Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Changing CSM Votes: Standpoints of the CSM

First post
Author
Tactical Narcotics Team
#61 - 2012-09-10 20:10:34 UTC
So instead of answering the 2-3 very pointed (and relevant) questions in the original thread, you 'flee' over into a new one to avoid them?

Pathetic...
Goonswarm Federation
#62 - 2012-09-10 20:10:38 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
Hey Hans, why didn't you just share that opinion in the discussion thread instead of trying to blame the idea on Trebor?

Better yet, why not go post it there right now? And while you're at it, maybe try to get other CSM members to answer the question as well. You know, for discussion's sake!


If a discussion is what people were after, very few in that thread are making an effort about it. Character attacks, calling the CSM useless, telling us to **** off, accusing us of power grabs, and incessantly, impatiently posting over and over without giving even the slightest pause for response in between hostile comments in no way tells me that this is a crowd that actually cares about what I had to say.


This crowd actually cares very much what you had to say. Unfortunately, the fact that you've been doing nothing to justify why you think disenfranchising tons of voters is a good idea doesn't do good things for "discussion", either. In other words, give us something to care about instead of evading the hard questions, and maybe we can have a discussion.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

#63 - 2012-09-10 20:14:02 UTC
Wibla wrote:
So instead of answering the 2-3 very pointed (and relevant) questions in the original thread, you 'flee' over into a new one to avoid them?

Pathetic...

It didn't work, we're here now.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Gallente Federation
#64 - 2012-09-10 20:14:03 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just not the type of person that treats an idea, on paper, as "a straightforward attack".

It's not the idea that's the problem, it's the basic requirement. Stop trying to say it's "the idea" when it's "the basic requirements" which "The CSM believes".

I'll just quote the entire thing for you, yet again:
"The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum

[...]

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs."

Who do you think these "highly organized voting blocs" are? Why should they not treat this as "a straightforward attack"?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2012-09-10 20:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
CliveWarren wrote:
The entire proposal from Trebor was a straightforward attack.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm just not the type of person that treats an idea, on paper, as "a straightforward attack". If this were something being forcefully pushed, it may indeed represent a threat, but everyone should always feel free to put out ideas for discussion, even bad ones.

It was and still is unclear to me exactly how Trebor's proposal invalidates the overvotes at the top, if the person those people voted for actually takes office. That is why I started asking questions, and got buried for not "seeing the obvious" and jumping in with all those that felt that the proposal would "disenfranchise voters". I get it, everyone expects CSM members to have our minds made up about everything before we ever speak about it publicly, and come ready for battle with ammunition ready. This just wasn't one of those cases where I felt strongly one way or another and needed to know more about this before giving it patent endorsement.

Those that objected to the proposal would have done a better job of gaining support from me by simply saying, this is an unethical system, and here's why, breaking down the mechanics and discussing how it actually disenfranchises voters instead of simply being angry with the fact that it was even proposed in the first place. I think you'll find I'm actually quite reasonable and willing to listen.


let me give it a try

it is an unethical system because votes that do not count (because the candidate did not make it) are redistributed, votes that do not count (because the candidate has too many) are discarded.

it is an unethical system because it allows CSM candidats to endorse others whom they consider not having a chance and in return "harvest" their own votes back that they might have lost through the endorsement - making it harder for new people to get in

it is an unethical system because it is by its author explicitly designed in order to harm the vote of organized voting groups and any proposal, however good it may be, because unethical if it is pushed forward with the declared goal of trying to disadvantage voters just because they care enough to organize
Shadow Cartel
#66 - 2012-09-10 20:15:47 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
:tinfoilhat:

making a discussion thread and then making sure it is so controversial that it fails would be a way to justify not involving the public


Naaahh, nothing like that. In retrospect I think we would have done better to just ask questions to the public to get the conversation going rather than bother to include a specific proposal which may or may not have been controversial based on its content. Lesson learned.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2012-09-10 20:16:04 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

It was and still is unclear to me exactly how Trebor's proposal invalidates the overvotes at the top, if the person those people voted for actually takes office.

If my vote goes to someone who already achieved a seat it's wasted just as surely as if I used it on someone who cannot achieve a seat. FPTP basically mandates tactical voting in a situation like this because so many votes are wasted, and you need to vote in a way to ensure yours doesn't get wasted. In FPTP there are so many ways that a vote gets wasted that your voting power is highly dependent on your ability and willingness to vote tactically.

The current 0.0 "advantage" is that with greater information, we have a greater ability to not waste our votes. If you move to a system like STV, then the 0.0 advantage disappears: it is exceptionally difficult to vote tactically in STV (you can really only affect edge cases). So once you've eliminated tactical voting, there is no justifiable reason to then penalize 0.0 voters: doing that is merely reducing their voting power for the sake of reducing it.

The problem with the "standards" for a new system is none is based on "making this system best reflect what people want when they vote". It's solely based on moving power between groups. As a member of the group targeted, you can see why I may take that...poorly.
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-09-10 20:16:34 UTC
Hans, have you gone so far up your own ass that you've forgotten that it's YOU (the CSM) that needs to gain OUR (the playerbase's) support and not the other way around? Every time you say that we should have done a better job selling you is completely missing the point that it's on YOU, the CSM to convince US that your idea is not only worthy, but even necessary.

That's not even touching about how you and every other CSM that participated in that thread was asked point blank about the implications of Requirement #3 only to be met with contempt.
Goonswarm Federation
#69 - 2012-09-10 20:17:08 UTC
I also feel that the other thread would have gone much better had Trebor actually defended his proposal more than once: if he's going to propose something highly controversial like that he better be around to answer the inevitable questions.
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-09-10 20:17:33 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
accusing us of power grabs


How is this not a power grab? You're trying to reduce the power of organized voters in favor of increasing the power of disorganized fringe candidates like "fetish gear in the NEX store."

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Goonswarm Federation
#71 - 2012-09-10 20:17:40 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
In retrospect I think we would have done better to just ask questions to the public to get the conversation going rather than bother to include a specific proposal which may or may not have been controversial based on its content. Lesson learned.

The proposal itself isn't the point of contention here. It's the still stated requirement that the influence of organized voters has to be diminished that's the issue.
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2012-09-10 20:17:45 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
:tinfoilhat:

making a discussion thread and then making sure it is so controversial that it fails would be a way to justify not involving the public


Naaahh, nothing like that. In retrospect I think we would have done better to just ask questions to the public to get the conversation going rather than bother to include a specific proposal which may or may not have been controversial based on its content. Lesson learned.


So what you're saying is you'd prefer to get input from the public and perhaps incorporate it into your own system without revealing the poisonous requirements of that system until you've gotten CCP to adopt it, then?

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2012-09-10 20:18:00 UTC
CliveWarren wrote:
Hans, have you gone so far up your own ass that you've forgotten that it's YOU (the CSM) that needs to gain OUR (the playerbase's) support and not the other way around? Every time you say that we should have done a better job selling you is completely missing the point that it's on YOU, the CSM to convince US that your idea is not only worthy, but even necessary.

That's not even touching about how you and every other CSM that participated in that thread was asked point blank about the implications of Requirement #3 only to be met with contempt.


you know what happens if you say things like that, people show up and delete postings ^^ lets just try to stay somewhere in line ?
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-09-10 20:18:04 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Those that objected to the proposal would have done a better job of gaining support from me by simply saying, this is an unethical system, and here's why, breaking down the mechanics and discussing how it actually disenfranchises voters instead of simply being angry with the fact that it was even proposed in the first place. I think you'll find I'm actually quite reasonable and willing to listen.

First page:

EvilweaselFinance wrote:
It seems like this is a transparent attempt to game the system so the CSM dictates the results rather than the voters.

EvilweaselFinance wrote:
also, unlike actual STV, this system is deliberately designed to penalize overvotes by eliminating ALL of the votes for an elected candidate

that's utterly unacceptable and must be removed

EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Quote:
* If the top vote-getter has more than 1/n of the remaining vote pool, where n is the number of CSM slots still available (14 at the start), she is directly elected; the vote pool is reduced by the number of votes she currently controls (and n goes down by 1 in the next round)


this is the portion I'm talking about, the change from the STV system that the CSM hoped nobody would notice

the proper way to do a STV is transfer the "excess" votes of anyone who obtains a seat


Need I go on?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Caldari State
#75 - 2012-09-10 20:18:34 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
I also feel that the other thread would have gone much better had Trebor actually defended his proposal more than once: if he's going to propose something highly controversial like that he better be around to answer the inevitable questions.


A lack of tinfoil accusations from CSM members on the first 2 pages would've went a long way, too.
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-09-10 20:19:48 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Naaahh, nothing like that. In retrospect I think we would have done better to just ask questions to the public to get the conversation going rather than bother to include a specific proposal which may or may not have been controversial based on its content. Lesson learned.

The problem isn't the proposal, the problem is this:
"The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum

[...]

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs."

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2012-09-10 20:21:02 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Naaahh, nothing like that. In retrospect I think we would have done better to just ask questions to the public to get the conversation going rather than bother to include a specific proposal which may or may not have been controversial based on its content. Lesson learned.

The problem isn't the proposal, the problem is this:
"The CSM believes that any new CSM voting system should, at a minimum

[...]

3) Reduce (but not eliminate) the advantages held by highly organized voting blocs."


and i think we all agree that this is not okay, right? right
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2012-09-10 20:21:31 UTC
Also Hans, while you may not have known the implications of the system Trebor proposed, I knew for a fact he did. A change like that to a well-known voting system doesn't happen by accident: the change was made for a specific reason and so while you unfortunately took the brunt of the anger since you were the only one willing to post, it was only slightly misplaced. Trebor did admit, finally, that the change was in fact deliberate and was done for the specific purposes I'd claimed it was put in there.

I understand you were irritated you got the brunt of the anger for something you feel you didn't do, but given that Trebor made this change, presented it as a CSM decision, then declined to post at all for seventeen pages the fault lies with him, not us.
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-09-10 20:23:41 UTC  |  Edited by: CliveWarren
Cede Forster wrote:
and i think we all agree that this is not okay, right? right


Most of the posters in this thread are. Hans kind-of-sort-of is. Trebor thinks it's just fine. That leaves 11 CSM members, 3 of which were very active in the orignal thread, that haven't weighed in. Don't expect this issue to go away until they do that at minimum.
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-09-10 20:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sal Volatile
You can't even really discuss the merits of any particular proposal when the parameters for the discussion of proposals include the requirement that all proposals must, at minimum, reduce the influence of organized voters.

Hans, do you understand why I can't negotiate in good faith with someone who starts off the conversation with, "I refuse to consider any deal that is not harmful to you." That's the "attack" part of Trebor's post.
Forum Jump