These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#41 - 2013-01-16 22:09:02 UTC
Two step wrote:
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


We have never attempted to stack the vote beyond getting a vanity candidate on CSM. I am highly confident that if we really wanted to, we could claim at least 10 of 14 for null. 10k isn't what we have to throw around, it is what we threw around. You are assuming a single alliance when you should be assuming coordinated diplomacy across null. I wouldn't call 4k a minority either, but anything under 2K? Off CSM should null desire it.

No new voting system is required.If WH people want to dilute their vote, they SHOULD suffer for that. Just as we should suffer if we have internal confusion over who to run. (This happened once and we missed a seat)

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

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

Raid'En
#42 - 2013-01-16 22:12:28 UTC
I read the same text as you, and didn't saw anything about CSMs wanting to avoid nullsec bloc to be elected, they are only saying there shouldn't be more than one elected by power bloc, that it would better this way, as people within different power blocs will have different views, and so will add more to the conversation that friends from the same alliance. Obviously there may have exceptions where an alliance have two guys with pretty different gameplay that would both contribute to the debate.
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2013-01-16 22:16:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Aryth
Raid'En wrote:
I read the same text as you, and didn't saw anything about CSMs wanting to avoid nullsec bloc to be elected, they are only saying there shouldn't be more than one elected by power bloc, that it would better this way, as people within different power blocs will have different views, and so will add more to the conversation that friends from the same alliance. Obviously there may have exceptions where an alliance have two guys with pretty different gameplay that would both contribute to the debate.


Read the previous voting revamp thread for context, as well as previous CSM summit minutes. For context. The entire debate is not contained solely within these minutes.

The reason I am so pointed about this, is that it is the 3rd or 4th time (depending on what you count) that this very same issue has come up. The CSM is saying CCP Xhagen is responsible, and I cannot dispute that without more information. So really I guess our gripe is with CCP Xhagen.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

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

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-01-16 22:38:20 UTC
from CSM White Paper - The Möbius Strip

And thus continues another episode in the circular jerking that is the white paper discussion.

Rather than discuss this amongst themselves over the last six months, the CSM decided to leave it be and waste pretty much an entire hour rehashing it all in Iceland again. Apparently, wasting CCP Xhagen's time is fine and dandy. It's not like they didn't have all summer and most of the fall to come to a consensus with each other. No. Better to just argue it out from scratch again.

What did we learn? We learned that Russians seem to understand democracy better than Americans. Irony, here, perhaps.

We learn that the CSM is really adamant that they'd be totally a-okay with CCP Xhagen determining who gets to go to Iceland. No, really, Xhagen, we would be happy if you did it. Truly. We wouldn't create a single fuss. Honest.

(The CSM suggests that of the seven people who get tickets to Iceland, CCP picks five of those people, and the CSM picks the remaining two.)

Xhagen would be a fool to start picking and choosing. Because if he picks "wrong", the CSM would be all up in his craw in record time.

Easy enough given past CSMs, where less than the allotted plane tickets actually spend any effort doing whatever it is CSM members are supposed to do. Picking five people, out of the six actually doing work, would be easy. What happens if we get a CSM where ten of the fourteen members are actually contributing? What happens then when Xhagen picks his five? Does anybody believe that the CSM would not turn on CCP at that point, that bad blood would not erupt, accusations and recriminations would not abound?

Hans was really quick to get butthurt during the session itself, when Xhagen put forth an example:
Quote:
Xhagen: : So let’s say in 2013, CCP decides to work heavily on null-sec for the Winter Expansion. In that scenario, it makes sense to bring over more PvP / null-sec / supercapital experts. For example, why bring over a Faction Warfare guy to a summit where there will be no Faction Warfare work being done?

Hans: Do you think my value here is only because of Faction Warfare?

You don't get a better illustration, of what exactly would happen the moment Xhagen chooses the "wrong" person, than Hans' quick and defensive response to the example given.

Sure, it sucks that some CSM members don't contribute, and possibly get a free trip for doing next to nothing, but by the same token, allowing CSM members to vote people off the island is immediately open to abuse. The CSM could start removing any voice they don't agree with. What safeguards are implemented? How is contribution codified?

CCP is not going to put themselves in a position where they can be accused of favouritism. Or politicking in their own favour. They already went through that mess with the T20 scandal, and I doubt they want to revisit that nightmare. These sorts of things can quickly spiral out of control.

I'd say the White Paper is fine as is. It's really up to the players to vote wisely. Again, this comes down to voter education. The more people that vote informed, the less likely that joke candidates like Darius III get in the door.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2013-01-16 22:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Two step wrote:
Aryth wrote:


Yes, I agree that some of the CSM, Death especially showed he understood the issue. His opinion didn't matter. Just because you do not like your fellow CSM members, does not grant you the authority or power to vote them off the island. The players elected those representatives, if they sit on their butt eating pizza and never participating, that is their right.


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.

Shouldn't this be a concern of CCP first and foremost?

You openly debate about how attending the summits is one of the "perks" of being a CSM member and should be a reward of some sort - and then you wonder why people think that free trips to Iceland are the main motivation to stand for election.

.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-01-16 22:44:48 UTC
Two step wrote:
I have no problem with organized groups outperforming unorganized ones, I have a problem with spoiler effects. That was, and is, my only objective with voting reform.
And the SPOILER EFFECT is a symptom of unorganized voting groups. So, either you have a problem with unorganized voting groups, or you do not.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-01-16 22:47:13 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Aryth wrote:
The CSM can try to deflect from the issue with sarcasm all you want, but it doesn't negate the fact that multiple times now, the CSM has spent precious time debating the finer points of vote rigging and Survivor in space.
And saying that we debated these issues without recognizing that much of what we discussed was NOT allowing the votes to be rigged or for the CSM to become Survivor in space is blatantly misleading.
Except you keep devoting an entire section of every summit to the conversation. We can read what you all transcribed. Unless you want to argue that it was all transcribed out of context.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#48 - 2013-01-17 01:00:59 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Aryth wrote:
The CSM can try to deflect from the issue with sarcasm all you want, but it doesn't negate the fact that multiple times now, the CSM has spent precious time debating the finer points of vote rigging and Survivor in space.
And saying that we debated these issues without recognizing that much of what we discussed was NOT allowing the votes to be rigged or for the CSM to become Survivor in space is blatantly misleading.
Except you keep devoting an entire section of every summit to the conversation. We can read what you all transcribed. Unless you want to argue that it was all transcribed out of context.


I specifically requested that we didn't have a session on this at the summit, it felt like a waste of time. What needed to happen was work actually beginning on the White Paper. We got that commitment out of the session, thankfully, and we'll be holding CCP Xhagen to that commitment. But beyond that, I would have much preferred we handle that through Skype or the forums and discuss something else instead, cause we covered all that material in Spring and nothing dramatic changed except for players (rightfully) making it clear that we should have nothing to do with any changes in electoral mechanics - and Xhagen committing to take that subject on himself instead.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#49 - 2013-01-17 01:11:24 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
You openly debate about how attending the summits is one of the "perks" of being a CSM member and should be a reward of some sort - and then you wonder why people think that free trips to Iceland are the main motivation to stand for election.


Perhaps if Trebor had been discussing the delicious food or the beautiful scenery in this session you'd have a point. Lol But it should be fairly obvious that the "perk" he is referring to is access to CCP, in person. That most certainly is a privilege, and one deserved by those that do the work and will therefore make the most of that opportunity. Sure, it may feel good to say "power to the people, if they want to elect a slacker, so be it!" but when push comes to shove, most players resent it when people like Darius III get to go to iceland* and squander the opportunity.

*Alright, alright. He did leave one lasting contribution. There is a very fancy, very real, golden monocle in a frame on a shelf in the lobby at CCP that Darius presented to them during his trip. It's a fun little tribute to a terrible time at the company. A perfect "never forget" piece. So I won't go so far as to say he was COMPLETELY useless. Twisted

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Tesal
#50 - 2013-01-17 01:41:54 UTC
If people don't vote their bloc in they won't have people on the CSM. Substitutions to the rules won't fix that basic problem.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2013-01-17 02:15:26 UTC
It's telling how petty CSM7 can be when you get a few members saying "We shouldn't have allowed Darius III into the townhall" and a couple other similar comments.
Frying Doom
#52 - 2013-01-17 02:22:41 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
You openly debate about how attending the summits is one of the "perks" of being a CSM member and should be a reward of some sort - and then you wonder why people think that free trips to Iceland are the main motivation to stand for election.


Perhaps if Trebor had been discussing the delicious food or the beautiful scenery in this session you'd have a point. Lol But it should be fairly obvious that the "perk" he is referring to is access to CCP, in person. That most certainly is a privilege, and one deserved by those that do the work and will therefore make the most of that opportunity. Sure, it may feel good to say "power to the people, if they want to elect a slacker, so be it!" but when push comes to shove, most players resent it when people like Darius III get to go to iceland* and squander the opportunity.

*Alright, alright. He did leave one lasting contribution. There is a very fancy, very real, golden monocle in a frame on a shelf in the lobby at CCP that Darius presented to them during his trip. It's a fun little tribute to a terrible time at the company. A perfect "never forget" piece. So I won't go so far as to say he was COMPLETELY useless. Twisted

Yes making voting easier for the populous is GREAT!!!
Educating the populous on why to vote is GREAT!!!

This will lead to more votes occurring, so limiting the ability for people to scam their way on to the CSM.

But the CSM is our (the players) representative body and the number of votes a candidate gets should dictate whether they go to Iceland to represent the community. It is not up to individual player or CCP Xhagen (All praise the great one) to decide who goes to Iceland, how is it anyone's right to decide who is productive? or if the voters actually want a non-productive person to go to Iceland as a protest?

For me personally I would like to see CCP stay as far away from the CSM process as possible, for example no ISD interference in CSM forums and no ex-CCP employees on the CSM but as to ex-employees that too is for the voters to decide, not me or anyone else.

for example
Quote:

Seleene: Dima [Greene Lee], I understand what you are getting at, but the core question is one CCP has to answer. It’s about what CCP wants from this group. If you're translating stuff and so on, that's great, but in my opinion it's about more than watching what's going on and passing it on to other people. There should be some level of interaction and communication. But it's up to CCP to determine what they expect to get out of their investment. If they think it's fine for someone to sit in a corner and report things to their constituents, that's fine. I don't think that's fine, and a lot of other people agree with me.


Now personally I find that comment completely blasphemous, I agree that the CSM working with CCP can and should be a good thing, most of the time but there should be times when the CSM just tells them "Bad Idea", so it should not be CCP stating what it wants from the group but what the players want from the group.

As to CCPs investment, it is cheaper for CCP to interact with the CSM than it is to have them constantly looking at the forums, pod casts, blogs and everything else that makes up the EvE Universe, while I love the interaction on the forums, I would like to see the CSM represent the majority of EvE so that when the CSM talks it speaks with the majority of the player bases voice.

As to kicking people off the island, I agree with what some of the CSM has said. It should not happen short of NDA breach. Yes the CSM should have the power to remove someone from chairman or secretary position but not remove them from the CSM. That is what elections are for. It is the peoples choice not the politicians.

Yes my views are one sided in this. the CSM is the player representative body, yes they are there to help CCP guide the game towards a future the players desire but it is also there to speak for the players.

On a quick note as to multiple candidates for the same thing, for example 6 WH candidates. Well that is something the candidates need to sort out for them selves. Unfortunately that should not be hard coded into a system as what happens if you have 6 mining candidates but from different security types and 6 WH candidates with overlaps to the other and 6 PvE candidates with overlaps to the other 2 subsets?

The CSM is the player representatives, so leave it to the players. Yes educate the populous and make it easier to vote.

So what I am saying is like most of EvE, give us the tools and let us run with them.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#53 - 2013-01-17 02:48:55 UTC
Holy ****, I just agreed with a Frying Doom post.

I feel dirty and unsure of my place in the world.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2013-01-17 02:50:32 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Holy ****, I just agreed with a Frying Doom post.

I feel dirty and unsure of my place in the world.


I re-read it several times hoping that I missed something, and outside of the "ISD stay out" part (and that's just a really minor disagreement), he's completely right. Kind of at a loss for words here.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#55 - 2013-01-17 08:15:51 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
It does seem that Frying Doom did ruin the Star Wars analogies pretty well.

The CSM was suppose to be the evil empire us players (rebels) had to fight and take down, but now there is even a greater force of evil (CCP). And apparently that evil force found its way into the evil chairman. When the evil CSM get tainted by the new evil, they somehow become good. And Frying Doom wants us to support the CSM.

So my questions are these:

Did somewhere in this thread the rebel order (players) defeat the empire (CSM) so the broken empire is no longer a threat anymore?

Is the New evil (CCP) suppose to be the Yuuhzan Vong or are they Admiral Thrawn, or just some super more shadowy Emperor Palpatine?

What Frying wants us to do, is join with the old and defeated empire (CSM) to help defeat the Yuuhzan Vong/Thrawn/more super shadowy dude (CCP)? Then after that the rebels (players) enjoy our new civilization that has the empire (CSM) as a part of it? Or I suppose we don't defeat the new evil (CCP) but guide the new evil to loftier places with the guiding hands of the rebels and empire?

I have read most of the Star Wars books and maybe less then half of the Yuuhzan Vong series. But I am still pretty confused where we stand right now, so I would appreciate it if anyone can help clear it up.

(Also I didn't know where to throw in the "Let the Wookie win" quote at, so if someone can do a brief analysis as well as throw that in, I would be much obliged.)

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#56 - 2013-01-17 13:07:41 UTC
Let me toss in a suggestion for a modified voting system that would help spread votes a little more than the current one:

Voting mechanism:

- voting is "optional preferential". Each voter marks their favourite candidate as #1. They can then mark another as #2, another as #3, as far as they want to go, until they get bored or run out of candidates.


Resolution mechanism:

Basic idea: to elect N candidates, eliminate the least popular candidates until only N remain. Votes for eliminated candidates are redistributed by preference.

Mechanism:

- sort all "ballots" by their #1 vote.

- eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes. The #2 preference on each ballot becomes the "active vote" for that ballot. Redistribute accordingly.

- eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes, redistributing as above. If the #1 and #2 votes on a ballot are for eliminated candidates, proceed to #3. If a ballot runs out of preferences, discard it.

- continue until only N candidates remain. These candidates are declared elected.


Quirk: I'd recommend ranking candidates by their #1 votes, not preferenced votes. This creates an incentive to get as many #1 votes as possible.

Comment: Unlike parliamentary systems that use this mechanism for multi-seat elections, I recommend not redistributing over-votes. By doing so, a number of weaker candidates can be coalesced (by the voters) into a single stronger candidate, but a single very strong candidate cannot drag allies up with them.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2013-01-17 15:44:35 UTC
Debir Achen wrote:

Comment: Unlike parliamentary systems that use this mechanism for multi-seat elections, I recommend not redistributing over-votes. By doing so, a number of weaker candidates can be coalesced (by the voters) into a single stronger candidate, but a single very strong candidate cannot drag allies up with them.

this is the same bullshit trebor tried to pull that got shouted down as a clear attempt to rig the vote instead of make it more accurate

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#58 - 2013-01-17 15:45:20 UTC
also I note issler was so useless that the csm actually forgot she existed when discussing useless candidates

that's some zen **** there man

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2013-01-17 21:03:44 UTC
Two step wrote:
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.

The answer is for those 5 or 6 guys to be whittled down to the best single candidate. Organise, primary, and co-ordinate. Or don't, and collectively **** your votes up the wall if you prefer.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2013-01-17 22:48:32 UTC
This appears to be a topic mostly driven by Xhagen rather than the CSM, and as much as anything it looks to be an issue with CCP wanting to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, all the fun and drama and "oh you wacky CCP guys" of players running for elections in the same de-restricted, player-driven method as in-game political and diplomatic affairs. On the other, they don't want the hassle of dealing with the inevitable consequence of that - that maybe the resulting CSM composition will not fit in with CCP's conception of an 'ideal' line-up.

I remain unconvinced that this is a circle which can be squared.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.