These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shepard Book
Underground Stargate
#1181 - 2012-03-31 00:02:13 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.



So you change the wardec system to make it harder to escape from a wardec (which I like) but you make it easy for him to escape from removal from CSM and the chance of applying later... I wonder how many actually believe he was not warned to step down before the Ban. He waited quite sometime to step down from Chair and then CSM after he said he would. I am pretty sure everyone knows he was trying to stay in the CSM to begin with. Funny how he all of a sudden leaves CSM and is then banned. Who you trying to kid?
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#1182 - 2012-03-31 00:36:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Proclus Diadochu
ISD Eshtir locked a thread without any proper provocation and held no justification for the LOCK. CCP, UNLOCK my thread, as a paying customer of Eve Online, and as long as my thread does not violate the EULA/TOS, then my thread does not deserve to be locked. I will repost here, as directed, and still expect my former thread to be unlocked. Also, stop allowing scrubs to lock threads without provocation simply because you consider it "damage control" CCP!

Quote:
TL;DR - CCP violated their own policies to punish a player for apparently violating their own policies.

Before you lock this thread, CCP, you did say in your DEVBLOG that this was a 'special case', even making your own thread about The Mittani's ban. So I do not believe I am violating any policies regarding posting on the subject of "individual bans". I do believe, however, that this "special case" does bring to the surface a number of questions. (Also side note: You may ask why this is in CAOD, CCP, well it's because you just banned arguably the most influential leader in the game. He is referred to as the 'king of space' and this ban may or may not have repercussions in game. Probably won't but gives this enough reason to put it in here. Could just post it on SA, Reddit, K***, send it to Riverini for EN24, and some other gaming magazines to raise more questions, but lets see how it is received here first and give CCP a chance.)

What made this a "special case", CCP? Was it the fact that an alliance leader made an off-color remark during a panel at fanfest or the fact that it was posted by one of your employees on the internet causing a media frenzy? Regarding the off-color remark made by the player. A) It was not made within the realm of the EVE Online universe, B) This one is more a question: Did you make Mittens or any of the other members of the panel sign a waiver stating that what they said out of game could have in game consequences? Doubt it, and C) Jäger was involved. Mittens sincerely apologized to the player, the community, the media, and even stepped down as CSM chair. Subjectively speaking, I do not believe that the step down was even necessary, as everyone makes mistakes, and honestly that comment held no real sway outside of the ridiculousness that was created by the gaming community and a couple of less popular CSM members who's questionable moral fiber should be reviewed by CCP as well if this is the direction of your company.

Now the "special case". What you did here, CCP, is create what we like to call in the educated world a "double standard". There have been numerous occasions that you have told my friends, players, and myself that you could not discuss bans of individual members, yet you publish this one in a DEVBLOG and create a thread to further embarrass a player for an out of game action. You violated your own policy to punish a player for violating a policy. You see what you did there?

However, since we are in the mood for breaking rules, let’s discuss something else. What did CCP do to punish the DEVS that were in the room during the panel? The ones that thanked everyone, laughed and enjoyed the festivities as opposed to reprimanding Mittani and browbeating him on the spot when the "violation" occurred. What about the CCP member that published the video on the web for the mass media to eat up and stir more drama? You violate policies to punish and embarrass players, now please account for what other measures you have done to clean your precious corporate name?

Personally, I believe after the hoops that CCP, the community at large, the media, and I am sure himself made The Mittani jump through, and the step down from CSM Chair, he has been punished enough. You guys seem to forget that The Mittani did lead the most successful CSM to date, helping your company quite a bit. I believe you should either reinstate his account and apologize for further embarrassing the player and apologize to the community for violating your own rules, or continue to make poor decisions and see this start another issue. Who is going to care about what the gaming media thinks of EVE Online if no one is there to play the game, CCP?

I would like to know, along with at least 10,058 other players. Thanks...

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe
Demon Azrakel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1183 - 2012-03-31 02:17:34 UTC
Seriously, most of the player base had no issue with the event setup itself or the comments made. We were rather happy about the setup, and some of the presentations were rather good, including the controversial presentation in question.

Remember who you are supposed to keep happy?

Sony?

The Gaming Media?

Soccer Moms?

no...

Think Incarna?

Who was unhappy?

What happened when those people were unhappy?

Is that what you want CCP?

Did you learn your lesson?

(apparently not)
Zulran Hans
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1184 - 2012-03-31 04:34:31 UTC
While it is important for CCP to think about the 10,000 voters,
they also have to consider how this will affect the long-term image of EVE Online,
as well as the hundreds of thousands other subscribers.

That’s why I think CCP had to take this extremely seriously.

Most presentations in the FanFest represented the developer,
and the Alliance Panel was meant to represent us, the player community.
There we had among the best “athletes” who are very good in the game to share with the public why EVE is enjoyable.

Of course, they also indirectly gave an impression on how the best EVE gamers are like outside the virtual universe.


His sincere public apology shows me that Alex is a respectable guy,
and undoubtedly one of the great players we have in EVE.
The Mittani is a character that will be remembered for a very long time.

I don’t know whether CCP has made the right call. But they have made it.
Let’s stop exchanging angers towards other players and the developers.

Let’s instead learn from this mistake, and suggest things that will make the Alliance Panel better next time.

This is a wake-up call for all of us.
With the average player’s age of 27-28 years old, we are quite a mature gaming community.
Let's show that, as EVE players, while we are fun, we are also a respectable group of people.



Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#1185 - 2012-03-31 07:56:11 UTC
Demon Azrakel wrote:
Seriously, most of the player base had no issue with the event setup itself or the comments made. We were rather happy about the setup, and some of the presentations were rather good, including the controversial presentation in question.

I don't doubt it that from where you are, it looks like that "most of the player base" had no issue; from where I am, however, it seems that most of it did.
Break Stuff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1186 - 2012-03-31 08:20:10 UTC
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:
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


emptyquoting this
MoyO zOlotse
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1187 - 2012-03-31 09:04:00 UTC
Mashie Saldana wrote:
The funny thing is, CCP didnt force Mittens to resign and invalidate the votes.

He did that himself.


10/10

Couldnt and shouldnt have happened to a nicer goon.

Don't CSM what you can't afford to loser.

Josef Djugashvilis
#1188 - 2012-03-31 09:25:35 UTC
Kosh Seere wrote:
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!"



Missing a 'C'

CCCP

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

A Soviet being roughly the same as an English local council.

This is not a signature.
Ibn Taymiyyah
eM' Roid Extraction Services
#1189 - 2012-03-31 11:16:02 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
Ibn:

I have never said, and neither has CCP said, that you cannot blow up my ship if I threaten with suicide (which I won't do, but as a hypothetical ;)). For the hundreth time, Mittani was not punished for blowing the guy up; he was punished for what was said about it. This is not black and white. We can at the same time accept blowing people's ships up no matter what they say to you to plead or threaten you to stop, think threatening with a suicide in a game is a crap thing to do, and think that pointing and laughing at people who are OOCly upset is also a crap thing to do. If you cannot handle that many different aspects of thinking at the same time, maybe you should not be playing EVE. It is such complex game, it might be too much for you.


TL;DR; if you want to skip the life value vs morality bullshit, skip to the end! ;)

I play EVE because there's no clear moral standings within the EULA/TOS. You can define what you feel is the right path, hence, the sandbox nature, where the "god" (read GM/DEV) does not interfere with what's happening in the game world.

Keeping that in mind, I apply my RL mindset, in which life, as a concept, is simple and only holds any true value if you're related or otherwise connected to it. It's the only way to really be sane and live in a society where everyone does not give a **** about if you're starving to death or not.

So, if a friend of mine dies, I will be touched by it, grief and miss that person. My expectation is that everyone that didn't know the person won't give a **** and I'd be offended if someone who barely knew that person would come up to me and say "I'm really sorry!". Why are you sorry? Did you know him? Did you help him? You didn't care for his whole life, why care now? So I prefer honest people who say, sorry for your grief, but it means nothing to me, as it's the only truth!

In this case, I could not care any less if 1, 10 or 1000 people commit suicide, either because life sucks in RL or because they lost space pixels. I don't know you, your life has no value to me. Makes no goddamn sense to be putting value in something that EVERYONE just ignores on a daily basis, but when confronted with someone who calls it at is actually is, they get on that high horse and claim having some other set of values.


You claim I shouldn't be playing EVE as I can't grasp everything it implies, regarding concepts of mortality? From what you write I mostly understand you have a lot to go through in real life and a lot to understand about "life". You're not precious, you're not special, you're not enlightened... just as 99,999% of other humans aren't. You, me and mostly everyone else, are just here to keep the species going.

Think about the true meaning for life as a whole and then look at one individual that is claiming to take his life due to losing crap in a game. If you think about that, being honest with yourself and ignoring social boundaries and perceptions imposed by your education, you'll see that he's nothing to you. He's irrelevant. He is and will be relevant to those who know him, his family, his friends but to you, he might as well be a ant or a fly. You wont care.


And all this is taking us away from the real point. EVE is part of real life, in it's own context, and thus you cannot separate them. In fact, it was the suicide player that broke that frontier and opened that door to exploit. He's being playing a game as it's designed to be played and then, when losing, puts in a RL aspect to try to get an advantage in game. That RL aspect is now IN GAME because he put it in as a variable.


This ban was wrong!

And I do love that if I'm botting, I get a 7 day ban, but if I tell a crying miner to die in a fire after he tells me he's commiting suicide, due to a lost pixel, I get a 30 day ban! :)

The moral standards on CCP seem to be growing ... either that or a chick made this decision! (all emotional and crap :P)
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1190 - 2012-03-31 13:02:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
The argument CCP makes here is that if you signed a contract with the company about using a game and website allows them to enforce such rules without explicitly mention it, to anything that is simmilar including a RL event.

That is just begging for getting into trouble with customer protection agencies in the european union for extending contracts clearly far beyond their intended reach. I am not sure they got properly advised about the legal fallout that can create.

(FYI, EuGVVO)
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
#1191 - 2012-03-31 13:04:00 UTC
The ban is well justified and CCP is within their right to ban him.

....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1192 - 2012-03-31 13:08:03 UTC
Deviana Sevidon wrote:
The ban is well justified and CCP is within their right to ban him.


Because the RL event had a TOS to sign? Or why is that?
ASuperVillain
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1193 - 2012-03-31 13:19:52 UTC
Dear Enemies, please mark the time and date the high water mark has been stained into being. Evidently there is a limit to the "hardcore" no-limit nature of EvE. So be careful what you say and do. EULA/TOS can bite you in the ass, when they feel like it...

Now much like the fact there are warning labels on vending machines, "do not tip may crush you to death." Will EvE be packaged with a "don't play if depressed people may grief you to death?" or how about "trust no-one you don't have a physical address for and have met at LEAST once."

Since it comes with "scam all you want we'll make more noobs"

But, no one has actually killed themselves... yet. More the pity that, since most characters are horrible things

So now the spectre of EULA/TOS hangs over us all... And if you read it, and a funny read it is. It just becomes when will CCP snatch their ball away from us/me/you and go home?

In the words of Hunter S. Thompson;

And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave.…

So now, less than (nine) years later, you can go up on a steep hill in (Iceland) and look (around), and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

-ASV
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
#1194 - 2012-03-31 13:51:26 UTC
ASuperVillain wrote:
Now much like the fact there are warning labels on vending machines, "do not tip may crush you to death." Will EvE be packaged with a "don't play if depressed people may grief you to death?" or how about "trust no-one you don't have a physical address for and have met at LEAST once."


Current EULA actually reads:

"You may encounter and converse with people who are rude, offensive, belligerent, and who may use indecent, obscene, and/or threatening or harassing language while playing the Game. You may report any instances of such behavior to CCP. CCP will investigate and take such measures as CCP, in its sole judgment, determines are reasonable under the circumstances. CCP does not guarantee that you will not encounter behavior of others that you may view as insulting, demeaning, offensive, threatening or harassing. You assume all risk associated with playing the Game, and CCP assumes no responsibility for the conduct of any other players, and shall not be liable to you or any other person for their conduct. "
Terra Mikael
GriefStyle
#1195 - 2012-03-31 13:55:25 UTC
Really don't see why stepping down was necessary - not like The Wis voted for him. I'm sure there is some loser miner like him on the CSM that he could cry to.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1196 - 2012-03-31 14:11:39 UTC
Elsebeth Rhiannon wrote:
ASuperVillain wrote:
Now much like the fact there are warning labels on vending machines, "do not tip may crush you to death." Will EvE be packaged with a "don't play if depressed people may grief you to death?" or how about "trust no-one you don't have a physical address for and have met at LEAST once."


Current EULA actually reads:

"You may encounter and converse with people who are rude, offensive, belligerent, and who may use indecent, obscene, and/or threatening or harassing language while playing the Game. You may report any instances of such behavior to CCP. CCP will investigate and take such measures as CCP, in its sole judgment, determines are reasonable under the circumstances. CCP does not guarantee that you will not encounter behavior of others that you may view as insulting, demeaning, offensive, threatening or harassing. You assume all risk associated with playing the Game, and CCP assumes no responsibility for the conduct of any other players, and shall not be liable to you or any other person for their conduct. "


But as we learned these days, what they write in their Eula/Tos and what they do are two different things.
Serene Repose
#1197 - 2012-03-31 17:32:13 UTC
I was referred here by CCP Navigator, ironically. (Something about reduncency, go figure.) I wondered where this thread was hiding!

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Serene Repose
#1198 - 2012-03-31 17:51:06 UTC
CCP Xhagen wrote:
...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....

I found this particularly poignant. I find it hard to believe Mitt knew this. If I asked was he counseled by "someone" on this point, would I get an...nevermind. I know the answer to that already.

CCP Xhagen wrote:
"...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....We should also keep in mind that every CSM member has the obligation to, at some level, represent all of EVE and its players..."

Which leads to this. No one of the person in question's ilk represents me on any level any place. I'm apalled CCP (you) doesn't have any better sense than to disqualify this person permanently having ably demonstrated his qualities as a "person."

CCP Xhagen wrote:
"...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 guess one must go to the frozen north and drink a few gallons of beer to get CCP's idea of "entertaining and engaging."

This amounts to repainting the office and moving the furniture around to solve a management problem. Let's hope it doesn't equate to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Galison
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1199 - 2012-03-31 18:32:19 UTC
Dear people that see nothing wrong with what he said. YOU are SICK in the head. ***** and moan all you want what he did is morally reprehensible yes its eve and people poop in each others sandbox all the time but honestly giving the name out of someone that maybe suicidal and actively encouraging people to harass him till he follows through with doing it shows you need to get a grip on reality. I hope some of you idiots do try to harass the guy so CCP who said their monitoring the situation with him see it and ban you as well. There is a line between game and real life some of you need to stop playing and get an understanding of that fact and grow up.

Signed the noobs will some will write off because he is a noob corp,
Galison
Gingerlord
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1200 - 2012-03-31 18:37:24 UTC
Galison wrote:
Dear people that see nothing wrong with what he said. YOU are SICK in the head. ***** and moan all you want what he did is morally reprehensible yes its eve and people poop in each others sandbox all the time but honestly giving the name out of someone that maybe suicidal and actively encouraging people to harass him till he follows through with doing it shows you need to get a grip on reality. I hope some of you idiots do try to harass the guy so CCP who said their monitoring the situation with him see it and ban you as well. There is a line between game and real life some of you need to stop playing and get an understanding of that fact and grow up.

Signed the noobs will some will write off because he is a noob corp,
Galison


What Galison said. Totally uncalled for.