These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Jayne Fillon for CSM9

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ali Aras
Deep Talent Pool
Diplomatic Incidents.
#21 - 2014-03-04 02:19:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ali Aras
e: on second thought, let's not derail this thread into a silly place again.

Jayne, congrats on getting your thread unfucked, and continued good luck on the campaign.

Because I've been asking it to everyone--

What feature over the past year do you see as the biggest failure, and either:
1) how would you change it to achieve similar objectives while avoiding the pitfalls in the present solution?
or
2) why is the problem it addresses not a problem or not worth solving?

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2014-03-04 02:38:30 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
Vorn wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
Because of this, the CSM wasn't involved until really the end of both instances, and also appeared to try to take credit for the fixes (in fact, many of the returning CSMs played off like they were the reason CCP responded to the playerbase during the next CSM election).


Didn't CCP fly CSM out there during the issue (of Monoclegate), and as such CSM was (in part) the reason why/how CCP responded to the playerbase?


In part, yes. However, you'll recall that aside from one member of the CSM actually getting in the thread on the first page that was started by CCP, no other member of the CSM was willing to get involved until it was clear there was enough outrage, and that it would be a hot button topic for the next CSM election (in indeed it was).

Note: I just went through the old forums threadnaught, and after five pages I did not see a "CSM" tag on any portrait. So unless my memory isn't serving me properly and the old forums--which were switched around the time this happened--didn't save for posterity sake the CSM at the time then there were no CSM posts with-in the first five pages.

I wasn't playing then, and the present CSM is a very different CSM from the days of monoclegate, although shaped by what happened there. That said, just to rule something out-- how well does that correlate with timezones? I will generally try to avoid getting involved in threadnaughts that take place during EUTZ, because I know that that will take out the rest of my workday. Just because I *can* sneak posts in around my job doesn't mean I should.


Absolutely a valid point, that time zones apply in a case like this. But this happened during primetime EU/US in both instances, and there was no response during Monoclegate, and placating during SOMERgate (basically, "let's wait to hear from CCP" from CSM members--Trebor was one of them--and then silence on CCP's part and allowing things to keep going).

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Jayne Fillon
#23 - 2014-03-04 03:06:13 UTC
Great to see the conversation carrying on with out me - something I do apologize for. I'm still in discussion with CCP regarding the fate of my last thread. I'll chime in tomorrow, promise. Big smile

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Ali Aras
Deep Talent Pool
Diplomatic Incidents.
#24 - 2014-03-04 04:55:51 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
e: on second thought, let's not derail this thread into a silly place again.

Jayne, congrats on getting your thread unfucked, and continued good luck on the campaign.

Because I've been asking it to everyone--

What feature over the past year do you see as the biggest failure, and either:
1) how would you change it to achieve similar objectives while avoiding the pitfalls in the present solution?
or
2) why is the problem it addresses not a problem or not worth solving?

Dammit, went to edit and then walked away. Anyways, question for you Jayne :P

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Jayne Fillon
#25 - 2014-03-05 06:55:09 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
Do you then feel that perhaps CSM members in CSM 9 should work with such publications to put out their statements and/or opinions on changes CCP are making, so long as they are not in violation of the NDA? Much like how Two-Step commented on CCP's actions numerous times, and so forth?

Although it was previously asked, with how you plan to continue communication. What do you feel CSM 8 did wrong in the way of communicating with the player base? What do you feel they did correct?

As an EVE player do you look towards any person and/or group as inspiration? As a potential "politician" do you have any real world experience in managing a community and the communications therein that would apply to your role on CSM? (not so much as a game designer etc. but as a "people person")

I think Two-Step had it right, and I was going to mention the way he did things even before you explicitly mentioned him. I understand that there is a very non-zero population of the CSM that blogs, and props to them, however there is an even large population that neither blogs nor writes for TMC.

(AFAIK there are no EN24 writers on CSM? I'd have to fact check that.)

Anyway, I went ahead and checked out the CSM8 multi-blog and it confirmed exactly what I thought: The vast vast majority of posts are from Ali Aras, Ripard Teg, and Mike Azariah. This isn't a bad thing - they should be commended for their efforts in posting frequently and publicly about CSM. However, most of the posts are opinions and starved of real substance due to the restriction of the NDA. Would the CSM benefit from all 14 members participating in the multi-bog? Debatable. When there is news that is relevant to the player base, that is the time to get that information out there as much as possible, instead of diluting what's important with opinions and NDA censored fluff. As has been shown to be the case during previous occasions, the news sites are often the best way for a rapid dissemination of information.

What did CSM8 do wrong in communicating to the player base?

Well, for whatever reason I only heard about certain individuals during CSM8 - that alone is less than desirable. More than likely it was due to those three individuals I previously listed blogging about it, or by working with those members of the CSM themselves. But when we only hear about a portion of the CSM, it's easy to assume the worst and think that the rest are dead weight if present at all, or that they were elected to share NDA secrets with their respective alliances. With the lack of meaningful information about what they are doing, it's easy to discount the CSM. I've oft got the feeling in the past that CSM cling to the success of popular releases saying "we did that!" regardless of however true it may be.

I understand that the CSM operates more akin to a group of subject matter experts rather than a focused group of lobbyists, and honestly I think it's better that way. (I took flak for this position while otr with an Eve-Radio DJ) However, despite the lack of advanced knowledge regarding what the CSM is specifically working on, it's impossible to the deny that CSM8 did good things in the last year. From drones, damps, deployables and even SOMERgate, you can see the distinct traces of the CSM at work. Whenever there was the inkling of a crisis, the CSM responded in force and answered the questions of the communities. Although being pro-active with information would be preferable, with the NDA as is, I feel they've done as much as they can.

Quote:
As an EVE player do you look towards any person and/or group as inspiration?

Mynnna, for proving to me that block candidates can actually be useful, intelligent, and hardworking people.
Ali Aras, for going out of her way to share the CSM with people, get them involved, informed, and interested.
Mangala, for giving my hope that I can balance what I love in game while still trying to make it better on CSM.

Quote:
As a potential "politician" do you have any real world experience in managing a community and the communications therein that would apply to your role on CSM?

I'm a military officer IRL, so take from that what you will. I've had command positions before (although not currently) managing both small and medium sized groups, or serving in an instructional capacity. So... no experience outside of Eve in managing a "community," but I'd tie this back to trying to manage an open fleet group in game. Pilots are under no obligation to fly with me, and I'm unable to force them to do anything they don't want or punish them with anything besides a ban. Making a community of volunteers run smoothly requires tact and a lot more effort than simply having legal authority over them, something I completely understand.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Jayne Fillon
#26 - 2014-03-05 07:28:33 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:

In the last three years, two major developments have really shaped the views of the players regarding CCP. I speak of Monoclegate (the rolling out of the NEX during Incarna) and more recently, CCP's reaction to the players' uprising against the apparent favoritism towards SOMER. Blink. In both instances, CCP attempted to ignore the players who were upset for weeks at a time, and no one was really ever held accountable for allowing things to get out of control (note: 20% of the community team was released by CCP a month after Monoclegate was resolved; however, Hilmar made it clear they were released because they couldn't shut the players up, and in fact attempted to make it seem like the players were to blame for the firing--CCP Pann was one of them). Now, while Monoclegate was a legitimate concern for the playerbase, the SOMER issue was a lot more controversial because of the apparent favoritism shown to one group at the expense of others, much like how the T20 incident was favoritism (only this time, it was corporation-sanctioned favoritism for SOMER).

In both instances, however, the CSM did not weigh in until the proverbial political winds started to shift and the uproar looked to be set in one direction: against CCP. Because of this, the CSM wasn't involved until really the end of both instances, and also appeared to try to take credit for the fixes (in fact, many of the returning CSMs played off like they were the reason CCP responded to the playerbase during the next CSM election).

On top of that, CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie have a habit of ignoring critical feedback concerning ideas and decisions with regards to design and balance, and have been instrumental in completely messing up systems without informing anyone (such as the fitting changes to RHMLs and RLMLs that came out literally the night BEFORE the patch went live).

My question is simple: given that CCP has a habit of flat-out ignoring the playerbase when the tide turns against them regarding decisions, what do you think you can do to make sure that the players are taken seriously and we get responses instead of more silence in the future when things liek this creep up, as they inevitably will? More to the point, do you think it's fair for the CSM to parade around as if they've just won a massive war when they have done little to draw attention and get a response from CCP?

You're right, somehow I missed this question in the previous thread - thank you for reposting, it's a great question.

Unfortunately, my age betrays me once more an I'm unable to answer your question from first hand experience. Unlike Ali Aras, I don't know quantitatively that CSM8 is any different than previous councils. Nor have I read anything regarding the dismissal of employees due to failed censorship, as you mention. However, I was present during the SOMERgate issue and I agree with you that the delay between player outcry and CSM/CCP response was too long.

This loops back to a point I made in the post immediately previous to this one, in that CSM only seems to publicly take credit for or discuss features after they're already announced. Although this is a symptom of the NDA, it inevitably lends itself to the belief that CSM just tries to attach their name to successful iterations and expansion regardless of actual contribution. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to the contrary.

In the same vein, CSM members never come out and publicly denounce CCP when something unfavorable is released, or something is done such as blatant favoritism. Is this a bad thing? Should they be more openly critical of CCP? No, I don't think so. In my own perfect and optimistic world, I like to think that when this happens the CSM are already in discussion with CCP and trying to fix the problem on behalf of the player base. In a team based environment, co-operation and progress are only hindered when one side runs to the nearest soapbox at the first sight of disagreement. It is in all of our interests for the CSM and CCP to have a good working relationship - where CCP doesn't avoid working with CSM in fear they'll get smeared on the public forums when disagreements inevitably arise.

As for keeping to public informed about what is going on, more needs to be done, especially when the community itself is concerned about the issues and there is still radio silence. The RHMLs is a great example of this, where I was happy with the proposed updates, analyzed them, provided feedback an suggestions based on solid evidence. Then despite the work of everyone in the forum thread, individuals like me working to help CCP make the right decisions, we get blind sided by a change. This is one the things I won't be able to understand until I'm on CSM, but I honestly think it's bullshit. At the very least I would like to see: "This is what we originally had planned, and after seeing our prototype this is what players suggested we do. We like this part of the suggestions and will be including it, but this other part of the suggestions won't work because reasons."

We know (or at least very much hope) these exact discussion have taken place somewhere. Why are we not allowed to see the thought process that went into changing the universe? In terms of keeping the playerbase informed, this would be a wonderful thing to start seeing in update thread, especially if CCP explicitly stated what the CSM helped create when the feature was released.

Quote:
Do you think it's fair for the CSM to parade around as if they've just won a massive war when they have done little to draw attention and get a response from CCP?

Despite being hyperbolic and abrasive, you're correct that CSM needs to be more transparent, especially if they are going to claim to have been such a positive influence on the game. I don't doubt that they have been, but I certainly wouldn't mind details - most importantly preemptive details and discussion.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Jayne Fillon
#27 - 2014-03-05 07:57:16 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:

What feature over the past year do you see as the biggest failure, and how would you change it to achieve similar objectives while avoiding the pitfalls in the present solution? Or why is the problem it addresses not a problem or not worth solving?

I'm going to have to go with POCOs in highsec.

This is a hard one simply because the issue with HS POCOs is not a issue of the POCOs themselves. I still remember during the Rubicon stream CCP attempting to be super excited about their introduction, and I think everyone raised an eyebrow in confused apathy. After the initial gold rush to claim the POCOs, leading to a near uncontested RvB and GSF monopoly in certain areas, it hasn't really been a conflict driver since. At the time it just gave certain individuals a chance to grind structure in highsec.

The problem with this is that transferring ownership of the POCO requires a wardec, which means that if a highsec group wants to own the POCOs in their home system, they would have to wardec all of GSF or RvB, or hire mercenaries to do that same. That's completely impractical for a group who actually has a primary interest in doing planetary interaction.

This of course, fails to mention how successful wardecs have been at encouraging small emergent player groups to thrive.

[/sarcasm]

TL;DR - meaningful gameplay in highsec on a corporation or alliance level will remain meaningless until wardecs are changed.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#28 - 2014-03-05 21:43:25 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.

Jayne,

Thank you very much for answering those questions.

If I am reading it correctly you wish to have CSM 9 provide more communication across the board amongst all members. Would you feel a public forum in which only CSM 9 members debate a subject, so long as it does not violate NDA, be a potential feature on the CSM 9 website/communication space? Tracking down everyone's responses and thoughts would be resolved in that sense and would not focus on the "celebrity" aspect that seems to plague certain CSM candidates approaches to their role.
Jayne Fillon
#29 - 2014-03-05 22:49:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:

Jayne,

Thank you very much for answering those questions.

If I am reading it correctly you wish to have CSM 9 provide more communication across the board amongst all members. Would you feel a public forum in which only CSM 9 members debate a subject, so long as it does not violate NDA, be a potential feature on the CSM 9 website/communication space? Tracking down everyone's responses and thoughts would be resolved in that sense and would not focus on the "celebrity" aspect that seems to plague certain CSM candidates approaches to their role.

I actually have a slightly different stance than what you've interpreted - sorry for not making this clear the first time. I'm not interested in having more communication from the CSM, I'm interested in more meaningful communication that provides players with relevant updates instead of the habitual reminders that the CSM is actually doing something. Taking Ripard Teg's most recent blog post from a day ago, we have the following phrases:

  • Third week in a row of pretty much the same status!
  • Obviously, the Minutes have not yet been released.
  • The private section of the forums has been very busy!
  • There was a stake-holder meeting this past week, but unfortunately I missed it.

All of the above are exact quotes, pulled from sections speaking about CSM8. Ripard goes on to discuss the upcoming CSM9 elections, but that's just his opinion and of no inherent value. What I'm trying to say is that the information provided by Ripard is essentially useless, beyond an indication that the CSM is apparently doing stuff. I don't need all fourteen members of the council to take up blogging, and do as Ripiard does, just to remind me that they're doing something - it's a waste of time and effort. What I would like to see is fewer, more meaningful updates, that allows for direct and meaningful feedback to the CSM from the players. As an individual I have never found the CSM8 website to be of use - if something really matters to the community it should be posted to a news site or the forums. Until that point, stop teasing us with the NDA and just do your job. I'd be totally fine if there was only one person on the council who published "we're still doing stuff" posts, anything more than that would simply be redundant if that's all you're going to say until post-release or crisis.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#30 - 2014-03-05 22:57:29 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#31 - 2014-03-06 14:25:25 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:

Jayne,

Thank you very much for answering those questions.

If I am reading it correctly you wish to have CSM 9 provide more communication across the board amongst all members. Would you feel a public forum in which only CSM 9 members debate a subject, so long as it does not violate NDA, be a potential feature on the CSM 9 website/communication space? Tracking down everyone's responses and thoughts would be resolved in that sense and would not focus on the "celebrity" aspect that seems to plague certain CSM candidates approaches to their role.

I actually have a slightly different stance than what you've interpreted - sorry for not making this clear the first time. I'm not interested in having more communication from the CSM, I'm interested in more meaningful communication that provides players with relevant updates instead of the habitual reminders that the CSM is actually doing something. Taking Ripard Teg's most recent blog post from a day ago, we have the following phrases:

  • Third week in a row of pretty much the same status!
  • Obviously, the Minutes have not yet been released.
  • The private section of the forums has been very busy!
  • There was a stake-holder meeting this past week, but unfortunately I missed it.

All of the above are exact quotes, pulled from sections speaking about CSM8. Ripard goes on to discuss the upcoming CSM9 elections, but that's just his opinion and of no inherent value. What I'm trying to say is that the information provided by Ripard is essentially useless, beyond an indication that the CSM is apparently doing stuff. I don't need all fourteen members of the council to take up blogging, and do as Ripiard does, just to remind me that they're doing something - it's a waste of time and effort. What I would like to see is fewer, more meaningful updates, that allows for direct and meaningful feedback to the CSM from the players. As an individual I have never found the CSM8 website to be of use - if something really matters to the community it should be posted to a news site or the forums. Until that point, stop teasing us with the NDA and just do your job. I'd be totally fine if there was only one person on the council who published "we're still doing stuff" posts, anything more than that would simply be redundant if that's all you're going to say until post-release or crisis.



Please bear in mind that everything that is said to us in the CSM channels is NDA'd by default.

We can talk about what we said, but only in a way that doesn't imply NDA information: I can say "Yesterday I asked Fozzie and Rise if they will ever introduce capital mining lasers" but I definitely can't say "Yesterday I told Fozzie and Rise that their capital mining laser ideas are way too weak".

In addition, to be completely frank, after a while it gets really hard to remember what you were told in which context and when it's OK to talk about it. All of us take the NDA seriously and while I don't want to sy that there are no possible circumstances we'd consider breaking it, none of us want to do so accidentally*!

So the end result is we tend to follow the old north country advice: "If in doubt, say nowt". Or what we do say has to be very carefully phrased and often ends up being rather gnomic.

I personally do my best to communicate as much as I can within the NDA on the topics I'm most involved in.


*Incidentally, none of us are willing to do so to satisfy idle curiousity or mere impatience either.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ali Aras
Deep Talent Pool
Diplomatic Incidents.
#32 - 2014-03-06 14:55:25 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:

If I am reading it correctly you wish to have CSM 9 provide more communication across the board amongst all members. Would you feel a public forum in which only CSM 9 members debate a subject, so long as it does not violate NDA, be a potential feature on the CSM 9 website/communication space? Tracking down everyone's responses and thoughts would be resolved in that sense and would not focus on the "celebrity" aspect that seems to plague certain CSM candidates approaches to their role.

I'm not the candidate, but this is a good idea, and might breathe some life into the Assembly Hall section, especially if it was in some way controlled so as not to become a hugely time-consuming megathread. The above is essentially how a lot of CSM/CCP communication happens, for a lot of the same reasons you cite-- it makes it easy to track replies and opinions. That communication is, however, hidden for good reasons.

It'd sort of end up being a long-form town hall. CSM members debating their own opinions cannot possibly breach the NDA, although sometimes you end up in the awkward situation where your opinions have been shaped by NDA'd info about what's possible, likely, or upcoming. In that case, though, I happily talk as if those thoughts are my own.

Anyways, I'll see if it's possible to get a "CSMs talking to CSMs" thread going at some point; ideally one non-CSMs weren't posting in? I dunno, I waffle on that last part.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2014-03-06 16:43:45 UTC
Fozzie and Rise were pretty hurtful about my capital mining laser question btw :(

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jayne Fillon
#34 - 2014-03-06 16:48:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
words

Please bear in mind that everything that is said to us in the CSM channels is NDA'd by default.

We can talk about what we said, but only in a way that doesn't imply NDA information: I can say "Yesterday I asked Fozzie and Rise if they will ever introduce capital mining lasers" but I definitely can't say "Yesterday I told Fozzie and Rise that their capital mining laser ideas are way too weak".

In addition, to be completely frank, after a while it gets really hard to remember what you were told in which context and when it's OK to talk about it. All of us take the NDA seriously and while I don't want to say that there are no possible circumstances we'd consider breaking it, none of us want to do so accidentally*!

So the end result is we tend to follow the old north country advice: "If in doubt, say nowt". Or what we do say has to be very carefully phrased and often ends up being rather gnomic.

I personally do my best to communicate as much as I can within the NDA on the topics I'm most involved in.

*Incidentally, none of us are willing to do so to satisfy idle curiosity or mere impatience either.

My idle curiosity has indeed been frustrated by all of you and your strict adherence to the NDA, I must admit. I hope you don't take my words as an attack against the current CSM itself, as it's not - I recognize that my thoughts are the byproduct of circumstance and out of the CSM's control. However, that doesn't stop me from wishing that there was a solution.

IIRC (aka, don't quote me on this) Mynnna was the one who mentioned to me that although he wishes he could write more, the constant worry that he's breaking NDA or that he will construed to have his opinions shaped by NDA material is too large of a concern to write in the public sphere as freely as he used to. That's really quite a shame - and Ali, I think that a CSM subforum would be an amazing idea, since CCP Dolan seems to be adding new subforums anyway. Really, that would make me rather gleeful.

Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not trying to blame the current CSM -
but I do desire a more open and meaningful path of communication.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Jayne Fillon
#35 - 2014-03-06 16:49:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Fozzie and Rise were pretty hurtful about my capital mining laser question btw :(

I thought those already existed? You just mine other players and their ships, rather than asteroids.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#36 - 2014-03-06 18:03:34 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
words

Please bear in mind that everything that is said to us in the CSM channels is NDA'd by default.

We can talk about what we said, but only in a way that doesn't imply NDA information: I can say "Yesterday I asked Fozzie and Rise if they will ever introduce capital mining lasers" but I definitely can't say "Yesterday I told Fozzie and Rise that their capital mining laser ideas are way too weak".

In addition, to be completely frank, after a while it gets really hard to remember what you were told in which context and when it's OK to talk about it. All of us take the NDA seriously and while I don't want to say that there are no possible circumstances we'd consider breaking it, none of us want to do so accidentally*!

So the end result is we tend to follow the old north country advice: "If in doubt, say nowt". Or what we do say has to be very carefully phrased and often ends up being rather gnomic.

I personally do my best to communicate as much as I can within the NDA on the topics I'm most involved in.

*Incidentally, none of us are willing to do so to satisfy idle curiosity or mere impatience either.

My idle curiosity has indeed been frustrated by all of you and your strict adherence to the NDA, I must admit. I hope you don't take my words as an attack against the current CSM itself, as it's not - I recognize that my thoughts are the byproduct of circumstance and out of the CSM's control. However, that doesn't stop me from wishing that there was a solution.

IIRC (aka, don't quote me on this) Mynnna was the one who mentioned to me that although he wishes he could write more, the constant worry that he's breaking NDA or that he will construed to have his opinions shaped by NDA material is too large of a concern to write in the public sphere as freely as he used to. That's really quite a shame - and Ali, I think that a CSM subforum would be an amazing idea, since CCP Dolan seems to be adding new subforums anyway. Really, that would make me rather gleeful.

Again, I'll reiterate that I'm not trying to blame the current CSM -
but I do desire a more open and meaningful path of communication.


You've no idea how frustrating it is, but I hope you get the opportunity to experience it for yourself.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#37 - 2014-03-06 19:49:55 UTC
Jayne,

Thank you for the clarification.



Malcanis,

Maybe if you weren't so mean trying to break CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise's souls they would appreciate your feedback :p
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2014-03-06 20:00:13 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
Jayne,

Thank you for the clarification.



Malcanis,

Maybe if you weren't so mean trying to break CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise's souls they would appreciate your feedback :p


Mistake #1: thinking CCP devs have souls.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
Trusty 'Hidebound' Talker
Doomheim
#39 - 2014-03-06 20:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.

Jayne: unlike many other candidates, you have professed to remain neutral in terms of support base and background. Do you feel that your time in public communities and working as a writer for TMC has made this easier or more difficult for you, and do you foresee a CSM spot as limiting your future gameplay if you do attempt to remain neutral?
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#40 - 2014-03-06 21:02:59 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

12. Spamming is prohibited.

Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words “first”, “go back to (insert other game name)” and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)