These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1041 - 2012-03-29 18:34:42 UTC
Agonising Ecstacy wrote:
Mittens,

This only happened because you didn't have your Douche Canoe Protection Insurance. Avoid future costly errors, by depositing 10058 million isks into the wallet of Agonising Ecstacy. A certificate will be issued forthwith, indemnifying you against the costs of such blunders in the future.

Amidoinitrite?

No, you fail like the npc alt pubbie that you are.

Skill yourself!
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1042 - 2012-03-29 18:43:42 UTC
John McCreedy wrote:
From the TOS:

Quote:

If you are between 13 and 18 years of age, you must have the permission of your parent or guardian to before providing the personal information required to create an EVE Online game or website account.


Not to excuse what was said but how about some responsibility accepted for the debacle by CCP for allowing the presentation participants to get blind drunk before going "on air"?

CCP's actions where hardly responsible when 13 year old kids (well below the legal drinking age in many countries) where able to legally access the live feed but where subjected to constant references to the glorification of irresponsible drinking, therefore CCP need to issue an apology for their part in this and review their policies towards these issues before the next Fanfest.

We should get Mothers for sober children or something like that to pound on CCP for showing alcohol to minors.

Skill yourself!
Zowie Powers
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1043 - 2012-03-29 18:43:46 UTC
So because he walked before he was pushed he can run again in the future.

That's a very weak position to uphold CCP. Citation Needed.

ATX: The best of the rest.
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#1044 - 2012-03-29 18:45:29 UTC
CCP... you need to add a feature on the forums to be able to "hide posts" from an entire alliance like you can with individual posters. Then this thread will actually compress to a few pages of praising CCP for it's right decision and we will be able to read real and meaningful comments from the community rather than this tearfest.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Townsend Harris
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1045 - 2012-03-29 18:47:33 UTC
Kosh Seere wrote:
Empathic Psychopath wrote:
Koby Botick wrote:
1/6 th of all votes disregarded. Is CCP back a russian sounding abbreviation again? I hear they like to manipulate votes in plain sight there too.



Wasn't it goons that were praising CCP not that long ago when a nerf to tians was announced? My how the mighty have fallen :)

"Oooooh look at me, I can use fancy words I saw in a movie once!"

Was the movie Roadhouse?
Entombment
Caldari Black Hand
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#1046 - 2012-03-29 18:50:49 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Well you did just have your "king of space" decapitated.


Implying that he needs to play the game to lead a coalition?


implying that you understand what makes a guy like Alexander Gianturco tick. Without the media spotlight chances are he'll be bored of the game in six months at the outside.


good thing he's only banned for 30 days nerd.
Kmelx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1047 - 2012-03-29 18:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kmelx
Brae Haen wrote:
I'm not trolling


Then you sir are obviously lost.

These are the official eve forums - get with the program for god's sake Blink
Ivana Twinkle
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1048 - 2012-03-29 18:57:29 UTC
The question remains:

Will YOU come to Banfest 2013?
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
#1049 - 2012-03-29 18:57:53 UTC
Ivana Twinkle wrote:
The question remains:

Will YOU come to Banfest 2013?

nope.

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
Drago Palermus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1050 - 2012-03-29 18:57:58 UTC
Why is this thread now a page shorter than it was a few minutes ago?

My poooooasts EvilEvilEvilEvilEvil
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1051 - 2012-03-29 19:02:26 UTC
Quote:


Ya i know that's the most probable route of action for ccp .. but .. the CSM rules state NO EXCEPTIONS.
He must NOT be allowed into the CSM again, as per rules.

Otherwise, ccp is opening a very very dangerous door.
a) goon special treatment theory's are proven right
b) mittanus claim on his recent ceo update where he claims and i quote: "One could additionally argue that I’ve spent so much time in Iceland this year that I’ve become co-opted by CCP; I have too many friends who work at the company and I don’t want to **** them over " (source)
c) CCP wont be able to permaban anyone from CSM in the future, since a new precedent is set.

Once again, i am waiting for some official answer on the matter, altho i understand it's not a easy subject to reply to, must be answered, otherwise CSM <-> CCP <-> GOONS relationship is not as transparent as CCP claim and needs further investigation, at the possible cost of CSM complete collapse, not to mention CCP/EVE itself.


As it is CCP who made those rules they are allowed to bend, break and change them as they see fit, you whining about it here won't make it written in stone.

Skill yourself!
cap Mal
Defense Advanced Research Program Agency
#1052 - 2012-03-29 19:17:10 UTC
Ispia Jaydrath wrote:

I can tell you're in marketing because of the way you're weaseling around to make it look like mittens resigned from CSM 7 instead of you removing him.


The best thing about conspiracies is that any attempt to dispute it is just part of the conspiracy. Congratulations in confirming to the world that you're a simple minded idiot.

Also, whine more please.
WolfLeader316
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1053 - 2012-03-29 19:21:21 UTC
Yeep wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:

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.


Hi CCP Xhagen, which CSM bylaw are you applying in this case? The document linked from the CSM community page is this one: http://community.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSM.pdf

In the section on candidate eligbility it states:

Quote:
Also, players with a serious warning22 or ban on any account in their possession can be excluded from candidate eligibility. However, in-game behavior, regardless of play style, will never be a criterion for candidacy unless the rules of the EULA
and/or TOS are violated.


This is a get out clause, not a hard and fast rule so this doesn't mandate The Mittani's exclusion from CSM6 or 7.

The section on representative conduct states:

Quote:
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.


Now this is a little ambiguous because its not clear whether "the council" refers to the current iteration of the CSM or all iterations. However, the interpretation implied by your statement is that it refers only to CSM6, in which case he should still be eligible for CSM7. If that is not the case he should be barred from all future CSMs.

If I'm referring to the wrong versions of the byelaws then please let me know, however the pdf above is linked from the CSM community page (http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/). I'm also aware that at the end of the day you don't have to abide by these self imposed rules, however I'd appreciate if you didn't try to paint this as a decision forced upon you by them when it clearly isn't.


This here is a good post.
Takoten Yaken
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#1054 - 2012-03-29 19:23:31 UTC
Hi, my post asking why you deleted posts calling out a neo-nazi candidate was erased, and my character banned from the forums for 14 days.

I don't intend to be silent about this issue so I'd like a response this time.
Daviclond
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1055 - 2012-03-29 19:24:52 UTC
BUTTECORP INC will not be silenced
Takoten Yaken
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#1056 - 2012-03-29 19:24:57 UTC
It was regarding a CSM candidate, so the "offtopic" ban reason was clearly trumped-up nonsense.
Mechaet
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1057 - 2012-03-29 19:25:37 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The entire chain of events that have lead to this action are extremely regrettable and sad.

Alex was an extremely talented and energetic member of CSM6, and his absence will be keenly felt during CSM7. I am deeply saddened that CCP felt they had no choice but to take this action.

This unprecedented situation raises significant questions -- such as representation and disenfranchisement -- that CSM6 will be discussing with CCP and with the new members of CSM7 over the next few days. I think I can speak for everyone on CSM when I ask for your patience while we work through these issues.

This post is not because I'm a goon (well, I'm not even fully a goon, see corporation, I just play one on TV), it's not because I've got a dog in the fight (though, admittedly, me and my 6 accounts did vote for The Mittani), and it's not because I have some sort of weird axe to grind (this is, after all, a game...).

It's because I'm a paying customer, and one who relies on the CSM mechanism to see the game continue to grow in the way the players intend it to grow. So kindly ignore the corp ticker for a second and see the post as being from a fellow player.

I have had this account for over 8 years now, I was in the beta, and I've seen this game from start until now. The CSM was one of the best things to happen to this game, and I've continuously looked forward to the interesting changes that get pushed forward by the CSM in response to CCP input and feedbacks.

The punishment for The Mittani was about what I expected to eventually happen, simply due to the nature of the infraction. I'm not going to call CCP to the mat on their handling of the matter since it was well within their jurisdiction as told in the Q&A post somewhere in this thread.

Wrecking what I was expecting to be a game-changing CSM in the process is the part I'm having disagreements with. Resigning his sitting seat on CSM6 seemed like a good sign of attrition, when combined with what I believed was a sincere apology and an attempt to "make whole" the afflicted party by sending him the contents of his wallet (which should have reimbursed him well and beyond any ships that GSF may have killed during the interdiction...). But then issuing a 30-day ban on top of that, and allowing that ban to affect CSM7 the way it did.. it goes somewhere further than "making right" and into "unreasonably severe" as they are punishing the player base for one person's actions. Yanking an overwhelmingly-elected CSM person out of their spot and tossing that many votes down the hole, it just seems knee-jerk and reactionary.

In that same vein, it shows me that the CSM process is not what I once thought it was. I thought it was a partner entity to CCP instead of a subsidiary. I thought they could stand as equals, but apparently CSM folks have to kowtow to CCP's wishes, lest CCP find a mechanism by which they can remove that person from their CSM entity. I thought the purpose of the CSM's original creation was to keep CCP in check, not the other way around. I thought the CSM answered to US, not them.

I was wrong, and I'm deeply saddened by that.

Good luck CSM7, I wish you guys the best in working out how to deal with the now-shared realization that you are all CCP puppets and there at the behest of CCP, not the voters who put you there.

-A disillusioned, disenfanchised and soon enough unsubscribed player
Svodola Darkfury
Cloak and Daggers
The Initiative.
#1058 - 2012-03-29 19:27:41 UTC
This won't be read because it's 58 pages in;

But it's easy to cloak yourself in righteous anger when in fact your representative stepped down under immense political pressure.

As a representative of this game, at an official CCP live forum, it is inappropriate for him to even JOKE about harassing a player who is depressed/suicidal in real life with the intent of making the guy commit suicide.

If you don't like it, quit. Be sure to contract all your stuff to some player corps.

Honestly, nobody cares if the biggest alliance in the game quits. We'd be ecstatic. Might make room for some new players.

Director of Frozen Corpse Industries.
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1059 - 2012-03-29 19:27:48 UTC
Dez Affinity wrote:
Entombment wrote:
Dez Affinity wrote:
~10058~


Actually our exit polls showed that this year mittens got 10,011 votes from inside the coalition, only 47 outside of the CFC voted for him and they could very well have been alts.


Is your exit poll the redirect you had on your killboard? 'Cause I put i had 99 accounts about 5 times.

Which makes you the stupid one. If the exit polls where tampered with like you did it only means more non-CFC players voted for Mittens.

Good work making yourself look like a tard.

Skill yourself!
Takoten Yaken
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#1060 - 2012-03-29 19:28:11 UTC
So to reiterate: posting neo-nazi views on the forums merits none of the following:

A game ban
Removal from the CSM race
A forum ban

It is, in fact, apparently against the rules to post about how a CSM candidate posted neo-nazi views on the forums and this means he is not a good candidate.

But posting about this does merit a ban, apparently. Could you elaborate on how you consider this justifiable in any way?