These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Besbin
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#61 - 2013-02-21 16:26:35 UTC
Raid'En wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that a Schulze-STV election with 14 seats and 28 candidates would take over 9 years to compute on a decent PC.

How much extra downtime would be needed to make TQ do it? P


Actually, yeah! Throw us a loaf of nerd porn on this one! :-D

Also: GREAT work! Baby's really growing up now.
CCP Veritas
C C P
C C P Alliance
#62 - 2013-02-21 16:29:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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!

What Two step is coordinating is identically equivalent to having a primary, except it takes less coordination and is done during the election instead of prior. It has the added benefit of spare "wormhole party" support (as in, leftover votes that aren't enough to elect a "wormhole" candidate) potentially transferring to secondary preferences. The "wormhole party" doesn't magically gain more votes because of the procedural difference - if they account for 2/14 of the vote they'll get 2 seats, if they account for 1/14 they'll get 1 seat, ect.

CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2013-02-21 16:32:38 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
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.

In the past we hated on some CSM members for being useless and yet occupying a spot.

This time we will hate on you for playing favorites.

+1

.
Ripard Teg
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#64 - 2013-02-21 16:36:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ripard Teg
Errr... OK. Granted I've only read this once and it's pretty early in the morning, but let me make sure I understand this.

I have to ask a broad swath of EVE players to vote for me...
...and then ten or so days later, I have to ask them to do it a second time using a different system?
...and this is your plan to make the CSM more open to non-bloc candidates?

My inner Garth is screaming that this is truly an election system designed by CCP...

EDIT: And let me be clear: I have no objection to the STV. But isn't the whole point to the STV to eliminate the need for primary elections?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
#65 - 2013-02-21 16:42:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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.

Pretty much.

For some reason this blog made me think of great solutions in engineering.

Fear God and Thread Nought
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#66 - 2013-02-21 16:54:42 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
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.


Ring-a-ding-ding!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2013-02-21 16:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Malcanis wrote:
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.

well, we could have done complex strategery to try and get one of the top two slots but since you're virtually guaranteed one of them it boils down to "campaign hard" since there's not much else that can be done (because it's the winners of a two-seat STV instead of top two slots)

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2013-02-21 16:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Orisa Medeem
mynnna wrote:
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?


What I understood is that any candidate that gets 200 primary votes or more goes to the STV part of the election.

Is this going to be a good enough filter and, as Ripard said, should we be using both a two-turn and a STV system combined? I wonder.

:sand:  over  :awesome:
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#69 - 2013-02-21 16:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
CCP Veritas wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
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!

What Two step is coordinating is identically equivalent to having a primary, except it takes less coordination and is done during the election instead of prior. It has the added benefit of spare "wormhole party" support (as in, leftover votes that aren't enough to elect a "wormhole" candidate) potentially transferring to secondary preferences. The "wormhole party" doesn't magically gain more votes because of the procedural difference - if they account for 2/14 of the vote they'll get 2 seats, if they account for 1/14 they'll get 1 seat, ect.


I'm not even going to argue with you. Let the results do the talking, and if I'm right, you can buy me a beer in Iceland. If I'm wrong, I'll stay in England and send you a sixer of the best beer I know of.

EDIT: Also, surely you realise that what you are describing is the creation of a voting bloc? Surely?

"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.
#70 - 2013-02-21 17:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
mynnna wrote:
But what happens if there are more - straight top vote getters are in, I assume?


Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.gif

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#71 - 2013-02-21 17:02:30 UTC
Hmm. So an election that struggles to get people to even vote for one candidate is now going to ask us for our top 14? Seems like it's going to be too much form filling for a lot of people.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#72 - 2013-02-21 17:07:29 UTC
Callduron wrote:
Hmm. So an election that struggles to get people to even vote for one candidate is now going to ask us for our top 14? Seems like it's going to be too much form filling for a lot of people.


Well those groups which are directed by people who can co-ordinate large numbers to vote for the same list are going to get, effectively, 14 votes per voter. Those unco-ordinated demographics who are interested in maybe one or at most 2-3 candidates and will either not vote for anyone else or who will scatter their votes pretty much at random are going to get effectively 1-3 votes per voter.

