These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#141 - 2013-02-22 00:58:00 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
mynnna wrote:
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?


When someone calls "CFC and HBC own the CSM now" and the CFC candidate says "Yep" you should expect that this is truth.

All you have to do is count the votes from last year.

Mynnna should get far more than enough votes to get the top spot. After that, Mynnna's overvotes will all roll downhill, ensuring that several other sov null candidates are elected. HBC is even bigger than CFC, if perhaps less disciplined. So the two biggest blocs of coordinated voters will all be voting for the sov null candidates. At an unscientific guess, expect the top 4, if not 6 or more, candidates to be sov null candidates.


Well, like I posted further up the page, Xhagen actually isn't terribly concerned with bloc voting, nor accurately representing the playerbase - only accurately representing those who actually vote. So in that, mission success.

The onus on CCP is now, as before, to increase the size of the voting playerbase. If they successfully do that, I guess we'll see if they're also successful in the quest to more accurately represent those voters.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
None ofthe Above
#142 - 2013-02-22 01:29:36 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Styth spiting wrote:
Any plans on how you will be handling players abilities to make throw away 21 day accounts to cast additional posts or players abusing the buddy system? It wouldn't be very difficult for large groups of players who want specific candidates to win to manipulate the voting counts this way.


Y'know, I know that the white paper is filled with fluff, but...read much?

Quote:
Any active EVE Online account that is at least a full thirty (30) days in age is eligible to vote.


Which is the same as last year.

"Age" btw appears to be age since activation not since creation. I had an alt in the grey area last year.

No one is voting on trial accounts.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2013-02-22 01:49:30 UTC
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
Oh boy so we go from direct democracy to some sort of CCP/CSM coffee clatch-vetted system where the most pressing issues like Incarna and supercap buffs will be deigned worthy to evaluate CCP's upcoming direction.
Styth spiting
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2013-02-22 02:38:19 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Styth spiting wrote:
Any plans on how you will be handling players abilities to make throw away 21 day accounts to cast additional posts or players abusing the buddy system? It wouldn't be very difficult for large groups of players who want specific candidates to win to manipulate the voting counts this way.


Y'know, I know that the white paper is filled with fluff, but...read much?

Quote:
Any active EVE Online account that is at least a full thirty (30) days in age is eligible to vote.


Players can still create throw away accounts at no cost if they normally PLEX their accounts each month. That means each account the player has that they PLEx per month is an additional vote they can create.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#145 - 2013-02-22 02:50:29 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
PalkAn4ik wrote:
I was trying to look it up and having no luck. What is the Big O notation you got for that algorithm?


In the worst case, you can expect that the cost is related to C(c,s) where C is the choose function: c!/(s! (c-s)!). c is the number of candidates, and s is the number of seats.

c(40,14), the case for the last election, means you have to compare 23,206,929,840 different possible quorums!


Good lord Combinatorics.... So the Big O notation is in the order of O(n!)
So if the election results get tabulated on Tranq should we expect an extended period of TiDi Lol
A truely evil way to mess with CCP Xhagen is to vote in a HUGE set of candidates with the 200 votes in the first run& spread your first vote slots amongst unelectable candidates Evil
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'
Kenpachi Viktor
Perkone
Caldari State
#146 - 2013-02-22 04:01:11 UTC
Will there still be the option to vote "Abstain" as a choice if you like less than 14 of the candidates?

A war that would’ve involved 20,000 players, 75% of nullsec space, and hundreds of supercapitals was halted not by diplomacy, but by a game mechanic so dreadful that those who have experienced it previously have no desire to do so again. - Fix POS & SOV
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#147 - 2013-02-22 05:09:33 UTC
For good or bad the election system is set in stone for 2013. This is what we have.

No voting system is perfect and there are good and bad systems.

CSM is a gift that CCP gave us, the players, no other game as a ruling body that can carve and influence the developing of this game like CSM can.

This potential that CSM is should not be ignored and wasted due to indifference or pessimism about the voting system.

So when the time comes, just VOTE. Not bothering to vote only relinquishes control to others.

Lets turn this conversation in the right direction and focus on what matters now, how to bring people to voting tables.

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)
Ellente Fervens
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#148 - 2013-02-22 05:18:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellente Fervens
Malcanis wrote:
Orisa Medeem wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
After re-reading the devblog, I am reasonably positive that the new system is way too complex and will disengage potential voters trying to understand what are they doing or why. Straight

Hell, i'm not even sure to vote albeit I did the two last elections as i'm still not sure on what are supposed to be the potential consequences of ranking the candidates. Does it matter hwo I rank them? It's better to vote just one guy or should I vote two or more just in case? What happens with all the votes I don't give (i.e, I have 14 votes, what if I only give 4? Why should i be less represented that someone who uses all his 14 votes?) Question


This basically sums up my questions. Should I just vote for me and get 14x the benefit of spreading my vote, or should I vote for 14 people and hope they reciprocate?


I believe, as these two comments give plenty of evidence, that a lot of people will erroneous think they are giving a separate vote for each candidate they choose, while in reality they only have one vote (per account). The vote will go for their top-most choice, in case said candidate receive enough votes to be elected. Failing that, the vote is transferred to their second choice, if that candidate can be elected, so on, so on. But in no moment one vote is added to more than one candidate.


Oh so its that system. Well in that case: bloc CSM it is then. Instead of "wasting" their votes on spending more than enough to get their guy elected, they can efficiently make sure that as many of their guys get elected as they have votes to achieve. Basically it will automatically perfectly co-ordinate bloc voting.

Hilarious.


Amused that the descendents of the criminal classes of Britain (Australians) can understand and use transferable votes yet EVE players and the current population of Britain can't see the benefits.
Coming and going Malcanis.
I especially like the way you run your mouth off about the system before trying to understand it....exhibiting great CSM potential right there.
Don't worry you are not the only prospective candidate in that territory.
Frying Doom
#149 - 2013-02-22 05:52:05 UTC
So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14.

And as to "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"

CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim.

I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Ellente Fervens
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#150 - 2013-02-22 06:03:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellente Fervens
OK as someone who has been using a transferable voting system for the past 17 years.


Pick a candidate you most like, put them at the top.
Pick your next fave in 2,
repeat until unsure.
If more slots are available:
rank all those you like but can't separate in the remaining spots and give them all the same number.

If your fave only received your vote and no-one else your vote will got to your second place preference. Repeat until you vote is allocated.

It really isn't hard.
(Although I prefer to start from candidates I hate and work up.)
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#151 - 2013-02-22 06:04:14 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14.

And as to "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"

CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim.

I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg.


Aww, don't lose hope so easily.

How is not being spammed by so many candidates on the voting form, and having to read enough to choose 14 of them, not a mass forced education camp? Its a hard way to educate people, but if they don't show any effort in doing it, I imagine things get harder for them.

Also, for CCP and CSM picking candidates, we get to see what aspects, CCP takes seriously by which CSM member they pick. We could have an earlier insight to what is coming, as well as give us more time, to think of really funny and smart and pessimistic trolls as feedback. Think of the POS threads when a WH candidate isn't chosen to go to the Iceland Summit.

If anything not much will change, once again CCP gets to choose things and start the race, then we get to troll them and give them **** the whole time and judge them for what they are choosing. For me, EVE will almost be the same really.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Ellente Fervens
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#152 - 2013-02-22 06:05:23 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14.

And as to "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"

CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim.

I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg.




Totally, the whole point is that it is a tool to improve the game. It is not a voice, it is a tool.

Then again the game might get improved. That game that you need an active account in to troll the forums?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#153 - 2013-02-22 07:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
mynnna wrote:
Rhavas wrote:
mynnna wrote:
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?


When someone calls "CFC and HBC own the CSM now" and the CFC candidate says "Yep" you should expect that this is truth.

All you have to do is count the votes from last year.

Mynnna should get far more than enough votes to get the top spot. After that, Mynnna's overvotes will all roll downhill, ensuring that several other sov null candidates are elected. HBC is even bigger than CFC, if perhaps less disciplined. So the two biggest blocs of coordinated voters will all be voting for the sov null candidates. At an unscientific guess, expect the top 4, if not 6 or more, candidates to be sov null candidates.


Well, like I posted further up the page, Xhagen actually isn't terribly concerned with bloc voting, nor accurately representing the playerbase - only accurately representing those who actually vote. So in that, mission success.

The onus on CCP is now, as before, to increase the size of the voting playerbase. If they successfully do that, I guess we'll see if they're also successful in the quest to more accurately represent those voters.


Well, from a metareality point of view, the election system has become about the challenge to "softwarize" a STV system, which is what CCP Xhagen can do, and dismiss the way more difficult issue of why players don't involve with the CSM, which is nobody's field of expertise in CCP.

CCP as a corporation has got software makers, so they found a software solution to an issue that can be resolved through software: accurately represent voter intent. Getting people to actually involve and vote is not a "softwarizable" issue and thus is left unresolved and unattended, even if the new complex election system is actually going to harm involvement.

"I'm the IT guy, don't ask me how to reach out to the customers" comes to mind when trying to sumamrize this issue in a one-liner.

But then, if we got the IT guy to find us a solution to a minor issue, and the bigger issue is left unattended or actually is harmed, who's fault is this?
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2013-02-22 08:40:53 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
But then, if we got the IT guy to find us a solution to a minor issue, and the bigger issue is left unattended or actually is harmed, who's fault is this?


Except in the IT guy's own thread about voting reform, the dominant opinion was that low voter turnout was the real issue that needed fixing, and that the voting system itself wasn't the issue (and could actually be detrimental). In that case, it's not "our" fault at all that the IT guy only wanted a solution that could be coded into a website.

"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["
Finde learth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#155 - 2013-02-22 09:43:22 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:

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.


The voting rule in Pre-election is different from final ballot, right ?
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2013-02-22 10:55:48 UTC
Finde learth wrote:
The voting rule in Pre-election is different from final ballot, right ?

Yes. In the pre-election, you vote for a single candidate (just like the election last year). 200 votes gets a candidate on the final ballot.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#157 - 2013-02-22 12:08:34 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So much for educating the Populous, it was hard enough to get the majority of the game to vote for one person let alone 14.

And as to "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"

CCP have shown us that the CSM is NOT the voice of the players but just a tool for CCP to use or ignore at its whim.

I for one will not be trying to get people to vote for this dreg.


It's more important than ever to get people voting, assuming we want diversity in the CSM. It's just going to be harder work.

"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.
#158 - 2013-02-22 12:09:13 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
But then, if we got the IT guy to find us a solution to a minor issue, and the bigger issue is left unattended or actually is harmed, who's fault is this?


Except in the IT guy's own thread about voting reform, the dominant opinion was that low voter turnout was the real issue that needed fixing, and that the voting system itself wasn't the issue (and could actually be detrimental). In that case, it's not "our" fault at all that the IT guy only wanted a solution that could be coded into a website.


Nicely put.

"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.
#159 - 2013-02-22 12:11:38 UTC
Ellente Fervens wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Orisa Medeem wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
After re-reading the devblog, I am reasonably positive that the new system is way too complex and will disengage potential voters trying to understand what are they doing or why. Straight

Hell, i'm not even sure to vote albeit I did the two last elections as i'm still not sure on what are supposed to be the potential consequences of ranking the candidates. Does it matter hwo I rank them? It's better to vote just one guy or should I vote two or more just in case? What happens with all the votes I don't give (i.e, I have 14 votes, what if I only give 4? Why should i be less represented that someone who uses all his 14 votes?) Question


This basically sums up my questions. Should I just vote for me and get 14x the benefit of spreading my vote, or should I vote for 14 people and hope they reciprocate?


I believe, as these two comments give plenty of evidence, that a lot of people will erroneous think they are giving a separate vote for each candidate they choose, while in reality they only have one vote (per account). The vote will go for their top-most choice, in case said candidate receive enough votes to be elected. Failing that, the vote is transferred to their second choice, if that candidate can be elected, so on, so on. But in no moment one vote is added to more than one candidate.


Oh so its that system. Well in that case: bloc CSM it is then. Instead of "wasting" their votes on spending more than enough to get their guy elected, they can efficiently make sure that as many of their guys get elected as they have votes to achieve. Basically it will automatically perfectly co-ordinate bloc voting.

Hilarious.


Amused that the descendents of the criminal classes of Britain (Australians) can understand and use transferable votes yet EVE players and the current population of Britain can't see the benefits.
Coming and going Malcanis.
I especially like the way you run your mouth off about the system before trying to understand it....exhibiting great CSM potential right there.
Don't worry you are not the only prospective candidate in that territory.


This election will be qualitatively unlike Australian elections in several obvious ways. Not the least of which is the difference in election restrictions.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
R0me0 Charl1e
Easy A Industries
#160 - 2013-02-22 12:33:58 UTC
Considering I have to go through and mark down all of my preference for the senate ballot in Australia, which can add up to 50 to 60 candidates, this new ballot system will be a breeze to understand. What people need to do is to have their favorite candidates and their hated candidates worked out before they vote, makes voting easier.

CCP, has the topic of compulsory voting for the CSM been discussed internally? It may be something to discuss since we are changing the voting system.