Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Unfamed II
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 06:39:00 -
[301]
"In my opinion, the current CSM is the best and most productive so far, and I look forward to working with the other council members the coming year!"
-b |
dreynerex
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 06:43:00 -
[302]
I consider this and excellent change to the CSM.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 06:47:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Nareg Maxence In her blog, Eva discusses measures that CCP are planing to implement to reduce lag. She mentions two specific actions that they are planing. Since this is technical insider knowledge, I am pretty sure this is covered by the NDA.
You can read her blog at: http://eve-takecare.net/
Just a general FYI; she was *not* kicked over stuff mentioned in her CSM blog.
You said that earlier, quickly followed by a post saying you were just guessing and had no idea. So what is it this time, do you actually have information we dont have or are you guessing again?
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 06:54:00 -
[304]
LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT
Buh bye ferret-face!
Also...gotcher Domi LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT
|
Djavo
Saiyans United death from above..
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:12:00 -
[305]
What's all this CSM about?
Anyway... vote me for your next CSM Representative, I like beer, food and EVE. I look awesome and that is about it!
Rar rar rar!
|
Djavo
Saiyans United death from above..
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:20:00 -
[306]
Sorry I forgot to add that I like to snare badgers for sexual pleasure.
Vote Djavo.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:23:00 -
[307]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 08/07/2010 07:23:44
Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku Look, no one, not even Finn, opposed Ankh's candidacy more than I did. That said I simply do not trust CCP here, especially not after T20. For CCP to sack a CSM member not long after she made a very vocal blog post excoriating them simply does not seem kosher. Yes, Finn is correct that they have absolutely every right to do so, but then I have every right to give a .44 Magnum a blowjob--it doesn't mean that I should. CCP should give the players at least SOME kind of further information if at all possible, for their own PR as much as anything else.
Frankly, at this point, I don't know which of them to trust less.
No, it had nothing to do with her blog, I already clarified that.
Originally by: Furb Killer
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Nareg Maxence In her blog, Eva discusses measures that CCP are planing to implement to reduce lag. She mentions two specific actions that they are planing. Since this is technical insider knowledge, I am pretty sure this is covered by the NDA.
You can read her blog at: http://eve-takecare.net/
Just a general FYI; she was *not* kicked over stuff mentioned in her CSM blog.
You said that earlier, quickly followed by a post saying you were just guessing and had no idea. So what is it this time, do you actually have information we dont have or are you guessing again?
How thick are you? I already clarified this (several times in fact): multiple CSM members including me voiced the same opinions that she did, in fact I was the first to do so, and none of them have been reprimanded for it because it contained no NDA sensitive material. That forces us to conclude that Ankh wasn't kicked from the CSM because of that. á
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
Dograzor
The Black Rabbits Academy The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:28:00 -
[308]
TBH that was unexpected. I would say that a member that has been on the CSM for a couple of times should know what or what not to say that falls under the NDA.
Anyways, I want to see details as everybody else, but I suppose this is one of the ongoing investigations of CCP (just like 6NJ) that goes on for 6 months & we get some jack **** post that isn't really informative at all.
Still, an unexpected turn of events, and I really want to see how this plays out.
For the hordes out there trying to satisfy their needs for drama, this will help you while you wait for official news:
Push this button
-
"We don't gank, we just apply force in a disproportionate manner during an uneven tactical combat situation to maximize revenue and increase shareholder value" |
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:32:00 -
[309]
I think CCP owes the community a full disclosure on this topic. Leaving it to rumors and speculation will cause more damage down the road than it will now. It'll come out sooner or later, not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
|
Yuki Kulotsuki
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:36:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Dograzor For the hordes out there trying to satisfy their needs for drama, this will help you while you wait for official news:
Push this button
Damn it. Now I can't stop pressing the stupid button. *click*
Originally by: CCP Lemur THIS IS GOD: ... IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE REQUESTS I'M AVAILABLE SUNDAY FROM 10:30 TO 12:00 TO RECEIVE YOUR PRAYERS.
|
|
Clovermite
Kamikaze Fleet Command Kamikaze Project
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 07:58:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Malcanis
CCP, CSM members and Ankh herself have all confirmed that this is connected with something that happened in a previous CSM, and is nothing to do with CSM5 (at least not directly)
Links or it didn't happen.
All Ankh has said is that it wasn't the blog and that she doesn't agree with them. All CCP has said can be summed up as "She broke NDA. We don't want to tell you why." As for CSM members, I only count Sok as speaking for the legitimacy of the claim. The others have only commented on Ankh, or confirmed that the blog wasn't involved.
Personally, I'd like to see Mynxee comment on the matter. She's seemed to take a middle road on the ankh controversy in the past (both acknowledges that Ankh has issues, yet fairminded enough to recognize and respect the anti-ankh campaign).
Certainly, Ankh leaving the CSM is not that a huge loss.
BUT, the very fact that CSM was created in response to internal corporate dishonesty and favoritism from CCP employees DOES affect this matter. ESPECIALLY because CCP has, so far, given CSM the same treatment you give a group of touring kindergardners (Oh that's a great idea sweety! Now run along and play while the grown ups do real work. Here's a crown to make you feel special- smile for the cameras!).
While it is their official policy, and legal right, to stay quiet, it definitely does not do well for them PR wise.
All it takes is a simple "While serving under the term as CSM member, Ank divulged sensitive information to a third party." NDA agreements are quite purposefully left extremely broad, so it is very possible (especially considering CCP's track record) that they found a technicality to use to kick her out simply because they did not like her. If the "reason" is something she did x months/years ago, then that is just an asinine excuse to can her out of favoritism.
Keep the details - it's confidential, I totally understand the need to protect proprietary information. DO, however, point to a specific form of breach.
After all, this whole thing started when a certain unnamed spy uncovered questionable activity, and was banned for bringing it up to CCP in a petition as that was "breaking the EULA."
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:03:00 -
[312]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 08/07/2010 08:03:23
Originally by: Clovermite
While it is their official policy, and legal right, to stay quiet, it definitely does not do well for them PR wise.
I completely agree with that, and more openness has been requested. As it stands now the rampant speculation going on isn't doing anyone any good - people are even suggesting that 'we' are using a cheap excuse to 'get rid of her'. á
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:09:00 -
[313]
Oh.........
My.........
God........
Can space politics get any better?
And to all those who are saying this is bad PR for the CSM and CCP, think again. There is no such thing as bad PR. PR is PR. More people are talking about space politics now than ever before. The issues that are being discussed may not be the best thing for game development but I bet this is sending shock waves throughout the MMORPG industry and players of all games will eventually hear of this in some form or another. They may think negatively or positively towards the actions of CCP but they are thinking about CCP and EVE.
I would like at some point a statement from CCP detailing the actual breach of the NDA, however this would remove a lot of the drama and rumours that are spreading through New Eden and elsewhere out of game.
|
Athena Olympus
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:15:00 -
[314]
All seems very arbitrary to me, reminds me of certain despotic goverments trying to pretend they are diplomatic when in fact they are not. I would have expected at least a report and details of the breach before the member of the CSM was removed from position, I suspect there is more here than what is being disclosed to us.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:18:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Clovermite
Originally by: Malcanis
CCP, CSM members and Ankh herself have all confirmed that this is connected with something that happened in a previous CSM, and is nothing to do with CSM5 (at least not directly)
Links or it didn't happen.
All Ankh has said is that it wasn't the blog and that she doesn't agree with them. All CCP has said can be summed up as "She broke NDA. We don't want to tell you why." As for CSM members, I only count Sok as speaking for the legitimacy of the claim. The others have only commented on Ankh, or confirmed that the blog wasn't involved.
