open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM5 Meeting 014 Saturday February 12 2011 @ 17:00
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.01.23 18:31:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 12/02/2011 18:16:38
The purpose of this thread is to announce a CSM working meeting and permit delegates to identify the issues and other CSM business matters they wish to raise at that meeting.

CSM5 Meeting 014 will take place Saturday 12 Feburary 2011 @ 17:00 EVE time. All CSM5 Delegates and Alternates are invited to attend. The deadline for Delegates to submit issues for the agenda is Friday 11 February 2011 at 20:00. To get an issue added to the agenda, CSM Delegates must post the issue title in this thread and link it to the the issue's CSM wiki page (NOT its thread in these forums). A maximum of 9 issues will be considered in the meeting. Delegates are encouraged to post multiple issues; issues will be addressed in rotating order, 1 per delegate, until the max is reached.

Note to Community: CSM working meetings generally rotate between 2nd Saturday/4th Sunday dates unless circumstances force a variance.

=============================

Agenda

A. Introduction
-- Roll Call
-- Reminders

B. Issues

-- (Mazz) Declassify Old CSM Communications wiki


C. Other Business

-- (Dierdra Vaal) Call for a vote to permanently exclude pilots from future participation in the CSM if they are removed from CSM for breaking the NDA. wiki
-- CSM6 Election page




D'Leh Mannuck
Posted - 2011.01.24 09:25:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
(Dierdra Vaal) Call for a vote to permanently exclude pilots from future participation in the CSM if they are removed from CSM for breaking the NDA.




This has nothing to do with the CSM. It's at CCP's discretion to exclude former CSM for breaking the NDA.
The CSM's sole duty exsists in giving the community a voice in regards to the game. Whether someone is excluded from the future CSM's however has nothing to do with the game as it is.


Kitty McKitty
Gallente
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.01.24 22:07:00 - [3]
 

Quote:
C. Other Business

-- (Dierdra Vaal) Call for a vote to permanently exclude pilots from future participation in the CSM if they are removed from CSM for breaking the NDA.
-- TBD


What purpose does this serve? Are you under threat from a previous delegate? It should be at the discretion of CCP and them alone to make a ruling of this precedent.

Last I heard it was a breach of EULA for players to form a witchhunt against individuals.

Max Kolonko
Caldari
Worm Nation
Ash Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.25 18:23:00 - [4]
 

agree - this is not something CSM should discuss. Its CCP's authority.

Its if like some local governor elected by local citizens, stated that from now on, people that i dont like cant participate in next election.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:21:00 - [5]
 

Opinions noted. Thanks for the feedback. Regardless, though, when a delegate requests a CSM-related topic be added to the agenda for a vote, it gets added. Opinions for or against and related details will shake out in the discussion during the meeting.


Killer Gandry
Caldari
Shadow of the Pain
Posted - 2011.01.26 11:57:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Killer Gandry on 26/01/2011 15:31:07
Originally by: Mynxee
Opinions noted. Thanks for the feedback. Regardless, though, when a delegate requests a CSM-related topic be added to the agenda for a vote, it gets added. Opinions for or against and related details will shake out in the discussion during the meeting.




Since when is the exclusion of a player from the CSM a CSM related issue?

If you could point me out where in the extensive rulebook of the CSM a none related topic should be even adressed I am happy to show you where the exclusion of part or the whole game is a pure CCP matter.

And yes CSM is a part of the game since CSM is only in place to relay player/game related issues to CCP.

I fail to see where the exclusion of someone from the CSM due to an issue between that person and CCP is player or gamerelated.

This whole subject reeks more to a personal vendetta than anything else and only hurts the CSM as a credible group.


Just on a sidenote:
This is taken from Assembly Hall.

Edited by: mazzilliu on 22/01/2010 05:37:50

In this forum, any EVE player can raise an issue for debate.

The best and most supported of these issue threads are picked up by the CSM for debate. The issues that pass debate are bought to CCP, and if CCP consents, the issues get implemented into the game.


Edit to add Assembly Hall post.

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2011.01.26 20:53:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 26/01/2011 21:19:12
I saw this and at first decided I wasn't going to comment (and perhaps indeed I shouldn't). It seems that CCP, in their wisdom (or lack thereof depending on your views), are going to allow me to run again for the CSM this term. Whether or not I do is still up in the air, it all depends on dates, work commitments and, considering how serious the CSM has gotten, whether or not I feel if I'd be capable of stepping up to the plate to do a good job of representing the players.

I can understand DV's concerns. What I did was unspeakably stupid, and noone knows this more than me, both from a personal standpoint and with regards to the CSM process as a whole and I wouldn't have batted an eyelid at a permaban from the game and permanent exile from Iceland. However, that wasn't the case and I was told that, given time, I would be allowed to run in the future, ISTR words like 'redemption' and 'coming back stronger' being used. From an internet law(l) standpoint there was no provision in the CSM White Paper banning one from running again after an infraction as a member when it was published during my election. The fact that I'm getting a look in again and that I wasn't exiled is perhaps testament to how much they thought of my abilities and performance before the 'event' (to relieve the pressure in my head before it explodes due to my ego I'll say I find this both humbling and hard to believe).

Yes, there is of course a perceived risk to the CSM if I find myself allowed to run, or even get a spot on the council again. Both to the procedure as a whole, some would say it would discredit it, and that I'll do something silly again... Well, I don't think there's much to fear. I'm very much a reformed character and having seen CCP Arkanon in the flesh I shudder to think what would happen if I fouled up for a second time (note, he's a thouroughly nice chap but has the appearance of a WWII era French Resistance assassin).

I'd rather suffer my defeat at the hands of the people after a hard fought campaign (given the calibre of some who have stated there intention to run I'll have to work hard to prevent this if I decide to run) than in a closed discussion dominated by personal agendas.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:16:00 - [8]
 

Regardless of the subject of Larkonis himself, the CSM has, and should have no say in the matter of who is allowed to run or not. Eligibility is a CCP issue, not a CSM issue.

It would set a very bad precedent. What's next, the CSM deciding every candidate must be in a player corporation? Or maybe nobody should be allowed to run who hasn't lived in 0.0 for at least a year? Or is not a member of an alliance of at least 1000 people? Or that the man/woman parity at the CSM must be representative of the playerbase and that only one woman can have a seat at any time?

Thanks, but no thanks.


Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2011.01.26 21:37:00 - [9]
 

There seems to be a lot of BS posted as to what CSM can and can't recommend. Fact is CSM is elected and so long as they comply with their ndas they can recommend *whatever* they want. If players don't like what they do they can elect someone else. In the meantime CSM is elected and it is their business what they want to propose to ccp.

Its not like ccp has a decent track record of listening the csm anyway. I don't see why we should *make up* further restrictions as to what csm can do out of thin air. So yeah csm has the authority to adopt this proposal.

As to this particular issue I hope csm decides *not* to recommend this proposal to ccp. I hope csm takes the approach, as much as ccp will allow, that *the players* can decide who is on the csm. The limitations on candidacy should be kept to a minimum.

It seems larkonis owned up for what he did. He likely could have easily fought and denied these allegations. (like a certain other former csm…) But it appears he was honest about what he did when it was pointed out to him. He dealt with the embarrassment he had coming and didn’t lie about it and never even tried to minimize it.

Some players may forever be shocked and horrified they he bought things on the eve market based on what he heard at a csm meeting. They will never vote for him no matter how much he can help the game. That is their choice. But the other players should be able to weigh in on what he has to say about the game.

It really is a shame in our society that people like Martha Stewart lie lie and lie some more, about what they did and they are right back in business. But someone is honest about what they did and people are relentless trying to tear them down. Give it a rest.

TLDR:
CSM should not shirk their responsibility and *make up*rules claiming they have no jurisdiction. But when they do address this issue they should vote the proposal down and let players decide who they want on csm.


Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.26 23:48:00 - [10]
 

My personal inclination at this point is that, like Meissa, I do not believe I can support DV's proposal.

While I understand where DV is coming from, Larkonis violated an NDA with CCP, not with the CSM. As such, CCP has discretion to decide what consequences are appropriate, from a slap on the wrist all the way up to lawsuits and (my personal favorite) ninja death squads.

IMHO there has to be some discretion, so that CCP can deal appropriately with edge cases, such as an accidental NDA breach caused by a misaddressed email. Those of us who live in the United States are perhaps a bit sensitive to this issue, as we have seen first-hand the problems caused by "Zero Tolerance" policies.

The above should not be construed as support for a Larkonis candidacy, as he tried to troll my election thread last time, and I have a long memory.

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.01.27 03:32:00 - [11]
 

I was going to wait until the meeting, but as CSM are putting their opinions on the table already, I will post a summary of my post in the CSM internal forum

Quote:
It is not the job of the CSM to decide who is eligible to run, that is CCP's call and they have made it.

How bad would it be if the sitting CSM (many who are going to run again) are seen to be influencing CCP's decision on who can and can't run against them.


CCP have said that Lark can run and if he decides to do so many people will use the insider trading to discredit his campaign. He'll just have to deal with it.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2011.01.27 06:38:00 - [12]
 

It may just be me, and DV feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that Lark is collateral damage on this one.

Killer Gandry
Caldari
Shadow of the Pain
Posted - 2011.01.27 07:16:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
It may just be me, and DV feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that Lark is collateral damage on this one.


I am a tad more blunt Sir.

For those not able to read between the lines.

Is this more directed towards Lark or perhaps Ankh as Hershel suspects.

Thing is that you have set an air asif you are using the CSM for certain personal agenda's and this is a bad thing. A very bad thing.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2011.01.27 10:27:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
It may just be me, and DV feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that Lark is collateral damage on this one.

Larkonis is exactly the reason that item was put on the agenda, any other consideration is accidental.

Dodgy Past
Amarr
Digital Fury Corporation
Posted - 2011.01.27 12:35:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Dodgy Past on 27/01/2011 12:46:28
The fortunate thing with Lark is that the information on what he did is publicly available and therefore we can make up our own minds as to whether we want to support him again.

What this conversation does bring up is the issues that might come about when someone whose actions have been buried wants to run, though I'm guessing those would be seen as more serious infractions that would mean CCP chose to permanently ban that individual from running for the CSM.

I have to say that if this is a personal attack on Lark then I'm horrified that any CSM member would think that was an appropriate use of their power. DV can you explain your reasons for this proposal since I think the playerbase now deserve a clear explanation of your motives so that we can be informed as how you intend to use your position within the CSM next time if you get in.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2011.01.27 16:04:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze
I was going to wait until the meeting, but as CSM are putting their opinions on the table already, I will post a summary of my post in the CSM internal forum

Quote:
1) It is not the job of the CSM to decide who is eligible to run, that is CCP's call and they have made it.

2) How bad would it be if the sitting CSM (many who are going to run again) are seen to be influencing CCP's decision on who can and can't run against them.


3) CCP have said that Lark can run and if he decides to do so many people will use the insider trading to discredit his campaign. He'll just have to deal with it.


These are really 3 different arguments. I altered you quote to make this clear.

The first argument seems to be that csm lack authority to make a recommendation on this issue. But it’s sort of poorly worded. CSM does not make *any* “decisions” on the game at all. They merely *recommend* proposals. If you mean to say “it is not the job of the csm to *recommend* who should be eligible to run.” Then I disagree. I think CSM is fully within their rights to make any recommendations they want regarding any aspect of the game.

What if it appeared ccp was considering that *only* players who work for ccp are going to be eligible to run for csm, thus pretty much defeating the whole idea? Couldn’t csm recommend that they not implement this? Sure they could. CSM could also make recommendations about whether someone would be ineligible to run again after serving a certain number or terms etc.

