open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked The 5% rule
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.05.10 11:45:00 - [1]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen (blog)
If 5% of the voters support a topic, the Council is required to bring it up. This is done to accommodate the voters, not the Council.


This raises several questions:
  • How many voters are there; i.e. how many voters are needed to meet this requirement?
  • How often will this figure be published & updated?
  • How are voters supposed to express their support for a topic in order for it to be considered binding?
  • Who will have the ability to propose topics for which voters can express their support, if none of the CSM are interested?


I'm sure other matters will be raised, but these are the most significant ones I could think of.


Mary MooseTipper
Posted - 2008.05.10 12:27:00 - [2]
 

I raised this question in the blog comments too - no CCP reply yet:

Originally by: Mary MooseTipper
  • If 5% of the voters support a topic, the Council is required to bring it up. This is done to accommodate the voters, not the Council.


5% of whatQuestion The voters just on that topic? Or the entire playerbase of potential voters?

If it is just 5% of the topic voters then it means that a topic that recieved 19 nays and just 1 aye would have to go to the CSM. A waste of CSM time?

If it is 5% of the entire active playerbase - well, just how many is that? What proportion of the playerbase participate in the forums? How many will vote?

It would be interesting to see what the turnout is for these elections (as a percentage of the active playerbase). I wonder if CCP will publish this ...


Victor Vision
Amarr
Central Intelligence Service
Posted - 2008.05.10 14:45:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Victor Vision on 10/05/2008 14:46:04

I am not able to answer the questions you asked.

However the quote from CCP Xhagen shows that CCP is aware that the CSM is likey to ignore at least some important issues due to none of the candidates being interested in them.

IMHO the success of the CSM in general will depend on CCP continuing to listen to players concerns even if these are not represented within the CSM.

The CSM is one gremium - a council. While councils, if qualified, can be a great help in governing, they should never be the only input taken. Wise governments (CCP is EVEs government) do not just listen to one council, but will always keep an open ear as close as possible to the "common" - council unrelated - population.

Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
Posted - 2008.05.10 17:24:00 - [4]
 

all pretty significant issues and if you want a few more, read my blog.

We need CSM reform now.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.10 20:45:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 10/05/2008 20:45:39
Originally by: Victor Vision


However the quote from CCP Xhagen shows that CCP is aware that the CSM is likey to ignore at least some important issues due to none of the candidates being interested in them.



This will only occur if players vote in candidates that clearly are pushing their own agendas, or have their own opinions on issues that blinker them to alternate views! Now, the way to stop this occuring is to not vote such candidates into the CSM council in the first place, thus they can't ignore important issues.

I personally will be reading the topics posted carefully and expect important issues to be easy to spot,especially since other players will start posting over the 7 days and a good indication of 'feeling' for a topic can be gathered. If the other candidates on the CSM ignore such topics, I will be supporting them (if elected).

Afterall, CSM candidates are elected to listen and debate PLAYER issues and topics, not their own issues and topics!!!

Use your votes wisely...

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.10 22:32:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: CCP Xhagen (blog)
If 5% of the voters support a topic, the Council is required to bring it up. This is done to accommodate the voters, not the Council.


This raises several questions:
  • How many voters are there; i.e. how many voters are needed to meet this requirement?
  • How often will this figure be published & updated?
  • How are voters supposed to express their support for a topic in order for it to be considered binding?
  • Who will have the ability to propose topics for which voters can express their support, if none of the CSM are interested?


I'm sure other matters will be raised, but these are the most significant ones I could think of.




1) I believe it was said to be 10,000 votes.
2) I imagine it will be real time. That'll be up to CCP.
3) I believe they said there'll be a voting mechanism in the CSM forum.
4) Anyone can propose a topic to be voted on.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.11 07:19:00 - [7]
 

valid questions, and some answers

very little information from ccp where we can find it w/o using google too much.

This is the csm forum? then screw your individual dev blogs and the other twenty locations where you hide the answer we are seeking, and give us all information here.

thank you very much :-)

zoolkhan - nonsense reductor; pragmatist; the magnetic hammer that finds the nails head

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2008.05.15 10:28:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro

This raises several questions:

  • How many voters are there; i.e. how many voters are needed to meet this requirement?

  • How often will this figure be published & updated?

