Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 15:28:00 -
[1]
I'm sure I'll need a flame ******ant suit for this, however it's a pretty simply Issue;
If CSMs are banned from the forums or banned from EVE, they should be removed from the CSM immediately. This should be the case for both Temporary and Permanent bans.
The issue I can see with this is that it provides CCP with a mechanism for removing CSM members, so it would need to be documented that the person in question has received warnings first, and notified to the whole CSM that this is occuring.
On the other hand - do you really want someone who gets banned representing you?
Note: The situation of what happens when a CSM member gets removed is already dealt with: An Alternate is raised up in their place, in order of max votes received
Vote!
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store | eve-maps.com |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 15:45:00 -
[2]
I thought this was the case already. Of course, this has to be done.
|
Dierdra Vaal
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 16:19:00 -
[3]
you need both forums and game to interact with the CSM now that we have the CSM forum, and a CSM member who is banned on one of those (or both) channels will not be able to function in the CSM anymore.
It would make sense to remove them from the CSM, especially when it concerns permanent bans.
Training Director :: EVE University
CSM Representative |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 16:31:00 -
[4]
Makes sense to me. At the minimum an elected CSM delegate needs to be able to keep to the basic rules of conduct on the forums and in game so they can set an example to the playerbase.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 16:40:00 -
[5]
Support this initiative...
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 17:25:00 -
[6]
Isn't this already the case? I thought that if someone got banned from the game, they got booted from the CSM. If ythey don't, then I would support changing that. And I don't think that a forum ban is necessarily ejection-worthy - it certainly shouldn't be automatic. ------------------ Fix the forums! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=886592Hersche |
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 19:24:00 -
[7]
Considering CCP's occasional trigger-happy approach to bans, this has pretty impressive potential for abuse. -----------
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 19:27:00 -
[8]
It's clear from the documents that CSM members are expected to follow high standards of behaviour at all times. Getting oneself forum-banned should be enough to get oneself removed from the CSM, as it's pretty hard to discuss and interact in Jita hall etc without the ability to post! I'd also suggest that the actions that resulted in the forum-banning probably don't reflect well on the CSM. All organisations have the 'bring into disrepute' clause for removal from office (I'd lose my job!).
Take care, Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 19:47:00 -
[9]
Given that you cannot apply to be on the CSM if you have had a ban in the past, that seems not unreasonable. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
Pezzle
Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 19:53:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Pezzle on 05/10/2008 19:54:25 Not supported. First, CCP has already demonstrated unwillingness to get involved on that level of the CSM. Second, forum mods should not have that kind of power over the CSM.
Oh and Third, the potential for abuse of in game petition system and the like wasting time of CCP employees is immense.
|
|
Joss Sparq
Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 02:35:00 -
[11]
Well, I acknowledge that it provides CCP with a legitimate appearing mechanism for removing CSM members. Obviously, as things stand now they're able to can anyone at any time for any reason anyway, while probably the only concern for them being the potential fallout for being seen doing it to a CSM after they lauded the whole thing in their public relations material. At least this kind of thing would give them something to point at in justification to the community, I suppose.
While I don't entirely think CCP are the kind of people to rock up, black-bag someone and drive off with them into the dark of night never to be seen again (without good reason) I am a little uncomfortable about the idea that a CSM member banned from the forums is automatically kicked from the CSM. No offence meant to the Forum Moderators, but since anything worth a ban is usually deleted from a post it doesn't seem very accountable to, well, us.
While I figure a certain degree of good conduct is required I've never expected any elected official to be an angel. On the other hand, anything they could post worth a ban would probably/usually incline me to be happy that they're gone but this won't always be the case.
I can't help but worry that this just mandates the potential for abuse.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 08:51:00 -
[12]
Forum ban - No Ingame ban - Yes
You can get banned from the forums, very easily. I have seen people get forum bans for less than what CSM members have posted. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
Dihania
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 09:29:00 -
[13]
[hrhr]
Sniggwaffe is recruiting. Visit channel "join sniggwaffe" in game.
|
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 10:15:00 -
[14]
Gets my vote
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Astria Tiphareth
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 10:42:00 -
[15]
Supported, if it's not already the case. Yes there's an issue about whether they were justly banned, but then you're into 'did CCP do the right thing' territory, and given that 99.999% of the discussions in the entire set of forum constitute that in one form or another.... ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
|
Rasha Tar
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 11:06:00 -
[16]
There is no way in hell that a forum moderator should have final say on who can/cannot be a member of the CSM. If you get banned in-game then yes, I could see a reason for removal from CSM, but being temporaryily banned from this forum should not result in removal from the CSM, especially with the inconsistencies of recent forum bannings (Darius banned for trolling, but Jade not for doing the same thing is just one example I can think of).
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 11:15:00 -
[17]
I'm unhappy with some appearances of the CSM on the forums, but I have mixed feelings with being booted from the CSM for a forum ban. I'm more for an investigation if that happens, and the CCP people behind the CSM scolding the CSM in violation, and deciding on action, rather than a forum ban resulting in removal 100% of the time.
After all, if this goes through, people can be provoked by alts or throwaway accounts on purpose, and it will likely result in a lot more trolling and harrassment of CSM on the forums to get them to lose their temper and get themselves banned. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
fuze
Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 11:21:00 -
[18]
You are kidding right? Ever heard of conflict of interest? If a CSM member is banned from the game/forums the CSM itself should decide among themselves about the fate of their fellow member.
|
Another Forum'Alt
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 13:27:00 -
[19]
Who got b&?
Bet it was a goon This is not part of my sig.
...Or is it? |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 14:25:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I'm unhappy with some appearances of the CSM on the forums, but I have mixed feelings with being booted from the CSM for a forum ban. I'm more for an investigation if that happens, and the CCP people behind the CSM scolding the CSM in violation, and deciding on action, rather than a forum ban resulting in removal 100% of the time.
Well I'd agree there could certainly be some kind of behind the scenes discussion going on - but ultimately if you are getting forum banned under the new enlightened forum regime we've got now then something is going wrong Ank. People do get sent emails from the moderators telling them when they've had posts removed/moved/whatnot and why and if they keep insulting other players then its really their own fault.
Quote: After all, if this goes through, people can be provoked by alts or throwaway accounts on purpose, and it will likely result in a lot more trolling and harrassment of CSM on the forums to get them to lose their temper and get themselves banned.
Well to be quite honest, I very much doubt any CSM present or future is going to get as badly trolled and insulted and flamed and stalked than I've been this summer and at the end of it all I've still got my posting rights and managed to avoid breaking forum rules handling CSM business in the midst of some extremely ugly discussions. I've had literally hundreds of forum alts trolling me and the ultimate answer is simply to install CAOD-cleaner and block entire organizations and alt posters if you really can't handle these people with an even temper on Eve online.
I've found it hugely liberating to be able to say what I really think on SHC from time to time mind you :)
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
|
Farrqua
Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 14:56:00 -
[21]
Originally by: James Lyrus Given that you cannot apply to be on the CSM if you have had a ban in the past, that seems not unreasonable.
Ban from the game or a ban from the forums? The proposal also included forum bans. Wasn't Jade banned from the forums at one point prior before sitting on the CSM?
A ban from the game I would agree. But not a ban from the forums. To get banned from the Game you had to violate the EULA. Banning from the forums means that you were being an over emo troll.
|
Kyguard
Forged from Fire
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:20:00 -
[22]
Definitely agree. -
|
Drake Draconis
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:56:00 -
[23]
Personally... if you get banned from the forums... you should get banned from the game and vice versa... as there's no real reason to be one or the other without the other.
As far as the CSM goes.... the CSM should be responsible for itself... but I have no idea what sort of system they have running.... but its a bit painfully obvious that anyone who gets banned from either or..should quickly be removed from the CSM (provided its a just cause)
/semi_support
PS: anything can be viewed as a potential serious abuse in power.... welcome to paranoia.
|
Cheng
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:07:00 -
[24]
Yes. ----
|
Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:38:00 -
[25]
I was going to vote against this because it can be easily abused, but then thats a good reason to vote for it. --
|
Bux Naked
Memetic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:43:00 -
[26]
Agreed. Just basic common sense.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:07:00 -
[27]
Originally by: fuze You are kidding right? Ever heard of conflict of interest? If a CSM member is banned from the game/forums the CSM itself should decide among themselves about the fate of their fellow member.
No, not kidding. Yes, I've heard of conflict of interest. I agree that the CSM itself should decide the fate of their fellow member, however this is problematic, as it means a faction in power can totally kick-out all other votes in CSM-members.
So based on the comments so far, I'll revise the ejection process like this; Forum banning gives the CSM members the right to vote on whether the forum banned CSM member is kicked from the CSM. One vote may be taken per forum banning.
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store | eve-maps.com |
SFShootme
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:32:00 -
[28]
Yes
[VIDEO] Paroxysm
|
BlackKnight
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 19:34:00 -
[29]
/signed
|
Coranor
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:02:00 -
[30]
So who got banned?
|
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:06:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Serenity Steele
Originally by: fuze You are kidding right? Ever heard of conflict of interest? If a CSM member is banned from the game/forums the CSM itself should decide among themselves about the fate of their fellow member.
No, not kidding. Yes, I've heard of conflict of interest. I agree that the CSM itself should decide the fate of their fellow member, however this is problematic, as it means a faction in power can totally kick-out all other votes in CSM-members.
So based on the comments so far, I'll revise the ejection process like this; Forum banning gives the CSM members the right to vote on whether the forum banned CSM member is kicked from the CSM. One vote may be taken per forum banning.
I still don't really like it, but that's much less bad. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:19:00 -
[32]
Depending on the CSM member, and what alliance (if any) they are in, ejection via CSM candidate votes could be just as bad!
A forum ban could be looked at by CCP (not forum admin) first, the CSM informed and some reasoning given (ie, serious breach/not serious breach). The CSM could then vote, CCP be informed of the wishes of the CSM, and ultimately someone in CCP to take responsibility for a final decision.
A forum ban would entail some warnings first, plus the CSM member would not be able to interact with players via the forum (which I'd say is a pretty important duty). If CSM members are aware of the consequences of actions beforehand, then choose to act in unprofessional ways, I'd say they had fair warning.
Take care, Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:26:00 -
[33]
Upon reflection, and in danger of opening another can of worms...
What about removal of a CSM member by vote for dereliction of duty?
The definition of duty could be decided (a commitment agreement by CSM members) at the start of a CSM term.
Take care, Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
Farrqua
Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:10:00 -
[34]
Is any one else sensing a witch hunt is a foot? Getting support to take to CCP to go after someone currently on the CSM? I thought there was some kind of movement already to oust Jade for some things that everyone had heart burn about,had a lot of support and CCP said "nope."
Well if this is a last poke in the eye of whoever it is on the board..I am going to need popcorn for this.
|
Miz Cenuij
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:27:00 -
[35]
OFC this should be the case, if they are unable to conduct themselves in a proper manner ingame or on the forums, then they have no place on the CSM.
Or perhaps you believe that CCP allows any old muppet to be a forum mod and furthermore allows said muppets to ban anyone for no reason.
"Men are going to die... and i'm going to kill them" |
Jarvis Hellstrom
The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:38:00 -
[36]
Heck yes! May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:42:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Farrqua Is any one else sensing a witch hunt is a foot? Getting support to take to CCP to go after someone currently on the CSM? I thought there was some kind of movement already to oust Jade for some things that everyone had heart burn about,had a lot of support and CCP said "nope."
Well if this is a last poke in the eye of whoever it is on the board..I am going to need popcorn for this.
Originally by: Farrqua Is any one else sensing a witch hunt is a foot? Getting support to take to CCP to go after someone currently on the CSM? I thought there was some kind of movement already to oust Jade for some things that everyone had heart burn about,had a lot of support and CCP said "nope." Well if this is a last poke in the eye of whoever it is on the board..I am going to need popcorn for this.
As far as I know nobody on the CSM is forum banned at the moment. I don't think its so much a witch hunt as just trying to set up some solid rules of conduct for the people going into a second term and being joined by the new intake.
As for people going after me - bah, that was just trolling. Nobody sensible took that to heart - certainly not ccp or the csm.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Farrqua
Minmatar Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:45:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Farrqua on 06/10/2008 21:49:22
Originally by: Jade Constantine
As far as I know nobody on the CSM is forum banned at the moment. I don't think its so much a witch hunt as just trying to set up some solid rules of conduct for the people going into a second term and being joined by the new intake.
As for people going after me - bah, that was just trolling. Nobody sensible took that to heart - certainly not ccp or the csm.
For myself, I just can't seem to conect the ingame stuff to the forum stuff. Forum stuff your really not logged in. Whilst in game I see and feel a completley different manner a play and behavior. That when I get my role on so to speak.
Here..it's like having a beer with the fellas and talking about how much you suck "in-game" Or talk about how we can fix this or that, and tell funny stories of **** poor fittings and scamms.
But I guess most just can't seem to sperate themselves from ingame and out.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:53:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Farrqua For myself, I just can't seem to conect the ingame stuff to the forum stuff. Forum stuff your really not logged in. Whilst in game I see and feel a completley different manner a play and behavior. That when I get my role on so to speak.
Bit different for a CSM delegate though, you do need to use the forums to communicate with the players and you can't afford to use them lightly - ultimately its a medium for discussion and has to be treated with respect.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 03:47:00 -
[40]
Lets try and look at it another way:
If you are a taxi driver and are taken away your drivers license, don't you think you are going to get fired? You obviously can't do your job(Driving around) without it.
|
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 04:11:00 -
[41]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Lets try and look at it another way:
If you are a taxi driver and are taken away your drivers license, don't you think you are going to get fired? You obviously can't do your job(Driving around) without it.
If a Member of Parliament stops sending out newsletters, do they have to resign? That seems a much closer metaphor. The forums are hardly necessary for the CSM role, as evidenced by how many of you shun them frequently. They are unnecessary for internal communication, for attending meetings, for consulting with constituents, or for anything else essential. If the CSM moves to a forum-based system, then this might change, but given the present system, forum access is a throw-in, not a core responsibility. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 05:58:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto They are unnecessary for internal communication, for attending meetings, for consulting with constituents, or for anything else essential. If the CSM moves to a forum-based system, then this might change, but given the present system, forum access is a throw-in, not a core responsibility.
I beg to differ.
If you want an item on the agenda, you have to post on the forum. We now have our own private forum, where communication DOES happen. It hasn't been the case that the CSM is forum-based, due to the lack of tools provided to us.
The fundamental role of a CSM member is to communicate. It's a 2 way communication in my mind. A ban will keep you from doing this job.
|
fuze
Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 05:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Lets try and look at it another way:
How about this example:
You continue to keep posting on the forums about the age question for CSM and get a forum ban because of it (purely hypothetical ofc). Would it then be fair to get kicked out CSM? Besides even then when the rest of CSM don't vote you out would CCP still communicate to you? What if then all of the CSM would resign because of that? It's all a big WHAT IF but it's better to think about it now and not when it's too late.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 06:43:00 -
[44]
Originally by: fuze
Originally by: LaVista Vista Lets try and look at it another way:
How about this example:
You continue to keep posting on the forums about the age question for CSM and get a forum ban because of it (purely hypothetical ofc). Would it then be fair to get kicked out CSM? Besides even then when the rest of CSM don't vote you out would CCP still communicate to you? What if then all of the CSM would resign because of that? It's all a big WHAT IF but it's better to think about it now and not when it's too late.
The hypothetical situation is not likely to happen. You need a more likely example to make a point.
But if it did happen, then several things can be done. Either write to Wrangler, stating the case(Assuming I didn't break the rules). If he just doesn't bother, then internal affairs will have to look into how the community team does their job.
However, the example is really bad and only suits to try and prove a point which in my eyes isn't valid. Yes, the mods are trigger happy from time to time. But they aren't unreasonable people.
|
fuze
Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 08:31:00 -
[45]
Originally by: LaVista Vista But they aren't unreasonable people.
Being unreasonable isn't as black and white as you might think. The CSM should at have the ability to form its own opinion about this. Is CCP's change of the min age for CSM reasonable? Is getting banned from the forums because you lost your temper when you got trolled for months reasonable? Is getting banned because of outing CCP mishaps reasonable? |
Joss Sparq
ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 08:57:00 -
[46]
Eh, I still don't like the idea of removing CSMs on the basis of a forum ban (and letting other CSM members vote on it either) but on the other hand if you're banned then that'll probably affect your ability to do your expected tasks, from which I can see the value of a banned CSM member being diminished to the point I may prefer an Alternate being put in their place anyway.
In the case of a game ban I'm inclined to fully agree with an automatic removal. So, I approve, both on this aspect and primarily the fact that having some clear direction for future CSMs is very important too. Thumb up.
Originally by: Jade Constantine Well to be quite honest, I very much doubt any CSM present or future is going to get as badly trolled and insulted and flamed and stalked than I've been this summer and at the end of it all I've still got my posting rights and managed to avoid breaking forum rules handling CSM business in the midst of some extremely ugly discussions.
And to be honest I enjoyed almost every minute of it. I may not agree with some of the opinions I've seen you put forward, but your responses (and some of their charges against your opinions) often made many subjects I wouldn't have taken much interest in more engaging to read/consider and a convenient distraction from my studies too.
So, what're you wearing?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 09:00:00 -
[47]
Quote: Is CCP's change of the min age for CSM reasonable?
Yes, it is, now that they have explained why. Of course you might not agree with them. But they listened and postponed the rule. Quote: Is getting banned from the forums because you lost your temper when you got trolled for months reasonable?
Assuming the reason one would get banned is that you broke the rule, sure. But we must assume that the troll got banned too. In either case, you can reason with the community team about your ban if you think the ban is wrong.
Quote: Is getting banned because of outing CCP mishaps reasonable?
Sure. You broke the EULA, so it's reasonable. And you can always petition it to a lead GM or talk to internal affairs. I don't want to get into a discussion on if the kugu case was justice or not though. Lets just say I have an opinion, but it's unrelated to this specific point I'm making.
Reason is not a 1-way thing.
|
fuze
Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 10:07:00 -
[48]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Reason is not a 1-way thing.
Originally by: fuze Being unreasonable isn't as black and white as you might think.
I guess we agree on this. No system and nobody is perfect otherwise there wouldn't be the need for CSM.
Lets take the following rule:
Quote: 17. You may not engage in any activity that increases the difficulty and/or expense of CCP in maintaining the EVE Online client, server, web site or other services for the benefit and enjoyment of all its users.
http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/terms.asp It basically means that if you get moderated on the e-o forums you can get banned for it and then consequently be removed as CSM. It simply depends on the way you interpret this rule. And that's an example of where it can go wrong. When CSM continues to disagree about a decision CCP made, do they then still kick that member or can he/she stay? |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:13:00 -
[49]
Originally by: LaVista Vista I beg to differ.
If you want an item on the agenda, you have to post on the forum. We now have our own private forum, where communication DOES happen. It hasn't been the case that the CSM is forum-based, due to the lack of tools provided to us.
The fundamental role of a CSM member is to communicate. It's a 2 way communication in my mind. A ban will keep you from doing this job.
I know posting on the forums to add a topic is standard procedure, but if a CSM were forum banned and still on the Council, the Chair would surely accept submissions by email, in-game convo, or a similar mechanism. And while I don't dispute that 2-way communication is critical, it can be done just as easily in Jita Local, or in most of your corp chats, as it can be in the Assembly Hall.
I'm not saying that it'd be good to have a forum-banned CSM member, even temporarily. I'm just saying that, given present methods of operation, I don't think it'd be bad enough to justify ejection. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Niraco79
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 14:17:00 -
[50]
I support this
|
|
Irongut
M'8'S Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 15:45:00 -
[51]
If they receive an in-game or permanent forum ban then they should be removed immediately with no exception. However for a short temporary forum ban I think they could be required to abstain from voting until their ban was lifted and one of the alternates allowed to vote in their place.
--
The future is Black. Brace for Impact! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:46:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 07/10/2008 16:49:09
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well I'd agree there could certainly be some kind of behind the scenes discussion going on - but ultimately if you are getting forum banned under the new enlightened forum regime we've got now then something is going wrong Ank. People do get sent emails from the moderators telling them when they've had posts removed/moved/whatnot and why and if they keep insulting other players then its really their own fault.
The new forum moderation team is no more enlightened than the old. Action is created by nothing more than the click of a report button, with no examination of the context of the reported post done.
Now, I'd agree with a review by the council of the offending posts, but that lends itself to the same silly bullying the "moderation by report button" lends itself to. A situation where a majority in the council can remove minority representatives is not a healthy one per se.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well to be quite honest, I very much doubt any CSM present or future is going to get as badly trolled and insulted and flamed and stalked than I've been this summer and at the end of it all I've still got my posting rights and managed to avoid breaking forum rules handling CSM business in the midst of some extremely ugly discussions. I've had literally hundreds of forum alts trolling me and the ultimate answer is simply to install CAOD-cleaner and block entire organizations and alt posters if you really can't handle these people with an even temper on Eve online.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be ironic or not. Suffice to say you've broken the rules plenty, and everyone's had their fair share of forum alts attack. Let's at least be honest if nothing else.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:52:00 -
[53]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Assuming the reason one would get banned is that you broke the rule, sure. But we must assume that the troll got banned too. In either case, you can reason with the community team about your ban if you think the ban is wrong.
No, you cannot. I also do not think the community moderation team should be in the position of determining the player's CSM candidates. Especially given that forum moderation has been placed outside of the purview of the CSM.
If the council has no input into the actions of the moderation team then I'm astounded we would request that the moderation team have input into the makeup of the council.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Ice Baby
Caldari Ice Cream Express
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 03:27:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Ice Baby on 08/10/2008 03:29:36 Edited by: Ice Baby on 08/10/2008 03:27:42 NAY, because it's ccp, and quality of GMs and CMs are sloppy at best. And besides it should not be up to the above to decide over CSM.
PS. who got banned, the goonswarm guys? ------------------------------ Adding bounty will not make it easier to kill me. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 03:44:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Ice Baby Edited by: Ice Baby on 08/10/2008 03:29:36 Edited by: Ice Baby on 08/10/2008 03:27:42 NAY, because it's ccp, and quality of GMs and CMs are sloppy at best. And besides it should not be up to the above to decide over CSM.
PS. who got banned, the goonswarm guys?
Me
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 09:12:00 -
[56]
Originally by: James Lyrus Given that you cannot apply to be on the CSM if you have had a ban in the past, that seems not unreasonable.
This is not true. Jade has had a full permanent forum ban in the past and was allowed to participate. There was a cut off period, where, if you had had a ban that was not due to an EULA violation or "egregious violation of the forum rules"[not an exact quote] you were given amnesty. This amnesty carried over into the CSM process.
Re: Darius. Oftentimes they will not discuss it with the person in question either. I have received warning and other moderation and not once heard back asking for clarification or protesting the decision.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 10:16:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Goumindong Jade has had a full permanent forum ban in the past and was allowed to participate.
Full permanent bans ain't what they used to be.
Originally by: LaVista Vista The fundamental role of a CSM member is to communicate. It's a 2 way communication in my mind. A ban will keep you from doing this job.
You must be an INSANE forum ***** to think such a statement. I read the AH and JPSC and a post by the CSM is a rarity, not the standard. Communication from CSM delegates? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. CSM can't do their job without posting on the forums? You overestimate the power of the eve-online forums.
LaVista Vista, I suggest you actually go take the time (omg, effort incoming!) and read the AH topics, not just the ones that interest you. Note how many CSM repsonses their are. Then go to a topic that you or another CSM member really cares about and see how many CSM repsonses over one line are in that thread. Communication? My ass, more like using the CSM to further your own agenda. Don't bullshit me. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
SickSeven
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 10:51:00 -
[58]
so who got banned?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 11:02:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Goumindong Jade has had a full permanent forum ban in the past and was allowed to participate.
Full permanent bans ain't what they used to be
Yes, it was harder to get a full permanent ban back then than it was today and the penalties that accrue leading up to said ban are more severe now.
|
Another Forum'Alt
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 12:05:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Goumindong Jade has had a full permanent forum ban in the past and was allowed to participate.
Full permanent bans ain't what they used to be.
Originally by: LaVista Vista The fundamental role of a CSM member is to communicate. It's a 2 way communication in my mind. A ban will keep you from doing this job.
You must be an INSANE forum ***** to think such a statement. I read the AH and JPSC and a post by the CSM is a rarity, not the standard. Communication from CSM delegates? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. CSM can't do their job without posting on the forums? You overestimate the power of the eve-online forums.
LaVista Vista, I suggest you actually go take the time (omg, effort incoming!) and read the AH topics, not just the ones that interest you. Note how many CSM repsonses their are. Then go to a topic that you or another CSM member really cares about and see how many CSM repsonses over one line are in that thread. Communication? My ass, more like using the CSM to further your own agenda. Don't bullshit me.
Name me one CSM member who doesn't do that... Goons? Hmm, no agenda there, I'm sure </sarcasm> As for Jade Constantine, LOLAGENDA Same for all the rest, they are just the most obvious examples. And do you know what, NOBODY CARES. It was EXPECTED they would, which is why players voted for the one they wanted. This is not part of my sig.
...Or is it? |
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 14:16:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Goumindong Jade has had a full permanent forum ban in the past and was allowed to participate.
Full permanent bans ain't what they used to be
Yes, it was harder to get a full permanent ban back then than it was today and the penalties that accrue leading up to said ban are more severe now.
You are very much mistaken there Goumindong. Back in the day it used to be possible to get a permanent forum ban for 10 signature size offenses if you were unlucky enough (or any combination of minor transgressions) the problem was that the forum rules made absolutely no distinction between minor issues and serious ones and simply handed out then perma-ban stick at a count of 10.
The new forum regime has several important improvements over the last one:
Firstly, most minor "offenses" don't actually involve warnings - where threads can be cleaned up with deleted bits, locks or moves those don't obligate the moderators to give warnings. Example being obvious ooc material on the IGS forum - the moderators remove the offending material now - but don't have to give warnings while they do it (though they do give public direction to the people making this mistake.
Secondly, as far as I know its not possible to actually get a permanent forum ban in the new regime without posting something outrageous on the eve-forums - and this means seriously offensive material. I think we can all agree that somebody posting ****ography or extremely nasty images deserves what they get.
There was a reason that scores of perfectly good posters got permanent forum bans back in the day and that was that all offenses were considered "equal" and it was a 10 strikes and you're out regime. Fortunately thats all changed, we've now got a professional moderation crew - and the moderators are using a lot more discretion in using surgery on bad threads and posts rather than a ubiquitous ban-stick and things are definitely better from the ccp end at least.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 14:32:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: James Lyrus Given that you cannot apply to be on the CSM if you have had a ban in the past, that seems not unreasonable.
This is not true. Jade has had a full permanent forum ban in the past and was allowed to participate. There was a cut off period, where, if you had had a ban that was not due to an EULA violation or "egregious violation of the forum rules"[not an exact quote] you were given amnesty. This amnesty carried over into the CSM process.
Re: Darius. Oftentimes they will not discuss it with the person in question either. I have received warning and other moderation and not once heard back asking for clarification or protesting the decision.
v0v Forum moderation is not within the CSM's purview so I'm really not sure where you could go to get that rectified, aside from asking that your request be escalated, which may very well still get you nowhere.
As far as the amnesty, while it was certainly necessary I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is no longer held against you. It's quite the opposite.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 14:43:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Ice Baby who got banned
Me.
I suspected as much.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Not to insinuate that it was the cause of this thread in any way
Oh, of course not
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON but I wouldn't wish anyone's removal from the council for the two heinous posting crimes of:
1) A "yo mama" joke on CAOD. - http://www.eve-search.com/thread/845561/page/2#39 "Inappropriate Language" 2) Saying something about how silly someone's comment was in response to them decrying the odds stacked up against them in the council. http://www.eve-search.com/thread/877824#12 - "Trolling and personal attacks are not permitted."
Re #1, That seems a less offensive thing than dozens of others I've seen elsewhere. More juvenile, but then what do you expect of a Goon on CAOD?
Re #2, I said nastier things in the same vein to the same person on the same thread. Gotta love the vagarities of the Report button.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON A month apart. 2 week ban, though I was lead to believe that warnings don't wear off. If another warning is received it will be 30 days. v0v
Once I'm no longer on the CSM I don't expect my eve-o posting to survive the puritan cut mandated by the report button. While I may not always be the most eloquent or nicest dude on the planet I've done FAR from anything deserving of a punitive response IMO. I know when I cross the line and while at least comment #2 could have been worded better, I don't find it to be inappropriate.
I'll also note that CCP will not discuss the actions taken against other players with anyone but the player in question, which includes the CSM. To add to that the moderation team has declared its policies immune to the council. Those two items make this proposal pretty darn difficult to bring to fruition.
I thought the Council had jurisdiction over everything Eve related. You've brought up the forums, pricing schemes, and all sorts of other things outside the purview of the game itself, why would forum management be any different? ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 14:46:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON To add to that the moderation team has declared its policies immune to the council. Those two items make this proposal pretty darn difficult to bring to fruition.
Where do you get this from?
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 14:57:00 -
[65]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Where do you get this from?
The community manager. I'll email the relevant portion of the email to the mailing list or post it on the CSM forum.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 14:58:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Where do you get this from?
The community manager. I'll email the relevant portion of the email to the mailing list or post it on the CSM forum.
There's a CSM forum? ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 15:00:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Re #1, That seems a less offensive thing than dozens of others I've seen elsewhere. More juvenile, but then what do you expect of a Goon on CAOD?
Re #2, I said nastier things in the same vein to the same person on the same thread. Gotta love the vagarities of the Report button.
That was pretty much my line of thought, and I said as much regarding various other posts in the thread. v0v Difference of opinion I suppose.
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
I thought the Council had jurisdiction over everything Eve related. You've brought up the forums, pricing schemes, and all sorts of other things outside the purview of the game itself, why would forum management be any different?
I'm not sure why it's different. Only that I've been informed it is. I don't agree with it either, but I don't work for CCP and wasn't a part of that decision tree.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 15:01:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
There's a CSM forum?
Yes, as of about 2 weeks ago.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 15:04:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
There's a CSM forum?
Yes.
So far, it's just used for discussing issues which are being raised.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 15:17:00 -
[70]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto There's a CSM forum?
Yes.
So far, it's just used for discussing issues which are being raised.
That seems like an odd use - each topic being raised already has a forum thread, by definition. You have the mailing list for private communications and the Eve boards for public - what's this third one for? ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 15:19:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
That seems like an odd use - each topic being raised already has a forum thread, by definition. You have the mailing list for private communications and the Eve boards for public - what's this third one for?
It's a better format than the mailing list for communicating. The mailing list is also provided externally rather than CCP. IMO CCP should be providing the tools the CSM needs to operate, so while I'm opposed to the private comms at all, it's better comms provided by CCP than some random 3rd party.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 15:23:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto There's a CSM forum?
Yes.
So far, it's just used for discussing issues which are being raised.
That seems like an odd use - each topic being raised already has a forum thread, by definition. You have the mailing list for private communications and the Eve boards for public - what's this third one for?
Well, we already spend tons of time during meetings asking questions on each issue. It's more productive to do that in a forum *before* the meeting. But it has obviously not been the case that people are interested in that, seemingly because they have to do it in a public forum.
So in order to actually have some kind of meaningful discussion, I personally, as well as a few others, posted all the issues that was being raised, right on there.
It was not very well adopted though.
Also, the mailing list is a privately hosted one, by Serenity Steele. It would not be good if it was to be passed on to the next CSM. A tool provided by CCP is much better.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 01:53:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto There's a CSM forum?
Yes.
So far, it's just used for discussing issues which are being raised.
That seems like an odd use - each topic being raised already has a forum thread, by definition. You have the mailing list for private communications and the Eve boards for public - what's this third one for?
Saves them time sifting the wheat from the chaff
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 02:33:00 -
[74]
Well I'm glad this is a contentious topic :) Always more interesting debate.
Darius' point about the CSM not having influence over the Forum Mods is correct AFAIK, but that doesn't stop the CSM being given the ability to take action on forum bannings.
The interesting risk (again by Darius) is that a majority council could effectively "war-report" a fellow-CSM member they wanted kicked out (think thread-nought with reports); At the risk being forum banned themselves for repeatedly reporting posts that didn't deserve it. However that would be a neutral action, as the "war-reporting" majority wouldn't vote one of their own out of the Council.
On the otherhand, the "war-reporting" CSM would also be unable to communicate (or) do further reports.
The only way I can think to counter that is to simply remove a banned persons right to vote, and let alternates step up. As Alternates are sequential, this can also be gamed. Ideas?
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store | eve-maps.com |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 02:41:00 -
[75]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Well, we already spend tons of time during meetings asking questions on each issue. It's more productive to do that in a forum *before* the meeting. But it has obviously not been the case that people are interested in that, seemingly because they have to do it in a public forum.
So in order to actually have some kind of meaningful discussion, I personally, as well as a few others, posted all the issues that was being raised, right on there.
It was not very well adopted though.
So it looks like the problem is that the CSM members don't want to discuss issues in advance, not the means for doing so. Unfortunate, but woefully common in groups like this - people think I'm slightly mad when I mail reports out in advance of the meeting so people will have time to read them at their leisure, when that's just simple good practice. Meetings of more than five people cannot easily contain a useful discussion, so you do the thinking and discussing in advance, and use the meetings for voting, plus some Q+A and hashing out issues you want to discuss in real time(of which there are a few). But the idea of a simple issue known and posted on forums a week in advance being discussed for the first time at the meeting itself is utter insanity. I am wholly unsurprised by how long your meetings take.
Originally by: LaVista Vista Also, the mailing list is a privately hosted one, by Serenity Steele. It would not be good if it was to be passed on to the next CSM. A tool provided by CCP is much better.
Use Yahoo Groups next time, or something similar. Lets you keep a mailing list up long-term, so future Councils can use it, without it being one individual's domain. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 02:54:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Well I'm glad this is a contentious topic :) Always more interesting debate.
Darius' point about the CSM not having influence over the Forum Mods is correct AFAIK, but that doesn't stop the CSM being given the ability to take action on forum bannings.
The interesting risk (again by Darius) is that a majority council could effectively "war-report" a fellow-CSM member they wanted kicked out (think thread-nought with reports); At the risk being forum banned themselves for repeatedly reporting posts that didn't deserve it. However that would be a neutral action, as the "war-reporting" majority wouldn't vote one of their own out of the Council.
On the otherhand, the "war-reporting" CSM would also be unable to communicate (or) do further reports.
The only way I can think to counter that is to simply remove a banned persons right to vote, and let alternates step up. As Alternates are sequential, this can also be gamed. Ideas?
It does stop the CSM from being able to act on forum bannings as you have no way of knowing it's occurred and CCP will not communicate them to you. Since the CSM is not in a position to question this policy, nor any other forum policy, then effectively this topic is moot. If I'm a jerk who doesn't want to be removed from the council I simply won't tell you and because of the above items you'll never know.
Interestingly enough, being banned also prevents you from being able to apply for the council in the first place.
Personally I don't believe the CSM should be in a position of further empowering low-level divisions within CCP with undue influence over the selection process. I believe that to be specifically against the nature of the council in the first place. Any division of CCP having influence over the makeup of the council, without itself being subject to ANY oversight can lead to the same type of situations which the council was formed to prevent.
Ultimately while I like the idea of standards. I believe they're already being applied and leaving the decision in the hands of a moderation team who has already placed themselves outside of the process is a pretty daft thing to do.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Jita Johnny
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:08:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Jita Johnny on 09/10/2008 03:09:58 Edited by: Jita Johnny on 09/10/2008 03:09:19
Originally by: Coranor So who got banned?
Darius was a moron and went and got himself temp banned and this is Jade Constantine's pathetic attempt at what he no doubt imagines to be cunning subterfuge.
Voting no. I don't want CSM members to be removed at the caprice of the forum mods. |
Cory Trevor
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:13:00 -
[78]
Yeah, great idea! Don't deal with the reason of the ban itself, just trust forum moderators to decide who is and isn't fit to serve as a CSM!
Not only do I not support this, I'll go as far as to say that anyone who does support this should be ashamed of themselves.
|
Taedron
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:16:00 -
[79]
Why are we even discussing this? What problem does removing a CSM over some temp ban handed out by the forum moderation/gm staff solve? Why would someone being temp banned on the forums mean that they have any less community support than they had when they were elected? And even if they did, why would that matter? They were rightfully elected in the first place, right?
|
CowsCANBark
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:35:00 -
[80]
Edited by: CowsCANBark on 09/10/2008 03:35:26 For the record:
Darius was banned in a thread for slap fighting with jade Constantine, unlike jade his arguments didn't devolve to personal attacks. Jade wasn't banned for some stupid reason, and as you can see Darius posting it was a temp ban.
I don't think forum mods should have any power, be it moderation over csm members. I also don't think if you have had a temp ban prior you are unable to run for CSM. Right now you can get banned for anything. During the T20 scandal many people were banned after the threadnaught. You can bet if a GM or dev did the same misconduct there would be another threadnaught, or perhaps forums mod, and that would be justified. The forum rules aren't always correct, and people in power aren't always nonpartisan.
-hellachicken
|
|
Cannibal PLT
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:41:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Cannibal PLT on 09/10/2008 03:41:29 This is adding more fluff where we don't need it. The unnecessary complications aren't worthwhile.
That, and it puts power over CSM delegates from people who shouldn't really be involved in the process.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:48:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Serenity Steele At the risk being forum banned themselves for repeatedly reporting posts that didn't deserve it.
This would be done with alts.
Quote: Ideas?
Drop it. You are already prohibited from running when you have a forum ban in effect, such there is no reason to allow candidates and representatives to be open to such attacks.
|
Interfar
Anti Behemoth Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:55:00 -
[83]
/signed
|
Alkie
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 03:55:00 -
[84]
Thumbs down.
The CSM and the forum mods are two separate entities by design.
|
Barwinius
Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 04:03:00 -
[85]
No thanks. |
Mondo Banana
Gallente GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 04:06:00 -
[86]
No support. This is an unecessary extension of power to forum mods in an arena they don't belong in. It only has value if you're looking for a new way to game the system.
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 04:23:00 -
[87]
ccp moderation team should have no power of who is isn't on the CSM this would set a horrible president espcially with the level of meta gaming in todays eve.
|
Hercule Poitot
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 04:30:00 -
[88]
Hey, can you guys stop being such *****es and just focus on fixing this shitty ****ing game? All you have to be is a group of people that collects opinions from players about the game, and then bring a filtered and concise representation of those to CCP's attention. That's all, not space congress.
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 04:31:00 -
[89]
I look forward to abusing the **** out of this. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Von Kleist
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 04:34:00 -
[90]
So far, this just seems to be another example of just how useless the whole csm turned out to be. Thanks for this.
|
|
Etien Aldragoran
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 06:07:00 -
[91]
This is stupid. You'd be taking my vote away by putting the decision of who is in the CSM in the hands of the moderation team and people I did not necessarily vote for.
|
Trzzbk
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 06:25:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Trzzbk on 09/10/2008 06:25:01
Originally by: Drake Draconis Personally... if you get banned from the forums... you should get banned from the game and vice versa... as there's no real reason to be one or the other without the other.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
A permanent game ban should be grounds for CSM dismissal nothing less.
|
White Rabbid
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 06:58:00 -
[93]
There are a couple things ppl seem to forget: The CSM was founded following some rather stupid actions on CCP's part. Sooooo, if csm can be banned at the discretion of the moderation team, then the whole thing is just a silly stunt.
Seeing how the CSM is elected by the players, the removal should also be in the hands of the players. OK... say he broke the rules. In this special case, (being a CSM member) things could go through a different process than for a regular joe imho they should allow some sort of player controll before removal. A vote by the other csm members A players vote some sort of mechanism to put the power back in the hands of the players and not in ccp's untrustworthy team again. I VOTE NO
|
Cindy McCain
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:03:00 -
[94]
How about no.
|
Arcika Toalen
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:16:00 -
[95]
Wow look at that poorly veiled attempted to get Bane and DJ kicked from the CSM and stop any member of GoonSwarm every standing again so that certain parties can have their faux influence over CCP and suggest yet more meaningly crap in the name of a free trip to Iceland.
On top of that would then put the make up of the CSM in the hands of CCP forum moderators and GM which of course have no vendettas against inderviduals or corps/alliances since they are totally impartial.
Why not just come out and say it? You don't want abrasive people who think differently to you in your little circle jerk as it means you might have to oh god... debate things rather than just act as a rubber stamp for solutions to problems that don't exist.
The CSM is about as ligitmate and has as much control over EvE as the East German Government did and their Icelandic Masters are just pulling the strings behind the illusion of allowing the players to have a say on what gets broken next.
With this in mind I am going to say... no.
|
DaiTengu
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:25:00 -
[96]
This is a horribly veiled attempt by Jade Constantine to get Darius kicked off the CSM. Nothing more, nothing less. If the moderators had one ounce of intelligence, they'd lock this thread.
|
Myk Taison
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:29:00 -
[97]
Forum moderation is inconsistent. This would be too. DNW
|
Cancer Face
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:34:00 -
[98]
This is an excellent idea*
*no it isn't
|
AlphaViscera
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 09:07:00 -
[99]
No, forum bans, and in-game bans are two separate things.
|
GIJoeDirtbag
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 10:32:00 -
[100]
This is the dumbest shit I have heard in ages. Quit your childish attempts to usurp more power for yourself and get friendly with a noose. |
|
Goose Hypocrisy
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 10:33:00 -
[101]
Unfortunately, EVE-O moderators suck. Hard. This just can't work.
In-game bans, now that's a different thing. |
nikhan
The Greater Goon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:24:00 -
[102]
This would be a pretty effective tool for CCP themselves to remove people they are finding a pain in the arse from the CSM system. A CSM member would then have to be afraid of voicing any opinion of the player base because the mods could find one silly rule, forum ban you and then you lose CSM. (yes this is serious tinfoil but it is something you would need to take into account)
Letting the CSM council vote anyone they feel like off after a forum ban is also stupid. Games of goading eachother into saying stupid things on the forum (like earlier in this term) just to have a power bloc vote them off could become an issue. Players voted them there for a reason and they should stay there.
A definate no to this stupid idea. You clearly didn't think this through. jesus.
|
Nastasia Muse
Caldari deii feram
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:33:00 -
[103]
So if two people are banned for the same offence (which implies the sort of constancy in the current moderation team that we know isn't there) then both will come up for a vote in the CSM team. That vote will then be decided by whether the majority of the CSM sees it as advantageous to ban someone they disagree with.
Please don't pretend that the current CSM would not use it as a chance to opress the minority: that is the whole point of this motion in the first place.
The members are democratically elected by the player base. It is not for a democratic body to alter its own makeup so as to affect the results of an election. After all, it's only been a couple of thousand years and change in which it has been said that delegatus non potest delegatur: the delegates may not, themselves, delegate.
|
The Proletarian
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:38:00 -
[104]
Jade, stop trying to use your little cat's paw Serenity to help you alter the makeup of the CSM.
Like the bulk of those posting, I disagree with this transparent attempt at election-stealing. Fortunately, there's not a slug's chance in a furnace of CCP being stupid enough to fall for this ridiculously childish play: they know it would stand a chance of further devaluing an institution that they must be desperate to see rid of its drama-queen hijacker of a chairthing.
|
Peasant John
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 12:23:00 -
[105]
No. This kind of policy would only make things worse, as it would open up another place for the CSMs to slapfight. Whether it's people targeting goons, goons targeting others, or random other parties on each other, the players would not be well served.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 12:53:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Well I'm glad this is a contentious topic :) Always more interesting debate. Darius' point about the CSM not having influence over the Forum Mods is correct AFAIK, but that doesn't stop the CSM being given the ability to take action on forum bannings.
The interesting risk (again by Darius) is that a majority council could effectively "war-report" a fellow-CSM member they wanted kicked out (think thread-nought with reports); At the risk being forum banned themselves for repeatedly reporting posts that didn't deserve it. However that would be a neutral action, as the "war-reporting" majority wouldn't vote one of their own out of the Council.
On the otherhand, the "war-reporting" CSM would also be unable to communicate (or) do further reports.
The only way I can think to counter that is to simply remove a banned persons right to vote, and let alternates step up. As Alternates are sequential, this can also be gamed. Ideas?
I think its probably fair enough that a temp banned CSM delegate gets temp-replaced with an alternate according to the previously established tally of voting. So if X delegate got a 1 week ban he or she would be replaced as a voting member by the next alternate for the duration of the ban.
If it was a permaban then they'd obviously need to be permanently replaced.
Now the problem is that the moderators might not like to share the status of the ban upon another player (for privacy reasons and such) - so the CSM would need some way of ensuring it was correctly kept up to date on the ban status of its members. Perhaps it could be added to the CSM signup docs that the delegates agree to do their best to avoid forum disciplinary action and give their permission for the CSM officers to be informed about potential forum bans and suchlike.
To the few dozen identical posters in the thread above I'd say don't personalize this - its going to be something that does come up in future CSMs and the delegates need a way to resolve the situation.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Tector
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 12:59:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Tector on 09/10/2008 13:01:19 I have real concerns about the demonstrated inconsistency of the moderation team and the potential for abuse as outlined by Darius and Serenity.
Voting no.
|
Interval
Priori Inc
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:06:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Interval on 09/10/2008 13:06:25 If these kinds of well thought out topics is what the CSM spent their time on I ask for CSM to be dissolved and new sol nodes be bought with the money saved from it.
|
Fulber
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:10:00 -
[109]
CSM People trying to metagame other CSMs into being banned should be removed from the CSM.
I mean, come on, this is probably the most transparent CSM powerplay to date. Serenity, well done on completely hosing what was left of your public image, we now know whose music you're dancing to. |
Arcika Toalen
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:13:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
To the few dozen identical posters in the thread above I'd say don't personalize this.
Prince of Lies
|
|
Caius Proximus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:30:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I think its probably fair enough that a temp banned CSM delegate gets temp-replaced with an alternate according to the previously established tally of voting. So if X delegate got a 1 week ban he or she would be replaced as a voting member by the next alternate for the duration of the ban.
If it was a permaban then they'd obviously need to be permanently replaced.
Now the problem is that the moderators might not like to share the status of the ban upon another player (for privacy reasons and such) - so the CSM would need some way of ensuring it was correctly kept up to date on the ban status of its members. Perhaps it could be added to the CSM signup docs that the delegates agree to do their best to avoid forum disciplinary action and give their permission for the CSM officers to be informed about potential forum bans and suchlike.
To the few dozen identical posters in the thread above I'd say don't personalize this - its going to be something that does come up in future CSMs and the delegates need a way to resolve the situation.
Cut it out already. The CSM was not put into place to be some venue for you to LARP an intergalactic douche-bag.
Do you remember one of the original reasons for CSMs? It was put into place as a response to outcry against one of CCP's employees being caught cheating, the initial response to which was mass bannings from the former moderation team. Under that light, don't you think this "law" might create somewhat of a conflict of interest?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:31:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
To the few dozen identical posters in the thread above I'd say don't personalize this - its going to be something that does come up in future CSMs and the delegates need a way to resolve the situation.
Resolve what problem?
|
Brmble
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:33:00 -
[113]
this is dumb, ban op, close thread
~ no not believin in urself ~ |
Orion Moonstar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:39:00 -
[114]
No, because that would mean that CCP is choosing the reps, instead of the players.
http://www.dariusjohnson.org/dec20bobts.mp3 http://www.daitengu.com/ohgod/dec20bobts.mp3 |
Popperr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:50:00 -
[115]
No, the forum and the game are independent if each other. I'd go so far as to say that a banned CSM member is not banned from the CSM forums as one is more important than the others. Netiquette is independent from knowledge of this game, don't try and make one about the other.
|
Machine Delta
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 13:58:00 -
[116]
This idea allows a body that has no ties to the CSM or input from the player base to effectively nominate CSM members for removal.
I see no logic behind allowing this course of action and thus cannot give it any support whatsoever. I strongly encourage my fellow players to do the same.
*snip* Your signature is inappropriate. Do not post it again. If you have questions, email [email protected] with a link to your signature graphic. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Machine Delta
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:01:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Machine Delta on 09/10/2008 14:04:18 Furthermore,
Jade Constantine *snip* Your signature is inappropriate. Do not post it again. If you have questions, email [email protected] with a link to your signature graphic. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:03:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/10/2008 14:04:53
The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Dr Felonius
Caldari Civilian Purposes Limited
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:04:00 -
[119]
I don't like or trust CCP's forum moderation policies, especially the way we aren't allowed to discuss them. I loathe this idea.
|
Machine Delta
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:05:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately.
This, this is the shortest post you've ever made. *snip* Your signature is inappropriate. Do not post it again. If you have questions, email [email protected] with a link to your signature graphic. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
|
Wodan Violence
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:06:00 -
[121]
Weak-kneed pubbies should not be able to remove OUR CEO from the council.
|
Machine Delta
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:06:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/10/2008 14:04:53
The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.
We're roleplaying being goons here so stop raining on everyones parade. *snip* Your signature is inappropriate. Do not post it again. If you have questions, email [email protected] with a link to your signature graphic. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:06:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately.
The assembly hall is not an excuse to ignore debate.
I ask again, what problem?
|
KIAEddZ
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:07:00 -
[124]
What a ridiculous suggestion.
I mean seriously ridiculous.
How does your ability to refrain from breaking forum rules directly effect your ability to shape the game into something that is better than it currently is.
Knowing you Jade, I would bet everything I own that this is some sort of personally motivated bullsht, to get something you want, than about any real concern.
Which CSM members are currently banned? Which of them is the person you dont like?
Bewildering.
KIA EVE Home
KIA in game Public Channel "KIA"
KIA are Currently recruiting active PvP minded players. Contact Imperius Blackheart |
Geddy L33t
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:09:00 -
[125]
The CSM should be more like 0.0 itself: If you can't stand the pressure, go back to Jita, or in this case CAOD.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:11:00 -
[126]
Originally by: KIAEddZ W Knowing you Jade, I would bet everything I own that this is some sort of personally motivated bullsht, to get something you want, than about any real concern.
Point is you don't know me Eddz. You don't know anybody who hasn't taken the time or inclination to get to know you in return. This is a computer game with thousands of players - there is a limit to your understanding of other participants and assuming you know everything there is to know about another player always leads to misunderstanding and bad feelings.
And this is why its always a bad idea to personalize these assembly hall issues.
Quote: Which CSM members are currently banned? Which of them is the person you dont like?
As far as I know (or have been informed as CSM chair) - currently no CSM delegates are forum banned.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Second Amendment
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:16:00 -
[127]
If I didn't want my CSM delegates to act like Goons, I wouldn't have voted for Goons in the first place. This proposal effectively disenfranchises people like us.
There is a kernel of truth to the original idea - there are some in-game behaviors, such as blatantly using exploits, that ought to disqualify someone for CSM membership. These forums, however, are far too meaningless to justify any such action.
|
Tevlent
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:23:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Tevlent on 09/10/2008 14:23:52 This is a dumb idea.
edit: of crap, I hope I don't get temp-banned for this pointless post or else I will never be able to run for CSM! By the might of Jade, spare me mighty moderators!
|
Yorda
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:39:00 -
[129]
We should kick all people of the CSM, it's a complete waste of time.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:39:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 09/10/2008 14:40:51
Originally by: Jade Constantine
As far as I know (or have been informed as CSM chair) - currently no CSM delegates are forum banned.
As far as I know, the CSM chair's job is to schedule meetings. I have no idea why you'd be informed in any way ever of anything other than "here's a topic I'd like to propose" or "Hey I won't make it to the meeting this week".
:edit: Asking Goons not to post is pretty silly. They have just as much of a right to voice their opinion as anyone else, including you.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
|
Tamir Lenk
Caldari Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:52:00 -
[131]
CCP forum enforcement should not override popular vote, especially with the rolling alternate system of replacement.
This proposal puts even the CSM member with the greatest electoral mandate (i.e., the most player votes) at the risk of any forum enforcement -- no matter what forum and with no reliably objective standard of conduct.
The "next in line" alternate system aggravates the problem. Consider this example, Joe Repro is elected to CSM with a huge plurality of player votes. He/she gets into a random flame war on the Science and Industry forum and is temp banned. Now in addition to the forum ban penalty (which may only be for cooling off), Joe loses his CSM seat. More importantly, that huge segment of voting players loses its representation in favor of some other guy for whom far fewer players voted. The potential for disenfranchisement is enormous.
Forum misconduct requires suitable penalties. Those penalties should be gauged according to the conduct penalized, not according to the status of the player at issue. In real elected governments, commission of a crime does not strip a person of elected office. He or she might certainly resign in shame (e.g., Nixon), or it might be cause for potential removal through a separate process (e.g., Clinton impeachment), or it may cause them to lose re-election (e.g., possibly Ted Stevens). In the case of a separate process like impeachment or censure, however, that process includes a filter that prevents it from being triggered by every possible infraction and is limited to "high crimes and misdemeanors." An elected ruler should not face removal every time they get a speeding ticket. Thus, having a forum ban auto-trigger a CSM removal vote still makes the CSM office too precarious.
To emphasize the problem of enhancing penalties because of status, consider the reverse model. Should CSM members be immune from forum bans because of their status? They need forum access to do their jobs right? The justifications for this rule could just as easily be flipped to immunize CSM from the rules of forum protocol. That would be wrong.
Just as CSM Members should not be "above the law" with regard to forum posting, they should not be specially penalized under those rules either.
Game bans are another story. If you are not part of the body governed, you should not be in the governing body. If you are stripped of EVE citizenship, then your CSM status should plainly follow.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:52:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Second Amendment If I didn't want my CSM delegates to act like Goons, I wouldn't have voted for Goons in the first place. This proposal effectively disenfranchises people like us.
That has to be one of the funniest justifications I've seen in a while. The thing is, though, I'm not sure it's invalid. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:56:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Tamir Lenk
Game bans are another story. If you are not part of the body governed, you should not be in the governing body. If you are stripped of EVE citizenship, then your CSM status should plainly follow.
That is already in the agreement I believe.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:58:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON :edit: Asking Goons not to post is pretty silly. They have just as much of a right to voice their opinion as anyone else, including you.
I didn't ask them not to post, I asked them not to post abuse and personal attacks.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Courthouse
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:01:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/10/2008 14:04:53
The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.
The CSM is not a venue for you to exercise your own personal agenda against those players who cause you, of your own volition, to step down from your high horse. I'd like to ask the CSM members in this thread to kindly shut up and start discussing issues that matter to the people who voted you into the council. It should be possible to vote 9 people into a committee without every other proposal coming off like a slap fight between a couple babies who all want the Tickle-Me-Elmo to themselves.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:02:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I didn't ask them not to post, I asked them not to post abuse and personal attacks.
If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Arcika Toalen
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:06:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/10/2008 14:04:53
The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.
The don't come up with banana republic style plans of political take overs.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:09:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?
I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.
... nothing ever burns down by itself
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:17:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?
I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.
I honestly don't care if you want to change the subject. Answer the freaking question.
What is this supposed problem or situation you are trying to solve?
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:18:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.
Perhaps they view this issue thread as a fairly transparent attack on individuals within the CSM and are voicing their opinions as such. I'd say that forum moderation is left to the moderators, and none of us really has any input into that. There's a lot of posts on these forums I don't like. I ignore them. No big deal.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
|
Courthouse
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:18:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?
I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.
Nor is it appropriate to introduce or support issues designed as a thinly veiled attack against another player, especially when you are personally just as culpable for being banned in the past.
|
Alkie
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:24:00 -
[142]
Jade is trying to pull an ACORN in the CSM.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:37:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Edited by: Serenity Steele on 06/10/2008 18:13:36 I'm sure I'll need a flame resistant suit for this, however it's a pretty simply Issue;
If CSMs are banned from the forums or banned from EVE, they should be removed from the CSM immediately., gives the CSM members the right to vote on whether the banned CSM member is kicked from the CSM. One vote may be taken per forum banning. This should be the case for both Temporary and Permanent bans.
The issue I can see with this is that it provides CCP with a mechanism for removing CSM members, so it would need to be documented that the person in question has received warnings first, and notified to the whole CSM that this is occuring.
On the other hand - do you really want someone who gets banned representing you?
Note: The situation of what happens when a CSM member gets removed is already dealt with: An Alternate is raised up in their place, in order of max votes received
Vote!
Edit: Revised based on feedback: text removed text added
What? Hahahahaha.
Forum bans - no point even talking about it. It's not up to forum moderators to ultimatelly decide who CSMs will be. End of the story.
If CSM got an ingame permaban for serious violation(s), I don't think CCP is gonna ask anyone what to do. Pretty sure they'd take care of it by themselves.
Pointless thread.
|
Moon Kitten
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:50:00 -
[144]
I have to agree with Sentinel Exx because that is a very reasonable argument that makes sense.
|
KIAEddZ
Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:55:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Which CSM members are currently banned? Which of them is the person you dont like?
As far as I know (or have been informed as CSM chair) - currently no CSM delegates are forum banned.
Well, simply put, I dont believe this is not personally motivated.
You can say I don't "know" you, but in the past 5 years I have read probabbly 100s of 1000s of words written by you, I feel I have a fairly good idea of your motivation within Eve. Its has always been about you for you, maybe an accusation you can sling back at me, but truthfull none the less.
This topic is about getting some people you don't like removed from the CSM, and indeed I would feel getting the ability going forward to influence the CSMs makeup.
Bait subject A with alts, watch his posts like a hawk, report anything that might get him a warning..
You are fickle, and see through, you always have been. Most people reading this thread deserve to know the feelings of others towards you, people that have experienced your poison pen once before.
People "voting" on this issue deserve to know as much as possible about the person raising it for discussion, and allow formation of political discussion on the motivations behind it.
You dont get to hide in CSM, your personality, your motivations, your drivers are on public display, and thats EXACTLY the way it should be.
This entire suggestion is ridiculous, i have received forum warnings, i could be very close to another one, what if I got temp banned? that would in some way restrict my ability, and knowledge of the game to attempt in helping influence the way the game goes forward...
Its a ridiculous concept, and nothing more than an attempt by you to add to your tools.
No doubt this post will be reported.
But this is a delagation of peers charged with making the game a better place for all of us, your personality is in question as much as your suggested policies, much like your questioning of others personality within this thread.
KIA EVE Home
KIA in game Public Channel "KIA"
KIA are Currently recruiting active PvP minded players. Contact Imperius Blackheart |
Cannibal PLT
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 16:35:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Goumindong What is this supposed problem or situation you are trying to solve?
I think we've found the heart of the issue. If this can't get answered convincingly, then there's really no point in discussing anything further.
|
Ralph42nd
Gallente Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 16:58:00 -
[147]
Adding a method for removal of Elected officials, by people who may or may not have alternative motives is by definition itself dumb.
Granted I only became aware of the CSM recently, but from my research it is an elected body of players who are tasked at bringing in-game issues to the attention of CCP. The elected are elected by the player base, based on who they want representing them.
The additional mechanism for removal shows a serious lack of foresight and thought to the point of just plain dumb.
I won't even discuss the potential for this "post", or "issue" to be a personal attack on someone at one time banned or not. I won't discuss this not because I have a strong feeling one way or the other, I won't discuss this because previous statements speak for themselves.
You can hide your motives only for so long before transparency takes effect. Once this is done, you and your idea will be hung for the idiocy presented here and not for the issue. You know as well as any this is a bad idea, funny though it may be, take a look around and count how many support and how many do not support this idea, and where they come from.
Ultimately however we ask in the spirit of level headed debate that you answer the questions provided.
For what reason do you want to see this "idea" implemented?
What "issue" will this remedy?
What are the ramifications of this "issue"?
oh and ...
why are you against the debate of an "idea" by attempting to silence those who appose you?
Quote: The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.
Prior to this post the only thing I can come up with that is close to a personal attack seems to me ...
1. disagreement with your idea 2. not directed at you 3. a figment of your imagination
The quoted above was a prime example of why this "idea" is laughable at best. Furthermore, without attempting to make the quoted statement a point of contention, if forums rules (re: personal attacks, etc) were violated there is a proper process with which to handle this. Calling it out in a thread is flame bait, but you already knew this.
Have a nice day just the same :durh:
|
Chloridane
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:23:00 -
[148]
No, this is just stupid. Getting someone kicked off the CSM because another player thinks they are being flamed is wrong.
Why don't you go stealth bomb something about it.
|
RDevz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:48:00 -
[149]
Edited by: RDevz on 09/10/2008 17:47:50
Originally by: KIAEddZ
This topic is about getting some people you don't like removed from the CSM, and indeed I would feel getting the ability going forward to influence the CSMs makeup.
Bait subject A with alts, watch his posts like a hawk, report anything that might get him a warning..
If this goes through, I pretty much plan to do this to Jade whenever I get a free moment. Alt accounts are relatively cheap, and get you 3 characters with which to troll him.
In addition, I'd like to modify this so that people who are temp banned can't vote on the vote to exclude. With sufficient people timing their trolling, I should be able to get anyone I don't like evicted from the council.
I'd like to throw my weight behind this issue - there's not a chance that it could be misused by the CSM delegates at all.
|
Ar'tee
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:50:00 -
[150]
Originally by: DaiTengu This is a horribly veiled attempt by Jade Constantine to get Darius kicked off the CSM. Nothing more, nothing less. If the moderators had one ounce of intelligence, they'd lock this thread.
The fact that this thread is still open tells me what a good idea the OP isn't.
|
|
Ionie
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:17:00 -
[151]
Where is the "vote no" option, or rather, why hasn't anyone bothered to included one.
|
POSGunner
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:32:00 -
[152]
Originally by: James Lyrus Given that you cannot apply to be on the CSM if you have had a ban in the past, that seems not unreasonable.
So you would support an immediate ban of Jade from the CSM then?
|
Galactic Overlord
The Fantastically Pantless Sporkmen
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:45:00 -
[153]
Any idea how many unfair bannings there have been? CCP shoots first and asks questions later, I myself have been banned on an assumption alone and coincidentally CCP didn't get back to me until the ban time had already expired. Dumb thread.
|
Gramtar
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 19:55:00 -
[154]
Voting No on this one.
Forum bans are a joke since they are completely arbitrary. Even for in-game actions, EVE is well known for banning first and asking questions later. CCP then take weeks to do the investigation which some other MMOs do before banning someone.
CSM membership shouldn't be voted on by the other CSMs in any circumstance. If someone does something so horrible they should be removed from the council, I have confidence CCP will act to do so.
|
Virtuality
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 20:01:00 -
[155]
yeah maybe if the mods weren't idiots and bans weren't completely arbitrary
|
Breaky Uzumaki
Caldari The Greater Moon GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 20:52:00 -
[156]
And thus the Jade Constantine legacy is further stamped with its signature trait of using the chair to try to push unpopular pet projects and eliminate members of the council that do not agree.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 20:56:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Breaky Uzumaki And thus the Jade Constantine legacy is further stamped with its signature trait of using the chair to try to push unpopular pet projects and eliminate members of the council that do not agree.
Has anybody yet noticed that this thread was started by Serenity Steele, not Jade Constantine? I mean, I know they tend to be allies on the Council, but they are two different people. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:01:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Has anybody yet noticed that this thread was started by Serenity Steele, not Jade Constantine? I mean, I know they tend to be allies on the Council, but they are two different people.
Anyone who read the OP did. I'm guessing they believe the two are in cahoots as they are buddies. Much like if Bane brought forward something I would be painted under its brush stroke.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Machine Delta
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:02:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Breaky Uzumaki And thus the Jade Constantine legacy is further stamped with its signature trait of using the chair to try to push unpopular pet projects and eliminate members of the council that do not agree.
Has anybody yet noticed that this thread was started by Serenity Steele, not Jade Constantine? I mean, I know they tend to be allies on the Council, but they are two different people.
You think Jade isn't pushing this issue? Who has the most posts in this thread? *snip* Your signature is inappropriate. Do not post it again. If you have questions, email [email protected] with a link to your signature graphic. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Fivefold Forgefire
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:07:00 -
[160]
This is a ridiculous proposal, going completely against the democratic principles of the CSM.
As elected officials, CSM members should only lose their mandates if they are caught violating the EULA or the CSM agreement, end of story. A "recall" is the only other acceptable possibility, even then, such a provision must be made written and should not be retroactive.
This kind of ad hoc justification for power grabs smacks of authoritarianism, and was certainly not for this kind of fruitless discussion that we put the council in its place.
Shame on whoever agrees with this, if you're willing to give up the power of your vote, you don't deserve the right to a vote in the first place.
|
|
thoth foc
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:10:00 -
[161]
Originally by: KIAEddZ
How does your ability to refrain from breaking forum rules directly effect your ability to shape the game into something that is better than it currently is.
Just to be clear, if a character is banned, the character cant post here?
You are asking, does your ability to interact(as specified by CCP) with the community you represent, directly effect your ability to represent them, the CSM and CCP?
jeez.. ------------------ x-DSMA (Menta) x-CA (OMEGA/BOS) x-.5.(ATUK) BOB (DICE) |
Daddy's AlmostThere
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:23:00 -
[162]
Originally by: thoth foc
Originally by: KIAEddZ
How does your ability to refrain from breaking forum rules directly effect your ability to shape the game into something that is better than it currently is.
Just to be clear, if a character is banned, the character cant post here?
You are asking, does your ability to interact(as specified by CCP) with the community you represent, directly effect your ability to represent them, the CSM and CCP?
jeez..
What if the character has another account and his main account gets banned? As long as they have an account associated with them, bravo. Honestly I think part of the responsibility lies of people who vote for candidates. Choose wisely for people who aren't prone to be dramakings.
This concept runs counter to what the CSM was partially formed for to be a quasi-watchdog group to questionable CCP actions. If people are afraid to speak out for fear of bans and then losing their CSM position, we're overall better off having CCP just invest the CSM money to hire new staff.
|
thoth foc
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:00:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Daddy's AlmostThere Honestly I think part of the responsibility lies of people who vote for candidates. Choose wisely for people who aren't prone to be dramakings.
i disagree, everyone in responsible for their own actions
Originally by: Daddy's AlmostThere This concept runs counter to what the CSM was partially formed for to be a quasi-watchdog group to questionable CCP actions. If people are afraid to speak out for fear of bans and then losing their CSM position, we're overall better off having CCP just invest the CSM money to hire new staff.
I would agree or disagree with removing someone depending on the reason for the ban. From what I've read this only gives the CSM the option to remove a member, it isn't automatic. This means that both the forum moderation team and a group of the players peers must agree that the behaviour was inappropriate before anything would happen. ------------------ x-DSMA (Menta) x-CA (OMEGA/BOS) x-.5.(ATUK) BOB (DICE) |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:22:00 -
[164]
No, it means one over-zealous forum moderator and a few CSM members with an axe to grind can kick a legitimately elected CSM member for potentially no reason at all.
I think we all can agree that posting something completely heinous like 2girls1cup should be banned and possibly banned from CSM for being such a douche, but you are forgeting that people get banned from the forums for small infractions and that will be exploited to UNJUSTLY kick someone out of the CSM.
I could go on and on with the holes in this topic. I mean you guys used IRC or some chat program, right? Wasn't LaVista Vista (I forget who) kicked from said chat? Shouldn't he be kicked from the CSM? What if my computer just doesn't like IE/Firefox anymore and I can't log onto the forums for 2 weeks, should I get banned from CSM?
The number of ways CSM members, forum users and CCP itself can abuse the system noted in the OP should not be taken lightly.
Also I'd like to hi5 my GS brosefs. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
Daddy's AlmostThere
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:29:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Daddy''s AlmostThere on 09/10/2008 22:29:29
Originally by: thoth foc
Originally by: Daddy's AlmostThere Honestly I think part of the responsibility lies of people who vote for candidates. Choose wisely for people who aren't prone to be dramakings.
i disagree, everyone in responsible for their own actions
Trudat honkus--I was referring to using this becoming a tool for recalling CSM candidates. If you don't take a little time to research the post history of someone and get overcome by voter's remorse, well tough. Six months is a limited time to suffer the distractions and petty power struggles this could bring.
Your CSM may be a brat or may not always behave or advocate as you would, but hey, you're just getting you indirectly pay/vote for. :)
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:43:00 -
[166]
Originally by: thoth foc
Just to be clear, if a character is banned, the character cant post here?
You are asking, does your ability to interact(as specified by CCP) with the community you represent, directly effect your ability to represent them, the CSM and CCP?
jeez..
Posting on the eve-online forums is completely unnecessary to the function of CSM.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:59:00 -
[167]
It's only not required by CSM members if they choose to not interact and discuss/evolve issues and ideas in the Jita park or Assembly hall forums.I suggest that this interaction is one of the important functions that CSM members should undertake.
The forums are where issues for the CSM meeting agenda must be posted to get requisite number of votes or CSM member support. I find it hard to follow your reasoning that posting in the forums is not needed by a CSM member....
Take care, Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
wrez
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 22:59:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Edited by: Serenity Steele on 06/10/2008 18:13:36 I'm sure I'll need a flame resistant suit for this, however it's a pretty simply Issue;
If CSMs are banned from the forums or banned from EVE, they should be removed from the CSM immediately., gives the CSM members the right to vote on whether the banned CSM member is kicked from the CSM. One vote may be taken per forum banning. This should be the case for both Temporary and Permanent bans.
The issue I can see with this is that it provides CCP with a mechanism for removing CSM members, so it would need to be documented that the person in question has received warnings first, and notified to the whole CSM that this is occuring.
On the other hand - do you really want someone who gets banned representing you?
Note: The situation of what happens when a CSM member gets removed is already dealt with: An Alternate is raised up in their place, in order of max votes received
Vote!
Edit: Revised based on feedback: text removed text added
When the sycophants henchmen of Jade unleash their diabolical plans, the virtuous colorful knights of Goonswarm rise up to defend the innocents good, the fat, and the ugly.
|
Break Stuff
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:03:00 -
[169]
Terrible idea. This is nothing more than a backhanded attempt to make the CSM team fit the ideology of a couple of representatives who are looking to water down the aspects of the game that they aren't personally involved in.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:12:00 -
[170]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 09/10/2008 23:15:39 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 09/10/2008 23:14:49 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 09/10/2008 23:13:35
Originally by: Arithron It's only not required by CSM members if they choose to not interact and discuss/evolve issues and ideas in the Jita park or Assembly hall forums.I suggest that this interaction is one of the important functions that CSM members should undertake.
The forums are where issues for the CSM meeting agenda must be posted to get requisite number of votes or CSM member support. I find it hard to follow your reasoning that posting in the forums is not needed by a CSM member....
Take care, Arithron
Incorrect. There are a lot of forums on the internet whereby you can interact with people who play eve. Many people detest these forums and the moderation of them and will avoid them. These people are voting eve players. One could make the argument that by focusing so much on these forums you're actually neglecting a large portion of the playerbase. Anyone can post a thread on the assembly hall. It does not need to be a CSM representative. I can say quite definitely from a position of experience that few others, if any, have that it has not been REQUIRED for me, in the least, to be able to post on the Eve-online.com forums. Ever.
:edit: Actually it is required that you not be banned to submit your passport for candidacy. That may or may not be intentional. If you're someone like me you can simply ignore the forums until it comes time to submit your passport, as eventually someone's report clicking will stick.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:17:00 -
[171]
Actually, issues and ideas posted on other forums, AFAIK, aren't binding on the CSM and can't be put onto an agenda unless first posted in the Assembly Hall for 7 days, and then getting a CSM support (posted) or 5% of voter's approval.
However, if you feel that interaction with posters on issues and ideas in the Assembly hall (or Jita park) is not needed as a Player representative on the CSM, fair enough.
We just have obviously diametrically-opposed viewpoints on what CSM members should be doing...
Take care, Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:26:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Arithron Actually, issues and ideas posted on other forums, AFAIK, aren't binding on the CSM and can't be put onto an agenda unless first posted in the Assembly Hall for 7 days, and then getting a CSM support (posted) or 5% of voter's approval.
However, if you feel that interaction with posters on issues and ideas in the Assembly hall (or Jita park) is not needed as a Player representative on the CSM, fair enough.
We just have obviously diametrically-opposed viewpoints on what CSM members should be doing...
Take care, Arithron
Representing Eve players... I already addressed the assembly hall in that very same post.
"Representing Eve Players" and "Posting on the Eve-online.com forums" are mutually exclusive. Nevermind the slew of other issues that's already been mentioned repeatedly by myself and others in this very thread.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:35:00 -
[173]
I agree that other forums are valuable for CSM members to garner player opinions and the like. However, I must have read your post above before editing...I took it to mean that you didn't think it was needed for a CSM member to interact and post on issues in the Assembly hall at all (despite this being the place that issues must be posted to gather support).
If this isn't what you meant, accept my apologies.
I can see clearly that you are now posting on the forums on eve-o...
Take care, Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:42:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Arithron I agree that other forums are valuable for CSM members to garner player opinions and the like. However, I must have read your post above before editing...I took it to mean that you didn't think it was needed for a CSM member to interact and post on issues in the Assembly hall at all (despite this being the place that issues must be posted to gather support).
If this isn't what you meant, accept my apologies.
I can see clearly that you are now posting on the forums on eve-o...
Take care, Arithron
Haha touche'! The thing being that I'm posting here out of choice. Not out of necessity. I go very long periods of time without even reading these forums.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:49:00 -
[175]
You should post here more often! Many of your ideas are interesting and show effort and prior thought. In the very least they get discussion going and other player's views and input.
I look forward to working with you on the CSM! (hopefully not from the position of alternate again)
Take care, Arithron
Better to be a live dog than a dead lion... |
thoth foc
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 23:56:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Representing Eve players... I already addressed the assembly hall in that very same post.
"Representing Eve Players" and "Posting on the Eve-online.com forums" are mutually exclusive. Nevermind the slew of other issues that's already been mentioned repeatedly by myself and others in this very thread.
What would you suggest as an alternative? I am very much in favour of a CSM member being removed if they step outside the rules, in a derogatory or detrimental fashion to individuals and/or the community. And to echo Gramtar's sentiment, i believe CCP wouldnt allow someone to be evicted from the council unjustly.
------------------ x-DSMA (Menta) x-CA (OMEGA/BOS) x-.5.(ATUK) BOB (DICE) |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 00:03:00 -
[177]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 10/10/2008 00:04:33
Originally by: thoth foc
What would you suggest as an alternative? I am very much in favour of a CSM member being removed if they step outside the rules, in a derogatory or detrimental fashion to individuals and/or the community. And to echo Gramtar's sentiment, i believe CCP wouldnt allow someone to be evicted from the council unjustly.
As an alternative to what? Posting on the Eve forums? Posting on another forum? ANY other forum? Email? Evemail (When Fixed). Talking in game? There are a slew of alternatives to using the Eve-online.com forums when it comes to communicating with people who play Eve.
re: CCP allowing it... That would need to be addressed internally by CCP. This isn't a thread recommending that CCP be able to intervene and save a CSM member. It's not a thread saying that CCP should be able to remove CSM members. It's a thread requesting that via some magical against-CCP-policies mechanism the CSM discover when a member has been temp banned so that they can then decide to vote them out of the council, based on circumstances for which the representative will have not real ability to defend themselves. It's a thread requesting that the CCP moderation team, which has deemed itself beyond the purview of the CSM in ANY way, be in the position of deciding not just who can post on their awfully moderated forums, but also who can serve as a representative. That's just plain silly.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
thoth foc
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 00:38:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
re: CCP allowing it... That would need to be addressed internally by CCP. This isn't a thread recommending that CCP be able to intervene and save a CSM member. It's not a thread saying that CCP should be able to remove CSM members. It's a thread requesting that via some magical against-CCP-policies mechanism the CSM discover when a member has been temp banned so that they can then decide to vote them out of the council, based on circumstances for which the representative will have not real ability to defend themselves. It's a thread requesting that the CCP moderation team, which has deemed itself beyond the purview of the CSM in ANY way, be in the position of deciding not just who can post on their awfully moderated forums, but also who can serve as a representative. That's just plain silly.
A some what theatrical representation some of which i would actually agree with, unfortunately it's the parts you seem to be deliberately ignoring that would swing my support for the the issue.
Within reason, i wouldnt be in favour or removal of a player representative based on constructive interaction with CCP, i would be in favour of the option of removing a representative who cant interact with other members of the community on E-O within the guidelines given by CCP.
This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
|
Ioan Metorsky
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 01:20:00 -
[179]
The players elect the CSM representatives, and the players should be the only ones with the power to remove a CSM representative. CCP should have no power to remove CSM reps, because that would completely compromise the entity's independence and ability to provide input without fear of CCP shutting off lines of communication by banning a CSM rep.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 01:36:00 -
[180]
Originally by: thoth foc
A some what theatrical representation some of which i would actually agree with, unfortunately it's the parts you seem to be deliberately ignoring that would swing my support for the the issue.
Within reason, i wouldnt be in favour of removal of a player representative based on constructive interaction with CCP, i would be in favour of the option of removing a representative who cant interact with other members of the community on E-O within the guidelines given by CCP.
This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
What is he ignoring?
Why is a forum banned representative a problem?
These questions have still not been answered.
|
|
Machine Delta
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 02:40:00 -
[181]
Originally by: thoth foc Edited by: thoth foc on 10/10/2008 00:48:39
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
re: CCP allowing it... That would need to be addressed internally by CCP. This isn't a thread recommending that CCP be able to intervene and save a CSM member. It's not a thread saying that CCP should be able to remove CSM members. It's a thread requesting that via some magical against-CCP-policies mechanism the CSM discover when a member has been temp banned so that they can then decide to vote them out of the council, based on circumstances for which the representative will have not real ability to defend themselves. It's a thread requesting that the CCP moderation team, which has deemed itself beyond the purview of the CSM in ANY way, be in the position of deciding not just who can post on their awfully moderated forums, but also who can serve as a representative. That's just plain silly.
A some what theatrical representation some of which i would actually agree with, unfortunately it's the parts you seem to be deliberately ignoring that would swing my support for the the issue.
Within reason, i wouldnt be in favour of removal of a player representative based on constructive interaction with CCP, i would be in favour of the option of removing a representative who cant interact with other members of the community on E-O within the guidelines given by CCP.
This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
How bout the alternative is not changing something that works as-is? *snip* Your signature is inappropriate. Do not post it again. If you have questions, email [email protected] with a link to your signature graphic. -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
Jack Gates
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 02:41:00 -
[182]
I'm not sure I understand why a temp ban on the eve-o fora -which are wholly separate from the game itself- should warrant removal from the CSM. Your idea is beyond idiotic.
|
Cannibal PLT
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 05:21:00 -
[183]
Originally by: thoth foc This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
A better alternative is nothing. If it 'aint broke, don't fix it.
Originally by: Goumindong Why is a forum banned representative a problem?
These questions have still not been answered.
|
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 09:45:00 -
[184]
Has my support. You carry a responsability. I don't see how people find getting banned "easy" if you keep a civil tone at all times.
Diary of a pod pilot |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 12:32:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Myrhial Arkenath Has my support. You carry a responsability. I don't see how people find getting banned "easy" if you keep a civil tone at all times.
"Civil" is completely subjective. I'd also like to remind you people that these are forums for a spaceship game where you kill people. Dumbing down the conversation to the level of the sickening repeated pretend niceties should not be a desired end result for any competent moderation team.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Lumen Atra
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 14:02:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Lumen Atra on 10/10/2008 14:07:05 The responsibility of CSM is not to be a shiny, perfect person. That falls on the shoulders of the moderators and devs. CSM are normal people that are elected by other normal people to try and help fix the game.
The CSM is not meant to be a pedestal, but unsurprisingly, certain egotistical people have turned it into just that - a position of power where no power was meant to exist, nor should it.
A temporary ban means that the offense was not heinous enough to remove them from the population of EVE. It is a slap on the wrist, and is usually a completely subjective judgment call.
The only case where this should even be considered is on permanent bans of the account. This clearly makes sense because they have had their ability to contribute to the game removed, full stop.
It does not matter if a person gets along with the others or the rest of the Eve-O community. What matters is that they were elected by said community. If you don't like him, the solution is as simply as common democracy: don't vote for him next round. Saves lots of unnecessary drama. |
fuze
Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 14:06:00 -
[187]
Originally by: thoth foc And to echo Gramtar's sentiment, i believe CCP wouldnt allow someone to be evicted from the council unjustly.
-1, naive Nobody is perfect but it doesn't hurt to try. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 14:23:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 10/10/2008 14:24:27
Originally by: thoth foc
A some what theatrical representation some of which i would actually agree with, unfortunately it's the parts you seem to be deliberately ignoring that would swing my support for the the issue.
Within reason, i wouldnt be in favour of removal of a player representative based on constructive interaction with CCP, i would be in favour of the option of removing a representative who cant interact with other members of the community on E-O within the guidelines given by CCP.
This suggestion so far is the best to this ends, so i'll ask again, do you have a better alternative?
I don't find it theatrical at all. Let me break down the facts for page 7.
1) CCP policy will not allow them to discuss bans with anyone but the person who has been banned.
2) The forum moderation policies were placed by CCP beyond the purview of the CSM.
3) As per the example I posted in detail of my own situation, it can be seen that people can be banned for items that are quite trivial.
4) CCP has given no guidelines for how representatives should interact. This is mostly because their own mechanisms are either broken or were not up to snuff. It was only a week ago that the CSM even got a section on the forums.
5) Allowing council members the leverage to remove each other will only create more silly situations like this thread. Situations where people who have a bone to pick with other council members will seek to consistently passive-agressively find ways to manipulate their removal, rather than working on what they were elected to do. Perhaps we should have CSM Survivor and we should vote someone off every week? Last man standing wins Eve!
Now you claim the suggestion is the best there is... the best there is to solve what problem? I don't have an alternative because I prefer to find solutions to problems rather than create solutions and try to manufacture problems to fit it. Game account bans already warrant removal from the council by CCP. This problem has already been solved.
This is not the CSM's responsibility in any way. The council does not and will not have the resources or ability to actually follow through on it and it is not a need. I'm not sure how much more succinctly it could be put.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
thoth foc
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 15:51:00 -
[189]
I am well aware of the potential draw backs of this, this is why i have constantly ask you to provide a better alternative. But clarifying that on the CCP provided media (forums/game), community representatives are required to interact with the community they represent in a manner consistent with the CCP specified rules is much too important a subject to simply ignore.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
4) CCP has given no guidelines for how representatives should interact.
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 16:03:00 -
[190]
Originally by: thoth foc I am well aware of the potential draw backs of this, this is why i have constantly ask you to provide a better alternative.
Everyone is well aware of the potential drawbacks. That is why we keep asking "what is the problem in the first place?" that needs to be resolved
What is the problem that needs to be fixed?
Quote:
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.)
You're misunderstanding the original statement.
|
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 16:25:00 -
[191]
Originally by: thoth foc I am well aware of the potential draw backs of this, this is why i have constantly ask you to provide a better alternative. But clarifying that on the CCP provided media (forums/game), community representatives are required to interact with the community they represent in a manner consistent with the CCP specified rules is much too important a subject to simply ignore.
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
4) CCP has given no guidelines for how representatives should interact.
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.)
A better alternative for what? There's no problem.
That link is the forum rules... The forum and the CSM are mutually exclusive, by the design of the CCP Forum team. The only standing rule for a CSM representative's behavior is that they not violate the EULA which would result in a ban, which would result in removal. A rule that already exists and a valid one as it would be pretty hard to represent a game you can't play because you cheated or said something terrible like a racist comment.
The guidelines I was referring to are regarding (As I said) HOW REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD INTERACT. CCP has not provided the tools for this... That IS a fact. The council had to create its own mailing list, its own website to publish the minutes... CCP did not.
The only thing that link provides is rules for posting on the eve-online.com forums. That has nothing to do with the council whatsoever.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Lars Erlkonig
Caldari Discrete Solutions Ltd.
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 17:56:00 -
[192]
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We voted the CSM candidates into office. Let's not give the forum moderation team the ability to remove them. It's a one year position. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 18:00:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Lars Erlkonig Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We voted the CSM candidates into office. Let's not give the forum moderation team the ability to remove them. It's a one year position.
6 months. |
Telender
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 18:10:00 -
[194]
The good thing about Jade is that its motives are so poorly hidden that you really have to be dumb to not see through them.
|
KeratinBoy
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 01:44:00 -
[195]
According to Serenity, an independently elected representatives board should cease to be independent? Were you drunk when this struck you as a good idea or are you an advocate of fascism?
The sheer potential for abuse is so staggering that it would keep Goons entertained for weeks in a sort of forum Jihadswarm. Unless, of course, you wish to reword it to exclude those in Goonswarm from being able to report people on the forums?
|
Joss Sparq
Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 22:50:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I go very long periods of time without even reading these forums.
|
Kransthow
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 00:30:00 -
[197]
Yes lets get CSM kicked from CSM because they posted an image on caod
great idea +10
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 18:43:00 -
[198]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 14/10/2008 18:45:10
Originally by: Goumindong Everyone is well aware of the potential drawbacks. That is why we keep asking "what is the problem in the first place?" that needs to be resolved
What is the problem that needs to be fixed?
btw, this isn't a fact. Guidelines are provided here for interacting with other members of the community (applies only on E-O ofc.)
The the problem that needs to be fixed is there is no way to repair a disfunctional council/members that cannot work together in a civilized way to identify, analyze and promote the issues effecting EVE Players.
I would define a disfunctional council/members as those that spend the majority of their time having non-eve related arguments about their respective characters to the point of abuse.
Forum bans are an indicator of this problem. There are many others seen at the start of the first CSM, where a lot of that energy could be directed to helping EVE, and had no actual benefit to the purpose of the CSM what-so-ever.
In regards to "Not everything has to have a benefit to the purpose of the CSM, the CSM are only human" argument belittles the humans who are capable of getting down to business. Are they sub-human? I don't think so, I think they're fit for purpose.
Unfortunately the nature of "internet space games" and lack of real-world or real-consequences for being unsuitable for position of responsibility mean that there is no existing (please someone think of one) way for vetting player appropriately with an election.
In RL there are multiple-elections before making it to the top, but in EVE's election system this isn't currently the case; which gives a high risk for people poorly suited to the job IMHO.
Edit: Thought of a potential sub-filter - if the forums actually had the "rate this post" system and you could chose to filter out low-rated posts, then there would be less voice for CSM candidates who really weren't fit for purpose.
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store | eve-maps.com |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 18:51:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 14/10/2008 18:54:20 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 14/10/2008 18:52:30
Originally by: Serenity Steele
The the problem that needs to be fixed is there is no way to repair a disfunctional council/members that cannot work together in a civilized way to identify, analyze and promote the issues effecting EVE Players.
I would define a disfunctional council/members as those that spend the majority of their time having non-eve related arguments about their respective characters to the point of abuse.
Forum bans are an indicator of this problem. There are many others seen at the start of the first CSM, where a lot of that energy could be directed to helping EVE, and had no actual benefit to the purpose of the CSM what-so-ever.
In regards to "Not everything has to have a benefit to the purpose of the CSM, the CSM are only human" argument belittles the humans who are capable of getting down to business. Are they sub-human? I don't think so, I think they're fit for purpose.
Unfortunately the nature of "internet space games" and lack of real-world or real-consequences for being unsuitable for position of responsibility mean that there is no existing (please someone think of one) way for vetting player appropriately with an election.
In RL there are multiple-elections before making it to the top, but in EVE's election system this isn't currently the case; which gives a high risk for people poorly suited to the job IMHO.
Forum bans have nothing to do with the above problem. Forum bans are merely an indicator of the moderator's judgement at any point in time. They are mutually exclusive to the council and have no bearing on a council member's effectiveness.
If you're looking for a measuring stick for council members, I'd posit one already exists with the checks of a 6 month term, CCP's ability to remove council members, and the council's desire to function internally against people if they so desire. Every time it's come up it's been shot down either administratively by the target, or by the council when the target decided to feign good behavior.
Nothing in this proposal solves the problem that you've outlined above. This proposal merely gives the council a mechanism to alter the election results based on the judgement of the CSM-proof moderation team.
Ultimately like it or not it's the people voting who decide the council's standards, not some silly "elite" class of people with their noses in the air. This is by design and as it should be. It's called "Democracy". Your personal standards for behavior don't matter a bit when contrasted with the voters.
:edit: To answer your edit, I welcome a post rating system. We have one on GF.COM and it works wonderfully.
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |