These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2012-09-11 00:31:10 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I may not have said it THAT explicitly but I tried several times to convey that message in the previous thread. I think it was a case of seeing read, or in Zim's case not taking me/us at my/our word.

You haven't said it at all, Hans basically just threw Trebor under the bus when the going got tough, and Seleene wordlawyered his way out of saying whether or not he agreed with it. A simple yes/no would've sufficed.

And it was certainly not "removed as a viable idea like, 30 pages of posting ago".

Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
But yes, you made your case well, loud, and clear. All I'm asking is that given that, can we have a fresh start with one another to find consensus on what could be improved, if anything?

Get the **** goons requirement out of the first post, de-sticky it, lock it and start a new one where you ask if the general public wants to revisit the voting system and what ideas they have if they do want to revisit the voting system, and I'm sure we can all call the slate clean.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#162 - 2012-09-11 00:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

As far as I'm aware, the only CSM who hasn't accepted that the "nerf goons" aspect of the proposal is not a good idea during the course of the related threads is the person who posted it.
Excellent to hear. These are the sort of concrete statements of actual value that we can begin to build a foundation of goodwill on, and from there work on a constructive dialog. Ones we've been waiting to hear for nearly 50 pages of sulky trolling and non-committal ambivalence on the "the CSM"'s official statement. Better late then never of course, and I look forward to discussing in a new, heavily revised "Call for Discussion" thread whenever you care to make it.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#163 - 2012-09-11 00:37:55 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

I may not have said it THAT explicitly but I tried several times to convey that message in the previous thread. I think it was a case of seeing read, or in Zim's case not taking me/us at my/our word.

But yes, you made your case well, loud, and clear. All I'm asking is that given that, can we have a fresh start with one another to find consensus on what could be improved, if anything?

Ok. In that case, there's a few main issues. The biggest one is the :effort: requirement: virtually any voting change is going to require the ballot to collect more information from a voter. FPTP has the advantage of a simple ballot: pick a name, done.

I think it's safe to say that any method that requires you to rank all candidates is right out: with 25+ people running nobody's going to do that.

Your only real options are the candidate STV (where you still just pick one person), or convincing CCP to do some extra coding. Party-based proportional representation doesn't really work, because there's no political parties in EVE and you can't really force one (this would also severely exacerbate the low highsec representation part).

If you do the extra coding, STV is really the only good option I can think of for a multiple winner electoral system. The trouble here is if you require people to pick extra candidates, they may simply not vote because it's too much of a pain in the ass. At this point you have to weigh the benefit of insisting people pick at least 2-3 candidates with the dropoff in voting you'll get.

Most real political thinking goes into single-winner systems because PR is so easy to do in the real world because political parties exist: you just give each party the number of seats that its votes got. It is one of the hard parts of EVE that political parties don't really exist. The wormholers and the FWers managed to get this done though Two Stem and Hans, but being unable to hold a real primary makes it hard for highseccers, who have no natural organization, to do the same. Though to be fair they managed to vote in Issler, however much buyer's regret they may have now.
Kazanir
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#164 - 2012-09-11 01:00:14 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
It's time to realize: they're not. I'm not. Hans isn't. Seleene isn't. Two Step isn't. Dovi isn't. The list goes on. By any objective standard Goons have "won" but Goonrushing past the endzone isn't much of a peace plan. Saying nothing needs to be changed is a perfectly legitimate piece of feedback.


You're right, it isn't much of a peace plan, but it is pretty hard to put brakes on certain types of trains. I appreciate that you seem to want to have a good faith discussion about reasonable points on all sides, but the OP was a pretty bad way to start that out. That's why Trebor's OP continues to get so much attention -- and why the signal-to-noise ratio of that attention is low.

I say this as seriously as possible: If the CSM wants to have useful discussion and quality replies to their proposals, then CSM members need to not post idea suggestions that are both blisteringly dumb and appear to have a hidden agenda while it also appears that the CSM hasn't done a whole lot this year in terms of changing EVE.

Can you see how combining those factors really wasn't conducive to the kind of discussion you want? Bring kerosene, get a flamewar.

For what its worth I strongly doubt that Trebor had any sort of hidden agenda, but in a game like EVE it pays to be careful with your public statements. If you want people to take you at your word in a game about backstabbing spaceship politics, then you have to do something to earn that trust first.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#165 - 2012-09-11 03:17:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Kazanir wrote:
For what its worth I strongly doubt that Trebor had any sort of hidden agenda, but in a game like EVE it pays to be careful with your public statements. If you want people to take you at your word in a game about backstabbing spaceship politics, then you have to do something to earn that trust first.

You seem to be a person that gives the benefit of the doubt to people in a backstabbing spaceship politics environment.

I'll concede one point, the agenda wasn't hidden, it was a "in plain view" sort of affair.

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 ?
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#166 - 2012-09-11 07:01:00 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

...


thanks for taking the time to post here

although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked

1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is?

2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea?

3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like?


i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#167 - 2012-09-11 07:01:57 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Kazanir wrote:
For what its worth I strongly doubt that Trebor had any sort of hidden agenda, but in a game like EVE it pays to be careful with your public statements. If you want people to take you at your word in a game about backstabbing spaceship politics, then you have to do something to earn that trust first.

You seem to be a person that gives the benefit of the doubt to people in a backstabbing spaceship politics environment.

I'll concede one point, the agenda wasn't hidden, it was a "in plain view" sort of affair.


also, he is welcome to answer some questions himself to clear this up Big smile
Frying Doom
#168 - 2012-09-11 07:04:48 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

I may not have said it THAT explicitly but I tried several times to convey that message in the previous thread. I think it was a case of seeing read, or in Zim's case not taking me/us at my/our word.

But yes, you made your case well, loud, and clear. All I'm asking is that given that, can we have a fresh start with one another to find consensus on what could be improved, if anything?

Ok. In that case, there's a few main issues. The biggest one is the :effort: requirement: virtually any voting change is going to require the ballot to collect more information from a voter. FPTP has the advantage of a simple ballot: pick a name, done.


Is this the same FPTP listed in Wikipedia under Disfranchisement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement

No the voting system needs change but change where more people are inclined to vote, par of that is player education of the CSM.

I have listed what I believe should be done in the other thread it is a system of a candidate preference that is used through out the world and would cause the bottom seat to not be worth 1/3 of 1%.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#169 - 2012-09-11 07:26:50 UTC
oh boy frying doom has found wikipedia
Signal11th
#170 - 2012-09-11 07:38:59 UTC
Ahh after reading this thread I know now why there has been a new influx of "Trebor, Hans and Dairus Don't do anything and should be removed from the CSM" threads appearing.

Let me guess they have said something the GSF don't agree with?

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2012-09-11 07:41:56 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Ahh after reading this thread I know now why there has been a new influx of "Trebor, Hans and Dairus Don't do anything and should be removed from the CSM" threads appearing.

Let me guess they have said something the GSF don't agree with?

I dare you to look through https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917 and find anyone (well, other than Frying Doom, which seems to base his posting on the complete opposite position to goons) who are agreeing with them.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Signal11th
#172 - 2012-09-11 07:52:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
Lord Zim wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Ahh after reading this thread I know now why there has been a new influx of "Trebor, Hans and Dairus Don't do anything and should be removed from the CSM" threads appearing.

Let me guess they have said something the GSF don't agree with?

I dare you to look through https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917 and find anyone (well, other than Frying Doom, which seems to base his posting on the complete opposite position to goons) who are agreeing with them.



Hey Zim, I think I've mentioned previously that I'm happy with the current voting system i.e one account one vote etc.
If the GSF have more people voting because they have one of the biggest alliances well that just the way it is.

It's no difference from when you chaps can stick 1000+ pilots in a system and spoil my day (pretty much for the last 4 years) you have more pilots in your alliance than most people so you can do things that other alliances can't do. Do I like it? No not one bit, Do I like the GSF, Not really but the fact you are successful as an alliance isn't your problem.

If the majority of the people voting are voting for your candidates then it's up to the other candidates to offer something different to counter this not change the voting system to make sure that people really can't be arsed to vote or have no interest in voting are catered for.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2012-09-11 07:57:30 UTC
Eh? Have you actually read the voting proposal?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#174 - 2012-09-11 08:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

There exists absolutely no room for discussion "back and forth" until you guys remove the **** goons requirement. If you'd started somewhere in the middle, there would've been, but you did not.

