These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Call For Discussion : CSM Voting Reform

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#761 - 2012-09-10 11:04:29 UTC
HVAC Repairman wrote:

put those people into rifters and let them fight it out and the last eight people alive are the csm

I think this is the system used by political candidates in Taiwan, except that they do it on the RL server.... :)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#762 - 2012-09-10 11:32:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
1. As Poetic noted, CSM6 was notoriously homogeneous. While I'd hope CSM diversity was a trend, CSM7 would be the start of it. Without trying to speak for everyone, i think most of CSM7 feels we "lucked out" in terms of having such a diverse council to work and talk with.

CSM6 was also nullsec's response to CSM5's "**** nullsec" attitude. CSM7 was a return to a more balanced CSM - only without the mittani at the helm it looks like it's a CSM which is going full steam ahead to derpville.

Perhaps Derpville is where we should be going? I mean, just because a lot of people don't think so doesn't mean they know anything unlike the CSM that has already thought a lot about it, and not just making sure they can keep other people from trying to get us to somewhere else, like awesomeville.
Lord Zim wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
2. Some degree of increased complexity would be needed to address the things a plain 1 vote/1 account/1 candidate system does not. I'd be hard pressed to describe a way to simplify the system we currently have. The perfect-world solution I'd like (ranking preferences 1-14 instead of voting for 1 candidate) is unfortunately not very practical. I was never satisfied that "Faux-STV" (which I assume refers to Roberts proposal) would specifically solve the issue, that's why I was looking forward to the community dialogue.

Would this system fit within the minimum requirements as laid out by "The CSM" to make sure goons are properly ****** come election day?

It could, as long as they are smarter about not letting us know about it by writing it down in such an obvious manner.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#763 - 2012-09-10 11:35:01 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
How many people didn't vote for Korvin because while they agreed with him he didn't have a chance of peeling enough Russian votes away from the -A- and DRF candidates to win?

How many people's votes were you planning to throw out with the bathwater just to "make sure the ebul goonies can't be organized"?

Us, anyone like us, anyone who likes us ... Cool
Lord Zim wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
If i had to put it in one phrase, the single vote system applied to a 14-available-spot virtual election is not complex enough to accurately reflect voter preference or robust enough to protect that preference if their candidate of choice is disqualified.

So instead you guys decide to bring forth a system to basically try to **** goons, because we're "many" and "well-organized".

And, when we tell you to remove the **** goons requirements, you basically tell us to go **** ourselves, and you have the audacity to complain that we're not being productive?

Well, gonna make them work to get to ***ing goons. We will soon pass 40 pages of "caught ya".

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#764 - 2012-09-10 12:00:51 UTC
i got one last idea that will work for everyone NO MORE CSM
Holander Switzerland
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#765 - 2012-09-10 12:07:30 UTC
serras bang wrote:
i got one last idea that will work for everyone NO MORE CSM

Holy ****, you actually do know you can capitalize letters.
Tolmar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#766 - 2012-09-10 13:04:42 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:
Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP.

Name em?



Where to start... Where to start:

Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot.
Amarr Stations bugging out
Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them.
Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through.
Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible)
So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting
So Few types of Escalations
So few types of models for Player built stations
Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible
Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible

There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws Shocked
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#767 - 2012-09-10 13:14:11 UTC
Tolmar wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:
Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP.

Name em?



Where to start... Where to start:

Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot.
Amarr Stations bugging out
Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them.
Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through.
Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible)
So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting
So Few types of Escalations
So few types of models for Player built stations
Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible
Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible

There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws Shocked




I hear random socket errors and having to relog because grid doesn't load when you jump through a gate is pretty fun as well. \o/

The moar you cry the less you pee
Tolmar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#768 - 2012-09-10 13:16:03 UTC
Pinky Feldman wrote:
Tolmar wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Jake Rivers wrote:
Oh and stop screwing around CSM, there are some serious game issues you guys keep failing to address to CCP.

Name em?



Where to start... Where to start:

Overview bugs showing pilots with blue standings as no standings causing friendlies to get shot.
Amarr Stations bugging out
Capital Ships not being able to refit when there is more than 10 ships around them.
Traffic Control on gates when jumping as few as 20 people through.
Getting Tidi'd to 40% when going through hisec systems with 20 people in the system (freighter + tidi = horrible)
So Few types of Anomalies for people ratting
So Few types of Escalations
So few types of models for Player built stations
Gallente pilots interested in blackops having to cross train because their BLOPS BS is terrible
Minmatar capitals and supers being terrible

There is a bunch more but I do not feel like writing a book of flaws Shocked




I hear random socket errors and having to relog because grid doesn't load when you jump through a gate is pretty fun as well. \o/


O god, YES! that really should have been at the top of the list! :)
Frying Doom
#769 - 2012-09-10 13:17:47 UTC
Well at least the CSM has decided that they need to do this without the minor minority discussion.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
SavageBastard
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#770 - 2012-09-10 13:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: SavageBastard
CliveWarren wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
If you want those 340K players to be represented, then you have to find ways to encourage them to vote.


There's also too many large questions about why this many people aren't participating. Is it lack of knowledge of the CSM? Apathy? Would they participate if it wasn't for certain factors?



Could it possibly be because EVE is a video game and not everyone who plays makes it the central focus of their life or online time?
Samahiel Sotken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#771 - 2012-09-10 14:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Samahiel Sotken
So when will a member of the CSM be making a contribution to this discussion other than insults, hand waving, and defensive sniping? You have stated your position, received feedback and criticism, and been given more than enough time to reevaluate your position.

How do you intend to change or moderate your proposal to address the legitimate concerns expressed? It is time for you to put on your big boy pants and participate seriously in this dialectic.

It would be very helpful, for example, if you were all to clearly state your individual criteria for a voting system, your voting system of choice, and explicitly state your position on Faux-STV. The time for hedging is well past.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#772 - 2012-09-10 14:23:53 UTC
Literally the only thing they have to go back on to start to get a productive conversation going, is to remove the goonfucking requirement.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT
Perkone
Caldari State
#773 - 2012-09-10 14:40:45 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I don't even see this as "taking flak" , we're all adults here and I haven't heard any of you attacking Trebor as a person, only discussing some valid criticism about one proposal.


"Trebor's proposal" is specifically presented as a CSM suggestion:

Quote:
Below we present one possible system that attempts to meet the above goals. We caution readers not to assume that this is a system we have decided upon; rather, it is presented as an example for discussion and improvement.


Could we get some clarity on if Trebor was wrong to imply this was CSM backed or if the rest of the CSM actually supports it? Given the clear wording of his post, your statements that "this is just Trebor's proposal!" means one of you is being deceptive.



You underlined the key points of Trebor's post you quoted but it doesn't seem like you read them. He doesn't state that the CSM is backing anything. Point of fact he states, that its presented simply as an example for discussion and improvement and that it is not something that has been decided upon by the CSM. There is no 'proposal' being made. There was a post made to spark open discussion.

With that out of the way I support the call made by Lord Zim to remove the goonfucking requirement of any proposal thats put forward. There are those that don't like the goon "Family". But for an instant to not believe that it is and will continue to be one of the vital player bloc's for this game is stupid beyond belief.
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#774 - 2012-09-10 14:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Feldman
I am the most disturbed by the lack of Darius III in this thread. The CSM needs to stop using :words: and admit that he is the missing piece to CSM7 and NOT Senor Mittani. As the candidate that represents player apathy, he is the only one with the power to reform the process in a way that eliminates that apathy, the Ying to balance out the Yang.

To quote the most recent Star Trek movie, I feel like this thread and current CSM7 in regards to Darius III can be summed by a quote that Future Spock makes regarding Kirk and his younger self.

"Because you needed each other. I could not deprive you of the revelation of all that you could accomplish together, of a friendship that will define you both in ways you cannot yet realize."

Obviously, D3 is Kirk and CSM7 is Spock.

Sadly, we're still at the part where Kirk is on Earth wasting his life and hasn't even signed up for the Academy. (This connection should be obvious) Meanwhile, Spock is back on Vulcan having difficulty reconciling his Human mother and Vulcan heritage, which represents the CSM struggling to balance the concerns of the people and its own personal concerns.

TL;DR How can the CSM convince the playerbase they care, when they can't convince Darius III to care?

The moar you cry the less you pee
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#775 - 2012-09-10 15:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: CliveWarren
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT wrote:
You underlined the key points of Trebor's post you quoted but it doesn't seem like you read them. He doesn't state that the CSM is backing anything. Point of fact he states, that its presented simply as an example for discussion and improvement and that it is not something that has been decided upon by the CSM. There is no 'proposal' being made. There was a post made to spark open discussion.


Hi!

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:

...

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs. In the previous election, for example, one voting bloc did extremely sophisticated exit-polling; if they had chosen to use this information to efficiently split their votes, they could have won 3 of the top 7 positions on the CSM.


I bolded the important part for you! I also left in the 3rd ~MINIMUM~, which is for the 978th time, the part that's simultaneously making everyone angry and making any kind of constructive discussion worthless so long as it exists. There hasn't been a single CSM member that has actually addressed this in going on 40 pages when EvilWeaselFinance has been pointing it out since the thread was still in the single digits page-wise.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#776 - 2012-09-10 15:38:46 UTC
OMGFRIGATES WARPOUT wrote:
You underlined the key points of Trebor's post you quoted but it doesn't seem like you read them. He doesn't state that the CSM is backing anything.

I was going to point out your fallacy, but I see CliveWarren did that for me.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#777 - 2012-09-10 16:24:30 UTC
I don't think the CSM could put in a system robust enough to achieve they're goals. I don't have ABSOLUTE faith in the "gaming" abilities of the CFC, but quite a healthy respect.


In fact, *IF* the CSM were to get something like this pushed through - I think the CSM, CCP and the NEXT CSM would be in for one hell of a goddam surprise...

Testies, Goonies and friends are "motivated" enough when they aren't getting pissed on. My mind balks at the absolute mayhem that would result if someone actually, deliberately (and with malice aforethought) schat on them in public.

Volcanoes erupting would be subtle in comparison.

Don't schat on the CFC.

(P.S. - for anyone mentally challenged enough not to know how to check corp history, no, I'm not a goon/goon alt/whatever).

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#778 - 2012-09-10 16:34:22 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:

Testies, Goonies and friends are "motivated" enough when they aren't getting pissed on. My mind balks at the absolute mayhem that would result if someone actually, deliberately (and with malice aforethought) schat on them in public.


Fear of reprisal is not a good reason to be opposed to this proposal. The explicitly stated intent to disenfranchise voters is really the only reason anyone needs.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#779 - 2012-09-10 16:35:57 UTC
I mean there is something to be said for deliberately antagonizing the one(large) portion of your playerbase that is organized enough and well connected enough to make a public show over it.

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#780 - 2012-09-10 16:42:28 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
This despite several attempts from several different CSM, yes including me a bunch, to get the "OP says **** Goons" crowd to accept when they've made a good point successfully and let things move on so a better proposal than the initial one can be developed.


This is close, really close to admitting that maybe, just maybe, something in the initial post was wrong. You want your serious discussion, well, oddly enough, so do a lot of us. But while Trebor's "minimum requirement number 3" sits unchallenged and unrevoked by any member of the CSM, we can't consider that any of you want an honest debate on the matter, and that discussion isn't going to happen (as you must have noticed by now).

So, come on, in the interest of having this discussion you say you want, lets make it easy for you. Say this: "It is not, and should not be a minimum requirement of any proposal in this discussion, that large posting blocks be penalised for being organised and being enthusiastic".

There you go. Its not many words, you can tailor them to your own style, as long as you say it, unequivocally, without evasion (as you have), without trolling (as Seleene tried), or without deflection (as Two Step and Hans opted for). Dress it how you like, but just say it. And it doesn't even force you personally to support schemes that don't penalise posting blocks, if thats what you want to do. It just opens up the conversation, without slapping a giant **** off on the wrapper like trebor's original post did. Give it a go.