|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.06 02:47:00 -
[1]
Posting in a thread
(Reserving a place on the front page for my selection )
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 17:57:00 -
[2]
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.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.13 04:29:00 -
[3]
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.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 19:07:00 -
[4]
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.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 22:59:00 -
[5]
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
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 18:07:00 -
[6]
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
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 09:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Sajeera 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?
Nope, it is still something I will support.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 17:30:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Sajeera Well, somebody must bring this up, no?
Indeed they must.
As I repeatedly stated during my campaign, it is the job of the CSM to take ideas raised by the players to the next available meeting, argue the case to the rest of the CSM and finally submit the supported ideas to CCP for development (or rejection ).
So far I've been asked about local changes by two other people and have told them to submit their proposal to the Assembly Hall then evemail me the link for review. Thus far nobody has stepped up.
I believe strongly in the process being followed correctly and if no player wants to raise this issue then I will be forced to support other issues from players who have
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 20:09:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sajeera So be it, if you are not allowed to do that I'll bite the bullet myself.
Just made the proposal, ready to dodge laser fire now
I somehow left with the wrong impression that this is the main idea in your campaign.
It isn't so much that we're not allowed, more I don't feel it is appropriate for CSM to support their own ideas over those raised by other players . Supported the proposal and will (assuming some people support it) submit it for the first meeting next year ).
The main ideas in my campaign were ensuring CSM follow procedure and to try and improve communication instead of attempting to push my vision for any specific changes.
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 22:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Seth Ruin While it's admirable to put your role of representative before your own pet projects, I think it's a safe assumption that you were voted in because a significant majority of voters agreed with the issues you mentioned in your campaign. If we wanted the CSM to be a "tabula rasa" style representation, we'd just ask CCP to hire a third-party consulting company. But that's just my opinion.
In a way CCP have hired consultants, just unpaid and drawn from the playerbase
I never stated I would be pushing specific changes to the game, in fact I was very very clear that proposals would have to be raised by the players themselves.
I always said my reasons for running were to ensure small gang pvp was represented in any discussions going on, to increase communication to the players and maybe improve the image of the CSM by specifically not using it as a platform to push my own vision (instead accurate representation of the player raised issues). Again I tried to be very clear about this during the campaign.
If anyone wants to take me up on a particular issue raised during the campaign then they are free to post a proposal and pass me the link. I will then take it forward to the CSM on their behalf
|
|
TeaDaze
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:52:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hellfury Resurrected
Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde Apparently neutral RR was already discussed. Or so the wiki claims...
So what does that mean?
If you look at the wiki it shows that the majority of CSM #3 voted for the proposal. I assume they then passed it to CCP, but the wiki doesn't show an issue number so I can't be sure if CCP have acknowledged it yet.
This is one of the things we will discuss with them in Feb.
|
|
|
|