open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] More information on Ankh's removal from CSM
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Hori To
Masuat'aa Matari
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:12:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Batolemaeus
If CCP choses to keep this private, they have every right to do so tbh.


I believe you are wrong, when they held an election etc, they have a "moral" obligation to do right by it. They've dragged real people into this, with real names, used them as posterboys and girls to get good press, and now they ditch someone just because. I, as a voter want more details, and it is indeed possible to give them if they so choose. I can wait a few feew weeks. I would also like to know more about how it was handled (why didn't she leave quietly etc). CSM is about transparancy (sp.?), and this case is anything but.

In short, internet spaceships is serious business. I want answers.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:15:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Hori To
Originally by: Batolemaeus
If CCP choses to keep this private, they have every right to do so tbh.


I believe you are wrong, when they held an election etc, they have a "moral" obligation to do right by it. They've dragged real people into this, with real names, used them as posterboys and girls to get good press, and now they ditch someone just because. I, as a voter want more details, and it is indeed possible to give them if they so choose. I can wait a few feew weeks. I would also like to know more about how it was handled (why didn't she leave quietly etc). CSM is about transparancy (sp.?), and this case is anything but.

In short, internet spaceships is serious business. I want answers.


Have you considered the possibility that her NDA breach and subsequent expulsion had nothing to do with the CSM?

Ninetails o'Cat
League of Super Evil
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:17:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Hori To
Originally by: Batolemaeus
If CCP choses to keep this private, they have every right to do so tbh.


I believe you are wrong, when they held an election etc, they have a "moral" obligation to do right by it. They've dragged real people into this, with real names, used them as posterboys and girls to get good press, and now they ditch someone just because. I, as a voter want more details, and it is indeed possible to give them if they so choose. I can wait a few feew weeks. I would also like to know more about how it was handled (why didn't she leave quietly etc). CSM is about transparancy (sp.?), and this case is anything but.

In short, internet spaceships is serious business. I want answers.


Have you considered the possibility that her NDA breach and subsequent expulsion had nothing to do with the CSM?


It has to have something to do with the CSM, because there isn't a NDA for anyone else who plays EVE AFAIK.

If you mean *this* CSM, you may be right though.

Yendor Widdershins
Gallente
University of Caille
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:22:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz

Have you considered the possibility that her NDA breach and subsequent expulsion had nothing to do with the CSM?


You have repeatedly posted that her ban had nothing to do with her blog post. Do you know why she was banned? Because the CSM chair said CSM wasn't told. And if you don't know why she was banned, why are you running around telling everyone why she was or was not banned?

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.07.08 14:26:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat


It has to have something to do with the CSM, because there isn't a NDA for anyone else who plays EVE AFAIK.



Actually, you're oversimplifying the issue.

It is entirely possible that she got information that had nothing to with what the CSM was discussing (thus outside the purview of the CSM) and then acted on that information. That would be a breah of the NDA, yet have nothing to do with her CSM duties per se.

One example: "Saw an emai over the shoulder of some dev I was watching work. Check out what CCP is doing next!" Don't assume that just because the CSM's have to sign an NDA that her breach of it was because of her "official" duties.

In fact, I am more inclined to believe it wasn't, simply because of what happened to Lark. Lark's was clearly based on information passed on directly from CCP to the CSM (based on the details we were provided) and both Lark and CCP were far more open about it.

*shrugs* It's a moot point, anyway. My guess is if Ankh comes out and talks about it directly, they'll invoke that part of the NDA that says they can sue you, and CCP obviously isn't going to give, so all this discussion is really just us rabbling around.

Ninetails o'Cat
League of Super Evil
Posted - 2010.07.08 16:33:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat


It has to have something to do with the CSM, because there isn't a NDA for anyone else who plays EVE AFAIK.



Actually, you're oversimplifying the issue.

It is entirely possible that she got information that had nothing to with what the CSM was discussing (thus outside the purview of the CSM) and then acted on that information. That would be a breah of the NDA, yet have nothing to do with her CSM duties per se.

One example: "Saw an emai over the shoulder of some dev I was watching work. Check out what CCP is doing next!" Don't assume that just because the CSM's have to sign an NDA that her breach of it was because of her "official" duties.

In fact, I am more inclined to believe it wasn't, simply because of what happened to Lark. Lark's was clearly based on information passed on directly from CCP to the CSM (based on the details we were provided) and both Lark and CCP were far more open about it.

*shrugs* It's a moot point, anyway. My guess is if Ankh comes out and talks about it directly, they'll invoke that part of the NDA that says they can sue you, and CCP obviously isn't going to give, so all this discussion is really just us rabbling around.


I guess, but it depends how you define CSM duties. To me, that would seem to be breaching the CSM NDA whilst doing CSM-y things - therefore the breach is about CSM stuff. I'm fairly certain though that it is not a Larkonis-gate style breach though, as all the other CSM members seem just as confused as us, though who knows what they're really thinking... Razz

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.08 16:34:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 08/07/2010 16:34:58
Originally by: Yendor Widdershins
Originally by: Sokratesz

Have you considered the possibility that her NDA breach and subsequent expulsion had nothing to do with the CSM?


You have repeatedly posted that her ban had nothing to do with her blog post. Do you know why she was banned? Because the CSM chair said CSM wasn't told. And if you don't know why she was banned, why are you running around telling everyone why she was or was not banned?


Because 4 other CSM members posted the same stuff on blogs and weren't reprimanded for it, and because none of it was NDA sensitive material in the first place?



Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat

It has to have something to do with the CSM, because there isn't a NDA for anyone else who plays EVE AFAIK.

If you mean *this* CSM, you may be right though.


You're wrong, as De'Veldrin nicely illustrated above.

Yendor Widdershins
Gallente
University of Caille
Posted - 2010.07.08 17:21:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Edited by: Sokratesz on 08/07/2010 16:34:58

You have repeatedly posted that her ban had nothing to do with her blog post. Do you know why she was banned? Because the CSM chair said CSM wasn't told. And if you don't know why she was banned, why are you running around telling everyone why she was or was not banned?


Because 4 other CSM members posted the same stuff on blogs and weren't reprimanded for it, and because none of it was NDA sensitive material in the first place?




On the one hand, your point is valid. But it is still an assumption.

Perhaps CCP is unaware of the other blogs. Perhaps CCP considers each of them to be a breach, but is being selective about enforcement. Perhaps the problem comes from her work with the reporter last year. Perhaps it has to do with something several years ago that CCP didn't choose to persue until just now.

Here is my point: None of the posters -- nor CSM -- knows for sure why she was sacked. If you want to join the speculation that's fine. But posting a flat "That's not why she was dismissed" when you don't know anymore than the rest of us is misleading people who might see your CSM tag and think you are speaking from knowledge instead of assumption.

I'm willing to believe CCP that she did something against their NDA other than a blog post. But I also believe that CCP should inform the CSM of more details of what she did. CCP unilaterally removing a CSM delegate without telling the CSM why just reinforces the point that the CSM has no power other than what CCP decides to temporarily allocate them. And certainly isn't transparent or communicating with the playerbase.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.08 18:25:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 08/07/2010 18:27:21
You're just looking for a reason so you can say CCP treated her unfairly?

If you remember correctly, my blog was up long before hers and received quite a bit of attention here and on other boards. Mynxee's is a lot harsher about CCP on certain points so no, it had nothing to do with it, now let go of the idea.

Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us

Posted - 2010.07.08 23:43:00 - [40]
 

So, here's a funny little fact:

Ankh was booted from CSM because she breached the NDA. In other words, revealing information that she was not supposed to reveal. Another way of putting it is: Ankh let the cat out of the bag.

CCP does not want to inform us of what excactly it was that she disclosed, even though it has already been revealed Rolling Eyes
Another way to put it: CCP wants to keep the cat that got out of the bag inside the bag.

One last thought: Laughing

Gimme a break. The cats out, at least tell us where the cat is so we can avoid getting our eyes scratched out because accidently sit on it.

ceaon
Posted - 2010.07.09 00:05:00 - [41]
 

i find the massive Sokratesz posting around this issue quite stupid

Azmodeus Valar
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2010.07.09 01:30:00 - [42]
 

Most of Sok's recent posts have been relevant to the discussion. Its a shame that he has to keep making the same points repeatedly because people can't seem to understand them or find it more convenient to disbelieve them in order to support their conspiracy theories.

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.07.09 03:34:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: ceaon
i find the massive Sokratesz posting around this issue quite stupid
I find the massive amount of blind conjecture and illogical conclusions drawn from it quite stupid. To each there own I guess.Rolling Eyes

Pirokobo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.07.09 04:13:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Pirokobo on 09/07/2010 04:17:11
Originally by: Sokratesz
Have you considered the possibility that her NDA breach and subsequent expulsion had nothing to do with the CSM?


Nope, because of the lack of an alternate explanation.

This is 2010 and we have the internet. There are no secrets. If it WASN'T related to the CSM but the CSM knew what it was, then one of you would have leaked it anonymously.

Trader Jen
Posted - 2010.07.09 05:10:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Hori To
Originally by: Batolemaeus
If CCP choses to keep this private, they have every right to do so tbh.


I believe you are wrong, when they held an election etc, they have a "moral" obligation to do right by it. They've dragged real people into this, with real names, used them as posterboys and girls to get good press, and now they ditch someone just because. I, as a voter want more details, and it is indeed possible to give them if they so choose. I can wait a few feew weeks. I would also like to know more about how it was handled (why didn't she leave quietly etc). CSM is about transparancy (sp.?), and this case is anything but.

In short, internet spaceships is serious business. I want answers.


Have you considered the possibility that her NDA breach and subsequent expulsion had nothing to do with the CSM?


you keep giving up more information on her expulsion. I think we might be dealing with two NDA breaches in one week.

If you're expelled, there's many who wont miss you.

James Tritanius
Posted - 2010.07.09 05:53:00 - [46]
 

meh. So no one knows what exactly is it that she disclosed?

I mean, it has to be something big, or else CCP won't immediately boot her.

It also has to be something public, because if she just told a few friends, CCP won't know about it.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 06:30:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 09/07/2010 06:32:52

:facepalm:

I'm just doing some damage control for CCP within the limits set out for me, given that they failed to properly do it themselves and that loads of weird people keep getting these ******ed ideas.

Hori To
Masuat'aa Matari
Posted - 2010.07.09 06:33:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Hori To
*stuff*


Have you considered the possibility that her NDA breach and subsequent expulsion had nothing to do with the CSM?


I did now :)
But, if the information is not related to the CSM, how does an ordinary player get access to nda breaching stuff? Do CCP mail stuff around at random?

And regardless, she was in the csm, she got kicked from the csm, therefore it is related to the csm.

It's a sad situation though, for both parties. The reason I have a problem with it is that if feels unfair.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 06:35:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: ceaon
i find the massive Sokratesz posting around this issue quite stupid


It's not like a novelty or anything.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 06:36:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Hori To

And regardless, she was in the csm, she got kicked from the csm, therefore it is related to the csm.

It's a sad situation though, for both parties. The reason I have a problem with it is that if feels unfair.


You are right there but I wouldn't agree with the wording of your first bit. I agree though that as long as CCP doesn't reveal any other information it feels unfair that I have to fight this fight for them Wink

ggfdfasdgfsfdg
Posted - 2010.07.09 07:02:00 - [51]
 


MataSanos
Posted - 2010.07.09 07:04:00 - [52]
 


pemiculostic
Posted - 2010.07.09 07:05:00 - [53]
 


0vermama
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.09 07:06:00 - [54]
 


Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 07:07:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: pemiculostic



Originally by: MataSanos



Originally by: ggfdfasdgfsfdg




Thank you for your contributions!

ceaon
Posted - 2010.07.09 07:52:00 - [56]
 

Very Happy

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.09 10:50:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: pemiculostic



Originally by: MataSanos



Originally by: ggfdfasdgfsfdg




Thank you for your contributions!


Maybe in your haste to do "damage control" you have forgot that this is a thread in Assembly Hall and posting simply to support the proposal/request is allowed and a normal procedure.

BTW: at least half of your attempt to do "damage control" had the opposite effect.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.09 11:17:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: pemiculostic



Originally by: MataSanos



Originally by: ggfdfasdgfsfdg




Thank you for your contributions!


Maybe in your haste to do "damage control" you have forgot that this is a thread in Assembly Hall and posting simply to support the proposal/request is allowed and a normal procedure.

BTW: at least half of your attempt to do "damage control" had the opposite effect.


I'm just posting information, if people interpret said information incorrectly that's not my problem. SOme people just *want* to see things that aren't there, but it will be a lot easier to convince them or if not that, ridicule them, with CCP backup.

Skogen Gump
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.07.09 22:55:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Skogen Gump on 09/07/2010 22:57:23
You can't talk about privacy, when using someone's handle and real-life name in the same paragraph. in my very humble opinion.

CCP, the CSM is about transparency and this was the most attended ballot thus far - if you don't want this to become such a pipe dream, and you don't want to dissuade people from voting again, please be more transparent.

At the moment, your voters and subscribers don't know what to think, certainly many think that the way this has been handled, smacks of something untowards going on.

Similarly, a lot of people are rubbing their hands together and crowing that Ankh has been removed from the CSM. To you, I say SHAME ON YOU; Ankh was the CSM, her passion, vibrancy and personal sacrifice to the CSM should be an example and inspiration to everyone.

To those who say that it's ok for CCP to be private, let me remind you that they've (afaik) unanimously removed an elected official. What kind of confidence does this give you for anything the CSM can or can't do after this ?

Anyway, she could throw spoons at me, any day of the week, as long as it got Black ops sorted out, and meta level in item detail views ugh

Finally - CCP, I'm not against you; if your decision was fair, then absolutely fine - I'm just begging you to show the transparency that you promised and save the CSM before this goes too far.

Galdornae
Caldari
Fat Ugly Guys Security
Posted - 2010.07.09 23:26:00 - [60]
 

Big thumbs down to this "proposal."

Ankh is such an idiot that I'm not even remotely surprised that she went and blabbed about something she'd signed an NDA about.

Why exactly should we expect CCP to tell us info about something they'd had a NDA about in the first place? To satisfy all you people's personal curiousity?
I agree that the CSM must be transparent, but by all indications this was not something directly related to CSM workings.
Most notably, CCP doesn't owe you. They have every right to keep secret inner workings secret.

The CSM is better off without Ankh, nuff said.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

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