These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#61 - 2013-01-18 00:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Quote:
I remain unconvinced that this is a circle which can be squared.


Yeah, I don't think it will be squared either really.

Seems like the upcoming election, will just have the same old problems as it did last year. Be a surprise how it goes.

I did like how the CSM ended up this time, but perhaps next time we won't be so lucky, and doesn't seem like there is anything we can do to increase the luck.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#62 - 2013-01-18 01:05:51 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
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
You'll pardon my ignorance, but where I come from "bullshit" is "deliberate falsehood designed to convince people of one thing while doing another". Considering that I am completely serious in exploring the pros and cons of this proposal, I don't find "bullshit" an enlightening counter-argument. In fact, the failure to link to a discussion where this idea is investigated and found wanting rather than hand-waved away suggests that the counter argument is perhaps "bullshit".

Given that the CSM is an advisory rather than legislatory body, there seems to be little direct benefit in encouraging blocs to submit multiple candidates. Instead, a single candidate that can show the strength of the bloc is more beneficial. Similarly, there is benefit in having a mechanism that can catch smaller candidates up into a pseudo-bloc. On a non-voting council, having three people who speak for the same 10,000 rather than just one doesn't actually increase the representation of that 10k, it just blocks representation for others.

FWIW: I don't personally feel disenfranchised. I voted for Kelduum (elected), and hoped Trebor would be elected (he was). I'm just interested in electoral systems and am looking for ways to bias the system towards diversity without introducing quotas or hard-to-understand voting mechanisms.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-01-18 01:20:07 UTC
Debir Achen wrote:
In fact, the failure to link to a discussion where this idea is investigated and found wanting rather than hand-waved away suggests that the counter argument is perhaps "bullshit".
Here you go:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unread

Enjoy.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#64 - 2013-01-18 02:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
On "stacking the deck":

TEST and GSF are individually large enough to elect their own candidates independently. RZR/FA could combine their votes and elect a guy and the smaller CFC alliances could combine their votes to do the same. That's already 4-5 delegates. TRIBE and Unclaimed can field another guy, Raiden and PL can combine their votes for Elise, and the smaller HBC member alliances could combine votes for someone else. Solar and their renter alliance can field someone, Nulli and NCdot could combine their votes and, well, that's already more than half of the CSM.

We can definitely do this and the communication necessary for such coordination already exists. There is just no need for what is literally a nullsec-controlled CSM unless some nonsensical "vote off the island" clause ends up in the white paper.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#65 - 2013-01-18 02:42:52 UTC
^ That also admits, the chairman will always be a null sec candidate though. As well as probably most of the top positions.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2013-01-18 03:32:30 UTC
rodyas wrote:
^ That also admits, the chairman will always be a null sec candidate though. As well as probably most of the top positions.


So long as they keep the "top vote getter is chair, top seven go to iceland" model anyway.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2013-01-18 03:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
rodyas wrote:
^ That also admits, the chairman will always be a null sec candidate though. As well as probably most of the top positions.


And if you change the process to be determined by CSM internal voting, it means more council members = better (as opposed to now where that's not really true), which means not only will all of those positions still belong to voting blocs, they'd also hold a monopoly on CSM seats in the process and pushed out good but less popular candidates like Hans or Alekseyev in the process.

Besides, saying all of the other positions would be bloc positions is being a bit dishonest - Two Step was far and away the #2 candidate this year (he also had IIRC the 3rd highest vote total of any CSM candidate ever), and would have been the Chairman this year had CCP stuck to the letter of the current white paper in the wake of the Fanfest nonsense (not that I blame them for straying from it - it was an odd situation all around).

"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["

Ossirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2013-01-18 04:15:30 UTC
Confirming by the first 4 pages of arguments most people didn't get past page 20.


On another note im guessing that there was a ton of stuff that was NDA edited? Wheres the stuff about POS reworks? With all the time spent on that last CSM meet i was sure to see a lively debate on what CCP planned to do with this situation.

I came to the CSM minutes to make sure CCP wasnt going to break wormholes... i left sadly less informed about the state of POS's
Frying Doom
#69 - 2013-01-18 06:00:40 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
rodyas wrote:
^ That also admits, the chairman will always be a null sec candidate though. As well as probably most of the top positions.


And if you change the process to be determined by CSM internal voting, it means more council members = better (as opposed to now where that's not really true), which means not only will all of those positions still belong to voting blocs, they'd also hold a monopoly on CSM seats in the process and pushed out good but less popular candidates like Hans or Alekseyev in the process.

Besides, saying all of the other positions would be bloc positions is being a bit dishonest - Two Step was far and away the #2 candidate this year (he also had IIRC the 3rd highest vote total of any CSM candidate ever), and would have been the Chairman this year had CCP stuck to the letter of the current white paper in the wake of the Fanfest nonsense (not that I blame them for straying from it - it was an odd situation all around).

Actually I rather like the CSM voting on the chairman, secretary ect...

It makes the positions worth a whole lot more

Look at it this way under the current system any block, be it Goonswarm, TEST or The Gay and Lesbian Rifter Owners Association, just need to have one person and make that one the top person voted. Now this while ok means it takes a lot less effort.

To have the CSM vote on the Chairman, secretary ect.. means that to have any of these positions in the bag as it were requires 8 CSM members willing to vote for the same person.

So look at it this way currently to guarantee a chairmanship for instance requires 10,000 votes, for the absolute win. If the CSM vote it requires 8 guaranteed CSM members so 5,000 votes each or a total of 40,000 votes.

As I said CSM members voting positions is good, CSM or CCP deciding who goes to Iceland is bad.

Lets be blunt, I could not care less if Goonswarm won all 14 seats with a massive 300,000 votes.

It is not the result that matters but the 300,000 votes, it will mean that the CSM is talking for the majority of EvE. CCP and the CSM should not be worrying about new voting systems or anything like that, just voter participation and education.

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

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#70 - 2013-01-18 06:38:19 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
rodyas wrote:
^ That also admits, the chairman will always be a null sec candidate though. As well as probably most of the top positions.


And if you change the process to be determined by CSM internal voting, it means more council members = better (as opposed to now where that's not really true), which means not only will all of those positions still belong to voting blocs, they'd also hold a monopoly on CSM seats in the process and pushed out good but less popular candidates like Hans or Alekseyev in the process.

Besides, saying all of the other positions would be bloc positions is being a bit dishonest - Two Step was far and away the #2 candidate this year (he also had IIRC the 3rd highest vote total of any CSM candidate ever), and would have been the Chairman this year had CCP stuck to the letter of the current white paper in the wake of the Fanfest nonsense (not that I blame them for straying from it - it was an odd situation all around).


Yeah I forgot about Two Step and how well he did. I think I was mostly thrown off by thinking about TEST and how large they have grown. It seemed stupidly large, and wasn't sure what they will do for future CSM races.

Yeah and as long as they keep the current model as well.

Never really thought about changing that model, but chairman does seem to be an important role though. Beyond just the basic importance of CSM. As well as the other positions.

I do think the only unique thing I can think to add to the election rules and running really is the journalism or player perspectives.

Like a bloc could rig an election. But most likely people would talk or post about it really. Then they could end up looking like a joke really. Even in the sense of a null sec block, (The ones we are worried about). Looking like a joke would be bad for morale and could lose players. I suppose we are just too worried about their competence and no one really pointing it out when they are not competent, so we will feel had, when they rig an election.

I mean look at how good the goons are at calling out trebor and trying to turn him into a joke, about his politics and theories. Suppose trying to squeak out an election would be quite bitter if it was pulled off. Just saying null sec blocks could get the same treatment, so it might not be so great of an experience.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#71 - 2013-01-18 10:55:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Debir Achen
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=151917&find=unread
Thanks, I missed that thread.

Though having reached page 10 thus far, it seems to mainly be a lot of aggro from people who don't fundamentally grok the difference between electing an advisory council and a legislature. As I see it, the CSM voting system wants get representatives of as many voters as possible while limiting the number of seats.

As a purely hypothetical example, consider if E-UNI* could muster 6000 votes. We figure that 2.5k is enough to be elected, and have a choice between either all voting for our preferred candidate (Poetic), or splitting off half the votes to their second candidate (Hans). In one case, we get one seat (Poetic), who represents 6000 votes. In the other, we get two seats representing a total of 6000 votes. Which is mostly the same, except that there's another 2000 votes out there who now won't get a seat or a direct voice (such as Rixx Javix's Carebear Coalition).

In order to maximise the number of voters represented, it is to CCP's advantage to aggregate more voters behind each successful candidate, and that means "over-voting" is good.


Now, one could argue that different candidates from a bloc bring more to the table as individuals. That's indeed true. But you're also implicitly arguing that having (say) 3 PL members gives a better, broader representation than having one from PL, one from Rote Kapelle, and one representing a hi-sec industry consortium. That's a much higher bar, and far less obviously true.

Now, it's obviously still possible to game the system given a sufficiently large base, but the threshold is increased somewhat.


* Example only. Names chosen primarily for humour value.


PS: At the philosophical level, I'm not sure I have a strong opinion either way on per-voter or per-candidate preference distribution. At the personal level, I'd much rather distribute my own preferences.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2013-01-18 11:01:33 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually I rather like the CSM voting on the chairman, secretary ect...

It makes the positions worth a whole lot more


Which is precisely why it would be impetus for blocs to put as many members on the council as possible, position be damned. Not a good thing for anyone outside the bloc (or even within the bloc, long term).

That said, I do agree with the CSM themselves delegating the other strictly "more work" roles - secretary, etc. Chair/vice chair should always be decided by the players, though.

Frying Doom wrote:
To have the CSM vote on the Chairman, secretary ect.. means that to have any of these positions in the bag as it were requires 8 CSM members willing to vote for the same person.

So look at it this way currently to guarantee a chairmanship for instance requires 10,000 votes, for the absolute win. If the CSM vote it requires 8 guaranteed CSM members so 5,000 votes each or a total of 40,000 votes.


Where on Earth does 5000 per council member come from? This last election would have required one more vote than Darius III's 1,282 votes to be elected, or one more than 2,845 to be guaranteed a Reykjavik spot. We (the CFC) damn near could have done the first example with CSM 7's raw numbers alone (and had we combined efforts with RAZOR's independent candidate, we easily could have).

This is of course assuming that each voting bloc would be acting completely independent and would in no way work together on CSM-related goals, which I can assure you, they would.

Frying Doom wrote:
Lets be blunt, I could not care less if Goonswarm won all 14 seats with a massive 300,000 votes.

It is not the result that matters but the 300,000 votes, it will mean that the CSM is talking for the majority of EvE. CCP and the CSM should not be worrying about new voting systems or anything like that, just voter participation and education.


This from the person who has been in full doom-and-gloom "nullsec voting bloc" mode for months now :v

Let's be honest here; you've taken that approach for a reason. You and I both know that a CSM that is perceived to be dominated by any one entity is a bad thing. It's not good for CCP, who I'm sure would rather have a diverse set of voices to draw upon, and it's not good for the players, who want to believe their voices can be heard. You absolutely should care whether or not the CFC or the HBC or whoever dominates the CSM.

"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["

Frying Doom
#73 - 2013-01-18 11:22:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually I rather like the CSM voting on the chairman, secretary ect...

It makes the positions worth a whole lot more


Which is precisely why it would be impetus for blocs to put as many members on the council as possible, position be damned. Not a good thing for anyone outside the bloc (or even within the bloc, long term).

That said, I do agree with the CSM themselves delegating the other strictly "more work" roles - secretary, etc. Chair/vice chair should always be decided by the players, though.

Frying Doom wrote:
To have the CSM vote on the Chairman, secretary ect.. means that to have any of these positions in the bag as it were requires 8 CSM members willing to vote for the same person.

So look at it this way currently to guarantee a chairmanship for instance requires 10,000 votes, for the absolute win. If the CSM vote it requires 8 guaranteed CSM members so 5,000 votes each or a total of 40,000 votes.


Where on Earth does 5000 per council member come from? This last election would have required one more vote than Darius III's 1,282 votes to be elected, or one more than 2,845 to be guaranteed a Reykjavik spot. We (the CFC) damn near could have done the first example with CSM 7's raw numbers alone (and had we combined efforts with RAZOR's independent candidate, we easily could have).

This is of course assuming that each voting bloc would be acting completely independent and would in no way work together on CSM-related goals, which I can assure you, they would.

Frying Doom wrote:
Lets be blunt, I could not care less if Goonswarm won all 14 seats with a massive 300,000 votes.

It is not the result that matters but the 300,000 votes, it will mean that the CSM is talking for the majority of EvE. CCP and the CSM should not be worrying about new voting systems or anything like that, just voter participation and education.


This from the person who has been in full doom-and-gloom "nullsec voting bloc" mode for months now :v

Let's be honest here; you've taken that approach for a reason. You and I both know that a CSM that is perceived to be dominated by any one entity is a bad thing. It's not good for CCP, who I'm sure would rather have a diverse set of voices to draw upon, and it's not good for the players, who want to believe their voices can be heard. You absolutely should care whether or not the CFC or the HBC or whoever dominates the CSM.

If a bloc wants to gamble and try to put 8 members on the council so be it. Bloc voting with one rep or a lot is exactly that voting and if enough of EvE actually votes then what these blocs try will be largely imaterial.

I went for 5000 votes as I said that would assure you of your 8 seats as you have to think a few candidates with a higher level of voting will probably get more than 5000, so 5000 is a safe number. As I said you want to assure the win not get through by a hair.

Yes I don't like the Null sec lobby group, its existence is not due to the big bad boogy man but the effect caused by not enough people voting.

Voting will now be easier so it will be easier to convince people to do it, so with luck the Null Sec Lobby will be a thing of the past.

My problem with calling the CSM the players elected council is that it wasn't, it was just a group of minorities getting together, hopefully that can change now.

If they don't introduce some stupid voting system that will make people run away from it.

Why would I care really if the CFC or HBC want to dominate the CSM, if enough people are voting well there will slowly be other power blocks forming, to challenge the CFC/HBC, not to mention just the power of the average joe voter.

The CSMs ability to chose a chairman restricts the appeal to just smash home one candidate and will hopefully make the chair more than just a vanity item.

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

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-01-18 12:26:10 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually I rather like the CSM voting on the chairman, secretary ect...

It makes the positions worth a whole lot more

Which is precisely why it would be impetus for blocs to put as many members on the council as possible, position be damned. Not a good thing for anyone outside the bloc (or even within the bloc, long term).

The chairman of the CSM has no more real power than any other member -- and the same goes for the other officer positions.

The chairman does have a bit of an enhanced role as a communicator/spokesman, because he/she will tend to be a default media contact. As such, the ideal chairman is the CSM who is most comfortable performing that role; in particular, the one who is best at public speaking and interviews.

Mittens, for example, would be overwhelmingly elected chairman if he was re-elected to CSM, regardless of how many votes he got in the actual election, because he excels in that role.

Similarly, Secretary and Vice-Sec tend to be people who have good writing skills.

So packing the CSM simply to get someone appointed chairman would be silly. If you're going to try and pack the CSM, at least do it for a good reason.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Frying Doom
#75 - 2013-01-18 13:46:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Before this discussion bogs down about epeens I would like to bring up the following

Quote:
The CSM asked their voting systems consultant, Veritas, for his advice on what system would be best. He replied that he was a big fan of Schulze (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method), however it does have a weakness: organized groups would be able to manipulate elections by running multiple candidates ["ballot-stuffing”, not to be confused with ballot-box-stuffing] and voting for them all.

Now while this method does have its advantages, I can see a bigger disadvantage...Knowledge. While voters in this game are in a minority is it wise to make those that vote having to know multiple candidates rather than just a top pick as it were. I mean in a lot of countries people will just vote blindly for the democrat, republican, labor, liberal, conservative party and think no more. We do not yet have parties in EvE so the average voter already has to think more.

I believe that having to have people chose more than one person or for that matter just giving them that additional choice will scare off voters.

Quote:

A discussion of how much voters should be encouraged to vote then occurred. There was a consensus that people should not be forced to vote, but that there should be a button in the Neocom that flashed like the EVEmail button, with options like “Vote”, “Do you want to know more?”, and “Leave me alone!"

On to this part

This would be unbelievable awesome, especially if it was linked to show character info within the game. If you could go around drumming up votes by having the candidates name linked in local or alliance chat and on clicking it, you are given an extra 2 buttons for CSM candidates besides "Add Contact", that would be great a "Candidate Profile" showing what the member is campaigning on and a "Vote Now" button to allow you to vote, this would send the number of votes screaming through the roof.

More votes means a more representative council. As I have said before, give us the tools and we will use them.

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

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#76 - 2013-01-18 16:46:00 UTC
rodyas wrote:
I mean look at how good the goons are at calling out trebor and trying to turn him into a joke, about his politics and theories.


There's only one person who makes Trebor a joke and it's not Goons. Lol

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#77 - 2013-01-18 19:33:53 UTC
Ossirrus wrote:
Confirming by the first 4 pages of arguments most people didn't get past page 20.


On another note im guessing that there was a ton of stuff that was NDA edited? Wheres the stuff about POS reworks? With all the time spent on that last CSM meet i was sure to see a lively debate on what CCP planned to do with this situation.

I came to the CSM minutes to make sure CCP wasnt going to break wormholes... i left sadly less informed about the state of POS's

You should probably read into the 30's.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Rengerel en Distel
#78 - 2013-01-19 00:48:58 UTC
I really have no problems with null sec voting blocs trying to put up multiple candidates, because they all have to give out real names, and are gonna look like an ass if they're just there to sit around and do nothing. They're not going to want the ego hit to shoot for the CSM and not work while there.
Those blocs also have a lot of members that have different strengths. Mynnna and The MIttani have what appears to be 2 very different skill sets in the game, and each would have a different take on things brought before the CSM. That's why i still think the people should be able to vote for a council, not just one person. There really are very few players that know a lot about everything, while there are a lot of players that know a lot about things they are passionate about.

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

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#79 - 2013-01-19 05:25:37 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually I rather like the CSM voting on the chairman, secretary ect...

It makes the positions worth a whole lot more

Which is precisely why it would be impetus for blocs to put as many members on the council as possible, position be damned. Not a good thing for anyone outside the bloc (or even within the bloc, long term).

The chairman of the CSM has no more real power than any other member -- and the same goes for the other officer positions.

The chairman does have a bit of an enhanced role as a communicator/spokesman, because he/she will tend to be a default media contact. As such, the ideal chairman is the CSM who is most comfortable performing that role; in particular, the one who is best at public speaking and interviews.

Mittens, for example, would be overwhelmingly elected chairman if he was re-elected to CSM, regardless of how many votes he got in the actual election, because he excels in that role.

Similarly, Secretary and Vice-Sec tend to be people who have good writing skills.

So packing the CSM simply to get someone appointed chairman would be silly. If you're going to try and pack the CSM, at least do it for a good reason.


Well, I mean the Chairman is suppose to be the one who obtains the most votes. So he is I suppose in a theory be special or have more then the others had.

Of course most or all of those votes could just come from one group of people, and instead of looking cool for having lots of different votes. (Mittens wanted to get more votes then just the goons. He wanted the most votes, as well as diverse votes for him)

Of course if his most votes are cheap and nothing special, then I think he would be the way you see him, just a normal person who has good people speaking skills.

I suppose I am still new to the game, but the chairman always seemed impressive. And a corrupt Chairman would probably be hard to deal with. I.E. both chairmen I knew, owned titans, which would be very very hard for my retriever to take down.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2013-01-19 07:44:53 UTC
The power of the Chair is largely symbolic, but that doesn't mean that it isn't real.

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