EVE Search - CSM Feedback to CCP

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CSM Feedback to CCP

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Gregor Parud 385	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:46:00 - [151] - Quote Alyth Nerun wrote: What really bugs be is not the invisible line CCP draws. It's that some people who have no affiliation with CCP get the banhammer for stepping over this invisible line, while others like personal friends of CCP like the Mittani or SOMER Blink guys get a temporary ban in one case (for the attempt to get someone to kill himself!) and nothing at all in SOMER Blinks case for obvious RMT which are in both cases clear violations of written down rules and not a "gray area". In the SOMER Blink RMT case, they even told us explicitly that we don't even have to join the discussion if we just call for blood. And now they rule because of a call for blood over a "gray area" with a probably permanent ban. So before CCP changes or defines any rules, they should first work on their consistency when it comes to the application of the rules or non-rules in this public cases. Ok, lets have them ban Mittens too then, if that's what you're asking for.
Aivo Dresden Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 317	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:47:00 - [152] - Quote The only thing I want is a clearly drawn line. I don't care if that line is set at racial harassment, real life threats, inappropriate sexual harassment, or just calling people douches, but at least then we have a line. So in that aspect, yes I want option 1. Option 1 doesn't mean that every single thing you say is a policy violation. It just means that we have a line known and visible for everyone, that can't be crossed. That's all really. If that line is drawn at racial slurs, so be it. If the line is drawn at calling someone an ass, well that would suck but at least we have a clear line then.
DJentropy Ovaert Crazy Bird Inc. The Fire Nation Syndicate 208	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:47:00 - [153] - Quote Since we're talking about this - let me elaborate. From the EULA "You may not submit any content to any chat room or other public forum within the Game that is harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory, encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense or give rise to civil liabilities, or is unlawful in any other way, including without limitation the submission of content that infringes on a third-partyGÇÖs intellectual property rights." This is beyond vague. What is considered "harrassing, abusing, threatening, harmful, obscene, libelous or defamatory" differs wildly from person to person, and opens up a gray area too huge for my personal comfort. For example: let us pretend that I find pictures of kittens obscene. I state in a local chat channel "please, don't link any pictures of kittens - it's obscene and wrong." and a player opens a private conversation with me and drops a picture of a kitten in it. Is this a violation of the EULA? I know it's a rather silly example, but when you have a EULA that is this vague - you create a system that is open to totally silly situations, as we all saw unfold over the last few days.
Dave Stark 4829	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:48:00 - [154] - Quote Malcanis wrote: I am more than happy for people who boast about being rapists to be removed from the EVE community, since they should be in prison. I'd rather that we simply handed the evidence to the relevant authorities, and let them deal with them. while being dealt with it may slip their mind to cancel their recurring subscription which can be used to improve eve for the rest of us.
Pak Narhoo Splinter Foundation 1401	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:49:00 - [155] - Quote I'm, if my voice has any weight, for #2 yet, " GÇªand 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. " ^the above is something E1 & Co. clearly have no idea what that means. So what happens if others like that^ pop-up on our radar?
Gregor Parud 385	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:50:00 - [156] - Quote Aivo Dresden wrote: The only thing I want is a clearly drawn line. I don't care if that line is set at racial harassment, real life threats, inappropriate sexual harassment, or just calling people douches, but at least then we have a line. So in that aspect, yes I want option 1. Option 1 doesn't mean that every single thing you say is a policy violation. It just means that we have a line, known and visible for everyone that can't be crossed. That's all really. If that line is drawn at racial slurs, so be it. If the line is drawn at calling someone an ass, well that would suck but at least we have a clear line then. No because CCP has no control over outside sources, forums, IRC, twitter or whatever else and as such it's impossible to have them police them. All they can do is look at way over the top cases (like this one) on an individual basis (like they have). Ingame those rules already exist.
Purity by Fire Chaos From Order Manifest Destiny. 43	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:55:00 - [157] - Quote option 2 However I would like the EULA to be looked into again in the scripting of rules and regulations. I think a higher authority of escalation is required and not just stop at say GM Nova. I believe in certain high cases a GM panel needs to review with an elected CSM. This gives total balance to certain grey areas within EULA
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 87	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:56:00 - [158] - Quote I'm gonna go with option 1, that way we can quit playing because the only thing that makes Eve different will be gone. But that's because you didn't give me a choice for Option 2.1: Continue with the status quo but keep matters of bad personal interactions between the GMs and the directly involved players, and not determined by who can write the most overwrought blog post or stir up the biggest threadnaught. Unlike RMT or client modification, harassment and bullying are matters of context and opinion, not fact. If none of the involved parties feels harassed or bullied, it wasn't harassment or bullying.
Wulfy Johnson NorCorp Security 41	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:56:00 - [159] - Quote Maybe edit in a link to the book "common sense" into option 2 as reference to that invisible line in the sand rule..
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 14802	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:58:00 - [160] - Quote Purity by Fire wrote: option 2 However I would like the EULA to be looked into again in the scripting of rules and regulations. I think a higher authority of escalation is required and not just stop at say GM Nova. I believe in certain high cases a GM panel needs to review with an elected CSM. This gives total balance to certain grey areas within EULA This issue was raised with CCP, and you'll be happy to know that in this specific incidence, CCP consulted the CSM very throughly indeed. 1 Kings 12:11
ACE McFACE The Scope Gallente Federation 1800	Posted - 2014.03.29 11:59:00 - [161] - Quote 2 Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Alyth Nerun Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER CODE. 151	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:00:00 - [162] - Quote Catherine Wolfisheim wrote: The issue is that not each case is the same, coming up with a specific policy could harm cases that do not need to be harmed. Assuming a strict set of policies and following them religiously is not a viable option for this. That's why there's an invisible line that mustn't be touched. You have this clear violations on one side, and you can come up with a policy or not how to deal with them. But how can a non-clear violation from a "gray area" even be punished more severely than an obvious "non gray area" violation?
Catherine Wolfisheim Born Crazy 13	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:00:00 - [163] - Quote Malcanis wrote: This issue was raised with CCP, and you'll be happy to know that in this specific incidence, CCP consulted the CSM very throughly indeed. So, if the CSM already spoke with CCP then what's the purpose of this thread? Alyth Nerun wrote: You have this clear violations on one side, and you can come up with a policy or not how to deal with them. But how can a non-clear violation from a "gray area" even be punished more severely than an obvious "non gray area" violation? Hence it being case-to-case, and those variables are reviewed to return a satisfiable outcome.
Genseric Tollaris The Scope Gallente Federation 195	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:00:00 - [164] - Quote Option 2 please.
Shahrokh Dariush Conspicuous Trading Company 1	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:02:00 - [165] - Quote If 2) represents where we are after yesterdays action by CCP, then 2) it is. There has to be a line somewhere. I don't mind if it's "blurry" (to the players), as long as CCP has a clear line that they themselves follow. Having a perfectly defined line allows, as many have pointed out, players to skirt up to the line and dance around. When the line is blurred, and they risk stepping over it, perhaps they will exercise a little more common sense in how they treat others (and not go to these extremes as have been brought up in the past month(s)).
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 14802	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:03:00 - [166] - Quote Catherine Wolfisheim wrote: Malcanis wrote: This issue was raised with CCP, and you'll be happy to know that in this specific incidence, CCP consulted the CSM very throughly indeed. So, if the CSM already spoke with CCP then what's the purpose of this thread? How will the numbers effectively help the CSM? Alyth Nerun wrote: You have this clear violations on one side, and you can come up with a policy or not how to deal with them. But how can a non-clear violation from a "gray area" even be punished more severely than an obvious "non gray area" violation? Hence it being case-to-case, and those variables are reviewed to return a satisfiable outcome. To find out how big a cup of hemlock I have to drink at Fanfest, of course. 1 Kings 12:11
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 684	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:04:00 - [167] - Quote #2. Overall CCP is doing a good job. It's not always going to be the easy way and there will be discussions every now and then. But I'm optimistic, that we can sort it out. Remove insurance.
Catherine Wolfisheim Born Crazy 13	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:04:00 - [168] - Quote Malcanis wrote: To find out how big a cup of hemlock I have to drink at Fanfest, of course. Of course, I'll roughly translate that to the amount of beers I'll drink the following days.
Klyith GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 89	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:05:00 - [169] - Quote Catherine Wolfisheim wrote: So, if the CSM already spoke with CCP then what's the purpose of this thread? "Hey look over there!"
Lupe Meza Hedion University Amarr Empire 10	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:06:00 - [170] - Quote 2 Eve isn't real life, but how you treat other human beings is.
Wesley Otsdarva Asuratech Industrial Corp AAA Citizens 36	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:07:00 - [171] - Quote 2, I feel with the announcement that they pretty much described it as. "If you are wondering if you crossed the line, you crossed it. Be a moral human being."
Infinity Ziona Cloakers 2043	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:13:00 - [172] - Quote 2 but with of course with the understanding that freedoms mean taking responsibility and failing to play responsibly could mean bannation. None of this "my ethical standards are so much lower than other people I didn't consider it irresponsible" rubbish. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467
Aivo Dresden Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 318	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:15:00 - [173] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Aivo Dresden wrote: The only thing I want is a clearly drawn line. I don't care if that line is set at racial harassment, real life threats, inappropriate sexual harassment, or just calling people douches, but at least then we have a line. So in that aspect, yes I want option 1. Option 1 doesn't mean that every single thing you say is a policy violation. It just means that we have a line, known and visible for everyone that can't be crossed. That's all really. If that line is drawn at racial slurs, so be it. If the line is drawn at calling someone an ass, well that would suck but at least we have a clear line then. No because CCP has no control over outside sources, forums, IRC, twitter or whatever else and as such it's impossible to have them police them. All they can do is look at way over the top cases (like this one) on an individual basis (like they have). Ingame those rules already exist. Obviously this only goes for ingame stuff and what otherwise constitutes as real life harassment. And if you need a black and white line on what constitutes real life harassment maybe you should get your moral compass checked. I trust CCPs judgment when it comes to complicated cases. From experience, the ones that generally want all the details on what they can and cannot do are generally the ones that are looking to do something dodgy anyway.
Myriad Blaze Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda 220	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:16:00 - [174] - Quote DJentropy Ovaert wrote: 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. But we already have clear, simple to understand, concise rules with a degree of flexibility. It's just that you don't like what CCP in consensus with the majority of people here make of that.
Bob Bedala 42	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:21:00 - [175] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Needless to say, my strong preference is for option 2. No kidding! :) This may be why you phrased 1) the way you did: Malcanis wrote: (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. "don't say anything bad at all to another player" is not what this point could mean, and IMO you've phrased it to be unattractive, when it's a very valid option -- if explored a little deeper. IMO CCP should define what is and is not acceptable with pretty broad brush strokes, and crucially provide examples, in a "user guide" which is more understandable than the EULA (which is by necessity a legal document and therefore incomprehensible to many). Something like the wiki page on Griefing, maybe. What's the minimum player age? 13? 14? It is unreasonable to expect a 13-year old to read and understand the EULA with it's current language and it's even more unreasonable to expect players to read these forums. CCP should make more effort to make these things comprehendible and give players and GMs something to refer to with clear examples & applicable punishments for breaches. CCP have absolutely been negligent thus far in communicating where the lines are, and can therefore only blame themselves for any resultant confusion, player grief & media fallout. And yes at a low level. Of course it is impossible to define all instances, and yes this is a moving target. CCP would also of course retain their right to bring down the banhammer when someone goes against the spirit of the rules if not the rules themselves. And when this happens, update the examples. As part of these efforts, CCP should also drop the policy of not commenting on specific matters in the interests of clarity and letting people know where the grey line is -- again in the interest of providing more examples.
Sipphakta en Gravonere 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 518	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:26:00 - [176] - Quote #2 I don't want CCP to shield players from random bad words thrown at them, but they of course SHOULD intervene and take action when targeted and sustained harassment or threats of doing RL harm happen.
Lady Areola Fappington New Order Logistics CODE. 1557	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:35:00 - [177] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Lady Areola Fappington wrote: In the end, the answer is pretty obvious. I mean, here's an example: Everyone here agrees that ** is a horrible, bad thing. Lets say I come across the blog of an Eve player that discusses an incident of what I feel to be classic date . They also talk about Eve online on the blog too, making it a part of the Eve community. It's incumbent on CCP at that point to take action against this person, for violating the EULA and ToS. Again, everyone agrees rapists are horrible scumbags, and advocating for has utterly no place in our community. Having known a few ** survivors in my past, they would be quite horrified knowing that CCP might be allowing people like that a place in our community. Their feelings are just as justified and legit as anyone else, and should be respected. The only answer is, as I said, CCP needs to ruthlessly and pro-actively remove anything that could be considered a form of harassment to anyone, no matter where it's found. I am more than happy for people who boast about being rapists to be removed from the EVE community, since they should be in prison. I'm even willing to tolerate people who conflate the punishment due to rapists with that due to people who commit far lesser offences, although not, of course, to agree with their obviously fallacious logic. OK Malc, you know I normally agree with you, and I laid it on kinda thick with those posts, for sure, but: You're telling me you'd be perfectly fine with someone being banned from EVE, because of a post on an external blog, that someone else decides fits their definition of daterape? I have activist friends who's definition of the act means "asking more than once=coercion" I really hate sounding like a Goonspiracy nut, but the idea "dictating the narrative" and "viewed out of context" comes to mind. You can make an innocent act look pretty horrible if you present it with the correct context and framing. My concern is, what recourse do I have when Joe HatesGanks gets all superstalky, finds my crazy fetish blog, frames the context to CCP as "OMG look at this horrid sicko, ban them or it goes to the media!". 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).
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 14808	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:37:00 - [178] - Quote Lady Areola Fappington wrote: Malcanis wrote: Lady Areola Fappington wrote: In the end, the answer is pretty obvious. I mean, here's an example: Everyone here agrees that ** is a horrible, bad thing. Lets say I come across the blog of an Eve player that discusses an incident of what I feel to be classic date . They also talk about Eve online on the blog too, making it a part of the Eve community. It's incumbent on CCP at that point to take action against this person, for violating the EULA and ToS. Again, everyone agrees rapists are horrible scumbags, and advocating for has utterly no place in our community. Having known a few ** survivors in my past, they would be quite horrified knowing that CCP might be allowing people like that a place in our community. Their feelings are just as justified and legit as anyone else, and should be respected. The only answer is, as I said, CCP needs to ruthlessly and pro-actively remove anything that could be considered a form of harassment to anyone, no matter where it's found. I am more than happy for people who boast about being rapists to be removed from the EVE community, since they should be in prison. I'm even willing to tolerate people who conflate the punishment due to rapists with that due to people who commit far lesser offences, although not, of course, to agree with their obviously fallacious logic. OK Malc, you know I normally agree with you, and I laid it on kinda thick with those posts, for sure, but: You're telling me you'd be perfectly fine with someone being banned from EVE, because of a post on an external blog, that someone else decides fits their definition of daterape? I have activist friends who's definition of the act means "asking more than once=coercion" I really hate sounding like a Goonspiracy nut, but the idea "dictating the narrative" and "viewed out of context" comes to mind. You can make an innocent act look pretty horrible if you present it with the correct context and framing. My concern is, what recourse do I have when Joe HatesGanks gets all superstalky, finds my crazy fetish blog, frames the context to CCP as "OMG look at this horrid sicko, ban them or it goes to the media!". Do you think CCp's definition would match that of your activist acquaintences? 1 Kings 12:11
Jarod Garamonde Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 1469	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:39:00 - [179] - Quote Fitting warp core stabs to combat ships in lowsec should be considered harassment of pirates, and therefor, a bannable offense. Nothing follows. FOUO POC for this memorandum is the undersigned, Garamonde, Jarod Sardaukar Merc Guild "A T1 Swarm of Significantly Better Than You" That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...
Gregor Parud 390	Posted - 2014.03.29 12:40:00 - [180] - Quote DON'T FORCE CCP TO MAKE THESE DICISIONS FOR YOU, YOU WON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME! Strict ruling never works, why can't people understand this?

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

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,17s, ref 20251025/0705
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.