These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Green Gambit
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#101 - 2013-05-08 09:16:11 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
And how does this explain CSM 7? CSM 6 was null dominated as it was the first time null ever really came out in force to vote for the CSM. CSM 7 on the other hand was about as diverse a CSM as you can get without picking the members by hand.


Well I actually answered that question before I posed the line you quoted.

Please at least read before trying to troll.
Frying Doom
#102 - 2013-05-08 09:18:39 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Green Gambit wrote:
The big danger with FPTP was that more null-sec alliances started copying the Goons and the council become almost completely null-sec dominated.


And how does this explain CSM 7? CSM 6 was null dominated as it was the first time null ever really came out in force to vote for the CSM. CSM 7 on the other hand was about as diverse a CSM as you can get without picking the members by hand.

CSM7 still had too many Null sec players to be representative of the game.

But it is a lot more representative than what we have now.

I mean it is very representative of the voters, but almost the opposite of representing the player base as a whole.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2013-05-08 09:39:06 UTC
Green Gambit wrote:
[Well I actually answered that question before I posed the line you quoted.

Please at least read before trying to troll.


I read it. It didn't answer why the CSM somehow became even more balanced despite this obvious danger of "more null-sec alliances copying the Goons", which is an especially stupid statement in the wake of this election data proving that a null bloc isn't necessarily any better organized (HBC) or motivated (N3) than anyone else in the game. Hell, in HBC's case it turned out to be even worse.

"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["
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#104 - 2013-05-08 10:54:53 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Karsa Egivand wrote:
Overall, STV did splendidly the first time. Very much looking forward to how it works out for CSM9, when more people get how it works and maybe more people vote.

Lowsec/FW won't repeat this years LACK of participation. That's a "new" bloc.

I also predict a carebear/high-sec bloc/party for the next CSM election that'll get 2+ seats - basically new voters (not even Mike Azariah really represents them, although he comes closest). Not that I like that too much, but its probably appropriate.

And more voters - I guess - will shuffle their bloc ballots a bit on personal preference (which isn't that bad for the bloc in question, as long as it's mostly its candidates in front).


I agree that this time around was a learning experience for everybody and I know some folks are already making plans for how to 'do better' next time.

Good.

That high-sec might actually get organized and form their own block, unlikely but good as well.

I am finding it funny that I keep being the dark horse who proves things didn't work as planned in the election because you cannot figure out who the hell voted for me. I lack a bloc yet I got enough to get elected.

Hard to imagine that maybe . . . . juuuuust maybe I managed to convince enough of all the blocs that I was a decent kind of guy without a political axe to grind? That maybe having such a guy on the council might be a good thing to have? Nah. That goes against all the back room plans and mathematical models that a normal guy could manage such a thing without massive backing.

Oh wait . . . you can buy into the ECCE conspiracy, I was part of a secret organization of non bloc folks that could amass all the votes . . . .from whom? The high-sec voters who reportedly didn't take part?

Bah, what does it matter?

either . . .

a) the CSM has no power so who cares, we didn't want those seats anyways
b) what difference can one guy make? our boys will just relegate him to the corner where he can be properly ignored
or
c) great! way to go, Mike. Don't tell my alliance but I voted for you, too

It's late . . . I have a lot of reading to do to catch up on what has happened in the past so I can be best informed about where we are going next. Run the numbers, make hats out of tinfoil, whatever.

I have work to do

m



Well said Mike. There's very little chance that the ECCE conspiracy supporters would even bother to get the actual facts for themselves. For such, it's a case of "No! It's my way or the highway". That will never change.

