These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

New personal attack rule - but are ISDs actually staff?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-06-26 00:12:30 UTC
I heard they were volunteers from the community. When did the trend change?

Dodixie > Hek
CARB0N FIBER
Derailleurs
#2 - 2012-06-26 00:13:32 UTC
Eve is a cold hard game with a couple very sensitive employees!
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#3 - 2012-06-26 00:14:24 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
I heard they were volunteers from the community. When did the trend change?


They are staff, being volunteers does not change that fact.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Malacath Azaria
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-06-26 00:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Malacath Azaria
ElQuirko wrote:
I heard they were volunteers from the community. When did the trend change?


It didn't. They're trying to scare you, although I have to admit... This new ISD guy that's appeared in the last 10 mins... He actually does a good job. CCP should give this guy money & make him apart of the staff.

IB4TS
Lilliana Stelles
#5 - 2012-06-26 00:15:43 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
I heard they were volunteers from the community. When did the trend change?


They are staff, being volunteers does not change that fact.


Can I be staff? Due to the fact that I'm here? The fact that I'm an untrained player with no connection to CCP whatsoever doesn't change that.

Not a forum alt. 
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-06-26 00:15:52 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:


They are staff, being volunteers does not change that fact.


Definition of staff:
All the people employed by a particular organization: "a staff of 600".

They are not employed. They volunteer.

Dodixie > Hek
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#7 - 2012-06-26 00:16:08 UTC
That's exactly the problem. The part of the community that wants forum moderation powers is the part that shouldn't have them.

I shouldn't have mod powers, but then I don't want them.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
CARB0N FIBER
Derailleurs
#8 - 2012-06-26 00:16:46 UTC
If morg goes I go!
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-06-26 00:18:16 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
That's exactly the problem. The part of the community that wants forum moderation powers is the part that shouldn't have them.

I shouldn't have mod powers, but then I don't want them.



Morganta has left. This is ridiculous. It's like politics - those best suited to lead men fairly do not put themselves above those who lust after power and so we get the less desirable bits rising to the top of the pot faster than the cream.

Dodixie > Hek
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#10 - 2012-06-26 00:18:25 UTC
§1 of the TOS has been the same since roughly forever. The only change is that they've begun to enforce it.
Malacath Azaria
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-06-26 00:19:21 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
That's exactly the problem. The part of the community that wants forum moderation powers is the part that shouldn't have them.

I shouldn't have mod powers, but then I don't want them.


We have a saying at work. "Those who want power are the least suited to wielding it"
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-06-26 00:19:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
§1 of the TOS has been the same since roughly forever. The only change is that they've begun to enforce it.


Oh my god, Tippia has returned. Kk, guys, it's the forumpocalypse.

Dodixie > Hek
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#13 - 2012-06-26 00:21:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
§1 of the TOS has been the same since roughly forever. The only change is that they've begun to enforce it.


The problem is that they (at least the ISDs) have decided to enforce it with a spectacular show of thin-skinnedness. Anything negative about CCP, no matter how mild the rebuke, has been being locked/edited under that provision.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#14 - 2012-06-26 00:22:53 UTC
CARB0N FIBER wrote:
Eve is a cold hard game with a couple very sensitive employees!


and a little less cold hard cash
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#15 - 2012-06-26 00:24:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
RubyPorto wrote:
The problem is that they (at least the ISDs) have decided to enforce it with a spectacular show of thin-skinnedness. Anything negative about CCP, no matter how mild the rebuke, has been being locked/edited under that provision.
Indeed, but that's a slightly different matter than what the OP is asking about.

ElQuirko wrote:
Oh my god, Tippia has returned.
We take midsummer seriously in Sweden. It takes a while to recover… P
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-06-26 00:25:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Indeed, but that's a slightly different matter than what the OP is asking about.


Yes, but on the other hand, so was your reply. I'm asking if the terms of the abuse of staff rule extend to these non-CCP volunteers, not whether the rule was there or not.

Dodixie > Hek
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#17 - 2012-06-26 00:26:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
ElQuirko wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:


They are staff, being volunteers does not change that fact.


Definition of staff:
All the people employed by a particular organization: "a staff of 600".

They are not employed. They volunteer.


They are governed by the same rules that all other CCP staff are governed by, the fact that they do not receive any form of financial compensation for this does not alter anything. They have to sign NDA's and agree to abide by the exact same terms and conditions as any other employee of CCP.


EDIT: For clarity

em·ploy·ment (m-ploimnt)
n.

1.
a. The act of employing.
b. The state of being employed.

2. The work in which one is engaged; occupation.

3. An activity to which one devotes time.

4. The percentage or number of people gainfully employed: "a vicious spiral of rising prices under full employment" (William Henry Beveridge).

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#18 - 2012-06-26 00:27:02 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
Yes, but on the other hand, so was your reply. I'm asking if the terms of the abuse of staff rule extend to these non-CCP volunteers, not whether the rule was there or not.
The “new” rule is just that old §1, but with an “…and this time we mean it” attached to the end.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-06-26 00:27:21 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
They are governed by the same rules that all other CCP staff are governed by, the fact that they do not receive any form of financial compensation for this does not alter anything. They have to sign NDA's and agree to abide by the exact same terms and conditions as any other employee of CCP.


Very good, thankyou.

Dodixie > Hek
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#20 - 2012-06-26 00:36:40 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:
I heard they were volunteers from the community. When did the trend change?


Its interesting they havent locked this; apparently its not spam lol

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

123Next page