These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM Feedback to CCP

First post First post First post
Author
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2014-03-29 16:53:30 UTC
2.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Silky Cyno
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#102 - 2014-03-29 17:01:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Removed off topic part. ISD Ezwal.


Ill go with #2
Malcolm Shinhwa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2014-03-29 17:48:36 UTC
1.

This is a video game. A game. Games have rules so the players know how to play. If you can't articulate the rules, then how do players know what the valid moves are? They don't, so players just have to wait and see if the banhammer commeth for them.

[i]"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental[/i]."

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#104 - 2014-03-29 17:49:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Malcanis wrote:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.



If these are going to be our pre-defined options, then I am forced to go with this one.

It utterly gimps my chosen playstyle, but at least it affords me concrete rules upon which I can make an informed decision.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Bael Malefic
Doomheim
#105 - 2014-03-29 17:52:48 UTC
Option 2. With the understanding that from time to time some self-absorbed idiot is going to do something really offensive and get the ban-hammer, that such will be at the discretion of CCP and that those who can't accept that need to either grow up or GTFO.
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#106 - 2014-03-29 17:55:53 UTC
(2)

Also:

Malcanis wrote:
The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse


CCP should (must?) not give any clear definition of abuse/harassment/whatever, they must leave some wiggle room for themselves. People here are a pretty inventive bunch they will find a way around any definition. Making the life of the poor GMs deliberately more difficult is not a wise move.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.

CCP Falcon
#107 - 2014-03-29 18:07:16 UTC
The answer is simple.

Quote:
(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.


In terms of hard data based on player age, we have an extremely mature community.

It's quite clear that we also have an extremely intelligent community, even if sometimes the content posted on these forums is to the contrary. I think that playing EVE requires a certain level of intelligence, thickness of skin, and ability to deal with your fellow man in circumstances that are sometimes not to your favor.

However, there's a line as to how severe those circumstances should get, and I'll paraphrase Mynxee by saying that this line needs to be drawn at the point where the alleged victim starts to lose emotional control. We can't set an arbirarty line for this, as this is different for everyone, and every situation. There must be a willingness by those involved to recognise when that point has been reached and realize, with positive community spirit in mind, that they should stop and honor that line with humaine and decent behaviour.

In the same respect, there must also be a level of responsibility held by CCP to ensure that we have the wellbeing of our community and each of our players at the forefront of our minds during the decision making process when an issue like this comes up.

It may be regarded as an "arbitrary" decision from the outside, but generally issues of this nature are investigated by multiple teams within CCP for a number of weeks before any action is taken and due to our privacy policy, we aren't going to release information on individual cases.

We have done this only once in the past, and this was due to the fact that the individual involved was the chairman of the Council of Stellar Management, which put us in an extraordinary position in terms of clariflying the situation.

In the end, scam, AWOX and betray eachother as much as you like. Steal from eachother as much as you like. Gank, pod and sabotage eachother as much as you like. These are the stories that drive gameplay in EVE, and we are not looking to re-define the sandbox. We do however need to make it clear that in the, end every sandbox has edges just the same as EVE has limits, and those limits are built on a basic level of empathy, understanding and humaine behavior.

EVE has a community that to be perfectly honest, I've been extremely proud to be a part of for the last 11 years despite all the ups and downs, the drama, the summer of rage, the bad posting and the sometimes inappropriate content that comes out of it. That community is core to EVE's continued success, and the last 11 years of history is built on the shoulders of everyone who has touched New Eden.

Being asked to take on the role of Community Manager for EVE Online last year was both a surprise and a priviliege. Believe me, after being so close to the core of the community we've built over the last 11 years, there's nothing more I want than to see it continue to grow, but we are not in a position where we can paint ourselves into a corner in terms of being able to act on our own policies with the health and wellbeing of our community in mind.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Velt Shmerts
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2014-03-29 18:10:40 UTC
Malcanis—thanks for volunteering your time to deal with this incident. It cuts to the heart of what makes Eve a compelling game: the opportunity to be bad gives meaning to choosing good.

Option #1 would make the game much less interesting. I think the opposite of what Ali Aras thinks will happen. Such a rule would have to be as broad that all forms of emergent gameplay will pretty much die out. Other MMOs are solid examples .

Option #3 is…unlikely, and although I would be interested to see a lawless society (Deadwood, but in space!), it’s so far from what Eve is (which has more restrictions on freedom of speech than in the US). Maybe another game will do this.

Option #2 is what I assumed, before I read this thread, would happen. Is there a push within CCP for option #1, and is that why you’re getting feedback for community support? And if that’s the case, put me down for #2.

But the status quo does have its problems. Being in possession of “adult intelligence and humanity” isn’t sufficient for consensus. I would wager that a significant portion of humanity would find common practices in Eve (scamming, ganking defenseless miners) to lack a certain amount of humanity. The point being: people of good faith can disagree. And because of this CCP should give assurances to the player base concerning these types of “I know it when I see it” infractions.

Is it possible for CCP to state they will give out warnings/suspensions instead of permabans so that people get a second chance? This has the benefits of not having to define rules to circumvent every imaginable contingency, allow a case-by-case determinate, yet not leave people feeling that they’ve been screwed by an ex post facto law.
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#109 - 2014-03-29 18:17:44 UTC
2
Vara Vampira
Fwehman Brothers Holdings
#110 - 2014-03-29 18:18:43 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Please can you help the CSM by choosing which of the three courses of action the CSM should recommend to CCP as the way forward.

As you are all no doubt aware, CCP Falcon, the leader of the EVE Community Team, yesterday published a communication on the subject of player harrassment. As might be expected, this issue, and CCP's reply, has caused a certain amount of contention. The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.

In other to get some actual numbers into the discussion, please can you select from one of the following three options for the CSM to present to CCP as the opinion of the community.:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.

(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.

(3) CCP should stand back and allow without comment the members of the community complete free reign in using CCP's IP and property to engage in and facilitate whatever activities they desire, regardless of damage done and regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness. This option, so far as I am aware, is not available anywhere and may in fact contravene the laws of quite a few nations including several which comprise large sections of the EVE playerbase.



Would have to say 2.

3 would truly be a sandbox. however it seems to have good with bad in its midst.

2 seems as the most viable for now. Unless bits of the idea of 3 get combined with 2..... so. 2.5? suppose that will do
Moloney
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#111 - 2014-03-29 18:19:08 UTC
2

We are humans first not just Eve players.

Humans should know where a game stops and indecency begins.
Novah Soul
#112 - 2014-03-29 18:23:50 UTC
Option number two would seem to be the only rational choice since EvE is (supposed to be) a game a mostly mature adults who can/should be able to make choices of their own and suck it up when in-game consequences occur due to those choices.

A man is known by the quality of his friends. - Lex Luthor

Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
#113 - 2014-03-29 18:25:51 UTC
2

all day everyday.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#114 - 2014-03-29 18:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
(1), of course.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Princess Saskia
Hyperfleet Industries
xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
#115 - 2014-03-29 18:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
2, Rules governed by the sandbox should only apply to the sandbox. In the instance of using out of game channels. Administrators and the people that make the rules of those out of game channels should enforce the rules that they deem acceptable.

*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

 ♥ 

Max Kolonko
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#116 - 2014-03-29 18:48:08 UTC
CCP should use its judgment to handpick situation where it should react.

No rules changes are needed.
Thaylon Sen
The Boondock Saints
#117 - 2014-03-29 18:50:50 UTC
#1
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#118 - 2014-03-29 18:51:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Malcanis wrote:
Please can you help the CSM by choosing which of the three courses of action the CSM should recommend to CCP as the way forward.

As you are all no doubt aware, CCP Falcon, the leader of the EVE Community Team, yesterday published a communication on the subject of player harrassment. As might be expected, this issue, and CCP's reply, has caused a certain amount of contention. The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.

In other to get some actual numbers into the discussion, please can you select from one of the following three options for the CSM to present to CCP as the opinion of the community.:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.

(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.

(3) CCP should stand back and allow without comment the members of the community complete free reign in using CCP's IP and property to engage in and facilitate whatever activities they desire, regardless of damage done and regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness. This option, so far as I am aware, is not available anywhere and may in fact contravene the laws of quite a few nations including several which comprise large sections of the EVE playerbase.
Does it have to be restricted to these 3 options? Since I would argue that none of them fits the bill.

I'd argue that 2 is the right course of action with the addendum that CCPs involvement explicitly continues to end with EVE itself. Third party forums, communications tools, blogs and websites should continue to stand outside of the jurisdiction as previously stated by GMs in official responses where third party sites have been used to harass or attack. Those sites and services should remain exclusively under the policies of their respective owners and CCP should have no involvement with them.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Marsha Mallow
#119 - 2014-03-29 19:07:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
2) Roll

*Snip* Removed off topic part of the post. ISD Ezwal.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Mikey Aivo
Original Sinners
Northern Coalition.
#120 - 2014-03-29 19:18:27 UTC
2
In game stuff like real life threats and racial slurs shouldnt be allowed as is the current rules. other than that giver all u got keyboard warrior. Loose the spaceship fight win the local jibbering