no fanfare, no promotion, no hype, nothing. Trebor threw something together so discussion could get started, a thread was put up, and it exploded. If anything, the criticism should be we didn't spend ENOUGH time on it since there's 35 pages of people shitting on the initial idea instead of using it as a jump off point for a larger discussion as I had originally hoped.

It wasn't our most important issue and it still isn't. While I personally feel making some improvements between now and the next election is important and this conversation is worthwhile, the most important thing CSM is doing would be our current engagement in the stakeholder experiment. Unfortunately we cant make detailed threads about that yet for obvious reasons, we're pretty much just allowed to say the experiment/trial laid out in the minutes has now started.

I dunno, implying it was our most important thing or that we tried to make it our most important thing just seem out of place. I wouldnt even put "electoral reform" in the top 3 of active discussions going on right now (or at least before this thread blew up).


Take a look at Jita Park Speakers Corner. Look at how many topics and suggestions the CSM is looking for discussion on. Look at how many announcements (other than the 70+ page 'minutes' - that's not what minutes are btw) on priorities there are.

Understand now why this looks bad (besides the fact that it's a biased power grab)? If noone knows what you're doing and you post this drivel you should expect to get a nuclear reaction.
Rh'jamiz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#704 - 2012-09-10 05:27:39 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Win Sui wrote:
You just don't get it do you? It's not about whether we've successfully made a good point, it's about the fact that you (the CSM) seem to feel that this election proposal is more important than other issues.

You're right, i dont get it. Because nothing was done to signal Trebors election proposal was more important than any other issue and I have no idea how someone would get that impression unless they wanted that to use as ammo for trolling. There was no fanfare, no promotion, no hype, nothing. Trebor threw something together so discussion could get started, a thread was put up, and it exploded. If anything, the criticism should be we didn't spend ENOUGH time on it since there's 35 pages of people shitting on the initial idea instead of using it as a jump off point for a larger discussion as I had originally hoped.

It wasn't our most important issue and it still isn't. While I personally feel making some improvements between now and the next election is important and this conversation is worthwhile, the most important thing CSM is doing would be our current engagement in the stakeholder experiment. Unfortunately we cant make detailed threads about that yet for obvious reasons, we're pretty much just allowed to say the experiment/trial laid out in the minutes has now started.

I dunno, implying it was our most important thing or that we tried to make it our most important thing just seem out of place. I wouldnt even put "electoral reform" in the top 3 of active discussions going on right now (or at least before this thread blew up).


A discussion happened, it just didn't go the way you wanted it to go, and you didn't like its conclusion. So you've decided to rebrand it as "trolling" and push ahead regardless of the negative feedback you've received, instead of listening, ditching the proposal, and using your time to do something more useful.
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#705 - 2012-09-10 05:28:57 UTC
Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#706 - 2012-09-10 05:29:07 UTC
Rh'jamiz wrote:

A discussion happened, it just didn't go the way you wanted it to go, and you didn't like its conclusion. So you've decided to rebrand it as "trolling" and push ahead regardless of the negative feedback you've received, instead of listening, ditching the proposal, and using your time to do something more useful.

Truly they have learned well from CCP.
Xolve
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#707 - 2012-09-10 05:31:09 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.


Diplomat of my heart.
No More Heroes
Sanctuary of Shadows
Dock Workers
#708 - 2012-09-10 05:32:38 UTC  |  Edited by: No More Heroes
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Man that's the bar for *serious* game issues? yeesh:


My point was: There are quite a few issues out there ranging from minor annoyance to potentially gamebreaking. I'm not convinced that the CSM voting process is a pressing matter.

Null sec industry (or lack thereof). Low sec, what is it good for? Alliance level income, faction war farm-fest complete with cash out days, etc.

Why must we have high sec, low sec, wh and null CSM guys? Why can't the CSM in it's current iteration relay the complete player bases' interests accurately?

.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#709 - 2012-09-10 05:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
I'm waiting for the CSM's ASB to run out of boosters. They'll stop being in defense mode and maybe start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS

I'm curious why the CSM feels reform is an important part of their mandate, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, highsec, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.

What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.



(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#710 - 2012-09-10 05:35:54 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.

Wondering how you knew he was a "yaoiboi". I also will not google that ...

It will be interesting to see them concoct some really complex thing to keep us out and then see what the experts on our side some up with. Remember, the harder to try to make it for us, the easier it is to slip up.

And if you can ram things through, well we'll see how people like that.

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 ?

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#711 - 2012-09-10 05:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I'm waiting for the CSM's ASB to run out of boosters. They'll stop being in defense mode and maybe start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over mobilizing the playerbase to vote.

They'll just dock their threadnaught.

You bring goons into my thread, I dock.

Kill the goodpost. Call that a troll. Argh, dock dock. Sorry I welped the voting system "reform". Post lossmails, I want to see how badly the goons got us, I bet it was at least 30 pages.Shocked

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 ?

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#712 - 2012-09-10 05:40:14 UTC
As for the CSM being somehow surprised (really?) at the apparent backlash from this proposal, I have a simple question:

What else do you expect after posting minutes which literally have more nonsense about CSM politics than stuff people actually read the minutes for (i.e. 'eve online') - and then, after posting a proposal like this, trolling anybody who isn't highly optimistic about the proposal and utterly ignoring those who propose alternatives?

You can't be serious.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

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

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#713 - 2012-09-10 05:41:40 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.


The Karl Rove of the CFC, ladies and gentlemen.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

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

Magnus Orin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#714 - 2012-09-10 05:50:53 UTC
******** idea. Ya, let the candidate decide where by vote goes if they don't get elected.

**** off. Seriously.
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#715 - 2012-09-10 06:02:56 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Courthouse wrote:
Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.

Wondering how you knew he was a "yaoiboi". I also will not google that ...

Trebor's made no secret that his RL job was as an importer of animes.
Samahiel Sotken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#716 - 2012-09-10 06:06:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Samahiel Sotken
The saddest thing about this thread is how the CSM members have consistently and continuously avoided participating in the debate in anything other than the most petty snipping. While, at the same time, bemoaning the lack of a constructive debate.

It is both intellectually offensive and dishonest. I might suggest, before you continue to carry on in this unbecoming manner, that you consult the following http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/ so that you may debate with slightly more skill than a child of twelve.

A good start would be something along the lines, "I understand our original proposal was deeply flawed, we apologize. Here are our criteria for an acceptable system. Before we begin to approach the complex topic at hand, let us first discuss the implications of our assumptions and whether or not they are indeed valid."

That is assuming that this is a discussion that needs to happen now and in this fashion, which is in serious doubt.
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#717 - 2012-09-10 06:08:28 UTC
If they want to come down to our level the least we can do is beat the snot out of them with experience.
Powers Sa
#718 - 2012-09-10 06:09:45 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
Protip: I campaign managed the CSM 6 and CSM 7 elections for DekCo/CFC bloc voting. This last cycle you could have taken the #3 and #4 totals and added them to any candidate *except* for #2 and we'd still have come in 1st.

Your fvckgoons proposal won't actually work because I'm smarter than your yaoiboi CSM rep. So let's start from there and decide if this is really a fight you want to have versus addressing some legit issues that might be more important to the overall player experience.


:911:

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#719 - 2012-09-10 06:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I'm waiting for the CSM's ASB to run out of boosters. They'll stop being in defense mode and maybe start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS

I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, highsec, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.

What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.



(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.)


start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.
As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.

I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened
CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.

At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed. This needs to be handled more elegantly.

At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both. How many people didn't vote for Korvin because while they agreed with him he didn't have a chance of peeling enough Russian votes away from the -A- and DRF candidates to win?

What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.

Why is reform necessary?

Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world, an experiment which has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.

If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Ghazu
#720 - 2012-09-10 06:14:03 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
I'm waiting for the CSM's ASB to run out of boosters. They'll stop being in defense mode and maybe start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ALL CSM MEMBERS

I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened. There were 10 nullsec candidates on CSM6, but this was reduced to 6 on CSM7. There was no FW, highsec, lowsec/pirate, or industry representatives on CSM6, but there is a representative for each on CSM7.

What exactly is the problem? Why is reform necessary? Every complaint Trebor seems to have is made moot with the realities of CSM7.



(I would like responses from Trebor, Hans, Aleks, Two Step and Seleene, at the bare minimum. Responses from other CSM reps would be a bonus.)


start explaining why they feel reform is necessary, over the importance of mobilizing and educating the playerbase to vote.
As long as voting is not complicated or inconvenient enough to itself be a barrier to player participation, i see these as two seperate issues. Increasing voter engagement/turnout is certainly important but that's not incompatible with saying the voting system should accommodate and reflect the preferences of those voters no matter how many or how few.

I'm also curious why they feel reform is important, when the regional and playstyle representation between CSM6 and CSM7 broadened
CSM7s diversity is the exception rather than the rule, and even in CSM7's case our election had some problems. Talk about what could be done to improve the voting process is nothing new, and while null sec dominance of the council is an often cited reason by people who start those discussion it's far from the only thing worth talking about.

At the top end, the most voted for candidate in history got himself banned after being elected but before our term started. This was unprecedented and, as we found out, unplanned for. CCP had to make a quick decision, they chose to just go on with things as if he'd been banned during his term so 10,000+ voters didnt have "their man" on the council and the CSM was forced to start things off short handed.

At the bottom, Darius III was effectively ghosting during CSM6 but literally scammed enough votes to push him past a proven but small candidate (Korvin). When CSM7 started i spent an inordinate amount of time on him (and issler) trying to get them to pretend they we people not pixels and work with the rest of us. Unfortunately that only half worked, and DIII has been doing jack **** and when he does say something it's usually counterproductive or insulting to the CSM, CCP, or both.

What exactly is the problem?
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

Designing voting systems isn't my area of experience, I don't really have the technical understanding of the myriad of different voting systems others involved in this discussion do. Though I'm sure you'll nitpick at that answer, nitpick with that in mind.

Why is reform necessary?

Because we're one of the most educated and active communities of any online game 4 years into a unique experiment of democracy in a virtual world that has evolved massively since its inception. Yet we're still electing our delegates like we did when CCP first drafted the White Paper. We can do better, and we can figure out what's better for ourselves.

If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to follow up here or on Twitter.

God damn that issler dainze i knew that pants crazed freak was gonig to be useless.

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984