I think the very concept of a sitting CSM taking an active hand in player punishments should not permitted.

Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is pure invented bullshit. No such requirement exists

but

Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is pure invented bullshit. No such requirement exists, even if we concede the dubious argument that calling out reprehensible actions is failing to hold a high standard. I would argue that the opposite is true. If for instance I found incontrovertible proof that another player was running a large bot network or was illegally accessing other people's accounts and looting them, what kind of "higher standard" would it be that made me keep silent?

Stop snivelling on your blog and face the music Ripard. On GD.

+1

CSMs who have blogs should follow the Eve-O forum rules to the letter on their own blog/website during office or suffer sanctions from CCP. Make it a consensual part of the terms for accepting office.

I don't ever want to see CCP use the phrase vile, evil, despicable human being to describe a player. CSM members may do so, as may any other player - but they'd be subject to immediate moderation here. Our player elected officials should not be able to circumvent rules every other player is subject to simply because they have a pulpit, credability and their own website..

Also this talk of "holding CSMs to a higher standard" is pure invented bullshit. No such requirement exists, even if we concede the dubious argument that calling out reprehensible actions is failing to hold a high standard. I would argue that the opposite is true. If for instance I found incontrovertible proof that another player was running a large bot network or was illegally accessing other people's accounts and looting them, what kind of "higher standard" would it be that made me keep silent?

Maybe it is not written down and not part of the EULA/TOS or the NDA you have to sign, but Ripart Teg's blog definitively crossed some invisible line in some "gray area". Or is this kind of argument only valid if the suspect is not a personal friend of some CCP staff?

I'm not claiming that there is any such requirement or even that there should be, at least in any codified sense. I'm not even really saying that Ripard was wrong in calling Erotica 1 out. In my opinion Erotica 1 clearly crossed the line and some form of disciplinary action was justified.

I agree with CCP Falcon's statement in GD about the line between all-in-good-fun shenanigans and true harassment being drawn at the point where people start to lose control of their emotions. However, in keeping with that principle, I saw a lot of posts in these forums and others concerning this issue in which the individuals writing showed every sign of having lost emotional control. I saw threats of out-of-game violence both direct and implied. I saw insults and personal attacks, and a lot of people who seemed to have lost touch with the fact that we are really just arguing about a video game here and shouldn't take it so seriously.

You can lay the blame for all that at the feet of Erotica 1 if you want, and he certainly deserves part of it. But when I read Ripard' s article, I can't help but interpret the inflammatory language that he used as being intended to produce exactly that effect. He was not merely reporting the facts or calling Erotica 1 out, he was deliberately trying to incite the Internet equivalent of a riot, with all the emotional excess that implies. That is what Ripard Teg did wrong. If that is not what he intended, then he owes it to the community to come to the forums and explain himself, otherwise we can only assume the worst.

I'm not saying that CSMs shouldn't be free to speak their minds in private or in public, I'm just saying that if someone is worthy to sit on the CSM they should show a little better judgement about how they express themselves.

I actually think the concept isn't terrible, but the execution is. Your acerbic and insulting responses to people who were asking questions or *gasp* trying to communicate with CSM shows you personally have issues you should probably address given your status as a member of the CSM. You're here to represent us the community, its why you're in a position that is voted for, not hurl ad hominem because you feel like it at a random player. That sort of goes against the concept that the CSM is here to work with the community to present issues/concerns while working with CCP.

In other words, you admit that this "higher standard" is something you imagined.

Ripard used more colourful language than he should have, but he was essentially correct: Ero1 broke the TOS and he deserved to eat a ban for it. Get over it.

Feel free to continue to disagree; I'll be over here being right.

Is it CCP's responsibility to police out of game interaction between their players where no law has been broken?

If so, where does that responsibility end? Should they ban a player when his wife complains about him playing EVE instead of doing the chores?

If I hook up with another EVE player who happens to be from say Japan, should CCP have the right and duty to ban me if the GM involved disapproves of inter-racial relationships? What about homosexual relationships?

What if I encourage another player to log in to fleet and miss church on sunday?

Where exactly does CCP's "responsibility" end?

Hands up everyone who can see a problem with demanding the CCP ban people on the basis of "They haven't broken any game rules, and they haven't broken any laws, but I find them personally distasteful"

"Gays are gross. I demand people ban any player who admits to being gay. The community should cleaned of such filth" On what basis do CCP resist that demand?

Once being merely distasteful is suffficient reason to ban someone, then pretty quickly the only people left are the ones who haven't done anything to even briefly offend anyone.

"That guy killed my untanked Iteron full of compressed Crokite and A-type loot, AND HE ENJOYED IT! ban him!"

Can you give me a reliable method of distinguishing them that doesn't boil down to "stuff that you personally dislike"?

I find brussels sprouts disgusting; just the thought of them makes me heave a little. Can I petition to get someone banned because they post recipes for them in local?

If not, then you're saying that only the things you find disgusting are a problem. Things I find disgusting and things evengelical christians find disgusting are just fine, however. Am I right?

Far simpler for CCP to not try and be 400,000 people's mom and stay the hell out of our out of game activities, don't you think?

So do you blame the messenger or the message? Is a witness to a hit and run responsible if he reports it? Do you go after him for being a 'snitch'?

So as it happens, I'm not terribly keen on Jester's post either though I'm also not calling for his blood

am aggressively sick and tired
I'm going to be helpful in the naive hope that it prompts people to do something rather than whine

Feel free to continue to disagree; I'll be over here being right.

Okay, lets review some of your posts in the threadnught shall we?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=332182

From page 2



From page 3







and so on and so on...

Sounds to me that you didn't think Erotica broke the TOS in those posts, and now you seem to be white knighting in an arrogant manner. So Please tell us Mr. CSM what is your true position on this?

Proof that video game politicians flip flop Just as much as RL politicians. Hear that sound? That was all of your creditability evaporating.

And it would be nice if CSMs and candidates who can see it too, plain as day, don't rush to pretend that he's such a great guy and they are behind him 100%. Show a little backbone already. Show a little integrity.

CCP provided us with additional information, and went to considerable efforts to demonstrate to my personal and the CSM's general satisfaction that erotica1 was dealt with according to the existing terms of the TOS. This, you may recall, was the period during which "The CSM sat back and did nothing". We weren't talking to you guys because we were busy talking to CCP. And if you ever get elected to the CSM, you can read the NDA forum and see for yourself that I fought just as hard to make sure that ero1 got due process in there as I did out here.

But. I never ever - not once - defended what erotica1 did; I was extremely concerned to make sure that "1000 posts" didn't become the bar for someone being banned. That concern having been satisfactorily dealt with, I was happy for the GM team to do what needed to be done. In the end, Mynxee's argument was what settled my mind absolutely.

So you can comfirm then that Er1 wasnt thrown under a bus to simply satisfy the public outcry and end a damaging drama? The the recording was listened to, it was judged to be a tos breech on the part of Er1, but not on the part of solkhar?