CSM Campaigns

It's happened at least three times in recent history that I can remember (Manny, Erotica 1, Lucia Denniard). Just because they're less public incidents than the infamous K.com one, doesn't mean they aren't happening





So you're influential enough within GSF/CFC to tell him to reverse his decision as an IT guy (let me tell you just how hard that is in my own experiences, sysops are the least receptive people to be told that they're wrong), but not influential enough to either get him to stop doing it altogether or to remove him from the alliance? Because as I said above, his actions are less public now but they still happen, and that's a problem.

You've clearly said that you don't condone what he does, so does that mean others in GSF who are above you do? IIRC there's only 2 more people above you, and that's Mittani and Sion.

like he's already been banned from SA, the GSF homeland, for admitting to collecting personal info on people. Isn't that enough of a smoking gun?

Arguably it does, as the CSM can push for either policy or game mechanic changes to prevent the sort of out of game harassment being referred to. We saw it with a firm usage of the CCP policies towards out of game harassment when the "Bonus Room" happened as well as with the EVE monument incident. These were out of game acts that CCP deemed detrimental to the community and took action against. CCP were even scolded on video game press sites, much like the Fanfest "suicidegate" as being an example of a community that has problems differentiating between real life and video game land. Is it farfetched to think that collecting, using, or even spreading a player's out of game personal info is just as detrimental? If one player is actively, and even openly admitting to, collecting personal data outside of the game and using that information maliciously as is claimed then it's a problem that CCP and the CSM need to investigate and find a resolution to if they want to keep the "meta game" healthy and available to players. The worst case scenario I can conceive is that if this sort of behavior goes unchecked, an event will happen that will greatly damage the game, the company that makes it, and the players which ultimately see the meta game removed entirely.

In the cited cases, and yes there are others, a player is collecting real life info on others and has been seen spreading that personal info to other players, even if it's a select few. For example there are logs from TheMittani.com's Editor Jabber Channel in which The Mittani himself stated that he had Digi look into and Erotica 1's personal stuff and felt the need to share that information with TMC Editors who weren't involved in the "counter intel" and "spying" game, we were writers/editors discussing Erotica 1's application to join the staff (we unanimously decided not to accept the application). There is little purpose behind being told the personal life details of another player, even if they were banned. You admonish the act of disclosing Manny's personal details on K.com. I can only imagine that, as Dirk stated, the case of Digi supposedly contacting Luccia out of game on a personal form of communication which she claims to never have disclosed would be equally deplorable to you. Again, there's no rhyme or reason for doing any of these things out of game, they don't even really have any context to in-game events or actions. These, among others, are examples of the "meta game" going too far and potentially damaging to the EVE community and it's sandbox gameplay for the sake of one's own internet space pixels.

There was one person elsewhere who poised that if we are to condemn the act of "doxxing" and using out of game personal information to either out the spy, harass, blackmail, or even intimidate them as being wrong then we must equally condemn the act of spying. As the head of the Goon spying group, I would imagine you have some thoughts on this stance. To this person the two can't be separated as the only way to prevent spies is to eventually hit out of game personal information, even if it's not intended. You stated you agree that you dislike "doxxing", so then what would you propose to CCP as a CSM delegate do to allow the act of in-game sandbox behavior such as spying and counter-intel not spill over into out of game actions like the examples listed above?

Edit - Please note that this isn't a "Grr Goons" or "Grr Digi" post in any intended manner (though I personally find Digi to be woefully incompetent in his "space job" given the antics he's been up to). It's a "this is a problem, how do you intend to fix it if you're on the CSM?" post.

For any who are interested, I wrote up my assessment of how each of the major blocs and alliances have reacted to Phoebe, with scorecards for each. Some of the results may surprise http://www.endie.net/wordpress/2014/12/alliance-phoebe-scorecards/

+1

I think I agree with a lot of what you say in your blogs. Are you planning on doing any of the podcasts? I like to hear the csm candidates needing to answer questions as they come.

Mynnna is leaving some big shoes to fill but Endie's got the chops.

The best part of electing the head of the Goon Intelligence Agency is you never have to sit down and write him an EVE mail to tell him about something; he already knows! He's known since you talked about it in corp chat.

Now that's convenience.

Endie is my favorite writer, and will be #1 on any ballot I see his name on.

Endie,

1. In NC's recent Alliance Update, Vince said that "everyone in NC should be working towards owning an SC or Titan." For the major coalitions, it seems like supers have gone from a rare, valuable strategic asset to a mandatory piece of equipment. Do you think this super proliferation is a healthy step in an aging NullSec, or do you think it will stagnate NullSec and make it nigh-impossible to break their fleets and put a dent in the old superpowers' resources?

2. If Goonswarm was started today instead of 8 years ago, would they still be able to establish themselves as one of the major NullSec superpowers? Or would they have been repeatedly crushed by the older NullSec coalitions? What does this say about the current state of NullSec compared to 3-5 years after the game launched?

3. Do you think more NullSec systems should be added to the game? If so, should they follow the same mechanics as the rest of NullSec, or should they have different mechanics to encourage occupancy by different/younger coalitions?

He's already addressed these in his articles on sov.

TL;DR: The giant coalitions exist because it's too easy to take sov; sheer firepower at specific timers is the biggest determining factor in sov, so a few dozen people with supers/T3s could take sov from hundreds of players that don't have similar resources without breaking a sweat. Hence everyone has to band into coalitions with equal firepower just to survive. Remake sov so it's persistence, not firepower, that determines who controls sov, so that a group of 100-200 newbros can force NC to put time & dedication into taking a single system from them (rather than steamrolling them with a dozen supers whenever their reinforcement timers pop), and the gigantic coalitions will no longer be necessary to survive. Once giant coalitions are no longer necessary, they'll fracture because it's a pain in the ass to keep 12,000 people cooperating with each other.

I'm not sure how the cfc could have done any better. Could anything less or more really be expected of us?