These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM December minutes: The CSM

First post First post
Author
Kais Fiddler
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-01-16 18:28:27 UTC
Two step wrote:

That would be true except for the fact that CCP is paying real money to fly us to Iceland, as well as spending real time talking to us. My view is that CCP should make sure they are getting their money/times worth.


I may be crass with this comment but why should CCP getting value for money on a handful of flight tickets/accommodations be a concern? I thought the main point of the CSM is to give CCP reasonable insight into how planned changes to the game will affect game play mechanics and user enjoyment.

Two step wrote:

With that being said, I think that having a broad representation is super important for the CSM to be useful to CCP. A CSM made up of all nullsec guys (or all highsec guys, if they were forced to vote or something) would be much less useful to CCP or the players.


In this case my view is simply that the cure is worse than the disease. Let the players decide who to send and if they're seen to be doing a bad job then perhaps the players will eject them. If they can continue to garner support then who are you to say that those players who lent them support are wrong. No entity or alliance can force its members to vote for a candidate - usually we vote for candidates because we know and trust them since we know who they are and chat with them on a regular basis, the same can not be said for widely fragmented users. Without a breaking change to the election mechanics there is no way for those who play EVE as a mostly single player game to focus their support behind one or two candidates to leverage their votes and gain representation.

That being said any assumption that null sec entrants to the CSM are hostile or indifferent to high sec is foolish. We do pay attention to high sec mechanics and appreciate that EVE isn't only for nullsec players.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-01-16 18:38:25 UTC
Just to make my own personal position absolutely clear:

* CSM 5-7 have radically redefined what the CSM is about, and greatly increased the load being placed on CSM representatives. The increasing influence of the CSM means we really have to up our game. Right now, for example, we're reviewing a bunch of materials we just got from CCP about planning for future expansions -- before the decisions are being made. That's huge.

* I believe that the CSM is more effective when it is filled with hard-working people with a diversity of views, who can work together to provide CCP with honest feedback from a variety of perspectives, often on tight deadlines.

* I hate the fact that typically most of the work on CSM is done by half of the representatives (or less); it reduces the effective diversity and burns people out. Almost all of CSM7's worker-bees have already publicly stated they will not be running again.

Based on the above beliefs, my current position is as follows:

* I am in favor of getting rid of the "top 7 go to Iceland" system and replacing it with a system where if a CSM rep knows that if he/she works hard, he will get to go to Iceland. Apart from improving the quality of advice CCP gets at summits, it will hopefully attract better candidates.

* I am in favor of changing the election system to something that reduces the "mutual suicide" effect that happens when several decent candidates target the same constituency. Again, I think this will attract better candidates, and improve the diversity of the CSM.

* I do not favor kicking people off the council other than for NDA breaches. If CSM8 has 9 or 10 worker-bees, then that's fine -- the others can go sit in a corner.

With regard to certain assumptions that have been made about my motives:

* I don't hate the goons. In actual fact, goon CSM representatives have been worker-bees who invariably make a positive contribution.

* If the changes discussed in the minutes are implemented, then it is very likely that the number of CSM seats held by "bloc" candidates will go up. It's just that if they don't perform, they won't get to make their arguments in person -- because the overall quality of the people elected to CSM will hopefully go up.

In any case, the final decision is up to CCP Xhagen. I've given him my honest advice, as have others on the CSM, and now you have an opportunity to do the same in this thread.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2013-01-16 18:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Here's the problem, or what is perceived to be the problem. Several CSM members, Trebor notable amongst them, have said things in the past and in these minutes that make it seem as though they are out to get big voting blocs, and the fact that Veritas seems to agree that organized voting power "is a problem" doesn't help. It leads many to conclude that a) the current CSM (or parts of it) are trying to protect their own power and b) that CCP seems to like what many players have regarded as a "weak" or "complicit" CSM, and so is on board with anything to keep out what those same players regard as "strong" candidates.

I'll grant it's a bit tinfoily, but that's Eve for you... though Trebor's advocating for a bizarre modification of the STV voting system instead of merely a regular STV voting system didn't exactly help matters. STV is already supposed to "minimize wasted votes", taking it a step further was, needless to say, odd.

Characterizing it as "The CSM" is pretty wrong, given the dissent over the topic. That said, I feel that Veritas' and even Trebor's concern stem less from wanting a compliant PR tool or wanting to maintain their power than I do a concern for the CSM's effectiveness. Or at least, that's more believable than the idea that they're in cahoots and are keeping up a facade even in a semi-private setting. While quite a lot of us admittedly see it as a tool to advance the "nullsec agenda", nullsec is only part of the game and would be hard pressed to stand alone. The overall health of the game is paramount, which in turn produces a requirement or desire that the CSM be broadly representative of the game as a whole. We, or at least I, recognize and acknowledge that... although I personally think that the flipside is that assuming a nullsec candidate won't care about highsec is foolish. Hell, I actually spend more time in highsec than I do in nullsec these days.

I maintain that the best way to ensure a broader representation is to encourage a higher voter participation, but acknowledge that there is a decidedly large part of the playerbase that neither knows nor cares that the CSM exists or what they do, and won't no matter what. Thus, some sort of voting reform is almost inevitable, whether we like it or not.

So, to CCP and the CSM and such - want to lay the tinfoil to rest? Address the concerns, specifically that this is all an attempt to shut nullsec blocs (or other organized blocs) out entirely. If a voting system winds up only allowing perhaps one candidate from an organized group in, fine - we already concluded more than one voice isn't really useful anyway, that's why Mittani was our only candidate to CSM7. But if a system appears overtly designed to suppress organized voting entirely - that's when you're going to have problems on your hands, and not just from us. Mark my words.



Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to get back to actually reading the minutes instead of addressing this shitstorm. P

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2013-01-16 18:43:24 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Just to make my own personal position absolutely clear:
Based on the above beliefs, my current position is as follows:

* I am in favor of getting rid of the "top 7 go to Iceland" system and replacing it with a system where if a CSM rep knows that if he/she works hard, he will get to go to Iceland. Apart from improving the quality of advice CCP gets at summits, it will hopefully attract better candidates.

* I am in favor of changing the election system to something that reduces the "mutual suicide" effect that happens when several decent candidates target the same constituency. Again, I think this will attract better candidates, and improve the diversity of the CSM.

* I do not favor kicking people off the council other than for NDA breaches. If CSM8 has 9 or 10 worker-bees, then that's fine -- the others can go sit in a corner.

With regard to certain assumptions that have been made about my motives:

* I don't hate the goons. In actual fact, goon CSM representatives have been worker-bees who invariably make a positive contribution.

* If the changes discussed in the minutes are implemented, then it is very likely that the number of CSM seats held by "bloc" candidates will go up. It's just that if they don't perform, they won't get to make their arguments in person -- because the overall quality of the people elected to CSM will hopefully go up.

In any case, the final decision is up to CCP Xhagen. I've given him my honest advice, as have others on the CSM, and now you have an opportunity to do the same in this thread.


I want to throw this out there because I believe we might have common ground on one of your points.

You state you want better quality candidates. The single reason I myself have never an is the real name requirement. Those of us with actual good careers would also likely make some of the best CSM members, yet will not run because they do not want to link their real life with their virtual one.

Why could not CCP allow people to run using their middle name and last name, instead of first name? Or another similar method to allow some degree of anonymity. As it stands right now, the people we have to run either have no real life outside of EVE, no profession it would impact, or are just straight up narcissists. (lolol or all 3)

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#25 - 2013-01-16 19:01:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
mynnna wrote:
So, to CCP and the CSM and such - want to lay the tinfoil to rest? Address the concerns, specifically that this is all an attempt to shut nullsec blocs (or other organized blocs) out entirely. If a voting system winds up only allowing perhaps one candidate from an organized group in, fine - we already concluded more than one voice isn't really useful anyway

I'm not sure how many other ways there are to say "it's not." that haven't already been used to, evidently, insufficient effect.

As you can clearly see from the minutes there is no intent, either explicit or implicit, from anyone on the CSM (including Trebor) or CCP to shut out any group, 0.0 or otherwise, Goon or otherwise, from the process.

The concern's expressed are rather that the information advantages RIGHTFULLY enjoyed by organized voting blocs to elect multiple candidates is never the less too OP and need a slight nerf/balance to ensure the wide representation of perspectives and playstyles on future CSMs that CSM7 has been lucky enough to have.

Aka how can we modernize the voting system so that CSM7 isnt a unicorn.

Part of that discussion is how can CCP minimize the spoiler effect/"wasted" votes OR improve the information available to candidates/campaigns generally without making it even easier for large blocs to stuff. Which would defeat the purpose of diversity.

So if you've already decided having more than one voice isn't useful anyway, I dont see the sense in wasting energy on it. I'd put your persuasive efforts behind addressing issues that actually have and might still affect your organization, edge cases like TheMittani so your one-candidates-worth of votes don't get wasted by an ill timed ban or car crash.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-01-16 19:03:36 UTC
mynnna wrote:
That said, I feel that Veritas' and even Trebor's concern stem less from wanting a compliant PR tool or wanting to maintain their power than I do a concern for the CSM's effectiveness.

Thank you.

mynna wrote:
The overall health of the game is paramount, which in turn produces a requirement or desire that the CSM be broadly representative of the game as a whole. We, or at least I, recognize and acknowledge that... although I personally think that the flipside is that assuming a nullsec candidate won't care about highsec is foolish.

Well, flipping your own logic, you should expect highsec candidates to care about nullsec to the same extent as you do -- but nobody would argue that the CSM should be dominated by highsec people. The key for me is encouraging good, thoughtful, hard-working people to run.

mynna wrote:
I maintain that the best way to ensure a broader representation is to encourage a higher voter participation, but acknowledge that there is a decidedly large part of the playerbase that neither knows nor cares that the CSM exists or what they do, and won't no matter what. Thus, some sort of voting reform is almost inevitable, whether we like it or not.

I agree that working to improve turnout is an important -- but not sufficient -- step, and there have been discussions about things CCP can do to help with that (in the Summer minutes, IIRC; we've also discussed it informally).

mynnna wrote:
So, to CCP and the CSM and such - want to lay the tinfoil to rest? Address the concerns, specifically that this is all an attempt to shut nullsec blocs (or other organized blocs) out entirely.

It is not an attempt to do this. If anything, I expect organized-bloc representation on the CSM under something like what was proposed to go up. I would have absolutely no problems with 3 hard-working goons getting on the CSM, and if the "top 7" rule is amended, probably 2 of the 3 would go to each summit -- and deservedly so.

Aryth wrote:
I want to throw this out there because I believe we might have common ground on one of your points.

You state you want better quality candidates. The single reason I myself have never an is the real name requirement. Those of us with actual good careers would also likely make some of the best CSM members, yet will not run because they do not want to link their real life with their virtual one.

I understand and appreciate your concern, and it is an issue that has been raised with CCP. They are extremely resistant to amending this requirement, in part for legal reasons (though I think this is overly cautious, given that they will know your real identity), and in part because they believe that voters should know who the real person they are voting for is -- after all, they are voting for you, not your in-game persona.

Realistically, the veil of anonymity is going to get pierced if anyone really cares to do it, and the scheduling of summits is such that you can't easily hide your activities from your employer. So it's a bit of a gordian knot at this point.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2013-01-16 19:06:08 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
[quote=mynnna]

The concern's expressed are rather that the information advantages RIGHTFULLY enjoyed by organized voting blocs to elect multiple candidates is never the less too OP and need a slight nerf/balance to ensure the wide representation of perspectives and playstyles on future CSMs that CSM7 has been lucky enough to have.

Aka how can we modernize the voting system so that CSM7 isnt a unicorn.

Part of that discussion is how can CCP minimize the spoiler effect/"wasted" votes OR improve the information available to candidates/campaigns generally without making it even easier for large blocs to stuff. Which would defeat the purpose of diversity.

So if you've already decided having more than one voice isn't useful anyway, I dont see the sense on wasting energy on it. I'd put your persuasive efforts behind addressing issues that actually have and might still affect your organization, edge cases like TheMittani so your one-candidates-worth of votes don't get wasted by an ill timed ban or car crash.


I would agree it might be an issue if we had seen it be an issue in the past. We have went out of our way to not stack the vote in previous CSMs, and to your point, to our detriment. If this was a problem that had actually occurred, that is one thing. But to go trying to solve a problem, when we have the most diverse CSM ever?

That is where the skepticism lies, looking for a solution to a problem that does not currently exist.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#28 - 2013-01-16 19:26:14 UTC
mynnna wrote:
So, to CCP and the CSM and such - want to lay the tinfoil to rest? Address the concerns, specifically that this is all an attempt to shut nullsec blocs (or other organized blocs) out entirely. If a voting system winds up only allowing perhaps one candidate from an organized group in, fine - we already concluded more than one voice isn't really useful anyway, that's why Mittani was our only candidate to CSM7. But if a system appears overtly designed to suppress organized voting entirely - that's when you're going to have problems on your hands, and not just from us. Mark my words.


As I said in the previous debate about voting reform, understanding the full implication of Trebor's original proposal, such a voting reform method is clearly unacceptable. I have zero interest in discrediting or disenfranchising bloc votes. As I said when I ran my campaign the first time - you want to diminish the power of blocs? Encourage more people to vote.

I also do not believe that the current voting mechanics prevent non-bloc candidates from achieving a CSM seat, as evidenced by the fact that I am sitting on the council right now.

To be perfectly blunt, the math behind electoral mechanics is simply over my head. But if Veritas's Schulze method involves the same elmination of overvotes that Trebor's proposal did, to hell with it as well. I really could care less about trying to manipulate anything to eliminate power from a group who's leadership have proven to be nothing but beneficial to the game, or anyone else from that matter. No incident yet has successfuly demonstrated that "bloc power" is somehow a threat to an effective CSM. All I've ever defended is the right to have that conversation in the first place, and to debate these things openly.

If Aryth decides to make a push to "stack the council" and such a stacking resulted in redundancy amongst CSM members and wasted seats being filled with Goons for the sake of Goons that than don't perform, or worse, try to "destroy the game" than we can revisit the debate as he will have demonstrated the very situation that he accuses Trebor of fearing and trying to prevent*. But until then, changes to the voting mechanics themselves are completely unnecessary in my opinion.

This is why I began the entire session by objecting to the idea that we needed a session dedicated to voting reform, and suggesting we discuss the white paper overhaul instead. THAT is very much a worthwhile topic (absent of electoral mechanics changes) as CSM6 and CSM7 combined have simply reformed the process and practice of the CSM that these changes need to be codified and clarified with supporting documentation.

Quote:
I'll grant it's a bit tinfoily, but that's Eve for you...


Hopefully this will come to an end shortly. It's not constructive, and all this electoral reform dramallama bullshit is distracting everyone from the -VERY REAL- need to put in writing the changes that have already taken place on the CSM. If we need anymore evidence that the CSM is not out to protect its own seats in the coming year, let me point out that 100% of all CSM7 candidates that have spoken about whether they'll run in CSM8 have gone on record saying that they will be stepping down.

*I believe the chances of this actually happening are next to none, based on my experiences with working with Goon leadership so far.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Rengerel en Distel
#29 - 2013-01-16 19:26:45 UTC
To go beyond the previous posts, I was just wondering what has come of the email/skype conversations you've had since the summit? Is there an approach that is gaining traction? With the fact the web resources can be used to change the process, are we more likely to be allowed to vote for a council, and not just one individual? If the idea is to have a diverse council, letting us vote for candidates we feel are strong in those differing areas seems like the most common sense way.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2013-01-16 19:41:01 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Hopefully this will come to an end shortly. It's not constructive, and all this electoral reform dramallama bullshit is distracting everyone from the -VERY REAL- need to put in writing the changes that have already taken place on the CSM. If we need anymore evidence that the CSM is not out to protect its own seats in the coming year, let me point out that 100% of all CSM7 candidates that have spoken about whether they'll run in CSM8 have gone on record saying that they will be stepping down.

*I believe the chances of this actually happening are next to none, based on my experiences with working with Goon leadership so far.


Well great, hopefully this issue can die a final death. I completely agree that more voter participation is the answer. I hope that CCP makes it far easier to vote and links it to in-game advertisements in some way. Personally, I think they need to hand out some teaser item to make it worth while. This alone would result in a far higher participation and much less influential blocs.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#31 - 2013-01-16 19:46:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Aryth wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
[quote=mynnna]

The concern's expressed are rather that the information advantages RIGHTFULLY enjoyed by organized voting blocs to elect multiple candidates is never the less too OP and need a slight nerf/balance to ensure the wide representation of perspectives and playstyles on future CSMs that CSM7 has been lucky enough to have.

Aka how can we modernize the voting system so that CSM7 isnt a unicorn.

Part of that discussion is how can CCP minimize the spoiler effect/"wasted" votes OR improve the information available to candidates/campaigns generally without making it even easier for large blocs to stuff. Which would defeat the purpose of diversity.

So if you've already decided having more than one voice isn't useful anyway, I dont see the sense on wasting energy on it. I'd put your persuasive efforts behind addressing issues that actually have and might still affect your organization, edge cases like TheMittani so your one-candidates-worth of votes don't get wasted by an ill timed ban or car crash.


I would agree it might be an issue if we had seen it be an issue in the past. We have went out of our way to not stack the vote in previous CSMs, and to your point, to our detriment. If this was a problem that had actually occurred, that is one thing. But to go trying to solve a problem, when we have the most diverse CSM ever?

That is where the skepticism lies, looking for a solution to a problem that does not currently exist.

Because CSM6 was one of the LEAST diverse and it caused tangible, real problems in terms of little things slipping through the cracks that didn't directly concern sov 0.0 (not objecting to GM's stopping enforcement of war dec exploits for instance).

No CSM prior to CSM7 even approached the level of diversity we currently have and various factors indicate those elements will not combine again for CSM8. War not being a hot button issue, FW being "finished", lack of an obvious WH candidate, Goonswarm and TEST announcing plans to run 2-3 candidates instead of one each like last time, some big names who got/could get by without blocs not running again and so on.

So it IS broke, let's fix it. There's no reason for us to be stuck with this system for the next 3 or 4 years so while Xhagen is updating the white paper (finally) let's make sensible updates to this part of it too.

PS: leave something for the podcast!

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-01-16 19:50:48 UTC
Aryth wrote:
That is where the skepticism lies, looking for a solution to a problem that does not currently exist.

Solving problems before they actually happen -- so that they don't happen -- is rarely a waste of time. After all, it's much better to close the barn door before the horse runs away.

And in any case, the problem already exists -- it just isn't the one you think it is. The problem is that the workload on the CSM is going up (CCP just dumped 2 hours of video presentations and 11 powerpoints on us, and we have to be ready with our comments in :48hours:), it isn't evenly distributed, and qualified candidates who would help to remedy that problem are discouraged from running.

To state the problem bluntly:

* If you're the candidate of a big voting bloc, you can cruise into the top 7, get 3 free trips to Iceland, and do jack sh*t.

* If you're not, even if you do get elected, you can do a huge amount of work (like Alek has done on CSM7), and get jack sh*t.

My personal opinion is that however you get elected to CSM, you should work your ass off. And working your ass off should earn that tired ass a seat at the table in RVK at least once during the term.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-01-16 19:55:58 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
To go beyond the previous posts, I was just wondering what has come of the email/skype conversations you've had since the summit? Is there an approach that is gaining traction? With the fact the web resources can be used to change the process, are we more likely to be allowed to vote for a council, and not just one individual? If the idea is to have a diverse council, letting us vote for candidates we feel are strong in those differing areas seems like the most common sense way.

CCP Xhagen has not made any final decisions AFAIK, nor has there been a lot of discussion about it -- believe it or not, we've got much higher priority items on our plates. I am sure that he will be taking note of the arguments made in this thread, and we will abide by the decisions he makes -- because while he is no longer Iceland's largest land-mammal, he is still the man.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2013-01-16 20:04:54 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Aryth wrote:
That is where the skepticism lies, looking for a solution to a problem that does not currently exist.

Solving problems before they actually happen -- so that they don't happen -- is rarely a waste of time. After all, it's much better to close the barn door before the horse runs away.

And in any case, the problem already exists -- it just isn't the one you think it is. The problem is that the workload on the CSM is going up (CCP just dumped 2 hours of video presentations and 11 powerpoints on us, and we have to be ready with our comments in :48hours:), it isn't evenly distributed, and qualified candidates who would help to remedy that problem are discouraged from running.

To state the problem bluntly:

* If you're the candidate of a big voting bloc, you can cruise into the top 7, get 3 free trips to Iceland, and do jack sh*t.

* If you're not, even if you do get elected, you can do a huge amount of work (like Alek has done on CSM7), and get jack sh*t.

My personal opinion is that however you get elected to CSM, you should work your ass off. And working your ass off should earn that tired ass a seat at the table in RVK at least once during the term.


These more seem to be issues with how CCP uses the CSM or more correctly, abuses the CSM? So if all 14 went to Iceland, and CCP gave you more time to digest things, would that not negate the issues you are seeing? Is your complaint really that you don't get free trips to Iceland? Or are you trying to punish those you deem unworthy of a free trip?

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#35 - 2013-01-16 20:22:52 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CCP Xhagen has not made any final decisions AFAIK, nor has there been a lot of discussion about it -- believe it or not, we've got much higher priority items on our plates.


....confirming that paranoid players have spent far more hours and typed-out words discussing this issue than the CSM, which pretty much walked away from it until CCP Xhagen placed it on the summit schedule and forced the discussion again.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#36 - 2013-01-16 20:23:52 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Hopefully this will come to an end shortly. It's not constructive, and all this electoral reform dramallama bullshit is distracting everyone from the -VERY REAL- need to put in writing the changes that have already taken place on the CSM. If we need anymore evidence that the CSM is not out to protect its own seats in the coming year, let me point out that 100% of all CSM7 candidates that have spoken about whether they'll run in CSM8 have gone on record saying that they will be stepping down.

*I believe the chances of this actually happening are next to none, based on my experiences with working with Goon leadership so far.


Well great, hopefully this issue can die a final death. I completely agree that more voter participation is the answer. I hope that CCP makes it far easier to vote and links it to in-game advertisements in some way. Personally, I think they need to hand out some teaser item to make it worth while. This alone would result in a far higher participation and much less influential blocs.


More voter participation is only the answer to *some* of the problems. For example, what happens if w-space runs 5 or 6 very good candidates for CSM8? They might just take enough votes that none of them are elected. As I have said several times (and you haven't replied to this point yet), that is the major concern of most of CSM7.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2013-01-16 21:07:35 UTC
Two step wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Hopefully this will come to an end shortly. It's not constructive, and all this electoral reform dramallama bullshit is distracting everyone from the -VERY REAL- need to put in writing the changes that have already taken place on the CSM. If we need anymore evidence that the CSM is not out to protect its own seats in the coming year, let me point out that 100% of all CSM7 candidates that have spoken about whether they'll run in CSM8 have gone on record saying that they will be stepping down.

*I believe the chances of this actually happening are next to none, based on my experiences with working with Goon leadership so far.


Well great, hopefully this issue can die a final death. I completely agree that more voter participation is the answer. I hope that CCP makes it far easier to vote and links it to in-game advertisements in some way. Personally, I think they need to hand out some teaser item to make it worth while. This alone would result in a far higher participation and much less influential blocs.


More voter participation is only the answer to *some* of the problems. For example, what happens if w-space runs 5 or 6 very good candidates for CSM8? They might just take enough votes that none of them are elected. As I have said several times (and you haven't replied to this point yet), that is the major concern of most of CSM7.


I haven't replied as I do not feel that is a solvable issue. What system is going to allow for a massively diluted vote to matter? Even the proposed revamp system would not elect one. My understanding was the issue for CSM7 was that they felt all players should get a voice. Voter participation is the answer to that. However, no system in either the real world, or virtual one is going to solve the issue of a bloc fracturing so badly they dilute their vote under any reasonable threshold (14 seats). So I do not know how you would expect to solve a math problem like that.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#38 - 2013-01-16 21:24:18 UTC
Aryth wrote:


I haven't replied as I do not feel that is a solvable issue. What system is going to allow for a massively diluted vote to matter? Even the proposed revamp system would not elect one. My understanding was the issue for CSM7 was that they felt all players should get a voice. Voter participation is the answer to that. However, no system in either the real world, or virtual one is going to solve the issue of a bloc fracturing so badly they dilute their vote under any reasonable threshold (14 seats). So I do not know how you would expect to solve a math problem like that.


Huh? Just about every transferable vote system solves this problem. If 6 people run who are all wormhole people (or whatever), as long as I list all 6 first, nearly all voting systems ensure that it should be the same result as one person running. Check out the giant chart on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems, and look at the Cloneproof column.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2013-01-16 21:43:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aryth
Two step wrote:
Aryth wrote:


I haven't replied as I do not feel that is a solvable issue. What system is going to allow for a massively diluted vote to matter? Even the proposed revamp system would not elect one. My understanding was the issue for CSM7 was that they felt all players should get a voice. Voter participation is the answer to that. However, no system in either the real world, or virtual one is going to solve the issue of a bloc fracturing so badly they dilute their vote under any reasonable threshold (14 seats). So I do not know how you would expect to solve a math problem like that.


Huh? Just about every transferable vote system solves this problem. If 6 people run who are all wormhole people (or whatever), as long as I list all 6 first, nearly all voting systems ensure that it should be the same result as one person running. Check out the giant chart on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems, and look at the Cloneproof column.


No it doesn't. Any system that allows you do to that, allows us to do the same. With 100k+ null players.

Edit with some real data. (omg leaks)

We have near perfect exit polling. Our results are always within 5% or so of reality. So we have the ability to almost perfectly calculate the required vote totals needed for each winner, as well as the ability to spread them perfectly to ensure we are just above any non-null voting bloc. This is through a combination of IT infrastructure as well as organization. No non-screwoverplayesr-voting system you can invent is going to solve that math problem for small minorities.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#40 - 2013-01-16 22:00:05 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Two step wrote:
Aryth wrote:


I haven't replied as I do not feel that is a solvable issue. What system is going to allow for a massively diluted vote to matter? Even the proposed revamp system would not elect one. My understanding was the issue for CSM7 was that they felt all players should get a voice. Voter participation is the answer to that. However, no system in either the real world, or virtual one is going to solve the issue of a bloc fracturing so badly they dilute their vote under any reasonable threshold (14 seats). So I do not know how you would expect to solve a math problem like that.


Huh? Just about every transferable vote system solves this problem. If 6 people run who are all wormhole people (or whatever), as long as I list all 6 first, nearly all voting systems ensure that it should be the same result as one person running. Check out the giant chart on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems, and look at the Cloneproof column.


No it doesn't. Any system that allows you do to that, allows us to do the same. With 100k+ null players.

Edit with some real data. (omg leaks)

We have near perfect exit polling. Our results are always within 5% or so of reality. So we have the ability to almost perfectly calculate the required vote totals needed for each winner, as well as the ability to spread them perfectly to ensure we are just above any non-null voting bloc. This is through a combination of IT infrastructure as well as organization. No non-screwoverplayesr-voting system you can invent is going to solve that math problem for small minorities.


Uh, I know all about your exit polling, but in the end it comes down to you guys having about 10,000 votes to throw around. Last election, I got 4,150 votes. I'm not sure that my area of space qualifies as a small minority. My vote total was only exceeded by Mittens (twice) in the history of the CSM. Assuming there are still 4,150 wormhole voters around, they deserve a seat at the table, and no amount of vote splitting you might be able to do can stop that.

Without some sort of new voting system, w-space candidates can only defeat themselves, by splitting their vote. They shouldn't be punished for having 5 or 6 guys that want to be on the CSM. Like I said, as long as that happens, I don't care if a new system allows you guys to get more people elected, though I do think that would not make the CSM better. I care a lot about people not wanting to run for fear of "stealing" votes from other candidates that may represent similar areas of the game.

What it comes down to right now is that effectively the organized blocs already have a transferable vote, you guys either run primaries or decide on a limited number of candidates. All I am asking for is to level the playing field some

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog