These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New Dev Blog: CSM election results

First post First post
Author
CydoniusElfo
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-03-25 12:08:09 UTC
My country wasn't listed. I demand a recount!!!
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-03-25 12:57:20 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
~endless pathetic whining~.

Hisec zombies don't vote because they don't really care about the game, most are just visitors. So they get no voice in the CSM. Working as it should.


This, basically.

Although, 10k votes? Really guys? Go a little overkill on the new accounts there, Goons? I'm hardly surprised, but still, it's kind of lulzy just how blatant it is.
While one could argue that new accounts are 'fraud' the simple fact is that alts are allowed to vote. They're not breaking in rules here. Taking advantage of the situation? Yes. But that's CCPs fault for having the voting system the way it is.

Essentially though, it's not a matter of demographics. It's a matter of exactly how much of a crap a group gives about the game.
The goons care enough to buy a bunch of new accounts just to make their candidate into a predetermined joke. Apparently most highsec dwellers really don't care that much.

Personally I could not give a crap less about nullsec than I do now. Sick of hearing the same old lines from the same old people about it. So it's a little disappointing to see the results. But the candidate I voted for (Hans) made it into the CSM at least, so I'll take that and be happy with it.

Frankly though I'd like to see a one-vote-per-person policy, instead of "Ten accounts= ten votes". Simply because the way it works now, it's easy for people to buy the election, quite literally, for a candidate.
Although I suppose people would just use IP spoofing. Not sure there's really a way to enforce a 'one vote per person' rule. It may simply not be realistic.

P.S.- CCP, in the fanfest presentations there was a lot of talk about the 'infinite loop' and 'three pillars' of harvesting, industry, and warfare. You seemed to recognize a need for all three, however yet again you will be spending an entire year on warfare. Salvaging drones and ring mining is cool, but not much in the scheme of things.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2012-03-25 13:19:50 UTC
Prodomicer wrote:
It's all a SCAM !


Pretty much sums it all up right there.
Teclador
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-03-25 13:44:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Teclador
The Chairman should not be based dictated of the most votes from the community, but internally in a vote of all members elected to the CSM, to avoid manipulations

This is the case of real life way of working for every Chairman, he is normaly voted out of the pool of all Members of the Council in an Internal Vote

This and new Accounts should be only counted if they are older than 6 Month as a minimum Age.
AND i want an Option to the next CSM Votes that i can give someone a Negative Vote, so that i can say i wont this particular person in the CSM.


So and now congratulation to all new Members in the Council.
Xiaodown
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-03-25 14:18:28 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Out of 10,000 new votes, we know that 8,500 have been rigged by the blocs (they can be tracked even from within CCP Diagora's daily updates)



Oh, my god, shut up, you are literally retarded


Quote:
Age in days Frequency Cumulative

30 8,447 14.29%

250 8,489 28.65%

500 7,551 41.43%


8,447 votes were AT LEAST 30 and NOT MORE THAN 250 days old. 1 month < these voters < 8 months.

Take your whining and your conspiracy theory, and blow it out your ass.
Triskian
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2012-03-25 14:30:28 UTC
10058
Largo Coronet
Perkone
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-03-25 14:41:11 UTC
Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:
P.S.- CCP, in the fanfest presentations there was a lot of talk about the 'infinite loop' and 'three pillars' of harvesting, industry, and warfare. You seemed to recognize a need for all three, however yet again you will be spending an entire year on warfare. Salvaging drones and ring mining is cool, but not much in the scheme of things.
This is an area you will find The Mittani in complete agreement with you. After all, if the harvesting and industry parts don't attract enough people, who are we going to suicide gank?Pirate

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.

Someday, this signature may save my life.

Silath Slyver Silverpine
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-03-25 14:57:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Silath Slyver Silverpine
Largo Coronet wrote:
This is an area you will find The Mittani in complete agreement with you. After all, if the harvesting and industry parts don't attract enough people, who are we going to suicide gank?Pirate



To be frank, I have to admire the fact that Mittani is able to (seemingly, I'm far from an expert) unite the goons in the way that he does.
The simple fact is that leadership requires, and always will, a certain amount of underhandedness and manipulation. It's just the way the game works.

One cannot deny the fact that he is able to lead people and accomplish things. The unfortunate thing for me is that I do not usually agree with those people and their goals.
I suppose what I'm saying is this: If you can get it in EVE, you deserve to have it. And that's very much something that goes with the theme of what EVE is.

