Jita Park Speakers Corner

I'm inclined to disagree. In CSM 6 you guys ran two, Mittens and VR. Last year you folks were more than content to put all eggs in on basket partially because Mittens had gotten so much brand recognition and "goodwill" (in the business sense) for the Monoclegate emergency summit etc. Your internal reasons, I have no effing clue. . . No one, including him, foresaw him getting plastered and spectacularly putting his foot in his mouth. I think Mittens believes he has more influence in EVE with that website (and more income from said website) than as a CSM.


. . . And yes, I am looking at the big picture but perhaps not the same one you are.

Putting on the tinfoil hat in best (fat Fox News Network Talking Head Name Redacted) style, it's certainly in Goonswarm's interest to see the rest of the voting population uninterested in voting and disinclined to care about the CSM vote, to better stack the CSM with Goon candidates and affiliated puppets to push a Goon-centric agenda in the CSM and in the further development of EVE, especially with the CSM gaining unprecedented access in the development cycle in the last year. . because obviouly Goons are a CIA front and there is going to be a Bay of Pigs type operation in Iceland to coincide with EVE Online's 10th anniversary. . as a plot by the Illuminati and Nahtzi's on the moon, to control the worlds supply of Atlantic Cod.

Actually in all seriousness, it likely is in the Goons interest to see the majority of EVE uninterested in voting, but those reason have nothing to do with Atlantic Cod and more to do with dictating the game.

The CSM
Present: CCP Xhagen, CCP Diagoras

During this session CCP detailed three changes to the CSM project (all these changes will also be listed in a devblog that will be forthcoming in the buildup for the Upcoming election). While these proposals are not controversial as such, CCP felt it was necessary to include the CSM in the discussion and do this in cooperation with the council, rathr than forcefully implement them.

The third change proposed was changing the election system from the current form to a single transferable vote (STV) (i.e. any surplus or unused votes are transferred according to the voter's stated preferences should their highest preference not need them or not make it in). The time frame for this change would be the election in 2013 (thus, no changes would be made for the next CSM election).

In short, the CSM said that if STV would be implemented it would be heaven for the power blocks and would basically allow them to dictate every single seat on the CSM. Also, with the current situation the only thing STV would do is potentially get a 'smaller' candidate into one of the lower seats. Furthermore, by making the voting system more complicated (as an STV would do) the risk of driving away voters exists. Continuing, the CSM commented that only with a substantially larger number of voters would the STV system be appropriate.

The topic of political parties came up, where candidates would form lists and then voters would choose a list instead of a single person, and once one person from a list has secured a seat on the council the rest of the votes would go to the next person on the list ect. Again the CSM commented that it would only make organized power blocks more secure in controlling the CSM.

Most of the CSM members agreed that a STV would be manipulated to hell and back and asked whether there was any sytem that was more efficient than the one is present now.

CSM Whitepaper & Election Systems

Present: CCP Xhagen, CCP Dolan, CCP Veritas

The CSM asked their voting systems consultant, Veritas, for his advice on what system would be best. He replied that he was a big fan of Schulze (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method), however it does have a weakness: organized groups would be able to manipulate elections by running multiple candidates ["ballot-stuffing”, not to be confused with ballot-box-stuffing] and voting for them all.

Veritas: Large alliances have an advantage right now; they have more information than regular voters, and can leverage that information. The hope is to find a system where either that information is harder to get, or less valuable to have. However, a lot of the potential solutions rely on some barrier to getting on the ballot.
Trebor: That was the point of my original proposal; by killing the transferability of overvotes, you blunt the information advantage.
Two step: As someone who is not running again, but who has been approached by 6 candidates who want to represent WH space, my big concern is that a new system doesn't result in similar candidates committing mutual suicide.
Veritas: You want to avoid the spoiler effect.
Two step: Yes. So maybe some sort of primary (rather than the current likes system) that gives candidates a chance to say “I'm not going to get elected, so I should drop out and not be a spoiler”. That might even out some of the information advantage. If WH people had split their votes efficiently, we could have had 2 people on CSM7, with me still in the top 7. That said, I don't think there's a lot of value in that;
one of the reasons CSM7 is so effective is that we have people from many different areas of the game.
Veritas: So the question becomes, how can we ensure that happens again?
The discussion turned to other systems where voters get to specify preferences.
Two step: Other systems like STV aren't as vulnerable to stuffing, are they?
Veritas: They do to a similar extent. That's the problem we are facing here, where…
Trebor: …you have a malicious electorate.
Veritas: Well, we have malicious politicians. In normal elections, that's taken care of by having parties. We don't have such a filter, nor do we want one, because that would be gamed to balls as well. So the question becomes: can we develop a system that is resistant to ballot-stuffing, or alternatively, install barriers to getting on the ballot that are fair.
UAxDEATH: What is the biggest problem with the current system? Right now, the goons might run two candidates, but if you say “you can have only one”…
Veritas: …they'll try everything…
UAxDEATH: …because somebody said “no”.
Alek: The problem is that the null-sec alliances, because they're big enough and organized, do act like political parties in a way that nobody else can. Goons have their own primaries, for example. Can FW choose a candidate between the 4 factions?
Hans: Well, I'm here in Iceland.
Two step: It is possible to do. I'm organizing a primary for WH right now. But these people have to campaign twice, and what happens if the top candidate has to drop out?
Hans: Why should we penalize a group for being good at organizing?
Veritas: That's not what I'm saying. The two problems for me are the spoiler effect [where a broad group doesn't get represented because they can't focus on one candidate], because we as a group want them to be represented; and second, under the current voting system, not only do organized blocs vote effectively (within themselves, so their candidate(s) are good), they have extra information that means their votes count for more, so they can run -- and elect -- more candidates than a less-organized group. That's a problem.
Two step: I'm not as concerned about the second one, because there should be a benefit to working.
Veritas: Absolutely. I'm worried about it being overpowered.

If I take anything away, the goons on CSM are usually nicer then they are in the game. It would be very nice to put all the goon people on CSM seats, all thousands them, that way the game can finally be a peaceful and happy place.

Remedy: Poon-Tang, dispensed at least twice a week."

Frying Doom is not Poetic Stanziel, he only suffers from it.

Hatori

Now that the POS devblog is out, I am free to discuss how CSM7 worked on this issue -- The Politics of POSsibility.

He's been told this before, but GOTV efforts take so much more work than just whining, so he's never seemed to go for it.

Why should I? My constituents will be adequately turned out, and we'll be rewarded more or less proportionally for that turnout. On the other hand, you're the one who seems to think that the due reward they receive for that turnout is so large as to constitute a war crime. The obvious way to make that voice smaller is to get other constituencies to turn out. If you're not willing to do that, than both I and None ofthe Above are apparently correct - you'd much rather whine about the problem than put in any effort trying to fix it.


Fortunately, I have done that for you.


Good for it. Imagine how much closer you'd be to solving your perceived problem if you were to spread that zeal to vote to others.

I am curious, Trebor what effect do you think the Two step thread had? Did it sway CCP and make them realize they needed to do something there? From the outside, I would guess that to be the case, but an insiders view would be useful.

At the time, I thought one of those 55/45 edge decisions. I was reasonably confident that we were going to get some love for POSes already, so for me the risks edged the rewards -- I felt we wait should a little bit (a week or 10 days) and get more information. But I understood Two step's position that he basically couldn't forgive himself if he didn't speak out and we didn't get POSes into Odyssey -- you may recall I felt pretty passionate about other issue last year.

In hindsight, the thread turned out pretty well and basically confirmed what we'd been telling CCP, so it probably helped. But that said, I think Two step made a mistake by posting when he did. If he'd been more patient, he probably could have forged a consensus, and we could have crafted an even better opening post to frame the issue.

But like I said, it was 55/45. I'm sure it was the toughest decision he made on CSM all year.

There is no way that Two Step could be under the impression that CCP was 'shelving' POSs. Zero. Communication between CCP and the CSM is at an all time high.

It wasn't in the minutes, but I spent a lot of time talking to Unifex about this at night. Needless to say, I disagreed with CCP's decision to not move ahead with work on the POS system. I also disagree that only a small group of people would feel the effects of a new POS system. From wormhole residents to Tech 2 producers to nullsec residents, a lot of people interact with POSes. Also, a redesigned POS system would both attract players that were frustrated to the point of giving up with the old POS system as well as new players who cannot use the current POS system because of limitations with roles.

What happened to Modular POSes? What is coming this summer for those of us out in 0.0? What about Industry? But CCP, you PROMISED! All of this and more will be pouring out of the community in the days ahead, just as the CSM warned CCP that you would at our recent summit. And these questions should be raised.