# The CSM 13 Winter Summit Minutes are out **URL:** \ **Category:** Dev Blogs\ **Tags:** csm\ **Created:** [October 2, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726 "2018-10-02T20:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Jeremiah\_Saken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jeremiah_saken/32/266740_2.png) [@Jeremiah\_Saken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jeremiah_Saken)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:13am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/482 "2018-10-04T08:13:52Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > What part of this do you feel is false? CCP has hard data that tells them that player retention does rely on forming connections with other players—even if the connections are negative ones. So, are you saying you think their reading of the data is wrong? Or are you saying that that statement shouldn’t influence the design of PvE content? I’m just trying to get a clear idea of what you’re saying here. the part that is shouldn’t influence the design of pve content. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Well, LFR tools in most theme-park MMOs have demonstrated that it doesn’t need to be at a set time, but I agree that group content requires, you know, having a group that wants to do it. If you don’t, you’re boned, and you can’t rely on having that group all the time. Like I said up above, a ‘Looking for Fleet’ tool might be feasible, but there’s plenty of reason to think that it would just be abused by griefers (which is, you know, something like 90% of all EVE players). but the content after you found group is right there, you just enter the “dungeon”. EvE is a sandbox, there is no place for this kind of stuff here (unless they expand abyss into some kind abomination like this). You know that feeling, let’s fleet up and see if there is something there for us, right? In sandbox, players create their own content or find them, like scanning sites for drops. There is no: “find group-\> enter content” option and never should be, it’s creativity killer. ---
**Author:** ![Mingja](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mingja/32/50857_2.png) [@Mingja](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mingja)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:20am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/483 "2018-10-04T08:20:58Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > It is, but it’s something CCP’s been trying to learn to do. And it’s a balancing act, no doubt, but it’s one they _can_ learn. They just need to make sure to remember the effort/reward balance while they try out ideas. And that’s part of what the Agency events are for: the built-in ‘this will be there, then go away’ lets them try some things out, see how they’re received, and then… those things go away. And nobody gets mad when they go away, because they were always temporary. Well, I have no objections to them trying stuff out. All in all, I am, for the most part, happy about the PvE that we do have, so there is that. I just take the freedom to ignore the stuff that isn’t worth my time (like events with bad loot drops that are more a hassle then anything else, which is basically every single agency event…). They don’t reward really well for all the trouble. They are just inferior isk when compared to some rorquals. HOWEVER, I think that maybe CCP is on the wrong track if they want to increase player retention with PvE. The one thing that PvE lacks at the moment is some higher purpose (another carrot on the stick, yes). Besides ISK, there is nothing else in the game and where nullbros have their Empires and lowsec has FW, HS has: Empire standings. Just that they do nothing. Standings don’t reward anything anymore. During the early days, a free faction BS BPC was worth something. Nowadays?.. well, no. With that said, I think that empire standings need a good hard look at because that’s supposed to be meaningful for those that stay in HS, when it absolutely isn’t atm. On top of that: there are terrible drawbacks for high empire standings. > [@Arrendis](#): > > My question is: what if we turn that on its head? What if we make PvP more like PvE? I don’t mean the predictability or the scripting… I mean… what if you _didn’t_ need to PvE to make your operating cash? Totally setting aside FW (because FW is its own weird little beast), what if _successfully_ going out there and blowing people up could reasonably provide for the operating costs of going out there and blowing people up? How do people feel about that idea? Uhm, I think that would be a question of how it would be implemented. PvP’ers will want easy targets if incentivized with isk. PvE’ers are mostly easy targets and if you promote the PvP playstyle with more ISK for killing PvE’ers then you will naturally crap on PvE’ers. Especially in Highsec were ganking is kind of an easy thing to do and where players have very little defenses available. It wouldn’t change much for Null I believe, could help Lowsec and Highsec PvP’ers at the expense of PvE’ers because you know that they will look for the most easy targets they can find. At the very least, that’s what I would expect as a lot of PvP’ers are predictable on that matter. If it’s for consentual PvP, that might just be a thing but then the question is: What would it do to the economy. Where do those ISK come from? I mean, you can use the SRP concept as an example (which is established well and works pretty darn good) to argue that it would be a good thing. All in all, I think that PvP’ers would be extremely thrilled when they could earn their living with PvP reliably. I mean, I could imagine some ways to do that. An Arena would be one such thing but it’s problematic to say the least… any specifics you could share of what you have in mind? ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/484 "2018-10-04T08:27:09Z")
> [@Rivr\_Luzade](#): > > Looking at the killboard it makes me wonder how many actual people go into abyssal space repeatedly and not just once to test it. Would be nice to get some data on that from CCP. I know a few dozen, just within my own immediate circle of people I talk to. Ranges from nullsec to highsec and FW types. ---
**Author:** ![Kuklo](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kuklo/32/162907_2.png) [@Kuklo](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kuklo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/485 "2018-10-04T08:28:08Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > Not all of the PIRAT players but the CEO of PIRAT Bite me ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:29am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/486 "2018-10-04T08:29:19Z")
> [@Nana\_Skalski](#): > > Ganks are probably less damaging than wars for player activity. At least CCP stated that for new characters losing ship in gank (unlawful agression) is not a big deal, but can make player stay longer. Dont know how true it is tho. 🤔 If you check the FF presentation where Rise gave the data, ‘legally killed’ (ie: wardec kills) produced a similar level of retention as ganks. The people willing to undock in a war are the ones already willing to risk losing ships. It’s the ones who aren’t—the ones who’ll be in space more, and so more likely to be ganked than they currently are—who’ll be getting set up for problems. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:30am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/487 "2018-10-04T08:30:37Z")
> [@Jeremiah\_Saken](#): > > the part that is shouldn’t influence the design of pve content. That’s fair. > [@Jeremiah\_Saken](#): > > In sandbox, players create their own content or find them, like scanning sites for drops. There is no: “find group-\> enter content” option and never should be, it’s creativity killer. No, but there can be ‘join fleet, we’re forming up at [STATION], everyone get there’. ---
**Author:** ![Mingja](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mingja/32/50857_2.png) [@Mingja](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mingja)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:32am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/488 "2018-10-04T08:32:27Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > No, but there can be ‘join fleet, we’re forming up at [STATION], everyone get there’. Which is exactly what every established group in the game does. The proof of concept is available. ---
**Author:** ![Litsea\_Reticulata](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/litsea_reticulata/32/328016_2.png) [@Litsea\_Reticulata](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Litsea_Reticulata)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:34am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/489 "2018-10-04T08:34:26Z")
> [@Jenn\_aSide](#): > > But why screw it up for everyone who doesn’t have a Carrier/Super Carrier when Carriers/Super Carriers are the problem? If super carriers/carries were removed, there would still be the gila/vexer navy issues to deal with. If CCP can’t change anomaly mechanics in the short term, nerf the spawn rate in lieu of other options. ---
**Author:** ![Mingja](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mingja/32/50857_2.png) [@Mingja](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mingja)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:37am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/490 "2018-10-04T08:37:51Z")
> [@Litsea\_Reticulata](#): > > If super carriers/carries were removed, there would still be the gila/vexer navy issues to deal with. If CCP can’t change anomaly mechanics in the short term, nerf the spawn rate in lieu of other options. the question is: how much of a problem are they really. I’ve provided a suggestion that aimed at supers/carriers and which nerfed them in a tuneable way, while also affecting every other Ship to a lesser degree? It would be nice to know what CCP thinks about the non capital ships that are used for ratting. If we know how much of a problem they are, we can make suggestions for them. ---
**Author:** ![Litsea\_Reticulata](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/litsea_reticulata/32/328016_2.png) [@Litsea\_Reticulata](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Litsea_Reticulata)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:40am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/491 "2018-10-04T08:40:04Z")
> [@Jenn\_aSide](#): > > That’s nonsense. Capitals would just pogo around on their jump drives to systems with fresh anoms (jump fatigue means jack to a ratting carrier/super alt). Really? If anomalies spawned with a multiplicative increase in respawn delay and only a linear reduction in respawn delay over time, it may well cause capital ships and entire ratting pockets to move outside of their massive standing fleet’s jump umbrella. That will make those capitals more vulnerable to the usual sinks. ---
**Author:** ![Veryez](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/veryez/32/508712_2.png) [@Veryez](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Veryez)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:44am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/492 "2018-10-04T08:44:07Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > That sets a bad precedent. There are no safe spaces in EVE, and it’s important to make sure new players understand that. Making wardecs require consent just sets them up for more issues the first time they’re ganked. False expectations are bad things to bake into the mix. At one time I agreed with this statement, however, if wardecs are **_significantly_** hurting EvE (as the quotes above lead us to believe), then for the good of the game something has to change. We don’t have the numbers, but we can all understand if newer players can’t leave station (or don’t even login) - they will never get ‘hooked’ on EvE. All of us who have been here for a while, know EvE’s population hasn’t been on the rise (like it was for the first 10 years) for quite some time. Remember we’re not talking about making highsec ‘safe space’ as ganking isn’t the issue. Think of it this way, wars in highsec significantly (CCP’s words) favor the attacker. Imagine if wars in nullsec were the same. Imagine what would happen if holding space in null was significantly harder than taking it. Imagine SOV was canceled as soon as someone declared war on you. That there was one timer on forts and it was less than 1 hour, with no asset safety. It would wipe out SOV null overnight, ( and No I’m not suggesting any of that garbage). Sorry, but if something is significantly hurting EvE, I’m against it. Even if it directly nerfs my playstyle. All those people suggesting there should be some way for the defender to ‘fight back’ or to make a structure they can ‘destroy’ to end the war. We’re talking about people who might barely be able to use a cruiser with t2 guns. With level 4 tanking and fitting skills. People who might have focused on mining or building and fight in frigates. I have never seen a frigate take down a structure, though I suppose it could happen. People that don’t have the resources to fight a prolonged war. That simply can’t replace their ship if they can’t get out of station and perform their isk making activities. I can only imagine what CCP would do to swing the pendulum over to the defender (like it is in null). Sure I have my ideas, but without knowing the numbers, I can only guess at what should happen. Look at the first statement I quoted above: > [@Veryez](#): > > “CCP Fozzie says that at this point they are waiting for a more detailed request from the senior management to see what the business goal is in this case, In my line of work, when a problem has the attention of ‘senior management’, it is never good and the results are rarely ‘mild’. In other words, this ‘problem’ is impacting the business of EvE in such a way that senior management has recognized it’s impact and is clearly not happy. I don’t expect ‘simple’ solutions to come out of this at all… ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:45am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/493 "2018-10-04T08:45:42Z")
> [@Mingja](#): > > The one thing that PvE lacks at the moment is some higher purpose (another carrot on the stick, yes). Besides ISK, there is nothing else in the game and where nullbros have their Empires and lowsec has FW, HS has: Empire standings. Well, that higher purpose is a form of engagement. 😉 Usually, it comes in form of an unfolding narrative, something to get the players interested in seeing ‘where do my efforts lead?’ And that’s something EVE _should_ have. One of EVE’s big selling points is ‘your actions matter’… and in null, and to a lesser degree in lowsec and FW, they do. But there’s no reason they shouldn’t matter _everywhere_. Even mission results can matter. Look at experiments like Living Greyhawk and other community-directed settings. Groups all over the world run the published adventures (missions) and send in a synopsis of ‘what happened’. Then the GMs (as opposed to the specific DMs for a group, in someone’s home) take that information, aggregate it, and come up with a ‘how did _this_ adventure officially resolve?’ And that’s not a mission that’s already being run, in every single instance, on the _same server_. I’m not saying every mission could or should do that. A lot of them are standard enough scenarios that they could happen a hundred times a day, no problem. But having a few mission-chains that come out each month or each quarter, and are set up so that the player(s) know their actions are part of a larger group action… or really, part of half a dozen or more potentially conflicting group actions… that should be possible. Then a couple of weeks, or a month later, once the GMs/Lore team have time to look over the data, the news item comes out with what the combined effect was. Player actions should matter, after all. It’s EVE. > [@Mingja](#): > > Uhm, I think that would be a question of how it would be implemented. PvP’ers will want easy targets if incentivized with isk. PvE’ers are mostly easy targets and if you promote the PvP playstyle with more ISK for killing PvE’ers then you will naturally crap on PvE’ers. Especially in Highsec were ganking is kind of an easy thing to do and where players have very little defenses available. > > It wouldn’t change much for Null I believe, could help Lowsec and Highsec PvP’ers at the expense of PvE’ers because you know that they will look for the most easy targets they can find. At the very least, that’s what I would expect as a lot of PvP’ers are predictable on that matter. Well, one thing I was thinking of was ‘improve the drops from kills’. The more damage you do overall (ie: the difference between 1-2 people who slowly whittle down a ship, vs 200 Maelstroms volleying an interceptor), the less of the target is left. Maybe you end up with metal scraps. Maybe you get most of their modules. Maybe you need to lock your tractor beam onto the lifeless hulk and haul your new repairable hull back to station… hope nobody activates the suspect timer that tractoring some other corp’s wreck just gave you! I actually think it’d be a big change for null. Imagine if you could kill some idiot’s ratting carrier, and actually drag it off to repair it… if you can make it home. Obviously, you’d want to avoid ‘we just killed 10 titans with our 200, now we have 210 titans’ (which is why the ‘less loot for more overwhelming force’), but if you can make money by _not_ PvEing… I think a fair number of people might jump at that. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/494 "2018-10-04T08:46:36Z")
Exactly. This would just be a public, semi-automated version of the coordination that established groups already do. But you’d need to offer at least _some_ awox-protection. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:48am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/495 "2018-10-04T08:48:11Z")
> [@Litsea\_Reticulata](#): > > If CCP can’t change anomaly mechanics in the short term, nerf the spawn rate in lieu of other options. Nerf the spawn rate that nullsec groups _pay_ to get? Anomalies don’t happen in huge numbers just “because”, you know. You need to put in iHUB upgrades that cost a pretty fair amount to install, and IIRC, those upgrades also increase the monthly sov cost for that system. ---
**Author:** ![Brisc\_Rubal](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/brisc_rubal/32/374307_2.png) [@Brisc\_Rubal](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brisc_Rubal)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:51am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/496 "2018-10-04T08:51:30Z")
> [@Litsea\_Reticulata](#): > > Is this in relation to bounty mechanics, or the volume of bounties generated? The amount of isk being generated by ratting is unsustainable. ---
**Author:** ![Jeremiah\_Saken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jeremiah_saken/32/266740_2.png) [@Jeremiah\_Saken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jeremiah_Saken)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:54am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/497 "2018-10-04T08:54:38Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > No, but there can be ‘join fleet, we’re forming up at [STATION], everyone get there’. sure but rather pvp fleet content. My idea for group content is rather than locking them in mindset that you need N+1 players in default fits to get reward x (for pve) have them interact with each other to form group content (not specially pve). Activity tracker made me think about something. It will be in game tool that shows what kind of activity we may do in EvE in one place. Why not encourage same thing by emergent gameplay made by players themselves and also be build in game. So if in-game bulletin board existed player may post various infos about services and other stuff they want to post. For example corp A is decced by corp B, they post on bulletin board an request if anyone can guard them them while they are decced (it this example they are miners), corp Z enter the stage. We have conflict drivers, creators etc. This naive ofc, mechanism may be abused but worth think about it. ---
**Author:** ![gnshadowninja](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gnshadowninja/32/160500_2.png) [@gnshadowninja](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/gnshadowninja)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:55am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/498 "2018-10-04T08:55:07Z")
> [@Veryez](#): > > Sorry, but if something is significantly hurting EvE, I’m against it. Even if it directly nerfs my playstyle. All those people suggesting there should be some way for the defender to ‘fight back’ or to make a structure they can ‘destroy’ to end the war. We’re talking about people who might barely be able to use a cruiser with t2 guns. With level 4 tanking and fitting skills. People who might have focused on mining or building and fight in frigates. I have never seen a frigate take down a structure, though I suppose it could happen. People that don’t have the resources to fight a prolonged war. That simply can’t replace their ship if they can’t get out of station and perform their isk making activities This is exactly what I keep saying but people believe that if you suddenly add an objective wars become appealing. ---
**Author:** ![Mingja](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mingja/32/50857_2.png) [@Mingja](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mingja)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 8:56am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/499 "2018-10-04T08:56:36Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Player actions should matter, after all. It’s EVE. I’ve truncated your first half with just quoting this. It’s a nice idea that you have and I agree with what you’ve said. Ofc, a narrative can be a higher purpose too! I think the elephant in the room for your idea is: the time constraints CCP has. I think it’s a good idea that is worth to refine, but yeah - I doubt CCP would free up the time it takes to do that, as unfortunate as it may be. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Well, one thing I was thinking of was ‘improve the drops from kills’. The more damage you do overall (ie: the difference between 1-2 people who slowly whittle down a ship, vs 200 Maelstroms volleying an interceptor), the less of the target is left. Maybe you end up with metal scraps. Maybe you get most of their modules. > > Maybe you need to lock your tractor beam onto the lifeless hulk and haul your new repairable hull back to station… hope nobody activates the suspect timer that tractoring some other corp’s wreck just gave you! > > I actually think it’d be a big change for null. Imagine if you could kill some idiot’s ratting carrier, and actually drag it off to repair it… if you can make it home. Obviously, you’d want to avoid ‘we just killed 10 titans with our 200, now we have 210 titans’ (which is why the ‘less loot for more overwhelming force’), but if you can make money by _not_ PvEing… I think a fair number of people might jump at that. So what you really said is: FEAR BRAVE? 😉 Jokes aside. Again, good idea but also time consuming. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Kuklo](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kuklo/32/162907_2.png) [@Kuklo](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kuklo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 9:00am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/500 "2018-10-04T09:00:40Z")
> [@Veryez](#): > > but we can all understand if newer players can’t leave station There are no point to touch new players. 🤦🏿‍♂️ > [@Veryez](#): > > All those people suggesting there should be some way for the defender to ‘fight back’ Form fleet @ kill aggressor. > [@Veryez](#): > > We’re talking about people who might barely be able to use a cruiser with t2 guns. With level 4 tanking and fitting skills. What the heck you even talk about. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 9:01am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/501 "2018-10-04T09:01:27Z")
> [@Kuklo](#): > > Bite me What like those AFK cloaky campers being added to your white list… > [@gnshadowninja](#): > > This is exactly what I keep saying but people believe that if you suddenly add an objective wars become appealing. Some people will, it is a question of how many…, and please note that I suggested CCP make it so that people ganging up can rep each other and not go suspect… [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726.md?page=24) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726.md?page=26)