These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#81 - 2012-09-10 20:26:15 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Naaahh, nothing like that. In retrospect I think we would have done better to just ask questions to the public to get the conversation going rather than bother to include a specific proposal which may or may not have been controversial based on its content. Lesson learned.

The problem isn't the proposal, the problem is this:
"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."


Yeah, I know. I heard you the first time. No need to repeat yourself.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-09-10 20:26:54 UTC
CliveWarren wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
and i think we all agree that this is not okay, right? right


Most of the posters in this thread are. Hans kind-of-sort-of is. Trebor thinks it's just fine. That leaves 11 CSM members, 3 of which were very active in the orignal thread, that haven't weighed in. Don't expect this issue to go away until they do that at minimum.


well i hope that all will get around to make a stand, but then again, i am very optimistic in general Lol

changing the CSM vote would essentially redefine the very nature of the CSM so this is no issue that somebody should shy away from
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2012-09-10 20:31:56 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Yeah, I know. I heard you the first time. No need to repeat yourself.

Then stop saying "the proposal". "The proposal" was interchangeable, "the minimum requirements" which "The CSM believes" is not, and that sets the tone for every other proposal which will ever come out of that discussion until the requirement is removed.

I even asked Alekseyev, point blank, what sort of system we could possibly come up with which we'd find fair, given those criterias. The response? "Surprise me cupcake.".

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

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2012-09-10 20:32:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
get it, everyone expects CSM members to have our minds made up about everything before we ever speak about it publicly, and come ready for battle with ammunition ready. This just wasn't one of those cases where I felt strongly one way or another and needed to know more about this before giving it patent endorsement.

Those that objected to the proposal would have done a better job of gaining support from me by simply saying, this is an unethical system, and here's why, breaking down the mechanics and discussing how it actually disenfranchises voters instead of simply being angry with the fact that it was even proposed in the first place. I think you'll find I'm actually quite reasonable and willing to listen.

Yes, when the CSM secretary starts speaking collectively as a group, issuing 'requirements' and statements about 'what the CSM thinks' people tend to be put under the impression that there was some sort of actual consensus between CSM members beforehand. That sounds like a CSM communication problem, both internal and external.

But do I or anyone else really need to explain to you how a 'requisition' intended by Trebor Daedoow (not the CSM) to 'lower the advantage of organized voting blocs' that have no representation at the moment and just so happened did not vote for Trebor, yourself or any of the current CSM7 members is a massive conflict of interests and deeply unethical in of itself?


While I'm asking questions, how was your statement that anyone who disagrees with Requisite #3 is falling into a 'rabbit hole of stupidity?' misconstrued, and that you're "actually quite reasonable and willing to listen" like you say exactly?
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-09-10 20:34:53 UTC
A question for any CSM7 members:

If I were to survey a random sampling of a thousand Eve players on what they felt the big issues in Eve that CCP needed to address, how many of those do you think would say "the voting system used to elect CSM representatives"?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#86 - 2012-09-10 20:45:37 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
A question for any CSM7 members:

If I were to survey a random sampling of a thousand Eve players on what they felt the big issues in Eve that CCP needed to address, how many of those do you think would say "the voting system used to elect CSM representatives"?

agreed

isn't there anything else the csm could be doing besides devising a way to keep mittens off of future csms

anything at all

throw us a bone here, even spitballing new nex items would at least put you in the "actually did something" section of CSMs
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#87 - 2012-09-10 20:46:39 UTC
the first 65 fucking pages of the csm notes were "a bloo bloo a guy we don't like made it onto the last csm let's figure out how to keep him off"
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#88 - 2012-09-10 20:49:46 UTC
if you want to keep our candidates off the csm, consider tactics such as "being a better person," "having more friends," and "having a campaign platform that actually addresses real game issues instead of diapers and how to make afk mining more lucrative"
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-09-10 20:53:04 UTC
it isnt broke, do not fix it ?

in all honesty, that was the only point that i found convincing. it should be the players who decide about how to vote for the player representation - but that would also include the possibility of endorsing the current system
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#90 - 2012-09-10 21:09:17 UTC
Sal Volatile wrote:
You can't even really discuss the merits of any particular proposal when the parameters for the discussion of proposals include the requirement that all proposals must, at minimum, reduce the influence of organized voters.

Hans, do you understand why I can't negotiate in good faith with someone who starts off the conversation with, "I refuse to consider any deal that is not harmful to you." That's the "attack" part of Trebor's post.


Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post. He said that the CSM believes that "these would be good requirements for a voting system", not "proposals that fail to meet these requirements shall not be discussed in this thread and will not be presented to CCP". You are implying a form of attempted censorship that was never there. Everyone is free to disagree with those objectives for any reason they want and advocate something different.

Thanks for all the feedback guys, I appreciate those of you that have been respectful and stuck to the issues here rather than resorting to base insults and "how come you don't understand ______, numbnuts!" Twisted I'll read through all this carefully and take it into consideration. Clive is absolutely right, reform needs to come from the ground up, not the top down, and I refuse to push for any kind of electoral reform unless I feel it serves the best interest of the community, and has support from the community.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#91 - 2012-09-10 21:10:14 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
it isnt broke, do not fix it ?

in all honesty, that was the only point that i found convincing. it should be the players who decide about how to vote for the player representation - but that would also include the possibility of endorsing the current system


I wholeheartedly agree.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#92 - 2012-09-10 21:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: CliveWarren
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post. He said that the CSM believes that "these would be good requirements for a voting system", not "proposals that fail to meet these requirements shall not be discussed in this thread and will not be presented to CCP". You are implying a form of attempted censorship that was never there. Everyone is free to disagree with those objectives for any reason they want and advocate something different.


No, what he said was, and I quote "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum:"

"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion, especially when one of those "at a minimum" clauses is a direct attack* on a very specific group of players. The reactions of the entire CSM response in that thread only reinforced this idea.

You can argue all day and all night about whether or not his proposed system would accomplish reducing GSF power. Bottom line is, the intent was clearly there.

* Just because you don't think it's an attack doesn't mean it isn't.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#93 - 2012-09-10 21:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Sal Volatile wrote:
Every single CSM response in that thread contained some kind of putdown, except maybe Dovinian's "Hay guyz I'm still kinda drunk," and some of them were nothing but putdowns (every post by Seleene, many posts by Alekseyev Karrde). Basically, the CSM members did everything they could to escalate hostilities and made no real attempt to engage the people affected by this proposal.


This is my first response post in the thread on page 18:

Quote:
All right, time for a few words. I'm sure I'll miss a few of the more inventive theories about this but that's fine.

Discussion about 'voting reform' in the CSM were coming up even early on in CSM 6 however, as most here remember, we got a tad distracted by other events. Even so, during the December summit last year we knew this was going to be something which would become a hot topic during the next CSM term. At Fanfest, post-election and pre-Jagerbomb Gate (pick your title), several of us that were on CSM 6 and newly re-elected to CSM 7 were in Islenski Barinn (one of the main bar hangouts) talking to Mittens about this very subject.

CCP hasn't been silent on this either and has very vocally supported the need to have this ~discussion~. The original white paper / CSM charter was 'masterminded' by a very small group of people with no player input. It's not surprising that CCP would want to give the community an opportunity to chime in on if they like the current process or believe it needs to be changed.

So just to be clear, this is not just some CSM 7 initiative.

As of right now, I plan to have the CSM and CCP try to take as much constructive feedback as possible to the December summit and put together a framework that can be refined even further before the CSM 8 elections.

The bottom line for me as Chairman is that, regardless of any tinfoil flying about, this is a discussion that needs to be had and I believe the community should have input on it. If you don't like this initial proposal, counter it with your own and let's see what we can all come up with. I'm not foolish enough to believe that any system will meet with everyone's full approval, but I do believe in making the effort.


Now, if you want to take offense to my 'tinfoil' comment that's fine. I won't apologize for it because, as Hans has pointed out in his recent replies, some of the participants in that other thread seemed to just be along for the ride. The rest of my reply was about as martini dry as I could make it. I explained where this initiative came from and why it was an 'issue'.

With that said, let me clarify a couple other points which have come up a few times.

The proposal posted by Trebor is something that was being discussed for a while now but not actually drafted out until roughly a week ago. That was the first time many of these ideas had merged into one document. It wasn't intended to be the one and only way to look at things, just a starting point to spur ideas and get others to join in the internal discussion. From that point, while the proposal was put forth for internal discussion about a week ago, in retrospect, a more simple, "Dudes, let's talk about voting!" thread would have been a better starting point for the discussion.

I cannot speak for the other CSM members but, with regard to my own activity in that thread, I simply did not have the time. I've been dealing with a family medical emergency since last Thursday so my available time has been extremely limited. I hope everyone can agree that RL > EVE, even for CSM members.

That being said, I stick by my above original statements about how this discussion came to be and the intent behind it.

To clear up my personal feelings on this subject - voting in EVE would be a grand place of unicorns and rainbows if everyone would get off of their ass and vote. There is a great simplicity to just counting the ballots and being done with the process.

In the argument of changing the system versus increasing voter awareness, I lean toward the later but see no problem with discussion of the former.

A few other things to clarify so everyone is clear on exactly how much ~power~ the CSM ultimately has. All of this is being done in cooperation with CCP Xhagen and, as the CSM Project Manager, he is the final gatekeeper in saying 'go' or 'no go'.

The main points to emphasize are:

  • No changing the voting system just for change's sake. The goal, as stated by CCP Xhagen, is a CSM that is more representative of the community.

  • Discussing this does not mean that it will be rammed through in a specific time frame.

  • As it has evolved, matters relating to the CSM, and changes to it have mostly been done out in the open. I don't see a reason to change the methodology at this point.

Hopefully this clarifies a few things and I believe it is fair to say that there will be a new 'official' thread started on this subject in the near future.

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!
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#94 - 2012-09-10 21:23:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Dramaticus
10/09/12, Mood: PerplexedQuestion
Dear Diary,

Brought forth a proposal to try and stem the influence of Goons with regards to CSM voting. It was not received well :(

I ran out of reverse gears about 40 pages ago and am waffling on whether to throw the rest of the CSM under the bus to save my own skin. This would normally be an easy decision but here I am again unable to take a stand on anything. I swear the only thing keeping me upright some days is the starch in my pants.

Why does this happen to me?

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
Sal Volatile
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-09-10 21:24:14 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Yes, I understand, but that is not what Trebor said in his post.


It's exactly what he said in his post. It was very clear. I think everyone would be willing to consider that it's not what he meant to say in his post, but if that's the case he should retract it and say what he actually meant.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-09-10 21:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
Seleene wrote:

....


first of i am very sorry to hear about the family medical emergency

i think what people would really like to know is quite simple

1) do you support the "Trebor Proposal" ?

2) do you support the idea that there should be a "Penalty for organized voting groups"

what i would like to know:

3) what is your personal opinion, which voting system (see wiki) would serve EVE best?
CliveWarren
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#97 - 2012-09-10 21:24:58 UTC
That's an awful lot of words without even answering the one question that has been asked so many times it's going to become burned into our memories.

Also I like how your family emergency left you with no time to answer questions but juuust enough time to stop in the original thread and troll everyone that didn't agree with you.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#98 - 2012-09-10 21:26:50 UTC
woops

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
Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2012-09-10 21:26:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sirane Elrek
Seleene wrote:
In the argument of changing the system versus increasing voter awareness, I lean toward the later but see no problem with discussion of the former.

Nobody has a problem with good-faith discussion about voting system changes. What people have a problem with is the posted requirement that states: "The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum: ... 3) Reduce ... the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs".
Can you please stop pretending you don't understand the difference, it's getting tiresome and it's insulting the intelligence of all those involved.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#100 - 2012-09-10 21:27:30 UTC
CliveWarren wrote:
"at a minimum" doesn't leave any room for discussion.


Sure it does, and you did discuss it. Lol

All you have to say is "Sorry CSM, we don't agree with your requirements and we would like to achieve different objectives with any attempts electoral reform". Many of you said this specifically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Trebor never once said such feedback would be invalid, and neither has any CSM member since than.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary