open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Ankhesentapemkah removed from CSM due to NDA breach
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (25)

Author Topic

cok cola
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.07.08 00:59:00 - [211]
 

Edited by: cok cola on 08/07/2010 01:00:51
Originally by: I SoStoned
Originally by: Crawford McKinley
ye i'm gonna go ahead and say this was because she made the comment about CCP's position regarding them doing jack **** about fixing the game as shinies are more important to them.

guess CCP don't read SHC forums or anywhere else as mynxee and other CSM's said exactly the same thing lol


Why would such a comment get her booted?
EVERY Eve player who's been in game more than two expansions knows they release stuff half-done and never touch it again except (maybe) to shut off the ISK faucet of farming (COSMOS plexes, FW LP exploiting) without touching the core failures of the expansion.

It's the life of Eve.



sooo true, sad but true

all the meanwhile theyre trying to tell you about the next "great" new thing theyre going to release... broken
ie walking in stations

Mazzarins Demise
Profit Development and Research Association
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:04:00 - [212]
 

Why would they do this? If CCP decides to prepare an official statement and divulge exactly what Ankh did, wouldn't they in-turn release the information which caused Ankh to get canned in the first place? As the news bit says, "...this is a matter regarding confidential data.." So I wouldn't hold your breath for an official release of what exactly occurred. The explanation they gave was enough.

Originally by: Delilah Wild
A positive contribution, and a good course of action. Thank you Thrasymachus.

Delilah

PS. Great name. Smile

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
Wow. What an unfortunate position for CCP to find itself ...

You might recall, the CSM was created as a direct response to the discovery that one (or more?) CCP devs were directly interfering in the game and giving goodies, info, etc. to their favored alliance (BOB). Because the CSM was supposed to represent the player's interest in the eternal and ever-present player/dev struggle, they were to be elected democratically by popular vote.

Ankh was duly elected, receiving the second most votes of all candidates.

Now, the second most popular (by definition) CSM member has been removed by CCP, with nary a detail other than an indiscriminate statement about "NDA violations".

I'm willing to give CCP the benefit of the doubt on this, and I will assume (for now) that Ankh did in fact somehow violate the NDA. CCP deserves that much.

But CCP has a real problem here, and shoudl strongly consider setting aside thier right to lay down the law (which is their right) and provie more details - perhaps even a joint statement that acknowledges that what Ankh did was wrong. If she refuses, I'd like to see, at a minimum, details provided to the CSM and some sort of position from them on whether they agree that she did in fact violate teh NDA.

If she did, she should be booted. But asking the community to just "trust us", when the action is to kick out a member of the organization that was esatblished in direct response to CCP's OWN DEVS CHEATING ... it just smells bad.


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:04:00 - [213]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/07/2010 01:04:35
Originally by: JitaBum

When the last CSM member was removed, CCP were a hell of a lot more specific


Lark also resigned and admitted what he did. Ank is denying it and has threatened legal action before.
When dealing with such people, it's not in CCP's best interest to share any more info than necessary.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Anyone else get the feeling that Delilah Wild is Ankh?



Possible Ank-alt, but there are much more likely contenders.

Originally by: Delilah Wild
A positive contribution, and a good course of action. Thank you Thrasymachus.



Of course, because it was an opinion on the forums and it results in... nothing more than any other opinion on the forum. But it happens to suggest that maybe Ank shouldn't be removed from the CSM. Gee, I couldn't have predicted you'd try to support it with some dishonest nonsense about how this opinion is "positive" or "constructive" as opposed to all those other views you don't agree with.

Fancy that.

Delilah Wild
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:09:00 - [214]
 

LOL.

You thank others when they make good faith contributions. Something my professors taught me.

But sorry, no Ank here.

Delilah

Removed a deleted quote - Adida

Allant Doran
Amarr
Locus Industries
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:11:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Delilah Wild
LOL.

You thank others when they make good faith contributions. Something my professors taught me.

But sorry, no Ank here.

