Dev Blog: A closer look at the CSM 13 voting numbers

(CCP Guard) #110

I haven’t looked into that specifically but instinctively I wouldn’t guess that happens a lot. Would be pretty hard if not impossible to correlate that data since we’d have to store the data for what the random order presented was for each voter and I find it unlikely we do.

You’re right though, using all your votes is powerful in the STV system. People may have strategic reasons for not using them all but anyone voting for popular candidates should make sure they put more people after them to make sure their vote has effect.

(CCP Guard) #111

Now you’re bordering on slander, my friend. You’re saying I have motives which I don’t have and while you are free to your opinion, you can’t just make up your own reality and accuse people of actions that fit your view. No skin of my back but there are rules here and this isn’t civil discourse once you start accusing everyone of things you cannot possibly know because they aren’t true.

I repeat, if you have evidence to back up any wrongdoing by CSM members, please send it to me and it will be treated with full confidence and investigated seriously.

3 Likes
(Cadel Evans) #112

Sorry, no bs on this one…and are you sure I am a guy?

(CCP Guard) #113

Good post. I would also add something that people don’t necessarily know, and that is that we don’t automatically tell the CSM every detail all the time. It’s a need-to-know relationship and in cases where there’s limited value in sharing very detailed information such as mineral ratios or resource distribution details, we hold those back and focus on what people need to know in order to discuss each issue in an informed manner and provide good feedback. Of course there’s a lot of trust involved but some people may think being on the CSM is an all you can eat self-service buffet of dank secrets and it’s not :slight_smile:

(CCP Guard) #114

Hey. That’s a common suggestion that comes up but personally I don’t see it working well. I’ve thought about it a lot and always come back to it being hard to manage, easy to game. I think it would turn into an endless argument about whether people actually fit a criteria or not.
I think voters should decide what criteria they want and vote accordingly.

(CCP Guard) #115
  1. There are no current rules against buying votes. It’s definitely something we could look at changing but I don’t have a strong opinion on it currently. As it stands it’s not a strong tool to get a seat compared to being on alliance ballots for example, and it can also backfire by driving away potential votes who dislike the practice. But like I said, it’s not set in stone the way it currently works.

One thing I’d like to object is that the CSM summit is a “community-paid trip” to Iceland. Sure, you guys pay the bills…no dispute there :). But breaking it down like that is a little iffy because ultimately CCP as a business allocates it’s budget in a way that makes sense and CSM summits are definitely a worthwhile cost for CCP as a company. For CSM members it’s also more than a free trip. It’s 4x9 hour days of straight meetings with travel on each end. Lately we’ve started granting people an extra day on the Friday to breathe a bit before the flight home because the pace is pretty gruelling.

Appreciate the point though.

  1. I’d love to do something like that. By then we’ll have a new improved website for the voting and my dream is always to get it in the game or in the launcher. We’ll see what we can get :slight_smile:
4 Likes
(Circumstantial Evidence) #116

Post #9 :slight_smile: The launcher knows all of our accounts, potentially saving a ton of player effort, or also potentially - helping you move toward one player, one vote.

(Brisc Rubal) #117

That’s the thing - you don’t know that.

I certainly don’t intend to put null and my alliances before my responsibility to the community. I didn’t run to be an INIT/nullsec rep on the CSM. I ran to represent the average player on the CSM, because that’s what I am.

That’s what you should expect from everybody you elected - they represent all the players, not just their alliances or corporations or even play styles.

My door will always be open to anybody who wants to have a constructive conversation about EVE and has issues or concerns they want to communicate.

(Saelyth) #118

Whether you like it or not, the CSM still exists. Until a time where it doesn’t, “boycotting” the CSM vote will only continue to put the people you presumably don’t want to see in the seats that are available. Querns of GSF had said on Reddit once that their strength doesn’t come from the collective voting numbers GSF/Imperium can rally to the polls, but the vast degree of opposing players who just can’t be bothered to get involved to voice any other view or opposition.

“Boycotting” the CSM only removes your vote from the election process. Encouraging others to do the same only exacerbates the effect. If nothing else, look at it this way: if your opponent is collecting 3 out of 10 votes, reducing voter count is just going to make that 3/9. Pushing it further, you get 3/8… 3/7… 3/6. If seeing 5 seats go to The Imperium is not palatable to you, encouraging their opposition to not vote may well only result in 6 seats next year. Perhaps even 7 the year after that.

Boycotting will not solve any of the problems that you perceive in the CSM. Encouraging others to dis-involve themselves from the process of communication between players and CCP will not address those problems, either. Rather than taking your vote and walking away, encourage the playerbase to become actively involved. Rally your community and those around you to voice your ideas and propose changes to the system. Do you want Alliance/Coalition limits? Term limits to individual members? A waiting period before any serving member can be re-elected? If so, propose it, make it known, advertise it! Get that info to the CSM, vote for people who you are confident will bring those desires and concerns to CCP. If you don’t trust anyone to do that, run for CSM yourself.

Taking your toys and leaving the sandbox doesn’t make the sandbox go away. All you do is leave it for the others to keep playing in without you.

1 Like
(Jeremiah Saken) #119

You sound like RL politician.

1 Like
(Han Solen) #120

Boycotting CSM isn’t going to solve anything other than allow the misrepresented to still be misrepresented. Honestly though given that the CSM has been reduced in overall size, I believe some further reform is needed. CCP can begin by placing a limit of 1 candidate per alliance. When the candidate goes through the process of getting on the ballot, they must declare what alliance they are affiliated with, not the character they are, just the alliance. If they are truly not affiliated with any alliance, the voters will be able to recognize that. If at anytime they reveal their affiliation and it matches that of another candidate, said candidate would then be disqualified from running further.

Is that a perfect solution? No…but it is a start to help spread out the limited number of positions. If you have say 4-5 candidates wanting to run for CSM under the banner of an alliance, then those guys need to hold their own internal elimination process to choose only one person to run. I think under these guidelines you will see a higher voter turnout as well as more confidence in the CSM and its selection process. It may seem unfair to not let the player base “choose” its own candidates and members, but when you have a large block of loyal players backing nearly half the CSM to vote for, it discourages participation by other candidates of less…pedigree so to speak, and provides an environment where you have essentially a political party going on vs everyone else and everyone else keeps having low turn outs from accepting the fact that it won’t matter because of all the candidates running for that one “party”

Restricting an alliance’s representation within the CSM to 1 member won’t solve that, but it will alleviate it some allowing for more variety and diversity in the CSM which ultimately can only be good. My opinion of course, but it sure beats the hell out of continuing to boycott and seeing lower and lower voter turn out each year.

1 Like
(Brisc Rubal) #121

There’s a reason for that. :slight_smile:

1 Like
(zluq zabaa) #123

Thanks for the reply, appreciated. You are right, calling it a “trip” made it sound as if I didn’t appreciate the work CSM are putting in. I do, so thanks for the correction :slight_smile:

I guess I’m just a bit salty because without the vote-buying we’d have a 2nd Lowsec and PVP mechanics expert with Tikktokk on the CSM. Alas, I’ll keep an eye out for the discussions and if vote buying stays a thing, I hope you guys offer a PLEX sale next year around the elections.

2 Likes
(Qia Kare) #124

The CSM minutes are normally published, where the NDA does not apply. You, or anyone, could gather evidence that a member of the CSM was not executing their job in good faith and bring attention to it.

I have not been a stickler for this, but I have occasionally perused the meeting minutes and have not seen anything of the sort. I would be interested in reading it, should anyone be able to find it.

The Goonswarm Federation has been in Eve a very long time. I don’t know exactly how long, but if it was their ultimate plan to bring down Eve, they’re taking an awful long time to see it through. I see a lot of jealousy over the Delve region, but not a lot of explanation for why the game makes this achievable only for them, so I am skeptical that the game favors them to any significant degree from a mechanics standpoint.

The Goonswarm Federation is an antagonist to many of us, and we do love to hate people who’re doing better in a competitive game than ourselves. Sometimes, though, better to lift ourselves up than try to bring another down.

2 Likes
(Propaghandii) #125

Not holding all candidates to the same standards is a joke. It is crazy that their number 1 candidate can have been censored for racism by ccp but not be removed.

@CCP_Guard any comments on if CCP is investigating racism perpetuated by Aryth on these very forums?

1 Like
(Marcelo II) #126

Too many players from same alliance/corp.

I think CSM could limit that in next election.

(gexxis) #127

lol some of you take this “vote” way to Seriously it’s just a game no real world implications guys .

(Eva Arzi) #128

Agree, the CSM should contain not only NS citizens places, can CCP add static places for high-sec, low-sec, wh representatives and other places can be voted as on CSM13(we know this places will be occupied by goons :slight_smile: )

(Jeremiah Saken) #129

In theory this is a good idea, in practice goons would take all the seats they want anyway because of voting discipline.

Why we CCP would need lowsec seat when don’t develope anything connected do lowsec?

Point of CSM should be: CCP show them stuff they want to introduce and they gave feedback about it with playerbase cooperation. The end.

There is no way to CSM not be biased because candidates came from organised, thousands players nullsec alliances. As far I was trying to keep up with what CSM does all over the years I hardly feel they are playerbase representatives. It’s was CCP claim, and it’s true, it’s easier to talk with 10 people than 1000 but that’s it.

And my concerns about biased nullsec point of view are not unfounded. Some time ago CCP asked CSM what lowsec should be. One of CSM answered that is should be staging point for nullsec. Guess from what space he came from?

(Emmy Chelien) #130

Stop pretending that not voting does not work. This election shows that it does - in terms of escalating things and generating additional non-voters. In the long term growing numbers of non-voters might lead to reform or to removal of the CSM. Explain how CSM in its current form is better than risking no CSM at all to address non-voters.

1 Like