These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#621 - 2013-04-15 11:24:24 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
If he supported STV, why didn't he just propose it in the first place?

Because at the time, there was no indication that resources would be available to change the actual ballot process; it was entirely likely that it would remain as it was in the past -- "vote for one candidate"


Your proposal was a STV variant, and your method of counting votes was an invention of yours, which means implementation of it would have been actually more difficult than already accepted methods, which I'm sure have many open source examples to draw from.

So either you're full of it OR you're stupendously bad at staying within guidelines. You get to pick, I guess.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Thus, the point of that thread was to promote discussion on a possible alternative that was better than the old system but could live within its constraints. And given those constraints, anyone who actually does some simulations will realize that transferrable overvotes gives a tasty edge to organized groups; thus the modification.


Of course they give a massive advantage, which is why NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SUGGESTED STV AT ALL. Hence me asking why you're suddenly supporting it after CCP's decision to use it. Everything about your actions before that, including this above paragraph, suggest you don't support it at all.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
As it happened, the impassioned support for the sanctity of overvotes apparently helped convince CCP that a full STV system was worth the investment, and we got a multiple-choice ballot.


Yep. So remind the class again why you've been boosting STV after CCP implemented it? As you've demonstrated above, you clearly weren't cool with it on its own.

(Also, I take issue with the "sanctity of overvotes" thing - the mere idea that you STILL think one person's vote should have less literal value than another's is distressing to say the least)

"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["

Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#622 - 2013-04-15 11:34:52 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Softball?

I shall have to try harder Lol


Try harder in this case means post way, way less. You've been absolutely RABID about the dumbest things, like whether he adequately fulfilled his secretarial duties in CSM 6, and linking to unfinished wiki's etc. It's like you're trying to get him on a technicality, which makes it really easy for him to ignore because (a) nobody respects that and (b) you're Frying Doom.

Really, you should just chill for your own benefit. He's going to get elected - the field is way too small, there's even fewer decent candidates for non-bloc voters, and on top of that just about every other CSM - past or hopeful - has unfortunately endorsed him, so that's that. If I wasn't a badposting insomniac I would have given up on this a long time ago.

"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["

Frying Doom
#623 - 2013-04-15 12:08:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Softball?

I shall have to try harder Lol


Try harder in this case means post way, way less. You've been absolutely RABID about the dumbest things, like whether he adequately fulfilled his secretarial duties in CSM 6, and linking to unfinished wiki's etc. It's like you're trying to get him on a technicality, which makes it really easy for him to ignore because (a) nobody respects that and (b) you're Frying Doom.

Really, you should just chill for your own benefit. He's going to get elected - the field is way too small, there's even fewer decent candidates for non-bloc voters, and on top of that just about every other CSM - past or hopeful - has unfortunately endorsed him, so that's that. If I wasn't a badposting insomniac I would have given up on this a long time ago.

Yeah I agree that he will be elected, and tbh the technicalities are more in relation to CSM8 than him per say. I am setting myself up for a year of lunacy.

And yes I am Frying Doom, and it does pay to act like a rabid loon.Lol

My greatest concern for these CSM elections, actually has more to do with how much the activity levels, on the threads in Jita Park are much lower this year. There seem to be many causes and the STV is only one, my greatest fear is that because CSM7 has been mostly unheard this year that voter apathy has increased. It probably also has to do with the lack of candidates who really stand out, they all seem to have done their announcement posts, stated their endorsements and left.

As I have said before I have nothing against Trebor, he does have some great ideas at times, but i do feel that as a CSM member he has become too aligned with CCP and is no longer a voice for the players.

I did not choose to act like this to be taken seriously, and to be honest I try to hide truth in fluffy logic, I do occasionally make sense when it is necessary.

But anyway, back to being a loon.Lol

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

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#624 - 2013-04-15 15:14:53 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:


I did not choose to act like this to be taken seriously, and to be honest I try to hide truth in fluffy logic, I do occasionally make sense when it is necessary.


You've never made sense.


Ever.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Frying Doom
#625 - 2013-04-15 15:29:30 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:


I did not choose to act like this to be taken seriously, and to be honest I try to hide truth in fluffy logic, I do occasionally make sense when it is necessary.


You've never made sense.


Ever.

Good to see that you make such a definate response like that.

So

Frying Doom wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Perhaps if Trebor had been discussing the delicious food or the beautiful scenery in this session you'd have a point. Lol But it should be fairly obvious that the "perk" he is referring to is access to CCP, in person. That most certainly is a privilege, and one deserved by those that do the work and will therefore make the most of that opportunity. Sure, it may feel good to say "power to the people, if they want to elect a slacker, so be it!" but when push comes to shove, most players resent it when people like Darius III get to go to iceland* and squander the opportunity.

*Alright, alright. He did leave one lasting contribution. There is a very fancy, very real, golden monocle in a frame on a shelf in the lobby at CCP that Darius presented to them during his trip. It's a fun little tribute to a terrible time at the company. A perfect "never forget" piece. So I won't go so far as to say he was COMPLETELY useless. Twisted

Yes making voting easier for the populous is GREAT!!!
Educating the populous on why to vote is GREAT!!!

This will lead to more votes occurring, so limiting the ability for people to scam their way on to the CSM.

But the CSM is our (the players) representative body and the number of votes a candidate gets should dictate whether they go to Iceland to represent the community. It is not up to individual player or CCP Xhagen (All praise the great one) to decide who goes to Iceland, how is it anyone's right to decide who is productive? or if the voters actually want a non-productive person to go to Iceland as a protest?

For me personally I would like to see CCP stay as far away from the CSM process as possible, for example no ISD interference in CSM forums and no ex-CCP employees on the CSM but as to ex-employees that too is for the voters to decide, not me or anyone else.

for example
Quote:

Seleene: Dima [Greene Lee], I understand what you are getting at, but the core question is one CCP has to answer. It’s about what CCP wants from this group. If you're translating stuff and so on, that's great, but in my opinion it's about more than watching what's going on and passing it on to other people. There should be some level of interaction and communication. But it's up to CCP to determine what they expect to get out of their investment. If they think it's fine for someone to sit in a corner and report things to their constituents, that's fine. I don't think that's fine, and a lot of other people agree with me.


Now personally I find that comment completely blasphemous, I agree that the CSM working with CCP can and should be a good thing, most of the time but there should be times when the CSM just tells them "Bad Idea", so it should not be CCP stating what it wants from the group but what the players want from the group.

As to CCPs investment, it is cheaper for CCP to interact with the CSM than it is to have them constantly looking at the forums, pod casts, blogs and everything else that makes up the EvE Universe, while I love the interaction on the forums, I would like to see the CSM represent the majority of EvE so that when the CSM talks it speaks with the majority of the player bases voice.

As to kicking people off the island, I agree with what some of the CSM has said. It should not happen short of NDA breach. Yes the CSM should have the power to remove someone from chairman or secretary position but not remove them from the CSM. That is what elections are for. It is the peoples choice not the politicians.

Yes my views are one sided in this. the CSM is the player representative body, yes they are there to help CCP guide the game towards a future the players desire but it is also there to speak for the players.

On a quick note as to multiple candidates for the same thing, for example 6 WH candidates. Well that is something the candidates need to sort out for them selves. Unfortunately that should not be hard coded into a system as what happens if you have 6 mining candidates but from different security types and 6 WH candidates with overlaps to the other and 6 PvE candidates with overlaps to the other 2 subsets?

The CSM is the player representatives, so leave it to the players. Yes educate the populous and make it easier to vote.

So what I am saying is like most of EvE, give us the tools and let us run with them.


That made no sense to you, and you are running for the CSM?

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

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#626 - 2013-04-15 16:18:36 UTC
Oh okay, so you make some sense sometimes. Broken clock and all that, I suppose. As much garbage as you post though, it's rather unreasonable to expect me to have seen such posts. P

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Frying Doom
#627 - 2013-04-15 16:23:53 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Oh okay, so you make some sense sometimes. Broken clock and all that, I suppose. As much garbage as you post though, it's rather unreasonable to expect me to have seen such posts. P

I did say occasionally Lol

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

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#628 - 2013-04-15 18:31:11 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Of course they (STV systems) give a massive advantage, which is why NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SUGGESTED STV AT ALL. Hence me asking why you're suddenly supporting it after CCP's decision to use it. Everything about your actions before that, including this above paragraph, suggest you don't support it at all.

Your position, that STV proportional representations systems give an advantage to organized groups, is almost completely wrong. While they can get some minor edges at the margins, the whole point of STV is to generate a result that is a better approximation to the wishes of the electorate.

Under the old FPTP system, organized groups who could do exit polling and vote steering had a far bigger advantage than they do under STV.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
(Also, I take issue with the "sanctity of overvotes" thing - the mere idea that you STILL think one person's vote should have less literal value than another's is distressing to say the least)

My position is that one person's vote should not have MORE value than another's. The old system did not meet that criteria; voters belonging to organized groups had votes that could count for more.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#629 - 2013-04-15 21:11:33 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Your position, that STV proportional representations systems give an advantage to organized groups, is almost completely wrong. While they can get some minor edges at the margins, the whole point of STV is to generate a result that is a better approximation to the wishes of the electorate.


It's funny, the "whole point" of STV is to return a result that reflects the electorate as accurately as possible, and yet your system only gave that right to non-bloc voters. In effect, your system, by your own admission, was STV in name only, not in execution.

With that in mind, I'll ask: why are you suddenly so comfortable with the merits of STV proportional representation now when your own proposal gutted it of its "whole point"?

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Under the old FPTP system, organized groups who could do exit polling and vote steering had a far bigger advantage than they do under STV.


A far bigger potential advantage assuming (a) polling data was accurate, (b) those votes could be corralled again in the future (i.e. TEST votes for Mittens last year probably were not going to come around for Mynnna this year, even before the reset), and that (c) estimates of voter turnout were accurate.

Your worst case scenario for this was CFC putting 3 candidates on the council (a feat we'd never accomplished before), and that would have required a great deal of things to work out accurately. Now we're probably going to get our 3 with far, far less effort, and that's not even counting what the other blocs are going to pull off.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
My position is that one person's vote should not have MORE value than another's. The old system did not meet that criteria; voters belonging to organized groups had votes that could count for more.


Your system was literally throwing bloc overvotes into a metaphorical garbage can as soon as they had a single candidate elected. If STV itself didn't give blocs any form of advantage at all (as you asserted at the beginning of this post), why make that change?

"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["

Frying Doom
#630 - 2013-04-15 22:51:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Given that voter apathy is so high in EvE, and that an STV system represents the voters equally.

With Null blocs making up the majority of EvE's current voting populous, why was an STV system chosen at this time, before the percentage of voters was increased?

And was the obvious propaganda that null would use, too discourage non-bloc voters to run, discussed?

Also what members of CSM7 actually supported the STV?

Some of the CSM7 members have reported that they are unhappy with the current voter turn-out and CCPs responses to this CSM election. What is CSM7 doing to resolve this given the elections only have 49 hours left?

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

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#631 - 2013-04-16 10:22:33 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Given that voter apathy is so high in EvE, and that an STV system represents the voters equally.

With Null blocs making up the majority of EvE's current voting populous, why was an STV system chosen at this time, before the percentage of voters was increased?

Because we don't have your magic "increase the percentage of the voters" button. And as for the null blocs, if they turn out and vote, good for them. They'll get representation in proportion to their votes, as opposed to the old system, where they could get more than their share *and* fill up most of the Iceland trip slots.

Frying Doom wrote:
And was the obvious propaganda that null would use, too discourage non-bloc voters to run, discussed?

