DUST Search - Election process mecanics thoughts. Discussion welcome.

Fiddlestaxp wrote:

One vote per person.
A WP(Not skill point) minimum threshold would make the most sense. Justifiable in its similarities to the age restriction on voting seen in many modern democracies. 500,000 seems like a reasonable cutoff. Maybe lower, but not much.

Candidates should be established by a petition/nomination process within this forum. A minimum of 50 unique votes of support should be necessary to make the ballot. This process should be open for one week.

A week should then be taken to evaluate the candidates.

Once the ballot is set, we vote. As their are multiple positions to fill, multiple CPMs may be selected with a single vote. I think a simple "Select all candidates that you support" would be more manageable than a "rank in order of preference" system. If we had the time and manpower to tally the latter system it would be preferable, but I don't think we do. This process should also be open for one week.

In the event of a small margin of victory for the last CPM1 spot (>1%?), A runoff election should be held in FPTP style. This should be held immediately after the vote tally and should be over no later than a week after the initial election.

This process should take roughly a month.
Potential voters should be made aware of this process via the MOTD/patch screen that displays upon loading.
Ballots should be secret and CCP should take care to ensure that no fraud occurs


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Abu Stij Goonfeet 132	Posted - 2013.05.31 02:17:00 - [1] - Quote Oh god no, whoever suggested the Real Life ID & Aurum ideas needs to be told to stop coming up with bad ideas. If you have a voting system that has a benchmark requirement to vote that is say, spitballing here so take it with a pinch of salt, 20mil WarPoints it caters to the players who put effort into the game, and actually care about the "trivial" thing such as a CPM vote. Figuring out the best level to set that bar at is the tricky part.
Abu Stij Goonfeet 133	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:26:00 - [2] - Quote Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Voting for CPM shouldnt be restricted to people who care about meta-game or the position itself. It should be opened to anyone who has an interest for the game and enough knowledge to pick out a candidate that promotes specific aspects of the game one would want to see improved or worked on. As for real life ID, it's only a way to avoid elections becoming a race to who's got the largest amount of supporters with alt accounts. A simple fake credit card transaction used to register name and avoid another vote from the same person would work. I never said it should only cater to those who care about the meta-game, it should cater to those who actually put in the effort to play the game and care about the game itself. You literally just agreed with what I said in that if anyone is interested in the game enough to vote, should vote. Putting a benchmark/requirement is nothing new, think of it as a "you have to be this old to vote" rule that countries use, its to stop With the Real Life ID format you're basically caching peoples personal credit card info via a company that had that same info stolen previously due to faulty security measures, that doesn't exactly scream "smart idea" at all. Comparing it to EVE is moot because you can keep your account active despite your credit card info being out of date through the secondary market, which isn't even active in DUST. The Aurum tickets could work, but without a secondary market its just a waste of your Aurum and can elections can be bought off by whomever sinks the most real world money on the game which defeats the purpose of trying to "avoid a race to who's got the largest amount of supporters with alt accounts" you're trying to preach against. At present the only logical and sensible idea i a WarPoint based voting requirement as that keeps elections from being "paid for" and promotes players who enjoy the game to get out and vote. Keeping it to one vote per PSN ID is also the best way to curb mass issues with alts. You can keep the requirement not available for the public until a few days before the election to prevent "farming for votes" from happening as well.
Abu Stij Goonfeet 133	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:24:00 - [3] - Quote Yeah a minimum "you need to be this active/old to vote" is nothing farfetch'd as well as implementing the accumulated warpoints metric, you could think of it as a "you need to reach this level each year to 're-register' to vote" would be a good way to keep players actively playing the game, as well as make those that see issues, faults, or improvements more likely to want to run for a CPM position as they have more vested interest in the game and its growth. Simply saying "here buy this item with real money to then make your voice heard" is really silly, as is requiring people to provide their credit card information just to vote. Those systems eliminate voters needlessly, despite them being active members of the playerbase.
Abu Stij Goonfeet 133	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:42:00 - [4] - Quote Daedric Lothar wrote: The others are pretty abusable or limiting. I like WP and R/L verification. For WP, that would be fairly easy to abuse, but it would also make people work for it. Set the limit decently high so that dedicated abuses can only be like 1-10 votes at most. For R/L however some people have alot of credit cards. But I guess its good to limit them to 1-7 votes rather then 3000000 I think that is the best thing, is just try to limit these people to as few votes as possible. You won't be able to stop fraud, but if you get a core group of bandits who want to mess up the system and if there are 50 of them and they all vote 10 times, thats only 500 votes rather then like 1,000-5,000 votes. The key issue, as previously pointed, out with linking a credit card with someones account is, you're essentially making the purpose of a Free-to-Play game obsolete. Additionally there are security concerns people will raise and could exploit at greater damage. The WarPoint system at least is a more of a "you really have to actually play the game" speed bump to get people to spam votes and I said previously is more of a hindrance for the people making all those alts just to vote as they're taking time away from their focus on their main. Klivve Cussler wrote: I think that we're never going to get a verifiable 1 vote per RL person. Even in Eve, the vote is 1 per non-trial account, and some people are running 8 or more accounts. Those people, theoretically, have 8 votes, if I'm not mistaken. I think the goal should be to keep people from spamming votes. While it is possible for people to have 8-10 votes in Eve, it isn't common, and no one has 80, 800, or 8000 votes. Straight voting on PSN accounts allows for spamming huge numbers of votes with little effort. The WP/year requirement does not eliminate multiple votes per person, but it makes it difficult to spam huge numbers of votes. I also think that the purchasable citizenship has some merit, but I don't think it should be AUR only. I think that an Isk option, say 2,000,000 Isk, would provide an equivalent "alt speedbump" to a 5-10 Aur option. The problem with this option, however, is that as soon as player-player isk transfers are enabled, a rich player can enfranchise several other accounts. This problem is similar to playing an alt enough that it has enough WP to vote, but the isk option may not require the same time commitment. Either method, however, should provide enough of a barrier to prevent a player from spamming an election with hundreds of votes. You're not mistaken, people with multiple active subscriptions can make multiple votes and they count. That isn't a bad thing, since they're paying to play the game (which is a subscription based model) and actively playing it during the time of voting. Its open to manipulation but at the cost of $15/per vote from those people. DUST is a Free-To-Play game and the problem with a "purchasable citizenship", even through ISK instead of Aurum, is that you can just have someone give money to those who don't have that ISK through a secondary market when it becomes active. It eliminates the point in having it almost immediately since people can make alts, then have those alts get the ISK/AUR immediately just to spam votes as soon as the secondary market is in effect which is supposedly sometime soon(tm) and a key component to this game.
Abu Stij Goonfeet 144	Posted - 2013.06.04 10:25:00 - [5] - Quote mrunknown2u2 wrote: I'd say none the csm are a waste of time and proved time and time Again not to be of any real value. I totally against they csm they are all self serving the next and best vote will be to do away with the whole thing. You'll probably need to find a new game as CCP doesn't plan to remove the CPM, nor the CSM, anytime soon. Additionally please, provide evidence in your own thread that the CPM/CSM are only self serving their own corps interests.
Abu Stij Goonfeet 144	Posted - 2013.06.04 13:53:00 - [6] - Quote Thanos Warpfiend wrote: 1 vote per 3 million SP you have That doesn't really work at all and is full of issues.
Abu Stij Goonfeet 151	Posted - 2013.06.05 19:32:00 - [7] - Quote Appia Vibbia wrote: I say time based. make sure someone has been posting on the forums for 2 months. Definitely need to make sure the people use the forums as a qualifier for knowing what is going on. I've had so many talks with players about hearsay. One guy last night just quoted a forum post I made without knowing it came from me, because it was second-hand information. The issue with a "time based" account needed to vote is, it does nothing really to curb the "alt vote" which would throw off the entire election process.
Abu Stij Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 180	Posted - 2013.06.10 14:24:00 - [8] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: I would go with a 2 way combo. Account linked. First part of the requirement is that the account has to be linked to a payment card via PSN. If the various data protection acts also allow it, the billing address of that payment card can only be used once. This prevents people 'buying' extra votes by having multiple payment cards on different account. This may require an opt-in giving CCP permission to use that data. Once an account passes that criteria there is a second one. That is a horrible idea. You're basically telling the players they have to pay for something just to vote in a Free-To-Play game. Linking it to 1 vote per PSN is a good idea, start with that but leave the need to give out personal info like your bank account/credit card to a faulty system out. Identity theft isn't something worth risking over a single vote in an internet shoot mans game.
Abu Stij Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 183	Posted - 2013.06.11 13:24:00 - [9] - Quote Fiddlestaxp wrote: One vote per person. A WP(Not skill point) minimum threshold would make the most sense. Justifiable in its similarities to the age restriction on voting seen in many modern democracies. 500,000 seems like a reasonable cutoff. Maybe lower, but not much. Candidates should be established by a petition/nomination process within this forum. A minimum of 50 unique votes of support should be necessary to make the ballot. This process should be open for one week. A week should then be taken to evaluate the candidates. Once the ballot is set, we vote. As their are multiple positions to fill, multiple CPMs may be selected with a single vote. I think a simple "Select all candidates that you support" would be more manageable than a "rank in order of preference" system. If we had the time and manpower to tally the latter system it would be preferable, but I don't think we do. This process should also be open for one week. In the event of a small margin of victory for the last CPM1 spot (>1%?), A runoff election should be held in FPTP style. This should be held immediately after the vote tally and should be over no later than a week after the initial election. This process should take roughly a month. Potential voters should be made aware of this process via the MOTD/patch screen that displays upon loading. Ballots should be secret and CCP should take care to ensure that no fraud occurs The system you described is, in most ways, similar to the current CSM election system in EVE so kudos on that. It's a worthy system, but I think the main concern is preventing people spamming alt account votes, but the WarPoint system is a preventative measure for that. The only point I would argue against the the threshold for unique votes of support to be on the ballot, I would say something higher is required but given how small the community is now that number can be adjusted as time goes on.