Personally, I'd like to see Mynxee comment on the matter. She's seemed to take a middle road on the ankh controversy in the past (both acknowledges that Ankh has issues, yet fairminded enough to recognize and respect the anti-ankh campaign).
Certainly, Ankh leaving the CSM is not that a huge loss.
BUT, the very fact that CSM was created in response to internal corporate dishonesty and favoritism from CCP employees DOES affect this matter. ESPECIALLY because CCP has, so far, given CSM the same treatment you give a group of touring kindergardners (Oh that's a great idea sweety! Now run along and play while the grown ups do real work. Here's a crown to make you feel special- smile for the cameras!).
While it is their official policy, and legal right, to stay quiet, it definitely does not do well for them PR wise.
All it takes is a simple "While serving under the term as CSM member, Ank divulged sensitive information to a third party." NDA agreements are quite purposefully left extremely broad, so it is very possible (especially considering CCP's track record) that they found a technicality to use to kick her out simply because they did not like her. If the "reason" is something she did x months/years ago, then that is just an asinine excuse to can her out of favoritism.
Keep the details - it's confidential, I totally understand the need to protect proprietary information. DO, however, point to a specific form of breach.
After all, this whole thing started when a certain unnamed spy uncovered questionable activity, and was banned for bringing it up to CCP in a petition as that was "breaking the EULA."
Oh yes I quite agree that CCP could give us more information about the kind of thing that (they think) she did. I'm just saying that there's no evidence at all that this is anything to do with her criticizing them in that blog of hers.
You might want to consider the legal implications though. If - as people are speculating - they did kick her because they suspect her of leaking NDA info to a competitior, well then that's their right, and they're probably right to have a "better safe than sorry" policy. I'd do the same (although I'd probably use spoongate as a pretext or something, but hey, we all know CCP understands PR like a randy boar in a sow shed understands romance)
But if they said that in public, without very hard evidence, then they'd be opening themselves up to a huge legal liability. Ankh would have very good grounds for suing them for significant damages.
tl;dr: CCP were probably right to do what they did, although as usual they handled it in :CCP: fashion. Now that someone with a clue has pointed this out to them they're doing their usual clamshell routine, and they're right to do that too.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Dograzor
The Black Rabbits Academy The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:21:00 -
[316]
Edited by: Dograzor on 08/07/2010 08:22:55
Originally by: Malcanis
Personally, I'd like to see Mynxee comment on the matter. She's seemed to take a middle road on the ankh controversy in the past (both acknowledges that Ankh has issues, yet fairminded enough to recognize and respect the anti-ankh campaign).
Linkage
-
"We don't gank, we just apply force in a disproportionate manner during an uneven tactical combat situation to maximize revenue and increase shareholder value" |
Flios Bror
Amarr Doom Guard
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:47:00 -
[317]
What exactly gives CCP the right to remove her from the CSM? The members are chosen by us, not by CCP. I see that they have the right to not listen to anyone and not provide any information or services, but is it for them to tell who are our voices?
I'd need more information before I could honestly remove support for her. As it stands now, she's still my voice towards CCP, and CCP is willfully ignoring my indirect voice without giving me a substantiated reason. [None] |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:47:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Dograzor Edited by: Dograzor on 08/07/2010 08:22:55
Originally by: Malcanis
Personally, I'd like to see Mynxee comment on the matter. She's seemed to take a middle road on the ankh controversy in the past (both acknowledges that Ankh has issues, yet fairminded enough to recognize and respect the anti-ankh campaign).
Linkage
Pretty sure I didn't say that.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:50:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/07/2010 08:50:15
Originally by: Malcanis Pretty sure I didn't say that.
Ed: Oh. NM. <--- Stupid. -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Yuki Kulotsuki
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 08:57:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Flios Bror What exactly gives CCP the right to remove her from the CSM?
Wow. Just wow. Ignoring everything else (like breaching a contract) are you seriously asking what gives a private company the right to remove a volunteer from one of it's programs?
Originally by: CCP Lemur THIS IS GOD: ... IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE REQUESTS I'M AVAILABLE SUNDAY FROM 10:30 TO 12:00 TO RECEIVE YOUR PRAYERS.
|
|
Dograzor
The Black Rabbits Academy The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:06:00 -
[321]
Originally by: Malcanis
Pretty sure I didn't say that.
Correct, seems you quoted him & I quoted you quoting him & then it somewhere messed up. Fixed now. -
"We don't gank, we just apply force in a disproportionate manner during an uneven tactical combat situation to maximize revenue and increase shareholder value" |
Yendor Widdershins
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:19:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Flios Bror What exactly gives CCP the right to remove her from the CSM?
You have been paying too much attention to the politicians. The CSM has no power except that which CCP temporarily gives it. It was created for PR purposes, and all the huffing about accountability is because CCP screwed up the expectations management and allowed players to think that CSM would be allowed to do anything other than present player feedback in person.
This removal has made it abundantly clear that CCP has the power to unilaterally remove delegates, and I see no visible objections from the same people who were huffing about accountability and transparency last week.
|
Cailais
Amarr THE ORDAINED
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:23:00 -
[323]
The loss of Ankh may prove in the longer term to be a positive for the CSM.
I would hope it will encourage players to be more circumspect in their selection of a candidate and the 'drama bomb' bring the CSM to the attention of more players (even bad news is good PR).
My greatest concern for the CSM is, and has always been, its focus as a personality contest. Either players have been selected for the CSM because they're minor EVE Celebs or they apply to the CSM to become a minor EVE Celeb.
What the CSM hasn't done (as far as I can tell) is actually worked as a collective - its still a disparate group of individuals all clamouring for their place in the spot light.
My preference (before the first CSM) was that players ran and promoted themselves as players - not on the basis of their in game persona's. In the same vein rather than have player X or Y post the outcomes of the CSM perhaps there should be a CSM Avatar - an anonymous 'alt' who posts on behalf of the CSM as a whole.
The minutes and so forth rather reflect this "Ank said, Sok said" etc etc. We dont really need to know who in the CSM said what - what matters is the end result, not the unsightly process that goes on in the background.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:33:00 -
[324]
You know what's silly? People demanding that CCP discloses the information that was leaked to justify their actions even though that information is sensitive enough to require a NDA to assure confidentiality. -------- All I want is a better mankind.
|
Alghu Karaolum
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:33:00 -
[325]
One of my votes went to Ankh. I was stating to be a bit annoyed about some of her shenanigans like listing herself as a CCP employee in LinkedIn. Still, to some forum warriors great dismay, she was doing her job.
The ball is in CCP's side now, why was the second most voted CSM booted? Does this exoneration have something to do with her critical stance?
CSM's credibility is on the line here. I mean, if Ankh. went batshift insane we, the players, deserve the true story and not some canned "not in our logs" text.
|
Rictus
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:40:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Alghu Karaolum
The ball is in CCP's side now, why was the second most voted CSM booted?
Because she breached the NDA?
(/flex thread title reading skills).
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:44:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Alghu Karaolum
The ball is in CCP's side now, why was the second most voted CSM booted?
Because she broke an NDA
Originally by: Alghu Karaolum
Does this exoneration have something to do with her critical stance?
No.
Reading is difficult I take it! á
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
Helicity Boson
Amarr The Python Cartel. The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:46:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Yuki Kulotsuki Larkonisgate: Detractors: you ****ing pirate! OMG how dare you! ban his ass! forum ban should be game ban! Supporters: way to get caught noob. you should've known better.
Alphabetsoup sacked: Detractors: give us the goods. she probably deserved it. Supporters: OMG leave her alone! just leave her alone!
One side seems to have been much more drama llama about this than the other; consistently through both sackings but on different sides of the candidate. Then again, the other side knows how to troll the first from here to iceland and back.
I for one welcome our [censored hacker name] supported, free-trip to iceland (too late!), vote for me I'm a chick, new CSM member.
This.
Then again, I've consistently been able to prove that Harcore carebears are "psychotic virigins" as ankh likes to call the pirates more than any other player.
Afterall, I get actual death threats during hulkageddon.
conclusion: carebears = brownshirts.
|
Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises Babylon Project
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:56:00 -
[329]
Hmm sadly I don't see much good come of this and the way it's being handled.. I don't really care about Ankhesem-->Ankh being kicked from the CSM, especially if she did something wrong, but what now?
Without the CSM members knowing what it's all about how can they know they're not crossing some line (as mentioned, some blog posts could be viewed as breaking NDA, I highly doubt being negative about CCP counts, I think everyone who likes the game is or has been negative about CCP for extended amount of time, although, yeah, great timing there CCP )?
And what about the replacement CSM member? Ankh had quite a lot of votes and not all of them would have voted for the replacement.. In politics you would either get someone from the same party to replace someone, or new elections.. In fact, looking at the results you can see the 'reserve members' had very little between them, 6 votes between 3 people.. in fact those three people had barely more votes combined than Ankh to start with.
I can imagine to some voters this would seem rather odd, especially knowing the difference between the politics of Mazz and Ankh.. Obviously serious business and all, but if CCP really wants the CSM to be the elected representation of the players (that vote), they might want to reconsider the replacement scheme..
/me wonders if this whole matter will lead to a better CSM and eve
All the above is prolly crap
Drone Guide
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2010.07.08 09:59:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Cailais The loss of Ankh may prove in the longer term to be a positive for the CSM.
I would hope it will encourage players to be more circumspect in their selection of a candidate and the 'drama bomb' bring the CSM to the attention of more players (even bad news is good PR).
My greatest concern for the CSM is, and has always been, its focus as a personality contest. Either players have been selected for the CSM because they're minor EVE Celebs or they apply to the CSM to become a minor EVE Celeb.
What the CSM hasn't done (as far as I can tell) is actually worked as a collective - its still a disparate group of individuals all clamouring for their place in the spot light.
My preference (before the first CSM) was that players ran and promoted themselves as players - not on the basis of their in game persona's. In the same vein rather than have player X or Y post the outcomes of the CSM perhaps there should be a CSM Avatar - an anonymous 'alt' who posts on behalf of the CSM as a whole.
The minutes and so forth rather reflect this "Ank said, Sok said" etc etc. We dont really need to know who in the CSM said what - what matters is the end result, not the unsightly process that goes on in the background.
C.
While it is true that "well known" characters have an easier time getting elected, it is also by virtue of them having a deeper, or more thorough, understanding of the game, or at least one particular aspect thereof. Also they tend to have a large follower base in cases of alliance leadership. However I disagree with the rest of your argument.
Most of the people elected to the CSM are already well known, and those who weren't haven't become more famous in the process. I can assure you that the CSM did and does work as a collective most of the time, that is clearly visible during the Iceland meetings if nowhere else. There is however no denying that people have differing opinions, experiences and obectives, but this doesn't prevent things being accomplished, on the contrary. It is through the exchange of ideas that the CSM works best.
As far as the elections go, people frequently tout their qualities as a person before their in-game persona, the latter being used as credential to attest of their knowledge (while also serving as a role of vote grabbing through name recognition).
An anonymous CSM Avatar could work for some things, not so for others.
The minutes reflect each member's opinions and ideas, as they are held and presented during the debates that happen. You seem to think that people having different opinions and arguing about proposals is a bad thing, I believe it is its greatest strength for without a contrary opinion, nobody would try and assert the validity of the claims. The process is as important as the end result, and while the end result should (and do) come from "the CSM", the process of arriving at that conclusion is a vital part and comes from the members. As a voter, you would want to know where the elected members stand, how they argue for/against things...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |