These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pipa Porto
#881 - 2012-09-27 10:08:18 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
If you really want to change the voting system then how about this

********Disclaimer*********

I am fully aware that I will flamed to Hell and Back but this is something I would actually support


****************************


I would keep the CSM but remove the whole voting for candidates.

Instead I would have say the 10 largest Alliance each put forward 1 Candidate with 1 Assistant and make the CSM up with that.

Why?

Well the most 2 important things for me anyway is that these alliances will actually care a great deal about how the game is developed,and will have a very good understanding how the game mechanics work.


The only problems I see with that are:

They won't necessarily know about WH mechanics, as not all alliances have WH wings.

HS people will whine despite likely being better represented.

It's undemocratic (of course, as this is an advisory, rather than parliamentary body, that may not be a problem).



What a lot of people who have only ever lived HS need to realise is that if a lot of problems in null are fixed then by default HS will improve.

You can also argue that people have had years to put together a dedicated HS lobby group and have failed to do so.

You can solve the WH issue by simply inviting a couple of members for various well know WH Alliances / Corps.

Yes it undemocratic but I do not see the CSM as anything other as a advisory body anyway, so you might as well put people who have a good knowledge of all aspects of the game and a solid fundamental understanding of the game mechanicals in that advisory body.


Yes. That's about what I said.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Sunfang Armer
Doomheim
#882 - 2012-09-28 05:33:13 UTC
Call me a simple minded Brutor if that's your thing, but after reading all these... lets call them opinions, I am still wondering what the CSM actually is and does. I believe I can represent myself to a larger community better than someone who holds a mere "writ of passage" can, but I commend the effort to brainstorm with the voters and get them to do your job for you.

Also, why is it that all elected canadates seem to go into one all powerful ruling body *sniff, sniff* (I smell a despot!) rather than have a 2, 3 or 4 party system. Then people can vote for their party's elected ministers, 4 months later the ministers vote for a leader to represent them and 4 months after that is the CSM election. 4 months later, rinse and repeat.

Of course, the people are right and any system put in place will be gamed to the max. And since this is just a game, give the voters what they want. Hold a Battle Royale!!!

:)(:
Pipa Porto
#883 - 2012-09-28 07:41:48 UTC
Sunfang Armer wrote:
Call me a simple minded Brutor if that's your thing, but after reading all these... lets call them opinions, I am still wondering what the CSM actually is and does. I believe I can represent myself to a larger community better than someone who holds a mere "writ of passage" can, but I commend the effort to brainstorm with the voters and get them to do your job for you.

Also, why is it that all elected canadates seem to go into one all powerful ruling body *sniff, sniff* (I smell a despot!) rather than have a 2, 3 or 4 party system. Then people can vote for their party's elected ministers, 4 months later the ministers vote for a leader to represent them and 4 months after that is the CSM election. 4 months later, rinse and repeat.

Of course, the people are right and any system put in place will be gamed to the max. And since this is just a game, give the voters what they want. Hold a Battle Royale!!!


If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Sunfang Armer
Doomheim
#884 - 2012-09-28 18:58:31 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power).


Well I won't correct you. But two major parties (eg: Red, Blue) and several independant parties would make an effective electoral roll. CSM could act as a neutral moderater rather than a glorified accountant sending/receiving "issues" to and from CCP and players. Plus, a player run EVE governmet (aka: intense headache) would be more interesting than a puppet council doing CCP's bidding, i'd imagine Cool

:)(:
Pipa Porto
#885 - 2012-09-28 20:40:18 UTC
Sunfang Armer wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power).


Well I won't correct you. But two major parties (eg: Red, Blue) and several independant parties would make an effective electoral roll. CSM could act as a neutral moderater rather than a glorified accountant sending/receiving "issues" to and from CCP and players. Plus, a player run EVE governmet (aka: intense headache) would be more interesting than a puppet council doing CCP's bidding, i'd imagine Cool


So form a party. Get people to vote for you. When your party gains power through coordinated voting, you'll attract rival parties.

The CSM is an advisory body. It's job is to provide a sanity check on CCP's ideas (something this CSM has failed miserably at). It is not a parliamentary body.

The sending/recieving issues hemi-demi-parlimentary process was dropped like 4 CSMs ago.

What's there to govern?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Frying Doom
#886 - 2012-09-29 03:11:51 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Sunfang Armer wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
If you want a political party, organize one. Political parties aren't something that get built into an electoral system (or who decides what the parties are and who's in them?), parties get built by people who share ideals (or want power).


Well I won't correct you. But two major parties (eg: Red, Blue) and several independant parties would make an effective electoral roll. CSM could act as a neutral moderater rather than a glorified accountant sending/receiving "issues" to and from CCP and players. Plus, a player run EVE governmet (aka: intense headache) would be more interesting than a puppet council doing CCP's bidding, i'd imagine Cool


So form a party. Get people to vote for you. When your party gains power through coordinated voting, you'll attract rival parties.

The CSM is an advisory body. It's job is to provide a sanity check on CCP's ideas (something this CSM has failed miserably at). It is not a parliamentary body.

The sending/recieving issues hemi-demi-parlimentary process was dropped like 4 CSMs ago.

What's there to govern?

I hate to agree with you but yeah the main defining characteristics of all the CSM's has been a failure to guide CCP away from monumental mistakes and blunders.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Pipa Porto
#887 - 2012-09-29 03:20:26 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I hate to agree with you but yeah the main defining characteristics of all the CSM's has been a failure to guide CCP away from monumental mistakes and blunders.


Difference being that previous CSMs were not consulted or ignored on the big blunders of their tenancy. This CSM endorsed them (wardecs, FW plexing).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Frying Doom
#888 - 2012-09-29 03:26:05 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I hate to agree with you but yeah the main defining characteristics of all the CSM's has been a failure to guide CCP away from monumental mistakes and blunders.


Difference being that previous CSMs were not consulted or ignored on the big blunders of their tenancy. This CSM endorsed them (wardecs, FW plexing).

Both war decs and the FW stuff were born during CSM 6 but yeah we should have had more screaming about them especially the war decs as the system is completely useless now.

If I wanted to defend against a war dec now I would just save my isk and create alts with plex to gank targets, it is so much cheaper and better than the current dreg.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Sunfang Armer
Doomheim
#889 - 2012-09-29 08:59:47 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
The CSM is an advisory body. It's job is to provide a sanity check on CCP's ideas (something this CSM has failed miserably at). It is not a parliamentary body.


Ahh! Now that cleared things up. Thanks for the intel SmileBig smile

:)(:
Xenuria
#890 - 2012-09-30 22:50:04 UTC
In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.

CSM 12 Candidate
Pipa Porto
#891 - 2012-09-30 23:39:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Xenuria wrote:
In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.


In what way is it exploitable?
The candidates who have the most support among the voting populace win. It you're unable to get those people already prepared to vote to vote for you, try convincing people who otherwise wouldn't vote to vote for you. Something like 80% of the server population is up for grabs... grab it.

Just because you got stomped doesn't mean that the advantages your opponents had, (Popularity, Sanity, Coherent Platforms, etc) are unfair ones or exploitative ones.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Prince Kobol
#892 - 2012-10-01 11:03:52 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.


I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable"
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#893 - 2012-10-01 11:27:34 UTC
Just be rid of the CSM and use feedback from your actual players to make your decisions.

IS this too hard? Cause last I checked that's what every other video game production company does.

No matter how you reform the CSM the fact stands that the large alliances will always have a huge voting advantage since they will band together to elect someone. Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't band together to vote for someone, what I'm saying is that the small corporations, the solo player etc. aren't going to have equal representation due to the fact that they aren't all banding together to mass their votes on one candidate.

Either way I'm fairly certain that you won't be scrapping the CSM, but good luck on making it something that isn't a majority representing a minority.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#894 - 2012-10-01 11:28:51 UTC
Silk daShocka wrote:
Just be rid of the CSM and use feedback from your actual players to make your decisions.

Incarna.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#895 - 2012-10-01 12:17:49 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Silk daShocka wrote:
Just be rid of the CSM and use feedback from your actual players to make your decisions.

Incarna.


Yeah what about it? Last I checked Incarna happened although there was a CSM existant at the time. The only reason CCP changed direction was cuz of the protest of the actual players, not some CSM protest.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#896 - 2012-10-01 21:59:54 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.


I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable"

He means that people keep voting for candidates other than Xenuria.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Prince Kobol
#897 - 2012-10-02 10:57:24 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.


I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable"

He means that people keep voting for candidates other than Xenuria.


Personally I think anybody who did cast a vote for Xenuria should have their accounts deleted and IP's perma banned but that just me Twisted
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#898 - 2012-10-06 01:26:57 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
In all honesty almost anything would be better than what we have currently. The system in it's current form is exploitable and a new system or a hybrid of systems is in order.

I would love to know why you think the current system is "exploitable"

He means that people keep voting for candidates other than Xenuria.

Personally I think anybody who did cast a vote for Xenuria should have their accounts deleted and IP's perma banned but that just me Twisted

Now now, some people might have misclicked...

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 ?
Pipa Porto
#899 - 2012-10-06 05:36:01 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Now now, some people might have misclicked...


A Cat on the keyboard is a vote for Xenuria.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#900 - 2012-10-09 21:24:10 UTC

Here's my opinion:

I like the CD-STV system, as suggested in Trebor's original statement.

1.) To all those advocating the Droop Counting System.... get real.... its terrible!!! Votes don't need to be "Maximized"!!! In short, leave overvotes alone
--- Assume standard STV system, where players designate their own votes: How do you reassign overvotes fairly? For example, suppose Trebor received 1000k overvotes.... which of his 1000 voters' votes get reassigned? Is it random, is it a FIFO or LIFO system? And why does anyone get their votes reassigned?? Everyone that voted for trebor is getting their preferred candidate in, so their votes are perfectly placed!!!!
--- Assuming CD-STV, and we have an easily gamed system. Imagine a voting block like the goons put all 10k votes into the Mitanni. He had X thousand overvotes, which will be transfered to elect his second, and then potentially third choice. Rather than voting for the best candidate, all votes for the Mitanni become a vote for his entire bloc, which allows extremely easy gaming of the system to maximize bloc-votes. People should be voting for individual candidates, NOT candidate GROUPS.

The concept of an overvotes being a wasted vote is just ridiculous!!!!! We're talking about candidate elections here (not party elections), and any system centered around min-maxing the votes is begging to be gamed!!!!

2.) Will this system enable the CSM to be gamed.... potentially... For example, if Goons split up their 10k votes amoung 5 candidates, all with the right alternate transfer list, they may have easily ended with an overshare of CSM members.... However, depending on the placement of the uncounted 15k votes (most of which probably were not Goons), its very hard to tell how much influence they would end up with. Pretending all the Mittani votes were goons (which they obviously weren't), even if they split up their votes perfectly, their 10k out of 60k votes should get them 1/6th of the council seats. I see absolutely no problems with that, and by NOT maximizing overvotes, maximzing the votes of a Bloc becomes much more difficult. This makes it harder to game the system, while still allowing voting blocks to ensure their own representation.