Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 19:17:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 19:17:32
3rd CSM Meeting: 8th of June 18:00 Eve Time
Initial Agenda Items:
1. Alternates and Voting (if an alternate is empowered to replace a full rep for the meetings does can a rep come back mid-way through and take the alternates place once again?) (Hardin)
2. Processes behind future appointment of CSM committee (Hardin)
3. Update on Assembly Hall tweaks for CSM members (Jade)
4. Confirmation of CSM forum tools request document. (Dierdra)
5. Confirmation of Assembly Hall stickies, public template, + submission template.
(Provisional public issues û have been on record for 7 days with significant public support or CSM rep advocacy -)
1. Science Industry + Secondary Market (Lavista) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782682
2. General Eve Forums improvement/fixing http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778049
3. CSM should vote for its own chairman (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042
4. Feasibility of Outposts going boom (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785568
5. Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906
6. Reload all Ammo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783536
7. Small Freighters http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781074
8. Drone Implants http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781729
9. Multiple undocking points http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886
10. Rigged ships and cargo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886
11. Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=780181
12. Improve Bombs http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572
13. Large Hull Exploration Vessel http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779425
***
IÆd like all CSM representatives/alternatives that will be able to attend on Sunday to inform themselves about the council/public issues that weÆll be discussing in advance of the meeting. Please read the threads, check out the drafts and review the previous meeting minutes/chatlog so we donÆt waste any time allotted to us.
If any CSM representative wishes items added to the agenda for Sunday please reply to this thread before 14:00 hours on Friday afternoon with a brief overview of the issue + link to the assembly hall thread. Make sure that the issue you are advocating will have been open to public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Sunday.
*Note, order of the agenda will be tweaked if necessary to ensure that all CSM reps get their issues heard within the scope of the meeting.
*Note2, as a member of the electorate the best way you can ensure you get your issues onto the agenda is a) convince a CSM rep to bring it to the agenda directly, or b) make sure it gets a good debate and plenty of support and IÆll be inclined to add it anyways on my own authority in the interests of community.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:26:00 -
[2]
Nothing being done to facilitate discussion? No word on what that template you voted on last time was?
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Goumindong Nothing being done to facilitate discussion?
The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion.
Quote: No word on what that template you voted on last time was?
If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion.
Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
Put up a thread where we can have a discussion. Its not difficult, its no undue burden, all it requires is a little honesty and a smidgen of initiative.
Quote:
If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week.
I read the chatlog and it looked to me like you voted to approve it.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:54:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Goumindong Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Goumindong Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored.
Welcome to the internet. Now are you going to answer my charges, buck up and get something useful done or are you going to go and cry to your mommy because someone said a mean word?
I don't ignore you when you ad hominem, strawman, and use all sorts of fallacious and specious logic. You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:22:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 03/06/2008 21:22:41
Originally by: Goumindong You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives.
I'll feel free to ignore anybody I consider fails on the basic standards of civilized debate Goum. Welcome back to my ignore list
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Viktor Amand
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 22:45:00 -
[8]
I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
|
Omber Zombie
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:22:00 -
[9]
i won't be available as an alt due to the timing of the meeting. Have fun. ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Ming Daizong
Mithraeum
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:56:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ming Daizong on 04/06/2008 00:58:40
|
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 03:58:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Viktor Amand I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts.
Could you give an example of such ones?
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 07:30:00 -
[12]
I'd like to raise an objection to Agenda item 1, for the following reasons:
Each player is only allowed to present ONE issue- here, 60+ issues are being presented together. I see no mention of a CSM member being exempt from this one topic limit. They can support as many issues as they like. However, each issue on the PDF and start of this thread needs to be proposed on the thread by a different player, discussed for 7 days etc.
Each of these are seperate issues and have different implications, level of support and the like. There needs to be seperate discussion on EACH one. I doubt that you will have time in a meeting to discuss each of the 60+ issues raised in the PDF.
Take care, Arithron
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 07:34:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Viktor Amand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care, Arithron
|
Papa Ina
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 09:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Arithron Originally by: Viktor Amand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care, Arithron
To give a proper example you would have to also include an issue with more popular support being ignored in favour of this.
As an aside it is also the CSM members rights to bring up issues which they feel are important to Eves future. That's why they were voted in. if you wanted a puppet council you should have voted for someone else.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:18:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Papa Ina
Originally by: Arithron Originally by: Viktor Amand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I, personally, wish the representatives wouldn't give their own ideas (some of which lack popular support) priority over those which clearly have popular support with many more support posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you give an example of such ones? (La Vista)
I can easily give an example:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572&page=2
20 'thumbs up (from 200,000), Jade supports it...
Take care, Arithron
To give a proper example you would have to also include an issue with more popular support being ignored in favour of this.
As an aside it is also the CSM members rights to bring up issues which they feel are important to Eves future. That's why they were voted in. if you wanted a puppet council you should have voted for someone else.
This really. I've actually been pretty wide-ranging in the issues I've nominated to the agenda thus far and looked for the highest levels of relative support as a tie-breaker. Its important we get the material for good meaty discussions at the Iceland summit and that means getting a move on in the selection of issues. Some candidates did stand on purely administrative platforms without opinions of their own, but by and large the eve electorate voted for people with outspoken views and the drive to get things done.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 15:26:00 -
[16]
This really. I've actually been pretty wide-ranging in the issues I've nominated to the agenda thus far and looked for the highest levels of relative support as a tie-breaker. Its important we get the material for good meaty discussions at the Iceland summit and that means getting a move on in the selection of issues. Some candidates did stand on purely administrative platforms without opinions of their own, but by and large the eve electorate voted for people with outspoken views and the drive to get things done.
I have never said you don't pick wide-ranging topics for the agenda I was simply giving an example of one with just 20 players supporting, as Lavista asked ;)
All of the candidates had drive to get things done, otherwise they wouldn't have stood in the first place. You seem to take offence when players point out the rules that the CSM should follow and what it is supposed to do. You are in an elected position, and the guidelines are available for all to see...so expect players to watch and point out when things aren't as they could be. This is healthy, not something to be dismissed with glib one-liners!
I point out when there are issues I don't believe are in keeping with the general gist of what the CSM was setup to do...such as Lavista putting 60+ issues on the table in one go, presumably needing just a single nay or aye vote for them all. I disagree with this, as each issue should get its own thread for discussion and no block acceptance of issues was intended...
You might put a lot of issues to CCP for the meeting, but by then they would have already decided the outcome and give you a response as you formally present the issues. The last minutes indicate that you think it's not needed to discuss the issues in a CSM meeting, just a vote, as, presumably, you all follow each argument and response on each thread...
Some of the issues you select contravene this part of the explanatory document:
After each CSM member presents their opinion to support or disprove a motion, the matter is brought to vote; a majority rule passes the issue for escalation. A ll CSM deliberations are to be documented by the S ecretary, including the reasons for supporting or denying the measure.
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case.
Anyway, looking forward to the next meeting minutes!
Take care, Arithron
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 16:19:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 04/06/2008 16:24:04
Originally by: Arithron I'd like to raise an objection to Agenda item 1, for the following reasons:
Each player is only allowed to present ONE issue- here, 60+ issues are being presented together.
Not true - many players have started multiple threads on Assembly Hall. For example, I've started 4, of which 2 are being discussed this week. As well, many people are bringing up multiple topics in one thread - usually in the form of comprehensive fixes on one topic of discussion, exactly like LaVista. I don't recall seeing this as being disallowed anywhere in the CSM rules. Unless I missed something(and if I did, let me know), everything happening here is perfectly in order.
Also, Jade, your agenda has an error - the link to issue #11 is wrong. Please update it, so that we can be sure which issue you're referring to. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 17:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Also, Jade, your agenda has an error - the link to issue #11 is wrong. Please update it, so that we can be sure which issue you're referring to.
Thank you Herschel, fixed it now.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:14:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Arithron
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case.
If all the issues were brought up individually, you won't get the large picture either. And without the large picture, it won't benefit the entire EVE society. The industry side of eve is extremely complex. Some of the things in my issue relies on other issues. Some can be implemented alone(Bug fixes, general UI improvements and gameplay mechanics). But some of the ideas DOES have large implications indeed.
That is why this is just a list of things for CCP to have a look at. Ginger stated at the devchat recently, that industrial love will happen in the next expansion(Post-FW), and this is why the market discussion forum, who put this together, wants to gather together a large bunch of things, such that CCP can work on it. The CSM term is planned around the fact that expansions go out every + year. So CSM is exactly the right place to bring up a huge bunch of issues and ideas for CCP to work on.
By your logic that one can't raise an issue with several aspects is not good. Many of the isuses that are brought up so far have extremely many aspects, which will have to be discussed. The only difference from that and then the issue I raised, is that I made it pretty clear what the EXACT issues are.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:29:00 -
[20]
Sorry, quite correct!
I mant to say that each player is allowed to start one topic per thread..
Obviously Lavista isn't doing this, since 60+ topics in one thread...
Arithron
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:32:00 -
[21]
The point I am trying to make Lavista is that you do bring up many issues that need discussed- but each needs a seperate thread to discuss them in turn. At a meeting of the CSM, you will need to debate each issue in turn and vote on each one- not vote once on 60+ issues!
Some affect the whole Eve society, some don't...
Take care, Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:38:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Arithron The point I am trying to make Lavista is that you do bring up many issues that need discussed- but each needs a seperate thread to discuss them in turn. At a meeting of the CSM, you will need to debate each issue in turn and vote on each one- not vote once on 60+ issues!
Some affect the whole Eve society, some don't...
Take care, Arithron
Wouldn't creating +60 issues create an extreme overhead, especially when they can't really be discussed and individual issues per say, due to the clear connection between most of the issues?
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:53:00 -
[23]
Well, they already creat the overhead by virtue of there being so many of them! They are connected simply by falling under the 'Science and Industry' category. Each is a seperate issue by itself...and hence needs a seperate thread for discussion and debate for 7 days by players.
And then, of course, each issue needs to be discussed and then voted upon by the CSM. The CSM document makes this clear.
Take care, Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:55:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Arithron Well, they already creat the overhead by virtue of there being so many of them! They are connected simply by falling under the 'Science and Industry' category. Each is a seperate issue by itself...and hence needs a seperate thread for discussion and debate for 7 days by players.
No, that isn't really the case. It's way more complex than you make it out to be. Some of them relies on other things, it's that simple.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 19:05:00 -
[25]
They may rely on other things, but you can bring those up when you are discussing and debating the issue in a CSM meeting, or on the thread for a specific issue. Afterall, thats what you have been elected to do as a group...
Take care, Arithron
|
Wu Jiun
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 00:51:00 -
[26]
I know its nitpicking but I think its "per se".
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:11:00 -
[27]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Wouldn't creating +60 issues create an extreme overhead, especially when they can't really be discussed and individual issues per say, due to the clear connection between most of the issues?
I agree that +60 issue threads would be a bit much, however, there must be a balance that can be found.
I agree with the settiment that you have bundled too much into a single proposal. It makes it far too diffucult to address each sub-proposal.
Most of your ideas I support, but it is diffucult to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the individual ideas with them so tightly bundled.
Perhaps breaking them down a bit more: ie improvements to shares, improvements to POS services, improvements to the market, improvements to contracts.
There is simply too much in there, and the only constant uniting it all is that it does not involve combat mechanics.
To the point, contrast the level of discussion in your thread, verse this more specific thread. While both touch on the need to improve share trading, your thread says very little about how that is accomplished and why that approach is favorable. The other thread allows the idea to be developed more fully.
There are pros and cons to most of your suggestions. However, by uniting them all into a monstrous package, it limits and diffuses discussion of those specifics.
I would encourage the council to replace LaVista's general issue with discussion of the stock-market specifics for this meeting as we have atleast three threads (those linked above plus this one) that have been active for over a week discussing different approaches to implementing/improving this area of the game.
Then allow development of discussion on the other areas of LaVista's proposals seperately before being them up in the council.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:22:00 -
[28]
Per se is indeed correct!
I agree with the idea of the shares being an agenda item and the rerst put up on seperate threads for better discussion.
As an aside, I note that the meeting this weekend, 8th June, is within the 14 day period before the meeting in Iceland. Does this mean that the agenda items discussed, which have to be submitted to CCP at least 14 days in advance, won't be addressed by CCP this time?
Take care, Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:49:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Arithron As an aside, I note that the meeting this weekend, 8th June, is within the 14 day period before the meeting in Iceland. Does this mean that the agenda items discussed, which have to be submitted to CCP at least 14 days in advance, won't be addressed by CCP this time? Take care, Arithron
As of this moment zero issues have been formally transmitted to CCP in the format of a submission template. Time constraints have been harsh, and we are doing our best to invent this process from the ground up. All parties are going to need to appreciate that the CSM document (full and summary) will be incomplete and inappropriate to the needs of the inaugural/founding session in certain aspects. We will be forwarding submission templates to CCP in advance of the Iceland meeting but these will fall short of the 14 day specification in the documentation and we're going to be asking CCP for their understanding and forbearance on the issue in the interests of making this inaugural session work.
As an aside, I'm going to ask people to stop trying to play legal games with the founding CSM documentation for the apparent purpose of confusing the issues and making the task of the CSM harder than it should be. We will get these things resolved and will have the CSM documentation re-written where it needs to be revised and corrected. We are not going to slavishly adhere to the text where it needs revision and external input to ensure the CSM can be all it can be for the game of Eve and the community. For this inaugural session its my intention that we take 3 weeks worth of issues produced in template format and provide these to CCP 5-6 days in advance of the first CSM/CCP meetings. Yes this is certainly shorter than the 14 days specified but its my judgment call as CSM chair that this represents better value to the community than simply flying to Iceland with a grand total of zero issues added to the agenda after complying with the 7 day open discussion and 14 day prior submission rules in the documentation.
Sometimes you have to bend the rules to get a decent outcome. This is one of those times.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 18:19:00 -
[30]
The following three topics will have completed seven days of 'the ability for discussion' by the date of the meeting:
* Proposals for UI improvements * Replace double-click in a chat channel * Cargo hold size of ships in hangar but not in use
Not surprisingly, for topics which will benefit everyone and are non-contentious, there are not an enormous number of responces, however they are all positive. eg.
Originally by: Elseix UI improvements are second only to performance improvements in terms of positive effect on the entire eve community.
IZ
My principles |
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:40:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Arithron on 05/06/2008 19:59:50 As an aside, I'm going to ask people to stop trying to play legal games with the founding CSM documentation for the apparent purpose of confusing the issues and making the task of the CSM harder than it should be. We will get these things resolved and will have the CSM documentation re-written where it needs to be revised and corrected.
We aren't playing legal games, these are the clearly stated rules in the CSM document, put up BEFORE the elections, which we all were well aware of. No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon.
Highlighting the rules and framework that the CSM works within doesn't confuse issues, it just draws your attention to something that you have to take into consideration and acknowledge. Afterall, you can still bring the meeting forward to Friday evening and get the agenda items submitted in time. By being aware of the requirements, you can avoid situations where you then need leeway etc.
There actually isn't much wrong with the documentation that the CSM has to work within. Bypassing clearly laid-out criteria (eg, Lavista's 60+ issues into a single vote) or overlooking clearly stated rules (eg, Agenda items to CCP 14 days beforehand) don't require changes to any process...they require a little more care in the application to the process.
If you follow this link (which, btw, is fantastic Serenity!) you can clearly see nine issues you can present to CCP and discuss, as you have already voted on them in meetings.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783002
Take care, Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:13:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Arithron No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon.
Well we're altering the rules this time Arithron. I've told you the rationale. And I'm confident that eve-players will understand my intention to get more useful issues on the agenda for Iceland rather than less of them. You are free to disagree but this decision is made.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:15:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni The following three topics will have completed seven days of 'the ability for discussion' by the date of the meeting:
* Proposals for UI improvements * Replace double-click in a chat channel * Cargo hold size of ships in hangar but not in use
Not surprisingly, for topics which will benefit everyone and are non-contentious, there are not an enormous number of responces, however they are all positive. eg.
Originally by: Elseix UI improvements are second only to performance improvements in terms of positive effect on the entire eve community.
IZ
Adding them now Inanna, thank you.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:15:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Arithron Bypassing clearly laid-out criteria (eg, Lavista's 60+ issues into a single vote) or overlooking clearly stated rules (eg, Agenda items to CCP 14 days beforehand) don't require changes to any process...they require a little more care in the application to the process.
I'm sorry, but we didn't overlook anything. That must be you.
If you read the chat logs from the first council meeting, you will see this: [ 2008.05.24 19:03:15 ] CCP Xhagen > The list of topics before the Iceland meeting has to be sent 7 days in advance (an exception due to the short period before the trip).
Also, as for my 60+ issue, would you leave it already? If CCP finds it to be an issue, they will state so and just reject to make a statement and the issue will be split up for one of the other meetings with CCP.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:32:00 -
[35]
No need to get personal....
The issue with the '60+ issues' isn't what CCP thinks about it- it's what the players, who want to comment and discuss each of the issues, think about it. Thats the point I am trying to make. How can we have trust in a CSM that is willing to vote on 60+ issues in one go, without allowing debate and discussion occur on each of them in the forums? Players also need to follow the same rules for proposing issues...
Nine issues presented to CCP in a meeting ain't that bad! I appreciate that time is short, but quality, not quantity, should be the aim. Afterall, it's the first time such a meeting has occured...it should set a high standard for future CSM's to aspire too!
I did miss the 7 day submission in the first meeting- I wasn't being picky by pointing out the 14 day thing, I just thought someone should point it out to avoid disappointment. Afterall, I DO want the CSM council to work, as I'll be standing again next time round.
Take care, Arithron
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 01:03:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/06/2008 20:22:12
Originally by: Arithron No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon.
We (meaning CSM+CCP) are altering the rules this time Arithron. I've told you the rationale. And I'm confident that eve-players will understand the intention to get more useful issues on the agenda for Iceland rather than less of them. You are free to disagree but this decision is made.
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 01:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 02:38:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes. You cannot do that in the Assembly Hall threads. They're rallies, not discussions.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:31:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes. You cannot do that in the Assembly Hall threads. They're rallies, not discussions.
slap
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not.
Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure? ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:51:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Erotic Irony You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not.
Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure?
I've gone through this in other posts, but the short answer is yes. Look at this thread of mine, that I started specifically because Gou said that there ought to be debate even on that topic - 69 replies, 68 thumbs and a "They really should have this.". There's no debate there, because it's essentially undebatable - it's a good idea that everybody supports. Now, I'd love to get away from /signed spam, and I want to see CCP implement a system to vote without posting ASAP, but until we do it's a fact of Assembly Hall.
That said, there's still plenty of discussion happening - look at this thread, that's had 139 comments in the past 24 hours, the vast majority of which were at least somewhat lengthy and debating the issue at hand.
Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right? ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 05:07:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right?
The lack of real discussion is a symptom of a whole host of problems, not something you or I can ameliorate--it exemplifies the worst aspects of an internet forum: completely unmoderated, saturated in "me too" posts and there's too much thread overlap. Just posting more or more constructively means nothing in this context because of the volume of people spamming and structural limits of the forum.
See also: monster trucks. It's a lost cause. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 05:16:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
See also: monster trucks. It's a lost cause.
Its a lost cause when monster trucks get voted through the csm. Thats not the same thing. Lucky we've got a spam-prevention function eh?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 09:11:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
You seem to have only half read, official yes, discussions? Certainly not.
Most of the posting in assembly is almost entirely spam in the form of /signed or simply blank posts with support checked--no one is interested in asking questions or clarifying, just shoring up hasty "support". Is this me too syndrome a discussion by any measure?
I really would like to bring up the simple point once more that removing the posting from the supporting would greatly increase the effectiveness of the forum.
In other words you either post to discuss or you just show support without having to spam.
In other words adding a poll to each thread in the form of support or don't support.
Becuase really people I'm hearing both sides of the world are ending.
On one had you have people saying :it's official and works perfectly" on the other hand I hear "NOTHING WORKS IT'S NOT A DISCUSSION AT ALL!!"
I'm sorry but I personally have been discussing threads on that forum, maybe people should just be less lazy.
but lets face it not everyone has something to add some people might just think someone else's idea is great.
in other words : YOU NEED BOTH FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK
the system currently is allowing for discussions trust me sure there is spam but that doesn't rule out the discussions taking place. I mean even if only 5 people have posted it's still a discussion lets not start judging how many posts it should take before it counts.
and currently players can show their support to the threat meaning "I have nothing to add, I like your idea."
The idea is to show CCP and the CSM what players want brought up
the other goal is to discuss what should be brought up.
Thus we need both, stop saying it's not one or the other it's both, it's just not done perfectly.
But CCP can't remove the ability to vote for a thread to be brought up and it would be stupid for us to have another forum for each vited in topic for nothing but discussion... or would it?
either way we have to work with it this year and next year we can see what went wrong AKA support = spam IN BETWEEN the discussions at hand. And it will be more successful.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 09:13:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Frankly, if you don't think there's enough discussion, go chip in a few comments. And if you don't think there's enough opportunity for discussion(which is really the relevant part here), then all you have to do is acknowledge the possibility of you going and chipping in a few comments. That shouldn't be too hard, right?
The lack of real discussion is a symptom of a whole host of problems, not something you or I can ameliorate--it exemplifies the worst aspects of an internet forum: completely unmoderated, saturated in "me too" posts and there's too much thread overlap. Just posting more or more constructively means nothing in this context because of the volume of people spamming and structural limits of the forum.
See also: monster trucks. It's a lost cause.
Please note what you are currently doing by posting how badly your contradicting yourself.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:08:00 -
[46]
Submission deadline for discussion of Issues is now closed and that part of the agenda is fixed. Can I remind all CSM reps who took ownership of issues last time we need the formal submission templates filled out very soon as we will need to submit them to CCP by next week. At the moment I'm thinking of an extra meeting next week on Thursday where we'll vote final approval on the issues from week 2/3 prior to getting them bundled off to CCP.
Thanks a lot!
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:02:00 -
[47]
I see that you have now fixed the agenda for this meeting, so now, as chairperson, can you please publicly state answers to the following:
1. That presenting 60+ issues to a CSM meeting as 'One topic'(Science and Industry) is within the rules and guidelines.
2. Are you going to discuss each of the 60+ issues in turn?
3 Is there going to be a seperate vote on each of the issues from the Science and Industry PDF?
Many thanks, Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:24:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Arithron I see that you have now fixed the agenda for this meeting, so now, as chairperson, can you please publicly state answers to the following:
1. That presenting 60+ issues to a CSM meeting as 'One topic'(Science and Industry) is within the rules and guidelines.
Yes.
Quote: 2. Are you going to discuss each of the 60+ issues in turn?
If the issue gets support and goes to the Iceland agenda yes we will.
Quote: 3 Is there going to be a seperate vote on each of the issues from the Science and Industry PDF?
Nope, we'll be voting on whether the issue of "industrial improvements" is a matter worth raising as a whole and will be treating the 60 "issues" as example problems afflicting science and industry at the moment. There will be discussion with CCP if this reaches the agenda but at some point we'll be relinquishing control of the document to the powers that be and trusting them to give a substantive response to the detailed issues.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:26:00 -
[49]
Perhaps CCP could (or be encouraged to) respond holistically to the Science and Industry document? So they read it over, get the general pitch, and respond in a more general sense at first so as not to get bogged down?
Maybe this is already how they're planning on doing it, but I guess we'll see with the first meeting.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:50:00 -
[50]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 06/06/2008 17:51:47
Originally by: Kelsin Perhaps CCP could (or be encouraged to) respond holistically to the Science and Industry document? So they read it over, get the general pitch, and respond in a more general sense at first so as not to get bogged down?
Maybe this is already how they're planning on doing it, but I guess we'll see with the first meeting.
Satisfactory, in my eyes, is that they seriously look into those things and implement the "given" things, some which have been scream for, for years!
I by no means expect an answer to ALL of them 60+ issues. Some of the ideas are indeed some major changes, which shouldn't be taken on lightly. But as long as they are discussed, I'm happy.
EDIT: Some things I do expect a clear comment on though. I'm happy if at least the "Most wanted" things are covered.
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:17:00 -
[51]
The only way they are forced to discuss and respond to issues is when each one is debated/discussed by the CSM, and then voted upon in a meeting. Having them all lumped together is not, as far as the guidelines and rules state, satisfying this requirement.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for some love in the Science and industry areas! However, you set precedents for future CSM's, so it's important that everything is done correctly from the start. Denying debate and discussion on separate issues by lumping them all in together isn't useful or in the spirit of what the CSM was designed to do.
It would be good to get a CCP ruling on this issue (presenting multiple issues for just one vote, without proper CSM discussion or player discussion on individual issues...since how can you properly discuss 60+ issues in a meeting or coherently on a thread?).
Where do you get your definitive answer from, Jade, regarding multiple issues being allowed as one issue?
Take care, Arithron
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:20:00 -
[52]
And, in question 2 above I asked if you were going to discuss the 60+ issues.
It appears, from your answer, that you aren't going to in a CSM meeting, as required. Can you explain how bypassing one of the main responsibilities of a CSM is in keeping with what you were elected to do, and said you would do? This is a question to all CSM members, btw...
Take care, Arithron
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 22:13:00 -
[53]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 06/06/2008 22:17:28
Originally by: Arithron And, in question 2 above I asked if you were going to discuss the 60+ issues.
It appears, from your answer, that you aren't going to in a CSM meeting, as required. Can you explain how bypassing one of the main responsibilities of a CSM is in keeping with what you were elected to do, and said you would do? This is a question to all CSM members, btw...
Take care, Arithron
she said they will discuss all 60 issues.
can you not read?
Quote: 2. Are you going to discuss each of the 60+ issues in turn?
