These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#201 - 2013-02-25 01:00:21 UTC
They can't make voting compulsory but maybe a small reward for voting like 1 unit of quafe zero would be a nice incentive.
Frying Doom
#202 - 2013-02-25 02:30:09 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
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.


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.

That about sums it up and the best way for a Goons success if for them to run 14 candidates or have their 14 picks in their pocket.

That way the votes will trickle down and they will not have any wastage at all.

I thought the CSM was a Null sec lobby group before. Now it will be wall to wall.

So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#203 - 2013-02-25 05:29:23 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
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.


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.

That about sums it up and the best way for a Goons success if for them to run 14 candidates or have their 14 picks in their pocket.

That way the votes will trickle down and they will not have any wastage at all.

I thought the CSM was a Null sec lobby group before. Now it will be wall to wall.

So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8.


I see that view as too optimistic of working well really.

Sure with enough seats, the null sec could strong arm the other CSM, but they still have to get past CCP, and they would probably see the strong arming and such and not really look forward to the summit.

Plus I thought it had to do with features as well. If the features was an all null sec revamp, then perhaps all the 7 null seccers would go to the summit. But if the feature is different be hard for the null sec people to strong arm themselves to iceland.

It would be fun for the null sec people to put 14 null sec candidates on the voting list, but it being more then a fun move, would be hard to defend.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Josef Djugashvilis
#204 - 2013-02-25 14:12:15 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.


This is the most likely outcome, unfortunately.

This is not a signature.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#205 - 2013-02-25 14:17:12 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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!


Pandemic Phone?


Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7

1. CFC Guy 1
2. CFC Guy 2
3. CFC Guy 3
4. HBC Guy 1
5. HBC Guy 2
6. HBC Guy 3
7. Some really surprised chap who had absolutely no chance of winning until the CFC and the HBC both used him to block the other side from getting a majority of the seats. I expect him to be showered with e-riches to sway his voting like any reasonable swing vote politician.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Josef Djugashvilis
#206 - 2013-02-25 14:38:32 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
And "you're" grammer is sub year six.


Unworthy of you Malcanis.

This is not a signature.
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#207 - 2013-02-25 14:43:12 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:

Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7

1. CFC Guy 1
2. CFC Guy 2
3. etc....


There is no longer an "Iceland 7". Please re-read the Dev Blog I linked in the first post of this thread.

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#208 - 2013-02-25 14:56:56 UTC
CCP Dolan wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:

Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7

1. CFC Guy 1
2. CFC Guy 2
3. etc....


There is no longer an "Iceland 7". Please re-read the Dev Blog I linked in the first post of this thread.


Yay, now there's 2 most voted (CFC+HBC guys) plus the 5 the CSM and CCP think that they will be of more use.
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#209 - 2013-02-25 15:03:40 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Yay, now there's 2 most voted (CFC+HBC guys) plus the 5 the CSM and CCP think that they will be of more use.


Actually the 2 candidates who will be permanent attendees will be those with the widest appeal. Because the top 2 are chosen based on a secondary STV with only 2 seats, they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible.

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#210 - 2013-02-25 15:23:25 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:


Anyway, my prediction for the Iceland 7

1. CFC Guy 1
2. CFC Guy 2
3. CFC Guy 3
4. HBC Guy 1
5. HBC Guy 2
6. HBC Guy 3
7. Some really surprised chap who had absolutely no chance of winning until the CFC and the HBC both used him to block the other side from getting a majority of the seats. I expect him to be showered with e-riches to sway his voting like any reasonable swing vote politician.


Uh, what exactly do you think the CSM votes on? I'm pretty sure the last vote I remember taking place in was for chair/secretary about a year ago, and that was among all the elected CSMs.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#211 - 2013-02-25 16:17:38 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
I've removed a personal attack on CCP employees from this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#212 - 2013-02-25 17:45:43 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:


So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8.


I'm making a note not to take anything you say during my term seriously. After all, if you're saying you're not going to vote, you don't deserve to have my ear, or for that matter, one of any other councilmember.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#213 - 2013-02-25 20:59:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
CCP Dolan wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Yay, now there's 2 most voted (CFC+HBC guys) plus the 5 the CSM and CCP think that they will be of more use.


Actually the 2 candidates who will be permanent attendees will be those with the widest appeal. Because the top 2 are chosen based on a secondary STV with only 2 seats, they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible.


Oh sweet, yet another variable to consider when picking how to sort the candidates so there's a CFC and a HBC candidate in the permament seats.

Frankly, i am dubious about voting. I don't really know where my vote could land as it really doesn't matters, it's gonna be an algorythm who tosses my votes up and down until someone gets elected... maybe candidate number four or six or ten, if i get to pick that many candidates. It's discouraging, frankly. I voted for Issler and knew where she ended thx to my vote, and I voted Meissa Anunthiel and knew where he ended thx to my vote.

Now it really doesn't matters what do I vote or how, as it all will depend on whatever do the other voters, and most of them will be bloc voters following a mathematically optimal solution to rigging the election.

Because you know that there are only so many algorythms, and the CFC cabal is analyzing them beforehand so they already have a plan to rig the election once you "surprisingly" announce the chosen algorythm. And they will do so just because they can.
Frying Doom
#214 - 2013-02-25 22:05:12 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:


So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8.


I'm making a note not to take anything you say during my term seriously. After all, if you're saying you're not going to vote, you don't deserve to have my ear, or for that matter, one of any other councilmember.

Like you would any way.

And frankly if CSM8 is anything but Null sec people you guys really need to sack your alliance leaders for incompetence. CCP has made this so easy for block voters to completely control the CSM that anything less just shows your leaders inability to get things done.

As to voting myself, I said I would so I shall even though it is a complete waste of my or anyones time to bother.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
None ofthe Above
#215 - 2013-02-25 22:36:49 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Dolan wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


Yay, now there's 2 most voted (CFC+HBC guys) plus the 5 the CSM and CCP think that they will be of more use.


Actually the 2 candidates who will be permanent attendees will be those with the widest appeal. Because the top 2 are chosen based on a secondary STV with only 2 seats, they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible.


Oh sweet, yet another variable to consider when picking how to sort the candidates so there's a CFC and a HBC candidate in the permament seats.

Frankly, i am dubious about voting. I don't really know where my vote could land as it really doesn't matters, it's gonna be an algorythm who tosses my votes up and down until someone gets elected... maybe candidate number four or six or ten, if i get to pick that many candidates. It's discouraging, frankly. I voted for Issler and knew where she ended thx to my vote, and I voted Meissa Anunthiel and knew where he ended thx to my vote.

Now it really doesn't matters what do I vote or how, as it all will depend on whatever do the other voters, and most of them will be bloc voters following a mathematically optimal solution to rigging the election.

Because you know that there are only so many algorythms, and the CFC cabal is analyzing them beforehand so they already have a plan to rig the election once you "surprisingly" announce the chosen algorythm. And they will do so just because they can.


How people that can't handle this level of abstraction can manage to play EVE, I'll probably never understand.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#216 - 2013-02-26 00:08:21 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Frankly, i am dubious about voting. I don't really know where my vote could land as it really doesn't matters, it's gonna be an algorythm who tosses my votes up and down until someone gets elected... maybe candidate number four or six or ten, if i get to pick that many candidates. It's discouraging, frankly. I voted for Issler and knew where she ended thx to my vote, and I voted Meissa Anunthiel and knew where he ended thx to my vote.

Well, you can vote for just one candidate if you prefer, and in doing so it works exactly like the last time.

:sand:  over  :awesome:
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#217 - 2013-02-26 00:49:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:


So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8.


I'm making a note not to take anything you say during my term seriously. After all, if you're saying you're not going to vote, you don't deserve to have my ear, or for that matter, one of any other councilmember.

Like you would any way.

And frankly if CSM8 is anything but Null sec people you guys really need to sack your alliance leaders for incompetence. CCP has made this so easy for block voters to completely control the CSM that anything less just shows your leaders inability to get things done.

As to voting myself, I said I would so I shall even though it is a complete waste of my or anyones time to bother.


I'm sure you wouldn't believe me, but I'd listen to anyone who can make a good argument.

And if CSM8 is nothing but nullsec players, it will be because we managed to capture something like 27/28ths of the voting pool. That's decidedly unlikely, although you encouraging people to not vote certainly helps.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#218 - 2013-02-26 01:22:57 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:


So best advice...Don't bother voting or join a Null sec alliance to get your voice heard on CSM 8.


I'm making a note not to take anything you say during my term seriously. After all, if you're saying you're not going to vote, you don't deserve to have my ear, or for that matter, one of any other councilmember.

Like you would any way.

And frankly if CSM8 is anything but Null sec people you guys really need to sack your alliance leaders for incompetence. CCP has made this so easy for block voters to completely control the CSM that anything less just shows your leaders inability to get things done.

As to voting myself, I said I would so I shall even though it is a complete waste of my or anyones time to bother.


I'm sure you wouldn't believe me, but I'd listen to anyone who can make a good argument.

And if CSM8 is nothing but nullsec players, it will be because we managed to capture something like 27/28ths of the voting pool. That's decidedly unlikely, although you encouraging people to not vote certainly helps.

The new system is based on the removal of wasted votes

In the last election just on the mittanis votes by them selves under the new system he would have been elected plus another 2 Goon candidates. So that is 3 CSM members elected just off the votes he received last time. TEST should easily be able to match those numbers so that is at least 6 CSM members just from 2 Null Alliances and that is without many external votes being involved.

Now it is true that out of last times 59,109 votes only 44,296 votes went to members who ended up on the CSM with only 563 abstains. so 14,250 votes were truly wasted but if the block votes list their own members as preferences and other Null candidates it will mean that they waste no votes and will elect even more candidates.

While I feel that the amount of people who vote will decline and the number of abstains will increase as no one really knows who they are in fact voting for. As you could say I will be voting for you as you will be in there somewhere.

The biggest question is will Darius III get more votes this time in protest? (If he is running)

As to the fact that people really should not bother, well frankly why should they? The deck is well stack towards organized voters, more than it used to be and then on top of that CCP decides who goes to Iceland (with CSMs help and who do you think gets final say there?) and subsequently who gains the larger notoriety. Now if you were CCP would you chose 5 people who were pissed at your poor customer service skills, seeming lack of focus and poor communication or 5 people who just nod and agree with what you want?

As I said the CSM used to be a minority voice of the players, now it is no voice at all.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#219 - 2013-02-26 03:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
rodyas wrote:
*snipped deleted post*

Ok lets assume the Null sec alliances get the top 2 spots and 6 others, given the new system quite likely then the CSM proposes as a majority that the other 5 to go to Iceland are members of those 6.

CCP will either have to go along with them or just ignore what the majority of the CSM has stated. And as to the ability to Troll CCP if this was the voice of the players that would be more than possible if enough people voted for someone like Darius III as a protest but now CCP has decided that the CSM is not the voices of the players but just a tool for them and as a tool they are more likely to go with the tool they find most useful or frankly agreeable.

As I said the players no longer can see the CSM as a voice for them selves so all we are left with is the forums that kill off or mock any voices against CCP or players just unsubbing. Unfortunately for CCP their own actions are diminishing what little respect players had for the CSM and the last few chairmans have not helped this either.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#220 - 2013-02-26 04:33:48 UTC
I'm not into conspiracy theories and I readily accept that the CSM will probably have a majority of null sec players. Numbers win elections. And in this game, numbers gets you into null sec. So that's fine. The current CSM roster reads like a who's who of null now. All I'm saying is if player reps must be null seccers, then electing multiple reps from the same null corp is a less desirable option than having a panel comprised of one rep from many major groups. Despite its huge population, high sec is too disorganized to do the same thing (on its own anyway) so all those guys can hope is that EvE U will get another spot. And as far this James315 dude goes, he's as likely to be the Mittani himself getting a kick out of metagaming highseccers. Who knows?

I guess it just seems...odd...to me at least, that in a time when balance reigns supreme over at CCP, an election system more easily gamed to achieve imbalance by large blocs would be implemented. But as the system is untested, and the method of counting votes remains unrevealed, its also difficult to get too worked up about it yet.

YK