These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Blawrf McTaggart
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1001 - 2012-03-29 17:25:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Blawrf McTaggart
For although some people think that CCP have handled this wrong, let us look at the whole story.
Old timers and new timers alike know of The Mittani as a great voice of reason and balancing force in the EVE world.
Now you seek to silence him?

Rather, I would suggest that you look not at The Mittani for this debacle, but at yourselves.
Even the gaming media agree.
Voracious appetites for drama may some goons have, but we are human beings, CCP, just like yourselves.
Even goons want their votes to mean something.
Do you really seek to disenfranchise over ten thousand people?
Hah, the last person to do that was Vladimir Putin!
Ordinary people play your game. Perhaps it is the aim of CCP to become like despotic rulers of old - like EA and Sony - and crush dissent?
Really, that would be a shame.
Truly, we do love EVE, but we're scared you're ruining it :(

(is a neo-nazi)
Crias Taylor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1002 - 2012-03-29 17:30:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Crias Taylor
Come on guys, are you trying to suggest that one of CCP's largest backers at one time is the son of a convicted German nazi or something and this somehow has allowed them to tolerate a Nazi on the CSM. CCP has higher standards than that.

Stop being so :tinfoil:
Bocephus Morgen
The Suicide Kings
Dreadbomb.
#1003 - 2012-03-29 17:30:48 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.





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.





Frankly that's bullshit, there should be a re-vote and any half-way competent person knows this.
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#1004 - 2012-03-29 17:32:54 UTC
*rabble rabble rabble* *whine whine whine*
Mittani stepped down himself after he encouraged people to try to make someone commit suicide and all you guys are whining about some meager temp ban?
There was a time when Goons were someone I loved to hate, they were the perfect villains and in their own way good for EVE for adding that unique flavor to it. Now you guys just disgust me. Not because of what Mittani said as he since apologized for that, but for the reaction you all showed.
You think by swarming the forums and rabbling about your tears with your alts and friends you're going to fool anyone?
Mittani threw 10,000+ votes out of the window, not CCP and frankly it doesn't matter who did. When an elected official fucks up he's out regardless if he got 10,000 or 10 million votes.

It has become obvious that none of you ever cared about this game, only about it being fun and beneficial to your own player base.
I for one stand by and support MITTANIS DECISION TO STEP DOWN and I also support the 30day ban CCP imposed on his account as it seemed necessary to avoid the media ruckus that his actions caused.
Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1005 - 2012-03-29 17:33:28 UTC
Hecatonis wrote:
Andski wrote:
Hecatonis wrote:
even i sat through his address to the goons,

he left the CSM by his own choice, you people need to lay off the koolaid


He hasn't confirmed that, FYI



um, yes he did, listen again my dear goon.

I think you should listen to it again. Apparently you're a bad judge of character.

Skill yourself!
Aselus
Crimson Right
#1006 - 2012-03-29 17:34:04 UTC
+CCP Games Rant, on the weakness of a company to certain social 'inadequacies'


the first weakness of CCP(and a good number of real people) is shown... for all those who listened to the mitani during the live-stream or read about it, it's an interesting case, but not one that warrants the response that has actually taken place in my honest opinion. Real life statements should not in any way effect the game as a whole, this response:
"""
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.
""""
does not sit well with me at all. Statement of precedence or not, there is an inherent weakness in a company that I have supported based on its social policy(the gamers make their own rules) for a long time. But it should be clearly stated that this action/response puts CCP in a DRAMATICALLY bad light in my eyes, not the actions of Alex themselves, as those where statements made in a drunken stupor, which where followed by the correct response from him (a public apology - and even if there was anything more to BE done it would need to be done on behalf of the targeted party, NOT CPP, and in a real life venue[i.e.:court]), but the fact that CPP did anything at all takes them down from a paragon of progress in the games social space back into "he said he hates me please ban him" or WoW. This should not be in any way the current state of affairs in relations, as an action is being taken under unprecedented statements in the EULA/TOS, it is impossible to hide behind a document that DOES NOT COVER THE ALLIANCE PANEL/FANFEST IN ANY MANNER OR SORT, i read over it just to make sure, no such clauses are present.
Dregol
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1007 - 2012-03-29 17:36:45 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:

Words


So you're acknowledging that it's a CCP sanctioned event. Fine

You're serving alcohol/allowing the consumption of alcohol/permitting players to be inebriated when they show up. And this somehow excludes you from culpability for what happened at the event?


If I gave, say, a deranged person a gun, ammunition and a clip, and bad things happened (to themselves, or perhaps others), would I not be in someway responsible for bad things happening?

Putting alcohol + crowds + socially awkward neckbeards in a room together seems like a formula for great success. It's awfully convenient for CCP to ban Mittens, kick him off the CSM, and brand themselves as the defenders of the innocent. EVE is a harsh place. Always has been. Did Mittens cross a line? Yes. But to pretend you had no role in allowing it to happen is a huge :headinsand: moment. Terrible decision is still terrible CCP, and washing your hands of any liability is a sham. Next year's FF is going to be zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz because of shortsighted decisions.

Oh well, angry swarm, best swarm. Enjoy Jita while you can.
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1008 - 2012-03-29 17:39:41 UTC
Empathic Psychopath wrote:
Koby Botick wrote:
1/6 th of all votes disregarded. Is CCP back a russian sounding abbreviation again? I hear they like to manipulate votes in plain sight there too.



Wasn't it goons that were praising CCP not that long ago when a nerf to tians was announced? My how the mighty have fallen :)

"Oooooh look at me, I can use fancy words I saw in a movie once!"

Skill yourself!
Daviclond
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1009 - 2012-03-29 17:40:51 UTC
the trolling when Dust flops is going to be glorious
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#1010 - 2012-03-29 17:40:56 UTC

This is the astute article i've been waiting for.


Thank you.

http://www.evenews24.com/2012/03/29/easley-thames-the-king-of-scapegoats/

Where I am.
Machine Delta
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1011 - 2012-03-29 17:41:58 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.


When do you resign for badgering "context" into killing itself?



Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
#1012 - 2012-03-29 17:43:51 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.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. /farnsworthoff

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1013 - 2012-03-29 17:44:52 UTC
Aineko Macx wrote:
Etil DeLaFuente wrote:
10,058 tears, he's indeed the best vilain in eve Big smile

I approve Twisted

Quick goonies, go "burn jita to the ground".

Quick npc alt, go post on your main.

Skill yourself!
Snot Shot
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1014 - 2012-03-29 17:46:41 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

+1

Could not have been planned better at any BoB BBQ......."Get all Goons votes into one player and then have the player resign from the CSM."...........Lol

Twitter = @Snot_Shot  - “If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

evesnotshot.blogspot.com
Kosh Seere
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1015 - 2012-03-29 17:47:46 UTC
Ordais wrote:
Goon tears....so many goon tears....*nomnomnom*

As for the 10.000 voters....its not CCPs fault that you candidate shot himself in the foot and can't represent you anymore. Take it up with him.

Well, i do agree with the desicion, but it will hurt the game in many ways wich makes me even MORE angry at Mittens...you just couldn't pull yourself together. All this talk about "beeing a politician" and "understanding how this works"....and then you do something STUPID like this. Well done....not.

This is where your logic fails, by allowing him, after going through the slides, they are at least accessory to it, hence part guilty.

Skill yourself!
Entombment
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1016 - 2012-03-29 17:56:08 UTC
The problem with this entire thread. is the people saying "oh CCP is doing the right thing" are all just pubbies who hate goonswarm. CCP infact went through this the wrong way. We now have 10,000 angry coalition members, and we can't wardec CCP, (we can but we can't shoot them) but we can indeed wardec the "victim".
Blawrf McTaggart
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1017 - 2012-03-29 17:56:55 UTC
nope, not at all
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1018 - 2012-03-29 17:57:41 UTC
~10058~
Deeavlo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1019 - 2012-03-29 17:57:49 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.



Jesus, why don't you just tell Mittens to kill himself already?
Glasi Vookto
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1020 - 2012-03-29 17:58:38 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.



+ I'm glad to see that there will be NO perma ban on Mittens trying for future CSM's. Granted im sure his efforts for the csm have been highly over rated, but its undeniable that he has had an impact due to the successful outcomes of this past 12 months.

+ It's understandable that you dont want to hold a re election, but perhaps you could open it up so the eve mass's could vote for who they want as the chairman, and not leave it to the current csm to nominate there own. This would give us ALL the opportunity to make up for our votes no matter who they went to. (no i didnt vote for mittens, but i almost did)

+ Although i have not viewed the footage of the event, im curious how an ingame message could be blown to these proportions. Eve is a game with scams and in character abuse happening pretty much on an hourly basis. The only difference i see here is the influenece of booze and a live webfeed. For this i blame ccp as the suspect q&a session should have been done at a time when little alchohol had been consumed. On top of this, ALL feeds should have been vetted, to this effect i find no excuse in allowing a live feed.

+ The in game mail was the precursor to all the following actions, so as such, has the initial posted (victim) had any bans or restrictions placed on them? As i understand it, they started the rl references to commiting suicide, and who is to say they weren't simply refering to poding themself, and this whole thing has been blown well out of proportion?
I also read somewher that mittani gave this so called victim 1.8billion in isk as a way towards an apology? I sincerely hope this has been removed from said victims account in light of ccp's actions in regards to banning a player.

DEAD JESTERS corp is recruiting PVP minded players for lowsec fun: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=295995&find=unread

The Harlequins alliance is recruiting PVP minded corporations: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=310158&find=unread