CSM Meeting Minutes 3.009 raw log

[ 2009.10.18 16:04:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > ****** meeting started :D
[ 2009.10.18 16:04:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > first, grats to zastrow for passing the bar
[ 2009.10.18 16:04:41 ] Omber Zombie > hooray, you are certified evil now
[ 2009.10.18 16:04:48 ] mazzilliu > voting yes on grats to zastrow
[ 2009.10.18 16:05:06 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes yes to gratz as well
[ 2009.10.18 16:05:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok, meissa told me he was sick and most likely wouldnt make the meeting
[ 2009.10.18 16:05:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc is MIA
[ 2009.10.18 16:05:40 ] Zastrow J > :) M:) :)
[ 2009.10.18 16:05:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > our next CCP/CSM meeting is november 14th, how many meetings do you guys wish to have between now and then?
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:05 ] Omber Zombie > we need to have issues sent to ccp by oct 30
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > our issue submission deadline to ccp is nov 1st
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:09 ] mazzilliu > 2 would probably be reasonable
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:13 ] mazzilliu > oh
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > 30th?
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:22 ] Omber Zombie > whatever is 2 weeks before
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > thb I think we can send them on the 1st
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:30 ] Omber Zombie > kk
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > meaning we could squeeze in 2 additional meetings
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:36 ] Erik Finnegan > 1st is Sunday anyway
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > on the 25th, and the 1st
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > if you guys feel this is desired
[ 2009.10.18 16:06:51 ] mazzilliu > sounds good DV
[ 2009.10.18 16:07:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok, next meeting will be on the 25th, and after that on the 1st
[ 2009.10.18 16:07:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > now, on to the agenda!
[ 2009.10.18 16:07:18 ] Erik Finnegan > second
[ 2009.10.18 16:07:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1: Scan timer (DV & mazz)
[ 2009.10.18 16:07:23 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:07:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/w/index.php?title=Scanner_change_has_created_an_imbalance
[ 2009.10.18 16:07:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > the scan timer delay has caused lots of rabble rabble
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > while we know ccp wont just revert the change, we're hoping it can be adjusted to alleviate some of the problems it has caused
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > this issue lists a few possible solutions.
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik?
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:15 ] Erik Finnegan > I have AOB
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:19 ] Erik Finnegan > make it in the end :)
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > questions/comments on agenda issue 1?
[ 2009.10.18 16:08:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > (and thanks to maz for making most of the wiki issue)
[ 2009.10.18 16:09:00 ] Erik Finnegan > ! :-}
[ 2009.10.18 16:09:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.10.18 16:09:07 ] mazzilliu > yw yw
[ 2009.10.18 16:09:21 ] Erik Finnegan > The suggested "fixes" are a good indication to CCP. I like it.
[ 2009.10.18 16:09:32 ] Erik Finnegan > But they already did reduce the time, did they now ?
[ 2009.10.18 16:09:34 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.10.18 16:09:44 ] Erik Finnegan > *not
[ 2009.10.18 16:10:05 ] Zastrow J > didn't we talk about this issue in iceland
[ 2009.10.18 16:10:07 ] Erik Finnegan > ( from 2 to 1.3 secs ? )
[ 2009.10.18 16:10:23 ] Erik Finnegan > I guess, the perceived imbalance is still too big.
[ 2009.10.18 16:10:34 ] Issler Dainze > /emote would check her Iceland minutes but wait... don't have them yet :-(
[ 2009.10.18 16:10:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > it has been lowered a bit but still, the issue exists
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:03 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll adjust the wiki to reflect the new change tho
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ?
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:24 ] Omber Zombie > the timer was lowered, but it's still possible to get around being scanned down in the lower timelimit (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > any other comments?
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > if not, I think we can vote!
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:53 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:11:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > oh issler
[ 2009.10.18 16:12:12 ] Issler Dainze > I don't support the local delay but would support the other suggestions
[ 2009.10.18 16:12:14 ] Issler Dainze > end
[ 2009.10.18 16:12:21 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:12:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > they are possible suggestions, they dont all need to be implemented.
[ 2009.10.18 16:12:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz?
[ 2009.10.18 16:12:53 ] Omber Zombie > i tink this is more of a "there is an issue here, we know you have a problem with insta-scanning, but it needs a workaround" (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:13:15 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:13:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.10.18 16:13:45 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:13:51 ] mazzilliu > from what i understand, a lot of their problem is arising from macros mashing the scan button.  not necessarily regular player use
[ 2009.10.18 16:13:53 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.10.18 16:14:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk
[ 2009.10.18 16:14:33 ] Vuk Lau > [16:12:09] Issler Dainze > I don't support the local delay but would support the other suggestions - this END
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think that is unlikely to happen since I think the channel system doesnt support that functionality at this time - and we all know how eager CCP is mess with the channels...
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok I think we can vote
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:30 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:35 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:36 ] Omber Zombie > /emote yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:40 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:42 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes yes except for the suggestion to add a delay to local
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:47 ] Zastrow J > ok sure
[ 2009.10.18 16:15:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.10.18 16:16:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2: CSM information release (mazz)
[ 2009.10.18 16:16:04 ] Omber Zombie > heres brian
[ 2009.10.18 16:16:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/CSM_information_release
[ 2009.10.18 16:16:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > hi avalloc :)
[ 2009.10.18 16:16:25 ] Avalloc > Mark was late.
[ 2009.10.18 16:16:43 ] mazzilliu > ok this issue is basically about increasing the communication between csm and players
[ 2009.10.18 16:16:57 ] mazzilliu > the stuff that happens in CSM only meetings, such as THESE, theres nothing secret going on
[ 2009.10.18 16:17:03 ] mazzilliu > so we should open it up a bit more
[ 2009.10.18 16:17:19 ] mazzilliu > like being able to divulge the results of voting in real time such as in the csm public channel
[ 2009.10.18 16:17:36 ] mazzilliu > this does not apply to csm+ccp meetings, or divulging anything that gets striken from the records
[ 2009.10.18 16:17:39 ] mazzilliu > so questions?
[ 2009.10.18 16:17:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:18:09 ] mazzilliu > DV
[ 2009.10.18 16:18:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think making vote results public isnt a problem - but we shouldnt elaborate on who voted what or why until the minutes are released
[ 2009.10.18 16:18:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > to avoid people's words being twisted/misinterpreted/etc.
[ 2009.10.18 16:18:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.10.18 16:18:42 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:18:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz
[ 2009.10.18 16:18:55 ] Omber Zombie > no problems with talking about results after a vote, but not during discussion (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:20:17 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:20:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:20:35 ] mazzilliu > oh sorry for taking a while
[ 2009.10.18 16:20:42 ] mazzilliu > erik go
[ 2009.10.18 16:21:16 ] Erik Finnegan > These meetings are not per se NDA covered, are they. NDA is related to IP of CCP. So, while we might be discussing such in here, it is still up to every single one of us to know and judge, which information can be "released".
[ 2009.10.18 16:21:42 ] Erik Finnegan > As a result I would also say that vote results are fine to be given out.
[ 2009.10.18 16:21:45 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:22:00 ] Vuk Lau > everything discussed here should be considered covered by NDA
[ 2009.10.18 16:22:00 ] Erik Finnegan > But use proper judgement also to CSM internal discussion [FIN]
[ 2009.10.18 16:22:34 ] mazzilliu > sorry, DV can you call out the questions on this one?
[ 2009.10.18 16:22:39 ] mazzilliu > im handling a fair number of things right now
[ 2009.10.18 16:22:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok maz
[ 2009.10.18 16:22:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > dv go
[ 2009.10.18 16:23:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > I just wanted to mention I agree with OZ'z statement about only after votes happen
[ 2009.10.18 16:23:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz go
[ 2009.10.18 16:23:49 ] Omber Zombie > CCP has deemed our meetings to be under NDA until minutes are released (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:24:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:24:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > dv go
[ 2009.10.18 16:25:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > considering ccp doesnt check the regular CSM meeting minutes, I think it would be fair to discluse vote results - but only after a vote happens, and not to disclose individual member's how/why of votes. end
[ 2009.10.18 16:25:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > diclose*
[ 2009.10.18 16:25:45 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:25:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > disclose*
[ 2009.10.18 16:25:48 ] Erik Finnegan > ( I found a provision in the CSM documentation that the minutes of a meeting are supposed to be published three days after it happened. :-} )
[ 2009.10.18 16:25:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk
[ 2009.10.18 16:25:55 ] Vuk Lau > i agree with DV
[ 2009.10.18 16:26:01 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.10.18 16:26:03 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:26:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.10.18 16:26:49 ] Omber Zombie > (CCP do read the logs btw)
[ 2009.10.18 16:27:24 ] mazzilliu > ok, i was talking with another CSM in another chat and apparently in the past CSM's there WERE secret stuffs discussed, leading to this rule.  i think that in that case, im going to change this proposal to only include allowing the vote results to be di
[ 2009.10.18 16:27:29 ] mazzilliu > disclosed immediately
[ 2009.10.18 16:27:44 ] mazzilliu > so there is no grey area, it is easily understood what can be released
[ 2009.10.18 16:27:53 ] mazzilliu > and the vote results is the biggest thing spectators care about anyways
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:16 ] Erik Finnegan > sounds good
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:21 ] mazzilliu > so when we vote lets vote with that alteration in mind.  it makes the proposal much simpler too
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:22 ] Omber Zombie > ^^
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:26 ] mazzilliu > END
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:41 ] Zastrow J > voting yes transparency ahoy
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:50 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:54 ] mazzilliu > (so to be clear, no chatlogs to be released immediately, but release pass/fail and who voted for what immediately
[ 2009.10.18 16:28:55 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes yes to voting results released immediately after
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:00 ] mazzilliu > )
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:05 ] mazzilliu > yes to voting results as well
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:21 ] Omber Zombie > /emote is happy with that
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:23 ] Avalloc > votes yes to results, not who voted what being released
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:43 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:44 ] mazzilliu > yeah, the altered proposal will disallow releasing anything but vote statistics
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:50 ] mazzilliu > it can also revive the csm public channel :)
[ 2009.10.18 16:29:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed: 7/0
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > (you can publish that ;) )
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:15 ] Zastrow J > i didnt even know we had a public channel
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:19 ] Erik Finnegan > ^^
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Scan angle buttons (dv)
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:22 ] Avalloc > (am I not counted?)
