Talk:Eve Online/Archive 10

goonswarm open letter
the paragraph about the goonswarm open letter and the ccp responses does not really reflect the objective view of what has and is happening. while its true that cpp published responses to the allegations, they did not respond to all of the alegation.

1) For example the accusation of BoB members having a direct contact to the developers over MSN Messanger was not answered in the BLOG. On the other side members of BoB made some points in the official eve forum, that they have indeed that possibility to communicate with their "friends" at ccp. All of this is complete missing from the article.

2) The whole issue around the ISD member being fired was responded to by ccp, but without any evidence. while they said in the blog, that there were serveral petitions against that ISD Member, they did not proove that. All they provided was a screenshot of the (1) petition. they also didnt clarify how they prooved the case. how did they verify that the ISD Member bumped the BoB pilot ? They did not provide any logs or other information that backs up the petition and they did not explain how the verified the case at all.

overall the paragraph makes it seem like the allegations were all proven wrong to the satisfaction of the eve playerbase and that everybody's happy now. however, this is not the case. the comunity is split up and there are long ongoing posts on the eve forums as to how ccp is handling thoose cases. additionally many questions raised by community members remained unanswared.

as to the objective type of wikipedia articles, this should be carefully reflected in the paragraph.


 * First, thank you for posting here, instead of taking your editing dispute directly onto the page in question. As a service to your readers, we encourage you to sign your comments.  You can do this by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of what you've written.


 * It looks like this edit accidentally eliminated an entire paragraph of content. I think I've now resolved that issue.  Please reread the section, and see if it now properly addresses any or all of your concerns.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 08:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks, tho there are still some things inaccurate:
 * 1)
 * quote: "The investigation of the volunteer showed there had been numerous complaints against him that caused his removal"
 * evidence that there really were numerous complaints was not provided. thereforce it should say "CCP explained that
 * the inverstigation of the volunteer... ..tho did not provide evidence to that."
 * 2)
 * quote: "In the end, CCP posted a detailed response on each of the contentions"
 * as statet earlier in the article, cpp did not post a response on --each-- of the contentions. they did not
 * post in regards to the MSN deal as descriped:
 * quote: "The allegation of a direct player-to-developer complaint via MSN Messenger was not addressed,"
 * Thereforce the sentence should be changed in regards to something like:
 * "In the end, CCP posted a detailed response on -some- of the contentions"
 * i also believe its discussable, wether or not the reponses posted from ccp could be described as "detailed",
 * since they were not showing lots of evidence for what they wrote and players are still raising unanswered questions.
 * please also see this link:
 * http://goonfleet.com/reply_to_CCP.html
 * 62.153.225.98 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should see that in the list of CCP's explanations there is mention of the 'MSN Question' not being answered. Beyond that I can't see how to include any reliable information without appearing to slant the article towards one conclusion. TIinPA 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the end, CCP posted a detailed response on -some- of the contentions"
 * i also believe its discussable, wether or not the reponses posted from ccp could be described as "detailed",
 * since they were not showing lots of evidence for what they wrote and players are still raising unanswered questions.
 * please also see this link:
 * http://goonfleet.com/reply_to_CCP.html
 * 62.153.225.98 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should see that in the list of CCP's explanations there is mention of the 'MSN Question' not being answered. Beyond that I can't see how to include any reliable information without appearing to slant the article towards one conclusion. TIinPA 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * http://goonfleet.com/reply_to_CCP.html
 * 62.153.225.98 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should see that in the list of CCP's explanations there is mention of the 'MSN Question' not being answered. Beyond that I can't see how to include any reliable information without appearing to slant the article towards one conclusion. TIinPA 14:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested revision

Disclaimer: I am a Goonswarm member, attempting to be impartial, but I'm not about to edit this in myself. If someone uninvolved thinks this is a fair rewrite, please add it. I think I've covered the substance of what's going on from both sides without going overboard. It really reads like it needs some sort of conclusion, but as there isn't one at this point, I think it would stand just fine for now.

On May 25, 2007 new allegations of developer misconduct were brought forth. These new allegations consist of three main contentions:


 * (point summary unchanged from current article)

"Goonswarm", an in-game alliance consisting largely of players from the SomethingAwful.com forums, and a former player named "Kugutsumen" presented these issues to the community in the form of an open letter and blog posts. After the initial posts were removed from the official EVE forums, Goonswarm spammed links to Goonswarm's open letter in a multitude of threads, including several that resurrected posts that hadn't seen replies in three or more years. The developers responded by shutting the forums down completely to halt what the Goonswarm players were calling "the threadnought". Half an hour later, the forums were restored, and CCP had created a news item and forum thread for discussion.

Several days later, CCP posted a detailed response to the contentions, explaining their actions in each case, albeit with an admission that Sharkbait, the developer who joined the corporation in the first contention, should have contacted the affected corporation before joining it. Furthermore, CCP accused Goonswarm of intentionally timing the accusations on a Friday so as to immediately preceed the Memorial Day weekend in the U.S. and the weekend leading up to Whit Monday in Iceland, presumably intending for their timing to result in a sluggish official CCP response. Legal options, the response stated, were being "examined".

Goonswarm has since denied any malice or forward planning of the incident, pointing out that if CCP had simply responded to the initial petitions and forum posts instead of deleting them without comment, their actions would not have been necessary to attract attention to the perceived issues. In their followup open letter, Goonswarm also highlights that the allegation of some players using MSN Messenger as a way of bypassing the in-game petition system was notably absent from CCP's response, and that the proof provided by CCP to address the other issues was not verifiable.

BremenSaki 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Arkanon posted a thread on June 1st about MSN contacts and the deleted petition. I have added a paragraph about it. Uzza 09:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Goons Reply to CCP's Investigation
I've just finished reading Goon's latest reply, http://goonfleet.com/reply_to_CCP.html, and it contains information that should be included somehow. The only problem I see is how to fit it in without completely cluttering that current section. TIinPA 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm very weary of this article becoming a news venue for eve rather than an encyclopedic article regarding eve. I know this is important information, but at what point does recounting each blow become overkill? --Wootonius 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, this newest letter isn't too terribly important. Most of it is reminding CCP they didn't answer all the questions. I guess the thing to do is wait and see if CCP responds to this letter directly. Your right in that the question really is "When does a letter become important enough for an encyclopedia?".

Whinging is not encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for a group of MMOG players. At best this material should be condensed and given a bullet point in the "criticism and controversy" section where some much more media-worthy subjects are mentioned; which is what will happen in time anyway. Wiki-Ed 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above statement by Wiki-Ed I really don't see how the whole Goonswarm Fiasco is relevant to what EvE Online is, what is happening is said fiasco is being surplanetd as a description of the game and is doing nothing but giving further notoriety to attention seekers. I for one think the entire GS Vs CCP section should be either removed or shortened to one or two lines under criticisms. Martinj63 23:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63 02:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)martinj63


 * For what it's worth, Arkanon replied to the reply here.   This probably needs to get integrated into the article somehow, but I need to detox my brain after reading about 230 pages, 20 posts apiece, dealing with this.  Plus I read Kugu's entire site.  Send isk and/or cookies ASAP.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're a bit late on that. I've already added a snippet about it at the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EVE_Online#The_Goonswarm_Open_Letter.2C_May.2C_2007 . Feel free to improve it though if you feel that it's not enough. Uzza 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So I noted, good call. Do we want to reference the NYTimes article?  Seems very a propos next to the description of the IA team, plus Hilmar has a great quote in that article.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be included as doing such a thing would be something mayor that have, as far as I know, never been done before with a company like CCP. Uzza 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Economist
How is CCP hiring an economist to study the economy notable? Why is it important or informative for the article? How do we know other MMO companies havent hired or employed economists before(re dark shikari's reason)? What makes them hiring an economist more notable than them hiring any other sort of employee? --89.100.1.161 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * might be an idea if you let people answer this before removing the information. We can't reach a consensus if we can't see what it is! --The internet is serious business 01:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that one of the major features of EVE is it's economy, and that there has been coverage of its economy in magazines and such, id say its fairly notable.Piuro 08:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a unique and innovative step for an MMO; there have been no obvious public statements from any of the other MMOs to the effect that they were taking the internal economy of game mechanics seriously to the extent of appointing a full time economist, and given the structure and significance of economics within the game mechanics, it has to represent a serious intention to address economic balancing within game, something which other games have yet to begin to contemplate let alone address. Sjc 09:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Status of Mac client?
If we are talking about Linux we should add a section explaining what the status of a Mac client is. I believe CCP announced plans to release a Mac client through Transgaming's Cider.

I remember something about a probable future Mac client but I haven't heard specifics regarding them actively working with Transgaming to make this a reality. At this point short of Transgaming users figuring out how to get it to run on Mac I don't think a Mac client is going to happen in the near future. If I weren't at work right now I would reference the two or three threads talking about this. (Yay for Websense!) --Wootonius 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of the article?
I was wondering if it would be possible to include a section about the player community and the annual Fanfest? Or do you guys think that should be a separate article?

Martinj63 23:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63


 * As it stands the article is about 49KB of readable prose long, as per Wikipedia Guidelines on Article Length large sections should probably be split off. That said if you feel that you can write a peice that is sufficently notable and well referenced I am sure it would be a welcome addition to the article and/or Wikipedia. -- Richard Slater ( Talk to me! ) 07:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

EIB Scam
"EVE Intergalactic Bank scam, in which one player encouraged others to invest in-game currency in a banking scheme before disappearing with, allegedly, 700 billion ISK. The only supporting evidence to prove its legitimacy comes in the form of a screenshot. The perpetrator of the scam, a character named 'Dentara Rast', has been known to fake screenshots in the past and his alternate character Kieli Rast offered a screenshot faking service after the scam. CCP have been careful not to comment on the actual figure stolen. The perpetrator was later banned for attempting to sell the isk for cash."

I have tidied up the EIB Scam bullet point in the criticism section, however there are a couple of issues:


 * 1) As far as I can tell the this link establishes a list between Cally and Dentra, but not between Dentra and Kieli. From the text of the later screenshot reference suggests that Kieli is indeed Dentra/Cally, but there is noting to explicitly cover this.


 * 1) The paragraph does not cite sources for either Dentra fakeing screenshots in the past or the faked screenshot itself. I have added  tags to the paragraph.

I am going to hunt around a bit see if I can't find some references, if anyone else has information please chip in, even if you don't want to edit the main article post in here and I will include the references. Richard Slater (Talk) 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

False Reference?
I cant't see how reference 85 shows, that 'the perpetrator later got banned'. Maybe it got edited out in the referenced thread? Wei Xiwu 20:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Proceeding with streamlining the Controversy and criticism sections
If it's okay with everyone I will go ahead with the streamlining the controversy and criticism section of the article. This will eliminate much of the Goonswarm "fandom" and make the article much more Encyclopedic.

Martinj63 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63

Streamlining completed
Streamlining and removal of the multitude of links in the Developer misconduct section has been completed. While these changes will no doubt be controversial the article no longer sounds like a fandom piece for Goonswarm.

Martinj63 02:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63

Thank you Richard
Richard thanks for reinserting the references I wasn't quite sure how to do that. This was my first revision and I was a bit apprehensive about it.

Martinj63 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63

Minor edit of Criticisms
Removed a couple of biased terms in criticisms section. This article truly needs to be placed in semi protection due to the near constant addition of negative and pro Goonswarm additions.

Martinj63 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63

Reception?
Like many other gmae articles this one needs a reception one would think.

A good refference for that would be here: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/430571.asp?q=eve%20online

Stabby Joe 17:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)