Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 01:48:00 -
[1]
The first issues meeting of CSM4,Sunday December 20th at 18:00 eve time
Issue submission deadline will be Friday December 18th 18:00 eve time (CSM Delegates must reply to this thread listing the ISSUE name and appropriate links to Assembly Hall thread and CSM wiki)
Items on the agenda: 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
***
All CSM delegates and Alternates are invited to attend.
|
Song Li
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 02:45:00 -
[2]
<reserved for submissions>
|
Z0D
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 02:46:00 -
[3]
** reserved ** Click below for my manifesto.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 02:47:00 -
[4]
Posting in a thread
(Reserving a place on the front page for my selection )
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 08:24:00 -
[5]
Reserved
|
Korvin
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 15:30:00 -
[6]
*reserved*
|
Alekseyev Karrde
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 16:08:00 -
[7]
reserved ---
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 16:44:00 -
[8]
Can I please reserve space too, pretty please?
Here is some suggestions for what would do well for the Iceland meetings:
Alliance Logos Mass forum-censoring
Both are issues that aren't just "We will do this", but allows for dialog and discussion. Spend your time in Iceland focused on that. You have 4 months after that to bring up "Please implement x and y, fix z and k".
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 17:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Can I please reserve space too, pretty please?
Here is some suggestions for what would do well for the Iceland meetings:
Alliance Logos Mass forum-censoring
Do you have examples of posts that were not just deleted for spamming stuff like "Free Abathur" etc?
There is a difference between censoring items you disagree with and enforcing the forum rules that everybody signed up to when they logged in.
If people really are being censored then I want to see it stopped as much as the next person, but comparing post counts between the forum and eve search doesn't give an accurate picture.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 17:39:00 -
[10]
Originally by: TeaDaze Do you have examples of posts that were not just deleted for spamming stuff like "Free Abathur" etc?
There is a difference between censoring items you disagree with and enforcing the forum rules that everybody signed up to when they logged in.
If people really are being censored then I want to see it stopped as much as the next person, but comparing post counts between the forum and eve search doesn't give an accurate picture.
I read that thread on Eve Search, because the modhammer was dropping way too hard on the main thread, but I don't think it archived all that much extra. It was only about three pages longer, I think, whereas from the way people were talking, a lot more than 3 pages got deleted. People mentioned multiple times that serious, well-considered posts of theirs got deleted, not just "Free Abathur! (angry little man)" posts. I can't tell you whether they had legit posts got killed intentionally, killed accidentally, or whether they're just lying, but from the best archiving we have, I'd say that there was a serious problem with mod overreaction on that thread.
Also, surprised nobody has put the docking games fix thread on the agenda yet.
|
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 18:57:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 08/12/2009 15:51:08 More Coming...
1.Exploit List 2.Forum Censorship 3.Corp and Alliance MOTD
1. This was already rejected by CCP. 2. You should be very specific about the fact that heavy moderation creates apathy and starts a war CCP can't win. 3. Already raised.
|
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.12.09 02:55:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Z0D Destroyer Improvements Thread | Wiki
already brought up in CSM3: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Review_destroyers Director of Education :: EVE University
|
Alekseyev Karrde
|
Posted - 2009.12.09 03:14:00 -
[13]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 08/12/2009 15:51:08 More Coming...
1.Exploit List 2.Forum Censorship 3.Corp and Alliance MOTD
1. This was already rejected by CCP. 2. You should be very specific about the fact that heavy moderation creates apathy and starts a war CCP can't win. 3. Already raised.
1. where (not on wiki in rejected issues) 2. k 3. where (not on wiki since i created the page) ---
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.09 06:31:00 -
[14]
1 & 3 were raised by CSM1 I believe, and as such, we couldn't put them in the wiki as CSM1 didn't use it. You'll notice most of CSM1's issues aren't on there.
For some reason that I can't explain, it is never publicised that CSM and CCP review all previous CSM issues with the current CSM when they meet in Iceland. It tends to be on the last day of the meetings and CCP/CSM go through the list and get an update on what is happening. Either the issues are in development, in the backlog, or implemented (in one way or another), so re-raising issues is imho, pointless unless you really want to stress that that issue is way more important than anything else and should get a higher priority in the backlog. ----------------------
My Blog |
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 05:48:00 -
[15]
#3 was also brought up by CSM3 as part of our number 1 priority issue: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Corporation_and_Alliance_tool_overhaul#Corporate_chat_.2F_Alliance_chat_MotD Director of Education :: EVE University
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.13 04:29:00 -
[16]
Bump
Issues need to be raised by 18:00 today (Sun 13th) to be considered for the meeting on the 20th. Anything after this time will have to wait till a future meeting.
|
GavinCapacitor
|
Posted - 2009.12.13 06:36:00 -
[17]
I'd like to throw this in:
Hull Maintenance Bots | Thread
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2009.12.13 17:15:00 -
[18]
The items linked in post #5 are my final list for meeting #2.
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 16:55:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 15/12/2009 16:58:24 I also believe forum censorship should be topic, but perhaps broadened into the category: poor communication by CCP with player base, or simply "CCP communication".
To censor a post that simply states "Free Abernathy" I find disturbing. I might understand extreme foul language or threats etc. being removed, but innocuous protest statements by players being removed?
I also believe a number of players stated major well considered posts were removed entirely.
I think communication should be a primary subject especially for CSM representing the player base. Why? Because if one party can simply decide what to listen to and not listen to - or even if truthfulness of statements being made by CCP cannot be challenged - then there really is no point at all in having player representation or the CSM itself - or even forums where supposed communication between CCP and player base take place.
Communication has to be present and valid. It shouldn't be just be some kind of water faucet CCP decides to turn on and off at will. There is not much to gain from that type of communication - if that's what CCP wants, then they might as well just talk to themselves and forget the player base or CSM.
Here are a few points about CCP communication:
1. What happened to promised QA between CSM & CCP over last months? This has been a serious communication breakdown.
2. Statements made in the Mother Ship DEV BLOG that created such a furor by the player base were outright incorrect. Such as the use of Target Painters by CAP ships, and the assumption of there not being in general close quarter cap ship engagements.
3. The follow-up statements by DEVs in a feedback forum such as the Mother Ship debacle did not improve communication at all - and in fact because of a bit of flippancy and lack of actually responding to key points brought up by players - made the communication even worse - with more players upset and less information being brought forth.
4. Another aspect I consider poor CCP communication is player expectations. I think many players having participated on the test server cap ship testing and providing feedback etc. to CCP had some reasonable expectations that dramatic changes wouldn't be done 1 week prior to Dominion deployment. That sudden changes were made with apparently again not a whole lot of communication such as "Mother ships" suddenly being able to dock at stations etc. which shocked many in the player base, then suddenly Mother ships being pulled completely while all other CAP changes were to remain in effect - I think left the players in the state of WTF?
So here are some recommendations I would make to "improve" CCP communication.
1. DEV Blog statements need to be carefully checked for truthfulness by other parties. And more importantly, if there is an error in the statements they need to be acknowledged and corrected immediately on a follow up.
2. 1 or 2 follow-up statements (one being flippant) toward an outraged player base does not help anyone and just adds fuel to the fire. There needs to be more commitment by CCP to respond to issues - maybe an extra staff member just to handle communication. If a DEV makes a BLOG post she should be committed to address valid issues being brought up in response to what he/she has posted.
3. Heavy use of censorship does not help anyone and creates a terrible atmosphere between the player base and CCP. Whether justified or not, there really is not much of a need for it - other than extreme language or death threats type of stuff. OTW - this is an MMO forum, we all know threads can get hairy. So what. Eve Online is not a disneyland game and the player base in fact prides itself on being an HTFU crowd. By using heavy censorship CCP just worsens the sense by the player base that they are getting honest communication.
4. QA sessions between CCP and CSM need to be done and not simply disappear into the void.
5. Better communication in regards to proposed
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 17:02:00 -
[20]
5. Better communication in regards to proposed changes - so player expectations don't get wrecked 1 week before deployment.
|
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 19:07:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Dante Edmundo To censor a post that simply states "Free Abernathy" I find disturbing. I might understand extreme foul language or threats etc. being removed, but innocuous protest statements by players being removed?
Section 12 of the forum rules state
Originally by: Forum Rules
Spamming, bumping and pyramid quoting are prohibited.
Posts Spamming "Free Abernathy" etc can be removed under the rules people have agreed to when they login to the forum (alternatively they could be classed as trolling and removed under section 7 and some were personal attacks on the dev in question which is against section 6).
Removing Spam posts does not count as censorship!
It might blur the line sometimes but you can't be outraged about posts being removed that breach the forum rules.
Originally by: Dante Edmundo I also believe a number of players stated major well considered posts were removed entirely.
I have yet to see evidence of this from eve search or any other mirror taken.
If this was the case then it needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.
I agree that communication needs to be improved and hopefully we can lead by example.
|
Dante Edmundo
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 19:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Forum Rules
Spamming, bumping and pyramid quoting are prohibited.
Posts Spamming "Free Abernathy" etc can be removed under the rules people have agreed to when they login to the forum (alternatively they could be classed as trolling and removed under section 7 and some were personal attacks on the dev in question which is against section 6).
Removing Spam posts does not count as censorship!
It might blur the line sometimes but you can't be outraged about posts being removed that breach the forum rules.
Hey TeaDaze. Thx for response. I supported you in the election and glad you're on a seat now. Gratz.
In my mind - the problem is not really whether CCP has the right to do what they are doing - i.e. the rules (rules they themselves created). In fact, throughout history, those who have censored or burned books - created "rules" in order to perform the censorship acts (which in the censor's mind is usually justified) - that IMO boils down to: controlling the communication of others - for whatever reasons.
Won't get into a philosophical debate over censorship as I've already blogged my position (I abhor it) - but rules not really problem here. It's the "heavy" use of censorship and needless overuse that created a huge negative impact IMO on communication, and further distrust from the players posting.
>> It might blur the line sometimes
I think this is the crux of the problem. Where do you draw the line and who draws it? "Free Abernathy" - frankly IMO I don't see any kind of direct personal attack - only a very common protest statement - and too the point in fact. Apparently Abernathy was taken off the Mothership CAP development and a new dev (or team) replaced him and huge changes took place afterward and some gross misstatements were made by the new dev (Nozh). The question by the way of why Abernathy was no longer part of the dev team was never addressed.
Players asking that Abernathy be put back on the dev team via a common protest slogan "Free Abernathy" - is considered a direct attack? I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Dante Edmundo I also believe a number of players stated major well considered posts were removed entirely.
I have yet to see evidence of this from eve search or any other mirror taken.
If this was the case then it needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.
I was careful in regards to phrasing my statement - other players stated their posts were removed entirely - so you may well be right that this was not the case. But this goes to the point - perceived perception of the player base became very negative - as the heavy use of censorship caused much greater distrust and the perception that CCP was not listening, and instead of an HTFU up attitude was taking a STFU attitude with communication.
Originally by: TeaDaze
I agree that communication needs to be improved and hopefully we can lead by example.
We are agreed. Perhaps as I suggest CSM should broaden the question - and instead of limiting the talking point to "Forum Censorship" - discuss how to improve communication overall. As I pointed out, there were a number of communication failures IMO that could be improved that will help both CCP and the player base (and CSM in the long run) to make the efforts to improve Eve ONline (a goal we all agree upon) better.
Cheers to you TeaDaze and rest of CSM board. Wish you guys best of luck and glad you're going to bat for the players.
o/
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 22:59:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Dante Edmundo In my mind - the problem is not really whether CCP has the right to do what they are doing - i.e. the rules (rules they themselves created). In fact, throughout history, those who have censored or burned books - created "rules" in order to perform the censorship acts (which in the censor's mind is usually justified) - that IMO boils down to: controlling the communication of others - for whatever reasons.
It is tricky because CCP have the right to do whatever they like on their own site and people have to abide by their rules. In practice I see far less moderation here than in other games. Also posts critical of CCP are frequently left untouched.
But whilst people have the right to free speech I don't believe CCP have to provide them the service or the audience to do so.
Originally by: Dante Edmundo Won't get into a philosophical debate over censorship as I've already blogged my position (I abhor it) - but rules not really problem here. It's the "heavy" use of censorship and needless overuse that created a huge negative impact IMO on communication, and further distrust from the players posting.
I agree here. I hate censorship and have been actively fighting against censorship software being installed at the local internet providers for a number of years. I don't see enforcing the forum rules on one site when you are still free to discuss the issues as you like elsewhere as censorship in the truest sense.
Originally by: Dante Edmundo
>> It might blur the line sometimes
I think this is the crux of the problem. Where do you draw the line and who draws it? "Free Abernathy" - frankly IMO I don't see any kind of direct personal attack - only a very common protest statement - and too the point in fact. Apparently Abernathy was taken off the Mothership CAP development and a new dev (or team) replaced him and huge changes took place afterward and some gross misstatements were made by the new dev (Nozh). The question by the way of why Abernathy was no longer part of the dev team was never addressed.
Players asking that Abernathy be put back on the dev team via a common protest slogan "Free Abernathy" - is considered a direct attack? I think that's a bit of a stretch.
I don't think it was addressed no, but here is where I draw the line.
People just posting the same slogan "Free Abathur" and nothing else breaches a couple of the forum rules, the no spamming one being the most applicable. There were also people wanting Nozh fired, people being very nasty and generally bordering on real life threats (diaf etc).
Then people started comparing post counts between the official forum and eve search and claiming heavy CCP censorship. This was a totally failed argument but some people went with it because they love a dramabomb.
I don't know if Abathur was taken off the team or what the reasons were for the changes being backed out, but the fact so many people had their expectations neutered was obviously going to end badly and I can't believe CCP did it lightly. I hope we will get an answer when we visit CCP if not before.
Originally by: Dante Edmundo I was careful in regards to phrasing my statement - other players stated their posts were removed entirely - so you may well be right that this was not the case. But this goes to the point - perceived perception of the player base became very negative - as the heavy use of censorship caused much greater distrust and the perception that CCP was not listening, and instead of an HTFU up attitude was taking a STFU attitude with communication.
Things have got to the stage where I can claim CCP deleted my post and have people foaming at the mouth over censorship regardless of the actual reason.
This is not a good state and needs looking into. I hope to talk with people at CCP about this issue in Feb.
Thanks for your support
|
small chimp
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 03:52:00 -
[24]
alliance disbanding? docking aggression timer? why isn't anyone care about these issues?
|
ElvenLord
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 08:20:00 -
[25]
Originally by: small chimp alliance disbanding? docking aggression timer? why isn't anyone care about these issues?
It is being addressed, example, just have a bit of patience.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 16:53:00 -
[26]
Originally by: ElvenLord
Originally by: small chimp alliance disbanding? docking aggression timer? why isn't anyone care about these issues?
It is being addressed, example, just have a bit of patience.
"There is currently no text in this page"
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 18:07:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Seth Ruin
Originally by: ElvenLord
Originally by: small chimp alliance disbanding? docking aggression timer? why isn't anyone care about these issues?
It is being addressed, example, just have a bit of patience.
"There is currently no text in this page"
We've just discovered that ISD like to change the page titles when they approve the pages. Aparently being in the CSM category isn't enough and they have to be titled as such too...
The new link can be found here
|
Awesome Possum
Imperium Signal Corps
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 03:20:00 -
[28]
Alek, if possible please add:
Overview issues
Neutral RR aggression
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Alekseyev Karrde
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 03:37:00 -
[29]
Apparently neutral RR was already discussed. Or so the wiki claims... ---
|
Sajeera
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 01:54:00 -
[30]
Hey TeaDaze, i gave you my 2 votes at the elections only because i liked your idea for change of the local channel.
You gave up on this now?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |