These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Information Center » EVE Information Portal » Dev Blog: CSM8 Election Statistics

Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev Blog: CSM8 Election Statistics First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

The Scope Gallente Federation 2,169
Poetic Stanziel The Scope Gallente Federation Likes received: 2,169	#161 - 2013-05-10 01:40:27 UTC mynnna wrote: If anything we're under represented. New voting system needed!

Megarom

Shiva

Northern Coalition.

Likes received: 15

#162 - 2013-05-10 14:41:02 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.

There reason is the part of the voting system that decides who to eliminate. If you have the least 1st spots + transferred votes when the butcher calls you will be eliminated even if you were 14th on all ballots.

Right Trebor?

Gizznitt Malikite

Agony Unleashed

Agony Empire

Likes received: 4,267

#163 - 2013-05-10 20:08:36 UTC

Megarom wrote:

mynnna wrote:

So if every voter placed Mynna as their second place choice, Mynna'd be eliminated in the round for having no votes.

That's an interesting result!

DarthNefarius

Minmatar Heavy Industries

Likes received: 1,307

#164 - 2013-05-11 01:21:07 UTC

Che Biko wrote:

Great stats! As my ballot was unique in its composition, I was able to find it and see my vote was indeed not wasted like so many times before, even though I only had 3 people on it. Cool

If your vote was unique & described thusly there's probably a good chance you where the one that gammed the ballot which caused the ballot results delay? If so how did ya do it? & did CCP contact you about it?

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'

DarthNefarius

Minmatar Heavy Industries

Likes received: 1,307

#165 - 2013-05-11 01:25:22 UTC

Orisa Medeem wrote:

I'd like to see some statistics about people that voted for the pre-election, but didn't vote for the main election. In my understanding, it is very likely that people in these conditions misunderstood the process.

CCP striped the names off too guarrenty anomnimity so I doubt those stats are easily available also in the endorsement prcess it was possible to giv multiple endorsements after your endorsee announced they had made it you could endorse a new candidate ( I did this multiple times )

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'

Cydaen Awareness 15
Reachok Cydaen Awareness Likes received: 15	#166 - 2013-05-11 01:57:15 UTC I'm f*cking confused, don't try to explain it to me. The bad guys went the other way, seriously....

Snow Axe

Republic Military School

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 1,480

#167 - 2013-05-11 02:18:42 UTC

DarthNefarius wrote:

They did say they recorded which accounts voted, they just didn't associate an account with a ballot when the ballots were recorded. Assuming they kept the same records for the primary portion, this is definitely a doable stat, and even if they don't publish it, they should definitely find it at least for themselves for future educational purposes.

"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["

Che Biko

Alexylva Paradox

Likes received: 1,086

#168 - 2013-05-11 12:17:09 UTC | Edited by: Che Biko

DarthNefarius wrote:

I don't think so. For one thing, there are ~hundreds of ballots with a unique composition.
And I did not do this:

CCP Dolan wrote:

[..] 3 of the 49,702 votes had somehow entered the same candidates into multiple preference slots.

I had 3 different candidates on my ballot, none of them in multiple slots.

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate

Draqone an'Alreigh

The Scope

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 57

#169 - 2013-05-11 13:36:17 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.

The only problem with your advice is that to attempt to divorce themselves from the crusaders the casual players would need to become deeply involved with the community to make themselves heard - and this would mean they stop being casual.

I guess what I am saying is the casuals are the best players to represent because they'll never be active enough to prove to anyone you are not representing them! Pirate

Inducing the proliferation of common sense throughout EVE Official forums since April 27th, 2013.

Unstable Reaction Inc. 0
Gaetring Xana Unstable Reaction Inc. Likes received: 0	#170 - 2013-05-13 05:12:38 UTC All I can say is that this is the first year of CSM voting that made no bloody sense at all. IMO, it should be one vote per account. Period.

Gimme more Cynos

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Caldari State

Likes received: 153

#171 - 2013-05-13 08:17:28 UTC

Gaetring Xana wrote:

All I can say is that this is the first year of CSM voting that made no bloody sense at all. IMO, it should be one vote per account. Period.

This.

CSM votings were terribad this year. Why do I have to vote ???-times? Yeah, we do have clearer results now, but who the hell cares about that.. after all, CSM only represents a fraction of the playerbase anyway, so it's not that those numbers are of any real use.... not going to vote ever again if the process remains like this..


Che Biko Alexylva Paradox Likes received: 1,086	#172 - 2013-05-13 13:00:52 UTC Gimme, You don't have to vote multiple times, it's entirely optional. Some people wanted this because then less votes are being wasted. Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate

A Blessed Bean Pandemic Horde 272
Katrina Bekers A Blessed Bean Pandemic Horde Likes received: 272	#173 - 2013-05-14 15:37:01 UTC Gaetring Xana wrote: IMO, it should be one vote per account. Period. It is. For each account, you get only one vote. You can express from one to fourteen preferences - and nobody forces you to express more than one - for which your only vote will be counted. << THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>