Sure. But that is not relevant to the discussion because (a) they could do it before and (b) more people saying the same thing doesn't help them.

Frying Doom wrote:
Some of the CSM7 members have reported that they are unhappy with the current voter turn-out and CCPs responses to this CSM election. What is CSM7 doing to resolve this given the elections only have 49 hours left?


Well, just to hit the high points, we have:

* pushed through multiple rounds of improvements to the ballot system (which was a mess largely because it was not shown to us in advance).

* had multiple rounds of emails, skype conference calls, etc., to push CCP to resolve some of the marketing and promotion issues that have arisen. Just yesterday, for example, we had a 1-hour skype videoconference with Dolan, Seagull, Soundwave and Unifex that was split 50/50 between Odyssey (its going really well) and election issues.

As with most things on CSM7, we spend most of our time actually trying to get stuff done rather than talking about how we're trying to get stuff done (especially since the latter often hurts the former).

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Frying Doom
#632 - 2013-04-16 10:38:23 UTC
You keep missing

"Also what members of CSM7 actually supported the STV?"

Simple question, why don't you want to answer it?

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

Frying Doom
#633 - 2013-04-16 10:44:17 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Given that voter apathy is so high in EvE, and that an STV system represents the voters equally.

With Null blocs making up the majority of EvE's current voting populous, why was an STV system chosen at this time, before the percentage of voters was increased?

Because we don't have your magic "increase the percentage of the voters" button. And as for the null blocs, if they turn out and vote, good for them. They'll get representation in proportion to their votes, as opposed to the old system, where they could get more than their share *and* fill up most of the Iceland trip slots.

The magic button has been pushed partially by CCP to increase voter turn out, it is called voter awareness and education.
Yes the representation will be proportional to the votes that is why I asked, " why was an STV system chosen at this time, before the percentage of voters was increased?", as with insufficient turn out the STV will just hand a higher number of seats to organized blocs.
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
And was the obvious propaganda that null would use, too discourage non-bloc voters to run, discussed?

Sure. But that is not relevant to the discussion because (a) they could do it before and (b) more people saying the same thing doesn't help them.

If they had done it before it would not have been as large a success as in a system where the number of seats required is tied to the number of votes cast. The fact that they have people saying "Don't bother voting" all over the place will help them more.

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

Frying Doom
#634 - 2013-04-16 10:47:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Some of the CSM7 members have reported that they are unhappy with the current voter turn-out and CCPs responses to this CSM election. What is CSM7 doing to resolve this given the elections only have 49 hours left?


Well, just to hit the high points, we have:

* pushed through multiple rounds of improvements to the ballot system (which was a mess largely because it was not shown to us in advance).

* had multiple rounds of emails, skype conference calls, etc., to push CCP to resolve some of the marketing and promotion issues that have arisen. Just yesterday, for example, we had a 1-hour skype videoconference with Dolan, Seagull, Soundwave and Unifex that was split 50/50 between Odyssey (its going really well) and election issues.

As with most things on CSM7, we spend most of our time actually trying to get stuff done rather than talking about how we're trying to get stuff done (especially since the latter often hurts the former).

Yes the improvements I can not argue on, even though the fact the CSM was not shown it before release was another goof by CCP

As so little time is left in the election, would it not be better to release a statement from CSM7 and let CSM8 handle what changes need to be made?

This has been CSM7s largest mistake from my POV, lack of communication with the people you actually work for.

Also congratulations on Odyssey, I hope it goes well.

Take the question below for example.

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

Frying Doom
#635 - 2013-04-16 10:49:34 UTC
Just so you don't miss it again

What members of CSM7 actually supported the STV voting system?

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

None ofthe Above
#636 - 2013-04-16 15:51:47 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:

Well, just to hit the high points, we have:

* pushed through multiple rounds of improvements to the ballot system (which was a mess largely because it was not shown to us in advance).

* had multiple rounds of emails, skype conference calls, etc., to push CCP to resolve some of the marketing and promotion issues that have arisen. Just yesterday, for example, we had a 1-hour skype videoconference with Dolan, Seagull, Soundwave and Unifex that was split 50/50 between Odyssey (its going really well) and election issues.

As with most things on CSM7, we spend most of our time actually trying to get stuff done rather than talking about how we're trying to get stuff done (especially since the latter often hurts the former).


That's all good.

Did you take them to task for releasing a poor quality brief video, with an apparently hungover or drugged Dolan and Xhagen narrating?

Nice idea, but really disappointing execution. Can't imagine who looked at it and said, "Yeah that's great, get it out there!"

Hopefully next year they really can do something closer to a vote screen in the game (with skip for now and abstain buttons of course). That would help turn out.

And maybe their burgeoning media empire can be in a better place to help too.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#637 - 2013-04-16 17:08:18 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
You keep missing

"Also what members of CSM7 actually supported the STV?"

Simple question, why don't you want to answer it?

It is not my place to speak for my colleagues. I don't like it when other people make representations about my positions, so you will excuse me if I decline to commit the same faux pas.

In any case, the fact is that the pro-STV argument won the day. It doesn't matter how many people supported the argument, it won on the merits.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#638 - 2013-04-16 19:21:44 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
It is not my place to speak for my colleagues. I don't like it when other people make representations about my positions, so you will excuse me if I decline to commit the same faux pas.

In any case, the fact is that the pro-STV argument won the day. It doesn't matter how many people supported the argument, it won on the merits.


Well, since the CSM 7 chair is (surprisingly!) incognito, perhaps you can give us a summary of the position the CSM held when talking with CCP about the electoral systems, Mr. Vice-Chairman of CSM 7?

"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["

Frying Doom
#639 - 2013-04-16 19:55:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
You keep missing

"Also what members of CSM7 actually supported the STV?"

Simple question, why don't you want to answer it?

It is not my place to speak for my colleagues. I don't like it when other people make representations about my positions, so you will excuse me if I decline to commit the same faux pas.

In any case, the fact is that the pro-STV argument won the day. It doesn't matter how many people supported the argument, it won on the merits.

So in another words, STV is so good, no other member of CSM7 except you is willing to come forward and own up to supporting it except you.

So with that vote of confidence, I really think CSM8s first job is to scrap it. All of it needs to go, the election system, the brown nose 5, the lot. Let CSM8, start with a fresh slate, CCP may like an STV system, but if we the players cannot even find out whether a majority of our representatives actually wanted it, or whether it was some back room scheme with a small number of CSM members. How can we, the players have confidence in the electoral system, or the CSM its self?

Personally I feel that having these discussions behind closed doors, with an unknown number of CSM members co-operating stinks like rotten fish.

And once again CSM7 lack of communications wins the day, so much for transparency.

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

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#640 - 2013-04-16 21:39:48 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
You keep missing

"Also what members of CSM7 actually supported the STV?"

Simple question, why don't you want to answer it?

It is not my place to speak for my colleagues. I don't like it when other people make representations about my positions, so you will excuse me if I decline to commit the same faux pas.

In any case, the fact is that the pro-STV argument won the day. It doesn't matter how many people supported the argument, it won on the merits.

So in another words, STV is so good, no other member of CSM7 except you is willing to come forward and own up to supporting it except you.

So with that vote of confidence, I really think CSM8s first job is to scrap it. All of it needs to go, the election system, the brown nose 5, the lot. Let CSM8, start with a fresh slate, CCP may like an STV system, but if we the players cannot even find out whether a majority of our representatives actually wanted it, or whether it was some back room scheme with a small number of CSM members. How can we, the players have confidence in the electoral system, or the CSM its self?

Personally I feel that having these discussions behind closed doors, with an unknown number of CSM members co-operating stinks like rotten fish.

And once again CSM7 lack of communications wins the day, so much for transparency.


In the spirit of transparency, I want to let you in on a secret: Every last candidate has already agreed to keep the entire new system, just to drive you nuts.

Sorry.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal