These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: CSM8 Elections – Schedule and Election Process

First post First post
Author
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
#21 - 2013-02-21 12:49:48 UTC
This all looks simpler and more transparent than the previous system.

Fear God and Thread Nought

CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2013-02-21 12:53:41 UTC
Is there still no change to the policy of revealing candidate real names publically on the Internet? I wonder how many potentially great representatives we're missing out on because they don't want to be e-stalked for blowing up someone's Internet spaceship.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-02-21 13:03:05 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The 'most feature relevant' part of the summit attendee section bothers me somewhat, since the summits should be covering a wide spectrum of topics, not just "lets talk about our new lowsec (for example) revamp expansion for three days". How will this be decided?

CCP will consult with CSM before deciding on who goes. Lets say we know Industry will be a significant topic; we would want a CSM who really lives and breathes industry to go, even if he were, say, elected 10th.

The secondary goal is to ensure that if a CSM delegate works hard, he/she will get at least one trip (either to a summit or fanfest). That is only fair, given the level of effort that being an active CSM requires.

The tertiary goal (of this and of the change to STV) is to increase the quality of CSM candidates by providing a bit more of a carrot and making it less likely that similar candidate will commit mutual electoral suicide.

How this will work in practice we shall have to see, but based on the way CSMs 5-7 worked internally, I'm not too worried about political nonsense and butthurt.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Konrad Kane
#24 - 2013-02-21 13:13:51 UTC
I'm probably misunderstanding this, because I'm a little dopey.

Will you have to stack rank all 14 candidates? That seems somewhat onerous, wouldn't be better to say you can select up to 14 people who may ore may not get your vote. Making the voting system harder work seems counter intuitive.
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#25 - 2013-02-21 13:14:33 UTC
Totes voting the CSM of my heart as #1. Than gonna pick random 0.0 guys from all other alliances to kick out high-sec candidates. Sounds akka-awesome!

Winner ATXI , 3rd place ATXII, winner ATXIII, 2nd ATXIV - follow me on twitter: @ForlornW

PalkAn4ik
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-02-21 13:31:10 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
As mentioned in the devblog, CCP has not settled on the exact STV counting method to be used in the election. This is basically a tradeoff between systems that are simple and ones that are more complex but generate slightly better proportional results.

In all cases, the actual casting of ballots is the same -- you specify one or more candidates, in your order of preference. It's just the counting method (and the reallocation of votes as candidates are elected and eliminated) that changes.

One system that isn't feasible is Schulze-STV. While it is a very good counting method, its computational complexity explodes as the number of candidates and seats goes up. A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that a Schulze-STV election with 14 seats and 28 candidates would take over 9 years to compute on a decent PC.

The following links may be useful to those who are interested in suggesting counting systems:

* Wikipedia: Single Transferable Vote
* Wikipedia: Counting single transferable votes
* OpenSTV (Software)


I was trying to look it up and having no luck. What is the Big O notation you got for that algorithm?
Tayno Errakken
Peace and Progress
#27 - 2013-02-21 13:34:59 UTC
Preferential voting for CSM is a Good Thing. +1000 likes.

CCP Veritas
C C P
C C P Alliance
#28 - 2013-02-21 13:37:58 UTC
PalkAn4ik wrote:
I was trying to look it up and having no luck. What is the Big O notation you got for that algorithm?

Since it operates on all possible sets of candidates, it grows O(numCandidates choose numSeats)

CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online

Jassmin Joy
Pulling The Plug
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#29 - 2013-02-21 13:47:30 UTC
Not sure if this should be asked somewhere else, but is there a specific reason for cms's needing to be over 21? Just one of those old rules that we're sticking to, or is there something i'm not getting at first glance?
Jesspa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-02-21 13:50:54 UTC
Konrad Kane wrote:
I'm probably misunderstanding this, because I'm a little dopey.

Will you have to stack rank all 14 candidates? That seems somewhat onerous, wouldn't be better to say you can select up to 14 people who may ore may not get your vote. Making the voting system harder work seems counter intuitive.


I'm mainly quoting you because you've said just what I was thinking, but also because you're so hardcore EVE that you subconsciously write "ore" instead of "or". Big smile
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#31 - 2013-02-21 13:51:05 UTC
Many thanks to the Community team, and especially CCP Veritas for his extra hours put into this, taking the time to make sure this is done in the best way possible. I'm looking forward to this election and seeing how this all plays out!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-02-21 13:52:36 UTC
PalkAn4ik wrote:
I was trying to look it up and having no luck. What is the Big O notation you got for that algorithm?


In the worst case, you can expect that the cost is related to C(c,s) where C is the choose function: c!/(s! (c-s)!). c is the number of candidates, and s is the number of seats.

c(40,14), the case for the last election, means you have to compare 23,206,929,840 different possible quorums!

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Unforgiven Storm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-02-21 13:55:45 UTC
STV is prone to "Donkey" voting from players that are not in "alliances that help them fill the preferences" and/or don't know all the candidates.

Has the CCP think about this small issue? Will CCP show the candidates in a random order in the ballot?

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)

CynoNet Two
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2013-02-21 13:59:47 UTC
Jassmin Joy wrote:
Not sure if this should be asked somewhere else, but is there a specific reason for cms's needing to be over 21? Just one of those old rules that we're sticking to, or is there something i'm not getting at first glance?


The legal drinking age in Iceland is 20, and you need at least a year experience before you can face a CSM meeting.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#35 - 2013-02-21 14:01:34 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Will there be increased efforts to raise awareness of the CSM season this time, which in many people's eyes would be a far more important step for the CSM, and do a far better job of making the process legitimate, than fiddling with the voting system? Asking us to vote twice and to make 14 choices on the second occasion isn't exactly going to appeal to the apathetic Joe Random Eve Player.


This was my primary concern throughout our internal discussions, the fact that so much time was spent hashing out complicated algorithms for election results calculation and so little time spent discussing how we can promote the election and increase voter turnout. My fear (and we'll see if its founded or not) is that a more complicated voting system will decrease turnout, rather than the other way around.

While I'm glad that enough time was spent that a different, -supposedly- less-exploitable method was selected, we'll see if there's follow-through on the promotional/educational front. We've been told that there will be some more material released closer to the election start, but I'll believe it when I see it. We've asked previously for more promotional support for things like Town Halls and such and received less-than-satisfactory (or just plain tardy) response, so I can only go off of CCP's track record where this is concerned. I would have liked to have seen this been the big push this year instead of voting reform itself, personally.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-02-21 14:05:21 UTC
Konrad Kane wrote:
Will you have to stack rank all 14 candidates? That seems somewhat onerous, wouldn't be better to say you can select up to 14 people who may ore may not get your vote. Making the voting system harder work seems counter intuitive.

STV requires you to choose your favorite candidates and then rank them. There are variants where you can give multiple candidates the same ranking; the case where all approved-of candidates are given the same rank is called Approval voting.

Approval voting is simpler, but because it does not provide information about relative preferences, it is not as good at generating a result that is a close approximation of the actual intent of the electorate. It is also more succeptible to tactical voting than STV.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Sedilis
Lead Farmers
#37 - 2013-02-21 14:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Sedilis
Finally an election system sufficiently complex for a game like Eve Big smile

Nice change CCP.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-02-21 14:11:27 UTC
Unforgiven Storm wrote:
STV is prone to "Donkey" voting from players that are not in "alliances that help them fill the preferences" and/or don't know all the candidates. Has the CCP think about this small issue? Will CCP show the candidates in a random order in the ballot?

Donkey votes are just random noise in STV, as they were in the previous FPTP system. If you have pointers to any scholarly research that shows that random votes are a bigger problem in STV than in FPTP, please post them.

If the past is any guide, the candidates will appear on the ballot in a random order that changes each time someone tries to vote (so everyone will get a different, randomly ordered ballot).

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#39 - 2013-02-21 14:20:41 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Chitsa Jason wrote:
Also why did the election got moved to the later date. According to this dev blog: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3386 CSM8 should take office April 3rd 2013.


Results are announced at Fanfest, which is a month later this year.

Correct. We were thinking about having it not tied to Fanfest but we decided against it.

The thing that might be difficult for CSM8 is the relative short timeframe they have between being elected and going to the first summit. But that can be mitigated with information and hard work for the first few weeks.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation

CCP Xhagen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#40 - 2013-02-21 14:23:39 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Will there be increased efforts to raise awareness of the CSM season this time, which in many people's eyes would be a far more important step for the CSM, and do a far better job of making the process legitimate, than fiddling with the voting system? Asking us to vote twice and to make 14 choices on the second occasion isn't exactly going to appeal to the apathetic Joe Random Eve Player.

We will be ramping up the messages regarding the CSM - we have video materials for a video devblog about the CSM, the email newsletters, login screen ads, the whole of the CSM websection is to work in the Ingame Browser so linking people in chat is no effort and more.

CCP Xhagen | Associate Producer | @strangelocation