Glad to see you in the CSM as well.

o7

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#105 - 2013-05-08 11:38:17 UTC  |  Edited by: June Ting
More analysis ("name recognition"):

How many unique ballots contained a given candidate's name in any position?
23410 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
19513 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
17148 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
16335 "Unforgiven Storm"
15299 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
14999 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
14615 "Banlish"
14614 "Psychotic Monk"
14476 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
13862 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
13186 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
13094 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
12921 "Awol Aurix"
12425 "Nathan Jameson"
11987 "Kaleb Rysode"
11617 "Artctura"
11401 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
11107 "DaeHan Minhyok"
10800 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
10485 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
10058 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
9680 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
8473 "Roc Wieler"
8158 "Corebloodbrothers"
7996 "riverini"
7912 "Steve Ronuken"
7592 "Travis Musgrat"
6886 "Ayeson"
6500 "Cipreh"
5695 "Greene Lee"
4243 "PsychoBitch"


How about just counting top 4 votes rather than full 14?
11545 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
11216 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
9178 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
7924 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
7835 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
7753 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
7653 "Kaleb Rysode"
7088 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
6783 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
6448 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
6214 "Banlish"
6054 "Nathan Jameson"
5954 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
5722 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
5695 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
4771 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
4705 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
4019 "riverini"
3908 "Steve Ronuken"
3611 "Psychotic Monk"
3598 "Greene Lee"
3379 "Unforgiven Storm"
3338 "Travis Musgrat"
3242 "Corebloodbrothers"
3239 "Cipreh"
3063 "Roc Wieler"
3010 "Ayeson"
2825 "Awol Aurix"
1993 "PsychoBitch"
1556 "Artctura"
1054 "DaeHan Minhyok"

Even counting just top 2 yield something very much like the STV results:
7629 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
6446 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
5951 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
4863 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
4764 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
4711 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
4166 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
3904 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
3690 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
3433 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
3409 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
3309 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
3201 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
3112 "Nathan Jameson"
2964 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
2705 "Greene Lee"
2447 "Corebloodbrothers"
2405 "Travis Musgrat"
2377 "Steve Ronuken"
2376 "Banlish"
2307 "Psychotic Monk"
2076 "riverini"
1698 "Unforgiven Storm"
1610 "Cipreh"
1576 "Roc Wieler"
1540 "Awol Aurix"
1525 "Ayeson"
1210 "Kaleb Rysode"
1202 "PsychoBitch"
934 "Artctura"
515 "DaeHan Minhyok"

Here's another hypothetical scenario, assigning weights to #1 votes of 50%, #2 votes of 33% rather than equal weighting to #1 and #2 votes:
3506.67 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
2845.5 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
2164.83 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
2136.67 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
2017.17 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
1846.33 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
1727.67 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
1653.5 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
1532.33 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
1479.5 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
1447.17 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
1420.83 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
1337.67 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
1306.67 "Nathan Jameson"
1266 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
1181.33 "Greene Lee"
1063.5 "Corebloodbrothers"
1023.17 "Psychotic Monk"
1006.67 "Steve Ronuken"
994.167 "Banlish"
961.333 "Travis Musgrat"
835.333 "riverini"
716.333 "Unforgiven Storm"
657.5 "Roc Wieler"
634.833 "Cipreh"
626.667 "Ayeson"
622.667 "Awol Aurix"
517.833 "PsychoBitch"
466.667 "Kaleb Rysode"
426.5 "Artctura"
212.333 "DaeHan Minhyok"

In light of that, I'm tempted to ask the question "what if next year's election were simplified, and you could just vote your top two candidates"?

I fight for the freedom of my people.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2013-05-08 12:17:04 UTC
June Ting wrote:
In light of that, I'm tempted to ask the question "what if next year's election were simplified, and you could just vote your top two candidates"?

It would be trivially gamed.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#107 - 2013-05-08 12:17:36 UTC  |  Edited by: June Ting
For fun, here's who was on the BOTTOM HALF of votes most often (as a fraction of their total unique ballots appeared on).

Based on this, we can conclude that Storm, Monk, and DaeHan had plenty of name recognition, just needed to convince people to rank them higher to have a chance. On the flip side, it shows that the people that did rank FuzzySteve (for example) ranked him highly, but that there simply weren't enough of them.

11519 (0.705173) "Unforgiven Storm"
11234 (0.47988 ) "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
10411 (0.533542) "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
9594 (0.656494) "Psychotic Monk"
9483 (0.553009) "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
9233 (0.831278) "DaeHan Minhyok"
7056 (0.546088) "Awol Aurix"
4928 (0.456296) "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
4198 (0.361367) "Artctura"
4037 (0.476455) "Roc Wieler"
3991 (0.489213) "Corebloodbrothers"
3499 (0.46088 ) "Travis Musgrat"
3394 (0.323701) "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
2761 (0.345298) "riverini"
2739 (0.240242) "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
2667 (0.337083) "Steve Ronuken"
2426 (0.175011) "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
2418 (0.184665) "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
2415 (0.240107) "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
2345 (0.188732) "Nathan Jameson"
2066 (0.21343 ) "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
1953 (0.148112) "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
1845 (0.267935) "Ayeson"
1804 (0.12462 ) "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
1783 (0.274308) "Cipreh"
1701 (0.116387) "Banlish"
1637 (0.107 ) "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
1544 (0.363893) "PsychoBitch"
1478 (0.0985399) "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
1268 (0.222651) "Greene Lee"
1165 (0.0971886) "Kaleb Rysode"

I fight for the freedom of my people.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#108 - 2013-05-08 12:36:07 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Green Gambit wrote:
The big danger with FPTP was that more null-sec alliances started copying the Goons and the council become almost completely null-sec dominated.


And how does this explain CSM 7? CSM 6 was null dominated as it was the first time null ever really came out in force to vote for the CSM. CSM 7 on the other hand was about as diverse a CSM as you can get without picking the members by hand.

CSM7 still had too many Null sec players to be representative of the game.

But it is a lot more representative than what we have now.

I mean it is very representative of the voters, but almost the opposite of representing the player base as a whole.


As has been asid many times, there is no voting system which ensures representation for those who refuse to vote.

I wholly agree that CSM 7 could have done more to raise their profile and perceived value, and that CCP could have done more to publicise the elction and communicate the value of the CSM to the players, but the fact is, very many players who were fully aware of the election declined to participate ( there was at least one such in my corp, to my great frustration).

It's their right not to vote, of course, but they have no claim to your sympathy or mine for not being "represented".

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
OrlandoFurioso
Vextar Navy
#109 - 2013-05-08 13:04:02 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Null bloc votes, as identified by Two Step: 9823+10957+5999 = 26799, 53.9% of the votes

Null bloc candidates: Five (Myself, Kesper, Sort, Sala and Progodlegend), which is about 35% of the council. I suppose you could count Malcanis as well, as the HBC ballot was instrumental in electing him and he is technically part of the bloc, but even that's only 42%.

Basically, I'm saying that I think the people who were claiming that STV is all about rigging it for nullsec (ya'll know who you are) can put down their tinfoil hats. If anything we're under represented. Blink


simplified view of the CSM makeup ftw.

Please tell us, apart from Mang, how many CSM members are from highsec?
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#110 - 2013-05-08 13:48:38 UTC
CCP Dolan wrote:


That's probably the most pessimistic way you could look at who had an enfranchised vote in the CSM7 and CSM8 election, but I will work with it I guess.


Looking at things from the most pessimistic way possible is kinda Frying Doom's thing.
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
Kvitravn.
#111 - 2013-05-08 13:53:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
OrlandoFurioso wrote:
simplified view of the CSM makeup ftw.

Please tell us, apart from Mang, how many CSM members are from highsec?

A simplified answer to that simplified question would be:
All. Every single one.

(There are no non-hisec starter systems)

Less simplified, there is no correct answer I fear.
I'm sure there are few on the CSM who haven't at least tried out several aspects of the game, in several kinds of space. Also, "hisec" is only an area in space. You should not be asking for the area, but for the playstyles. You have ratters and carebears in every kind of space, you have hunters in all kinds of space (but of course using different approaches).
If a Goon candidate is spending most of his active playtime ganking in Uedema or trading in Jita, is he "from highsec" or "from nullsec"?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#112 - 2013-05-08 14:06:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
What "hisec" self-identifiers should be concerned about is "casual" gameplay. That is one perspective that is hard to mesh with an imaginary space council. I would say it is literally impossible to be a "casual" player and be an effective CSM. Therefore, the self-identified "hisec" bloc should be voting for those candidates that purposefully and continuously acknowledge and listen to feedback from casual players. Only then can you hope that your playstyle won't be stomped into the mud by changes because no one in CCP or on the CSM even know what makes the game for you.

Unfortunately, casual players have long been spoken for by a select few hisec turbonerd forum warriors who are anything but casual, yet use an imagined conflict between security areas to attempt to protect their solo/afk/multiboxing hisec wealth generation, which has nothing to do with being "casual" and everything to do with wanting rewards without risk.

The sooner casual players divorce themselves from their unrepresentative unofficial crusaders, the sooner they can become a coherent voice for casual gameplay, and have people step up as representatives thereof.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#113 - 2013-05-08 14:12:32 UTC
June Ting wrote:
More analysis ("name recognition"):

How many unique ballots contained a given candidate's name in any position?
23410 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
19513 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
17148 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
16335 "Unforgiven Storm"
15299 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
14999 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
14615 "Banlish"
14614 "Psychotic Monk"
14476 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
13862 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
13186 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
13094 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
12921 "Awol Aurix"
12425 "Nathan Jameson"
11987 "Kaleb Rysode"
11617 "Artctura"
11401 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
11107 "DaeHan Minhyok"
10800 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
10485 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
10058 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
9680 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
8473 "Roc Wieler"
8158 "Corebloodbrothers"
7996 "riverini"
7912 "Steve Ronuken"
7592 "Travis Musgrat"
6886 "Ayeson"
6500 "Cipreh"
5695 "Greene Lee"
4243 "PsychoBitch"


How about just counting top 4 votes rather than full 14?
11545 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
11216 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
9178 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
7924 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
7835 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
7753 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
7653 "Kaleb Rysode"
7088 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
6783 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
6448 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
6214 "Banlish"
6054 "Nathan Jameson"
5954 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
5722 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
5695 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
4771 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
4705 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
4019 "riverini"
3908 "Steve Ronuken"
3611 "Psychotic Monk"
3598 "Greene Lee"
3379 "Unforgiven Storm"
3338 "Travis Musgrat"
3242 "Corebloodbrothers"
3239 "Cipreh"
3063 "Roc Wieler"
3010 "Ayeson"
2825 "Awol Aurix"
1993 "PsychoBitch"
1556 "Artctura"
1054 "DaeHan Minhyok"


Both of these are really bizarre because of the top 2 results, especially the first one. The rule of thumb for that is (or was supposed to be) "appearing anywhere is an advantage for top 2" yet Ripard and I got it, with no less than eight candidates above us who had more appearances anywhere.

I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
mmorpg lol
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#114 - 2013-05-08 14:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: mmorpg lol
I may be misunderstanding the way this voting system works, but I think it is because while # of ballots said candidate is on is important; placement on the ballot is also extremely important.

So, if candidate A has twice the number of ballots as candidate B but all of B's ballots list B first and A second while A has only 25% of his ballots listing him first; then B is much more likely to be elected, particularly if B has very few overvotes.

This is why mynnna and Rip get the 1 and 2 spots even though lots of others had more ballots than them; note that on the list of top 4 places on ballots they move up to 2 and 3, showing that they have a high primary vote placement.
June Ting
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#115 - 2013-05-08 14:35:28 UTC
The top 4 one is an artifact of the goon ballot. Because it was CFC1, CFC2, CFC3, HBC1, HBC2, HBC3 (or vice versa), the net result of any analysis that aggregates top 4 is that CFC1 and HBC1 will both be inflated because a very particular set of ballots was created with that pattern.

I fight for the freedom of my people.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2013-05-08 14:43:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow
mynnna wrote:
Both of these are really bizarre because of the top 2 results, especially the first one. The rule of thumb for that is (or was supposed to be) "appearing anywhere is an advantage for top 2" yet Ripard and I got it, with no less than eight candidates above us who had more appearances anywhere.

I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive.

It's quite simple. You need to appear on a lot of ballots, but appearing higher is better. If your average position is higher, and in particular if you have a lot of first-place votes, you will survive elimination longer.

To give an absurd example, a candidate who appeared on every ballot, but always in 14th place, would be the first eliminated.

Here's a quick table (sorry for the horrible formatting, pity we don't have code tags on this forum....) that shows, for each candidate, how many first place ballots they had, how many times they appear on a ballot, their strength (1/average position on ballot) and power (average position * number of appearances)


# Firsts # Appearances Strength Power
mynnna 5782 14476 .484 7000.00
Ripard Teg 4181 13862 .372 5152.00
Sort Dragon 3263 14999 .342 5137.00
Mangala Solaris 2681 23410 .181 4244.00
Sala Cameron 1550 15299 .268 4101.00
Kesper North 918 13186 .289 3811.00
Malcanis 1497 19513 .173 3381.00
Trebor Daehdoow 2034 13094 .247 3230.00
Banlish 1213 14615 .213 3114.00
Ali Aras 2113 11401 .268 3057.00
progodlegend 2328 10800 .271 2925.00
James Arget 1624 17148 .164 2808.00
Korvin 2065 10485 .263 2758.00
Kaleb Rysode 380 11987 .221 2647.00
Nathan Jameson 1616 12425 .212 2629.00
Mike Azariah 1707 10058 .240 2414.00
Chitsa Jason 1668 9680 .240 2328.00
Psychotic Monk 1525 14614 .154 2246.00
Greene Lee 1678 5695 .360 2049.00
Unforgiven Storm 902 16335 .124 2033.00
Corebloodbrothers 1487 8158 .244 1989.00
Steve Ronuken 1286 7912 .218 1725.00
Travis Musgrat 958 7592 .226 1719.00
Awol Aurix 656 12921 .131 1699.00
Artctura 691 11617 .143 1662.00
riverini 860 7996 .199 1590.00
Roc Wieler 793 8473 .140 1182.00
Ayeson 710 6886 .172 1181.00
Cipreh 589 6500 .178 1155.00
DaeHan Minhyok 244 11107 .082 907.00
PsychoBitch 703 4243 .197 837.00

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Green Gambit
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#117 - 2013-05-08 14:47:47 UTC
mynnna wrote:
I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive.


Well taking Mangala as top of the list for votes anywhere - he was down near the bottom of the CFC and HBC ballots. He also appeared somewhere in the middle of a lot of suggested lists of people like Ripard, Trebor etc. In fact I don't think I saw many suggested lists that didn't include him somewhere.

Whereas for yourself, you got a lot of support from CFC and HBC, where you appeared at the top of the list. So you got enough #1 votes to guarantee your place, but not the depth of support from elsewhere.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#118 - 2013-05-08 14:55:54 UTC
mynnna wrote:
June Ting wrote:
More analysis ("name recognition"):

How many unique ballots contained a given candidate's name in any position?
23410 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
19513 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
17148 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
16335 "Unforgiven Storm"
15299 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
14999 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
14615 "Banlish"
14614 "Psychotic Monk"
14476 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
13862 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
13186 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
13094 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
12921 "Awol Aurix"
12425 "Nathan Jameson"
11987 "Kaleb Rysode"
11617 "Artctura"
11401 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
11107 "DaeHan Minhyok"
10800 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
10485 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
10058 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
9680 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
8473 "Roc Wieler"
8158 "Corebloodbrothers"
7996 "riverini"
7912 "Steve Ronuken"
7592 "Travis Musgrat"
6886 "Ayeson"
6500 "Cipreh"
5695 "Greene Lee"
4243 "PsychoBitch"


How about just counting top 4 votes rather than full 14?
11545 "Sort Dragon" ***ELECTED***
11216 "mynnna" ***ELECTED***
9178 "Ripard Teg" ***ELECTED***
7924 "Trebor Daehdoow" ***ELECTED***
7835 "Mangala Solaris" ***ELECTED***
7753 "Kesper North" ***ELECTED***
7653 "Kaleb Rysode"
7088 "Sala Cameron" ***ELECTED***
6783 "Ali Aras" ***ELECTED***
6448 "Malcanis" ***ELECTED***
6214 "Banlish"
6054 "Nathan Jameson"
5954 "Chitsa Jason" ***ELECTED***
5722 "James Arget" ***ELECTED***
5695 "Mike Azariah" ***ELECTED***
4771 "progodlegend" ***ELECTED***
4705 "Korvin" ***ELECTED***
4019 "riverini"
3908 "Steve Ronuken"
3611 "Psychotic Monk"
3598 "Greene Lee"
3379 "Unforgiven Storm"
3338 "Travis Musgrat"
3242 "Corebloodbrothers"
3239 "Cipreh"
3063 "Roc Wieler"
3010 "Ayeson"
2825 "Awol Aurix"
1993 "PsychoBitch"
1556 "Artctura"
1054 "DaeHan Minhyok"


Both of these are really bizarre because of the top 2 results, especially the first one. The rule of thumb for that is (or was supposed to be) "appearing anywhere is an advantage for top 2" yet Ripard and I got it, with no less than eight candidates above us who had more appearances anywhere.

I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive.


If you have enough votes to survive the first few elimination phases, you can begin to really stack on the secondary votes. Place 14 isn't any use to anyone in a 2 vote system, as they'll be the first eliminated.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#119 - 2013-05-08 15:06:00 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
What "hisec" self-identifiers should be concerned about is "casual" gameplay. That is one perspective that is hard to mesh with an imaginary space council. I would say it is literally impossible to be a "casual" player and be an effective CSM. Therefore, the self-identified "hisec" bloc should be voting for those candidates that purposefully and continuously acknowledge and listen to feedback from casual players. Only then can you hope that your playstyle won't be stomped into the mud by changes because no one in CCP or on the CSM even know what makes the game for you.

Unfortunately, casual players have long been spoken for by a select few hisec turbonerd forum warriors who are anything but casual, yet use an imagined conflict between security areas to attempt to protect their solo/afk/multiboxing hisec wealth generation, which has nothing to do with being "casual" and everything to do with wanting rewards without risk.

The sooner casual players divorce themselves from their unrepresentative unofficial crusaders, the sooner they can become a coherent voice for casual gameplay, and have people step up as representatives thereof.



*CHEERING, LOUD APPLAUSE*

Also I have been championing hi-sec as the venue for casual-not-carebear play since 2011...

"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.
#120 - 2013-05-08 15:07:45 UTC
Green Gambit wrote:
mynnna wrote:
I'm sure there's an explanation and it will make sense if I were to trace the audit log for the top two, it's just unintuitive.


Well taking Mangala as top of the list for votes anywhere - he was down near the bottom of the CFC and HBC ballots. He also appeared somewhere in the middle of a lot of suggested lists of people like Ripard, Trebor etc. In fact I don't think I saw many suggested lists that didn't include him somewhere.

Whereas for yourself, you got a lot of support from CFC and HBC, where you appeared at the top of the list. So you got enough #1 votes to guarantee your place, but not the depth of support from elsewhere.



Mynnna was on quite a few independent lists, including mine.

Honestly, I'm pretty pleased at the overall quality of the people I'm working with in the CSM channel.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016