These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Holding CSMs to a higher standard

First post First post
Author
Varg Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2014-04-01 13:14:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Ripard was wrong. He over dramatised the whole situation (which by the way was dead and buried until that post) probably in the name of page views. To call it torture was absurd and from what ive seen the guy who lost his stuff was not that bothered after the fact. One mans vendeta was allowed to blow up until erotica was thrown under the bus.

CCP were wrong for only taking action against one party. If they follow the ruleset they used to punish erotica the punishment by all rights should have gone both ways. That being said all this went down on an out of game voice server and ccp have no place punishing people for that otherwise null sec will be fresh out of good fcs after a couple of weeks of raging at people on comms.

All that said being a CSM does not mean you have to adhere to some higher standard, i just wish we had CSM'S who had more of an understanding of why people like the game. The *Snip* Please refrain from using profanity. ISD Ezwal.
make the stories that we all love and bought most of the playerbase in. This is a game about villians not heros.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#22 - 2014-04-01 14:44:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.

Racism, gender stereotyping and hate speech are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.


7. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.


route rule 66. April 1st jokes and CCL.

If April 1st jokes involve threads being started on the forum, CCL reserves the right to lock them for any reason whatsoever.
The only exception is when the April 1st joke in question makes at least one member of the ISD CCL division online at that time laugh out loud. In that case the thread will only get locked if in violation with forum rules 1 to 34.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Asia Leigh
Dauntless Divergence
#23 - 2014-04-01 15:56:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Asia Leigh
Tarojan wrote:
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 solkhar?


Or the escrow agents that participated in this particular bonus room on Erotica's behalf.

Even if your right Malcanis and Erotica was given due process (Which I doubt seeing as such that Erotica has gone on record as not receiving any notification about his account action or length of ban from CCP) that would mean that the G.M in this case had to have listened to the recording, Right?

And if so Why wasn't Sohkar's or the escrow agents present accounts also actioned? I guess where i'm getting at here is everyone involved broke the TOS in some way. According to CCP's post in GD everyone should have been actioned, but I'm only seeing 1 ban here.

By the way, all the involved escrow agents, and sohkar went on record saying their accounts weren't banned. Maybe if this account action is warranted there should be additional account actions to go along with this one.

Edit: And this is why it looks so suspicious to me. No one else is banned but erotica, however; there are multiple rules violations by everyone involved here given the fact that CCP can now police our TS servers. Given the blog that was largely aimed at erotica and the resulting web wide reaction, you will have to excuse my skepticism here.
Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#24 - 2014-04-01 16:43:39 UTC
Asia Leigh wrote:
Tarojan wrote:
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 solkhar?


Or the escrow agents that participated in this particular bonus room on Erotica's behalf.

Even if your right Malcanis and Erotica was given due process (Which I doubt seeing as such that Erotica has gone on record as not receiving any notification about his account action or length of ban from CCP) that would mean that the G.M in this case had to have listened to the recording, Right?

And if so Why wasn't Sohkar's or the escrow agents present accounts also actioned? I guess where i'm getting at here is everyone involved broke the TOS in some way. According to CCP's post in GD everyone should have been actioned, but I'm only seeing 1 ban here.

By the way, all the involved escrow agents, and sohkar went on record saying their accounts weren't banned. Maybe if this account action is warranted there should be additional account actions to go along with this one.

Edit: And this is why it looks so suspicious to me. No one else is banned but erotica, however; there are multiple rules violations by everyone involved here given the fact that CCP can now police our TS servers. Given the blog that was largely aimed at erotica and the resulting web wide reaction, you will have to excuse my skepticism here.


This is exactly how I feel. If the recording was used as a basis for action against E1, how in the holy heck could action not be taken against Sokhar? See my sig.

Also, I have a REAL problem with CCP policing privately-owned 3rd party platforms. What are they, the NSA?


\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#25 - 2014-04-01 17:26:03 UTC
Varg Altol wrote:
This is a game about villians not heros.


Actually, it's a dystopia in which people forge their own paths. Heroes and villains are crutches for lazy writers.

That said, the newest coalition on the block is called HERO, and they run clean comms, so apparently your opinion is not all that widely shared.

(And the CCP ad says, "Be the Hero. Be the Villain." Some people are attracted to lazy writing.)

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Varg Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2014-04-01 17:31:02 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Varg Altol wrote:
This is a game about villians not heros.


Actually, it's a dystopia in which people forge their own paths. Heroes and villains are crutches for lazy writers.

That said, the newest coalition on the block is called HERO, and they run clean comms, so apparently your opinion is not all that widely shared.

(And the CCP ad says, "Be the Hero. Be the Villain." Some people are attracted to lazy writing.)


Wait, Isnt Test in HERO. Are you telling me Test are running clean comms? Also all the good stories do come from villains.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-04-01 17:54:26 UTC
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.


You missed the part where he was responding to the hordes of NPC alts baying for blood and calling for a blanket ban of any morally ambiguous in game activity. Yet another reason npc alts should not be allowed to post.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Asia Leigh
Dauntless Divergence
#28 - 2014-04-01 18:13:27 UTC
Malcanis,

I do have to admit though in regard to CCP falcons post in one of the other threads discussing this...

CCP Falcon wrote:
However, there's a line as to how severe those circumstances should get, and I'll paraphrase Mynxee by saying that this line needs to be drawn at the point where the alleged victim starts to lose emotional control. We can't set an arbirarty line for this, as this is different for everyone, and every situation.


I have the distinct feeling that if erotica and company had cut this bonus round short when sohkar started throwing around the first profanities and it looked like this was going to start going down hill, we probably are not having this discussion.

Nothing that CCP has said expressly prohibits the 'bonus room'. I just have the feeling that CCP wants it cut short before someone goes into full rage mode. While this line is different from person to person, it is clear in the recording where sohkar starts to lose it, even before his full out rage.

But as it is we have this mess...

You guys do have to admit that the time line on the sequence of events the past week does look pretty suspicious, but seeing as I have beaten that poor dead horse to a pulp, I do have a couple of unanswered concerns.

1) CCP's policy on account investigation. Take the recording for instance. Based on what CCP falcon's quote at the top wouldn't the "Escrow agents" that participated in that particular bonus room fall under the same rule assuming that was the reason Ero got banned. Lets face it they are as guilty as Ero was in breaking that rule. Not to mention sohkar's reaction was a blatant violation of the harassment rule.

The question here is when the GM's investigate stuff like that are they only looking at ero because he was the one reported or do they look at the case as a whole and deal out account actions based on everyone's actions with the evidence presented before the GM handling the case. The next question you may not be able to answer due to NDA and you may not even be priveyed to, but has to be asked. If they do look at the case as a whole, Why wasn't everyone else actioned?

2) Was there some kind of fail safe put in the above quote to keep trolls from sending in stupid partitions like "I got ganked and they laughed at me, they kept laughing at me after I rage I feel harraseed" or "They made me sing to save my pod, they made fun of my singing and made me cry, BANZ PLZ" Because sadly this is where I see this going.

3) Kind of an extension to the above, but is there also a fail safe to prevent rules layering in extream cases such as in the following situation...

Someone gets on a TS server and is grilled for a half an hour being called "***", the "N-word", "worthless", "go slit your wrists", "your mother should have had an abortion" the whole 10 yards. But the victim doesn't react negatively or show signs of breaking and silently reports them after the incident. Is there a fail safe in that policy that prevents someone from saying I can't be banned he didn't rage and seemed okay with it . Sadly I see some idiots trying to play this card too...

So correct me if I'm wrong, but am I to assume that conducting bonus rooms are within the rules so long as we adhere to the policy that was quoted. Personally I have no problem with that and has gone on record in the threadnaught saying I believe ero did cross the line and I think everyone here believes that. I just think that people are more upset that A. The rules are not appearing to be applied across the board fairly (See point #1) B. The timing of events that led up to this. (See my posts across all the relevant threads :p) We would also like to see ripard post a statement too, but meh... you cant force someone to post if they don't want to.

By the way thanks for clarifying you opening posts in the threadnaught. They seemed to confuse the hell out of me and me living in the US its easy to blame corrupt politics, because every politician here is corrupt :P

Thanks for your time.
Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Asia Leigh
Dauntless Divergence
#29 - 2014-04-01 18:14:33 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


You missed the part where he was responding to the hordes of NPC alts baying for blood and calling for a blanket ban of any morally ambiguous in game activity. Yet another reason npc alts should not be allowed to post.


True that
Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Haedonism Bot
Revolutionary Front
#30 - 2014-04-01 18:18:37 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:

That said, the newest coalition on the block is called HERO, and they run clean comms, so apparently your opinion is not all that widely shared.


Now hang on - I was in BNI for awhile. I remember Matias cracking down on racial slurs and things of that nature (we should all know better anyway), but I also remember lots of gay porn being read aloud over comms. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just can't say how you would call it "clean comms." Of course, that was a year ago, maybe times have changed.

I also fail to see the connection between in-game heroism/villainy and clean comms. Minerbumping has the cleanest comms I have experienced - use of profanity in local is even considered a Code violation. Many noted pirate corps run family-friendly comms as well.

Of course, this is straying from the topic at hand.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

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

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#31 - 2014-04-01 18:37:55 UTC
Asia Leigh wrote:
Not to mention sohkar's reaction was a blatant violation of the harassment rule.

i'm only replying to this one specific point:

i think that the 'bonus room' created a social atmosphere where the victim felt trapped in the situation by peer pressure, in the knowledge they were being laughed at. this is bullying. whether the participants understood this or whether the act of bullying was intentional are not something i want to speculate on

(this is why i think the bonus room was griefing: it was targeted bullying with no relation to the game and no benefit to the owner of the room, using the eve online service to find targets)

i think that this can cause a great amount of stress in a person, and while reactions differ, the actions of someone under such stress need to be viewed in that context. besides that, the participants of the bonus room have used leading questions in the past to trying and trap a victim into saying things they wouldn't agree with normally

the reaction of sohkar's is not condonable but it is understandable and possibly excusable given the circumstances
Asia Leigh
Dauntless Divergence
#32 - 2014-04-01 18:46:56 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Asia Leigh wrote:
Not to mention sohkar's reaction was a blatant violation of the harassment rule.

i'm only replying to this one specific point:

i think that the 'bonus room' created a social atmosphere where the victim felt trapped in the situation by peer pressure, in the knowledge they were being laughed at. this is bullying. whether the participants understood this or whether the act of bullying was intentional are not something i want to speculate on

(this is why i think the bonus room was griefing: it was targeted bullying with no relation to the game and no benefit to the owner of the room, using the eve online service to find targets)

i think that this can cause a great amount of stress in a person, and while reactions differ, the actions of someone under such stress need to be viewed in that context. besides that, the participants of the bonus room have used leading questions in the past to trying and trap a victim into saying things they wouldn't agree with normally

the reaction of sohkar's is not condonable but it is understandable and possibly excusable given the circumstances


Fair enough, but a warning or a short 3 day or 1 week ban, something? I do understand extenuating circumstances, but they aren't an excuse for breaking the rules. If this happened in RL and not over the internet do you think that a judge would buy he was provoked as a defense. By definition most if not all Death threats are provoked by definition. Doesn't make it any less a very serious breach of the rules. Both IRL, in game, or in coms.
Apply the damn rules equally >.>
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#33 - 2014-04-01 19:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
Asia Leigh wrote:
If this happened in RL and not over the internet do you think that a judge would buy he was provoked as a defense. By definition most if not all Death threats are provoked by definition. Doesn't make it any less a very serious breach of the rules. Both IRL, in game, or in coms.

i doubt it. part of the reason courts exist is to apply some common sense to the law. gamemasters also use common sense in the interest of the game and the playerbase

e: that is, i doubt a court would not take into account circumstances
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#34 - 2014-04-01 19:43:19 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.


route rule 66. April 1st jokes and CCL.

If April 1st jokes involve threads being started on the forum, CCL reserves the right to lock them for any reason whatsoever.
The only exception is when the April 1st joke in question makes at least one member of the ISD CCL division online at that time laugh out loud. In that case the thread will only get locked if in violation with forum rules 1 to 34.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Marsha Mallow
#35 - 2014-04-01 22:47:25 UTC
*sneaks back in*
looks all quiet
*starts stopwatch*

GET OUT Malcy and take your FILTHY mouth with you. 28 VOTES!

OK, hit meh. No, me. Not there. Do that whooshing sound too.

Shocked

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#36 - 2014-04-01 23:27:16 UTC
yay so glad we are still talking about this
Tyrant Scorn
#37 - 2014-04-02 02:21:03 UTC
Haedonism Bot wrote:
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.


I think every player should decide for themselves if they want to hold CSM members to a higher standard, however, they are not forced to do so.

I personally do but that's just me...
Liese Shardani
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2014-04-02 17:46:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Liese Shardani
I think CSMs should be held to the same standard as any other subscriber. Did Jester mention a fellow player by name and say negative things about him? Absolutely. His blog is, as has been pointed out here, a fan site, and those are the rules that apply.

The same rules apply to Miner Bumping and The Mittani and wherever else. Those sites also say negative things about other players. Isn't just about every article at Miner Bumping ridiculing someone or other and posting private communications for everyone to point at and laugh?

Jester's in a unique position, as a popular choice for CSM and a widely read blogger. Even when I'm taking a break from EVE, I still read his blog. When he saw something he felt was an abusive practice that many people were unaware of, he used his reach into the EVE community to make sure people knew about it. That's what you use a megaphone for, IMO.

I've heard it said that his actions brought the game into ill repute. In my opinion, it's kinda already there, if my coworkers' typical reactions to "Hey, come play EVE with us!" are anything to go by. What Jester has done is call attention to a practice that was so far out there that EVE's reputation would've been made even worse, and for good reason.

Some may disagree with his language, and even I think it was a bit strong. But I don't disagree with the end result.

I definitely don't see CSM misconduct on Jester's part.
Danalee
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#39 - 2014-04-03 06:37:15 UTC
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.


I could believe there has been a debate and more information was provided and there was a breach of EULA and ripard's terrible blog post wasn't involved if anyone at any point in time had bothered to communicate with the perceived perpetrator and victim before, during or after the 'facts'.
Not CCP nor CSM did anything of the sort. Heck even the reason specified for banning Erotica 1 = blank.
No inspiration? Morale crusaders are hardly ever inspired.

D.

Bear

Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority

Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Silvara Nocturn
Nocturn Industries
#40 - 2014-04-03 13:22:02 UTC
I have not seen any information regarding any proper channels and probably won't since it's forbidden to discuss these things. Nor is it policy to discuss the csm internal communications with CCP. Unless you are blessed with information we don't have there is nothing to discuss. But since you can't confirm or deny any of it this whole post is moot.
Previous page123Next page