These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: CSM 8 Elections--CCP on the impact of the Council

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
dark heartt
#61 - 2013-04-18 01:52:06 UTC
You really haven't listened hard enough. There has been criticism, but in general support.
And the fact that you think the voting system is rigged is enough to make me want to stop talking with you.

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Frying Doom
#62 - 2013-04-18 02:00:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
dark heartt wrote:
You really haven't listened hard enough. There has been criticism, but in general support.
And the fact that you think the voting system is rigged is enough to make me want to stop talking with you.

Did you actually read Trebors thread on voting reform?

Yes it was a fair voting system Lol, read the comments as some editing has occurred.

Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unread

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
None ofthe Above
#63 - 2013-04-18 02:11:43 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Seleene wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Seleene wrote:
... the community has been extraordinarily lucky with the composition of recent CSMs.
For someone who was AWOL most of the year, you're kinda straight-up full of yourself.


You should blog some more about how useless CSM 7 has been and back it up with quotes from developers at CCP.

As the CSM is the Voice of the players, don't you think endorsements from players would be more relevant?

This has been CSM7s biggest failing, they forgot who they actually work for.


My lord aren't you a special little snowflake?

You've argued with every player that values the CSM and now you dismiss the CCP perspective.

Guess what -- the CSM is a liaison organization that needs to work with the player base and CCP. CCP's impression is 50% of the equation. If that doesn't matter to you, you've missed the point of the organization.

Now that said, I was frustrated as anyone over the period of time that CSM had seemed to have slipped into a coma. Turns out that appearances may not have been entirely in line with what was actually happening. (Or the were out a bit but woke up sooner that it seemed and got on the ball as we were pocking them with sticks to see if they where alive.)

At any rate, could you please go off into a corner and try to sort out your thought process?

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#64 - 2013-04-18 02:14:57 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:


How about a little transparency? Who in CSM7 was for the STV system that CCP wanted and who was actually against it?

Did the CSM actually put up a fight against a system the players as a majority (See voting reform discussions) did not want or did the CSM just do as CCP wanted, not putting up a fight?


As I said in Trebor's campaign thread. I was (and still am) in favor of STV.

I think you are misreading the voting reform discussion if you think the majority of players would be against STV. STV is more fair, and will result in a CSM that better reflects the players that voted. This is undeniably a good thing.

Frying Doom wrote:
Ok so you don't want to answer that one.

How about, if CSM7 was acting as the voice of the players and not the voice of CCP, why did one of your members feel the need to ignore the rest of the CSM and make a threadnaught about POSs, as he felt the CSM were not going to go against the wishes of CCP?


I didn't ignore the rest of the CSM. I told them all exactly what I was planning on doing, and why. While some of them didn't agree with my actions, some of them did support me (as you can see by their posts in the thread). Your last sentence makes no sense. It isn't like *we* were going to rewrite the POS system. The "wishes of CCP" is what *always* happens. We don't have some sort of magical veto power.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

It's really easy, actually - you just haven't been paying attention every other time this has been discussed. No matter how much everyone enjoys sensationalizing the story for political purposes (CSM "activism" sells really well!), the fact remains that the CSM was told, in no uncertain terms, that POS improvements were going to happen in the summer expansion. We'd been in talks with them about the importance of POS improvements since the beginning of our term, and we'd already told them that NOT working on POS's in the summer was unacceptable no matter how you slice it. CCP admitted in the summit that while they weren't going to be doing the full modular POS system, the abysmal current state of POS's had been made clear to them and that they would be addressing it directly. Two step had his constituency to consider, and felt he was doing his responsibility to push the issue regardless of the fact that we'd already obtained the commitment from CCP that we sought.

But did the threadnought change a goddamn thing other than tie up CCP's staff for a couple days trying to calm everyone down out of panic mode? Nope, the outcome was the same. But because it felt good, and was the closest thing to the Jita-shooting spirit we'd seen in CSM6's term, it's going to continue to be put on a pedestal and worshiped as a hero story by those that believe in the "activist" model irregardless of whether it was actually the reason POS improvements made it into Odyssey.


Respectfully, I disagree with Hans. CCP did not tell us that POS improvements were 100% going to be part of the summer expansion. If they had been willing to publicly commit to doing that work, I wouldn't have started the threadnaught.

I also disagree that the threadnaught didn't serve a useful purpose. Quite simply, my objective was to force the issue, and get CCP to commit to doing the work they should have been willing to commit to. Thankfully, they did that, though it did take some time.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Frying Doom
#65 - 2013-04-18 02:33:28 UTC
Thank you for clearing those things up.

When I said ignore, I meant going against the wishes of the other CSM members who felt your threadnaught was a bad idea.

I agree STV is a fairer system, but personally feel that increasing voter turn out should have been done before altering the voting system, a thought repeated by a number of people in the voting reform thread.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
None ofthe Above
#66 - 2013-04-18 02:38:42 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Thank you for clearing those things up.

When I said ignore, I meant going against the wishes of the other CSM members who felt your threadnaught was a bad idea.

I agree STV is a fairer system, but personally feel that increasing voter turn out should have been done before altering the voting system, a thought repeated by a number of people in the voting reform thread.


Interesting to watch you evolve your view point. STV is good now?

Really agree that voter participation is the BIG problem at this point. And am very frustrated with CCP efforts this year, but it actually looks promising for the future. (Or maybe I am just an eternal optimist.)

If they can try to deliver better on these concepts that they attempted this year, and add in client voting, we might just say a CSM that represents the playerbase as much as it representing the voters.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Frying Doom
#67 - 2013-04-18 02:50:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
None ofthe Above wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Thank you for clearing those things up.

When I said ignore, I meant going against the wishes of the other CSM members who felt your threadnaught was a bad idea.

I agree STV is a fairer system, but personally feel that increasing voter turn out should have been done before altering the voting system, a thought repeated by a number of people in the voting reform thread.


Interesting to watch you evolve your view point. STV is good now?

Really agree that voter participation is the BIG problem at this point. And am very frustrated with CCP efforts this year, but it actually looks promising for the future. (Or maybe I am just an eternal optimist.)

If they can try to deliver better on these concepts that they attempted this year, and add in client voting, we might just say a CSM that represents the playerbase as much as it representing the voters.

STV is good.

The wright-STV voting system was designed for the Australian Senatorial elections. Australian elections are compulsory, failure to vote earns you a fine.

So while it is a great system it does not work very well in a system where only 16.63% actually vote, the largest problem the CSM elections actually face is voter turn out, and introducing a system that is more complex and harder to understand, that will actually turn people against voting in a non-compulsory election is not a good idea, with percentages so low.

Now CCP actually did more this year to get people to actually vote, and that is great, what annoys me is the fact that we would have gotten an even higher percentage of voters without the drag of an STV system, if they had done the same amount of work. Not to mention those people who would not vote due to the low demo-graphical spread of candidates and those turned away due to the brown nose 5 concept.

So the biggest thing is given this amount of work by CCP, is the fact is we would have gotten a more representative CSM if they had not altered the voting system or changed the power of our votes.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-04-18 03:31:11 UTC
why bother with the csm? everyone knows they are the mouthpiece for null and w bears. instead of wasting everyone's time ccp should just talk to the diplos of the biggest 0.0 and wormhole alliances and stop the charade that they "listen to the playerbase". little wonder ccp is looking for a new helmsperson.
CCP Manifest
CCP Retirement Home
#69 - 2013-04-18 03:42:16 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
If I didn't know better, I'd almost think they like us.... Twisted


Don't get ahead of yourself there Trebor :)

======== o7 _CCP Manifest | Public Relations and Social Media | @ccp_manifest_
dark heartt
#70 - 2013-04-18 04:33:52 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

The wright-STV voting system was designed for the Australian Senatorial elections. Australian elections are compulsory, failure to vote earns you a fine.


Just as a side note I am an Australian (you can find evidence of this all over these forums), and I have never voted (and I'm 24 years old), yet I have never gotten a fine. Maybe I'm just lucky hey.

Everyone agrees that voter turn out needs to increase, but the system needed a change too. The problem is that if we waited to increase the voter turn out, we'd be waiting till the servers go down.

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#71 - 2013-04-18 04:38:26 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

STV is good.

Quoting for posterity.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Frying Doom
#72 - 2013-04-18 04:40:38 UTC
dark heartt wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

The wright-STV voting system was designed for the Australian Senatorial elections. Australian elections are compulsory, failure to vote earns you a fine.


Just as a side note I am an Australian (you can find evidence of this all over these forums), and I have never voted (and I'm 24 years old), yet I have never gotten a fine. Maybe I'm just lucky hey.

Everyone agrees that voter turn out needs to increase, but the system needed a change too. The problem is that if we waited to increase the voter turn out, we'd be waiting till the servers go down.

CCP has never done this much promotion before, now while it needs some fixing up it was a damn site better than ever before. So if they had done that for the next year or 2 and then introduced the drag of an STV, it would have worked out a lot better. The fear is when introducing a more complex voting system with such a low percentage is that we will have a less representative council than we would have with the old system with the extra publicity.

Oh and as to your lack of fines, don't worry, if you are ever cornered by the AEC and put on the voting roles, you will be fined for every time you have failed to vote since the day you turned 18.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#73 - 2013-04-18 04:41:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

STV is good.

Quoting for posterity.

STV is a good system.

But not for low turn out electorates.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
dark heartt
#74 - 2013-04-18 04:51:27 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
dark heartt wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

The wright-STV voting system was designed for the Australian Senatorial elections. Australian elections are compulsory, failure to vote earns you a fine.


Just as a side note I am an Australian (you can find evidence of this all over these forums), and I have never voted (and I'm 24 years old), yet I have never gotten a fine. Maybe I'm just lucky hey.

Everyone agrees that voter turn out needs to increase, but the system needed a change too. The problem is that if we waited to increase the voter turn out, we'd be waiting till the servers go down.

CCP has never done this much promotion before, now while it needs some fixing up it was a damn site better than ever before. So if they had done that for the next year or 2 and then introduced the drag of an STV, it would have worked out a lot better. The fear is when introducing a more complex voting system with such a low percentage is that we will have a less representative council than we would have with the old system with the extra publicity.

Oh and as to your lack of fines, don't worry, if you are ever cornered by the AEC and put on the voting roles, you will be fined for every time you have failed to vote since the day you turned 18.


So it all comes back to the representative council again, because you don't like null blocs. At the end of the day I've already made my position on that clear. The CSM is representative of the players that voted. Now if people don't like the representation that the CSM provides, they can vote for new representatives in the next election, but they need to do something.

And I won't be fined as I am already enrolled and have valid reason to not vote (religious background).

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Frying Doom
#75 - 2013-04-18 04:57:12 UTC
dark heartt wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
dark heartt wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

The wright-STV voting system was designed for the Australian Senatorial elections. Australian elections are compulsory, failure to vote earns you a fine.


Just as a side note I am an Australian (you can find evidence of this all over these forums), and I have never voted (and I'm 24 years old), yet I have never gotten a fine. Maybe I'm just lucky hey.

Everyone agrees that voter turn out needs to increase, but the system needed a change too. The problem is that if we waited to increase the voter turn out, we'd be waiting till the servers go down.

CCP has never done this much promotion before, now while it needs some fixing up it was a damn site better than ever before. So if they had done that for the next year or 2 and then introduced the drag of an STV, it would have worked out a lot better. The fear is when introducing a more complex voting system with such a low percentage is that we will have a less representative council than we would have with the old system with the extra publicity.

Oh and as to your lack of fines, don't worry, if you are ever cornered by the AEC and put on the voting roles, you will be fined for every time you have failed to vote since the day you turned 18.


So it all comes back to the representative council again, because you don't like null blocs. At the end of the day I've already made my position on that clear. The CSM is representative of the players that voted. Now if people don't like the representation that the CSM provides, they can vote for new representatives in the next election, but they need to do something.

And I won't be fined as I am already enrolled and have valid reason to not vote (religious background).

Actually I have no problem with Null, I have more of a problem with the lazy Hi-sec lot, that don't seem able to do anything to save them selves, it is like lemmings on line.

For the CSM to be the voice of the players, it needs the majority of players to vote for it.

Now I know in the last census Jedi Knight made a considerable jump in percentages as a religion, but what religion makes you immune to voting fines?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
dark heartt
#76 - 2013-04-18 05:31:29 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Now I know in the last census Jedi Knight made a considerable jump in percentages as a religion, but what religion makes you immune to voting fines?


Jehovah's Witness. Now even more reason to hate us all >:)

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2013-04-18 06:25:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Two step wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree with Hans. CCP did not tell us that POS improvements were 100% going to be part of the summer expansion. If they had been willing to publicly commit to doing that work, I wouldn't have started the threadnaught.
That's Hans for you. He would have us believe that he was on top of every single player issue ... and yet, read the minutes and many times Hans is clapping for really stupid ideas. If Hans is sitting across from a dev, he's so damned starstruck that every idea is a great idea. Hans' record of ensuring that bad ideas never made it into the game is revisionist, at best.

Activism works best, because nobody on CSM7 (except Two Step) was an activist. The rest simply lay down and let CCP rub their bellies.

Hans is worried most of all about his legacy. He knows CSM8 is likely going to be more well-received than CSM7, and he desperately does not want to be looked upon as having been part of a lame duck CSM.

In the interests of his legacy, he was on-top of every single issue behind the scenes. Unverifiable. But as we all know, Hans is honest to a fault. Roll
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#78 - 2013-04-18 09:04:50 UTC
Seleene wrote:
As a voter, realize there is no such thing as a ‘perfect politician’, but you should strive to elect people that are capable of seeing all sides of an argument while still being able to stand up for their / your views


As a paying customer I intend to vote with my wallet and will keep on voting hopefully every year, even IF the CSM becomes less relevant for me as a player in the coming years (this has to due to me playing more then one mmo, like Star Citizen)

You all did a hell of a job, with no drama from CCP (hope it's clear now we all want better POS, not just a minority) or prima donna behaviour from CSM it was a nice quiet year of implementation of fixing and iterating of established features.

I say quiet because from my perspevtive not alot of CSM - CCP communication was made public due to NDA, but we got a few town hall meets on Eve Radio Cool

Those that were activists and put alot of time into the CSM (specially Hans), thank you and good cruising for the coming years.


PS: http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.nl/2013/04/were-back-to-2011-login-levels.html

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#79 - 2013-04-18 09:14:07 UTC
The CSM spent considerable time both in the minutes and out pushing CCP to communicate to players themselves about the POS situation. They didn't, and the resulting outrage was predictable and observable in small doses. My personal view was that thread was inevitable with or without the CSM's involvement. TwoStep was the natural person to do it given his constituency and his taking the lead kept the player outrage focused and constructive. Whether he intended it or not, it also gave the rest of us the ability to play "good cop."

I can understand why several other CSMs disagreed with his approach however, and I dont think it should be used as a model. I think he had to do what he had to do in this specific set of circumstances and luckily it played out in such a way that the rest of the CSM could make the best of it.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#80 - 2013-04-18 09:15:50 UTC
The concepts presented in some of the anti-CSM posts in here are absolutely hilarious:

CCP is against the players and CSM's job is to protect players from evil CCP
Null and wormhole players don't represent the playerbase

If these are the results of the brain damage that ensues when you spend your online time rescuing the damsel again and again and again and again and again every night for years, CSM and CCP should start planning measures that protect players from this health risk.



.