These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Holding CSMs to a higher standard

First post First post
Author
Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front
#1 - 2014-03-31 01:01:10 UTC
So... now that the dust has settled a little bit, it's time to have an actual discussion around the topic of Ripard Teg's role in the recent scandal.

Do other CSMs, devs, candidates, and the community at large feel that it is acceptable for a current CSM to circumvent the usual process for petitioning violations of the rules in order to stir up a virtual lynch mob?

Here is what I think. I would be very interested to know what others think about the issue.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#2 - 2014-03-31 19:50:55 UTC
I think the very concept of a sitting CSM taking an active hand in player punishments should not permitted.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3 - 2014-03-31 20:05:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I think the very concept of a sitting CSM taking an active hand in player punishments should not permitted.


No CSM member had any part in determining what punishment any EULA/TOS violater incurred during CSM8 (obviously I cant speak for previous CSMs). The GM team are pretty robust in resisting any kind of pressure in that respect.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#4 - 2014-03-31 20:05:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Reserveing this till I'm sober.

Edit: not sober yet but
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#5 - 2014-03-31 20:09:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is invented *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
No such requirement exists, even if we concede the dubious argument that calling out reprehensible actions is failing to hold a high standard. I would argue that the opposite is true. If for instance I found incontrovertible proof that another player was running a large bot network or was illegally accessing other people's accounts and looting them, what kind of "higher standard" would it be that made me keep silent?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Marsha Mallow
#6 - 2014-03-31 20:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
+1

CSMs who have blogs should follow the Eve-O forum rules to the letter on their own blog/website during office or suffer sanctions from CCP. Make it a consensual part of the terms for accepting office.

I don't ever want to see CCP use the phrase vile, evil, despicable human being to describe a player. CSM members may do so, as may any other player - but they'd be subject to immediate moderation here. Our player elected officials should not be able to circumvent rules every other player is subject to simply because they have a pulpit, credability and their own website.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Alyth Nerun
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#7 - 2014-03-31 22:28:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Malcanis wrote:
Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is invented *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
No such requirement exists

Maybe it is not written down and not part of the EULA/TOS or the NDA you have to sign, but Ripart Teg's blog definitively crossed some invisible line in some "gray area". Or is this kind of argument only valid if the suspect is not a personal friend of some CCP staff?
Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front
#8 - 2014-04-01 01:40:48 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Malcanis wrote:
Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is invented *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
No such requirement exists, even if we concede the dubious argument that calling out reprehensible actions is failing to hold a high standard. I would argue that the opposite is true. If for instance I found incontrovertible proof that another player was running a large bot network or was illegally accessing other people's accounts and looting them, what kind of "higher standard" would it be that made me keep silent?


I'm not claiming that there is any such requirement or even that there should be, at least in any codified sense. I'm not even really saying that Ripard was wrong in calling Erotica 1 out. In my opinion Erotica 1 clearly crossed the line and some form of disciplinary action was justified.

I agree with CCP Falcon's statement in GD about the line between all-in-good-fun shenanigans and true harassment being drawn at the point where people start to lose control of their emotions. However, in keeping with that principle, I saw a lot of posts in these forums and others concerning this issue in which the individuals writing showed every sign of having lost emotional control. I saw threats of out-of-game violence both direct and implied. I saw insults and personal attacks, and a lot of people who seemed to have lost touch with the fact that we are really just arguing about a video game here and shouldn't take it so seriously.

You can lay the blame for all that at the feet of Erotica 1 if you want, and he certainly deserves part of it. But when I read Ripard' s article, I can't help but interpret the inflammatory language that he used as being intended to produce exactly that effect. He was not merely reporting the facts or calling Erotica 1 out, he was deliberately trying to incite the Internet equivalent of a riot, with all the emotional excess that implies. That is what Ripard Teg did wrong. If that is not what he intended, then he owes it to the community to come to the forums and explain himself, otherwise we can only assume the worst.

I'm not saying that CSMs shouldn't be free to speak their minds in private or in public, I'm just saying that if someone is worthy to sit on the CSM they should show a little better judgement about how they express themselves.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-04-01 02:17:16 UTC
The CSM are, first and foremost, players of the game . . .

and of the metagame.

That means we can blog, talk, campaign, scam, interview, be interviewed, whatever. There is no Higher Standard of play that we need to adhere to above that of other players. When it comes to the game.

Outside the game many of us hold ourselves to a higher standard of effort and communication. Of looking to the whole game. Of representing the players to CCP.

Ripard met that standard as well.

What he did not do is precipitate a banning, influence CCP directly, or create an incident where there was none. He reoprted on something that bothered him. He HAS done that before, just never with such a storm following. So do you blame the messenger or the message? Is a witness to a hit and run responsible if he reports it? Do you go after him for being a 'snitch'?

The fact that this blew up indicates the feelings of some of the player base (unless you believe Ripard has 400+ alts and manufactured the threadnaught all by himself) Seeing as someone else linked a podcast I will just add Ripards interview with Caps Stable here

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Koz Katral
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2014-04-01 03:23:18 UTC
Marsha Mallow wrote:
+1

CSMs who have blogs should follow the Eve-O forum rules to the letter on their own blog/website during office or suffer sanctions from CCP. Make it a consensual part of the terms for accepting office.

I don't ever want to see CCP use the phrase vile, evil, despicable human being to describe a player. CSM members may do so, as may any other player - but they'd be subject to immediate moderation here. Our player elected officials should not be able to circumvent rules every other player is subject to simply because they have a pulpit, credability and their own website..


Absolutely this. +1
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-04-01 04:15:34 UTC
So as it happens, I'm not terribly keen on Jester's post either, though I'm also not calling for his blood and am aggressively sick and tired of these kinds of stupid threads. I'm going to be helpful in the naive hope that it prompts people to do something rather than whine. Here goes.

Jester's Trek is a registered fan site, which means it is required to adhere to a certain set of rules and of course, if you think those rules were violated, you're welcome to petition them.

Now please take that knowledge and go do something other than posting bad threads, tia.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#12 - 2014-04-01 04:48:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Malcanis wrote:
Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is invented *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
No such requirement exists, even if we concede the dubious argument that calling out reprehensible actions is failing to hold a high standard. I would argue that the opposite is true. If for instance I found incontrovertible proof that another player was running a large bot network or was illegally accessing other people's accounts and looting them, what kind of "higher standard" would it be that made me keep silent?


I actually think the concept isn't terrible, but the execution is. Your acerbic and insulting responses to people who were asking questions or *gasp* trying to communicate with CSM shows you personally have issues you should probably address given your status as a member of the CSM. You're here to represent us the community, its why you're in a position that is voted for, not hurl ad hominem because you feel like it at a random player. That sort of goes against the concept that the CSM is here to work with the community to present issues/concerns while working with CCP.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#13 - 2014-04-01 07:42:56 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Alyth Nerun wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is invented *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
No such requirement exists

Maybe it is not written down and not part of the EULA/TOS or the NDA you have to sign, but Ripart Teg's blog definitively crossed some invisible line in some "gray area". Or is this kind of argument only valid if the suspect is not a personal friend of some CCP staff?


In other words, you admit that this "higher standard" is something you imagined.

Ripard used more colourful language than he should have, but he was essentially correct: Ero1 broke the TOS and he deserved to eat a ban for it. Get over it.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#14 - 2014-04-01 07:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Haedonism Bot wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is invented *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
No such requirement exists, even if we concede the dubious argument that calling out reprehensible actions is failing to hold a high standard. I would argue that the opposite is true. If for instance I found incontrovertible proof that another player was running a large bot network or was illegally accessing other people's accounts and looting them, what kind of "higher standard" would it be that made me keep silent?


I'm not claiming that there is any such requirement or even that there should be, at least in any codified sense. I'm not even really saying that Ripard was wrong in calling Erotica 1 out. In my opinion Erotica 1 clearly crossed the line and some form of disciplinary action was justified.

I agree with CCP Falcon's statement in GD about the line between all-in-good-fun shenanigans and true harassment being drawn at the point where people start to lose control of their emotions. However, in keeping with that principle, I saw a lot of posts in these forums and others concerning this issue in which the individuals writing showed every sign of having lost emotional control. I saw threats of out-of-game violence both direct and implied. I saw insults and personal attacks, and a lot of people who seemed to have lost touch with the fact that we are really just arguing about a video game here and shouldn't take it so seriously.

You can lay the blame for all that at the feet of Erotica 1 if you want, and he certainly deserves part of it. But when I read Ripard' s article, I can't help but interpret the inflammatory language that he used as being intended to produce exactly that effect. He was not merely reporting the facts or calling Erotica 1 out, he was deliberately trying to incite the Internet equivalent of a riot, with all the emotional excess that implies. That is what Ripard Teg did wrong. If that is not what he intended, then he owes it to the community to come to the forums and explain himself, otherwise we can only assume the worst.

I'm not saying that CSMs shouldn't be free to speak their minds in private or in public, I'm just saying that if someone is worthy to sit on the CSM they should show a little better judgement about how they express themselves.


So in essence the criminal and the witness are equally to blame for the public outcry when the crime is revealed in your moral scheme.

OK.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Asia Leigh
Dauntless Divergence
#15 - 2014-04-01 09:13:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Asia Leigh
Malcanis wrote:
In other words, you admit that this "higher standard" is something you imagined.

Ripard used more colourful language than he should have, but he was essentially correct: Ero1 broke the TOS and he deserved to eat a ban for it. Get over it.

Feel free to continue to disagree; I'll be over here being right.


Okay, lets review some of your posts in the threadnught shall we?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=332182

From page 2

Malcanis wrote:
Is it CCP's responsibility to police out of game interaction between their players where no law has been broken?

If so, where does that responsibility end? Should they ban a player when his wife complains about him playing EVE instead of doing the chores?

If I hook up with another EVE player who happens to be from say Japan, should CCP have the right and duty to ban me if the GM involved disapproves of inter-racial relationships? What about homosexual relationships?

What if I encourage another player to log in to fleet and miss church on sunday?

Where exactly does CCP's "responsibility" end?


From page 3

Malcanis wrote:
Hands up everyone who can see a problem with demanding the CCP ban people on the basis of "They haven't broken any game rules, and they haven't broken any laws, but I find them personally distasteful"


Malcanis wrote:
"Gays are gross. I demand people ban any player who admits to being gay. The community should cleaned of such filth" On what basis do CCP resist that demand?

Once being merely distasteful is suffficient reason to ban someone, then pretty quickly the only people left are the ones who haven't done anything to even briefly offend anyone.

"That guy killed my untanked Iteron full of compressed Crokite and A-type loot, AND HE ENJOYED IT! ban him!"


Malcanis wrote:
Can you give me a reliable method of distinguishing them that doesn't boil down to "stuff that you personally dislike"?

I find brussels sprouts disgusting; just the thought of them makes me heave a little. Can I petition to get someone banned because they post recipes for them in local?

If not, then you're saying that only the things you find disgusting are a problem. Things I find disgusting and things evengelical christians find disgusting are just fine, however. Am I right?

Far simpler for CCP to not try and be 400,000 people's mom and stay the hell out of our out of game activities, don't you think?


and so on and so on...

Sounds to me that you didn't think Erotica broke the TOS in those posts, and now you seem to be white knighting in an arrogant manner. So Please tell us Mr. CSM what is your true position on this?

Proof that video game politicians flip flop Just as much as RL politicians. Hear that sound? That was all of your creditability evaporating.
Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Marsha Mallow
#16 - 2014-04-01 10:28:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Mike Azariah wrote:
So do you blame the messenger or the message? Is a witness to a hit and run responsible if he reports it? Do you go after him for being a 'snitch'?

These look like trick questions so I'll hedge my bets and go with: maybe >.>
And tbf I'd liken it more to someone witnessing a car accident, then dressing up as superted and running down the street chasing various cars accidentally trampling the victim in the process and causing a pileup. Maybe that's a bit melodramatic. Just don't like vigilantes or thunderous sermons I spose, even if they are right.

mynnna wrote:
So as it happens, I'm not terribly keen on Jester's post either though I'm also not calling for his blood

This is really all people wanted some of the CSM to concede. Not asking for you to burn him, just acknowledge reality. He's handed every Ero apologist a big stack of ammo and they will now run about firing wildly at him, me, you, themselves.

mynnna wrote:
am aggressively sick and tired Sad
I'm going to be helpful in the naive hope that it prompts people to do something rather than whine

Fine. But only for a day, then back to whining. Thanks for being helpful.

*Snip* Removed reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front
#17 - 2014-04-01 11:40:23 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I think I'm going to make my last statement on this now and call it good unless Ripard actually shows a little integrity and comes here to debate his position. Frankly I'm getting a little sick and tired of the whole thing and I'm ready to get back to spending my game time *) with miners and mission bears, since that's what gives me the most belly laughs per hour.

Yes, "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is a concept I invented, and one that I'm not even 100% sure that I am on board with. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it, and have a public conversation about the idea.

The simple fact of the matter is that although Ripard Teg's intentions may have been acceptable, he handled this business in the sleaziest manner that he possibly could have. The guy wraps himself up in his white cape like he's the *) Lone Ranger or something, here to save us all from the evil griefers who are trying to take over the game, and that just pisses me off. Meanwhile *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
He isn't calling them out, even when they make Erotica 1 look like a saint by comparison, because they are the ones willing to whip themselves up into a frenzy for him when it suits his purposes.

The guy has done wrong, any reasonable person can see it, even if he hasn't violated any rules in doing so. He has attempted to wrongly brand an entire segment of the player base as bad human beings, merely because of the shenanigans we get up to in-game. This Erotica 1 business, for me, is just the straw that broke the camel's back. He has a right to say the things he does, but he doesn't have the right to expect that nobody will call him out for it in public forums and blogs *)

And it would be nice if CSMs and candidates who can see it too, plain as day, don't rush to pretend that he's such a great guy and they are behind him 100%. Show a little backbone already. Show a little integrity.

*)*Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#18 - 2014-04-01 12:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Asia Leigh wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
In other words, you admit that this "higher standard" is something you imagined.

Ripard used more colourful language than he should have, but he was essentially correct: Ero1 broke the TOS and he deserved to eat a ban for it. Get over it.

Feel free to continue to disagree; I'll be over here being right.


Okay, lets review some of your posts in the threadnught shall we?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=332182

From page 2

Malcanis wrote:
Is it CCP's responsibility to police out of game interaction between their players where no law has been broken?

If so, where does that responsibility end? Should they ban a player when his wife complains about him playing EVE instead of doing the chores?

If I hook up with another EVE player who happens to be from say Japan, should CCP have the right and duty to ban me if the GM involved disapproves of inter-racial relationships? What about homosexual relationships?

What if I encourage another player to log in to fleet and miss church on sunday?

Where exactly does CCP's "responsibility" end?


From page 3

Malcanis wrote:
Hands up everyone who can see a problem with demanding the CCP ban people on the basis of "They haven't broken any game rules, and they haven't broken any laws, but I find them personally distasteful"


Malcanis wrote:
"Gays are gross. I demand people ban any player who admits to being gay. The community should cleaned of such filth" On what basis do CCP resist that demand?

Once being merely distasteful is suffficient reason to ban someone, then pretty quickly the only people left are the ones who haven't done anything to even briefly offend anyone.

"That guy killed my untanked Iteron full of compressed Crokite and A-type loot, AND HE ENJOYED IT! ban him!"


Malcanis wrote:
Can you give me a reliable method of distinguishing them that doesn't boil down to "stuff that you personally dislike"?

I find brussels sprouts disgusting; just the thought of them makes me heave a little. Can I petition to get someone banned because they post recipes for them in local?

If not, then you're saying that only the things you find disgusting are a problem. Things I find disgusting and things evengelical christians find disgusting are just fine, however. Am I right?

Far simpler for CCP to not try and be 400,000 people's mom and stay the hell out of our out of game activities, don't you think?


and so on and so on...

Sounds to me that you didn't think Erotica broke the TOS in those posts, and now you seem to be white knighting in an arrogant manner. So Please tell us Mr. CSM what is your true position on this?

Proof that video game politicians flip flop Just as much as RL politicians. Hear that sound? That was all of your creditability evaporating.


CCP provided us with additional information, and went to considerable efforts to demonstrate to my personal and the CSM's general satisfaction that erotica1 was dealt with according to the existing terms of the TOS. This, you may recall, was the period during which "The CSM sat back and did nothing". We weren't talking to you guys because we were busy talking to CCP. And if you ever get elected to the CSM, you can read the NDA forum and see for yourself that I fought just as hard to make sure that ero1 got due process in there as I did out here.

But. I never ever - not once - defended what erotica1 did; I was extremely concerned to make sure that "1000 posts" didn't become the bar for someone being banned. That concern having been satisfactorily dealt with, I was happy for the GM team to do what needed to be done. In the end, Mynxee's argument was what settled my mind absolutely.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-04-01 12:46:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Haedonism Bot wrote:
And it would be nice if CSMs and candidates who can see it too, plain as day, don't rush to pretend that he's such a great guy and they are behind him 100%. Show a little backbone already. Show a little integrity.


What a beautiful strawman. Pointing out that inventing your own arbitrary moral standard and calling for it to be applied *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. does not automatically mean someone is also defending jester's post, no more than vehemently opposing the notion that someone should be banned on semi-arbitrary moral groups as Malcanis had been automatically equates to defending him.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
#20 - 2014-04-01 13:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarojan
Malcanis wrote:


CCP provided us with additional information, and went to considerable efforts to demonstrate to my personal and the CSM's general satisfaction that erotica1 was dealt with according to the existing terms of the TOS. This, you may recall, was the period during which "The CSM sat back and did nothing". We weren't talking to you guys because we were busy talking to CCP. And if you ever get elected to the CSM, you can read the NDA forum and see for yourself that I fought just as hard to make sure that ero1 got due process in there as I did out here.

But. I never ever - not once - defended what erotica1 did; I was extremely concerned to make sure that "1000 posts" didn't become the bar for someone being banned. That concern having been satisfactorily dealt with, I was happy for the GM team to do what needed to be done. In the end, Mynxee's argument was what settled my mind absolutely.



So you can comfirm then that Er1 wasnt thrown under a bus to simply satisfy the public outcry and end a damaging drama? The the recording was listened to, it was judged to be a tos breech on the part of Er1, but not on the part of solhar?

Will gank for food

123Next page