These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 9 Results!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
stoicfaux
#221 - 2014-05-10 14:53:19 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
So almost 15% of the votes came from newly created alt accounts, gotta love block voting.

So that's why PLEX spiked. Big smile

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#222 - 2014-05-10 15:06:22 UTC
i'm going to start a Draft Dinsdale campaign for next year's csm

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
stoicfaux
#223 - 2014-05-10 15:11:00 UTC
IMO, I think CCP's next survey should include questions such as:
* are you aware of the CSM's role?
* how important is the CSM to you?
* were you aware of the CSM 9 candidate selection process in time to vote?
* were you aware of the CSM 9 election in time to vote?


Now, a more pressing problem is if the voting blocks/cartels/null-cabels could only muster ~31k votes, then some/all of the following are true(?): sub numbers have really dropped a lot, the block leadership couldn't get their people to vote en masse, and/or the blocks represent a minor portion of the player base.

The latter could make things very interesting in terms of CCP's development roadmap.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#224 - 2014-05-10 15:14:19 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
i'm going to start a Draft Dinsdale campaign for next year's csm



Save it for if Sion and Mynnna fail to do a good job this time around. Twisted

Whole Squid: Get Inked.
stoicfaux
#225 - 2014-05-10 15:43:07 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Seriously, we've got to find a way to get past the myth that nullsec hates highsec "carebears", espcecially to the point that nullsec candidates are seeking to destroy it. Without hisec, nullsec wouldn't operate very well and vice versa.

or we could just let clueless people carry on not voting so they don't vote for people who're equally clueless and dilute the CSM with people that shouldn't be there.

That's a very valid point. If CCP wants the hardcore/non-casual players on the CSM i.e. pigs instead of chickens[1], then that's fine, but CCP needs to make that policy public.

However, as stated previously, given the low voter turnout by the blocks, CCP also needs to make sure they're not ignoring the wants/needs of the remaining (Num_of_Subscribers - 31,294) players.


[1] When it comes to making ham & eggs for breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Dave stark
#226 - 2014-05-10 16:08:05 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
However, as stated previously, given the low voter turnout by the blocks, CCP also needs to make sure they're not ignoring the wants/needs of the remaining (Num_of_Subscribers - 31,294) players.


to be honest, as long as those (number of subscribers - bloc vote total) can log in, and shoot asteroids, red crosses, and white brackets... i don't think they massively care about anything beyond that. at the end of the day, eve is a game, the vast majority of people probably don't care about it beyond the ability to put their monthly subscription fee in every month, and get some fun out of it.

i can appreciate that ccp want people to be engaged with the game on multiple levels, but the csm and future development is a level that only really appeals to a certain subset of the playerbase (and that subset clearly isn't a majority).
Sturmwolke
#227 - 2014-05-10 16:50:55 UTC
Not a fan of STV system (which allows a certain amount of control over an election vs the random element in traditonal methods) and not a fan of the missing Abstain button either.
Infact, I'd have to question the move back 2013 that transited from KISS voting to STV.

No vote from me until you get the Wallstreet out of voting.
Xenuria
#228 - 2014-05-10 17:23:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Xenuria
Weaselior wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
I just want to know one thing, how many votes did I get? Excel can't seem to open this document.


I dream of a CSM that is not built up almost entirely of CFC candidates and their pets.

you came in third to last

the only people you beat were ones i don't think even announced they were running


I guess that makes sense.
The CFC ballot had me right after Riverini. I am not saying that PTP was better than the current STV, I am just saying that being able to nuke a candidate by having your bloc put them in last place on your ballot is silly.


Gregor Parud wrote:
So almost 15% of the votes came from newly created alt accounts, gotta love block voting.


Ahhh yes, that would be The Mittani.
He made a bunch of new accounts, then plexed them. This one of the many reasons the CFC still dominate the CSM.

CSM 12 Candidate
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#229 - 2014-05-10 17:49:03 UTC
Sturmwolke wrote:
Not a fan of STV system (which allows a certain amount of control over an election vs the random element in traditonal methods) and not a fan of the missing Abstain button either.
Infact, I'd have to question the move back 2013 that transited from KISS voting to STV.

No vote from me until you get the Wallstreet out of voting.


yeah really, take the votes out of voting and we'll all be better off. I'm not a big fan of STV, more from a philosophical standpoint tied to European socialism than anything else, BUT, it has generated CSM's with better overall representation than the old, traditional method. It has allowed some candidates with less well-organized voters from smaller groups to get elected or at least make a showing. That would not have happened under the old method. If what you are looking for is someone to get a spot "just because" rather than as a the result of garnering sufficient backing from the community i.e. votes, well, you are probably setting yourself up for being disappointed and nothing in the world is going to change that.

Wall Street isn't part of our voting. Money isn't buying votes or influencing elections. In that regard, we're pretty lucky. Influence does occur but that influence is based on social influence. Don't fault people with charisma just because you don't like the outcome of that influence.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2014-05-10 17:59:50 UTC
Xenuria wrote:

I guess that makes sense.
The CFC ballot had me right after Riverini. I am not saying that PTP was better than the current STV, I am just saying that being able to nuke a candidate by having your bloc put them in last place on your ballot is silly.


you were not on the CFC ballot at all and that's not how stv works

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2014-05-10 18:04:00 UTC
For the record . . . I was on the last place of the CFC ballot

I don't feel nuked

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#232 - 2014-05-10 18:06:52 UTC
if we ever spend 3.15 trillion on extra votes for the CSM i can assure you we will be a lot more obvious about it because it would be one of the most hilarious trolls ever to literally buy a csm seat

like really, doing evil and not taking credit for us isn't our MO

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#233 - 2014-05-10 18:38:05 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


oh as an aside; votes are in may, been a while since i've been in education but i'm pretty sure may is exam season. sensible people value their education over space politics even if they do care.

If I read the dev blog right the avg age of voters was 33.

While EvE players tend to have a high avg in age, an avg voters age of 33 seems to indicate that older players take it a bit more serious, even while trying to play as casual as they can ;)

But I'm not in the position to judge, I'm 50+ and regard players in their 30's as kids ;)

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2014-05-10 19:14:56 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
if we ever spend 3.15 trillion on extra votes for the CSM i can assure you we will be a lot more obvious about it because it would be one of the most hilarious trolls ever to literally buy a csm seat

like really, doing evil and not taking credit for us isn't our MO


What cost?

Buddy invite, activate the account with a PLEX, get a PLEX from the buddy invite, repeat....
Themanfromdalmontee
EVE RADIO ARMY
#235 - 2014-05-10 19:23:33 UTC
One man one vote, all this other choosing lots of different people is confusing. Hence why I didn't vote with my 5 accounts
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#236 - 2014-05-10 19:33:05 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
if we ever spend 3.15 trillion on extra votes for the CSM i can assure you we will be a lot more obvious about it because it would be one of the most hilarious trolls ever to literally buy a csm seat

like really, doing evil and not taking credit for us isn't our MO


What cost?

Buddy invite, activate the account with a PLEX, get a PLEX from the buddy invite, repeat....


They changed the buddy invite system.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#237 - 2014-05-10 19:33:41 UTC
Themanfromdalmontee wrote:
One man one vote, all this other choosing lots of different people is confusing. Hence why I didn't vote with my 5 accounts


It's true the STV method requires a bit of extra effort, but that is the tradeoff for a system designed to try and reflect a more diverse view of the voter. People ***** now about it being awash in nullsec and wormhole reps, but it would be more so under the old method.
SPIONKOP
Spaghetti Cannon
Sentinels Amongst Warriors
#238 - 2014-05-10 19:41:11 UTC
It would be interesting to know how many of the 15% new accounts are still active a month or two after the election. I am sure CCP can also check the figures for previous elections.

This can then be compared against the churn rate during the election as against historical churn rates.

I am sure they can also data map any churn loss accounts to their voting preferences and again see if the mapping is similar over previous years.

I am not sure CCP want to share this data as it may show one or two CSM members bought their vote which would only serve to discredit both the CSM and the corps / alliances responsible.

However should the data fail to show a spike. pattern. or any evidence of vote manipulation then any suggestion can be put bed forever I can put my tin foil hat away.

There is lots of data available for analysis by CCP if they want to do so. It may not show why the votes are down but may seek to persuade others like me that believe the we cannot influence the CSM result and it may persuade a wider range of credible non block candidates from standing.

On the other hand it may show that some of the members have bought their seat in which case they need to take action to fix it.




Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#239 - 2014-05-10 19:54:18 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
if we ever spend 3.15 trillion on extra votes for the CSM i can assure you we will be a lot more obvious about it because it would be one of the most hilarious trolls ever to literally buy a csm seat

like really, doing evil and not taking credit for us isn't our MO


What cost?

Buddy invite, activate the account with a PLEX, get a PLEX from the buddy invite, repeat....

you can't do that any more bright eyes

if the buddy pays with a plex you get defaulted to the 30d game time reward
Jethrow Toralen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#240 - 2014-05-10 20:09:23 UTC
Quote:
devblog
Eligible voters had cast 31,294 votes, meaning that the number of votes cast this year is significantly lower than for CSM 8. We feel that this is due to a lack of awareness about the CSM’s form and function within the community, and we will be working actively with CSM9 to reach a broader audience over the coming term.


This is a kind of annoying conclusion. The first part of the reason is left open - whose fault is it that the community has a lack of awareness about the CSM's form and function? Is it the dopey intrinsically uninformed and disengaged community? Or has CCP failed to raise awareness of the CSM, or even simply failed to raise sufficient awareness that voting for the CSM was taking place?

It could be lack of awareness of the form and function, or it could be informed people rejecting the form and function of the CSM. It could even be the low profile of the voting campaign within the game.

For my playstyle, I find the CSM largely irrelevant. I voted for 4 candidates one of whom did not obtain, therefore I know my vote was not wasted, however, even if it had been, I would prefer it to be wasted than for it to contribute to the election of someone whose playing ethos is not only not in accord with my own, but actively seeking to undermine my playstyle.

For the next CSM if I am still playing, I may not bother to vote. The reason is, I don't need the CSM to represent my playstyle. Market forces do that for me already. I vote with my subscription. If CCP makes changes such that my chosen playstyle becomes unfun or unviable, I will be a bit more proactive than hoping that my elected representative raises my concerns via the CSM.