These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

End the practice of NDA's for the CSM

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#41 - 2011-09-12 12:27:01 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx 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)


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



Either I missed something, or you just used a hypothetical situation that couldn't actually profit anyone as an example of some dirty corruption that the CSM could be involved in....

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Swooshie
USA Canada Private Corp
#42 - 2011-09-12 17:22:03 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:

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.


As a last reaction to that topic I'll examine an hypothesis.

The Dev/CSM system put in place place by CCP could become a management model to be followed by others as it has a very strong "confrontational" element that, if used right, can really help any service provider into targeting precisely what to do next, and what to improve. Maybe, and this is a very strong maybe, they are going to do just that; maybe they are taking some time to come full circle with their agenda before...

That is where the problem might reside

This whole thing has the POTENTIAL to be great. With the CSM in place, we expect stuff to go our way... hence the strong reactions when it doesn't.

Beware, however! The CSM could also be very practical as a propaganda tool as mentioned previously in this thread. Granted that this can only work for so long, if all it takes for CCP to buy more time is to call an emergency meeting, say whatever the CSM wants to hear and then use that time to do whatever they damn want...

Bottom line (TL;DR) : there are NDAs everywhere in the game industry but with the CSM in place, as long as said CSM isn't being used, then the EVE community knows a little more than without the CSM which is way better than nothing.

"It is when I think about meaning that I lose what I meant to say."     -Swooshie
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#43 - 2011-09-15 17:53:38 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx 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)


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



Either I missed something, or you just used a hypothetical situation that couldn't actually profit anyone as an example of some dirty corruption that the CSM could be involved in....


yes a hypothetical situation, i never said anyone was corrupt, or a part of corruption, i was simply stating using said hypothetical situation that monitoring game accounts can't prevent information being passed on. the NDA matters not in the situation.

and yes, indeed i think you missed something, prehaps read it again and think about it.

main point though is,,,,,,,,, monitoring accounts does not prevent information being passed on.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#44 - 2011-09-15 19:00:35 UTC
This is a terrible thread and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. While CCP can periodically be foolish in their deployment of the NDA (for example, unlike Meissa, I think that Zulu should have absolutely disclosed what we discussed at the meeting last week), without an NDA the CSM would be completely unable to advocate for the interests of the players when it comes to future development, which is one of the core purposes of the CSM itself.

Also, the CSM is first line of defense against idiotic ideas. CCP needs a place where they can moot foolish brainfarts and have them shot down by a skeptical CSM, or - if the ideas are sounds - encouraged. Without an NDA, that doesn't occur.

Regardless, the whole discussion is pointless because the NDA isn't going anywhere.

~hi~
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#45 - 2011-09-15 20:31:56 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
This is a terrible thread and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it. While CCP can periodically be foolish in their deployment of the NDA (for example, unlike Meissa, I think that Zulu should have absolutely disclosed what we discussed at the meeting last week), without an NDA the CSM would be completely unable to advocate for the interests of the players when it comes to future development, which is one of the core purposes of the CSM itself.

Also, the CSM is first line of defense against idiotic ideas. CCP needs a place where they can moot foolish brainfarts and have them shot down by a skeptical CSM, or - if the ideas are sounds - encouraged. Without an NDA, that doesn't occur.

Regardless, the whole discussion is pointless because the NDA isn't going anywhere.


ah come on, without counter point, there is no point to any discussion, the OP has a point of view, how you can say he should be ashamed is out of order, i have said to many others before and i still believe that the CSM is a good thing and i have the greatest respect for the work the CSM does.
but lets be honest here, no discussion is pointless, we learn from everyones point of view.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#46 - 2011-09-15 21:50:22 UTC
I argued the same position as the op. CCP Xhagen gave his response here:

http://eve-search.com/thread/1566558/page/3#81

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Previous page123