I'm not going to hate on nullsec players for voting nullsec candidates. It just doesn't necessarily serve my views and so I don't like it. The fact is that PVP players are generally far more passionate about the game than carebears. There are certainly carebears like me that are passionate about EVE, but I think we're in the minority. If we weren't, well... we'd have our own people like Mittani. There's no moral high ground when it comes to politics. Anyone that thinks there is, is going to fail

What's done is done though, so there's not really an intrinsic value in discussing this stuff. I just think it's fun and interesting Smile
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#69 - 2012-03-25 15:32:32 UTC
You guys who insist that Mittani is pushing an agenda that only servers his voter base are correct.By pushing to make the game more fun for the players instead of alliance leaders, by pushing for more and better ways for players to make more money. By Giving players more control over an alliances income, he makes the game more interesting to it's players, thereby serving the needs of his voters.

Voting along party lines because you believe in them is nothing new, and really is how voting is supposed to work. If high sec dwellers really cared, they could vote as a bloc and elect one person and beat Mittani, but they obviously don't want to.

The Mittani is here to save you from yourselves.

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]

Jita Joe2 Jones
taxes are for communists
#70 - 2012-03-25 15:56:30 UTC
1 hi sec representative! what a waste of time you would get better representation if the CSM was just randomly selected
Lexmana
#71 - 2012-03-25 16:16:00 UTC
Jita Joe2 Jones wrote:
1 hi sec representative! what a waste of time you would get better representation if the CSM was just randomly selected


lol. You are so correct and that is why we choose to have elections in democracies.


Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#72 - 2012-03-25 16:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn
couple things come in my mind from results
1. maybe in next election accounts of certain age should be left out. reason: too easy to get everyone buy like 1 plex to activate alt for voting. seems too obvious manipulation
2. this is what i've been saying before. too many voters are centered in certain places/language block. "smaller" language/cultural groups will have difficulties for getting presentation. in long term this will have effect
3. well surprise certain game aspects where people can somehow relate themselves as "one" group are getting the representation again

The Mittani - goons, 0.0 alliances in genera
Two Step - Wormholes (afaik rather subjective about defending "rights" of wh dwellers instead of making it better place
Elise Randolph - PL, 0.0 alliances too lazy to keep sov/blobs, carebear pubbies with too much money and titans
Greene Lee - AAA, 0.0 alliances/blobs in genera Trebor Daehdoow - HiSec, generally people who don't know how to play this game
Kelduum Revaan - EVEUni - newbiehelp, people who care if people know how to play this game
Seleene - pubbies/scrubs/people who will never win this gam
UAxDEATH - xxcoolnamexx, 0.0 alliances (imo coolest 0.0 bloballiance guy tbh
Hans Jagerblitzen - Faction warfare, people who think they know how to pvp after ganking a merlin, don't want to actually risk anything for pvp or have effort, silly roleplayers who think game should do what they wan
Meissa Anunthiel - Rooks&Kings, rich pubbies who want to pvp
Dovinian - TEST, lol??? People who are bad at everything
Issler Dainze - mining, lets make afk money while being nice to each other
Alekseyev Karrde - Noir, mercenaries, not total idiot
Darius III - brick squad, missions and incursions, generally fun stuf

Please do correct me if I am wrong and there's someone who actually does pvp for making isk out of loot in low sec/0.0
Gabriel Darkefyre
Gradient
Electus Matari
#73 - 2012-03-25 18:40:28 UTC
Whole pile of statistics being thrown around here, all pointing to one thing:-

Two people can take the same set of data and make it point towards conclusions completely opposite to each other.



Seriously though, congratulations to the successful candidates!
Alyssa Cristole
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2012-03-25 18:53:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alyssa Cristole
Lapine Davion wrote:
I was under the impression that accounts with less than 2 months on them couldn't vote. Is that incorrect?


I couldn't vote because it said I was less then 30 days, even though my account is paid till September. To answer your question, I think it was anyone with more then 30 days got a vote. I don't have an alt account and have no intention on ever setting one up. I think alts break the game and certainly break voting.

If they want to have a legitimate election they should have a stipulation that all accounts that get a vote must have at least three months left on their paid subscription. This should cut back on the throwaway alt accounts voting as it would be a minimum of $35 per vote or three plex.

Don't forget all you have to do to cheat the system is create a trial account, wait the 15 days, and use the buddy system for plex reward exploit where you can make unlimited 1 month alts all for just 2 plex. Its simple, first trail account waits 15 days and then buys a plex or signs up for 1 month $15 subscription, then they make another trial account and wait 15 days then use the buddy referral from the first account to sign up the second one, making one plex. Continue the process piggy backing off the one plex reward with trial alts and buddy accounts; you have unlimited alts all with just over 30 days so they can vote. Great way to break the system.

Anyone find it funny how "The Power of Two" promotion comes out right around election time? Do you really expect a fair election when its all about who can spend the most [real and in game] money rigging the system. A few weeks ago I remember someone in new player chat offering ships and isk for votes.

At least Eve can boast they have a system of representation that exactly mirrors real life politics. Money buys elections and in the end you have politicians from the minority, representing only the minority. No one should be shocked at how this election turned out; it should just be expected.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#75 - 2012-03-25 19:24:01 UTC
Alyssa Cristole wrote:
~more conspiracy bullshit~


Accounts that were made with buddy program have to be 60 days old to be eligible, not 30 days.

Restricting votes to people who have the money to pay three months in advance would hurt the many people who pay with plex and grind every month to get their next plex so they can continue playing. (I pay my accounts for 6 or 12 months in advance.)

Funny how the people whining about unfair elections think of so many ways to shut out legitimate voters. You remind me of a certain political party in the USA.

As was pointed out, the number of ~8,500 "noob votes" includes everyone who was over 30 up to 250 days old. (Though I'd say this should have been expressly emphasized in the blog.)

.

Dibble Dabble
Capital Assets Inc
#76 - 2012-03-25 19:44:01 UTC
Another win for the plex bought lemmings and their fools. The CSM does not represent the interersts of most players who dont really give a **** about it. The result was known before a vote was cast.

When will CCP see that their vanity CSM project is a smoke screen to many problems.

The CSM will not halt the falling membership and lack of active noobs (other than alt accounts) Maybe they should look at the cheating, the alliance sponsored RMT, the alliance supported BOTS as the reasons people are losing interest. But wait the very same alliances that are the problem are indeed the CSM. Anyone see the irony here?

The CSM is a joke and and of those 10,000 who voted for the goons I wonder how many are paid for accounts rather than alliance funded plex noob accounts?

Lets hope that CCP have the balls to admit the CSM election was rigged and to abolish it.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#77 - 2012-03-25 20:36:40 UTC
I personally congratulate Two Step in winning second place in the election, he's made a big jump from an alternate delegate with barely any votes to one who reached second with votes surpassing everyone except Mittani.

Shows that hard work and dedication has its rewards. Keep up the good work!
Blastcaps Madullier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-03-25 20:38:28 UTC
well one way to verify votes and to account for the same people voting for the same people on alts is for CCP to check billing info on the accounts and delete alt votes from the counts, EULA requires players to submit their REAL ID and address, so shouldn't be hard to wheedle out multiple votes by the same person on multiple accounts.
Be interesting to see what the results pan out to after CCP eliminates the multi account votes.
Marduk Nibiru
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2012-03-25 20:39:03 UTC
Quote:


3,163

Kelduum Revaan


I find this incredibly depressing. I was hoping for improvements to hisec war. Guess we can only look forward to more of the dec-shield tactic crap that makes hisec a total waste.
Sidus Sarmiang
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-03-25 22:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sidus Sarmiang
Really, there're three options if you really dislike the results of this election or goons or something.

1. Grow up a little. CCP's focus for this year is looking more and more like it's going to be on industry and PvE which is what a good chunk of the angry folks wanted to begin with. We'll still ask for changes to PvP as well, but that's because there're still clear issues.

2. Whine and ***** and demand changes to the voting mechanics, amusing us and rendering yourself irrelevant. Even if the voting mechanics were changed, we'd still win because the conspiracy theories that keep getting proposed only exist in your heads. Of course, when the mechanic changes fail, you'll still be convinced that we cheated somehow so you'll come up with new ones.

In reality, it's all just a mask for what you really want, which is to force the CSM to be what you think it should be, because you think there's a silent majority out there that agrees with you. It's not that you're a sperger incapable of acknowledging differing opinions or that, God forbid, you may be wrong and people might not all approve in masse of your ideas after all; you're a valiant crusader for Invisible Pubbies (Mittens 2012).

Why, oh why won't the CSM listen to the silent majority?

Because they're silent.

And non-existent.

You stupid pubbie.

3. Create your own voting bloc and push a candidate. You won't do this because it might require discovering that not all that many people agree with you after all, and you'll end up having to confront your own flaws. Also you're probably a lazy ball of fat whose big initiative today was waddling from the computer to the fridge to the bathroom to the computer and maybe thinking about taking a shower (you didn't).