Fix the baseline from your side, and we'll have a chat. Until then, don't hold your breath.

For all intents and purposes, it's been removed. It was removed as a viable idea like, 30 pages of posting ago.

What is your CTRL-V stuck?


Well, ya know, maybe if that "30 pages ago", someone would have said explicitly, without obfuscation and double-speak, exactly what you just said, we wouldn't be still sitting exactly where we were now. Its all well and good that you guys internally decided to bin that idea, but until one of you tells us, without burying it in deflection and shoddy trolling attempts, you aren't going to get the closure you wanted. We aren't politicians here; it seems you guys got swallowed up in the 'never answer a straight question' ethos of politics. Well, tough luck, we aren't political journalists who will allow slippery answers. Give it us straight, or don't waste your words. Thankfully, you've just done that, but if you had come to this conclusion 30 pages ago, why did you waste ~30 posts not telling us straight?
Signal11th
#175 - 2012-09-11 08:46:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Eh? Have you actually read the voting proposal?



I read that proposal awhile ago. I don't agree with it as my previous post mentions.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2012-09-11 12:06:51 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Eh? Have you actually read the voting proposal?

I read that proposal awhile ago. I don't agree with it as my previous post mentions.

Hm. Reason I asked is I think we're either looking at this from two different perspectives, or we're not talking about the same thing, I'm not sure which. The problem I have is that when you're talking about us zergrushing our candidates, that's exactly what the CSM proposal was trying to limit.

Anyhow, the point I was making was that it isn't just something the GSF didn't agree with, people from all over EVE seemed to be against the idea of just lopping off winning votes while buffing losing votes.

Not that it matters all that much at this point, however, since CCP Xhagen has made a new thread for the express purpose of trying to have an actual discussion with a clean slate, and so far the baseline for that discussion seems to be vastly improved.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#177 - 2012-09-11 13:36:14 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Ahh after reading this thread I know now why there has been a new influx of "Trebor, Hans and Dairus Don't do anything and should be removed from the CSM" threads appearing.

Let me guess they have said something the GSF don't agree with?

I dare you to look through https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917 and find anyone (well, other than Frying Doom, which seems to base his posting on the complete opposite position to goons) who are agreeing with them.

Well to be honest you were so against educating voters and increasing the number of voters the only other voting reform left is **** goons.Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2012-09-11 14:10:35 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Ahh after reading this thread I know now why there has been a new influx of "Trebor, Hans and Dairus Don't do anything and should be removed from the CSM" threads appearing.

Let me guess they have said something the GSF don't agree with?

I dare you to look through https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917 and find anyone (well, other than Frying Doom, which seems to base his posting on the complete opposite position to goons) who are agreeing with them.

Well to be honest you were so against educating voters and increasing the number of voters the only other voting reform left is **** goons.Lol

What I was against was sending emails, evemail or a modal dialog box upon login. What I said had to happen was that players had to be enthused about voting, not forced to vote, you don't get players enthused about voting by writing chronicles, spamming them with e/evemail or putting modal boxes upon login, you get them enthused when there's drama and titillating things to read about in the news.

And reducing the number of candidates to candidates which aren't complete **** will probably do more to improve the quality of the voting process than a modal dialogbox forcing people to either abstain, postpone or vote.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#179 - 2012-09-11 15:13:20 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
And reducing the number of candidates to candidates which aren't complete **** will probably do more to improve the quality of the voting process than a modal dialogbox forcing people to either abstain, postpone or vote.

aww i knew we'd agree on something Cupcake ;)

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#180 - 2012-09-11 15:45:50 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

...


thanks for taking the time to post here

although the answer was there, between the lines, let me make sure this was actually asked

1) do you support the Trebor Proposal, as it is?

2) do you support the "Penalty for organized voting groups" idea?

3) What voting system would you personally (see wiki) like?


i know this might have been answered already, but I think a clear answer will go a long way calming people down and enabling a actual discussion on the subjects instead of the requirements


while you are here ! ;)