Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Saturday, May 10, 2014

What's in a number

Scroll to the bottom of the CSM9 Election Results dev-blog and you'll find a link to the BLT file representing anonymous voting data for the election. There's a lot of interesting stuff to be mined out of this and I'm not the first nor will I be the last to look at it. Interstellar Privateer did an interesting first pass yesterday, for instance. I'll try not to repeat his findings (and you should go read them). But here, in rough order of importance, are the things that jumped out at me.

The Big Stories

Turnout. Oi. Lowest turnout both in terms of number of voters and percentage turnout since CSM4. This ties to the notion of voting character age (which I'll get to in a moment) to convince me that at this point, players by and large did know about the election. They just didn't care enough to vote. They didn't care when they elected CSM4 either, because CSM3 and its predecessors were widely regarded as ineffectual by the player base.(1) Even the tin-foil hat brigade can't make the same argument about CSM8. Hell, if anything, we were occasionally accused of being too effectual.

Why players didn't care is going to be something for CSM9 to look into. There's almost enough data, though, to correlate a relationship between quiet, peace-time CSMs and low turnout, regardless of that CSM's accomplishments. In addition, town hall attendance slowly fell through the course of CSM8's term, roughly correlating to the same factor. Malcanis joked that we asked CCP to precipitate a crisis before the election to encourage turnout... That said, I do believe CCP should consider doing something drastic to increase turnout next time. The old character log-in screen had a location for "high priority" announcements as you logged in (and previous elections used it). The new launcher does not have this capability. Perhaps it should.

Low turnout of course works to the advantage of the big null-sec blocs, as we'll see several times. That starts with...

CFC discipline. This was of course completely unmatched. The BLT file shows that 3275 people followed all 14 slots in the CFC ballot from start to finish, only a smallish dip from last year (3964). Another 650 or so followed it with only minor variations. The most common variation by far? Moving Xander Phoena to the top. That had a big impact later (which I will also get to in a moment). This was sufficient to guarantee two CFC seats and gave tremendous influence on a third. The only question the CFC has to ask their members is "Why didn't more of you vote?" After all, the CFC strategy mostly succeeded because...

Everyone else failed. This is of course tied to low voter turnout. But nearly everyone else in New Eden showed no discipline whatsoever in their voting. The N3/PL bloc -- supposedly the second most powerful force in New Eden -- put together about 500 semi-organized votes. After that, it was quite slapdash. progodlegend picked up 300 individual #1 votes that most of the time were dissimilar from any of his other individual #1 votes. By comparison, Sion Kumitomo had about 60 such votes, reflecting the much tighter discipline of his voters.

Provibloc. The one exception to lack of discipline, other than the CFC, was Provibloc. This bloc had 1736 that voted for corebloodbrothers and nobody else, plus about another 500 that voted for him and perhaps one or two other candidates. But this was still a failure. Provibloc had at least 50% of the voting power he needed to get a second member into the CSM. That vote was squandered: hundreds of Provibloc votes were "exhausted", STV code for wasted, representing the biggest loss of votes of this election. As a Provi resident myself, I do know some of why that was: the Provibloc was absolutely furious at Ali Aras. I simply cannot count the number of times I've been greeted on Provi Mumble by residents and holders who bring up Ali... and then the expletives and insults start. This resulted in a highly motivated voting base in Provi.

High-sec voters particularly failed. You guys should hang your heads in collective shame. Dozens of you bitch on this very blog that your needs are being co-opted by the null-sec blocs. And then you stayed away from the ballot box in droves. Let me make it clear what you've given up here. If 3000 more of you had voted, Steve Ronuken would have gotten the second permanent seat next to Ali. If 5000 more of you had voted for other candidates, Xander wouldn't be on this CSM. If 9000 more of you had voted for other candidates, neither would mynnna. The CFC position was vulnerable. And it was well within your capabilities to do it; 40000 total voters still would have been low turnout for this election. Yes, you got Steve and Mike Azariah elected handily. Congrats. But you should have had three seats. Or four.

Wormhole voters failed. I guessed this was the case when I saw the initial results. The BLT file confirms it. Yes, corbexx was elected strongly. But by the peculiar rules of STV, it's arguable that wormhole candidates came in 15th (Asayanami Dei) and 17th (James Arget). Had the w-space vote been organized, there definitely would be two wormhole CSM members right now. Last year, the w-space vote was a hard nugget centered around all five WH candidates endorsing each other before any others. This year, hundreds of wormhole voters voted a w-space candidate first, then a non-w-space candidate second. You guys may not 100% approve of the people you had on CSM8, but you had wormhole voices at both Summits and at Fanfest. That's not going to be the case this time.

The smaller stories

No localized client CSM members. Another failure. No Russians, no Germans... there's nobody that I'm aware of on CSM9 who doesn't play EVE Online in English. That last happened in CSM6. Russians in particular represent 10% of EVE players. There's simply no reason why they shouldn't have a CSM delegate every single time. For CSM9, Russians represented about 3% of voters.

Ali Aras. What a masterful campaign she ran! Her support was broad and deep. The only thing she didn't do was pick a lieutenant. If nothing bad happens this year, she runs for CSM10 and chooses to do so, she should have more than enough support to pick whomever she likes to be on there with her.

Ummm... Jester. Last year, 600 of you voted my slate exactly. This year, about 150 of you did so and another 100 or so did with only minor variations. About another 150 voted my slate with Sugar Kyle moved from #5 to #1 but otherwise unchanged. Thank you! That's very flattering. I should have pushed a little harder but overall I'm quite content. It wasn't enough to have a huge impact but it nudged one candidate into place...

Xander Phoena. He had 775 #1 votes (lots of these from modified CFC votes), then picked up about 250 #2 votes from... somewhere. The combination was enough for him to hold out through many STV elimination rounds until 1000 CFC over-votes landed and elevated him to the CSM as their third seat. We now get to bitch at him all year to stay unbiased despite being CFC scum. ;-)

Sugar Kyle. Another beautifully run campaign! She got onto CSM9 nearly entirely on #1 votes alone, then picked up another thousand supporting votes from over-votes from other high-sec candidates. In the former, she put together a stronger showing than even Ali did, coming third in #1 votes. In the latter, she did far better than...

mynnna. I honestly expected him to have much stronger support outside the CFC! But he started with only 786 #1 votes, and a solid majority of those were CFC ballots with his name and Sion's reversed or minor variations thereof. That plus his #2 position on the official CFC ballot was of course more than enough to guarantee his slot... but color me surprised. This guy did a better job on CSM8 than you out there apparently give him credit for.

Steve Ronuken. Another great campaign. As I mentioned above, he had the strongest breadth of support after Ali. It was touch and go for quite a while whether he'd get that second permanent seat.

Character age. The EVE population is "aging" and I knew this, but the CSM results are getting really stark in revealing it. At one time, 60% of characters voting for the CSM were 500 days old or younger. That's down to 40% and still falling.

Newbies and other newbies. I mentioned that support for Matias Otero and Mangala Solaris within their respective blocs felt weak during the election. The results bear this out. Both won, but neither should be happy with their showings. Mangala's #1 votes fell by two-thirds compared to last year, from 2681 to 857. Ouch! And despite having 10000 rabid newbie accounts at his beck and call, Matias could only persuade 1453 of them to put him #1. Must be more alts in BRAVE than I thought.

Major JSilva. Finally, the least interesting candidate from a "story" standpoint, but there's still one interesting thing to say: PL put 1500 #1 votes together last year, and they put 1500 #1 votes together this year (though they were initially split between two candidates). In that, they were arguably the most successful STV voting alliance in this year's election. Nice job!

And that's all that comes to mind! Anyone see anything that I missed?

(1) That wasn't their fault. They just didn't have a model to work from and they and CCP had to start building a model from scratch.


  1. I felt there would be lower turnout just because there was much less buzz, even within the new CSM candidate forum. Suggestion: once the candidates are official, give them clickable and searchable tags on the forums so that people can see who they're voting for outside of the political sub forums.

    I can only speak for myself, but I didn't vote for major bloc candidates even if I knew they were good, just because I figured they didn't need my vote. I concentrated on candidates who I felt would need support, including long shots like Karen Galeo (but hey, Ali and Mike were long shots once, and so was Steve), because the only certain outcome is when you don't vote for the people you like.

    Disappointing, but not surprising. I was really rooting for Asayanami and James (and yes, they were prominent on my ballots, above Corbexx).

    1. You can now search CSM posts on the forums like you can Dev posts under advanced options and select CSM under badges.

    2. For *elected* CSMs, yes. I'm thinking about extending the feature to CSM *candidates* once they're confirmed by CCP, so that it's easy to look up their histories and see their activity and associate it with their campaign.

    3. So the banner will cover their entire posting history since the new forum model? That would be quite nice.

      Can't people search under specific character names at present?

    4. You can use the advanced search to find all posts by a particular author. One click on a forum avatar banner, versus three clicks (and three page-loads) and typing in a often hard-to-remember nnname can get a little difficult. These obstacles are quite real, and you can measure the drop off rate as you increase the amount of work required to get a simple result: after the first click, each click will lose about 70% of your population.

      The candidates could help themselves here by setting their forum signature to a saved search link that will search for all posts by themselves.

  2. Who was the serious high sec candidate that didn't get elected? I went through the Cap Stable interviews and I only noted Mike and Steve and both of those did get elected. You can't vote for someone that doesn't run and probably shouldn't if they don't campaign. (I'd label Phsychotic Monk as a griefer candidate rather than a high sec candidate.)

    My non high sec votes split between wormholes (Asayanami Dei), low sec (Sugar Kyle) and hard working communicators (Ali Aras and Xander Phoena). If I'd realized how weak Xander's support was I'd have thrown him a number one spot despite being a block candidate and a CFC one at that..

    Matias had given up the leadership of Brave and, from what I heard, simply wasn't very active. He seems the most likely to be an absent CSM, which would be a pity.

    1. @ Anonymous May 10, 2014 at 7:27 PM

      “I'd label Phsychotic Monk as a griefer candidate rather than a high sec candidate.”

      Quite often 3/4s of the politicking is complete when one applies a label. The amount of work done in Anonymous’ short statement is extraordinary. It 1) declares Hi-Sec isn’t merely a location but rather a specific set of concerns and 2) declares Psychotic Monk is inimical to those set of concerns.

      Jester lumps all Russians in the same boat: “Russians in particular represent 10% of EVE players. There's simply no reason why they shouldn't have a CSM delegate every single time.” Seriously? Do all Russians share the same set of game concerns? It’s a pretty big crowd.

      While it can be illuminating to carve up the electorate into different blocs for study but one needs to be cognizant that it’s every bit as *prescriptive* an endeavor as a descriptive one.


    2. @Dire

      I don't believe Jester is trying to lump all Russians together saying that they have a single play style. However, Russians do by an extreme majority use the Russian localised client and the Russian subforum etc. By getting a Russian representative then at least they can make sure that those needs are catered for rather than focus on purely the English speaking population.

    3. @ Anonymous May 12, 2014 at 1:23 AM

      Creating a successful campaign around the single issue “Russian Language Support” might be possible but could be difficult in practice since you’d have to spend most of the time not annoying your disparate constituency. Hi-Sec/Lo-Sec/Null-Sec/W-Space balance?: As long as we can discuss it in Russian. Industry Changes?: As long as we can discuss it in Russian. Ship Balancing?: As long as we can discuss it in Russian . . . If I understand correctly, wasn’t the origin of the Halloween War an *unsuccessful* attempt to unite Russian speaking players in Null? In practice there may be no viable Russian Language bloc. If that’s the case, it’s kinda strange to hammer the group for not voting in a monolithic bloc.

      Jester’s prescriptive chutzpah is a wonderful thing since it makes for good reading and leaves much to disagree with. That same chutzpah is even built into the section titles on this very post. *The* Big Stories (as if there were no others) *The* smaller stories (as if the list was complete).


  3. After these results, Jester... I'm curious what led you to believe that I was doing well enough to work myself onto your predictions? I'm reviewing what I did this year, and trying to see what I'm going to do different going forward. Thanks!

  4. Speaking for myself this year, I wasn't very motivated come election time this year. Last year I got the word out as much as possible to everyone I knew, but this year a combination of EVE burnout and the start of the industry blogs just turned me off and I didn't bother. I voted myself, but didn't push anyone else to.

    As to my choices:

    I kept to strategic voting this year unlike yourself, and kept block candidates off my ballot.

    My first and 2nd choices for all accounts this year was Mike and Steve in that order. I've thrown Mike at least one vote in every election he's been in, and I'm glad with STV I can always vote for him. Last year I had Steve at around 4th or 5th in my list, but was very impressed with him this year and he was less of an unknown to me like last year.

    Last year I had Mangala pretty high in my lists, but this year he was like 13 or 14th on two accounts, and not on the others. Gevlon's obsession with Goons and their "RvB pets" is amusing and funny, but it also struck a poor cord in me when they teamed up last year. Wasn't super impressed with his interviews this year either.

    My 3rd and 4th placed votes alternated between Xander and Sugar. Xander on a communications and a hold CCP's feet to the fire reason, and Sugar because low sec needs rep, and she also knows industry. Was originally thinking to vote for Funky, but the combination of his stance over the E1 debate and Sugar's great interviews flipped that on its head. I still voted for Funky, but much more randomly with "the rest" of the folks I thought I should vote for.

    5th slot was Ali, across the board. I would have voted higher for her on some accounts if I thought she was at risk of not making it, but when she was on the goon ballot as well almost everyone else's, I wasn't worried.

    After that, "the rest" was a combination of a bunch of WH candidates, the others I've mentioned, and others.

  5. To me it seems rather clear: those 18k accounts that voted last year but not this time around joined the "the worst it gets the better it gets" camp. With three goons elected I guess a lot of them are grinning with anticipation.

    Do you really look at your last post's table and not interpret this as a silent protest? That a whole lot of people joined the group that think what's going on isn't right?

  6. "High-sec voters particularly failed. You guys should hang your heads in collective shame. Dozens of you bitch on this very blog that your needs are being co-opted by the null-sec blocs."

    Or perhaps CCP have never demonstrated that the particularalliance affiliations of CSM candidates have ever swayed them from chosen development paths. Or New Eden is large enough that despite popular belief, no one is really very space-famous or able to win votes not handed down from a bloc CEO.

    Because otherwise I'd have to think you're saying that a minority of seats on the CSM is all that it took for our hisec needs to be coopted by nullsec, and that CCP have forgotten until this month who the bulk of their players are. That would make for a sad, sad tale.

  7. "High-sec voters particularly failed. You guys should hang your heads in collective shame. "
    It would be better if someone would explain why any highsec player at this point should vote for CSM unless there is a "none of the above" option.

    I don't trust CCP when they talk about elections: I don't need to be Russian to suspect that it's just a PR talk.
    I don't trust what candidates say, because I know that their position is subject to change and I may very well not be aware that I've been thrown under the bus.
    I don't trust CSM's record: I voted for every single one after I've joined the game, but from my point of view there were quite a few things that were either very stupid or harmful to things I was interested in. Maybe every CSM managed to avert complete razing of highsec and mass bans of solo players, but for all I know I voted every time and yet something I did got a nerfbat. Changes to industry are such that I won't even wait to see if they are as bad as I expect. I'm not going to reactivate my accounts until I see that they are any good for me, and even then I'll think twice.

    At this point it might be easy to dismiss it as another case of forum whining, but I would really like to hear a good reason for not feeling stupid to vote for those CSMs before.

    1. In the meanwhile, CCPgames total eligible voters (minus China's serenity server) drops below 400,000 and Cloud Imperium Games star citizens are 447,000 and rising :)

    2. Chris Roberts has said that he's well aware of EVE, and didn't want to copy it.

      The gameplay will be totally different: SC will be an FPS for spaceships, where EVE has more strategic 3rd person combat.

      If you don't have the greatest reflexes, you can still play EVE, b/c except for stealth bombers, its more important WHEN you press F1, and not also which way your ship is pointing. Player piloting skill will be very important for success in SC.

      There is room for both games.

  8. "High-sec voters particularly failed."

    I always enjoy this annual rant. We hear this every 4 years in the US, too.

    Every assumption by the ranters is that the independent majority could win the election, if only they were organized. But, this isn't going to ever happen. The US has had 200+ years of elections to prove it.

    In EVE, we've got Rise's numbers (see other Jester post) to prove that 80% of the players are playing solo - ie. not in an alliance, not in the meta-game, and therefore not in a voting block. They don't want to organize; it goes against the reasons why they play the game the way that they do.

    And, the STV method makes it even worse. Whenever a group of independents vote, their top vote gets split across multiple pre-determined losers and their roll-over votes go to a more popular candidate. Effectively, their votes just end up where the blocks want them to be, with a block candidate.

    Go analyze the numbers, but do it right. See how the votes were reallocated, as the candidates without a voting block are knocked out of the running. This is how STV was designed to work - to give the impression of a fair voting system, but, in reality, it just muddies the water and still works to the advantage of the voting blocks.

    In any case, high-sec *did* vote, in their own way. They voted for "none of the above", and will vote again, with their wallets (as everyone insists that they do), as we'll see this year as unsub rates increase.

    1. I'm afraid I completely disagree. The entire point to the STV mechanic is to allow a half-dozen weaker candidates to cross endorse, get their voters behind a slate, and guarantee that one of them gets elected. This worked masterfully last year with the team Trebor put together (with a tiny bit of help from yours truly).

    2. @ Jester.....man, you really don't get it. The anonymous poster just pointed out how the STV process does not work for independents in high sec, because they do not co-ordinate, and never will. You then say you disagree with the poster, but then give an example of the STV is to advantage a co-ordinated group, which high sec never does.

    3. @Jester - Man, you just don't get it, and apparently never will. Anon nailed it. Highsec DID vote. You are complaining about the results. While CSM8 might have worked very hard, lots of communication, etc, it did little to rally the troops to vote again this year. If high sec players actually thought/believed their vote would matter or accomplish anything, you can rest assured that more of them would have voted. Not all of them are oblivious to the meta game, and certainly not to the extend of almost 300,000 ACTIVE accounts, because that's roughly how many accounts PLAY IN HIGH SEC. So, the REAL question is, what are the CSM and CCP doing wrong that even a small fraction of that big number couldn't be bothered to vote to help preserve/defend/promote their style of play? High sec players failed nothing and as he said, shortly they will vote again. With their feet. Then, guys like you, will have "won". Based on your play style, you apparently know everything and what is best, and how they should "play right". CCP is convinced of this too. You're both wrong, and in a few weeks, you'll see it.

    4. The word is bloc.
      The word "block" is pronounced the exact same way, but when it comes to a group of entities that share a common purpose or goals, the word you're looking for is "bloc" without a "k" at the end.

    5. If high-sec players want to vote with their wallets, there's nothing I can do about that.

    6. "If high-sec players want to vote with their wallets, there's nothing I can do about that."

      Sure, there was. You and the rest of the CSM could stop misrepresenting the player base to CCP as being a core of dedicated players in null-sec, and less-dedicated casual high-sec players, no better than NPCs and only good as fodder for the null-sec players.

      And, we all know that you guys did nothing to represent the low-sec and WH players, except maybe as "oh, yeah, we forgot about them" comments.

    7. "Sure, there was. You and the rest of the CSM could stop misrepresenting the player base to CCP as being a core of dedicated players in null-sec, and less-dedicated casual high-sec players, no better than NPCs and only good as fodder for the null-sec players. "

      That's actually not misrepresentation, it's fairly accurate. Sure there is burn out in all three sectors of Eve, and it would be interesting to see data on burn out rates, but that's a different topic.

      High sec players do tend to be more casual in nature, less prone to reading dev blogs, less active on the forums and if they know about the test server it's merely in passing. I'm sure Eve Uni does their best in highlighting these sources of information and alternative game play, but they can only do so much for 'casual players'.

      If CSM wants to promote game play across the board, they could raise the topic of the full extent of passive and AFK game mechanics that exist and try to convince CCP to update them. This and this alone would improve player retention and still allow the casual gamers to actually enjoy their time spent playing Eve, by being in front of it when the client is running.

      "And, we all know that you guys did nothing to represent the low-sec and WH players, except maybe as "oh, yeah, we forgot about them" comments."

      Isn't it up to individual players to highlight their chosen game path and provide CCP suggestions to highlight the positives and negatives?

      I'd love to be able to recommend Eve to people but the only reason to play Eve is to do so with people whose company you enjoy. The game mechanics aren't interesting, the sheer dullness that is stocking up assets or seeding the markets can only be described as a part time job, even PvP can be a doze-fest.

  9. "High-sec voters particularly failed. You guys should hang your heads in collective shame. Dozens of you bitch on this very blog that your needs are being co-opted by the null-sec blocs. And then you stayed away from the ballot box in droves. Let me make it clear what you've given up here. If 3000 more of you had voted, Steve Ronuken would have gotten the second permanent seat next to Ali. If 5000 more of you had voted for other candidates, Xander wouldn't be on this CSM. If 9000 more of you had voted for other candidates, neither would mynnna. The CFC position was vulnerable. And it was well within your capabilities to do it; 40000 total voters still would have been low turnout for this election. Yes, you got Steve and Mike Azariah elected handily. Congrats. But you should have had three seats. Or four."

    You are so funny!..lol
    The only dude that I considered High sec is Mike and Steve.

    Besides why vote when it seems like no matter who we sent CCP disregard them anyways.
    Also I don't remember nothing in the minutes pertaining to the playstyle of highsec (Solo, etc).
    For example, answers that didn't get answered, purpose of sec, it overval value compare to others space, PVE.. The only message that was heard is that HS is too safe and should be nerf. CCP seems to just want to force a certain playstyle. (Every1 joins a corp, why can I not be socially involve without joining a corp?)

    I have no problem with that, just allow me to go at my own space, and allow me to have some kind of influence wherever I choose to live, and support all play styles.

    Better to just watch and enjoy the ride.

    Also you wasn't running, not that you are highsec.. but you seem more balance.

  10. I love how you swing from Mynnna's nuts at every opportunity when every post he makes is either an outright lie or a condescending pile of shit. I also don't get why CCP allows sitting CSM members to act like total assholes on the official forums or in any sort of public communication for that matter. However, I DO GET why some people wouldn't take five minutes to vote to elect a bunch of self important blow hards who act like assholes every chance they get. That makes sense to me.

  11. you are asking the wrong question. I know of three provi pilots that gave it a hard thought (core is not nearly as loved as the voting makes it appear). So those three didn't run left provi with core: Should provi vote for ali? no cfc members and pets? no Low sec? no wormhole? no High sec? no. PL/N3? no, Hero? no. The voting shows exactly what provi is: a bastion, a last citidal, there is a reason why the number of those who are red to provi outnumbers those who are light blue or nuetral. Simply put Provi is Provi it belongs to no one but Provi. Once you eliminate those "who provi won't vote for" what are you left with???? Oh thats right Core. Want to know the funny part had you convinced someone to run from Rote I would give them 50% chance of being voted in with core.

    1. That's fair, but core should have put up a second.

    2. sorry no, he wasn't. Last year he missed by a hairs breath because of ALI splitting the vote. there was zero chance he would do that same again.

    3. Ali didn't SPLIT the vote. Ali got more #1s than core did and TOOK the vote. In the STV system, in a two-candidate cross-endorsement situation, the candidate with more #1s wins. That was Ali, 2100 to 1500.

      Had core chosen a #2, that person would have needed 3000 #1s to pass him. Wouldn't have happened.

  12. Response.

    Turnout, I think that though people might have know about the election, there wasn't enough of a push by CCP to get the information in front of more potential voters. Especially right after the Candidates were set and then during the election itself. So I think some didn't get information in a timely manner, some didn't know till to late, and I think a lot still don't know the impact the CSM has especially a lot of the solo highsec players. (Not the Null alts)

    CFC, kinda strange they didn't get more votes. I had an evil thought the other day about how to get rid of the goons. Just get everyone else in null to give up the territory for 6 months to a year. With no one to fight CFC members would leave and find other games.

    I don't think everyone else failed. Highsec elected both of the candidates they had, lowsec also elected both the candidates they had. Wormholers should have been more disciplined.

    The failure of highsec if anything is not having another viable candidate.

    Provi wasted power but accomplished their mission.

    Weren't Russians striking against voting? Not sure this is a great strategy but wasn't it happening?

    A lot of the other candidates who didn't get elected just really ran crappy campaigns. When doing a mass mail during the campaign asking questions, the number of responses was very low. Also, a vast majority didn't even bother putting a link into there bio to any relevant blog or thread letting people know where to go for information about them. I mean if your serious about getting elected you have to at least talk to the people you want to vote for you and give people ways to find out information about why you want to be elected.

    mynnna, if mynnna wants broader support he is going to have to blog and post more visibly. He was the last on my list so I could give some weight to him maybe making the top 2 because I believed the endorsements he gets are genuine but the average voter is going to have to see more from the man himself if he wants broader support and for us not to think he is just The Mittani's mouthpiece to CCP. He will be of course be pro goon but that does not necessarily mean he is anti-carebear, lover of tears, or good to have on the CSM.

    One piece to add. I think if turnout is at least as "good" as it was this election, highsec, lowsec, and WH have enough viable candidates, and null blocs vote for their own members first. I do not think the highsec griefing community has enough votes to get anybody elected ever. Which I think says something positive about the state of humanity in EVE.

    1. Well, you still enjoy the "game" of politics apparently and are talking about semantics. The TLDR is players are really starting to not give a shit. About the election, about the CSM, about CCP, about Eve, or any combination of those. For anyone interested in Eve longevity, they need to start asking why, and then actually listen to the answer.

      CCP has all the data access, so I would be really curious to see exactly what the demographics are with regards to which accounts are leaving, where they were active, what kind of activity they predominantly engaged in (WH, indy, PVE, PVP, etc), and how old they are. We already know about the pretty hollow NPE numbers, I'd like to see what the other unsubs look like.

  13. This kind of analysis presupposes that people are only, or should only be, interested in voting for people who narrowly represent a particular playstyle or area of interest and are disinterested in anyone or anything else, as if improving EVE is only ever a zero-sum game.

    I spend most of my time in highsec, and I did indeed vote for both Steve Ronuken and Mike Azariah. But I also voted for Sugar Kyle and Ali Aras, among others, not because of where they spend their time in space but because of their diligence, and intelligence, and passion for the game. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this, given the broad base of support that many of these candidates received.

    1. This exactly: I will vote for what is - in my opinion - good for the game AS A WHOLE even though living in Hisec.

    2. Same here. I live in w-space. Top of my list was a wh candidate, with a couple more on the top half of my ballot.
      BUT... I don't think w-space needs a zillion candidate. I don't think w-space is unknown, so as long as there's some representation, that's fine with me.
      Instead, I voted for people like Mike, Steve and Sugar Kyle because they seemed like very strong candidate FOR THE GAME and good people.

      Sorry if that makes me an EVE player first, and a (whatever the space I currently reside in) player second.

    3. +1 from me, too.

      Sugar, Mike, and Steve were my top three for just this reason. I think they'll be good for the whole game, not just whatever part I happen to be messing with at the moment.

    4. I agree with you.

      But most people don't look that far ahead, and simply vote for whom they're told to vote for, or who they believe will represent them.

    5. And, ultimately, that is why your votes *don't* count and get buried under the collective, unified votes of the CFC.

  14. Jester "Why players didn't care is going to be something for CSM9 to look into."

    I'll tell them what I think it is. Eve is going through an enthusiasm crisis. One of the first things to go in an enthusiasm crisis is "extras". Like FCing, CSM voting, new ventures. Most of us are just ticking along in our routines, updating skill queues and waiting for the game to kick up a gear.

    No need to take my word for it, here's The Mittani:

    [4/28/2014 7:49:21 PM] numismancer: what is 'coalition entropy', look at n3 and cfc and even pl over the past four years
    [4/28/2014 7:49:23 PM] numismancer: also the rus
    [4/28/2014 7:49:30 PM] numismancer: alliance leadership destroys men
    [4/28/2014 7:50:03 PM] numismancer: in 2014 there are half the leaders and sovholding alliances that existed in 2010

    1. ::shrugs:: Mittens is in a position to fix it and chooses not to. Pointing out the disaster that has become of EVE null-sec isn't fixing the problem.

    2. Only CCP is in a position to fix it. The problem is the blue donut, which is an inevitable result of capitals trumping everything else and easy force (i.e. capital) projection. Mr. Mittani, last time I checked, was not CCP Seagull.

    3. Exactly, Von. What sort of stupidity are you espousing, Jester? If the game mechanics encourage a certain form of gameplay, the players are going to conform to that gameplay. It's not Mitten's job to gimp his coalition to make things "fair" for everybody else.

      If CCP is not happy with how sov nullsec has turned out, then it is CCP's job to implement different mechanics to encourage a different type of gameplay.

      Players are ALWAYS going to min-max any given game mechanic. It's not the players' job to ignore opportunity simply to support less fortunate groups.

    4. I'm not espousing anything at all, actually.

  15. "High-sec voters particularly failed. You guys should hang your heads in collective shame. Dozens of you bitch on this very blog that your needs are being co-opted by the null-sec blocs. And then you stayed away from the ballot box in droves."

    Yes, shame on us. We would rather kill CCP than save them from the consequences of their actions.

    What a ungrateful bunch, I tell you. After all what CCP did for us...

  16. Here's a tangent: A 'representative' player of highsec is the solo player that levels up his Raven, mines, maybe manufactures a little and sells stuff he built (because MIMAF), or is otherwise isolated from the rest of the game and doesn't participate in game with another human-how would this person, so out of touch with, well everything else in the game besides pressing F1 at a bunch of red crosses or plundering asteroids, make a good CSM candidate/member? Nevermind being a person who would consider doing a stint as a space politician?

    1. I'd vote for Mabrick if he ran because that's exactly what he does. That and blog. He has a single part of the game he knows very very well, and it's a part most of us look at with scorn. In my eyes, that'd make him a good CSM Rep because it's a different viewpoint. Even if he's been slowly going the way Poetic in some of his posts.

    2. By being engaged in the community enough to blog, Mabrick is by definition exactly NOT the kind of person Xaeroflex was talking about.

    3. ah, now we have the thing konwn as "preferred type of player".
      well, well, well. :) shouldnt we then just drop obsolete memes as "sandbox" and "htfu", and start spreading this new (equally pointless) one? :)

    4. @ Xaeroflex:

      They'd make a good CSM member because their ingame experience is one shared by either the majority of EVE players, or at the very least a significant minority. The fact that group is socially isolated is irrelevant IMO; they participate in the sandbox just by playing EVE and their actions have knock-on effects for everyone else. Plus they're representative of a large group of paying customers, which makes them automatically relevant, particularly if that group does have high turnover.

      It's entirely possible that their most useful contribution would simply be explaining why they play the way they do, because I don't think that's information CCP really has on hand, due to that group's lack of social interaction. Both what they find attractive about single-player EVE and why they aren't interested in the social, more multiplayer aspects would be valuable information for CCP, as would that demographics feedback on proposed changes.

      If you want to get the silent hisec majority to expand their horizons and participate in the wider game or if you'd rather write off any chance of them opening up but want to keep them around to fund CCP and EVE's development, either way the kind of feedback above would be a extremely useful.

      Unfortunately as Mynnna has pointed out the nature of such a player is that they're never going to run for CSM precisely because they're uninterested in the wider social aspects of EVE. Even if they did run, they'd be relative unknowns and unlikely to get elected (not to mention that the blocs would likely campaign against them) so the best we could hope for would be a player who is social enough and interacts with the community enough to campaign and get name recognition, but who focuses on the same gameplay that the solo players do and can provide feedback to improve it... like Mabrick.

  17. This year I voted on 1 account. I simply couldn't be bothered to go through the process for the rest. My reasoning for this is part laziness, but also part weird logic. CSM8 did a very good job of communicating what their actually is this year, much better than all earlier CSMs, and well... I simply don't care who fills that job. I used to think when I was voting for a CSM candidate that who I voted for told CCP something, "I want more of what this guy's pushing.". But that isn't the case. So... I simply can't be bothered.

    Town Halls, I listened to the first few, stopped listening to the last few. I can't participate in them, they're normally scheduled when I'm asleep. I stopped listening because communication out of the CSM was better than previous years. The topics under discussion had already been covered in print somewhere, and given the choice I'd rather read "the news" than listen to it. So voice townhalls aren't really my thing anyway.

    Also the one slate I did vote didn't match what I do in game. At all. I voted Sugar first, and I'm nowhere near lowsec. She got my vote for a very simple reason, her lowsec market. As the only candidate I know of with anything like it, it gives her a very different perspective of how things work in Eve, and it's one I think CCP could use for input when sounding ideas off the CSM. The other parts of my slate, chosen for similar reasons. My top 5 all did niche gameplay things that gives them a singular look at the game.

    The rest of your post is interesting in aggregate, but I don't have an anecdote to add to it. It simply didn't come up in my thought process when voting.

    1. "This year I voted on 1 account. I simply couldn't be bothered to go through the process for the rest"

      Once you voted on one account the same ticket was automatically preselected on your second, third, ... accounts. The effort to vote more than once was negligible.

    2. "Once you voted on one account the same ticket was automatically preselected on your second, third, ... accounts. The effort to vote more than once was negligible."

      Ofc, most players, like Halycon, didn't seem to know this. I wonder why?

      Maybe because CCP and the CSM were ineffective at communicating how the system worked to the players who don't spend all of their time in the metagame?

    3. Why would there be any need to communicate a feature which is absolutely obvious when you actually do vote?

      Btw, the communication happened, just that is was last year when the UI was improved that way.

  18. I believe someone pointed this out in one of the panels related to CSM, but figuring out 14 candidates to vote for was way too much of a hassle. I actually just took the goon ballot and replaced a few I didn't really agree with.

    Making people select 14 candidates out of 80 or so potentials is way too much to ask for. It's no wonder goons won every seat when you have to put no effort into their votes.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Ripard made it pretty easy for non-CFC to vote his slate. I believe he had a simple link and everything.

    3. Not to mention you don't really need to fill all 14. in usual circumstances, your single vote will be spent within the top candidates of your ballot, instead of going all the way to the last.

    4. @Poetic

      Frankly, I didn't really care for most of Ripard's list any more than I did CFC's. I went through the effort of researching every candidate available and put together my own list of 14 that I felt either best represented the ideas I wanted to see, or who brought a fresh perspective to a stagnant organization. However, it was a monumental task, and I don't expect that most players will have enough patience (or be OCD enough) to do this. Frankly, I think the 14 candidate STV system puts a lot of people off of voting for the CSM.

    5. All I'm saying is that if a player trusts Ripard to steer them right with voting picks, he made it exceptionally easy for them to vote a slate of 14 candidates.

    6. @Poetic
      That's a big "if". I don't trust anyone to choose my representatives for me, whether in EVE or in real life politics. I'll take into account Ripard's assessments of individual candidates, but the only way I'll vote anyone's slate is if I've personally checked each candidate and find that I agree with the lineup. So basically, a slate does me no good outside of giving me a general direction for my research, as by the time I know whether I agree with a slate, I've already done all the work myself.

  19. Here's the reason I didn't vote:

    Last year I voted for Trebor, mynnna, ali and you. (Yeah, pretty weird composition, but I value competence above everything else)

    This year, with Trebor and you not running and ali and mynna all but assured to be re-elected, I just couldn't be bothered to cast my vote.

    As for the low turnout in general, I might suspect that the fact that the voting period more or less conincided with the end of the Halloween war, which in turn resulted in a lot of burnt-out players who were ready to go on an Eve sabbatical. As for highsec, the last feature added to highsec that really affected it's general populace was Incursions. That was in early 2011, everything since then were just niche things like bounties and POCOs.

  20. Blame me.

    Last year I had a CSM post every two days for the entire campaign. Even when they were negative, they got the word out. Some people probably voted the people I didn't like just hoping to see me rage.

    There were far fewer CSM blog posts across the board, from all EVE bloggers. Far fewer CSM related items on Reddit. If the people that write about EVE can't be bothered to write about the CSM, then the message is going to be very muted.

    Hell, I almost didn't vote. But I figured I owed Funky Bacon some support, so he was my #1 guy.

    Really, the only thing that I was excited about was the results and getting to figure out EVE's new subscriber numbers. For me now, that's the only worthwhile part of the CSM elections now. The subscriber numbers.

    1. Long story short. The blame can't be placed at the feet of CCP. This is sandbox. Getting the vote out has to be a 70% player initiative and a 30% CCP initiative.

    2. Well, CCP fell flat on their 30%, so even if the players had given a full effort of their 70%, a significant decrease in turnout was unavoidable. In fact, I'm surprised it wasn't lower.

  21. Why was provi annoyed at Ali? Did I miss a big change somewhere?

    1. She left. One does not simply leave Provi.

    2. To be fair Ali Aras didn't just leave, her alliance tried pretty hard to burn Providence on their way out and did a good job. Things like talking all the big sov players to come and party hard in Providence and torching Proviblock CSAAs. Ali was right there with the anti-Providence propaganda. (This isn't to say that Proviblock were innocent angels but I wouldn't trust Sound as far as I could throw a space potato.)

    3. The main reason Provi was annoyed with Ali wasn't that she left.
      It was the fact that she had been voted onto CSM mostly by Provi and when the Sound civil war happened, she used all of her influence she had gained with her CSM position to rally support against her former allies and was shit slinging propaganda at every opportunity to try and make Provi look bad.
      Ali was a good CSM candidate, but this unprofessionalism left a sour taste in everyones mouth.

    4. Yeah I suppose when Provi tried to eject Sound over some trumped up bullshit they should have just rolled over and let themselves be kicked around, right?

    5. The fact of the matter is SOUND had been planning on leaving Provi for a while already, having outgrown it. They decided to leave with a bang.
      They purposely caused a string of diplo incidents, all the while digging themselves in and preparing for a war.
      The last incident was the straw that broke the camels back, but even then CVA was willing to buy the sov back at a very generous price to avoid trouble (note I say back because they had been gifted the space by CVA to begin with). They refused and it then became apparent that they had already been preparing for the moment the other holders finally had enough of their anti social behaviour well in advance.
      To top it off, they started a full scale propaganda war with alot of mudslinging, the other holders had no interest in slinging mud back as they do not really care about outsiders looking in.

      Ask yourself this: If booting SOUND was just all part of "big bad CVA's" plan, then why are so many Provi residents still so bitter with SOUND that it had to happen?

    6. It's interesting to note that there were enough fissures in provibloc that Severance sat out the provi civil war altogether. As I understand it, some people were angling to do an all-up North Providence breakaway faction. It's also worth noting that, had Severance shown up to the SOUND timers, SOUND would have likely lost every single one of them the way they expected, or at least required significantly larger third party forces to hold anything.

    7. Severance was in an awkward spot in that they had always had good relations with SOUND and did not want to shoot their friends but at the same time knew that SOUND was in the wrong.
      Seeing as Provi-Bloc does not work with a master/pet system, their choice was respected by the remaining holders.

      It should be noted that eventhough Severance did not shoot SOUND, they did still show up for all the timers in a seperate fleet to shoot all the reds that SOUND had rounded up which was honestly the bulk of their forces, so I doubt much would have changed had they been actively shooting SOUND aswell.

  22. I'm a relatively new player (slightly less than two months). I found it to be a very confusing process, trying to find out who to vote for. At the time I was asked to vote, I didn't know half the things I did now, so I voted with the aim of achieving equal representation (nationality, gender etc).

    Here's the the thing though. I now know the components of the game far better (wormhole, low, null, highsec etc), but if I were asked to vote again today, I'd still feel entirely unqualified. All I have to go by are the little blurbs the candidates write to describe themselves. I don't know the political landscape. Did I vote for a goon? Does that matter?

    It's confusing enough to make me want to go into RL politics instead. That, or I need to do a LOT more homework before voting next year, assuming I'm still playing then.

  23. Your analysis is flawed somewhat about Provi being angry at Ali -- why, then, was she a frequent #2 vote following #1 for core if that was the case?

    1. It isn't analysis. It's observation. ;-)

      And Ali #2 followed core #1 on only 25 votes. I'd hardly call that "frequent."

    2. It is also very simplistic to state that a #1 vote for Ali in 2013 was a Provi vote. In fact only 30% of the #1 Ali votes had corebloodbrothers as a #2.
      Using the combination of 30% of Ali + 100% of core as an estimate gives a Provi vote of 2120 for 2013. That was less than 75% of core's support this around, so somehow the Provi bloc increased it's share without a standard campaign. I presume they managed to get out the vote in a big way.

      You got it backwards Jester, 25 of Ali's #1 votes had core as #2. The reverse figure was 129 which was small compared to core's total #1s, but second only to DJ FunkyBacon who had 133 of his #2s.

    3. Ali did a MUCH better job of bringing in a broad range of support last year than core did, by far (and this year too, for that matter). And yeah, as I said, Provi was really motivated this year, likely more motivated than last year.

      And yeah, you're right, I got that backward. I count 127 Ali #1, core #2. But yeah, still not frequent compared to Ali's 1400 other #1 votes.

  24. My f-ing space gods, 2 CFC representatives would NOT have gotten on the CSM9 under the old FPTP election process; the final count of #1 votes only.

    - Mynnna with 786 #1 votes
    - Xander with 775 #1 votes

    source: http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/the-csm-you-deserve/

    Well played Mittens, you certainly took advantage of CCP Dolan's opportunity that he presented by the extreme poor job CCP did with getting the CSM8 minutes out the door.
    Mittens personal take on this election is that turnout will be at an all-time low.
    WHEN he is right, that’s hilarious news for the CFC, because there’s nothing this coalition does quite like marching and voting in lockstep.
    In a low turnout situation, the impact of organization, unity and force is magnified.
    Even if you don’t care about the CSM, vote the way the CFC tells you to, simply because it’ll make a gaggle of shitlords who hate us very, very angry should we succeed.”

    source: http://themittani.com/news/gsf-ceo-update-tri-harder

    Regards, a Freelancer

    PS: CCP Dolan, was known in EVE as Michael Bolton III of Test Alliance Please Ignore.

    1. "My f-ing space gods, 2 CFC representatives would NOT have gotten on the CSM9 under the old FPTP election process; the final count of #1 votes only."

      Under the old election system the CFC would have split their #1 vote rather than giving it all to Sion.

    2. and now they have 3 CFC representatives on the CSM, with one permanent seat

  25. Jester, everytime you or another pundit uses the word "bloc" for voting, I cringe. Maybe nullsec votes as their masters tell them but everybody else votes according to their understanding of which candidate brings value to the game. Simplifying it down to "wormholers need to vote for their wormhole candidate" is bordering insulting.

    The last few CSMs have absolutely shown that having a CSM member from a wormhole corporation means nothing at all for content in wormholes. The candidates either come from ueber-powerful PvP corporations that know zip / don't care about "lower" wormholes or are just all around useless. CCP has no interest in developing WH content at all so why waste my vote?

    Rather, we vote for candidates who are good for the game as a whole. Thats why I endorsed you when you ran and thats why I endorsed Sugar Kyle this year.

    Please get over that "bloc" nonsense.

    1. Groups of people that play the game the same way need to vote their candidates if they want representation for their play style commensurate with their numbers in game on the CSM.

      I don't make the rules here.

    2. Jester, do you not see that this is total nonsense? I live in a C4 in some small, fairly active, mixed PvE / PvP corporation. What on earth does my play style have to do with the guys from C5/C6 with massive PvP fleets, CTAs, invasions etc? We neither use the same ships nor tactics. For all I care, they could play a different game. In fact, as a player, I have more in common with Mike A since he represents the casual players. And yes, I voted for him. Do you vote blindly for every nullsec candidate just because they too fly in NS? No? See?

      And the same is true for the "Russians" or "Germans". You throw them together as if they stuck to the same play style, region or language. We have Germans, Russians and Brits in our WH corp. What now? Should they split themselves?

      You and the rest of "opinion leaders" really need to come out and realize that people do NOT vote in blocs. They vote for the best of the game. I voted for you and for Sugar not because you happen to play in my environment but because I know that you both care about the game as a whole. In addition, I was not impressed with any of the "WH candidates" and refused to vote for them because I thought they would make substandard CSM members.

      Why is this so dang hard to explain?

    3. The nullsecers vote in block, so everyone else needs to vote in block to even have a vote.
      O and about c1-c4 wh-dewellers?
      They don't care about the changes, or else they would have voted for wormhole candidates or even get one of their own.
      Not voting is voting for the CFC.

    4. Even the low-sec representatives are split into faction warfare and non faction warfare candidate.

    5. Wormhole politics have changed. In the past, if you lived in w-space you voted for any/all w-space candidates. What's becoming more apparent is that there's a gulf in play-style between the larger and smaller w-space groups. The smaller groups feel that there was no candidate to represent them, voted (or not) accordingly.

      If you want a k-space comparison. It's like saying that all high-sec players should vote for the RvB candidate, or that all null-sec players should vote for the CFC candidate - they all live in the same class of space, so they all play the came the same - right?

  26. Dear Ripard Teg,

    Hi-sec got not 2 but 4 representatives in, namely;
    - Steve
    - Ali
    - Funky
    - Sugar

    One can also argue mynnna is usefull for non-consensual pvp in hi-sec :)

    Regards, a Freelancer

    PS: how do you base a low voter turnout on one metric, because voters not caring enough to vote ?

    1. Funky is low-sec, not high-sec.

      Ali is a bit of a wildcard but if you read through her positions in past CSM Summit Minutes you'll find she tended to side with larger null-sec blocs when there were issues that leaned one way or the other.

    2. FW warfare is Empires vs Empires, Funky flies for Gallente most of the time.
      The FW skirmish line does not stop at the 0.5 sec border, Empire space is 1.0 sec and going down into losec, were yes most of the fights do happen.

      Regards, a Freelancer

    3. That doesn't make Funky a high-sec candidate and it's silly to think that it does. High-sec players have completely different concerns from FW players in nearly every respect.

  27. With regard to Matias Otero, I feel like a lot of votes that otherwise would have put him #1 put Sugar first because she's just such a fantastic lowsec candidate and until recently Brave has been lowsec-oriented. Her mentality is just so perfect for the CSM that its hard to imagine putting anyone else above her.

  28. It is kind of amusing that the link you used to show that CSM was overly effective (on Erotica 1) really indicates that it was you responsible. When people attribute CSM to the situation at all, I think most people who support your position on Erotica 1 saw the CSM as an ineffective body and to get something done you needed to go outside the CSM process. So it was a Ripard Teg action, not a CSM action.

    Now that I think about it, the whole Erotica 1 situation probably brought the CSM's standings down a notch or two.

    1. Ah say, ah say, that was JOKE, son.

    2. And now I'm left wondering how many of the younger crowd completely missed the Foghorn Leghorn reference...

    3. It's kind of sad how much of my early existence was defined by Saturday (and often Sunday) morning cartoons...

    4. I could say the same for myself, but then it's really not any better how much of my current existence is devoted to internet spaceships and other games.

  29. I want one thing out of CSM9. I want them to get CCP to issue public statements on the record of who, exactly, will be able to use the eventual make-your-own-stargate technology. Will it be restricted to sov-holding entities in nullsec, yes or no?

    A simple question and if anyone tries to make it seem more complicated than it really is then I'm probably out for good because if the answer isn't a simple "no" then no amount of spin will be enough to put lipstick on that pig.

    1. They imply player built gates will be a nullsec alliance thing, in the Prophecy trailer, just released. They have hinted stargates will be like an outpost, in terms of the amount of materials required. Maybe more materials than an outpost.

      Though it would present some "interesting gameplay..." if they could be built in highsec... outside of CONCORD's jurisdiction... everyone might be Suspect, just for being on the same grid with them.

    2. Star gate construction and all significant content for years ahead is aimed solely at coalition sized entities.

      Read the writing on the wall, the 4 year plan is for Nul sec and no one else, short of sinking their ship nothing is going to change CCP's direction on this.

      On the bright side we will finally bury the hatchet on who really is the majority here, if a loud minority has pulled the wool over CCP's eyes the game's going to be a dying husk by the end of this.

  30. You're spot on when you say CFC succeeded so well because all others failed. A ~17% drop in CFC turnout isn't exactly what I would call a small percentage but they still managed to rocket three candidates into CSM9.

    1. Does the CFC has ~17% casual members in their rank and file ?

      Regards, a Freelancer

  31. Jester "Why players didn't care is going to be something for CSM9 to look into."

    I think it is pretty obvious. Most of the players don't care to play the metagame.

    As Rise's numbers show, and the election results tend to confirm, most of the players are solo, probably casual, players.

    However, I actually expect voter turnout percentages to be higher next year. But, this will not be due to more non-voting players turning out to vote. Since CCP seems pretty determined to push the solo, casual players out of the game completely, the non-voters will be leaving the game, which will increase the ratio of voters to non-voters, albeit substantially lowering the overall player population.

    But, as long as those voting percentages go up, it is better for the long-term health of the game, right?

    1. "Most of the players don't care to play the metagame."

      Agreed. I'm not interested in RL politics, so why would I be interested in politics in a game? I just want to be left alone to enjoy my leisure time. I think that most of the players feel the same way.

      If CCP wants to give more credence to the CSM, elected by a minority of the people who throw money into this game, that is their business.

      And, if I'm not interested in playing the game implemented by CCP, at the demands of that minority, then I will just go play something else. Which will likely be this year, since I'm not interested in group PVP. 2 subs for high sec industry/research will run out this month; the rest next month.

    2. On the flipside, I'm very interested in RL politics, and try to stay informed on current situations. Which is exactly why when I plug into a game as a form of recreation, I want to leave all that RL drama behind.

  32. "Why players didn't care is going to be something for CSM9 to look into."

    Could it possibly be because CSM8 and Dolan were more incompetent than CSM7?

    Yes, I think this is obvious from the numbers, and it looks like Jester, as a member of CSM8, is struggling to find scapegoats.

    CSM7 did a lot more work with CCP to get the word out about the CSM elections and to try to get players more interested in voting. CSM8, on the other hand, did nothing - absolutely nothing - to push the momentum that CSM7 had built up any further.

    Proof? Let's go look back at Jester's weekly CSM8 reports in the months leading up to the elections. Mostly... stuff like: quiet week, nothing to report, did not do much, etc. You losers could have been spending that wasted time more productively on the upcoming elections.

    "Oh, but we did spend a few weeks promoting the election", will be the claim from Jester. Laughable.

    Are the Republican and Democratic parties waiting until mid-2016 to get started on the next presidential campaign? Of course not.

    1. Just for you, I might go through my 50 or so weekly updates and count how many used the phrase "quiet week." Bet you a PLEX it's nowhere NEAR "mostly."

    2. I looked. Out of 50 or so weekly updates, I mentioned that things were quiet in the following weeks:

      46 45 43 42 41 36 35* 30 29 26 15 11 10 9

      That's 14 total. And I explicitly mentioned things were "busy" in the following weeks:

      51 50 47 44 40 39 35* 28 24 23 22 21 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

      That's 19. Week 35 is counted twice: I mentioned that our interactions with CCP devs were quiet but the CSM was busy with summit minutes.

      Contract the PLEX to Ripard Teg. ;-)

    3. I don't know, Jester. I would not brag - that is 27% "quiet" weeks, not exactly insignificant. And, only 37% "busy" weeks. That would be enough to get you fired at most companies.

      Also, the OP said "in the months leading up to the elections", so let's look at the last 12 weeks. Hmm... 5 "quiet" weeks out of 12 weeks -> 42%. And, only 4 "busy" weeks -> 33%. Clearly, your work dropped off significantly during the last 3 months of your term.

      And, "busy with summit minutes" seems to admit that you were not working on, nor preparing for promoting, the CSM9 elections.

    4. Because quiet > "not quiet" > busy; just using your count, math says we had 5 quiet vs 3 "not quiet" plus 4 busy (also arguably "not quiet"). So, I read it as 42% quiet vs 58% "not quiet".

      Here we have a CSM who took the time to write something about the CSM *every week* even when things were alleged to be "quiet." Just going through that trouble, *every week* helped keep the CSM on blog reader's radar.

      If I could see a +1 button next to Jester's reply here, I'd push it.

    5. @Anon550 - your math works the other way, too (which Anon526 was polite enough not to point out, btw). Specifically:

      busy > "not busy" > quiet, therefore we can read this as 5 quiet (ie. not busy) + 3 not busy vs 4 busy. Or, 33% busy vs. 67% "not busy".

      So, if I could see a -1 button next to Jester's reply, I'd push that one.

    6. @Anon1237 - disagree completely. The middle set of three are between busy and quiet. Therefore, neither busy nor quiet. *Something* happened there, the middle three can't be disregarded as easily as the five "quiet."

      The point remains: Jester was an active participant in CSM and wrote about it all year long. Low voter turnout can't be placed at the feet of any one CSM, least of all - this one. But feel free to push the -1 button. We've cancelled each other out ;)


  33. "Why players didn't care is going to be something for CSM9 to look into."

    i voted the last 4 years for trebor, because i think he was pretty much ahead of ccp and almost all other players when it comes to "what should we do against lag in huge fights".
    also it seemed to me he was in csm 5-7 one of the few guys who did some real work. but csm 8 had no problem with lazy csm members. everything seems to run pretty smooth now.

    for the csm 9 votes my favorite 2 candidates were not available so i had to get informations about all the other players, which costs lots of time.

    also because everyone posted a list for those lazy people like me, i guessed that people who apear on many lists at the top, will probably get in csm9.

    to log in my 7 accounts and drag and drop all those votings lists seemed to me like not worth the effort since the people i would vote for would win anyways.

    there is no real campaigning anymore. the first years in my eve life people steped up and told everyone "if i get elected, i will make sure that ccp does this!"

    now everyone should haverealized that csm doesnt work that way. moe important then the power block oder playstyle ofthe csm member seems to be

    -willing to work a lot
    -able to communicate with ccp
    -able to communicate with the players
    -some kind of special knowledge of eve (even no knowledge at all would work as somethign that makes you special if you are able to sell that as newbee point of view or something like that)

    you have said in your blog many times that we have lots of high quality canditates this year and only a few "fun" candidates. so in which way would it matter to me which quality candidate wins?

    i think there are 2 things that could make me vote for csm 10

    -something realy controversial happens that makes me think that this one guy or groups of guys need to be in csm 10 and not those others
    -if that is not the case, probably a link i can click, that makes me vote within a few seconds per account, would do the job.

    1. It was not publicized much, but if you arranged a slate on one account, then logged in another account, it would remember the slate you arranged and offer that to you.

      So the first account is a bit tedious, but all subsequent accounts are just *click*.

  34. "Why players didn't care is going to be something for CSM9 to look into."

    Why should they bother?

    The current system got them elected, and keeping things the same will guarantee that they will get elected again next year. A lower voter turnout ensures that the CFC slate will win.

    It is rarely advantageous for the people in power to change a system which allows them to stay in power.

    1. Im confused as to when the players ever cared?? U realize we are talking about less than a 10% difference between this low turn out and the highest turn out. It would seem that despite the vocal minority people are still playing eve casually for the most part and dont care about a popularity contest for bloggers and null bloc candidates. id argue that a majority of eve players never cared about the csm and pry for the most part view it as a contest for free trips to Iceland. So I guess the real question is how do u change that perception? I vote when there is a candidate I like. I vote with all my accounts if it looks like they need more help. If you want better turn out just find a real challenge to a cfc candidate and they will have accounts u haven't seen in years log on to vote. Tbh I share rixx javix pov it seems like we elect a student council just to make the social minority feel important and maybe not cry so much.

  35. I'm surprised that nobody has correlated Dolan's departure from CCP with his lack of effort running this election. The guy clearly has had one foot out the door for a while now, and as a result did almost no work getting out the vote.

    1. I wonder if there is a correlation between the poor job CCP did in publishing the CSM8 Summer and Winter Minutes and the low CSM awareness among the broad capsuleer base.

      "We feel that this is due to a lack of awareness about the CSM’s form and function within the community, and we will be working actively with CSM9 to reach a broader audience over the coming term."

      source: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/csm9-presenting-the-new-council-members-election-data-and-officer-changes/

      Regards, a Freelancer

      PS: CCPgames response (!)

    2. Dolan had already been told that his employment at CCP was going to be terminated, long before the CSM elections.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.