Delilah


Yeh i know, haha. Don't get me wrong, being polite is nice. It's a good thing to be but thanking people so much when they aren't doing this specifically FOR you makes it seem like you're trying to gravitate yourself toward the center of attention. Whether you mean it or not, it comes across as arogant to a lot of people.

The EVE community is already an easily riled bunch, so just be a little more mindful. They are here to discuss with each other, including you, not just to provide points for/against your own ideas and merits. :)

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:12:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Delilah Wild
You thank others when they make good faith contributions. Something my professors taught me.


Aye, but if I were to pipe up and say that Ankh seems to me to have been an epic RL troll, you would hardly thank me for a "good faith contribution".

-Liang

Noun Verber
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:16:00 - [217]
 

Does this count as being fired on her resume?

Squat Hardpeck
State Protectorate
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:18:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Noun Verber
Does this count as being fired on her resume?

Yea, but it probably won't appear on the resume.

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:19:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero

Lark also resigned and admitted what he did. Ank is denying it and has threatened legal action before.
When dealing with such people, it's not in CCP's best interest to share any more info than necessary.


"Threatened legal action" - if she has in fact threatened - is a strawman. What are her damages? She has no lawsuit - .

As for what is in "CCP's best interest" - I strongly disagree that it is in CCP's best interest to let this sit as is. Just read this thread. CCP's best interest is to get 3rd party legitimization of their actions. If they can't publically disclose all the details (which is a reasonable hypothesis), then at a minimum they should disclose it all the the CSM so that they can confirm the propriety of CCP's actions. After all, the CSM already *knows* whatever super-secret info is at issue (since Ankh learned it as a CSM).

Originally by: FinnAgain Zero


Originally by: Delilah Wild
A positive contribution, and a good course of action. Thank you Thrasymachus.



Of course, because it was an opinion on the forums and it results in... nothing more than any other opinion on the forum. But it happens to suggest that maybe Ank shouldn't be removed from the CSM. Gee, I couldn't have predicted you'd try to support it with some dishonest nonsense about how this opinion is "positive" or "constructive" as opposed to all those other views you don't agree with.

Fancy that.


Nothing about my post "suggests that maybe Ank shouldn't be removed". To the contrary - I specifically said, expressly, numerous times, if she broke the NDA she should be canned. The problem here is one of trust and legitimacy. CCP wants us to just trust them - that she did in fact break the NDA. I find that ironic, when the purpose of the CSM was to police CCP for proven violations of game rules. If Ankh broke the rules - and I specifically said I give CCP the benefit of the doubt that she did - CCP should still do more than just say "its between us and her, and she's gone". They should seek and obtain neutral confirmation. Its kind of a basic tenet wrapped up in the concept of justice - the accuser should not also be the judge.

Removed a personal attack - Adida

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:29:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

"Threatened legal action" - if she has in fact threatened - is a strawman.


No, it's not a strawman. She really has threatened legal action in the past, and whether or not a lawsuit has merit doesn't mean that it can't be a ***** and a half to deal with it in court. Crazy people file stupid lawsuits each and every single day, all over the world.

And no, this thread is not a valid sample from which to draw sound conclusions. In any case, CCP has removed a player-elected, virtually powerless spoekeswoman for their internet spaceship game. Cries of "grr, CCP must do thus and such!" aren't going to have a lot of weight. Especially since there's no upside for CCP to drag this headache out and then get the CSM involved in determining whether or not it was a breach, or what have you. Not only is that more drama than they'd want, but that isn't the CSM's function. They do not set CCP corporate policy, enforce CCP corporate policy, determine CCP corporate policy, interpret CCP corporate policy, etc...

So when the question is whether or not Ank violated CCP's corporate policy, involving the CSM doesn't make sense.


Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
Nothing about my post "suggests that maybe Ank shouldn't be removed".


You stated (and have repeated)that the CSM should be allowed to view the evidence and judge whether or not it was an NDA violation. Obviously if they find it wasn't an NDA violation, then it'd be a bit odd for Ank to be dismissed due to an NDA violation. This means that, maybe, Ank shouldn't be removed. Unless you're saying that the CSM should be able to view the evidence and if they still say that it wasn't an NDA violation then Ank should still be removed for an NDA violation, which is weird. If you're not saying that then, yah, you're saying that maybe Ank shouldn't be removed.

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
They should seek and obtain neutral confirmation. Its kind of a basic tenet wrapped up in the concept of justice - the accuser should not also be the judge.


Corporations do not require "judges" or "neutral parties". Millions of people are hired and fired, each and every single year, without recourse to neutral parties or the legal system.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:38:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
After all, the CSM already *knows* whatever super-secret info is at issue (since Ankh learned it as a CSM)


That doesn't seem terribly likely - there are many ways to get information without others in your group getting this information. And furthermore, its entirely possible that the others know the information (that is confidential) and don't actually know what she said that got her in trouble.

What we actually know is that a subset of the potential information she could have obtained was seen by other members of the CSM. We further can rule out any information that was posted in her blog and another blog. Seeing as how most people are saying that it was all echoed pretty well, I think we can fairly safely say that it wasn't the blog that got her in trouble.

But...... but..... the blog isn't the only way to communicate. Ankh could have sent more and/or different information along to a third party like another game company or gaming magazine.


Quote:
Its kind of a basic tenet wrapped up in the concept of justice - the accuser should not also be the judge.


I'm not sure that CCP can release the details of what she disclosed without opening themselves up to a lawsuit (from her). If I were in their legal situation, I'd talk to a LAWYER before I started taking advice from "the game community" on what "must be done".

Sorry, but 500 people quitting over a terse message saying Ankh broke NDA and got the boot is much less than hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuit damages and legal costs.

-Liang

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:41:00 - [222]
 

Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 08/07/2010 01:42:25
In response to FinnAgain:

Reread my first post, and try to do so fairly.

I expressly recognized, and stated, that CCP has the power to do as they please. This isn't about what CCP can or cannot do.

This is about what CCP should do.

If you are content having CCP accuse a CSM of a breach of policy, and simply dismissing that CSM rep, with no 3rd party review at all - then fine. That's your right.

But don't come complaining and asking for verification when its someone you like or support who gets booted, with nothing more than "the rules were broken, its between us, we aren't saying anything more about it". If you fail to see the unfairness of this ... there's not much else I can say. I'd suggest however that you are being motivated by your dislike of Ankh, and not by any sense of fairness/appropriateness.

Personally, I know very little about Ankh - I voted for her only to lol at her critics, because I read a few attacks on her from Eve Tribune and on the forums, and lookeda t what Ankh had actually said, and it was clear that her critics were misstating her positions and misquoting her in an attempt to drum up anti-support. I'm fine wiht disagreeing wiht her positions, but the attacks on her were not fair evaluations of her positions - they were ugly (and ineffective) rhetoric, as proven by her getting the 2d most votes notwithstanding.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:47:00 - [223]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/07/2010 01:47:19
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

But don't come complaining and asking for verification when its someone you like or support who gets booted, with nothing more than "the rules were broken, its between us, we aren't saying anything more about it". If you fail to see the unfairness of this ... there's not much else I can say. I'd suggest however that you are being motivated by your dislike of Ankh, and not by any sense of fairness/appropriateness.



The problem here is that you assume that this is some kind of political personal attack. I would argue that's pretty dangerous territory for CCP to go into considering that she's actually employed in the gaming industry. CCP accusing someone in this industry of an NDA breach is serious business and can/will almost certainly be legally challenged. The lack of a legal/arbitrated challenge from Ankh is an admission of guilt or no contest - which is career suicide.

So, that said: if CCP dismissed Sok or Myxnee or TeaDaze as having breached the NDA, I would not feel as if it were "unfair" to them. Despite me liking them a lot.

-Liang

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:50:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
After all, the CSM already *knows* whatever super-secret info is at issue (since Ankh learned it as a CSM)


That doesn't seem terribly likely - there are many ways to get information without others in your group getting this information. And furthermore, its entirely possible that the others know the information (that is confidential) and don't actually know what she said that got her in trouble.

What we actually know is that a subset of the potential information she could have obtained was seen by other members of the CSM. We further can rule out any information that was posted in her blog and another blog. Seeing as how most people are saying that it was all echoed pretty well, I think we can fairly safely say that it wasn't the blog that got her in trouble.

But...... but..... the blog isn't the only way to communicate. Ankh could have sent more and/or different information along to a third party like another game company or gaming magazine.


Quote:
Its kind of a basic tenet wrapped up in the concept of justice - the accuser should not also be the judge.


I'm not sure that CCP can release the details of what she disclosed without opening themselves up to a lawsuit (from her). If I were in their legal situation, I'd talk to a LAWYER before I started taking advice from "the game community" on what "must be done".

Sorry, but 500 people quitting over a terse message saying Ankh broke NDA and got the boot is much less than hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuit damages and legal costs.

-Liang


1. I don't get your first point at all. Are you suggesting Ankh had some inside track of info that other CSM candidates did not? I find that highly unlikely. I think its fair to assume that whatever she disclosed was known to all the CSM. In any event, the CSM could be provided details in any event, as they are routinely provided confidential data under the NDA.

2. Once again, you raise the "OMG THERE COULD BE A LAWSUIT" specter. If I told you I worked at the most prestigious international law firm in the world and that CCP has no risk of a lawsuit from either disclosing to the CSM or not, would it matter to you? Lawsuits aren't really that complex ... You need liability, and you need damages, to bring one (typically). What liability can CCP have here? They have accused her of breaching her contractual commitment. That's not libel - its a simply accusation. If they tell eveyrone, or even just the CSM, the details, they've done nothing more than ... explained the details. Google "Truth is an absolute defense." Turn then to damages - how has she been damaged? She either broke the NDA and got kicked off for it (no breach of daamges) or she's been falsely accused of breaking the NDA and lost her position on a spaceship game committee. Where's the harm?

Anyway, I don't want to debate this, b/c I'm really not an ankh supporter. I just also don't supprot what has become the cheerleading-sheeple like willingness of those who want to see her gone just accepting the decree from above. CCP is better than that - and the players deserve more.

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:55:00 - [225]
 

Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 08/07/2010 01:55:07
[
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/07/2010 01:47:19
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

But don't come complaining and asking for verification when its someone you like or support who gets booted, with nothing more than "the rules were broken, its between us, we aren't saying anything more about it". If you fail to see the unfairness of this ... there's not much else I can say. I'd suggest however that you are being motivated by your dislike of Ankh, and not by any sense of fairness/appropriateness.



The problem here is that you assume that this is some kind of political personal attack. I would argue that's pretty dangerous territory for CCP to go into considering that she's actually employed in the gaming industry. CCP accusing someone in this industry of an NDA breach is serious business and can/will almost certainly be legally challenged. The lack of a legal/arbitrated challenge from Ankh is an admission of guilt or no contest - which is career suicide.

So, that said: if CCP dismissed Sok or Myxnee or TeaDaze as having breached the NDA, I would not feel as if it were "unfair" to them. Despite me liking them a lot.

-Liang


If CCP agreed with your logic, and was concerend with the "seriousness" of their action, then you might think they would have gotten CSM support or legal counsel before posting it publically.

By your logic, by merely posting the accusation they have guaranteed a lawsuit (since Ankh cannot simply sit by).

But this is all mental ************. There will be no lawsuit. The lawsuit card is a strawman.

Cobalt Sixty
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:55:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
The lack of a legal/arbitrated challenge from Ankh is an admission of guilt or no contest - which is career suicide.

Actually, this got me thinking.

Isn't Ankhesentapemkah also the same Eva Jobse of the Piratenpartij Nederland? Or so I was told. My thought being that it doesn't look good for politicians to go around breaking confidences, loose lips can sink more than internet spaceships.

Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Defenders of Pen Island
Posted - 2010.07.08 01:58:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Cobalt Sixty
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The lack of a legal/arbitrated challenge from Ankh is an admission of guilt or no contest - which is career suicide.

Actually, this got me thinking.

Isn't Ankhesentapemkah also the same Eva Jobse of the Piratenpartij Nederland? Or so I was told. My thought being that it doesn't look good for politicians to go around breaking confidences, loose lips can sink more than internet spaceships.


yes. this is why i made it a point to submit a tip to geenstijl.nl
thought they probably dont care enough to act on it.


FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:05:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 08/07/2010 02:06:29
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

Reread my first post, and try to do so fairly.


I read it fairly, but you still haven't answered my point. If the CSM can vote that whatever Ank did was not an NDA violation, then the logical conclusion is that she shouldn't be booted for an NDA violation if they vote that it wasn't an NDA violation. And that, therefore, maybe she shouldn't be booted.
Where's the logical error there? Please respond this time.

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

But don't come complaining and asking for verification


There's no question of verification. CCP removed a volunteer from their volunteer program. If the local animal shelter says "little billy isn't good with dogs, so we're not going to invite him back for the dog-walking program", we don't demand a neutral third party and a panel of judges.
Besides which, as I pointed out and you did not respond to, it is in CCP's best interest not to extend itself legally and make one single word more of a public statement than it absolutely has to. You can be certain that if Ank brings this to trial, anything CCP says will be used (and anything Ank says will be used in a countersuit).

Actual financial ramifications always trump Forum Justice for a corporation.

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
I read a few attacks on her from Eve Tribune and on the forums, and lookeda t what Ankh had actually said, and it was clear that her critics were misstating her positions and misquoting her in an attempt to drum up anti-support.


And, see, saying things like this is also rather odd, considering it's flat out false and was a refrain of Ank's partisans during the campaign but a fictional one. Not one single quote was shown to be "misquoted". Not one single view of Ank's was shown to be "misstated". If there were fabricated quotes or the like, her partisans would have been all over them like fireants when you kick their hills. The lack of any such response, coupled with the repeated refrain, is all that needs to be shown.

As for the argument that the facts were "infective", that says nothing bad about the facts but does about those who still voted for Ank.

P.S. You keep using the word "strawman" wrong. Talk about a potential lawsuit is not a strawman, it's a prediction. If I say that you've argued that Ank is made out of chocolate and is thus yummy, then that's a strawman because I've ascribed a position to you that you do not hold. Saying "Ank might potentially sue" is not, at all, a strawman.

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:06:00 - [229]
 

Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 08/07/2010 02:11:17
Originally by: Cobalt Sixty
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The lack of a legal/arbitrated challenge from Ankh is an admission of guilt or no contest - which is career suicide.

Actually, this got me thinking.

Isn't Ankhesentapemkah also the same Eva Jobse of the Piratenpartij Nederland? Or so I was told. My thought being that it doesn't look good for politicians to go around breaking confidences, loose lips can sink more than internet spaceships.


Hmm, see candidate #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_of_the_Netherlands

Maybe there will be a lawsuit!!! lulz ... I can admit when I'm wrong.

Yeah, I was wrong. There's no real risk of a lawsuit, but the most prudent course is to do just what they did.

Sucks to be CCP ugh

And to Finn -
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

Reread my first post, and try to do so fairly.


I read it fairly, but you still haven't answered my point. If the CSM can vote that whatever Ank did was not an NDA violation, then the logical conclusion is that she shouldn't be booted for an NDA violation if they vote that it wasn't an NDA violation. And that, therefore, maybe she shouldn't be booted.
Where's the logical error there? Please respond this time.


Your logical error is rather self-evident. The CSM has no power to change CCP's decision - even if they disagree. The point of giving it to the CSM was to permit them to confirm the propriety of the dismissal, since the public cannot be told the reasons.

If the CSM disagreed with CCP's action - then that's valid information as well, don't you think? It doesn't mean CCP cannot still boot her - they can do whatever they want.

Under your logic, CCP's decision should not be reviewed by anyone and we should simply accept it. Again, the accuser as the judge. For the third (and final) time - this is a question of what CCP should do, not what they must do, and certainly not that they should put the final decision in the CSM's hands.


Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:11:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

1. I don't get your first point at all. Are you suggesting Ankh had some inside track of info that other CSM candidates did not? I find that highly unlikely. I think its fair to assume that whatever she disclosed was known to all the CSM. In any event, the CSM could be provided details in any event, as they are routinely provided confidential data under the NDA.



No, I'm saying that someone that someone that's alert or someone that works in an industry can go into a place and see/know more than other people who don't. She could have talked to different people for dinner, had a side conversation with one of the developers, or any number of a thousand things. It doesn't have to be an "inside track".

And hell - it could be that the people on the CSM do know the actual information that's been disclosed... but don't know which information it is. Let me see if some set math will help:

Let S = All Information About CCP
Let A = Ankh's Known Info
Let C = Info Presented to CSM
Let AI = Ankh's NDA Breach Info
Let BA = Ankh Blogged Info
Let BC = CSM Blogged Info (Unioned)

Trivially:
S ⊃ A ⊇ AI
A ⊇ C (She has all information presented to everyone, but potentially more)
AI ⊇ C - BC

Admission from other CSM:
BA = BC

So what we actually know is: AI ⊇ C - BA

In words: The information Ankh disclosed is potentially more than what the CSM knew, but doesn't include the information that she (or they) blogged.

Quote:
Lawsuits aren't really that complex ... You need liability, and you need damages, to bring one (typically). What liability can CCP have here? They have accused her of breaching her contractual commitment. That's not libel - its a simply accusation. If they tell eveyrone, or even just the CSM, the details, they've done nothing more than ... explained the details. Google "Truth is an absolute defense." Turn then to damages - how has she been damaged? She either broke the NDA and got kicked off for it (no breach of daamges) or she's been falsely accused of breaking the NDA and lost her position on a spaceship game committee. Where's the harm?



The harm is in the public accusation of NDA breach and the consequences for her career. If I were accused of something similar, it would become extremely hard for me to get a job and I would almost certainly be fired from my current one.

-Liang

BAteh
Penumbra Congregatio
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:16:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz

In fact it doesn't matter what she did, the consequence is what matters.


I bet you also don't care as to why Joan of Arc was burned, as long as she was cooked.
A very sad and ignorant comment from a CSM that does not care about honesty, facts, or any of the innocent/guilty "stuff" - too much brain effort?

Thank you for being so transparent. That way we all know who NOT to vote for in the future.

Shakon
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:16:00 - [232]
 

Hmm well as a certain ccp person once in a DEV blog for apoc patch said everyone in npc factions is an RMTer I am certainly going to take their word on everything Rolling Eyes

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:17:00 - [233]
 

I take it all back.

This is serious business. (For real this time.)

It's going to affect her career ....

And as I think about it, CCP has done exactly what any good lawyer would tell them to do. Be terse and say nothing.

I'm so used to looking at all this as a game, but that's her real name, and could have real repercussions .... Hmm.

Sorry! /me deletes old posts

Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:21:00 - [234]
 

Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 08/07/2010 02:21:47
@Thrasymachus

The fact that Sokrateez (s/p) immediately posted that the reason wasn't her blog comments implies he may know what the reason was. And I don't see any outrage from the other members of the CSM here, or allegations of injustice. These same people who have 1) already got their free plane ride to Iceland 2) have made loud and public criticisms of CCP already are staying silent or agreeing with CCP here. To me, that is a very strong signal that this is a legit dismissal.

Plus, just based on the stuff she writes in the forums, she be crazy. Crazy people do dumb and crazy things. Fact.

FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:24:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

Your logical error is rather self-evident. The CSM has no power to change CCP's decision - even if they disagree.


See, that's what a strawman looks like.
You invent something, act as if someone else said it, refute that invention, and then claim that you've refuted their actual argument. I never said that the CSM had the power to change CCP's decision.

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

If the CSM disagreed with CCP's action - then that's valid information as well, don't you think? It doesn't mean CCP cannot still boot her - they can do whatever they want.


Then what's the point? "CSM disagrees with CCP as to how CCP Corporate should enforce CCP Corporate rules... so go have a sandwich." If it's got no power then what's the point of going through the motions?
And, again, the CSM is not CCP's HR department. That isn't their job, that isn't their role, and I'd be truly shocked if CCP used them in that capacity.

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

Under your logic, CCP's decision should not be reviewed by anyone and we should simply accept it.


Corporations get to hire and fire people all the time. Ank wasn't even an employee. You can dismiss volunteers a heck of a lot more easily than contracted employees. The argument is that CCP has no responsibility to release information, it is actually in their best interest to keep as quiet as possible, and despite all the White Knighting, volunteers for corporations do not have rights to volunteer for that corporation, certainly not to the level where they need some sort of tribunal and that a corporation is no longer to make hiring and firing decisions regarding its personnel and volunteers(or in your terms "be accuser and judge").

What CCP should do is whatever it does for any other employee or volunteer. I'm reasonably certain that you wouldn't be demanding that the CSM step in if CCP terminated a programmer for an NDA violation of used a new company to clean their bathrooms.

AterraX
Caldari
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:24:00 - [236]
 

Marked for deletion - Adida

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:34:00 - [237]
 

Today is a great day.

I also fully support CCP's ability to wtfpwn anyone in the CSM and boot them out on a whim. The CSM is something entirely optional and extra work for CCP and if a player is going to break the rules and/or be a jackass then CCP should rightfully ban hammer them.

I also love the Ankh die-hard supporters. Throngs of players dislike Ankh, most of the CSM members dislike Ankh and CCP boot her out, what is the common thread here? The problem here is obviously Ankh. Ankh supporters are just trying to get more information so they can claim that her offense wasn't a big deal. It doesn't matter whatsoever. You cannot save Ankh, she is gone. The bridge is over, the bridge is over.

Plumpy McPudding
Profit Development and Research Association
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:41:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
You cannot save Ankh, she is gone. The bridge is over, the bridge is over.

Pretty much this. CCP isn't considering banning the girl, they already did. What's done is done.

Mel Lifera
Gallente
Ambrye Logistics Ltd.
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:43:00 - [239]
 

Edited by: Mel Lifera on 08/07/2010 02:45:14
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

As for what is in "CCP's best interest" - I strongly disagree that it is in CCP's best interest to let this sit as is. Just read this thread. CCP's best interest is to get 3rd party legitimization of their actions. If they can't publically disclose all the details (which is a reasonable hypothesis), then at a minimum they should disclose it all the the CSM so that they can confirm the propriety of CCP's actions. After all, the CSM already *knows* whatever super-secret info is at issue (since Ankh learned it as a CSM).



What, have you taken a level in Idiot or something?

An NDA is a legal contract. That means if Ank broke it, CCP has the right to pursue litigation for it. If they choose to do so at some point, anything they say about the matter before the fact can be used against them by Ank's attorneys - or possibly even give her grounds to countersue. CCP doesn't need "neutral confirmation"; but if they decide to get it, it's going to be from a lawyer, a judge, or someone else that isn't a clueless moron like yourself.

All of you people - if you've got such a jonesing for more details, just wait a day or two, until Ank herself makes a new blog post. I'm absolutely certain that she can't wait to tell us ALL about it.

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.07.08 02:45:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Mel Lifera
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

As for what is in "CCP's best interest" - I strongly disagree that it is in CCP's best interest to let this sit as is. Just read this thread. CCP's best interest is to get 3rd party legitimization of their actions. If they can't publically disclose all the details (which is a reasonable hypothesis), then at a minimum they should disclose it all the the CSM so that they can confirm the propriety of CCP's actions. After all, the CSM already *knows* whatever super-secret info is at issue (since Ankh learned it as a CSM).



What, have you taken a level in Idiot or something?

An NDA is a legal contract. That means if Ank broke it, CCP has the right to pursue litigation for it. If they choose to do so at some point, anything they say about the matter before the fact can be used against them by Ank's attorneys - or possibly even give her grounds to countersue. CCP doesn't need "neutral confirmation"; but if they decide to get it, it's going to be from a lawyer, a judge, or someone else that isn't a clueless moron like yourself.


You mad?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (25)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only