CSM Meeting Minutes 4.004 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All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

CSM Meeting Minutes 4.004 raw log


[ 2010.01.17 15:19:54 ] ElvenLord > ======================
[ 2010.01.17 15:20:02 ] ElvenLord > Good day everybody
[ 2010.01.17 15:20:12 ] ElvenLord > this meeting is officially starting
[ 2010.01.17 15:20:20 ] ElvenLord > Agenda for today is:
[ 2010.01.17 15:20:26 ] ElvenLord > 1. Overhaul of roles and grantable roles system2. Kill mails3. shield bonuses4. FW - CCP Inaction Towards Bugs/Exploits5. FW - Lack of Development Part 26. Lock Characters to Prevent Theft7. Scan-able wrecks&containers for th...
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:00 ] ElvenLord > as far as I see all delegates are present and few alts, no CCP monkeys payed us a visit so we are cool :D
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:22 ] TeaDaze > Can we quickly X up who are here in case any in channel are afk>
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:22 ] ElvenLord > ah we are missing Korvin
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:28 ] Helen Highwater > X
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:32 ] ElvenLord > x
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:32 ] Song Li > X
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:33 ] Z0D > x
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > x
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:35 ] TeaDaze > X
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:37 ] Mrs Trzzbk > x
[ 2010.01.17 15:21:57 ] Sokratesz > x
[ 2010.01.17 15:22:21 ] ElvenLord > and Zastrow is his usual semi-afk I guess
[ 2010.01.17 15:22:41 ] T'Amber > Coming Soon"
[ 2010.01.17 15:22:44 ] Zastrow > got my coffe im here
[ 2010.01.17 15:22:48 ] ElvenLord > \o/
[ 2010.01.17 15:22:55 ] ElvenLord > /emote humps Zastrow
[ 2010.01.17 15:23:09 ] T'Amber > o.O
[ 2010.01.17 15:23:15 ] ElvenLord > First topic of the day is: 1. Overhaul of roles and grantable roles system
[ 2010.01.17 15:23:21 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Overhaul_of_roles_and_grantable_roles_system_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.17 15:23:24 ] ElvenLord > I hope you all read it
[ 2010.01.17 15:23:44 ] Mrs Trzzbk > holy :words:
[ 2010.01.17 15:23:48 ] ElvenLord > there will be extended material for it in the near future if its passed
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:00 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:03 ] ElvenLord > almost a book on it :S
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:07 ] ElvenLord > still in writting process
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:08 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:14 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:15 ] Alekseyev Karrde > hehe
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:33 ] TeaDaze > Seems a sensible proposal and follows convential wisdom. Just a question of how many groups allowed really. end
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:40 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:41 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:24:52 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 15:25:30 ] Helen Highwater > Let me check I understand this. Basically the CEO creates a set of permissions and assigns it a name. That roles package can then be assigned to individuals rather than having to set each role separately?
[ 2010.01.17 15:25:38 ] Helen Highwater > Is that basically it? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:25:53 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:26:26 ] ElvenLord > CEO creates user groups that have package of roles attached to them and adds members to them
[ 2010.01.17 15:26:45 ] Helen Highwater > Or 'yes'
[ 2010.01.17 15:26:46 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:26:46 ] Mrs Trzzbk > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:26:49 ] ElvenLord > some some roles are predefined and permitions are given to certain objects
[ 2010.01.17 15:26:58 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 15:27:01 ] T'Amber > Good work that looks great. Being able to share premade user group settings would useful although open to abuse [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:27:14 ] T'Amber > to other people i mean X)
[ 2010.01.17 15:27:55 ] ElvenLord > system is similar to for example what phpbb forums have, or OS file system
[ 2010.01.17 15:28:02 ] T'Amber > thats what i was thinking
[ 2010.01.17 15:28:03 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.17 15:28:05 ] Song Li > Does this come with a set of prepackaged role systems available to new playerr/corps so that everytime you create a corp you don't have to create the basic roles and permissions? And would these also be export/importable? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:28:29 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.17 15:28:51 ] ElvenLord > it can be done with ease, but i think a short tutorial might be needed for transition phase
[ 2010.01.17 15:28:56 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 15:28:58 ] Alekseyev Karrde > How is this different from titles?  Seems to me it's the same idea in a different, not nesc easier to navigate package but expanded to include more options.  Or am i missing something? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:29:24 ] ElvenLord > Mrs Trzzbk go
[ 2010.01.17 15:29:26 ] Mrs Trzzbk > The actual UG thing sounds like Titles, so I think we should focus more on the fact that it shouldn't be a fucking nightmare of the worst proportions to create, hand out and audit said titles.
[ 2010.01.17 15:29:31 ] ElvenLord > /emote till I write an answer
[ 2010.01.17 15:29:37 ] Mrs Trzzbk > pretty much what Alek said
[ 2010.01.17 15:29:39 ] Mrs Trzzbk > [fin]
[ 2010.01.17 15:29:40 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:29:57 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 15:30:37 ] T'Amber > Making some of the roles that we have now more specific and not so broad - ie. pos roles, would be a good start, it does seem to be similar to what we have now but with more control if i read correctly?
[ 2010.01.17 15:30:43 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:03 ] T'Amber > you may need to quickly explain a few things not in the post
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:04 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:09 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:12 ] TeaDaze > It is more flexible if the players have the option to set the groups
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:22 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:30 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord me now
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:35 ] ElvenLord > The general principle is straigntforward: CEO and Directors create UserGroups with privileges attached, then add/remove members to/from those groups
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:39 ] T'Amber > \o/
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:41 ] TeaDaze > for example you can have a procurement role that has access to a specific wallet as well as hangers etc [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:31:49 ] ElvenLord > To each User Group are attached roles and privileges that every member of the group enjoys � if you want to grant 'special rights' to some members, just create a suitable group with the extra rights and add those members to it.
[ 2010.01.17 15:32:00 ] ElvenLord > Each member can belong to any number of User Groups, and there is no hard limit to how many User Groups can be created, nor to how many individual UserGroups a given role can be attached.
[ 2010.01.17 15:32:10 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:32:12 ] ElvenLord > It is possible to create User Groups whose purpose is the administration of members in select User Groups, allowing non-directors to be empowered as administrators of 'sandboxed' groups.
[ 2010.01.17 15:32:28 ] ElvenLord > Almost any administrative decision applicable to a given UserGroup can potentially be subjected to a vote (decided by the Group creator/superadmin) � who gets to vote is decided by selecting a UserGroup as electorate for this object.
[ 2010.01.17 15:32:38 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:32:40 ] ElvenLord > User Groups can be 'nested' to some extent: it is possible to create a meta-UserGroup lumping together several UserGroups � this is especially useful for the purposes of communications management and polling (ex: you can set a meta-group that will allow
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:00 ] ElvenLord > CEO and Directors as Admin-level User Groups don't need to change much: Directors are expected to have near-equal power as a CEO, short of the of the ability to name/revoque a Director.
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:06 ] ElvenLord > Irrevocable privileges of a corporation CEO:
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:15 ] ElvenLord > # Invite new members into the corporation (can be subjected to vote)# Kick members out of the corporation (can be subjected to vote)# Promote/Demote a member to/from Directorship (can be subjected to vote)# Create new UserGroups (can be subj...
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:22 ] Alekseyev Karrde > +1 for non directors able to hand out limited amount of roles
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:29 ] ElvenLord > # Edit or Delete existing UserGroups (can be subjected to vote)# Invite or remove a corp member to/from any UserGroup (can be subjected to vote)# Transfer shares from the Corporation Wallet to another entity (can be subjected to vote)
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:35 ] ElvenLord > # Issue new shares or 'retire' corporation shares (can be subjected to vote)# Manage corp-level communication channels (can be subjected to vote)# Declare or retract war on behalf of the corporation (can be subjected to vote)
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:40 ] ElvenLord > Create, enter or leave an alliance on behalf of the corporation (can be subjected to vote)
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:50 ] ElvenLord > Absent the members of relevant User Groups, the actions subject to votes will revert to 'autocratic' mode, allowing the CEO to manage the corporation dictator-style � at least until a new administration is put in place.
[ 2010.01.17 15:33:55 ] ElvenLord > Privileges of a corporation Director:
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:02 ] ElvenLord > # Invite new members into the corporation (can be subjected to vote)# Kick members out of the corporation (can be subjected to vote)
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:07 ] ElvenLord > # Manage corp-level communication channels (can be subjected to vote)# Promote/Demote a CEO (requires a vote)
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:12 ] ElvenLord > # Create new UserGroups (can be subjected to vote)# Edit or Delete existing UserGroups (can be subjected to vote)
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:18 ] ElvenLord > # Invite or remove a corp member to/from any UserGroup (can be subjected to vote)# Manage Corporation Standings and assets (can be subjected to vote)
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:30 ] Song Li > I think we get the idea ;-)
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:42 ] ElvenLord > wait thats just 1st page :P
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:49 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:50 ] T'Amber > You should come to spahm day. Thats some effot you have put into this
[ 2010.01.17 15:34:50 ] ElvenLord > 23 more to go :P
[ 2010.01.17 15:35:07 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:35:14 ] ElvenLord > I will make a pdf of the entire breakdown
[ 2010.01.17 15:35:23 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 15:35:26 ] T'Amber > Is included in this new system more options for actual role assignment? expaning current roles so that the user groups could be moar specific without having to spend lots of programmer time on making these roles mechanically possible? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:35:34 ] T'Amber > *expanding
[ 2010.01.17 15:36:23 ] ElvenLord > this entire system does not require too much programer work (I asked already)
[ 2010.01.17 15:36:27 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 15:36:31 ] Z0D > I like the idea of USER / Group type security, in a way like titles, we need added more options of security in paralel as well, at the moment we have "based at", "HQ" and Others, we need others such as Station, System, POS or for posses security levels.
[ 2010.01.17 15:36:51 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:01 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:06 ] Song Li > +1
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:08 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:09 ] TeaDaze > I think the general principle is understood but it will obviously be up to CCP to decide how complex to go. Allowing finer grained permissions for "advanced" users while mirroring the current setup by default would be good.
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:09 ] Z0D > those would be categories that should have been there from the start.. at the moment if one must get POS access he gets all POSSES access.....
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:23 ] T'Amber > +100
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:46 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:46 ] TeaDaze > But there needs to be care taken that it isn't too complex to see what groups and people in them can do what if you start allowing nested [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:52 ] Z0D > throught the OTHERS part, need to have multiple assignable locations for rights per people / group etc [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:56 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:37:59 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 15:38:05 ] Helen Highwater > Rather than have 59994593 different roles for variations of the same thing (take from containers in hangar 1, take from containers in hangar 1 at this station) just have broad permissions that can be narrowed or defined per user.
[ 2010.01.17 15:38:19 ] Helen Highwater > So you have one Corp Hangar Access role but the scope of which be defined per user for example.[emd]
[ 2010.01.17 15:38:33 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 15:38:35 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Please god allow a blanket option still.  People setting permissions for each tower hanger and each item therein will get really tired really fast.  As CEO, i want to do LESS work to establish effective presmissions.  The bare minimuim please [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:38:35 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:38:52 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 15:38:58 ] Sokratesz > people have been asking about the ability to control for example hangar and pos access per system rather than all or nothing..(how) would that tie into this proposal? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:39:44 ] ElvenLord > well idea is to tigh permitions to objects not ppl directly
[ 2010.01.17 15:40:17 ] ElvenLord > so you can enable one UG to "control" one object or group of object and not all of the same type
[ 2010.01.17 15:40:32 ] ElvenLord > but thats something for programmers to deal with :P
[ 2010.01.17 15:40:37 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 15:40:51 ] T'Amber > +100 for masking functions. Can use A-Y Hangers but not Z hanger. Can use B - Z Pos, but not A POS.Manually selecting every pos/ hangar/ lab etc can be annoying. Being able to use a masking function would save alot of time.
[ 2010.01.17 15:41:08 ] T'Amber > Masking as in Boolean selections. [/spahm]
[ 2010.01.17 15:41:50 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:41:55 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.17 15:42:28 ] Song Li > I think the base framwork everyone understands and final details are the kinds of things that CCP discussion will bring. I'd like to call the vote on it [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:42:39 ] TeaDaze > +1
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:26 ] ElvenLord > ok then, by popular demand we go for a vote. Pls vote Y or N to proposal: 1. Overhaul of roles and grantable roles system
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:28 ] ElvenLord > ===============================
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:31 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:31 ] Song Li > Y
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:33 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:37 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:38 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:41 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:43 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2010.01.17 15:43:45 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:01 ] T'Amber > Er, can i vote?
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:06 ] TeaDaze > Waiting on Zod
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:12 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:20 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:34 ] ElvenLord > but pls vote :P
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:35 ] Z0D > i had something to add , but also ready to vote
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:39 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:41 ] Z0D > This is something i would like to bring to CCP as well, with poor design corporate security as well, limits the entry to corps by new and unknown users because of lack of security restrictions and things a new member can do even with no roles assigned.
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:45 ] TeaDaze > (Vote is carried anyway, vote away :P)
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:46 ] Z0D > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:50 ] TeaDaze > Passes 9 for
[ 2010.01.17 15:44:59 ] ElvenLord > ===========
[ 2010.01.17 15:45:31 ] ElvenLord > next is Sokratesz and my favourite topic 2. Kill mails
[ 2010.01.17 15:45:34 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Fix_kill_mails_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.17 15:45:42 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:45:47 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:03 ] ElvenLord > dunno if all of you had that problem but in 0.0 a lot of killmails do get lost or get mailformed
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:08 ] Sokratesz > need to include 'killmails not happening AT ALL' i one shotted a bunch of dreads that never happened. FFS! [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:11 ] ElvenLord > and it is starting to get annoying
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:15 ] Alekseyev Karrde > hell yeah, happens to us all the time
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:21 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:25 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:35 ] TeaDaze > This is clearly a bug situation, I have to assume people are getting nowhere after reporting them? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:41 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:45 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:45 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:48 ] ElvenLord > pretty much
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:52 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 15:46:57 ] Helen Highwater > In highlag situations, ancillary systems are turned off at the server and one of the first to go is killmail generation.[end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:47:42 ] ElvenLord > and that is a problem sometimes for petitions and reimbursment stuff on both player level and on GM level
[ 2010.01.17 15:47:46 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 15:47:47 ] Alekseyev Karrde > This is one of the most day to day annoying things in the game.  The sheer volume of mails and the diversity of things they're used for should demand ccp's attention for that data to be recorded and represented accuratly most of the time not rarely
[ 2010.01.17 15:47:53 ] Alekseyev Karrde > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:47:58 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 15:48:05 ] T'Amber > Can you include session change problems into this issue. [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:48:30 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 15:48:32 ] Sokratesz > I also want to add that i would not mind if ccp made the system a bit different from what it is now, for example if killmails were to be delayed for some time when the server is busy doing other things (what helen said). they dont need to be on time
[ 2010.01.17 15:48:39 ] Sokratesz > they just need to be accurate [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:48:54 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:03 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber, sesion change in what way?
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:21 ] ElvenLord > if we want to add it you need to be specific
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:25 ] T'Amber > Er, hasnt anyone had problems when you change systems and don't come up on kill mails?
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:34 ] Sokratesz > ah yeah
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:35 ] T'Amber > maybe its just me.
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:40 ] ElvenLord > ah yea
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:44 ] Sokratesz > if the victim jumps, all damage done priot to session change isnt shown
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:46 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 15:49:58 ] TeaDaze > What they said, only I ! to speak :P
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:06 ] ElvenLord > :P
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:08 ] Alekseyev Karrde > zing
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:12 ] TeaDaze > However if the aim is to reduce the issues with killmails
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:30 ] TeaDaze > adding that which would require syncing the nodes would possibly make it worse
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:33 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:50 ] ElvenLord > well delayed mode of killmails is cool for me
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:54 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:50:56 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:51:02 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.17 15:51:31 ] Mrs Trzzbk > I don't really care what happens as long as my name gets on every single killmail ever generated and is automatically posted to the GS killboard, fwiw
[ 2010.01.17 15:51:33 ] T'Amber > Is there possibly another way that killmails could be made. Ie, server records data, and the maybe a client match or something. I haven
[ 2010.01.17 15:51:37 ] T'Amber > OOps sorry :|
[ 2010.01.17 15:51:41 ] Song Li > I have it in my head that CCP commented that killmails are created at the moment of the ships destruction with the data on teh server then that data is essentially deleted, meaning that kill mails would still be produced in that way via this proposal
[ 2010.01.17 15:52:01 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:52:28 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 15:52:29 ] Song Li > even if not sent anyways, which would still require the server load they do now. So CCP would still be having them cut out to save processor power in high lag. Is the trade for killmails overruling lag processor support? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:53:02 ] TeaDaze > IIRC the killmail generation is done by a seperate process and because it itakes a snapshot as the ship is destroyed that is why you end up with pods on killmails fitted with guns etc
[ 2010.01.17 15:53:37 ] TeaDaze > And moving from one system to the other the ship has damage recorded on it, but the server doesn't know how it got there [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:54:18 ] T'Amber > Sorry i pressed enter by mistake. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:55:02 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:55:08 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 15:56:01 ] T'Amber > Is there possibly another way that killmails could be done that you could discuss with CCP, or one you could come up with and discuss after a meeting with them?
[ 2010.01.17 15:56:20 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:56:26 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 15:56:26 ] T'Amber > For me, although killmails are nice, if its an issue with server processing, id rather be able to play first
[ 2010.01.17 15:56:30 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:56:34 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:57:19 ] TeaDaze > I think the fundimental issue is how the server holds this transient data, I would assume that it is held only on the node in question and not written to the database. Doing so will add more DB calls which might cause lag too. Happy to talk to CCP
[ 2010.01.17 15:57:52 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:57:53 ] TeaDaze > about it, but it isn't something we can second guess as easy or difficult. Suggest vote on talk to CCP about buggy killmails and leave details till Iceland [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:58:01 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.17 15:58:04 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.17 15:58:13 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 15:58:14 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Can we leave the mechanics of this for CCP?  If it can be done w/o killing the game lag wise it seems like a no brainer.  And i do recall a time where they worked more or less OK and it wasnt the lagpocalypse so it can be done [end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:58:29 ] TeaDaze > (By transient data I mean who shot what at who)
[ 2010.01.17 15:58:35 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 15:59:04 ] Z0D > this could be stored temporary on sep db and reconciled and synced at DT as well to remove the heavier loads from servers used by people playing in critical times [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 15:59:10 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.17 15:59:23 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:05 ] Song Li > I think the details have to be discussed with CCP so the actual mechanics are clear and implementation is defined. I'd like to call the vote to get it discussed since we can't really move forward in our own talks about it till we have that info {end}
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:22 ] ElvenLord > ok then lets vote
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:26 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:31 ] ElvenLord > Y or N on killmail issue
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:33 ] ElvenLord > =================================
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:35 ] Z0D > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:35 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:36 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:36 ] Song Li > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:49 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:00:55 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:01:01 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:01:03 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:01:13 ] TeaDaze > Passes 9 for
[ 2010.01.17 16:01:21 ] ElvenLord > ===========
[ 2010.01.17 16:01:34 ] ElvenLord > next on agenda is: 3. shield bonuses
[ 2010.01.17 16:01:36 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Shield_gang_bonuses_should_be_applied_just_like_armour_ones_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:04 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:06 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:10 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:11 ] Sokratesz > yeah this is a sensitive one..
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:18 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:20 ] Sokratesz > i had a heated discussion about it with helen already''
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:24 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:27 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:32 ] Sokratesz > but everything is pretty much summed up in that thread [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:36 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:39 ] TeaDaze > Just pointing out that shield and armour tanking are different in many many different places and trying to align one factor ignoring the others is bad.
[ 2010.01.17 16:02:57 ] T'Amber > +100
[ 2010.01.17 16:03:05 ] TeaDaze > As long as they are different but comparable that is fine even if the fine details are not the same [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:03:12 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:03:18 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:03:34 ] Helen Highwater > I had the discussion with Sok and others in the CSM Public channel
[ 2010.01.17 16:04:36 ] Helen Highwater > In the end we suggested a compromise that when changing sessiosn, the bonus remains for a grace period to allow the booster to arrive in the same session as the rest of the gang and keep the bonus runing
[ 2010.01.17 16:04:59 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:05:11 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 16:05:15 ] Z0D > I agree with Sok there as long as the instant bonus as armor gives the bonus part and exludes actuall current ship shield damage, if into armor, its added to the max but player still must repair their shield for damaged part [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:05:22 ] Helen Highwater > That way, the benefits arent lost when hotdrop[ping caps etc but the other end of the scale with passive tanks etc isn't overpoweresd
[ 2010.01.17 16:05:25 ] Helen Highwater > I'[m not finished
[ 2010.01.17 16:05:39 ] ElvenLord > sry
[ 2010.01.17 16:05:41 ] ElvenLord > :P
[ 2010.01.17 16:05:46 ] T'Amber > :)
[ 2010.01.17 16:06:35 ] Helen Highwater > The two ends of the shield tanking scale are different and need to be approached in different ways. Fixing capital sized tanks in this way would overpwoer smaller ones.[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:06:57 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 16:06:59 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Armor doesnt naturally regen, there's no mechanic to handle it other than as-is.  Shield tanking does.  There's many ways you could argue to balance one or the other but the gang bonus application is a tiny and frankly pointless way [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:07:27 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.17 16:08:06 ] ElvenLord > I dont fly my levi in combat for those reasons, cause after 2h of regeneration if I change sesion I'm missing 1/3 of shield
[ 2010.01.17 16:08:20 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ...or 10%
[ 2010.01.17 16:08:23 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 16:08:26 ] Sokratesz > currently, they arent even comparable, not even close. it takes *ages* for the bonus to recharge and a lot of cap and time to boost it up actively. shield ships essentially enter fights with an inherent disadvantage and the 'recharge bonus' that helen
[ 2010.01.17 16:08:29 ] Sokratesz > advocates doesn't compensate for that in my view. spanning it across sessions may be prone to exploits and difficult to implement on the programming level. As it is now it is just unfair to shield ships, especially those that greatly depend on HP (HACs,
[ 2010.01.17 16:08:33 ] Sokratesz > BS and up) [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:09:01 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:09:03 ] TeaDaze > I like the compromise Helen suggested as long as it also applied to other gang bonuses and not just shield or armour. I assume you suggest this also apply to active gang links? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:09:14 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:09:20 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:09:36 ] Helen Highwater > It doesn't need to apply to other gang links because they have a binary and immediate effect. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:10:04 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:10:10 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:10:49 ] TeaDaze > Just also wondering if this is purely down to titan shield cap bonus and not really releated to the leadership skills? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:11:06 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:11:11 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 16:11:30 ] ElvenLord > but it is most visible problem on caps and supercaps
[ 2010.01.17 16:11:31 ] Sokratesz > both of them..but the effect of the titan bonus is that much larger and therefor has that much more impact, but its the same at the basic 2%/lvl for leadership [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:11:48 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:12:09 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:12:28 ] TeaDaze > Because otherwise we are arguing that ~15% shield cap (from a mindlinked commander) is gamebreaking which doesn't sit right we me
[ 2010.01.17 16:12:45 ] TeaDaze > Perhaps the answer is to handle the lev bonus differently and move on [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:13:04 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:13:18 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:13:51 ] Helen Highwater > It's 15% shield bonus and the regen bonus which is equivalent to a free T2 midslot mod. You can't ignore that/[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:14:02 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:14:07 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 16:14:38 ] Sokratesz > but again helen...the effect (advantage0 that that recharge has is sooo tiny that i think its not worth counting that as an advantage, unless everyone flew drakes or something
[ 2010.01.17 16:14:44 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:14:49 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:14:51 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:15:05 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:15:36 ] Helen Highwater > It's equivalent to a T2 sheild recharger for free. It's not something that can be glossed over and does need to be accounted for[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:15:51 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:15:54 ] T'Amber > +1
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:00 ] TeaDaze > Agree with Helen
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:03 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:06 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:10 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:13 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:39 ] Sokratesz > but does that make up for up to 37.5% less shield hp to start with? i dont think so..the recharge bonus takes a long time to become an actual advantage [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:50 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:16:55 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:17:07 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:17:41 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:17:46 ] Helen Highwater > That's incorrect. Even if you take a while to benefit from the new max Shield HP, the extra recharge is working straight away meaning that incoming DPS has to be higher to break yoru tank.[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:18:05 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:18:07 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:18:09 ] T'Amber > Agree with Helen and TeaDaze. The issue with caps needs to be addressed seperately if it is an issue (i havent used shield caps with someone in gang with a mindlink so i can't comment) and a vote should be made [/spahm]
[ 2010.01.17 16:18:11 ] Alekseyev Karrde > +1 helen
[ 2010.01.17 16:18:13 ] T'Amber > missed me :(
[ 2010.01.17 16:18:46 ] TeaDaze > Again you are arguing this based on the lev bonus - That is not how 90% of shield tankers with bonus operate - handle the lev bonus differently if you must (give half the capacity bonus to begin with) [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:19:09 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 16:19:12 ] Z0D > In my opinion if someone has 50% shield left before bonus, when he gets gang / fleet bonus he still should have 50% left after if he was at 5,000 / 10,000 he then would effectively be after bonus at for example 6,000 / 12,000 [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:19:43 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 16:19:48 ] Sokratesz > yes but, the hp/s gain is absolutely TINY. in situaions where you face a lot of incoming dps, recharge doesnt matter at all, its ehp that counts. whether its the titan or normal gang bonus doesnt matter [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:21:02 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:21:22 ] ElvenLord > lets then have a grace period for all mods/skills when doing sesion change for shield ammount bonus?
[ 2010.01.17 16:21:28 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 16:21:35 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:21:38 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Shields get an HP and active tank bonus from their leadership buffs, not unreasonable for that to have a drawback when you're talking huge titan inflated numbers [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:21:52 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 16:21:59 ] Sokratesz > a grace period on session wont help either if you are logging in quick and jumping into a fight [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:22:47 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:23:02 ] ElvenLord > then there is no other option then to vote on the proposal as it is in the wiki
[ 2010.01.17 16:23:06 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 16:23:11 ] T'Amber > I suggest you vote
[ 2010.01.17 16:23:15 ] T'Amber > [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:23:57 ] ElvenLord > ok, we go for Vote on the proposal as it is described in wiki raised bu Sok, Y or N pls
[ 2010.01.17 16:23:59 ] ElvenLord > ===========================
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:14 ] TeaDaze > N
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:16 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:21 ] Mrs Trzzbk > n
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:25 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:26 ] Zastrow > weeners
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:41 ] T'Amber > (n) <- if someone is missing :)
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:44 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:46 ] ElvenLord > Zas vote pls y or N
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:50 ] Zastrow > n
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:52 ] ElvenLord > n
[ 2010.01.17 16:24:59 ] Song Li > n
[ 2010.01.17 16:25:18 ] Alekseyev Karrde > n
[ 2010.01.17 16:25:26 ] TeaDaze > Failed, 7 against, 2 for
[ 2010.01.17 16:25:45 ] ElvenLord > =================
[ 2010.01.17 16:25:58 ] ElvenLord > next topic: 4. FW - CCP Inaction Towards Bugs/Exploits
[ 2010.01.17 16:26:09 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare_-_CCP_Inaction_Towards_Bugs/Exploits_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.17 16:26:52 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:26:57 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:27:04 ] TeaDaze > Isn't this covering stuff already raised and passed? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:27:22 ] ElvenLord > SOk?
[ 2010.01.17 16:27:29 ] ElvenLord > *Zod?
[ 2010.01.17 16:27:30 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:27:47 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 16:27:58 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:28:12 ] Z0D > i have not seen do anything about it, this has lagged for years yet nothing is done, thats something for CCP to answer as to why they do nothing about it... [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:28:24 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 16:28:26 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I'm no FW head, but if this proposal is anywhere near accurate that's outrageous. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:28:57 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:29:12 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 16:29:57 ] Z0D > if you check forums on exploits you can see its been going on forever, even after having exploits demonstrated in front of their eyes at previous CSM's [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:30:29 ] ElvenLord > and TD, some exloits and issues are mentioned, but this topic cover CCPs attitude/dealings with FW not problems in FW
[ 2010.01.17 16:30:53 ] Z0D > exactly
[ 2010.01.17 16:30:57 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:31:01 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:31:32 ] TeaDaze > I don;t think much if any discussion on this is required now. Let's talk to ccp (and link this with http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/FW_Complex_NPCs_and_Standings_%28CSM%29 which has already been passed) [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:32:00 ] ElvenLord > we will merge those in one topic for CCP discussion
[ 2010.01.17 16:32:03 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:32:09 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 16:32:46 ] Alekseyev Karrde > On the topic of merging, i think this is part of a larger issue of ccp's attitude RE exploits that is hindering customer service.  Would like to make sure we get a chance to talk to them about their internal documentation not just fw
[ 2010.01.17 16:32:49 ] Alekseyev Karrde > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:06 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:10 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:13 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:22 ] TeaDaze > Don't get too broad on a single topic of the FW angle might get lost or delayed [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:35 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:36 ] TeaDaze > or*
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:47 ] Z0D > customer service in general, petitions and other attitudes, FW being one of the many serious issues [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:33:58 ] ElvenLord > yea, FW might get lost there
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:13 ] ElvenLord > you need to have in mind that CCPs attention spam is not big
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:16 ] ElvenLord > *span
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:27 ] ElvenLord > lets vote on this, Y or N pls
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:29 ] ElvenLord > =============================
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:31 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:32 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:33 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:33 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:36 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:34:48 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:35:13 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:35:22 ] ElvenLord > /emote slaps Zastrow
[ 2010.01.17 16:35:23 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:35:55 ] TeaDaze > Passes 8 for (waiting on Zas?)
[ 2010.01.17 16:36:08 ] Z0D > /emote points Zastrow to the Y checkbox.
[ 2010.01.17 16:36:23 ] T'Amber > .Zastrow > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:36:23 ] Z0D > :)
[ 2010.01.17 16:36:59 ] T'Amber > making coffees maybe
[ 2010.01.17 16:36:59 ] Song Li > I think we have to assume Zas is not afk and not int he meeting
[ 2010.01.17 16:37:12 ] Song Li > is now afk
[ 2010.01.17 16:37:18 ] ElvenLord > ok T'Amber voted for Zas
[ 2010.01.17 16:37:24 ] T'Amber > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:37:25 ] ElvenLord > so its 9 for :D
[ 2010.01.17 16:37:28 ] ElvenLord > =============
[ 2010.01.17 16:37:37 ] ElvenLord > NEXT: 5. FW - Lack of Development Part 2
[ 2010.01.17 16:37:39 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Factional_Warfare_-_Lack_of_Development_Part_2_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.17 16:38:10 ] ElvenLord > this is again str8 forward
[ 2010.01.17 16:38:15 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:38:22 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 16:38:37 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:39:05 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:39:14 ] Z0D > in line with previous, but also, promises made, not held, and many expansion packs later, nothing is being done, add features, don't finish them, move to something new, don't come back to the past and leave as it is.. [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:39:29 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 16:39:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Permanently is a bit strong.  Do any other gamestyles have a permanenent team? I think a deciated scrum team targeted till at least the next major expansion would be a little more realistic [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:39:48 ] Alekseyev Karrde > (not to meantion more focused on deliverables)
[ 2010.01.17 16:39:50 ] TeaDaze > +1
[ 2010.01.17 16:39:56 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:40:08 ] Helen Highwater > There's a lot of editorialising in that article and not so many actual facts to go on. Would suggest tabling this until the proposal is better fleshed out[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:00 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:10 ] Sokratesz > gtg, dinner, t'amber has my vote
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:12 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:13 ] ElvenLord > what facts would you like? The fact is that FW hasnt been touched since deployment, not many fixes where done to it
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:19 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:20 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:39 ] TeaDaze > I'm happy to take this as a conversation topic as is and discuss it with the relevant team at CCP. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:41:51 ] Z0D > agreed
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:00 ] ElvenLord > this is one of the hronical problems with CCP and it has been adressed many times with CSM
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:04 ] ElvenLord > and has been kinda ignored
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:06 ] ElvenLord > http://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/Unfinished_Expansions
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:11 ] ElvenLord > this is one example
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:19 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:49 ] T'Amber > nvm you linked it[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:52 ] T'Amber > :)
[ 2010.01.17 16:42:58 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:43:03 ] Helen Highwater > So raise those issues then rather than say 'it's broken and incomplete'. THat doesn't really move the discussion along. They can even all be the same issue if they aall deal withthe same area of gameplay but at the moment there's nothing concrete in
[ 2010.01.17 16:43:26 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:43:32 ] Helen Highwater > this proposal to take forwards[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:43:34 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:43:39 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:43:53 ] TeaDaze > I think this fits into the idea that CCP had to make the CSM look at more big picture stuff
[ 2010.01.17 16:44:24 ] TeaDaze > We want some answers on the current state of FW development because it doesn't seem to be being addressed (at least not publically) [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:44:42 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 16:44:47 ] T'Amber > I suggest you vote to take it to the meeting table and find out why it seems like FW is on the backburner, if it is at all. There might be something we are missing. Also maybe some moar concrete exampled of the issues might help[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:03 ] T'Amber > *examples
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:06 ] Song Li > more
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:16 ] T'Amber > MOAR
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:20 ] ElvenLord > :P
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:33 ] ElvenLord > Lets vote on this, Y or N pls
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:38 ] ElvenLord > =======================
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:39 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:39 ] ElvenLord > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:39 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:40 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:45:44 ] T'Amber > Y!!
[ 2010.01.17 16:46:05 ] ElvenLord > goonies?
[ 2010.01.17 16:46:19 ] Helen Highwater > N
[ 2010.01.17 16:46:20 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:46:20 ] Z0D > busy in 0.0 warfare.... :)
[ 2010.01.17 16:46:28 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2010.01.17 16:46:51 ] TeaDaze > Will pass with 7 for 1 against. If Zas is afk then T'Amber is already covering Sok being afk
[ 2010.01.17 16:46:51 ] ElvenLord > 7 for 1 no, missing Zas
[ 2010.01.17 16:47:16 ] ElvenLord > we will wait a min or two
[ 2010.01.17 16:47:28 ] T'Amber > good idea
[ 2010.01.17 16:47:30 ] Z0D > gonna fetch a coffe brb
[ 2010.01.17 16:47:34 ] Song Li > Move on. He should be paying attentin
[ 2010.01.17 16:48:15 ] TeaDaze > You are not technically allowed to abstain from a vote if part of the meeting - but it won't change the outcome in any case
[ 2010.01.17 16:48:22 ] Song Li > That's 2 votes he's been afk. We can assume he's not present anymore
[ 2010.01.17 16:48:28 ] ElvenLord > true
[ 2010.01.17 16:48:47 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze > Will pass with 7 for 1 against. If Zas is afk then T'Amber is already covering Sok being afk <- confiming this
[ 2010.01.17 16:48:49 ] ElvenLord > ======================
[ 2010.01.17 16:49:04 ] Z0D > back
[ 2010.01.17 16:49:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > confirm/deny?
[ 2010.01.17 16:49:36 ] ElvenLord > Next is a motion we discussed last time, now its updated by our own TD: 6. Lock Characters to Prevent Theft
[ 2010.01.17 16:49:40 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Account_Security_Enhancements_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.01.17 16:50:33 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:50:42 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:51:11 ] TeaDaze > Hopefully this is clear but I'll answer any questions. Point is that selling accounts will happen one way or the other and supporting a secure way to transfer chars is a good thing. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:51:52 ] Z0D > agreed
[ 2010.01.17 16:52:03 ] Song Li > agreed
[ 2010.01.17 16:52:21 ] ElvenLord > anyone want to add something new? since we did discuss this last meeting
[ 2010.01.17 16:52:28 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:52:34 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 16:52:44 ] T'Amber > Looks good :) [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:52:51 ] ElvenLord > rofl
[ 2010.01.17 16:52:55 ] Z0D > hehe
[ 2010.01.17 16:53:01 ] T'Amber > WEll, this is a big issue
[ 2010.01.17 16:53:07 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:53:12 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 16:53:45 ] T'Amber > for me anyway, as I have sold and sell characters. You have covered everything that was discussed and i think you covered everything. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:53:50 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I love that this is being addressed and for the most part is solid.  I have been with the IP address part.  Dynamically assigned IP and people loggign from multiple computers or locations will mess that right up [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:02 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *been=beef
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:02 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:04 ] Alekseyev Karrde > i have beef
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:08 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:09 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:31 ] TeaDaze > Understood on the dynamic ip thing (I work for an ISP :P) but that is why it is optional for advanced users
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:38 ] TeaDaze > I have a fixed IP for example
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:49 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:54:58 ] TeaDaze > I also know which ranges I get allocated on my dynamic connection
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:01 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:02 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:04 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:17 ] T'Amber > what tea daze said. Optional. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:38 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:41 ] Helen Highwater > I log in from three or four different locations all with different carriers.[end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:51 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 16:55:54 ] Z0D > more security implementations should be there to protect users, as for example i am sure out there, there are players that know they will never sell their accounts, so they should be able to lock it properly and could only be unlocked by
[ 2010.01.17 16:56:04 ] Z0D > credit card security if have to etc [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:56:06 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:56:16 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 16:56:40 ] TeaDaze > It would be locked by default and would require a positive confirmation - you can't lock it to credit card because some people use GTCs [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:56:40 ] Zastrow > hello i am back, i had a minor emergency, sorry
[ 2010.01.17 16:56:58 ] ElvenLord > wb zas
[ 2010.01.17 16:57:07 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:57:16 ] ElvenLord > continue TD
[ 2010.01.17 16:57:28 ] TeaDaze > Also on the IP locking - if you are on multiple dynamic accounts then you can leave it off
[ 2010.01.17 16:57:43 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:57:50 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 16:57:52 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:57:56 ] Alekseyev Karrde > It's no optional on the proposal, dunno if you want to make that clearer or not [end[
[ 2010.01.17 16:58:00 ] Alekseyev Karrde > *not
[ 2010.01.17 16:58:07 ] TeaDaze > (Locking account access to known IP addresses (or range of) for advanced users only.)
[ 2010.01.17 16:58:22 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 16:58:35 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 16:58:35 ] TeaDaze > ( "for advanced users only" isn't clear enough, I'll add optional)
[ 2010.01.17 16:59:01 ] T'Amber > I can find Chribba's original post on the ip masking if it will help clear the issue up. it covers most of this and maybe it could be added to the wiki. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 16:59:41 ] TeaDaze > http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=781256&page=1#1
[ 2010.01.17 16:59:50 ] TeaDaze > Will add to relevant threads section
[ 2010.01.17 16:59:57 ] ElvenLord > OK, lets vote on this, Y or N pls
[ 2010.01.17 16:59:58 ] ElvenLord > ===================
[ 2010.01.17 17:00:00 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2010.01.17 17:00:00 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:00:02 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.17 17:00:20 ] Alekseyev Karrde > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:00:31 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.17 17:00:31 ] T'Amber > Y (Thanks TeaDaze)
[ 2010.01.17 17:00:41 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:01:15 ] ElvenLord > Z0D and mrs Trzzbk votes missing
[ 2010.01.17 17:02:04 ] Mrs Trzzbk > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:02:10 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:02:15 ] TeaDaze > Passes 9 for
[ 2010.01.17 17:02:23 ] ElvenLord > ====================
[ 2010.01.17 17:02:24 ] TeaDaze > Also added the amendments as discussed
[ 2010.01.17 17:02:41 ] ElvenLord > last topic for today: 7. Scan-able wrecks&containers for the salvager profession(1.2)
[ 2010.01.17 17:02:43 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Scan-able_wrecks%26containers_for_the_salvager_profession%281.2%29
[ 2010.01.17 17:03:37 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:03:43 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.17 17:04:30 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:04:46 ] Song Li > Ninja salvaging is already a CCP recognised trade, and with the ability to now open your wrecks for all, giving the bility to find mission locations/hidded combat makes sense in the evolution
[ 2010.01.17 17:04:48 ] Song Li > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:04:56 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 17:05:08 ] Helen Highwater > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:05:13 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:05:20 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:05:21 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Since you can filter the wrecks out i dont think the second con will be a big deal.  First one who could say.  I think the biggest issue to look at when they test this would be pvp applications/abuse/balance but on the whole i like it [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:05:41 ] ElvenLord > Helen Highwater go
[ 2010.01.17 17:05:45 ] Helen Highwater > Why give wrecks special protection in this way when nothing else gets that masking anymore?[end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:05:58 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 17:06:00 ] T'Amber > Just want to say i this line in the pros is awesome: it would also relieve the database from maintaining left behind wrecks for the full two hours and could works as player driven "database cleaning" of objects. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:06:13 ] T'Amber > \o/
[ 2010.01.17 17:06:18 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 17:06:27 ] ElvenLord > /emote note: Sok is back
[ 2010.01.17 17:06:33 ] TeaDaze > Not sure I like the idea of allowing core probes as it could in theory allow scanning out combat ships via wrecks. Make it combat probes and I support iy.
[ 2010.01.17 17:06:35 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:06:45 ] TeaDaze > it*
[ 2010.01.17 17:07:04 ] Z0D > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:07:11 ] ElvenLord > Z0D go
[ 2010.01.17 17:07:18 ] Z0D > agree on this as well, how many people run missions out there and just kill and leave to the next with everything staying in-place. [/end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:07:40 ] ElvenLord > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:07:42 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:07:48 ] ElvenLord > ElvenLord go :P
[ 2010.01.17 17:08:05 ] ElvenLord > I agree that it should be combat probes [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:08:08 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 17:08:32 ] T'Amber > To ZOD: I know Lots of people who leave all the wrecks and cans behind as they can't be bothered looting and salvaging [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:08:53 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:08:55 ] Z0D > i know T'Amber i am one of them
[ 2010.01.17 17:09:11 ] T'Amber > sorry maybe i misunderstood what you said
[ 2010.01.17 17:09:11 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.17 17:09:27 ] Song Li > Agree that is should be combat probes
[ 2010.01.17 17:09:40 ] Song Li > I'll make the change in the wiki [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:12 ] ElvenLord > OK lets vote on amended proposal (combat probes), Y or N pls
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:14 ] ElvenLord > ===================================
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:16 ] ElvenLord > Y
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:21 ] Z0D > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:21 ] Song Li > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:31 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:34 ] TeaDaze > Y
[ 2010.01.17 17:10:44 ] Zastrow > y
[ 2010.01.17 17:11:44 ] Helen Highwater > Y
[ 2010.01.17 17:11:51 ] ElvenLord > aleks, mrs?
[ 2010.01.17 17:12:22 ] TeaDaze > Will pass 7 for but would be nice for a full 9 vote :P
[ 2010.01.17 17:12:24 ] Mrs Trzzbk > n
[ 2010.01.17 17:12:52 ] Zastrow > BREAKIN RANKS
[ 2010.01.17 17:13:09 ] TeaDaze > 7 for 1 against waiting on Aleks
[ 2010.01.17 17:13:10 ] ElvenLord > :D
[ 2010.01.17 17:13:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > Y
[ 2010.01.17 17:14:05 ] TeaDaze > Passed 8 for 1 against
[ 2010.01.17 17:14:14 ] Alekseyev Karrde > sry about the delay
[ 2010.01.17 17:14:23 ] ElvenLord > =========================================
[ 2010.01.17 17:14:35 ] ElvenLord > as you already know next meeting is on 24th, meant to "vote" on the issues list for Iceland meeting that we will send to CCP no later then 28th. We could add few issues before that (Sok has one already)
[ 2010.01.17 17:14:41 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:14:50 ] Song Li > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:14:54 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:06 ] ElvenLord > I will try to make a preliminary list till wednesday so we can start adding priorities
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:06 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:09 ] ElvenLord > etc
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:12 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:18 ] TeaDaze > Agree to covering a few issues raised in the last week - specifically the T3 refitting at Pos / Carrier [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:29 ] ElvenLord > Song Li go
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:52 ] Zastrow > we need to set aside time to just talk about dominion and the state of the game in general
[ 2010.01.17 17:15:53 ] Song Li > Same as TD: just 1 or 2 items that didn't make the time requirements for today [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:16:14 ] Alekseyev Karrde > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:16:25 ] ElvenLord > Zastrow, I want to add those to the meeting agenda appart from issues list :D
[ 2010.01.17 17:16:32 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 17:16:33 ] Sokratesz > ill be away all afternoon on the 24th so I can't be there, and my 'proposal' was no more a cry to ccp that something needs to be done - i doubt it will add much, and a few gm's already confirmed that they are 'on it', for what that's worth..[end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:01 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:05 ] T'Amber > can new or amended issues still be brought up by one of you for the next meeting or is it too late? [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:14 ] ElvenLord > yes
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:26 ] ElvenLord > we still have 2 issues that we set asside for rework
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:31 ] T'Amber > \o/ ill need to liquidate some assets for bribes then
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:36 ] TeaDaze > (The issue Sok mentions is http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1251742 )
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:48 ] ElvenLord > and I would like to see that done by next week
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:52 ] ElvenLord > Alekseyev Karrde go
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:54 ] Alekseyev Karrde > I'd like us to comit to try to cram as much as possible into the iceland meeting.  This CSM covered a lot of key issues.  I might be naive or i might be thinking of the 80+% rating the csm has at getting raised issues addressed but hey
[ 2010.01.17 17:17:54 ] TeaDaze > It needs to be raised today T'Amber
[ 2010.01.17 17:18:06 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:18:13 ] Alekseyev Karrde > we need to see the issues through, as many as possible [end[
[ 2010.01.17 17:18:32 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 17:18:39 ] T'Amber > TeaDaze > It needs to be raised today T'Amber
[ 2010.01.17 17:18:45 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:18:46 ] T'Amber > Do you mean right now?
[ 2010.01.17 17:18:55 ] ElvenLord > TeaDaze go
[ 2010.01.17 17:19:14 ] Z0D > brb 2-3 min
[ 2010.01.17 17:19:20 ] TeaDaze > I mean the proposal has to be in teh Assembly forum today at the latest to meet the 7 days before the meeting requirement - if you have new stuff to raise [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:19:33 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:19:36 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:19:40 ] ElvenLord > Sokratesz go
[ 2010.01.17 17:19:48 ] Sokratesz > i just noticed that this one is missing:  http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1234453  cause it didnt have a wiki article
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:04 ] ElvenLord > yes :D
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:16 ] ElvenLord > I wanted to tell you that yesterday but didnt see you
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:28 ] Sokratesz > check it out and discuss it the 24th if possible, will make wiki later probably
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:38 ] ElvenLord > cool
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:46 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:48 ] T'Amber > I have the link here if anyone of you would like to bring it up: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1245265 (included details missing from the original post that you voted no on)
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:52 ] T'Amber > [end][end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:20:54 ] Sokratesz > could also be part of the greater drone overhaul, some very cool ideas popped up recently [end] ;p
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:05 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:14 ] ElvenLord > T'Amber go
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:22 ] T'Amber > SOrry also if anyone else is interested.
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:26 ] T'Amber > Two simple things.
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:33 ] T'Amber > 1) Remove Lottos from Sell Forums
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:41 ] T'Amber > 2) Two new functions for mail menu
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:45 ] T'Amber > There are posts for both.
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:45 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:21:50 ] T'Amber > [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:22:23 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:23:13 ] Sokratesz > lol if they made a different forum section for lottos only i doubt it would see much traffic :P [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:23:28 ] TeaDaze > It doesn't need to discussed now. If there are assembly topics already then talk to one of us after the meeting about wiki and submitting for next week - I do suggest we limit to 5 or less topics to allow time for the other pre-iceland stuff. [end]
[ 2010.01.17 17:23:34 ] Sokratesz > i did a few a long time ago and i always put them in events rather than sell orders
[ 2010.01.17 17:23:57 ] Alekseyev Karrde > ja
[ 2010.01.17 17:23:59 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.01.17 17:24:03 ] Alekseyev Karrde > let's wrap things up
[ 2010.01.17 17:24:09 ] T'Amber > -!
[ 2010.01.17 17:24:43 ] Song Li > January 24th 14:00?
[ 2010.01.17 17:24:53 ] ElvenLord > yea lets wrap it up
[ 2010.01.17 17:24:58 ] ElvenLord > 14 or 15?
[ 2010.01.17 17:25:07 ] Song Li > I vote 14
[ 2010.01.17 17:25:29 ] Alekseyev Karrde > either is fine by me
[ 2010.01.17 17:25:45 ] Alekseyev Karrde > if 14 means we can go long, 14
[ 2010.01.17 17:25:51 ] Z0D > back
[ 2010.01.17 17:25:55 ] ElvenLord > ok then NEXT MEETING IS AS ANNOUNCED ON 24TH AT 14:00 EVE TIME
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:02 ] Alekseyev Karrde > FUCK YEAH
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:06 ] Sokratesz > as said, cant be there so gogo tamber
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:08 ] Alekseyev Karrde > \o/
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:11 ] Zastrow > this
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:13 ] Zastrow > is an awful time
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:17 ] Sokratesz > ;p
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:29 ] ElvenLord > PRELIMINARY LIST FOR CCP SUBMITION SHOULD BE FINISHED BY WEDNESDAY
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:29 ] Zastrow > i vote like 2000
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:30 ] Song Li > zastrow: HTFU
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:30 ] Sokratesz > stay awake and attend drunk?
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:34 ] T'Amber > soks convo for this and unrelated topic ps.
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:48 ] Sokratesz > eh?
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:48 ] ElvenLord > THIS MEETING IS OVER NOW SPAM AWAY
[ 2010.01.17 17:26:52 ] ElvenLord > ======================================