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > oops, 8/0
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_scan_angle_buttons_to_scanner_window
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:34 ] Zastrow J > lol
[ 2009.10.18 16:30:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > basically..
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > in addition to, or in place of, the directional scanner slider, The People have requested buttons
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:19 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > as the slider can be a fickle, temperamental mistress.
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:28 ] Omber Zombie > why not just use a text entry box?
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:31 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:38 ] Erik Finnegan > ( text is not pretty )
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > text entry is even slower than a slider I think
[ 2009.10.18 16:31:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > while buttons are fast (and furious)
[ 2009.10.18 16:32:22 ] Erik Finnegan > ! sounds good to me [FIN]
[ 2009.10.18 16:32:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > this issue is also due to the fact that the slider is sort of on scale
[ 2009.10.18 16:32:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > so the gap between 360-180 is huge
[ 2009.10.18 16:32:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > and the gap between 5-15-30 is tiny
[ 2009.10.18 16:33:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > any other questions/comments?
[ 2009.10.18 16:33:57 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:33:59 ] Omber Zombie > /emote says vote
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:00 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes yes to suggesting CCP improve the scanner angle UI
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok vote
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:06 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:09 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:23 ] Zastrow J > ok sure
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:25 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:26 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also vote yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: Character lock no resale possible (mazz)
[ 2009.10.18 16:34:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Character_lock_no_resale_possible
[ 2009.10.18 16:35:24 ] mazzilliu > ok this issue is about temporarily locking an account if a suspicious event has occured
[ 2009.10.18 16:36:14 ] mazzilliu > more info about information about suspicious events being differentiated from regular events is something ccp research dept will have to come up with, what i wrote there is just suggestions
[ 2009.10.18 16:36:31 ] mazzilliu > but the lock should basically prevent a player from trashing his own account
[ 2009.10.18 16:36:35 ] mazzilliu > deleting or selling his character
[ 2009.10.18 16:36:43 ] mazzilliu > etc
[ 2009.10.18 16:36:48 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:37:22 ] mazzilliu > i know account security is people's own responsibility, but there are so many traps out there and people that fall for them, more safeguards are needed to prevent too much headache on the part of ccp and players who's corp hangars get
[ 2009.10.18 16:37:24 ] mazzilliu > emptied by this shit
[ 2009.10.18 16:37:29 ] mazzilliu > avalloc go
[ 2009.10.18 16:38:03 ] Avalloc > giving players ability to add an additional password to account for transfer/deletion verifications would make sense.. but all stuff you're suggestng is overkill
[ 2009.10.18 16:38:39 ] mazzilliu > theres a lot of suggestions in there but i dont think its overkill in the sense that it would negatively impact accessibility in the name of security
[ 2009.10.18 16:38:45 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:38:50 ] Avalloc > give players ability to have a random generation passkey like paypal and wow would be better yet
[ 2009.10.18 16:38:52 ] Avalloc > (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:39:05 ] mazzilliu > yeah avalloc i suggested the passkey thing on the first iceland trip
[ 2009.10.18 16:39:07 ] mazzilliu > issler go
[ 2009.10.18 16:39:24 ] Issler Dainze > I agree with Av, something like some basic "security" questions would work as well and be less likely to go wrong.
[ 2009.10.18 16:39:27 ] Issler Dainze > end
[ 2009.10.18 16:39:29 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:39:45 ] mazzilliu > security question is an extremely poor method of validating someone
[ 2009.10.18 16:39:56 ] mazzilliu > because they are usually questions the person would answer atraight up if you asked them
[ 2009.10.18 16:40:04 ] mazzilliu > "what city were you born in?  what was your first pet's name?"
[ 2009.10.18 16:40:13 ] mazzilliu > erik go
[ 2009.10.18 16:40:37 ] Erik Finnegan > We had an account sec issue in Iceland. Mazz, you just mentioned it. Why do we need yet another issue ?! It does not give addtional benefit on top of what CCP will already do for more security. [FIN]
[ 2009.10.18 16:40:38 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:40:56 ] mazzilliu > erik- this addresses different aspects of account security
[ 2009.10.18 16:41:13 ] mazzilliu > more specifically, safeguards to deal with what happens AFTER an account is compromised
[ 2009.10.18 16:41:17 ] mazzilliu > avalloc go
[ 2009.10.18 16:41:47 ] Avalloc > we and ccp can't protect players from everyone... if you don't secure your computer and practice smart virus protection it is the risk you take.. I don't want my account being...
[ 2009.10.18 16:42:00 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:42:15 ] Avalloc > lock while I'm accessing from friend's house, or out of town, or while at Fanfest
[ 2009.10.18 16:42:25 ] Avalloc > this isn't a credit card
[ 2009.10.18 16:42:36 ] Avalloc > it is an internet spaceship game ;)
[ 2009.10.18 16:42:39 ] Avalloc > (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:42:47 ] mazzilliu > the lock i'm suggesting isn't like a ban.  i really doubt you will be trying to sell your character or trash your entire hangar while at fanfest
[ 2009.10.18 16:42:56 ] mazzilliu > thats the sort of stuff the lock is intended to prevent
[ 2009.10.18 16:43:18 ] mazzilliu > if someone is logging in from their own computer they've been logging in for a while from, then if they trash a lot of stuff it's probably them doing it
[ 2009.10.18 16:43:35 ] mazzilliu > but if they log in from a brand new ip address, then try to delete their character, well thats pretty suspicious
[ 2009.10.18 16:43:55 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:44:04 ] mazzilliu > OZ go
[ 2009.10.18 16:44:17 ] Omber Zombie > just out of curiosity, how often do people have their email accounts hacked? a simple change of having to verify a password change/character deletion by email/COSMOS should stop most of these problems (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:44:26 ] mazzilliu > OZ it is extremely easy
[ 2009.10.18 16:44:35 ] mazzilliu > i cant really get into more detail then that
[ 2009.10.18 16:44:42 ] mazzilliu > erik go
[ 2009.10.18 16:44:59 ] Erik Finnegan > How often do such cases occur, really ? And how much dev effort do we want CCP to put into this ? We had an account sec push. Deleted accounts can also be restituted through petition maybe ? That would do for rare cases IMHO. [FIN]
[ 2009.10.18 16:45:39 ] mazzilliu > those sort of questions are ones CCP are going to have to figure out if they receive this issue.  there is really nothing that i can say about this, except i know that hacked accounts take up a shitload of GM time
[ 2009.10.18 16:45:49 ] mazzilliu > and each hacked account case takes up a lot more time then any regular case for a GM
[ 2009.10.18 16:46:16 ] mazzilliu > so im thinking, without any solid numbers, that this is a relatively big deal for them and it would be worth bouncing the issue off them to see what they think
[ 2009.10.18 16:46:32 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:46:38 ] mazzilliu > OZ go
[ 2009.10.18 16:47:01 ] Omber Zombie > haked accounts area  big deal, but how many of them involve an email account being hijacked? that's really my point- a simple email verifcation for things would stop most of this
[ 2009.10.18 16:47:05 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.10.18 16:47:45 ] mazzilliu > OZ thats not the sort of information that gets released, i dont know any better then you do.  but i know for a fact that a shitload of email accounts are compromised and its pretty easy to harvest passwords for them en masse
[ 2009.10.18 16:48:26 ] mazzilliu > but if you can steal an email account password
[ 2009.10.18 16:48:45 ] mazzilliu > you can find out if there is an eve account attached(check old mails for eve newsletters!) and then request a password reset
[ 2009.10.18 16:49:00 ] mazzilliu > one email password -> one eve account falling into your lap
[ 2009.10.18 16:49:14 ] mazzilliu > uhm, any more questions?
[ 2009.10.18 16:50:21 ] mazzilliu > i guess not.  lets vote
[ 2009.10.18 16:50:24 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:50:40 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes no proposal is overkill and could increase GM workload if it is implemented incorrectly
[ 2009.10.18 16:51:33 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes no ( let's wait what comes out of the first acc sec issue )
[ 2009.10.18 16:51:34 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:51:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > both sides have good points...
[ 2009.10.18 16:51:48 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:51:58 ] Omber Zombie > what erik said - no vote
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:02 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:33 ] Vuk Lau > WE WON!!!
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 5/3
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:37 ] Vuk Lau > :D
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:39 ] Avalloc > (while we already pushed something through ccp needs to know we wat more security)
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:52 ] Zastrow J > we almost had a bit of controversy there
[ 2009.10.18 16:53:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > 5: Redesign SB and ECCM effects (dv)
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Redesign_sensor_booster_and_ECCM_effects
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > quite simple, make the sensor booster and ECCM effects not suck
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:17 ] Zastrow J > its like deja vu all over again
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:25 ] Omber Zombie > ^^
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > I know, the old SB design was brought up as annoying
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > and so ccp changed it into another annoying effect
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > design fail!
[ 2009.10.18 16:54:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > although imo the eccm effect is even worse
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > no questions comments?
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok, vote
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:05 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:26 ] Omber Zombie > y
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:29 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:43 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:47 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.10.18 16:56:51 ] Zastrow J > yep
[ 2009.10.18 16:57:05 ] Avalloc > yes (redundant)
[ 2009.10.18 16:57:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.10.18 16:57:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > 6: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Critique_the_alliance_tournament (mazz)
[ 2009.10.18 16:57:41 ] mazzilliu > this is just a list of suggestiong to improve the alliance tournament next time around
[ 2009.10.18 16:57:55 ] mazzilliu > compiled from the assembly hall thread
[ 2009.10.18 16:57:58 ] mazzilliu > questions?
[ 2009.10.18 16:58:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:58:13 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.10.18 16:58:32 ] mazzilliu > DV go
[ 2009.10.18 16:59:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > "Next time around, players should be given the option to concede ... a lone unkillable frigate running around stops being funny after the first few times. " how many teams would do this and not just keep running to 'stick it to' the other team?
[ 2009.10.18 16:59:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > vigil hero issue, etc
[ 2009.10.18 16:59:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > also, cant you warp out already and keep your ship?
[ 2009.10.18 16:59:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.10.18 16:59:28 ] mazzilliu > you can warp out and LOSE your ship
[ 2009.10.18 16:59:58 ] mazzilliu > i dont know how many teams would concede, but right now the lone vigil has the choice of dying NOW or stalling till the end of the match and keeping their ship
[ 2009.10.18 17:00:20 ] mazzilliu > so they are always going to stall
[ 2009.10.18 17:01:03 ] mazzilliu > issler go
[ 2009.10.18 17:01:12 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:01:17 ] Issler Dainze > Please never again on a major holiday for any country! (end)
[ 2009.10.18 17:01:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:02:24 ] mazzilliu > i thought the point of it was to happen on a major holiday or something
[ 2009.10.18 17:02:28 ] mazzilliu > erik go
[ 2009.10.18 17:03:08 ] Erik Finnegan > I think that the bunch of suggestions does make sense, while I might not agree with all of them. A particular thing I do like is to add orientation help ! Either by structure, or - mazz you might want to add that -
[ 2009.10.18 17:03:12 ] Erik Finnegan > by a policy for the camera men to keep a "visual axis" or something (like a football game is always filmed from the same stadium side.)
[ 2009.10.18 17:03:15 ] Erik Finnegan > [FIN]
[ 2009.10.18 17:03:46 ] mazzilliu > yeah i had orientation suggestions there
[ 2009.10.18 17:03:58 ] mazzilliu > you mean turning on the tactical overview for the camera ship?
[ 2009.10.18 17:04:49 ] mazzilliu > er
[ 2009.10.18 17:04:50 ] mazzilliu > Dv go
[ 2009.10.18 17:04:53 ] Erik Finnegan > Well, it would be hard for the camera men to do for themselves would lack orientation probably. But the camera drones of the observers should always point to the same side of space.
[ 2009.10.18 17:05:24 ] Erik Finnegan > ( tactical overview kills prettiness )
[ 2009.10.18 17:05:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > to issler, having to take the holidays of all countries into account is quite silly. The only thing this really interfered with was the CSM visit (although it did mean we got to see the matches live!).
[ 2009.10.18 17:05:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > as for maz
[ 2009.10.18 17:05:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > you suggest adding ads to the tournament, would this include player made ads (something that used to happen)
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > or just real world ads
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:16 ] mazzilliu > i dont know, i guess thats for the AT8 staff to figure out
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:19 ] Zastrow J > afk uno momento, gotta poop
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:20 ] Erik Finnegan > ( I'm fine with RL adds ;) )
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:25 ] mazzilliu > i was thinking stuff like dish soap ads or something like that
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:34 ] mazzilliu > you know, real ads that make actual money
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:48 ] Vuk Lau > i am against it
[ 2009.10.18 17:06:52 ] mazzilliu > i guess player ads too, the ISK can be thrown into the pot for prize money :)
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:01 ] mazzilliu > but a lot of time was spent during AT7 showing that waving red flag
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:03 ] Vuk Lau > i am for player game related adds
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:09 ] mazzilliu > its really a lot of wasted time
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:14 ] Issler Dainze > I also love player ads
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:23 ] mazzilliu > i didnt think of player ads at the time of writing
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:33 ] mazzilliu > ill tack it on to the end of the thing since that's a good idea
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:07:50 ] mazzilliu > DV go
[ 2009.10.18 17:08:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > "there are a lot of complaints about the AT7 entry process for alliances. "
[ 2009.10.18 17:08:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > are there any solutions too?
[ 2009.10.18 17:08:21 ] mazzilliu > no
[ 2009.10.18 17:08:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > since it is listed under 'solution'.
[ 2009.10.18 17:08:37 ] mazzilliu > none were really given.  but there was complaint about the fact you could sell your spot
[ 2009.10.18 17:08:50 ] mazzilliu > and the fact that ccp claw changed the rules a week before it ended or something like that
[ 2009.10.18 17:09:03 ] Omber Zombie > i have no issue with selling slots
[ 2009.10.18 17:09:18 ] mazzilliu > yeah me neither, but there was a lot of complaining about it.  thats why i included it
[ 2009.10.18 17:09:33 ] mazzilliu > its really hard to find a fair way to give 64 slots to a greater then 64 number of alliances that want the slots
[ 2009.10.18 17:09:52 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:10:00 ] mazzilliu > OZ go
[ 2009.10.18 17:10:18 ] Omber Zombie > reserve the top 64 slots for the 64 largest alliances - they get first option on them, then as they don't won't them, move down the list
[ 2009.10.18 17:10:21 ] Omber Zombie > (end)
[ 2009.10.18 17:10:58 ] mazzilliu > thats pretty unfair to smaller pvp outfits
[ 2009.10.18 17:11:04 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:11:14 ] mazzilliu > some of the best contendors were small alliances
[ 2009.10.18 17:11:17 ] mazzilliu > OZ go again
[ 2009.10.18 17:11:22 ] Omber Zombie > not really, smaller pvp outfits can offer to buy the slots from larger entities (end)
[ 2009.10.18 17:11:31 ] Omber Zombie > actually
[ 2009.10.18 17:11:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > sorry, router crash
[ 2009.10.18 17:11:54 ] Omber Zombie > can also include the top 10 from the previous tournament as autoplaceholders too (end)
[ 2009.10.18 17:12:05 ] Omber Zombie > (top whatever)
[ 2009.10.18 17:12:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > as I was saying, I think the actual complaints or bad parts of the current sign up system could be explained a bit further
[ 2009.10.18 17:12:34 ] mazzilliu > uhh i dont know, all this entry rules suggestions is kind of a can of worms i didnt want to open
[ 2009.10.18 17:12:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.10.18 17:12:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > dont suggest solutions then, just explain in a bit more detail what was bad
[ 2009.10.18 17:12:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.10.18 17:13:31 ] mazzilliu > ok
[ 2009.10.18 17:13:34 ] mazzilliu > anyone else?
[ 2009.10.18 17:14:42 ] mazzilliu > ok, lets vote
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:06 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:07 ] Zastrow J > ok
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:09 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:11 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:12 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > si
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:21 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:28 ] mazzilliu > btw, diedra, i posted about raising the forum profanity issue and i dont see it on the agenda.  can you maybe stick it on at the end or something?
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > I couldnt find your wiki issue about that
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:54 ] mazzilliu > ahaha
[ 2009.10.18 17:15:56 ] mazzilliu > it got censored
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:00 ] mazzilliu > the **** is fuck
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > even when I replaced that it wouldnt work
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:12 ] mazzilliu > oh shit its gone
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:15 ] mazzilliu > wtffff
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Forums_need_to_harden_the_fuck_up see
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:19 ] Vuk Lau > ROFLMAO
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:20 ] mazzilliu > ill just bring it up next meeting
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway CCP did say the new forums would have an optional filter
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:53 ] mazzilliu > wait
[ 2009.10.18 17:16:54 ] mazzilliu > i found it
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > also, motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:05 ] mazzilliu > they renamed it >_>  http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Forum_option_to_toggle_profanity_filter
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8/0 assuming maz votes yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok we'll do that one at the end :)
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:23 ] mazzilliu > yeah id vote yes on my own issue up there
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > 7: Faction, deadspace and officer icons (dv)
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_faction%2C_deadspace_and_officer_icons
[ 2009.10.18 17:17:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > simple, add little icons for faction, deadpsace and officer mods as you have them for T2 and T3 items
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > questions?
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:25 ] Omber Zombie > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok vote
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:33 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:33 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:37 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:42 ] mazzilliu > ye
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:43 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:43 ] mazzilliu > s
[ 2009.10.18 17:18:47 ] Avalloc > yessssss
[ 2009.10.18 17:19:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.10.18 17:19:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Contract_improvements (mazz)
[ 2009.10.18 17:19:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Contract_improvements
[ 2009.10.18 17:19:38 ] mazzilliu > ok this is just a list of stuff that's flat out broken with contracts
[ 2009.10.18 17:19:49 ] mazzilliu > usability issues, etc
[ 2009.10.18 17:19:52 ] mazzilliu > any questions?
[ 2009.10.18 17:20:16 ] Zastrow J > voted yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:20:36 ] mazzilliu > ok lets vote
[ 2009.10.18 17:20:37 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:20:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > si
[ 2009.10.18 17:21:01 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:21:02 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:21:03 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:21:08 ] Omber Zombie > yes (since most of it is in the industry feedback thing anyway)
[ 2009.10.18 17:21:19 ] Erik Finnegan > yes ( Hmmm, should we not at least make the effort and officially reraise issues that are bundled up in there and already were passed )
[ 2009.10.18 17:21:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed  8/0
[ 2009.10.18 17:22:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9: Replace agent avatar with corp logo (dv)
[ 2009.10.18 17:22:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Replace_agent_avatar_with_corporate_logo_in_standings_list
[ 2009.10.18 17:22:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > this is about the avatar shows in your standings list on your character sheet
[ 2009.10.18 17:22:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > currently it is: [avatar] Sihsad Aphuka 10.00 (Superb)
[ 2009.10.18 17:22:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > this issue proposes to change that to [Carthum Conglomerate logo] Sihsad Aphuka L4 Q18 10.00 (Superb)
[ 2009.10.18 17:23:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > to give you more useful information, and reduce UI lag.
[ 2009.10.18 17:23:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > (as currently, all individual agent avatars are loaded when you scroll through the list)
[ 2009.10.18 17:23:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > questions?
[ 2009.10.18 17:23:54 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:23:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > oz
[ 2009.10.18 17:24:18 ] Omber Zombie > i'm pretty sure you can't change the avatar as agents are effectively 'characters' in eve - they use the characters face (end)
[ 2009.10.18 17:24:34 ] Omber Zombie > ccp can deal with that tho (end)
[ 2009.10.18 17:24:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > thats not what this proposes
[ 2009.10.18 17:24:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > instead of displaying their avatar image, this requests to display their corporate logo, and ONLY in the character sheet standings list
[ 2009.10.18 17:25:39 ] Omber Zombie > yes, that was my point - when you set standings to a character, you see their avatar, that window treats agents as characters, not as 'agents'
[ 2009.10.18 17:26:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > its in the liked by tab, not the likes tab
[ 2009.10.18 17:26:12 ] Omber Zombie > (i give up)
[ 2009.10.18 17:26:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > so its their standings to you, and CCP would just change what info is displayed
[ 2009.10.18 17:26:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > they can simply make it so it displays a characters corp logo instead of its avatar
[ 2009.10.18 17:26:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:25 ] Erik Finnegan > I think this is a good suggestion.
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok vote
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:28 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:32 ] Omber Zombie > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:39 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:42 ] Issler Dainze > sure
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:44 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:27:53 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:28:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > tennessee zastrow?
[ 2009.10.18 17:29:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.10.18 17:29:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > 10: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_grantable_titles_just_like_grantable_roles (mazz)
[ 2009.10.18 17:29:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_grantable_titles_just_like_grantable_roles
[ 2009.10.18 17:29:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > bah I screwed up the title there
[ 2009.10.18 17:29:42 ] Zastrow J > my vote on the last one was yes for the record
[ 2009.10.18 17:29:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > (8/0)
[ 2009.10.18 17:29:58 ] mazzilliu > in the corp managment interface you can give people grantable roles
[ 2009.10.18 17:30:07 ] mazzilliu > but for a big pile of reasons doing that sucks and nobody does that
[ 2009.10.18 17:30:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:30:30 ] mazzilliu > in order to give people basic hangar access you pretty much need a full director
[ 2009.10.18 17:30:36 ] mazzilliu > so i want grantable titles
[ 2009.10.18 17:30:38 ] mazzilliu > DV go
[ 2009.10.18 17:30:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > this very issue was included in my by corp management overhaul issue we brought up with ccp. end
[ 2009.10.18 17:31:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Corporation_and_Alliance_tool_overhaul
[ 2009.10.18 17:31:12 ] mazzilliu > oh, well in that case lets record this as a moot issue and move on
[ 2009.10.18 17:31:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.10.18 17:31:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: API improvements (mazz)
[ 2009.10.18 17:31:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Api_improvements
[ 2009.10.18 17:31:46 ] Omber Zombie > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:31:56 ] mazzilliu > this is basically a handful of API complaints my corpmates gave me
[ 2009.10.18 17:32:16 ] mazzilliu > 1. lack of escaping of some characters in user titles
[ 2009.10.18 17:32:20 ] mazzilliu > 2. no contracts api
[ 2009.10.18 17:32:28 ] mazzilliu > 3. no useful detailed api for blueprints
[ 2009.10.18 17:32:38 ] mazzilliu > it asks for those 3 things to be fixed
[ 2009.10.18 17:32:41 ] mazzilliu > OZ go
[ 2009.10.18 17:33:01 ] Omber Zombie > this was partially covered in iceland - basically ccp won't be doing anything with API's until after COSMOS due to server load. Even then, they said they were looking at revamping all contracts. So the fixing things is fine, but asking for those other
[ 2009.10.18 17:33:15 ] Omber Zombie > API's hs already been done and are awaiting server load to reduce (end0
[ 2009.10.18 17:33:30 ] Issler Dainze > /emote would love to see those Iceland minutes someday
[ 2009.10.18 17:33:32 ] Omber Zombie > *contracts = API
[ 2009.10.18 17:33:56 ] mazzilliu > i must have missed that too, i didnt know contracts were going to get overhauled
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:13 ] mazzilliu > maybe you talked about that while i was lost in reyjkavik or something
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:21 ] Vuk Lau > well you could actualy pay attention instead drawing Zastrow :D
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:27 ] mazzilliu > that renders #2 and 3 moot, but #1 is still an easily fixable problem
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:29 ] Vuk Lau > during the meetings
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:32 ] Omber Zombie > API's - there's a list of API's they want to add including the contract one (and the BPO one among others)
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:40 ] mazzilliu > i pay attention while i draw
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:40 ] Omber Zombie > 1 is definately an issue
[ 2009.10.18 17:34:52 ] mazzilliu > :P
[ 2009.10.18 17:35:05 ] mazzilliu > alright, so we're basically just voting on #1
[ 2009.10.18 17:35:22 ] mazzilliu > any other comments?
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:02 ] mazzilliu > ok so lets vote?
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:06 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:06 ] Omber Zombie > /emote says yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:09 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:11 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:11 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:16 ] Avalloc > (i've got to run, voting yes on #1, if includes rest then no vote)
[ 2009.10.18 17:36:54 ] Zastrow J > y
[ 2009.10.18 17:37:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 8/0
[ 2009.10.18 17:37:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > extra: forum profanity filter (maz)
[ 2009.10.18 17:37:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Forum_option_to_toggle_profanity_filter
[ 2009.10.18 17:37:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.10.18 17:38:02 ] Avalloc > (voting yes)
[ 2009.10.18 17:38:08 ] mazzilliu > ok basically its an option for people with forum accounts and a verified age above whatever the legal minimum is to be able to see swear words is, to turn off the profanity filter
[ 2009.10.18 17:38:10 ] mazzilliu > DV go
[ 2009.10.18 17:38:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > is your issue aimed at the current forums or the future new forums?
[ 2009.10.18 17:38:50 ] mazzilliu > i guess that depends how long itll take for the new forums to turn up
[ 2009.10.18 17:38:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > because I already raised this issue for the future forums http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Forum_profanity_filter and this was discussed in iceland and ccp said the new forums would have a toggle.
[ 2009.10.18 17:38:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:03 ] mazzilliu > ffff another one
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:06 ] mazzilliu > ok just render this moot
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:08 ] Omber Zombie > lol
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm an issue ninja
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:21 ] mazzilliu > issue assasin more like
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote throwing stars
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok in that case, I believe erik had an AOB
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > ?
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:46 ] Omber Zombie > anyway - AOB
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:55 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.10.18 17:39:55 ] mazzilliu > what is AOB?
[ 2009.10.18 17:40:02 ] Omber Zombie > any other business
[ 2009.10.18 17:40:10 ] Erik Finnegan > I would like to address the tone in which we post to the forums. Notably, the little derail that happened when mazz diss'ed someone who posted agenda topic suggestions to the "our" thread.
[ 2009.10.18 17:40:15 ] Erik Finnegan > While I am as well impatient with people not reading the fine manuals, I keep that to myself. We must be so happy for everyone being active on the CSM forums that we cannot, we must not risk participation with such brush-offs.
[ 2009.10.18 17:40:30 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.10.18 17:40:41 ] Omber Zombie > (i have an AOB too)
[ 2009.10.18 17:40:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:04 ] Erik Finnegan > Suggestion : please patiently explain the proceedings to everyone
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:13 ] Omber Zombie > DV, you need to make it clear in those  threads that they are for CSM's to post agenda items in
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think it would be good for the CSM if we didnt talk down to the general population - but I dont think we can police how the members post on the forums
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > I will do so in the future, oz
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:44 ] Erik Finnegan > Just a hint, DV
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:48 ] Erik Finnegan > in the OP
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:52 ] Erik Finnegan > that is one thing.
[ 2009.10.18 17:41:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > hmhm
[ 2009.10.18 17:42:06 ] Erik Finnegan > The other is the tone how we answer to those who still not read it.
[ 2009.10.18 17:42:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Bad mazz, bad mazz !
[ 2009.10.18 17:42:25 ] mazzilliu > csm trolling best trolling
[ 2009.10.18 17:42:48 ] Erik Finnegan > We lost.....three ?!
[ 2009.10.18 17:42:59 ] mazzilliu > maybe i trolled them out of the channel
[ 2009.10.18 17:43:09 ] Erik Finnegan > I am sure you are capable of doing so.
[ 2009.10.18 17:43:13 ] mazzilliu > \o/
[ 2009.10.18 17:44:46 ] mazzilliu > assembly hall is a pretty poor measure of public opinion anyways
[ 2009.10.18 17:44:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > gonna kill my router
[ 2009.10.18 17:45:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > did oz introduce his aob yet or are we still on eriks?
[ 2009.10.18 17:45:22 ] Erik Finnegan > OZ go.
[ 2009.10.18 17:45:25 ] Omber Zombie > still on eriks
[ 2009.10.18 17:46:00 ] Omber Zombie > my aob is the feedback stuff - are we going directly to ccp with it, or talking about it in the next csm/cp meeting
[ 2009.10.18 17:46:27 ] Omber Zombie > also, i finished the industry/market thing - you guys just need to look through it and remove anything you don't like
[ 2009.10.18 17:47:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > the feedback, I think if we feel we have 'finished' a feeback submission, post it on the internal forums so people can comment
[ 2009.10.18 17:47:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > then after a few days, send it to ccp
[ 2009.10.18 17:47:14 ] Omber Zombie > kk
[ 2009.10.18 17:47:39 ] Omber Zombie > it's on the shared google docs already, but cool
[ 2009.10.18 17:47:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > right
[ 2009.10.18 17:47:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > just link it on the forums as RFC
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think that wraps up this meeting?
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:05 ] Erik Finnegan > err.....did CCP submit a feedback question
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:07 ] Erik Finnegan > to this meeting ?!
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > this one? no
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:22 ] Vuk Lau > lol
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > their question for the previous csm/ccp meeting was about the general balance priorities
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > which zastrow is looking in to
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > next meeting will be next week, the 25th
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:44 ] Vuk Lau > rgr mylady
[ 2009.10.18 17:48:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > ***** meeting closed