These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-09-10 07:41:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
I am having a hard time to find the statements of the people who ran for CSM7 or plan to run for CSM8 on whether or not they support changing the voting system like suggested (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917).

Maybe somebody can point the right direction. I know there is a thread on the subject but that one is a bloody mess and there is the chance of a snowball in hell to get the answer.



Updated:

Official answers on endorsing the "Trebor Proposal" and the "Penalty for organized voting groups":

Hans Jagerblitzen (Trebor Proposal: undecided / Penalty for organized voting groups: opposed)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1903385#post1903385

Seleene (Trebor Proposal: opposed / Penalty for organized voting groups: opposed)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1905045#post1905045

Alekseyev Karrde (Trebor Proposal: opposed / Penalty for organized voting groups: opposed)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1908313#post1908313

Note: Should I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the statements, please feel free to tell me so. If there are no complains, i consider them as approved.
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-09-10 10:36:47 UTC
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-09-10 11:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
thanks a lot for the help so far Smile

Seleene:
" If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with."
Rating: Approval (?)

Hans Jagerblitzen:
"As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread."
Rating: Undecided

Trebor Daehdoow:
"Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote."
Rating: Approval (?)

Alekseyev Karrde:
The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank.
Rating: Disapproval


Feel free to correct me, that was just my impression.
Signal11th
#4 - 2012-09-10 13:28:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
Cede Forster wrote:
I am having a hard time to find the statements of the people who ran for CSM7 or plan to run for CSM8 on whether or not they support changing the voting system like suggested (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917).

Maybe somebody can point the right direction. I know there is a thread on the subject but that one is a bloody mess and there is the chance of a snowball in hell to get the answer.



Nothing wrong with the current voting system, each person gets a vote, they either choose to vote or they don't , I really can't see why it needs changing.

I imagine some people want something like proportional representation whereas one man and his dog from some shitehole can get on the CSM because he comes from a very small place with only two voters.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-09-10 13:48:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Sal Volatile
The sheer cowardice of many of the people on the CSM will prevent an accurate determination of their positions on this issue. Following Trebor's initial proposal, the primary tactic appears to be to do everything possible to shut down criticism while simultaneously and disingenuously claiming to be seeking a discussion on the topic, without actually making a definitive statement regarding their own support of the actual proposal.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-09-10 14:35:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
Sal Volatile wrote:
The sheer cowardice of many of the people on the CSM will prevent an accurate determination of their positions on this issue. Following Trebor's initial proposal, the primary tactic appears to be to do everything possible to shut down criticism while simultaneously and disingenuously claiming to be seeking a discussion on the topic, without actually making a definitive statement regarding their own support of the actual proposal.


that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly

on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well Blink
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#7 - 2012-09-10 14:53:41 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
thanks a lot for the help so far Smile

Seleene:
" If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with."
Rating: Approval (?)

Hans Jagerblitzen:
"As for myself being for or against this particular proposal? That depends on what I learn from the public discussion in this thread."
Rating: Undecided

Trebor Daehdoow:
"Therefore, perhaps a simpler system might achieve most of our goals. Consider, for example, Candidate-Designated Single Transferrable Vote."
Rating: Approval (?)

Alekseyev Karrde:
The "best" system i can think of is a ranked preferences thing where you pick your top up to 14 candidates in order and they get "point" on that rank.
Rating: Disapproval


Feel free to correct me, that was just my impression.


All of these comments pertain to variants of an STV voting system, not about how we feel about voters being able to change their votes up until election day. Make sure you're quoting people on what they're actually talking about before you come to any conclusions.

Myself, I'm pretty open minded about the idea. I don't really have a problem with candidates being held responsible for their actions right up until the end of the voting period. If someone in an electable position in the race but gets outed as a scammer or white supremacist a few days before poll close, it would be nice for players not to be screwed over because they didn't have that information sooner.