If the issue gets support and goes to the Iceland agenda yes we will.
as in they will discuss all 60 issues. It's not the job of the 1st CSM meetings to discuss anything. They are only voting if the issue SHOULD be taken to CCP to BE discussed.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 23:57:00 -
[54]
I don't know Arithron, I think in some cases it might be much better to address a collection of issues together. A great thing about this game is how every part of it touches every other part of it, so if the CSM can vote on a document that addresses multiple aspects of a broad issue together, it might make a lot more sense than voting on a ton of individual bits. Kind of like passing a "package" of laws in a legislature.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 18:08:00 -
[55]
Actually, if you read the CSM documents, you will see that members are to discuss and debate issues put to them by players or supported by a representative (via issue thread), then to vote on EACH issue.
Jade has stated that they will discuss each issue in Iceland with CCP, not that the representatives will discuss each of the 60+ issues in the CSM meeting.
Its important to have issues seperate and not all put together, so that the representatives can clearly see the arguments for and against issue, and also see the support for an issue (not for 35 of the 65 issues etc).
I agree that many issues touch on others. However, this does not mean that the procedure should be circumvented in the interests of short meetings etc. The representatives stood, knowing that it will take a considerable amount of their time.
Take care, Arithron
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 00:40:00 -
[56]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Thus we need both, stop saying it's not one or the other it's both, it's just not done perfectly.
I've never said that the system is perfect or that its anyones fault. I have said that the CSM needs to take some initiative and make the threads in here where we can discuss the issues without the ******** mechanics getting in the way.
It doesn't take ANY effort except making a post that says "discuss this issue in here" and then reading it. Hell you will probably save time since you now don't have to deal with the **** in the other thread.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 04:26:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: MotherMoon
Thus we need both, stop saying it's not one or the other it's both, it's just not done perfectly.
I've never said that the system is perfect or that its anyones fault. I have said that the CSM needs to take some initiative and make the threads in here where we can discuss the issues without the ******** mechanics getting in the way.
It doesn't take ANY effort except making a post that says "discuss this issue in here" and then reading it. Hell you will probably save time since you now don't have to deal with the **** in the other thread.
You know I've never gotten that out of what you posted in the past
Honesty here is my idea for next year.
Step1. Assembly hall You post an issue you believe the CSM should take up with CCP. People just pure and simple vote or a CSM take it under their wing. The way the system turned out working. This topics will have no 7 day period or anything.
Step2. CSM vote The CSM run thier weekly meeting and vote in what issues are important enough to bring up with CCP.
Step3. Discussion thread A thread is started for each issue that will make it in for players to discuss what changes they want to see on the topic. The CSM simply read through it and write down what the players want or suggest. If so many player all have the same idea the idea HAS to go through to CCP.
Step 4. last 7 days Once there are only 7 days left weekly CSM voting ends and they send off a document with every idea that is going to be brought up to CCP. the Discussion threads continue but at this point only CSM members can pick comments to add to document to be used at the meeting to reflect what the playerbase wants to see.
Step5. CCP and CSM meet to discuss the topics they bring up, armed with documentation from the forums of what the payers have said on each topic.
How does that sound? I mean really, shouldn't the discussion dicate WHAT is brought up to CCP not IF it should be brought up?
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 09:38:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Arithron 1. That presenting 60+ issues to a CSM meeting as 'One topic'(Science and Industry) is within the rules and guidelines. 2. Are you going to discuss each of the 60+ issues in turn? 3 Is there going to be a seperate vote on each of the issues from the Science and Industry PDF?
For myself, I split a number of issues across multiple posts so that each post only concerned itself with one area of EVE. I believe that this particular post is, to some extent, problematic in that it would have helped all pilots to consider it effectively if the 60+ items had been split according to their subject matter into more posts.
However for this first time around with the first CSM there are clearly many issues which we will be putting to CCP for their guaranteed response which are going to be fairly uncontentious and receive wide-spread, even total, support. Splitting it up fully could have just flooded a page of the Assembly Hall for no actual benefit in the discussions, however I do feel that it would have been beneficial for 'ease of discovery' reasons, making it easier for pilots.
IZ
My principles |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 22:57:00 -
[59]
Chatlog is up. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 01:51:00 -
[60]
Okay this was a long and very hard meeting. The outcome led to the following decisions:
1. Can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda
(Issue passed)
2. 2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason
(Issue passed)
3. Update on Assembly Hall tweaks for CSM members (Jade)
(communication from CCP delivered)
4. Confirmation of CSM forum tools request document. (Dierdra)
(confirmed)
5. Confirmation of Assembly Hall stickies, public template, + submission template.
(issue covered)
1. Science Industry + Secondary Market (Lavista) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782682
(Issue passed on the condition that document is split into major topics for individual confirming votes prior to submission - LaVista owns)
2. General Eve Forums improvement/fixing http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778049
(Issue passed - Ankhesentapemkah owns)
3. CSM should vote for its own chairman (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042
(Issue passed - Jade owns)
4. Evaluation of empire war dec mechanics (Diedra) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782220
(Issue passed - Dierdra owns)
5.Proposals for UI Improvements (Inanna) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783206
(issue passed Inanna owns)
6.Feasibility of Outposts going boom (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785568
(issue passed Jade owns)
7.Replace double-click in a chat channel (Inanna) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783218
(issue passed Inanna owns)
8.Cargo hold size of ships in hanger but not in use (Inanna) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783263
(Issue passed - Inanna owns)
9. Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777906
(Issue passed - Darius owns)
10. Reload all Ammo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783536
(Issue passed - Dierdra Vaal owns)
11. Small Freighters http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781074
(Issue passed - Inanna Zuni owns)
12. Drone Implants http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781729
(Issue passed - Hardin owns)
13. Multiple undocking points http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779886
(Issue fails - 8 against 1 abstain)
14. Rigged ships and cargo http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783373
(Issue passed - Lavista owns)
15. Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=780181
(Issue passed - Jade owns)
16. Improve Bombs http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784572
(Issue passed - Hardin owns)
17. Large Hull Exploration Vessel http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779425
(Issue failed - 5 against 3 for 1 abstain)
Additional vote on the principle of simple majority voting:
Initial Vote:
3 simple majority 4 qualified majority 2 abstain
(Re-vote - after checking CSM PDF docs)
5 simple majority 1 qualified majority 3 abstain
***
Formal minutes to follow, chatlog is already up. Our next formal meeting is going to thursday where are going to be ensuring that all issues going to Iceland are properly documented and ready for submission.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 02:28:00 -
[61]
After a power outage, I just got around to finishing my reading of the chatlogs, and I'm pretty ****ed off at the conduct of the meeting. The chair decided to arbitrarily mute a member of the Council who had done nothing wrong "til the vote", and then proceeded to re-mute her twice more without ever actually letting the block off until after the vote had already taken place. And this was on the basis of two "formal warnings" for conduct that is entirely normal in a text-based meeting - the first was for calling a point of order, and the second was for taking marginally longer to type a comment than it took Jade to ask for silence. This is abuse of power of the highest order on the part of the chair, and I'm incredibly disappointed to see it.
Also, on the issue of abstentions, it's a total non-issue, and the fact that a minute was spent on it is wasteful, let alone an hour. Abstention = AFK = absent from meeting, except as regards quorum and replacement by alternates. If "Aye" > "Nay", the motion passes, and if "Nay" <= "Aye", the motion fails. Abstentions have no weight whatsoever - Serenity is appallingly wrong when he says that they be counted as Nays, and Ankh is understandably wrong(but still wrong) when she says that majority-abstain is a failed vote. If eight of you abstain and one Aye vote is cast, the motion is passed. It's the same as what happens if, say, 90% of eligible Eve accounts choose not to cast a CSM ballot - we don't throw out the results, we simply record the votes of those who chose to cast a vote, and go from there. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 03:10:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto After a power outage, I just got around to finishing my reading of the chatlogs, and I'm pretty ****ed off at the conduct of the meeting. The chair decided to arbitrarily mute a member of the Council who had done nothing wrong "til the vote", and then proceeded to re-mute her twice more without ever actually letting the block off until after the vote had already taken place.
This is actually a technical problem we discovered with the chat channel :
The first notification of a mute is where I muted Inanna (following polite requests, and two formal warnings against disruptive conduct.)
The second notification of a mute (immediately before the vote) is actually me clicking "un-mute" which for some bizarre reason doesn't work and ends up kicking the person from the channel.
The third notification of a mute is actually the un-mute once she'd been reinvited to the channel by me.
= there are technical problems with the mute system in that channel. (we checked all this afterwards btw).
But technical issues aside:
Its the role of the Chair to moderate meetings. If people are refusing to ask to be recognized by the chair before speaking (while other CSM members are quite happy to do this) then its the responsibility of the chair to ensure that steps are taken when this conduct damages our ability to make progress. Polite requests were made, warnings were given. I took the step to mute the representative when she point blank refused to remain quiet while a vote was being conducted. The vice chair agreed with this step.
Ultimately the CSM reps need to respect the authority of the chair to moderate meetings. If they don't then no progress can be made. If people don't like the way I handled this they are free to complain to CCP or whatever. But I'll continue to do my best to ensure we actually get things done rather than spending fruitless periods listening to endless cross talk and interruptions while other CSM reps are actually respecting the process of the meeting and waiting to be recognized before speaking their own points.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Tress Macneille
Eight year old girls GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 03:37:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Tress Macneille on 09/06/2008 03:39:09 I AM JADE CONSTANTINE, GOD CHAIRMAN AND EMPEROR OF THE CSM
BOW BEFORE MY UNPOPULAR AND UNSUPPORTED ISSUES LEST I MUTE YOU
|
Tress Macneille
Eight year old girls GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 03:41:00 -
[64]
OR POST A WALL OF TEXT THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, THAT TOO IS ONE OF THE MANY E-WEAPONS IN MY E-ARSENAL
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 03:53:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 09/06/2008 03:54:13 If the block was a technical error, I won't fault you for that. But that doesn't let you off the hook for the muting in the first place. I acknowledge the right of the chair to moderate the meeting, and to mute or even eject members when necessary. But in this situation it was patently unnecessary, to the point where I don't think reasonable disagreement can excuse your actions.
Your first warning to her (page 21, for those reading along) came at the end of an exchange that was acrimonious on all sides, and where you called a vote that was self-negating (4 votes in favour of interpreting that the rules all along had been that 5 votes are required to pass a motion). She objected and explained her objection, you gave her a "formal warning" without further explanation on your part.
Your second warning to her (page 43) I'll quote here in its entirety: [ 2008.06.08 21:35:07 ]Jade Constantine >so bare with me please and I'll state the issue prior to a vote [ 2008.06.08 21:35:11 ]Jade Constantine >and that will end it [ 2008.06.08 21:35:15 ]Jade Constantine >**** [ 2008.06.08 21:35:15 ]Inanna Zuni >Actually, I see no decisions on topics which we have taken which are compromised in any way [ 2008.06.08 21:35:32 ]Inanna Zuni >bear (to carry) not care (to eb naked) [ 2008.06.08 21:35:49 ]Ankhesentapemkah >objection noted inanna, now please respect the process. [ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ]Jade Constantine >Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair
Aside from a (totally unnecessary) grammar edit on Inanna's part, which she'd been doing all night, you just gave her a warning for not looking at the screen during an 8-second window, plus or minus lag, between when you could be interpreted to have called for silence and when she finished typing her message, or a 4-second window after you clarified slightly. Call me crazy, but a warning over taking a bit too long to type a response is abusive, and destructive of respect for the Chair.
Immediately after the second "formal warning", Inanna asked for clarification of exactly what the warning meant. For that matter, so did Hardin and LaVista, which implies to me that nobody knew what you were doing. You certainly hadn't specified up until that point in the chatlogs, but the fact that three people questioned its meaning and Darius questioned its validity means that I can safely say you also hadn't specified it anywhere else, which means you can't blame Inanna for not knowing what she was being warned against or what the consequences of ignoring those warnings would be. Those things are standard for any warning anywhere, either int he form of rules of order, contempt of court laws, or something else of that nature, or they're contained within the warning themselves, but you didn't provide them, which makes confusion basically inevitable. And apparently, this confusion and questioning of your decision were mute-worthy.
While it is certainly the right of the chair to prevent members from disrupting the meeting, it is also the right of members to question, request clarification of, and even formally challenge and seek to overturn the rulings of the Chair under all rules of order I've ever seen. Not only did you ignore those rights, you disrespected them flagrantly, by silencing a member of the Council who was seeking to do no more than exercise her rights as a member. You acted against the proper proceedings of a deliberative assembly, and misused your powers as Chair to do so. Your actions were abusive and generally reprehensible, and deserve condemnation in the strongest terms, and if I were at the table my first actions would be to nail down these amorphous rules of order well enough to find a way to eject you from the Chair.
I'm willing to accord you quite a number of rights due to your electoral standing, but dictatorial powers are not among them.
Oh, and Tress, STFU. You're not helping. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 03:57:00 -
[66]
excerpts:
Quote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:39 ]Jade Constantine >**************************
Quote: [ 2008.06.08 21:18:12 ]Jade Constantine >we've decided a couple of important things here today which need to be entered into the records specifically [ 2008.06.08 21:18:34 ]Jade Constantine >firstly the change to the role of Alternates is a change to the CSM constitution [ 2008.06.08 21:18:45 ]Jade Constantine >we can certainly work in this way provisionally [ 2008.06.08 21:18:53 ]Jade Constantine >but it need to be brought and confirmed by CCP [ 2008.06.08 21:18:59 ]Jade Constantine >*** [ 2008.06.08 21:19:01 ]Jade Constantine >Secondly [ 2008.06.08 21:19:06 ]Darius JOHNSON >? I disagree with that [ 2008.06.08 21:19:23 ]Darius JOHNSON >The constitution never defined that role as we voted. [ 2008.06.08 21:19:31 ]Darius JOHNSON >We clarified. Not altered [ 2008.06.08 21:19:39 ]Jade Constantine >arguable [ 2008.06.08 21:19:43 ]Darius JOHNSON >Not at all [ 2008.06.08 21:20:00 ]Jade Constantine >but never the less we are going to need to confirm the role of alternates in Iceland [ 2008.06.08 21:20:08 ]Darius JOHNSON >Summon alternates, that's the only way they're mentioned. it doesn't state anything at all about levels of attendance.
Quote: [ 2008.06.08 21:36:58 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote". [ 2008.06.08 21:44:06 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:14:05.
Quote: [ 2008.06.08 21:50:53 ]Dierdra Vaal >well I gotta go guys. I hope you can work this out.
Quote: [ 2008.06.08 22:01:16 ]Jade Constantine >she ignored me [ 2008.06.08 22:01:24 ]Darius JOHNSON >So what? Who the hell are you?
These logs are getting longer and longer and the rules increasingly seem to be either still unclear or just a facade. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Martin VanBuren
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 04:09:00 -
[67]
why couldn't you have just stuck to the issues jade instead of trying to turn the csm into some sort of toy
|
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 04:13:00 -
[68]
Jade Constantine failing to explain his decisions, then muting people to avoid confrontation?
Who could have seen this coming?
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Moon Kitten
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 04:29:00 -
[69]
Very classy.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 04:50:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Erotic Irony These logs are getting longer and longer and the rules increasingly seem to be either still unclear or just a facade.
Both, actually. The rules are naturally unclear, because the constitution of the CSM is a PR pitch, as opposed to a quasi-legal document. CCP is their usual overworked selves, and they haven't clarified further, and nobody at the CSM is lawyerly enough to have forced proper rules of order upon the Council yet.
Thing is, power abhors a vacuum even more than nature does. If there's unclear rules, every side will push as hard as it can to gain more power for itself - Darius, as a common member, is agitating for the rights of common members at every opportunity and the utter irrelevance of the Chair, and Jade, as Chair, is trying to define himself into far more power than anybody else probably wants him to have. They're both pushing for far more than they ought to get, but between their personalities and philosophies, and the fact that they're trying to further their own interests(which will make anybody fight a little bit harder) I'm not surprised by their actions at all.
It's also true of every other organization with multiple power bases I can think of that's not bound in by some pretty ironclad law - the House of Commons has spent 800 years hedging out the Crown and Lords, by means ranging from financial threats, to questionable constitutional changes, to civil war and regicide. Presidents from Andrew Jackson to George W Bush have sought to expand the power of the executive beyond that which their predecessors enjoyed, and Congress has constantly pushed back.
The fact that Jade and Darius(and others, of course, but those two are the most egregious) are doing the same thing here doesn't surprise me and, sadly, neither does the fact that they're both being so bush-league about it. But at the same time as I'm unsurprised that somebody will take up the banners of the anarchist and the tyrant, I'm disappointed by those who do. Darius needs to calm down and get past his 4th-grade civics notion of absolute, universal equality in all things, and Jade needs to get down off his high horse and acknowledge the rightful limits on his role as Chair. And until both of them do that, there will continue to be unnecessary strife that makes them all look like children, or worse, politicians.
I hope Iceland solves the problem - face-to-face discussion is almost inevitably less bloodthirsty than text-based - but I'm not excessively optimistic about the good functioning of this Council over the next five and a half months. I hope to be proven wrong, but the issues at hand seem too fundamental, and being stifled in those issues seems too likely to provoke bitterness, for these hatchets to be buried among this group. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
|
Viktor Amand
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 04:52:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Viktor Amand on 09/06/2008 04:53:32 Serves me right for voting for Jade. I thought he could handle the responsibility of CSM in a reasonable manner. Boy was I wrong.
My worry was that the Goons would **** up the process. Jade's actually making them look good, ironically.
|
baalaagaa
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 04:57:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Martin VanBuren why couldn't you have just stuck to the issues jade instead of trying to turn the csm into some sort of toy
Don't you know he is very important in the eve online community
|
mynnna
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 05:10:00 -
[73]
Originally by: baalaagaa
Originally by: Martin VanBuren why couldn't you have just stuck to the issues jade instead of trying to turn the csm into some sort of toy
Don't you know he is very important in the eve online community
POSTCOUNT = NOTORIETY = RESPECT
Or maybe in his case, WORDCOUNT...
|
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 05:17:00 -
[74]
Originally by: mynnna
Originally by: baalaagaa
Originally by: Martin VanBuren why couldn't you have just stuck to the issues jade instead of trying to turn the csm into some sort of toy
Don't you know he is very important in the eve online community
POSTCOUNT = NOTORIETY = RESPECT
Or maybe in his case, WORDCOUNT...
+rep to you
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 05:39:00 -
[75]
I find it quite ironic about how people were screaming for the ability to remove a chairman, should the goons get a chairman with the intention of griefing the council. But now it seems like it's turned around
Anyways. Yesterday was an absolute fiasco. The way Jade conducted himself is, as pointed out, unacceptable in my eyes. Not only did he unrightfully mute Inanna, based on vague and unreasonable reasons, he also totally ignored certain council members and had no respect for the fact that people had a real life. This resulted in the meeting taking 2 hours longer than expected. That's 4 hours total! And why? Well, I will let those who read the chatlogs judge for themselves. But it's pretty damn clear why such a huge deal was made out of it, resulting in this chaos.
Hopefully everybody will learn something from this, so that we don't waste so much time next time.
|
HClChicken
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 05:44:00 -
[76]
It seemed like during the meetings they came up with new issues constantly. How about next time you make a vote for an issue along the lines of "only issues previously stated in our CSM forum, or in the alliance hall forum can be brought to the CSM meetings" This would cut down on the lengths of the meetings drastically.
It would also allow more debate since you can look through the threads and read them rather and try and prove your point in a 2 hour timespan.
Maybe make a vote for the removal of a chair if he does an inefficient job, one that takes longer than 3 hours to do, counts as inefficiency.
|
Kis Kecheri
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 05:57:00 -
[77]
Originally by: LaVista Vista I find it quite ironic about how people were screaming for the ability to remove a chairman, should the goons get a chairman with the intention of griefing the council. But now it seems like it's turned around
Anyways. Yesterday was an absolute fiasco. The way Jade conducted himself is, as pointed out, unacceptable in my eyes. Not only did he unrightfully mute Inanna, based on vague and unreasonable reasons, he also totally ignored certain council members and had no respect for the fact that people had a real life. This resulted in the meeting taking 2 hours longer than expected. That's 4 hours total! And why? Well, I will let those who read the chatlogs judge for themselves. But it's pretty damn clear why such a huge deal was made out of it, resulting in this chaos.
Hopefully everybody will learn something from this, so that we don't waste so much time next time.
I think a more important issue though is the "Righteos Instigator" that Darius JOHNSON is playing.
Through out the meeting and especially in the last quarter he baited Jade and company multiple times. He was trying to push the meeting even farther off topic into a all out brawl.
Examples:
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:25 ]Darius JOHNSON >Your warnings don't mean a thing FYI
[ 2008.06.08 21:46:20 ]Darius JOHNSON >Well she DID get two OFFICIAL WARNINGS [ 2008.06.08 21:46:29 ] Darius JOHNSON >Maybe the channel is enforcing RULE!
[ 2008.06.08 21:58:21 ]Darius JOHNSON >Well it's cool, just mute them next time you don't like what they're saying and we'll be cool
[ 2008.06.08 22:01:24 ]Darius JOHNSON >So what? Who the hell are you?
[ 2008.06.08 22:02:43 ]Darius JOHNSON >Let's just mute everyone and move on
If the CSM wants to be taken seriously then that kind of behavior can't be condoned.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:03:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
I think a more important issue though is the "Righteos Instigator" that Darius JOHNSON is playing.
Through out the meeting and especially in the last quarter he baited Jade and company multiple times. He was trying to push the meeting even farther off topic into a all out brawl.
If the CSM wants to be taken seriously then that kind of behavior can't be condoned.
I'm not going to defend Darius' actions. But he makes some fine points.
Though it could be considered childish, at least he didn't interupt the meeting nor did he mute people.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:04:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri I think a more important issue though is the "Righteos Instigator" that Darius JOHNSON is playing.
Through out the meeting and especially in the last quarter he baited Jade and company multiple times. He was trying to push the meeting even farther off topic into a all out brawl.
Examples:
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:25 ]Darius JOHNSON >Your warnings don't mean a thing FYI
[ 2008.06.08 21:46:20 ]Darius JOHNSON >Well she DID get two OFFICIAL WARNINGS [ 2008.06.08 21:46:29 ] Darius JOHNSON >Maybe the channel is enforcing RULE!
[ 2008.06.08 21:58:21 ]Darius JOHNSON >Well it's cool, just mute them next time you don't like what they're saying and we'll be cool
[ 2008.06.08 22:01:24 ]Darius JOHNSON >So what? Who the hell are you?
[ 2008.06.08 22:02:43 ]Darius JOHNSON >Let's just mute everyone and move on
If the CSM wants to be taken seriously then that kind of behavior can't be condoned.
Even if they're both being an ass to the same degree, Darius isn't going around censoring people. Jade's conduct needs to be addressed well before anybody else's, for that reason alone. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Erik Amirault
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:04:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Erik Amirault on 09/06/2008 06:04:55
Maybe because this is an internet spaceships committee for internet spaceships pilots to discuss internet spaceships? The committee isn't some 'ultimate roleplaying device' just for Jade to obsess over constantly and acquire more and more e-spaceship power in. If Jade is going to act up and pretend (s)he is some super important person with new and growing authorities rather than what (s)he actually is, then someone should just tell him to sit down and shut it. Enter Darius.
|
|
Anton Marvik
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:05:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Anton Marvik on 09/06/2008 06:06:23 I'd like to see someone held accountable for the cluster**** that was meeting 3. I know many others of your various constituencies feel similarly. ESPECIALLY, disenfranchising Ianna's constituency.
Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:10:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Erik Amirault If Jade is going to act up and pretend (s)he is some super important person with new and growing authorities rather than what (s)he actually is, then someone should just tell him to sit down and shut it. Enter Darius.
That would get you muted. But you could always abstain, of course!
|
Daveydweeb
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:18:00 -
[83]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Erik Amirault If Jade is going to act up and pretend (s)he is some super important person with new and growing authorities rather than what (s)he actually is, then someone should just tell him to sit down and shut it. Enter Darius.
That would get you muted. But you could always abstain, of course!
Is this is the bit where I grin smugly in the knowledge that I did not vote for Jade Constantine?
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:19:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Anton Marvik Edited by: Anton Marvik on 09/06/2008 06:06:47 I'd like to see someone held accountable for the cluster**** that was meeting 3. ESPECIALLY, disenfranchising Ianna's constituency.
Ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.
Most rules of order I've seen for bodies like this allow for impeachment of a member with a 2/3 vote. I've never implemented such a vote, so I've never looked at whether it can be narrowed to just stripping their roles while leaving their seat intact(since I have no objections to Jade's conduct as a member thus far), but I'd imagine that it's possible to do so. Seems to me there's an obvious target for such a motion. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:21:00 -
[85]
Reading that log made me think, damn, Goonfleet is cool.
------------------------------------------------
|
Drolus
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:24:00 -
[86]
Oh CSM. I KNEW Jade would provide me the comedy so much needed in this forum.
|
Drolus
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:25:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Daveydweeb
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Erik Amirault If Jade is going to act up and pretend (s)he is some super important person with new and growing authorities rather than what (s)he actually is, then someone should just tell him to sit down and shut it. Enter Darius.
That would get you muted. But you could always abstain, of course!
Is this is the bit where I grin smugly in the knowledge that I did not vote for Jade Constantine?
this
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:50:00 -
[88]
laffing at the people who voted for jade, that's a pretty funny chatlog right there, keep up the good work !
|
Drolus
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:27:00 -
[89]
Originally by: baalaagaa
Don't you know he is very important in the eve online community
Is that for roleplaying a nymphomaniac Gallentean hooker, or whatever he's into. Or has Odo actually achieved something in this game?
|
Atama Cardel
Even-Flow
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:34:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
Originally by: LaVista Vista I find it quite ironic about how people were screaming for the ability to remove a chairman, should the goons get a chairman with the intention of griefing the council. But now it seems like it's turned around
Anyways. Yesterday was an absolute fiasco. The way Jade conducted himself is, as pointed out, unacceptable in my eyes. Not only did he unrightfully mute Inanna, based on vague and unreasonable reasons, he also totally ignored certain council members and had no respect for the fact that people had a real life. This resulted in the meeting taking 2 hours longer than expected. That's 4 hours total! And why? Well, I will let those who read the chatlogs judge for themselves. But it's pretty damn clear why such a huge deal was made out of it, resulting in this chaos.
Hopefully everybody will learn something from this, so that we don't waste so much time next time.
I think a more important issue though is the "Righteos Instigator" that Darius JOHNSON is playing.
Through out the meeting and especially in the last quarter he baited Jade and company multiple times. He was trying to push the meeting even farther off topic into a all out brawl.
Examples:
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:25 ]Darius JOHNSON >Your warnings don't mean a thing FYI
[ 2008.06.08 21:46:20 ]Darius JOHNSON >Well she DID get two OFFICIAL WARNINGS [ 2008.06.08 21:46:29 ] Darius JOHNSON >Maybe the channel is enforcing RULE!
[ 2008.06.08 21:58:21 ]Darius JOHNSON >Well it's cool, just mute them next time you don't like what they're saying and we'll be cool
[ 2008.06.08 22:01:24 ]Darius JOHNSON >So what? Who the hell are you?
[ 2008.06.08 22:02:43 ]Darius JOHNSON >Let's just mute everyone and move on
If the CSM wants to be taken seriously then that kind of behavior can't be condoned.
Jade alt spotted
|
|
Rashonna
2H Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:44:00 -
[91]
[ 2008.05.31 20:02:57 ] Bane Glorious >also darius has informed me that he just warped into a fleet fight in BWF, so heÆs a bit lagged [ 2008.05.31 20:03:03 ] Bane Glorious >let's not have any votes for a while [ 2008.05.31 20:03:14 ] Jade Constantine >heh we're going to be firing through several [ 2008.05.31 20:03:24 ] Inanna Zuni >(I would suggest that all members of CSM should *not* be active in EVE during meetings ... defeats the point!) [ 2008.05.31 20:03:42 ] Serenity Steele >I'd suggest Darius is either attending the meeting or fighting a fleet battle, take his pick. [ 2008.05.31 20:03:49 ] Inanna Zuni >agreed [ 2008.05.31 20:03:58 ] Bane Glorious >well that's out of his control at present [ 2008.05.31 20:04:06 ] Bane Glorious >i'll remind him later [ 2008.05.31 20:04:07 ] Darius JOHNSON >No I'm here [ 2008.05.31 20:04:20 ] Darius JOHNSON >I said I'm here
comedy gold
|
Zorda
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:52:00 -
[92]
[ 2008.05.31 21:01:53 ] Bane Glorious >that said, i'm going biking, goodbye now
hahaha
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:30:00 -
[93]
Hate to tell you I told you so... but I did.
Although it seems a vote of no confidence vote in the CSM Chair has been supported by a CSM member meaning it can be brought up at the next meeting. When it is I would hope that all those CSM representatives who feel that Jade Constantine has acted in a disgusting manner vote no confidence in him.
Maybe then the CSM can spend time discussing matters of importance instead of having 4 hour long meeting where they are lectured at by a man child who has never had a position of power in his life.
|
Tharrn
Vigilia Valeria Expeditionary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:01:00 -
[94]
Maybe you should discuss whether you should discuss if the left or right arm should be used for voting. I guess you could fill two hours that way.
Now recruiting! |
Hardin
Praetoria Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:10:00 -
[95]
I would just like to point out one thing about the 'chat log' posted here.
The chat log came from a member of the Committee who had channel rights, which is why it contains a note about Inanna being muted by Jade.
Unfortunately, the other members of the Committee, who do not have channel rights, did not see that notification and therefore had no idea that Jade had gagged Inanna and Jade didn't inform us.
I only became aware that Inanna had been gagged when she mentioned it to me in a separate convo.
----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216 San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:41:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Tharrn Maybe you should discuss whether you should discuss if the left or right arm should be used for voting. I guess you could fill two hours that way.
Left arm no doubt. I'm left-handed and won't have right-handed buggers get their way.
San Matari Official forums |
Rashonna
2H Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:59:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Hardin I would just like to point out one thing about the 'chat log' posted here.
The chat log came from a member of the Committee who had channel rights, which is why it contains a note about Inanna being muted by Jade.
Unfortunately, the other members of the Committee, who do not have channel rights, did not see that notification and therefore had no idea that Jade had gagged Inanna and Jade didn't inform us.
I only became aware that Inanna had been gagged when she mentioned it to me in a separate convo.
the plot thickens
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:19:00 -
[98]
Ok, I just got home from my exam. So I went a bit trough the logs.
From meeting 2, while discussing time limits, Jade wrote: [ 2008.05.31 19:27:09 ] Jade Constantine >if somebody is disruptive I'd ask them to stop [ 2008.05.31 19:27:20 ] Jade Constantine >if they don't stop I'll eventually give a warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:25 ] Jade Constantine >then a second warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:33 ] Jade Constantine >then use the mute function outside of voting So it seems to me like this will happen to a person who is disruptive: 1. First warning. 2. Second warning. 3. Mute.
This means a person effectively have to disrupt 3 times.
So lets look at the logs from yesterday: [ 2008.06.08 19:47:37 ]Jade Constantine >no Inanna I'm giving you a formal warning [ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ]Jade Constantine >Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair [ 2008.06.08 21:36:58 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote". [ 2008.06.08 21:40:29 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:10:28. [ 2008.06.08 21:44:06 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:14:05. [ 2008.06.08 21:49:30 ]Jade Constantine >You were muted after a 2nd formal warning for disruptive behavior Innana
Well?
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:21:00 -
[99]
What gives Jade the right to mute people he deems disruptive other than his own mind? He made up a punishment system and then enforced it unilaterally without consultation. A dictator indeed.
|
Heroldyn
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:36:00 -
[100]
lol. what a chatlog :P almost coad quality.
however, after reading the logfile i found the chairmans behaviour to be inappropriate. Ianna was by no means disruptive in a way that would have justified a mute or even a "Formal Warning" *G*.
i believe the chairman should abstain from muting people in the future and state an apology at last.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:40:00 -
[101]
Originally by: LaVista Vista This means a person effectively have to disrupt 3 times.
So lets look at the logs from yesterday: [ 2008.06.08 19:47:37 ]Jade Constantine >no Inanna I'm giving you a formal warning [ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ]Jade Constantine >Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair [ 2008.06.08 21:36:58 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote". [ 2008.06.08 21:40:29 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:10:28. [ 2008.06.08 21:44:06 ]EVE System >Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:14:05. [ 2008.06.08 21:49:30 ]Jade Constantine >You were muted after a 2nd formal warning for disruptive behavior Innana
Well?
My logs look like this:
[ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ] Jade Constantine > Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair [ 2008.06.08 21:36:08 ] Jade Constantine > Now then: [ 2008.06.08 21:36:11 ] Inanna Zuni > and what do you mean by that? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:13 ] Hardin > what is a formal warning? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:19 ] LaVista Vista > I'm sorry Jade? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:21 ] Inanna Zuni > "Formal warning" is a misnomer [ 2008.06.08 21:36:25 ] Darius JOHNSON > Your warnings don't mean a thing FYI [ 2008.06.08 21:36:35 ] Inanna Zuni > and how can I be interriptiing when I am completeing what i type? [ 2008.06.08 21:36:57 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote".
***
We had reached an issue that needed to be handled within that meeting. We had CSM members that that believed we needed a full majority 5/9 yes for an issue to reach the agenda, we had CSM members who believed simple majority was enough. We had been through one vote already that Inanna had refused to vote on and virtually protested through. Now we needed clarification because it was ridiculous and would have been a failure on the part of the chair to allow a meeting to close with the CSM split on what the interpretation of a successful vote actually was.
[ 2008.06.08 21:34:00 ] Jade Constantine > I'm going to suggest we clarify right now [ 2008.06.08 21:34:06 ] Jade Constantine > Inanna your objection is noted [ 2008.06.08 21:34:09 ] Serenity Steele > motion to vote.
***
[ 2008.06.08 21:34:28 ] LaVista Vista > I think we just need to do something. 1+ over time still. [ 2008.06.08 21:34:29 ] Bane Glorious > i move we drop the whole thing and forget we ever discussed it because this is just asinine
I can understand you were tired and frustrated but without clarifying those voting rules we had 4 CSM members who believed that we needed 5 yes votes for an issue to pass. That would have let to us publishing contentious minutes that would not have been acceptable to other members of the CSM.
***
[ 2008.06.08 21:35:14 ] Inanna Zuni > Actually, I see no decisions on topics which we have taken which are compromised in any way
Aside from the issue that finished with 4 yes 2 no 2 abstain that led to the discussion of voting majorities needed in the first please? An issue that 4 of 9 CSM members would consider hadn't passed and others would consider had passed? Now external commentators can certainly point things and say that as CSM members we should never have questioned simple majority voting but that doesn't change the fact that these things were questioned and once questioned the chair has the authority to hold a vote on the point of principle to clarify the issue and make sure the meeting ends with votes we all agree happened and game to results we are all clear on.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:47:00 -
[102]
Jade, how will you be voting on the issue of No Confidence in your position as CSM Chair?
I also note that you posted another few thousand characters that don't address the issue in question. Here I'll make it nice and bold for you.
WHY DID YOU MUTE A CSM MEMBER FOR NO REAL REASON? The logs you posted don't make your case any stronger. You got angry that people weren't respecting your non-existant authority. At one point you gave her a "formal warning" (something you can't give because you have no authority to do so) for typing something that was sent in the same second as your statement for her to stop talking.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:53:00 -
[103]
As to the general complaints about muting raised here. I stand 100% behind what I did. And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour. I'm expecting certain rules of courtesy from CSM members in council and these need to be respected if this process is going to go anywhere.
Its been established that raising a hand "!" in channel is to be used to indicate a desire to speak. From there the chair recognizes individuals by name and they speak in order as called. Once we've moved to a vote on an issue it is not appropriate to continue debating against the notion of the vote - clarification can be asked for, its considered respectful behaviour to listen to clarification while its being given.
Now text based meetings of this sort are extremely challenging - there is no verbal queue, no eye contact, and very little peer pressure on members of the council to behave properly. Yesterday's session is an example of what happens when moderation from the chair is not followed. We managed to get through the agenda by pure force of will and stubborn resolve on the part of the CSM officers however - if we'd ended on time - items 6 to 17 on the agenda would not have been heard.
But it does show there are problems. I'm pretty unhappy with the in-game chat system and its functionality in this medium. The mute function does not work as it should do, the word limits mean that statements are broken up and its too easy for people to interrupt and break the flow of meaning. I'd personally be much happier with a voice meeting or even using IRC chat where the moderation functions work correctly.
End of the day though, that agenda was discussed and resolved and what needed clarifying got clarified. I repeat, I'm a 100% behind the moderation decisions taken and will do exactly the same thing next time if people refuse to respect the process of the meeting and keep cross-talking and interrupting and behaving disruptively.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:03:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Jade Constantine And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour.
What about chairmen who ignores other council members'(Notice plural) motions. Can they be muted too?
|
Adonis 4174
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:08:00 -
[105]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Jade Constantine And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour.
What about chairmen who ignores other council members'(Notice plural) motions. Can they be muted too?
I suggest the CSM think seriously about appointing a speaker so that decisions like this aren't taken by people involved in the debates. ---- Infiniband can do more than just prevent lag |
Gabriel Darkefyre
Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:45:00 -
[106]
Ironically, for a group concerned with keeping a business meeting model for the CSM's meetings they seem to have overlooked one item that's usually traditional for this style.
Namely that the Chairman should not be voting.
His/Her position is simply to regulate the flow of the meetings and to cast a deciding vote ONLY if the vote is tied between the other council members.
|
Damion Zyne
Des Esseintes Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:00:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre Ironically, for a group concerned with keeping a business meeting model for the CSM's meetings they seem to have overlooked one item that's usually traditional for this style.
Namely that the Chairman should not be voting.
His/Her position is simply to regulate the flow of the meetings and to cast a deciding vote ONLY if the vote is tied between the other council members.
So the person who got the most votes should not be allowed to vote ???
I agree that there should be a neutral chairman but only CCP could provide this person. Dont get fooled into the idea that any player is actually neutral.
As on the drama in this thread, you cant have a chairman w/o the tools to actually chair. Muting might not be the best way but possibly the only atm. It wouldnt be needed if people would actually behave and wait till its their turn.... well I forgot... they are all super special equal.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:02:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
As to the general complaints about muting raised here. I stand 100% behind what I did. And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour. I'm expecting certain rules of courtesy from CSM members in council and these need to be respected if this process is going to go anywhere.
Its been established that raising a hand "!" in channel is to be used to indicate a desire to speak. From there the chair recognizes individuals by name and they speak in order as called. Once we've moved to a vote on an issue it is not appropriate to continue debating against the notion of the vote - clarification can be asked for, its considered respectful behaviour to listen to clarification while its being given.
Now text based meetings of this sort are extremely challenging - there is no verbal queue, no eye contact, and very little peer pressure on members of the council to behave properly. Yesterday's session is an example of what happens when moderation from the chair is not followed. We managed to get through the agenda by pure force of will and stubborn resolve on the part of the CSM officers however - if we'd ended on time - items 6 to 17 on the agenda would not have been heard.
But it does show there are problems. I'm pretty unhappy with the in-game chat system and its functionality in this medium. The mute function does not work as it should do, the word limits mean that statements are broken up and its too easy for people to interrupt and break the flow of meaning. I'd personally be much happier with a voice meeting or even using IRC chat where the moderation functions work correctly.
End of the day though, that agenda was discussed and resolved and what needed clarifying got clarified. I repeat, I'm a 100% behind the moderation decisions taken and will do exactly the same thing next time if people refuse to respect the process of the meeting and keep cross-talking and interrupting and behaving disruptively.
Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:07:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority.
Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Heroldyn
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:12:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:13:44 Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:12:37 the majority of the csm representatives did not find Inannas behaviour disruptive
at last, from what i can tell by reading the chatlog.
|
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:16:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Heroldyn Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:13:44 Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:12:37 the majority of the csm representatives did not find Inannas behaviour disruptive
at last, from what i can tell by reading the chatlog.
That is also what I thought. Quite a few of us questioned the call.
|
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:16:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority.
Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps.
Find that quote in the CSM document please. Not a vague sentence that may or may not mean it, the quote itself. Because clearly if you are saying so authoritatively that you have this ability it would be backed up in writing for everyone to see.
It would, of course, not be only mentioned in the chatlogs of a meeting where you decide (without any vote) that these are your powers and how you will be enforcing them.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:29:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority.
Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps.
Where did that authority come from? Besides your mind I mean.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:29:00 -
[114]
I'm telling you the Chair has the authority to moderate meetings. That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances. We can get involved in debate as to whether silencing a council member for 30secs while the chair was actually stating the terms of a vote that would allow us to finish a meeting that had ALREADY overrun by 2 hours is - "extreme circumstances" by all means. But ultimately I made the call and I'd do it again.
If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting.
Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:32:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm telling you the Chair has the authority to moderate meetings. That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances. We can get involved in debate as to whether silencing a council member for 30secs while the chair was actually stating the terms of a vote that would allow us to finish a meeting that had ALREADY overrun by 2 hours is - "extreme circumstances" by all means. But ultimately I made the call and I'd do it again.
If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting.
Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us.
So I was right. You did just make that up. It's not stated anywhere in the official documents.
|
Draven Stone
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:36:00 -
[116]
Jade: Quite aside from your pathetic little power trip, the fact that you allowed a meeting to run two hours overtime clearly demonstrates your sad lack of competence at performing the most basic role of a chairman. The CSM may well be the most important thing going in your life right now, but it's a gross mistake on your part to assume that the same is true for the other members of the committee. You have not accepted the responsibility for allowing the meeting to run so horrendously overtime. You have not acknowledged your role in ejecting an elected representative from the meeting and holding a vote in her absence. Such complete ineptitude would not be excusable from the chairperson of a high-school debate, yet you can somehow manage to write an after-action report congratulating yourself on a job well done.
Furthermore, your inability in both this and your own CSM thread to reply to any criticisms of your positions or attitudes, coupled with your repeatedly-stated intentions to ignore a sizable percentage of the playerbase that you have been elected to represent, demonstrate that you are barely competent at performing your role as a CSM representative, let alone that of the chairperson.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:40:00 -
[117]
Within wishing to interrupt the flow of goon flaming too much, could I ask a little favor and suggest you skip over to Meeting 4 sign off on items 12th June 20:00 hours and continue your wild flights of fancy and hilarious attempts to wind me up there please?
(thats the current agenda for issues sign off that we need to get done by thursday and if you'd care to troll and flame me in that thread we can serve the dual purpose of keeping it bumped and letting you have your fun)
Fair enough?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Tharrn
Vigilia Valeria Expeditionary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:46:00 -
[118]
Maybe you could just mute them here? *scuttles off snickering*
Now recruiting! |
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:55:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Within wishing to interrupt the flow of goon flaming too much, could I ask a little favor and suggest you skip over to Meeting 4 sign off on items 12th June 20:00 hours and continue your wild flights of fancy and hilarious attempts to wind me up there please?
(thats the current agenda for issues sign off that we need to get done by thursday and if you'd care to troll and flame me in that thread we can serve the dual purpose of keeping it bumped and letting you have your fun)
Fair enough?
Do not attempt to belittle the serious concerns that have been raised in this thread about your abilities as a CSM Chair. They are serious and concerning. And considering the majority of them relate to your conduct in the meeting this thread is about surely this is the correct place for them.
(post here if you think Jade is dum)
|
Unbeliever Kresmoreen
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:30:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Jade Constantine and continue your wild flights of fancy and hilarious attempts to wind me up there please?
Wow. I mean, is this a seriouspost? You've been called out by many people, some of them goons, some of them fellow CSM members (non goon) and this is your reply? Beating people over the head with wordswordswordswords doesn't make you less wrong.
p.s. Is breathing still a reflex? or do you pass out a lot?
|
|
Rastasunniesman
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:42:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
(post here if you think Jade is dum)
Postin
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:46:00 -
[122]
Is there some good reason to do this in terrible text format? There is no way you're ever going to moderate anything as its not a discussion it looks like this:
Quote: JC > ********************************* DJ > no u :cripes: LaVista > WHAT ABOUT ICELAND FFS ICELAND GARGLE GLOMP IZ > can I have a word here Diedra > lol Serenity > let not America go wrong in her first hour :( bane > lol LaVista > ok bye exam JC > bye bane > bye Darius> get out
Just do it via voice coms so there is as little miscommunication as possible and so it has the pretense of question and answer. After all no one's accent is so egregious that this misbegotten text "method" offers any advantage. I think the CSM was so preoccupied with being romantically political and transparent that it forget no has ever had a meaningful exchange in between the lols and other dross. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:59:00 -
[123]
OK; I've been debating making a comment or not in this thread, and need to quickly state a couple of points.
Originally by: Jade Constantine That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances.
1. Where, precisely, was I being "disruptive"? and where, precisely, was that "extreme circumstances"? (I'm leaving aside the question of whether you even have the right to mute an elected representative for the moment)
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre ... CSM's meetings seem to have overlooked ... that the Chairman should not be voting.
I noted during the meeting that Jade was editorialising positions and not being a neutral Chair (indeed arguably *the* function of being the chair of a committee). In my opinion it went downhill from there.
Originally by: Jade Constantine Its been established that raising a hand "!" in channel is to be used to indicate a desire to speak. From there the chair recognizes individuals by name and they speak in order as called.
I don't know where this might have been "established" but the meeting last night was the *first* time anyone used this mechanism ([ 2008.06.08 18:22:13 ] Serenity Steele > !) which was without explanation. Maybe a back channel somewhere without all members present?
Further, I have been accused by the Chair of interrupting. Example: [ 2008.06.08 18:33:26 ] Jade Constantine > please phrase your 2nd part of the vote please Hardin ? [ 2008.06.08 18:33:29 ] Hardin > 2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason [ 2008.06.08 18:33:41 ] Jade Constantine > @ inanna please stop interrupting I'm sorry to point out that I see no interruption by me, so?
On-line meetings have their own particular difficulties, not only the prevalence of spelling errors but primarily based around lag time (comms delay, reading-typing delay, multi-line comments interleaving) so asking for comments needs to be clearly separated from asking for the vote to permit time for responses. However: [ 2008.06.08 19:24:51 ] Jade Constantine > does anyone actually oppose this issue ? [ 2008.06.08 19:25:15 ] Jade Constantine > moving to a vote then ... all those in favour - [ 2008.06.08 20:09:32 ] Jade Constantine > anybody else want to speak on the issue ? [ 2008.06.08 20:10:04 ] Jade Constantine > okay then lets move to a vote on the principle of raising this discussion with CCP and when I tried to actually respond you kept interrupting until [ 2008.06.08 20:11:46 ] Darius JOHNSON > You can let inanna finish - [ 2008.06.08 20:35:32 ] Jade Constantine > yep anyone against this one ? [ 2008.06.08 20:36:10 ] Jade Constantine > kk moving to the vote - etc.
Then lets look at voting; instead of noting whether everyone has voted and waiting until they have you pre-empt things. (see [ 2008.06.08 20:31:00 ] Jade Constantine > "Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System" --- aye or nay onwards)
Now let's look at this "warning" business. First time around went [ 2008.06.08 19:47:28 ] Inanna Zuni > ... ]if the "yes" is greater than the "no" then IT PASSES! how can that even be a question! ... [ 2008.06.08 19:47:37 ] Jade Constantine > no Inanna I'm giving you a formal warning so no explanation of what I was alleged to have done that was "disruptive" there, other than ask a question. Moments later we even had [ 2008.06.08 19:48:03 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I object to this issue and withdraw my vote. This all followed your *refusal* to accept validly cast votes from myself and Dierdra: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote abstrain - I dont care either way [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). later (cont.d)
My principles |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:02:00 -
[124]
(cont.d from above)
[ 2008.06.08 19:37:12 ] Jade Constantine > yeah to be honest I don't really understand the point of abstains and after more discussion wherein those who understand that 'abstain' is a perfectly rational and acceptable position to take argued with those who, seemingly, do not, Jade typed [ 2008.06.08 19:44:52 ] Jade Constantine > so I need inanna and Tusko to register a vote please and then, presumably because it suited you: [ 2008.06.08 19:46:32 ] Jade Constantine > okay I'm going to record no votes from Tusko and Inanna [ 2008.06.08 19:46:38 ] Jade Constantine > option A passes then despite [ 2008.06.08 19:46:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Objection! you "warn" me.
Later you bring it all up again, but others in this thread have commented on that.
As a point of principle, I always support the Chair of any body on which I serve, whether I am that Chair or 'just' a member. But a Chair has to show that they have the capability and capacity to undertake that task responsibly and to do it properly. That requires their being independent of the subject under discussion (passing the chair to someone else for a moment should they wish to talk on the subject) so that they can remain even-handed. My view was that the editorialising, returning to subjects, and general bullying of myself suggests that there are issues in the present incarnation of the CSM. One cannot demand trust, one has to earn it.
IZ
My principles |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:11:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon
That said, I agree completely on the following points: - The muting was jumping the gun. From the logs, the meeting was obviously getting heated and people were getting tired (not the least Jade himself). What should have been done was to call a break, let everyone cool off, and continue separately. - The idea that abstains count as no is bizarre in this case. Abstains should count as votes not cast. That is the point of abstaining in this kind of a meeting - letting whoever does have an opinion decide.
Yes the meeting was overlong. But we were caught on the horns of dilemma there. Any issues that didn't get heard at that meeting were not getting on the Iceland agenda since they needed to be agreed and then have written documentation produced this coming thursday for submission to ccp. And if you review the logs - we actually got through the substantive issues in about an hour - and spent 3 hours arguing about complete tosh. Yes I was tired, yes I was hot and frustrated and yes I really wanted the meeting to end. But we had a seriously problem. Half the CSM thought the vote on issue 3 had failed, half the CSM thought it was successful. Thats where all the "wtf does abstention mean?" debate came from. Sure in the cold light of day I'm going to put my hand up now and say what I should have done was say:
"I'm making a call on this this - Chair says we're using simple majority voting - moving on."
(though I'm guessing that would have led to some toys being thrown out of prams and more accusations of chair claiming too much authority again - sometimes you can't win).
But as it was we needed to get clarity on that issue to prevent a situation where ank was going to produce minutes showing one result for issue 3 where half the CSM thought it had gone the other way.
I'd dearly have loved to call a break Elebeth, but we'd not have reconvened afterwards - people were desperate to be away and it would have led to us denying the electorate the chance to get some of their issues on the agenda. For all the drama and spats and foot-stamping and goon-trolling its led too I'm glad to have persevered and gotten to the end of the agenda.
What led to me mute Inanna was her interference in the two separate votes on the simple majority issue. Doesn't matter she was right - (and I agreed with her on the principle) what mattered is that she was further stalling the process of a lengthy and fractious meeting by arguing against us having a vote to decide the issue. If she had gotten her way and there had been no vote we'd be arguing right now about whether issue 3 had passed or not, since at the midpoint of that meeting we had 4 CSM reps: Serenity Steele, Dierdra Vaal, Darius and Bane [ 2008.06.08 19:41:38 ] Bane Glorious > i'm voting A because that's what the CSM document's rules say Supporting the principle that 5/9 majority is required for a vote to pass.
3 CSM reps: Ank, Lavista, and myself
Supporting the principle that simple majority is required.
1 CSM rep (Hardin/Tusko) not available to vote. and 1 CSM rep Inanna refusing to vote because:
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal
As it ended up THAT vote finished 4 yes 3 no (2 no opinions) which would actually have pushed through the notion of 5/9 majority voting being required.
But it didn't finish the argument since 2 of the 3 no voters and 1 abstainer refused to accept the verdict believing (correctly as it turned out) that it contradicted the spirit of the founding CSM document.
Hence the secondary vote on the issue with more information (supplied by Tusko) that led ultimately to an overturn of the earlier decision and confirmation of the principle of simple majority voting.
Sometime you just need to get the vote done. People have a time to object. Once noted they need to shut up and vote (or abstain) - interfering with the process of a vote will earn a mute.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:16:00 -
[126]
For those too lazy to read chatlogs, on the second vote the first Inanna warning which was completely unwarranted :
[ 2008.06.08 18:30:27 ]Jade Constantine >1st is issue is = can a candidate walk back in a meeting in process that has empowered an alternate and immediately dislodges the alternate and regains his position? [ 2008.06.08 18:30:40 ]Hardin >great phrasing their Jade [ 2008.06.08 18:30:43 ]Darius JOHNSON >That's a misleading way of framing it [ 2008.06.08 18:30:47 ]Inanna Zuni >Issue of proxies is not on the table [ 2008.06.08 18:30:51 ]Jade Constantine >rephrase it please Hardin [ 2008.06.08 18:30:59 ]Jade Constantine >and we'll vote on your phrasing [ 2008.06.08 18:31:02 ]Jade Constantine >go [ 2008.06.08 18:31:11 ]Inanna Zuni >Yes, biased statement there by Chair .. [ 2008.06.08 18:31:29 ]Hardin >1st issue is can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda [ 2008.06.08 18:31:46 ]Serenity Steele >I vote NO. [ 2008.06.08 18:31:49 ]Bane Glorious >aye [ 2008.06.08 18:31:51 ]Jade Constantine >I vote no [ 2008.06.08 18:31:52 ]Ankhesentapemkah >Nay. [ 2008.06.08 18:31:56 ]Hardin >Aye [ 2008.06.08 18:31:57 ]Darius JOHNSON >yes [ 2008.06.08 18:32:02 ]Inanna Zuni >Aye [ 2008.06.08 18:32:05 ]Dierdra Vaal >vote against (at least until the issue of alternate terms has been solved) [ 2008.06.08 18:32:07 ]LaVista Vista >Aye [ 2008.06.08 18:32:16 ]Jade Constantine >okay its carried [ 2008.06.08 18:32:30 ]Hardin >Thank you [ 2008.06.08 18:33:05 ]Jade Constantine >alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting [ 2008.06.08 18:33:08 ]Jade Constantine >next part [ 2008.06.08 18:33:15 ]Ankhesentapemkah >Nay [ 2008.06.08 18:33:16 ]Inanna Zuni >Jade! [ 2008.06.08 18:33:22 ]Inanna Zuni >please do not editorialize a decision [ 2008.06.08 18:33:27 ]Jade Constantine >please phrase your 2nd part of the vote please Hardin ? [ 2008.06.08 18:33:29 ]Hardin >2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason [ 2008.06.08 18:33:42 ]Jade Constantine >@ inanna please stop interrupting [ 2008.06.08 18:33:56 ]Inanna Zuni >Jade ... please chair "neutrally" then [ 2008.06.08 18:34:26 ]Jade Constantine >I'm going to ask you formally now Inanna ... please stop interrupting the process of the vote [ 2008.06.08 18:34:33 ]Bane Glorious >inanna has a point
So Jade states the vote incorrectly, allows Hardin to do it properly, then when he loses the vote attempts to summarize the vote in his intial framing. Inanna correctly calls him out on it and gets a warning.
Jade, either your parting shot :
[ 2008.06.08 18:33:05 ]Jade Constantine >alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting
A) Not understanding a word Hardin proposed and the council agreed to vote on. B) An attempt to rewrite on record the vote in your personal wording to fall back on should this happen. C) A childish jab at the vote since you lost.
Which was it?
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:23:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Jade Constantine For all the drama and spats and foot-stamping and goon-trolling its led too I'm glad to have persevered and gotten to the end of the agenda.
"Goon-trolling"? I fail to see any occur last night (are you?)
Originally by: Jade Constantine What led to me mute Inanna was her interference in the two separate votes on the simple majority issue .... and 1 CSM rep Inanna refusing to vote because:
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal
Somewhat selective there! That comment was way after I had voted "abstain" (see post above) and was not part of any vote; it was a response following: [ 2008.06.08 19:39:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Noone has the right to force you to choose, Dierdra. [ 2008.06.08 19:40:16 ] Jade Constantine > Option A: 5/9 needed to make the agenda .... Option B: simple majority needed [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose which, by no stretch of an imagination, is a call to a vote when the members present *had already voted*. It is, however, an example of bullying to try and get the result you wanted.
Originally by: Jade Constantine People have a time to object. Once noted they need to shut up and vote (or abstain) - interfering with the process of a vote will earn a mute.
And as I have noted in the posts above, if you are giving people a "time to object" you need to actually wait and *give* them that time. Their responding to you call to comment is not an 'interference' in any way. ps. saying "vote (or abstain)" is a tautology as 'abstain' *is* a vote.
btw. Having read the full logs now, might I enquire re the following: [ 2008.06.08 21:59:06 ] Jade Constantine > If we want to do this discussion Lavista - i muted her for the 3 specific instance of her blocking the ability to move to a vote with disruptive behavour
So again, as I and others have requested, where are the 3 specific instance of her blocking the ability to move to a vote with disruptive behavour (sic)? I have no "blocking" ability (although you subsequently demonstrated that you do)
IZ
My principles |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:29:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 14:29:42
Originally by: Inanna Zuni "Goon-trolling"? I fail to see any occur last night (are you?)
Talking about this thread obviously.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:30:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
[ 2008.06.08 19:37:12 ] Jade Constantine > yeah to be honest I don't really understand the point of abstains and after more discussion wherein those who understand that 'abstain' is a perfectly rational and acceptable position to take argued with those who, seemingly, do not, Jade typed [ 2008.06.08 19:44:52 ] Jade Constantine > so I need inanna and Tusko to register a vote please and then, presumably because it suited you: [ 2008.06.08 19:46:32 ] Jade Constantine > okay I'm going to record no votes from Tusko and Inanna [ 2008.06.08 19:46:38 ] Jade Constantine > option A passes then despite [ 2008.06.08 19:46:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Objection! you "warn" me.
How else would you interpret 4 yes votes, 3 no votes, and 2 CSM candidates that refuse to register a vote? I recorded you'd cast no meaningful vote (effectively an abstain) so the measure passed by simple majority voting 4 to 3.
Quote: My view was that the editorialising, returning to subjects, and general bullying of myself suggests that there are issues in the present incarnation of the CSM. One cannot demand trust, one has to earn it.
Ultimately Inanna you need to examine your own behaviour as well. Look back through the log and count the number of comments you interject without asking to be recognized by the Chair, look at your reaction to a vote being called, look at the generally insulting and demeaning way you post with accusations against the competence of other reps, continual correcting of grammar or spelling, haranguing other reps and the Chair and generally refusing to be called to order.
I'm not expecting any kind of democratic resolution here Inanna, but I'm going to tell you right now that if you keep behaving as you did in that last meeting then I'll be warning you each time you speak without asking to be recognized and I'll be doing this not to bully or intimidate you, but since it is the only way to be fair to the other CSM reps, and to the electorate that voted for us to actually make progress in these committee meetings rather than listen to 101 interjections and snippy one-liners.
If you (or any other) CSM rep don't think this is reasonable then you have the option of tabling a motion to suggest how we moderate these meetings in the future.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:34:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
So again, as I and others have requested, where are the 3 specific instance of her blocking the ability to move to a vote with disruptive behavour (sic)? I have no "blocking" ability (although you subsequently demonstrated that you do)
IZ
See my post for instance number one above, would like Hardin and other CSM's imput as well.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:41:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Erotic Irony Is there some good reason to do this in terrible text format? There is no way you're ever going to moderate anything as its not a discussion it looks like this:
Quote: JC > ********************************* DJ > no u :cripes: LaVista > WHAT ABOUT ICELAND FFS ICELAND GARGLE GLOMP IZ > can I have a word here Diedra > lol Serenity > let not America go wrong in her first hour :( bane > lol LaVista > ok bye exam JC > bye bane > bye Darius> get out
Just do it via voice coms so there is as little miscommunication as possible and so it has the pretense of question and answer. After all no one's accent is so egregious that this misbegotten text "method" offers any advantage. I think the CSM was so preoccupied with being romantically political and transparent that it forget no has ever had a meaningful exchange in between the lols and other dross.
Sadly we've been told we have to use eve-chat. I Agree with you its horrible. There are terrible problems with text chat meetings particular in the moderation - there is simply no useful way to stop people interrupting and cross-talking over recognized speakers without muting them. Which as we see from this thread makes people jump six foot in the air with mortified outrage at the attack on their their civil rights. What I wouldn't give for channel commander powers in the moderation role here.
Of course its all going to be different face to face because people by and large behave a lot better in physical proximity - but we are going to need solutions to this fiasco meaning form in the future.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:41:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Jade Constantine :words:
I'd highly recommend you stop blaming Inanna for your actions. She did nothing wrong whatsoever. I know it's difficult for you to accept but you were (and are) completely out of line.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:44:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Sadly we've been told we have to use eve-chat. I Agree with you its horrible. There are terrible problems with text chat meetings particular in the moderation - there is simply no useful way to stop people interrupting and cross-talking over recognized speakers without muting them. Which as we see from this thread makes people jump six foot in the air with mortified outrage at the attack on their their civil rights. What I wouldn't give for channel commander powers in the moderation role here.
Of course its all going to be different face to face because people by and large behave a lot better in physical proximity - but we are going to need solutions to this fiasco meaning form in the future.
Everyone can read the logs. I'd stop insinuating that anyone other than yourself was the cause of the disruptions. You muted a CSM member for the dire offense of disagreeing with you and calling you on your attempts to editorialize and change the results of votes. Where you get off blaming everyone and everything else for this, or even insinuating that anyone else was doing anything untoward I don't know.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:48:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON calling you on your attempts to editorialize and change the results of votes. Where you get off blaming everyone and everything else for this, or even insinuating that anyone else was doing anything untoward I don't know.
Would you care to explain exactly what you mean by "editorialize" and "change results of votes"?
These are serious accusations, I'd like to know precisely what you mean?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:49:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 09/06/2008 14:52:19
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Inanna Zuni "Goon-trolling"? I fail to see any occur last night (are you?)
Talking about this thread obviously.
"Obviously"?? Nope. Let's look again at your original statement:
Originally by: Jade Constantine For all the drama and spats and foot-stamping and goon-trolling its led too I'm glad to have persevered and gotten to the end of the agenda.
In other words, you were referring to "goon-trolling" in the meeting as only that had an agenda and could reach an end. This thread has neither.
Originally by: Jade Constantine I recorded you'd cast no meaningful vote (effectively an abstain)
And *again* you are being disrespectful to council members. An 'abstain' (which is, as I have noted, the vote I cast) *is* a meaningful vote, and that you choose to editorialise the decision I (and others on this and other motions) chose to make sadly shows you do not understand so seek to cast aspersions.
Originally by: Jade Constantine I'll be warning you each time you speak without asking to be recognized ...
Oh dear, so a special rule for me whereas (I look at the logs) others, including yourself, will be free under your 'rule' to speak whenever they wish?
Clearly this thread has gone on long enough and others have made the points that needed to be made. That you are not answering the questions asked of you is ... a pity ... and that you seeking to place the blame elsewhere, just sad.
IZ
My principles |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:57:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON calling you on your attempts to editorialize and change the results of votes. Where you get off blaming everyone and everything else for this, or even insinuating that anyone else was doing anything untoward I don't know.
Would you care to explain exactly what you mean by "editorialize" and "change results of votes"?
These are serious accusations, I'd like to know precisely what you mean?
Hardin : Ok, a vote if the sky is blue in Iceland. Hardin : I vote yes. Jade : NO Jade buddy :NO Jade Buddy #2 :NO Bane : Yes, sigh what are we doing Darius : Yes, ughh... Inannaa : Yes Lavista : Yes Other Person : Yes Jade : Ok the vote has passed, the sky is blue on days that begin with the letter "W", ok on to the next vote... Inannaa:Wait a second, that's not what the.... Jade: I DEMAND ORDER, THIS IS YOUR FIRST WARNING, YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!!
|
Anton Marvik
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:57:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'd stop insinuating that anyone other than yourself was the cause of the disruptions.
At the risk of agreeing with a Goon, Jade...take some personal responsibility. YOU were out of line. It is YOUR responsibility to Chair the CSM in a neutral and professional manner, which YOU failed to do. YOU are responsible for your own actions.
Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? I have to say, I'm not any happier with your response to the general disgust with your actions than I am with your actions in the first place.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:01:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni And *again* you are being disrespectful to council members. An 'abstain' (which is, as I have noted, the vote I cast) *is* a meaningful vote, and that you choose to editorialise the decision I (and others on this and other motions) chose to make sadly shows you do not understand so seek to cast aspersions.
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question?
I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance.
Quote: Clearly this thread has gone on long enough and others have made the points that needed to be made. That you are not answering the questions asked of you is ... a pity ... and that you seeking to place the blame elsewhere, just sad.
Yep its a long and sad thread and it does show a pretty poor side to the CSM for sure. All I can say is as distasteful as I find your behaviour in council I'll continue to try to work with you and give you the same respect as I afford to others involved with this process. If at the end of the day you find you can't follow the procedures of the council chamber you've got the option to raise a vote to change them I guess. Be assured that while you are introducing your vote I'll be keen to stop over people interrupting, talking above and generally trying to disrupt the points YOU are making.
Funny that.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:01:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Would you care to explain exactly what you mean by "editorialize" and "change results of votes"?
These are serious accusations, I'd like to know precisely what you mean?
Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it...
Go ahead and play coy and offended though.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:10:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Jade Constantine I'm telling you the Chair has the authority to moderate meetings. That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances. We can get involved in debate as to whether silencing a council member for 30secs while the chair was actually stating the terms of a vote that would allow us to finish a meeting that had ALREADY overrun by 2 hours is - "extreme circumstances" by all means. But ultimately I made the call and I'd do it again.
If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting.
Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us.
The thing about text-based meetings is that it's pretty hard to actually interrupt proceedings - you don't silence somebody by typing over them, you just scroll the window faster. Since I assume all the CSM reps are sensible, and are sitting docked with the chat window essentially full-screened, scrolling is hardly a capital offense. It's not impossible, and a dedicated spammer can certainly ruin a window, but Inanna was nowhere even close to that line.
As for the CSM bringing up rules on the topic, I don't think that would solve the problem. Disruption is hardly something easy to set down in formal law - it will always require interpretation. You don't solve the problem of excessive moderation by laying down rules, you solve it by getting a Chair who has some understanding of what their job is supposed to be. Clearly, you're not it. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:10:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it... Go ahead and play coy and offended though.
I was asking to see if you actually understood the accusation you were making.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:11:00 -
[142]
You can be assured that all voting will be reflected the correct way in the minutes in the manner agreed upon before the vote. However Jade phrased it afterwards is not relevant and was not agreed upon by the vote, and thus will be omitted.
Yes, there clearly were mistakes made during the discussion and voting itself. But they will be corrected. No need to start an argument about it here or during the discussion. Please, act in a professional manner, we will all benefit from making this CSM a success and the best way to work on that is stop this pointless fighting amongst ourselves. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:13:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Yep its a long and sad thread and it does show a pretty poor side to the CSM for sure. All I can say is as distasteful as I find your behaviour in council I'll continue to try to work with you and give you the same respect as I afford to others involved with this process. If at the end of the day you find you can't follow the procedures of the council chamber you've got the option to raise a vote to change them I guess. Be assured that while you are introducing your vote I'll be keen to stop over people interrupting, talking above and generally trying to disrupt the points YOU are making.
Seeing as people have actually read the chatlog i'm amazed you continue to push the blame over to someone else.
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:14:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question?
I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance.
And ... yet again, you are attempting (and failing) to obfuscate the point here. The *vote* had been held some minutes earlier! Your call for vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:38 ] Jade Constantine > **************************alll in favour of CSM electing its own chair .... aye or nay My vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). You then tried to force the two abstentions (myself and Dierdra Vaal) to change our votes. even though [ 2008.06.08 19:38:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > its their right to abstain. so you tried to re-open a concluded vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose and, not surprisingly, I didn't bend to this attempt to run roughshod over the decision that the CSM had just made.
As I said, editorialising decisions to make them appear different to how they were presented and decided upon.
IZ
My principles |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:17:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it... Go ahead and play coy and offended though.
I was asking to see if you actually understood the accusation you were making.
Here let me spell it out for you in shorthand... I apologize for the brevity.
*Votes on a motion to allow council members to enter a meeting and take over for the alternate who had stepped up in their place*
Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed.
Rest of CSM: That's not what we said.
Jade: You're out of line
*mutes dissent*
Does that spell it out for you for the 50th time? How about that time we voted that not everyone in the channel would have moderation capability and you decided that meant you should? Does that help?
Much like the meeting yesterday you continue to waste everyone's time for your own purposes. You're wrong. Get over it.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:19:00 -
[146]
ITT: 'Jaded' getting new meaning. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:22:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 09/06/2008 15:25:14
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it... Go ahead and play coy and offended though.
I was asking to see if you actually understood the accusation you were making.
Not condescending at all...
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah No need to start an argument about it here or during the discussion. Please, act in a professional manner, we will all benefit from making this CSM a success and the best way to work on that is stop this pointless fighting amongst ourselves.
I'm going to have to disagree - it's not pointless. For the Council to function, you're going to need a good Chair, and Jade has proven that he's not it. Strife sucks, but it's usually better than giving up on things that matter. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:24:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:26:21
Originally by: Inanna Zuni Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 09/06/2008 15:19:19
Originally by: Jade Constantine
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question?
I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance.
And ... yet again, you are attempting (and failing) to obfuscate the point here. The *vote* had been held some minutes earlier! Your call for vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:38 ] Jade Constantine > **************************alll in favour of CSM electing its own chair .... aye or nay My vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). You then tried to force the two abstentions (myself and Dierdra Vaal) to change our votes. even though [ 2008.06.08 19:38:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > its their right to abstain. so you tried to re-open a concluded vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose and, not surprisingly, I didn't bend to this attempt to run roughshod over the decision that the CSM had just made, resulting in [ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:40:36 ] Ankhesentapemkah > As stated previously, if 5 votes would be required then all abstains would count as no, so this is silly. Abstain is abstain. [ 2008.06.08 19:40:51 ] Jade Constantine > then please choose [ 2008.06.08 19:40:53 ] Jade Constantine > A or B where you *again* refused to accept my abstain vote.
As I said, editorialising decisions to make them appear different to how they were presented and decided upon.
IZ
You completely misunderstood what was going on there Inanna. The electable chair vote ended with a 4/2/2 result and half the CSM committee felt that meant it failed, half felt it passed. We moved to a secondary vote on the principle of majority voting (in general) to clarify whether the result was a pass or a fail. Your behaviour makes a lot more sense now in retrospect if you actually did confuse these two issues and assumed it was a revote on issue 3 specifically.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:25:00 -
[149]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:25:24
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed. Rest of CSM: That's not what we said.
That isn't what I said. Does that mean you are "editorializing" now?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:26:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
You can be assured that all voting will be reflected the correct way in the minutes in the manner agreed upon before the vote. However Jade phrased it afterwards is not relevant and was not agreed upon by the vote, and thus will be omitted.
Thank you Ankh, would be nice to see this from Jade and why he thinks his non-relevant and confusing statements are helpful to the process.
|
|
Ungdall
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:26:00 -
[151]
What's this? A representative was chosen because of their e-rep in the world of flames and straw-man debates? And you say it's going, not in circles, but in shattered half-moons of chaos, destruction and a waste of CCP's money? Why I never!
Is anyone really surprised at this? it's Jade.
|
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:28:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:25:24
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed. Rest of CSM: That's not what we said.
That isn't what I said. Does that mean you are "editorializing" now?
You are a terrible chairperson and should step down. You can't control the meetings and you are lashing out in extremis, making things even worse. Do yourself, the CSM and the community a favour and step down from the position. You have every right to represent those who voted for you but you are destroying this excellent chance for the community to get their views across more succinctly to CCP and actually have them acted upon.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:30:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Goumindong on 09/06/2008 15:30:47
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it... Go ahead and play coy and offended though.
I was asking to see if you actually understood the accusation you were making.
"editorializing" is not a difficult concept to grasp. Are you seriously wondering whether Darius is able to comprehend what it means?
But hell, since you don't seem to understand this simple concept, i will explain it for you.
It means that when the Council voted to pass a measure that was defined in one specific way, you made a note that the measure passed defined in a different specific way. Now, i will assume for the sake of courtesy that you are both literate and not a polemic dillweed(though it there is ample evidence for the contrary) and will present both the issue voted on and the issue you editorialized. Precisely so that you can comprehend what is going on here (however dense, intentionally or otherwise, you would have to be to not understand)
THE VOTE: 1st issue is can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda
THE EDITORIALIZING: alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting
(Note: those are above quotes of the issue[italics are me for emphasis], and this happened twice where you made that same mistake, this quote being the second time after the official vote)
Do you just not care enough to read what you are voting on or is this a concentrated effort to subvert the will of the CSM since they voted against you?
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:31:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Originally by: Jade Constantine
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question?
I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance.
And ... yet again, you are attempting (and failing) to obfuscate the point here. The *vote* had been held some minutes earlier! Your call for vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:38 ] Jade Constantine > **************************alll in favour of CSM electing its own chair .... aye or nay My vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). You then tried to force the two abstentions (myself and Dierdra Vaal) to change our votes. even though [ 2008.06.08 19:38:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > its their right to abstain. so you tried to re-open a concluded vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose and, not surprisingly, I didn't bend to this attempt to run roughshod over the decision that the CSM had just made, resulting in [ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:40:36 ] Ankhesentapemkah > As stated previously, if 5 votes would be required then all abstains would count as no, so this is silly. Abstain is abstain. [ 2008.06.08 19:40:51 ] Jade Constantine > then please choose [ 2008.06.08 19:40:53 ] Jade Constantine > A or B where you *again* refused to accept my abstain vote.
As I said, editorialising decisions to make them appear different to how they were presented and decided upon.
IZ
You completely misunderstood what was going on there Inanna. The electable chair vote ended with a 4/2/2 result and half the CSM committee felt that meant it failed, half felt it passed. We moved to a secondary vote on the principle of majority voting (in general) to clarify whether the result was a pass or a fail. Your behaviour makes a lot more sense now in retrospect if you actually did confuse these two issues and assumed it was a revote on issue 3 specifically.
What was decided on this? Does it require 5 or more "yes" votes to pass something, or just more "yes" votes than "no" votes? It's confusing to determine reading the log.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:33:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Kelsin What was decided on this? Does it require 5 or more "yes" votes to pass something, or just more "yes" votes than "no" votes? It's confusing to determine reading the log.
They eventually reconsidered their first, self-negating vote at the end of the meeting, and decided that yes > no = pass. Only took them three hours to come to a decision that should have taken ten seconds - thank you Serenity, for the gifts you have brought us. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:37:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I'm going to have to disagree - it's not pointless. For the Council to function, you're going to need a good Chair, and Jade has proven that he's not it. Strife sucks, but it's usually better than giving up on things that matter.
Jade has made some mistakes in this meeting. We are reviewing what happened, and will try to make sure it won't happen again next time. I'm pretty sure that what people call "editorializing" on those votes was not intentional. It got blown way out of proportion, and people reacted in an unprofessional manner.
It was already a brewing mess in the chat, so I understand why Jade wanted to stop the endless arguing and bickering and just get to the vote, hence ignoring a complaint that would probably be valid. If the debate was otherwise conducted orderly, I'm sure that the complaint would have been heard and addressed appropriately.
As I've said before in the other thread, the mess cannot be attributed to just one person. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:37:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You completely misunderstood what was going on there Inanna. The electable chair vote ended with a 4/2/2 result and half the CSM committee felt that meant it failed, half felt it passed. We moved to a secondary vote on the principle of majority voting (in general) to clarify whether the result was a pass or a fail. Your behaviour makes a lot more sense now in retrospect if you actually did confuse these two issues and assumed it was a revote on issue 3 specifically.
So the measure failed to pass and then you attempted to get the two members who didn't vote to vote so that it might?
You moved to a secondary vote? What the heck does that mean for people who don't reside in "Jade Land"
And where was the movement for the "secondary vote" and where was the second on the movement for the "secondary vote" and where were all the other votes in the secondary vote that would have to be recast.
No, you were badgering the people who didn't vote to vote. Its a simple concept how hard is it to understand?
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:39:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:25:24
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed. Rest of CSM: That's not what we said.
That isn't what I said. Does that mean you are "editorializing" now?
Yes, now you get it! The logs of what you really said are contained elsewhere in this thread and that was merely an interpretive and not entirely inaccurate portayal of the events. I've wasted enough time on you for today and 4 hours yesterday. I'm not going through the logs again to point out what multiple people already have, including... 5 I think other CSM reps?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:41:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I'm pretty sure that what people call "editorializing" on those votes was not intentional
While i would like to share this sentiment, Jade has a long long history of doing this intentionally. As stated earlier, he was banned from the forums for just this sort of behaviour. Having tried to have discussion with Jade based on logic where he devolves into ad hominem attacks and strawman i can't in good conscious say that this was anything but intentional.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:43:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
As I've said before in the other thread, the mess cannot be attributed to just one person.
I respectfully disagree... only one person muted anyone and editorialized votes to suit their own whims. That is the source of this mess. Thusly this mess can be attributed to just one person.
|
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:44:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:25:24
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed. Rest of CSM: That's not what we said.
That isn't what I said. Does that mean you are "editorializing" now?
The actual referents are: [ 2008.06.08 18:31:29 ] Hardin > 1st issue is can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda [ 2008.06.08 18:33:02 ] Jade Constantine > alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting which, while not exactly as per Darius do demonstrate that you were editorialising the decision in your own way rather than be a neutral Chair reporting the decision of the vote just completed.
IZ
My principles |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:48:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:25:24
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed. Rest of CSM: That's not what we said.
That isn't what I said. Does that mean you are "editorializing" now?
The actual referents are: [ 2008.06.08 18:31:29 ] Hardin > 1st issue is can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda [ 2008.06.08 18:33:02 ] Jade Constantine > alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting which, while not exactly as per Darius do demonstrate that you were editorialising the decision in your own way rather than be a neutral Chair reporting the decision of the vote just completed.
IZ
The best part imho is Anhk voting on Jade's editorializing imho :
[ 2008.06.08 18:33:05 ] Jade Constantine > alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting [ 2008.06.08 18:33:08 ] Jade Constantine > next part [ 2008.06.08 18:33:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Nay [ 2008.06.08 18:33:16 ] Inanna Zuni > Jade! [ 2008.06.08 18:33:22 ] Inanna Zuni > please do not editorialize a decision [ 2008.06.08 18:33:27 ] Jade Constantine > please phrase your 2nd part of the vote please Hardin ? [ 2008.06.08 18:33:29 ] Hardin > 2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason [ 2008.06.08 18:33:42 ] Jade Constantine > @ inanna please stop interrupting [ 2008.06.08 18:33:56 ] Inanna Zuni > Jade ... please chair "neutrally" then [ 2008.06.08 18:34:26 ] Jade Constantine > I'm going to ask you formally now Inanna ... please stop interrupting the process of the vote [ 2008.06.08 18:34:33 ] Bane Glorious > inanna has a point
Or was Anhk preemptively voting on the next subject before it was even announced?
|
Lumen Atra
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:15:00 -
[163]
Wow. I thought all of the talk about "votes of no confidence" were jokes related to Star Wars aimed at showing a dislike for Jade. After reading, I see they are 100% serious.
Jade: You have evaded a question: Where do you get the power to administer formal warnings and, subsequently, mute a CSM rep? We don't care if you would do it again. That is not the question. We don't care if you are the chair. That is not the question. We don't care if you felt Innana was being disruptive. That is not the question.
The question is: Where do you get the power to administer formal warnings and, subsequently, mute a CSM rep?
|
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:16:00 -
[164]
Jade you are an abismal chair. As I posted in the other related thread, I have gone through the chatlogs and its practically unbelievable. Even more so when in this thread you insist in defending your reprehensible behaviour.
Minmatar Boost Brigade |
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:23:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I'm pretty sure that what people call "editorializing" on those votes was not intentional. It got blown way out of proportion, and people reacted in an unprofessional manner.
I have no idea of whether it was intentional or not. But I do assure you that in a RL meeting, intentional or not, he wouldn't be coming back. And that's only referring to the editorializing part.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
As I've said before in the other thread, the mess cannot be attributed to just one person.
I attribute it in whole to the chair from what I've read in the logs. And that chair is Jade.
Minmatar Boost Brigade |
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:26:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 09/06/2008 16:27:49
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I respectfully disagree... only one person muted anyone and editorialized votes to suit their own whims. That is the source of this mess. Thusly this mess can be attributed to just one person.
It wasn't Jade Constantine's fault that over half an hour of time was wasted on the first issue, before the voting even started, most of us dragged out the discussion. This is one of several things that affected the atmosphere in a bad way, and likely attributed to the mistakes further down the road. I was definately itchy after wasting so much time, and later on I was close to losing my temper when people were casting (in my opinion) uninformed votes demanding an absolute majority for votes to pass. My apologies for my behaviour there.
Secondly... I really don't want to get involved in this "editorializing" discussion, but I just read the chatlogs yet another time.
If we compare Hardin's formulation the two of Jade, we'll clearly see differences, which I bolded:
Originally by: Chatlog
1) Hardin > 1st issue is can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda 2) Jade Constantine > 1st is issue is = can a candidate walk back in a meeting in process that has empowered an alternate and immediately dislodges the alternate and regains his position? 3) Jade Constantine > alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting
However, the item was phrased very differently on the agenda:
Ankhesentapemkah > 1. Alternates and Voting (if an alternate is empowered to replace a full rep for the meetings does can a rep come back mid-way through and take the alternates place once again?)
From my perception, Jade Constantine saw this issue as black-and-white as "either they can come arrive during a meeting and regain voting rights, or they are excluded from voting until next meeting". The nuance of the timing in which they would regain the rights in the meeting was lost. This is understandable if we look at when exactly this particular aspect of the issue was mentioned:
Originally by: Chatlog
[ 2008.06.08 18:12:01 ] Hardin > That once one of the duely elected CSM candidates returns to a meeting he resumes his voting rights on the next item of the agenda (...) [ 2008.06.08 18:15:49 ] Inanna Zuni > ... at the end of the current item
Then, the debate went off in an other direction and other aspects of the issue were covered. It was not discussed at all for almost 15 minutes, when Jade called the vote:
Originally by: Chatlog
[ 2008.06.08 18:30:27 ] Jade Constantine > 1st is issue is = can a candidate walk back in a meeting in process that has empowered an alternate and immediately dislodges the alternate and regains his position?
Upon which people attacked Jade for leaving out the aforementioned detail.
From my hopefully neutral perspective, this was not intentional and merely miscommunication. In the future, I humbly request of all of you to politely correct other council members when they make mistakes, instead of assuming the worst.
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:48:00 -
[167]
ITT many people who are way too caught up in meaningless minutiae of the rules.
Maybe they can combine with the mass of Jade Haters to prevent the CSM from accomplishing anything!
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:51:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Ulstan ITT many people who are way too caught up in meaningless minutiae of the rules. Maybe they can combine with the mass of Jade Haters to prevent the CSM from accomplishing anything!
Yeah that does seem to be the undercurrent - don't worry though Ulstan, we got a decent set of issues through regardless and if the CSM votes in Iceland to make an electable chair in the constitution I'll be happy to sit back and just promote good issues for the next 4 months of the term. I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:53:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 09/06/2008 16:28:55
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I respectfully disagree... only one person muted anyone and editorialized votes to suit their own whims. That is the source of this mess. Thusly this mess can be attributed to just one person.
From my hopefully neutral perspective, this was not intentional and merely miscommunication. In the future, I humbly request of all of you to politely correct other council members when they make mistakes, instead of assuming the worst.
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was.
[ 2008.06.08 18:33:16 ] Inanna Zuni > Jade! [ 2008.06.08 18:33:22 ] Inanna Zuni > please do not editorialize a decision [ 2008.06.08 18:33:27 ] Jade Constantine > please phrase your 2nd part of the vote please Hardin ? [ 2008.06.08 18:33:29 ] Hardin > 2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason [ 2008.06.08 18:33:42 ] Jade Constantine > @ inanna please stop interrupting [ 2008.06.08 18:33:56 ] Inanna Zuni > Jade ... please chair "neutral
Perhaps when correcting the chair, not only should "Please" be used, but perhaps following "with sugar on top" as to not offend.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:55:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Yeah that does seem to be the undercurrent - don't worry though Ulstan, we got a decent set of issues through regardless and if the CSM votes in Iceland to make an electable chair in the constitution I'll be happy to sit back and just promote good issues for the next 4 months of the term. I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
As was stated directly in the meeting, and repeatedly otherwise and ignored selectively, there's nothing preventing the chair from stepping down so a new one can be elected right now. There's also no 'constitution'. Don't let me get in the way of you framing your own reality however.
|
|
Hardin
Praetoria Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:55:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Hardin on 09/06/2008 16:57:30
Quote: I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
I suppose you would have preferred sheep eh Jade?
----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:58:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Hardin Edited by: Hardin on 09/06/2008 16:57:30
Quote: I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
I suppose you would have preferred sheep eh Jade?
Would you?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:00:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
From my hopefully neutral perspective, this was not intentional and merely miscommunication. In the future, I humbly request of all of you to politely correct other council members when they make mistakes, instead of assuming the worst.
Or you can always mute them, and then go on the forum and ask what was this 'editorializing' about and brush off any kind of observations about bias.
Paraphrasing: - "You are not being neutral <due to editorializing>" - "this is an unnecessary discussion give the results of vote 1" - "ok" - "and the votes of vote 1 have already established that <editorialized>"
So apparently Jade didn't give a damn about either neutrality or what this "editorializing" was. If he didn't know he was doing it, he could have asked after the first or second time he was pointed out.
Minmatar Boost Brigade |
Hardin
Praetoria Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:01:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was.
Which is actually a good point. Despite the choas at stages all proposed business got done. We may end up all hating each other on CSM by the end of our time in Iceland - but if a result is delivered for the players of EVE it might well be worth it.
I do wonder who will even want to stand enxt time though? ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:05:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah However, the item was phrased very differently on the agenda:
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Details entering the topic during the discussion should be included in the re-stating of the issue at the time of the vote. Perhaps by the person who brought up the issue to avoid confusion? In this case it might have helped if Hardin had been asked to re-state the issue in his understanding prior to the vote, at least so that you're starting with the person who is sponsoring the issue and working from their definition of the vote.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:05:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was.
Which is actually a good point. Despite the choas at stages all proposed business got done. We may end up all hating each other on CSM by the end of our time in Iceland - but if a result is delivered for the players of EVE it might well be worth it.
I do wonder who will even want to stand enxt time though?
To be honest its the light at the end of the tunnel. If we do actually get these issues into useful discussion and help get some decent changes through it all becomes worthwhile. These horrible meetings do have a purpose. End of the day all the forum trolling and nonsense means nothing if we make a positive impact on the game.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:09:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
To be honest its the light at the end of the tunnel. If we do actually get these issues into useful discussion and help get some decent changes through it all becomes worthwhile. These horrible meetings do have a purpose. End of the day all the forum trolling and nonsense means nothing if we make a positive impact on the game.
You mean the discussion you are avoiding having on the forums as required by the CSM document? That discussion? The CSM is not a place where you get to make your argument to CCP, its a place where a group of people can come together and judge and present the communities wishes, reservations, and needs to CCP so that they can better create a game that we play.
But you actually have to have a place where wishes, reservations, and needs can be presented to you before that happens and all that takes is a little will on your part to get it done.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:11:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah However, the item was phrased very differently on the agenda:
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Details entering the topic during the discussion should be included in the re-stating of the issue at the time of the vote. Perhaps by the person who brought up the issue to avoid confusion? In this case it might have helped if Hardin had been asked to re-state the issue in his understanding prior to the vote, at least so that you're starting with the person who is sponsoring the issue and working from their definition of the vote.
He did, after which Jade then summarized him in an incorrect and unflattering manner.
It would not have been very different had there been a vote on "re-examine 0.0 sovereignty" and then at the end, Darius JOHNSON had said "Vote to **** over small alliances has passed"
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:13:00 -
[179]
I suggest the following things happen before the next meeting:
1) Every CSM brushes up on parliamentary procedure 2) A moderator with no voting powers is appointed to handle the appropriate procedural points of order
|
Kallynda Nai
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:14:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Ulstan The more I look at the whole brouhahah over the issue of abstained votes, the more I shake my head in dismay. That issue should have been dealt with in about 10s. Abstaining votes don't count in any way whatsoever, that's why they're 'abstain' instead of 'yes' or 'no'.
It just means "I'm here but lets pretend I'm not for the purpose of this vote"
Anyway hopefully that's all threshed out now and future meetings can deal with more weighty matters.
Get into Coattails irc, you knob.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:25:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 18:26:48
Originally by: Ulstan The more I look at the whole brouhahah over the issue of abstained votes, the more I shake my head in dismay. That issue should have been dealt with in about 10s. Abstaining votes don't count in any way whatsoever, that's why they're 'abstain' instead of 'yes' or 'no'.
It just means "I'm here but lets pretend I'm not for the purpose of this vote"
Anyway hopefully that's all threshed out now and future meetings can deal with more weighty matters.
Yeah truth is everybody in that meeting FAILED. On that point.
I failed to just make a judgment call and say "the votes count this way" Those in favour of the 5/9 decision (including Bane who actually said he saw it written that way in the document) failed. Those against the 5/9 decision failed to point out it was written otherwise in the docs. Inanna failed to actually explain herself rather than arching criticizing lack of committee knowledge and delaying the process
All nine of us failed and as a result all nine of us wasted more than an hour on a ridiculous sequence of discussions and accusations and hotblooded confrontations that have led to the fiasco here today.
(Then again I'd say a high proportion of the forum respondents on these numerous threads FAIL as well, because while they are frothing and snarling about this administrative stuff there are actually a number of real gamplay issues that have made the Iceland agenda they'd be better served by talking about).
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:27:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Yeah truth is everybody in that meeting FAILED. On that point.
I failed to just make a judgment call and say "the votes count this way" Those in favour of the 5/9 decision (including Bane who actually said he saw it written that way in the document) failed. Those against the 5/9 decision failed to point out it was written otherwise in the docs. Inanna failed to actually explain herself rather than arching criticizing lack of committee knowledge and delaying the process
All nine of us failed and as a result all nine of us wasted more than an hour on a ridiculous sequence of discussions and accusations and hotblooded confrontations that have led to the fiasco here today.
Now it's everyone's fault... well at least that's a step in a direction.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:28:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Yeah truth is everybody in that meeting FAILED. On that point.
I failed to just make a judgment call and say "the votes count this way" Those in favour of the 5/9 decision (including Bane who actually said he saw it written that way in the document) failed. Those against the 5/9 decision failed to point out it was written otherwise in the docs. Inanna failed to actually explain herself rather than arching criticizing lack of committee knowledge and delaying the process
All nine of us failed and as a result all nine of us wasted more than an hour on a ridiculous sequence of discussions and accusations and hotblooded confrontations that have led to the fiasco here today.
Now it's everyone's fault... well at least that's a step in a direction.
Well Darius I'm talking about a specific vote there. You played a part in that as well as I did. Any of us COULD have actually read the docs and said "actually it says clearly that simple majority voting is the rule" - NOBODY did.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:37:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Well Darius I'm talking about a specific vote there. You played a part in that as well as I did. Any of us COULD have actually read the docs and said "actually it says clearly that simple majority voting is the rule" - NOBODY did.
I apologize. It was not obvious to me with my limited linguistic skills that you were talking about a specific vote and not the meeting in general.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:38:00 -
[185]
I'm not suprised to see that CSM meetings aren't going as well as they could be. This comes from a flagrant disregard for the CSM documents and the rules mentioned within it, and a misintepretation of what the meeting with CCP will actually be. It also comes from some CSM member's assuming that they can just turn up for a quick meeting once a week and vote on some issues..
Your jobs, as CSM members, is to discuss, IN MEETINGS, the issues that players are concerned about. Those issues MUST be issues that affect the Majority of the EVE players, and they EACH must be posted in the forums for a period of no less than 7 days for player discussion etc. I pointed out that having 60+ issues as one agenda point was in disregard of this, but since it suited certain members to have it voted on as one issue, it was ignored. I see that you did not discuss each issue in the PDF as you said you would....
The CSM documents make it clear that each issue must be discussed by CSM members (and it is expected that the 9 members will have differing views etc), then a simple nay or aye vote taken. Since there are 9 of you, 5 votes in the 'aye' are required for an issue to be esculated. I see no mention of an abstain being allowed...but since you accepted it, that makes the 5 'ayes' harder to get, that is all. Accept that all issues WILL NOT get esculated to CCP for comment!!!
From the information, it is clear that you submit issues to CCP, they consider them and give their verdict in Iceland and the other meetings. You formally present the issues (not the arguments) to them, they reply at the meeting. You can then present further arguments on why X issue is important. However, since many of the issues have had POOR support, and you still esculated them without discussion, expect some pretty firm negative responses.
All of the changing of the rules, inventing new ones to suit and solidify a position etc is plainly wrong. STOP IT PLEASE. You pollute the waters ahead for those CSM members to come.
If you can't stay for a 4 hour meeting, I question why you stood in the first place. You must have accepted that you may not actually be able to play much EVE for 6 months! You are being flown to Iceland, this shouldn't be something that only requires a couple of hours a week to gain. Meetings should not have time limits...you need to discuss each issue, when you shove 75 on the agenda expect it to take 4 hours.
Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:52:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Arithron I pointed out that having 60+ issues as one agenda point was in disregard of this, but since it suited certain members to have it voted on as one issue, it was ignored. I see that you did not discuss each issue in the PDF as you said you would....
If you can't stay for a 4 hour meeting, I question why you stood in the first place. You must have accepted that you may not actually be able to play much EVE for 6 months! You are being flown to Iceland, this shouldn't be something that only requires a couple of hours a week to gain. Meetings should not have time limits...you need to discuss each issue, when you shove 75 on the agenda expect it to take 4 hours.
Arithron
Would you please point me to where someone stated we were going to discuss them all? And would you please read the chat log. You will see that the topic was voted for, provided it was split into chunks, in order to ease discussion.
As for the time issue. The first meeting was stopped due to the time limit was reached. This time around, we wasted TOO much time on nothing. Some of us have stuff to do in real life, like exams or jobs. At least have respect for that, when you put it on a sunday or earlier on in the evening, so that those of us who lives in GMT+2, arent kept up till midnight.
Also, who are you to question why people stood in the first place(I'm sorry if I come out as angry or anything, but I see it as an insult)? I dont think you quite know what goes on behind the scenes. I personally haven't pvp'ed since the beginning of the election, as I dedicated large majority of my time to CSM. And at present I spend about double the amount of time I'm actively ingame, to CSM related work.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:00:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 09/06/2008 22:00:51
Jade -
You viewed this thread - Linkage - you then responded with a positive vote and mentioned you'd bring it up in the CSM meeting. (Note - this thread was authored immediately once the CSM forum was active. The original thread is months old. The problem is YEARS old.)
However, I seen no mention of its discussion, or of it even being brought up.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:02:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Arithron on 09/06/2008 22:04:20 Actually, if you remember right, I also stood ;)
Please don't take everything personally...I may not have been referring to you!
Meetings will go on beyond the expected time...get the chairman to put them at better times.
I see that the 60+ issues being split up again will now require reposting for a period of seven days right? And all the other issues that weren't posted on the forums, such as abstaining from a vote, alternates etc...
meaning that a Representative cannot bring a topic up at a Council meeting without having it go through deliberation on the public forum
This is an interesting part of the CSM document that a couple of representatives need to read carefully.. (not you LV).
CSM Representative Conduct Any behavior or actions considered to be a material breach of the EULA or TOS by a CSM R epresentative is grounds for immediate dismissal and permanent exclusion from all pending and future participation in the council. There are no exceptions, regardless of the infraction. Representatives are not only expected to uphold the social contract that all society members are held accountable to, but should also set a behavior standard for everyone else to follow.
Anyway, I appreciate that you had other things to do than sit in a meeting (RL takes precedence always). Thats what the alternates are for though. I know you are working hard behind the scenes and putting time into the CSM...but then, thats what you stood and were elected to do!
Take care, Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:06:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Silence Duegood Edited by: Silence Duegood on 09/06/2008 22:00:51
Jade -
You viewed this thread - Linkage - you then responded with a positive vote and mentioned you'd bring it up in the CSM meeting. (Note - this thread was authored immediately once the CSM forum was active. The original thread is months old. The problem is YEARS old.)
However, I seen no mention of its discussion, or of it even being brought up.
I do apologise, I'll make sure its on there for next sunday and do my best to get it on the agenda okay?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:08:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Silence Duegood Edited by: Silence Duegood on 09/06/2008 22:00:51
Jade -
You viewed this thread - Linkage - you then responded with a positive vote and mentioned you'd bring it up in the CSM meeting. (Note - this thread was authored immediately once the CSM forum was active. The original thread is months old. The problem is YEARS old.)
However, I seen no mention of its discussion, or of it even being brought up.
I do apologise, I'll make sure its on there for next sunday and do my best to get it on the agenda okay?
No sweat. It happens. Was just a friendly reminder from some who backed you!
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:39:00 -
[191]
I'd suggest it meets the criteria. If LaVista can break them up as separate issues for vote, we'd be fine. [ 2008.06.08 19:18:34 ]Jade Constantine >Okay [ 2008.06.08 19:18:42 ]LaVista Vista >I will split them up and have the documents ready in 24-48 hours [ 2008.06.08 19:18:44 ]Inanna Zuni >LaVista ... I was explaining why I couldn't support the document en bloc [ 2008.06.08 19:18:48 ]Jade Constantine >I'm going to propose this to the vote on that proviso
Now, exactly what did you vote on here? Did you vote that all these go to CCP, but be broken up into seperate issues first (hence making it appear that you had discussed all the issues (60+) and voted seperately on each one..
Or did you vote for the issues to be broken up and brought up at the meeting on Thursday, where you will again discuss them and vote...
And, my final question, did you bypass the rule requiring each issue to be posted on the forum, due to workload etc? It certainly appears you have....
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:45:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Arithron I'd suggest it meets the criteria. If LaVista can break them up as separate issues for vote, we'd be fine. [ 2008.06.08 19:18:34 ]Jade Constantine >Okay [ 2008.06.08 19:18:42 ]LaVista Vista >I will split them up and have the documents ready in 24-48 hours [ 2008.06.08 19:18:44 ]Inanna Zuni >LaVista ... I was explaining why I couldn't support the document en bloc [ 2008.06.08 19:18:48 ]Jade Constantine >I'm going to propose this to the vote on that proviso
Now, exactly what did you vote on here? Did you vote that all these go to CCP, but be broken up into seperate issues first (hence making it appear that you had discussed all the issues (60+) and voted seperately on each one..
Or did you vote for the issues to be broken up and brought up at the meeting on Thursday, where you will again discuss them and vote...
And, my final question, did you bypass the rule requiring each issue to be posted on the forum, due to workload etc? It certainly appears you have....
Are you saying that you think we shouldn't be able to support any of those issues in LaVista's document unless he presents 60 individual issues Arithron? I ask because we have a couple of other issues on the agenda that have several included - Inanna has a UI issue that has multiple fixes, Ank has a general fixes to the forum issue that has several issues there. Hardin is going to be supporting an RP issue that has plenty of individual sub categories?
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that in your opinion we are breaking the rules of the CSM to vote these "grouped" issues onto the formal agenda for Iceland?
(and a secondary question)
If we do break (change) the rules on this - what are you proposing to do about it?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:56:00 -
[193]
I'm saying that having 60+ issues lumped in together stops discussion on EACH issue on the forums and in a CSM meeting. I do not believe it was the intention for 60+ issues to be voted upon in one go by a SINGLE CSM vote. There was very little discussion (in fact, you started voting before discussion...) on any of the issues before the vote.
All issues should be posted seperate on the forum for discussion, regardless of what they are or how interconnected. Representatives can then choose to support each issue, or players can vote to support it.
What I'll do about it is ask CCP to make a ruling on it. I'm suprised that you haven't done so already and reported it to the public.
Take care, Bruce Hansen
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:03:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Arithron
I'm saying that having 60+ issues lumped in together stops discussion on EACH issue on the forums and in a CSM meeting. I do not believe it was the intention for 60+ issues to be voted upon in one go by a SINGLE CSM vote. There was very little discussion (in fact, you started voting before discussion...) on any of the issues before the vote. And, as you say, you should be able to support any of the issues that Lavista proposes...and not support others that you disagree with. By having them all together, you deny this.
All issues should be posted seperate on the forum for discussion, regardless of what they are or how interconnected. Representatives can then choose to support each issue, or players can vote to support it.
Okay you would advise LaVista to submit 60 submission docs and we'll confirm each one with a vote on Thursday right? (same with Inanna and her UI issues, Ank with the forum issues and Hardin with the RP issues?)
Quote: What I'll do about it is ask CCP to make a ruling on it. I'm suprised that you haven't done so already and reported it to the public.
You are welcome to right to CCP to make a ruling. I think you'll be a little disappointed at how forthcoming they are able to be at the current time with the patch tomorrow and timescale constraints however. Don't assume we've been completely failing to ask CCP opinion on things.
Re LaVista and Inanna I'm going to ask them come and debate this issue with you first hand.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:07:00 -
[195]
I think he is saying "Do things properly so that the people have a chance to comment on each issue as required by the CSM document"
That isn't an unreasonable onus.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:18:00 -
[196]
Yes, LaVista needs to write 60+ topics for the threads, and the other representatives also. That's the rules you were elected under, that's what you have to do. This gives players a chance to discuss/debate each issue and for the representatives to do likewise, both on the forums and in the meetings. It also allows for the important vote on each issue seperately.
Take care, Bruce Hansen
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:25:00 -
[197]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 23:25:36
Originally by: Arithron Yes, LaVista needs to write 60+ topics for the threads, and the other representatives also. That's the rules you were elected under, that's what you have to do. This gives players a chance to discuss/debate each issue and for the representatives to do likewise, both on the forums and in the meetings. It also allows for the important vote on each issue seperately.
Take care, Bruce Hansen
Okay I've asked LaVista and the other candidates with multiple item issues via our internal mailing list to come and respond to you specifically here Arithron. I hope you'll either come to a rational compromise on the issue or I'll advise that they need to be split out. Okay? Give tomorrow for some discussion and I'll make a call in the evening.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:32:00 -
[198]
I don't need to come to a rational compromise: The CSM representatives need to follow the clearly stated rules for posting issues.Please note I have been rational through this entire discussion.
I have highlighted above how circumventing this IMPORTANT procedure leads to a restriction or denial of discussion or rejection of issues (and the acceptance of issues, if there are a few good proposals lumped in with many bad ones).
I'm looking forward to making contributions to many of the issues when they are posted seperately on the forum
take care, Bruce Hansen
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:30:00 -
[199]
It's quite clear the CSM needs a set of standing orders or it won't function properly. It doesn't matter what mix of people you get on it, there will always be arguments about process unless it is set out clearly.
Overall, I feel that almost everyone involved is failing to respect the roles of officers, representatives and alternates on the CSM. Where Jade can justly be criticised is in being too forebearing and allowing chaos to reign.
I do agree that Jade should not have restated the issue of alternates motion but I am quite sure it was not intended in any malign way. The fact is that the agenda item was vague and Jade was trying to clarify it. It was mistaken because it should have been left to the mover of the motion to do this.
As to the things decided by the CSM regarding alternates, I think they are nothing short of disgraceful and should not have been on the agenda at all as they seek to significantly alter the role of alternates as set out in the summary document. As it is, the decision made is deeply unjust to those who were elected as alternates on the basis of the original documentation.
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
So, the order in which the candidates are elected is immaterial in terms of privileges, and it is made clear this extends to alternates when they are acting as representatives in a meeting. Many of the representatives appear to feel that as the primary representatives they have a special status over and above that of an alternate who is taking part in a meeting. They do not. Once summoned to a meeting by the Chair (which is explicitly a power of the Chair) the alternate is an equal on the committee. Once summoned it is repugnant, given what is written on the role, that they should be dislodged from the meeting by anyone.
Incidentally, yes, the entire paragraph is conflicted with the current process of selecting the Chair. The current process is in my opinion bad practice. A committee of equals should elect its own chair. Once selected the Chair does have certain powers as set out out in the roles of officers and members in the document. (The main power within a meeting being that of moderation.)
Next, the critical issue of alternates and terms:
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, Term Length and Duration of the CSM"
[...] No Representative or Alternate can serve more than two terms on the CSM, consecutive or otherwise. An Alternate has been considered serving a term the instant he or she attends a Council meeting in the absence of a Representative; an Alternate can be elected more than two times if that Alternate does not participates [sic] in any Council meetings. [...]
Like much in the CSM documentation this is somewhat ambiguous. The harshest interpretation is that an alternate who attends even one CSM meeting immediately expends one of their possible terms as either an alternate or representative. That is to say, it is possible to become ineligible to stand for election as a representative by attending one meeting as an alternate in one electoral session of the CSM and one meeting as an alternate in another electoral session of the CSM. Another possibility is that it means someone can only act as an alternate twice as well as as a representative twice. In either case, it indicates the seriousness of the act of attending a meeting as an alternate.
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:50:00 -
[200]
I read the chat log, Jade is in the right on this. Innana acted unprofessionally throughout the meeting, and on several occassions tried to turn votes about game issues into discussions about Jade's conduct. Darius JOHNSON seems to have picked up that standard and run with it since the meeting ended.
If this continues, I'd be in favor of removing both Darius and Innana in favor of CSM's who can remain focused on game issues.
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:19:00 -
[201]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite The fact is that the agenda item was vague and Jade was trying to clarify it
Are you serious?
"Members arriving to the discussion enter the discussion and voting at the beginning of the next agenda item" is neither vague nor did Jade "clarify" it. She flat out changed the meaning of the suggestion, not once, but twice
Quote: Many of the representatives appear to feel that as the primary representatives they have a special status over and above that of an alternate who is taking part in a meeting.
As soon as the representative comes back, the alternative is no longer serving as an alternative and as such your argument is irrelevant
|
Kai Wooglin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:25:00 -
[202]
Jesus, the Star Fraction drones and alts now even have goons agreeing with Goum.
|
RDevz
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:02:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting.
Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us.
Quoting this for posterity. I'd be interested to know whether Jade still stands by his words. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:10:00 -
[204]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
(...)
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
In light of the quoted document I have to agree vigorously. It seems several CSM reps were not aware of this part of the CSM document, and treating Alternates as stand-ins to be inserted and removed at the leisure of the Representatives is all wrong.
Without that section of the CSM document I was inclined to agree with the way the Council voted, but reading it now it seems they were misinformed.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:24:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
(...)
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
In light of the quoted document I have to agree vigorously. It seems several CSM reps were not aware of this part of the CSM document, and treating Alternates as stand-ins to be inserted and removed at the leisure of the Representatives is all wrong.
Without that section of the CSM document I was inclined to agree with the way the Council voted, but reading it now it seems they were misinformed.
I am sorry where does the above quote say when alternatives are relieved? We have the mandate for representatives to attend in the absence of a rep, but not when the rep is not absent.
As voted by the council, when a representative returns or arrives, the alternate is no longer serving as an alternate at the moment the agenda item ends and as such, the afore mentioned passage no longer applies to them at the point the agenda item ends.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:31:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry where does the above quote say when alternatives are relieved? We have the mandate for representatives to attend in the absence of a rep, but not when the rep is not absent.
As voted by the council, when a representative returns or arrives, the alternate is no longer serving as an alternate at the moment the agenda item ends and as such, the afore mentioned passage no longer applies to them at the point the agenda item ends.
Well, if an Alternate serving in place of a Rep has equal power to a Rep, then the Rep doesn't have authority over that Alternate to displace them.
To displace an Alternate the returning Representative is exercising authority over them. But according to the CSM document the returning Representative has no authority over the Alternate, because they are equals.
To put it another way: On what authority does a returning Representative displace an Alternate?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:41:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Kelsin
Well, if an Alternate serving in place of a Rep has equal power to a Rep, then the Rep doesn't have authority over that Alternate to displace them.
To displace an Alternate the returning Representative is exercising authority over them. But according to the CSM document the returning Representative has no authority over the Alternate, because they are equals.
To put it another way: On what authority does a returning Representative displace an Alternate?
The representative is not exercising authority. The Council is exercising authority. Just as a representative does not have authority to bring issues to CCP, the Council has the authority to bring issues to CCP. Etc Etc Etc. |
Hardin
TBH Holdings The Black Horizon
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:11:00 -
[208]
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
Highlighted the important word there.
The debate was not about the roles and responsibilities of Alternates - it was about WHEN they could exert those responsibilities.
I had no problem with Tusko acting as a CSM rep in my absence and casting votes whilst I was away. I did have an issue with elected (as opposed to the non-elected) representatives being disenfranchised by the Chair on the basis of arbitrary rulings.
I would also like to point out that Jade specifically told me to bring the item forward for discussion at the next meeting when I complained about being gagged by him at the previous meeting.
The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
I would also like to point out - because it has been conveniently forgotten - that in addition to the clarification on when alternates should stand down in favour of the elected representatives I also put forward a proposal increasing the 'rights' of alternates by clarifying that they could step up when an elected CSM member dropped out of the meeting.
In my opinion both these proposals were straightforward and sensible and the majority of CSM agreed.
That said I do actually agree that CCP stating that an 'alternate' is considered to have served the 'term' even for temporary involvement is ridiculous and should be changed. Tusko should not be penalised for his sterling service!
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:22:00 -
[209]
Well Hardin, I agree that in general it's open to interpretation, but it's the equal powers line that makes it a harder argument to say an Alternate's status can be changed by the comings and goings of a Representative.
I'd contrast the scenario that the Council passed - where a Rep coming late to a meeting would displace an Alternate serving in their place at the end of the current agenda item (and likewise the Alternate would step in when a Rep needed to step away from the chamber) - with a scenario in which the meeting is called to start at a set time, the present eligible Representatives and Alternates are accounted for, and so long as a quorum is present, issues are discussed and voted on for the duration of the meeting.
Yes in the second scenario, if a Representative could be five minutes late and not be able to participate in the meeting. However it's also a more cut and dry rule, and it doesn't result in Alternates "sitting on the bench" only to be called in for one vote while a Rep takes a smoke break, and then kicked back off the field when the Rep is ready to return. I think there's something to be said for the interpretation of the rule passed by the Council degrading the role of Alternates, and that does seem to run counter to what was quoted from the CSM document above.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:24:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Hardin The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
Actually this I think is contradicted by the quote from the CSM document, and is the perspective I find disappointing - the Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:27:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Hardin I would also like to point out that Jade specifically told me to bring the item forward for discussion at the next meeting when I complained about being gagged by him at the previous meeting.
Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting:
"and Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM."
I took a rule that you couldn't reasonable arrive late and dislodge an alternate sworn in as a representative for that meeting.
Quote: The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
I think this is poor argumentation. We all received votes from the electorate and its entirely possible that one or more of the alternates will have to serve on the CSM in this session. You are making artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates that I do not see in the CSM documentation.
Quote: I would also like to point out - because it has been conveniently forgotten - that in addition to the clarification on when alternates should stand down in favour of the elected representatives I also put forward a proposal increasing the 'rights' of alternates by clarifying that they could step up when an elected CSM member dropped out of the meeting.
Of course thats also problematic because in order to "step in" they'd need to be sworn-in. This would count as them having served on the CSM for the session and by my reading of the CSM rules I see no reasonable expectation they should be dislodged again should the "original nine" CSM rep return.
Quote: In my opinion both these proposals were straightforward and sensible and the majority of CSM agreed.
At the time they did, but most hadn't read the appropriate documentation and since the vote outcome contradicts the role of alternates on the CSM I'm going to declare it void pending feedback from CCP. I'm of the opinion now that we shouldn't be messing with the founding documentation - especially not in areas that concern voting privileges and the responsibilities and duties of CSM members.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:27:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Kelsin Well Hardin, I agree that in general it's open to interpretation, but it's the equal powers line that makes it a harder argument to say an Alternate's status can be changed by the comings and goings of a Representative.
If they cannot then the status of the representative cannot be changed and they were never entitled to vote in the first place. They have those rights when they are acting as representatives, when they are not, that status ends. There is no interpretation where this is concerned, the only question is when that status changes. By your definition, Tusco would have full voting rights at all subsequent meetings, and be entitled to go to Iceland. These are clearly not intended nor can be read into the document. If it cannot and the reading that supports your claim must necessarily support that claim as well then yours must be wrong.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:32:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting:
"and Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM."
I took a rule that you couldn't reasonable arrive late and dislodge an alternate sworn in as a representative for that meeting.
You are not entitled to rule on the CSM document and make rules based on said reading.
Quote:
I think this is poor argumentation. We all received votes from the electorate and its entirely possible that one or more of the alternates will have to serve on the CSM in this session. You are making artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates that I do not see in the CSM documentation.
No, he does not. The distinction is made by the language "when serving in the place of a representative". You are deliberately attempting to change the language in order to secure partisan advantage.
Quote:
Of course thats also problematic because in order to "step in" they'd need to be sworn-in. This would count as them having served on the CSM for the session and by my reading of the CSM rules I see no reasonable expectation they should be dislodged again should the "original nine" CSM rep return.
The CSM document states no such "swearing in". You are again making things up of whole cloth.
Quote:
At the time they did, but most hadn't read the appropriate documentation and since the vote outcome contradicts the role of alternates on the CSM I'm going to declare it void pending feedback from CCP. I'm of the opinion now that we shouldn't be messing with the founding documentation - especially not in areas that concern voting privileges and the responsibilities and duties of CSM members.
You do not have the power to declare a vote of the CSM valid. you are equal to all the other representatives and have no special power over them as we can clearly see in the language |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:32:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Goumindong By your definition, Tusco would have full voting rights at all subsequent meetings, and be entitled to go to Iceland.
Nope, that doesn't follow from what I said. You must have misunderstood. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:37:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong By your definition, Tusco would have full voting rights at all subsequent meetings, and be entitled to go to Iceland.
Nope, that doesn't follow from what I said. You must have misunderstood.
Indeed it does. You see, it says he has equal standing when he is serving in the place as a representative and it says he serves as soon as anyone is absent. Such equal standing and rights if it means that when the real representative cannot displace them that either the real representative can never replace them or both must go. If both must go, then as soon as the replacement goes absent for any reason, another alternate must be appointed. Because that alt has the same rights as the other representatives which includes having an alternate vote in their stead if they are out.
Both of these are ridiculous. Such the differentiation of "when" cannot be confused with the "equality". Defining the "when" is thus an important part of what the CSM or CCP must do. And since CCP cannot act speedily the CSM must set out a way that they can operate. This is typically by way of a vote.
Oh look we had a vote. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:38:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
At the time they did, but most hadn't read the appropriate documentation and since the vote outcome contradicts the role of alternates on the CSM I'm going to declare it void pending feedback from CCP. I'm of the opinion now that we shouldn't be messing with the founding documentation - especially not in areas that concern voting privileges and the responsibilities and duties of CSM members.
Where in the hell do you get off thinking you can void something that passed a vote? I don't know what in the hell you think of yourself in this council but you do not have any power to veto or unilateral power to do anything but facilitate a meeting.
Quote: Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting:
"and Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM."
It also quite clearly says that an elected Representative can move aside an alternate when they come back or did you fail at reading part of this document.
This entire thing is out of hand and you have no idea what it is your are doing and there needs to be a moderator that has nothing to do with the council as per real group think strategies.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:58:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 10/06/2008 23:57:56
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Where in the hell do you get off thinking you can void something that passed a vote? I don't know what in the hell you think of yourself in this council but you do not have any power to veto or unilateral power to do anything but facilitate a meeting.
I'm declaring it void because I don't think we have the power to change the constitution outside of a formally-raised issue that is presented to the CSM/CCP conference. Just like I don't think we have the power to change the constitution on an electable chair. Just like we don't have the power to pass no-confidence votes or boot off elected members for being disruptive.
Quote: It also quite clearly says that an elected Representative can move aside an alternate when they come back or did you fail at reading part of this document.
Link please.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Anton Marvik
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:02:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Anton Marvik on 11/06/2008 00:01:58
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm declaring it void because I don't think we have the power to change the constitution outside of a formally-raised issue that is presented to the CSM/CCP conference. Just like I don't think we have the power to change the constitution on an electable chair. Just like we don't have the power to pass no-confidence votes or boot off elected members for being disruptive.
We is plural. Please say "I".
Furthermore, please quote the part of the CSM documentation that gives you the power to void votes and veto them.
Its nice that you're using community outrage to attempt to usurp even more power, but I don't think its going to happen.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:04:00 -
[219]
I'll just reiterate:
The Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality.
Reading over the documentation about Alternates, there's a consistent theme that their substitution is not meant to be taken lightly:
Originally by: CSM PDF Alternates may not be chosen arbitrarily to fill in at meetings if a Representative cannot be present. Instead, they must be selected in the order in which they were elected, beginning with the first Alternate (which was the 10th highest vote tally in the general election), and going up the last (14th highest vote tally) as determined by their availability. There are three reasons for this: to discourage reliance on Alternates, to prevent collusion with Alternates, and to honor the "weight" of each Alternate as determined by votes durng the election.
I think having them act as placeholders or seat-warmers runs counter to the spirit of this sort of language, and as I said above, runs directly counter to the concept of them being fully equal to other Representatives when serving during a Council meeting.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:05:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 11/06/2008 00:05:38 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 11/06/2008 00:05:13
Originally by: Kelsin I'll just reiterate:
The Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality.
Reading over the documentation about Alternates, there's a consistent theme that their substitution is not meant to be taken lightly:
Originally by: CSM PDF Alternates may not be chosen arbitrarily to fill in at meetings if a Representative cannot be present. Instead, they must be selected in the order in which they were elected, beginning with the first Alternate (which was the 10th highest vote tally in the general election), and going up the last (14th highest vote tally) as determined by their availability. There are three reasons for this: to discourage reliance on Alternates, to prevent collusion with Alternates, and to honor the "weight" of each Alternate as determined by votes durng the election.
I think having them act as placeholders or seat-warmers runs counter to the spirit of this sort of language, and as I said above, runs directly counter to the concept of them being fully equal to other Representatives when serving during a Council meeting.
The council felt otherwise and voted as such.
:edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
|
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:08:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such.
Yeah I know - but you seemed pretty concerned with the CSM documentation and what it said regarding the powers of the Chair, so I would think the same thing would apply here.
Side note, if the CSM documentation doesn't give the CSM the power to change these rules on the fly, doesn't that conflict with your prior opinion?
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:09:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such. :edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
Yep, the council was wrong on this instance and we can't be voting constitution changes that contradict the founding documentation. Next time lets ALL read the documentation a little more closely eh?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:11:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such. :edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
Yep, the council was wrong on this instance and we can't be voting constitution changes that contradict the founding documentation. Next time lets ALL read the documentation a little more closely eh?
Or we could simply change the rules mid-game to suit our own purposes. Whichever interpretation floats your boat.
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:14:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Kelsin I'll just reiterate:
The Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality.
Reading over the documentation about Alternates, there's a consistent theme that their substitution is not meant to be taken lightly:
Originally by: CSM PDF Alternates may not be chosen arbitrarily to fill in at meetings if a Representative cannot be present. Instead, they must be selected in the order in which they were elected, beginning with the first Alternate (which was the 10th highest vote tally in the general election), and going up the last (14th highest vote tally) as determined by their availability. There are three reasons for this: to discourage reliance on Alternates, to prevent collusion with Alternates, and to honor the "weight" of each Alternate as determined by votes durng the election.
I think having them act as placeholders or seat-warmers runs counter to the spirit of this sort of language, and as I said above, runs directly counter to the concept of them being fully equal to other Representatives when serving during a Council meeting.
Yea i was just gonna dig this part out. It clearly shows they are supposed to sub in when an elected member can't be there but are relived when they come back.
|
HClChicken
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:15:00 -
[225]
Edited by: HClChicken on 11/06/2008 00:15:41
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such. :edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
Yep, the council was wrong on this instance and we can't be voting constitution changes that contradict the founding documentation. Next time lets ALL read the documentation a little more closely eh?
Jade, it's been proven time and time again, that you do not have the capabilities to read. This has been shown through your inability to construct a clear, concise and brief argument. I promise you the only one here who needs to read it is yourself. So until you get hooked on phonics stop posting about things you do not understand.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:24:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
Originally by: Kelsin I'll just reiterate:
The Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality.
Reading over the documentation about Alternates, there's a consistent theme that their substitution is not meant to be taken lightly:
Originally by: CSM PDF Alternates may not be chosen arbitrarily to fill in at meetings if a Representative cannot be present. Instead, they must be selected in the order in which they were elected, beginning with the first Alternate (which was the 10th highest vote tally in the general election), and going up the last (14th highest vote tally) as determined by their availability. There are three reasons for this: to discourage reliance on Alternates, to prevent collusion with Alternates, and to honor the "weight" of each Alternate as determined by votes durng the election.
I think having them act as placeholders or seat-warmers runs counter to the spirit of this sort of language, and as I said above, runs directly counter to the concept of them being fully equal to other Representatives when serving during a Council meeting.
Yea i was just gonna dig this part out. It clearly shows they are supposed to sub in when an elected member can't be there but are relived when they come back.
It doesn't show anything of the sort. They fill in for meetings when a representative cannot be there. They get appointed to rep status and they act in the meeting with the full and EQUAL powers of a representative for that meeting. Good heavens, talk about clutching at straws
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:28:00 -
[227]
Edited by: Goumindong on 11/06/2008 00:28:27
Originally by: Kelsin I'll just reiterate:
The Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality.
Reading over the documentation about Alternates, there's a consistent theme that their substitution is not meant to be taken lightly:
Originally by: CSM PDF Alternates may not be chosen arbitrarily to fill in at meetings if a Representative cannot be present. Instead, they must be selected in the order in which they were elected, beginning with the first Alternate (which was the 10th highest vote tally in the general election), and going up the last (14th highest vote tally) as determined by their availability. There are three reasons for this: to discourage reliance on Alternates, to prevent collusion with Alternates, and to honor the "weight" of each Alternate as determined by votes durng the election.
I think having them act as placeholders or seat-warmers runs counter to the spirit of this sort of language, and as I said above, runs directly counter to the concept of them being fully equal to other Representatives when serving during a Council meeting.
1. They are not being replaced at any time. The CSM voted on that and reached a contradictory outcome despite how Jade and yourself want to continually editorialize the decision
2. If they cannot be removed then when does the first elected representative get to vote? Do not they also have equal rights. If the first elected representative never gets to come back because the alternate cannot be removed then the elected representative has become lesser than the alternate.
This isn't difficult. The issue of "when" isn't an issue of equality. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:32:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
It doesn't show anything of the sort. They fill in for meetings when a representative cannot be there. They get appointed to rep status and they act in the meeting with the full and EQUAL powers of a representative for that meeting. Good heavens, talk about clutching at straws
There you go, thanks for clearing that up for us. As soon as the representatives CAN be there the alternate is displaced. Since the alternates only serve when the first representatives cannot be there and since by definition if they are there they cannot be of the status "cannot be there", this means that as soon as the first elected rep returns the alternate is displaced.
I am kinda wondering why you voted against delaying that return until after the next agenda item though, it seems kinda harsh towards the alternate. |
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:51:00 -
[229]
Edited by: Cursive on 11/06/2008 00:52:40 I'm just going to chime in here and note that constitutions of any governing body are always up to interpretation.
This is why most countries have levels of courts and the likes, in the US is is the Supreme Court which as a body decides on (votes on) what the interpretation of a given point of the constitution is.
Jade - You hold no more power over the outcome of voting then any other member in there and have no right to veto/void/nullify a vote, even if it were a vote on the specifics of the constitution.
The majority vote should apply even if you feel it violates the constitution and you should be careful to not try to interfere with that process based on your personal interpretation of the constitution. You should also not assume everyone serving with you are a bunch of mindless illiterate idiots, or rather, if you do feel that keep it to yourself and keep the inflammatory remarks about your colleagues reading abilities to yourself. If you feel a topic violates the constitution, then vote against it, that is all the power you have - one vote.
You do not hold sole domain over the interpretation of the constitution and you may be better off remembering that. |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:12:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hardin The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
I think this is poor argumentation. We all received votes from the electorate and its entirely possible that one or more of the alternates will have to serve on the CSM in this session. You are making artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates that I do not see in the CSM documentation.
I find this conclusion that people not elected are equal to people who are elected quite amazing. There is no "artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates" there is an *absolute* distinction between them; only that top nine have been elected, the others have not.
Let me make a 'real life' comparison, if I may.
There are a number of RL elections which take place on the 'party list' system. The GLA in London is one, another it the UK European Parliament elections (I use UK examples as you are based in the UK; other countries also operate list systems however).
If party A wins five seats and party B wins 4 then the top f on A's list and the top 4 on B's list are elected and serve. Nobody else is part of that parliament or assembly.
Some time later, someone dies / resigns / goes off their trolley and cannot serve anymore. At that time the next person on the list of that party takes over from the member leaving. From that point they are the new 'elected member'. Before that they had nothing, and now they do.
This is the same distinction as between the top nine and the next five; those five are *not elected* they just happen to be the people ready to step in if required. Indeed, should some dread illness strike pilots down and six of the nine disappear into the night then the next person after those five would get their call-up papers.
The CSM results were a *list* system, and the top nine of those available / able / willing to serve the electorate are those who are the elected members.
And nobody else.
IZ
|
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:17:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Arithron Okay I've asked LaVista and the other candidates with multiple item issues via our internal mailing list to come and respond to you specifically here Arithron. I hope you'll either come to a rational compromise on the issue or I'll advise that they need to be split out. Okay? Give tomorrow for some discussion and I'll make a call in the evening.
Okay, so you clearly forgot that it was patch deployment day! I still see no posts from LaVista and other representatives with multiple issues. So now you are advising them to split them into seperate topics right?
I'll check back when I wake up (about to fall into bed as 2:15am here - ah, the life of a CSM member!) but whilst I recall a pointer about this thread I don't recall it being specific to ask us to comment. I'll check properly later.
As regards my own UI issues, in writing them up for CCP consideration I had already split them up individually. So far as I can see, in my own cases all the comments were (s) positive, and (b) covered all the contained issues, so I see no reason to suggest that they need additional time in what is solely a different presentational format. What other CSM members feel I can't say, but I would suggest that where a discussion thread has covered the proposals then it has covered the proposals no matter what the exact presentation. ymmv though, clearly ...
IZ
|
Zeitgueist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:20:00 -
[232]
Edited by: Zeitgueist on 11/06/2008 01:20:41 Jade:
You are an advisory board specifically given no power because none is needed as such. You will not change anything. Your job is that of a focus group for CCP, an informal and neutered watchdog, and a gameplay thinktank.
It was not in CCP's best interest or original intent to give you any kind of actual power whatsoever, and certainly you should not have the right to mute, void, or negate any opinions of the other elected representatives. Your position exists because SOMEBODY needs to call the meeting to orders and keep things on topic if someone starts talking about the latest sports scores or some such. You achieved chairman be receiving the most votes from a tiny fraction of the gaming public who all thought that you were going to be equals. Everyone in the CSM seems to understand their marginal usefulness in this role except you.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:25:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni so I see no reason to suggest that they need additional time in what is solely a different presentational format.
They need to have time for discussion because they may or may not be valuable. And they may or may not be as optimal as possible. Part of the discussion is refining ideas and changes so that they are as good as possible in a reasonable time frame.
Giving the players the time to discuss allows the players to contribute to issues that they know will be addressed in some way.
Frankly its rather important
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 02:47:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni I find this conclusion that people not elected are equal to people who are elected quite amazing. There is no "artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates" there is an *absolute* distinction between them; only that top nine have been elected, the others have not.
Ianna I think the CSM documentation contradicts you pretty directly as described above, where it says that Alternates serving on the Council in place of Reps are fully equal to Reps themselves.
To say an Alternate serving on the council in place of a Rep can be displaced at a non-serving Rep's leisure is to treat them unequally, since the non-serving Rep cannot displace another Rep instead. The RL example being the USA's Brown vs. The Board of Education which said that "separate but equal is not equal". If a serving Alternate is subject to some effect that a serving Rep is not, then they are not being treated equally.
|
Kai Wooglin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:00:00 -
[235]
You didn't really just compare the CSM to Brown v. Board did you? Yeah you did. Christ.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:02:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Inanna Zuni I find this conclusion that people not elected are equal to people who are elected quite amazing. There is no "artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates" there is an *absolute* distinction between them; only that top nine have been elected, the others have not.
Ianna I think the CSM documentation contradicts you pretty directly as described above, where it says that Alternates serving on the Council in place of Reps are fully equal to Reps themselves.
To say an Alternate serving on the council in place of a Rep can be displaced at a non-serving Rep's leisure is to treat them unequally, since the non-serving Rep cannot displace another Rep instead. The RL example being the USA's Brown vs. The Board of Education which said that "separate but equal is not equal". If a serving Alternate is subject to some effect that a serving Rep is not, then they are not being treated equally.
Are you going to read the direct counter argument to that or are you going to do like your Dear Leader and cover your hands over your ears and scream "La la la la i can't hear you"
But lets deconstruct this one and go over all the ways its wrongs.
1. This is not the U.S. Judicial system. Brown v. Board has no president.
2. Even if it did it would not apply because the language of the statement is very clear on when they are equal and when they are not. They are equal when they are serving. They are not when they are not.
The Document does not state when they are serving except to state that they are serving when the first elected rep is not present. And that issue is not in question, except how to best facilitate a representative returning to the debate. If anything the specific wordage of the section is more strict towards the alternates for when they are removed
3. The document does not contradict what Inanna says. As she says nothing towards how alternates are treated when they are being an alternate only how they are treated when they are in transition.
|
NerftheSmurf
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:21:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Goumindong president.
precedent |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:22:00 -
[238]
Originally by: NerftheSmurf
precedent
Arrrg, too quick trusting the firefox spell checker. Woe is me. |
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:01:00 -
[239]
Ok. Jailhouse lawyer time. Is there a document that lays out standing orders for all this?
|
The Ubernomicon
Eight year old girls
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:07:00 -
[240]
Edited by: The Ubernomicon on 11/06/2008 05:11:34 I am having a hard time believing that someone seriously compared issues in the CSM to Brown vs. Board of Education.
The only reason an alternative is allowed to vote is because someone had stuff that was more pressing then internet spaceship politics. When that person come in to an already started meeting it is only reasonable they assume the position they would have held normally.
At this time Jade has complete control of what topics are talked during the meetings. He also has control of when the meetings take place. Jade can stack votes by scheduling meetings to exclude members of the CSM. An example of this is happening Thursday. US based Reps who work a normal 8 to 5 schedule will not be able to attend the meeting. This specially targets Bane and Darius.
And to top it off he has the ability to mute people *HE* views are being disruptive.
Members of the CSM have expressed the intent to put forward a vote to elect a new chair. In response Jade has clearly stated he has no intent of letting democracy runs it's course. He stated he will not allow any vote that reduces his power or threatens his ability to decide what the provided documentation means.
Jade has even gone a step further. He essentially vetoed a passed resolution, because he decided it not inline with the documentation provided by CCP. At the very least he could have raised his concerns to the other Reps and held another vote. Not Jade, he just decides it is not valid.
I am saddened by these events. The entity I am most upset with is not Jade, which is just being himself. CCP contrived this entire mess and has remained silent the entire time. It is about time CCP starts clarifying the documentation it wrote and not leave it up to the CSM.
|
|
Draven Stone
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:24:00 -
[241]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
At the time they did, but most hadn't read the appropriate documentation and since the vote outcome contradicts the role of alternates on the CSM I'm going to declare it void pending feedback from CCP. I'm of the opinion now that we shouldn't be messing with the founding documentation - especially not in areas that concern voting privileges and the responsibilities and duties of CSM members.
You don't get to declare anything void, sunshine. The whole reason you are having these excrutiatingly boring votes is because the meaning of a lot of the CSM documents are unclear. The votes were meant to clarify existing issues, such as "how do alternates work?", "What power is available to the chairman to direct conversation", etc. Given the lack of direction from CCP, you have a responsibility to ensure that all members agree on how it should work, and then act in the agreed-upon manner until CCP explicitly states otherwise.
You were quite happy to go along with this process until a decision was made that you didn't agree with. As soon as this happened, you began acting like a spoiled child, showing zero respect for the wishes of your council members. You tried to change the wording of the resolution after it had been adopted, because you didn't agree with it. You tried to bully people into changing their vote. You muted people that called you out on your unjustifiable actions. And now, after presumably losing the confidence of your peers in your ability to run the chair, you've decided that you have the power to void the entire process, in effect making the hours and hours of tedious debate you've presided over even more worthless?
It bears repeating: who the hell do you think you are? You casually write off what the CSM has done thus far because you've changed your mind, and consider yourself within your rights to do so? How do you propose to deal with the vagueness of procedures governing (for example) alternates, now that you've grandly declared that agreed-upon measures don't apply?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:25:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting:
"and Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM."
I took a rule that you couldn't reasonable arrive late and dislodge an alternate sworn in as a representative for that meeting.
You are not entitled to rule on the CSM document and make rules based on said reading.
Actually, that's one power he really ought to be exerting more often. The rules of order exist, the Chair interprets them, and the Council can overrule with 2/3. That's how it works in Robert's Rules, and it's fairly common in other rules of order too. Would have neatly cleaned up the issue of abstaining, too - interpret, maybe get a challenge, but it's disposed of. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:41:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting:
"and Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM."
I took a rule that you couldn't reasonable arrive late and dislodge an alternate sworn in as a representative for that meeting.
You are not entitled to rule on the CSM document and make rules based on said reading.
Actually, that's one power he really ought to be exerting more often. The rules of order exist, the Chair interprets them, and the Council can overrule with 2/3. That's how it works in Robert's Rules, and it's fairly common in other rules of order too. Would have neatly cleaned up the issue of abstaining, too - interpret, maybe get a challenge, but it's disposed of.
I am sorry, but we are not using Robert's Rules and there is nothing to interpret. There is no "sworn in" nor was he "accepted for the duration of the meeting". All of these are made up fantasies of Jade Constantine. Except for the Robert's Rules part. Those are fantasies of everyone else who has to deal with Jade Constantine subverting the process when things don't go his way.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:43:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Kelsin Ianna I think the CSM documentation contradicts you pretty directly as described above, where it says that Alternates serving on the Council in place of Reps are fully equal to Reps themselves.
To say an Alternate serving on the council in place of a Rep can be displaced at a non-serving Rep's leisure is to treat them unequally, since the non-serving Rep cannot displace another Rep instead. The RL example being the USA's Brown vs. The Board of Education which said that "separate but equal is not equal". If a serving Alternate is subject to some effect that a serving Rep is not, then they are not being treated equally.
Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:49:00 -
[245]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=793804
Adopt this issue reps. Its to clarify standing orders in an official document.
I hadn't read the end of the minutes when I wrote it, so feel free to clarify the discussion points in it. |
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:54:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.
It is a procedural issue, however. It should be addressed better before it leads to a problem, such as a delegate returning mid-vote and demanding their vote be counted even though the alternate has already voted, or some such.
Anyway, not holding out much hope. Most of the folks on the council seem to have their head up their ass, or an agenda. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:56:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, but we are not using Robert's Rules and there is nothing to interpret. There is no "sworn in" nor was he "accepted for the duration of the meeting". All of these are made up fantasies of Jade Constantine. Except for the Robert's Rules part. Those are fantasies of everyone else who has to deal with Jade Constantine subverting the process when things don't go his way.
No, we're not using any rules of order, and that's the problem. But that said, I've never seen a set of rules of order anywhere - legislatures, committees, courtrooms, whatever - that do not give the presiding officer the power to be the first interpreter of the rules of order that the meeting is operating under. The two powers fundamental to the Chair are the power to moderate discussions(including ejection in extreme cases) and the power to interpret the rules of order - it's what being the Chair means. Any conceivable rules of order give those two powers to the Chair, because without those powers being somewhere the meeting will almost inevitably descend into anarchy at some point(cf. half of the last meeting), and there is no logical place to vest those powers except the presiding officer of the meeting - i.e., the Chair. Trying to operate without those powers in place is insanity - it'd be like deleting the Crown from the Westminster system, the whole thing just falls apart in extremis. And given how this CSM seems to be functioning, "in extremis" is a thrice weekly affair.
Originally by: Qaedienne
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.
It is a procedural issue, however. It should be addressed better before it leads to a problem, such as a delegate returning mid-vote and demanding their vote be counted even though the alternate has already voted, or some such.
Anyway, not holding out much hope. Most of the folks on the council seem to have their head up their ass, or an agenda.
Actually, that one was dealt with correctly at the beginning of the last meeting. Full points to the CSM there for a rational compromise. |
Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 06:29:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy (post here if you think Jade is dum)
Quoting myself from page 4. Nice to see so many of you agree with me. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:13:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
No, we're not using any rules of order, and that's the problem. But that said, I've never seen a set of rules of order anywhere - legislatures, committees, courtrooms, whatever - that do not give the presiding officer the power to be the first interpreter of the rules of order that the meeting is operating under. The two powers fundamental to the Chair are the power to moderate discussions(including ejection in extreme cases) and the power to interpret the rules of order - it's what being the Chair means. Any conceivable rules of order give those two powers to the Chair, because without those powers being somewhere the meeting will almost inevitably descend into anarchy at some point(cf. half of the last meeting), and there is no logical place to vest those powers except the presiding officer of the meeting - i.e., the Chair. Trying to operate without those powers in place is insanity - it'd be like deleting the Crown from the Westminster system, the whole thing just falls apart in extremis. And given how this CSM seems to be functioning, "in extremis" is a thrice weekly affair.
Well that is great. And when the council agrees on rules of order and when the rules of order give first interpretation to the chair then the chair will be right within their power to do so.
However, rules of order come about by votes in the political process. No body starts out and before it gets going has everything in place. No, they vote it out and get their rules of order in order by consensus or majority. Robert's Rules did not spring miraculously out of thin air, and nor have any rules for any governing body.
Jade doesn't want to play by the rules. He usurps power he does not have, he invents rules and order that do not exist, he interprets original documents which is outside his scope, and attempts to modify the result of votes already recorded.
Its perfectly reasonable, especially for a small body such as this one to operate by majority or consensus and adopt rules in such a manner. There was a problem "how do we deal with x" they voted on it, it was accepted. Except that since it didn't go the way Jade voted he mis-characterizes the vote. And then when another vote does not go the way he wants, he badgers equal representatives into changing their votes.
It simply does not work that way. And if there is any passage of the original document that directly shows that it is the one where it says "all voting members are equal". Equal does not include more rights than others. Ever. And that means that there can be no right of the chairman to interpret anything first. And there can be no right of the chairman to veto and there can be no right of the chairman to prevent others from discussing or voting.
Sorry, if anything the powers described and actions taken are expressly forbidden. |
Sarmaul
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:29:00 -
[250]
Wait, goum is still hounding the CSM after losing miserably (both in votes and behaviour)? |
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:35:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Sarmaul Wait, goum is still hounding the CSM after losing miserably (both in votes and behaviour)?
No, where have you been? |
Narine Evan
Derelik Capital Constructions
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 09:30:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Sarmaul Wait, goum is still hounding the CSM after losing miserably (both in votes and behaviour)?
Yes, where have you been?
There we go fixed that for you.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:11:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.
Hey Herschel - I'm not saying anyone is bound by a decision made in any other system. I'm just drawing on the logic used there because it applies here given what is in the CSM document - if you like, forget I brought up that example, the argument is the same without it.
You say "You're not supposed to be equal" but the CSM document directly contradicts you and that's what needs to be recognized.
Having some special status while serving at a council meeting whereby you can be bumped as soon as some person not at that meeting decides its time, is not being equal to other people who do not have that special status. That's my point.
And maybe it's an arcane point and it probably doesn't matter - but Ianna clearly doesn't get it, and I think most of the rest of the council hasn't considered it much. But the equality argument based on the CSM document is pretty solid. |
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:21:00 -
[254]
Edited by: Halca on 11/06/2008 12:21:14
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.
Hey Herschel - I'm not saying anyone is bound by a decision made in any other system. I'm just drawing on the logic used there because it applies here given what is in the CSM document - if you like, forget I brought up that example, the argument is the same without it.
You say "You're not supposed to be equal" but the CSM document directly contradicts you and that's what needs to be recognized.
Having some special status while serving at a council meeting whereby you can be bumped as soon as some person not at that meeting decides its time, is not being equal to other people who do not have that special status. That's my point.
And maybe it's an arcane point and it probably doesn't matter - but Ianna clearly doesn't get it, and I think most of the rest of the council hasn't considered it much. But the equality argument based on the CSM document is pretty solid.
They are only equal in the context of when they are substituted for an absent member. I don't understand how you guys struggle with this concept so much. Alternates are clearly not equal to standing CSM delegates by virtue of the fact that they don't get to vote unless they are substituting. The key point is when they attain equality and when they lose it. |
Brock Brannigan
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:23:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Brock Brannigan on 11/06/2008 12:23:29 bah stupid alt. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:35:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Halca They are only equal in the context of when they are substituted for an absent member. I don't understand how you guys struggle with this concept so much. Alternates are clearly not equal to standing CSM delegates by virtue of the fact that they don't get to vote unless they are substituting. The key point is when they attain equality and when they lose it.
Halca, I think the bit "while serving on the council" indicates clearly that they gain that equality when they are asked to step in and they do not lose it until the meeting is over. At the next meeting the Chair calls in the Representatives (and any Alternates needed, in order per the CSM document) and the process begins anew.
"When" is pretty clear - and it's strange to think that the When is arbitrarily based on when a Rep chooses to re-enter the chamber, because that gives the absent Rep power over an Alternate that they do not have over one of the first 9 Reps, which is unequal.
|
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:42:00 -
[257]
Edited by: Halca on 11/06/2008 12:42:12
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Halca They are only equal in the context of when they are substituted for an absent member. I don't understand how you guys struggle with this concept so much. Alternates are clearly not equal to standing CSM delegates by virtue of the fact that they don't get to vote unless they are substituting. The key point is when they attain equality and when they lose it.
Halca, I think the bit "while serving on the council" indicates clearly that they gain that equality when they are asked to step in and they do not lose it until the meeting is over. At the next meeting the Chair calls in the Representatives (and any Alternates needed, in order per the CSM document) and the process begins anew.
"When" is pretty clear - and it's strange to think that the When is arbitrarily based on when a Rep chooses to re-enter the chamber, because that gives the absent Rep power over an Alternate that they do not have over one of the first 9 Reps, which is unequal.
They are substitutes for someone absent. If the absentee returns they are no longer needed. They are not equal when the person they replaced returns. This is logic. Insisting that this is some sort of subversion is sensationalist for the sake of it. We are not talking about life changing decisions here, we're talking about spaceships.
The equality statement is there to allow alternates to vote with equal voice while they are substituting. It does not state anywhere that they should remain in the meeting for any length of time. It makes sense to allow them to stay for the conclusion of an issue they have become involved with in the process of substituting for an absentee but once that person returns, it is simply an arbitrary decision to say whether they should stay for the remainder of the meeting or leave once the issue has been concluded and in this sense they are not equal and implying that's what the document states is clearly disengenuous.
Now you have got me talking on CSM points which I argued against the CSM itself doing yesterday. If there is a problem understanding something (and there clearly is) then CCP should be approached. If CCP want the CSM or the chair to arbitrate and construct rules then they should unequivocably state this. All arguments about the finer points before this occcurs are pointless and irrelevant.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:54:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Halca The equality statement is there to allow alternates to vote with equal voice while they are substituting. It does not state anywhere that they should remain in the meeting for any length of time. It makes sense to allow them to stay for the conclusion of an issue they have become involved with in the process of substituting for an absentee but once that person returns, it is simply an arbitrary decision to say whether they should stay for the remainder of the meeting or leave once the issue has been concluded and in this sense they are not equal and implying that's what the document states is clearly disengenuous.
(Heh, sorry for getting you into a debate, I just find this stuff interesting, and it is funny that we're having a "Constitutional argument" over internet spaceship politics)
It's not disingenuous, that's actually what the document says - and all it says - about Alternates. You're adding an additional interpretation when you say that the equal clause "only applies until the Rep gets back". If you read over the CSM documents there's nothing at all about Reps stepping out of the chamber for a while and having an Alternate take their place until they come back. All it says about Alternates is that if a Rep cannot attend a meeting, the Alternate replaces them and when serving in that capacity they are equal to all other Reps.
I maintain the argument that if you can be bumped out of the meeting at any time, you are not equal to other Reps who cannot be bumped out.
|
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 13:12:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Halca The equality statement is there to allow alternates to vote with equal voice while they are substituting. It does not state anywhere that they should remain in the meeting for any length of time. It makes sense to allow them to stay for the conclusion of an issue they have become involved with in the process of substituting for an absentee but once that person returns, it is simply an arbitrary decision to say whether they should stay for the remainder of the meeting or leave once the issue has been concluded and in this sense they are not equal and implying that's what the document states is clearly disengenuous.
(Heh, sorry for getting you into a debate, I just find this stuff interesting, and it is funny that we're having a "Constitutional argument" over internet spaceship politics)
It's not disingenuous, that's actually what the document says - and all it says - about Alternates. You're adding an additional interpretation when you say that the equal clause "only applies until the Rep gets back". If you read over the CSM documents there's nothing at all about Reps stepping out of the chamber for a while and having an Alternate take their place until they come back. All it says about Alternates is that if a Rep cannot attend a meeting, the Alternate replaces them and when serving in that capacity they are equal to all other Reps.
I maintain the argument that if you can be bumped out of the meeting at any time, you are not equal to other Reps who cannot be bumped out.
If they were equal then all alternates would vote all the time. They do not. They are only equal for the purposes of replacing an official rep and when the rep cannot be at the meeting. You have stated this yourself. If a rep returns the replacement is no longer needed. This seems pretty simple to me.
You are talking about one case where someone can't attend a meeting and extending it into the situation where someone is late to a meeting or someone needs to step away for a time. You've also stated yourself that the document does not state any rules in this regard so why are you also extending an argument to say it does? In my estimation common sense would dictate that while a rep cannot be present a substitute should be called for and when they are present the substitute should step down. I don't think that is too much of an extension and does not in any way impinge on the rights of an alternate in voting when they are there.
Rules and exceptions should be made to err on the side of the reps, not the alternates because they are alternates.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 13:54:00 -
[260]
Edited by: Goumindong on 11/06/2008 13:57:47
Originally by: Kelsin You're adding an additional interpretation when you say that the equal clause "only applies until the Rep gets back". [cut for space]
If the equal standing does not end when the first elected rep gets back, when does equal standing end?
Since the document defines no end point except by defining the terms of which alternates serve "when the representative cannot attend". If you are saying that when the representative returns the alternate is still entitled to vote, then either the alternate can never be displaced and the council is now 10 members. Or the representative can never return.
Both of these interpretations are ridiculous. And they are the only options that must necessarily flow from your interpretation of the language. But you support neither of these. You support something entirely different. You support the representative coming back at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the duration that "he was unable to attend". This is a direct contradiction of any reading of the language.
Furthermore, there is no "additional interpretation" about it "only applies until the rep gets back". The equality clause states that the alternate has equality when acting as an alternate. Such, the equality clause only applies during the time that the alternate can be acting for the first elected representative.
Such you then find in the document where it says when alternates take that position. Only during the time in which the document says alternates take that position does the equality apply.
Here is a good example. Suppose you and your mother were having an argument. You wanted to play video games and stay up late, and your father wanted you to go to bed at 9 PM sharp. So your mother says "you can stay up and play video games as long as you want when your father is not home". Because she doesn't care so long as your father doesn't find out.
Now, if you went to her later and said "father left for an hour then returned, so i stayed up and played video games for four hours because that was as long as i wanted to" she would say "You're grounded, the section regarding as long as you wanted only applied when your father was not here, once your father returned, that part no longer applied and you could no longer play video games as long as you wanted but had to go to bed".
You are the one saying that the result applies regardless of the condition, when instead the result only occurs when the condition is met.
When do they have equality? When serving in a voting capacity for a representative. When do they serve in a voting capacity for a representative? When the representative is unable to attend. If the representative is present is the representative unable to attend? No, if the representative is present the representative is able to attend, since if the representative were unable he could not be present. If the representative is able to attend does the alternate serve in a voting capacity? No. If the alternate is not serving in a voting capacity do they have equality? No.
The resolution reached by the council is actually more lenient than a strict reading of the language. It gives more rights to the alternates by ensuring that agenda items are completed as a whole. Its the equivalent to your mom saying "its o.k. if you finish that level so you can save" instead of her walking in and shutting your game system down. Its a reasonable compromise that both upholds the integrity of the representative while not wasting an alternates time by making him take part in a discussion where he will not vote, or the councils time by having to repeat information or wait for the representative to catch up and state their case.
|
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:46:00 -
[261]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 11/06/2008 14:47:47 Good lord look at all these interpretations. Let's be clear on something. The statement in the document regarding equal standing is in effect ONLY when people are serving as representatives. The equal standing clause ONLY applies to representatives.
There is OBVIOUS ambiguity when it comes to whether or not an alternate can be called in during a meeting and then unseated when the elected official returns. We sought to clarify this with a vote. The results were not liked and were unilaterally overturned. Hopefully CCP will provide further clarification since voting on the issue democratically has been deemed by one to be insufficient. I have to wonder what the whole point is at that point but it is what it is. Some of us think it's a council and others a dictatorship.
I believed that line to be a boilerplate and common statement in documents of this type which in essence merely states that for purposes of voting all votes are equal. Jade got 43 or so votes more than Hardin but in terms of voting Jade's votes do not count for any more. I believe that to be pretty much the sole purpose of this paragraph of the document. That all reps are equal.
CCP openly stated that they wanted us to "fill in the blanks". We attempted to do so. Someone didn't like the results. Now we have to wait for CCP to say again "Fill in the blanks" because obviously the first time wasn't good enough. Really as far as I'm concerned it's all just a waste of time as there was never any need for this stupid circlejerk of a "leadership" structure in the first place. Someone has interpreted a "chair" as being some form of absolute leader over a council of adults and we've wasted ****loads of time debating that, when in reality everyone should just shut up and talk about spaceships. Sure someone needs to schedule meetings and organize the agenda, but 9 adults do not need to be lorded over, muted or told how to vote.
This ONLY works if the person asserting they have some form of "power" doesn't use it or abuse it. I don't think I'm wrong in stating that there at least 8 people on the council that would love to be discussing Eve. Discussing and voting on issues related to a videogame as adults. Not as insignificant children who need to be herded or lead by some self-appointed demigod.
All of this debate is an unfortunate distraction from the issues at hand and has really shown the worst sides of some people, but I also don't think many are surprised whatsoever. Personally I'm going to remember that a snake is a snake. If someone brings it into your house it's going to bite you. You can't hate the snake for being a snake. I believe CCP's hope was that these things could be worked out reasonably internally but I believe you can all see from the results of last weekend's vote and subsequent "overturning" of that vote that this is simply not going to happen. I personally hold CCP far more accountable for the current status than I do Jade.
I don't like snakes but common sense dictates that I blame their appearance in the chicken coop on the people who put them there. This is just plain stupid and unfortunately a democratic solution will not be allowed to prevail. At least if nothing else we're proving to CCP why their proposed "structure" is silly at best. |
Yorda
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:52:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Good lord look at all these interpretations. Let's be clear on something. The statement in the document regarding equal standing is in effect ONLY when people are serving as representatives. The equal standing clause ONLY applies to representatives.
There is OBVIOUS ambiguity when it comes to whether or not an alternate can be called in during a meeting and then unseated when the elected official returns. We sought to clarify this with a vote. The results were not liked and were unilaterally overturned. Hopefully CCP will provide further clarification since voting on the issue democratically has been deemed by one to be insufficient. I have to wonder what the whole point is at that point but it is what it is. Some of us think it's a council and others a dictatorship.
I believed that line to be a boilerplate and common statement in documents of this type which in essence merely states that for purposes of voting all votes are equal. Jade got 43 or so votes more than Hardin but in terms of voting Jade's votes do not count for any more. I believe that to be pretty much the sole purpose of this paragraph of the document. That all reps are equal.
CCP openly stated that they wanted us to "fill in the blanks". We attempted to do so. Someone didn't like the results. Now we have to wait for CCP to say again "Fill in the blanks" because obviously the first time wasn't good enough. Really as far as I'm concerned it's all just a waste of time as there was never any need for this stupid circlejerk of a "leadership" structure in the first place. Someone has interpreted a "chair" as being some form of absolute leader over a council of adults and we've wasted ****loads of time debating that, when in reality everyone should just shut up and talk about spaceships. Sure someone needs to schedule meetings and organize the agenda, but 9 adults do not need to be lorded over, muted or told how to vote.
This ONLY works if the person asserting they have some form of "power" doesn't use it or abuse it. I don't think I'm wrong in stating that there at least 8 people on the council that would love to be discussing Eve. Discussing and voting on issues related to a videogame as adults. Not as insignificant children who need to be herded or lead by some self-appointed demigod.
All of this debate is an unfortunate distraction from the issues at hand and has really shown the worst sides of some people, but I also don't think many are surprised whatsoever. Personally I'm going to remember that a snake is a snake. If someone brings it into your house it's going to bite you. You can't hate the snake for being a snake. I believe CCP's hope was that these things could be worked out reasonably internally but I believe you can all see from the results of last weekend's vote and subsequent "overturning" of that vote that this is simply not going to happen. I personally hold CCP far more accountable for the current status than I do Jade.
I don't like snakes but common sense dictates that I blame their appearance in the chicken coop on the people who put them there. This is just plain stupid and unfortunately a democratic solution will not be allowed to prevail. At least if nothing else we're proving to CCP why their proposed "structure" is silly at best.
Hahaha, a goon being the voice of reason. The CSM really is that terrible. |
Hamfast
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:53:00 -
[263]
I hate to admit this, but I have to agree with Goumindong... it seems quite straight forward to me...
At some point in a meeting, if one of the 9 CSM Representatives is not able to be there for what ever reason, then an alternate steps in. at this point the alternate is an equal member for voting purposes, their vote counts just like the rest of the 9... if the Missing Representative arrives, returns or otherwise shows up, the Alternate would be required to step aside (if mid-vote, the elected representative may wish to allow the alternate to complete the vote if they feel their vote, after missing the prior discussion, would be uninformed, but this would be up to the representative, not the chair or the alternate).
Regardless of the make up of the CSM, rules like this all need to be defined in a way that limits the ability to interpret them, in this case I think they were (the not available clause).
If you wanted to clarify this better, there is no reason why all 14 Representatives (9 CSM members and 5 Alts) should not make an effort to be in and be included in all online meetings, this way the Alternates are informed if asked to step in for a time. The alternates could add to the discussion (within reason) but would only be able to vote if they were acting in the stead of one of the 9.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:24:00 -
[264]
A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council membersùin any combination of Alternatives and Representativesùare present. The published meeting notes will display the members in attendance, and the main Transcript Vault will keep a running tally of the meeting attendance of all Representatives. Where applicable, Representatives are encouraged to post chat logs as a supplement to the meeting notes as well. The recommended guideline for meetings is at least once per week,with a minimum of nine Representatives present.
This is from the CSM documents. The interesting part is highlighted by italics...
Maybe alternates, once given voting status, keep it for the rest of the meeting, regardless of how many representatives come after they do?
Take care, Bruce Hansen
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:50:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Arithron A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council membersùin any combination of Alternatives and Representativesùare present. The published meeting notes will display the members in attendance, and the main Transcript Vault will keep a running tally of the meeting attendance of all Representatives. Where applicable, Representatives are encouraged to post chat logs as a supplement to the meeting notes as well. The recommended guideline for meetings is at least once per week,with a minimum of nine Representatives present.
This is from the CSM documents. The interesting part is highlighted by italics...
Maybe alternates, once given voting status, keep it for the rest of the meeting, regardless of how many representatives come after they do?
Take care, Bruce Hansen
Another way to look at that is that a meeting needs a combination of nine (reps and alternates to begin) but it remains quorate as long as there is a combination of seven reps and alternates present. Of course this is me guessing and its very ambiguous - lets add it to list of things we need clarified by ccp I guess.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:56:00 -
[266]
Quote: As regards my own UI issues, in writing them up for CCP consideration I had already split them up individually. So far as I can see, in my own cases all the comments were (s) positive, and (b) covered all the contained issues, so I see no reason to suggest that they need additional time in what is solely a different presentational format. What other CSM members feel I can't say, but I would suggest that where a discussion thread has covered the proposals then it has covered the proposals no matter what the exact presentation
Inanna,
You need to split the issues apart for presentation to the PLAYERS and for discussion and voting by REPRESENTATIVES. The issues, if successful through the CSM vote, then are presented to CCP.
Currently, by lumping issues in together, players can not coherently discuss and debate each issue seperately, and arguments and discussions are hard to follow through a thread. It will be even harder when a particular issue is a source of contention or needs changing due to overlooked ramifications.
Additionally, when presented in a CSM meeting, having multiple issues makes discussion about each one much harder, if not impossible (eg, 60+ issues on Science and Industry). Each issue must be able to be discussed and debated in a CSM meeting by the representatives. A clear yay or nay vote on EACH issue must also be made by the CSM. By having multiple issues together, this is impossible. Poor issues get through the entire process, and CSM representatives get no opportunity to vote them down, without rejecting many good issues. The same is also true when a few good issues are amoungst many bad ones.
Your issues may all be good and serve the greater needs of the EVE players. However, it is important ALL issues are presented the SAME way and equal opportunity given to each issue for every player and representative to discuss/debate and the representatives to vote on.
Take care, Bruce Hansen |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:56:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Arithron A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council membersùin any combination of Alternatives and Representativesùare present. The published meeting notes will display the members in attendance, and the main Transcript Vault will keep a running tally of the meeting attendance of all Representatives. Where applicable, Representatives are encouraged to post chat logs as a supplement to the meeting notes as well. The recommended guideline for meetings is at least once per week,with a minimum of nine Representatives present.
This is from the CSM documents. The interesting part is highlighted by italics...
Maybe alternates, once given voting status, keep it for the rest of the meeting, regardless of how many representatives come after they do?
Take care, Bruce Hansen
The point I think all of us in the council were in agreement on is that the document in this regard is ambiguous as I said. It doesn't say when voting status is given or whether an alternate serves for the entire meeting or only until the representative occurs. It gives precisely ZERO guidance in this regard. That's why we held the vote. We don't vote just to vote. There was a gap we tried to fill.
We can posit 101 maybes as regards this but at the end of the day the fact is that the document does not give guidance in that regard and the chair decided the vote didn't count. What this means is on CCP's lap as the chair has the potential to simply mute anyone who doesn't abide by their interpretation of the rules and has removed any ability for the council to remedy or reconcile this.
It's effectively the chair's show at this point until CCP does or doesn't say otherwise. I don't believe the document says that the chair should wield supreme power or even any really either but the ability to kick and mute without any recourse pretty much seals the deal as the chair's show. There is no remedy except via CCP. They made that possible. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:59:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Goumindong If the equal standing does not end when the first elected rep gets back, when does equal standing end?
Since the document defines no end point except by defining the terms of which alternates serve "when the representative cannot attend". If you are saying that when the representative returns the alternate is still entitled to vote, then either the alternate can never be displaced and the council is now 10 members. Or the representative can never return.
Both of these interpretations are ridiculous. And they are the only options that must necessarily flow from your interpretation of the language. But you support neither of these. You support something entirely different. You support the representative coming back at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the duration that "he was unable to attend". This is a direct contradiction of any reading of the language.
Furthermore, there is no "additional interpretation" about it "only applies until the rep gets back". The equality clause states that the alternate has equality when acting as an alternate. Such, the equality clause only applies during the time that the alternate can be acting for the first elected representative.
Such you then find in the document where it says when alternates take that position. Only during the time in which the document says alternates take that position does the equality apply.
Here is a good example. Suppose you and your mother were having an argument. You wanted to play video games and stay up late, and your father wanted you to go to bed at 9 PM sharp. So your mother says "you can stay up and play video games as long as you want when your father is not home". Because she doesn't care so long as your father doesn't find out.
Now, if you went to her later and said "father left for an hour then returned, so i stayed up and played video games for four hours because that was as long as i wanted to" she would say "You're grounded, the section regarding as long as you wanted only applied when your father was not here, once your father returned, that part no longer applied and you could no longer play video games as long as you wanted but had to go to bed".
You are the one saying that the result applies regardless of the condition, when instead the result only occurs when the condition is met.
When do they have equality? When serving in a voting capacity for a representative. When do they serve in a voting capacity for a representative? When the representative is unable to attend. If the representative is present is the representative unable to attend? No, if the representative is present the representative is able to attend, since if the representative were unable he could not be present. If the representative is able to attend does the alternate serve in a voting capacity? No. If the alternate is not serving in a voting capacity do they have equality? No.
The resolution reached by the council is actually more lenient than a strict reading of the language. It gives more rights to the alternates by ensuring that agenda items are completed as a whole. Its the equivalent to your mom saying "its o.k. if you finish that level so you can save" instead of her walking in and shutting your game system down. Its a reasonable compromise that both upholds the integrity of the representative while not wasting an alternates time by making him take part in a discussion where he will not vote, or the councils time by having to repeat information or wait for the representative to catch up and state their case.
I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm quoting Goumindong for truth. He's exactly right. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:02:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Goumindong If the equal standing does not end when the first elected rep gets back, when does equal standing end?
Well when the meeting ends the Alternate ceases to serve in the meeting and the equality issue goes away. When the next meeting is set up the first 9 Reps are again requested to attend and if one or more can't Alternates can be called in their place. You'll note that the CSM document doesn't say Alternates "jump in" when a Rep has to step out, it says they are asked to attend the meeting when a Rep cannot make the meeting. So the whole subbing in, subbing out thing is not covered in the CSM document, except where it cautions against using Alternates lightly. Technically I think according to the CSM document you could start a meeting with 8 Reps (the minimum for a valid meeting is 7) if someone is going to be five minutes late. Likewise if someone has to step out as long as the total doesn't go below 7 there's no conflict with the documentation. It's only situations where a Rep says they can't make it, or can only be there for a small portion of the meeting, that the documentation suggests an Alternate should be called in to serve for the meeting.
That said, it's academic as Darius noted. It's only of interest because obviously nobody considered what the CSM document said before the vote, and there are still some Reps, including Ianna, holding an interpretation that runs counter to what little can be found there. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:02:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Arithron
Inanna,
You need to split the issues apart for presentation to the PLAYERS and for discussion and voting by REPRESENTATIVES. The issues, if successful through the CSM vote, then are presented to CCP.
Currently, by lumping issues in together, players can not coherently discuss and debate each issue seperately, and arguments and discussions are hard to follow through a thread. It will be even harder when a particular issue is a source of contention or needs changing due to overlooked ramifications.
Additionally, when presented in a CSM meeting, having multiple issues makes discussion about each one much harder, if not impossible (eg, 60+ issues on Science and Industry). Each issue must be able to be discussed and debated in a CSM meeting by the representatives. A clear yay or nay vote on EACH issue must also be made by the CSM. By having multiple issues together, this is impossible. Poor issues get through the entire process, and CSM representatives get no opportunity to vote them down, without rejecting many good issues. The same is also true when a few good issues are amoungst many bad ones.
Your issues may all be good and serve the greater needs of the EVE players. However, it is important ALL issues are presented the SAME way and equal opportunity given to each issue for every player and representative to discuss/debate and the representatives to vote on.
Take care, Bruce Hansen
Bruce,
The issues we've been putting together to discuss are being put together as the players presented them. I think we can all agree that the issues forum is less than optimal in many many ways. Given that all we can do as a council is attempt to take the issues AS PROVIDED and STATED and attempt to re-frame them for discussion. If you don't like the way an issue is framed in the issue forum, frame it yourself another way. The council does not CREATE issues. We pass them on.
I understand your calls for clarity and agree with you. Perhaps your call should be raised as an issue on the issues forum so we can discuss it. We'd actually discussed the idea of even having all of these issues submitted by players in a template. The bottom line however is that it's our obligation to address these issues as they're presented. If they're given to us poorly in a lump by players then that's what we have to work with.
The end result will hopefully be much clearer when it's presented but it's not to us to take one issue and make it 20. It's not to us to do that in order for players to debate. The forum for debate is there though crappy and we have no control or input into the environment that takes place in aside from telling CCP we think it sucks. |
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:05:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong If the equal standing does not end when the first elected rep gets back, when does equal standing end?
Well when the meeting ends the Alternate ceases to serve in the meeting and the equality issue goes away. When the next meeting is set up the first 9 Reps are again requested to attend and if one or more can't Alternates can be called in their place. You'll note that the CSM document doesn't say Alternates "jump in" when a Rep has to step out, it says they are asked to attend the meeting when a Rep cannot make the meeting. So the whole subbing in, subbing out thing is not covered in the CSM document, except where it cautions against using Alternates lightly. Technically I think according to the CSM document you could start a meeting with 8 Reps (the minimum for a valid meeting is 7) if someone is going to be five minutes late. Likewise if someone has to step out as long as the total doesn't go below 7 there's no conflict with the documentation. It's only situations where a Rep says they can't make it, or can only be there for a small portion of the meeting, that the documentation suggests an Alternate should be called in to serve for the meeting.
That said, it's academic as Darius noted. It's only of interest because obviously nobody considered what the CSM document said before the vote, and there are still some Reps, including Ianna, holding an interpretation that runs counter to what little can be found there.
I will ask you not to put words or thoughts into the heads of people who voted. The document in no way runs counter to the results of the vote as I've stated. To say that "The people who voted clearly didn't take into account the document" is assinine and unfounded. The document is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that the majority of the council holds is different from yours. There is no one right answer to this question, but only one way to follow it. Thus the council voting. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:08:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I will ask you not to put words or thoughts into the heads of people who voted. The document in no way runs counter to the results of the vote as I've stated. To say that "The people who voted clearly didn't take into account the document" is assinine and unfounded. The document is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that the majority of the council holds is different from yours. There is no one right answer to this question, but only one way to follow it. Thus the council voting.
I'm not talking about the results of the vote - I think there's a fair argument to make that you work with what you got. I'm referring to Ianna's statement that Representatives and Alternates are not equal, when the documentation contradicts that and says that when serving in a meeting, they are. That's all. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:09:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I will ask you not to put words or thoughts into the heads of people who voted. The document in no way runs counter to the results of the vote as I've stated. To say that "The people who voted clearly didn't take into account the document" is assinine and unfounded. The document is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that the majority of the council holds is different from yours. There is no one right answer to this question, but only one way to follow it. Thus the council voting.
I'm not talking about the results of the vote - I think there's a fair argument to make that you work with what you got. I'm referring to Ianna's statement that Representatives and Alternates are not equal, when the documentation contradicts that and says that when serving in a meeting, they are. That's all.
Inanna is right as well. Representatives are equal. Alternates are not representatives. Only when they are appointed and BECOME representatives due to the lack of an elected one being there do they become equal. This paragraph states nothing more in my opinion than that all votes are equal and it's been overblown to hilarious proportions by sideline wannabe e-lawyers. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:10:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Bruce,
The issues we've been putting together to discuss are being put together as the players presented them. I think we can all agree that the issues forum is less than optimal in many many ways. Given that all we can do as a council is attempt to take the issues AS PROVIDED and STATED and attempt to re-frame them for discussion. If you don't like the way an issue is framed in the issue forum, frame it yourself another way. The council does not CREATE issues. We pass them on.
I understand your calls for clarity and agree with you. Perhaps your call should be raised as an issue on the issues forum so we can discuss it. We'd actually discussed the idea of even having all of these issues submitted by players in a template. The bottom line however is that it's our obligation to address these issues as they're presented. If they're given to us poorly in a lump by players then that's what we have to work with.
The end result will hopefully be much clearer when it's presented but it's not to us to take one issue and make it 20. It's not to us to do that in order for players to debate. The forum for debate is there though crappy and we have no control or input into the environment that takes place in aside from telling CCP we think it sucks.
Darius,
There are clear and easy steps that you can take to remedy the situation. You can vote down multiple issues presented and send them back to the players with the explanation "we cannot vote on multiple issues".
You can provide an area to discuss each issue in this very own forum where no one would be hindered by the support mechanism and could present logical arguments under threat of moderation by CCP.
The problem comes in that the CSM is fundamentally shirking its duty to have the public discussions required one each issue before voting. It is the result of these discussions that are to be taken to CCP based on the judgement of the CSM. It is not the CSMs duty to be a messanger to CCP. They can read the forums as well as anyone else. Its your duty to examine and judge what is important, to explain why, and explain reservations against possible fixes. I.E. to convey legitimate "DO WANTS" and "DO NOT WANTS". Its not happening.
But beyond that, its out of order according to the CSM document when said lump issues are presented since each issue needs to have its own separate discussion and vote. Just as it is beyond Jades power to veto bills its beyond the CSMs power to vote on the block issues and present them to CCP. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:14:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Kelsin
Well when the meeting ends the Alternate ceases to serve in the meeting and the equality issue goes away.
I am going to bold this so it gets though.
Unless the CSM document specifically says that the Alternate serves an entire meeting regardless of the attendance of the first elected representative then there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation, unless the CSM agree that that is the point at which they will return. You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:18:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Goumindong
Darius,
There are clear and easy steps that you can take to remedy the situation. You can vote down multiple issues presented and send them back to the players with the explanation "we cannot vote on multiple issues".
You can provide an area to discuss each issue in this very own forum where no one would be hindered by the support mechanism and could present logical arguments under threat of moderation by CCP.
The problem comes in that the CSM is fundamentally shirking its duty to have the public discussions required one each issue before voting. It is the result of these discussions that are to be taken to CCP based on the judgement of the CSM. It is not the CSMs duty to be a messanger to CCP. They can read the forums as well as anyone else. Its your duty to examine and judge what is important, to explain why, and explain reservations against possible fixes. I.E. to convey legitimate "DO WANTS" and "DO NOT WANTS". Its not happening.
But beyond that, its out of order according to the CSM document when said lump issues are presented since each issue needs to have its own separate discussion and vote. Just as it is beyond Jades power to veto bills its beyond the CSMs power to vote on the block issues and present them to CCP.
Goum...
Firstly there's a huge pink elephant in the room that everyone's ignoring in this regard and that's the fact that we were given a VERY limited timeline to get issues on the table to even bring to Iceland. That doesn't leave a lot of room to get the process perfect as we're having to spend all our time scrambling just to have issues to bring. The reason there's no time being given to debate is that CCP did not give us the time to debate. As many things as I have problems with this is a huge one and it's simply not the council's fault. Again, pretty cute idea but I feel the ball was completely dropped in the execution.
tl;dr the debate isn't happening because we haven't had sufficient time. Blame CCP. Regarding the CSM document... discussing that at all is a moot point because no votes will be allowed to be had on that. Raise it as an issue in the other forum and we'll see if bringing it to Iceland doesn't get unilaterally vetoed. (Hint: it's too late to do this as an issue has to exist for 7 days before brining it to council and CCP needs all issues 7 days before the meeting) |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:18:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Inanna is right as well. Representatives are equal. Alternates are not representatives. Only when they are appointed and BECOME representatives due to the lack of an elected one being there do they become equal. This paragraph states nothing more in my opinion than that all votes are equal and it's been overblown to hilarious proportions by sideline wannabe e-lawyers.
I can accept a standard of interpretation like that no problem, but the same kind of standard applies to ruckuses about the definition of what powers are involved in moderating a meeting, what constitutes "discussion", etc. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:21:00 -
[278]
Originally by: Kelsin
I can accept a standard of interpretation like that no problem, but the same kind of standard applies to ruckuses about the definition of what powers are involved in moderating a meeting, what constitutes "discussion", etc.
I agree. The difference of opinion lies in the difference between democracy and dictatorship. In one case the group decides it's a problem and steps up. In the other one person gets to decide what conversation is allowed by their own judgement. I do not think this was EVER remotely the intent of the CSM whatsoever. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:23:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Goumindong I am going to bold this so it gets though.
Unless the CSM document specifically says that the Alternate serves an entire meeting regardless of the attendance of the first elected representative then there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation, unless the CSM agree that that is the point at which they will return. You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth.
You're incorrect on all counts, despite the bolding. We can only agree to disagree Goum, as usual. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:26:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong I am going to bold this so it gets though.
Unless the CSM document specifically says that the Alternate serves an entire meeting regardless of the attendance of the first elected representative then there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation, unless the CSM agree that that is the point at which they will return. You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth.
You're incorrect on all counts, despite the bolding. We can only agree to disagree Goum, as usual.
And i am sure you are going to quote me the section that says "Alternates serve an entire meeting regardless of the attendance of the first elected representative"?
I am going to be very clear on this a second time. If such a passage exists, I am wrong and will retract all statements. If such a statement does not exist, then I am right and you are wrong.
So you say i am incorrect on all counts. Prove me wrong. That is all you have to do, page number and paragraph(preferably with the small or large document so i don't have to go fishing through two). It will be quite easy since, as you say, i am so clearly wrong. Right? |
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:30:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
tl;dr the debate isn't happening because we haven't had sufficient time. Blame CCP. Regarding the CSM document... discussing that at all is a moot point because no votes will be allowed to be had on that. Raise it as an issue in the other forum and we'll see if bringing it to Iceland doesn't get unilaterally vetoed. (Hint: it's too late to do this as an issue has to exist for 7 days before brining it to council and CCP needs all issues 7 days before the meeting)
Then you bring less. You've had 2 official meetings 7 days apart. You were not required to have game issues at both. It sucks, but its what you had to work with.
Its better to do it right and bring less issues, but more important ones with better input than it is to do it wrong and bring more issues with no direction and input.
Its too late now, but it wasn't when this was brought up(1 day after the first official meetings agenda was published, which was the second meeting by Jade Constantine's reckoning)
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:33:00 -
[282]
This is what you were incorrect about:
1) there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation
2) You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth.
Neither is correct. What I outlined is a reasonable reading (there are others), and it was based only on the CSM document and so not fabricated out of nothing.
Time to let it ride cause we're not going to agree.
Also, I agree with Darius regarding getting stuff done > rules lawyering, it's just fun to play constitutional law with internet spaceship councils.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:45:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Goumindong
Then you bring less. You've had 2 official meetings 7 days apart. You were not required to have game issues at both. It sucks, but its what you had to work with.
Its better to do it right and bring less issues, but more important ones with better input than it is to do it wrong and bring more issues with no direction and input.
Its too late now, but it wasn't when this was brought up(1 day after the first official meetings agenda was published, which was the second meeting by Jade Constantine's reckoning)
Not much I can do about it now. There's a lot about this process we clearly didn't anticipate. I personally could not conceive that CCP would allow this to be run this way. Next time around we'll put a Goon in the chair instead of assuming it's a democracy and we'll deal with it from there.
For now I work with what I have to work with. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:18:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Kelsin This is what you were incorrect about:
1) there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation
2) You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth.
Neither is correct. What I outlined is a reasonable reading (there are others), and it was based only on the CSM document and so not fabricated out of nothing.
Time to let it ride cause we're not going to agree.
Also, I agree with Darius regarding getting stuff done > rules lawyering, it's just fun to play constitutional law with internet spaceship councils.
Where did you outline it? I have explained three times how your "outline" based on equality is false. All you have said is "nuh uh".
You and Jade Constantine do not get to declare things the truth. You must present your argument or show the truth.
Show it or make your argument. Where is the statement in the document that defines what you are describing?
|
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:44:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Next time around we'll put a Goon in the chair instead of assuming it's a democracy and we'll deal with it from there.
So you guys pushed two representatives in order to have more votes, expecting a democracy. And for the next CSM term you're realizing that the way to power/control is to grab the Chair position, rather than more council votes.
Sounds like thinking has changed from "let's control the issues" to "let's control the whole CSM process", due to what's happening now. Yes, it's completely politics, on all sides involved, and has always been. Don't know if CCP expected anybody to do all the work of separating the signal from the noise for them for free and with their (or the game's) best interests at heart, but they were stupid if they did.
This is EVE's community, after all.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:10:00 -
[286]
Edited by: Arithron on 11/06/2008 18:10:52 Darius,
Actually, the multiples were presented by representatives, for example: Science and Industry (LaVista PDF document, 60+ issues).
Issues should be presented seperately- representatives should not support multiple issues (presented together as one topic/issue) in the issue forum or propose multiple issues.
Bruce
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:23:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Arithron Edited by: Arithron on 11/06/2008 18:10:52 Darius,
Actually, the multiples were presented by representatives, for example: Science and Industry (LaVista PDF document, 60+ issues).
Issues should be presented seperately- representatives should not support multiple issues (presented together as one topic/issue) in the issue forum or propose multiple issues.
Bruce
Bruce,
My apologies then I can't speak to what other people do. I've personally only adopted issues which were raised by others, with the exception of one which is pretty cut and dried. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll let LaVista handle his own laundry.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:25:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Letouk Mernel
If the CSM is a political body whose purpose is to alter game mechanics in the interest of various groups within the community, then everyone is on the right track here, and in fact you should form parties and have campaigns and all that stuff.
If the CSM, on the other hand, is supposed to just be a bunch of secretaries responsible for pointing CCP towards the various [issues], then why the hell did anyone sign up? One lousy trip to Iceland doesn't seem to be worth the effort/work.
The CSM wasn't defined well at all by anyone. You're right. As it stands today it's not worth the effort in my opinion and had it been done before and turned out this way I'm sure many people wouldn't have run. If it gets fixed then awesome. We'll just have to wait and see.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:52:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Goumindong You must present your argument or show the truth.
Show it or make your argument. Where is the statement in the document that defines what you are describing?
You may re-read all my posts above at your leisure. |
Kallynda Nai
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:38:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong You must present your argument or show the truth.
Show it or make your argument. Where is the statement in the document that defines what you are describing?
You may re-read all my posts above at your leisure.
Why? There's nothing of actual substance in them.
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 20:01:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong You must present your argument or show the truth.
Show it or make your argument. Where is the statement in the document that defines what you are describing?
You may re-read all my posts above at your leisure.
Treat me like an idiot who is unable to scroll up. Lay out the argument step by step. Feel free to include a rebuttal to the CSM document which clarifies when the alternate is equal and when they are not. |
Fallorn
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 21:06:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Kallynda Nai
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong You must present your argument or show the truth.
Show it or make your argument. Where is the statement in the document that defines what you are describing?
You may re-read all my posts above at your leisure.
Why? There's nothing of actual substance in them.
It's called the LALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU defense. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
|
vanda wolternix
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 13:37:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Hardin Edited by: Hardin on 09/06/2008 16:57:30
Quote: I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
I suppose you would have preferred sheep eh Jade?
Priceless !!!!!
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:15:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Arithron on 13/06/2008 22:15:38 Doh! |
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 06:55:00 -
[295]
Edited by: Tzar''rim on 17/06/2008 06:56:36 There is a difference between people who take on responsiblities and power because they feel it needs to be done and step up to the plate, and people who want power because of... power.
From my IRL experience and having lead/joined many a guild/corp/whatever in my gaming life; the people who write the most for the sake of creating walls of text tend to be bureaucrats who talk about ranks and rules while making 'use' of those same ranks by misusing/abusing any powers they might have.
In other words; they waste time and effort while completely swamping any serious discussion in useless crap about rule 85 section E and how that interferes with rule 37 Sub A.
Is anyone really surprised?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |