These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daimar Lavode
#121 - 2013-05-08 15:08:14 UTC
For CSM9 can we see the return of the abstain option? Just for statistical purposes?
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#122 - 2013-05-08 15:22:51 UTC
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 appearing anywhere is an advantage as long as you appear above anyone else you're competing with for the top slot. Every single person above you on that list appears on the CFC ballot, but below you. That means they effectively don't exist when competing against you for the top slot. All but the two PL people also appear below you on the HBC list, so those votes are out as well.
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2013-05-08 16:19:46 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
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


Considering I voted for you on 4 accounts (varying slot, somewhere between 2 and 7), I have somewhat of an idea how you might have picked up some votes... P
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#124 - 2013-05-08 18:28:40 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.

nailed it

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#125 - 2013-05-08 21:38:20 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Malcanis wrote:

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



Well you can always take out the second part of your sentence & force them to vote thru compulsory sufferage. It wouldn't in any way guarenty representation but it could give CCP a better idea of player preferences after the random noise is filtered out.

Malcanis wrote:

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


There are many countries where you don't have a right to not vote. I doubt making CSM9 voting like agreeing to the EULA would be that dificult & while sure people will say they are rage quitting over it I doub they really would & hopefully more peeps would look at the candidates then crawling under thier rock. Plus imagine all the botters frustartions at having to fill out all the ballots Big smile ( I guess the BM trick though would make voing not too time consuming though )
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#126 - 2013-05-08 21:46:46 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Well you can always take out the second part of your sentence & force them to vote thru compulsory sufferage. It wouldn't in any way guarenty representation but it could give CCP a better idea of player preferences after the random noise is filtered out.


The only thing compulsory suffrage "guarantees" is a several hundred percent increase in antidepressant and sedative dosage for GM's answering petitions.

"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["

mmorpg lol
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#127 - 2013-05-08 23:30:57 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Well you can always take out the second part of your sentence & force them to vote thru compulsory sufferage. It wouldn't in any way guarenty representation but it could give CCP a better idea of player preferences after the random noise is filtered out.


The only thing compulsory suffrage "guarantees" is a several hundred percent increase in antidepressant and sedative dosage for GM's answering petitions.


That and people playing skill training offline for the voting period or letting their sub. lapse, and I'm sure CCP wants all these things.
Katrina Bekers
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#128 - 2013-05-09 00:33:28 UTC
Not to mention that compulsory voting means just adding random white noise to the votes. If you nag players with a "vote-or-can't-login" screen, they will just randomly click thru that junk and statistically not affect the election in any significative way.

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>

Katrina Bekers
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#129 - 2013-05-09 00:34:52 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
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.


*Sigh*

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2013-05-09 06:39:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
Varius Xeral wrote:
... "casual" gameplay.... ... "casual" player... ... feedback from casual players...
Define casual gameplay and casual player. In your opinion.

Because for me, they are not the same thing. I have a person in my Corp who runs four accounts and spend 30 hours a week minimum playing EvE. He is not a casual player, but he does like casual gameplay (safe mining, some manufacturing, no PvP and not much PvE). Another person in my Alliance plays only a few hours a week (he is a pirate), he is a casual player, but he doesn't like casual gameplay. This is two distinctly different groups of players.

Just to add on:
Casual gameplay: relaxed and unconcerned

Casual Player: A person who does something irregularly
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#131 - 2013-05-09 08:00:51 UTC
Casual gameplay is gameplay for casual players. Casual players are those with less playtime and more sporadic playtime. A casual player can be someone who undocks for 30 minutes to hotdrop in nullsec just as much as someone who undocks for 30 minutes to shoot space rocks two jumps from Jita. Their concerns are effectively the same: access to engaging play that doesn't require a huge commitment of time.

Casual players exist in every security space, and they all deserve to have their concerns addressed as long as CCP continues to court them as customers, which I believe they do.

The idea that people who want to multibox afk mine with 20 accounts in perfect safety for hours on end speak for "casual players" is a farce that has been perpetrated for at least the half decade that I've been playing, perhaps since the early days of the game. It is a false confluence of the worst sort, and the reason actual casual hisec players have effectively no consistent and cohesive representation. Fortunately for nullsec players, the CFC votes represent solid votes for protecting the interests of casual nullsec players, though that isn't to disparage members from other blocs, just that they represent less of a "sure bet" in that regard; I can't speak to WHs or Lowsec.





Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#132 - 2013-05-09 08:09:44 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

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



Well you can always take out the second part of your sentence & force them to vote thru compulsory sufferage. It wouldn't in any way guarenty representation but it could give CCP a better idea of player preferences after the random noise is filtered out.



"Filtered out"? Filtered how, exactly? By whom? What's the definition of "random noise" here?

Isn't the "random noise" caused by forcing people to vote already effectively filtered by not forcing them to vote?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#133 - 2013-05-09 08:17:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
That's the second time I've heard someone use that same line, and it makes as little sense the second time.

Are people trying to imply there's some statistical method for controlling for random voting in compulsory elections? Because that would defy my, admittedly sophomoric, education in statistics, as well as what I would consider common sense.

At the very least I would like to see some elaboration and references to actual people who know wtf they're talking about wrt to statistics before I accept that such a technique or process exists anywhere but the fevered imaginings of this forum's more special denizens.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2013-05-09 08:35:31 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Casual players are those with less playtime and more sporadic playtime.
I agree to this.

Varius Xeral wrote:
... and the reason actual casual hisec players have effectively no consistent and cohesive representation...
Question: representation for? Other than only spending a limited amount of time playing or playing infrequently, what is it that this group has in common? What is it they would want representation for?

Limited playing time would probably mean limited income so that might be an area of commonality. What else?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#135 - 2013-05-09 08:58:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Other than only spending a limited amount of time playing or playing infrequently, what is it that this group has in common? What is it they would want representation for?


Other than the defining feature that dictates almost all of their game experience, what do they have in common? A banal question. They don't need anything more in common.

Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Limited playing time would probably mean limited income so that might be an area of commonality. What else?


No, you're trying to conflate income and game time again. You can make billions updating orders once a day in Jita, or you can fly for free in perpetuity in nullsec if you can make a 2 hour strat op once or twice a month.

The defining and common feature of casual players is their gametime. They don't need to share anything else because that is the most determining feature of their game experience. Whatever they are doing with that time, the amount of time they have to do it will dictate the experience. Different areas of space have different game mechanics that shape the gameplay within them, but casual players from all security space share the same formative restriction in how they interact with the available gameplay in every security space.

Casual hisec players should identify as casual hisec players first, casual players second, and lastly, if at all as "hisec players" (though that term is ultimately meaningless in my mind). As long as they let themselves be conflated with those advocating massive wealth generation as the purpose of hisec, which always favors those who are anything but casual, then they will continue to to receive nothing that actually suits them as players.

CCP already speaks in this language by using terms like "enablers" and so on, instead of broad and ill-fitting security area classifications, and drives their development according to that schema. It is time for casual hisec players to start speaking the same language about themselves.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2013-05-09 09:06:23 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
...No, you're trying to conflate income and game time again....
Again? When did I do this before?


Varius Xeral wrote:

Other than the defining feature that dictates almost all of their game experience, what do they have in common? A banal question. They don't need anything more in common.
Interesting. So in your opinion what do casual players as a group want?
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#137 - 2013-05-09 15:05:25 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Malcanis wrote:

"Filtered out"? Filtered how, exactly? By whom? What's the definition of "random noise" here?

Isn't the "random noise" caused by forcing people to vote already effectively filtered by not forcing them to vote?


Random noise is donkey votes: they'll be counted but won't significantly wiegh on any trends.

Ranom noise/donkey votes won't hurt any candidate, giving peeps that extra push might make a few ( or many considering the extremely low turnout we currently have ) to actually think about the votes they cast.
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#138 - 2013-05-09 15:20:39 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

"Filtered out"? Filtered how, exactly? By whom? What's the definition of "random noise" here?

Isn't the "random noise" caused by forcing people to vote already effectively filtered by not forcing them to vote?


Random noise is donkey votes: they'll be counted but won't significantly wiegh on any trends


What a farcical assertion.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#139 - 2013-05-09 15:22:58 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Again? When did I do this before?


"Again" as in you're returning to a point that I've already discussed, forcing me to repeat myself.

Varius Xeral wrote:
Interesting. So in your opinion what do casual players as a group want?


Another banal question. They want Eve appropriate gameplay (define that for yourself) that fits into their schedules.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2013-05-09 15:56:14 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:


Another banal question. They want Eve appropriate gameplay (define that for yourself) that fits into their schedules.
Lol You are dodging the question.... why?