These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

NDA and in game advantages to csm members.

First post
Author
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#1 - 2017-02-08 19:16:14 UTC
So part of the code of conduct states:

"Members of the council shall not use any information gained in confidence or before the general public to derive any personal benefit in the game, either directly or indirectly."

I wonder how anyone on csm can participate at all on any alliance level decisions if that is the case. Let me just take 2 examples

1) The rorqual nerf:

Lets say a csm member is a null sec alliance leader. And he is currently producing lots of Rorquals. His alliance is also producing allot of Rorquals. But then as CSM he hears about nerf to rorquals. Can he stop producing rorquals? Can he slow down? Or does he need to keep producing Rorquals as if he never heard it? (how would that work?) Can he tell other people in his alliance he moved to producing other things? Given the connections between different items can he say anything to his alliance about what they should produce or invest in at all?

2) New Citadel rigs

Lets say someone is on CSM and the get information about what materials will be required for Citadel rigs. Now presumably he could not rush out and buy the materials before it is announced. And also he shouldn't tell others in his alliance to do this. But before the dev blog is published he would have time to figure out exactly which materials will be in short supply. That way as soon as the dev blog is published he could then buy out jita and have his alliance buy out jita. In the meantime the average player is still trying to understand this or that ambiguous word in the dev blog (the csm member would likely know exactly what it means) and then try to think about what it would take ect. So if you think the above would be a violation of code of conduct then I would ask what could the csm do? Should the csm have to wait a couple of weeks before they purchase the items or make recommendations to their alliance? Are there any rules here?


There are of course hundreds of things like this that will allow csm members (and their alliances) to have a huge economic advantage over those who don't have csm access.

Moreover these questions are just asking whether this conduct is even a violation. Getting any sort of proof of these violations would seem impossible. My view is that when you combine this inforation with the large amount of capital that large alliances have to throw around it is pretty clear why null sec alliances are so interested in getting "their guy" on the CSM.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#2 - 2017-02-08 19:31:39 UTC
Cearain wrote:

I wonder how anyone on csm can participate at all on any alliance level decisions if that is the case.


You say nothing, and if anyone asks, you say "NDA". That's pretty much the blanket statement and execution from CCP on this regard. There are exceptions where - for example with regards to moon mining - one member is already so heavily involved in the market, them leaving said market would massively disrupt it. As such, they are told to freeze prices at the state they were in prior to any NDA discussion, and only allowed to react when the information is revealed to the general public.

And, having talked to CCP's Security, the amount they can see and watch of you and your friends is terrifying.
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2017-02-08 19:55:52 UTC
You just proved the OP's point. CSM members are ready and allowed to act with plans long prepared at second first. Also, big power blocks send their representatives to CSM in order to claim an advantage, assuming else would be naive.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#4 - 2017-02-08 20:13:39 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
You just proved the OP's point. CSM members are ready and allowed to act with plans long prepared at second first. Also, big power blocks send their representatives to CSM in order to claim an advantage, assuming else would be naive.


Yes, planning is allowed, but speculation is not. Equally, plans based around NDA information could not be shared, and any large post-reveal, alliance level action that had been pre-organised would be heavily frowned upon by CCP.

The primary reason big blocs send representatives - who very often burn out in the experience - is to ensure that the CSM isn't used as a blunt force object to push through things that are overwhelmingly harmful to nullsec. See CSM 5 for an example of when this wasn't a case, and the sudden rush from nullsec blocs to involve themselves in the CSM.

I would suggest if you take exception to this however, to vote in the election for as many non-bloc candidates as you can, and rally support for them.

(Also, I can tell you that I, personally, have nothing to do with our leadership. My primary reason for running is that I felt like NRDS and NPSI gameplay needed to be represented to CCP to ensure that NBSI wasn't simply presumed to be the be-all end-all of engagement doctrine.)
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#5 - 2017-02-08 22:03:28 UTC
First thanks for the response Jin'taan.

Do I think CSM gets a very unfair inside scoop that they use to their advantage? Yes CCP has kicked people for this, and CSM members have even admitted they took advantage. A current csm openly said he ran specifically so he could see ccps long range plans and plan accordingly for his coalition.

Aryth:

"What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans. Good things for us that's what."


So I think the days of naively believing no one takes advantage should be long gone.

I am asking something even a bit more fundamental. I am just trying to see if *anyone* even has a clear idea of what would be considered "wrong" by this code of conduct. I think that is a basic first step. That is why I asked those detailed questions - which I would like someone to answer but I doubt anyone will.

Sure CCP can see everthing that happened in the game. They have no special access to anything outside of the game. So just like you or I don't know what one alliance leader may say to another by telephone neither does ccp.


Jin'taan I'm not sure I follow your point from CSM 5. No there were not many null sec entities on that csm. But there really wasn't much that impacted null sec either. If you recall those minutes basically said everything will be on hold for 18 months while they work on incarna. IMO CSM5 was the best CSM because it woke the playerbase up to the problem of ccp was ignoring eve other than incarna. Other than Mittani, who defended incarna early on, I think CSM6 continued on the turn CSM5 started. (of course when Mittani eventually changed directions and agreed ccp should work on spaceships he then tried to claim credit for ccp's change in direction back to spaceships)



Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#6 - 2017-02-09 00:33:25 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Jin'taan I'm not sure I follow your point from CSM 5. No there were not many null sec entities on that csm. But there really wasn't much that impacted null sec either.


CSM 5 was where they literally tried to remove Jump Bridges from the game IIRC. Perhaps I am thinking of CSM 4, but I am almost certain that was why CSM 6 was so incredibly Nullsec dominated.

Cearain wrote:
Do I think CSM gets a very unfair inside scoop that they use to their advantage? Yes CCP has kicked people for this, and CSM members have even admitted they took advantage. A current csm openly said he ran specifically so he could see ccps long range plans and plan accordingly for his coalition.

Aryth:

"What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans. Good things for us that's what."


So I think the days of naively believing no one takes advantage should be long gone.


That is a fair concern, and I wish there was some way to police that.

Gallente Federation
#7 - 2017-02-09 04:42:13 UTC
NDA includes that CSM are watched. The shifts would have to be subtle and, as a result, less effective to take advantage of inside info. I think it was Larkonis (though I could be wrong) who was dropped from the CSM for using inside info?

Could it and does it probably happen? Yup.

Could large blocs throw their weight around and mess with the rest of us without being on the CSM? Yup

Is voting just for non-allied non bloc candidates the solution? Well that depends on whether you believe everyone 'posts with their main'.

It comes down to it being the nature of the beats. Either CSDM see the NDA material so they can be effective or they don't for fear of leaks and advantages taken. CCP know this and accepts the possibilities and moves on, keeping the CSM running. They just rewrote the White paper. You may want to browse the expectations of CSM members and what happens if lines are crossed.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Gallente Federation
#8 - 2017-02-09 12:55:48 UTC
My impression is that CCP lost their confidence in doing the right thing for the game after Incarna (I was not yet around by that time). The CSM let them outsource some of the pre-clarification and reality checks to players, instead of establishing a good understanding of each and every part of their own game in-house. I like the feedback threads and beta tests, and features that get removed if acceptance or impact is low, also the focus groups, but do players need inside into the internal (NDA) roadmap? Probably a question only CCP can answer.

I'm my own NPC alt.

The Initiative.
#9 - 2017-02-09 14:54:58 UTC
Jin'taan wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Jin'taan I'm not sure I follow your point from CSM 5. No there were not many null sec entities on that csm. But there really wasn't much that impacted null sec either.


CSM 5 was where they literally tried to remove Jump Bridges from the game IIRC. Perhaps I am thinking of CSM 4, but I am almost certain that was why CSM 6 was so incredibly Nullsec dominated.

Cearain wrote:
Do I think CSM gets a very unfair inside scoop that they use to their advantage? Yes CCP has kicked people for this, and CSM members have even admitted they took advantage. A current csm openly said he ran specifically so he could see ccps long range plans and plan accordingly for his coalition.

Aryth:

"What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans. Good things for us that's what."


So I think the days of naively believing no one takes advantage should be long gone.


That is a fair concern, and I wish there was some way to police that.



You do not recall correctly. Csm 5 agreed with and promoted the jump bridge nerf which reduced them to their current limit of 1 per system. This was in response the the massive, dense jump bridge map of NC space being made public. Google it and see if you can see what's wrong with the situation it implies.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#10 - 2017-02-09 15:03:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Jin'taan wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Jin'taan I'm not sure I follow your point from CSM 5. No there were not many null sec entities on that csm. But there really wasn't much that impacted null sec either.


CSM 5 was where they literally tried to remove Jump Bridges from the game IIRC. Perhaps I am thinking of CSM 4, but I am almost certain that was why CSM 6 was so incredibly Nullsec dominated.

Cearain wrote:
Do I think CSM gets a very unfair inside scoop that they use to their advantage? Yes CCP has kicked people for this, and CSM members have even admitted they took advantage. A current csm openly said he ran specifically so he could see ccps long range plans and plan accordingly for his coalition.

Aryth:

"What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans. Good things for us that's what."


So I think the days of naively believing no one takes advantage should be long gone.


That is a fair concern, and I wish there was some way to police that.



You do not recall correctly. Csm 5 agreed with and promoted the jump bridge nerf which reduced them to their current limit of 1 per system. This was in response the the massive, dense jump bridge map of NC space being made public. Google it and see if you can see what's wrong with the situation it implies.


Was that really CSM 5? Time sure does fly. I still have that jb map somewhere. Even after that nerf you could still go from Geminate to Fountain in I think it was 15 minutes.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Heretic Nation
#11 - 2017-02-09 16:31:08 UTC
Jin'taan wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
You just proved the OP's point. CSM members are ready and allowed to act with plans long prepared at second first. Also, big power blocks send their representatives to CSM in order to claim an advantage, assuming else would be naive.


Yes, planning is allowed, but speculation is not. Equally, plans based around NDA information could not be shared, and any large post-reveal, alliance level action that had been pre-organised would be heavily frowned upon by CCP.


Thx for confirming CSM should be shutdown, they have first hand intel we don't have, even if they don't share it with allymate (lol), they are ready.

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore

Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#12 - 2017-02-09 16:43:26 UTC
Tetsel wrote:
Jin'taan wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
You just proved the OP's point. CSM members are ready and allowed to act with plans long prepared at second first. Also, big power blocks send their representatives to CSM in order to claim an advantage, assuming else would be naive.


Yes, planning is allowed, but speculation is not. Equally, plans based around NDA information could not be shared, and any large post-reveal, alliance level action that had been pre-organised would be heavily frowned upon by CCP.


Thx for confirming CSM should be shutdown, they have first hand intel we don't have, even if they don't share it with allymate (lol), they are ready.


If, prior to a patch - where CCP releases information on what they will be patching as with the Rorqual, or moon mining - and you do not simply plan for every major possibility, leaving execution down to quick reading of the devblog and going on a predetermined course of action, you are doing speculation wrong as a market player.
Heretic Nation
#13 - 2017-02-09 16:52:12 UTC
Jin'taan wrote:


If, prior to a patch - where CCP releases information on what they will be patching as with the Rorqual, or moon mining - and you do not simply plan for every major possibility, leaving execution down to quick reading of the devblog and going on a predetermined course of action, you are doing speculation wrong as a market player.


I don't do market, I don't do industry, I don't do all those things that could be impacted by divinating the futur result of a devblog.
I'm only agreeing with the OP on the fact that CSM have access to first hand intel before anyone else and they can make a profit out of it.
Considering how CSM have low impact on Eve online evolution, I think CSM should be shutdown just because of that particular advantage CSM players have (cause we all know they are not leaking AT ALL)

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore

Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#14 - 2017-02-09 19:28:38 UTC
Tetsel wrote:

Considering how CSM have low impact on Eve online evolution, I think CSM should be shutdown just because of that particular advantage CSM players have (cause we all know they are not leaking AT ALL)


To the highlighted piece I would like to apply the adage which underpins the concept of rationality as a philosophy, simply as it is so appropriate in the circumstances - "What do you think you know, and how do you think you know it?"

I would argue that the CSM has, in fact had a significant impact on the evolution of EvE Online, and whilst the best examples will likely only be heard about in 6 years when my NDA runs out, I can still point to ways in which the CSM has had a significant impact on the development of EvE Online in even the past term - without the fire and brimstone brought on by CSM 8 following the Summer of Rage;

Alpha Clones Multiboxing - This was something that was brought into focus by the CSM during our initial talks with CCP, and as one can see from their initial devblog, they weren't certain as to how limited multiboxing would have to be for them. And, as my own article at the time attests, 1 Alpha + 1 Omega was a fairly common thing being bandied about. However, the CSM talked to CCP about their concerns that this would make multiboxing an Alpha the optimal - and therefore only - way to play, and highlighted specific areas where it would cause significant disruption to existing gameplay (Lowsec griffin alts, Hisec ganking) that would only benefit an older, more experienced player.

The NPE - This was worked on as a collaboration from the very first drafts being shown to us at the first summit, followed up by in depth discussions and constant work to raise concerns and prevent 'bad habits' from creeping in. Since its release we've worked with the team to identify and raise points where the NPE is failing, or not teaching a lesson that is important, and generally gather as much feedback to them as possible - leading to a number of small iterative changes.

Engineering Citadels (And Structures in general) - This is something I, personally didn't even input in, as I am not an expert in the field and felt my other compatriots could better explain the problems. But they pushed CCP to constantly iterate on the structure system, and fix many problem areas with it, such as the lack of insurance in citadels, or tethering not working to repair certain items, or cap not regenerating alá stations. In addition to that, they have worked tirelessly to bring the painpoints of EC's vs existing manufacturing facillities to CCP, with especial attention to smaller producers, as they're not easy for CCP to contact, nor are they particularly visible in CCP's overall stats. (P.s. poke Sullen Decimus & Steve Ronuken with feedback there).

Pushing for more Balance Changes - This is something that's had relatively few tangible results so far, but this CSM has been in constant talks with CCP about what they (and their constituents) feel is a very slow rate of motion in terms of addressing problem ships in the meta, or reworking broken mechanics. But, the conversation was started with CCP, and I hope it continues into CSM 12, as we have reached the point of changing a few minds, especially given the current imbalance between the races of Alphas.

I doubt any of this would change your mind, and perhaps the minimal advantage you highlighted there is greater than the value you assign to any of the work we do, and quite honestly I would love it if we could stop people from planning on the CSM as well, but I feel like the advantages we are able to give to the community outweigh that, at least from my own personal experience and beliefs.
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#15 - 2017-02-15 14:29:27 UTC
Part 1/2

Jin'taan wrote:
[quote=Tetsel]
Considering how CSM have low impact on Eve online evolution, I think CSM should be shutdown just because of that particular advantage CSM players have (cause we all know they are not leaking AT ALL)

I would argue that the CSM has, in fact had a significant impact on the evolution of EvE Online, and whilst the best examples will likely only be heard about in 6 years when my NDA runs out, ......

Alpha Clones Multiboxing - ....

The NPE - .... leading to a number of small iterative changes.

Engineering Citadels (And Structures in general) - ...

Pushing for more Balance Changes - ...., especially given the current imbalance between the races of Alphas.

I doubt any of this would change your mind, and perhaps the minimal advantage you highlighted there is greater than the value you assign to any of the work we do, and quite honestly I would love it if we could stop people from planning on the CSM as well, but I feel like the advantages we are able to give to the community outweigh that, at least from my own personal experience and beliefs.


Jin'taan

Thank you for your considered response.

I first want to point out that the majority of the issues I have with CSM are due to the NDA. Everything you list above could have been accomplished without the NDA. It would have been done in a more transparent way and you could have received feedback from the actual players in the process instead of flying by the seat of your pants.

Take for example the only really large issue you mention. That is whether there should be multiple simultaneous log ins for alphas. CCP ran this issue not only by CSM but also by the players before the release. And the players explained quite clearly why multiple logins for throw away alphas would be very dumb. So there csm was in line with the players but really added nothing new. I would point out that with respect to skill injectors csm was not really in line with players. Many csm thought it would be much worse then it ended up being. So in both cases the players were right but csm was only right in one of 2.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

It Burns When I'm PvPing
#16 - 2017-02-15 14:30:20 UTC
2/2

As for the other issues I personally think they are all fairly minor issues. Now I do think the csm should stay but the NDA should be done away with. Not only does the nda violate the core integrity of the game by giving some players inside info but the nda reduces transparency to such an extent that to call this any sort of democracy is an insult to the term democracy. When the elected officials completely control the information that voters receive the “democracy” is a farce. Both of these issues can be solved by just removing the nda. If we had to choose between "CSM with NDA" or "No CSM" I think it is clear the better option is "No CSM". Here is why:

The only big bullet dodged was the multi-alpha log in. And yes that would have been horribly dumb, and it is a concern that CCP may have been thinking that. But again the players gave CCP the feedback on why that was dumb on many levels. They really didn't need csm to do this.

As to the other issues they may have been important to a certain group to fix certain bugs or "balance" small artillary etc. I am not saying these things are bad. Except that they tend to focus ccp on issues that only hard core players care much about. Im not saying lots of people didn't want some balance changes. They did, but its not really the death of eve. Moreover, the balance changes that hardcore players get all bunged up about do have a down side. Casual players often find their ship fittings no longer work before they really have a chance to fly them. Currently most of the fit ships I have are not fit for the current game. Modules no longer online and even slots have disappeared. There is a point where many players refuse to log in because the meta changes so quickly that they don’t want to bother relearning it. So these changes may be great for those who are always efting but for the casuals this is a downer.

The other thing is these concerns of the hard core players drown out concerns of casual players. It has been over 3years since CCP said they would implement some changes to help faction war sov which is still hopeless broken by rabbit plexers. Yet while this null sec csm is holding CCPs feet to the fire regarding small changes to NPE and the powergrid on a small artillery no one even mentions this fairly large issue. I say its fairly large not only because of the numbers enrolled in Faction War but also because of its potential for content creation which even though it is only minimally utilized now is still substantial. (consider the amount of kills in FW space comared to the rest of low sec, null sec, and wh space.)

Why is fw ignored? Because Faction War is for casual eve pvpers. And Casual eve players typically don't sign up to spend a year basically taking on a part time job for a game. (Nor are they going to try to search the web trying to figure out what player thinks what) This is why CSM generally doesn’t represent casual players well. There is no way around this and it alone is not reason to end csm. Nevertheless it would help if ccp consciously understood this and considered whether the recommendations of the csm are somewhat misrepresenting the actual playerbase in favor of more “hard core” players. The sov system in fw is broken and it has been for years. CCP promised the 2 fixes (timer rollbacks and real time intel tools for when plexes are attacked) for it years ago but never delivered. CSM is too busy wringing their hands over minor bugs in their game to even bother addressing the core sov mechanic is faction war. AFAIK No one has even brought up these 2 promises in the years since CCP made them.

But the real problem is this integrity of the game. I soon realized that you might be able to make a few billion per day constantly one isking or trading. But the big money maker is what I call “CCP magic.” That is when ccp changes the rules of the universe. So suddenly things like this happen:
1) Suddenly certain ships will requires 2xs the minerals to build
2) All meta 4 items will be nerfed to be similar to other meta items
3) Reprocessing will suddenly be nerfed so you will only get a fraction of the minerals out of all your loot
4) New rigs/structures are coming out and they will take a huge amount of these resources
5) New faction war items/ships are coming out and they will require these items
6) A worm will suddenly have the dps and tank of a tech 2 frigate and be 2xs as fast
7) These capital ships will be buffed/nerfed
8) A plex will suddenly be able to also be used for multi character training
9) This item will no longer be sold by npcs…. Etc etc

I can go on and on. This is the sort of “ccp magic” that players save, gain, and lose massive amounts of isk from. With this sort of information you can double and triple 100s of billions of isk. Honestly giving this information out to select players makes the T20 scandal look like peanuts. And the minor changes you list do not come close to justifying this sort of fundamental breach to the integrity of the game. The NDA must go.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

It Burns When I'm PvPing
#17 - 2017-02-16 16:21:03 UTC
Jin'taan wrote:
Tetsel wrote:
Jin'taan wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
You just proved the OP's point. CSM members are ready and allowed to act with plans long prepared at second first. Also, big power blocks send their representatives to CSM in order to claim an advantage, assuming else would be naive.


Yes, planning is allowed, but speculation is not. Equally, plans based around NDA information could not be shared, and any large post-reveal, alliance level action that had been pre-organised would be heavily frowned upon by CCP.


Thx for confirming CSM should be shutdown, they have first hand intel we don't have, even if they don't share it with allymate (lol), they are ready.


If, prior to a patch - where CCP releases information on what they will be patching as with the Rorqual, or moon mining - and you do not simply plan for every major possibility, leaving execution down to quick reading of the devblog and going on a predetermined course of action, you are doing speculation wrong as a market player.


The dev blogs often have ambiguities that people on csm would already know the answer to assuming they communicate with ccp. Plus, I have to disagree that a player who doesn't know the background of what is happening and hasn't had time to think about the implications can just as easily do a quick reading of a devblog and understand the implications immediately. CSM members will know what other changes are happening that are not published in one dev blog.

If you had a time machine you could guess the winning lottery tickets and what stocks would go up or down. CCP effectively gives CSM a time machine for eve. Trying to minimize the huge advantage this gives csm members who choose to use it to their advantage might work with new players or those very ignorant of the effect CCP changes have on markets, but for those who do know this its clear this is a bigger problem for the integrity of the game than t20 ever was.




Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

It Burns When I'm PvPing
#18 - 2017-03-17 13:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Now that the new plex dev blog is out, maybe we can hear how our csm "represented" players when they discussed this with ccp? Can we have minutes that cover this? Perhaps instead of just not doing minutes that cover nda stuff do the minutes but then release them when the info goes public.

After all I hear having the csm be a sounding board for this new stuff is supposed to be the real value to players. So why can't we read what they said?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Forum Jump