There goes EVE-kill, then.

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.

Pretty much.
That's something which cannot be copy-pasted into Eve as you've stated there are parts like Eve-Kills which are valid in here.
But for other stuff they may be valid... not my place to decide but there it stands.

Your options are basically biased to number 2, which I believe is your preferred course of action. While I want to believe you were trying to be fair, options 1 and 3 are throw-away/straw man courses of action that are not plausible.

All of this isn't a hard thing to accept, CCP is a business and will run it's business as they see fit. If they feel they need to update the EULA or change their policies, they will and they don't need a poll from the General Discussion boards or CSM input to do it. If you don't like the decisions that they are making, then learn to live with it or vote with your wallet. It's not hard.

That's because both #1 and #3 ARE silly, not just because he tried to present them as being silly. Also, he's gathering general consensus which, being a CSM member, seems like a good thing to do. I'll agree that there's at least a small amount of trolling going on, this being Malcanis, but that doesn't necessarily take anything away from the discussion.

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?

Not necessarily, that's the ethical thing to do, but not the one he must do.

Number one please.

This is a game about spaceships, blowing up spaceships, and assorted economical results from that. Getting your spaceship blown up does not give you license to harass other people.

People who say "OMG U (derogatory term for a homosexual male) U ganked me!" deserve to be shown the door. EVE Online should not get a reputation for allowing bigotry and intolerance, no matter the circumstance it happens in.

Heck, even if you take the "third party site" out of the equation, sharing killmails goes bye-bye, too.

dunno about you but I hope he wish to be ethical in this case.
Sharing with us his opinons on the matter is doing a disservice to this entire endeavor.

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"

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.

As you are all no doubt aware, CCP Falcon, the leader of the EVE Community Team, yesterday published a communication on the subject of player harrassment. As might be expected, this issue, and CCP's reply, has caused a certain amount of contention. The main point of contention seems to be that CCP refuse to give an exact definition of what constitutes harrassment and abuse, instead requiring players to exercise judgement and discretion in their communication with outher players.

In other to get some actual numbers into the discussion, please can you select from one of the following three options for the CSM to present to CCP as the opinion of the community.:

(1) CCP should define abuse and harrassment at the lowest level possible so that essentially any potentially offensive communication is deemed unacceptable, and everyone has a clear idea of where the line is: don't say anything bad at all to another player. This is the choice of virtually every MMO in the game industry.

(2) CCP should continue with the status quo, and trust the members of the EVE community to have the adult intelligence and humanity to exercise discretion in how far they can take their communication with other players. And having exercised that discretion, to also be aware that we're all members of the game community and that while every kind of in-game space-villainy is legitimate, we're all actual human beings behind the screen and we should be careful with our out of game actions to each other. This option is, so far as I am aware, unique to CCP and EVE; if other MMOs place this level of trust and faith in their players I am unaware of them.

(3) CCP should stand back and allow without comment the members of the community complete free reign in using CCP's IP and property to engage in and facilitate whatever activities they desire, regardless of damage done and regardless of the clear trend of escalating unpleasantness. This option, so far as I am aware, is not available anywhere and may in fact contravene the laws of quite a few nations including several which comprise large sections of the EVE playerbase.

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.
.

Where is the option that involves fairly dealing with players outside of pressure from blog post and threats to run to the media?

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.

Fix it.

Branching off the cookie cutter list: I want CCP to clearly, in black and white terms to define what "harassment" is.

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.

Does OP represent the unified position of the entire CSM?