Like I said in the other thread though, ultimately this kind of change has to be born out of community discussion, not the will of the CSM. It's inappropriate for us to directly dictate election policy. For that reason, individual CSM member's approval or disapproval of any proposal, Trebor's or otherwise, isn't particularly relevant at the end of the day. He was quite explicit about the modified STV system in the OP being an example to prompt a community discussion, not a formal proposal we're seeking ratification on so we can bring some mandate to CCP.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2012-09-10 15:20:22 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly

on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well Blink



Voting reform is much like tax reform. It's complicated, messy, the existence of a "perfect" system is a myth, and rife with subjective issues of justice and fair representation. It's much easier to definitively say "Yes, let's nerf ASB's" than it is to say, "Yes, let's change the voting rules."

I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Rengerel en Distel
#9 - 2012-09-10 15:35:16 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly

on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well Blink



Voting reform is much like tax reform. It's complicated, messy, the existence of a "perfect" system is a myth, and rife with subjective issues of justice and fair representation. It's much easier to definitively say "Yes, let's nerf ASB's" than it is to say, "Yes, let's change the voting rules."

I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.



You should have Trebor request for the thread to be locked then, and start over asking for ideas.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-09-10 15:38:08 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.


This is hilarious. No dogmatic statements? Trebor's entire first 2 posts were nothing BUT dogmatic statements, in particular the "These 3 things are what the CSM believes are a minimum for any new system" section. The fact that neither you or any other of the CSM is willing to even acknowledge its existence (let alone discuss its merits) is what killed discussion of actual systems. Don't try to pin the CSM's failings on the playerbase.
Signal11th
#11 - 2012-09-10 15:39:24 UTC
CliveWarren wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.


This is hilarious. No dogmatic statements? Trebor's entire first 2 posts were nothing BUT dogmatic statements, in particular the "These 3 things are what the CSM believes are a minimum for any new system" section. The fact that neither you or any other of the CSM is willing to even acknowledge its existence (let alone discuss its merits) is what killed discussion of actual systems. Don't try to pin the CSM's failings on the playerbase.


You can always go against Trebor in the next election.........

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-09-10 15:42:17 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
You can always go against Trebor in the next election.........


Hey, they apparently (lol) wanted discussion. I'm telling them why they didn't get it. I'm not the first, and given how they've ignored the actual reason they got nothing so far, I won't be the last.
Signal11th
#13 - 2012-09-10 15:45:19 UTC
CliveWarren wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
You can always go against Trebor in the next election.........


Hey, they apparently (lol) wanted discussion. I'm telling them why they didn't get it. I'm not the first, and given how they've ignored the actual reason they got nothing so far, I won't be the last.



Humm surely it's not for them to discuss? Wasn't the purpose of the CSM to digest things "CCP" were going to implement and then offer an alternative solution if one was needed, obviously being a nice firewall as well when it all went teets up??

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-09-10 15:48:13 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Humm surely it's not for them to discuss? Wasn't the purpose of the CSM to digest things "CCP" were going to implement and then offer an alternative solution if one was needed, obviously being a nice firewall as well when it all went teets up??


I would've thought so too, but the voting system thread says otherwise (to save you from reading it, there wasn't a single peep about any of it being CCP's idea, it was presented 100% as a CSM creation - until it backfired horribly, that is, then it was just silly ol' Trebor!).
Signal11th
#15 - 2012-09-10 15:55:57 UTC
CliveWarren wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Humm surely it's not for them to discuss? Wasn't the purpose of the CSM to digest things "CCP" were going to implement and then offer an alternative solution if one was needed, obviously being a nice firewall as well when it all went teets up??


I would've thought so too, but the voting system thread says otherwise (to save you from reading it, there wasn't a single peep about any of it being CCP's idea, it was presented 100% as a CSM creation - until it backfired horribly, that is, then it was just silly ol' Trebor!).



Is there a link anywhere that has the "official" CCP remit for the CSM?

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-09-10 17:43:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Sirane Elrek
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.

**** you. No, seriously, **** you. You don't get to play the victim after you (the CSM) start off the debate with "oh and we don't want Goons to have as much influence as other people, and all proposed solutions must reflect that".
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-09-10 17:49:18 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
that is why i am looking, some clear statements from CSM and candidats - some clear words would be most appriciated. Do they support the suggested system? A different system? The current system? I think you can judge a candidate best by his opinion on matters that concern them and voting concerns them all directly

on the other hand, avoiding to be clear about it is an answer as well Blink



Voting reform is much like tax reform. It's complicated, messy, the existence of a "perfect" system is a myth, and rife with subjective issues of justice and fair representation. It's much easier to definitively say "Yes, let's nerf ASB's" than it is to say, "Yes, let's change the voting rules."

I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process. The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.



You got called on your blatent voter disenfrachisement bullshit and don't think you're just gonna get to run off to some other thread and moan about it.

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-09-10 17:50:39 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

...



Thank you for your reply Mr. Jagerblitzen Blink

First of all, please let me appologice for the missunderstanding at hand. With "Changing the CSM Votes" i was refering to the proposed changes to the process of voting for a CSM by Trebor Daehdoow. This was possibly somewhat missleading.

As for the argument at hand about the thread suggesting changes to how the CSM is being elected i'd like to follow up with a question.

1) You stated very clearly that it is not the place of the CSM to dictate the election policy. How to you personaly suggest to go about approving changes to the election process?

2) Your argued for CSM members should not directly dictate election policy. Of the already existing systems (for now lets go with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system) which one would you consider a good choice for EVE?

3) You mentioned that the discussion thread was destroyed intentionaly and therefore the discussion will not be carried further by CSM comments. How will that influence the further proceeding of this planned election reform in your opinion?

4) Just between us, do you approve of the example system Mr. Daehdoow suggested? Blink


I'd be very happy for a reply ;)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-09-10 17:55:52 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I know many would prefer we each come out and make dogmatic statements from the beginning of this process, but those that demand this either don't want us to do the right thing and take dissenting opinion into consideration before making up our minds, or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

You mean like "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."?

I.e. "the new system should, as a minimum requirement, **** goons.".

This was brought up as a problem from the first page of the thread, and the only reason it's still a thing 39 pages later is that none of you have come even close to redacting that minimum requirement, nor has there been a single apology for singling us out for nerfing because we're organized.


Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
The voting reform conversation had to come up sooner or later, it is certainly on players' minds every year during the election itself, which is unfortunately also the worst time to actually try to overhaul the process.

Yes, the people who don't get things exactly their way are invariably going to be whining very loudly about how the voting system is unfair, which you guys apparently took as a cue to say "well, if people think it's unfair, let's make it unfair!"

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
The only way to get any reform done is to bring up the issue during the off-season, and its sad that a handful of players think that the discussion isn't worth having and used 39 pages to say what could have been said in one page of comments. Obvious thread destruction is obvious, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that you won't hear many more CSM comments about the issue in a thread dominated by hostility, impatience, and false altruism.

So, when you said, in the 40 page thread, that it wasn't The CSM's idea, it was Trebor's idea, and more or less ran away screaming from that idea, that wasn't because you thought it was actually a bad idea, but because you wanted to save your own skin? At least it looks that way from this post.

Let's play through this again, shall we? The discussion isn't worth having as long as you guys insist on having a **** goons policy as a minimum requirement for voting reform. If you guys had just rewritten the whole thing and dropped that aspect of it, then we could've had a discussion. But you didn't, you haven't, and you won't. All you will be doing is continue to be sarcastic and bitter because we saw through your ruse so quickly.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-09-10 18:01:16 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
or they simply want to bait us into saying something they can nail us on down the road.

I'm trying to "nail you down" on one simple issue only: Do you agree or do you not agree that people should have more or less influence on the CSM voting process solely based on their membership in a social group? This shouldn't be a difficult question, but it's fundamental enough that it needs to come out before we're starting any serious discussion about voting reform.
123Next pageLast page