Bartholomeus Crane
   |
Posted - 2007.06.01 18:53:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Bartholomeus Crane on 01/06/2007 19:02:25
Incoming text-wall:
Although I agree that CCP as a company deals in communication, and thrives on it; unbridled, or rather, unchecked communication can be damaging, as has been seen.
Others have already commented on the damage that even small bits of information can have on in-game relationships, so I will not go into that now. The question that interests me now is how to monitor the information exchanged between the priviledged (CCP employees) and others, and how CCP will go about doing that.
Clearly I do not expect CCP to keep tabs on their employees in such a way that any information exchange is either detected or impossible. That would be impossible in any case, as I can't see CCP capable, or interested, in keeping friends from meeting in the pub. Quite clearly, those with the intend to leak information will always find a way of doing so.
Which leaves us with the deterrent approach. Although this is much referenced in posts and blogs, the circumstances of the deterrent are still unclear to me.
First, there are the rules alleged to above. What is the nature of these rules, and why can't the playerbase scrutinise them? I fear that without publication of these rules, the idea of an internal affairs department will some degrade into some sort of Kafkaesque institution, clearly belying the communication angle put forth above.
Second, concerns the consequences of these rules. A deterrent's effectiveness increases with the severity of the consequences. Allusions to termination of contract have been made, but the playerbase unfortunately has prior knowledge of the less than severe nature of the application of these rules (I'm refering to the t20 incident). Simply put, rules by itself will not work without a big stick, or the threat of the application thereof. Currently, the playerbase has no evidence that severe consequences were ever measured out, and, dare I say, will ever be measured out. I believe this is where the lack of confidence from the playerbase originates from, and I think is something that CCP needs to address head-on.
Third, revolves around the detection and follow-through on violation of the rules. It is clear from the statements above that CCP intends to take a reactive approach. Apparently detection of violation of the rules (whatever they may be) is left entirely to the playerbase. If this is intended, and no pro-active approach will be followed, I have a problem with that. The current example clearly shows how 'things can get out of hand' when things are left to the playerbase. Also, since CCP holds all information, breakage of the rules will be difficult to detect and response impossible to verify. Either CCP opens up more information to the playerbase to police itself, or, when this is impossible or unwanted (which I suspect is the case), CCP must take a more pro-active approach. Some comments on this disparity would be very welcome.
Finally, internal affairs, as much as anything, is about communication too. Players need to be kept abreast of developments, either privately or communally, as warrented by incident, and it is my believe that in all previous incidents, CCP has failed itself and the playerbase in this respect. Although playing the victim of circumstances maybe gratifying, it should be clear by now that it is counterproductive in coming to an understanding with the playerbase. If anything, the current incident shows that blatant censorship and a restrictive policy on the website will only lead to the incident being discussed elsewhere, with all the negative consequences to CCP's reputation that that entails. Likewise, the complete blackout of information and singular lack of discussion on these incidents (blogs are clearly a single-duplex communication method) is shown to be counter productive. I would welcome a constructive discussion about the way CCP intends to handle communication of these incidents in the future.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |