These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Dev Blog: Alliance Panel at Fanfest 2012: The Conclusion

First post First post
Author
Sverige Pahis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#981 - 2012-03-29 16:56:40 UTC
If anyone took you seriously for the CSM this might actually have even been worth burning you over m8
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#982 - 2012-03-29 16:57:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
I want to make it clear noone actually cares about the "victim" here except for the person who personally apologized and gave them ISK (Mittani).

Also, the "victim's" former in game bio gave a link to a RL blog which made it easy to track this person down to his RL identity for anyone that cared. Thankfully, that person has removed that link at this time.

I think CCP's actions here are a bit incredulous and based on suppositions.

The persons letter does not say he wants to kill himself, it states that he wishes he would die, and that he had done so often in this game.

You have killed that panel's potential. No matter how much you want to say "it's ok", every Alliance leader now has to walk up on that stage with the weight of being banned from EVE because of a drunken mishap done in person on a private broadcast.

It's a **** precedent really.

Where I am.

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#983 - 2012-03-29 16:57:48 UTC
Sverige Pahis wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.


That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.



Bottom of the pile roleplayer tries to manipulate a barely controversial dramabomb to suit his horrible larping political agenda, news at 11


I like the way you come out with a personal attack rather than trying to debate the point. It does make rather easy to hold your comment up for ridicule.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Sverige Pahis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#984 - 2012-03-29 16:57:49 UTC
But yeah you go ahead and keep trying to threaten game developers hehe
Gideon Tyler
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#985 - 2012-03-29 16:58:06 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.


That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.



Agreed, and point of order, Mittani stated publicly his intent to resign, which is not the same as a resignation. I never saw a resignation as postulated under the conditions described by CCP.

Further, I realize CCP has decided to kick this can down the road to next year regarding the possible upcoming sequel The Return of The Mittani, but you guys should think long and hard about borrowing trouble of this kind, when it does not serve any legitimate business interest to do so.
D Derp
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#986 - 2012-03-29 17:00:39 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Sverige Pahis wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.


That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.



Bottom of the pile roleplayer tries to manipulate a barely controversial dramabomb to suit his horrible larping political agenda, news at 11


I like the way you come out with a personal attack rather than trying to debate the point. It does make rather easy to hold your comment up for ridicule.



You're a roleplayer.

In Space.

In a SpaceBrothel.
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#987 - 2012-03-29 17:01:15 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.


Q1, CCP forced the resignation of the CSM Chairman.
A1, As a part of the CSM bylaws, banned players are ineligible to sit on the CSM. This would have been an unfortunate side effect of CCP feeling that a temporary ban was the correct course of action in this case.
However, prior to any notification to this effect, The chairman of CSM6 resigned of his own volition as he had previously announced that he would do. Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.

We have had members resign from the CSM before. The process is pretty clear in these cases, the next person on the voting poll becomes active. This is the first time the chairman of the CSM has resigned so we are discussing with the CSM if we should make amendments to the process based on that.


Q2, There is an issue of 10,058 votes. What will CCP do about that?
A2, As in most democratic societies, if an elected member resigns the governance system is designed to handle that; for CSM6 the "next" person steps in (an alternate); for CSM7, where we had removed the concept of ‘alternate’ and increased the size of the CSM to 14, the council simply continues to function minus one. If players are not satisfied with that system they should contact the CSM and propose changes for CSM 7 to discuss formally. The CSM can bring this issue up directly with CCP and propose changes should such an event happen in the future.
It is clear from many communications from CSM6 and CSM7-elect members that they take the representation of these 10,058 voters very seriously and hopefully the remaining CSM representatives will act in the spirit of those who voted for the resigned member.

We should also keep in mind that every CSM member has the obligation to, at some level, represent all of EVE and its players, and that the voting system is anonymous.


Q3, Real life actions should not equate to in game sanctions. Why did this happen?
A3, After much deliberation on the subject, CCP considers the Alliance Panel to be an official CCP forum, as it is hosted by CCP and broadcast in a similarly visible fashion to the EVE Online forums. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the TOS. Furthermore, the panelist, present on the panel in order to represent his in-game identity, advocated using in-game actions to achieve a real world outcome. Specifically he suggested that if anyone wanted to make another player kill themselves in real life, they should go in game and harass them to achieve that consequence. The totality of the situation including the official forum in which it was held and statements of the panelist during the Q&A, have since lead to in-game sanctions. However, it is important to note that this incidence does not necessarily create precedence for any other "real life" actions or statements triggering a ban.


Q4, Wait, so you DID vet the presentations? Meaning it was perfectly fine for him to make fun of a suicidal player?
A4, Although the contents of the Alliance Panel presentations and discussion topics are reviewed by CCP prior to the event itself, the TOS-breaking incident took place during an unscripted Q&A session after the main presentation which was not mentioned in the submitted presentation. The submitted presentation slides (although distasteful) did not give the name of the player at any time, nor did they call for direct action against that player, and therefore passed muster. CCP have always allowed substantial leeway during the Alliance Panel and we look forward to ensuring that future events remain entertaining and engaging for the EVE community.


get



out
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#988 - 2012-03-29 17:02:46 UTC
Gideon Tyler wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.


That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.



Agreed, and point of order, Mittani stated publicly his intent to resign, which is not the same as a resignation. I never saw a resignation as postulated under the conditions described by CCP.

Further, I realize CCP has decided to kick this can down the road to next year regarding the possible upcoming sequel The Return of The Mittani, but you guys should think long and hard about borrowing trouble of this kind, when it does not serve any legitimate business interest to do so.


nobody says that Mittens has to run for CSM 8, or that he even intends to

we have plenty of other people capable of talking spaceships in iceland

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders
#989 - 2012-03-29 17:05:15 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.

Q3, Real life actions should not equate to in game sanctions. Why did this happen?
A3, After much deliberation on the subject, CCP considers the Alliance Panel to be an official CCP forum, as it is hosted by CCP and broadcast in a similarly visible fashion to the EVE Online forums. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the TOS. Furthermore, the panelist, present on the panel in order to represent his in-game identity, advocated using in-game actions to achieve a real world outcome. Specifically he suggested that if anyone wanted to make another player kill themselves in real life, they should go in game and harass them to achieve that consequence. The totality of the situation including the official forum in which it was held and statements of the panelist during the Q&A, have since lead to in-game sanctions. However, it is important to note that this incidence does not necessarily create precedence for any other "real life" actions or statements triggering a ban.



This is exactly how this situation should have been viewed. All other subsequent actions and reactions, flow from this one instance. Therefore the actions taken by CCP are right on the money. Everyone keep in mind that Mittens (or however his name is spelled), did come out after to apologize and step down. So really, this looks like a beginning, a middle and an end. He gets a chance to come back to the game and play within the game in the spirit of how the game goes (and if he is a complete jerk there, well that's Eve for you). Hopefully, we won't see anymore 'outside the game environment' comments like this from anyone.

The best thing to do is to let this one go. No one wins here, but with these actions, there are no real big loses. I mean, come on, this is only a game.

I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it.

EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#990 - 2012-03-29 17:07:28 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:

Q2, There is an issue of 10,058 votes. What will CCP do about that?
A2, As in most democratic societies, if an elected member resigns the governance system is designed to handle that; for CSM6 the "next" person steps in (an alternate); for CSM7, where we had removed the concept of ‘alternate’ and increased the size of the CSM to 14, the council simply continues to function minus one. If players are not satisfied with that system they should contact the CSM and propose changes for CSM 7 to discuss formally. The CSM can bring this issue up directly with CCP and propose changes should such an event happen in the future.
It is clear from many communications from CSM6 and CSM7-elect members that they take the representation of these 10,058 voters very seriously and hopefully the remaining CSM representatives will act in the spirit of those who voted for the resigned member.


Deal with it now. You removed our candidate, not the CSM. You disenfranchised us, and as a result you're going to fix it for us.
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#991 - 2012-03-29 17:10:44 UTC
Taihbea wrote:
Megalift wrote:
We all can see who has the power here. 10,000 player votes vs CSM vs CCP. Today is the beginning of the end for Eve.


*snip* That was uncalled for. Spitfire

Dude. Goons can quit and war for their region will fuel up eve to some nasty temps.
Nobody gives a **** about a bunch of whiney noobs Big smile
If they leave it's going to be awesome. Big null space to fill!


Hmm looking at your employment history it seems you started this toon about 30 days before the election was over. This do make we wonder who actually it was voting with 8000+ accounts that was around 30 days old...

Skill yourself!

Major Spag
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#992 - 2012-03-29 17:11:07 UTC
By this time next year, I am certain people are going to be so apathetic over the game 10,000 votes will seem like a good turn out!

Looking forward to Second Life: Eve and $1000 digital pants that everyone wants.
Pyrus Octavius
Flat Earth Believers
#993 - 2012-03-29 17:12:21 UTC
Pyx Jasta wrote:
Pyrus Octavius wrote:
[
You mean 10k character votes right? Because the way I understand this works, that each account has 3 character slots, so technically 1 person, can vote 3 times. So in reality, 10k individual people are not disenfranchised.


You understand wrong. You can only vote once per account. Of course many people have multiple accounts, so that 10k number is probably representative of fewer than 10k individual people.



Got it, thanks for that explanation.
Sir Marksalot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#994 - 2012-03-29 17:13:12 UTC
Kosh Seere wrote:
Taihbea wrote:
Megalift wrote:
We all can see who has the power here. 10,000 player votes vs CSM vs CCP. Today is the beginning of the end for Eve.


*snip* That was uncalled for. Spitfire

Dude. Goons can quit and war for their region will fuel up eve to some nasty temps.
Nobody gives a **** about a bunch of whiney noobs Big smile
If they leave it's going to be awesome. Big null space to fill!


Hmm looking at your employment history it seems you started this toon about 30 days before the election was over. This do make we wonder who actually it was voting with 8000+ accounts that was around 30 days old...


Yep, you solved the mystery. At $15 per account, The Mittani bought 8000 accounts.


My god you should be a detective or something!
jugornaut
Perkone
Caldari State
#995 - 2012-03-29 17:17:52 UTC
lol the thing everyone fails to see is that mittens stepped down to start - the fact that ccp removed him after the fact is just pomp and circumstance...

10k voters with unheard voices should be shouting at mittens asking why the hell did he step down to begin with - instead you blame ccp for his drunken banter (which btw csm should be held to a higher standard)

besides 10k votes - after goons admitted to fraud to get those votes - gg noobs
Brae Haen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#996 - 2012-03-29 17:20:10 UTC
Ive got a question which was not covered by the post. This might sound a little out there but wouldn't a player who is threatening to committ suicide due to in game actions also be considered a violation of the EULA/TOS? It is a threat, it is harassment and a case could be made that it is cyberbullying.

I'm not trolling, or trying to attack the offended player. I'm not a mindless Goon trying to start more drama. But I am interested on what CCP's stance on this is.
Alua Oresson
The Gold Angels
Sixth Empire
#997 - 2012-03-29 17:20:32 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.


That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.



Actually, from the way I understand it, your account has to have not received any warnings for the past year. Therefore, it isn't a legal loophole, it is how it is set up. I remember hearing about that from Spectre from Eve Newb got told he couldn't run for CSM 4 because he had a warning on his account, but he was free to run next year.

http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/

Sir Marksalot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#998 - 2012-03-29 17:20:33 UTC
jugornaut wrote:
lol the thing everyone fails to see is that mittens stepped down to start - the fact that ccp removed him after the fact is just pomp and circumstance...

10k voters with unheard voices should be shouting at mittens asking why the hell did he step down to begin with - instead you blame ccp for his drunken banter (which btw csm should be held to a higher standard)

besides 10k votes - after goons admitted to fraud to get those votes - gg noobs


Yeah, like I said, mittens totally bought 8000 accounts. At $15 each.



:tinfoil:snype
Vashan Tar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#999 - 2012-03-29 17:21:49 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.


Hah, like Mrs Mittens will let him....
Devo Ch
Hero Squad Spaceraiding and Questing Cooperative
#1000 - 2012-03-29 17:22:47 UTC
the good news is now the CSM can go back to doing absolutely nothing, and CCP can go back to selling $80 pants