These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

CSM7 Vote Match! is now live!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#1 - 2012-03-03 14:38:58 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Xhagen
Vote Match


I have activated the matching process. You can go here if you want to get started right away!

What is Vote Match!
Vote Match! is a service that allows players to quickly compare their opinions on Eve Online with the opinions of the candidates in the CSM elections. It is based on real world services like Vote Match in the UK and Stemwijzer in the Netherlands. The service is particularly useful for those of you who do not know who to vote for: the resulting matches provide an easy way to cut down the fourty candidates to a shortlist of people who match your views on Eve. You can then use this shortlist as a guide for which candidates to look at in detail.

How does it work?
We have a collection of fourty statements about Eve Online, which can be answered with Strongly Disagree, Disagree, No opinion, Agree and Strongly Agree. Over the past ten days we have collected the answers of the CSM election candidates (all but three who despite multiple reminder evemails chose not to fill in a profile).

Once you fill in the questionnaire, we determine where your answers match those of the candidates, and calculate a match percentage from that. You are then able to see all the answers from all the candidates (ranked by highest to lowest match). In many cases, candidates have added an explanation of their answers, which you can see by hovering your cursor over it.

How do I start?
You can go here if you want to get started right away!

Also please spread the word to your corp, alliance, friends, blog, dog, etc. The more people vote in the election the better!

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Mintrolio
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-03-03 15:01:27 UTC
CONFRIMIGN IT WORK TO.

ALSO TO BE VOTIGN A MACH FUR ME, PLEASE ANSEWR LIKE THESE:


A,C,D,C,C,A,C,D,E,B,B,C,D,A,D,C,C,B,B,B,E,A,A,D,C

KEEP UP GOD POASTIGN!

MINTROLIO FUR CSM7
Roc Wieler
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-03-03 15:04:55 UTC
Thanks for doing this.

Never start a fight you can win.
Skye Aurorae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-03-03 15:52:37 UTC
As always I approve of the scientific approach, good job sir.

Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21 - oh well.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-03-03 17:24:05 UTC
Vote match's algorithms are bullshit. You can answer that every area should be the highest priority, on the 'which zone should be the highest, above all others' questions - which is exactly what Seleene did, and voila.

It's a rationalist trap, p much.

~hi~
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#6 - 2012-03-03 17:33:42 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Vote match's algorithms are bullshit. You can answer that every area should be the highest priority, on the 'which zone should be the highest, above all others' questions - which is exactly what Seleene did, and voila.

It's a rationalist trap, p much.


Actually what you're saying is that the questions are bad. It's true that candidates are able to contradict themselves in their answers with the current questionnaire. How that reflects on said candidate is up to the user's own interpretation, though.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-03-03 17:51:42 UTC  |  Edited by: The Mittani
You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.

Rational Choice theory - and the offshoot crap it spawns like ~algorithms~ , game theory and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.

You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.

~hi~
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#8 - 2012-03-03 17:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
I just answered what I thought. If it would have let me list those issues in order of preference (which I've done elsewhere) I would have done that. When compared with some of the other things on the survey, I just didn't see anything else on there that I wanted to tag more than the four issues I tagged. v0v Big smile

Suggestions for the future - maybe make some issues mutually exclusive and focus more on specific areas. Some of the questions are VERY generalized and you have little choice but to select one extreme or the other, which made me glad for the ability to comment and clarify. The issue with the comments, of course, is that they are not factored into the actual 'matching'.

Overall though, from what I can see, the 60-70% "match" range is the 'sweet spot'. Most folks I'd expect to agree with land in there so it's ~working~ in that respect. Anything near or above 80% and I guess you are twins with the candidate.

I still appreciate the effort put into this; nothing is absolute and this is another useful tool for the voters to narrow things down.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#9 - 2012-03-03 18:05:07 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.

Rational Choice theory - and the offshoot crap it spawns like ~algorithms~ , game theory and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.

You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.


You can actually opt out of the algorithm by not filling in any answers and simply hitting submit.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#10 - 2012-03-03 18:16:36 UTC
Many thanks to Dierdra for taking the time this morning to correct my Vote Match survey. I appreciate you giving me a fair shot to be evaluated alongside the other candidates.

Voters - if you took the survey within the first couple hours of it being online, my results showed up as incomplete and you would have got an erroneously low score. In other words, if Vote Match told you not to vote for me, it was probably wrong. Lol

Please consider taking the survey a second time so you have a chance to see where I stand on these issues.

Regardless of who you vote for, the most important thing is that we get a record number of pilots to the polls this year!!

*Once voter participation exceeds a certain threshold, bloc candidates can no longer rely on their blocs to attain the numbers of votes needed to be elected.* Many people think the system is rigged, unfair, broken, and have grown apathetic while waiting for electoral reform. If you want more diverse representation, the solution is already available to us. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE!!

Increasing general voter turnout is the most effective tool we have to combat the effectiveness of bloc voting. Don't let it go to waste, spread the word and help get every single one of your corp and alliance members to the polls this year!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Delici Feelgood
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-03-03 18:19:50 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.

Rational Choice theory - and the offshoot crap it spawns like ~algorithms~ , game theory and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.

You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.


Same for every candidate?

Why can't you assume that people can understand the value of the tool for themselves or entrust them to use it as they see fitting?

I would say most people are capable of understanding it as a guide. Where the more concientious voter will still seek out the issues as applicable.

Also why leave it till now to voice objections to something you have obviously willingly entered into, I didn't see any public dialouge in the other thread prior to this one? But I assume this is just the usual lack of accountability and anonymous brokering that occurs in Mittani politics. And whilst I recognise that the CSM white paper affords you private dialouge with individuals. If you had private dialouge on this issue, why not keep it there than leaving it to last minute to air objection to views publically?

tl;dr: Waaah, waah, control freak tears are best tears.
Lunas Whisper
Chillwater Ltd
#12 - 2012-03-03 18:32:51 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Many thanks to Dierdra for taking the time this morning to correct my Vote Match survey. I appreciate you giving me a fair shot to be evaluated alongside the other candidates.

Voters - if you took the survey within the first couple hours of it being online, my results showed up as incomplete and you would have got an erroneously low score. In other words, if Vote Match told you not to vote for me, it was probably wrong. Lol

Please consider taking the survey a second time so you have a chance to see where I stand on these issues.

Regardless of who you vote for, the most important thing is that we get a record number of pilots to the polls this year!!

*Once voter participation exceeds a certain threshold, bloc candidates can no longer rely on their blocs to attain the numbers of votes needed to be elected.* Many people think the system is rigged, unfair, broken, and have grown apathetic while waiting for electoral reform. If you want more diverse representation, the solution is already available to us. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE!!

Increasing general voter turnout is the most effective tool we have to combat the effectiveness of bloc voting. Don't let it go to waste, spread the word and help get every single one of your corp and alliance members to the polls this year!


I really liked this tool and thank you Diedra for making it.

Now a pubblie question that should help with vote turnout. Where do you vote at?
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#13 - 2012-03-03 18:45:24 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
You refused to place a link to the comments of each candidate in a concise place on the first page of the site to allow users to opt out of the algorithm, despite all the yowling about looking to provide choices.

Rational Choice theory - and the offshoot crap it spawns like ~algorithms~ , game theory and such, are tautological nonsense at best, and easily manipulated at worst. Comments are lost, nuance is lost, and the 'hurr we can just find better questions' fails year after year.

You're not interested in providing an easy place for voters to view commentary on the issues - not without making them jump through hoops of your own devising.


Sorry, game theory isn't tautological nonsense despite what your law degree might tell you.
Tarion Awessi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-03-03 19:19:01 UTC
Methodologically, this is a mess. The questions you're asking aren't suited to a Likert scale, and are ambiguous at best.

You need to go back and fix your questions. Take this one for example

Quote:
Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.


If I strongly disagree with that, do I mean that Lowsec is fine and shouldn't be touched, or do I mean that I don't think its the single most important thing to be fixed?
okst666
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-03-03 20:34:37 UTC
My top-candidate is 55% to my demands...


[X] < Nail here for new monitor
None ofthe Above
#16 - 2012-03-03 21:00:23 UTC
Tarion Awessi wrote:
Methodologically, this is a mess. The questions you're asking aren't suited to a Likert scale, and are ambiguous at best.

You need to go back and fix your questions. Take this one for example

Quote:
Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.


If I strongly disagree with that, do I mean that Lowsec is fine and shouldn't be touched, or do I mean that I don't think its the single most important thing to be fixed?


I too found the questions hard to answer.

Areas like low sec I think are important, but to the exclusion of all else?

I've been advocating well rounded releases that don't focus exclusively on one area. Focus? Sure, but not exclusive.

Anyway... I would urge people to look past the simple results, and use this is part of the decision making process.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#17 - 2012-03-03 21:08:43 UTC
Not a surprise... the higher match is Issler Dainze albeit there were no questions on WiS. Only serious disagreement are Lvl5 missions (they're rotten dead in lowsec, remove them or move them to hisec!) and suicide ganking (seriously? Griefing should be a viable gameplay style? WTF?).

Also would match higher if I hadn't left many choices unanswered because of lack of interest on them.
Ursula LeGuinn
Perkone
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-03-03 21:28:24 UTC
Huh, I got 70% on Trebor Daehdoow. Hadn't even been considering him, but I read each of his Vote Match comments, and then his candidate website.

Designed Wizardry I-IV? ******* sold.

(Actually I'm still trying to decide between him and two other candidates I won't name, but still... Wizardry I-IV!)

"The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community." — EVElopedia
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#19 - 2012-03-03 22:16:15 UTC
Lunas Whisper wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Many thanks to Dierdra for taking the time this morning to correct my Vote Match survey. I appreciate you giving me a fair shot to be evaluated alongside the other candidates.

Voters - if you took the survey within the first couple hours of it being online, my results showed up as incomplete and you would have got an erroneously low score. In other words, if Vote Match told you not to vote for me, it was probably wrong. Lol

Please consider taking the survey a second time so you have a chance to see where I stand on these issues.

Regardless of who you vote for, the most important thing is that we get a record number of pilots to the polls this year!!

*Once voter participation exceeds a certain threshold, bloc candidates can no longer rely on their blocs to attain the numbers of votes needed to be elected.* Many people think the system is rigged, unfair, broken, and have grown apathetic while waiting for electoral reform. If you want more diverse representation, the solution is already available to us. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE!!

Increasing general voter turnout is the most effective tool we have to combat the effectiveness of bloc voting. Don't let it go to waste, spread the word and help get every single one of your corp and alliance members to the polls this year!


I really liked this tool and thank you Diedra for making it.

Now a pubblie question that should help with vote turnout. Where do you vote at?

CSM page in the community web site. Once voting starts the link will be everywhere.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc
#20 - 2012-03-03 22:24:36 UTC
Interesting questions ...... Hans Jagerblitzen scored the highest for me of the major candidates .... 59% ...... thanks for this tool it is indeed helpful! .......... It confirmed why I am voting for Hans Jagerblitzen!
123Next pageLast page