Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Casiella]

CCP removes Ankh:

Today Eva "Ankhesentapemkah" Jobse was removed from the Council of Stellar Management due to a breach of the non-disclosure agreement (NDA). We are deeply saddened but feel that it was the only possible solution in order to protect the integrity of the Council of Stellar Management. As this is a matter regarding confidential data we do consider this to be a private issue between Eva and CCP, therefore we are unable to comment further.

An EVE discussion thread is also available. DV indicates the offense occurred prior to CSM 5, but hasn't specified anything further right now.

[Myrhial Arkenath]

Heard it got something to do with a (blog) article about lag in which she spoke about some of the inner workings that shouldn't be revealed. Got told that over vent so no sources to quote.

[Casiella]

I don't believe that's correct. The blog article doesn't say anything that devs haven't discussed in the past (dynamic node re-allocation and jump lag on the jump out rather than in).

Dierdra Vaal stated that it had to do with something pre-CSM5, and I have heard from another knowledgeable source that it was bad but not the sort of thing that Larkonis pulled.

[Myyona]

It is all rumors now.

At the rumor Myrhial refers to has already been stated false by Nyphur and Sokratesz, none the less.

[Casiella]

The fact that she works for a browser game development house could be interesting, but I suspect it's a red herring. Still, I'm digging as hard as I can. Any info would be hot.

[Silver Night]

The why of it aside, I can't say that I am unhappy she is out.

I didn't like the majority of her ideas, and found those things of hers that I read to largely be annoying.

[Saede Riordan]

The why of it aside, I can't say that I am unhappy she is out.

I didn't like the majority of her ideas, and found those things of hers that I read to largely be annoying.

agreed, she was a carebear extreme.

we're better off without her

[Louella Dougans]

[mod]Please be careful when posting on this topic, and avoid personal attacks[/mod]

I am surprised and also a bit baffled.

[Kaldor Mintat]

Had a suspicion it migth end up like this.

[Lillith Blackheart]

CSM is a dumb experiment to begin with.

Having made it a popularity contest is the real source of the issue. You're not electing people that you think will represent you well, you're electing your friends and corpmates and so on.

More importantly: You're not electing anyone that knows fuck all about Game Design.

And that is the crux of the matter.

[Vikarion]

Bye bye, CSM Rep who I disliked the most.

EDIT:

While Ankh's backstep off the edge of the pool of the NDA appears to have come close behind her swan dive off the cliffs of (IMO) acceptable social behavior, and even though I believe that the CSM is considerably enriched by her re-discovery of private life, I still must question the behavior of CCP in regards to sending her off.

Simply hushing up and saying nothing does not increase the credibility of the company and the CSM, or create trust in the player-base.

And I'm just the tiniest bit sorry to see someone willing to yell at CCP go, TBH.

[Myrhial Arkenath]

Wonder if it has something to do with her real life political carreer as well. She was on the voting list for the pirate party this year. While nothing to do with EVE pirates I did giggle at the irony 

[Silver Night]

Hushing up what? What exactly she did?

CCP is acting responsibly there, in my opinion. You don't talk about why you dismiss someone, even a volunteer, except in the broadest terms.

[Aria Jenneth]

Especially when what you're dismissing them for is revealing confidential information. Talking about it makes the place where the leak occurred that much easier to find, if it's made its way onto the web.

Sorta defeats the point, you know?

Have to agree with Silver: CCP's done fine, here. Or as "fine" as was possible under the circumstances; any time you say "We can't talk about it," somebody's sure to scream "COVER-UP!"

[Vikarion]

I disagree. Not in that they didn't specify what was disclosed, but rather that they clearly say what it wasn't: that had to be explained by the CSM and so forth. It wouldn't have been any more difficult to say "...this is not related to any of the recent CSM meetings or publicity" or something similar.

It's not enough to be factual in cases like this, you need to be as specific and open as you can be, if only to eliminate as much doubt as possible.