CSM8: How Did We Vote?

Avatar
Brings ufä punkt. Vielleicht isch de scheiss eifach nüme so interessant wie vor es paar jahr no...
Avatar
I really hope this CSM CCP lead in the communications of how they use the CSM. If they want to player base more engaged with the CSM process they need to invest in marketing it as a process that makes the game better. Leaving up to the CSM themselves would appear to be remarkably lazy of CCP.
Avatar
Good writeup Alikchi. It was fun matching prognostications with you for election season.
Avatar
Suppose for a minute that TMDC runs on a 5$ Cost per Impression (CPM) deal: For every 1,000 page views, TMDC receives 5$ from the advertising company (AdChoices in this case - the 5$ CPM is an average estimate). Every page view is worth half a cent in this scenario; that is unless the visitor is running an add blocker - blocked page views are worth nothing.Paginating is an alternate solution to filling the site with trash articles on "top 50 scandalous pictures of naked celebrities" (a few of those are down here in the "around the web" box, but we're lucky that the site has so few adds to begin with). I'm sure no one would like that, but it'd get page views. Fortunately TMDC writers are paid in ISK and not US$, so the only cost is for server upkeep.So if you don't like redirected pagination. Suggest that TMDC runs a donation drive- a few thousand dollars would presumably keep the site add-free and without redirected pagination for a year (they could easily use a pagination system that doesn't load a new page).
Avatar
This years election was a drag. literally. It was a lot of effort for multiple accounts.
Avatar
Ich glaube das es einfach ein Zeichen der Zeit ist und nächstes Jahr wenn alle mehr Erfahrung haben wird es wieder mehr Wähler geben.I think there are less voters because it was something new, however next year there will be more voters.Also FA got the diplo-bat for having a different voting list in the beging, so they had to change it. At the end I believe GSF said that there weren't enough 1st place votes for the other candidates and that is why there where not more GSF Candidates.
Avatar
Luckily they ended up changing a few things like remembering your ballot, so it would be more bearable. Like I already said it was the first time and next year everybody will have more experience!
Avatar
If I remember correctly when I brought up the topic I got a bit flamed for it, but a nice mod told me that they receive money by clicks and not by views and that the pagination is some kind of standardized thing. I don't know enough about advertisement except that ad-block plus is really useful to judge the whole situation but I think they should really use less pages because it simply breaks the reading flow.
Avatar
We paginate off the NYT.com standard, approximately every 800-1000 words. Your last five comments on the site, over the previous two months, /only/ relate to pagination complaints. When we ran James 315 pieces raw, users asked for pagination; when we paginated, some acted like it was a warcrime - but only a handful. Enough.
Avatar
For me, pagination is fine when I'm reading on my desktop. Reading on my mobile, however, is a different story. Being deprived of broadband can result in page load times equivalent to dial-up. I vaguely remember you guys mentioning mobile optimization coming Soon™, might be worth seeing if it is possible to remove pagination for mobile connections. Just my two cents.
Avatar
That's... unconventional? But okay.As for pagination or not, a toggle button and a cookie can do a lot I suppose.I don't mind either way -- good articles are good articles and that's all I really come here for.
Avatar
It's four pages. I don't give a shit about clicks, but I know this about them: they're not difficult
Avatar
point out that sentence if it exists (also I cited Enrico Banzai and linked to his thread)
Avatar
Likewise!
Avatar
Yeah, we absolutely acknowledge how much of a pain pagination is for mobile. Irumani continues to slave away at a 'responsive design' stylesheet which should fix our mobile layout forever, but it's one of the harder things in webdev to do. Keep holding out, it'll be done soon (since Irumani is mostly done with the forums now).
Avatar
Everything depends on the point of view. I prefer less pages, as a lot of others, at least it looks like this to me. And the best way would be if you give the reader the option to toggle between the two modes?
Avatar
Is there a way to make it the users choice if they want to have pages or not?
Avatar
For most articles the pagination is fine. The exception being James 315 pieces, which can be painful with no breaks or split into eight pages. Seriously, the man's brilliant, he just needs a filter before the rest of us can realize it.
Avatar
I would like to make 2 comments on the analysis I did, which was cited here:- My analysis does not suggest bad voting discipline likely cost Banlish a seat. I found that Banlish needed another ~600 first places votes or another ~1000 HBC bloc ballots to get elected.- Assigning votes to the CFC and the HBC based on who headed the ballot works pretty well. It's hard to imagine that Sort Dragon, Banlish, Awol Aurix, Artctura, DaeHan Minhyok, and Kaleb Rysode got much support outside the blocs, and we see that when eliminated, their votes when overwhelmingly to someone else in their respective blocs (except Banlish, who was eliminated last of them). The two candidates who did have some outside support mynnna, and Sala Cameron, were generally not at the top of non-CFC/HBC ballots that they were on. Another way to look at it is to examine the results from the STV-2 run for the permanent Iceland seats. You can see from those results that at the last round with both a CFC and HBC candidate (mynnna and Sort Dragon), they each have tallies pretty close to what I assigned from first place votes. So while it is more generous, I think it's also more accurate. (You can also get an idea what percentage of HBC voters defected from the "deal" by not ranking any CFC candidates).
Avatar
I was wrong, but pagination was still implemented due to user demand, not a desire for more pageviews
Avatar
Good article. My only quibble is that the wormhole candidates weren't *really* 13th and 14th, though one of the annoying things about STV is that there isn't really a good way to assign positions to people. Given that, as you said, we had the bloc strength of the HBC, we should have positions roughly similar to them. The reason we were so late in getting our 2 candidates elected is because we had 3 candidates that were "alive" for a lot longer than the HBC.
Avatar
How about this idea for an article:A summary/narrative of the worst TMC comments: the stuff that got people banned, any ip/tor/proxy fuckery, funny/desperate repeat offenders,etc.The cornfield of TMC disqus basically but in story format obviously.
Avatar
I meant I really could care less to find out who stands for what considering the amount of effort it would take, but I know my specific interests aren't met.
Avatar
One would imagine it would be easy to assign positions to people?Run STV with 14 slots: get 14 winners.Run the same numbers with 13 slots: get 13 winners and one guy who is now in 14th spot.Run the same numbers with 12 slots: get 12 winners, one guy in 14th spot, and a new guy which you put in 13th spot.etc.
Avatar
So you're knowingly combining absolute ignorance with absolute certainty that you're being fucked?And this is supposed to elicit any symapthy or concern whatsoever? Can you make any case that you don't *deserve* to be held down and fucked? Don't get me wrong, I'm *still* going to try and do my best for you, but I'd find it very difficult to argue against any other CSM member who saw your comment and said "well fuck /him/ then".
Avatar
I demand the creation of a Council of Mitannian Management! I for one am standing on a platform of the development of a mobile skin. (to be read with a scottish accent)
Avatar
I agree its not a big deal, but it is trashy... and I think a lot of people would like being a part of this site without having to feel gamed by it all the time. You can take this advise or you can ignore it.... I really don't care.
Avatar
Go fuck yourself
Avatar
That was an awesome reply. Thank you :) I am better for this.
Avatar
That's a great answer, thank you Mittani :)
Avatar
Ostensibly the "Official GENTS Ballot" swapped Kesper into the #1 spot but there was very little emphasis on it.While we make a point of maintaining an alliance identity distinct from "goons with top hats" this was one of those cases where copy/pasting the GSF content wholesale (funky JavaScript bookmarklets included) served just fine.All indications (including internal exit-polling) are that the GENTS vote was significantly just the CFC ticket, with some folks swapping Kesper to the top at their leisure.If we'd known that was going to make us look like lazy gits in our voting we might have not been such lazy gits copy/pasting the GSF GotV content :p
Avatar
Just as a small point of clarification, N3 techncally had a very simple and straightforward ballot - Progodlegend #1, Travis Musgrat #2, whatever the fuck you want from there down. Probably stretches the definition of "ballot", but...may as well make it clear that it wasn't just all Progod all the time.
Avatar
I assumed it was because y'all were too lazy deal with analytics properly and wanted to avoid 0 second visits. There is no financial incentive to up the page views (and not much value - note Mittens refers only to uniques in his broadcast spam).An option to switch it would be neat.
Avatar
You're welcome.

You may have heard about the election we had recently! We’re all familiar with who won, so let’s dive right into the details. 

Turnout, and what to do about it

When I was writing my predictions post, CSM7 members were beginning to voice their now-justified concerns about voter apathy and lower turnout this year. This was the biggest surprise for me. Turnout this year was 49,702 - nearly 10,000 less than CSM7’s 59,109. Even in the simulations I ran predicting low turnout, I expected a lower rate of increase than from CSM6 to CSM7, not an outright decrease in turnout. Consequently, most of my predictions were 15-20K voters high. I initially expected these concerns were overblown, or just the manifestation of people’s fears about STV. I was wrong.

CCP does deserve some of the blame for lessened turnout, but maybe not as much as they're getting. Believe it or not, this year's election was the most-promoted in CSM history (discounting, perhaps, the first). The community was extraordinarily engaged as well, with the Crossing Zebras interviews in particular providing a more in-depth look at the candidates and their positions than we'd ever had before. Prospective voters had access to a wealth of information. Despite all this, we lost 10,000 votes somewhere. 

So, what happened?

I think it’s fair to say that CSM6 and CSM7 were exceptional elections. CSM6 saw the first really effective bloc vote turnout - the ‘seizure of control’ by nullsec - and was held in a time of bubbling discontent with EVE. Everyone was concerned about the state of the game, declining subscription numbers.. feelings that would boil over into Jita riots, special CSM summits, the Summer of Rage, and other drama througout CSM6’s term. All this culminated with the release of Crucible. The Mittani was a polarizing enough figure to draw in thousands of votes purely for and against him. These were climactic elections with a narrative - they felt like emergencies at the time.

CSM7 has presided over the game (and CCP) righting itself. Their success has been largely behind closed doors and evident in a series of decent expansions building on Crucible. This election was not an emergency. EVE seems to be doing fine, and as such, people were less motivated to vote. The lack of polarizing figures and few CSM7 members running for reelection also likely made a difference. Also, lowsec had no candidate like Hans Jagerblitzen to rally around this year. Many factors contributed, but basic apathy underlies it all.

There are some harebrained ideas out there for increasing turnout - forcing everyone to vote to log in, bribed voting (fill out a ballot and get a pirate noob ship!), splashing ads on the highsec gate billboards (people look at those?), et cetera. However, there are good ideas out there, too, and they should be considered. High turnout confers legitimacy on an elected body; low turnout undermines it. Legitimacy means that people give a damn about what you do and say. This is important!

Understanding the results of the election in detail requires comprehension of our voting system, the Wright Single Transferrable Vote system. Mynnna still has the best explanation of it online. It'd also be a good idea to have a look at the CSM7 results (operating under First Past the Post) for a point of comparison. With all that said, let's start dissecting the vote and see how everyone did, starting with the big blocs.

CFC

There are a couple of ways we can look at this. Way one: “Last year The Mittani received 10,000 votes. This year, the CFC ballot (and its variations) garnered about 6,000. They screwed up.” The other way: “It’s complicated.”

The CFC vote decreased dramatically over last year’s for a few reasons. Chief among them is the overall voter apathy that afflicted the entire EVE voter base - this, in fact, accounts for the majority of the decrease - but other factors contributed as well. This election didn’t have a great CFC ‘narrative’. CSM6 was about ‘saving the game from the pubbies’, CSM7 was rubbing their face in it, CSM8 was about.. winning again, I guess. Last year's election saw more clever efforts, like isk prizes for those who convinced the most non-Goons to vote for The Mittani or for the best propaganda, but this year, CFC leadership was happy to sit back and spam broadcasts. Essentially, The Mittani’s elections were crusades, this one was not, and the stakes were not felt to be high. Goons put in the necessary effort to ‘win’ but weren’t particularly energized. 

As mynnna would be the first to tell you, he is not The Mittani. He doesn’t yet have the name recognition or public following that The Mittani had. If CSM8 is a success and he runs again next year, you may see the CFC ballot approach CSM7 numbers, but that's always going to be a hard record to beat. 10,000 votes seems mind-boggling now.

Here’s a quote from Powers, one of the Goonswarm directors who designed the CFC ballot:

I only expected to get one permanent plane ticket and MAYBE 4 people from the top6 in, but that was a perfect storm scenario with 8000 people voting the ballot. Keep in mind this was my project, and it was an experiment/gamble. We knew that the hard math would only yield 4 seats at best, yet we politicked outwardly that we might be able to get 7 in order to fish for CSM chair vouches/commits. In the end 6 people from our entire list got on, and we have commits from about 7-8 people for chair (we'll see what happens). Most of them bust ass, so they'll get plane tickets.

In summation, this was a decent result for the CFC. The statistics show that they're still the strongest voting bloc in EVE, but that voting bloc is not immune to the trends of the greater game. CSM7's 10,000 was something that we may not see again for years, but the votesmiths in Deklein can still pull out a solid win. The objective (strong nullsec representation and a permanent seat for mynnna) was achieved. 

AKA Alikchi. Traitor, hater, ganker, idiot. Follow me at @alikchialeika.