Jita Park Speakers Corner

Should the delegates of CSM8 wish to make that decision, and the chairman chooses to explain why to the players. Fair enough. It is after all the actions of CCP and the CSM that will cause the numbers voting and subsequently its relevance, to increase or decrease.

Diversity is a great thing, especially when coming up with some kind of cohesive front or message to share with CCP. Did you do that in this case? It seems kind of odd to say the CSM had no position when several members very clearly did have *some* position on the matter, don't you think?



I doubt the change was pushed through by any of them. Xhagen's verbiage about a change in the winter summit minutes was pretty much "well, we're updating the community website anyway so we're just going to do both at the same time". If I was a betting man, I'd say they (CCP) wanted to go with Schultze but then backed away late for some reason, so they just picked STV in a rush. That'd also explain why they hadn't even decided on the counting method when the new system was announced. As much of a critic of this CSM that I've been, if this was their proposal it would have had a system and counting method well sorted by the time CCP even heard about it.

Also, I don't think it's all that obvious that Trebor was pro-STV before the change was announced. He was still boosting his own changes from his proposal in the winter minutes, which tells you all you need to know about how much faith he had in traditional STV being a positive (hint: none).

When we have a cohesive position, we have a cohesive position. This is most of the time. In this case, some CSMs had no opinion, some liked the old system, some wanted a proportional system but preferred resources be put into improving turnout, and some (like me) felt that implementing a proportional system should not be contingent on turnout efforts.


You are clearly not a winning gambler, my friend. If you'd read the election announcement thread, you would know that pure Schulze is not suitable for a multi-seat election, and that Schulze-STV is computationally infeasible for an election with the number of candidates and number of seats expected. Wright-STV was chosen -- by CCP Veritas -- because it is arguably the best STV system in which the narrative of the election is understandable (or to put it another way, you could actually process the results by hand with a little patience).


My original proposal was in the context of no expected changes in the actual ballot mechanic. As soon as CCP Xhagen made it clear that we could get a multiple candidate ballot, then STV became the preferred solution -- the only question was what STV variant was the best fit to the circumstances of the CSM election.

When the situation changes, I re-evaluate my position.

And yet the decision to go with Wright-STV wasn't even finalized until the 1st of March (STV itself was announced a week prior), despite the discussion being open since early September of last year, and despite Schultze being the only voting system that gained any mention in the Winter Summit (Mid-December for those following along). Then there's Hans taking to Twitter on the 14th of Feb. unhappy that a decision was being made without player feedback*, suggesting the decision was at least only told to you roughly around that time.

* https://twitter.com/HansShotFirst/status/302141132064837633 , https://twitter.com/HansShotFirst/status/302141543584780288

All in all, despite discussion being open for about 6 MONTHS before the CSM 8 elections, the system itself wasn't even finalized until less than a month before the primary election. If that's not a late change, I don't know what is.




That only covers half of your changes (and not even the truly "bad" half) - the candidate's selection of where their own overvotes go. The ballot mechanic itself had nothing to do with your suggestion to toss overvotes into the trash. This part of the proposal, and your subsequent promotion of it in the Winter summit minutes, are what speak the loudest about what you truly thought about STV before CCP went with it.

The only thing that changed about the situation was that CCP went with STV despite the reservations of CSM 6 last year and the reservations built into your proposal this year. Your backing it now despite your obvious prior reservations makes you a complete shill, and your transparent attempts to lie it all away now make you completely untrustworthy from a player perspective.

I guess in that sense it's a good thing for you that this CSM cratered player interest in at least being candidates (and I'd bet voters when all's said and done as well), otherwise this might actually have come back to bite you.


---



CSM 6 likely had an "even" playing field when talking change - in that CCP wasn't going to commit to a change for change's sake due to a community website revamp, unlike CSM 7 who basically got told "it's happening no matter what" at the Winter summit. That said, CSM 6 also had a not-incompetent chair, which helped greatly with the "having an opinion to present to CCP" thing.

You guys are a little off topic here, but on who supported STV, I supported (and still support) it. An election system where the results better mirror the votes that people cast is always a good thing, even if it might be to the advantage of organized blocs, which I don't even think is true with STV. In fact, I think it will greatly help my *unorganized* bloc which decided to run 5 candidates. With FPTP, we probably would have seen none of them elected, but now we should see as many as possible of them elected. If the w-space community is 1/7th of the voters, we should get 2 candidates. If we are less than 1/14th, we won't get a seat.

That sounds pretty fair to me.

I was aware you were joking, I am saying that if CSM 8 wants to roll over for CCP, fair enough. As it is CSM8 that will determine the voting levels for CSM9 and its own relevance to the player base.

So "Should the delegates of CSM8 wish to make that decision, and the chairman chooses to explain why to the players. Fair enough."

Well I suppose it that is what your CCP masters want.

I will just quote you:



The whole system is more than just choosing officers, as a CSM candidate you really should know that.

My humblest apologies for my misunderstanding.

Oh please, I am just gently cautioning you not to count your chickens before they hatch. The chairmanship is no longer bestowed by Divine Right of Goons.