CSM Meeting Minutes 3.008 raw log

From sdeevelopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

[ 2009.09.27 16:13:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > *********************
[ 2009.09.27 16:13:32 ] Zastrow J > im slightly hungover but im up
[ 2009.09.27 16:13:33 ] mazzilliu > :D
[ 2009.09.27 16:13:35 ] Avalloc > hiiii zastrow
[ 2009.09.27 16:13:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > CSM meeting 8 starting at 16:13
[ 2009.09.27 16:13:50 ] mazzilliu > finally zastrow
[ 2009.09.27 16:13:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > Present: all except OZ and Meissa
[ 2009.09.27 16:13:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > OZ announced his abscence, meissa did not
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:07 ] Zastrow J > thanks for the wakeup call avalloc
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:08 ] Vuk Lau > i am here
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > :)
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > Before diving into the issues (14!) first this:
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:25 ] Vuk Lau > back from semiafkness
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1) I got an email from Xhagen notifying us we have 2 weeks until the next online csm/ccp meeting
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:50 ] Issler Dainze > great
[ 2009.09.27 16:14:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > meaning that this meeting determines the agenda for that meeting
[ 2009.09.27 16:15:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > scheduling fail but eh, we'll deal.
[ 2009.09.27 16:15:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2: I've made a CSM presentation. I'll upload it in a second so you guys can give me any feedback (in private convos or the public csm channel) if you want
[ 2009.09.27 16:15:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > I plan to give the presentation at FF during the csm panel
[ 2009.09.27 16:16:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Since the minutes didnt clearly reflect this, did we agree with CCP that they would ask us for feedback on an issue before every csm/ccp meeting?
[ 2009.09.27 16:16:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > because if so I'm gonna have to poke Xhagen about that
[ 2009.09.27 16:16:59 ] Zastrow J > i think we did
[ 2009.09.27 16:17:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think so too
[ 2009.09.27 16:17:12 ] Erik Finnegan > Well....we "invited" them to do so.
[ 2009.09.27 16:17:23 ] Erik Finnegan > Zastrow's words : "Use me ! !
[ 2009.09.27 16:17:29 ] Erik Finnegan > Or similar
[ 2009.09.27 16:17:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll email with Xhagen about it, if needed we can enforce our point at fanfest (3 days!)
[ 2009.09.27 16:17:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > well 4 technically I guess
[ 2009.09.27 16:18:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: Welcome Issler Dainze, new member of CSM3 after Lark stepped down
[ 2009.09.27 16:18:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > thats all I wanted to say, we'll start with the issues on the agenda :)
[ 2009.09.27 16:18:35 ] Zastrow J > hi issler dainze
[ 2009.09.27 16:18:39 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1: Review destroyers (DV)
[ 2009.09.27 16:18:40 ] Issler Dainze > hi
[ 2009.09.27 16:18:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Review_destroyers
[ 2009.09.27 16:19:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > long story short, destroyers were once useful and fun
[ 2009.09.27 16:19:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > now people only really use them for salvaging and level 1 missions
[ 2009.09.27 16:19:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > ship HP increases, weapon changes, new T2 ships etc etc all worked to make the destroyer obsolete
[ 2009.09.27 16:19:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > this issue requests CCP to reevaluate the destroyer class, and improve where needed.
[ 2009.09.27 16:19:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > Questions/comments?
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:03 ] Zastrow J > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:18 ] Zastrow J > if the AF changes go in i think destroyers will be good for countering them
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:25 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > I dont agree
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:31 ] Zastrow J > but they probably still need more hp
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:43 ] Zastrow J > anyways thats all i got
[ 2009.09.27 16:20:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > while destroyers are excellent against frigate sized craft, I think an AF will easily kill a destroyer before it dies.
[ 2009.09.27 16:21:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.09.27 16:21:27 ] Vuk Lau > 1st I disagree with ZJ
[ 2009.09.27 16:21:39 ] Vuk Lau > AF will even now own destroyer in most of the cases
[ 2009.09.27 16:21:45 ] Vuk Lau > anyway back to the subject
[ 2009.09.27 16:22:10 ] Vuk Lau > destroyers are anti frig weapon
[ 2009.09.27 16:22:18 ] Vuk Lau > and they are doing that job okish
[ 2009.09.27 16:22:29 ] Vuk Lau > I may agree with reviewing them
[ 2009.09.27 16:22:37 ] Vuk Lau > but I am against boosting them
[ 2009.09.27 16:23:02 ] Vuk Lau > they are good as they are (they just need some minor tweaking here and there, but more as balancing issue, not boosting one)
[ 2009.09.27 16:23:07 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.09.27 16:23:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > the review is key in this issue. The wiki identifies some issues and gives suggestions to how they could be improved, however the main request is for the review - not for specific boosts/improvements :)
[ 2009.09.27 16:23:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 16:23:48 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:23:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > erik
[ 2009.09.27 16:24:10 ] Erik Finnegan > Maybe the wiki should sharpen the idea to have them remain a frig-weapon ?
[ 2009.09.27 16:24:23 ] Erik Finnegan > Or finally BE.
[ 2009.09.27 16:24:24 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.09.27 16:24:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > Agree, I shall amend the wiki now
[ 2009.09.27 16:24:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 16:24:51 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:25:03 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:25:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > maz
[ 2009.09.27 16:25:18 ] mazzilliu > between destroyer races, only the thrasher is really decent.  so racial balance needs looking at
[ 2009.09.27 16:25:20 ] mazzilliu > end
[ 2009.09.27 16:25:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > I have included that specific mention in the wiki yes :)
[ 2009.09.27 16:25:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk?
[ 2009.09.27 16:25:55 ] Vuk Lau > well
[ 2009.09.27 16:26:09 ] Vuk Lau > your wiki page was implying that they need to be improved in many areas
[ 2009.09.27 16:26:13 ] Vuk Lau > I consider that as boosting
[ 2009.09.27 16:26:14 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.09.27 16:26:36 ] Erik Finnegan > ( I'm with Vuk, there. That's what I meant )
[ 2009.09.27 16:26:44 ] Zastrow J > 10 hour heroes in better destroyers hell yeah
[ 2009.09.27 16:26:52 ] Erik Finnegan > omg
[ 2009.09.27 16:27:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > it was my intention to give ccp indications of problems people have identified, and give them suggestions for possible solutions. I didnt want to imply all suggestions should be implemented
[ 2009.09.27 16:27:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > do you have a specific item you wish to see changed?
[ 2009.09.27 16:28:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > I have already added "While the CSM feels that destroyers should remain an anti-frigate hull platform - it is the council's opinion that they are currently not as useful as they could be."
[ 2009.09.27 16:30:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk/erik?
[ 2009.09.27 16:30:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > anything else I should change
[ 2009.09.27 16:30:37 ] Vuk Lau > ok
[ 2009.09.27 16:30:41 ] Zastrow J > i still dunno if i like a t1 hull being the best counter to t2 frigate hulls.  but t2 destroyers are a specific narrow focus role and there isnt any other option
[ 2009.09.27 16:31:14 ] Vuk Lau > nozt t2
[ 2009.09.27 16:31:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm not sure if they would be the best counter. Hell stealthbombers will probably still light them up and AF's will give them a hard time
[ 2009.09.27 16:31:30 ] Vuk Lau > and t2 destroyers are owning t2 frigs
[ 2009.09.27 16:31:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > but right now, dessies arent really useful except against T1 frigs
[ 2009.09.27 16:31:47 ] Zastrow J > ok basically my concern is what's supposed to counter newly buffed ABing AFs
[ 2009.09.27 16:32:41 ] Vuk Lau > dictors?
[ 2009.09.27 16:32:44 ] Vuk Lau > cruisers
[ 2009.09.27 16:33:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > well the AF balance isnt really part of this issue
[ 2009.09.27 16:33:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > and I'd like to avoid going off topic
[ 2009.09.27 16:33:19 ] Vuk Lau > its unrealistic that u expect that t1 destroyer should counter t2 frigs
[ 2009.09.27 16:33:47 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:33:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > issler
[ 2009.09.27 16:34:49 ] Issler Dainze > I think it is clear destroyers are meant to counter T1 frigates, T2 destroyers are meant for a different specific role, I am good with a general review of destroyers but i agree, they aren't for anti-T2 frig fights (end)
[ 2009.09.27 16:35:13 ] mazzilliu > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:35:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > the issue calls for a review - is there something I should change/clarify on it?
[ 2009.09.27 16:37:21 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote thinks that mazz is patiently waiting for DV to call her statement.
[ 2009.09.27 16:37:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote is waiting for a reply to his question
[ 2009.09.27 16:37:51 ] Erik Finnegan > I'm fine with the change you added.
[ 2009.09.27 16:38:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok maz?
[ 2009.09.27 16:38:08 ] mazzilliu > having the only role of countering t1 frigs is a terrible role.  i dont think a t1 destroyer should be able to obliterate a assault frig but it should be able to do some significant damage before it dies first.  ia lso think were spending a lot of time
[ 2009.09.27 16:38:11 ] mazzilliu > on this
[ 2009.09.27 16:38:53 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes aye for review of destroyers
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok Voting on review of dessies:
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > aye
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:17 ] mazzilliu > voting yes as well
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:23 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:24 ] Zastrow J > sure yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:35 ] Vuk Lau > aye
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc?
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:48 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 16:39:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2: Corporation bookmarks (Erik)
[ 2009.09.27 16:40:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Corporation_Bookmarks
[ 2009.09.27 16:40:03 ] Erik Finnegan > Fairly short and self-explanatory : BMs on corp-level. Especially w-space faring corporations have a lot of signatures to handle - cause that's what they live from. And they need to be distributed among corp-mates.Questions ?
[ 2009.09.27 16:40:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:40:30 ] Erik Finnegan > yes, DV
[ 2009.09.27 16:40:50 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:41:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think a corporate bookmark manager is a good alternative to hangars/cans full of bookmarks.
[ 2009.09.27 16:41:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.09.27 16:41:18 ] Erik Finnegan > Avalloc please
[ 2009.09.27 16:41:32 ] Avalloc > This idea would be a good addition when CCP revamps the UI.
[ 2009.09.27 16:41:36 ] Avalloc > end
[ 2009.09.27 16:42:01 ] Erik Finnegan > Yes. In fact, it might go well with what ever they have in stock for COSMOS.
[ 2009.09.27 16:42:16 ] Erik Finnegan > But in either case.... more questions ?
[ 2009.09.27 16:42:48 ] Erik Finnegan > Then vote on corporate bookmarks :
[ 2009.09.27 16:42:52 ] Zastrow J > votin yes (on an erik finnegan topic lol)
[ 2009.09.27 16:42:52 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes aye for suggesting it
[ 2009.09.27 16:42:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:42:53 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:43:01 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:43:31 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:43:38 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:43:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 16:43:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3: Semi permanently show pilots name in space (Maz)
[ 2009.09.27 16:43:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Semi-permanently_show_pilot%27s_name_in_space
[ 2009.09.27 16:44:16 ] mazzilliu > this proposal is intended to help pilots get more tactical information in fleet flights.  it can help you watch for individuals and more importantly where they are in relation to you
[ 2009.09.27 16:44:39 ] mazzilliu > even tho you can see them on the overview, its just more useful information there if you want to have it
[ 2009.09.27 16:44:42 ] mazzilliu > so questions?
[ 2009.09.27 16:44:54 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:44:58 ] mazzilliu > ava go
[ 2009.09.27 16:45:01 ] Erik Finnegan > me likes it. I spotted the thread, too.
[ 2009.09.27 16:45:28 ] Avalloc > so it acts as if you have them selected in overview? ship highlighted in space
[ 2009.09.27 16:45:39 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:45:50 ] Avalloc > ok
[ 2009.09.27 16:45:53 ] Avalloc > end
[ 2009.09.27 16:45:59 ] mazzilliu > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:30 ] mazzilliu > if youvce got nothing to say, vote
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:33 ] mazzilliu > im voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:33 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:35 ] Issler Dainze > /emote aye
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:37 ] Zastrow J > sure
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:40 ] Avalloc > qui
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:40 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:46:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > si
[ 2009.09.27 16:47:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 16:47:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > 4: UI Improvement to change clone location (Avalloc)
[ 2009.09.27 16:47:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/UI_Improvement_to_%22Change_Clone_Location%22
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:12 ] Avalloc > As it is right now you only get an alphabetical list based on station name for selecting which station you want to move your clone to. This does very little for revealing where the station is located. The lack of information is problematic when you want
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:24 ] Avalloc > to pick a specific Region to relocate your clone to. You can right-click and show info on the location but the steps are unnecessary.
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:42 ] Avalloc > fix: Show the Region the station is in within own column in the list along with Security Rating of system.
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:45 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > this sounds similar to showing station region/location in the... assets list?
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > I seem to recall an issue like that
[ 2009.09.27 16:48:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.09.27 16:49:14 ] Avalloc > for assets, yup
[ 2009.09.27 16:49:19 ] Avalloc > but not clones
[ 2009.09.27 16:49:37 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 16:49:43 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:49:49 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.09.27 16:49:50 ] Erik Finnegan > While the suggested UI addition is fine with me, would you not use the galaxy map first to locate the system you want to move to ?
[ 2009.09.27 16:50:01 ] Erik Finnegan > Then you know the system name.... FIN
[ 2009.09.27 16:50:51 ] Vuk Lau > why would you do that?
[ 2009.09.27 16:50:55 ] Avalloc > when you're in a hurry, or the stations are player owned and named however the owner saw fit = headache
[ 2009.09.27 16:51:16 ] Avalloc > you can name an outpost WHATEVER you want
[ 2009.09.27 16:51:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > "Lol dongs" hmm I wonder where this is located..
[ 2009.09.27 16:51:40 ] Zastrow J > :iiam:
[ 2009.09.27 16:51:40 ] Erik Finnegan > ok. Well, the coding effort won't be huge on that one. The info is available in the client.
[ 2009.09.27 16:51:50 ] Avalloc > yup
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:05 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:07 ] Vuk Lau > i vote yes on this one afk 1 min
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:13 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:16 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes aye, very useful improement
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:17 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:21 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:52:44 ] Zastrow J > yase
[ 2009.09.27 16:53:01 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:53:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 16:53:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > 5: Adjust camera center (DV)
[ 2009.09.27 16:53:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Adjust_camera_center
[ 2009.09.27 16:54:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > It is a bit cryptic - I couldnt think of a better way to phrase it. Basically its the last thing to make eve multi-monitor friendly (without needing crazy engine overhauls).
[ 2009.09.27 16:54:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > Basically, one can already stretch the eve client to span 2 monitors
[ 2009.09.27 16:54:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > and you can move everything, even the target windows and your ship controls...
[ 2009.09.27 16:54:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > except the position of your ship, which is exactly in the center and in the dual monitor setup falls exactly in the gap between your 2 monitors
[ 2009.09.27 16:54:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > which is very annoying
[ 2009.09.27 16:55:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > it would be nice if it was possible to set the position the camera's center is rendered
[ 2009.09.27 16:55:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > so you can set your ship to still appear in the center of monitor A
[ 2009.09.27 16:55:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > with just lots of extra space to the side for windows
[ 2009.09.27 16:55:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > comments/questions?
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:09 ] Zastrow J > voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:15 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:32 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes aye
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:33 ] Avalloc > Kylla
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > I guess we're voting..
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:41 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:46 ] mazzilliu > hehe
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:54 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:56:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > does kylla mean yes?
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:05 ] Avalloc > aren't you finnish?
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:08 ] Avalloc > :/
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > no I'm dutch
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:13 ] Avalloc > oooh
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:17 ] Avalloc > then yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > (or 'ja')
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:35 ] Avalloc > Ja mon.
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 16:57:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > 6: Larger HUD bracket for caps and supercaps  (maz)
[ 2009.09.27 16:58:00 ] mazzilliu > the idea is that the brackets for caps and supercaps should look different then battleships
[ 2009.09.27 16:58:12 ] mazzilliu > even if it cant get bigger then it is now, they can color it in or something
[ 2009.09.27 16:58:18 ] mazzilliu > so questions?
[ 2009.09.27 16:59:04 ] mazzilliu > ok, vote
[ 2009.09.27 16:59:06 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:59:11 ] Zastrow J > yase
[ 2009.09.27 16:59:12 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.09.27 16:59:26 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 16:59:35 ] mazzilliu > issler?
[ 2009.09.27 16:59:38 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:00:04 ] Issler Dainze > I don't oppose it but that seems like such a low priority thing to ask for, is that how we want devs spending their time? (end)
[ 2009.09.27 17:00:35 ] mazzilliu > i dont really know how to respond to that
[ 2009.09.27 17:00:37 ] mazzilliu > anything else?
[ 2009.09.27 17:00:51 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:00:57 ] mazzilliu > i mean yeah, its not really big deal stuff, but it helps eliminate confusion
[ 2009.09.27 17:01:10 ] mazzilliu > ok go ava
[ 2009.09.27 17:01:18 ] Avalloc > no, was voting
[ 2009.09.27 17:01:21 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes no
[ 2009.09.27 17:01:43 ] Avalloc > was voting yes, I mean.. sorry
[ 2009.09.27 17:01:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > I vote yes - if it is not important to ccp they'll give it a low priority
[ 2009.09.27 17:02:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 6/1
[ 2009.09.27 17:02:18 ] Erik Finnegan > ( So glad we have a self-written protocol again )
[ 2009.09.27 17:02:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > 7: Tracking for Fighters lost in combat (Avalloc)
[ 2009.09.27 17:02:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Tracking_for_Fighters_lost_in_combat
[ 2009.09.27 17:02:53 ] Avalloc > When a Carrier pilot loses a fighter there is no accounting for this lost. And there are no killmails generate for the killer either. This presents a problem for Corporations and Alliances who want to reimburse fighters lost in combat.
[ 2009.09.27 17:03:05 ] Avalloc > Add some way to track fighter kill/losses. Be it by killmails or by another means. We've got killmails for frigates and POS modules so why not fighters too?
[ 2009.09.27 17:03:13 ] Avalloc > questions?
[ 2009.09.27 17:03:34 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:03:44 ] Avalloc > vuk?
[ 2009.09.27 17:03:49 ] Vuk Lau > fighters are drones so i am totaly against it
[ 2009.09.27 17:03:59 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:04:18 ] Avalloc > why are you against it?
[ 2009.09.27 17:04:26 ] Avalloc > elaborate further?
[ 2009.09.27 17:04:37 ] Vuk Lau > cause its stupid to have killmails for killed drone
[ 2009.09.27 17:04:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:04:55 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:04:57 ] Vuk Lau > then lets have killmails for my died t2 sentries
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:04 ] Vuk Lau > dead*
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:20 ] Vuk Lau > i dont see one reason for implement killmails for fighters
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:26 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:29 ] Avalloc > well, fighters operate on different rules than drones
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:35 ] Vuk Lau > no they dont
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:35 ] Avalloc > can follow targets
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:44 ] Avalloc > as they warp
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:47 ] Vuk Lau > thats not a rule, thats finese
[ 2009.09.27 17:05:51 ] Vuk Lau > but they are drones
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:04 ] Vuk Lau > sentries operate differently then regulard drones
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:15 ] Vuk Lau > lets have sentry drone killmails aswell
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:26 ] Avalloc > well, I am not saying just killmails as answer but SOMETHING that can be tracked
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:30 ] Vuk Lau > total waste of bandwith, cpu time and 2 lines of code
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:36 ] Vuk Lau > whats the reason?
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:45 ] Vuk Lau > lets track lost ammo, or killed sentry drones?
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:48 ] Avalloc > reimbursements
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:48 ] Vuk Lau > or wasted fuel?
[ 2009.09.27 17:06:57 ] Vuk Lau > read up
[ 2009.09.27 17:07:25 ] Vuk Lau > lets track spent bombs?
[ 2009.09.27 17:07:26 ] Avalloc > 10 fighters = at least 150m isk
[ 2009.09.27 17:07:29 ] Vuk Lau > to reimburse ppl
[ 2009.09.27 17:07:30 ] Vuk Lau > so?
[ 2009.09.27 17:07:43 ] Zastrow J > i just think fighters should be cheaper, problem solved
[ 2009.09.27 17:07:50 ] Vuk Lau > thats another issue
[ 2009.09.27 17:07:59 ] Vuk Lau > which I agree with btw :D
[ 2009.09.27 17:08:08 ] Vuk Lau > but its stupid to track lost fighters
[ 2009.09.27 17:08:14 ] Avalloc > dv/?
[ 2009.09.27 17:08:14 ] Vuk Lau > anyway enough of my rant
[ 2009.09.27 17:08:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > while I understand that with the high fighter cost you may wish to reimburse those.. I have to agree with vuk. They are drones and this kind of opens up a can of worms (ie, T2 sentry loss tracking?). Just get carrier pilots that dont rip you off I guess
[ 2009.09.27 17:08:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:09:18 ] Avalloc > issler?
[ 2009.09.27 17:09:33 ] Issler Dainze > So i can see a lot of problems, they are just drones, would this be for all drones?  what if you just "lose" them and not destroyed would there be a mail too? (end)
[ 2009.09.27 17:10:29 ] Avalloc > destroyed.. the aim here is fighters, and so pilot who owned them has a way to track or show their losses
[ 2009.09.27 17:11:31 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 17:11:40 ] Erik Finnegan > I'm torn.
[ 2009.09.27 17:11:55 ] Erik Finnegan > But the symmetry argument is with Vuk.
[ 2009.09.27 17:12:24 ] Avalloc > carriers rely on fighters for their dps
[ 2009.09.27 17:12:53 ] Avalloc > and there is no way to track this
[ 2009.09.27 17:13:09 ] Avalloc > yes, nr is there a way to tack ammo spent
[ 2009.09.27 17:13:19 ] Avalloc > but ammo isn't 15m
[ 2009.09.27 17:13:28 ] Vuk Lau > carriers primry roke is not dps
[ 2009.09.27 17:13:45 ] Vuk Lau > role*
[ 2009.09.27 17:13:58 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:04 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:19 ] Erik Finnegan > Vuk and the others : being against kill mails, is it because they are such a hassle as being "eve mails" ?
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:31 ] Vuk Lau > nope
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:32 ] Erik Finnegan > Maybe if such info would be made avaialble via the API
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:41 ] Erik Finnegan > I mean the info is there.
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:42 ] Vuk Lau > and they are bot evemails dear lord
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:50 ] Vuk Lau > not*
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:54 ] Erik Finnegan > Why not use it - or let it be used by who ever wants to retrieve it ?
[ 2009.09.27 17:14:55 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.09.27 17:15:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:15:35 ] Vuk Lau > Erik killmails are not evemail for a long time
[ 2009.09.27 17:15:39 ] Avalloc > what about a "fighters lost" tally for a pilot, vuk? total lost over life of pilot
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:11 ] Avalloc > starts 0.. I lose 5 one month, total is 5.. lose another 10 3 months later.. 15
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:14 ] Vuk Lau > i am totaly against it, and I dont want to spend more time on this issue
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:22 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:24 ] Vuk Lau > if anyone wants to add something do it or lets go voting
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we're ready to vote. sounds like everyone's had their say. end
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:35 ] Avalloc > vote
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:37 ] mazzilliu > voting no
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:39 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes no
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:41 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.09.27 17:16:56 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:17:03 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:17:18 ] Zastrow J > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:17:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion failed 4/3
[ 2009.09.27 17:17:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > 9: Add Character transfer and portrait change tokens just like PLEX  (maz)
[ 2009.09.27 17:17:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_Character_transfer_and_portrait_change_tokens_just_like_PLEX
[ 2009.09.27 17:17:54 ] Erik Finnegan > Forgot #8 ?
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:02 ] mazzilliu > basically add an ingame item so people can get char transfer and portrait changes by paying with isk
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > oops
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:08 ] mazzilliu > oh
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > no worries thats mine, I'll do it after
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > continue, maz
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:24 ] mazzilliu > ok
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:29 ] mazzilliu > well that was all.  any questions?
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:44 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:47 ] mazzilliu > go
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:47 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:49 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:52 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:18:55 ] mazzilliu > go dv
[ 2009.09.27 17:19:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > doing this with ISK significantly lowers the barrier to change your portrait...
[ 2009.09.27 17:19:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > is that something we want to encourage?
[ 2009.09.27 17:19:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > plenty of people are rich and would be able to to change their portait for the lulz
[ 2009.09.27 17:19:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:19:40 ] mazzilliu > are you seriously concerned about that?
[ 2009.09.27 17:19:48 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:20:02 ] mazzilliu > uh, i have nothing to say in responce to dv
[ 2009.09.27 17:20:05 ] mazzilliu > avalloc go
[ 2009.09.27 17:20:07 ] Avalloc > account transfers.. billy shares account with phil, phil uses plex to steal one of billy's characters.. no credit card attached.. seems like bad idea
[ 2009.09.27 17:20:22 ] Avalloc > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:20:38 ] mazzilliu > there's already strict punishments for scamming involving plex or anything real money related
[ 2009.09.27 17:20:56 ] mazzilliu > in that case, the character would get banned
[ 2009.09.27 17:21:19 ] mazzilliu > erik go
[ 2009.09.27 17:21:30 ] Erik Finnegan > CCP wants us to promote the use of PLEX. Would such an extended use case fall in line with that ?FIN
[ 2009.09.27 17:21:49 ] mazzilliu > i dont understand what you are trying to say
[ 2009.09.27 17:21:56 ] mazzilliu > can you rephrase it?
[ 2009.09.27 17:22:31 ] Erik Finnegan > Hmm, well, PLEX is good for CCP. They want players to use it as it lowers RMT.
[ 2009.09.27 17:22:40 ] Erik Finnegan > Ah, no..... stupid me.
[ 2009.09.27 17:22:42 ] Erik Finnegan > forget it
[ 2009.09.27 17:22:45 ] mazzilliu > i agree
[ 2009.09.27 17:22:46 ] mazzilliu > oh
[ 2009.09.27 17:22:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > lol
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:00 ] mazzilliu > well the idea is that ccp would make more money, while the players get more things that they want
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:09 ] mazzilliu > vuk go
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:16 ] Vuk Lau > same thoughts as DV and Avalloc
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:22 ] mazzilliu > issler go
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:25 ] Issler Dainze > Eve seems about freedom, I'd be for this, if you want to change your portrait no worries (end)
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:27 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:37 ] mazzilliu > anyone else wants to say something?
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:54 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:54 ] mazzilliu > ok vote
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:56 ] mazzilliu > er
[ 2009.09.27 17:23:58 ] mazzilliu > avallog go
[ 2009.09.27 17:24:43 ] Avalloc > sec
[ 2009.09.27 17:24:53 ] Avalloc > nm
[ 2009.09.27 17:25:20 ] mazzilliu > ok
[ 2009.09.27 17:25:22 ] mazzilliu > lets vote
[ 2009.09.27 17:25:23 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:25:24 ] Vuk Lau > no
[ 2009.09.27 17:25:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes - I'm interested in seeing how ccp feels about this. plus its an isk sink
[ 2009.09.27 17:25:35 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:25:38 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:26:10 ] Zastrow J > ok here's my only thing about changing portraits, right now certain faces are just famous everyone knows what evil thug, mittani, or sir molle look like.  if people change portraits all the time that goes away, but i like players having more options
[ 2009.09.27 17:26:14 ] Zastrow J > so yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:26:34 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:26:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 6 / 1
[ 2009.09.27 17:26:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > 8: Easy overheating toggle (DV)
[ 2009.09.27 17:26:50 ] mazzilliu > people can still change portraits now.....
[ 2009.09.27 17:26:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Easy_overloading_toggle
[ 2009.09.27 17:27:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > Overheating now requires you to click the overheat rack icon (tiny), click the small green bar on the module or use an alt+shift+F# key combination.
[ 2009.09.27 17:27:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > This issue suggest allowing people to overheat their modules by simply holding control down and click it (or shift, or alt, etc)
[ 2009.09.27 17:27:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > which should be easier in the heat (badum-ching) of battle
[ 2009.09.27 17:27:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > comments/questions?
[ 2009.09.27 17:27:47 ] Zastrow J > that was an awful pun
[ 2009.09.27 17:27:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:05 ] Zastrow J > ok voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:14 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes, uhm sure, why not
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > guess we're voting then
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:21 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:24 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:42 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:28:44 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:29:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 17:29:19 ] Vuk Lau > guys I need to office asap, I can either give my votes right now, or I can add my votes awhen I get back
[ 2009.09.27 17:29:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > 10: History of who added/kick character from Corporation (avalloc)
[ 2009.09.27 17:29:23 ] Vuk Lau > to go*
[ 2009.09.27 17:29:28 ] Vuk Lau > sec DV pls
[ 2009.09.27 17:29:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > you can give your votes now
[ 2009.09.27 17:29:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > if you want
[ 2009.09.27 17:30:03 ] Avalloc > When a character is accepted into a Corporation there is no record to show who completed this action. The same applies for removing characters from a Corporation. There is no accounting for if they've been in the Corporation before either.
[ 2009.09.27 17:30:04 ] Vuk Lau > well I need so we could have a quorum
[ 2009.09.27 17:30:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > hmhm
[ 2009.09.27 17:30:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > it would make things easier :)
[ 2009.09.27 17:30:43 ] Avalloc > Add a history tab in Corporation UI. And allow for comments so that a reason can be given which other Directors can see within same Corporation. Also if a character has been in the Corporation before a popup should indicate this when
[ 2009.09.27 17:30:58 ] Avalloc > they're being re-admitted. Blacklists could be added too to automatically prevent unsavory people from sneaking back in.Another improvement on this idea would be the ability for players who leave a Corporation
[ 2009.09.27 17:31:13 ] Avalloc > to be allowed to enter in a comment "as to why" would be good too.
[ 2009.09.27 17:31:29 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:31:32 ] Avalloc > questions?
[ 2009.09.27 17:31:36 ] Avalloc > isssler
[ 2009.09.27 17:31:55 ] Vuk Lau > 10. yes, 11. yes, 12. no, 13. yes, 14. yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:31:58 ] Vuk Lau > sry guys
[ 2009.09.27 17:31:59 ] Avalloc > (assumed vuk giving dv votes in priv)
[ 2009.09.27 17:32:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > noted :)
[ 2009.09.27 17:32:03 ] Issler Dainze > In general like the idea but you can always come back with an alt so not fool proof.  (end)
[ 2009.09.27 17:32:13 ] Vuk Lau > cya later
[ 2009.09.27 17:32:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/History_of_who_added/kick_character_from_Corporation (avalloc's link btw)
[ 2009.09.27 17:32:34 ] Avalloc > issler: not meant to be fool proof
[ 2009.09.27 17:32:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:32:49 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.09.27 17:33:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > as former director of recruitment I know how much pain the process is
[ 2009.09.27 17:33:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > and anything to make it easier on the poor recruitment officers is a good thing
[ 2009.09.27 17:33:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:33:35 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:33:44 ] Avalloc > "who let this guy in corp?!" "who kicked my bro's char?!"
[ 2009.09.27 17:33:51 ] Avalloc > erik?
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:00 ] Erik Finnegan > I didn't understand the part "There is no accounting for if they've been in the Corporation before either"
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:11 ] Erik Finnegan > It shows in the employment history, does it not ?
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:12 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:30 ] Avalloc > well, yes.. you got me there ;)
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:38 ] Dierdra Vaal > o snap
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:50 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:34:59 ] Avalloc > dv
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > actually nvm :)
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:17 ] Avalloc > tease
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:23 ] Avalloc > vote!
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:26 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:29 ] Zastrow J > ok
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:36 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:38 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes aye
[ 2009.09.27 17:35:48 ] Erik Finnegan > yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:36:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 17:36:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > as vuk voted yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:36:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > 11: CSM term limits  (maz)
[ 2009.09.27 17:36:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/CSM_term_limits
[ 2009.09.27 17:36:43 ] mazzilliu > ok just so everyone knows i did not use the original idea from my thread in the official wiki
[ 2009.09.27 17:36:49 ] mazzilliu > i used omber's idea instead as it was simpler
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:10 ] mazzilliu > that is, after you serve your two you can't serve consecutive terms afterwards
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:32 ] mazzilliu > also ccp can deny a returning csm applicant if they think they aren't getting their money's worth of advice from them
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:40 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:41 ] mazzilliu > and issler's partial term doesnt count towards her limit
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:43 ] Zastrow J > jade constantine forever
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:44 ] mazzilliu > dv go
[ 2009.09.27 17:37:56 ] mazzilliu > i am pretty sure jade constantine would end up 'denied' :P
[ 2009.09.27 17:38:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll be voting no and here is why (as much as I'd love to be chairman for life - oh the power! THE POWER!!)
[ 2009.09.27 17:38:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1) The thread got very, VERY little support
[ 2009.09.27 17:38:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > this is not what the players want, it is only what you want
[ 2009.09.27 17:38:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2) I think it is extremely dubious for policy makes to make rules that give themselves more power
[ 2009.09.27 17:39:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > 3) Your argument indirectly supposes that people who got elected first are 'the most qualified' ("anyone really qualified to serve is disqualified after only two terms")
[ 2009.09.27 17:39:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > which I dont agree with because Bane Glorious was awful
[ 2009.09.27 17:39:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > (no offense)
[ 2009.09.27 17:40:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also think that switching out people once in a while, even if they come from the same power block, is good
[ 2009.09.27 17:40:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > otherwise we'd still sit here with Ankhesemtapemka
[ 2009.09.27 17:40:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P
[ 2009.09.27 17:40:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:40:27 ] Zastrow J > what a nightmare
[ 2009.09.27 17:41:01 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:41:18 ] mazzilliu > ppl like that are the sort of people CCP should disqualify anyways.  obvious lack of game experience and so forth
[ 2009.09.27 17:41:35 ] mazzilliu > also i promised in my campaign i would totally do this so this is me fulfilling my promises :D
[ 2009.09.27 17:41:36 ] mazzilliu > issler go
[ 2009.09.27 17:41:41 ] Issler Dainze > I don't agree with CCP deciding if a candidate "contributed enough".  I would support the ability to serve again after 2 terms with some break and agrees with the nightmare :-)
[ 2009.09.27 17:42:15 ] Issler Dainze > as for experience, that is relative, a lot of folks that need representing aren't that experienced either, so representing that experience can be useful. (end)
[ 2009.09.27 17:43:02 ] mazzilliu > its one thing to have new players in mind, its another to have no clue how game mechanics work, then voting on them
[ 2009.09.27 17:43:12 ] mazzilliu > erik go
[ 2009.09.27 17:43:39 ] Erik Finnegan > I think we should be very careful with this issue. As DV said, the player support was low. What I like about it is the idea to make the CSM a money-worth partner of CCP, which is conveyed in solution part #2.
[ 2009.09.27 17:44:20 ] Erik Finnegan > Still, I think that such a change should be dealt in a different way than in our regular issue sessions.
[ 2009.09.27 17:44:30 ] Erik Finnegan > Especially since there are only online-meeting with CCP now.
[ 2009.09.27 17:44:31 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.09.27 17:44:51 ] Erik Finnegan > ( well, there is fan fest )
[ 2009.09.27 17:45:23 ] Avalloc > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:45:40 ] mazzilliu > well i think that it will help if ccp has at least a few longer term csm members, so theya rent always dealing with complete unknowns
[ 2009.09.27 17:45:46 ] mazzilliu > avalloc go
[ 2009.09.27 17:45:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:46:27 ] Avalloc > ccp is still ironing out communication kinks with csm too.. and I personally feel a lot of 1-3's  valueable input potential was wasted
[ 2009.09.27 17:47:02 ] Avalloc > two terms with two term break, then one more might not be so bad
[ 2009.09.27 17:47:19 ] Avalloc > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:48:17 ] mazzilliu > yeah, whatever happened in the csm 1 and 2 is pretty much a complete unknown to me and probably most of you guys.
[ 2009.09.27 17:48:49 ] Issler Dainze > the csm 2 likes it that way :-)
[ 2009.09.27 17:49:19 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:49:21 ] mazzilliu > if our chairman didnt have the experience of the csm 1 we probably wouldnt have gotten as far as we have so far.  experience in the csm is a huge factor in your ability to actually do stuff in the csm
[ 2009.09.27 17:49:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > (why thank you)
[ 2009.09.27 17:49:43 ] mazzilliu > dv go
[ 2009.09.27 17:49:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > There were at least 2 CSM1 members on CSM2. There are 3 CSM2 members on CSM3.. and I'm sure some of you will end up running for CSM4. I dont think you need to worry about having a completely new CSM.
[ 2009.09.27 17:50:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > I also think that, IF this is introduced (which I doubt Xhagen will agree with) it should be at least a 2 term (1 year) hiatus.
[ 2009.09.27 17:50:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:51:33 ] mazzilliu > a 1 year hiatus is fair enough.  if enough people think that enforcing a 1 year break instead of 6 months is important enough i will re-write the wiki
[ 2009.09.27 17:51:47 ] mazzilliu > when you get to that point, natural player turnover when people quit the game becomes a major factor
[ 2009.09.27 17:51:55 ] mazzilliu > i think erik is next
[ 2009.09.27 17:52:12 ] Erik Finnegan > I think we should address the "wasted potential" issue, which Avalloc mentioned. A solution might not be the proposed issue here. Still, this issue wants to solve the same problem : tap into the potential of the CSM. But the issue we propose should
[ 2009.09.27 17:52:22 ] Erik Finnegan > ound differently than this here. The problem summary here goes "CSM term limit". But that is not the problem.What we should be eager to solve / improve is the communication and the good use of the CSM-CCP cooperation.
[ 2009.09.27 17:52:25 ] Erik Finnegan > FIN
[ 2009.09.27 17:52:56 ] Erik Finnegan > ( *sound )
[ 2009.09.27 17:53:05 ] mazzilliu > hmm.  food for thought.  anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 17:54:20 ] mazzilliu > if nobody has anything else to add lets vote
[ 2009.09.27 17:54:22 ] Erik Finnegan > DV mentions improvements on her last slide. That can be discussed further with players and CCP
[ 2009.09.27 17:54:30 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 17:54:34 ] mazzilliu > ok issler
[ 2009.09.27 17:54:35 ] mazzilliu > go
[ 2009.09.27 17:54:54 ] Issler Dainze > are we removing the CCP veto of candidates based on their perception of contributions?
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:04 ] Issler Dainze > end
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:10 ] mazzilliu > er, i never said we were going to
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:14 ] mazzilliu > ????
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:23 ] Issler Dainze > I see
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:32 ] Erik Finnegan > No, we are voting down to whole proposal. ;)
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:45 ] mazzilliu > ok lets vote
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:49 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:55:53 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes no
[ 2009.09.27 17:56:12 ] Issler Dainze > votes no because of the ccp vetoe would support reelection after a one yeat hiatus
[ 2009.09.27 17:56:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > no
[ 2009.09.27 17:56:33 ] Zastrow J > should i vote for napfest solidarity or to troll that thread of haters
[ 2009.09.27 17:56:37 ] Zastrow J > luckily its the same thing, voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:57:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:57:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > avalloc is the swing vote
[ 2009.09.27 17:57:13 ] Zastrow J > DUN DUN DUN
[ 2009.09.27 17:57:16 ] Avalloc > argh
[ 2009.09.27 17:57:21 ] mazzilliu > hey avalloc vote yes
[ 2009.09.27 17:57:39 ] Issler Dainze > no he voted argh!
[ 2009.09.27 17:57:43 ] Avalloc > I'm torn.
[ 2009.09.27 17:58:33 ] Avalloc > yeesh
[ 2009.09.27 17:58:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes?
[ 2009.09.27 17:58:52 ] Avalloc > errr
[ 2009.09.27 17:58:55 ] Erik Finnegan > ( the secretary did not understand the vote given )
[ 2009.09.27 17:59:00 ] mazzilliu > sounded like a yes to me
[ 2009.09.27 17:59:01 ] Avalloc > I'm, deciding.
[ 2009.09.27 17:59:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2009.09.27 17:59:11 ] Avalloc > This is polarized. :P
[ 2009.09.27 17:59:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote drumrolls
[ 2009.09.27 17:59:19 ] Avalloc > (sorry for delay)
[ 2009.09.27 17:59:41 ] Avalloc > what were you revising in wiki, mazz?
[ 2009.09.27 18:00:17 ] mazzilliu > well what i said i did was change the original idea to omber zombie's simpler idea of a 1 term hiatus after the 2 terms.  so its like serve 2, skip 1, serve 1, skip 1 etc etc
[ 2009.09.27 18:00:24 ] mazzilliu > and then DV said something about a 1 year hiatus instead of 6 month
[ 2009.09.27 18:00:39 ] mazzilliu > then i said if this is a big enough deal to everybody i can revise the wiki to say 2 term(1 year) hiatus instead
[ 2009.09.27 18:00:44 ] Avalloc > will you do 1 year hiatus?
[ 2009.09.27 18:00:48 ] mazzilliu > sure
[ 2009.09.27 18:01:08 ] Erik Finnegan > I think it is risking our reputation at CCP. Because of bad wording of the "problem".
[ 2009.09.27 18:01:48 ] Avalloc > well, ccp can do as they choose to
[ 2009.09.27 18:02:18 ] Avalloc > voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:02:23 ] mazzilliu > woohoo
[ 2009.09.27 18:02:25 ] mazzilliu > editing wiki now
[ 2009.09.27 18:02:38 ] Zastrow J > 0wned
[ 2009.09.27 18:02:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 4/3
[ 2009.09.27 18:02:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > So This Is How Liberty Dies...With Thunderous Applause
[ 2009.09.27 18:02:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > *dramatic pose*
[ 2009.09.27 18:03:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > 12: Prevent cloaked ships in same gang/fleet from decloaking each other (Avalloc)
[ 2009.09.27 18:03:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Prevent_cloaked_ships_in_same_gang/fleet_from_decloaking_each_other
[ 2009.09.27 18:03:44 ] Avalloc > Pretty self explanitory.
[ 2009.09.27 18:03:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 18:04:07 ] Avalloc > dv?
[ 2009.09.27 18:04:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > I was under the impression cloaked ships did not uncloak eachother. Has this mechanic been verified?
[ 2009.09.27 18:04:28 ] Avalloc > i verified myself
[ 2009.09.27 18:04:53 ] Issler Dainze > !
[ 2009.09.27 18:04:59 ] Avalloc > issler?
[ 2009.09.27 18:05:13 ] Issler Dainze > seems like a bug, if it isn't I'de deinitely support changing this as proposed (end0
[ 2009.09.27 18:05:28 ] Zastrow J > dont you remember bob scouts warping to our poses at 100 from the same direction, decloaking each other and getting 0wned
[ 2009.09.27 18:05:30 ] Zastrow J > that was awecome
[ 2009.09.27 18:05:51 ] Avalloc > heheh
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:02 ] Avalloc > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:21 ] Avalloc > vote
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:24 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:25 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:29 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:33 ] Issler Dainze > /emote votes aye
[ 2009.09.27 18:06:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk voted no
[ 2009.09.27 18:07:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > zastrow?
[ 2009.09.27 18:07:36 ] Zastrow J > oh
[ 2009.09.27 18:07:37 ] Zastrow J > ok
[ 2009.09.27 18:07:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 6/1
[ 2009.09.27 18:07:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > 13: Fix plex keys  (maz)
[ 2009.09.27 18:07:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Fix_plex_keys
[ 2009.09.27 18:09:14 ] mazzilliu > the proposal is about removing plex keys
[ 2009.09.27 18:09:26 ] mazzilliu > right now they sort of serve as a way to make ratters invincible
[ 2009.09.27 18:09:59 ] mazzilliu > also there is a part in there about spawning frigs to decloak ships.  the frigs are easily killed but will decloak you if you are just sitting there to keep the plex from despawning
[ 2009.09.27 18:10:05 ] mazzilliu > so questions?
[ 2009.09.27 18:10:47 ] Erik Finnegan > It sounds right to me.
[ 2009.09.27 18:10:54 ] Erik Finnegan > The proposed change, I mean.
[ 2009.09.27 18:11:55 ] mazzilliu > if you have nothing to say vote
[ 2009.09.27 18:11:57 ] mazzilliu > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:12:00 ] Zastrow J > OKAY
[ 2009.09.27 18:12:03 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:12:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:12:29 ] Issler Dainze > no
[ 2009.09.27 18:12:52 ] Avalloc > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:13:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 6/1
[ 2009.09.27 18:13:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk voted yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:13:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > 14: Add login history in your account managment (maz)
[ 2009.09.27 18:13:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Add_login_history_in_your_account_managment
[ 2009.09.27 18:13:37 ] mazzilliu > ok this proposal should be a boost to account security
[ 2009.09.27 18:13:47 ] mazzilliu > use rss feeds to alert people of failed account login attempts
[ 2009.09.27 18:13:52 ] mazzilliu > and show logs of past account activity
[ 2009.09.27 18:14:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2009.09.27 18:14:37 ] mazzilliu > if for example someone has had an account on a 3rd party site that has been compromised, they can be alerted if people are mass-trying accounts
[ 2009.09.27 18:14:44 ] mazzilliu > DV go
[ 2009.09.27 18:14:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > this sounds like something that could be rolled into cosmos. end
[ 2009.09.27 18:15:11 ] mazzilliu > i guess. i dont know
[ 2009.09.27 18:15:15 ] mazzilliu > v0v
[ 2009.09.27 18:15:17 ] mazzilliu > anyone else?
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:04 ] mazzilliu > oh and another thing to add- we already have the same sort of logging available for our API keys
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:12 ] mazzilliu > so i thought it was silly not to include for actual accounts
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:21 ] mazzilliu > so if there is nothing anyone wants to add, lets vote
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:23 ] mazzilliu > voting yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:25 ] Zastrow J > OK Yes voted.
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:27 ] Issler Dainze > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:28 ] Erik Finnegan > /emote votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:16:57 ] Zastrow J > im practicing rock band now. to own everyone at fanfest
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > vuk votes yes
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:10 ] Avalloc > Ja (Yes)
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:19 ] Zastrow J > is anyone here expert on drums
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:21 ] Issler Dainze > silly me, I'm just practicing playing an actual guitar :P
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > motion passed 7/0
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:35 ] Zastrow J > way less useful than plastic guitars
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok before I close the meeting I want to say a few things :)
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:41 ] Avalloc > Mark's son is, Z
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > so stop talking about rock band for a sec
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:51 ] Zastrow J > bring him to fanfest we need a drummer
[ 2009.09.27 18:17:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > :P
[ 2009.09.27 18:18:03 ] Zastrow J > hate you so much val  !!!!!
[ 2009.09.27 18:18:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll be submitting todays passed items for the agenda for the online csm/ccp meeting
[ 2009.09.27 18:18:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > since there arent that many is there a subject we want to have a discussion on with ccp?
[ 2009.09.27 18:18:38 ] mazzilliu > the scanner
[ 2009.09.27 18:18:57 ] Zastrow J > dominions current test server iteration
[ 2009.09.27 18:19:05 ] Dierdra Vaal > I figured we could do the scanner at FF
[ 2009.09.27 18:19:15 ] mazzilliu > alright, whenever is fine
[ 2009.09.27 18:19:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > what do you mean by that zastrow
[ 2009.09.27 18:19:39 ] Zastrow J > as dominion gets hammered out on sisi we need a back and forth
[ 2009.09.27 18:19:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > hm
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:04 ] mazzilliu > yeah, some input on the sov mechanics as they evolve would be great
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > we'll get more dominion info on fanfest too I'm sure
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:08 ] mazzilliu > i agree with zastrow
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll put the current dominion test server iteration on the agenda then
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok second thing
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1181759
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:44 ] mazzilliu > ???
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:46 ] mazzilliu > whats that
[ 2009.09.27 18:20:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > CCP wanted feedback from us on certain items - but so far very little seems to have happened on this front
[ 2009.09.27 18:21:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'd really like to be able to give them the feedback at fanfest
[ 2009.09.27 18:21:10 ] mazzilliu > oh, i was logged off nvm
[ 2009.09.27 18:21:35 ] Zastrow J > i didnt make an assembly hall thread because i thought we agreed on this at the summit
[ 2009.09.27 18:21:42 ] Dierdra Vaal > so please take a loot at that list and see what you can do
[ 2009.09.27 18:21:43 ] Zastrow J > but where's our at least 1 issue from ccp per meeting
[ 2009.09.27 18:21:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > I know
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'll email Xhagen about that now
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > and ask him to prepare one for us so they can tell us what it is at fanfest
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:12 ] Erik Finnegan > !
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok?
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:22 ] Erik Finnegan > Meissa wanted to put up google docs to collaborate on the input
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:33 ] Erik Finnegan > I don't see him having posted that.
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > hmhm
[ 2009.09.27 18:22:51 ] Erik Finnegan > I can do that tonight then.
[ 2009.09.27 18:23:01 ] Erik Finnegan > some of the issues were supposed so stay hidden for NDA matters
[ 2009.09.27 18:23:15 ] Issler Dainze > I don't see the thread, I get an error message
[ 2009.09.27 18:23:27 ] Issler Dainze > nvm
[ 2009.09.27 18:23:31 ] Erik Finnegan > Oh....Issler might not yet have been registered as CSM member.
[ 2009.09.27 18:23:50 ] Erik Finnegan > Sounds like a typical orga issue on CCP's end.
[ 2009.09.27 18:24:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok I think thats all we have to cover today
[ 2009.09.27 18:24:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > ************
[ 2009.09.27 18:24:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > meeting end