These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

No Chairperson for CSM9

First post
Author
Frying Doom
#41 - 2014-05-07 06:58:54 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

My only reaction is comrade sounds so Goon. As they do the old communist party bit, how about senator or member? or for that matter Manager as you are the Council of Stellar Management.

Edit also as the CSM do you guys know when the voting stats are coming out (if at all) and will the STV process remain transperant as it was proposed to be when it was implemented.

On the STV system that was based on Western Australia, just though I would note that there is a senate inquiry into changing the system as it allowed minority parties with less than 0.5% of the primary vote to be elected into the senate.


In order asked

Yeah, I can see the resemblance to goons and I doubt that joke will have legs. But you do see the analogy, which the Goons seem to miss or mock in irony. We are doing away with figurehead leaders and taking equal share in work and blame or blessings that come of it. Before someone picks up the obvious retort, yes there are still permanent attendees. No organization is perfect on the first iteration.

Voting stats and (I hope) the ballot runs should be out soon and I do not add a tm to that.

Didn't know that but then they have mandatory voting, don't they. Are you suggesting that we shift to exactly the Aus voting method or that since they they are investigating an anomaly we should toss our system? If you can keep me in the loop as to what the investigation turns up I would appreciate it

Thanks for the input

Yes Australia has mandatory voting with a $20 fine for non-voting that actually increases to $150 if you don't pay it before it gets to court (about 4 weeks), no what I was saying and sorry I was not clear is that they have found a problem in preference swapping in the above the line part of the voting paper, the relevant parts for EvEs STV are the voting preferences down the line used by blocks etc.. where giving out a list of preferences can result in the election of people with absolutely minor (in eves case) position 1 votes. For example let us say you, if you got elected with only 0.5% of position one votes but got elected on votes lower down in the ballots. In the Western Australia election they are talking about people voting for the sex party and their votes through back door preference deals being used to elect the motor sports enthusiasts senator.

What it boils down to is election transparency and meeting a minimum number of primary votes to be able to get elected. I hope that is a little clearer.

But I will let you know what occurs with that.

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

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#42 - 2014-05-07 07:08:36 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
is csm doing this in the best interest of the community or are they throwing out the chair to hide more important issues going on under the table

i can't believe you're standing for this. it only proves csm9 is again nothing more than a stool of the large alliances


We are three days in. The new folks have yet to even be nda'd or told anything. What could they possibly be working to hide?

please do not make me make hats this early

Honestly, what benefit do you see in officers that is not covered by us just doing the work? Is it someone to blame? Has election to one of the offices guaranteed performance in the past?

m

more room under the table

'cos the chair's gone

come on mike
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-05-07 07:13:19 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:

more room under the table

'cos the chair's gone

come on mike


Sorry, been a long day.

Nice one and I admit to watching that one fly so far over my head that I only saw the chemtrail.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#44 - 2014-05-07 10:37:50 UTC
maybe it's a sign i'm not nearly as funny charming handsome and talented as i think i am

i'm furnished making jokes now
Galen Yamato
Doomheim
#45 - 2014-05-07 10:51:13 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
We'll have enough internal structure so that the functions of the titles are still fulfilled ( Designated Minutes Buttmonkey, Designated CSM Buttmonkey ), but the external part is completely unnecessary and divisive besides. As an added bonus, the issue delayed selection solves-- selecting an officer before you've seen how CSM works together-- is resolved by role-swapping being much, much easier when it doesn't go along with external ~stuff~.


I am still not sure what you hope to accomplish with this change. You will still have a "Designated CSM Buttmonkey" (previously known as Chairman), and a "Designated Minutes Buttmonkey (previously known as secretary). You can change the name of the positions or you can call them nothing at all, but the responsibility of the positions remain. That which we call a rose, etc, etc.

How does the CSM plan on letting the playerbase know what the new "internal structures" are? Or do you consider public knowledge of the "internal structures" part of the "external ~stuff~" that you claim is "divisive"?
Mynxee
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
#46 - 2014-05-07 14:20:10 UTC
It make sense to remove the roles of Chair and Vice Chair since they were offered no special perks or powers or even defined roles anyway. Rotating responsibilities for note taking in Summits and other admin duties is a good idea as the CSM has evolved toward more members sharing the workload.

I haven't read this whole thread (yet) because I'm rushing to get out the door so maybe it's been suggested, but what would seem to make sense is to appoint a CSM Media Liaison as a point of contact for interview requests from media folks who don't have contacts on the CSM already or who don't know exactly who to get in touch with for statements on specific topics. Just a thought.

Best of luck to you all in your new term...it is great to see so many folks I voted for on CSM9.

Lost in space, looking for sigs...

Blog: Cloaky Wanderer

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2014-05-07 15:08:07 UTC
And it's good to see you back from your CSM burnout

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2014-05-07 17:20:36 UTC
While any of us can talk anywhere we damn well please (NDA in effect, of course) we will have a division of media contact. But since there are so many ways to talk to people we will be dividing the duties.

I (foolishly) volunteered to be the Eve-O forums guy. That is until I burn out. Then someone else may take up the banner.

I will leave to the Twitter guy or gal to identify themselves (probably with a #CSM9 and #tweetfleet tag attached

As other avenues of communication are identified we will have people fill the slots. Appearances on Podcasts are on an adhoc basis though with two or three podcasts with regular CSM9 candidates: Me-Podside and Eve Radio, Ali-DoW, Xander-Crossing Zebras. I think we have that covered.

Once we have collected the 'where we listen and how to get in touch with us' info I will start a new thread for that here so you have it all in one place.

But right now we are doing all the acclimation and NDA stuff. Biggest news is the the fact that CSM9 is not officer fit so not as worth ganking.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#49 - 2014-05-08 00:17:31 UTC
Mike - change yo Sig - you're a Niner now
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#50 - 2014-05-08 03:42:58 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
In answer to 'what if some job is missed' well we will cross that bridge when we come to it but I am sure that
… I can write some sort of EvE fan fiction that will make my point by analogy.

Fixed that for you. ;)

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#51 - 2014-05-08 04:08:59 UTC
(Off topic)

Frying Doom wrote:
(Australian senate STV)

What it boils down to is election transparency and meeting a minimum number of primary votes to be able to get elected. I hope that is a little clearer.
It's no so much complaints about primary vote, but that most Australian senate elections* allow (and tacitly encourage) a voter to put a single '1' vote for a particular party that results in a preference distribution for the entire ballot (which can be over 100 candidates) based on a submission by that party to the electoral commission before the election.

In theory, the distributions are published & public knowledge.
In practice, almost no-one is willing to got to the electoral commission web site and find out what chain of preferences their particular 'vote above the line' will follow.

Now, there have always been preference deals on 'how to vote' cards ("if you put us in position 3 on your card, we'll do the same for you on ours"). The difference is that the results of such deals are now opaque to the average voter. So you can be surprised to learn that your vote for 'party I agree with who didn't make the cut' turned into a vote for 'party I violently disagree with' rather than 'another party I agree with'.

Getting ansty about "0.5% of the primary vote" issue is simply a lack of understanding of how STV works. It's not about primary votes, but about blocs. A feature of all STV systems is to aggregate votes spread among a candidates in a bloc into votes for the single most preferred candidate from that bloc. And you keep collapsing blocs until the required number of candidates remain (plus 1, who is the last candidate to be eliminated). The real issue, if there is one, is about the blocs themselves being opaque so it's not immediately obvious how your vote cascades.

Or you can do what I do and vote for every candidate individually, so you know exactly how your vote will cascade.


* almost all Australian states plus the national government have two "houses". The population is divided into electorates which each elect a single candidate (via STV) for the "lower house". Then there's an "upper house" to which is elected a number of candidates via multi-candidate STV (exact same system as is used for CSM, except that some don't allow you to stop until you have completely filled the ballot). The national election divides this into state electorates, each of which elect 6 candidates per election. State elections usually have a single electorate for however many candidates.

As such, if you're electing (say) 20 candidates, that means that each candidate needs less than 5% of the vote to be elected (actually N/21 + 1 votes, where N is total number of votes, or about 4.8%). Viewed this way, a 0.5% primary vote is over 10% of a quantum, a not insignificant amount (and everyone else you're competing with has a similar quantity of votes or they'd already have met their own quantum).

Once again, a lot of the furore is proving nothing more than that most people's mathematical intuition is highly misleading.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Frying Doom
#52 - 2014-05-08 07:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Have you looked at those AEC preference sharing documents, I was amazed at how they were set up and trying to get an over all picture of how they are all interconnected was impossible, I mean you can follow what some of the parties are doing but it is all but impossible to remember all of them.

Actually the 0.5% of primary votes and someone getting elected is one of the main reasons the senate committee was formed, the other being the lack of transparency.

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

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2014-05-08 17:09:03 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I guess this makes me The Last Chairman.

Either I did the job so well that everyone on CSM9 knows they would be compared to me and found wanting, or (more likely) I demonstrated through masterful inaction that the CSM has transcended the need for a central figure of authority.

I am comfortable with either interpretation Twisted

it actually means that the CSM has recognized that all subsequent chairman have been pretenders to the throne of Chairman for Life, the Space King, The Mittani

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-05-08 17:17:47 UTC
Weaselior wrote:

it actually means that the CSM has recognized that all subsequent chairman have been pretenders to the throne of Chairman for Life, the Space King, The Mittani


. . . who?

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#55 - 2014-05-08 22:25:18 UTC
A(ny) Union for New Eden Capsuleers should have a ChairpersonCool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2014-05-08 22:28:29 UTC
Little known fact.

More than one of the csm9 candidates have been union shop stewards. Used to the arcance chicanery that is the modern art of negotiation.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#57 - 2014-05-09 02:07:15 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Have you looked at those AEC preference sharing documents, I was amazed at how they were set up and trying to get an over all picture of how they are all interconnected was impossible, I mean you can follow what some of the parties are doing but it is all but impossible to remember all of them.
The only document one actually needs to remember is the one you're planning to vote for. Or, you can vote manually.

From my perspective, it looks like we put a mechanism in place where voters could substitute trusting their party of choice rather than thinking for themselves. And, unsurprisingly, there's now a call for a whole lot more mechanisms to try to regulate the original shortcut. So rather than delegate to a political party, we're now going to delegate to a political party plus a whole lot of complex and arcane rules created and administered by bureaucrats who are ultimately accountable to the most influential of the political parties. Or we could just do a little work and think for ourselves?

Frying Doom wrote:
Actually the 0.5% of primary votes and someone getting elected is one of the main reasons the senate committee was formed, the other being the lack of transparency.
I don't recall claiming that having a law degree or being a community or union organiser conferred immunity to poor statistical thinking.


Let's take a look at this. You have 100 candidates, and are electing 20. In a fully uniform field, each candidate gets 1% of the primary vote. However, it's not uniform. The #1 candidates for the major parties could easily draw 80% of the primary vote, leaving 20% spread among 98 candidates (think the big null-sec blocs in the CSM election, only much more so). This leaves an average of 0.2% among the rest of the candidates. Given that the average is 0.2%, 0.5% is looking pretty good. Eliminate a few of those minor candidates and that 0.5% can swell to the ~5% needed to actually cross the line. (Caveat - numbers are made up, but I'm in good company ;) )

Back to the CSM election, it should have been entirely possible for mynnna to be elected without a single primary vote. Candidates who make their quota are "removed" first, and it's not unreasonable to expect that the vast majority of Sion's surplus vote spilled directly to mynnna.


Basically, people didn't know how it works, still don't know how it works, and let someone else decide what to do with their vote, but are absolutely sure that the process that they didn't pay attention to and didn't want to pay attention to must be broken because it produced an outcome that someone in the media has told them they should not have expected.

Of course, we EvE players are smarter than that, so would never fall into that trap ;)

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#58 - 2014-05-09 12:03:45 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:


This is NOT an attack on any CSM9's worthiness for the position but rather the thinking that we have outgrown the previous structure.


Maybe as our representatives at the table with CCP, should we not be the judge of that?
Frying Doom
#59 - 2014-05-09 12:10:34 UTC
So still no actual announcement on the forums as to the CSM9 winners and the voting statistics.

Oh well I suppose given the wait time on the minutes in the last year we will get them just before the CSM10 election.

Well I suppose it gives time to pick on the CSM9 'supposed' council members after all no official forum announcement means they are fake councilors.

:)

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

Dirk MacGirk
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
#60 - 2014-05-09 17:00:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk MacGirk
Frying Doom wrote:
So still no actual announcement on the forums as to the CSM9 winners and the voting statistics.

Oh well I suppose given the wait time on the minutes in the last year we will get them just before the CSM10 election.

Well I suppose it gives time to pick on the CSM9 'supposed' council members after all no official forum announcement means they are fake councilors.

:)


Info now posted on CSM9 election data https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/csm9-presenting-the-new-council-members-election-data-and-officer-changes/

Farewell CCP Dolan? Yes, it seems so :(