open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Forum (security) issues - CSM reaction/statement?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2011.04.11 14:22:00 - [1]
 

I wonder why the CSM sees no necessity to comment on the glaring security issues of the new forum and the way CCP handles this.

Just in case you missed it: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1493904

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.11 14:41:00 - [2]
 

CCP Sreegs is Darius JOHNSON.
Darius JOHNSON is a goon.
The chairman of the CSM is The Mittani.
The Mittani is a goon.

YOU DO THE MATH!

/tinfoil Razz

Extreme
Eye of God
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:40:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
CCP Sreegs is Darius JOHNSON.
Darius JOHNSON is a goon.
The chairman of the CSM is The Mittani.
The Mittani is a goon.

YOU DO THE MATH!

/tinfoil Razz


I correct you in this.

CCP Sreegs is Sean C.
Darius Johnson WAS Sean C.

Darius Johnson WAS goon.
CCP Sreegs never was a goon, he is CCP

The Mittani?
I don't care about the Mittani.
The Mittani is hyped and yet have to prove himself what he's worth being a member of the CSM.


To the poster of the topic:
The CSM is not the Eve Police you totally misunderstand the concept of the Council of Stellar Management

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.04.11 16:23:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: White Tree on 11/04/2011 16:24:12
As much as we think we're fairly organized, keep in mind we officially took office less than a week ago! We will weave magic, we will build dreams and the stars themselves will bowl into a neat line, eager to offer themselves as furnaces for our dark work. But we, the realm builders, require more than a second in the aether to complete our tasks. Trust me when I say we will begin to put forward documents, ideals and objectives very soon. But in the meantime, let us get our ass grooves chiselled out of these comfy new chairs CCP has given us before we start collectively issuing statements pertaining to our opinions on subjects that we're not fully informed on.

Ender Black
Lone Star Exploration
Posted - 2011.04.11 17:27:00 - [5]
 

Who knew, White Tree is the roleplayers' CSM representative?

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2011.04.11 22:44:00 - [6]
 

Yeah, that was what I expected from this CSM.

Shobon Welp
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2011.04.12 23:28:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Yeah, that was what I expected from this CSM.


The CSM personally destroyed the new forums, you heard it here first folks.

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.04.13 00:06:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Yeah, that was what I expected from this CSM.
I'm not sure what you mean by this at all. I am sorry that we weren't prepared for this venture to fall flat on its face. If you absolutely MUST have a statement right this minute, I think we're going with 'n1 m8s :ccp:' that's literally all we can do. Obviously we're as interested in QA as anyone else and we don't want our game and the systems that are attached to it to be broken. Given that with the security leaks OUR security was also at risk, we're not exactly dismissive about it.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 01:32:00 - [9]
 

yo we'll discuss it at the Q&A, there's not much to say besides 'looks like a structural failure at the corporate level and i guess they hired some incompetent dudes on the forums team, welp good luck fixing the security breach'.

what would you like to see, mr "sees no necessity"?

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.04.13 07:13:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: The Mittani
yo we'll discuss it at the Q&A, there's not much to say besides 'looks like a structural failure at the corporate level and i guess they hired some incompetent dudes on the forums team, welp good luck fixing the security breach'.

what would you like to see, mr "sees no necessity"?


Exactly this "We're gathering information and will address this at the Q&A".

Looks like CCP's old pattern:
"We are already working on it but there is nothing to tell now. So what do you expect us to say?"
"Uhm, maybe that you actually are working on it, because you didn't even say that?"
"Well, you do know it now. Happy?"

Seems like this CSM already adopted that very quickly.
Grats?

Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 07:49:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Ban Doga
Originally by: The Mittani
yo we'll discuss it at the Q&A, there's not much to say besides 'looks like a structural failure at the corporate level and i guess they hired some incompetent dudes on the forums team, welp good luck fixing the security breach'.

what would you like to see, mr "sees no necessity"?


Exactly this "We're gathering information and will address this at the Q&A".

Looks like CCP's old pattern:
"We are already working on it but there is nothing to tell now. So what do you expect us to say?"
"Uhm, maybe that you actually are working on it, because you didn't even say that?"
"Well, you do know it now. Happy?"

Seems like this CSM already adopted that very quickly.
Grats?


The CSM: now responsible for CCP QA process--even for stuff created and tested before they were elected!

Lord Zim
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 08:46:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Marconus Orion
CCP Sreegs is Darius JOHNSON.
Darius JOHNSON is a goon.
The chairman of the CSM is The Mittani.
The Mittani is a goon.

YOU DO THE MATH!

/tinfoil Razz

Look at how much suppressed manlove he has for Mittani's babyface. LOOK!

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.04.13 12:28:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Fuujin
Originally by: Ban Doga
Originally by: The Mittani
yo we'll discuss it at the Q&A, there's not much to say besides 'looks like a structural failure at the corporate level and i guess they hired some incompetent dudes on the forums team, welp good luck fixing the security breach'.

what would you like to see, mr "sees no necessity"?


Exactly this "We're gathering information and will address this at the Q&A".

Looks like CCP's old pattern:
"We are already working on it but there is nothing to tell now. So what do you expect us to say?"
"Uhm, maybe that you actually are working on it, because you didn't even say that?"
"Well, you do know it now. Happy?"

Seems like this CSM already adopted that very quickly.
Grats?


The CSM: now responsible for CCP QA process--even for stuff created and tested before they were elected!


The CSM is not responsible for any at all
(maybe I can find my Goon - English dictionary and find out you actually meant something else)

But you are right, they shouldn't say anything about it at all.
I wonder why they want to discuss it at the Q&A then...

Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 23:57:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Ban Doga

The CSM is not responsible for any at all
(maybe I can find my Goon - English dictionary and find out you actually meant something else)

But you are right, they shouldn't say anything about it at all.
I wonder why they want to discuss it at the Q&A then...


I fail to see what you expect them to do, or what you think they can do. Obviously "wow, this is a pretty bad failure on the coding team; maybe we need better QA" is a statement that CCP themselves have already said. The CSM can't exactly add to that besides expressing their own disappointment at CCP's failure.

I mean, QA has been a sore spot for CCP for years. This shouldn't surprise anyone. I have a feeling it'll be slipped into the CSM Summit though under the topic heading of "why **** hasn't gotten implemented yet."

Expecting the CSM to excoriate CCP for a security failure that CCP has already rolled back a new feature over--which is friggen unprecedented for them, honestly--is overreacting and akin to throwing a tantrum over a trivial issue. Righteous indignation and outrage can be had elsewhere for beter reasons.

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.04.14 06:09:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Fuujin
Originally by: Ban Doga

The CSM is not responsible for any at all
(maybe I can find my Goon - English dictionary and find out you actually meant something else)

But you are right, they shouldn't say anything about it at all.
I wonder why they want to discuss it at the Q&A then...


I fail to see what you expect them to do, or what you think they can do. Obviously "wow, this is a pretty bad failure on the coding team; maybe we need better QA" is a statement that CCP themselves have already said. The CSM can't exactly add to that besides expressing their own disappointment at CCP's failure.

I mean, QA has been a sore spot for CCP for years. This shouldn't surprise anyone. I have a feeling it'll be slipped into the CSM Summit though under the topic heading of "why **** hasn't gotten implemented yet."

Expecting the CSM to excoriate CCP for a security failure that CCP has already rolled back a new feature over--which is friggen unprecedented for them, honestly--is overreacting and akin to throwing a tantrum over a trivial issue. Righteous indignation and outrage can be had elsewhere for beter reasons.


Did you just give an example of what the CSM could do with the situation while wondering what I could expect them to do?

So is that really clever on your part (for thinking the CSM might ask CCP face-to-face why this happened, given the fact they are the only group that gets to talk to CCP face-to-face on a regular basis) or not (for not realizing people might expect them to ask CCP face-to-face why this happened, given the fact they are the only group that gets to talk to CCP face-to-face on a regular basis)?

Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.14 16:40:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Ban Doga

Did you just give an example of what the CSM could do with the situation while wondering what I could expect them to do?

So is that really clever on your part (for thinking the CSM might ask CCP face-to-face why this happened, given the fact they are the only group that gets to talk to CCP face-to-face on a regular basis) or not (for not realizing people might expect them to ask CCP face-to-face why this happened, given the fact they are the only group that gets to talk to CCP face-to-face on a regular basis)?


Not to get too far off the point, but your initial complaint was that there wasn't some useless post impotently raging about the issue.

Darius III
Caldari
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.04.15 03:23:00 - [17]
 

Ok heres a CSM comment; Too bad CCP screwed the pooch on the forums-and nothing of value was lost.

On a more serious note, I think that CSM making a comment on a security issue while it is in progress of being resolved, over reaches the purpose and scope of what the CSM is. I don't personally think the Forum issue is anything more than a minor blip on the radar in the path of progress, and will eventually be resolved. Or maybe not. I am a fan of the old forums anyway. D3

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.04.17 19:27:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Fuujin
Originally by: Ban Doga

Did you just give an example of what the CSM could do with the situation while wondering what I could expect them to do?

So is that really clever on your part (for thinking the CSM might ask CCP face-to-face why this happened, given the fact they are the only group that gets to talk to CCP face-to-face on a regular basis) or not (for not realizing people might expect them to ask CCP face-to-face why this happened, given the fact they are the only group that gets to talk to CCP face-to-face on a regular basis)?


Not to get too far off the point, but your initial complaint was that there wasn't some useless post impotently raging about the issue.

No, my initial complaint was that "communication on demand" is not something the CSM should do.
I have no idea what made you think someone asked for impotent raging or useless posting.


 

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