Your second argument is not whether you *can* vote on this type of proposal but rather whether you *should*. CSM does not need to address every issue they have the power to address. This is a argument (a good one I might add) that csm should not start taking votes on these matters unless there is a very good reason. But it is not saying you can’t do it. I am not sure if there is a procedure as to what csm will and will not vote on.

The third argument is just a simple but good argument why the proposal should be voted down. It has nothing to do with csm’s authority but instead addresses the merits of the proposal.

I think this clarification is important because I have seen this “authority issue” come up before and cloud issues. For example mazz had a proposal that ccp employees play eve. This was apparently rejected in part because some on csm thought they had no authority to make this recommendation. I have no idea why they thought that. Certainly no document was provided to support the claim that csm has a limited scope as to what they can recommend. I think the csms scope of authority as to what they can recommend is very large. IMO CSM members shouldn’t punt issues due to unsubstantiated claims that it is not within the scope of their job.

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.01.27 17:26:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Cearain
The first argument seems to be that csm lack authority to make a recommendation on this issue. But it’s sort of poorly worded. CSM does not make *any* “decisions” on the game at all. They merely *recommend* proposals. If you mean to say “it is not the job of the csm to *recommend* who should be eligible to run.” Then I disagree. I think CSM is fully within their rights to make any recommendations they want regarding any aspect of the game.

I should have been more specific. "It is not the job of the CSM to decide if an individual is eligible to run". Yes CSM can and do make recommendations about the CSM process (in fact the requirement to supply a campaign message was one of them), however now is not the appropriate time to attempt to change parts of the election application process. At the end of the day CCP reserve the right to exclude a candidate's application.


Please note that only two people have left CSM due to NDA issues. One publicly apologised, resigned and was told by CCP that he could apply again in future. The other was removed and AFAIK hasn't been allowed to run again. I believe CCP should continue making case by case decisions based on the severity of the infraction rather than a blanket ban.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.01.28 03:42:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 28/01/2011 03:46:58
Edited by: Mynxee on 28/01/2011 03:42:54
Just to clarify: This agenda item is NOT a formal proposal of the same kind you see in Assembly Hall. I would characterize it more as an administrative vote to recommend an "official" CSM stance on the matter to CCP. What CCP does is up to them; they run the show when it comes to policies that control who can and can't run for CSM.

Since opinions are being aired here, I will share mine. I respect DV and can agree with the ideology that moved him to call for this vote, which is a strong desire to avoid potential damage to CSM credibility by preventing previous NDA-breakers back on the Council. However, I will vote against the measure. CCP have made their decision about Lark. I cannot support asking them to do an about-face on the matter. It is too late to impose such a policy for CSM6 candidacy. Besides, I believe that Lark has paid his penance, sincerely regrets what he did, will not repeat the mistake, and has a lot to offer in the way of game expertise and an ability to express his views intelligently. All of those qualities would serve CSM6 well if he were to be elected. Sure you could speculate that he is masterfully trolling us about his remorse and has every intention of letting his inner bad boy out again if elected, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt based on many conversations we've had about it over the last year or so. Without the ability to do a Vulcan mind-meld, all I can do is make a personal decision about him based on the information I have to work with.

And before you ask me if I would support Ankh being allowed to run again, the answer is no--for reasons I am not permitted to and won't discuss.

Anyway, if the item remains on the agenda for a vote, I will reiterate in the meeting my position as stated here. I'm sure there will be a lively debate, and it will all be the raw logs for your reading pleasure.

Killer Gandry
Caldari
Shadow of the Pain
Posted - 2011.01.28 12:11:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Edited by: Mynxee on 28/01/2011 03:46:58
Edited by: Mynxee on 28/01/2011 03:42:54
Just to clarify: This agenda item is NOT a formal proposal of the same kind you see in Assembly Hall. I would characterize it more as an administrative vote to recommend an "official" CSM stance on the matter to CCP. What CCP does is up to them; they run the show when it comes to policies that control who can and can't run for CSM.

Since opinions are being aired here, I will share mine. I respect DV and can agree with the ideology that moved him to call for this vote, which is a strong desire to avoid potential damage to CSM credibility by preventing previous NDA-breakers back on the Council. However, I will vote against the measure. CCP have made their decision about Lark. I cannot support asking them to do an about-face on the matter. It is too late to impose such a policy for CSM6 candidacy. Besides, I believe that Lark has paid his penance, sincerely regrets what he did, will not repeat the mistake, and has a lot to offer in the way of game expertise and an ability to express his views intelligently. All of those qualities would serve CSM6 well if he were to be elected. Sure you could speculate that he is masterfully trolling us about his remorse and has every intention of letting his inner bad boy out again if elected, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt based on many conversations we've had about it over the last year or so. Without the ability to do a Vulcan mind-meld, all I can do is make a personal decision about him based on the information I have to work with.

And before you ask me if I would support Ankh being allowed to run again, the answer is no--for reasons I am not permitted to and won't discuss.

Anyway, if the item remains on the agenda for a vote, I will reiterate in the meeting my position as stated here. I'm sure there will be a lively debate, and it will all be the raw logs for your reading pleasure.



Reading this I am very impressed with you diplomatical and political skills.
Not only do you manage to defend the proposal to the vote while looking like not supporting it.
You also manage to sneak the option of Lark being a possible liar, and thus increasing the chance people will think he will do the same again, while skillfully making him look like a repentfull person and you the good person with the big heart.

Heck in the beginning you even very slightly planted the seed that not you but DV is the one who wants the personal agenda rolled. You do understand where he is comming from but you're too bighearted and understanding of CCP's course to support him.
My big wonder however will remain. "Would you have reacted to this all the same if this hadn't gotten some intelligent responces in a negative way back or not?"
Sadly we will never know anymore.
You skillfully pull a 180 whereever possible without looking like someone covering his own butt for the new elections.
Might be the paranoia I build up over the years of EVE or might be I am just a tad more skillfull in reading between the lines. Heck it even might be my own experiences as diplomath which grew my feelers for such cunning wordplays.

Now the sole question remaining for me to decide is:
"Mynxee, skilled diplomath or..."
This is a personal question to be answered by me personal. This ofcourse in no way reflects the mindset of my corporation, alliance or other people I encounter or play with in the game.


Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.01.28 13:14:00 - [20]
 

Killer: People who know me, know I'm an open book. What I say is exactly what I am thinking and feeling. If my efforts to try and see both sides of the question appear to you to be cleverly executed 180s, there's nothing I can do or care to do about that. But tbh, I'm really not that clever.

I am certainly not maneuvering regarding the next election, because I'm not running. My interest in EVE is at an all-time low for a variety of reasons...some :ccp: and some personal. Mainly EVE can't compete with RL these days.

So I have no ulterior motives or agenda here. Just expressing my views in public on a matter that obviously has people in a bit of a swivet.

mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.08 22:46:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: mazzilliu on 08/02/2011 22:46:40
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1464867

ill write up a wiki page when i figure out how to do them i sort of forgot


also http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1461787
because pink text is cool



edit- also i dont have a problem with DV bringing up the issue of the nda breakers. i disagree with him though.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.10 02:46:00 - [22]
 

Mazz, make sure to do that by the deadline. A wiki page is part of the requirement to raise an issue. Just copy and paste an existing proposal that was already raised and change the details.


mazzilliu
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.02.10 23:30:00 - [23]
 

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Declassify_old_csm_communications

making the wiki for the other one is :effort: and my amount of caring is dropping off a cliff at this point. just use this wiki

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.12 09:17:00 - [24]
 

I will not be able to attend, friends gave me a voucher for an advanced driving training which is tonight.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only