These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

[CSM] Is representation of null going to be too high?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
dark heartt
#41 - 2013-04-16 02:17:07 UTC
Thank you. A google search did not reveal this info (perhaps because I am at work).

As to what I am going on about, you said that the votes are not representative of the whole player base. I like to see all of the information to make an argument based on fact rather than blind thought (unlike most people I actually care about facts when I make opinions).

The reason I am curious as to the % of null alts in high, that directly influences the representation of players. If the overwhelming majority do solely live in high sec with no null or low sec characters, then you are indeed correct and the CSM is not representative of the playerbase. If it swings the other way, then the CSM is representative of the player base. At the end of the day until we get this information there is no evidence either way.

I do happen to agree that the STV system benefits the organised null players (and I also don't see an issue with that), but I am wondering why it's such a bad thing?

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
None ofthe Above
#42 - 2013-04-16 02:36:19 UTC
Now to grow some interesting facial hair and form the "Representation of Null Sec is too damn high!" party.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Frying Doom
#43 - 2013-04-16 02:53:42 UTC
dark heartt wrote:
Thank you. A google search did not reveal this info (perhaps because I am at work).

As to what I am going on about, you said that the votes are not representative of the whole player base. I like to see all of the information to make an argument based on fact rather than blind thought (unlike most people I actually care about facts when I make opinions).

The reason I am curious as to the % of null alts in high, that directly influences the representation of players. If the overwhelming majority do solely live in high sec with no null or low sec characters, then you are indeed correct and the CSM is not representative of the playerbase. If it swings the other way, then the CSM is representative of the player base. At the end of the day until we get this information there is no evidence either way.

I do happen to agree that the STV system benefits the organised null players (and I also don't see an issue with that), but I am wondering why it's such a bad thing?

It is actually a good thing if the voting percentage was higher.

But at below 18% it makes the blocs more powerful as they are the largest percentage of voters so they will hold the largest percentage of seats.

STV systems like this work well in countries like Australia where voting is compulsory, but in systems with low voter turn out it prevents candidates who have a small percentage of the votes from scraping in.

Subsequently the Null sec campaign that the CSM does not matter, and subsequently people should not bother voting. If they can reduce the number of non-null voters they will will more seats.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Mila Chancel
Fungibility Inc.
Invisible Exchequer
#44 - 2013-04-16 10:45:19 UTC
I think this is the pie chart referred to:

Click here for PIE!!

And this is the breakdown for CSM 7 votes:

ZOMG..Vote!
Frying Doom
#45 - 2013-04-16 11:06:14 UTC
Mila Chancel wrote:
I think this is the pie chart referred to:

Click here for PIE!!

And this is the breakdown for CSM 7 votes:

ZOMG..Vote!

Close enough on the pie chart that is the one CCP Diagoras showed us on twitter, it is all characters above 5 million SP, the 2012 fanfest had one similar and one that showed all characters.

So those votes for Null were
10,058 The Mittani
3,714 Elise Randolph
3,329 Greene Lee
3,184 Trebor Daehdoow
2,845 Seleene
2,465 UAxDEATH
2,289 Meissa Anunthiel
2,284 Dovinian
1,533 Alekseyev Karrde
1,282 Darius III

So 32,983 votes for Null sec out of 59,109 votes.

That is not counting any votes that were cast for unsuccessful null candidates.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Mila Chancel
Fungibility Inc.
Invisible Exchequer
#46 - 2013-04-16 11:24:21 UTC
Ah, the State of the Economy one?

EN24 had a roundup of the tasty pie charts:

Yummy Apple Pie!
Frying Doom
#47 - 2013-04-16 11:40:02 UTC
Mila Chancel wrote:
Ah, the State of the Economy one?

EN24 had a roundup of the tasty pie charts:

Yummy Apple Pie!

Very nice thank you,

Yes those are the ones I was talking about.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Sayyadina Drain
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2013-04-17 17:06:58 UTC
Richard Bong wrote:
[CSM] Is representation of null going to be high enough?

http://i.imgur.com/ufSvgCn.png

I'm glad everyone liked that one.

I don't think it's the end of the world if the CSM is null heavy. The last few have had a fair amount of null players and what did EVE get out it?

A) Wardec revamp, bounty revamp, faction warfare revamp and un-gankable* mining ships. All Empire focused mechanics.

A POS and sovereignty revamp needs to happen, but it's a giant resource commitment from CCP to do it. I'd rather see them bite the bullet sooner rather than later.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#49 - 2013-04-20 07:35:45 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Except CSM6 had alternates so the most Null could have was 9 full members, now it is true that the lines were blurred in CSM6 for alternates, but they were still alternates.

So you guys thought that an STV system would be a good idea, with so many people not voting?

I will ask you, as Trebor will not respond to this question, who on CSM7 actually backed the STV idea?

1. Your alternate/full member argument is irrelevant. Those roles didnt exist in 6 nor 7. They were formally gotten of for CSM8. Now the null blocs dont even have an "Iceland 7" to shoot for since 5 conference table seats are now variable.

2. Yes. I think STV is a good voting system regardless of turnout; CCP agreed aparently. That it is bad because of low turnout is your opinion, which you are entitled to have but not to casually pass off as fact.

3. Trebor's responded to you more than you probably merit. I supported transitioning to STV, as did most of CSM7 but i dont have the time to do your research for you.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Frying Doom
#50 - 2013-04-20 09:34:28 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Except CSM6 had alternates so the most Null could have was 9 full members, now it is true that the lines were blurred in CSM6 for alternates, but they were still alternates.

So you guys thought that an STV system would be a good idea, with so many people not voting?

I will ask you, as Trebor will not respond to this question, who on CSM7 actually backed the STV idea?

1. Your alternate/full member argument is irrelevant. Those roles didnt exist in 6 nor 7. They were formally gotten of for CSM8. Now the null blocs dont even have an "Iceland 7" to shoot for since 5 conference table seats are now variable.

2. Yes. I think STV is a good voting system regardless of turnout; CCP agreed aparently. That it is bad because of low turnout is your opinion, which you are entitled to have but not to casually pass off as fact.

3. Trebor's responded to you more than you probably merit. I supported transitioning to STV, as did most of CSM7 but i dont have the time to do your research for you.

1. Actually the roles did exist during the CSM6 election, it was CSM 6 who decided alternates should be included in the discussions, pior to the CSM 7 elections CCP informed us that alternates were not part of the elections. So they were already formally gone before the CSM8 elections, but I presume you mean the White paper got up dated. No now there is no Iceland 7, there are the peoples 2 and CCPs 5.

2. Well I will be happy for the election results to speak for them selves.

3.I love how you say most of CSM7 supported STV, when it now means we have You, Two Step and Trebor on record as being in favor and Seleene and Hans being against it but I do love how it is my research. That there is exactly why CSM7 is a fail, little communication to the players and the transparency of a brick wall.
So maybe you would like to tell me the rest of the members in favor of the STV, because no one else is talking except the 5 mentioned, so that leave 9 quiet on the idea, or did they not work hard enough to be allowed to voice their opinions?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#51 - 2013-04-20 10:08:07 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
the peoples 2


aka "the bloc's 2"

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Frying Doom
#52 - 2013-04-20 10:28:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
the peoples 2


aka "the bloc's 2"

After CSM7, that is all we have left.

So I am looking on the bright side, even though that bright side is not very big.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#53 - 2013-04-23 08:33:56 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Seems to me like the STV voting has made the organised null voting even more powerful, even though I think CCP kept claiming it would make it less of an issue

I don't mind though, it's not as if I want highsec carebear reps anyway

STV does not make organized null voting more powerful; what it does is it permits null to get the representation its share of the voters deserves

the "problem" is that empire eveo forumwarriors don't realize just how many voters the null candidates represent compared to the highsec ones because null alliances have their own forums and don't really tend to form communities here, so people who do their posting here think far more of the voters and players are worthless highseccers than they actually are


That's actually quite a good point.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#54 - 2013-04-23 08:34:46 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
the peoples 2


aka "the bloc's 2"

After CSM7, that is all we have left.

So I am looking on the bright side, even though that bright side is not very big.


Well all we can do now is kick back and wait for the results.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
dark heartt
#55 - 2013-04-23 08:43:16 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Seems to me like the STV voting has made the organised null voting even more powerful, even though I think CCP kept claiming it would make it less of an issue

I don't mind though, it's not as if I want highsec carebear reps anyway

STV does not make organized null voting more powerful; what it does is it permits null to get the representation its share of the voters deserves

the "problem" is that empire eveo forumwarriors don't realize just how many voters the null candidates represent compared to the highsec ones because null alliances have their own forums and don't really tend to form communities here, so people who do their posting here think far more of the voters and players are worthless highseccers than they actually are


That's actually quite a good point.


Yeah I already tried to point out that there is no concrete way of knowing how many people are alts in highsec.

Also not all high sec player are worthless bro.

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#56 - 2013-04-23 08:54:53 UTC
I never said they were. In fact I have more faith in hi-sec players than just about anyone else. I was referring to his hypothesis about the way that the forum narrative is distorted against 0.0.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Previous page123