That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.

Goon's tears are the BEST tears. That is, unless they are Goon's tears that are caused be self inflicted stupidity. Oh wait...

No, CCP was just there implicitly urging everyone to get hammered because Fanfest is (rightfully) a "party" atmosphere.

Then some crybabies cried crocodile tears simply because someone they don't like said something that they considered a HUGE OUTRAGE

I like the way you come out with a personal attack rather than trying to debate the point. It does make rather easy to hold your comment up for ridicule.

Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.


Q1, CCP forced the resignation of the CSM Chairman.
A1, As a part of the CSM bylaws, banned players are ineligible to sit on the CSM. This would have been an unfortunate side effect of CCP feeling that a temporary ban was the correct course of action in this case.
However, prior to any notification to this effect, The chairman of CSM6 resigned of his own volition as he had previously announced that he would do. Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.

We have had members resign from the CSM before. The process is pretty clear in these cases, the next person on the voting poll becomes active. This is the first time the chairman of the CSM has resigned so we are discussing with the CSM if we should make amendments to the process based on that.


Q2, There is an issue of 10,058 votes. What will CCP do about that?
A2, As in most democratic societies, if an elected member resigns the governance system is designed to handle that; for CSM6 the "next" person steps in (an alternate); for CSM7, where we had removed the concept of GÇÿalternateGÇÖ and increased the size of the CSM to 14, the council simply continues to function minus one. If players are not satisfied with that system they should contact the CSM and propose changes for CSM 7 to discuss formally. The CSM can bring this issue up directly with CCP and propose changes should such an event happen in the future.
It is clear from many communications from CSM6 and CSM7-elect members that they take the representation of these 10,058 voters very seriously and hopefully the remaining CSM representatives will act in the spirit of those who voted for the resigned member.

We should also keep in mind that every CSM member has the obligation to, at some level, represent all of EVE and its players, and that the voting system is anonymous.


Q3, Real life actions should not equate to in game sanctions. Why did this happen?
A3, After much deliberation on the subject, CCP considers the Alliance Panel to be an official CCP forum, as it is hosted by CCP and broadcast in a similarly visible fashion to the EVE Online forums. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the TOS. Furthermore, the panelist, present on the panel in order to represent his in-game identity, advocated using in-game actions to achieve a real world outcome. Specifically he suggested that if anyone wanted to make another player kill themselves in real life, they should go in game and harass them to achieve that consequence. The totality of the situation including the official forum in which it was held and statements of the panelist during the Q&A, have since lead to in-game sanctions. However, it is important to note that this incidence does not necessarily create precedence for any other "real life" actions or statements triggering a ban.


Q4, Wait, so you DID vet the presentations? Meaning it was perfectly fine for him to make fun of a suicidal player?
A4, Although the contents of the Alliance Panel presentations and discussion topics are reviewed by CCP prior to the event itself, the TOS-breaking incident took place during an unscripted Q&A session after the main presentation which was not mentioned in the submitted presentation. The submitted presentation slides (although distasteful) did not give the name of the player at any time, nor did they call for direct action against that player, and therefore passed muster. CCP have always allowed substantial leeway during the Alliance Panel and we look forward to ensuring that future events remain entertaining and engaging for the EVE community.

Possibly the best post I have seen ever....Cheers!

Agreed, and point of order, Mittani stated publicly his intent to resign, which is not the same as a resignation. I never saw a resignation as postulated under the conditions described by CCP.

Further, I realize CCP has decided to kick this can down the road to next year regarding the possible upcoming sequel The Return of The Mittani, but you guys should think long and hard about borrowing trouble of this kind, when it does not serve any legitimate business interest to do so.

Don't be mad your panelist was terrible :(

Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.

Q3, Real life actions should not equate to in game sanctions. Why did this happen?
A3, After much deliberation on the subject, CCP considers the Alliance Panel to be an official CCP forum, as it is hosted by CCP and broadcast in a similarly visible fashion to the EVE Online forums. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the TOS. Furthermore, the panelist, present on the panel in order to represent his in-game identity, advocated using in-game actions to achieve a real world outcome. Specifically he suggested that if anyone wanted to make another player kill themselves in real life, they should go in game and harass them to achieve that consequence. The totality of the situation including the official forum in which it was held and statements of the panelist during the Q&A, have since lead to in-game sanctions. However, it is important to note that this incidence does not necessarily create precedence for any other "real life" actions or statements triggering a ban.

Actually, I thought Kelduum's presentation was clear, concise, professional and informative. It that is terrible, we could use more of it. - o7

Actually, I thought Kelduum's presentation was clear, concise, professional and informative. It that is terrible, we could use more of it. - o7

Q2, There is an issue of 10,058 votes. What will CCP do about that?
A2, As in most democratic societies, if an elected member resigns the governance system is designed to handle that; for CSM6 the "next" person steps in (an alternate); for CSM7, where we had removed the concept of GÇÿalternateGÇÖ and increased the size of the CSM to 14, the council simply continues to function minus one. If players are not satisfied with that system they should contact the CSM and propose changes for CSM 7 to discuss formally. The CSM can bring this issue up directly with CCP and propose changes should such an event happen in the future.
It is clear from many communications from CSM6 and CSM7-elect members that they take the representation of these 10,058 voters very seriously and hopefully the remaining CSM representatives will act in the spirit of those who voted for the resigned member.

*snip* That was uncalled for. Spitfire

Dude. Goons can quit and war for their region will fuel up eve to some nasty temps.
Nobody gives a **** about a bunch of whiney noobs
If they leave it's going to be awesome. Big null space to fill!

Hi folks. We've noticed a few common questions popping up in this thread that we'd like to answer.


Q1, CCP forced the resignation of the CSM Chairman.
A1, As a part of the CSM bylaws, banned players are ineligible to sit on the CSM. This would have been an unfortunate side effect of CCP feeling that a temporary ban was the correct course of action in this case.
However, prior to any notification to this effect, The chairman of CSM6 resigned of his own volition as he had previously announced that he would do. Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.

We have had members resign from the CSM before. The process is pretty clear in these cases, the next person on the voting poll becomes active. This is the first time the chairman of the CSM has resigned so we are discussing with the CSM if we should make amendments to the process based on that.


Q2, There is an issue of 10,058 votes. What will CCP do about that?
A2, As in most democratic societies, if an elected member resigns the governance system is designed to handle that; for CSM6 the "next" person steps in (an alternate); for CSM7, where we had removed the concept of GÇÿalternateGÇÖ and increased the size of the CSM to 14, the council simply continues to function minus one. If players are not satisfied with that system they should contact the CSM and propose changes for CSM 7 to discuss formally. The CSM can bring this issue up directly with CCP and propose changes should such an event happen in the future.
It is clear from many communications from CSM6 and CSM7-elect members that they take the representation of these 10,058 voters very seriously and hopefully the remaining CSM representatives will act in the spirit of those who voted for the resigned member.

We should also keep in mind that every CSM member has the obligation to, at some level, represent all of EVE and its players, and that the voting system is anonymous.


Q3, Real life actions should not equate to in game sanctions. Why did this happen?
A3, After much deliberation on the subject, CCP considers the Alliance Panel to be an official CCP forum, as it is hosted by CCP and broadcast in a similarly visible fashion to the EVE Online forums. As such, it falls under the jurisdiction of the TOS. Furthermore, the panelist, present on the panel in order to represent his in-game identity, advocated using in-game actions to achieve a real world outcome. Specifically he suggested that if anyone wanted to make another player kill themselves in real life, they should go in game and harass them to achieve that consequence. The totality of the situation including the official forum in which it was held and statements of the panelist during the Q&A, have since lead to in-game sanctions. However, it is important to note that this incidence does not necessarily create precedence for any other "real life" actions or statements triggering a ban.


Q4, Wait, so you DID vet the presentations? Meaning it was perfectly fine for him to make fun of a suicidal player?
A4, Although the contents of the Alliance Panel presentations and discussion topics are reviewed by CCP prior to the event itself, the TOS-breaking incident took place during an unscripted Q&A session after the main presentation which was not mentioned in the submitted presentation. The submitted presentation slides (although distasteful) did not give the name of the player at any time, nor did they call for direct action against that player, and therefore passed muster. CCP have always allowed substantial leeway during the Alliance Panel and we look forward to ensuring that future events remain entertaining and engaging for the EVE community.

You understand wrong. You can only vote once per account. Of course many people have multiple accounts, so that 10k number is probably representative of fewer than 10k individual people.

Hmm looking at your employment history it seems you started this toon about 30 days before the election was over. This do make we wonder who actually it was voting with 8000+ accounts that was around 30 days old...

I would like to note that one CSM candidate is well known for posting neo-nazi views on this forum and not only was he not removed from the race, not only was he not banned from the game, not only was he not banned from the forums, but ccp refused to allow people to call him out on it and erased posts that did.

Could you elaborate on your corporate opinion of naism and explain why you have supported an avowed neo-nazi during this process?

I can't name this CSM candidate, because if i do my post gets deleted! Because we can't have people saying bad things about nazis!

can someone tell me who the **** is on jabber please

That is a very poor decision that CCP in general should probably reconsider over the year to come. An individual's noteriety/prominence should never overcome the basic requirement to be a player of good standing and reputation (ie without serious infractions on the account.)

The way you've stated it there just sounds like a shady legal loophole and it will be seen as such.

lol the thing everyone fails to see is that mittens stepped down to start - the fact that ccp removed him after the fact is just pomp and circumstance...

10k voters with unheard voices should be shouting at mittens asking why the hell did he step down to begin with - instead you blame ccp for his drunken banter (which btw csm should be held to a higher standard)

besides 10k votes - after goons admitted to fraud to get those votes - gg noobs

Since the chair resigned from CSM 6 prior to being banned and was not yet seated on CSM 7 he will be able to run for future CSMs.