They prefer to say that this is up to voters itself to spend time learning candidates and such.
Personally i don’t want to spend my time on things i have no proofs of usefullness.
4 Likes
For someone who so easily calls other people stupid and insinuates them whining, when they are actually discussing, you are pretty lazy. Linking a wikipedia post is something everyone can do, explaining what exactly you are referring to would be better.
First, what you linked is not referring to all voting systems, but merely to voting systems in which ranking of given choices is the only information available. There are many other ways to vote.
Second, what you called proof is absolutelty not that. It’s a theorem and not only is that a great difference from a proof, but it also serves another purpose. As a theorem it has set its own preconditions, which on their own are in debate. Unless there is proof that the preconditions, specifically IIA, are inherently necessary to define a notion of fairness, the theorem stays just that. To be fair, most economists do that: choosing their own preconditions in order to finalize a conclusion out of them in a seemingly logical, mathematic way. Unless an equally logical dissection of the preconditions is part of any “proof”, everything that builds upon that is more belief than science.
Last, regarding the specific circumstances of EVE, I do question wether any version of pure STV is really the best way to express voters wants and needs. That doesn’t mean that a better way to reach that goal would automatically be more practical. However, a system with a non-fixed number of seats could do without ranking candidates against each other, while potentially reaching a greater representation for people outside of strongly organized entities.
The point of this entire discussion is to understand more about the specific inner workings of Wright STV in the context of EVE online CSM elections, so that people who want to vote can understand how to do that while avoiding the pitfalls of STV, which could make their vote meaningless.
Agreed.
And then CCP just walks in, and they say:
CCP: We just making a new expansion, its 99% complete, what are you thinking guys?
CSM: But it would be better if…
CCP: We agree but we cant do that now because we are making this expansion. Ok lets go drink some beer.
6 Likes
For some reason every time something badly implemented or badly though out gets into Tranquility it is always the case of “CSM is only consultative group, CCP has no obligation to listen to them” or CSM guys simply never can be seen around EvE forums.
Not sure if it does matter who gets elected into CSM with these conditions. Just my opinion for sure.
1 Like
works like this: we vote and ccp manipulates the vote to which ever person they think will make them the most money
2 Likes
LOL…Have you ever been to a Fanfest or big player meetup?
This ■■■■ goes on all the time, it’s not limited to the CSM, it doesn’t matter where it happened, it could have been by email, or messenger, or twatter.
It happened, get over it.
This isn’t what the CSM does.
The CSM members represent themselves and depending on who they are, there may be other interests (eg. Aryth), but they aren’t elected to represent us.
We vote and hopefully some views amongst candidates match our own, but they aren’t elected to represent us, only their own opinions.
I don’t care about that as this activity is perfectly legitimate.
Yes, it does. It matters when an anonymous person is paid in RL (via goods & services) to represent players and then betrays those same players under circumstances that are not available to them, either in-game or in RL.
No. You are trying to deny me a democratic right as an omega player to express my view on the activities of a CSM representative - activities that were carried out whilst they were on duty as a CSM representative. This is not a game issue. This is a RL ethical issue.
Then I got that totally wrong.
@CCP_Falcon Is there any mechanism whereby I can now rescind my votes(s) and withdraw from the process?
1 Like
Players have been asking for a long time to include ‘None Of The Above’ option. That would probably get the largest amount of votes.
Anyway, I just fill up the 10 slots with candidates I like and in the order I’d like to see them get elected. Obviously it doesn’t matter. Hell, last year not a single character I voted for made it onto the CSM.
Will have to see how it goes this year.
Rather opinion of their leaders.
Of course not everyone of them.
Even if they wanted, representing the players would hardly be possible, because players have not yet shown capable of organizing any pan-coalition decision making body for that. I see no reason why this would change. It’s a lot of effort, would be hard to keep stable giving the competetiveness of the game and at most it could yield a CSM that is bound by RL agreements to such a player body, at which point CCP might simply not be willing to continue the CSM anymore.
Even if who wanted … the CSM Members? Have you read the appropriate Community page, regarding what CCP expects the CSM Members to actually do? Inter alia:
-
“The Council of Stellar Management is a player advocacy group … democratically elected by the players”
-
“The CSM brings focused, structured feedback from the community to CCP”
-
“The role of a CSM member is to represent the player community”
-
“It is CCPs intention that it will be possible for the council to bring back many … discussions to their constituency”
-
“CCP greatly values help from the CSM in … gathering player feedback on features”
However, presumably what @Scipio_Artelius is referring to are the statements in the separate “Freedom of Expression” clause; viz:
“As a CSM delegate you always represent yourself and your own views.”
“It is generally expected you will represent your views and stances on your CSM work with the EVE playerbase, but it is not required.”
1 Like
They are all bound by an NDA with CCP, before they are bound by any player requirement.
The CSM isn’t really for the players to provide their views to CCP. It’s a body that provides feedback to CCP on questions CCP wants answered. It’s a focus group that is limited in what it can say to the playerbase, and that’s the only way CCP is comfortable sharing information with them.
While we elect who is on the CSM, that election process doesn’t provide democratic representation. It is just a vote for someone you think might share similar views to you, but what they do after that is totally up to them.
1 Like
In theory, players could unite and set up RL contracts with CSM candidates, push everyone else out of the race etc. At that point in the hypothesis CCP would probably get rid of the CSM.
Yeah I agree and any notion that goes beyond that mixes up a democratic parliament with the role of a council that advises a monarch ruler in a non-democracy.
Sure, but democracy (or rather constitutional monarchy, after all the CSM has no final say in anything), doesn’t work this way around. Players would need to make sure that the CSM they elected represents players interests. Players need to make the CSM represent their interests. Players, not CCP. For that to happen players would first need to get beyond the state of discussing things. How would any CSM member even be able to represent the player body, if players are not able to find solid ways to find agreements on necessary changes?
A few CSM members have done a great deal of work to try the best they can to represent discussions happening, but it’s more a problem of players being unable to make the step from discussing/meming/screaming each other down to forming their own councils.
Yes and that is as good as it gets in communication between a business and its customers.
Having a CSM surely has its advantages for all sides, while it also has its costs. If players want more of a say in things, they need to organize themselves first.
Except, customers do not elect un-accountable representatives to then speak on their behalf.
You are articulating strong reasons why the CSM cannot / does not represent us. So, explain it to me as to why we are electing them in the first place? Otherwise you have just answered the OP’s question … how exactly do these elctions work? Answer, they don’t, as it is just a convenient way for CCP to indirectly select a focus group, and no democracy was actually invoked at any stage.
1 Like
The CSM was born as a PR move that has long overlasted its reason to exist and now just exists because it existed in the past.
There is a good reason why nobody anywhere haves a CSM as CCP haves: they aren’t necessary. Whatever function we want to attribute to the CSM, it should be a internal function performed by paid employees, not a external one dependant on volunteer customers.
The only function the CSM serves is which that is intrinsical to its birth as a PR move: it gives players the illusion of participating in the development of the game through a democratic procedure. Occasionally it can be seen as useful, even BE useful, and CCP strives to make some use of it because it’s their money after all, but the whole point is this: whatever the CSM is alleged to do, CCP should be doing it inhouse as every other company in the universe does.
3 Likes
Or they could just bring back community devs.
1 Like
This is exactly what we do with the CSM, isn’t it?
But more than anything else the reason for that is that players do not set up bodies for democratic decision making of their own. Some CSM members do the best they can to represent a very heterogenous playerbase.
CCP wants to include players, who are entrusted by at least parts of the playerbase, into discussions they couldn’t have in public. This falls under feedback in order to make their product more compelling to their customers. Getting a certain number of players to say “I trust these guys have enough knowledge about the game and a certain personal integrity”, is a better way than picking them top-bottom.
I’m the OP and wanted to know how specifically the STV system for the CSM election works and I think I’ve got that now. So yes, the CSM is a focus group, but one selected by players and not by CCP.
Democracy is never something that is given to you, it is always something that needs to be taken.
Funny enough, CSM elections and real life elections are theoretically completely different, but in their practical effect the CSM might be more democratic than real life “democracy”. In real life, the people actually are the owners of the state and all its bodies, the representatives they elect are their employees, just as any state employee is really the employee of the people. Despite that, people rarely if ever exercise their power, e.g. relieving misconducting employees of their duties.
In the business-customer-relation on the other hand, it is very different. The people there can only choose to consume(buy) or not, but they don’t actually own the shop. CCP like any other company is under no obligation to let any customer influence their decisions. Yet they do it by means of CSM and other forms, which is more than you can say about real life politicians.
So let me ask you this: how do you think that you can have democracy in a business-customer-relation, which is not even possible in the current form of economic system, when people/players are not even able to exercise their democratic power in real life, where they already have democracy?
I mean, I’m a big fan of democracy, but it is kind of funny and sad that we hold a company to higher standards than we do our states, no?
That would have advantages and disadvantages. CCP would need to pay them more than just per diems and travel expenses, but at the same time there would be less danger of entanglement. At the same time any CCP employee would functionally be loyal to CCP alone, which would mean that in times of conflict, they’d not be on our side.
That’s why I think that the CSM is as good as it gets in the relation between game company and playerbase. Maybe they are not necessary, as you say, but I think overall, besides all flaws, it is a good institution and certainly worth working on its improvement rather than becoming cynical about it not being perfect.
Everything that goes beyond the CSM would need to come from the players themselves, by their own initiave and until that happens, you won’t have more democracy. Hell, if you can organize a large enough group of EVE players to express their unified will, find people amongst them willing to go into the CSM as delegates of that, control that those delegates actually do what you voted them in for, while keeping their NDA, it would be pretty great. But, it is a game and I would be surprised if enough people would be willing to do such an effort.
It is more than a PR move, although that might be part of it. While the procedure is not democratic, the participation is real.
Yes, not as a replacement of the CSM, but as an addition.
I truly and utterly regret getting involved in this. I’m out.
1 Like