EVE Information Portal

Someone get Poetic some aloe vera lube.

Trebor should have fought harder, then. Is CCP Xhagen ex-goon too? Now instead of picking a specific number of CSM delegates, the big alliances can run an unlimited number and be assured of maximizing their presence. This is a terribad proposal, and I'm not interested in seeing how it all plays out, because I have enough sense to see how it will play out.

Just abolish the CSM already.

Trebor with the UFC beat down

After reading Xhagen's posts, I quite understand where he stands.

CCP must accurately listen to those who put an effort and vote, that's right. This way, once the voter turnout was high enough, the representativeness of CSM would be better.

But then, as long as the CSM is intended (in my opinion) to allow CCP to satisfy its customers by listening to them, the fact that the CSM at its peak only gave voice to 14% the customers and in all likelihood is going to hit a low with the new and more complex election system, casts a shadow on CSM usefulness. Having a perfect answer for representativeness under high voter turnouts is useless and even self-defeating when voter turnout is lower because of system complexity.

Of course, the CSM is not (should not be) the only way in which CCP engages its customers in order to achieve customer retention. But I wonder what is the point, for CCP, to have an extremely expensive customer-engagement tool as the CSM and then waste it by telling customers to please ignore it unless they're willing to commit more into their videogaming voting than they commit into their RL decission making.

To summarize it, CCP's stance on electing the CSM 8 is like: "To your left, look at the beautiful intrincacy of these vote-tossing algorythms to pick the CSM 8; to your right, please ignore the blind elephant stomping their usefulness to a record low".

Some people won't answer unless you actively ask them to. And my personal impression is that most people in EVE would answer in interesting ways. In EVE as in RL, what people does and what the guys in charge think that people does could be worlds apart.

As for the 'CCP gets to pick 5 of 7 CSM members now' idea, that's even more pants-on-head than the 'big alliances no longer have to worry about overvotes for their most popular candidates' idea.

CSM already consists of (mostly) a bunch of sycophants and brown-nosers and now you want their selection contingent on how much CCP likes them? How about no.

Is there anything to prevent the largest blocs/alliances from running and ranking identical 14 candidate ballots?

A system of ranked averages sounds fair at first glance but when you realize that votes are going to be carried over or reallocated it suddenly doesn't seem so great. Instead of a bloc voting for one guy now they get to vote for 14?

AND their votes carry over like a champagne fountain?

AND all positions on the CSM are now going to be chosen by a majority of CSM members? Number of votes is irrelevant? You actually need a majority of members to run the CSM?

Aye yi yie.

If it only takes 1000 votes to get on the CSM, won't this reallocation business virtually guarantee a CSM stacked by whichever is the largest voting bloc? I'm extremely apprehensive about what I've just read here.

A CSM stacked with one pov/playstyle isn't going to be representative of the playerbase and quite frankly won't be particularly useful to CCP imo.

YK

Abuse of the buddy system is considered an exploit. I have no doubt that CCP Sreegs cannot wait to bludgeon the intromissive organs of anyone who tries to mess with the election using the buddy system.


No, but under STV it won't help them. A vote has one unit of voting power. If a group of voters has 4/14 of the voting power, they'll get about 4 seats, whether they run 4-5 candidates or 14.

There are some second-order edges in running a lot of candidates (clogging the ballot, etc) but they are unlikely to make a significant difference.

That not right: CCP better figure out away to listen to those that are not voting whom compromise near three quarters thier customer base.

I must've missed something. In the old system, a group with 4/14 of the votes got one seat because they had to ensure a win. In the STV system, they'll get 4 guys on the CSM. How does that not "help them?"

Are we saying that a group with 4/14 of the votes cast deserves 4 seats? As a tool, a diverse CSM would be most useful.

It just seems to me that this system will work best relative to the number of votes cast. More votes overall could generate a more diverse panel. Maybe. But if that's the case, then working on voter turnout should have preceded the switch.

Unless voting is going to be compulsory, with a popup in the middle of your client that won't go away until you vote, there really is no guarantee folks are going to care more about this election than elections past.

And if the result is a stacked CSM, well, everyone loses.

YK

The other thing to remember is the new 2+5 go to Iceland and the council itself votes on the chair means that it's well within a group's interest to stack the council with as many friendly voices as possible, as opposed to the old "top 7 to Iceland, top votes get chair" system which not only reduced the value of having multiple members, it made putting all of your votes behind one strong candidate the preferable option.

So in short CCP created new rules that would compel us to put as many members on the council as possible and then gave us a voting system that'll make it as easy as possible.