open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Criteria for oversight committee selection
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Cutie Chaser
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:14:00 - [1]
 

If you are going to pick a ombudsman, you should use criteria that make sense for the office, not the game. In fact picking people based solely on their game skills,
connections, political affiliation, forum posting, or region of occupation is absurd, based on what you want the person to accomplish.

Lets look at a quick list of criteria:

1. Objectivity
2. Reasons for wanting to have the position
3. Maturity
4. Personal Stability
5. Assertiveness
6. Commitment
7. Ability to effectively communicate with the player base, as well as other members
of the committee

Quick disqualification criteria:

1. Victim of a banning or excessive disciplinary action(that was not later overturned)
2. Lacks the ability to hold confidences
3. Is a current employee or has any financial interest in CCP or its' subsidiaries
4. Currently a volunteer for CCP in any position

If someone cannot reasonably explain why they fit these criteria and assert that they do not fall into the area of any of the disqualified criteria then I see no reason why they should be considered.

Of course, being a game, and seeing as we can only know what a person is willing to reveal there is always the simple fact that even a perfectly unfit candidate might be able to talk(lie) his/her way into this position. Everyone knows that on the internet "...the men are men, the women are men, and the minors are FBI agents.." after all. Of course, there is the argument that anyone capable of such intricate
deception would be an ideal candidate to hunt for the very same thing.

Bottom line:

1. If you base it on popularity then the so-called "forum *****s" walk away with it, because any new player who has spent more then 2 minutes on the forum have seen Dark
Shikari's Tachicoma marching their way through the forums on their way to utter and complete forum domination. <1>

2. If you base it merely on game knowledge you get every sad tosser who has a spreadsheet and time on their hands and the desire to ride a single formulaic discovery to victory. In-depth knowledge of exact modules for a theoretical 'best'
shield-tanked Ferox does not equate to general game knowledge. Short of a 200 page questionnaire there is no fair way to gage a person knowledge of game mechanics. <2>

3. If you base it on political affinity you defeat the purpose of such a committee. Not only that, but there is no fair way to make such decisions. Here are a few that
were previously discussed:

***
A. There should be equal representation of major 0.0 alliances

--So who gets to decide who is the top x major alliances? Do we want 1 from each of the top 9? Who are the top 9? If a top alliance is allied with another does this disqualify them from each sending a candidate? It should, if you want the sort of balanced indicated... yet alliances shift like sand, so we really want to re-vote and re-elect people every time an alliance turns on another?

***

B. The major alliances in this conflict should not have direct representation. Instead, there could be indirect representation (i.e. the suggestion that I do it).

--There are a lot of conflicts in the universe, and at this point there is no reason to assume that cheating would be more likely in Red Alliance then in FREGE? <3>

***

C. No major alliances should have a voice at all.

--Why? They are not dictating policy; they are not going to be able to force CCP to cut mineral spawns in empire and move them to 0.0. Also, why is it that a small empire alliance is less likely to have a cheater then a "major" alliance? It has got to be possible that good old "Honest Abe's Used Veldspar" empire corp has been secretly getting Hulk BPO's so that they might continue their Veld-hoarding race
against Chribba. Also who gets to decide who is a "Major" vs "Minor" alliance?<4>

***

D. No 0.0 alliances should have a voice at all.
--pretty much same as C(above).

***

Cutie Chaser
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:16:00 - [2]
 

<1> As an example only, I see no reason that Dark Shikari should not be considered.
<2> Not aimed at anyone in particular.
<3> You were a small section on the territorial map. I assume you are fighting someone, hence you fit my purpose for this example. Nothing personal.
<4> If there is a corp called "Honest Abe's Used Veldspar" then I apologize for using you in this example. Ditto on the apologies for Chribba... not the existing part, but.... well never mind, you get the idea.

**********************

Assuming there is no other conflict, I'd put myself behind any of the following candidates based solely on their
contributions to EVE.

Tornsoul has fairly led the BIG Game since time immeasurable, and has yet to run off with anyones iskies, and has at the same

time provided this service for everyone regardless of their political ties, even though many of the drawings run at a loss.

Chribba's contributions are many, since many of you are probably reading this through EVE-Search I think this speaks for itself.

EVE University leads people through their introduction to PVP courses which has helped many new players get a step ahead in
the intricacies of EVE PVP. It is not strictly a non-for-profit venture, however I do not feel that this detracts from the contribution they make in any way. I'd vote for a representative they would put forth.

Motivated Prophet
Zerodot Schools
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:19:00 - [3]
 

I think you've definitely missed a key point--capability. There are a number of people who are great in every category you mention, and who I'd literally trust with my RL life, but couldn't run an effective audit if their life depended on it.

Remember to check THAT sort of background, as well.

MP

Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:21:00 - [4]
 

One rather vital factor that everyone seems to be forgetting is: will our chosen champions actually want the job? I know I for one would rather bury my head in soft peat than fly off to Iceland for the pleasure of being called a liar or BoB alt all over the forums for the rest of eternity.

I would, for example, happily vote Chribba (pillar of the EVE community as he is), or Dark Shikari (he seems like a genuinely nice guy), but would either of said celebrities even take the job?

Who knows, yet. Apart from them, obviously.

Pat Metheny
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:21:00 - [5]
 

Some IT knowledge is high required too.

Cutie Chaser
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:28:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Patch86
One rather vital factor that everyone seems to be forgetting is: will our chosen champions actually want the job? I know I for one would rather bury my head in soft peat than fly off to Iceland for the pleasure of being called a liar or BoB alt all over the forums for the rest of eternity.

I would, for example, happily vote Chribba (pillar of the EVE community as he is), or Dark Shikari (he seems like a genuinely nice guy), but would either of said celebrities even take the job?

Who knows, yet. Apart from them, obviously.


2. Reasons for wanting to have the position

That is why I suggested this criteria. If they have a reason NOT to want the job, obviously they would not be able to be considered :P

Also in reply to a further down post I do not think that IT knowledge would be required. CCP isn't going to turn people loose with a shell on their server and tell them to have fun. They are surely going to be using logging tools that CCP's current staff uses. Last thing EVE needs now is a SQL jockey running rogue queries against the DBes in hopes of turning up something.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:29:00 - [7]
 

The ability to communicate effectively.

My corp's CEO is a good friend of mine, and he knows far more about industry, research, and production than I. However, I would never nominate him, as when it comes to speaking and/or typing to others, he's about the worst person one could put up to the job. He just royally sucks at getting his point across and/or engaging people with his words.

I've suggested Dark Shikari in large part due to his ability to communicate, intelligently and copiously.

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:36:00 - [8]
 

very good summary.

It all boils down to objectivity really, like for reporters. If you are likely to have some sort of conflict of interests you are not a very good candidate.

If all goes as said (through the power of voting) the major alliances can try to force a vote through on at least one of its members. This IMO will be quite catastrophic because more than anyone the major alliances have interests to look out for, why else would they be major alliances?

Looking at the recent BoB and Goon conflict for example, if representatives of these alliances are voted what would WE think their main objective on the tour be? Not to serve our community, but to further their goals ingame. Personally I think they might do a good and professional job, but imo it will be difficult to convince the community of that. Just as I think it will be difficult for CCP to convince the community that these representatives do actually get to look at the nitty gritty stuff.

But anyway, here is to a novel idea and hopes that it will work out.

Again, good compilation Cutie :)

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:45:00 - [9]
 

what is this comitte ?

Frogzuk
Gallente
Federation Security
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:46:00 - [10]
 

Nice op.

I would recommend someone that has some auditing experience in real life as a part of the criteria.

The 'team' could be multi-disciplinary thus consist of various 'experts'. I agree that it is not constructive to have those just with the recognized eve names e.g. cribba / dark / dbp sitting round the table, it would be better imho to have a mix of eve experience, r/l experience and skills.

Not everyone needs to be an IT whizz .... you'd prolly only need 1 IT expert, the rest can consist of players that can bring other skills to the table .. for example procurement / auditing / business management / gaming. I would also recommend that the panel is placed together as with any real life board with a view to replacing the members over a period of time so that we dont have a elite of panel members and gives more opportunity to demonstrate impartiality in the fact that the post are re advertised every so often.

This panel is a excellent idea from CCP. And the Eve community should embrace the selection of the panel with open arms. They will be the middle ground between the player base and the game developers and should be respected accordingly. And hopefully go some way to prevent the issues we have encountered recently in and out of game.

froggy

Pat Metheny
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:46:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Pat Metheny on 09/06/2007 11:46:25
You are wrong because I know CCP wont give free access to servers. But a security tech guy can see if the in house tools available by CCP is good or not. If you just bring some non-tech peopel to this visits... well it will be more like a holiday travel with some "guide" showing the CCP buildings and nothing more :P

TBH I think this ombudsman is just a show. This is not a real audit comission (without total free access to all data/server is just a show). It's just a CCP's propanga to make the playerbase happy with fake solution.

If CCP want a real AUDIT comitte. Contract a damn 3rd real life company to do this job.

Cutie Chaser
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:47:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Ravenal
very good summary.

It all boils down to objectivity really, like for reporters. If you are likely to have some sort of conflict of interests you are not a very good candidate.

If all goes as said (through the power of voting) the major alliances can try to force a vote through on at least one of its members. This IMO will be quite catastrophic because more than anyone the major alliances have interests to look out for, why else would they be major alliances?

Looking at the recent BoB and Goon conflict for example, if representatives of these alliances are voted what would WE think their main objective on the tour be? Not to serve our community, but to further their goals ingame. Personally I think they might do a good and professional job, but imo it will be difficult to convince the community of that. Just as I think it will be difficult for CCP to convince the community that these representatives do actually get to look at the nitty gritty stuff.

But anyway, here is to a novel idea and hopes that it will work out.

Again, good compilation Cutie :)


Thanks, re-activated solely to make this post actually, though now that I've shucked out 15 I will end up sucked back in >.<

As to being able to trust a representative of BoB or GS, I don't see why that is an issue. What is a single member for a 9 person committee going to accomplish? Eight people looking for a problem and one trying to hide it does not sound like a recipe for success.

Also, it is impossible to find a person who has ZERO to gain from any manipulation they can manage to preform. Yes, even the 1-man corp who only hangs in empire at least has knowledge of the conflict you mention, and is in even less position to make a rational decision on their feeling on issues it raises.

To be 'fair' in the sense you seek, you'd have to be completely oblivious to any politics; not claiming a position of neutrality, but actually UNAWARE of any affiliations or accusations.

Quite honestly I do not feel such a person would be an effective member of ANY EVE committee.


Merrick Vale
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:57:00 - [13]
 

A lot depends on what degree of access CCP is willing to give to the audit group.

If it's not going to be much more that a guided tour of their offices, might as well pick people based on popularity or in-game politics. It won't amount to more than a publicity stunt or satisfy anyone who isn't happy as things are.

Expecting a small team of volunteers to come in and do an audit from the ground up in a few days wouldn't accomplish much more, but there are probably people in the player base who do ISO and similar audits for a living. Getting them to volunteer their time and talents to conduct a second-party audit might be difficult. Busman's holiday and all that.

Ideally, CCP will have already had a professionally done third-party audit done on their internal affairs process and the elected second-party team can come in review their work. Let them take a look at the policies and processes in place, what the current tools and logging systems are capable and examine the record of how some of the notorious incidents were handled. A small group, working under an NDA, can be given more information than can be publicly posted. I'd want to see people with general business administration, quality and human resources backgrounds on such a team.

Cutie Chaser
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.06.09 11:58:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Cutie Chaser on 09/06/2007 12:04:18
Originally by: Pat Metheny
Edited by: Pat Metheny on 09/06/2007 11:46:25
You are wrong because I know CCP wont give free access to servers. But a security tech guy can see if the in house tools available by CCP is good or not. If you just bring some non-tech peopel to this visits... well it will be more like a holiday travel with some "guide" showing the CCP buildings and nothing more :P

TBH I think this ombudsman is just a show. This is not a real audit comission (without total free access to all data/server is just a show). It's just a CCP's propanga to make the playerbase happy with fake solution.

If CCP want a real AUDIT comitte. Contract a damn 3rd real life company to do this job.



And how would you know one of those real-life audit company members isn't a BoB/Goon/(your favourite badguy alliance here) member? And why would you trust a non-name company more then elected committee members?

More to the point:
1. What company specializes in auditing the in-game conduct of game developers that have enough understanding of the game to be able to do more then glance over the company policies and say "yeah, they appear to have a functional IA department, everything is kosher". Will they be able to look over roid spawns in 0.0 and spot that BoB(example) roids are spawning with more aknor then anywhere else, and understand that it is an issue?

2. Wouldn't it be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of a hired company who knows jack-all about EVE? As opposed to people who make the game a large enough part of their lives that they are willing to be flown out to another country to examine its' iner workings. This is assuming you fall in the "omg ccp is teh evil cheater" view.

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2007.06.09 12:08:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Cutie Chaser

As to being able to trust a representative of BoB or GS, I don't see why that is an issue. What is a single member for a 9 person committee going to accomplish? Eight people looking for a problem and one trying to hide it does not sound like a recipe for success.



crap, pressed "reset fields" instead of post reply... and i had such a good reply.

short version:

Anyway, my fears are that someone might be able to use information gleamed in this tour to further their cause ingame after this is all over.

Perhaps someone who has quit alliance politics some time ago, possibly even quit eve... might make a good representative ... ?

Cutie Chaser
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.06.09 12:15:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Cutie Chaser on 09/06/2007 12:21:01
Originally by: Ravenal
Originally by: Cutie Chaser

As to being able to trust a representative of BoB or GS, I don't see why that is an issue. What is a single member for a 9 person committee going to accomplish? Eight people looking for a problem and one trying to hide it does not sound like a recipe for success.



crap, pressed "reset fields" instead of post reply... and i had such a good reply.

short version:

Anyway, my fears are that someone might be able to use information gleamed in this tour to further their cause ingame after this is all over.

Perhaps someone who has quit alliance politics some time ago, possibly even quit eve... might make a good representative ... ?


A fair notion, excepting the very reason that Devs continue to play is the reason we should not have an ex-player represent us. Keeping up with the changing dynamics of the game is to hard for someone without constant game experience.

(in less florid speak, new ways to cheat might come up that ex-players might not understand, since the game changes constantly. And new ways to cheat would equal new ways for CCP to hide cheating :P)

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2007.06.09 12:37:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Cutie Chaser

A fair notion, excepting the very reason that Devs continue to play is the reason we should not have an ex-player represent us. Keeping up with the changing dynamics of the game is to hard for someone without constant game experience.

(in less florid speak, new ways to cheat might come up that ex-players might not understand, since the game changes constantly. And new ways to cheat would equal new ways for CCP to hide cheating :P)


come to think of it, I think the best people to represent us would be the no bull**** pirates that populate the universe. Think about it...

Cutie Chaser
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.06.09 12:55:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Ravenal

come to think of it, I think the best people to represent us would be the no bull**** pirates that populate the universe. Think about it...


...Sadly, I might have to agree with you :P

Lets get Currin Trading and one of those guys in Jita who try to pass off Ravens named "Caldari Navy Raven" as faction ships while we're at it.

Spy4Hire
Posted - 2007.06.09 13:14:00 - [19]
 

A: Be a member of BoB.
B: All other requirments are moot.

Rabbitual Ferrier
Posted - 2007.06.09 13:28:00 - [20]
 

It should of course be someone who does not play the game.

Lux Simian
Posted - 2007.06.09 13:36:00 - [21]
 

It could be me.

1. Objectivity - Eve is just an occassional thing for me, although I am based in High Sec I have a background in IT compliance and Quality Procedures, in an area that relies entirely within ensure my employer achieves Contractual Obligations.
2. Reasons for wanting to have the position - I could do with expanding my CV from Large Business IT into the Computer Games field.
3. Maturity - Age 35 with a background in Philosophy, Management and Psychology.
4. Personal Stability - Heh, well I have a job, my own home, minimal debits and enjoy life...
5. Assertiveness - 3 years of Management experience, in a role that requires ensuring that Project Policy of up to 350 staff, including senior management (and on occassion Directorate) decisions adhere to policy, procedure and contractual obligations, irrespective of cost.
6. Commitment - Dependent on requirement, if full time not a problem, if not
7. Ability to effectively communicate with the player base, as well as other members - Skilled in Language and Commuinications skills under to pwnage, 3llt and wtfbbq
Laughing

nah seriously....

Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
Posted - 2007.06.09 17:33:00 - [22]
 

I actually have to agree with what someone said in a different thread, that these committe types should either be from small unaligned corps or better yet, from outside eve but trained in what does what. A major concern I have with eve is that if the 'elite' ever get enough latitude in determining how stuff turns out theyll use that to serve their own ends, namely to prevent them dratted n00bs from ever being l33t like them. This is usually what kills most online games, eventually the learning/exp/money/whatever curve gets so steep theres no point in joining the community and anything to slow or prevent this would be a good thing(tm).

Dark Shikari
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.06.09 17:41:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Dark Shikari on 09/06/2007 17:42:35
Originally by: Patch86
One rather vital factor that everyone seems to be forgetting is: will our chosen champions actually want the job? I know I for one would rather bury my head in soft peat than fly off to Iceland for the pleasure of being called a liar or BoB alt all over the forums for the rest of eternity.

I would, for example, happily vote Chribba (pillar of the EVE community as he is), or Dark Shikari (he seems like a genuinely nice guy), but would either of said celebrities even take the job?

Who knows, yet. Apart from them, obviously.

I'd do it if I had the time, not sure if I would.

On one hand, damnit, its a free trip to Iceland. Its hard to turn down Laughing

Whoever is chosen I think we need a good mix of people. It would be bad to have nothing but a group of ingame or forum celebrities, whether me or Hippoking or DigitalCommunist or Tank CEO or whoever. We need a mix people who are:

a) well known in a community, that is, well known enough that people trust their identity (that they're not some random person who could be anyone's alt).
b) well known in different communities--that is, each person should be well known in a different community, rather than them all being chosen from the same community.
c) capable/mature/etc as stated in the original post.
d) trusted by the community they are well known in.


 

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