Originally posted by toxicmango No gyrating or reaching for excuses of it being merely a journalist, as this is a quote by a high level CCP member.
Just because they want to talk to CSM in person and offer them more insight into development and company processes does not mean they are supposed to be some sort of audit committee as you imply. This implication is simply wrong and baseless.
CSM was meant as another feedback channel - no more, no less. And until recently it was filling this purpose.
toxicmango is entirely correct, as anybody who were present during the "T20 scandal" should know.
The CSM (even before it got that name) was originally announced as a player organ that should bring more credibility to CCP by getting insight in the dealings within the company. That the CSM only partially ended up fulfilling this role in its actual implementation is a different matter.
Interesting how the CCP fanboy or puppet conveniently overlooks the quotes by CCP personnel in that article and anything else that might show CCP in a negative light, highlighted below:
“A government can’t just keep saying, ‘We are not corrupt.’ No one will believe them. Instead you have to create transparency and robust institutions and oversight in order to maintain the confidence of the population.”
“I envision this council being made up of nine members selected by the players themselves, where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, andthey can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis,” said Mr. Petursson, CCP’s chief executive. “They can see that we did not make this game to win it.”
Clearly there is no need to mention such things as oversight or looking into every nook and cranny if the elected player group (i.e. CSM) were not going to be marketed as being able to do such. It is telling also the need to make the statement of people not believing an accused government of saying "We are not corrupt", perfectly highlighting the situation in the wake of the t20 scandal: CCP's own internal affairs lacking credibility. Again such statements would not be needed if again the point was not to market the CSM as a group that WOULD give accountability and transparency and oversight.
Originally posted by toxicmango Again such statements would not be needed if again the point was not to market the CSM as a group that WOULD give accountability and transparency and oversight.
Petrusson is saying how transparency and confidence is maintained in real life example. That does not imply any specifics, only method.
Internal Affairs represents an oversight, CSM on the other hand provide better transparency.
You falsely assume that one has to be also another.
You just catch a few words and give them credit and meaning to suit your case.
Interesting how the CCP fanboy or puppet conveniently overlooks the quotes by CCP personnel in that article and anything else that might show CCP in a negative light, highlighted below:
“A government can’t just keep saying, ‘We are not corrupt.’ No one will believe them. Instead you have to create transparency and robust institutions and oversight in order to maintain the confidence of the population.”
“I envision this council being made up of nine members selected by the players themselves, where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, andthey can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis,” said Mr. Petursson, CCP’s chief executive. “They can see that we did not make this game to win it.”
Clearly there is no need to mention such things as oversight or looking into every nook and cranny if the elected player group (i.e. CSM) were not going to be marketed as being able to do such. It is telling also the need to make the statement of people not believing an accused government of saying "We are not corrupt", perfectly highlighting the situation in the wake of the t20 scandal: CCP's own internal affairs lacking credibility. Again such statements would not be needed if again the point was not to market the CSM as a group that WOULD give accountability and transparency and oversight.
There's nothing being overlooked here. Hilmar had an idea for the council based on events at the time. That direction was scrapped but, since the player council idea was a sound one, they repurposed the idea. From the first CSM to the present one, the purpose has remained rather unchanged.
No one is arguing that one person at CCP didn't talk about an IA council one time. However, that has nothing to do with the CSM that was actually designed and created, and your claim that the CSM "has mutated to fit whatever PR aspect CCP needs, such as the appearance of listening to players" is also false, as the purpose and functionality of the CSM has remained relatively unchanged since its announcement and inception over four years ago.
Those are the facts, toxicmango, and no matter how many times you link to that single five year old article on a completely unrelated concept, it does not alter the fact that the purpose of the CSM has remained unchanged ever since it was officially announced.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Whatever council Hilmar was talking about in the New York Times article is, most likely, the same as the CSM announced by CCP Xhagen a little later same year in the first dev blog about the CSM.
Sure they scrapped the initial concept after having created Internal Affairs but it should be rather obvious by reading these two sources how the events transpired back then. Additionally I am incapable of finding any sources for the suggestion that CCP were planing two different player councils (CSM and an "ombudsman") within 2007.
Sure they scrapped the initial concept after having created Internal Affairs but it should be rather obvious by reading these two sources how the events transpired back then. Additionally I am incapable of finding any sources for the suggestion that CCP were planing two different player councils (CSM and an "ombudsman") within 2007.
Actually the sequence of events was they created Internal Affairs after the initial T20 scandal, but then there was another round of accusations. Internal Affairs claimed CCP innocent of all wrong doing (as they always have done), but talk to some of the players directly involved or in the know about the accusations plus do a bit of digging and you will find that at least one of the accusations was true. CCP just took the stance of "Never admit anything ever again and deny everything", since what finally burned them in the T20 scandal was T20 admitting guilt. Up until then, the rabid fanboys were unwilling to believe anything since they seemed to operate under the warped logic fhat if CCP had not admitted wrongdoing and denied the accusations then there could not have been any wrongdoing.
Except people were not just accepting Internal Affairs since it was like asking the accused in a court of law to investigate themselves. Of course they would find themselves "not guilty". They have every vested interest to find themselves not guilty. Hence the idea of an elected player council to give the supposed transparency.
You will not find any source for any suggestion for 2 councils because there aren't any. That is a complete fiction the CCP fanboys here in this thread seem to be clinging to to avoid having to admit that CCP could either have lied or failed to follow through on the promise and idea of oversight. It is the same "logic" exercised earlier: that if CCP doesn't explicitly say they are the same thing with the same name, then they must not be the same. CCP is not God. CCP doesn't have to say something for it to be true. CCP has been either willfully deceitful or incompetent in the past already with their initial denial of the T20 scandal, only to later admit guilt.
What happened was as was stated earlier: The NY Times marketing article. Then followed a few months of little action...only then when the CSM is announced there is no mention of audit or oversight, and CCP then never mentions it again since they think the cheating issue has been forgotten. Except for that, and the name, everything else is identical. There has never for one moment been a proposal of any separate council or group of players being flown over.
Do you realize that you keep going back in time to support a point no one is challenging?
Did earlier events lead to the statement in the NYTimes? Yes.
Did CCP decide to go with that idea? No.
Did they decide to use the council idea in another fashion? Yes.
Has the existing council remained unchanged in its purpose ever since it was presented? Yes.
Even the devblog that Jowen links to reinforces that when CCP sat down to actually make the CSM idea a reality in 2007, the purpose was a council to support player feedback and input to CCP - the same purpose and function that it serves to this day.
There's no great conspiracy here and your claim that the CSM "has mutated to fit whatever PR aspect CCP needs, such as the appearance of listening to players" is completely false.
toxic, you're upset about an event that happened five years ago. We get it. No one is trying to take that away from you. However you're letting anger from a half a decade ago warp your perception of what has actually transpired.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
Just because they want to talk to CSM in person and offer them more insight into development and company processes does not mean they are supposed to be some sort of audit committee as you imply. This implication is simply wrong and baseless.
CSM was meant as another feedback channel - no more, no less. And until recently it was filling this purpose.
toxicmango is entirely correct, as anybody who were present during the "T20 scandal" should know.
The CSM (even before it got that name) was originally announced as a player organ that should bring more credibility to CCP by getting insight in the dealings within the company. That the CSM only partially ended up fulfilling this role in its actual implementation is a different matter.
It sucks that neither you or toxicmango can back up your claims though...apart from "everybody should know"....
Interesting how the CCP fanboy or puppet conveniently overlooks the quotes by CCP personnel in that article and anything else that might show CCP in a negative light, highlighted below:
“A government can’t just keep saying, ‘We are not corrupt.’ No one will believe them. Instead you have to create transparency and robust institutions and oversight in order to maintain the confidence of the population.”
“I envision this council being made up of nine members selected by the players themselves, where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, and they can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis,” said Mr. Petursson, CCP’s chief executive. “They can see that we did not make this game to win it.”
Clearly there is no need to mention such things as oversight or looking into every nook and cranny if the elected player group (i.e. CSM) were not going to be marketed as being able to do such. It is telling also the need to make the statement of people not believing an accused government of saying "We are not corrupt", perfectly highlighting the situation in the wake of the t20 scandal: CCP's own internal affairs lacking credibility. Again such statements would not be needed if again the point was not to market the CSM as a group that WOULD give accountability and transparency and oversight.
Petrusson is saying how transparency and confidence is maintained in real life example. That does not imply any specifics, only method.
Internal Affairs represents an oversight, CSM on the other hand provide better transparency.
You falsely assume that one has to be also another.
You just catch a few words and give them credit and meaning to suit your case.
There's nothing being overlooked here. Hilmar had an idea for the council based on events at the time. That direction was scrapped but, since the player council idea was a sound one, they repurposed the idea. From the first CSM to the present one, the purpose has remained rather unchanged.
No one is arguing that one person at CCP didn't talk about an IA council one time. However, that has nothing to do with the CSM that was actually designed and created, and your claim that the CSM "has mutated to fit whatever PR aspect CCP needs, such as the appearance of listening to players" is also false, as the purpose and functionality of the CSM has remained relatively unchanged since its announcement and inception over four years ago.
Those are the facts, toxicmango, and no matter how many times you link to that single five year old article on a completely unrelated concept, it does not alter the fact that the purpose of the CSM has remained unchanged ever since it was officially announced.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Given the attrocious expansions for EVE in PI / Monocle, the fact that CCP put out Crucible is a giant credit to everyone at CSM6.
I voted for Trebor last time but this year, it is 'The Mittani'; One EVE. One Vote, One Chairman.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Whatever council Hilmar was talking about in the New York Times article is, most likely, the same as the CSM announced by CCP Xhagen a little later same year in the first dev blog about the CSM.
Sure they scrapped the initial concept after having created Internal Affairs but it should be rather obvious by reading these two sources how the events transpired back then. Additionally I am incapable of finding any sources for the suggestion that CCP were planing two different player councils (CSM and an "ombudsman") within 2007.
Actually the sequence of events was they created Internal Affairs after the initial T20 scandal, but then there was another round of accusations. Internal Affairs claimed CCP innocent of all wrong doing (as they always have done), but talk to some of the players directly involved or in the know about the accusations plus do a bit of digging and you will find that at least one of the accusations was true. CCP just took the stance of "Never admit anything ever again and deny everything", since what finally burned them in the T20 scandal was T20 admitting guilt. Up until then, the rabid fanboys were unwilling to believe anything since they seemed to operate under the warped logic fhat if CCP had not admitted wrongdoing and denied the accusations then there could not have been any wrongdoing.
Except people were not just accepting Internal Affairs since it was like asking the accused in a court of law to investigate themselves. Of course they would find themselves "not guilty". They have every vested interest to find themselves not guilty. Hence the idea of an elected player council to give the supposed transparency.
You will not find any source for any suggestion for 2 councils because there aren't any. That is a complete fiction the CCP fanboys here in this thread seem to be clinging to to avoid having to admit that CCP could either have lied or failed to follow through on the promise and idea of oversight. It is the same "logic" exercised earlier: that if CCP doesn't explicitly say they are the same thing with the same name, then they must not be the same. CCP is not God. CCP doesn't have to say something for it to be true. CCP has been either willfully deceitful or incompetent in the past already with their initial denial of the T20 scandal, only to later admit guilt.
What happened was as was stated earlier: The NY Times marketing article. Then followed a few months of little action...only then when the CSM is announced there is no mention of audit or oversight, and CCP then never mentions it again since they think the cheating issue has been forgotten. Except for that, and the name, everything else is identical. There has never for one moment been a proposal of any separate council or group of players being flown over.
Do you realize that you keep going back in time to support a point no one is challenging?
Did earlier events lead to the statement in the NYTimes? Yes.
Did CCP decide to go with that idea? No.
Did they decide to use the council idea in another fashion? Yes.
Has the existing council remained unchanged in its purpose ever since it was presented? Yes.
Even the devblog that Jowen links to reinforces that when CCP sat down to actually make the CSM idea a reality in 2007, the purpose was a council to support player feedback and input to CCP - the same purpose and function that it serves to this day.
There's no great conspiracy here and your claim that the CSM "has mutated to fit whatever PR aspect CCP needs, such as the appearance of listening to players" is completely false.
toxic, you're upset about an event that happened five years ago. We get it. No one is trying to take that away from you. However you're letting anger from a half a decade ago warp your perception of what has actually transpired.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre