EVE Search - Meeting minutes from Iceland summit are up

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Meeting minutes from Iceland summit are up

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Z0D	Posted - 2010.02.27 08:42:00 - [31] Originally by: Aeron Sophus How much of the meeting is under NDA, how much isn't? 1/3 not under NDA, 2/3s under NDA? 1/3 under NDA, 2/3s not under NDA? 50:50? I think 1/3 would be about right, from projects related to current and summer / winter expansion packs. Click below for my manifesto.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 09:02:00 - [32] btw i put a link to this thread in my sig trying to get as many people to read it as possible CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Erik Finnegan Gallente Polytechnique Gallenteenne	Posted - 2010.02.27 10:08:00 - [33] CSM is now going to be a stakeholder within the CCP development ! O_o C o n g r a t u l a t i o n s to that enormous leap in importance. Well done CSM !!! Well done CCP !!! ---- Erik Finnegan, CSM III Delegate (retired)
GIGAR Caldari Domini Umbrus	Posted - 2010.02.27 11:48:00 - [34] Every time I read logs by the CSM meetings, I can't help to think that the CSM really doesn't DO anything. CSM: Look at this CCP: meh It's getting kindda silly... -------------------------- Originally by: Akita T Actually, GIGAR is right. Wtf? Originally by: Akita T Well, at least sort of. A little bit. Conceptually speaking. That's more like it.
Nix Anteris	Posted - 2010.02.27 12:20:00 - [35] Thanks for the prompt posting of the minutes, it was an interesting read. Quote: Reminders to players to change passwords were suggested. Furthermore CSM suggested an option to use a different password for the forums and for account management. I like this idea, just a small notification on the character screen, or an in-game mail along the lines of "You haven't changed your password for 30 days", something non-intrusive that can be ignored or deleted in seconds, but also raises awareness for the player. Quote: The CSM raised the issue of self-destruction of ships in combat in order to deny opponents the killmail. This is mainly a problem with very large ships like motherships. It suggested that the last opponent to shoot at the ship would get a kill mail for it. CCP considers this a reasonable request and will look into it. I can think of an event where this affected at least 2 CSM representitives on the same grid (the best way to get issues put forward indeed!) Definitely a reasonable request though. Quote: The CSM feels that Black Ops ships are nearly useless due to almost no practical role, except to bridge in stealth bombers. The Black Ops ships are considered too weak and too expensive. The CSM suggest an increase in jump range, improvement in scan resolution and a role bonus to reduce the targeting penalty of cloaking devices or a reduction in cost. CCP will review the Black Ops class. Please tell me these were not the only improvements you discussed, and the possibility of letting them use Cov Ops cloaks was at least hinted at ;)
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.02.27 13:03:00 - [36] Best meeting note ever: Quote: Song Li is not ElvenLordæs friend. That aside, I am very pleased to see the obvious increase in the quantity of this implementation of the CSM over the last one. Nice work. --Vel Forum Mom: Spanking the snot out of little brats.
Tagami Wasp Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.02.27 15:21:00 - [37] Nice work. I'd suggest using Assembly sub-forum and features to be investigated sticky there, so that each subject raised by CCP can be discussed and you get feedback. Well done on stakeholder status. ------------ +15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.02.27 15:28:00 - [38] Originally by: GIGAR Every time I read logs by the CSM meetings, I can't help to think that the CSM really doesn't DO anything. CSM: Look at this CCP: meh It's getting kindda silly... That is a good thing if you take into account that CSM represents about 5% of eve population.
