open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM Formal Meeting 2. Saturday 31st (19:00 hours eve time)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.28 14:50:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 28/05/2008 18:55:50

2nd CSM meeting: 31st of May 19:00 Eve Time.

Initial Agenda Items:

1. Maximum duration on pre-vote discussion phase in text chat (5/10/20/30mins – prior to chair calling a vote or deferring issue to next session) (Lavista)

2. Automatic publication of meeting chatlogs to the agreed standard (ie person contact detail removed). (Jade)

3. Presence of Alternate’s in the council chamber. (Darius)

4. Universal Operator rights for all Reps in the Council chamber (Inanna)

5. Confirmation of Template document (general)

6. Confirmation of Forum tools request document (general)

7. Processes behind future appointment of CSM committee (Hardin)

8. Future process for selecting public Issues to discuss in the meeting (Jade)

(Provisional public issues – have been on record for 7 days with significant public support or CSM rep advocacy -)

1. Removal of 30/90 day time cards.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777866&page=1

2. Jump Bridges and Cyno-jammers fix.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777554

3. Log Server exploitation/BACON.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777980

4. Skill Queue Functionality?
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=779102

5. 5% rule is too strict.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777807

6. Kill Rights should be transferable.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=778012

7. Alliances in Faction Warfare.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=778272

8. Funky POS alterations.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=778222

9. Improve Black Ops.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777663

(added 28thMay - ANK)
10.Make suicide ganking more difficult
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=777704

_____________________

(added 28thMay - LaVista)Deferred +7days on the minimum public discussion rule
Science and Industry improvements.
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=782682


***

I’d like all CSM representatives/alternatives that will be able to attend on Saturday to inform themselves about the council/public issues that we’ll be discussing to allow proceedings to move on efficiently please. Read the threads, check out the drafts and review the previous meeting minutes/chatlog so we don’t waste any time allotted to us.

If any CSM representative wishes items added to the agenda for Saturday please reply to this thread before 19:00hours on Friday evening with a brief overview of the issue / link. If it’s anything particularly urgent I’ll bump it up the agenda or if it’s ordinary business add it to the end.
*Note Please 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 Saturday.

Hope to see everyone there.


Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2008.05.28 16:26:00 - [2]
 

Great work on the Agenda Jade.

On the issues, I'd suggest either:
- The issues are summarised into the template first, then we discuss.
- We vote on the issues to be raised to CCP and a volunteer writes it into the template before submission and pass around for comments.

IMO Discussing the issues without having an structured document (the template) will:
- Not enable addressing sufficient issues in the time we have (across all meetings)
- Be a very inefficient usage of 9 peoples time considering the issues will need to be formatted in the template before presentation to CCP.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.28 16:42:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Serenity Steele
Great work on the Agenda Jade.

On the issues, I'd suggest either:
- The issues are summarised into the template first, then we discuss.
- We vote on the issues to be raised to CCP and a volunteer writes it into the template before submission and pass around for comments.


yep on this definitely.

Quote:
IMO Discussing the issues without having an structured document (the template) will:
- Not enable addressing sufficient issues in the time we have (across all meetings)
- Be a very inefficient usage of 9 peoples time considering the issues will need to be formatted in the template before presentation to CCP.



Completely agree. This agenda is suboptimal in that we don't have the established template agreed and stickied for contributors on the Assembly hall - but I think we do need to get on with the job we got elected to do and the public deserves to see some movement on the issues.

Might be a long meeting :)

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 17:43:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 28/05/2008 17:44:23
You know it would be nice to have an official thread and not just the support thread for debate when an issue has official advocacy or reaches its limits.

How in the world is anyone, even those who signed the thread supposed to know when the topic is open for discussion and when its simply 11,000 replies of "signed"?

"On Record" is not enough for a vote. 7 Days of discussion is the requirement. If you vote on any of the issues presented as such you will be in dereliction of your duty as a CSM rep and chair.

Exodus Alpha
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:33:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Exodus Alpha on 28/05/2008 18:36:59
Also to clarify the rule in point 9 of this dev blog regarding the CSM's purpose and functioning:
Quote:

The minimum time a topic has to stay open on the public forum is 7 days before it can be brought up by the Council – this applies to topics put forth by the Council members, or the voters.



...and as point 10 states...
Quote:

A topic is brought up in the Council if a Council member decides to bring it up there, yet never before the 7 day discussion period is up.



I think that the line between "support thread" and "discussion thread" is a gray one at the moment since many of the threads are a hybrid of the two rather than one or the other, but topics such as LaVista's Science and Industry Improvements definitely do not meet the 7 day requirement. The requirement is not 7 days or CSM rep advocacy, its 7 days and CSM rep advocacy. The first nine topics don't seem to be noted by specific CSM rep advocacy (unless Jade is advocating for all of them...), and none of them certainly meet the 5% requirement...but that's more a minor point than anything since I don't see anything saying that Jade couldn't in fact advocate for all of them.

Not that I have any specific complaints about any of the topics, but if you're going to do it you might as well do it by the rulebook.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:46:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Exodus Alpha

The minimum time a topic has to stay open on the public forum is 7 days before it can be brought up by the Council – this applies to topics put forth by the Council members, or the voters.


All the topics will have been open for public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Saturday.
-edit opps, except for LaVista's one. That one is going to have to wait for next time after all.

Quote:
I think that the line between "support thread" and "discussion thread" is a gray one at the moment since many of the threads are a hybrid of the two rather than one or the other, but topics such as LaVista's Science and Industry Improvements definitely do not meet the 7 day requirement. The requirement is not 7 days or CSM rep advocacy, its 7 days and CSM rep advocacy. The first nine topics don't seem to be noted by specific CSM rep advocacy (unless Jade is advocating for all of them...), and none of them certainly meet the 5% requirement...but that's more a minor point than anything since I don't see anything saying that Jade couldn't in fact advocate for all of them.


Sorry about LaVist's one. That was an oversight from me. I called for other submissions and didn't check that one specifically for the 7 day rule. Re the other topics, yep, at the moment we on the CSM, and CCP know there is a problem with the 5% rule and we're in discussions on how to fix it. But in the mean time I've taken the liberty of bringing a healthy range of topics with good proportions of public support that will meet the 7 day rule to council so we can make some decent progress at the weekend.

Quote:
Not that I have any specific complaints about any of the topics, but if you're going to do it you might as well do it by the rulebook.


Yep, I'm going to note that LaVista's topic needs to wait a week.

All the best.

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:54:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
"On Record" is not enough for a vote. 7 Days of discussion is the requirement. If you vote on any of the issues presented as such you will be in dereliction of your duty as a CSM rep and chair.


There is no way to measure '7 days of discussion' any other way than by comparing the time the thread was created to the current time.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:03:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Yep, I'm going to note that LaVista's topic needs to wait a week.

All the best.



This issue was started on the 21th, depending on how you count. You can find it here.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:25:00 - [9]
 

How are you choosing which issues to bring forward at this meeting? Is it just based on which ones individual Council members have asked to be discussed? And if so, could you please state which member is bringing forward each topic? Thank you.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:29:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 28/05/2008 19:29:17
Originally by: Jade Constantine

All the topics will have been open for public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Saturday.
-edit opps, except for LaVista's one. That one is going to have to wait for next time after all.


No they have not. They have been put to the public to be raised as an issue but they have not been made issues and they have not had their 7 days of discussion. If you endorse one of the issues, make a post and open up 7 days of discussion as LaVista did

read the bleeding CSM document and do what it says

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:31:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 28/05/2008 19:31:35
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Originally by: Goumindong
"On Record" is not enough for a vote. 7 Days of discussion is the requirement. If you vote on any of the issues presented as such you will be in dereliction of your duty as a CSM rep and chair.


There is no way to measure '7 days of discussion' any other way than by comparing the time the thread was created to the current time.


7 days from the time that a council member officially makes it an issue or when it receives 11.5k votes.

Not 7 days since it was posted to the forums.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:06:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
7 days from the time that a council member officially makes it an issue or when it receives 11.5k votes.

Not 7 days since it was posted to the forums.


From the original CSM document:

Originally by: CSM.pdf, page 17
When a topic is introduced, a seven-day counter begins. During this time, a topic is open for all individuals to deliberate. Should, after seven full days, 5% of the total society population - or total active accounts - support a topic, the CSM is obligated to allocate time for that issue in their next meeting, the results of which will be posted in the public meeting notes. The time limit of seven days applies to both Representatives and voters, meaning that a Representative cannot bring a topic up at a Council meeting without having it go through deliberation on the public forum. A 5% voter support is however not required for a Representative to bring up a topic to the Council.


It's "officially" an issue when it's posted.

Bad Harlequin
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:07:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 28/05/2008 19:31:35
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Originally by: Goumindong
"On Record" is not enough for a vote. 7 Days of discussion is the requirement. If you vote on any of the issues presented as such you will be in dereliction of your duty as a CSM rep and chair.


There is no way to measure '7 days of discussion' any other way than by comparing the time the thread was created to the current time.


7 days from the time that a council member officially makes it an issue or when it receives 11.5k votes.

Not 7 days since it was posted to the forums.

...and to do that well, we're gonna need some kind of visual flag on the post: color bar, subforum, something loud and obvious. Leaving it to a prefix [Tag] alone should NOT be it, by the way.
Maybe something in Proclamations, locked, linking to the discussion of the topic?

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:09:00 - [14]
 

From the devblog (relevant sections bolded):

Quote:
* All players can propose a topic to be handled by the Council.
* A topic can consist of anything, and deal with any EVE related matter.
* Players have to convince one, or more, of the Council members to bring the topic up at a Council meeting.
* A 'support' system is in place to allow players to declare support for a topic in a CSM forum channel which will be opened after the election.
* This 'support' system will make it easy for the Council members to get an overview of which topics players are concerned about.
* If 5% of the voters support a topic, the Council is required to bring it up. This is done to accommodate the voters, not the Council.
* All Council meeting minutes will be documented by the Council members and published for all players.
* Topics, reaching the Council, have to receive a majority vote from the Council members before the Council can escalate the topic to the CCP council.
* The minimum time a topic has to stay open on the public forum is 7 days before it can be brought up by the Council – this applies to topics put forth by the Council members, or the voters.
* A topic is brought up in the Council if a Council member decides to bring it up there, yet never before the 7 day discussion period is up.


From the .pdf document:

Quote:
Regardless of the support method, topics cannot be adopted by the CSM unless they have been open for community discussion for at least seven days.


There's nothing about "official" declaration as a topic. It clearly states that the 7 day period applies to both CSM rep initiated and player initiated topics. The date of the initial posting seems to be the clear best indicator of how long the topic has been up on the forums for discussion.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:44:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 28/05/2008 20:49:36
should have been an edit

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:49:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 28/05/2008 20:59:00
Quote:

There's nothing about "official" declaration as a topic. It clearly states that the 7 day period applies to both CSM rep initiated and player initiated topics. The date of the initial posting seems to be the clear best indicator of how long the topic has been up on the forums for discussion.


Yes there is. The topic must be open for community discussion. And these threads are clearly not by any realistic measure of the terms.

for the first link there are 615 replies and 470 of them are "signed"

For the second there are 170 posts and 130 of them are "signed".

That is simply not open community discussion and does not meet the requirement as layed out by CCP. Sorry, if you are voting on these you are going against the document.

ed: It doesn't matter whose fault it is, you cannot vote on the issue until its had its 7 days. And 7 days after someone posts it on eve-o does not qualify for "open community dicussion" due to both the number of threads[any interested public needs to read and discuss them all on the off chance that a CSM rep discusses it or it get 11,500 votes?] and number of useless posts.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:03:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Yes there is. The topic must be open for community discussion. And these threads are clearly not by any realistic measure of the terms.


Well, it may be your opinion that not enough discussion is being had, but you're wrong if you think that the topic isn't open for discussion once it's been raised in the Assembly Hall forum. Read the sticky and the forum description.

I do think it would be useful to formalize the discussion period in some way, so that a list of topics currently in the formalized discussion period could be kept in a sticky at the top of the forum. But that is not how the system was initially set up by CCP - as it stands now a topic is open for discussion once it's been raised as an issue by a player or CSM rep.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:42:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 28/05/2008 21:42:35
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong
Yes there is. The topic must be open for community discussion. And these threads are clearly not by any realistic measure of the terms.


Well, it may be your opinion that not enough discussion is being had, but you're wrong if you think that the topic isn't open for discussion once it's been raised in the Assembly Hall forum. Read the sticky and the forum description.

I do think it would be useful to formalize the discussion period in some way, so that a list of topics currently in the formalized discussion period could be kept in a sticky at the top of the forum. But that is not how the system was initially set up by CCP - as it stands now a topic is open for discussion once it's been raised as an issue by a player or CSM rep.


Technically open in the same way that the plans to build a bypass through your house have been on display in your local planning office for the last month.

It does not meet the requirement and we should have a way to do so.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:54:00 - [19]
 

It does meet the requirement. What you're saying is you think the requirement should be changed.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:59:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
It does meet the requirement. What you're saying is you think the requirement should be changed.


No, the requirement is "open community discussion". And that does not qualify. Unless you define "/signed" as discussion then it does not qualify.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:06:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Technically open in the same way that the plans to build a bypass through your house have been on display in your local planning office for the last month.

It does not meet the requirement and we should have a way to do so.


So if they'd stuck a post on the in-game news feed that the CSM foums are open, and provided a link, would you have considered that adequate notice?

Originally by: Goumindong
No, the requirement is "open community discussion". And that does not qualify. Unless you define "/signed" as discussion then it does not qualify.


I do define it as discussion, actually. It's community members stating their opinions for public consumption. Just because those opinions are easily summarized doesn't make them invalid. I'd love it as much as anyone if the forum featured wide-ranging long-form debates, but I'm not going to call the process undemocratic just because it doesn't.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:15:00 - [22]
 

Community members are free to express their opinions and respond to others' opinions in the threads. What other definition of "open to discussion" could there be?

Again, I do agree that more discussion is better than less, but you're coming at this all wrong by pretending there is some breach in due process here.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:25:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Kelsin
It does meet the requirement. What you're saying is you think the requirement should be changed.


No, the requirement is "open community discussion". And that does not qualify. Unless you define "/signed" as discussion then it does not qualify.


Whether you manage to win or lose this argument the only thing you will achieve with this approach is a mess on the forum.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:55:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Jade Constantine

Yep, I'm going to note that LaVista's topic needs to wait a week.

All the best.



This issue was started on the 21th, depending on how you count. You can find it here.


Yeah I know, but we're going to have to count from the topic posting in the assembly hall really. We do need to stick to a simple rule on these things, we'll still be able to raise the issue at the following meeting in time for the first formal presentation sessions.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:59:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
How are you choosing which issues to bring forward at this meeting? Is it just based on which ones individual Council members have asked to be discussed? And if so, could you please state which member is bringing forward each topic? Thank you.


For this first one I've pretty much looked for the issues with a decent proportion of backing from the eve public that I or another CSM member can in good conscience support. One of the agenda items coming up in this next meeting is exactly how we formalize this in the future (as well as the 5% rule alteration options). Since we are coming up on the deadline for submissions for the first formal presentation in a couple of weeks time we did need to get this process moving. If you want a particular subject raised in the this or the following meeting it needs (A: plenty of supports and or B: CSM member advocacy). Speaking personally I'm going to generally support good issues that receive a decent consensus to give them a fair shot at the CSM voting phase.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.29 03:17:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

I do define it as discussion, actually. It's community members stating their opinions for public consumption. Just because those opinions are easily summarized doesn't make them invalid. I'd love it as much as anyone if the forum featured wide-ranging long-form debates, but I'm not going to call the process undemocratic just because it doesn't.


No, that is a rally. A discussion is a debate or interactive communication about a topic.

These threads are neither, they are ballot boxes.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.29 03:32:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
No, that is a rally. A discussion is a debate or interactive communication about a topic.

These threads are neither, they are ballot boxes.


I've been to quite a lot of rallies, and these look nothing like a rally. A rally is generally a gigantic PR stunt - you preach to the converted, get the best rainbow of supporters you can find as a backdrop, hold up gigantic signs between the TV cameras and the protesters, cheer wildly at banal statements of oft-repeated talking points, and listen to some pseudo-famous talking head repeat the same "off the cuff" jokes as he's said six times a day for the last three weeks. If you want to see a rally, just imagine what it'd look like if BoB tried to get the Sovereignty skill deleted, and flooded the thread with a thousand thumbs-ups from alliancemates.

(Yes, I'm a bitter, cynical political geek. Why do you ask?)

By contrast, these threads are mostly legitimate grassroots statements of belief. Someone has an idea about something that's aggravating them, people read it, and for the most part they seem to say "Yeah, that's stupid, fix it". I don't know what kind of discussion you expect on a topic like "Fix the forums", but there's not a whole lot of interactive communication to be had on a topic where everybody agrees. You seem to be specifically trying to exclude the most popular threads - simple fixes for simple, glaringly obvious problems - from discussion, and that's just utterly nonsensical.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.29 05:27:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/05/2008 06:04:35
There is no difference between a "grass roots statement of belief" and a rally. Its like going to a protest, letting the people shout and cry, and then saying what a good talk you've had, the committee is going to vote whether or not to bring the issue to the floor now.

Now, i am not saying we need anything as in depth as hearings. But we do need a period of open community discussion. And none of the threads have met any objective measure of the terms, they cant.

Its not the CSMs fault, but is their responsibility to note vote until the issues have been discussed. Especially because the issues are not to be voted for or against based on public support, but based on the merits and the urgency of the issue.

ed: I am not trying to exclude anything. If there is little discussion to be had then there is little discussion to be had, but you wont ever know without the chance. Even with these small issues, if the CSM is bringing an issue to CCPs attention and all they have is "fix the forums" without defining what the problem with the forums is, and "fix the U.I." without defining what the problems with the U.I. are, we haven't got anywhere in explaining what is most important for the community to fix. A good example would be the tread Inanna Zuni has started on the U.I. we can define the exact problem and debate how important they are. Now, in their current format they are likely to get bogged down by the assembly forum mechanics, but because they were started by a CSM there is at least a chance that people can talk about the things.

A bad example would be the "we want transferable killrights" which within we won't find discussion of why we need transferable killrights, what precautions need to be taken as they are implemented, and what our expectations for the system are.

With discussion we can end up with(though likely with much less brevity)

"transferable kill rights,

Reason: Facilitate true bounty hunter profession, allow retribution for less able characters

Precautions: Pirate exploitation for profit, Players selling killrights.

expectations: A market for kill rights, NPC story integration with mechanic"

But without the discussion you can't get to these key parts. Simpler problems such as "oh holy lord why don't we have a change ammo: all option" will have less discussion but there is still discussion to be had.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.29 07:06:00 - [29]
 

Or, to keep the rally metaphor alive, what you're asking for is that we go to an Obama rally and ask the attendees what they think of ending the war in Iraq. You already know how they feel - their presence implies their position. In fact, there's even less margin of error here, because you've got that convenient Boolean indicator of support. You know exactly how the community feels by reading the thread - if you get 75 posts and 75 thumbs up, that's because the idea is so blindingly obvious that there's really no debate on it. Your "Reload all with..." example is the perfect case of this - if someone posted that thread(and I probably will after I finish here, just to prove a point), there would be no discussion whatsoever, just a flood of people saying some variant of "/signed". You know why? Because there's no discussion to have. It would be a universally beneficial change, helping virtually every player in the game, with no appreciable downside. If someone posts a discussion point of any type in that thread, I'll be stunned. And that's true whether it gets 20 replies or 20,000, because there's just nothing to talk about. Complaining that no discussion happens on a post like that is the height of cluelessness.

If your complaint is lazy OP's who post vague and meaningless things, then I'll agree to a large extent. There's a lot of usual forum idiots, a lot of people too lazy to post a complete pitch for their idea(a group I sometimes fall into), and a lot of people who just get it wrong in some other way. A proper template for new issues would be a good thing to have, and would address many of the more legitimate concerns you raise. I do my best to get into some degree of actual discussion on the threads I care about(as much because I'm a talkative bastard with too much time on my hands as for any other reason, but still), but I'm frankly unsurprised when it fails to materialize sometimes - 'tis the nature of forums in general, and I've hung around on enough to know. If you're that worried about the lack of proper discourse, then go talk on some of them, try to get an actual debate started. But don't go trying to kill the entire process just because it isn't verbose enough for you.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.29 07:16:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/05/2008 07:21:16
Wait, so you are saying that its O.K. for there to not be discussion on all subjects because some subjects might not have much to discuss?

If you go to an Obama rally and ask what everyone thinks of the war you do not get a discussion based on facts and merits you get a poll on their feelings.

A poll on their feelings is not required, but open community discussion is, and open community discussion cannot occur in the format presented. Such no voting can occur until open community discussion is up for 7 days.

Hell, if anything the supporting member can post a thread in the Jita Park Speakers Forum about it and then we can all discuss it. Not poll on it, but discuss it.

ed: I am not trying to "kill the entire process". Far from it. I am trying to ensure the process runs in a right and proper manner, since it seems those elected to do so are not keenly interested in it.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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