CSM election devblog and the improved CSM White Paper.
I was wrong. I think. Sort of. They aren't going with a Condorcet voting system, such as Schulze. They're going with an STV (single transferable vote) system (though the exact STV system is not mentioned.) I suppose they could go with a Schulze STV system, a sort of combination of the two.
Xhagen does state: "The exact method used for calculating this vote distribution will be announced and released to the public for review before the start of the election." Which I'm thinking must be a joke or a troll. How long before the election? I'm assuming the system will already be coded, and tested with sample data, before the announcement, so what sort of review will it be? It's not like it is going to be changed if there's an uproar, or that there'll be time to change it.
I'm thinking they want to give people as little time as possible to consider how to game the system by announcing the exact system as late into the process as possible. And then calling it a review process.
There was talk on Twitter about there being a minimum of 28 candidates on the ballot. And to get on the ballot you'd need ~200 accounts supporting your campaign. I say ~200, because to get on the ballot for sure requires 200 supporting accounts, but if the minimum 28 candidates is not reached, then they'll start going down the list of candidates in order of those with the most support that is less than 200 accounts.
I started looking for this in the White Paper, but could not find it. Which was confusing the hell out of me, until somebody pointed out to me that all of these "rules" were in the devblog. I'd kinda skipped the devblog and went straight to the White Paper.
Maybe I'm missing the point of a White Paper, but aren't the election rules supposed to be codified into the official CSM document?
Yesterday, in my SCHULZE! piece, I wrote a few throwaway paragraphs at the end of the article, detailing how I might vote, were the vote to happen today. I eventually removed it from the post, mainly because the commentary was focusing on the list, and it was ultimately detracting from the more important points in the rest of the post.
So, I had Ripard Teg, James 315 and Roc Wieler at the top of my ranked list. Which apparently confused the hell out of some people, and upset others. All three of those people are very different candidates, who all share very different views of the game. So how in hell could I rank all of those people so highly? People figured I should rank candidates with similar world views together.
The thing is, the CSM is not a political posting. CCP gets the most value out of the CSM by gathering a broad variety of opinions from the representatives. James 315 brings a certain set of values and opinions to the table, and I think it would be remiss not to have someone reminding CCP that a lot of people don't want their game increasingly carebeared. Ripard Teg brings a more balanced viewpoint on that issue, although he too does not want to see more consensual PvP enter the system. Roc Wieler is sort of an open book, and he'll soak up a lot of different viewpoints from the players and bring them to CCP's attention.
The CSM isn't about directing EVE development. Their job is to give feedback on development. The more varied the voices, the more information CCP ultimately has to work with. The more varied the voices, hopefully that results in better design.
My opinion, at any rate. I see it as an imperative to get many viewpoints onto the council. If people want fourteen Mynnna's on the CSM, then we really don't need to have anyone but Mynnna on the council.
If you're only ranking candidates with similar voices and opinions, then you don't really understand the role of the CSM at all. I'd tell you that you should feel terrible about yourselves, but I don't want anybody to feel terrible about themselves. Rather, reconsider how you're going to vote.
I am pleased with the new devblog, though. An important criteria that I wanted has been met. Reducing the number of candidates on the ballot. This will go far to improving the election, and making the process more manageable for voters.
The most important criteria for this election is still not being met. Any move towards improving the visibility of the election. There's been no mention of codifying the process into the client, which would go a long way to making more people aware of the CSM.
More work has to be done to create increased player awareness of the process, as well as further education of the process. I don't see CCP moving at all in this direction.
Interesting preamble in the White Paper. Six and a half pages of preamble. The election process discussion doesn't begin until the seventh page. If the goal was to bore people with the process, mission accomplished. I skimmed and skimmed until I got to the juicy information. I don't need background in Kant, Rousseau and Hobbes to understand the CSM election process.
Though I suppose the lengthy preamble gives the CSM election that air of serious business that every internet spaceships game must have.