open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [ISSUE] That standing orders, and constitutional makeup,are to be disc
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Author Topic

Jane Spondogolo
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:35:00 - [1]

Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 11/06/2008 06:47:35
Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 11/06/2008 04:39:36
Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 11/06/2008 04:37:48
Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 11/06/2008 04:36:52

Zoing. Looks like this is in the wrong forum. Can a moderator move this to the correct one?

[ISSUE] That standing orders, and constitutional makeup,are to be discussed at the next available meeting.

Formal reading of this proposal. This is a single issue document that requests consideration of formal standing rules, and a consideration of issues brought up by the "Constitution" (In absense of formal constitution, read The discussion points are not to be taken as separate issues, but rather as point notes to inform discussion of proposed consideration.

It is clear from the organisational document that numerous grey issues have emerged in the foundational documents, most notably an absense of standing orders for meetings.

Issues have been identified that appear to be subject to either contentious or erroneous interpretation by the CSM chair or other members.


1) The formal role of the moderator. Does the moderator have any topic Veto powers , or Muting powers?. The documentation makes no mention of this power. The document merely mentions "Moderation" powers, but does not mention what that entails. Does this moderation power entail the usual regulation of an orderly meeting, or is it extended to allow silencing of dissenting of uncomfortable opinions?

2) Can the chair make rulings? The power is not granted in the formal documentation, but the chair appears to of interpreted the document to grant this. Most notably the chair claims to be able to prohibit constitutional discussions. (Please also refer to point 5)

3) What powers does the concil have to discipline unruly members or the chair. Subheadinged under this, are the issues "Is there a facility to vote no confidence?", "What are the requirements to express formal censure? 50% vote, 80% vote, Consensus minus one?"

4) What IS the formal status of an alternative. Does an alternative function as a proxy, specifically under direction of the absentee , or does the alternative posses formal autonomy. When the member returns to displace the alternative, can the member revoke the alternatives vote if the member does not feel the alternative represented them?

5) The issue discussion should include a proposal to CCP to allow standing order and constitutional issues to be considered bilaterally at any point of time as a non-issue point, as is standard meeting practice. Standing order resolutions should be put to a vote, to remove abusive powers from chairs or chair stand ins.

6) Is there a mechanism to dissent from minute summaries as is standard with meeting procedures?

Action suggestion to this issue:
That a standing order document be prepared at the meeting, and presented to CCP at the first instance for formal adoption. This formal process will strengthen the confidence of the citizenry in the CSM.

Footnote to this issue. As there is no formal method for presenting an issue, I would ask that if the issue of standing orders has been presented more than seven days ago, and it substantially represents an analogue to this issue, or is deemed by a council member excluding the chair to represent this point, I would ask my support be put to that motion , and humbly petition a council member adopt it, so this can be put to the next meeting.

Thankyou for your consideration.

I would also petition that a council member adopt this issue, so that it can be acted on at the first instance.

Jane Spondogolo
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:54:00 - [2]

Addendum to issue discussion points.

On rereading the minutes, some issues have already been aparently resolved. Feel free to discard points if they have been FORMALLY resolved to majority council satisfaction.

Jane Spondogolo
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:05:00 - [3]

Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 11/06/2008 05:09:02
Please add to the discussion, what is the formal quorum for a meeting and for a decision

ie How many abstains make the issue unresolved, noting the conventional interpretation of an "abstain" as meaning "I neither support or dissent". The conventional wisdom of the interaction of an abstain with a majority is;- (Majority = number of ayes /( membership count - abstains ))> 0.5 where ((membership count - abstains) > quorum). Is this the formula being to be used, or will the council invent a new formula?

Jane Spondogolo
Posted - 2008.06.11 06:42:00 - [4]

Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 11/06/2008 08:26:20
Heres a draft of what a standing orders document might look like;-


Standing orders for the procession of CSM meetings.

Orders conatained within the CCP scope document.

1) That the attendance quorum be 7 members

2) That an issue must be available for comment for 7 days prior to the meeting, and be aproved by either 5% of player base, or a member of the CSM

3) That an issue may remain as long as necesary to obtain either approval or disaproval. An approved issue must be escalated to CCP

4) Aproval takes the form of a simple majority For an issue to pass, Ayes must outnumber Naes. An abstain is not counted as a Nae*1.

(add others as deduced from the document)

Voted on standing orders:

5) An alternative candidate may start participating at the point a candidate becomes absent, and must yield when the candidate returns.*2

(Add others as needed)

Ideas for standing orders:

6) At any point a CSM member can propose a vote on an issue of standing orders. This vote halts the progress of the meeting, which does not proceed till the issue is resolved. The Chair is compelled to follow the vote. (This is pretty standard stuff with meetings)

7) Any move to mute a member must be subject to a simple majority vote, which would include the proposed mutee. The mutee must be permitted to address the motion.

(Strike suggestion 8, it contradicts simple majority by implying absolute)

Suggestion on meeting protocol:

During a meeting, for someone to take the floor they should say something like "Floor" or even an "X". They go onto a queue and take turns as per the queue.

If a person wants to directly address a point, they should say something like "Addressing <person name>". They are put onto the TOP of the queue AFTER the current speaker. This must only be used to address a specific persons comments (For instance to correct a mistake), anything else is outside of process.

For the purpose of decorum, other members must be addressed via the chair (For instance , instead of "Darius, I think xyz you jerk!" you might say "Chair, I submit that I disagree with Darius and think xyz") Addresses to the chair however might be addressed directly to the council "Council, I submit the chair is incorrect on this matter, for reasons XYZ".

A motion on meeting procedure, constitutional matters, or standing issues however interupts the current meeting, and thus takes precedent even over the current floor speaker. (Ie "Objection, Chair, xyz is speaking outside the scope. I vote we move on", a vote then ensues).

When a speaker has finished , he should indicate with an "END" or something like that.

*1 Note, in formal terms a simple majority is defined as a vote where more Ayes are recorded than Nayes. An abstain does not count as a Nae. Where an Abstain is called a Nae, this is refered to as "Absolute Majority". CCP states clearly, this is not the case. This would appear to resolve the issue of the status of Abstain votes.

*2 Unresolved. The principles of simple majority state that a vote can be reversed in the agregate positive. This would imply a member can revert the vote of an alternative, but its a bit ambiguous. Does the CSM agree?


You'd have to fill in the blanks and reorganise it, but I think the above would pretty much satisfy everyone. Think about it CSM reps. Something like the above would be a pretty classy framework thats based on traditional meeting procedure, and address everyones concerns (particularly regarding orderly meeting behavior, and it would permit the chair to exercise his role, whilst allowing the CSM members a mechanism to reject a chairs ruling)

Jane Spondogolo
Posted - 2008.06.11 06:43:00 - [5]

Look a all dem posts and words. ugh

CCP Mitnal

Posted - 2008.06.11 06:53:00 - [6]

Moved to Assembly Hall.

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Posted - 2008.06.11 06:54:00 - [7]

Cool with that.

Jane Spondogolo

Posted - 2008.06.11 08:24:00 - [8]

Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 11/06/2008 08:27:03
Thanks Mitnal. Its a bit embarassing to do all them words and then screw it up by posting it in the wrong forum Embarassed.

Please take the time to read what I've writen. I believe it neatly solves the current problems with the council by making the Chair accountable to the membership whilst providing a mandate for the chair to function.

Posted - 2008.06.11 09:27:00 - [9]

Personally I think having the CSM ask CCP to actually do what they should have done from day one and write the CSM a proper set of cast iron procedural rules rather than turning over yet another session of the CSM to this. A CSM that votes itself power only leads to power block voting and disperate factions within the CSM fighting each other for control which is something I don't believe CCP wanted particularly.

Dippin Dots
Posted - 2008.06.11 10:26:00 - [10]

I've drafted a basic Constitution for the Council of Stellar Management based on the CCP proposal pdf and placed it in an independant thread.

Dirt Dog Trading Company

Posted - 2008.06.11 12:31:00 - [11]

I have the feeling this will be resolved some other way, but good work on drafting these sorts of things guys, it looks nicely organized and it would be great if there were some recognized order to follow.

Although like Heartstone said, I'd think that would need to come from CCP to be viewed as authoritative. Thumbs up nonetheless!

Jane Spondogolo
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:04:00 - [12]

Dippins, theres some excelent ideas in there. I think we need to keep the proposal simple, and basically dependant on the original documents.

What we have o work with is pretty simple

1) Simple majority voting. A very specific idea. Look it up on wikipedia.

2) A limited scope.

3) A very loose mandate of how the council works.

Now by my reckoning, that means what is needed is more a concept of how a meeting should run, such that we keep a sense of civility between the diferent personalities, and such that two objectives can be met
a) Jades responsibility to keep the council orderly AND
b) The councils right to full unimpeded rights to speech

It would seem the reason (a) and (b) conflict is a lack of standing order

ergo what we need is a standing orders document thats simple, comprehensible, with minimal scope for conflicting interpretaion but most importantly a canonical document to refer procedural debates to.

Jades job should be mechanical and predictable. If any member can not work out if an action is permisable, then something is wrong. Jade must thus make a call , and nobody is to blame if they disagree. IF this occurs, something is wrong with the procedure.

Jane Spondogolo
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:12:00 - [13]

Originally by: Heartstone
Personally I think having the CSM ask CCP to actually do what they should have done from day one and write the CSM a proper set of cast iron procedural rules rather than turning over yet another session of the CSM to this. A CSM that votes itself power only leads to power block voting and disperate factions within the CSM fighting each other for control which is something I don't believe CCP wanted particularly.

I agree in principle, but in practicality, the CSM has been formed with no real standing orders. Its not unusual, as a public servant I see it all the time. But honestly experience says get this **** out of the way FIRST, and it'll never be a problem again. This council experiences pain so the following ones have a clear mandate.

What we used to do in my days on the local council was make sure a lawyer had ratified standing orders so we didn't need to (prior to committee forming). But this hasn't happened here, so I guess we gotta do it ourself.

Please take this seriously guys. It'll save heartache later on.

Satis Tyr
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.11 21:34:00 - [14]

Wonderfull. having something like this from the beginning would have made this run alot smoother.

We didnt have this so its good to make it.


Posted - 2008.06.11 21:42:00 - [15]

TLDR after the first post, but what I read was good.


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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only