EVE Information Portal

10k votes screwed over by CCP. You had an absolute crap voting system so that many votes were wasted and now 10k just went out the window.

Just shut down the CSM CCP. You don't seem to care about the voters anyway.

still screwed over by the guy you voted for - maybe as a person in a higher position he should learn to watch his mouth instead of sticking his foot in it like most goons?

people in a position like this should be held to a higher standard - guess you loose

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.

As a first time attendee at FanFest the Alliance Panel just reinforced my views of Goonswarm and their leader in particular

The Q&A section basically shows what binge drinking can do to your life. RUIN IT!!!

The apology & CCP's actions I feel are enough

The fact that fans and CCP can go drinking together and have a party at the end. Has no bearing on this as they are both 'unofficial' when it comes to what is said or done. Unless they burn down a bar or kill someone

The Alliance Panel though, being an officially sanctioned by CCP and 'monitored' as in CCP vet the presentations. Is covered by the EULA. So when someone does break the EULA by their own stupidity CCP needs to act.

Unfortunately the real damage done here to CCP is due to the whole thing being broadcast

The fact that this panel was transmitted live to anyone on the planet. In HD for CCP subscribers who paid and normal for anyone else, CCP subscriber or 'NOT' highlights CCP's naivety about live broadcasts. Live broadcasts should always be run with a time delay to allow for offending or illegal actions to be removed or 'bleeped'

Even the BBC uses it on the satirical political panel show 'Have I got News for You'

As for CSM I feel a re-run of the election is required and if 'Goonswarm' wishes to put forward a new candidate they should be allowed too. As stupidity the of one should never get in the way of representation of the many!