Raimo Genos Occidere Sev3rance	Posted - 2010.02.27 15:29:00 - [39] Overview when docked would be awesome, as well as hopefully 360 directional scanner... And implemented right the scramble denying docking could potentially make the game much better IMHO ____________________________________________________________
Zastrow	Posted - 2010.02.27 17:09:00 - [40] all the good ideas are mine all the bad ideas are someone else's, probably song li Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 17:14:00 - [41] Originally by: Zastrow all the good ideas are mine all the bad ideas are someone else's, probably song li That's what he gets for not being elv's friend. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Alekseyev Karrde	Posted - 2010.02.27 18:24:00 - [42] Originally by: Arimathea Anthalas Wow, I'm really happy with the accomplishments of this CCP term and overall the news looks great. I have a lot of ... trepidation ... about the undocking/overview discussion, as I think that while this is a boost to PVP groups, it hurts industrialists who are trying to make money by serving 0.0 markets. I hope CSM will think hard about this before CCP decides to run with the idea, and think about ways (in conjunction with CCP) to help balance the equation out, as one of many reasons already highlighted that makes the nullsec barrier to entry high is lack of access to effective markets. Thanks for all the work on the minutes - really great to see inside this discussions and the greater transparency is very, very much appreciated. PS - I would definitely buy a one-time authenticator. Look at Blizzard's take rate. Believe it or not, I think this is more of a boost to those who are currently "griefer" targets than the griefers themselves. Drawing from my experience as the guy who usually goes and fights those griefers on the industrial corps payroll, they HEAVILY abuse the docking games tactics available now, whereas industrialists and casual players tend to be victims. We dont know what final form this will take obviously but if the principle holds it should level the playing field a bit in the victims favor while increasing the overall amount of PVP which will keep all PVPers happy except for those that currently rely on docking games + neutral RR for success. As to the "it'll make carrier logistics in 0.0 hard" have you ever considered fighting back? It's a carrier. Not a ship that can protect itself? Well maybe you shouldnt be moving it around without any escort with hostiles in local then. Give your PVPers something to do, ask them to kill whoever is pointing you. ---
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 18:52:00 - [43] What Aleks said - it will emphasise the teamplay element of EVE, it is after all a MUMORPUGER CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.02.27 23:42:00 - [44] Originally by: Gripen That is a good thing if you take into account that CSM represents about 5% of eve population. Catch 22 People don't vote for CSM because they don't see results. CSM don't get support because of the lack of voters... The hope is that the stakeholder status will actually give people a reason to vote next time.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.28 09:08:00 - [45] Originally by: TeaDaze Originally by: Gripen That is a good thing if you take into account that CSM represents about 5% of eve population. Catch 22 People don't vote for CSM because they don't see results. CSM don't get support because of the lack of voters... The hope is that the stakeholder status will actually give people a reason to vote next time. And, there is huge amount of people who just don't care about the game 1-2+ months away. So the representation factor is a lot larger when you only count people with an active interest in the game. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere Sev3rance	Posted - 2010.02.28 12:44:00 - [46] Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde Originally by: Arimathea Anthalas Wow, I'm really happy with the accomplishments of this CCP term and overall the news looks great. I have a lot of ... trepidation ... about the undocking/overview discussion, as I think that while this is a boost to PVP groups, it hurts industrialists who are trying to make money by serving 0.0 markets. I hope CSM will think hard about this before CCP decides to run with the idea, and think about ways (in conjunction with CCP) to help balance the equation out, as one of many reasons already highlighted that makes the nullsec barrier to entry high is lack of access to effective markets. Thanks for all the work on the minutes - really great to see inside this discussions and the greater transparency is very, very much appreciated. PS - I would definitely buy a one-time authenticator. Look at Blizzard's take rate. Believe it or not, I think this is more of a boost to those who are currently "griefer" targets than the griefers themselves. Drawing from my experience as the guy who usually goes and fights those griefers on the industrial corps payroll, they HEAVILY abuse the docking games tactics available now, whereas industrialists and casual players tend to be victims. We dont know what final form this will take obviously but if the principle holds it should level the playing field a bit in the victims favor while increasing the overall amount of PVP which will keep all PVPers happy except for those that currently rely on docking games + neutral RR for success. As to the "it'll make carrier logistics in 0.0 hard" have you ever considered fighting back? It's a carrier. Not a ship that can protect itself? Well maybe you shouldnt be moving it around without any escort with hostiles in local then. Give your PVPers something to do, ask them to kill whoever is pointing you. It will put an end to docking games because nobody will be willing to undock. I understand your frustration but this is not the way to go about it, there are a multitude of scenarios where someone can find themself scrammed without initiating agro (capitals jumping in, landed 1000m off a station from warping in, kickout stations). The fix is pretty simple. Scale the agro timer by ship size (perhaps 2 mins for BS, 5 mins for caps) and introduce agro for RR. Simples. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Cerui Tarshiel Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2010.02.28 12:44:00 - [47] Interesting, especially the part where csm getting the potential to affect backlog priorities. However I'm not sure I like the whole scrammed and unable to dock thing to prevent docking games (i.e. what happens when you warp to a station and someone instalocks before you can dock?). I'm far more in support of the idea of increased docking timers (and potentially self destruct timers) which was discussed at the last fanfest as the ship size grows (i.e. frigs having 1 minute, cruisers 1 and 1/2 and so on, no hard numbers, just to give an idea).
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.02.28 13:42:00 - [48] Originally by: Larkonis Trassler It will put an end to docking games because nobody will be willing to undock. I understand your frustration but this is not the way to go about it, there are a multitude of scenarios where someone can find themself scrammed without initiating agro (capitals jumping in, landed 1000m off a station from warping in, kickout stations). The fix is pretty simple. Scale the agro timer by ship size (perhaps 2 mins for BS, 5 mins for caps) and introduce agro for RR. Simples. I would take it a step further docking time based on real hitpoint amount, that way plated/trimarked ships would need to survive much longer and it would also make RR games much harder.
Irongut H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.02.28 16:18:00 - [49] "There was a discussion about the pros and cons of including the member lists of corporations." "The reason CCP wants to include the list is that itæs already possible to obtain this list, albeit through advanced means, and CCP feels it would level the playing field if everyone had access to it." Spending hours scouring killboards for a list of possible corp members and then more hours verifying them in game is not easy. Getting a spy into a corp to get a list of members is not easy. Both of these are valid intelligence jobs that I have done in the past. CCP should not be removing unusual corp jobs like this and they shouldn't be making something that is hard to do now into something anyone can do in 2 clicks. You might as well say it is possible to fire a DD through advanced means and it would level the playing field if any noob with an Ibis could do it. Please insist EVE Gate is an entirely opt in feature. I don't want Farcebook, etc exposing my private information irl and nor do I want CCP doing it in EVE. --
Miss Xerox	Posted - 2010.02.28 16:24:00 - [50] Damnit... not a whisper about market management of deliveries, which in its current state is atrocious (not able to sort by range, system/constellation/region filtering, ect. as personal assets are currently). Nothing said about the horrible POS interface for... well... everything, from managing weapons to refining (no refinery timer in the UI at all) to manufacturing/research. It's just flat out abysmal. Destroyers got a shrug. Unfinished expansions got laughed off the board (COSMOS, FW, etc). While I'm pleased to see the minutes posted in a clear, understandable format within days of completion I am little satisfied with the topics that were brought up. None, beyond shares investments, concerned the industrial side at all. And WTH came up with the idea of a scrambled ship not being able to dock??? At many stations you're trapped dead regardless... either you try to wait out the timer and find yourself 20 or more KM from the station and scrambled before you can twitch, or at stations with huge radii you spam the dock button like mad and get pinned down by an interceptor, unable to dock or escape while the blob comes rushing in. That needs an alternate function to limit docking games. In the end: Thumbs down.
Fresh Gordon	Posted - 2010.02.28 17:14:00 - [51] Lots of cynics on this forum. I'm so surprised, er.. Well done, CCP and CSM. Don't let the whiners win, this is still very unique amongst games.
TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.02.28 17:23:00 - [52] Originally by: Miss Xerox Damnit... not a whisper about market management of deliveries, which in its current state is atrocious (not able to sort by range, system/constellation/region filtering, ect. as personal assets are currently). If you look at the meeting 5 minutes you will see that these topics were not on the list of issues and thus not on the agenda. I suggest you moan at the industrial related CSM reps for not bringing up this stuff.
Miss Xerox	Posted - 2010.02.28 21:59:00 - [53] Originally by: TeaDaze Originally by: Miss Xerox Damnit... not a whisper about market management of deliveries, which in its current state is atrocious (not able to sort by range, system/constellation/region filtering, ect. as personal assets are currently). If you look at the meeting 5 minutes you will see that these topics were not on the list of issues and thus not on the agenda. I suggest you moan at the industrial related CSM reps for not bringing up this stuff. sigh 'Moan at'? Have you been wearing blinders? It's been mentioned, spoken of, pushed, and screamed about since the day you got elected. Clearly anything that does not involve blowing something up it is simply not worth putting any consideration into. Yeah, I do my share of PvP, and the holes in that leave a sour taste in my mouth just as much as the poorly managed logistics backend, but I don't need to say anything about PvP flaws... every CSM board has been dedicated to them at the expense of every thing else. At least the particolored mining lasers were not brought up... oh, of course, industrial side again.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.28 22:27:00 - [54] Edited by: Sokratesz on 28/02/2010 22:27:19 Originally by: Miss Xerox Originally by: TeaDaze Originally by: Miss Xerox Damnit... not a whisper about market management of deliveries, which in its current state is atrocious (not able to sort by range, system/constellation/region filtering, ect. as personal assets are currently). If you look at the meeting 5 minutes you will see that these topics were not on the list of issues and thus not on the agenda. I suggest you moan at the industrial related CSM reps for not bringing up this stuff. sigh 'Moan at'? Have you been wearing blinders? It's been mentioned, spoken of, pushed, and screamed about since the day you got elected. Then you should poke the reps that deal with that sort of stuff instead of going full ****** against the entire csm. And POSes were discussed at length but if its not in the minutes I'm afraid we can't tell you much about the results. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
TeaDaze	Posted - 2010.02.28 23:07:00 - [55] Originally by: Miss Xerox sigh 'Moan at'? Have you been wearing blinders? It's been mentioned, spoken of, pushed, and screamed about since the day you got elected. I'm fully aware of this and have been pointing out that people should speak to the industrial focussed CSM reps about it. Originally by: Miss Xerox Clearly anything that does not involve blowing something up it is simply not worth putting any consideration into. Incorrect analysis. We have 9 CSM reps and we typically deal with 15 or so issues per meeting. This means each rep can raise a couple of issues and have at least one accepted for discussion. I was not voted in on a platform of industrial improvements so why should I be picking up those issues when I have less knowledge in industrial matters over issues that reflect the platform I did run on? Originally by: Miss Xerox Yeah, I do my share of PvP, and the holes in that leave a sour taste in my mouth just as much as the poorly managed logistics backend, but I don't need to say anything about PvP flaws... every CSM board has been dedicated to them at the expense of every thing else. We have industrial people on the CSM and they are the ones best placed to pitch those issues. They have more knowledge than me about the impact etc but so far it appears they don't think those issues need to be picked up. Originally by: Miss Xerox At least the particolored mining lasers were not brought up... oh, of course, industrial side again. I'm pretty certain those were on the minor issues list thus didn't need to be discussed further.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.03.01 08:48:00 - [56] Hell i dont care what you do as long as one of you keeps leaking insider information. I made billions last time- lets hope this round goes a bit better.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.01 09:16:00 - [57] Some good discussion, altho I must admit I'm starting to get somewhat disappointed about the CSM (it's not the fault of only current represantives tho). Mainly as I have impression growing in me that CSM is not taking overly seriously idea of representing community and seem to be more lobbyng for their own personal playstyles. The roots of this feeling reach back to the time of previous CSM though. For example thinking that inability to dock while scrambled is reasonable idea rubs me in the wrong way to a degree so far only some rather populist real politicans have managed so far. So far I had impression that people in that board are somewhat intelligent just mostly ignored by CCP. And no - being able to get overview data before undocking does not make that idea good. Docking games are lame, but there is far better options to cure that without screwing over anyone who has to move capital ship thru low sec. I have ofc not written the CSM off just yet and plan to vote again in the next elections also with all my accounts as I have done so far. I like to believe that nodding in agreement to that bad idea by CCP was result of serious hangover, not some disability in the thinking process of our representatives. Most of the ideas discussed were relatively reasonable. I do not agree to several of them, but that is life - can't please everyone. But seriously - inability to dock while scrammed .
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2010.03.01 10:09:00 - [58] "The CSM would like to be utilized more and would like CCP to be more proactive in bringing issues to them." Translation: The CSM would like to feel more important. "The CSM does not see a need for a term limit." Um, hell yes the do. Stupid idea. "The CSM would like CCP to investigate the feasibility of improving access to nullsec" Do something that gets rid of, or discourages power blocks and the smaller alliances will feel its worth going into 0.0 and staking a claim. Right now it is either you are part of the power block or a renter (which is the same thing except you are paying to be part of the power block ). It is virtually impossible to go into 0.0 otherwise. Seriously, change standings to have fees like war decs. The more blues you make, the more you pay. "The meeting discussed possible changes to the mechanics of the äundocking gameô." Ability to see overview before you undock? Sure, as long as I get to see who and what they are undocking with before they undock. "Look guys, they are flying this, and there is those, so fit specific." Undock, gank, redock. Correct me if I am wrong, but if your whole alliance/whatever blue list is camped in and don't have one guy in cov ops to relay intel on what is outside station, then thats your own fault. Is summary, horrible idea. The idea of the bigger the ship, the longer it takes to dock is far better. Also remote whatever should count as aggression already. This whole, "I want to be part of the fight without risk." thing is crap. "The issue of the use of titans and doomsday devices in low-sec was discussed. CSM believes that low-sec use of titans and doomsdays should be reinstated." Translation: We were having tons of fun doing the drive-by DD's in low sec with little to no risk after you took away our drive-by DD's in 0.0 with little to no risk. Please bring that back. Horrible idea. "The CSM would like to have a budget of development time dedicated to going through a backlog of projects that they prioritize." Translation: We would like to have control of how you spend some of your budget directly. If you really want that then perhaps you should get a job at CCP and work you way up to management. "The CSM calls for far more dialogue with CCP regarding game design as it is happening rather than after its release." Again, CSM wanting to be recognized as game designers without actually working at CCP. Drop off an application while you are there at the summit. Also maybe CCP is hesitant about providing you guys with inside info just for it to be Larksoned. "The CSM would like warfare links and information warfare looked at. CCP will consider whether they need to be changed but is concerned about making them overpowered." The only set that needs looked at is the Information ones. They are worthless to bother fitting. Not to mention the Eos is a pointless waste of space right now with every aspect of it being lol. From lol gang bonuses to lol blasters to lol drones to lol tank. Astarte too for that matter... "The CSM was unhappy about a recently installed 5 minute cool down timer on forum posting. CCP announced that the timer will be reduced." If the people that hate the timer are too lazy to log out and log back in to post something else, then the post must not have been worthy enough. The 5 minute timer is fine. "The CSM expressed concern over heavy handed forum moderation." Orly? You should see the boards on other games out there. The rest is not bad I guess. Definetly the best CSM so far, sadly that is not saying much. Keep things scandal free and the players will take the CSM more seriously, thus CCP will take the CSM more seriously and you will finally get to feel like eGods.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.01 14:19:00 - [59] Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM would like to be utilized more and would like CCP to be more proactive in bringing issues to them." Translation: The CSM would like to feel more important. No, we want to be able to give more adequate feedback about the things CCP is working on. Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM does not see a need for a term limit." Um, hell yes the do. Stupid idea. Xhagen proposed this along with the 1-year term, and we all agreed that it would be for the betterment of the CSM and the relations with CCP. Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM would like CCP to investigate the feasibility of improving access to nullsec" Do something that gets rid of, or discourages power blocks and the smaller alliances will feel its worth going into 0.0 and staking a claim. Right now it is either you are part of the power block or a renter (which is the same thing except you are paying to be part of the power block ). It is virtually impossible to go into 0.0 otherwise. Seriously, change standings to have fees like war decs. The more blues you make, the more you pay. ...so basically you agree? We were talking about 'access' in its most basic form btw. Originally by: Marlona Sky "The meeting discussed possible changes to the mechanics of the äundocking gameô." Ability to see overview before you undock? Sure, as long as I get to see who and what they are undocking with before they undock. "Look guys, they are flying this, and there is those, so fit specific." Undock, gank, redock. Read the rest, this ties in with the scram-unable to dock thing. Originally by: Marlona Sky "The issue of the use of titans and doomsday devices in low-sec was discussed. CSM believes that low-sec use of titans and doomsdays should be reinstated." Translation: We were having tons of fun doing the drive-by DD's in low sec with little to no risk after you took away our drive-by DD's in 0.0 with little to no risk. Please bring that back. Fail. Both CSM and CCP felt that lowsec dd's were conflict drivers. Not sure if you were aware of it but back in december we as a corp and TRI as alliance were getting ready to bait and gank a titan - but it got nerfed before it could be executed. Lowsec DD's require people to be more careful with what they do and may lead to epic battles once people get the hang of it. Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM would like to have a budget of development time dedicated to going through a backlog of projects that they prioritize." Translation: We would like to have control of how you spend some of your budget directly. If you really want that then perhaps you should get a job at CCP and work you way up to management. Again this was proposed by CCP and we said, 'wow...ok cool' and then proceeded to discuss a ****ton of details about it. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.01 14:21:00 - [60] Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM calls for far more dialogue with CCP regarding game design as it is happening rather than after its release." Again, CSM wanting to be recognized as game designers without actually working at CCP. Drop off an application while you are there at the summit. Also maybe CCP is hesitant about providing you guys with inside info just for it to be Larksoned. No, we just want to be able to give more adequate feedback. Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM would like warfare links and information warfare looked at. CCP will consider whether they need to be changed but is concerned about making them overpowered." The only set that needs looked at is the Information ones. They are worthless to bother fitting. Not to mention the Eos is a pointless waste of space right now with every aspect of it being lol. From lol gang bonuses to lol blasters to lol drones to lol tank. Astarte too for that matter... NDA Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM was unhappy about a recently installed 5 minute cool down timer on forum posting. CCP announced that the timer will be reduced." If the people that hate the timer are too lazy to log out and log back in to post something else, then the post must not have been worthy enough. The 5 minute timer is fine. No it's not, if you must relog just to circumvent it that just shows how wrong it is. Originally by: Marlona Sky "The CSM expressed concern over heavy handed forum moderation." Orly? You should see the boards on other games out there. ... Sorry marlona that was a pretty poor attempt at criticism. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.