Jita Park Speakers Corner

Alright research done with. Found some cool guidelines I thought could stir up some good debate.

Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act

The Test For Unpaid Interns
There are some circumstances under which individuals who participate in “for-profit” private sector internships or training programs may do so without compensation. The Supreme Court has held that the term "suffer or permit to work" cannot be interpreted so as to make a person whose work serves only his or her own interest an employee of another who provides aid or instruction. This may apply to interns who receive training for their own educational benefit if the training meets certain criteria. The determination of whether an internship or training program meets this exclusion depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each such program.

The following six criteria must be applied when making this determination:

1.The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;

2.The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;

3.The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;

4.The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;

5.The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and

6.The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.


If all of the factors listed above are met, an employment relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the Act’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the intern. This exclusion from the definition of employment is necessarily quite narrow because the FLSA’s definition of “employ” is very broad. Some of the most commonly discussed factors for “for-profit” private sector internship programs are considered below.

Site info taken from, also has more discussion on points

As for some info on the paid consultant side, its mostly trolls CCP since, they are a company and likes revenues I imagine.

While companies have many legitimate reasons for hiring consultants instead of employees (or vice versa), you might not be aware of one reason organizations might avoid signing on IT consultants: the potential tax liability. ( Obvious troll)

In most industries, provisions exist to prevent this kind of catastrophe. So-called “safe harbor” rules seek to insure that as long as your client engaged you as an independent in good faith (and not just to avoid employee status), then they cannot be held liable. ( With how nice CCP is and usually the CSM, I imagine they mostly rely on the good faith part, so nothing is illegal really)

(But why I bring it up. DISCLAIMER: It is american law, and not everyone is american, but I thought it had a stern warning to it anyhow.)

Congress in 1986 repealed the safe harbor provisions for providers of high-tech services (and only high-tech services). The IRS can punish offenders without warning, whether or not they were previously aware of their non-compliance. Thus, many companies would rather stick with employees to eliminate that risk. (It just seemed this is booby traped, why I bring it up.)

Site info was taken from, also gives pointers on how to tell if someone is an employee or not.

I usually found debates whether CSM should do more vs. them being unpaid interns a good one. I also hope that once what is expected of them, or their place in things is understood better, perhaps more safety measure can be taken as well.

That is a trick question actually.

I just liked the points those articles brought up. Thought they were smart and to the point. If the legal smeagle is too much, go ahead and ignore and I could even delete much of that jargon anyhow.

Why its relevant to an icelandic company is kind of subtle. Usually the good ol' US really enjoys companies and like to give them tax breaks and corporate loop holes. So this is people who like companies the most trying to give them advice. Usually it seems, europe hates the good ol' hardworking just trying to help the normal folk out companies and mass corporations. Since Iceland is more european they probably SHOULD read european law, since they will be the hardest on their poor and innocent company.

Also another subtle thing, would since the nasty americans support companies and the benign europeans hate companies. CCP could learn why the americans support companies and try to argue with their fellow european countrymen some good points they learned and see where compromise is reachable.

All I am saying, is they picked the worse place to ignore the law at, hopefully they don't forget maps soon, otherwise another Frankenstein novel could be written soon.

Once again, there's a BIG difference between making the RL identities very visible part of the process (as they are now), and the representatives accepting that as part of being in the CSM you are in a public position with everything that comes from it.

For example -- the AT Tournament Commentators did not run on a platform of their RL credentials. Yet, we all accepted our RL identities were out there after the tournament. We signed our NDAs, we faxed over our passports and we did all the legal things I suspect CSM is subject to.

One might argue that CSM members get more exposed to sensitive information, but I fail to see how the NDA you sign in private with CCP is any different from an NDA you sign when your name is on a public web site, unless of course the consequences talked about are less to do with the EVE public and more to do with letting the rest of the gaming industry know you are untrustworthy individual who's professional conduct is in question. In which case CCP should just come out and say this, as it's probably something I could get behind.

As a lawyer I'm going to have to call BS on this claim I'm afraid Xhagen. I don't know who has given you legal advice but this is just wrong in so many ways.

You are presenting this as a dichotomy ("publish details" vs "must protect confidentiality or be liable"), but it is a false one. There is no implication of a right to privacy just because you choose not to publicly publish the identity of a CSM - and to the extent you are worried it gets caught by more general "in confidence" laws just contract out of it. Every CSM already signs an NDA (which no doubt explicitly gives CCP the right to use that person's name). Just flip that clause ("CCP will not publish or otherwise deliberately publicise the identity of the CSM member, however CCP shall not be liable for any loss in this regard. The CSM member shall have no expectation that their identity shall remain confidential"). Boom, no liability, or at least, no more that CCP currently has.

An "implicit" promise of this kind (which in my fairly expert opinion is not even constituted) does not override an explicit contractual statement to the contrary.

The legal arguement is a subterfuge - you actually just want to publicise people's names as a form of control to prevent more extreme behaviour, and for publicity. This isn't entirely unreasonable, but lets please call a spade a spade and not pretend some woo-woo legal risk is the cause here.

I'm no lawyer but a liability lawsuit of this nature could have dire consequences for CCP as a company and subsequently EVE (now I'm travelling down a slippery slope, but the consequences MUST be kept in mind).

- CCP Xhagen

Its actually kind of funny. CCP Xhagen never says he cares about the CSM or the individuals involved or is worried about their safety. Its only CCP as a company that he is worried about or shows care for. I suppose we could surmise from his statement that anything can happen to the CSM and they wouldn't care much, it would only be serious if a lawsuit or injunction against CCP the company happened. Or if EVE was damaged, their way of making money.

To his credit though, he did say the police or at least some countries might care about what happens to them, but otherwise its just the same cold universe we all signed up for.

I am sure if CCP put the actual effort into it they could come up with a solution to a problem whose only roadblock is "because that's the way its always been" mantra. I mean if you are talking about liability for protecting names why not just sign a liability waiver in exchange for the anonymity. I can see first names slipping on occasion, but no one can really do anything with a first name so this liability argument is a little tough for me to swallow. Also how likely is it that CCP is going to drop someones full name in passing for example:

CCP Xhagen: "So me and Joey Jo-Jo Jr. Shabadu did keg stands at fanfest."

I know one talks that way and CCP Xhagen would never use improper grammar, instead it would probably come out like this:

CCP Xhagen: "During Fanfest Joey and I performed keg stands, it was a capital idea."

Bumping this till CCP takes this seriously.

Sorry Amazon hasn't shipped my new sarcasism detector yet you'll need to be a little more pronounced with it till it shows up.

These forums really need a "I meant exactly what I said" smiley.

I'm keen to see if CCP has anything else to say now I've called out their legal argument.