The yearly CSM debate is underway again. Why does a person have to reveal their real-life identity to be on the CSM? Is this a requirement that is still necessary? Was it ever necessary?
CCP do not seem to want to budge on the issue. Not a single centimeter. (Which is less than an inch.)
CCP Xhagen, the dude who's responsible for the CSM, trots out his two standard answers every year. The CCP justification why the real-life reveal is important.
Accountability.
What does that even mean? Accountability to whom? CCP? CCP already knows the real-life identities of every player, whether that information is made public or not. If a CSM does something bad, like reveal NDA info to the public, then CCP can shitcan them from the CSM and from the game. A public identity is not required. Accountable to the playerbase? If that's the reason, it almost sounds like a veiled threat. With your real-life information at hand, the playerbase has the power to go after a CSM member who screws up. Keep the playerbase happy, you'll have no problems with harassment and the like. That seems to be the argument Xhagen is making. And yet, how does one keep everybody happy? And why should accepting the threat of real-life reprisals from the playerbase be a CSM job requirement?
Someone should explain to me what Issler Dainze did wrong, on that day when a Goon followed her around New Eden spouting off personal details of her life. Where she lived. Her pet's name. Is this the sort of accountability that CCP Xhagen was referring too?
Explain to me what Darius Johnson (pre-Sreegs) did wrong when somebody called up his place of business, trying to get him fired, all because he was a Goon, and apparently an internet spaceship bully. Is that the sort of accountability that Xhagen is after?
Explain to me what The Mittani did wrong (pre-Fanfest 2012) when Prencleeve Grothsmore released the address and phone number of The Mittani's parents to the public. Is this the sort of accountability Xhagen is looking for?
Exactly what does Xhagen mean when he refers to accountability. He can't be referring to player vigilantism, can he? Because that seems to be the only outcome to being out-of-game accountable to the playerbase. If a CSM sucks, not voting for them in a year seems like accountability enough, and I don't need a CSM's real name to not vote for them.
There's the other argument, that if you're an in-game thief or scammer, then having your real-life name attached to your in-game actions will force you to straighten up your act. Or he's simply saying that CCP does not want thieves and scammers and corp thieves and gankers on the CSM. That hopefully the real-name requirement will discourage them from running.
Actually, the whole accountability argument is confusing, and I'm not really sure what point Xhagen is trying to make, because none of it makes much sense if given more than a cursory think-through.
Perhaps CCP employees should be accountable to the vagaries of the playerbase too. What? No? That would open them up to endless harassment? Then why put the CSM in that position?
Legalities.
Xhagen makes a fairly compelling argument here. That if CCP were to keep a CSM member's name private, then they could be held legally responsible if that name were to be accidentally (or purposefully) released.
That makes a lot of sense, until you realize that CCP is already safeguarding the identities (not too mention credit card numbers) of every single EVE Online player. To simply continue to do what they're already doing, doesn't seem like much additional effort.
The CSM.
The CSM make a few arguments of their own, concerning the real-life reveal.
Trebor seems to argue that real-life identity makes one's resumé verifiable. Which I suppose is true. Except, what resumé? How many CSM members used their real-life experience as part of their CSM campaign platforms? Can anybody tell me what Hans does as a living? Does his job qualify him to be a spaceship consultant? (Both are rhetorical questions, I don't really want or need to know.) It's a silly argument to be making, unless Trebor feels that programming Wizardry thirty-odd years ago qualifies him to consult to a 500 employee company. That real-life experience even makes a difference to Xhagen makes even less sense, since he has no control over who gets elected, so his opinion on somebody's qualifications doesn't really matter.
Alekseyev at least admits there is a problem, but also states that death threats are just part of the job description, and if you can't handle a few threats and harassing comments, you shouldn't run for the CSM. Obviously, the strongest case yet for the real-life requirement.
Seleene throws up his hands at the issue. CCP isn't going to change their position. There's no point talking about this. As defeatist as it is, this is the only position that has any rationale to it.
Qualifications.
There are a number of people with impeccable in-game qualifications who would love to have an impact on EVE Online, to make their arguments face-to-face with the developers, who have a strong passion for this game and the community.
These people will never run. They understand the playerbase. They understand the effects of harassment. They won't sacrifice their careers, their professional reputations, on a game. They won't put their personal details out in front of a playerbase known for stepping across the line. A playerbase known for taking things too far.

"That makes a lot of sense, until you realize that CCP is already safeguarding the identities (not too mention credit card numbers) of every single EVE Online player. To simply continue to do what they're already doing, doesn't seem like much additional effort."
ReplyDeleteExcept that the majority of Eve players don't care one whit who Spaceman X is in real life.
As far as making it a requirement, who knows whether it should be or not. On one hand, it's nice information to have. On the other, the Internet is full of vitriol and bile, and there are people who are off their rockers enough to take even an imagined slight too far. Then again, nothing is really private on the Internet, and even people who try to remain anonymous have a tendency to fail at that, too.
When it comes down to it, running for a public office, as it were, exposes you to all sorts of unsavory realities. The question really should be, what does CCP get out of it that they wouldn't if everyone remained "anonymous"?
I'd love to run for CSM but I cannot because the organization I work for is very old school. My boss would *never* understand EVE, and its entirely possible that if word got out of how involved I am in EVE I would hamper my career development.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you 100% on this one.
EVE is the new gay. We finally ridding society of one prejudice, only for another to crop up.
DeleteWell, I think that's a tad hyperbolic (but I do love me some hyperbole). No doubt there are those out there who view our hobby with a kind of curious disdain, not really understanding it, but somehow I doubt EVE players have had to deal with any kind of true persecution due to our choice of hobby.
DeleteI agree with you on the identity thing, though. It's not necessary. Still, with how CCP doesn't want to budge on the topic, I think I fall into the same camp as Seleene when thinking what can be done about it.
Could be that they work for the IDF:
Deletehttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3052074,00.html
I would be entirely unsurprised if they held the same dim view of MMORPGs as they do Tabletop RPGs.
Anyway, what stops "curious disdain" from translating into "not picked for promotion if there's a close second?"
Not that I am in any position to run for CSM, nor do I wish to do so, I couldn't agree more with:
ReplyDelete"They won't put their personal details out in front of a playerbase known for stepping across the line. A playerbase known for taking things too far."
While I think teh Goons are a cancer of this game, I don't think The Mittani ever deserved having his wife and his parents harassed and people trying to poison his dog. While I hate spies and corp-thieves I would never condone what some -A- members did to T3mpes4 when she revealed who she was.
The internet (not only EVE) is riddled with obsessive nerds at best, and dangerous psychopaths at the worst. Nobody should be forced to expose themselves to that just because they are committed to their spare-time hobby more than others are.
I met T3mpes4 (sp?) at PAX last year. I only got to speak with her for a few minutes, but she seemed pretty cool. I was unaware of any drama, so if she's reading this... Fuck'em. Some random dude who gave you bad directions cause you FC'd the opposition during the death of his first nullsec alliance thinks you're pretty cool. Hope to see you again this year.
DeleteShe had to shut down her facebook account and change her cellphone provider - among other things - because of harassment. I am not sure where she told the whole story, maybe it was podside, but it was pretty horrible. She took it in mid stride, but still ... nobody deserves that for playing a game and being cunning about it.
Delete@Cameron
ReplyDeleteI have maintained an online pseudonum as 'Foo' for years now; and it is still difficult to link that to my first life persona.
I have little difficulty exposing my first life name when needed. After all CCP have my credit card details.
But I do not run facebook or google+ due to real name requirements.
In some ways it's good that Poetic has pointed out this requirement. It's one role I no longer have to contemplate running for.
You can make a facebook without a real name. I've had a general gaming related handle for like four years, never a problem.
Delete@anonymous : I am not going to run a blog/site simply to have it taken away because someone found out I don't follow terms of service.
DeleteI'm old school. I read the fine print; and if I don't like it; I don't sign up.
Well I think CCP just has hope for CSM improving things and living up to a higher standard. In the past it seems like they were able to do it. But who knows about the future and stuff like that. Perhaps it will be too hard soon, to really improve the game and the community and it will be okay for them to run anonymously.
ReplyDeleteI ran for elected office in real life. I know what having cranks and weirdos pounding on my door at all hours of the day is like. I got a concealed weapon permit for "just in case". Some people in the same office, but in different districts had 24-hour police protection. The last thing I need is for crazies in a game doing the same. Or having my participation in an online game used against me next election. No thanks.
ReplyDeleteJust going to leave this here http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/17wm8l/being_harassed_because_of_eveonline_and_i_dont/
ReplyDeleteTruthfully, I believe that CCP use it as a very low barrier to entry to the CSM. If you aren't willing to give that information out, you either have as some have said a job that might find it strange (in which case you could have problems with the amount of time being a CSM should take)or you don't want people to know your personal life (perfectly valid, but again maybe not someone who is going to give it their all). I know that even with knowing peoples real names we still have a large number of CSM no-shows, but I think that this is their attempt at getting people who are serious about it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that it excludes more good candidates from running while failing to keep out bad candidates and having no positive impact on the bad candidates that do get elected.
DeleteIf the people who run don't care about the impact on real life when they run as candidates, why would they start caring when they get elected?
Anon, so you're saying what, exactly?
DeleteAre you saying that CCP wants its players to disincentivise no-shows by using the Real Life of the no-show CSM member? As in, CCP is encouraging RL harassment against bad CSM members?
CCP Confirming that the same person is running is fine (X Candidate [Previously Ran as Y]), obviously and would fulfill the function of allowing players a mechanism for *in game* retaliation against no-shows.
My job would give me more than enough time to work as a CSM member. However, the nature of my job includes political oversight, and it would be very easy for threats or harassment at my workplace to simply result in professional consequences for me because the political officials overseeing me don't understand the nature of eve or the internet.
ReplyDelete"CCP already knows the real-life identities of every player, whether that information is made public or not."
ReplyDeleteReally?
CSM Minutes: "Seagull: [...] But we don't necessarily have a great way of identifying them and engaging them. A corporation of 5 players and 5 accounts can still be one person."
-Bantara
Unless that person has five different credit cards all under assumed names ... than they do have a method of identifying players. Most players will still use their real-life identity to identify all of their accounts. I do.
DeleteThen I don't see what CCP's/Seagull's problem is. The others are likely botters or other EULA-breakers. But as for addressing their proper player base, we're likely identifiable.
Delete-Bantara
Describe a test that CCP can perform to reliably distinguish an alt I started with a seed Plex and a friend to whom I seeded a PLEX to get started.
DeleteDescribe a test that CCP can perform to reliably distinguish between an adult's alt account and the account they started on behalf of their minor child (as permitted by the EULA).
That's why CCP cannot reliably distinguish between alts and separate people.
This is the single thing keeping me from running. Making your professional life accountable for the things you do in-game is just silly. I would like to think my in-game reputation is somewhat positive, but I would hate to get denied for a job because the HR department did a google search on my RL name and came across a troll thread about how in-game my faction has slaves or a tear thread calling me a sociopath for killing a defenseless freighter that was carrying someone's entire in-game livelihood. Does that thread on the forums calling you a liar need to have an ounce of truth to it for an employer to consider it when judging character? Probably not.
ReplyDeleteWould the employer ask more information about the context of the game and the things I did? Or would they just send me a generic rejection mail thanking me for taking the time to apply. Most likely the latter.
Also in response you anon, they require a passport which I assume needs to match what name your account is under.
I agree with you POE. It's silly that the CSM needs to release their personal information to the public to be elected. It is good enough that CCP know, the players really don't need to know at all.
ReplyDeleteI find it equally funny that CCP use game names and not their real names, right? You don't really see them releasing their real names and personal info to us.
I haven't had any conversations with anyone about this but my view is.
ReplyDeleteIf you are not willing to tell me who you really are, why should I bother to care what you think and vote for you? I have only been playing a few years and have studied the candidates and issues then voted every time if subscribed at the time. I would not waste my time for anonymous in-game personalities. That's just me though.
What is the voter turnout? How many are like me and would tune out if it went anonymous?
You would still know them by their in-game character. What more do you need to know about their qualifications?
DeleteHum...
DeleteI don't care about their qualifications.
My comment seems pretty clear but I have worked 8 days straight so will double check it latter.
"I would not waste my time for anonymous in-game personalities."
The only accountability needed at hand is to match the actions of a character in game with the policies and influence they are advocating. No disclosure of personal information is required to do this; only the test of ensuring that they "are who they say they are".
ReplyDeleteCCP Xhagen I suspect is falling victim to this logical fallacy. Since our scope of accountability only extends to actions taken in-game, then there's no reason why we would need any more information other than a verification that CSM member "X" is in fact character "Y" (not withstanding any character transfers/purchases).
Disclosing a real name not only reveals more private information than necessary, but in no way assists our ability to prove this test, as we, the players, lack any method to verify this ourselves. How do we prove that the individual disclosed owns the accounts in question? We cannot, only CCP can do this, as only they have the records to match names with billing.
So we are given half of the pieces required in order to perform our own "independent verification", if that was intended. It's an illusion of transparency, and nothing more.
It's a pretty strong principle to stand on for what amounts to little more than an advisory body. For all that's trumped about player "democracy", I'm reminded that the CSM, try as they may, have no powers to enforce decisions or requests made. They are representatives brought up to Iceland to carry arguments that CCP does not have the time or inclination to wade through the forums to find. In this last point, I do not fault them, but we need to recognize the limitations for what they are.
If, somehow, CSM members could demand design changes to the game, then I could certainly see where having a real name would facilitate me being able to check up on their history, since we're now discussing modifications to a selling product. The CSM might as well become a board of directors then, true stock holders of a sort, and the lines between in-game and out-of-game having virtually no separation.
But that hasn't happened, and never will happen. And so long as CCP remains a business, the CSM will always be little more than an in-person forum meet.
To demand true identities to be revealed and scrutinized when they provide no useful benefit not only makes unreasonable demands on privacy, but inflates this board for the theater it is.