These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM8 Elections – Schedule and Election Process

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#41 - 2013-02-21 14:24:50 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Is it 14 votes exactly, or up to 14? If I only see 4 candidates I like the look of, do I have to cast the remaining 10 or can they be discarded?

As far as I know, you'll be able to select any number from 1 to 14. You may be amused to learn that my position was that you should be able to rank all the candidates if you so desired.

You will be able to select one, or two, or three, or four... up to 14.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#42 - 2013-02-21 14:29:48 UTC
RDevz wrote:
Quote:
The summit attendees will use a new 2+5 system, with CCP and the CSM working together to pick the 5 hardest working and most feature relevant CSMs being flown to each summit and the final 2 attendees will be the "most preferred" candidates, chosen by reentering the election results into an STV election to select the top 2 candidates.


This is a system open to neither abuse nor gaming, with absolutely no chance of someone (you know who you are) trying to use it as a "keep the Goons out of the CSM" tool.

On the flip side, we can then bring in some other people than the top seven instead of being locked in to that predetermined selection.

Granted we know this will generate discussions about the selection, but the flavor of it will be different from the discussions on the matter in the past.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#43 - 2013-02-21 14:37:29 UTC
Well done CCP for handing control of the CSM to the CFC and the HBC.

Don't say you weren't warned long ago.

Since I will directly benefit this time around I'm not even going to make too much of a fuss about it right now, but the outcome of this change is so obvious that I can't believe it isn't intended. That alone gives me much amusement.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#44 - 2013-02-21 14:39:43 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
I look forward to seeing how our team games the system this time around.


Why wait? 30 seconds thought reveals that you won't even have to try very hard. Just nominate the 7 candidates you like the most and tell your guys to vote for them in any order that pleases them. Bingo: CFC CSM achieved.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#45 - 2013-02-21 14:41:52 UTC
Jackie Fisher wrote:
This all looks simpler and more transparent than the previous system.


That would be one way to describe it. If by simpler you mean much more complex, and if by transparent, you mean transparently obvious that this will hand the result completely to large voting blocs.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#46 - 2013-02-21 14:45:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Is it 14 votes exactly, or up to 14? If I only see 4 candidates I like the look of, do I have to cast the remaining 10 or can they be discarded?

As far as I know, you'll be able to select any number from 1 to 14. You may be amused to learn that my position was that you should be able to rank all the candidates if you so desired.

You will be able to select one, or two, or three, or four... up to 14.


And you don't see a possible problem with this handing more voting voice to organised, well informed (or well-directed) voting blocs?

Well OK then, carry on!


I mean suffering christ it's not like the "how can this possibly be exploited" test hasn't been mandatory for game design ideas for the last 9 years. Roll



edit: well, I suppose this change is consistent with CCP's "give people what they ask for, not what they want" policy over the years. OK well, enough from me, time to kick back and eat delicious, salty tear-flavoured popcorn. Oh god this is going to be good.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#47 - 2013-02-21 14:54:53 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Will there be increased efforts to raise awareness of the CSM season this time, which in many people's eyes would be a far more important step for the CSM, and do a far better job of making the process legitimate, than fiddling with the voting system? Asking us to vote twice and to make 14 choices on the second occasion isn't exactly going to appeal to the apathetic Joe Random Eve Player.


This was my primary concern throughout our internal discussions, the fact that so much time was spent hashing out complicated algorithms for election results calculation and so little time spent discussing how we can promote the election and increase voter turnout. My fear (and we'll see if its founded or not) is that a more complicated voting system will decrease turnout, rather than the other way around.

While I'm glad that enough time was spent that a different, -supposedly- less-exploitable method was selected, we'll see if there's follow-through on the promotional/educational front. We've been told that there will be some more material released closer to the election start, but I'll believe it when I see it. We've asked previously for more promotional support for things like Town Halls and such and received less-than-satisfactory (or just plain tardy) response, so I can only go off of CCP's track record where this is concerned. I would have liked to have seen this been the big push this year instead of voting reform itself, personally.


That's my concern too. They're adressing a minor issue with an overly complex solution that may make things worse.

Issues i can notice:

- Double voting (pre-election + election). It's confusing at least and will drive away the less involved voters (from an already minoritary pool of involved players who hardly can claim to speak for the other 86% who doesn't vote)
- 28 candidates are too many people to really learn and weight their proposals.
- players will not understand what happens with their votes because STV systems are too complex and uncommon
- CSM being picked to travel to Iceland depending on how they are "feature relevant"? I hardly understood that part but what i get is that CCP will only invite CSM who talk about what CCP wants to discuss no matter what the players would like to see discussed. How are players supposed to forward an issue to CCP if CCP decides beforehand who's gonna go to Iceland based on what CCP wants to listen rather than what players want to say?

And all in all, representativeness and vote-farming would not be an issue if there was a lot of voters. It's the poor voter turnout what makes potentiallly easy to "rig" the elections with the manpower of a single alliance.

Players don't vote, that's the real matter with the CSM.
CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#48 - 2013-02-21 14:58:54 UTC
Jackie Fisher wrote:
This all looks simpler and more transparent than the previous system.

Sadly transparency and simplicity are often mutually exclusive.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#49 - 2013-02-21 15:11:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Two step
I wrote a blog post about what this means for wormhole candidates. It is critical to make sure that all candidates ask their supporters to list *all* wormhole candidates at the top of their ballots.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#50 - 2013-02-21 15:15:17 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Many thanks to the Community team, and especially CCP Veritas for his extra hours put into this, taking the time to make sure this is done in the best way possible. I'm looking forward to this election and seeing how this all plays out!


Delicately phrased. I approve.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#51 - 2013-02-21 15:16:05 UTC
Two step wrote:
I wrote a blog post about what this means for wormhole candidates. It is critical to make sure that all candidates ask their supporters to list *all* wormhole candidates at the top of their ballots.



Silly Two Step, this change is meant to prevent voting blocs from gaining more influence!


*stifled laughter*

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars
Fraternity.
#52 - 2013-02-21 15:26:32 UTC
Single Transferable Vote is kinda a terrible system, hell we voted no to use it in the elections here in the UK.

I can now basically give votes to the candidate I want, and then everyone else who I think wont get votes. Basically, wormhole guys, welcome to CSM8, as most of us will waste the extra points on you guys, rather than voting for 'the other side'. and using you as a blocking tool.

Well done CCP!
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-02-21 15:36:25 UTC
I hearby name this new system

Survivor in Space

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Halgar Rench
The Red Headed League
#54 - 2013-02-21 15:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Halgar Rench
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Will there be increased efforts to raise awareness of the CSM season this time, which in many people's eyes would be a far more important step for the CSM, and do a far better job of making the process legitimate, than fiddling with the voting system? Asking us to vote twice and to make 14 choices on the second occasion isn't exactly going to appeal to the apathetic Joe Random Eve Player.


This was my primary concern throughout our internal discussions, the fact that so much time was spent hashing out complicated algorithms for election results calculation and so little time spent discussing how we can promote the election and increase voter turnout. My fear (and we'll see if its founded or not) is that a more complicated voting system will decrease turnout, rather than the other way around.

While I'm glad that enough time was spent that a different, -supposedly- less-exploitable method was selected, we'll see if there's follow-through on the promotional/educational front. We've been told that there will be some more material released closer to the election start, but I'll believe it when I see it. We've asked previously for more promotional support for things like Town Halls and such and received less-than-satisfactory (or just plain tardy) response, so I can only go off of CCP's track record where this is concerned. I would have liked to have seen this been the big push this year instead of voting reform itself, personally.



I agree, the election deserves heavy promotion. And it doesn't need all need to be in serious-mode. I posted the following on the Features and Ideas forum.

[Suggestion] Incentivize CSM voting using fun game nonsense

To encourage voter participation, I'd like to suggest that CCP reward those who actually vote some kind of "Election Ammo" that could be used with the festival launchers.

Something like a shower of colorful balloons, or confetti, or streamers... This could heighten awareness of the 2-week voting period and maybe wake up some of the apathetic or unaware crowd.

Also, during the pre-election perhaps CCP could give every account a stack "Leaflet Ammo" that would fire a barrage of pamphlets and flyers from the Festival Launcher. Again, to spread the word that the voting period is coming up soon.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-02-21 15:51:48 UTC
Encouraging voting for the sake of voting is about as dumb as arranging a system that will land the entire CSM into the lap of one group.

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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#56 - 2013-02-21 15:56:10 UTC
Dramaticus wrote:
Encouraging voting for the sake of voting is about as dumb as arranging a system that will land the entire CSM into the lap of one group.


Let the results do the talking. Meanwhile, go long on popcorn.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Sgurd Battersea
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-02-21 16:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgurd Battersea
.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#58 - 2013-02-21 16:03:39 UTC
Voting Change for the Sake of Change. The hallmark of the do-nothing CSM.

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
CCP Veritas
C C P
C C P Alliance
#59 - 2013-02-21 16:05:41 UTC
Sgurd Battersea wrote:
going up to 5 would be better.

People are free to only put in 5 if they wish. Heck, they can only vote for one if that's all the preference they have. The only downside is that they might disenfranchise themselves if noone in their small set of candidates end up having enough support.

CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-02-21 16:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Malcanis wrote:
Well done CCP for handing control of the CSM to the CFC and the HBC.

Don't say you weren't warned long ago.

Since I will directly benefit this time around I'm not even going to make too much of a fuss about it right now, but the outcome of this change is so obvious that I can't believe it isn't intended. That alone gives me much amusement.


Seriously this. If you think this is going to get you a more varied CSM, I don't know what to say. I do not see this election ending well on that front. Election system monkeying alone is not going to do it for you, so I hope whatever your plans are for reaching out and getting more voter participation are good.

I do have an honest question, though. The blog mentions that the top twenty eight candidates from the pre-election process get up for election, and what happens if there are fewer than twenty eight. But what happens if there are more - straight top vote getters are in, I assume?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal