These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Dev Blog: Alliance Panel at Fanfest 2012: The Conclusion

First post First post
Author
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#921 - 2012-03-29 13:34:07 UTC
Maybe I'm miswording things here. I don't really have a problem with CCP punishing Mittens since this did take place at a CCP hosted event and I think they had to do it for their own legal protection. But to claim that this was covered by the EULA is the part that I find totally bizarre.

Taken as a unique case, maybe the banning is warranted because it could have endangered a player. But this shouldn't become a trend. What I or anyone else say out of game shouldn't be subject to EULA violations.

If Mittani went on TV and said "I play The Mittani on Eve Online and I hate Brutors because they're space negroes" would that be bannable as well?
Temulkar Blaine
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#922 - 2012-03-29 13:40:27 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
There is a good point being talked about in the SA forums -- and maybe it's been brought up in the last 47 pages but I'm not going to read them all.

Why should CCP be able to punish players for out of game actions?

No I'm not sure it entirely applies in Mittens' case but it is a good question. Should CCP really be able to enforce EULA on its players outside of the game? If you encourage players to harass someone outside the game and they take it inside the game, then shouldn't the punishment be directed soley at those committing the in-game rule violation?

Obviously players are punished for RMT which is an out of game act - though clearly the bots or macros that generate the isk are violating the rules and those accounts should be banned. And you could argue that isk generated by way of rule violations is invalid. But should CCP be able to punish you because you paid someone money outside the game and they gave you isk in game? What if that isk wasn't generated with a bot account?

How far does this go? I remember when Helecity was banned because he leaked an internal CCP memo. But he didn't do it on the CCP forum - he did it on his own website. Why was his action outside the game punished? Should it have been?

Let's say you attended a KKK rally wearing an Eve Online t-shirt with your username. Would it be appropriate for CCP to ban you?

I guess it all boils down to - shouldn't EULA only be enforced for acts committed on CCP servers where the players agreed to the EULA?



What your not realising is that different countries have different laws on what is acceptable and legal on the internet. Drunken rants on the internet can get you jailed in the EU and Icelandic law is the same now that their appication to join the EU has been accepted.

Freedom of speech is not absolute it has consequenses. You are free to express opinion, culture and faith you are not free to threaten, harrass and bully. That is the line Alexander stepped over He is just damn lucky the consequenses werent a hell of a lot worse for him, the wiz and for eve as a whole. He should be thankful not indignant.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#923 - 2012-03-29 13:41:13 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
Who is to say that those 10k+ players that voted for The Mittani had any clue that he was going to do something like this? Thankfully, I voted for Seleene. But let's assume for the sake of this argument what would have happen if it was Seleene, or any other elected member of the CSM for that matter, who was inebriated, wearing the wizard hat and told players to grief the miner to suicide himself in real life. I probably would've been outraged that my vote went to someone like that.

My point is, who are we to judge what those 10k+ voters had in mind when they voted for The Mittani?

It is kind of the behaviour many have come to associate with GoonSwarm and the CFC (Even though this was a number of steps more than "usual"), so I honestly do not see the surprise that The Mittani went ahead and did it. When I saw the enormous margin that he had won by, I did expect a boat full of smugness from GSF and CFC.
But my answer to this would rather be in the line of ... yeah, I'd be angry. I would be angry at whomever had wasted my vote saying stupid things while drinking himself/herself into a stupor. I would not first defend the actions, I'd demand the individual removed so he/she couldn't make more of a fool of me and anyone else who voted for him/her.
I voted for two people who at least consider "my brand" of EVE as a part of their constituency, so I have a chance of having my voice heard at those two. If one of those screwed up this bad, I'd be infuriated with him and certainly not vote for him again. After all, I trusted him with my vote, my voice, and he did not care enough about it to think before drinking.

I can understand the voters who voted for The Mittani are angry - since hell yeah I'd be that as well! - but they're delivering the vast payload of anger the wrong place. Those who aren't CFC members should re-evaluate their voting strategy for the next election, since after all several CFC alliances have done or condoned things on the slippery slope to where we are now, and the CFC members who are infuriated should at least think and discuss what they think their outward people (Diplomats, executives or CSM members) say and do when they could carry the tarnished reputation alongside them home, or to their work as seen here. Those CFC members who think The Mittani is the martyr and that he was the wronged one in all this... well, you got what you voted for in my opinion.
Tairon Usaro
G-Fleet Alpha
G-Fleet Alliance
#924 - 2012-03-29 13:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tairon Usaro
Hopefully CCP and CSM7 will find a solution that fits.

It is difficult. Mittens as alliance leader did nothing wrong in his alliance presentation. Most of us did not like it and felt disgusted about it, but there was no sanctionable action in this presentation and it was roleplay. The thing went over top in the spontaneous Q&A session. And yes, it went not just slightly over the top, but really utterly bad. Alex should not have gotten this drunk, he certainly should not given out the name by any means. He did not find the line between his ingame role as alliance leader of a villainous alliance and the real life consequences of calling out for harresment of a specific player. It was a clear mistake and it needs to be sanctioned by CCP. Beside that, we are all humans and we do make mistakes.

But does that all connect to his work for CSM ??
My personal opinion is, that his knowledge about the game, his proven track record in prior CSM and the total absence of abuse his position as a CSM for the events that happend in the Alliance panel outweights his bad mistake as a drunken alliance leader.

Every real life democracy protects its elected representatives from legal sanctions for the time of their period. Yes, there are procedures to remove the legal immunity from a representative during his period of election, but in most cases this is tied to abuse of the power they got elected for and it has to be decided by a broad plenum, which usually comprises other elected representatives.

On the other side CCP/EVE is not a democracy and CSM is only a tool for CCP to source player feedback (and review some interal controll processes concering ingame abuse of knowledge by CCP employees).

Nevertheless, i hope for a solution, that makes use of Alexander Gianturco's knowledge and compassion about this game for the benefit of us all, but also makes clear, that he distended his roleplay as the Mittani over the limits of ethical acceptance by far.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#925 - 2012-03-29 13:43:05 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Maybe I'm miswording things here. I don't really have a problem with CCP punishing Mittens since this did take place at a CCP hosted event and I think they had to do it for their own legal protection. But to claim that this was covered by the EULA is the part that I find totally bizarre.

Taken as a unique case, maybe the banning is warranted because it could have endangered a player. But this shouldn't become a trend. What I or anyone else say out of game shouldn't be subject to EULA violations.

If Mittani went on TV and said "I play The Mittani on Eve Online and I hate Brutors because they're space negroes" would that be bannable as well?


You're right, it shouldn't. But in this case, it was under CCP's watch. Therefore it was covered by the EULA/TOS.

Adapt or Die

Care Bear King
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#926 - 2012-03-29 13:44:30 UTC
A Mittani-less CSM7 does not represent the players.

May as well scrap it and wait for CSM8.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#927 - 2012-03-29 13:48:25 UTC
Care Bear King wrote:
A Mittani-less CSM7 does not represent the players.

May as well scrap it and wait for CSM8.

Then why did The Mittani not represent the players a bit better at the unscripted Q&A session where he asked other players to harass a player (Not character) so he would commit suicide?
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#928 - 2012-03-29 13:48:49 UTC
It's funny that so many people are upset for CCP following their own policies. HE did something that broke the EULA/TOS and HE had to pay. He should feel lucky that he was only banned for 30 days, and not a lifetime ban. Don't blame CCP for HIS actions, HE did it himself. Blame HIM. It's HIS own fault.

I actually believe what happened is a good thing because it shows that CCP isn't playing favorites. They knew the GOONs would be upset, but went ahead anyway. I applaud CCP for being steadfast on their policies, and don't make exceptions for anyone.

Rhaile Vhindiscar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#929 - 2012-03-29 13:50:02 UTC
Disband the sham CSM! Day 2 of the real CSM in exile! Viva la Revolution!
lol fourm troll
Doomheim
#930 - 2012-03-29 13:57:11 UTC
Goons you owe everyone a taco!!!!!!!!!!
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#931 - 2012-03-29 14:00:39 UTC
SolusLunes wrote:
Doc Severide wrote:
I love it this is all absolutely hilarious. As if any of theis means anything of importance in the long run. Melodramatic drivel from basement dwelling fools:

"Jita is gonna Burn"

"The beginning of the end of EVE"

"Bla bla bla"

You couldn't make this **** up....

Hilarious....


BOLD TEXT GUYS, BOLD TEXT, WE GOT A BADASS OVER HERE

No, my eyesight is bad. It helps me read my own posts...

And it's still all melodramatic crap...
Katrina Bekers
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#932 - 2012-03-29 14:01:38 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
Katrina Bekers wrote:
Nice that all most of the comments cheering up the CCP move come from characters in NPC corps.

Where are your balls, gentlemen?

Are you one of those rare ppl who still hold e-honor in high regards?


No. That's why I post with my main.

And you? This is your main?

<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >>

Kmelx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#933 - 2012-03-29 14:01:53 UTC
I know what this thread needs - moar goon/goonpet whining Roll

I think he deserved some sort of sanction for his actions, most reasonable people recognise that he crossed a line.
Gideon Tyler
R I 0 T
R I O T
#934 - 2012-03-29 14:17:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Gideon Tyler
I applaud CCP for taking an affirmative, responsible and mature approach to resolving this matter. No one is above reproach, and no one persons contributions are so great as to warrant a pass for this sort of drunken, boorish, and offensive behavior

I have heard some members of the CSM not supporting this decision, and I am likewise disappointed, as you guys do not get it. Fanfest is a chance for CCP to speak about upcoming products and releases, show an appreciation for their players, and to celebrate what has already been achieved. This immature and disgusting episode robbed us all and CCP of that opportunity

As a result, many players have unsubscribed in their initial outrage, and the press was full of reports not of the upcoming release of Dust 514 and the like, but rather how once again EVE is not a good place to game, and CCP tacitly endorses griefing and bullying of the worst sort

Given that, and the extreme level of outrage over this event from many, many people in the player base, who do not see this incident as a trifle, there was no choice but to ban The Mittani for 30 days and have him tender his resignation. None of us knows whether The Mittani resigned completely of his own volition or under direction from CCP, but either way the result is the same, The Mittani had to go.

To do otherwise on the part of CCP would have been a terrible business decision, and would have shown nothing but indifference the the legitimate outrage many people who play this game and financially support the continuation of EVE. Do not blame CCP but rather blame the Mittani and his own irresponsible behavior. None of us asked him to act the fool on the international stage. The Mittani did that all by himself. Now he has answered for it
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#935 - 2012-03-29 14:22:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Silath Slyver Silverpine
Wow. The sheer amount of goon tears in this thread is fairly hilarious. Amazing how they love to call everyone a 'crybaby pubbie' but their candidate screws up, and they blame CCP? What?

Mittani screwed up, big time, in a very public manner. He wants to play at being a politician, it goes both ways. Consequently he was forced to 'take responsibility' for his actions.
And everyone knows those 10k votes were a sham anyway. You don't have to pretend anymore.

Curious to see who the new chairman will be, and how that will be decided.

*Edit*
AS for the legal side of things, in the vast majority of countries it is illegal to advocate for the suicide of another person. Not to mention all the new 'cyber bullying' laws. Mittani should count himself lucky he's not under legal repercussions.
Personally I think those laws are absolutely ridiculous and pointless, but I figured it was worth noting.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#936 - 2012-03-29 14:22:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Care Bear King wrote:
A Mittani-less CSM7 does not represent the players.

May as well scrap it and wait for CSM8.



The problem is a Mittani-led CSM6 didn't represent "the players" either. It represented a selection of nullsec voting blocs interests without really caring about the wider issues in the game. CSM6 was noteworthy for removing transparency and accountability from the CSM process (no more internal meeting minutes) for cloaking decision making behind committee head (we couldn't see who believed what) and for initially schmoozing with the MT devs when they should have been protesting Incarna.

Lets remember Mittani is infamous for getting drunk with CCP Monocle and telling him that the players of Eve would be cool with a "gold scorpion" purchased entirely with Aurum and no other input.

First formal summit CSM came home from Iceland with nothing but a badly written set of formal minutes (that took MONTHS to agree) and did nothing to answer player fears about Incarna whatsoever and would lead on to the release of possibly the worst "expansion" in Eve Online's history.

Rage happened and it was rage from the player base with the Jita Riots and beginning of the unsub protest.

During the "emergency summit" Mittens appeared on Eve TV with CCP thousand dollar jeans in a joint address assuring people it was all sorted and everyone was happy now. He came back from the summit with a Nevil Chamberlain-esq "peace in our time" paper that did absolutely NOTHING to mollify the rage and anger of the Eve player base.

Protests continued, threadnaughts continued, unsubs continued.

The only thing that turned the CCP ship around was the public Mea culpa from Hilmar and announcement of the crunch to Crucible and significant restructuring of the company.

Now in this I say to you that Alexander Gianturco as chair provided very POOR leadership and representation of the player base and didn't at any time have a full grasp of precisely what people were protesting about.

And of course then we had the christmas minutes which were another fiasco. Released late and indistinct, with the CSM being refered to as "the csm" (not individual reps) and being on record as anonymously saying some very stupid things about game development and priority.

Wormholes -what are they?
FW -is for noobs isn't it?
Hisec -lol carebears?

There was a player backlash and some of the rest of the CSM broke ranks with Gianturco and announced they had personally been "for" or "against" certain things to assure people they were not part of the collective.

What did Gianturco achieve?

I think his legacy is in removing transparency and accountability from the CSM and turning into a skype channel social club for nullsec alliance leaders to get their jollies from drinking in Iceland. He will be remembered as the guy who gave CCP Monocle the nod on MT delivery of spaceships, the guy that appeared with CCP thousand dollar jeans and said "crisis what crisis" and the guy that tried to run CSM like the goonswarm executive division pulling strings and puppet-mastering the other reps and announcing all decisions in an eery (but unbelievable) unity.

And finally. He'll be forever remembered as the unacceptable face of cyber-bullying and player harrassment in Eve Online in a role that puts him up there with Aris Bakhtanians as a villain then gaming media can get behind condemning. His drunken antics in calling a player to be harrassed to suicide with a wizards hat and cheesy smile will never be forgotten.

Nor will his 11th hour attempt to cling onto power by having his sychophants on the CSM forge a shoddy compromise with CCP where he kept his position despite clear breach of CSM guidelines and basic Eve code of conduct that would have any other player booted to a ban immediately.

So even when he could have kept some dignity by simply resigning as promised he waited too long and got kicked out proving himself a failure even in choosing the manner of his own demise.

Eve online and the CSM is far the better for this guy leaving the stage.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
#937 - 2012-03-29 14:25:44 UTC
Kmelx wrote:
I think he deserved some sort of sanction for his actions, most reasonable people recognise that he crossed a line.


Everybody agrees on this, especially mittens. This is not the issue of contention.

The problem is that CCP could have done any number of things. They could have removed him from CSM 6, for example, or banned him from fanfest. Instead they went with the thermonuclear knee-jerk option, removed him from CSM 7 and told his voters - a substantial portion of the players who are most invested in the game - to go **** themselves. Perhaps most critically, they did this without bothering to consult the CSM.

This is the old CCP, the CCP that brought us 18 months, incarna, and fearless. And I'm sick of their s***.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#938 - 2012-03-29 14:28:56 UTC
Ispia Jaydrath wrote:
Kmelx wrote:
I think he deserved some sort of sanction for his actions, most reasonable people recognise that he crossed a line.


Everybody agrees on this, especially mittens. This is not the issue of contention.

The problem is that CCP could have done any number of things. They could have removed him from CSM 6, for example, or banned him from fanfest. Instead they went with the thermonuclear knee-jerk option, removed him from CSM 7 and told his voters - a substantial portion of the players who are most invested in the game - to go **** themselves. Perhaps most critically, they did this without bothering to consult the CSM.

This is the old CCP, the CCP that brought us 18 months, incarna, and fearless. And I'm sick of their s***.


They consulted the CSM, CCP simply disagreed with the CSM's position that it was possible for Alexander Gianturco to continue as a CSM member.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Razin
The Scope
#939 - 2012-03-29 14:34:54 UTC
I understand why CCP had to do this; however it is always sad to see the idiots victorious over common sense and objectivity.

Whatever...
1Of9
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#940 - 2012-03-29 14:35:16 UTC
1Of9 wrote:
1Of9 wrote:
Thank you ccp.

You did the right thing, altho the CSM rules state that he cannot run for CSM again.

Plz explain why you are allowing him to run again in the future.


to pinpoint my claim:

http://community.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

on page 20 it says, and i quote:

Quote:


CSM representative conduct

any behavior or actions considered being a material breach of the eula or tos
by a Csm representative is grounds for immediate dismissal and permanent
exclusion from all pending and future participation in the council. there are no
exceptions,
regardless of the infraction. representatives are not only expected to
uphold the social contract that all society members are held accountable to, but
should also set a behavior standard for everyone else to follow.




In light of this, ccp please explain why he will be able to run for CSM in the future.


Bump