EVE Search - CSM Formal Meeting 5. Sunday 15th June. 18:00 hours Eve Time

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Formal Meeting 5. Sunday 15th June. 18:00 hours Eve Time

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.06.15 22:15:00 - [91] Originally by: Goumindong Instead of asking for the Euros to stay up an extra hour or two he demanded that the U.S. representatives, whom he had already shown bias against leave work early in order to make the meeting. The Euros were up past midnight already. He didn't demand anything regarding the U.S. CSM's, he simply scheduled the meeting. He explained why the meeting had to be held on Thursday, also (submission deadline). He also scheduled a second meeting for Sunday so that all could attend. Obvious drama queen is obvious? Quote: They aren't accusing Jade of being anti-American, they are accusing her of using the meeting scheduling to skew the votes on the council. Perhaps that's what they meant. That is not what they posted, however. Quote: How in the world can you not understand that dissent can be justified? The judgment on the dissent is always hinged on the judgment of the cause of the dissent. Dissent can be justified. Do you feel like you have done this? Do you feel like most of the things you have accused Jade of can even be justified? I do not. You are irresponsible in your dissent. You are dissenting simply to dissent. Your constant and unjustifed dissent is now just a distraction to everyone who reads this board, mostly because you throw baseless accusations into every thread and fail to follow up and prove them, or let them go when you cannot. Quote: If someone was making a stink because a someone said a bad word it would be one thing. This is entirely another. Scheduling meetings is mundane. Your claim that there's some malfeasance going on regarding this has been proven baseless, but you persist in your accusation.
Tress Macneille Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 23:24:00 - [92] Originally by: Qaedienne The Euros were up past midnight already. He didn't demand anything regarding the U.S. CSM's, he simply scheduled the meeting. He explained why the meeting had to be held on Thursday, also (submission deadline). He also scheduled a second meeting for Sunday so that all could attend. Obvious drama queen is obvious? Also ccp told him not to <:]
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 00:37:00 - [93] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 16/06/2008 00:38:05 Another epic meeting: 1. Nighthawk Needs a powergrid Increase (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777872 Escalation Denied 2 votes for (Jade, Hardin) 6 votes against 2. Completion of unfinished Story Arcs/Roleplay Interests in EVE: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789648 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791735 Escalation Supported 8-0 Escalation Supported 8-0 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. 4. Moon mining Improvements: LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778035 (Issue sent back to incorporated with dynamic moon distribution possibilities) Escalation Supported 9-0 5. Ownership of Wrecks Jade http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778546 Escalation Supported 9-0 6. Increase the number of corporation standing slots/Corps should automatically obtain alliance standings: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789692 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791955 Escalation Supported 9-0 Escalation Supported 8-0 7.Buff Large Autocannons (especially Dual 650mms and 800mms) Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785820 Escalation Supported 5-4 (Jade, Serenity, Leandro, LaVista opposed) 8. Colourblind UI LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784427 Escalation Supported 8-1 (Darius opposed) 9. Account Security Jade http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781256 Escalation Supported 8-1 (Ankhesentapemkah opposed) 10. Abolish Learning Skills Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779267 Escalation Denied 2-7 (Bane and Ankhesentapemkah voted yes) 11. Mac/Linux client LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778522 Escalation Supported 9-0 12. Multi-monitor support LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784389 Escalation Supported 9-0 +Additional Issue from Darius The use of email as a logging facility for corporate events. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=792405 Escalation Supported 9-0 Any Other Business: 1. ALL discussions of the CSM to be ruled as "public record". This will include the private CSM mailing list. DARIUS Escalation Denied 4-5 (Darius, Bane, Hardin, Inanna voted for) 2. Request that Internal Affairs make time available to talk to the CSM group as part of the Iceland Conference. DARIUS Escalation Supported 9-0 2. "It will be prohibited to bring the interpretation of the CSM document into discussion or vote, all questions regarding the interpretation will be sent to CCP." Ankhesentapemkah Escalation Denied 3-6 (Jade, Ank, Dierdra voted for) ************ Serenity will be hosting the chatlog on the eve csm site at some point this week but until then feel free to view the raw chat log at http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.msg94219#msg94219 Enjoy. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 01:46:00 - [94] what the hell why did you vote down capital ships that is like the only really important thing on the entire agenda
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 01:55:00 - [95] Okay so I finished reading the chatlogs, that is incredible. Jade and co. are so caught up in the bureaucracy of everything that they aren't willing to vote yes on "talking to ccp about capitals" Ahahahahahaha that's incredible
Kai Wooglin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 02:24:00 - [96] I love that those who ran on supporting transparency are now voting to keep CSM-wide communications away from the public. It really is pathetic and feeds into all the negative things being written about the CSM. Absolutely amazing.
Keddren Fel	Posted - 2008.06.16 02:50:00 - [97] 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. What? What possible reason was there not to escalate this?! That's insanity.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 03:42:00 - [98] Originally by: Keddren Fel 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. What? What possible reason was there not to escalate this?! That's insanity. Originally by: Martin VanBuren what the hell why did you vote down capital ships that is like the only really important thing on the entire agenda I do agree that it's an important topic. But the issue wasn't presented clear enough and the documentation wasn't available at the time, which was expected for all issues presented yesterday. So in order to get issues submitted the right way, I voted no. But please DO notice that it was stated that it didn't mean that it would be a nice if it was raised for next CSM -> CCP agenda.
Illaria	Posted - 2008.06.16 04:13:00 - [99] While the capital ship issue is a good issue and I actually agree a lot with Bane on it, it was not very well presented and it was very unclear what was being voted for. From the chatlog it read like "Too much capital ships are bad, mkay?". It's a bit too fuzzy to vote on this. It should have been separated in discrete motions that can be voted individually on like: a) Reduce skill requirements for capital ships, esp. Carriers and Dreadnoughts. b) Review the Doomsday effect, esp. regarding the stacking issue of multiple DD on the same grid. c) ... d) ... etc. Just voting on "We should talk about the whole undefined complex with CCP. I will work some presentation out." would be a bit naive. I really don't know why Bane hadn't something more concrete and precise prepared on this important issue. We all know that he's very well capable of doing this. Another thing that applies to a lot of the CSM members: When you ran for CSM you made a commitment. You should all have been aware that it will cost you time and effort. That people can't be bothered to be on time and come prepared to such a meeting, or even review their documents for who voted on what I find a bit disappointing. If you don't want to put in the effort, because you're time constrained then you shouldn't really have run. It certainly isn't a problem if you miss a meeting now and then, but randomly dropping in and out, don't have your stuff ready when it's voting time, or unwillingness to document your issues properly makes some of you look rather amateurish. ---- Darius Johnson, not MY CSM.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 04:21:00 - [100] Originally by: Illaria While the capital ship issue is a good issue and I actually agree a lot with Bane on it, it was not very well presented and it was very unclear what was being voted for. From the chatlog it read like "Too much capital ships are bad, mkay?". It's a bit too fuzzy to vote on this. It should have been separated in discrete motions that can be voted individually on like: a) Reduce skill requirements for capital ships, esp. Carriers and Dreadnoughts. b) Review the Doomsday effect, esp. regarding the stacking issue of multiple DD on the same grid. c) ... d) ... etc. Just voting on "We should talk about the whole undefined complex with CCP. I will work some presentation out." would be a bit naive. I really don't know why Bane hadn't something more concrete and precise prepared on this important issue. We all know that he's very well capable of doing this. Another thing that applies to a lot of the CSM members: When you ran for CSM you made a commitment. You should all have been aware that it will cost you time and effort. That people can't be bothered to be on time and come prepared to such a meeting, or even review their documents for who voted on what I find a bit disappointing. If you don't want to put in the effort, because you're time constrained then you shouldn't really have run. It certainly isn't a problem if you miss a meeting now and then, but randomly dropping in and out, don't have your stuff ready when it's voting time, or unwillingness to document your issues properly makes some of you look rather amateurish. We were voting on whether or not to discuss an issue in Iceland. That issue being capital ships. I think we got a bit tied up in the details of what Bane's ideas were regarding the subject, which was an acid test I don't recall putting any other issues to. Each of us will have opinions on each of the issues presented in Iceland. We haven't had to examine all of them in order to decide they were worth discussing. v0v Personally I think the council got a bit too tied up in the details and lost site of the actual motive. Some of us don't even have a use for capitals to be honest so how you could be opposed to discussing something you don't understand is something I don't get. I've voted to discuss issues I didn't understand for the most part because I don't feel it's my place to deprive people of the conversation when I clearly don't have the knowledge required to say whether the subject's broken or not. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM

Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 04:51:00 - [101] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 16/06/2008 04:54:46 Ultimately I think that by not allowing any leeway on how well the i's were dotted and t's were crossed with the presentation of the cap ships issues, they simply diminish their own usefulness and importance. Reading the log: Inanna and LaVista voted against because Bane's write-up wasn't all in order, Serenity voted against because he got caught up in the details of a specific sub-point Bain made involving capital skill training time (Serenity likes the timesink), Ankh voted against because she just never has or will encountered a capship while tooling around high-sec in her miner or mission runner or whatever and so doesn't see any issue worth discussing, Jade wrote that his problem was with the documentation, but he waited to the last (to see if he would be the difference-making vote) and probably just took an opportunity to vote against an issue raised by a goon. **** whatever was voted on here. However you guys can get them to talk about capships once you get to iceland, do it. It's not like they're going to hit your face if you try. e: I can just picture the devs focused on capships reading this like "WTF, how did they miss this opportunity to talk to us?? What did we even make this council for? Now we have to go back to sounding out our ideas with dev blogs."
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution	Posted - 2008.06.16 05:45:00 - [102] Of all of the items on that list, the two I didn't expect to fail were the nighthawk grid issue and capital ships online. Seriously. Anyone who has ever tried to fit an active tank setup on the nighthawk while using HAMs knows that the nighthawk has serious issues. Trying to cram a MWD, injector, and large booster on there in addition to 6 HAM II's requires two RCU II's even at maxed fitting skills, FFS! I'm guessing the folks who voted against have either never flown the nighthawk or just don't use HAMs and thus don't care. As for Capitals Online, I own (and am skilled for) both a carrier and a dreadnought, and even I think something should be done about the damned things. They're crowding out normal PvP in all too many cases. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 05:53:00 - [103] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON We were voting on whether or not to discuss an issue in Iceland. That issue being capital ships. I think we got a bit tied up in the details of what Bane's ideas were regarding the subject, which was an acid test I don't recall putting any other issues to. Each of us will have opinions on each of the issues presented in Iceland. We haven't had to examine all of them in order to decide they were worth discussing. v0v Well. The agenda for yesterday clearly stated that submission templates had to be in place before the meeting. I would have voted for the item if Bane had sticked to the submission template he did submit. But he started talking about capital shield transfers and all kinds of stuff. It wasn't just about capital ships online being bad. There is a big difference between capital shield transfers taking too much PG and then the topic at hand. I would have supported it if Bane split the issue up in pieces and had submitted templates for everything he started discussing, but that wasn't the case. I hope he will submit it for our CCP agenda in 2 months. It's an important issue, but I think he tried to do waaay too much.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 05:54:00 - [104] Originally by: Wrayeth Anyone who has ever tried to fit an active tank setup on the nighthawk while using HAMs knows that the nighthawk has serious issues. Trying to cram a MWD, injector, and large booster on there in addition to 6 HAM II's requires two RCU II's even at maxed fitting skills, FFS! I'm guessing the folks who voted against have either never flown the nighthawk or just don't use HAMs and thus don't care. No. You would see that several people stated that they agreed with the issue in general, but bringing it up in Iceland wasn't in order. They were all for bringing it up at the next agenda though. Also that in general, CSM, as I see it, doesn't like bringing up issues about specific ships. It's waaay too easy to blame us for being based, if we did.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 06:06:00 - [105] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Darius JOHNSON We were voting on whether or not to discuss an issue in Iceland. That issue being capital ships. I think we got a bit tied up in the details of what Bane's ideas were regarding the subject, which was an acid test I don't recall putting any other issues to. Each of us will have opinions on each of the issues presented in Iceland. We haven't had to examine all of them in order to decide they were worth discussing. v0v Well. The agenda for yesterday clearly stated that submission templates had to be in place before the meeting. I would have voted for the item if Bane had sticked to the submission template he did submit. But he started talking about capital shield transfers and all kinds of stuff. It wasn't just about capital ships online being bad. There is a big difference between capital shield transfers taking too much PG and then the topic at hand. I would have supported it if Bane split the issue up in pieces and had submitted templates for everything he started discussing, but that wasn't the case. I hope he will submit it for our CCP agenda in 2 months. It's an important issue, but I think he tried to do waaay too much. Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck:
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 06:09:00 - [106] Originally by: Goumindong Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck: I don't have access to the document Bane submitted. But that wasn't the topic of the document from what I recall. The document never talked about CST's and RAR's of any kind. When he started talking about those things, it was bound to fail because of the difference between the submission template and what he was on about. :psyduck:
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 06:34:00 - [107] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck: I don't have access to the document Bane submitted. But that wasn't the topic of the document from what I recall. The document never talked about CST's and RAR's of any kind. When he started talking about those things, it was bound to fail because of the difference between the submission template and what he was on about. :psyduck: See point 1 1. disincentivizing carrier spam (gangs of 20+ carriers), 2, revisit titan doomsdays, 3. incentivize the use of smaller quantities of carriers (1-6)
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:15:00 - [108] Edited by: MotherMoon on 16/06/2008 09:25:36 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong So the public doesn't get to see these agenda items and submission templates? Why? What is wrong with them? The agenda items are here to see right on the forum. As for the submission templates, I see no reason why the public shouldn't see them. So then what is the problem with making the communication public? For the same reason we can't pay the beta that CCP is currently running of ambulation.if it's not done it should not be public. Should book companies let the rough copies of major books be public? you need to be able to tie up a bundle of sticks before you throw them out or someone will take that lose unbundled pile of sticks and take what they what out of context. EDIT:note my point is we should NOT under any circumstances be allowed to beta ambulation even if they have it running right now. It would lead to mass whinage blah and balh not getting in and such. I don't think everythign should be public. Just important thing. also how pointless would it be to read all the e-mails throwing the list back and forth editing it and making sure it's all sound and the link work and such. Why would you want to read that if we get the final document. we voted these guys in if something evil happens I hope that the person I support will tell th community.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:22:00 - [109] Quote: 10. Abolish Learning Skills Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779267 Escalation Denied 2-7 (Bane and Ankhesentapemkah voted yes) damn :/ even though I'm sure the documentation on it was very very weak anyways it's still something I'd like to see changed I should of did more support on the issue since day one. Then again the 1st person that ever brought this up was a dev during the alliance tournament interviews saying he hated learning skills in his game so maybe we won't have to worry about it :P also your not going up to iceland for another 2 months?
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:27:00 - [110] Originally by: MotherMoon For the same reason we can't pay the beta that CCP is currently running of ambulation.if it's not done it should not be public. Should book companies let the rough copies of major books be public? you need to be able to tie up a bundle of sticks before you throw them out or someone will take that lose unbundled pile of sticks and take what they what out of context. The CSM is not a company, they have no financial interest in keeping its discussions public as authors and content creators do. They are a public institution accountable to the public. Your analogy is thus false.

MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:34:00 - [111] Edited by: MotherMoon on 16/06/2008 09:36:23 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: MotherMoon For the same reason we can't pay the beta that CCP is currently running of ambulation.if it's not done it should not be public. Should book companies let the rough copies of major books be public? you need to be able to tie up a bundle of sticks before you throw them out or someone will take that lose unbundled pile of sticks and take what they what out of context. The CSM is not a company, they have no financial interest in keeping its discussions public as authors and content creators do. They are a public institution accountable to the public. Your analogy is thus false. when your analogy lets you down, find a new analogy! hmmm this time I'll state it using one word. Goumindong this is why they shouldn't be public as it would not be profitable to CCP to let Goumindong happen :) ... You know what never minds lets let "Goumindong" happen I've had a change of <3. 1st step? we implant chips in the CSMs brains to make sure we know there every word! I mean hell if they can't talk over e-mail they will jsut talk over the phone or in person right? right? or maybe... can't help myself... they will use MSN! :P
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:40:00 - [112] When your analogy fails instead start strawmanning?
LASER WATCHER GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:02:00 - [113] Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god _____
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:12:00 - [114] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Keddren Fel 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. What? What possible reason was there not to escalate this?! That's insanity. Originally by: Martin VanBuren what the hell why did you vote down capital ships that is like the only really important thing on the entire agenda I do agree that it's an important topic. But the issue wasn't presented clear enough and the documentation wasn't available at the time, which was expected for all issues presented yesterday. So in order to get issues submitted the right way, I voted no. But please DO notice that it was stated that it didn't mean that it would be a nice if it was raised for next CSM -> CCP agenda. How come you have allowed many other worse presented ideas with badly thought out solutions go through with the intent of just loosely talking about the issue? The issue itself should be pretty clear to anyone that spends time in 0.0
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:13:00 - [115] Originally by: LASER WATCHER Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do
LASER WATCHER GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:15:00 - [116] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: LASER WATCHER Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do So, if there is a reason to not trust him, the information should stay private? _____
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:16:00 - [117] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: LASER WATCHER Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do If Jades emails will hurt him so badly he better think a bit more before sending them. This just confirms the impression i get of Jade on the forums.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.16 11:39:00 - [118] I got the impression that the Capital Ships Online topic just needed a one-line summary that encompassed the totality of what would be presented to CCP in writing. It sounded like it was the unknowns in Bane's planned presentation that were throwing people off, and next time around if it's all written up ahead of time and summarized in a way where the reps are clear what they'd be supporting, it will be easily escalated.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 11:45:00 - [119] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck: I don't have access to the document Bane submitted. But that wasn't the topic of the document from what I recall. The document never talked about CST's and RAR's of any kind. When he started talking about those things, it was bound to fail because of the difference between the submission template and what he was on about. :psyduck: See point 1 1. disincentivizing carrier spam (gangs of 20+ carriers), 2, revisit titan doomsdays, 3. incentivize the use of smaller quantities of carriers (1-6) I will point to my original point. I got the submission template right in front of me. This document describes NOTHING about the things Bane were talking about yesterday. I would have happy to vote it on if those details were in the document though. I don't know what the rules are about posting these documents. But if it's ok with the council, I would happily prove it to you by showing you the submission template that was submitted, which is the reason I voted no.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 11:54:00 - [120] Originally by: Goumindong Well, what was his paragraph on it say? And what did the links say. Aside: This wouldn't be a problem be if discussion list was public. Oh ** now were taking things out of context because there isn't the context to back ** up. Its almost as if that is more likely to happen when the list is private. Or maybe it wouldn't have happened if all submission templates were public.



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.