These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

End the practice of NDA's for the CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2011-09-12 00:12:07 UTC
I hate to be so blunt but...

NDA'd CSM minutes are a small thing.

Small people like to talk about small things.

As a small thing it is of little importance in the bigger picture.

Learn patience and let CCP do its job properly.

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
#22 - 2011-09-12 00:18:15 UTC  |  Edited by: the plague
Two step wrote:
As we all have said a thousand times, we asked CCP to make the contents of the meeting public. They declined to do so.

CCP comes to us with all sorts of ideas. Some of them are very cool, some are very stupid. If every stupid idea had to be made public, you would be even more mad at CCP.

You also would have an entirely messed up economy. If a CCP dev says something one day about, say, nerfing technetium, the market would fall through the floor, even if we eventually talk CCP out of it. This would have very bad effects on lots of people, and would ruin one of the best parts of EVE. (For the conspiracy theories out there, CCP monitors our accounts just like they watch dev accounts, so no, we cannot make speculative trades based on stuff we hear under the NDA)


Exactly the response I predicted from the CSM.

As I said earlier, the CSM ought to be able to decide what to make public and what not to. I've helped manage a number of real world organizations at higher management levels and I'm fully aware that there are times when decision makers need to be able to freely discuss ideas without fear that every word might be taken out of context and make public. And it's also understandable that CCP has real business concerns at stake here, so most of us are willing to accept the occasional NDA.

That said, it's also clear that NDAs are being used as a smokescreen to embargo virtually everything the CSM is involved with. I stand by my earlier opinion. Something is seriously wrong when the answer to every issue and question seems to be, "Sorry, NDA." So don't expect the players to take anything you or the other CSM members say at face value so long as everything is being hidden behind NDA blackouts until it's far too late for the players to provide any meaningful input.
the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
#23 - 2011-09-12 00:19:38 UTC
Headerman wrote:
I hate to be so blunt but...

NDA'd CSM minutes are a small thing.


Agreed. But then no one mentioned CSM minutes, did they? What we're talking about here is, well, pretty much everything else the CSM being involved with being NDA'd.
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2011-09-12 00:22:23 UTC
The CSM are members of a committee, there to represent the interests of the player base.

1) You have to trust them to do their job

2) As a committee their input and authority is pretty limited.

That's not going to change. CCP is a company who's primary business goal is to stay in business. Trust them to do their job.

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
#25 - 2011-09-12 00:27:24 UTC  |  Edited by: the plague
Headerman wrote:
The CSM are members of a committee, there to represent the interests of the player base.

1) You have to trust them to do their job

2) As a committee their input and authority is pretty limited.

That's not going to change. CCP is a company who's primary business goal is to stay in business. Trust them to do their job.


I fail to see how the practice of slapping an NDA on virtually everything is conducive to fostering a culture of trust.
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2011-09-12 00:31:09 UTC
Yes well no body is perfect are they

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#27 - 2011-09-12 00:42:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
Two step wrote:
As we all have said a thousand times, we asked CCP to make the contents of the meeting public. They declined to do so.

CCP comes to us with all sorts of ideas. Some of them are very cool, some are very stupid. If every stupid idea had to be made public, you would be even more mad at CCP.

You also would have an entirely messed up economy. If a CCP dev says something one day about, say, nerfing technetium, the market would fall through the floor, even if we eventually talk CCP out of it. This would have very bad effects on lots of people, and would ruin one of the best parts of EVE. (For the conspiracy theories out there, CCP monitors our accounts just like they watch dev accounts, so no, we cannot make speculative trades based on stuff we hear under the NDA)


I disagree with both the OP and the (most of the) CSM on this one. If CCP saved discussion for when they were ready to reveal things to the general public, than there would not be any discussion for the long term goals of EvE. Instead, they would simply squabble over the details of each release and not the grand scope of iterations themselves.

Name Family Name wrote:
I don't see much point in almost every bit of information falling under NDA.

Usually, an NDA serves the purpose of maintaining industry secrets - as there is no competition in Eve's niche, I don't see much point in keeping it secret.

more stuff...

That's not the only purpose. Remember that CSM gay/gal who got booted for using NDA covered information to leverage his/her market positions? It's this kind of advantage that the NDAs help prevent. All players should have an equal shot at figuring out how best to leverage changes to the game. What Two step says in his technetium example is spot on.

Tippia wrote:
…so you'd prefer that the CSM just have to take CCP's word for it whenever they say they're working on something, rather than being shown that they are, indeed, working on something?

Half the point of the CSM would be lost if they couldn't be told (and shown) things that aren't public.

This ^

...given that, the part of Two step's quote above ("As we all have said a thousand times, we asked CCP to make the contents of the meeting public. They declined to do so.") seems diametrically opposed to what he follows up with. NDA's serve little guys like me, just trying to get by in this crazy universe. Blink They also serve the CSM, enabling them to learn what they need to know to voice player concerns before players have those concerns. Ultimately, the latter is the primary purpose of the CSM imho.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Swooshie
USA Canada Private Corp
#28 - 2011-09-12 00:44:22 UTC
Two step wrote:
As we all have said a thousand times, we asked CCP to make the contents of the meeting public. They declined to do so.

CCP comes to us with all sorts of ideas. Some of them are very cool, some are very stupid. If every stupid idea had to be made public, you would be even more mad at CCP.

You also would have an entirely messed up economy. If a CCP dev says something one day about, say, nerfing technetium, the market would fall through the floor, even if we eventually talk CCP out of it. This would have very bad effects on lots of people, and would ruin one of the best parts of EVE. (For the conspiracy theories out there, CCP monitors our accounts just like they watch dev accounts, so no, we cannot make speculative trades based on stuff we hear under the NDA)


^ This

NDA sucks, having the playerbase representatives under gag sucks. But removing the private shield behind which the Cie. can do preliminary work (albeit sometimes bad work) would be a sure way to insure this community would go insane and explode :p

"It is when I think about meaning that I lose what I meant to say."     -Swooshie
the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
#29 - 2011-09-12 00:44:30 UTC
Headerman wrote:
Yes well no body is perfect are they


Well that's true enough.

Perhaps I'm just expecting too much of CCP. And way too much from the CSM. I guess I should be thankful if they merely succeed in not making the game any worse than it already is.
the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
#30 - 2011-09-12 00:52:52 UTC
Swooshie wrote:
NDA sucks, having the playerbase representatives under gag sucks. But removing the private shield behind which the Cie. can do preliminary work (albeit sometimes bad work) would be a sure way to insure this community would go insane and explode :p


I'll buy that when you can provide concrete examples of all the wonderful results the CSM is achieving on our behalf. Until then, I remain convinced this whole system is merely being used as a convenient way to shield CCP from needing to respond to player concerns.

When you keep saying, "We're working on it but we can't discuss it" and then nothing every changes, that's not legitimate corporate NDA, it's propaganda management.

And as I said earlier, at this point I don't expect anything more than propaganda and hiding behind corporate smokescreens. And that's all we're likely to get.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#31 - 2011-09-12 00:53:52 UTC
Considering this community's apparently unlimited capacity for being demanding, bratty, ignorant of the realities of games development, short on common sense, shorter on patience and almost entirely lacking in a sense of proportion, I'd say that CCP would have to be stark raving mad to stop using NDAs.

The less information we're given, the less people can wildly misinterpret it and start a new brush fire.

Besides, I'd rather have my presents wrapped and under the tree, not to be opened until Christmas Day. A little anticipation and mystery is a good thing.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#32 - 2011-09-12 00:59:31 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Considering this community's apparently unlimited capacity for being demanding, bratty, ignorant of the realities of games development, short on common sense, shorter on patience and almost entirely lacking in a sense of proportion, I'd say that CCP would have to be stark raving mad to stop using NDAs.

Hell. Yes. Much more concise than my opinion... right on.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Barbelo Valentinian
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-09-12 01:31:38 UTC
Absurd idea. Surely part of the point of the CSM is to be a bridge between CCP and the players?

That means, CSM gets a privileged look at what CCP are doing, and while they can't discuss it openly or in detail with the players, they can at least reassure the players to a certain extent that yes, CCP are indeed working on it, as they said they were.

That's a valid and useful function.
Swooshie
USA Canada Private Corp
#34 - 2011-09-12 02:18:19 UTC
the plague wrote:
I'll buy that when you can provide concrete examples of all the wonderful results the CSM is achieving on our behalf. Until then, I remain convinced this whole system is merely being used as a convenient way to shield CCP from needing to respond to player concerns.


I agree 100% that this system doesn't guarantee results and fully depends on intentions. It might very well be a smoke screen, indeed. My only point is that, seeing what happened and the amount of trust for CCP around here, I do not believe they could be totally transparent anymore.

Note that, it might very well be the direct consequence of poor management and there is no denying that, since Apocrypha, there hasn't been much going on to spread joy around.

"It is when I think about meaning that I lose what I meant to say."     -Swooshie
Steph Wing
No Dukks Given
#35 - 2011-09-12 09:52:23 UTC
the plague wrote:
[quote=Headerman]I guess I should be thankful if they merely succeed in not making the game any worse than it already is.


I take it you haven't seen the PCU graph?
Written Word
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2011-09-12 10:00:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Written Word
If you completely remove the NDA, they are absolutely worthless to both us and CCP.
Vyl Vit
#37 - 2011-09-12 10:21:21 UTC
Mittani is such a jackass. If he wanted to be honest he would.

"I'd have integrity, but they won't let me! But, look at me. I'm my own man!"

So tawdry. So very pedestrian.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#38 - 2011-09-12 10:27:50 UTC
the plague wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
It's also funny that there are idiots who think that the CSM has any choice as to what is NDA'd and what isn't; if it was up to us, we'd tell you what the meeting was about. But in this case it's Zulu's decision. vOv


I get that, Mittani, I really do. But I am of the firm opinion that the way NDAs are currently being employed is doing more harm than good. Now I fully understand the CSM has no control over what is NDA'd and what isn't, and it's extremely unlikely that CCP will suddenly decide that there are no limits on what it is prepared to share with the players.

Therefore the solution seems obvious: Starting now CCP should not share ANY information with the CSM that it isn't fully prepared to share with the entire EVE community. That means the CSM may get some information a little later than it does now, which could potentially make some CSM members unhappy. However, it also means the CSM will never again be put in the position of being asked to tell the players, "CCP is working on all kinds of juicy stuff but we can't tell you about any of it. You'll have to trust us..."

From now on NO MORE NDAS. Absolutely none. CCP needs to adopt the mindset that anything that's discussed with the CSM may be and likely WILL BE shared with the entirety of the EVE community at the CSM's sole discretion. There is no point in sharing tidbits of information with the CSM and then turning around and placing an embargo on the information. It's a destructive practice that only serves to further undermine the community's faith in the CSM as a whole.

In short, if CCP isn't ready to discuss an issue with the players then they should not discuss it with the CSM. Period. This should be self-evident to any CSM member whose primary purpose is to represent the interests of the players and not gain personal advantage by exploiting their position in the CSM to gain insider information in advance of everyone else.

I fully expect every member of the CSM to condemn my suggestion. Surprise me.


Your suggestion would mean that the CSM would not be able to give any forward advice to CCP, only complain afterwards. 90% of the value of the process would be lost.

That said, I think it's pretty much inarguable that elements within CCP are abusing the NDA process in order to spare their own blushes. That's an issue that needs to be resolved.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#39 - 2011-09-12 11:29:41 UTC
Two step wrote:
As we all have said a thousand times, we asked CCP to make the contents of the meeting public. They declined to do so.

CCP comes to us with all sorts of ideas. Some of them are very cool, some are very stupid. If every stupid idea had to be made public, you would be even more mad at CCP.

You also would have an entirely messed up economy. If a CCP dev says something one day about, say, nerfing technetium, the market would fall through the floor, even if we eventually talk CCP out of it. This would have very bad effects on lots of people, and would ruin one of the best parts of EVE. (For the conspiracy theories out there, CCP monitors our accounts just like they watch dev accounts, so no, we cannot make speculative trades based on stuff we hear under the NDA)


monitoring accounts proves nothing, information can be passed outside of the game. profits from leaked information can be shared easly.

here's a small example how. (no accusations toward anyone, this is total fiction)

person A who's a CSM member hears something which will allow the cornering of the market in some way, he shares the information with person B who is an enemy alliance leader that will allow both parties to make trillions.

they agree to create a DMZ where all future battles will take place, the borders of each alliance are protected by the agreement.

systems within the DMZ pass back and forth (capitals filled with lootz left at POS's) allowing the passing of profits from the information which was leaked.

both parties will never disclose to CCP about this, because it would mean the downfall of both alliances a sort of M.A.D (Mutual Assured Destruction)

it's possible that this could happen and almost impossible to prove out side of the game.

again i accuse nobody of anything and this is just fiction ( as far as i know ) Roll
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#40 - 2011-09-12 12:11:00 UTC
the plague wrote:
Two step wrote:
As we all have said a thousand times, we asked CCP to make the contents of the meeting public. They declined to do so.

CCP comes to us with all sorts of ideas. Some of them are very cool, some are very stupid. If every stupid idea had to be made public, you would be even more mad at CCP.

You also would have an entirely messed up economy. If a CCP dev says something one day about, say, nerfing technetium, the market would fall through the floor, even if we eventually talk CCP out of it. This would have very bad effects on lots of people, and would ruin one of the best parts of EVE. (For the conspiracy theories out there, CCP monitors our accounts just like they watch dev accounts, so no, we cannot make speculative trades based on stuff we hear under the NDA)


Exactly the response I predicted from the CSM.

As I said earlier, the CSM ought to be able to decide what to make public and what not to. I've helped manage a number of real world organizations at higher management levels and I'm fully aware that there are times when decision makers need to be able to freely discuss ideas without fear that every word might be taken out of context and make public. And it's also understandable that CCP has real business concerns at stake here, so most of us are willing to accept the occasional NDA.

That said, it's also clear that NDAs are being used as a smokescreen to embargo virtually everything the CSM is involved with. I stand by my earlier opinion. Something is seriously wrong when the answer to every issue and question seems to be, "Sorry, NDA." So don't expect the players to take anything you or the other CSM members say at face value so long as everything is being hidden behind NDA blackouts until it's far too late for the players to provide any meaningful input.


Actually, unlike a few (many?) of my colleagues, I actually agree that the meeting contents shouldn't be released to the public for the time being. It's not about market manipulations or anything, but expectations management. If CCP says they're doing, X, Y and Z, people expect X, Y and Z to come. If only X and Y make it (development sometimes hits roadblocks), then instead of being enthusiastic about X and Y, people will ***** and moan endlessly about the lack of Z, about how CCP can't be trusted to keep their promises, yadda yadda.

We've seen countless times in the past what botched expectation management does, so unless something is firm, there's little value in disclosure most of the time. The CSM has learned what plans mean over the terms, and what percentage of things planned eventually make it, what part ends up altered, etc. While a few in the community at large are able to do the same, the mob, as a whole, apparently can't. Also, some back & forth discussion involves sharing of ideas going wildly one way or wildly in its opposite direction, as things happen. Getting people excited or despaired about things that may not even come to pass seems a waste. Even disclosure post facto would be bad as it would get people to complain about what they could/should have had but didn't.

So, I really favour transparency, but I don't favour full disclosure. There's a very important difference between the two.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Previous page123Next page