DUST Search - Election process mecanics thoughts. Discussion welcome.

Temba Fusrodah wrote:

To surpress massive multiple online voting bots the CPM voting site should have some form of interactive verification of the individual with a preset limit on the number of free accounts they can hold and cast ballots with, which should be included in the EULA. Make bot ballot stuffing a violation of the EULA subject to ban.

Because someone can not afford to pay a poll tax is no reason to disenfranchise their vote. I am open to all ideas that do not create elitist categories that imbue some players with a more valued voter status than any other player has an equal opportunity to achieve. Prior to the election a voter qualification period could be instituted where a preset number of hours per voting account must be completed to qualify as a voting player within a small time frame to disable multiple bot accounts controlled by one person having the time to complete.

Example: I complete the matches in the small time frame required to register to vote with account A, prior to casting my ballot I have to complete an additional three or any preset number of matches on the day i vote, these matches are set up to boot any player that does not actively involve themselves in the match from start to finish. Being booted from any match for non-activity would disable that account from being qualified to vote for a specific period of time, hours or days.

One Account, One Vote! aka One Person, One Vote.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 755	Posted - 2013.06.11 22:04:00 - [1] - 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. No. I've been playing since slightly after open beta started. I've never gone AFK for SP. I have about half that. Maybe that's because I played Skirmish almost exclusively pre-uprising. But I play enough to hit the cap more often than not. This would disenfranchise me, and I think I've more than earned a right to vote. If people playing since BEFORE the official release can't even vote - the system is beyond screwed. I know I have corp-mates that play less than me, don't cap, but still play for a few hours every week. If I'd lose my vote, they'd be losing theirs too. I think they play enough to have a vote too. Use the WP cut-off for the Battle Academy if you must. If people are dedicated enough to make multiple accounts and play through battle academny... fine. It's better than that elitist BS you're suggesting.
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 755	Posted - 2013.06.12 06:11:00 - [2] - Quote Why not ignore WP altogether, and just go on time logged in-game. How long for part of a year does a person need to play to have an opinion that matters? Two months? Three months? What's a fairly low expectation of time played? If a person's put in 8 hours of play in a week, they've basically logged as much as one day at a full-time job that week. That's about 64-96 hours in-game. That's enough for a vote in my opinion, assuming it's spread out over enough time. I don't really care about their WP or battles. Dust claims to be about things like intrigue, espionage, and other non-battle-specific elements as well. If someone spent their time in channels recruiting or chatting people up, they're still in-game. Plus, some people are just really bad. If you spent three months getting pubstomped with a pittance of WP to show for it, then you should still get to vote. If anything, your suffering is enabling the chest-beating of the pub-stompers. You're sort of an important part of the community at that point.
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2261	Posted - 2013.09.04 01:59:00 - [3] - Quote This topic is still going? I realize that the OP lists multiple options, but I think the best solution voting-wise would probably be a combination of factors. I mostly piped in months ago to object to a hardline approach with a high WP barrier, which I still think would be the wrong approach. However, standards have shifted since then as well I think (the exit WP for the academy are much lower now). Of the various suggestions, I don't necessarily like real ID because of the security aspect, and I think some of the other metrics are also open to exploitation. There's likely a happy medium between "resistant to fraud" and "accessible to active players". I think a combination of WP-earned in the CPM term prior to the election (it would be to date in this case), a small aurum purchase, some sort of registry online, a nomination system (possibly both CEOs and CCP), and combining that with a preferential (ranked) voting system. CCP seems to suggest 100k WP as a sort of arbitrary goalpost for in-game citizenship within the recruit system (it's when they've "matured" enough to give full rewards). I think that may be as good a watermark as any. It's open to abuse, but it's not exceedingly easy to abuse. I like the idea of a nominal aurum purchase over real ID because of the security and privacy issues, but it still requires people to make purchase (i.e. - credit card or card). I'd combine that with the file download that registers the vote to that particular console, so a person can't get the same download on the same console for a different account (if that wouldn't be too much of a pain in the arse). If nothing else, you could make it unwieldly to game the system. You could still commandeer the consoles of non-Dust-players to login with your alt accounts, but you'd have to make an Aurum purchase still. You could make an argument that this runs against "Free to play", but I think there's a difference between F2P and Free to Vote or participate in the company liaison group. A person can fully enjoy the game AND provide feedback to CCP without spending any money at all. However, I think it gets into sketchy territory when we say someone will join a organization dedicated to telling CCP how their game should be (and devote many hours in service) but they're unwilling to pay a dollar/euro/yen/etc. towards the game. Even a tiny pay wall like a small aurum purchase will discourage fraud, trolls, etc. Voting in-game paired with authentication makes sense, but I think idea of registering online (to vote or to run) would also be a good idea. A good chunk of the CPM's time is spent outside of the game speaking with CCP and the community. The people running and voting should at least be aware of the community's existence, since the offices require a fair amount of engagement out of game. I like the CEO nomination idea as it necessarily restricts the initial nominee pool. Ideally they wouldn't just nominate themselves or a sock-puppet, but I'd hope a CEO would at least be aware of the additional time constraints something like this would put on someone. At the same time, I'm not sure if that's overly restrictive, or if the "only 1 nomination per CEO" is sensible. There's a case to be made for something more open on that end. CCP did a pretty good job with their initial roster I think, and it's worth considering people they'd nominate if only because the job involves communicating with them. Finally, the preferential voting system is ultimately more fair than a first-past-the-post system. It would take more work to implement, but the results would better reflect the will of the community.
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2262	Posted - 2013.09.04 07:17:00 - [4] - Quote Temba Fusrodah wrote: Zeylon Rho wrote: You could make an argument that this runs against "Free to play", but I think there's a difference between F2P and Free to Vote or participate in the company liaison group. A person can fully enjoy the game AND provide feedback to CCP without spending any money at all. However, I think it gets into sketchy territory when we say someone will join a organization dedicated to telling CCP how their game should be (and devote many hours in service) but they're unwilling to pay a dollar/euro/yen/etc. towards the game. Even a tiny pay wall like a small aurum purchase will discourage fraud, trolls, etc. Sir do you have any proof to support the opinions you are presenting here as facts? Any proof at all? I for the life of me cannot understand what seems like an irrational fear of what the "lesser than me players" might vote for. The player with less wps, with less cash, without even a CEO to endorse him. They are all somehow "lesser" so quite naturally they should get less right? Less chance to be elected, less chance to even run? What are you afraid of? One Account, One Vote! I never presented my opinions as facts. I also never presented a CEO as the only means of nominating someone. I did however posit "reasons" why I thought aurum might make a good mechanism for deterring fraud. The WP requirement is also a fraud deterrent, but represents time spent in-game (i.e. - experience to have a relevant opinion, equivalent to being old enough to vote). The exact figure comes from CCP, since they don't think of "recruits" as mature till 100k WP. Do I have proof that people will attempt to sway elections fraudulently? Or do I have evidence of the argument of "lesser" players you've conjured from the ether? Have you been on the internet before? Did you see the Mountain Dew poll people screwed with to name a new flavor "[the leader of WW2 Germany] did nothing wrong"? Have you see one determined troll spam the Dust boards... filling them with threads about other games? Even AFTER they put in a play-time requirement? Or is it the idea that you don't believe Dust players will exploit mechanics? You can find in this very thread people in corps/alliances that keep PC districts locked by attacking themselves for profit, and you the forums are awash with people that AFK or melee-glitch in battle. The Dust community has proven a willingness to exploit whenever possible. Hedging against that is a priority in any meaningful election discussion. People screw with elections and polls - especially on the internet. You'd be naive to believe otherwise. I think anyone going "one account, one vote" is either massively ignorant of how things like this tend to go on the internet or planning to abuse the system themselves. The methods I suggest are more likely to have a "one person, one vote" effect than an account-based policy, which would likely reach into a "who can make the most accounts" contest.
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2266	Posted - 2013.09.04 15:00:00 - [5] - Quote Temba Fusrodah wrote: So you admit you have no proof that your notions about fraud preventions are nothing more than, how did you say it "Conjured from the ether". Red herring and False Presumption. Your bit about "lesser players" was the part conjured from ether, as it was never a claim I made. Then again, ideas by their nature are ephemeral and in that sense they are conjured from the ether, but that has nothing to do with their validity as concepts. Your statement here is meaningless. Temba Fusrodah wrote: I don't drink Mountain Dew and the number of people who do vastly dwarfs the number of people who play Dust 514 so that straw man of false equivalence is a no go from the start. You just made a straw man argument yourself here, as the example related to Mountain Dew had nothing to with a comparison of the player base to Mountain Dew drinkers with respect to size. Temba Fusrodah wrote: Yes I have been on the internet once or twice before, in fact I am old enough to have been on it's since its invention, and long before console games were played on it. It is extremely naive and foolishly arrogant to think because someone does not agree with you it means they have no experience. Appeal to Authority - also a logical fallacy. Temba Fusrodah wrote: I play EVE, and a trickier, smarter, more scams and exploits per minute of game time group of players I defy anyone to find online, and yet we have elections without all the BS that is being proposed here. You sound both massively ignorant and paranoid running around like chicken little screaming about the fraud is coming, the fraud is coming! Get a grip, man up, and have a little more confidence in people and their ability to see through BS. The last election in EVE produced a very effective current CSM. Non-support. EVE has pay walls on their elections (subscriptions), and thus already has some degree of fraud protection you'd deny Dust players. Irrelevant Conclusion. Seeing through BS here is exactly why I can recognize that system you ask for would be open to EASY exploitation. "Seeing through BS" doesn't mean you magic away election fraud anymore than being aware your doctor is screwing your wife makes it stop happening. Temba Fusrodah wrote: I firmly stand for not putting fear based barriers between players and the opportunity for them to vote for those who would represent them with CCP. The Matchmaking snafu just implemented demonstrates how desperately Dust 514 DEVs need player input. I believe in my fellow players, why are you so afraid of them? One Account, One Vote! You firmly stand for naivety then. It's not fear, it's common sense. CCP had player input, they failed to fully inform the CPM of the nature of the matchmaking changes (look it up). Have you seen entire teams go AFK exploiting in-game mechanics? People will attempt to exploit mechanics. Rather than have open exploitation field-days as an EVE-player like yourself appears to prefer, we can try to clamp down on something we know people will try to screw with. One person, one vote.
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2266	Posted - 2013.09.05 00:13:00 - [6] - Quote Temba Fusrodah wrote: I was hoping for an exchange of ideas not a flaming troll fest with an EMO juvenile intellect, your personal attacks do not better support your whimsical ethereal naive positions, youngster you are dismissed. You seem to lack a sense of irony, and it seems you aren't quite old enough to mind throwing out "emo" in all caps. Your ad-hominem non-response aside: Temba Fusrodah wrote: To surpress massive multiple online voting bots the CPM voting site should have some form of interactive verification of the individual with a preset limit on the number of free accounts they can hold and cast ballots with, which should be included in the EULA. Make bot ballot stuffing a violation of the EULA subject to ban. Because someone can not afford to pay a poll tax is no reason to disenfranchise their vote. I am open to all ideas that do not create elitist categories that imbue some players with a more valued voter status than any other player has an equal opportunity to achieve. Prior to the election a voter qualification period could be instituted where a preset number of hours per voting account must be completed to qualify as a voting player within a small time frame to disable multiple bot accounts controlled by one person having the time to complete. Example: I complete the matches in the small time frame required to register to vote with account A, prior to casting my ballot I have to complete an additional three or any preset number of matches on the day i vote, these matches are set up to boot any player that does not actively involve themselves in the match from start to finish. Being booted from any match for non-activity would disable that account from being qualified to vote for a specific period of time, hours or days. One Account, One Vote! aka One Person, One Vote. "some form of interactive verification of the individual with a preset limit on the number of free accounts they can hold and cast ballots with" Limit on number of "free" accounts? Interactive verification? For all your shooting down ideas, you don't really define this well. It seems to suggest you'd let people vote with more than one account (since you used the plural there). What sort of verification? How we'd do that is part of this debate. Poll tax is a loaded term, carrying with it connotations of racism in the Unites States. The aurum fee suggested here was meant to be nominal (literally a few aurum, 10 Aurum or 100 Aurum I think) not punitive. I believe it's also a intended as an alternative to handing out credit card information or the like to verify identity - because people have privacy concerns. A credit card could be used to verify identity without charges, but a credit card isn't actually required to get Aurum either - so it's a higher bar in some ways. Which requires more financial standing? A credit card? Or a cheap PSN card bought at the store? The EULA might be difficult to enforce. The very matter at hand in many topics in this thread is how you verify identity. If CCP already has an easy mechanism for this, then most of this discussion is moot. However, we don't know that to be the case. Your method of completing matches in a certain time frame wouldn't seem to necessarily restrict voting. All it seems to require is playing matches when registering, then later when you vote. What would stop you from registering other accounts? In your example: You register account A, B, C. You don't play at the matches to register at the same time, and then when you vote you don't play the voting matches at the same time either. Presto: three votes to one person. A particularly restrictive time window on either voting or registering would disenfranchise a lot more people than any nominal Aurum fee, since people play Dust on their free time. Locking things to a small enough window for your method to work would likely prevent a huge chunk of the population from voting. Adults have jobs, lives, etc. and may play on any number of schedules. A time-restricted method of verification will be a larger hindrance to most people in a practical fashion as opposed to merely preventing fraud. At least that's an idea though.
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 3366	Posted - 2014.02.07 17:13:00 - [7] - Quote Canari Elphus wrote: We can debate the alternatives till the end of time but, what we really need, are deadlines from CCP. - When do election methods need to be finalized? - When is the deadline for candidate applications? - When do elections need to begin? Without this, we will just end up dragging this out and leaving no time for what really needs to be done. While we might not end up with the optimal election, it will be better than nothing or only having a couple days to elect the CPM. Restrictions and requirements for the office need to be made public as well, since people are announcing themselves as candidates. CSM requires a valid passport while you're running, using your real name while, age 21, etc. It's possible some people might exclude themselves from running if they knew everything. Dren and Templar equipment stats, wrong since release.