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?

Obviously more valuable than any of the goon/goon pets' insights.

Seriously, if you cannot argue more, just shush, stop pretending you're intellectually superior just because someone chooses to stay in a NPC corp because the fact is you're not intellectually superior. out of arguments, accept it that you have no grounds for arguing.

If you can't post on your main you should go skill yourself.

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





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.

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

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?

um, yes he did, listen again my dear goon.

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?

If you can't post on your main you should go skill yourself.

Wasn't it goons that were praising CCP not that long ago when a nerf to tians was announced? My how the mighty have fallen :)

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

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?

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.

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.

I approve

Quick goonies, go "burn jita to the ground".

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

Goon tears....so many goon tears....*nomnomnom*

As for the 10.000 voters....its not CCPs fault that you candidate shot himself in the foot and can't represent you anymore. Take it up with him.

Well, i do agree with the desicion, but it will hurt the game in many ways wich makes me even MORE angry at Mittens...you just couldn't pull yourself together. All this talk about "beeing a politician" and "understanding how this works"....and then you do something STUPID like this. Well done....not.

Deal with it now. You removed our candidate, not the CSM. You disenfranchised us, and as a result you're going to fix it for us.

I feel sorry for these straws that are being grasped at.