Jita Park Speakers Corner

i strongly disagreed with every option and got corebloodbrothers 59%

You trollin' bro?

These questions are very poorly worded, betraying a skewed agenda. For example:

The industry side of Eve needs more game design attention and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.

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.

0.0 is most in need of further development, and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.

These are terrible questions. Answering honestly, you must disagree unless you think it is absolutely the most important thing no matter what, overriding all other concerns no matter the damage it may cause. The questions should be

The industry side of Eve needs more game design attention

Lowsec game mechanics need more game design attention

0.0 needs continued serious game design attention

Other questions, like

The war-dec system is unbalanced in favour of the agressor and should be changed to fix this.

betray a clear bias in opinion. For instance, if you are like me and believe that wars and war mechanics need serious attention, but KNOW that wars are absolutely not skewed in the aggressor's advantage... then there are no questions to show this. You just have to disagree.

Terrible questionnaire. Get someone to write you better questions.

Get this fixed asap. (I'm using Firefox 10, with noscript and cookies disabled if that helps.)

Edit:
Evidently the site requires cookies. It would be nice if it told you that before you fill out the form and effectively wipe your entries.

The problem with that is that when you say that you "Agree" that "improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do, and should have priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements", it doesn't matter whether you agree or strongly agree, you're saying it needs priority over all other areas of the game. That answer scale you're giving doesn't actually relate to the question you used as an example.

There's no legitimate way to answer that question to say that its important, but not the most important. Its written in an all or nothing format. Its basically a yes or no question. You can interpret the answers differently, but that's contrary to the actual wording of the question.

If you re-wrote the question to say

"Low Sec is in need of improvement and should be a priority to CCP" you're opening it up to actually using Likert scale. It actually works the way you think it does. I say I agree, I think it needs work. I say I strongly agree, I really think it needs work.

Better yet, stop asking two questions at once. You're asking if its broken and if it needs Dev attention. That's two questions. Split it up - "Lowsec is in need of improvement" would be one, and asking candidates to numerically order the issues they think should be a priority would be another.

I took a look at this and have to agree with others the questions were in many cases very poor and in some cases clearly biased. This is not a good tool to use to figure out who you should vote for in the next CSM election.

Fortunately, many of the candidates left notes with their responses, so you can at least use this as a tool to find out what candidates positions are on some issues. However, I would strongly caution against going by the percentages given.

So being the data fiend that I am I scraped the Candidates answers and did some math on the data set:

Question with the largest disagreement:
"Medical clone costs should be greatly reduced."

Question with the most agreement:
"Mining should be the primary source of raw minerals in Eve."

We can take all the opinions and define an average opinion for all the questions and then measure how close a candidate is to this, or, how far.

CSM Candidates Furthest from the norm.
1) Michael BoltonIII
2) PsychoBitch
3) Xenuria
4) corebloodbrothers
5) Skippermonkey

CSM Candidates Closest To the Center.
1) Skye Aurorae
2) Blake Armitage
3) Mu'ad Diib
4) Korvin
5) Lyris Nairn

No this isn't a fix, I can make the data available to those people who want to mess with it.

You can also define the central opinion based on the answers from currently serving members, then the interesting question is - how do the opinions of the candidates standing compare against the current opinions being represented by the CSM.

The most disagreement is over the questions
'Player owned structures should get a major overhaul, even if this means less development time is left for other areas of the game. ' - The current CSM is practically unanimous in suppot, but many of the current candidates disagree.

'Invention and production should be made more profitable. '
Again strong support from the current CSM compared with a range of opinions from candidates.

'Suicide ganking should be a viable tactic and gameplay style. '
CSM support, vs less support from incoming candidates.

'Level 5 missions should be available in high security space. '
The current CSM is strongly against this, but many of the candidates support this.

And again - the candidates most likely to disagree with the existing CSM:
1) Michael BoltonIII
2) Psychobitch
3) Xenuria
4) corebloodbrothers
5) Skippermonnkey

No change in order there.

Candidates most likely to come to an agreement with the existing CSM
1) Blake Armitage
2) Skye Aurorae
3) Korvin
4) Voloses
5) Trebor Daehdoow

So, I've heard the pre polls are saying most of you are getting Skippermonkey hits on your vote match. Don't fight the urge. You know you want to.

Once again, it's like shooting at the Jita Monument. It just makes sense.

I ran the vote match and got 83% match for SKIPPERMONKEY

I'm going to vote for him!

Top match is Hans Jagerblitzen (69%) and Trebor. Bottom match is The Mittani and Psychobitch. I was going to vote for Trebor, but now I'll have a look at what this Jagerblitzen has to say.