  • How are voters supposed to express their support for a topic in order for it to be considered binding?

  • Who will have the ability to propose topics for which voters can express their support, if none of the CSM are interested?



I'm sure other matters will be raised, but these are the most significant ones I could think of.




- This is 5% of eligible voters; i.e. accounts that are 30 days and older. That is around 220.000 voting accounts -- the topic would then have to get approximately 11.000 support vote.

- I had it in mind to post an exact number the day after the election period is up, for all to see. That number would then not be changed until after the next election period, i.e. would stay a constant for the next 6 months (thus representing the number of legal voters 19th of May 2008, not the number of legal voters when the topic is introduced).
The number will be 11.000 and something, as the player base in constantly growing.

- There will be a 'support' function available, where you can declare a support to the topic.

- We can see the support to a topic just as everybody else and we can follow the discussion about that certain topic.

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.15 11:34:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 15/05/2008 11:39:35
Originally by: CCP Xhagen
- This is 5% of eligible voters; i.e. accounts that are 30 days and older. That is around 220.000 voting accounts -- the topic would then have to get approximately 11.000 support vote.


Thank you for this information, but I am wondering that the 11,000 seems a high number compared to the number of different names one sees posting on these forums. Although english is the 'common language' in use for EVE there are many sites devoted to the game in the languages of players who do not have english as a first or subsidiary language - I'm thinking especially of the russian and japanese pilots here, but certainly not only them - who might have difficulty in following threads here. EVE is played by pilots from around the whole world and sometimes in-game communication balkanises that.

Are you able to give an indication of how many accounts actually regularly use these forums (eg. at least one visit in the last three months) and how that compares to the 11,000 requirement, and secondly whether there are any plans to provide translations of any of the topics which come up for discussion.

IZ

Zarch AlDain
GK inc.
Posted - 2008.05.15 12:00:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 15/05/2008 11:39:35
Originally by: CCP Xhagen
- This is 5% of eligible voters; i.e. accounts that are 30 days and older. That is around 220.000 voting accounts -- the topic would then have to get approximately 11.000 support vote.


Thank you for this information, but I am wondering that the 11,000 seems a high number compared to the number of different names one sees posting on these forums. Although english is the 'common language' in use for EVE there are many sites devoted to the game in the languages of players who do not have english as a first or subsidiary language - I'm thinking especially of the russian and japanese pilots here, but certainly not only them - who might have difficulty in following threads here. EVE is played by pilots from around the whole world and sometimes in-game communication balkanises that.

Are you able to give an indication of how many accounts actually regularly use these forums (eg. at least one visit in the last three months) and how that compares to the 11,000 requirement, and secondly whether there are any plans to provide translations of any of the topics which come up for discussion.

IZ



That doesn't follow. I'm 5 votes by myself but you only see 2, maybe 3 of my characters ever posting on the forums...

Fehn Gamin
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2008.05.15 12:32:00 - [11]
 

The % of eligible voters that turn out to vote will be an indication of the level of political involvement of the EVE populace. If we don't have 11,000 votes for the CSM candidates, I suppose this will indicate that most players are either apathetic or ignorant of the political sphere. If that turns out to be the case, I imagine CCP would consider revising the requirement for the forced discussion of a topic at the CSM.

In the case of either a big or small player base involvement, I would like to see some more reforms, as suggested by others, including better communication tools (announcements, poles, etc.).

I would also just like to say a word of thanks to the candidates for all their hard work in the campaign - the CSM is a big 'volunteer' commitment to improving EVE. Thanks also to CCP: for the ways in which you guys continue to creatively advance the world in response to the players.


Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.15 14:15:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen

- This is 5% of eligible voters; i.e. accounts that are 30 days and older. That is around 220.000 voting accounts -- the topic would then have to get approximately 11.000 support vote.


My question and concern is with regards to the firm 5%. As it happens only 97 players of the eligible 220,000 applied for candidacy (even though only 64 of those made it through the screening process). As this is the only hard number we have to work from thus far, I was quite surprised by the fact only .0004% of the EVE community had become involved. I'm well aware that many did not meet certain requirements (age, having a valid passport, having an account old enough, etc.), however this - to me - was a staggering number.

Therefore, with initial interest in the political system of EVE it would take 12,500x (times) the number of initial interested players to make up the 5% interest to see a topic fully supported to be laid at the CSM's lap. I am aware that the number of players interested in candidacy and those interested in supporting an issue isn't comparing apples to apples, but I think you can get a glimpse of my point.

My question is, if after X days or months it becomes apparent that the "politics" of EVE just doesn't have the support of the players, will CCP stand fast on their 5%? Even if it means the CSM heads to Iceland without any issues with support enough to bring forth to the CCP development teams?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.05.15 14:41:00 - [13]
 

11k votes... hmm... looking at the CSM forum, more than two whole weeks after its creation, the threads with the highest view count barely reach 11k views.
Not replies, not votes... VIEWS.
And this with a MOTD urging people to come in here and read about the CSM.
Hardly encouraging.

Ameliorate
Posted - 2008.05.16 04:32:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: CCP Xhagen
- This is 5% of eligible voters; i.e. accounts that are 30 days and older. That is around 220.000 voting accounts -- the topic would then have to get approximately 11.000 support vote.

- I had it in mind to post an exact number the day after the election period is up, for all to see. That number would then not be changed until after the next election period, i.e. would stay a constant for the next 6 months (thus representing the number of legal voters 19th of May 2008, not the number of legal voters when the topic is introduced).
The number will be 11.000 and something, as the player base in constantly growing.

- There will be a 'support' function available, where you can declare a support to the topic.

- We can see the support to a topic just as everybody else and we can follow the discussion about that certain topic.


The only way this system will work is if the opportunity to support the topic is shoved down people's throats. Such as whenever they login, before loading the character selection, a box pops up and demands they Support or Decline to support the topic in question. Even a link to the area to support the topic would be pointless as most will ignore it - just as they are with the current MOTD about the CSM elections, as the poster above me pointed out.

The real 5% pool should come from accounts that are active on the forums, ie. have posted in the last 20 (for example) days or even only count those who voted in the CSM elections, that is the ones who actually care the internal politics of the game.

The system as stated in the quoted post is ridiculous. It would be the equivalent of running an election and relying on a small piece of text that appears once a day on the television to advertise the election to the general public, the text reading something equivalent to "Vote in the elections". Not stating the importance of the elections, not stating what it is for (Local body? Presidential? School board?) and relying on the people to go out of their way to disrupt what they are watching (such as opening up the satellite TV menu) to vote for something they don't understand.

Although very few would be surprised, that is what CCP have done afterall.

Thundirr
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.16 07:24:00 - [15]
 

I see the EVE political machine actually powered at the Alliance leadership Level.

The bulk of EVEsí organized player base resides in alliances. Similar to Unions in the States, an Alliance could mobilize its player base to support a topic. I could make a post in alliance mail and on alliance forums requesting that the members of my alliance vote on a topic, I might even ask they vote for someone of my choice, and many of them would do so. Similarly, on a smaller level, corporate CEOs could pay a little bit of attention to the forums and motivate their member base to vote yay/nay on a subject.

At an even higher level, several alliance leaders could discuss topics currently on the table and agree on a path of action. They could then make a broad, multi alliance wide, announcement to their member base requesting a vote for/against a topic. This could be seen as a large organization of votes towards the political arena. Inversely, as has been seen by the recent Great War where an estimated 50k+ pilots were involved, a large organized faction (a polarized group of alliances) could try to push a topic towards their advantage and easily meet the 11k base needed to push the topic forward to the CSM.

There is also the outside chance that a voter base could be Ďpaidí to vote for something. It seems outside the box, but interested parties would see the opportunity to rig elections in their favor as a great opportunity.

Getting people to vote when alliance/Corp leaders get involved wont be a problem. Making sure the vote isnít rigged or somehow weighted against another faction might prove to be more challenging.

Just saying how I see it.

Thundirr out.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.05.16 09:08:00 - [16]
 

What about alts.

Sunwillow Auryn
Posted - 2008.05.16 12:51:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Arum Erzoh
My question and concern is with regards to the firm 5%. As it happens only 97 players of the eligible 220,000 applied for candidacy (even though only 64 of those made it through the screening process). As this is the only hard number we have to work from thus far, I was quite surprised by the fact only .0004% of the EVE community had become involved. I'm well aware that many did not meet certain requirements (age, having a valid passport, having an account old enough, etc.), however this - to me - was a staggering number.

Therefore, with initial interest in the political system of EVE it would take 12,500x (times) the number of initial interested players to make up the 5% interest to see a topic fully supported to be laid at the CSM's lap. I am aware that the number of players interested in candidacy and those interested in supporting an issue isn't comparing apples to apples, but I think you can get a glimpse of my point.


You can't judge the player base interested in elections by the number of candidates standing - even in local level government elections you see a handful of candidates for a voting base of several thousand. In the UK during the governmental elections there are usually about 6 or so candidates, with each constituency having 30-50k registered voters or which about half actually do. So I'd say 97 candidates out of 220k base is actually not too bad especially when you consider how many of those 220k are alts.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.16 15:55:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Sunwillow Auryn
Originally by: Arum Erzoh
I am aware that the number of players interested in candidacy and those interested in supporting an issue isn't comparing apples to apples, but I think you can get a glimpse of my point.


You can't judge the player base interested in elections by the number of candidates standing - even in local level government elections you see a handful of candidates for a voting base of several thousand. In the UK during the governmental elections there are usually about 6 or so candidates, with each constituency having 30-50k registered voters or which about half actually do. So I'd say 97 candidates out of 220k base is actually not too bad especially when you consider how many of those 220k are alts.


You are absolutely correct, thus my statement. However, with what numbers we have to work with (candidate applications and forum reads & posts) a generalized extrapolation leads one to question whether or not the needed 5% may be a bar too highly set.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2008.05.16 17:54:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Arum Erzoh


You are absolutely correct, thus my statement. However, with what numbers we have to work with (candidate applications and forum reads & posts) a generalized extrapolation leads one to question whether or not the needed 5% may be a bar too highly set.



It is very difficult to estimate the number being discussed here. Especially when one doesn't know the actual turnout; and not being able to predict it in any intelligible way either.

5% of all eligible voters to force the council to take a matter into consideration will be the rule for the first CSM. This is of course assuming that the council doesn't want to take the specific issue up - for whatever reasons that might be.

When the second elections will draw near, and we know more about the turnout of this election, the participation and have other information that are relevant, I will review the number.

This number is by no means set in stone for the future although we will use it for the first term.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.05.16 18:01:00 - [20]
 

I always thought it was a good idea setting a 51% rule. The 100% line would be the total amount of votes, from the election.
This assumes that only those who voted for the election, will vote for certain issues.
Thus, this is the baseline, where a majority must agree.

Would that work, for next time?

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.16 19:43:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
I always thought it was a good idea setting a 51% rule. The 100% line would be the total amount of votes, from the election.
This assumes that only those who voted for the election, will vote for certain issues.
Thus, this is the baseline, where a majority must agree.

Would that work, for next time?



I totally agree with you LaVista. As participation isn't anywhere near mandatory there's no way to assume levels of participation. Therefore, a 5% support of an issue by all potential players is a greater postulation than saying an issue needs 10,000 total votes with 51+% approval to be set in the CSM's lap.

CCP Xhagen

Posted - 2008.05.17 19:54:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
I always thought it was a good idea setting a 51% rule. The 100% line would be the total amount of votes, from the election.
This assumes that only those who voted for the election, will vote for certain issues.
Thus, this is the baseline, where a majority must agree.

Would that work, for next time?



This is one solution to the problem yes - and a very simple one as well.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.05.24 14:50:00 - [23]
 

The problem I see is that the CSM elections themselves were only able to draw about 11% of the playerbase. If we look at historical examples, major elections (such as presidential in US) always draw a higher voter turnout than elections with only lesser issues at stake. I would propose that the CSM election is like a presidential election, while individual issues discussed on the forums are more minor and will draw the attention of fewer voters.

Given the numbers from the CSM elections, it is entirely reasonable to assume that most of the issues brought to the CSM forums will only ever be seen by 5 or 6% of the playerbase. In this case, requiring a 5% support is requiring the playerbase to be nearly unanimous on the issue, which I think we can agree is a ridiculous level of requirement just to have an issue looked at by CCP, and most likely a requirement that will rarely ever be met, if at all. With this model, it is entirely possible that the only issues brought before CCP will be those proposed by the CSM itself. If this is the case, then the power to suggest change to CCP has been removed almost entirely from the playerbase and put solely in the hands of 9 individuals and 5 alternates. Does anyone else have a problem with this?

Avalira
Caldari
The Black Light Foundation
Posted - 2008.05.24 17:04:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
I always thought it was a good idea setting a 51% rule. The 100% line would be the total amount of votes, from the election.
This assumes that only those who voted for the election, will vote for certain issues.
Thus, this is the baseline, where a majority must agree.

Would that work, for next time?



That would be worse than now. There were over 24000 votes which means at 51% we would need just over 12000 votes to force an issue.

Fallorn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.24 17:27:00 - [25]
 

Can you guys allow us to support a topic without posting because if we have to post things will get to the point where they would have to be 500 pages. Also if we could support a topic from some where ingame and also vote in game it would be ****.

Gwendion
Gallente
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.05.25 02:11:00 - [26]
 

I and many others did not vote. For one reason. We didn't know any of the candidates at all. Most of them were from alliances and corps we don't even deal with or have ever seen, in essence, ghosts. We don't vote for that. Not a single thread for the candidates explained enough to get to know the person well enough to put them in a position of power. from our point of view, We didn't want some no name motsu mission runner, running things.

This doesn't mean we wont vote on issues.

Galmar Grief
Caldari
New Eden Research Organisation
Posted - 2008.05.25 09:39:00 - [27]
 

5% of all eligable eve accounts seems quite a lot when you take into account all the alts, macroers, farmers etc... then take into account how many people actually DO use the forums.

Personally I think that the 5% rule or whatever should be taken from the number of active forum users, not active EVE accounts (and maybe raise to 10% to compensate).

xena zena
The Money Shot Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.26 06:26:00 - [28]
 

Has there ever been 11,000 posts on a single topic EVER in the history of eve on this forum? Even for HIGHLY controversial topics like say the whole issue of dev's cheating in-game, added up every topic and post about something like that, does it even come close to 11,000 POSTS, let alone "eligible voting accounts"

I think 11,000 accounts is an INSANE amount to just "make" the CSM's "consider" the topic.

Look back into the history of these forums for major hot-topics and see how many "votes" those would of got, and base the rule on something along those lines.

I highly doubt 11,000 accounts even READ the forums. ugh

xena zena
The Money Shot Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.26 06:49:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: xena zena on 26/05/2008 06:51:52
Originally by: Avalira
Originally by: LaVista Vista
I always thought it was a good idea setting a 51% rule. The 100% line would be the total amount of votes, from the election.
This assumes that only those who voted for the election, will vote for certain issues.
Thus, this is the baseline, where a majority must agree.

Would that work, for next time?



That would be worse than now. There were over 24000 votes which means at 51% we would need just over 12000 votes to force an issue.


I would think if 12,000 active accounts stood up and demanded action by ccp, it shouldn't be an issue that is "considered" but an action of #1 priority, higher then paying pay-checks or sleeping. They should fix it. Period. Thats like $180,000 USD of voice standing up behind an issue, and taken into account the vast amount of people who feel the same way but didn't vote/post because they just don't want to stand out (probably a huge % of people that "lurk" these forums) and the amount of people who feel the same way but don't speak/read English enough to really participate on the forums (probably also not an insignificant amount of people)

Thats an ASTRONOMICAL amount of accounts to stand up and yell about an issue at once. Never has happened in the game, never will most likely. To just require that amount to have an issue considered, makes the whole CSM thing seem entirely for show.

I think the considered topics of discussion for CSM should be the top say 10 highest voted topics that haven't been resolved in the issues forum. Regardless of % of votes, the top 10 highest voted topics during their tenure should be those they seriously consider, and if they don't consider one of those they better have a darn good reason! ugh

QT Girl
Posted - 2008.05.27 19:47:00 - [30]
 

Why not have 1 vote per account and you have to register to vote?
You don't register for the voting privilege you don't get a vote.

Benefits -
  • Players who did not vote in CSM election are represented if they register.
  • Alts do not vote the player does. Three accounts won't give you 9 votes.
  • Gives a better picture of how many paying customers support an issue.
  • Registered voters = total electorate number.
  • May allow for future anonymous voting if you want to support an issue but your corp says not to.

Drawbacks -
  • Voting permissions/registration functionality would need to be set up for each account.
  • Players will have to register one character from their account as eligible voter.

There's possibly other benefits/drawbacks but it's an idea...


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only