Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adhamhnon
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:10:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Adhamhnon on 09/06/2008 16:13:54 After reading the lengthy chatlog of the recent meeting of the CSM, it becomes quite apparent that they really need a neutral arbitrator torun the meetings. Someone with no vote, who enforces rules of order and the like, and can keep the meeting from turning into a free for all. It was quite clear that Inanna didn't think Jade had the authourity to give "warnings" and it was also clear that Jade was frustrated by what he felty were disturbances to the voting process.
This could be solved by someone with no personal agenda as a representative conducting the meeting in a neutral fashion. This person would have no vote, and their only goal would be to make sure that everything is handled fairly and even handedly. Something along the lines of the parliamentary "Speaker of the House" (at least the way it's used here in Canada.)
---------------------------------
KSUDruid stole my coffee table. :(
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:23:00 -
[2]
more people, more imaginary and misunderstood powers, more fail ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:28:00 -
[3]
To clarify re Originally by: Adhamhnon It was quite clear that Inanna didn't think Jade had the authourity to give "warnings"
I am quite happy that a Chair should be able to warn a member that they have done something clearly *wrong* but in both cases, as I had not (indeed past meetings have had comments from others clearly disruptive to the smooth flow of the meeting) I asked for a clarification of what I was supposed to have done and what a "warning" actually signified.
Instead of getting answers to my questions (and neither did others get responses when they asked) I was muted and locked out of the discussion. imho far exceeding any 'authority' that the Chair may have.
IZ
My principles |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:34:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 16:37:04
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
I am quite happy that a Chair should be able to warn a member that they have done something clearly *wrong* but in both cases, as I had not (indeed past meetings have had comments from others clearly disruptive to the smooth flow of the meeting) I asked for a clarification of what I was supposed to have done and what a "warning" actually signified.
I had clearly explained the process in the previous meeting:
[ 2008.05.31 19:26:41 ] Jade Constantine > let me address the muting stuff [ 2008.05.31 19:26:59 ] Jade Constantine > As chair I would take the following steps on moderation: [ 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 [ 2008.05.31 19:27:43 ] Jade Constantine > I hope these are steps that will never be needed
(this led to a vote on the principle of operator rights that confirmed that CSM officers would maintain operator rights)
Yesterday I took your request for re-clarification of this statement on record to be spurious and again an attempt to prevent the vote in progress from coming to a conclusion.
Quote: Instead of getting answers to my questions (and neither did others get responses when they asked) I was muted and locked out of the discussion. imho far exceeding any 'authority' that the Chair may have.
The discussion was over. We'd moved to the vote. You were not locked out of the discussion. You were muted to prevent you continuing to obstruct the process of the vote. As you can see from the timing of the log I attempted to un-mute you the moment after I formally called for voting preferences.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:59:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 16:37:04
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
I am quite happy that a Chair should be able to warn a member that they have done something clearly *wrong* but in both cases, as I had not (indeed past meetings have had comments from others clearly disruptive to the smooth flow of the meeting) I asked for a clarification of what I was supposed to have done and what a "warning" actually signified.
I had clearly explained the process in the previous meeting:
[ 2008.05.31 19:26:41 ] Jade Constantine > let me address the muting stuff [ 2008.05.31 19:26:59 ] Jade Constantine > As chair I would take the following steps on moderation: [ 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 [ 2008.05.31 19:27:43 ] Jade Constantine > I hope these are steps that will never be needed
(this led to a vote on the principle of operator rights that confirmed that CSM officers would maintain operator rights)
Yesterday I took your request for re-clarification of this statement on record to be spurious and again an attempt to prevent the vote in progress from coming to a conclusion.
Quote: Instead of getting answers to my questions (and neither did others get responses when they asked) I was muted and locked out of the discussion. imho far exceeding any 'authority' that the Chair may have.
The discussion was over. We'd moved to the vote. You were not locked out of the discussion. You were muted to prevent you continuing to obstruct the process of the vote. As you can see from the timing of the log I attempted to un-mute you the moment after I formally called for voting preferences.
You're grasping at straws if you think any amount of silencing a person on that council for any circumstance is acceptable.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
You're grasping at straws if you think any amount of silencing a person on that council for any circumstance is acceptable.
Obviously I disagree with you. (I'm disagreeing with a lot of goons today it seems).
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:11:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
You're grasping at straws if you think any amount of silencing a person on that council for any circumstance is acceptable.
Obviously I disagree with you. (I'm disagreeing with a lot of goons today it seems).
Say the Guy Role Playing e-Hookers :rolleyes:
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:20:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jade Constantine [ 2008.05.31 19:26:41 Jade Constantine > let me address the muting stuff [ 2008.05.31 19:26:59 ] Jade Constantine > As chair I would take the following steps on moderation: [ 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 [ 2008.05.31 19:27:43 ] Jade Constantine > I hope these are steps that will never be needed
(this led to a vote on the principle of operator rights that confirmed that CSM officers would maintain operator rights)
Stop Lying liar.
This is the vote in question
[2008.05.31 19:31:38 ] Jade Constantine >Everyone in favour of everyone having op rights in the CSM channel say aye : [ 2008.05.31 19:31:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah >Yes for universal op rights. [ 2008.05.31 19:31:45 ] Inanna Zuni >Aye [ 2008.05.31 19:31:52 ] Darius JOHNSON >no [ 2008.05.31 19:31:55 ] Jade Constantine >Nay [ 2008.05.31 19:31:56 ] Serenity Steele >No [ 2008.05.31 19:31:56 ] Dierdra Vaal >aye [ 2008.05.31 19:31:58 ] LaVista Vista >Nay [ 2008.05.31 19:32:04 ] Bane Glorious >gonna go with nay [ 2008.05.31 19:32:21 ] Tusko Hopkins >Aye [ 2008.05.31 19:32:43 ] Jade Constantine >thatĘs a No then ...
So it looks like you are again redefining a vote to suit your needs. Note how there is nothing in that vote that says "The CSM Chairman retains OP rights and the ability to mute others" it simply says that this right should not be given to everyone. It does not say, anywhere that the right should be given to anyone, just that it should not be given to everyone
The discussion then moved on to the template document.
|
Adhamhnon
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:45:00 -
[9]
I think this again demonstrates the need for a neutral arbitrator with no vote. Clearly there is a point of view issue here, and neither side is being objective on the issue. This is what I believe in the end will make the CSM useless. Some good things were done in that meeting, but it has already started to degenerate. Personalities will always clash, as will ideas and what some people think is right and wrong. A neutral arbitrator with a clearly defined set of rules and practices can help keep the process working, instead of degenerating into a free for all. ---------------------------------
KSUDruid stole my coffee table. :(
|
Hardin
Praetoria Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:56:00 -
[10]
I choose Verone...
Maybe SirMolle ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
|
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:17:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Dex Nederland on 09/06/2008 18:17:30 Chribba might also be a good choice.
|
Jacque Custeau
Knights of the Minmatar Republic
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:31:00 -
[12]
Isn't there some sort of Scandinavian word for this kind of role? Ombudsman? Is that what this arbitrator would be? -------------------
|
Adhamhnon
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 19:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jacque Custeau Isn't there some sort of Scandinavian word for this kind of role? Ombudsman? Is that what this arbitrator would be?
An ombudsman is more of a supervisory position that would check onthings for the public interest. (like a legislative investigator.) What I'm thinking of is someone who would attaempt to keep the peace in a CSM meeting using something like "Robert's Rules of Order" or something similar, so that issues could be discussed and voted on without bogging down forever, and things could be accomplished. It also has the advantage of helping meetings not become overlong, etc. ---------------------------------
KSUDruid stole my coffee table. :(
|
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 19:50:00 -
[14]
Arbitrators are cool but you might need something with more firepower here. Perhaps an Abaddon.
------------------------------------------------
|
Jita Jolene
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:29:00 -
[15]
All that needs to happen here is for the CSM who do not have the floor to SHUT UP, until the Chair gives them the floor. That is the essence of their job. If the Chair fails to fairly grant the floor, ask CCP to replace them.
Looking at the logs, it is obvious half of the group have no clue how to behave in a text meeting. The next meeting should have Jade directly giving the floor to an individual, priority based on the item list sponsor as a primary speaker and secondarily to impromptu requests for the floor. In all cases the only interruption is a ! in the chat.
Abuse and repeated interjection would be the only justification for muting. In the case of this meeting, it was chaos from the start due to people feeling anarchy was the mode and nobody was their boss. Somebody is different, and that is the chairman. They sort the traffic.
Word to the chairman: Never paraphrase the content of a vote. Cut and paste verbatim.
Word to the committee: Shush till you have the floor!
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:36:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jita Jolene Word to the chairman: Never paraphrase the content of a vote. Cut and paste verbatim.
Word to the committee: Shush till you have the floor!
This, and everything will be fine.
|
Adonis 4174
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:10:00 -
[17]
Yes.
To properly fulfil their roles CSM members must be emotionally invested in their motions.
To properly maintain order a speaker must be emotionally detatched.
CSM members can't act as speaker as well as debating motions. ---- Infiniband can do more than just prevent lag |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:12:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jita Jolene All that needs to happen here is for the CSM who do not have the floor to SHUT UP, until the Chair gives them the floor. That is the essence of their job. If the Chair fails to fairly grant the floor, ask CCP to replace them.
Looking at the logs, it is obvious half of the group have no clue how to behave in a text meeting. The next meeting should have Jade directly giving the floor to an individual, priority based on the item list sponsor as a primary speaker and secondarily to impromptu requests for the floor. In all cases the only interruption is a ! in the chat.
Abuse and repeated interjection would be the only justification for muting. In the case of this meeting, it was chaos from the start due to people feeling anarchy was the mode and nobody was their boss. Somebody is different, and that is the chairman. They sort the traffic.
Word to the chairman: Never paraphrase the content of a vote. Cut and paste verbatim.
Word to the committee: Shush till you have the floor!
Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll try my best to make sure this happens.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:08:00 -
[19]
Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 10/06/2008 00:08:26 [wrong thread]
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:04:00 -
[20]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
The motion failed, thus the status quo remained as it was before. This implicitly confirms the officers as having operator rights.
You vote simple yes/no. You do not have the power to vote towards an idea. The vote was whether or not everyone had power. The vote was no.
There was no "implicit confirmation of operator rights". There was no "implicit confirmation of the right of the Chairman to mute".
Pull your nose out of Jades ass and examine the facts of the situation. Jade was abusing his power. Jade got called on it. Jade muted and then kicked the person calling him on it.
|
|
Kis Kecheri
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 20:58:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
The motion failed, thus the status quo remained as it was before. This implicitly confirms the officers as having operator rights.
You vote simple yes/no. You do not have the power to vote towards an idea. The vote was whether or not everyone had power. The vote was no.
There was no "implicit confirmation of operator rights". There was no "implicit confirmation of the right of the Chairman to mute".
Pull your nose out of Jades ass and examine the facts of the situation. Jade was abusing his power. Jade got called on it. Jade muted and then kicked the person calling him on it.
No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification.
Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:05:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification.
Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough.
I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened? |
Jamie Hara
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:06:00 -
[23]
I agree with Adhamhnon. The CSM could use a guiding hand. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:13:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification.
Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough.
I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened?
He underlined it in the post you quoted.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:28:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification.
Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough.
I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened?
He underlined it in the post you quoted.
No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:33:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Goumindong No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna.
Making a statement that contradicts the truth is, in some quarters, referred to as "lying".
|
Kis Kecheri
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:38:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification.
Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough.
I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened?
He underlined it in the post you quoted.
No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna.
Show me were in the logs that Jade muted then kicked Inanna? It doesn't. In fact the logs show that she wasn't on the blocked list and rejoined after an invite. Inanna said she didn't leave on purpose so the only reasonable conclusion was the system auto-kicked her during the mute period.
You said Jade kicked Inanna on purpose. The logs refute that. Thus, you were lying.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:45:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna.
Making a statement that contradicts the truth is, in some quarters, referred to as "lying".
Only if its intentional. Such I am asking him to substantiate his claim, if its true, and the logs do indeed show that Inanna was accidentally kicked from the channel and Jade attempted to unmute her, then I am wrong and will retract my statement.
There is a very simple resolution here, and i suggest you take it.
|
Kis Kecheri
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 22:05:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry the logs show no such thing, nor would they necessarily show all kicks(especially if the kick was performed by removing someone from the invited lis)t. Nor do channels work the way you state in eve. You are invited and can join at any time if you are on the list. When you are invited you are added to the list. That Inanna was only able to rejoin once she was invited again is evidence that she was removed from said list. This is the way non-public channels in eve work.
Said evidence directly contradicts your claims which is that the logs show that it was an accident. You made that claim, and i would love to see what substantiated it.
Wrong. You made the original posit. Jade kicked Inanna. The logs, not just the system msg, but the other members declaring that she wasn't on the blocked list, show that this was not the case. Thus you have no evidence other then conjecture to make such a statement.
You can't make a baseless posit then try to dismiss a counter-argument on the fact that points out the negative.
Really, this is logical argument 101. You are trying to 'win' this by making the challenger to your posit prove a negative.
The logs, all of it, show that your original statement has no support.
[ 2008.06.08 21:45:45 ]Jade Constantine >she quit the channel apparently [ 2008.06.08 21:46:14 ]Jade Constantine >she isn't blocked from rejoining [ 2008.06.08 21:46:50 ]Ankhesentapemkah >she's locked out of the channel though [ 2008.06.08 21:47:27 ]Dierdra Vaal >she isnt on the blocked list
|
The MapMaker
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 22:15:00 -
[30]
It has been previously stated the kick was likely a side-effect of Eve's unwieldy chat system; to remove someone from the muted list also removes them from the conversation, or something. Regardless, the issue here is Jade muting a CSM member after being called out for childishly putting spin on the outcome of a vote that did not go his way- whether or not said objector was later kicked is irrelevant to the meat of the issue.
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 22:27:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
Wrong. You made the original posit. Jade kicked Inanna. The logs, not just the system msg, but the other members declaring that she wasn't on the blocked list, show that this was not the case. Thus you have no evidence other then conjecture to make such a statement.
I do not think you understand how private channels work in Eve. There is no "blocked list" there is an "approved list" if you are not on the "approved list" you do not get in. You are on the "approved list" from the point you are invited to the time someone removes you.
When I make a private channel i do not have to block the entirety of Eve from joining, they are by default until I invite them. Its an "invite-only" channel.
If she was removed from that list the channel would neither show it as far as i can tell. Nor would she be able to get back in.
Now i just went and did some testing, And when you unmute someone it kicks them from the channel AND removes them from the list AND sends a message to the system that the person has been muted.
Note that this shows up twice after the initial muting by Jade, which was 30 minutes for some ungodly reason that anyone would think they would take 30 minutes to get to the vote. But if it showed up twice then Jade would have had to unmute Inanna twice. And doing such would have meant that she knew what would happen when She would unmute someone. I can understand the mistake the first time. But not the second.
|
Kis Kecheri
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 22:58:00 -
[32]
Then after all this testing to see exactly what would actually happen you still think Jade intentionally muted and kicked Inanna on purpose from the start or are you now changing it to "Jade figured out how the system worked and engineered a method to kick maliciously after some trial and error?"
This is a lot of hoop jumping.
Absurdum reductum: Jade mutes Inanna with the desire to unmute soon after. The system kicks her at the unmute without anyone realizing it and people eventually figure it out. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:07:00 -
[33]
I can't believe you are still arguing about this seriously. Get a sense of perspective already! I muted a member of the CSM. Yep I did it! I was the moderator (Chair) for a live discussion in a chat channel that lasted 4 hours and near the end of that time I ended up taking a decision that was backed by my (Vice Chair) to temp mute a CSM rep for as long as it took me to state the terms we were voting on. HINT: (while the chair is stating terms for a vote people are not supposed to be talking in channel ANYWAY). If you look at the log you'll see that first mute notification when I clicked mute. You'll see me state the terms of the vote and say "now vote!" and you'll see a second mute notification (that was actually through ccp's twisted logic) me clicking "un-mute" being recorded as a "kick from channel".
What followed was people voting and then us wondering where the muted CSM rep had gone (thinking of course that it was quick duration mute/unmute) not a bloody channel kick. Froth and emoism followed.
So ultimately here's the story.
1 CSM Chair (with responsibility to moderate a meeting) 2. Moderates the meeting. 3. Moderation involves a temp mute that goes horribly wrong due to ccp bugs. 4. Muted rep is un-muted and given the option to vote.
10,000 alts and forum trolls cry about it on the forum.
Good heavens, talk about a pathetic over-reaction to a routine matter of moderating a chat channel. I've been in meetings of caffeine-crazed stock-brokers being told they aren't getting their full Christmas bonus that involved less crying and gnashing of teeth than this topic.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:14:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri Then after all this testing to see exactly what would actually happen you still think Jade intentionally muted and kicked Inanna on purpose from the start or are you now changing it to "Jade figured out how the system worked and engineered a method to kick maliciously after some trial and error?"
This is a lot of hoop jumping.
Absurdum reductum: Jade mutes Inanna with the desire to unmute soon after. The system kicks her at the unmute without anyone realizing it and people eventually figure it out.
Reduction to absurdity is a rhetorical technique not an argument. You are thinking of Occoms Razor. However, the razor says that the explanation must account for all evidence. It does not, since there are three total mute messages. Your explanation only works if there are only two mute messages contained in the logs.
|
Kis Kecheri
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:23:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Kis Kecheri on 10/06/2008 23:25:56
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kis Kecheri Then after all this testing to see exactly what would actually happen you still think Jade intentionally muted and kicked Inanna on purpose from the start or are you now changing it to "Jade figured out how the system worked and engineered a method to kick maliciously after some trial and error?"
This is a lot of hoop jumping.
Absurdum reductum: Jade mutes Inanna with the desire to unmute soon after. The system kicks her at the unmute without anyone realizing it and people eventually figure it out.
Reduction to absurdity is a rhetorical technique not an argument. You are thinking of Occoms Razor. However, the razor says that the explanation must account for all evidence. It does not, since there are three total mute messages. Your explanation only works if there are only two mute messages contained in the logs.
It was more a label for my thoughts I was writing then a counter-point reply. Though, now that I think about it, I should have just left it off and stated Occam's Razor.
Tell me Goumindong. How exactly does one reproduce those 3 messages? Wouldn't it be odd to mute, then unmute twice? It sounds far more like a technical error or ignorant fumbling with the system then someone maliciously hovering over the 'kick' button on purpose.
Again, your scenario would have Jade realizing how the system works first through trial and error during the meeting then maliciously abusing the mechanics to kick Inanna on purpose.
If Jade knew what was actually happening you think he would complicate matters by having to explain and fabricate ignorance? For what purpose? |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
Tell me Goumindong. How exactly does one reproduce those 3 messages? Wouldn't it be odd to mute, then unmute twice? It sounds far more like a technical error or ignorant fumbling with the system then someone maliciously hovering over the 'kick' button on purpose.
When you mute some you get a mute message. The channel gets a mute message possibly with a purpose.
When you unmute someone that has been muted you kick them from the channel. The channel gets a mute message with no purpose.
At the time of the second "mute" message, Inanna had been kicked from the channel. At the time of the third, she had been kicked for a second time. This is consistent with her telling of the tale.
Not knowing accounts for the first kick(I.E. the second mute), but not the second kick(I.E. the third mute)
|
Kis Kecheri
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:03:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Kis Kecheri on 11/06/2008 00:05:19
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
Tell me Goumindong. How exactly does one reproduce those 3 messages? Wouldn't it be odd to mute, then unmute twice? It sounds far more like a technical error or ignorant fumbling with the system then someone maliciously hovering over the 'kick' button on purpose.
When you mute some you get a mute message. The channel gets a mute message possibly with a purpose.
When you unmute someone that has been muted you kick them from the channel. The channel gets a mute message with no purpose.
At the time of the second "mute" message, Inanna had been kicked from the channel. At the time of the third, she had been kicked for a second time. This is consistent with her telling of the tale.
Not knowing accounts for the first kick(I.E. the second mute), but not the second kick(I.E. the third mute)
That doesn't make sense from reading the logs. Can you corrolate that scenario to the actual minutes of the meeting?
Are you saying Inanna was muted, unmuted-kicked, reinvited didn't say anything, muted, un-muted kicked, and then reinvited?
I don't see how someone could be kicked twice in a row through the unmuted system without jumping through hoops.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:16:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kis Kecheri Edited by: Kis Kecheri on 11/06/2008 00:05:19
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kis Kecheri
Tell me Goumindong. How exactly does one reproduce those 3 messages? Wouldn't it be odd to mute, then unmute twice? It sounds far more like a technical error or ignorant fumbling with the system then someone maliciously hovering over the 'kick' button on purpose.
When you mute some you get a mute message. The channel gets a mute message possibly with a purpose.
When you unmute someone that has been muted you kick them from the channel. The channel gets a mute message with no purpose.
At the time of the second "mute" message, Inanna had been kicked from the channel. At the time of the third, she had been kicked for a second time. This is consistent with her telling of the tale.
Not knowing accounts for the first kick(I.E. the second mute), but not the second kick(I.E. the third mute)
That doesn't make sense from reading the logs. Can you corrolate that scenario to the actual minutes of the meeting?
Are you saying Inanna was muted, unmuted-kicked, reinvited didn't say anything, muted, un-muted kicked, and then reinvited?
I don't see how someone could be kicked twice in a row through the unmuted system without jumping through hoops.
Look at the minutes and go test it yourself. Its not difficult just create a channel and then fiddle with the settings.
|
Trojanman190
Altruism. Malice.
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:19:00 -
[39]
This entire thread clearly shows why you children need parent. Chirriba or Verone or someone with the ability to enforce the rules who has absolutely no say on the council. I agree completely with Adhamhnon.
|
JafoPBCFR
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:39:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
You're grasping at straws if you think any amount of silencing a person on that council for any circumstance is acceptable.
Obviously I disagree with you. (I'm disagreeing with a lot of goons today it seems).
really I agree with the player that you quoted. And im not a goon.
Also when a member asks what the disruption they are getting the warning for. the chair is required to explain why.
But not jade. no he has his own agenda to press on.
BTW does everything with revolve around Goon swarm? Are you that tunnel visiond that you cant represent those who your charged?
Everypost and i mean everyone you have to make some sort of GOON remark as to make the post against you invalid.
NEWS FLASH KIDDO! Not everyone in eve is a goon and not all players who post side with you that arent goons. Get the clue Kid and make it fast.
|
|
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:58:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Adhamhnon
This could be solved by someone with no personal agenda as a representative conducting the meeting in a neutral fashion.
No such person exists. |
Adhamhnon
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 21:25:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Cursive
Originally by: Adhamhnon
This could be solved by someone with no personal agenda as a representative conducting the meeting in a neutral fashion.
No such person exists.
Really? Chribba comes to mind off the top of my head. Seems a very trustworthy individual, who is completely neutral in the situation. Personally I think I'm fairly neutral in this as well, I think everyone's coming across looking like an idiot. If not a community member, what about a CCP representitive who's sole purpose is to keep the peace. Seems like they'd have an interest in it as well.
---------------------------------
KSUDruid stole my coffee table. :(
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 21:53:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Cursive
Originally by: Adhamhnon
This could be solved by someone with no personal agenda as a representative conducting the meeting in a neutral fashion.
No such person exists.
That's not true i'm sure there are more then a few people who could do such a thing. The real issue is the power of the chair and the rights CCP have given said chair. If you look at Roberts rules of order and how the chair is not supposed to come into play into the discussion at all unless he is there to break a tie in the vote and run the agenda. He is not supposed to set said agend only add the items requested of the members. This is the real issue with what's going on Jade isn't being a Chair he is being a dictator. |
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:02:00 -
[44]
Goum, give up.
find something else to troll. You come across as just about anything but sincere.
Jade is chair. Chair has power to moderate. Argue all you like about whether they should be the only one with ops or if a paraphrased vote didn't implicitly mean that. Chair outlined rules for speaking and consequences. Chair enacted those rules. A member of the committee refused to acknowledge the chairs authority to maintain order in the meeting. Sucks to be them, they are wrong.
Should the Chair have absolute power or should they be given guidelines? I'd say guidelines. Who gives the guidelines? CCP.
Issue isn't really more than a waste of time at player level. |
teji
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 01:59:00 -
[45]
CCP needed a neutral chair the moment they dreamed up this mess. Jade is unable to distance him or herself from the matters that are being discussed. Things degrade as a partial moderator has no power to actually moderate.
In addition Jade believes that this chair position has some sort of god power to mandate things. It doesn't. Sorry...
I would envision a CCP employee who chairs and gives different people the floor to speak. Even though they are somewhat biased it won't be some half crazed madman who has no ability to communicate with people of this reality. |
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 03:05:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Sapphrine Goum, give up.
find something else to troll. You come across as just about anything but sincere.
Jade is chair. Chair has power to moderate. Argue all you like about whether they should be the only one with ops or if a paraphrased vote didn't implicitly mean that. Chair outlined rules for speaking and consequences. Chair enacted those rules. A member of the committee refused to acknowledge the chairs authority to maintain order in the meeting. Sucks to be them, they are wrong.
Should the Chair have absolute power or should they be given guidelines? I'd say guidelines. Who gives the guidelines? CCP.
Issue isn't really more than a waste of time at player level.
Meeting moderaion has a different traditional meaning to chat channel moderaation. I grant is vague, but it does seem to be clarified with the notion that the committe is democratic.
I would thus argue that no, the mute power isn't implied by it at all. |
Felix Dzerzhinsky
Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 12:04:00 -
[47]
Peter should be chair - he created the whole thing. ----
GO BLUE!! |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |