These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM 8 - Things that need repairing.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#21 - 2013-03-10 18:11:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Frying Doom wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Is the summit really a 'reward'? It's two days of jetlag and meetings. I don't think ccp will only choose to invite who they like, they'll pick who'll be the most useful for the topics under discussion


Going drinking with the devas is a lot more reward than working all year and getting nothing back.


Some of us don't drink but are not above getting Executive Producers drunk for the good of all New Eden.

Frying Doom wrote:
How do you define most useful


Based on the activity of the last few CSM's, it's actually hilariously easy - it's defined by those members that consistently articulate an intelligible point of view on the information we are provided with. Rarely is that number more than 7-9 out of the 14 elected and those people are easy to see standouts by the time of the first summit. By continuing this argument, you are effectively advocating for people that aren't doing the work in the first place.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-03-10 18:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
You're right, under the assumption that the CSM is what it claims to be. However, under the more accurate perception of the CSM as a cheap system for product-testing wrapped up with a transparent customer sop, the new system makes a lot of sense.

Were I you, I would disabuse myself of my idealistic illusions about what is really going on, as there are no levers of power with which to change the situation. You may be ethically justified in staying this course, and more or less correct in your arguments, but it will ultimately prove fruitless because no one really cares.

Tl;DR You're right, but no one will care.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Frying Doom
#23 - 2013-03-10 21:15:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
mynnna wrote:


Frying Doom wrote:
And how many candidates actually know how the 2 decided by vote to go to Iceland is achieved.

The STV vote is re-run, except with two slots instead of 14. This raises the threshold to get one of the top two slots from integer([(total votes cast)/15]+1) to integer([(total votes cast)/3]+1); in an election with 100k votes cast, that means it goes from 6667 votes to snag a seat to 33,334. Aside from that change, the election is re-run as normal. Due to the exceptionally high vote requirement, of course, the idea of "transfer" would tend to lose meaning... a candidate who appeared on ten thousand ballots as the first choice in the election to choose the CSM would transfer 3333 votes (3333/10000 votes each) to the second preference candidates on each of those ballots, but of course would keep them all for himself in the top-two election. As there are two seats, the goal here is basically to appear on as many ballots as possible in as high a ranking as possible.

Nice STV mathematics.

You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#24 - 2013-03-10 21:18:25 UTC
Seleene wrote:


Frying Doom wrote:
How do you define most useful


Based on the activity of the last few CSM's, it's actually hilariously easy - it's defined by those members that consistently articulate an intelligible point of view on the information we are provided with. Rarely is that number more than 7-9 out of the 14 elected and those people are easy to see standouts by the time of the first summit. By continuing this argument, you are effectively advocating for people that aren't doing the work in the first place.

If you had read the whole thing I said if you have 10 hard workers, 8 from Null and 2 from wormholes for example how do you define the most useful people when it comes to the theme based approach to eve's development?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#25 - 2013-03-10 21:21:30 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
You're right, under the assumption that the CSM is what it claims to be. However, under the more accurate perception of the CSM as a cheap system for product-testing wrapped up with a transparent customer sop, the new system makes a lot of sense.

Were I you, I would disabuse myself of my idealistic illusions about what is really going on, as there are no levers of power with which to change the situation. You may be ethically justified in staying this course, and more or less correct in your arguments, but it will ultimately prove fruitless because no one really cares.

Tl;DR You're right, but no one will care.

Very Possibly correct.

I doubt 99% will care, nor do I think it will be changed but I do prefer that at least it is shown and argued some where as to how badly our CSM has been sold down the river.

Something as unique as a player elected body should not die without at least some fight.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-03-10 21:28:49 UTC
Hey, I'm all for the dogged pursuit of truth, as long as you're aware of the situation.

More power to you.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-03-10 21:57:49 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Is the summit really a 'reward'? It's two days of jetlag and meetings.

Six days. One day flying there, one day recovering/prep, three days of meetings, one day flying back.

Frying Doom wrote:
Nice STV mathematics. You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

I did check with CCP Dolan when the devblog came out. Mynnna's interpretation is correct.

The ballots are processed by using Wright-STV twice. First with 14 winners to determine who the CSM delegates are, then again with 2 winners to determine the "top 2".

To get one of the top 2 slots you need broad support from the entire community.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#28 - 2013-03-10 22:05:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Is the summit really a 'reward'? It's two days of jetlag and meetings.

Six days. One day flying there, one day recovering/prep, three days of meetings, one day flying back.

Frying Doom wrote:
Nice STV mathematics. You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

I did check with CCP Dolan when the devblog came out. Mynnna's interpretation is correct.

The ballots are processed by using Wright-STV twice. First with 14 winners to determine who the CSM delegates are, then again with 2 winners to determine the "top 2".

To get one of the top 2 slots you need broad support from the entire community.

Yes for the exact quote

"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."

So from what is said there is a candidate appearing on the largest number of ballots wins, not " a candidate who appeared on ten thousand ballots as the first choice in the election to choose the CSM would transfer 3333 votes (3333/10000 votes each) to the second preference candidates on each of those ballots, but of course would keep them all for himself in the top-two election. As there are two seats, the goal here is basically to appear on as many ballots as possible in as high a ranking as possible."

As the person appearing on 10,000 ballots in first place would lose "Under what was said" to someone appearing on 15,000 ballots but in 12th place.

So from what was said it would appear it is an STV but not based on rankings. (actually CCP clarification on this would be helpful)

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-03-10 22:34:21 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Nice STV mathematics.

You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2687879#post2687879

In that post, they link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_system

That article says "Quota )Droop Quota(Q) means the number determined by dividing the Total Vote (Tv) by 1 more than the number of candidates required to be elected and by increasing the quotient (disregarding any remainder) (Q = integer(Tv/(1+No of Vacancies))+1)"

So, what I said was accurate. And CCP clarification on picking the two that go is unnecessary; from the devblog, "[...] 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." So, just as I said before, the ballots are re-run through the STV election, with two slots up for grabs instead of 14.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#30 - 2013-03-10 23:59:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Nice STV mathematics.

You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2687879#post2687879

In that post, they link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_system

That article says "Quota )Droop Quota(Q) means the number determined by dividing the Total Vote (Tv) by 1 more than the number of candidates required to be elected and by increasing the quotient (disregarding any remainder) (Q = integer(Tv/(1+No of Vacancies))+1)"

So, what I said was accurate. And CCP clarification on picking the two that go is unnecessary; from the devblog, "[...] 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." So, just as I said before, the ballots are re-run through the STV election, with two slots up for grabs instead of 14.

Except it says STV and "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."

That comment does not even mention the wright system, as then it would not be that " they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible."

Were as the wright system would literally favour those on the higher preferences not those appearing on the most ballots.

But I will presume you are right as the wishy washy way CCP described it was kind of poor.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#31 - 2013-03-11 00:16:33 UTC
But then I shouldn't complain if the top 2 are going to the highest votes scaled by preference

And the other 5 are picked by CCP.

Then enough people should be disgusted about what the CSM has become to demand a change to the system by next year

So it is all good.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-03-11 00:17:51 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Nice STV mathematics.

You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2687879#post2687879

In that post, they link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_system

That article says "Quota )Droop Quota(Q) means the number determined by dividing the Total Vote (Tv) by 1 more than the number of candidates required to be elected and by increasing the quotient (disregarding any remainder) (Q = integer(Tv/(1+No of Vacancies))+1)"

So, what I said was accurate. And CCP clarification on picking the two that go is unnecessary; from the devblog, "[...] 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." So, just as I said before, the ballots are re-run through the STV election, with two slots up for grabs instead of 14.

Except it says STV and "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."

That comment does not even mention the wright system, as then it would not be that " they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible."


That comment doesn't mention the wright system because it was made before they had selected (or at least announced the selection of) the system. So, at this point, you're trying to say that an offhanded comment is more accurate than the rules of the system that they've actually announced.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#33 - 2013-03-11 00:20:23 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Nice STV mathematics.

You might want to check that against what has been said by CCP though.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2687879#post2687879

In that post, they link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_system

That article says "Quota )Droop Quota(Q) means the number determined by dividing the Total Vote (Tv) by 1 more than the number of candidates required to be elected and by increasing the quotient (disregarding any remainder) (Q = integer(Tv/(1+No of Vacancies))+1)"

So, what I said was accurate. And CCP clarification on picking the two that go is unnecessary; from the devblog, "[...] 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." So, just as I said before, the ballots are re-run through the STV election, with two slots up for grabs instead of 14.

Except it says STV and "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."

That comment does not even mention the wright system, as then it would not be that " they will each have to appear on as close to 50% of all ballots as possible."


That comment doesn't mention the wright system because it was made before they had selected (or at least announced the selection of) the system. So, at this point, you're trying to say that an offhanded comment is more accurate than the rules of the system that they've actually announced.

Nice quote but you missed
"But I will presume you are right as the wishy washy way CCP described it was kind of poor."

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-03-11 00:21:27 UTC
Yes, well, you edited it while I was responding.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Frying Doom
#35 - 2013-03-11 00:25:15 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Yes, well, you edited it while I was responding.

Sorry my bo bo, honestly I have so many conversations going atm, I did not even realize

My apologies.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#36 - 2013-03-11 00:26:40 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Might I suggest that one of the first things CSM 8 looks at is the restoration of the CSM itself.

And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.

It removes all incentives from the candidates to be frank with CCP and encourages brown nosing.

Add on to that the stupid voting system and subsequently anything else that comes out of these elections.

Now I would like to hear all the candidates points of view on the new voting system and well as the selection system compared to the old one.

And how many candidates actually know how the 2 decided by vote to go to Iceland is achieved.

Because lets face it if all the candidates cannot describe it bugger all of the electorate will.

So thank you those members of CSM 7 that created this travesty and all the resources that the CSM will have to use to fix it.

May you rot.


I definitely do not support the CCP selection as I think it is very subjective as to who is the "best" CSM in terms of work. Know what works a lot, a washing machine. But over communicating and the appearance of activity may not actively reflect on the quality or effectiveness of the actual efforts of a particular member. And as you mention CCP could definitely "cull" out members that strongly oppose CCP's plans.

If a CSM member in that top portion really is so inactive as to be useless at the summit they should be removed from the CSM entirely. Let the voters have their representatives meet CCP face to face, not just the "cool kids".

Issler
Frying Doom
#37 - 2013-03-11 00:34:46 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Might I suggest that one of the first things CSM 8 looks at is the restoration of the CSM itself.

And removing this stupid rule letting CCP chose who our delegates are that goes to Iceland.

It removes all incentives from the candidates to be frank with CCP and encourages brown nosing.

Add on to that the stupid voting system and subsequently anything else that comes out of these elections.

Now I would like to hear all the candidates points of view on the new voting system and well as the selection system compared to the old one.

And how many candidates actually know how the 2 decided by vote to go to Iceland is achieved.

Because lets face it if all the candidates cannot describe it bugger all of the electorate will.

So thank you those members of CSM 7 that created this travesty and all the resources that the CSM will have to use to fix it.

May you rot.


I definitely do not support the CCP selection as I think it is very subjective as to who is the "best" CSM in terms of work. Know what works a lot, a washing machine. But over communicating and the appearance of activity may not actively reflect on the quality or effectiveness of the actual efforts of a particular member. And as you mention CCP could definitely "cull" out members that strongly oppose CCP's plans.

If a CSM member in that top portion really is so inactive as to be useless at the summit they should be removed from the CSM entirely. Let the voters have their representatives meet CCP face to face, not just the "cool kids".

Issler

That is a lot of what it comes down to for me. By choosing the ones CCP decides as hardest working you are in essence asking for the CSM to brown nose. Also you are primarily losing great ideas from people

By inviting the hardest working, they are advocating for the drones not the intelligent creative thinkers, while at the same time destroying the uniqueness of the CSM.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-03-11 01:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow
Frying Doom wrote:
By inviting the hardest working, they are advocating for the drones not the intelligent creative thinkers, while at the same time destroying the uniqueness of the CSM.

I am sure that everyone will agree with you that CSMs like Seleene, Hans Jagerblitzen, Alekseyev Karrde, Two step, Kelduum Revaan, Elise Randolph, The Mittani, Vile Rat, Mynxee, Teadaze, Meissa Anunthiel and Dierdra Vaal -- to name a few I have served with -- were all a bunch of uncreative asskissing drones.

History strongly suggests that the correlation is in fact exactly the opposite.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Frying Doom
#39 - 2013-03-11 01:13:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
By inviting the hardest working, they are advocating for the drones not the intelligent creative thinkers, while at the same time destroying the uniqueness of the CSM.

I am sure that everyone will agree with you that CSMs like Seleene, Hans Jagerblitzen, Alekseyev Karrde, Two step, Kelduum Revaan, Elise Randolph, The Mittani, Vile Rat, Mynxee, Teadaze, Meissa Anunthiel and Dierdra Vaal -- to name a few -- were all a bunch of uncreative asskissing drones.

History strongly suggests that the correlation is in fact exactly the opposite.

They were also not working under a system that favoured ass kissing drones.

Also how well do you think it would have gone down if for example The Mittani had not been invited to Iceland as there were other hard working people on the CSM? And assuming there are out of the 12 remaining, 5 other hard working people on the CSM their is no reason why people like The Mittani would go, actually the opposite as he frequently criticized CCP.

I for one would take Albert Einstein on the CSM any day over We Chong Mcplop the hard working toilet cleaner.

And as too Kelduum Revaan a lot of people would argue he was hard working this year as well as several other CSM members.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#40 - 2013-03-11 06:47:18 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
By inviting the hardest working, they are advocating for the drones not the intelligent creative thinkers, while at the same time destroying the uniqueness of the CSM.

I am sure that everyone will agree with you that CSMs like Seleene, Hans Jagerblitzen, Alekseyev Karrde, Two step, Kelduum Revaan, Elise Randolph, The Mittani, Vile Rat, Mynxee, Teadaze, Meissa Anunthiel and Dierdra Vaal -- to name a few I have served with -- were all a bunch of uncreative asskissing drones.

History strongly suggests that the correlation is in fact exactly the opposite.

Oh one thing I forgot to ask is, Does blind CCP worship count as asskissing drones or Creative thinking, if its the former you might need to scrub a few off that list.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!