These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The voting reform discussion

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#341 - 2012-09-19 15:28:02 UTC
Yeep wrote:

So everybody who disagrees with you is stupid because they disagree with you because you're smart because you're you and you know you're smart so you can't be wrong.


No in this instance it is you we are talking about, I do not consider Lord Zim, Snow Axe and a lot of others I am constantly differing with to be in anyway stupid, I believe they tow the party line a lot but as far as actually stupid goons go, most of them seem smart enough not to post in EvE-O, except of course you!

Oh and I am smart enough to know I can be wrong and that right and wrong are mostly governed by perspective.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#342 - 2012-09-19 15:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Bluntly put, but I believe it is accurate.

Having mulled on this for a few days (I must apologize, but I'm a slow thinker), I want to respond in general to what the problem is and throw in a new idea (supplied to me by mister CCP Veritas (whom is exceptionally brilliant)).

...

Anything I'm forgetting?


First, really glad to see that you don't think bloc voting isn't an issue. This sort of discussion would be kind of a non-starter if that wasn't the case.

I still think that one of two criteria need to be met before you can truly dive into different voting systems:

1. You (CCP) are happy with the current voting numbers. You've hit whatever percentage you either wanted, or have decided is "enough". This allows you to choose a system knowing what kind of voting numbers you're getting compared to what kind of representation you hope to get. Changing things now while still trying to grow the voter base could create problems down the road if the influx of voters changes the game, so to speak.

I compare this to CCP Fozzie's logic for changing Heavy Missles instead of the Drake/Tengu hulls:

CCP Fozzie in his Missile Change Thread wrote:
But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched.

...

Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.


That's the basic logic behind my thought - you have to get the underlying elements to where you want them before you can fine-tune the other details.

2. You have specific feedback from the non-voting players that the voting system itself is what's keeping people from participating. This would allow you to come up with a system that directly addresses those concerns. Given that you're up for discussing options with the playerbase, I doubt this is the situation, as you'd just be (rightfully) changing the system to address this and simply telling us about it.

Once either of those are met, then we can definitely open the doors on discussing specific systems, be it the Schultze system Veritas linked, STV, or whatever. Doing it before that is just putting the cart ahead of the horse. This goes doubly with you saying the current system is sufficient - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#343 - 2012-09-19 15:46:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I do not consider Lord Zim, Snow Axe and a lot of others I am constantly differing with to be in anyway stupid, I believe they tow the party line a lot


Except you clearly hold their opinions is less regard because you don't believe they could have arrived upon them without "toeing the party line".
OldMan Gana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#344 - 2012-09-19 15:49:26 UTC
Next thing will be the Chechen or Rwandan voting system held up as a model for EVE to implement.

Love United- Hate Glazer
Scooter McCabe
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#345 - 2012-09-19 15:54:50 UTC
If you have no problem with having large power blocs vote and win because they are better organized, then you shouldn't have a problem with the current voting system. The current voting system reflects that. It also have the virtues of being transparent and can be trusted. If CCP tinkers with it and voting results now have to be explained using an algebraic formula that transparency and trust is going to be lost, whether or not vote rigging and manipulation occurs dishonestly. It will be because the new system will inherently have that. In order to destroy any governing body all that is needed is the death of trust. No one is going to trust a CSM based on this "new and better" system. Nor would trust survive long if suddenly the CSM made this matter a closed door event shutting out the EVE community:

Quote:
Alekseyev Karrde:
"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.“


Likewise candidates or CSM members pettifogging their desire to disenfranchise one group or groups of voters in the name of greater representation, begs the question as to their fitness to lead and if their healthcare provider covers mental health checks. There should be no reality where 75% of the votes get outweighed by 25%, there should not be a "Participation Award" atmosphere surrounding the CSM.

Quote:
Trebor Daehdoow:
“Over the past few CSM elections, it has become increasingly clear that the simple "vote for one candidate" election system should be revisited in the hopes of finding a system that produces a CSM that better represents the electorate (ie: those members of the community who care enough to vote).

In the most recent election, for example, almost 25% of the votes were cast for candidates who did not win election to the CSM. These lost "undervotes", coupled with the fact that some candidates have increasingly overwhelming information and organizational advantages, threatens to effectively disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.

Since it is in everyone's long-term interest for the CSM to broadly represent the electorate, a strong case can be made that the election system should be reformed. CSM elections should not only be fair, but should be seen to be fair."


When you start tinkering and decide one vote is worth more than the other get ready to disenfranchise a lot of people. I remember one great example of a voting system that decided a person's vote only counted as Three Fifths of a vote. Certainly that would get your other 25% the clout they need and render any notion of a democratically elected CSM a punchline at FanFests yet to come.

Here is what I propose for the voting system:

1. Have CCP and the CSM create a voter education campaign.

2. Have CCP make login banners to advertise the upcoming election.

3. Get the DEVs to do candidate spolights and interviews.

4. CCP can make a voting screen players have to complete before they can log in.

5. Stay with the current voting system and enjoy increased voter turnout, everyone is represented and the problem is solved.

Now as for the politicking, deal making and actual campaigning leave that to the players. Anything else and its going to take away from the sandbox we love to claim is unique to EVE. Going a step further I will share some advice having volunteered in Real Life political campaigns: be prepared to make deals to gain votes, be prepared to compromise on your platform, be prepared to step aside so a more electable candidate has a shot. Also if your that worried that your position is in jeopardy on the CSM as yourself would it be if you actually did your job representing the EVE community.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#346 - 2012-09-19 16:04:45 UTC
Artctura wrote:
Tairon Usaro wrote:
CSM dominated by power blocks ?
Simple solution: Belgium approach, pop-up for casting a vote after login on the char screen and lock the damn thing until the vote is casted.

the problem are not the 15% who voted, the problem are 85% who did not.

Beside that, more transparency on who performed how in the current and past CSMs. It should be evident for us voters, who filled his election promises and who did not. So maybe a performance summary given by CCP should be available before the next election period.




And I want my candy bar, so I'm going to randomly click and get right to the candy bar. This will just generate a complete random result. At that point we might as well pick CSM members out of a hat.


I absolutely agree. The election outcome should ultimately be shaped by those that care enough to vote in the first place. Forcing uninformed voters to generate random noise isn't going to get us anywhere. I'm all for integrating voting into the client, or having a prompt and the ability to decline participation, but not casting a vote at all should be just as legitimate an option as actually voting for a candidate. I want our future CSM members to be elected by informed voters that care. That may come through measures CCP takes to help people understand what the CSM is and how they can participate, but as many have stated, ultimately this responsbility lies with the CSM proving their value to players in the first place.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Scooter McCabe
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#347 - 2012-09-19 16:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Scooter McCabe
By "random noise" do mean a vote that might not be cast in the direction you would like it to be? Oh no someone who wouldn't normally vote, voted for someone for an arbitrary reason! Say about those "informed" voters...
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#348 - 2012-09-19 16:14:58 UTC
Scooter McCabe wrote:
By "random noise" do mean a vote that might not be cast in the direction you would like it to be? Oh no someone who wouldn't normally voted for someone for an arbitrary reason! Say about those "informed" voters...


In all fairness to Hans, votes for the sake of votes would be pretty worthless to CCP as well. They want votes to go up as a reflection of more people taking a vested interest in the CSM (and thus having a say in the direction of the game), not votes going up because Joe Blow Miner had to pick an option before he could log in his 10 barge accounts.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#349 - 2012-09-19 16:29:48 UTC
Scooter McCabe wrote:
By "random noise" do mean a vote that might not be cast in the direction you would like it to be? Oh no someone who wouldn't normally vote, voted for someone for an arbitrary reason! Say about those "informed" voters...


I mean random noise as in votes that are cast carelessly without concern for the value of the candiates they're being cast for. If you force someone to vote who doesnt care enough to learn about the candidates to begin with, their votes are going to be arbitrary, and aren't going to contribute towards electing a more effective CSM. It opens the door for candidates to use buzzwords and catchphrases "I'm the missioner's friend!" and suck up knee-jerk votes. Do we want a diverse CSM? Sure. Are arbitrary knee-jerk votes obtained through a compulsory electoral system more valuable than "arbitrary" votes cast by what is perceived compulsory voting by bloc members? I'm not convinced of this. It would literally be taking a problem that is perceived at one level and intentionally amplifying it across the entire playerbase - I hardly see how this is advantageous.

In the end, the goal should be to get more people to care about the CSM, and care enough to inform themselves before they vote. Arbitrary votes are arbitrary votes, whether they align with a bloc interest, or are scattered throughout the general populace. In either case, they don't do their job in telling CCP what players are truly interested in, which is half the value in electing our CSM reps to begin with.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Artctura
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#350 - 2012-09-19 17:02:49 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


In the end, the goal should be to get more people to care about the CSM, and care enough to inform themselves before they vote. Arbitrary votes are arbitrary votes, whether they align with a bloc interest, or are scattered throughout the general populace. In either case, they don't do their job in telling CCP what players are truly interested in, which is half the value in electing our CSM reps to begin with.



This. A thousand times this.

The true problem isn't the system. The true problem isn't the goons. The true problem isn't the existing external to EVE infrastructure that exists in nullsec allowing them to "bloc" vote.

The true problem, as summed up by Douglas Adams, through Ford Prefect is this.

"We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

The simple fact of this is that 95% of the people who play this game either don't realize that they have a voice, or don't care enough to express that voice. CCP and the CSM stand in a unique position to fix this. The way to do that is to get information out there about the CSM. Get knowledge out there about the activities the CSM partakes in. Get surveys out there to find out if the content delivery is effective. Reiterate the cycle until you are satisfied that the message is driven home.

You'll never make everyone care, its just not possible. But I'm sure you guys can do better than the current situation.

Artctura for CSM 2013
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#351 - 2012-09-19 17:08:04 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Scooter McCabe wrote:

No one is going to trust a CSM based on this "new and better" system.


Noone trusts the current system except those that are now in power.
The perception of many disaffected whom don't bother to vote even though they actuallyknow what the CSM is is current system has become a play toy for the NULL Alliances especailly after looking athow the Goons overwelmingly won the CSM chair this year & then thier tears afterwards after Mittani was booted. The scandel isliableto depress voter turnout next year amongst the HI SEC population sadly
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#352 - 2012-09-19 17:23:47 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
The scandel isliableto depress voter turnout next year amongst the HI SEC population sadly


http://imgur.com/RiAiA

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#353 - 2012-09-19 17:26:39 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Scooter McCabe wrote:

No one is going to trust a CSM based on this "new and better" system.


Noone trusts the current system except those that are now in power.
The perception of many disaffected whom don't bother to vote even though they actuallyknow what the CSM is is current system has become a play toy for the NULL Alliances especailly after looking athow the Goons overwelmingly won the CSM chair this year & then thier tears afterwards after Mittani was booted. The scandel isliableto depress voter turnout next year amongst the HI SEC population sadly

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you post if you want to make no sense whatsoever.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Reticle
Sight Picture
#354 - 2012-09-19 17:30:34 UTC
I think that whatever is eventually decided should address a fundamental issue with the general concept of the CSM: conflating game issues with representation on the CSM. The CSM is essentially based on the concept that some issues are more important than others and that the importance of an issue is directly related to who wins. That's pretty obviously problematic when the largest single group of players (pure high sec) has no representation of any kind. The largest professions are equally underrepresented; where is the Industrial representative? I'm sure many people will say variations of "if they want a rep they have to.... etc." I'm sure there are lots of reasons these groups don't have a rep, chief among them free time. But that's irrelevant from a game play, game design perspective. CCP is building a game and it needs input on every element of that design whether or not those player groups feel up to the task of becoming space politicians.

Imagine for a moment that instead of voting for people, you voted for an issue/preference/game mechanic. On election day/week, players open the client and are presented with a list of things like Make New Ships, Fix XYZ Ship, FW Buffs, etc. You'll recognize this as the crowdsourcing effort that was conducted in the previous CSM. Players are able to provide their concerns and CCP will get a better look at those concerns, because instead of 20k out 400k deciding what CCP focuses on, we'll all be deciding. The CSM should be the sounding board, the focus group, the "hey that mechanic is really bad and here's why" group. Then it really wouldn't matter how you elected them or what they "represented" (or SAY they represent). It won't matter if it's all goons or not. CCP should be getting input from the entire player base Instead of a minority of players with the loudest voices (or most cunning tactics). Separate the issues from the CSM. You get the feedback of the playerbase and then run it by the "experts."

The one thing that has to change regardless of anything else is how we vote. Voting has no relationship to reality in this game. Buddy accounts means that someone could theoretically win CSM without anyone else's help. There should be some way to individualize the voting. I'm not sure what that would be or if its even possible. However, if the idea of separating issues from representation were used, it really wouldn't matter. People could use the various voter "fraud" methods to push their issue up the list, but that wouldn't matter much either; you'd still have the list.
Artctura
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#355 - 2012-09-19 17:34:38 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Scooter McCabe wrote:

No one is going to trust a CSM based on this "new and better" system.


Noone trusts the current system except those that are now in power.
The perception of many disaffected whom don't bother to vote even though they actually know what the CSM is is current system has become a play toy for the NULL Alliances especially after looking at how the Goons overwhelmingly won the CSM chair this year & then their tears afterwards after Mittani was booted. The scandal is liable to depress voter turnout next year amongst the HI SEC population sadly
(Quote fixed for spacing and spelling to make it more readable)

I'm just curious. How is the fact that the null sec candidate who got the most votes being removed going to depress hi sec voter turnout?

I'm not following the logic that is driving here.

A. The Mittani gets 10,000 votes, 1 out of every 6 cast.
B. The Mittani is removed as CSM chairman.
C. High Sec Voters now no longer care about the CSM.

What am I missing here?

Artctura for CSM 2013
Artctura
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#356 - 2012-09-19 17:38:28 UTC
Reticle wrote:


The one thing that has to change regardless of anything else is how we vote. Voting has no relationship to reality in this game. Buddy accounts means that someone could theoretically win CSM without anyone else's help. There should be some way to individualize the voting. I'm not sure what that would be or if its even possible. However, if the idea of separating issues from representation were used, it really wouldn't matter. People could use the various voter "fraud" methods to push their issue up the list, but that wouldn't matter much either; you'd still have the list.



You can't have it both ways. You are claiming that the buddy system can game both systems, but in one its irrelevant. That makes no sense. It's either low enough that it isn't an issue, or high enough that it is affecting things.

Artctura for CSM 2013
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#357 - 2012-09-19 17:39:52 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
- Eve-mails to every character and E-mails to every account annoucing CSM landmark events, i.e. Candidacy period is opened, voting has started, here's the results, CSM summit is happening, CSM minutes are here. That sort of thing. Nothing terribly invasive or frequent, but enough to make sure as many people are in on this as possible.

Aye, we've planned on doing this once. However, increasing the size of data the database has to store by some % was not appealing to the DB guys. How about using the ingame Calendar?

.



Does anyoneuse the in gamecalendar? In the past 2-3 years I've played the game I think I clocked on it 3 times ( one if you don't count the time I clicked on it due to lag& not knowing where my mouse wason the screen )
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#358 - 2012-09-19 17:41:56 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Dorn Val wrote:
If the goal of voting reform is to get better representation for a larger cross section of the Eve player base then wouldn't it make more sense to get more people to vote?! Why not make voting a requirement -can't log in until you've cast your vote for CSM...

If people don't vote, if they don't get involved in the election process, then do they deserve to be represented? Seems to me that you're trying to give a voice to people who don't want to speak, and at the same time suppress the groups that want to be involved. You're basically punishing large power blocks (aka Goons) for giving a ****...

Hey, this is actually a good post.

Lots of sense made here.

You'll get over looked dude. Sorry, the people of this thread are too busy dongewaving.

Except for the fact that the people who don't give a **** (which seems to be a large majority of the players out there) will be looking for a "bother me later, just let me log in and play" (aka remind me next login) button, a "I don't give a ****" (aka abstain) button, or just mash the first face which looks attractive of the list of candidates. This'll definitely improve voting.



This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you post if you want to make no sense whatsoever.


See I can do that too Zim P
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#359 - 2012-09-19 17:43:42 UTC
We almost had one page without any incoherent "BUT WHAT ABOUT ~HISEC~" borderline troll posts. Thanks for ruining that, DarthNefarious.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Scooter McCabe
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#360 - 2012-09-19 17:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Scooter McCabe
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Scooter McCabe wrote:
By "random noise" do mean a vote that might not be cast in the direction you would like it to be? Oh no someone who wouldn't normally vote, voted for someone for an arbitrary reason! Say about those "informed" voters...


I mean random noise as in votes that are cast carelessly without concern for the value of the candiates they're being cast for. If you force someone to vote who doesnt care enough to learn about the candidates to begin with, their votes are going to be arbitrary, and aren't going to contribute towards electing a more effective CSM. It opens the door for candidates to use buzzwords and catchphrases "I'm the missioner's friend!" and suck up knee-jerk votes. Do we want a diverse CSM? Sure. Are arbitrary knee-jerk votes obtained through a compulsory electoral system more valuable than "arbitrary" votes cast by what is perceived compulsory voting by bloc members? I'm not convinced of this. It would literally be taking a problem that is perceived at one level and intentionally amplifying it across the entire playerbase - I hardly see how this is advantageous.

In the end, the goal should be to get more people to care about the CSM, and care enough to inform themselves before they vote. Arbitrary votes are arbitrary votes, whether they align with a bloc interest, or are scattered throughout the general populace. In either case, they don't do their job in telling CCP what players are truly interested in, which is half the value in electing our CSM reps to begin with.


Buzzwords, sucking up knee-jerk votes and catchphrases, hold on a sec I just invented a time machine and can show you this already exists on the CSM:

Quote:
Oprah Book Club Excerpt of: Who the hell is Hans Jagerblitzen? Page 6:

Instead of defending them on a matter of principle, I instead view suicide ganking merely as a
symptom of broken warfare mechanics and bored pilots. This is evident in the final words of
Mitten's recent speech in Branch, where he admits the Gallente Ice Interdiction is more or less a
time killer. In the long run, I believe that the barometer of sandbox success should be that we
see fewer events like Hulkageddon, and more videos like Clarion Call.
The ability to entertain Goon troops is directly tied to The Mittani's ability to command their
attention. In the absence of an engaging challenge in 0.0 space, he has exploited the most base
way to keep them entertained – through preying on the weak and relishing in the anguish of
another.


Then I read this gem:

Quote:
It is a simply statement of the extents to which he and I will go in the name of fun.


That had me wanting to link a stupid Futurama picture with the Scotty Puff Jr logo saying "Who's read for safe fun," and make some comparison to WoW in space. Rather than rely on cheap chicanery let's just run the ball down the middle and just ask how is shouting "fix the voting sytem" not some catch phrase and making allusions to power bloc voting not intended to cause knee jerk reaction?