Can anyone predict how this will end up?

Anyone?

Bueller?

"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.
#73 - 2013-02-21 17:10:10 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
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!

What Two step is coordinating is identically equivalent to having a primary, except it takes less coordination and is done during the election instead of prior. It has the added benefit of spare "wormhole party" support (as in, leftover votes that aren't enough to elect a "wormhole" candidate) potentially transferring to secondary preferences. The "wormhole party" doesn't magically gain more votes because of the procedural difference - if they account for 2/14 of the vote they'll get 2 seats, if they account for 1/14 they'll get 1 seat, ect.


When you get a little free time, go read this.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Kais Fiddler
Perkone
Caldari State
#74 - 2013-02-21 17:11:35 UTC
Oh boy this is going to be fun. Thanks CCP for introducing a voting system that's easily game-able. I knew you had it in you.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#75 - 2013-02-21 17:13:08 UTC
Jackie Fisher wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
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.

Pretty much.

For some reason this blog made me think of great solutions in engineering.

The problem presented there isn't the right one. A soft saddle could easily make things worse. As long as you're going to be using a saddle, which is pretty much mandatory on a bicycle, a pants based solution is going to be a good one.

On topic: Could candidates post their own voting list suggestions? You know, to get together a strategy to ensure like minded people get elected or unwanted candidates get forced out in favor of less crappy buffer candidates.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-02-21 17:13:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Callduron wrote:
Hmm. So an election that struggles to get people to even vote for one candidate is now going to ask us for our top 14? Seems like it's going to be too much form filling for a lot of people.


Well those groups which are directed by people who can co-ordinate large numbers to vote for the same list are going to get, effectively, 14 votes per voter. Those unco-ordinated demographics who are interested in maybe one or at most 2-3 candidates and will either not vote for anyone else or who will scatter their votes pretty much at random are going to get effectively 1-3 votes per voter.

Can anyone predict how this will end up?

Anyone?

Bueller?


You have my support. As you are one of the few who gets it on the current CSM. I will try to make sure you are on our list for election too! :)

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2013-02-21 17:15:49 UTC
mynnna wrote:
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?

You are misreading the blog. Nowhere does it state that there is a maximum number of candidates. If you get 200 votes, you get on the ballot. However, if less than 28 candidates meet the threshold, it will be lowered so that at least 28 candidates make the final ballot.

To quote the blog: "These votes will then be tallied and candidates that receives 200 or more votes will qualify to be added to the final election ballot. If less than 28 candidates meet this threshold, the next highest ranking candidates will be added until 28 candidates make the final ballot."

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2013-02-21 17:21:00 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
I have to ask a broad swath of EVE players to vote for me...
...and then ten or so days later, I have to ask them to do it a second time using a different system?
...and this is your plan to make the CSM more open to non-bloc candidates?

Personally, I agree with you. In the context of a STV election, the primary qualifier is of marginal use. It won't really limit ballot size because any group that wants to add candidates can do so. All it will do is eliminate the truly unelectable, and the cost/benefit isn't there. I argued that it was an unnecessary step.

But note, as per my previous posting, that it cannot be used to exclude candidates.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#79 - 2013-02-21 17:22:46 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
mynnna wrote:
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?

You are misreading the blog. Nowhere does it state that there is a maximum number of candidates. If you get 200 votes, you get on the ballot. However, if less than 28 candidates meet the threshold, it will be lowered so that at least 28 candidates make the final ballot.

To quote the blog: "These votes will then be tallied and candidates that receives 200 or more votes will qualify to be added to the final election ballot. If less than 28 candidates meet this threshold, the next highest ranking candidates will be added until 28 candidates make the final ballot."



Can't misread what wasn't explicitly stated, which is why I was wondering. So there's no cap on candidates, just a minimum number.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#80 - 2013-02-21 17:32:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Destination SkillQueue wrote:


On topic: Could candidates post their own voting list suggestions? You know, to get together a strategy to ensure like minded people get elected or unwanted candidates get forced out in favor of less crappy bloc candidates.


Oh I'm sure they will


Oh yes they will.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016