EVE Information Portal

Bottom of the pile roleplayer tries to manipulate a barely controversial dramabomb to suit his horrible larping political agenda, news at 11

That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.

Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.


Q1, CCP forced the resignation of the CSM Chairman.
A1, As a part of the CSM bylaws, banned players are ineligible to sit on the CSM. This would have been an unfortunate side effect of CCP feeling that a temporary ban was the correct course of action in this case.
However, prior to any notification to this effect, The chairman of CSM6 resigned of his own volition as he had previously announced that he would do. Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.

We have had members resign from the CSM before. The process is pretty clear in these cases, the next person on the voting poll becomes active. This is the first time the chairman of the CSM has resigned so we are discussing with the CSM if we should make amendments to the process based on that.


Q2, There is an issue of 10,058 votes. What will CCP do about that?
A2, As in most democratic societies, if an elected member resigns the governance system is designed to handle that; for CSM6 the "next" person steps in (an alternate); for CSM7, where we had removed the concept of ‘alternate’ and increased the size of the CSM to 14, the council simply continues to function minus one. If players are not satisfied with that system they should contact the CSM and propose changes for CSM 7 to discuss formally. The CSM can bring this issue up directly with CCP and propose changes should such an event happen in the future.
It is clear from many communications from CSM6 and CSM7-elect members that they take the representation of these 10,058 voters very seriously and hopefully the remaining CSM representatives will act in the spirit of those who voted for the resigned member.

We should also keep in mind that every CSM member has the obligation to, at some level, represent all of EVE and its players, and that the voting system is anonymous.


Q3, Real life actions should not equate to in game sanctions. Why did this happen?
A3, After much deliberation on the subject, CCP considers the Alliance Panel to be an official CCP forum, as it is hosted by CCP and broadcast in a similarly visible fashion to the EVE Online forums. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the TOS. Furthermore, the panelist, present on the panel in order to represent his in-game identity, advocated using in-game actions to achieve a real world outcome. Specifically he suggested that if anyone wanted to make another player kill themselves in real life, they should go in game and harass them to achieve that consequence. The totality of the situation including the official forum in which it was held and statements of the panelist during the Q&A, have since lead to in-game sanctions. However, it is important to note that this incidence does not necessarily create precedence for any other "real life" actions or statements triggering a ban.


Q4, Wait, so you DID vet the presentations? Meaning it was perfectly fine for him to make fun of a suicidal player?
A4, Although the contents of the Alliance Panel presentations and discussion topics are reviewed by CCP prior to the event itself, the TOS-breaking incident took place during an unscripted Q&A session after the main presentation which was not mentioned in the submitted presentation. The submitted presentation slides (although distasteful) did not give the name of the player at any time, nor did they call for direct action against that player, and therefore passed muster. CCP have always allowed substantial leeway during the Alliance Panel and we look forward to ensuring that future events remain entertaining and engaging for the EVE community.

Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.

Q3, Real life actions should not equate to in game sanctions. Why did this happen?
A3, After much deliberation on the subject, CCP considers the Alliance Panel to be an official CCP forum, as it is hosted by CCP and broadcast in a similarly visible fashion to the EVE Online forums. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the TOS. Furthermore, the panelist, present on the panel in order to represent his in-game identity, advocated using in-game actions to achieve a real world outcome. Specifically he suggested that if anyone wanted to make another player kill themselves in real life, they should go in game and harass them to achieve that consequence. The totality of the situation including the official forum in which it was held and statements of the panelist during the Q&A, have since lead to in-game sanctions. However, it is important to note that this incidence does not necessarily create precedence for any other "real life" actions or statements triggering a ban.

*snip* That was uncalled for. Spitfire

Dude. Goons can quit and war for their region will fuel up eve to some nasty temps.
Nobody gives a **** about a bunch of whiney noobs
If they leave it's going to be awesome. Big null space to fill!

You understand wrong. You can only vote once per account. Of course many people have multiple accounts, so that 10k number is probably representative of fewer than 10k individual people.

That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.

Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.