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)
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 22:42:00 - [151] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Jade Constantine So thats my position on the issue, and I completely oppose the principle that you deal with a "problem class" or "technique" by lowering the barriers to entry for that class or technique. Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're the big boys. Getting cap ship pilots is not a problem for us. oh your SO BIG.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 23:16:00 - [152] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Everyone who has an issue be it a pet issue or not is themselves convinced that the evidence is CLEAR. I personally don't fly nighthawks and know nothing about them. The bottom line is that if an issue is CLEARLY a problem you should be able to get more than 40 people to support it. Unfortunately it's as good a measurement as any that I'm personally going to get to go by because, as I said, I don't fly them though some goons have complained about it. Who knows? If the issue's that clear then maybe the devs will see it on their own and we won't even have had to bring it to their attention? Please, even the most obvious of issues like corporate email logging which would reasonably have every single CEO in the game telling their corps to vote for it to force it being pushed to the CSM have only received 500 votes. You voted to discuss destroying stations despite it having less than 40 votes at the time and having large opposition and effecting probably fewer people than the nighthawk problems did. Don't pull that populist BS. Either there was a good reason to not bring it to CCP or their wasn't. "I don't know what is going on" is not a good reason, though understandable since there is no easy mechanic by which the CSM can be educated and informed on the topic(with proper dissent of course), but the excuse of ignorance does not make the reason any better. What on earth are you on about? Nothing I said in that statement is incorrect and I've already stated why I voted to support destructible outposts. The fact of the matter is I didn't bring the issue. The issues I did bring I am willing to justify. The votes I've made, I am willing to justify. If you don't like my explanation then that's fine. Insinuating that it's wrong because you don't like the result is what I would call ignorant. If you're going to call me on "BS" show the "BS". My statement was that I did not want to get into shiptypes. My statement was that if something was clearly a problem more people would support it. How is either of those incorrect in your eyes? Because some issues haven't gotten support? Because in YOUR OPINION it's a major issue even though very few seem to care enough to do anything about it? What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? 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
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 01:45:00 - [153] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If you're going to call me on "BS" show the "BS". My statement was that I did not want to get into shiptypes. My statement was that if something was clearly a problem more people would support it. How is either of those incorrect in your eyes? Because some issues haven't gotten support? Because in YOUR OPINION it's a major issue even though very few seem to care enough to do anything about it? What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? If it was clearly a problem more people would support it was your claim. The counter argument to that was "if that was true then we would see more support for issues such as email logging which affect a larger and more powerful userbase." That is, since we aren't your claim is false, whether or not its clearly a problem has little to do with the amount of support it gets. Quote: What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? An objective unit of measurement obtained by examining the issue so that you are no longer unfamiliar with it Quote: If you don't like my explanation then that's fine. Insinuating that it's wrong because you don't like the result is what I would call ignorant. You might want to note that I would not have supported escalating this to CCP. It is not the result I am criticizing its the process.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 03:43:00 - [154] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If you're going to call me on "BS" show the "BS". My statement was that I did not want to get into shiptypes. My statement was that if something was clearly a problem more people would support it. How is either of those incorrect in your eyes? Because some issues haven't gotten support? Because in YOUR OPINION it's a major issue even though very few seem to care enough to do anything about it? What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? If it was clearly a problem more people would support it was your claim. The counter argument to that was "if that was true then we would see more support for issues such as email logging which affect a larger and more powerful userbase." That is, since we aren't your claim is false, whether or not its clearly a problem has little to do with the amount of support it gets. Quote: What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? An objective unit of measurement obtained by examining the issue so that you are no longer unfamiliar with it Quote: If you don't like my explanation then that's fine. Insinuating that it's wrong because you don't like the result is what I would call ignorant. You might want to note that I would not have supported escalating this to CCP. It is not the result I am criticizing its the process. So you don't like the process... ok. v0v Have a T-shirt made. Nobody else likes it either. It's on the agenda for Iceland to discuss. Regarding support, you can't hold the council accountable for the disinterest in the playerbase in solving these issues. If they don't use the forum to support the issues then the forum will be useless. You can lead a horse to water... That doesn't make my claim of support any less valid. I'm telling you that if you want attention paid to something to drum up support for it. You're saying the lack thereof isn't indicative of whether or not there's a problem. I agree with that but am saying that if you want attention paid to something that's the way to do it. 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
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 03:48:00 - [155] Edited by: Martin VanBuren on 17/06/2008 03:48:19 GOUM GET BACK IN LINE, YOU'RE RUINING THE WHOLE CONSPIRACY
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:42:00 - [156] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON So you don't like the process Maybe i am not being clear. The process of how you are making the decision to vote no. If you don't think the issue warrants being sent to CCP, fine. If you don't learn about the issue before the vote, not fine.
Hamfast	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:46:00 - [157] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Darius JOHNSON So you don't like the process Maybe i am not being clear. The process of how you are making the decision to vote no. If you don't think the issue warrants being sent to CCP, fine. If you don't learn about the issue before the vote, not fine. A month of weirdness... I find myself agreeing with Goonsà Darius, I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... if you do vote (yes or no) it should be done with a reason, not a "I have no idea so I voted..." An example would be "I voted No on that because I did not think we should be worrying about individual ships when whole classes of ships have issues." Then again, I could be wrong. --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:57:00 - [158] Originally by: Hamfast I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... I got the impression from the chatlogs that the CSM had word from CCP about abstaining, suggesting that it requires 5 "Support Escalation" votes to move an issue forward, and that an abstention is the same as a No vote because of that. Is that true?
Yuki Santara Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:05:00 - [159] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Hamfast I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... I got the impression from the chatlogs that the CSM had word from CCP about abstaining, suggesting that it requires 5 "Support Escalation" votes to move an issue forward, and that an abstention is the same as a No vote because of that. Is that true? That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:27:00 - [160] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Hamfast I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... I got the impression from the chatlogs that the CSM had word from CCP about abstaining, suggesting that it requires 5 "Support Escalation" votes to move an issue forward, and that an abstention is the same as a No vote because of that. Is that true? Yep there wasn't supposed to be an abstain option. Bottom line is nobody who was running for the position of CSM should really be abstaining on gameplay issues - our homework for the meetings is the read the threads, talk to players, understand the argument and reach an informed decision. I've certainly had multiple convo's open during some of these votes and been taking external advice on the technicalities - I'm doing my best to cast an informed "support/deny" vote based on what I perceive to the be the best interest of the game. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Momo chan	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:46:00 - [161] SUPPORT EVERYTHING AND MAKE CCP CRY ABOUT HOW MANY TOPICS THEIR ARE. Really if you don't know about the topic just support it so that they can discuss it and hear ccp's opinion.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:51:00 - [162] Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs.
Yuki Santara Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:01:00 - [163] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs. Agreed, still abstaining would seem like the lesser evil than generally voting no under such circumstances.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:06:00 - [164] Originally by: Yuki Santara Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs. Agreed, still abstaining would seem like the lesser evil than generally voting no under such circumstances. Well if a CSM really cannot get enough understanding of an issue to put their name with conscience behind a support vote it doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or failing - it could mean the issue is not well stated or is confusingly argued - in these cases voting "no support" can mean "sorry but I'm not convinced" and thats fair enough in the process. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:08:00 - [165] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Yuki Santara Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs. Agreed, still abstaining would seem like the lesser evil than generally voting no under such circumstances. Well if a CSM really cannot get enough understanding of an issue to put their name with conscience behind a support vote it doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or failing - it could mean the issue is not well stated or is confusingly argued - in these cases voting "no support" can mean "sorry but I'm not convinced" and thats fair enough in the process. Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered?
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:20:00 - [166] Originally by: Yorda Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered? I don't understand what you are asking there Yorda? If people don't agree/understand the proposition on the table they can't really vote "support". CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:44:00 - [167] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Yorda Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered? I don't understand what you are asking there Yorda? If people don't agree/understand the proposition on the table they can't really vote "support". If people don't understand the issue[not proposition, issue] maybe they should get informed? I mean, God forbid we have a place on the forums where that can happen, or a time for when CSMs can ask questions...
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:52:00 - [168] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Yorda Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered? I don't understand what you are asking there Yorda? If people don't agree/understand the proposition on the table they can't really vote "support". The whole point of the votes right now is to decide what you discuss with CCP, if the issue really is so complex that you cant understand it don't you think that having a face to face discussion with the person presenting it and CCP would maybe clear up some of the issues?
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:58:00 - [169] Originally by: Hamfast An example would be "I voted No on that because I did not think we should be worrying about individual ships when whole classes of ships have issues." Then again, I could be wrong. That was exactly why I said I voted down the issue. The issue of getting more support for a topic was secondary. 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
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 19:00:00 - [170] Originally by: Yorda The whole point of the votes right now is to decide what you discuss with CCP, if the issue really is so complex that you cant understand it don't you think that having a face to face discussion with the person presenting it and CCP would maybe clear up some of the issues? Well its actually about which questions we ask CCP. We are supposed to frame these things in the term of questions in our documentation. For example my "destructible outposts" thing actually boiled down to "hey ccp can you envisage a future for 0.0 space that includes destructible outposts?" (yes/no) The CSM voted to support me asking that question. Problem with some issues (particularly the capital ships online one) was that it was very specific on some of the proposed solutions and had stuff like fixing captial ship proliferation by reducing skill reqs and that really wasn't very persuasive. I certainly didn't find any single issue that got raised that I couldn't cast an informed vote on. But there were issues that I found poorly framed or badly argued or simply unconvincing and I had to vote "no support" with my conscience. End of the day we do have a responsibility to decide the priority of issues being raised and can't simply blanket support all of them and leave it for ccp to sort out or else whats the point of the CSM itself? I'd be happy to see capital issues come up again certainly, but I'd like to see each distinct proposal split into a separate issue and fully argued and described so we can vote support/no support on an informed and decisive basis. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 19:21:00 - [171] Originally by: Jade Constantine Well its actually about which questions we ask CCP. We are supposed to frame these things in the term of questions in our documentation. For example my "destructible outposts" thing actually boiled down to "hey ccp can you envisage a future for 0.0 space that includes destructible outposts?" (yes/no) The CSM voted to support me asking that question. Actually we voted for the CSM to have a discussion with CCP regarding the issue. At least that was my intention in voting yes. That in no way implies support for the subject matter, merely support for the conversation. We're not going to fill 2 or 3 days with yes's and no's. There will be back and forth or we will have wasted a significant amount of everyone's time. 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
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.17 20:10:00 - [172] Am I missing something? Voting on issues to have a discussion with CCP about them? It'd be good if someone can point out where this is the stated purpose of the CSM...I must have missed it in my readings... I really hope that the CSM will one day split issues out into seperate issues for the purpose of making issues crystal clear, having a well-framed question, and making discussion and voting easier and meaningful (ie, each issue is voted on its merits/concerns). Additionally, when will the CSM start to take the 'benefits to the majority of Eve players' into account when discussing and voting on issues. 40 supports counts as an issue concerning the majority of Eve players? Representatives are free to bring up anything in a meeting, so long as it has been on the forum for a period of 7 days...submission templates before meetings hinder this process... When will CSM members (with the exception of a couple) start to interact with the populace via the forums and actually debate/discuss issues that are posted? It seems to me that many CSM reps are uninformed about issues and the implications of changes due to not asking questions of the issue and digging a little deeper. Many simply stick an issue up, make zero further contribution and then bring it up for vote...obviously with a pre-determined opinion on the issue. I've certainly had multiple convo's open during some of these votes and been taking external advice on the technicalities - I'm doing my best to cast an informed "support/deny" vote based on what I perceive to the be the best interest of the game. Maybe this would be better before a meeting? At least you are trying to understand some issues! When will we see discussion about issues, and their ramifications, in meetings? When will we see voting ON an issue occurring, rather than voting just to make a list look bigger? Take care, Bruce Hansen
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 20:34:00 - [173] Originally by: Arithron Am I missing something? Voting on issues to have a discussion with CCP about them? It'd be good if someone can point out where this is the stated purpose of the CSM...I must have missed it in my readings... I really hope that the CSM will one day split issues out into seperate issues for the purpose of making issues crystal clear, having a well-framed question, and making discussion and voting easier and meaningful (ie, each issue is voted on its merits/concerns). Additionally, when will the CSM start to take the 'benefits to the majority of Eve players' into account when discussing and voting on issues. 40 supports counts as an issue concerning the majority of Eve players? Representatives are free to bring up anything in a meeting, so long as it has been on the forum for a period of 7 days...submission templates before meetings hinder this process... When will CSM members (with the exception of a couple) start to interact with the populace via the forums and actually debate/discuss issues that are posted? It seems to me that many CSM reps are uninformed about issues and the implications of changes due to not asking questions of the issue and digging a little deeper. Many simply stick an issue up, make zero further contribution and then bring it up for vote...obviously with a pre-determined opinion on the issue. I've certainly had multiple convo's open during some of these votes and been taking external advice on the technicalities - I'm doing my best to cast an informed "support/deny" vote based on what I perceive to the be the best interest of the game. Maybe this would be better before a meeting? At least you are trying to understand some issues! When will we see discussion about issues, and their ramifications, in meetings? When will we see voting ON an issue occurring, rather than voting just to make a list look bigger? Take care, Bruce Hansen Actually the stated purpose of the CSM was to serve as an oversight committee. Beyond that our role has been altered to one of taking player issues directly to CCP with the guarantee of a response from them. If you'd prefer we do that without discussion that's just fine by me, but I fear we may not accomplish much. Re: debate/discussion of issues. I involve myself minimally with the issues I'm most familiar with in various locations. I fail to see how my input would be any more relevant than your input on a subject with which you are more familiar. To top that off the Assembly Hall sucks for this purpose. Sorry have to run for a conference call. I'll come back. 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
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.06.17 21:16:00 - [174] Re: Capital Ships Online. This one was a bit of a jaw dropper for me. It looked like Bane wanted to bring the topic in its unspecified totality to CCP for discussion. He indicated he had some specific ideas on how to nerf them or make them more accessable and he also had some ideas he hadn't presented. I mean......come on......let's talk about Capital ships? You may as well say, "let's talk about Outposts" or "let's talk about Battleships" or "let's talk about the Amarr", etc. It's too large a topic to not break down into specific proposals for a vote. Unless I was missing something, voting aye on that proposal would have given Bane carte blanche to present anything he wanted to CCP regarding changes to capital ships and mechanisms which control them without having the specifics of the presentation reviewed by the CSM. At the very least he was asking the CSM to vote on documents that weren't available to them at the time of the vote. At this point I won't suggest that Bane was trying to pull something. I'm not convinced he was. I will, however, say this needed to be presented in a more organized manner and broken down into specific proposals. For that reason alone it was appropriately voted down. Then posts on the forum which suggest the CSM should have voted to escalate it because it's "an important issue". There was even one poster who suggested that those who voted against escalation of Banes proposal were uniformed about it, should have been informed about it and had no business voting against something they didn't understand. What colossal conceit. Some of what Bane was suggesting in the CSM meeting wasn't even on the forum thread he started on the subject i.e. shortening the skill training necessary to pilot a capital wasn't in the OP of the thread. Looking at the OP of Banes thread http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 I see a list of things that should be brought up in Assembly Hall as individual topics for approval. Regards, Windjammer
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 21:18:00 - [175] Originally by: Windjammer Unless I was missing something, voting aye on that proposal would have given Bane carte blanche to present anything he wanted to CCP regarding changes to capital ships and mechanisms which control them without having the specifics of the presentation reviewed by the CSM. At the very least he was asking the CSM to vote on documents that weren't available to them at the time of the vote. I've already addressed that in this very thread. 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
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.06.17 22:25:00 - [176] Originally by: Jade Constantine 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 That's nice, but he hasn't posted the last one, let alone this one. I guess we're switching to Jericho Fraction's site for the CSM stuff now. And, yeah, CCP haven't posted the FIRST meeting minutes yet. Everyone dropping the ball all over the place.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 22:33:00 - [177] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 17/06/2008 22:34:33 Originally by: Letouk Mernel Originally by: Jade Constantine 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 That's nice, but he hasn't posted the last one, let alone this one. I guess we're switching to Jericho Fraction's site for the CSM stuff now. And, yeah, CCP haven't posted the FIRST meeting minutes yet. Everyone dropping the ball all over the place. Well complain about it or say "thanks" to the people trying to do their best in trying circumstances. This really ain't an easy task and despite that we've pretty done the thing. Keep in mind Serenity had no formal responsibility to do this - he set up the eve.csm site (and our mailing list) because he wanted to make the CSM a success not because he was obligated too. He could have sat back and watched ccp not get the resources in place in time and watch us fail to achieve much but no, he gave it a go and tried his best. Thats what I'm doing by hosting these chatlogs on the Jericho Fraction site. I could sit back and not publish the logs but I'm trying to do the best I can to keep the promises we collectively made as the CSM. Sheesh. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Nynaeve Ares Animus Incarnate	Posted - 2008.06.18 01:35:00 - [178] I've had epiphany. You guys are slave labour for ccp, you exsist so CCP doesn't have to wade through all the crap on the forums. You should demand some sort of wage or recompense for your time tbh.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.18 02:56:00 - [179] Originally by: Letouk Mernel Originally by: Jade Constantine 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 That's nice, but he hasn't posted the last one, let alone this one. I guess we're switching to Jericho Fraction's site for the CSM stuff now. And, yeah, CCP haven't posted the FIRST meeting minutes yet. Everyone dropping the ball all over the place. Actually, CCP posted the first three meetings' minutes a little while days back. They're not obvious, but they're on the left sidebar - CSM is 6 below Forums. They need to fix up the filenames, but they're there. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Yuki Santara Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative	Posted - 2008.06.18 03:51:00 - [180] Originally by: Nynaeve Ares I've had epiphany. You guys are slave labour for ccp, you exsist so CCP doesn't have to wade through all the crap on the forums. Well, duh. :P Note however that CPP doesn't "have" to do that anyway, public forums are usually largely ignored by developers. There is no other way to stay sane. Quote: You should demand some sort of wage or recompense for your time tbh. One would hope that all candidates ran with the intention to put some effort into working for the greater good of the community (and CPP).



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.