Jita Park Speakers Corner

This would lead to one thing: mashing whatever buttons it takes to let my account log in. Votes for the sake of votes aren't a good thing, especially not for something like the CSM where having actual participants is the important part. Someone who hits a vote button once per account once a year and moves on until the same annoyance the next year might as well not be voting at all, for all the good it does anyone.

CCP needs to solidly figure out two things before they can start really fixing this problem:

1. Are voting numbers low because of lack of education or apathy?

2. How do we fix the above? If it's lack of education, how do we more effectively let people know what's up, and if it's apathy, what's causing it and how can it be fixed (if at all)?

Anything that acts as if they know the answer to either of these questions is window-dressing that, at best, will change nothing and at worst will alienate or frustrate new and existing participants

Edited to add:
Trebor's abortion of a proposal (HERE for those new to the discussion who may have missed this when it happened) is a prime example of how badly something can go when you don't properly diagnose a problem before attempting to fix it. He saw the power a voting bloc could potentially yield, and instead of trying to figure out WHY that power existed, he simply decided that was one of the problems and set out to create a system that would "fix" it. The end result was a proposal that, suprise surprise, proposed a literal reduction of value of votes for the top bloc. All of that stemmed from his diagnosing a symptom of a problem as a problem itself and acting accordingly.

From going through these minutes the one thing I did take away is that I don't like the idea of "voting people of the island". I think it introduces a very slippery slope and far too much subjective judgement into removing elected officials.

Once people are elected they need to be focused on the job at hand and not constantly planning how they could get rivals removed. Once the CSM is in place it is the councillors' job to figure out how best to work with those that have been elected and removing people shouldn't be used as a way to resolve this.

In regards to the voting system I'm not sure. I briefly reviewed the Schulze method and looked over the Condorcet method of voting I can see where people are coming from in how these methods could help less organized groups achieve representation, but I'm not sure with the voter participation that we currently have if this is really necessary.

It seems that with the low turnout we currently have if a candidate is successful in assembling their base and inspiring enough people to vote who otherwise wouldn't that even candidates that are from outside major power blocs have the chance and opportunity for a seat on the council.

I've shared the following on an internal thread, though there's nothing NDA-breaking so the public should hear my thoughts as well:

We are in a panic before any announcements have even been made . . . .why?

IF there is a voting reform then all parties will strategize and adjust to it, like they always do. Whether it is a single candidate hoping for popular support or candidates representing power blocs with a huge voting axe to swing.

The only worry is if they spring it on us without announcing the change.

As to transparency? A non-starter for an issue. We have in 7 elections trusted CSM to count the little boxes and give us the results. Ever heard of someone demanding a recount or looking for hanging davits? Nope.

I know this is counter to the general tone of Eve-O forums but could we please wait until there is news before we running screaming to fetch the flame-forks and pitch-torches?

m

How is Snow Axe and Frying Doom not the representatives of the players at large?

My suggestion is a Total Death Match with any T3 BC being the weapon of choice for the CSM candidate. Losers gets their character erased forever, and the winners? The winners get to become CSM and earn the free trip to Iceland.

We probably do have to have more players know about the CSM elections before any change can happen, like ya said though. We have to organize the ignorant ones, to defeat the super un-ignorant goons.

When referring to the low voter turnout and the causes for that, just look at elections in all countries. The voter turnout is extremely small, only to rise in 2 separate occasions: when the issue is perceived as big or when the vote is compulsory.

In CSM case, there is not enough information readily and easily available for the general public, therefore CSM is less than a blip on scan. And before jumping and telling me that the forums are open, just look at the number of posts and topics to get a vague idea of how many of the player bases really active here.

Also arguing that those interested involve themselves is not correct as all players are interested in changes to the game, and just a little effort from CCP/CSM part would go a long way in bringing the matters to their attention and help create the desired feedback.

I will continue to support the compulsory vote, using popups at login as I consider that given a week and proper linking to the candidates platforms will raise awareness of the issue and help the process itself. I would even agree to put the blank vote option in the poll, and a system of preferential voting.

Couple of things re: this paragraph (Also I'll reference minutes, the link to them is HERE)



The first is a nitpick; Xhagen very much WAS involved with the discussion pre-summit. In fact, he kept up with his own thread for a while, though sadly after page 22 he dropped out of it with unanswered questions, essentially leaving it to die (which it did a few pages later, save for the occasional bump).

The second, your specification of "Since the summit". The content of the summit minutes that addressed voting reform (Middle of Page 31 to Page 34) made it very clear that Xhagen was going to implement a voting system change, despite large swaths of his thread being about debating whether or not a change was even necessary or helpful. Hell, when he abandoned ship on the thread there was even someone calling the value of the Schultze method into question, both from a potential results angle and from the "nobody will understand how this works and that's bad" angle.

Keeping in mind that the legitimate concerns from that thread were absent from the Summit discussion, and that not only the decision about having a new system at all being basically made, but the system itself being chosen, what on Earth would there be for us to talk about? What value is there in repeating discussions and concerns we already voiced in September only to be summarily ignored?

I disagree with the idea that low voter turnout is a problem. It is not. Voters are ignorant. Most players do not read blogs, do not read forums, have little sense of the history of EVE and no understanding of game design. I will grant that we cannot know who knows what; and that therefore everyone should potentially be allowed to vote. But neither should we encourage people with little to no information about the CSM race to vote. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea, even worse in EVE than in the real world.

Indeed, I would propose going the opposite direction. Put in place a substantial poll tax, to weed out the uncaring voters. 20m ISK to vote. Not only does this deter voters who don't care, it's also an ISK-sink!

Or limit voting by account age. Perhaps you have to be subscribed for a year to be allowed to vote. Note that this would disenfranchise both of my accounts. I am OK with that. I did not vote for the last CSM, and yet I still think they represent me pretty well!

As for what voting system to use, I really don't care so long as it is a reasonably well known one, and it is known sufficiently ahead of voting. Candidates need to know so they know how to campaign. Other than that I don't care that much, so long as how to vote is understandable. In Schulze, one need merely rank the candidates in order of preference. I think we can all do that.

I find the whole supposed problem we are supposedly solving here to be unimpressive. Goons have a bloc. Null is well represented. So what? Has there been any problem with the null CSMs? I am not talking about PR misteps like Mr. The Mittani's. I am asking: has CCP changed EVE in some way, based on the advice of CSM, which turned out to bad for the game? But moreover: did the CSM in that case give bad advice because of the supposed overrepresentation from null? Only if there is a clear example of such a thing do I find there to be a problem here worth addressing.

I must say, I'd much prefer CCP spending programming time on in-game stuff (like POS improvements), rather than hacking up a new voting system. On the other hand, as a programmer myself I can see why revising the voting system would be attractive. It's a nice, clean problem, not too large, walled off from rest of EVE. A nice little programming project.

CCP doesn't always rush projects, but sometimes they do. Plus this voting system could be hard to reiterate on later, unlike most rushed programs. Suppose CCP already knows how they won't be able to reiterate too much afterwards. Kind of reminds me of the like policy last year. Something like that, you don't have to worry about it causing too many bad effects which would need reiteration soon after.

The voting system we have right now isn't that bad really to begin with. Mostly because of the actions of the organized null sec blocks. Most of them only send one official candidate, rather then spamming multiple candidates. Since they only send one official candidate, and how many CCP allows into the CSM. It is kind of fair and allows null sec representatives as well as other representatives.

I would mostly say, only if organized blocks started using multiple official candidates, would a voting system really have to change to keep it fair.

I mean no one has started complaining, that they feel they will lose a seat, because of null sec block having too many (Of course it seems WH people will complain about it at some point, having so many candidates). Most people so far have said, they aren't running or won't have a chance to a seat over the anonymous policy or because of how much time and work CSM is, and they don't have it. But who knows, what new complaints will come, or other changes or actions.

The best CSM would represent all the play styles and types. We do not need a CSM composed solely of all Hi, low, null, worm or any other special interest group you care to put forward. Since the CSM itself does not run internally as a democracy then 'loading the council' serves no purpose except to silence other viewpoints.

Can an organized group get their person in under the Shultze STV? Yes.

Can they stack the deck completely? Not as easily.

Will some of the proposed methods 'lock out' any group of voters to deny them their voice? Not if that group is organized. Biggest issue will be said organization and perhaps primaries such as the WH folks seem to be considering.

I would love to see the most diverse and eclectic CSM to date, this time around. I'd love to be a part of that CSM.

m