These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#81 - 2013-04-30 08:27:09 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Did I say I was looking at a trend, no but it would be nice to know how many people actually went to the page, and then did not vote. I will not say CCP did a good job, but it was still a better job than they have ever done before.


Translation: I have no clue how to actually read this data, but just give me a number so I can point and shriek "SEE THIS WAS ALL STV"

I'll give you a hint as to why I said that: for the numbers of visits without votes to mean anything, you'd need to know what the same total was in prior years. Without that, you just have a number with no frame of reference at all.

Good to see you are now such a strong supporter of STV now that you know it helps the null candidates.

Snow Axe wrote:
Voting systems? Seriously?

Nothing like trying to come up with a solution when you can't even clearly identify what the problem is.

Snow Axe wrote:
Forgive me if this comes off confrontational, but shouldn't the first step have been trying to get a real idea of what people ACTUALLY think of the current voting system before even considering a discussion about changing it?

Or better yet, not even think about changing it until you've got your voting numbers where you want them to be (or at least to where you think it's as good as it's going to get). You don't decorate your house until you're finished building it.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2013-04-30 08:51:34 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Good to see you are now such a strong supporter of STV now that you know it helps the null candidates.


Ahh, Frying Doom logic. I'm not screaming that STV is solely responsible for a drop in votes, so I must be supporting it!

I'll spoil something for you: literally any voting system is going to be good for an organized bloc. We can make pretty much whatever work in our favour. STV, FPTP, anything. Doesn't matter. STV makes the organization easier, sure, but I'm not the one doing said organization so I truly couldn't give a ****. Personally my opinion is unchanged from those quotes - it's still way too early for STV. That beign said, STV has been chosen and, given this is CCP, it's not going to change, certainly not back to FPTP, and we certainly won't see any reversion in how the chair is chosen or how the Iceland seats are chosen either (which honestly are the truly damaging parts of the equation, far moreso than STV).

What I am saying, though, is that your myopic focus on STV is wrong. Was it a net positive? That's up for debate. CSM 7's failure to promote themselves and CCP's failure to promote the CSM in general is what caused the drop, not the voting system, no matter how much you want that to be.

"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
#83 - 2013-04-30 09:06:36 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Good to see you are now such a strong supporter of STV now that you know it helps the null candidates.


Ahh, Frying Doom logic. I'm not screaming that STV is solely responsible for a drop in votes, so I must be supporting it!

I'll spoil something for you: literally any voting system is going to be good for an organized bloc. We can make pretty much whatever work in our favour. STV, FPTP, anything. Doesn't matter. STV makes the organization easier, sure, but I'm not the one doing said organization so I truly couldn't give a ****. Personally my opinion is unchanged from those quotes - it's still way too early for STV. That beign said, STV has been chosen and, given this is CCP, it's not going to change, certainly not back to FPTP, and we certainly won't see any reversion in how the chair is chosen or how the Iceland seats are chosen either (which honestly are the truly damaging parts of the equation, far moreso than STV).

What I am saying, though, is that your myopic focus on STV is wrong. Was it a net positive? That's up for debate. CSM 7's failure to promote themselves and CCP's failure to promote the CSM in general is what caused the drop, not the voting system, no matter how much you want that to be.

To be honest I do agree with that especially "how the Iceland seats are chosen either (which honestly are the truly damaging parts of the equation, far moreso than STV"

I mean no matter what voting system, the fact is our votes are now worth a lot less. STV is a good system but it does not work with a 12.12% turnout but we will get stuck with it, even though the "Peace time CSM" spin, has to be the worse I have ever seen.

STV is in there but so much damage was done in 12 months it is hard to tell what did what amount of damage.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
CCP Guard
C C P
C C P Alliance
#84 - 2013-04-30 11:04:04 UTC
Congratulations to the new CSM and to all of you for having this fine group of people representing you. I look forward to getting familiar with our new CSM and working with them on good things.

CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer | @CCP_Guard
Frying Doom
#85 - 2013-04-30 12:03:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
CCP Dolan wrote:
We are going to delay the publishing of the CCP Veritas stats Dev Blog by a day. We have some more graphs that we would like to add.

Is it possible ETA on this?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Rengerel en Distel
#86 - 2013-04-30 12:38:37 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
CCP Dolan wrote:
We are going to delay the publishing of the CCP Veritas stats Dev Blog by a day. We have some more graphs that we would like to add.

Is it possible ETA on this?


I think within one day of when he posted that would be the ETA, since that's the "E".

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Frying Doom
#87 - 2013-04-30 12:45:28 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
CCP Dolan wrote:
We are going to delay the publishing of the CCP Veritas stats Dev Blog by a day. We have some more graphs that we would like to add.

Is it possible ETA on this?


I think within one day of when he posted that would be the ETA, since that's the "E".


I bow in the presence of one that could humble Einstein.Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#88 - 2013-04-30 15:01:10 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
CCP Dolan wrote:
We are going to delay the publishing of the CCP Veritas stats Dev Blog by a day. We have some more graphs that we would like to add.

Will these graphs include the number of page views of the voting page vs the number of actual votes?


An extremely relevant question. The voting page was somewhat awkward to use, to put it mildly.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
#89 - 2013-04-30 16:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Erik Finnegan
So 7000 accounts less than 30 days old. It's even the biggest age group. All created for the election ?
None ofthe Above
#90 - 2013-04-30 16:11:13 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

As people seem to hate the STV system yes, that is one of the general problems with an STV system, the added complexity plus the fact that people don't know who they actually voted for.

