Originally by: Che Biko

---

At this time I'd just like to know more about CCP's motivation.

---

Originally by: eragon alseen

---

We should thank him for what he did to make this game better.

---

Originally by: Xplained

---

Whats this i hear of PL setting up a fake ebay account, setting up a daisho titan pilot and then gets his account banned moments before a fight?

Kug ****** up, PL ****** up, ban em all!

---

Originally by: Xplained

---

Whats this i hear of PL setting up a fake ebay account, setting up a daisho titan pilot and then gets his account banned moments before a fight?

Kug ****** up, PL ****** up, ban em all!

---

Originally by: Darpz

---

he did the community a favor and was banned because it was "inconvient" to the devs.

---

Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville

---

Originally by: Che Biko

---

At this time I'd just like to know more about CCP's motivation.

---

As would I, but this is something where everyone's hands are tied. No matter how unjust it might or might not have seemed to us in any individual case, CCP has the legitimate authority to ban players. And, they can't comment on how the investigation, or the specifics of what happened, because of issues of privacy and confidentiality. We the rest of the players are not privy to all the facts, and it's not appropriate for us to be.

CSM can certainly ask CCP, more generally, how it conducts investigations and the steps it takes in deciding when to ban a player, but asking CCP to unban a player isn't CSM's job.

Sorry, no support.

------------------------
Lord, grant us the senility to forget the people we never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the people we do, and the eyesight to know the difference.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

I'm not going to support the specific case because I (and I'm guessing none of you) have specific information on precisely what went on between this player and ccp.

I would support a general motion that players should be able to appeal their own bans if new information or new circumstances come to light (or specific penalty time has passed) and Internal Affairs should have a responsibility to ensure those proceedings are fair and unbiased - if neccessary using a panel of arbiters unconnected with the initial banning to re-assess the status of the case.

The principle here is that we are playing a game and yes, sometimes people do bad things and deserve some kind of bans, but this is also a long term hobby and over the course of many years people grow and mature and their life circumstances change and I think its very rare that people fully warrant a permanent banning in actuality. Banning proceedings should give the benefit of doubt where possible, and only in the instance where there is clear and malign intent to harm the game and ruin the gameplay environment for others should a permanent lifetime banning be enforced.

So short version. Yes there should be some kind of appeal process where an independent panel of arbiters look at the case and are obligated to give the applicant a substantive reason why they are still banned (or revisit the judgement). This shouldn't however be public, and it must remain between the player and the independent panel. (And in the case of permanent bans I'd say there should be a minimum cooling off period of 3 months or so before this process should become valid in the first place.)

To the op though, you should be aware that tying a measure like this to a specific banned player is a recipe for the motion to go no-where. You really do need to address general principles rather than those entirely specific to a particular person.

---

Originally by: Torshin

---

...actually IIRC the original intention for the CSM was to be an independent oversight body to prevent issues like the T20 scandal from occuring again.

I knew I would find it:

Quote:

---

I envision this council being made up of nine members selected by the players themselves, where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, and they can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis,ö said Mr. Petursson, CCPÆs chief executive. ôThey can see that we did not make this game to win it.ö

---

---

Originally by: Torshin

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

I'm not going to support the specific case because I (and I'm guessing none of you) have specific information on precisely what went on between this player and ccp.

I would support a general motion that players should be able to appeal their own bans if new information or new circumstances come to light (or specific penalty time has passed) and Internal Affairs should have a responsibility to ensure those proceedings are fair and unbiased - if neccessary using a panel of arbiters unconnected with the initial banning to re-assess the status of the case.

The principle here is that we are playing a game and yes, sometimes people do bad things and deserve some kind of bans, but this is also a long term hobby and over the course of many years people grow and mature and their life circumstances change and I think its very rare that people fully warrant a permanent banning in actuality. Banning proceedings should give the benefit of doubt where possible, and only in the instance where there is clear and malign intent to harm the game and ruin the gameplay environment for others should a permanent lifetime banning be enforced.

So short version. Yes there should be some kind of appeal process where an independent panel of arbiters look at the case and are obligated to give the applicant a substantive reason why they are still banned (or revisit the judgement). This shouldn't however be public, and it must remain between the player and the independent panel. (And in the case of permanent bans I'd say there should be a minimum cooling off period of 3 months or so before this process should become valid in the first place.)

To the op though, you should be aware that tying a measure like this to a specific banned player is a recipe for the motion to go no-where. You really do need to address general principles rather than those entirely specific to a particular person.

---

Thank you for your well thought out response Jade. If it is required to create a more general [Issue] Thread about the establishment of an independent review board, I am more then willing to do so. The reason I made the OP so specific to one user is because his case is the most well known and most controversial. This has allowed me to drum up support from his friends and those who feel he was treated unfairly and allowed this thread to get noticed by different members of the CSM. Please try you hardest to make sure that the issues the CSM debates goes beyond just balance issues and looks at matters such as these because they are just as important to the future of eve as finding a role for assault frigs or anything else currently on the table.

---