View source for CSM meeting minutes 3.005

[[Category:CSM]][[Category:CSM_Meeting_Minutes]][[Category:CSM_Third_Candidacy]]
<BR/>Meeting Minutes: 2009/07/19
===Present===
[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra Vaal]], [[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]], [[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik Finnegan]], [[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis Trassler]], [[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]], [[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa Anunthiel]], [[Contributor_name:Zastrow J|Zastrow J]], [[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]], [[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler Dainze]]
===Apologies===
[[Contributor_name:Vuk Lau|Vuk Lau]]
=Discussion=
<BR/>
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] said he had received notification that the CSM emails should be working, however the page to access it seems to still be failing.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] confirmed that he had spoken to [[Contributor_name:CCP Diagoras|CCP Diagoras]] who confirmed that despite the frontend being broken, the mail access should work correctly.
<BR/>
----
===[[EVE_account_security_proposal|Account security proposal (maz)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] stated he was fine with optional measures and discussing the issue, despite his belief that less frequent changes with better passwords to be better.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] said the CCP does not have worse account security than other MMOs and she would not support the idea.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]] thought this was still relevant because people lose accounts in stupid ways.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] agreed with the proposal as long as it's optional.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] objected to third party software being installed on his computer, password change reminders and others are not a problem. He said that most compromising happened due to user stupidity that no amount of software will solve.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Zastrow J|Zastrow]] thought it not being a good business policy to make people jump through extra hoops to log in the game.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]] agreed, and said that's why everything mentionned is optional.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] would love a token option. He hoped that one would be able to bind multiple accounts to one lest people who "share accounts" be upset.
<BR/>Mazz answered that people sharing accounts don't have to use the token.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] put his foot in his mouth and made a comment about mandatory password change that was not in the proposal.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] asked if mazz had any data to support the idea it affects a significant number of players.
<BR/>Mazz said she didn't, but CCP issues warning/devblogs every once in a while, so she assumes it's a problem.
<BR/>Voting followed.
<BR/>Motion passed 8 for, 1 against ([[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler Dainze]])
<BR/>
----
===[[Stuff_about_character_transfers_and_problems_caused_by_it|stuff about character transfers and problems caused by it (maz)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] asked wether it isn't already mandatory to publish a forum thread for every character sale.
<BR/>Mazz answered it isn't.
<BR/>DV thought removing all info automatically goes too far and thought asking the user to erase it himself to be better. As well, he prefered this to be optional.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] and [[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] agreed with the optionality.
<BR/>Mazz agreed the mechanics of the change should be worked out by CCP but people aren't notified that the new owners will see petitions
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] thought there were better things for CCP to spend time on and as such would get no support from her.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] put his other foot in his mouth and made a comment about erasing character history that wasn't in the proposal either. With no space or foot left, he decided to read the next proposals more carefully.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]] replied that it was adding another entry in the character info, or requiring a certain NPC corp used only for such purpose.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] reminded that meetings are to discuss the issues, prioritisation is done later.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] stated that with the exception of petitions, players can already delete all other information themselves.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] and Mazz said petitions could already be deleted by the owner.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] thought this was hence a non-issue.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] noted that personal notes on other pilot infos are not easily removable.
<BR/>Voting followed
<BR/>Motion passed 8 for 1 against ([[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler Dainze]])
<BR/>
----
===[[Make_guns_continue_firing_at_previous_target_after_reload|Make guns continue firing at previous target after reload (maz)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] understood, but thought removing one of the few benefits of T1 crystals [over T2 crystals] to be a bit weird.
<BR/>Mazz said she was looking at it from the perspective of benefit of being amarr vs not being amarr, as lag causes a de-facto reduction in DPS for everyone not amarr.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] answered it was a tactical choice, heading into a fleet fight to choose a normal setup or a "high lag setup".
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] said that considering that T2/faction crystals last practically forever, [[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Oz]]'s point about reloading them is a bit moot.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Zastrow J|Zastrow]] liked the idea because he's lazy as hell and doesn't like reactivating his guns. He noted however that in high lag situations, cycling the guns was more of an issue than reloading.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] wasn't sure to understand what were the negative side effects of having guns continuing fire after reload, but high lag should not be a reason to maintain any mechanics.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] said it removes a bit of the management involved in things, but the benefits would outweigh the downsides, especially for people using multiple caps to shoot POSes.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] asked wether the proposal applied to other modules such as cap boosters and other mid slot modules.
<BR/>Mazz answered the proposal didn't apply to those modules.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] suggested making it optional in the contextual menu à la "auto reload".
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]], [[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]] and [[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra Vaal]] thought that a good idea.
<BR/>Voting followed.
<BR/>Motion passed 8 for, 1 against ([[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]])
<BR/>
----
===[[Container_idea|container idea (maz)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] thought cans are intended as cargo buffs, and the division of cargo space in smaller segments throught it was intended. He also though the hassle implied in filling/clearing them adds "role play". He wants to keep things as they are.
<BR/>Mazz said using cans to expand cargo space seems more like an exploit to her. And freighter pilots currently have no way to create smaller subdivisions without using courrier missions as placeholders.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] wondered if the issue wasn't made void by the introduction of multiple cargoholds. He said a random buff to all cargo holds is unnecessary. He would however be happy to remove the cargo buff one gets from cans.
<BR/>Mazz asked for clarification as to what the devblog stated.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said it was the ability to have multiple dedicated bays for fuel, ammo, etc.
<BR/>Mazz said this was thus the perfect time to raise the issue since they are making the change anyway.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] disagreed, as this proposal was asking for a cargo buff.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] said that if the proposal aimed at making partitioning easier, divisioning space with hangar divisions like the orca has would be sufficient.
<BR/>Mazz said it wasn't a cargo buff, more a convenience buff as all-purpose cargo is more convenient than dedicated separate holds.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] asked how mazz could consider extended space through cans to be an exploit as the devs had to state that the inside of cans was bigger than the outside. He also said cans were extra hassle for which you get extra benefit in the form of additional cargo space. Nobody forces anyone to use cans if they don't want to deal with the hassle. He also didn't see the point of giving everyone 30% extra cargo without any extra effort/cost.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] agreed.
<BR/>Mazz said it wasn't classified as an exploit, but was a nonsensical game mechanic.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] answered it wasn't nonsensical as one got extra hassle and extra capacity as a result. Smaller freight containers would be an answer to the freight container being too large, not this.
<BR/>Mazz said POS fueler have to use the cans to reduce their trips by 30%
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] answered POS fuelers use JFs.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] agreed with [[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]].
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]] agreed with the POS fueler aspect but not as far as it applied to, say, an iteron. Stating it makes no sense and is annoying for no good reason.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] answered it's annoying for a extra space, and that a lot of aspects of the game were of the form "extra hassle, extra benefit".
<BR/>Mazz asked what it contributed to the game, adding she doesn't want to play an annoying game.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] answered the contribution was extra space.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said that basing a wholesale cargo buff based on people fuelling POSes haveing hassle to be ridiculous.
<BR/>Voting followed
<BR/>Motion failed 5 against, 3 for ([[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]], [[Contributor_name:Zastrow J|Zastrow]] and [[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]]). [[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] DC'ed his vote didn't get registered.
<BR/>
----
===[[Outpost_Dock_Radii|Station dock radii (Zastrow)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] pointed out that many empire stations have the same issue, and being in 0.0, one should be doubly careful. More opportunities for station games is not a good thing.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Zastrow J|Zastrow]] said stations should have windows, but until they do one should at least be able to dock before the session change runs out. He added he doesn't want huge dock radii and that people should still be able to be bumped off.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] agreed dock radius shouldn't be an issue, but questioned the dock/undock practice instead of undocking outside dock range at a random point within x km.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Zastrow J|Zastrow]] answered that randomness would make bubbling undock harder.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] didn't have any opinion on undocking inside dock radius or outside, but agree there should be uniformity.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] agreed.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] said that station games in 0.0 are to the advantage of the owner of the station. He dismissed the "get a scout" argument as being irrelevant as people can have a logon or dictor trap.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber]] stated the "in or out" question was relevant as the proposed solution was to change all outposts [exit ports] to be within docking range.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] didn't like the idea of requiring scouts, as it favours alts. He thought station windows to be hard to implement, although an overview-style "radar" could be easier. He expressed his support of "all in" until such a tool be developed, and either way the discussion of this matter is a good idea.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] said if uniformity was applied to outposts, empire dwellers will want it applied to all stations.
<BR/>Voting followed.
<BR/>Motion passed 6 for, 3 against ([[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]], [[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler Dainze]], [[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]])
<BR/>
----
===[[Looting_from_wreck_you_didn%27t_create_%3D_looter_flagged_to_%28wreck%29_killer_in_Empire|Looting from wreck you didn't create = looter flagged to (wreck) killer in Empire (Avalloc)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] pointed out that this was brought up during CSM 1 and CCP declined it. He asked how [[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] thought he could convince them this time.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] stated that the players were still unhappy about it.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] didn't see why killing a ship changes the wreck owner. He also opposed the increased reward for piracy it would generate.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] asked why [[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] thought it'd increase rewards for piracy.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] answered it had to do with people who didn't participate in the killing stealing from the wreck.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] said it was something a lot of the player base wants, it being a huge problem in empire wars, and he would like to know why CCP wouldn't want to implement this. He added people would still be able to "steal" from wrecks, but they'd have to be more careful.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said CCP prefered the current implementation, and that the CSM was free to find an alternate not already suggested (as this proposal was)
<BR/>Voting started
<BR/>Motion passed 5 for, 4 against ([[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]], [[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa Anunthiel]], [[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler Dainze]], [[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik Finnegan]])
<BR/>
----
===[[Fix_rockets|Fix rockets (DV)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] asked why going for explosion velocity rather than base damage increase.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] answered that increasing raw damage might make them overpowered against stationary targets. The objective of the proposal is to make them more valid against their intended targets (small quick ships).
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] agreed.
<BR/>Voting started.
<BR/>Motion passed unanimously.
<BR/>
----
===[[Corp_Traitors_and_Neutral_Support|Corp traitors and neutral support (Erik)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] said that neutral RR-ing in cases of malicious in-corp pvp seems [[Contributor_name:Extreme|Extreme]]ly rare and as such probably not worth the development effort.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] answered he wasn't aware of the exact numbers, but that was up to CCP to investigate.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] agreed with [[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] and further pointed out it could be used to grief neutrals.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] asked details about said griefing process.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] explained some of his associates got people CONCORDOKEN'ED by sitting outside stations and saying "hi brosef, i can't afford to repair my ship, can you rep me" and shooting one of them, causing a GCC reaction chain.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] said his proposal didn't involve CONCORD.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] replied the griefing could be done by corp members.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] agreed this could be used to make neutrals flashy to a corp.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] answered this situation would give the victims a choice the current mechanics don't.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] stated that if someone was setting up to kill a corpmate, he's likely to be well prepared anyway. He furhter stated (with some more affection for the word "brosef") that it could incurr more losses to the corp as they would get flagged to neutrals in addition to the rebelious corpmate.
<BR/>Voting followed.
<BR/>Motion failed 8 against, 1 for ([[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]])
<BR/>
----
===[[Fix_To_Loggoffski|Fix to logoffski (Lark)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] asked if he was correct in reading 4 different solutions in the proposal, and said he didn't like the 15 minutes lockout, but the other solutions sounded reasonable.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] answered that there were inded 4, although not all mutually exclusive.
<BR/>Mazz asked what happens when someone logs of at a POS that is destroyed before the person logs back in.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] suggested not logging off at a POS in danger of dying soon.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] asked if the suggestion is to stop the ability to change the arrival point after a disconnect.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] answered that it was.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] said it would be a problem in Mazz' scenario and asked if this was an empire or 0.0 problem
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] answered it was both. Adding that if one were to jump into a bubble and log out, he wouldn't decloak immediately, but after the 60 seconds, which is incidentally the time the ship stays in space.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]] said if a POS was mistimed, it could be gone before the people logged off at it get a chance to get to safety.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] agreed, but that this was still using game mechanics to avoid getting one's ship killed, that losing a ship due to a POS changing hands was more the responsibility of the person timing it badly.
<BR/>Voting followed.
<BR/>Motion passed 5 for, 4 against ([[Contributor_name:Mazzilliu|Mazzilliu]], [[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] and [[Contributor_name:Avalloc|Avalloc]], [[Contributor_name:Zastrow J|Zastrow]])
<BR/>
----
===[[UI_Show_Info_button_with_Chat_Invite|Show info button with chat invite (Avalloc)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Larkonis Trassler|Larkonis]] didn't like going through the effort of searching the name of random plebians who convo'ed him, and expressed support for this issue enhancing his gameplay experience.
<BR/>Voting followed
<BR/>Motion passed unanimously
<BR/>
----
===[[BPO_locking_changes|BPO locking changes (DV)]]===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] liked the idea of making locking less painful, but without corp hangar locking, there would be no way to tell who took what.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] answered this would be useful for moving BPOs.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said allowing mass unlock without a way to track means something moved may never reappear.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] agreed it would be less secure, but shareholders would have to vote to disable locking, thereby voting to give the control away.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] suggested allowing the unlocking vote to be done on a whole set instead of individual ones.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] agreed this was part of the issue.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]] said the setting as described couldn't be implemented without being made useless (because temporary due to trades movement in cargoholds etc.) if the setting was tied to the BPOs, and useless if it was tied to the corp because it can't leave the hangar without losing the setting.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] said the option would be tied to the corp as explained in the wiki.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said the problem was that selecting multiple items to [un]lock generates votes for every individual BPO. He agreed with [[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]]'s suggestion of batch voting without messing with roles.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] said it was implied in the issue.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber]] disagreed.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] agreed to clarify the batch voting part
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said that the proposal was thus too complex for the needs. Repeating his statement that batch locking was all that was needed.
<BR/>Voting followed.
<BR/>Motion passed 6 for, 3 against( [[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]], [[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]], [[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber]])
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Meissa Anunthiel|Meissa]], [[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] and [[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] voted no on the basis that the issue was too complex and should be reformulated as simply "batch [un]locking"
<BR/>
----
===RMT Trading & CCP's Policy on it - a request for a discussion with CCP ([[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Oz]])===
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] asked why specifically [[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Oz]] wants to bring this up.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber]] replied the issue came with the recent EBank saga where Ricdic had one of his account banned but none of his other accounts, and that this was CCP's current policy.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] asked if CCP's RMT policy was currently unclear.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said it wasn't, that this was a general discussion on the issue.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber]] and [[Contributor_name:Issler Dainze|Issler]] discussed a bit about the issue of banning accounts belonging to the same person than the account banned for RMT'ing.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Erik Finnegan|Erik]] said this could also be used to discuss more means to discourage RMT.
<BR/>Voting followed.
<BR/>Motion passed 8 for, 0 against.
=Other Business=
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] reminded everyone to send their Q&A questions.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Dierdra Vaal|Dierdra]] also said he would like people to send a list of issues discussed in previous CSM meetings to be discussed (again) with CCP, to give CCP time to prepare answers.
<BR/>[[Contributor_name:Omber Zombie|Omber Zombie]] said he had already pointed out that these things were already automatically on the agenda of the CSM-CCP meeting.
<BR/>Next meeting was agreed to be August 2nd.