Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Concerned Veteran
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:07:00 -
[1]
I would like to propose a discussion on the rights of players that have received bans to be allowed to campaign for CSM places.
I realise the player base must have representation by all types of eve players for it to work effectively, and for the Devs to get the feedback thy need to make this game better, if they be 'carebears' or 'pirates'
I would like to hear what the player base, Gm's, Dev's and CSM candidates think about players campaigning that have:
☼ Had numerous forum warnings for trolling ☼ Banned accounts for disruption to forums ☼ Been proven to use malicious misinformation to disrupt players game play, even in 'role-playing' situations
Are the opinions of these players valuable to the community, and do you think they have any place representing the player base in the CSM.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:10:00 -
[2]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 23/04/2008 17:10:20 The question i ask myself is, if this person disrupted gameplay enough to deserve the attention of a GM(Moderators too), how will he be any different in real life?
I don't have an opinion on this matter per say. I believe i have 1 forum warning for trolling which was by no means deserved as i see it. But it doesn't mean I'm a bad person.
|
Tressin Khiyne
Minmatar Interstellar Vacation Center
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:12:00 -
[3]
No
--
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:13:00 -
[4]
CCP made it clear that they would vet the applications and people with serious warnings and eula breaches and whatnot could be disbarred from the entering the race. Everyone who got the all clear and is listed on the candidate roster has been accepted as a potential CSM rep candidate by CCP and we have to assume due diligence and appropriate scrutiny was applied. I can't see what the problem is at this point.
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:13:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Goumindong on 23/04/2008 17:14:26 Part of the CSM requires that the players have access to read and post on the forums in the performance of their official duties. Candidates who are unable to do so are unable to perform the duties required and should not be campaigning.
There is nothing stopping them from creating alts and running on those alts however, and the specific wording of the CSM states[IIRC] that it is accounts with bans that may not participate and not players with bans on any of their accounts. Even if it did state that, there would be no way to trace a multi-account user who had been banned due to the ability to pay via time-card and regulations regarding account data.
Furthermore, very recently, around the time the CSM and CSM requirements were announced all players received a near blanket unban from the forums. Which is why we have Jade Constantine posting and running today, without which He would have been unable to do so. Any candidate who wished to run for the CSM should have been careful with their actions on the forum in light of the new public policies that were enacted at the time.
edit: So really there is no excuse for players who wished to run for CSM and were banned from the forums between their time of application or acceptance and the reprieve date.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran ☼ Had numerous forum warnings for trolling
I don't think it's an issue, honestly. As the amount of time you spend on the forums increases, the chances of you getting a warning or temporary ban increases because almost everyone says something stupid at some point.
Quote: ☼ Banned accounts for disruption to forums
That's a bit tougher...I'd say that anyone that isn't currently banned should be allowed to participate.
Quote: ☼ Been proven to use malicious misinformation to disrupt players game play, even in 'role-playing' situations
What do you mean? "Malicious misinformation" could include a lot of stuff that is perfectly acceptable in EVE. ---------------- Tarminic - 35 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8) |
Kaar
Art of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CCP Xhagen * We received 97 applications. * We rejected 33.
Rejection reasons:
o EULA violation by the applicants.
Wouldn't those things fall under EULA violation?
---
---
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:18:00 -
[8]
I actually agree with Gou on this one, so the TL;DR for everyone else:
nope ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Doonoo Boonoo
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kaar
Originally by: CCP Xhagen * We received 97 applications. * We rejected 33.
Rejection reasons:
o EULA violation by the applicants.
Wouldn't those things fall under EULA violation?
Probably,but CCP rejected 33 people and approved the rest.
So I would say all candidates have been 'cleared' to run by CCP.
|
Concerned Veteran
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo So I would say all candidates have been 'cleared' to run by CCP.
Yes, with the blanket 'unbans' the 33 candidates are clear to run. I would like to hear the opinions of the playerbase on this issue however.
Alot of players don't have the time to go forum digging to find how disruptive players have been, or are even aware that candidates had been Banned from gameplay for extended periods of time. At the moment they are only judged by how they have presented themselves since the CSM was announced.
CSM candidates certainly arent forthcomming on these issues in their campaign and official sites.
I would still like to hear the candidates opinions on this matter, as well as the average player, who i think have the right to discuss it in the General discussions forum.
|
|
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran
Originally by: Doonoo Boonoo So I would say all candidates have been 'cleared' to run by CCP.
Yes, with the blanket 'unbans' the 33 candidates are clear to run. I would like to hear the opinions of the playerbase on this issue however.
Alot of players don't have the time to go forum digging to find how disruptive players have been, or are even aware that candidates had been Banned from gameplay for extended periods of time. At the moment they are only judged by how they have presented themselves since the CSM was announced.
CSM candidates certainly arent forthcomming on these issues in their campaign and official sites.
I would still like to hear the candidates opinions on this matter, as well as the average player, who i think have the right to discuss it in the General discussions forum.
1. Players were unbanned before the candidates were able to apply, so those 33 candidates were rejected after that.
2. The blanked unbanning applied to the forums, not the game itself. You obviously can't run for CSM if you're banned from the game entirely. |
Concerned Veteran
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:47:00 -
[12]
Quote: I would like to hear what the player base, Gm's, Dev's and CSM candidates think about players campaigning that have had
Please note the past tense in the question, it refers to players that have HAD bans for disruption.
I realise this thread will be very easy to derail, so i please hope all future responses will be ontopic. |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:52:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran I would like to hear the opinions of the playerbase on this issue however ... I would still like to hear the candidates opinions on this matter, as well as the average player, who i think have the right to discuss it in the General discussions forum.
Well you know, given that you're using the persona of a "concerned veteran" (presumably of eve-online) and are speaking of the perspective of long term involvement with the game don't you think it would be fair play for you to post with your main (veteran) character so we can all judge you on your past posting record as well?
Fair enough surely, since I have to admit it seems a bit strange to be responding to a newly created posting alt on this issue of candidate ethics and suitability. If its good for candidates to be entirely open on these issues do you not think it would be a good idea for you to be entirely open as well?
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Concerned Veteran
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 17:59:00 -
[14]
Sorry jade, but its not all about you.
Many candidates have received forum warnings, and honestly the topic should have been called 'should disruptive players be allowed to campaign for csm'
I specificly choose to post with an Alt becuase the topic shouldnt be derailed with 'your opinion doesnt matter, becuase your a carebear/pirate'
I look forward to hearing more responses from the average player. |
Doonoo Boonoo
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran Sorry jade, but its not all about you.
Many candidates have received forum warnings, and honestly the topic should have been called 'should disruptive players be allowed to campaign for csm'
I specificly choose to post with an Alt becuase the topic shouldnt be derailed with 'your opinion doesnt matter, becuase your a carebear/pirate'
I look forward to hearing more responses from the average player.
You asked for CSM candidates views and dismiss Jades comments.
I'm an average player and you sir,are a troll.G'bye.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:05:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran
CSM candidates certainly arent forthcomming on these issues in their campaign and official sites.
We can only put the information out there, we cannot induce you to read it. Nor are mass advertising campaigns likely a good idea[At least in my opinion, i would rather have a small group of informed electorate than a large group of uninformed]
The blanket unban was forum only did not cover EULA violations. As well, it is very easy over the course of time to accumulate warnings even when you behave yourself[heck, i have a warning since the CSM was announced] if you are posting frequently.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:12:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 23/04/2008 18:13:15
Originally by: Concerned Veteran Sorry jade, but its not all about you. Many candidates have received forum warnings, and honestly the topic should have been called 'should disruptive players be allowed to campaign for csm' I specificly choose to post with an Alt becuase the topic shouldnt be derailed with 'your opinion doesnt matter, becuase your a carebear/pirate'I look forward to hearing more responses from the average player.
I never once claimed it was "about me". I've asked you a question directly, do you not think it would be better to raise this issue with an actual main character with a reputation and posting history in Eve Online rather than a newly created alt?
This is a potentially contentious issue and it touches on the personal ethics of candidates and voter choice. Given thats the case why shouldn't you be posting with an established posting identity?
I'd definitely like to know who you are and what your interest is in this question (I'm sure others would to). And I'm certainly not going to say "you're opinion doesn't matter" (if it turns out you are an industrialist or pirate or whatnot on the basis of career choice) but I would like to click on your actual character identity and read back on your posting history in order to understand your question better.
Seems fair enough to me. So please, do step out behind the veil of anonymity (which we all know causes more problems than it can ever solve on these forums) and front up your question with your actual identity. Eve is a glorious single-server environment where reputation counts and everyone has a history. If you are a "concerned veteran" then I think we've all got a right to know what you are a "veteran" of, and what kind of a player you've been in our shared environment.
Fair enough?
CSM Election Manifesto 2008 |
Elaron
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:17:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran Sorry jade, but its not all about you.
Jade didn't say it was about them. I don't even see it implied.
Originally by: Concerned Veteran Many candidates have received forum warnings, and honestly the topic should have been called 'should disruptive players be allowed to campaign for csm'
But where should the line be drawn? Remember, what some people consider "disruptive" is, for many others "normal game play". And, to my view, the blanket lifting of long-term bans is tacit acceptance by CCP that their previous policies were too harsh.
Originally by: Concerned Veteran I specificly choose to post with an Alt becuase the topic shouldnt be derailed with 'your opinion doesnt matter, becuase your a carebear/pirate'
But by posting with an alt, you disallow fellow contributors to this the opportunity to determine what agenda you might have, leaving discriminating readers no choice but to decide that this is the opening salvo in a smear campaign that can be safely discounted.
Originally by: Concerned Veteran I look forward to hearing more responses from the average player.
The average player probably won't even read this thread, in all honesty.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:23:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran I specificly choose to post with an Alt becuase the topic shouldnt be derailed with 'your opinion doesnt matter, becuase your a carebear/pirate'
Okay, your opinion doesn't matter because you aren't willing to post it on your real character.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:26:00 -
[20]
Just guessing here...
The OP's Main may not be able to post...
Personally, I think those players deemed by CCP as "Disruptive" should not be allowed to run... I also think the CSM candidates should be required to "Run with their Main" as it is the reputation of that main that should be judged and voted for...
--------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
|
Name notfound
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:33:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran
I specificly choose to post with an Alt becuase the topic shouldnt be derailed with 'your opinion doesnt matter, becuase your a carebear/pirate'
or a supporter of another csm candidate.
|
Jenny Spitfire
Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:43:00 -
[22]
I wander if I appli, woudl I be acepted?
Moar impotantly, woudl I has a chanse to win? --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Recruitment -KB- |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 18:55:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Concerned Veteran I would like to propose a ... {snip} I would like to hear what the player base... {more snipping}
Without knowing who you are why the hell should we care what you would like? Step from behind the curtain or stop yapping at your betters.
To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean. |
Concerned Veteran
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 19:08:00 -
[24]
Jade, you havea number of valid concerns, and i have responded to them ingame via a few mails, im not interested in detailed responses being disregarded with'tl:dr', or going to far off topic with discussion of characters other than csm candidates.
Its nice to see candidates being forthcoming with their historys, I dont think candidates should simply be judged by what popular topics they choose to campaign on.
The first response to this thread is exactly what i had hoped for, and im sure there are still valid pionts to be made by members of the community. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |