Jita Park Speakers Corner

To be fair, while I didn't mention it as much *this time*, I did bring it up when I was running for CSM6.

Having RL experience in programming/design can be very helpful for a CSM rep. It helps you to understand the scope of some changes, and to see why doing something like "fix corp roles" is actually a pretty damn hard problem. It certainly isn't required, though having at least one or two programmers on the CSM helps things, especially when we are talking about the API/CREST.

You haven't.

I think I take it as need a job that shows responsibility or helps you to view larger concepts as well.

Makes me wonder what Darius's old job was, with how he feels responsible protecting us from CCP. The old lady who stared out the window with binoculars is my guess.

I'm not letting this go off the front page till CCP changes its policy. If this was such a cut and dry issue it wouldn't have required most of CSM and CCP Xhagen coming in here to defend an unethical and unpractical policy.

The only accountability needed at hand is to match the actions of a character in game with the policies and influence they are advocating. No disclosure of personal information is required to do this; only the test of ensuring that they "are who they say they are".

CCP Xhagen I suspect is falling victim to this logical fallacy. Since our scope of accountability only extends to actions taken in-game, then there's no reason why we would need any more information other than a verification that CSM member "X" is in fact character "Y" (not withstanding any character transfers/purchases).

Disclosing a real name not only reveals more private information than necessary, but in no way assists our ability to prove this test, as we, the players, lack any method to verify this ourselves. How do we prove that the individual disclosed owns the accounts in question? We cannot, only CCP can do this, as only they have the records to match names with billing.

So we are given half of the pieces required in order to perform our own "independent verification", if that was intended. It's an illusion of transparency, and nothing more.

It's a pretty strong principle to stand on for what amounts to little more than an advisory body. For all that's trumped about player "democracy", I'm reminded that the CSM, try as they may, have no powers to enforce decisions or requests made. They are representatives brought up to Iceland to carry arguments that CCP does not have the time or inclination to wade through the forums to find. In this last point, I do not fault them, but we need to recognize the limitations for what they are.

If, somehow, CSM members could demand design changes to the game, then I could certainly see where having a real name would facilitate me being able to check up on their history, since we're now discussing modifications to a selling product. The CSM might as well become a board of directors then, true stock holders of a sort, and the lines between in-game and out-of-game having virtually no separation.

But that hasn't happened, and never will happen. And so long as CCP remains a business, the CSM will always be little more than an in-person forum meet.

To demand true identities to be revealed and scrutinized when they provide no useful benefit not only makes unreasonable demands on privacy, but inflates this board for the theater it is.

Edit: I posted this after seeing CCP Xhagen's explanation of liability. I'm no lawyer, but issues such as those I would think take complete precedence over anything else. If CCP needs player names in order to protect themselves from liability, then it's an unfortunate circumstance, but a necessary one given the conditions the company needs to operate under.

^ An incident that large, it would only be a matter of time, before The Mittani's name was found and released.

You would still end up with a situation with his name connected to cyber bullying. Whether he was allowed to stay anonymous in the CSM or not.

If anything anonymity would only help with smaller things. But if you did something large, your name could come out anyways.

A lot of players liked the Mittani as CSM chairman since he was large or would do big things. Which means, if they want that again this anonymous issue shouldn't matter too much, since most likely their name would come out anyhow.

14 years is a long time in the world computer game development. Do you think it was more relevant that you had been playing EVE for awhile and speaking from your knowledge on that, or pulling from memory something you knew about gaming from 14 years ago?

I think it depends what part of the gaming industry you're working in. I've found the gaming industry has different concerns than other industries do. At any rate: I fully endorse anonymity for CSM candidates, and no I can't run because it'd be a conflict of interest. :)

-Liang

All CCP has to do is what they're doing now. They're already keeping the identities of 300K accounts private. If they continue doing what they're doing, with regards to securing the information in our accounts, then any names that "get out" won't be because of CCP malfeasance. It'll be because the player let his identity be known, let slip some information somewhere, etc.

I think Xhagen's legal argument is a bit of a red herring.