If my left leg doesn't work, I might try to remove the dead weight STV is from it before I would worry about surgery. After all CCP and the CSM tied an anchor to the voting numbers, threw it over the side and now don't seem to have any idea why it is sinking.

Yes I think leaving the simpler system, and returning voter interest by making our votes count for who goes to Iceland, then a full year of things from CCP and the CSM as to why the CSM is important, are necessary. As well as a lot of transparency and communication from CSM8. To try to undo this mess.


Do people seem to hate it? You do clearly, in spite saying it is a good system. I've seen some people bashing it. Notably the CFC & company who predicted it would make it easy for them to sweep the council (so we might as well all not vote). But I've not really seen any statue shoots or any such over it. And I am not taking obvious propaganda at face value. Maybe CCP could consider a survey on the subject so we could get some more scientific data.

At any rate, I think time will tell.

Clearly there were some problems with the implementation, and also the fact that it was new and people were not used to it.

I wonder if limiting ballots to say 7 candidates instead of 14 might not be a good thing. Dolan says 5-6 was the magic number as far as getting the ballots to count. People have a hard time dealing with large numbers of choices. Seven is often quoted as a magic number for limits of human attention span.

Results in, I think STV was a proven success in eliminating the spoiler effect. It also seems to have foiled attempts to game it. I personally doubt that FPTP would have given us a better council, and think this experiment with STV had good enough results to continue it.

Now let us get on to the real problem of voter participation, which needs to solved under either system. CCP can continue on with developing GOTV and education efforts and in game voting, with the option to delay, abstain or vote, each time we log in next year please.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
None ofthe Above
#91 - 2013-04-30 16:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
Erik Finnegan wrote:
So 7000 accounts less than 30 days old. It's even the biggest age group. All created for the election ?


What? That makes no sense...

.. .oh I see where you are getting that and your misunderstanding.

That's 7768 voting accounts between 30 and 250 days old. Accounts less than 30 days old are not allowed to vote.

From my experience last year, age here is date past activation, btw. I had one alt account that had been created > 30 days but activated <30 days at election time in the last election and could not vote. I petitioned it based on the creation date, and was clarified.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#92 - 2013-04-30 21:02:34 UTC
Still experiencing some technical difficulties formatting all this stuff into our dev blog system. I apologize for the delay.

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls
Shingorash
Stellar Defense Services
#93 - 2013-04-30 21:07:32 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
Erik Finnegan wrote:
So 7000 accounts less than 30 days old. It's even the biggest age group. All created for the election ?


What? That makes no sense...

.. .oh I see where you are getting that and your misunderstanding.

That's 7768 voting accounts between 30 and 250 days old. Accounts less than 30 days old are not allowed to vote.

From my experience last year, age here is date past activation, btw. I had one alt account that had been created > 30 days but activated <30 days at election time in the last election and could not vote. I petitioned it based on the creation date, and was clarified.


It should be 1 vote per person, not 1 vote per account. How you would police that though is anyone's guess.

Your other comment about in game voting though I think is a good idea.
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#94 - 2013-04-30 22:34:29 UTC
CCP Dolan wrote:
Still experiencing some technical difficulties formatting all this stuff into our dev blog system. I apologize for the delay.

Thanks for the effort! Any chance of getting the raw .blt file uploaded so that people can poke at it, even if your writeup is delayed?

I fight for the freedom of my people.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#95 - 2013-05-01 09:30:51 UTC
Erik Finnegan wrote:
So 7000 accounts less than 30 days old. It's even the biggest age group. All created for the election ?


That's right. Not a single genuine new player from the period of EVE's greatest ever subscriber growth voted. It was all alts specially created.

Created by the mysterious Mike Azariah... if that is his real name. Shocked

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#96 - 2013-05-01 09:31:57 UTC
This making **** up lark is fun. Every time I see someone making **** up about the CSM, my reply to them will also be composed of **** I made up.

Your CSM: Communicating to you!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#97 - 2013-05-01 09:34:45 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
CCP Dolan wrote:
We are going to delay the publishing of the CCP Veritas stats Dev Blog by a day. We have some more graphs that we would like to add.

Is it possible ETA on this?


I think within one day of when he posted that would be the ETA, since that's the "E".


I bow in the presence of one that could humble Einstein.Lol


Your Factslexia is getting worse mate.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2013-05-01 09:35:11 UTC
That sounds suspiciously like something a reptillian would do, Malcanis. Would you care to comment on that?

"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["
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#99 - 2013-05-01 09:35:29 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Good to see you are now such a strong supporter of STV now that you know it helps the null candidates.


Ahh, Frying Doom logic. I'm not screaming that STV is solely responsible for a drop in votes, so I must be supporting it!

I'll spoil something for you: literally any voting system is going to be good for an organized bloc. We can make pretty much whatever work in our favour. STV, FPTP, anything. Doesn't matter. STV makes the organization easier, sure, but I'm not the one doing said organization so I truly couldn't give a ****. Personally my opinion is unchanged from those quotes - it's still way too early for STV. That beign said, STV has been chosen and, given this is CCP, it's not going to change, certainly not back to FPTP, and we certainly won't see any reversion in how the chair is chosen or how the Iceland seats are chosen either (which honestly are the truly damaging parts of the equation, far moreso than STV).

What I am saying, though, is that your myopic focus on STV is wrong. Was it a net positive? That's up for debate. CSM 7's failure to promote themselves and CCP's failure to promote the CSM in general is what caused the drop, not the voting system, no matter how much you want that to be.



All voting systems are grossly biased towards people who vote.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#100 - 2013-05-01 09:35:43 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like something a reptillian would do, Malcanis. Would you care to comment on that?




Yessss~~

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016