Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
flakeys
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
2115
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:03:00 -
[61] - Quote
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:Malcanis wrote: Option 1 is actually highly viable; it's so viable that it's the industry standard.
I'd hate it, of course, but that doesn't make it unviable.
As member of the staff shouldn't you be objective and not tell us your personal choice including your reasoning for it in order to keep this vote objective as possible?
CSM basically are what your 'government representatives' are in reall life.People choosen by the people to stand for what they believe in .As such they will like your government representatives outline what they stand for before they get chosen and will also speak out on how they feel against/for certain changes during the time they are a representative.
So in short , yes he can outline what his view on the matter is .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Nalelmir Ahashion
Omegon 42nd Core
245
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:04:00 -
[62] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned.
You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route?
Speaking about being objective your forgot the part where this choice will include famine in Africa and killing little ponies. "What's worse than a foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother? A foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother who thinks he's a gangser, that's what." --áAaron Birch |
Catherine Wolfisheim
Born Crazy
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:04:00 -
[63] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is.
This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned. You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route? I am fairly sure that the CSM could advise that to CCP, but it is not feasible for CCP to take on that route as something as "harassment" cannot be easily or clearly defined, and would do little change. Your view is the dramatic one of an iron fist rule by CCP, which would not be the case.
What does it mean for the CSM that people would go for "option one" have you truly considered the implications of option one and three, or just forwarded the logical conclusion that the second option brings and opened the thread? |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
920
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:04:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Malcanis wrote:Please can you help the CSM by choosing which of the three courses of action the CSM should recommend to CCP as the way forward. . Trixy CSMses. You can't fools us. We knows the answers, don't we precious? Mr Epeen Haha, nicely done. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14787
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:05:00 -
[65] - Quote
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:Malcanis wrote:
This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned.
You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route?
Speaking about being objective your forgot the part where this choice will include famine in Africa and killing little ponies.
Since the CSM does not represent either Africa or ponies, these unfortunate but sadly inevitable consequences are not germane to the discussion.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Kinis Deren
House Of Serenity. Disband.
396
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:06:00 -
[66] - Quote
2
Absolutely and most definitely. |
DJentropy Ovaert
Crazy Bird Inc. The Fire Nation Syndicate
204
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:06:00 -
[67] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote: The only thing that clear rules will do is that people will find loopholes in them. "don't be stupid and if you are we'll decide what to do with you" is a much better rule, partly because of the basic nature of EVE and mostly because being able to determine the borders on your own is part of being a normal human being.
As I stated, there will always be some grey area and some situations that will require a judgement call by CCP - but the fact that some specific situations will fall into this category is no reason to simply abandon bothering to specify in clear and concise language what the rules are in the first place. I am not comfortable with a solution that amounts to "Well, since sometimes a situation may fall outside the rules and require a judgement call, there's no point in bothering to specify rules in the first place."
That's a cop-out, and a sad sad way to treat the game we love.
I am not comfortable paying a subscription fee to a company who's policies on harassment literally consist of "Don't get blogged about in a poor light or we might decide to ban you".
As paying customers, we deserve to have the rules of the game we pay to play spelled out clearly - so that we may avoid breaking them and continue to enjoy what is, in my opinion, a game that is like no other and something very special that deserves clear and concise rules to it's user base. |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance
469
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:06:00 -
[68] - Quote
Another crap post Malcanis.
I offer you option 4:
How about you stop trying to put CCP over a barrel for trying to do the right thing because you don't agree with it? How about you grow up a little and start trusting CCP to police their game's community with reasonable discretion and leeway without wasting time on a 400 page document to a granular level of detail on what acceptable behavior is, as agreed by CSM and CCP committee just to satisfy your own personal interests.
You likened the Erotica 1 situation things to behaving like the German leader in WW2 - CCP are not **** censors... You likened the Erotica 1 situation to the homophobia debate and fight for rights - CCP are not repressing gay rights here chum...
You're not some warrior of justice fighting for the rights and freedom of us lowly forum serfs and eve plebeians - you're a servile bureaucrat of questionable masters.
Please just stop waving your CSM sword of Damocles about like you matter. Thanks.
|
Salvos Rhoska
883
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:06:00 -
[69] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Does OP represent the unified position of the entire CSM? The OP is gathering information.
Then I would recommend submitting a fourth option: 4) -Something other than the above: ----Explanation. ------------ |
Nalelmir Ahashion
Omegon 42nd Core
245
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:06:00 -
[70] - Quote
flakeys wrote:
CSM basically are what your 'government representatives' are in reall life.People choosen by the people to stand for what they believe in .As such they will like your government representatives outline what they stand for before they get chosen and will also speak out on how they feel against/for certain changes during the time they are a representative.
So in short , yes he can outline what his view on the matter is .
Unless this is a dictatorship where are all other "Government Representatives" to voice their opinions as well? Also if this is a merely survey to hear the voice of the people the Government high-ups usually do not try to affect the results with their opinions in the matter. "What's worse than a foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother? A foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother who thinks he's a gangser, that's what." --áAaron Birch |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14790
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:06:00 -
[71] - Quote
Catherine Wolfisheim wrote:Malcanis wrote:DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is.
This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned. You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route? I am fairly sure that the CSM could advise that to CCP, but it is not feasible for CCP to take on that route as something as "harassment" cannot be easily or clearly defined, and would do little change. Your view is the dramatic one of an iron fist rule by CCP, which would not be the case. What does it mean for the CSM that people would go for "option one" have you truly considered the implications of option one and three, or just forwarded the logical conclusion that the second option brings and opened the thread?
It's extremely feasible for CCP to go down that route. Why wouldn't it be feasible to do what every other MMO does?
1 Kings 12:11
|
Gregor Parud
379
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:07:00 -
[72] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: Well you could argue that has been going on for years with Eve with people commonly referring to others who like to earn isk as "Jew"
As a Jewish myself I find this offensive and this is one reason red lines should be made and the rules should be more clear. Here is a great example, you find people using the word Jew in this context offensive and that is completely understandable. Now this has come under discussion before, many people who state they are Jewish and have no issues with people using the word Jew in this context. Who is right?
"many people" doesn't mean a thing, I'm sure many people were fine with what happened in WW2, slavery and whatever ever other terrible point in history, but that doesn't make it right.
In this case it's bad, mostly because people start accepting it as a normal word. |
Dave Stark
4828
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:08:00 -
[73] - Quote
Could you also advice CCP to state their position on policing activities outside of EVE. i'm all fine with CCP imposing whatever rules they want on us, in game. however, if my account is at risk for things i do outside of eve, then i'm not particularly comfortable with that.
in eve, i am dave stark. outside of eve, i am dave not-stark. |
Big Lynx
The Gun Runners Space Warriors
339
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:08:00 -
[74] - Quote
2 |
Catherine Wolfisheim
Born Crazy
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:09:00 -
[75] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:It's extremely feasible for CCP to go down that route. Why wouldn't it be feasible to do what every other MMO does? Difference in player-base, developer culture and ideals. Going down that route is not an entirely dramatic outcome, but it will not be in the way it is pictured in the first option.
"and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is"
No, this is your conclusion, do not mix your conclusion with the collective. That is called persuasion. Clarify your idea better and present it as it is truly yours. The solution is not to see what other MMOs do, but study what the situation of EVE Online requires, and what that implies for you to do as a member of the CSM. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
1010
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:10:00 -
[76] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:The only thing that clear rules will do is that people will find loopholes in them. "don't be stupid and if you are we'll decide what to do with you" is a much better rule, partly because of the basic nature of EVE and mostly because being able to determine the borders on your own is part of being a normal human being.
But there is another way forward that could help the people selecting option 1, while also placating those selecting option 2.
There is already a huge body of knowledge of decisions made in response to petitions, however the rules as they currently stand prevent any disclosure of those rulings.
As players, there is potential to repeat the errors of others from the past, because we have no general guide to how CCP apply their rules; and as this is an international community, CCP should realise that the cultural background of people influences how they go about decision making processes.
Some people are comfortable with completely open-ended processes that allow their judgement, while others more happily work within written guidelines.
Wouldn't it be possible to in general head down the option 2 path, but to help guide members of the community, by publishing a list of redacted decisions that players can refer to as a general guide.
No names, no specifics about individual cases, but a "case law" for want of a better term, where CCP lays down a growing body of decisions they have made to different petition question raised.
This isn't fully thought through yet, so I need to think on it more and come back to it.
.. |
Gregor Parud
379
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:11:00 -
[77] - Quote
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:Gregor Parud wrote: The only thing that clear rules will do is that people will find loopholes in them. "don't be stupid and if you are we'll decide what to do with you" is a much better rule, partly because of the basic nature of EVE and mostly because being able to determine the borders on your own is part of being a normal human being.
As I stated, there will always be some grey area and some situations that will require a judgement call by CCP - but the fact that some specific situations will fall into this category is no reason to simply abandon bothering to specify in clear and concise language what the rules are in the first place. I am not comfortable with a solution that amounts to "Well, since sometimes a situation may fall outside the rules and require a judgement call, there's no point in bothering to specify rules in the first place." That's a cop-out, and a sad sad way to treat the game we love. I am not comfortable paying a subscription fee to a company that has a policy on harassment that literally consists of "Don't get blogged about in a poor light or we might decide to ban you". As paying customers, we deserve to have the rules of the game we pay to play spelled out clearly - so that we may avoid breaking them and continue to enjoy what is, in my opinion, a game that is like no other and something very special that deserves clear and concise rules to it's user base.
As Malcanis pointed out several times now, forcing CCP to define strict rules will result them in (having to) severely limit the ingame freedoms we have in this game and it will become a slippery slope, Pandora's box. Be sure what you wish for.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
4158
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:11:00 -
[78] - Quote
CSM troll, best troll. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society Affirmative.
323
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:11:00 -
[79] - Quote
2) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14790
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:12:00 -
[80] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Could you also advice CCP to state their position on policing activities outside of EVE. i'm all fine with CCP imposing whatever rules they want on us, in game. however, if my account is at risk for things i do outside of eve, then i'm not particularly comfortable with that.
in eve, i am dave stark. outside of eve, i am dave not-stark.
They stated their position yesterday. It boils down to: if you're too much of a dickbag to one of our customers then we don't want to do business with you.
So long as you confine your dickbaggery to reasonable limits, you're fine.
If the community feels itself unable to keep itself within reasonable limits, then the alternative is for CCP to explicitly define those limits and I doubt anyone would like the result of that, because that definition would have to cope with the most vulnerable and least resilient of CCP's customers.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Nalelmir Ahashion
Omegon 42nd Core
245
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:12:00 -
[81] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: Well you could argue that has been going on for years with Eve with people commonly referring to others who like to earn isk as "Jew"
As a Jewish myself I find this offensive and this is one reason red lines should be made and the rules should be more clear. Here is a great example, you find people using the word Jew in this context offensive and that is completely understandable. Now this has come under discussion before, many people who state they are Jewish and have no issues with people using the word Jew in this context. Who is right?
As It happens I'm Jewish, Israeli one at that. I find that offensive and same way I won't call African people by slang names attached to them during their forced slavery or any other insulting name out there I expect in a video game where I play for fun to get same treatment.
Call me carebear, call me amarrian zealot, call me 'Roid Racist for me wanting to teach those damn rocks a lesson but RL racist behavior? what's next?
And this is folks why you can't trust people to make their own rules, and as much as I wished for Option 2 only Option 1 is viable.
"What's worse than a foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother? A foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother who thinks he's a gangser, that's what." --áAaron Birch |
DJentropy Ovaert
Crazy Bird Inc. The Fire Nation Syndicate
205
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:12:00 -
[82] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:DJentropy Ovaert wrote:
Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is.
This is option (1). If you want to force CCP to give a rigid definition of what harrassment is, then they will be forced to set the bar at a far lower level than we're currently used to: essentially any unpleasant communication will be sanctioned. You sure you want the CSM to advise CCP to down down that route?
Wait a second. I never said that. I don't want #1, #2, or #3.
I never said that I wanted the bar to be a set at a far lower level then what we have. Otherwise, I would have just said "1" and ended my post.
I never said the defination needed to be "rigid". Simply clear, concise, and applicable to most of the situations that come up. The special situations - sure, I can understand those needing the current system of personal judgement calls by CCP.
I want clear, simple to understand, concise rules with a degree of flexibility that allow for specific situations to be addressed within the scope of the rules, I want transparency as to how these rules are applied on a case to case basis, and I want them clearly communicated to all players via the EULA.
That's not too much to ask. |
Darkopus
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:13:00 -
[83] - Quote
DJentropy Ovaert wrote:None of the above.
The options are presented in such a way that #1 and #3 are utterly silly, and #2 is basically "Do nothing and keep things just how they are."
If you want feedback and provide a list of three options to chose from, with two of the options being totally against the spirit of the game - I am left to assume you are being sarcastic and don't want any feedback, which seems a bit odd coming from a member of the CSM.
Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is. Of course, there will be some gray area (there always will be), but this recent drama with Erotica 1 simply proves that clear and concise rules that are provided to all players in regards to what is unacceptable behavior need to be provided.
Otherwise, we stick with the status quo. Which, as it seems to many of us - is simply "Get a CSM member and/or a popular blogger to present a one sided story and cause a bunch of blow back - and it just might cause CCP to start issuing bans without even bothering to explain to the community what rules were violated, how they were violated, and what action was taken."
The lack of transparency shown lately by CCP only serves to fuel vicious rumors, player base discontent, and general confusion as to what the rules even are in the first place.
Also, perhaps it is a good time to require all players to be of legal adult age in their county of origin in order to hold an account. I don't like name calling, cursing and smacktalk personally, but I have no desire to try to control what other people say. Ensuring that no under age players are using this service would simplify things in my opinion. Don't like someone's use of language? Use the block feature. No under age players are exposed. Problem solved.
Fix it.
Never going to happen. YOu set rules like that then the harcore sociopaths will find a way of opperating around them and then cry that they never broke any rules. The reason CCP leaves it "grey" is that the rely on people to use common sense. If they put in a rigid set of rules you can kiss goodbye to half the freedoms we all currently enjoy and take for granted.
All that needs to happen here is that CCP need to reinforce that acting like sociopathic bell end will get you flushed. They have achieved that through their actions and thus there is nothing more to discuss. There may be an illusion here that you thin this is some kind of a democracy what with the CSM and players having a cosy relationship with the dev team. Well guess what, its an illusion. CCP own this game and its IP lock stock and barrel. They can do what they want, when they want, how they want and if they chose to give you any explanation at all you should feel lucky.
|
Prince Kobol
1600
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:13:00 -
[84] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Prince Kobol wrote:Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:Prince Kobol wrote: Well you could argue that has been going on for years with Eve with people commonly referring to others who like to earn isk as "Jew"
As a Jewish myself I find this offensive and this is one reason red lines should be made and the rules should be more clear. Here is a great example, you find people using the word Jew in this context offensive and that is completely understandable. Now this has come under discussion before, many people who state they are Jewish and have no issues with people using the word Jew in this context. Who is right? "many people" doesn't mean a thing, I'm sure many people were fine with what happened in WW2, slavery and whatever ever other terrible point in history, but that doesn't make it right. In this case it's bad, mostly because people start accepting it as a normal word.
Yet in these particular casse, is using the word "Jew" to describe somebody in game earning isk and using the term "Rapecage" acceptable to you personally?
|
Dave Stark
4828
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:13:00 -
[85] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Could you also advice CCP to state their position on policing activities outside of EVE. i'm all fine with CCP imposing whatever rules they want on us, in game. however, if my account is at risk for things i do outside of eve, then i'm not particularly comfortable with that.
in eve, i am dave stark. outside of eve, i am dave not-stark. They stated their position yesterday. It boils down to: if you're too much of a dickbag to one of our customers then we don't want to do business with you. So long as you confine your dickbaggery to reasonable limits, you're fine. If the community feels itself unable to keep itself within reasonable limits, then the alternative is for CCP to explicitly define those limits and I doubt anyone would like the result of that, because that definition would have to cope with the most vulnerable and least resilient of CCP's customers.
i meant, are ccp actively going to police who is and isn't a dickbag outside of the game. or just when some one feels the need to start a witch hunt? |
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics CODE.
1557
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:14:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP needs to set firm, concise and no-nonsense rules in order to prevent the Eve community falling into disrepute. As demonstrated by the most recent "scandal", even a misunderstood activity has the ability to show the Eve community in a negative light. The only safe way to prevent this from happening, is to prohibit, and proactively police, any form of action or activity in the EVE community that could be viewed as harassing, intolerant, or bigoted.
The last thing CCP, and the Eve community needs is attention from the gaming media displaying intolerant behaviour from community members. Nip it all in the bud. The risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP). |
Catherine Wolfisheim
Born Crazy
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:15:00 -
[87] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:If the community feels itself unable to keep itself within reasonable limits, then the alternative is for CCP to explicitly define those limits and I doubt anyone would like the result of that, because that definition would have to cope with the most vulnerable and least resilient of CCP's customers. Which would never happen as such a long list of possible define each and every case publicly would only allow people who look for ways to exploit the system to have them clearly in front of them. The end result of that would be no different than what we have now, with only people looking at their backs in paranoia. |
Dave Stark
4828
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:15:00 -
[88] - Quote
Prince Kobol wrote:Yet in these particular cases, is using the word "Jew" to describe somebody in game earning isk and using the term "Rapecage" acceptable to you personally?
yes. why wouldn't it be? |
Don Aubaris
101
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:16:00 -
[89] - Quote
There is only one valid option 2.
Option1 will have to be so restrictive that it will kill the that unique part of Eve where some people find new stuff to perform scams/actions.
Option3 is not reallly acceptable to me
But option 2 needs to be worked out.. The current situation only leads to conflict. CCP does not have to draw a fix line in the sand, but there must be a line. But it should give public examples of correct and non-correct behavior instead of hiding behind 'privacy issues'. There still will be people that will cross that line that is not so fixed and get punished for it...but hey : that's life.
To prevent conflicts CCP (and/or CSM) should have a service where people can request advice on their idea upfront. And maintain a list of approved things.
Can I ask someone to sing for 3 mibutes to save his ship? ===> yes Can I keep someone busy for hours to save his assets => no
|
flakeys
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
2116
|
Posted - 2014.03.29 11:16:00 -
[90] - Quote
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:flakeys wrote:
CSM basically are what your 'government representatives' are in reall life.People choosen by the people to stand for what they believe in .As such they will like your government representatives outline what they stand for before they get chosen and will also speak out on how they feel against/for certain changes during the time they are a representative.
So in short , yes he can outline what his view on the matter is .
Unless this is a dictatorship where are all other "Government Representatives" to voice their opinions as well? Also if this is a merely survey to hear the voice of the people the Government high-ups usually do not try to affect the results with their opinions in the matter.
It used to be a dictatorship hence the CSM was crafted out.If the CSM does or does not represent the most players in eve is a totally different subject.
I don't know about your country but in my country and most western countries the representatives DO speak out on ne rules/changes that they or other representatives are trying to implement. They also try and get 'word from the little man on the street' about how he views these changes as to be sure they can get elected again.
This is no different from that , malcanis is trying to see what most peoples views are on this subject.However as i pointed out in my first post in this thread i -and probably others with me - have a hard time seeing that doing it in this manner is the best way to do so.And as with your government representatives it usually also begs the question if the representative is doing it for the benefit of us or the benefit of their own 'reputation' .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |