open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] CSM members banned in forum/game = immediate removal from CSM.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic

KIAEddZ
Caldari
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:07:00 - [121]
 

What a ridiculous suggestion.

I mean seriously ridiculous.

How does your ability to refrain from breaking forum rules directly effect your ability to shape the game into something that is better than it currently is.

Knowing you Jade, I would bet everything I own that this is some sort of personally motivated bullsht, to get something you want, than about any real concern.

Which CSM members are currently banned? Which of them is the person you dont like?

Bewildering.

Geddy L33t
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:09:00 - [122]
 

The CSM should be more like 0.0 itself: If you can't stand the pressure, go back to Jita, or in this case CAOD.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:11:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: KIAEddZ
W
Knowing you Jade, I would bet everything I own that this is some sort of personally motivated bullsht, to get something you want, than about any real concern.


Point is you don't know me Eddz. You don't know anybody who hasn't taken the time or inclination to get to know you in return. This is a computer game with thousands of players - there is a limit to your understanding of other participants and assuming you know everything there is to know about another player always leads to misunderstanding and bad feelings.

And this is why its always a bad idea to personalize these assembly hall issues.

Quote:
Which CSM members are currently banned? Which of them is the person you dont like?


As far as I know (or have been informed as CSM chair) - currently no CSM delegates are forum banned.


Second Amendment
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:16:00 - [124]
 

If I didn't want my CSM delegates to act like Goons, I wouldn't have voted for Goons in the first place. This proposal effectively disenfranchises people like us.

There is a kernel of truth to the original idea - there are some in-game behaviors, such as blatantly using exploits, that ought to disqualify someone for CSM membership. These forums, however, are far too meaningless to justify any such action.

Tevlent
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:23:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Tevlent on 09/10/2008 14:29:35

This is a dumb idea.

edit: of crap, I hope I don't get temp-banned for this pointless post or else I will never be able to run for CSM! By the might of Jade, spare me oh omnipotent moderators!

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:39:00 - [126]
 

We should kick all people of the CSM, it's a complete waste of time.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:39:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 09/10/2008 14:40:51
Originally by: Jade Constantine


As far as I know (or have been informed as CSM chair) - currently no CSM delegates are forum banned.




As far as I know, the CSM chair's job is to schedule meetings. I have no idea why you'd be informed in any way ever of anything other than "here's a topic I'd like to propose" or "Hey I won't make it to the meeting this week".

:edit: Asking Goons not to post is pretty silly. They have just as much of a right to voice their opinion as anyone else, including you.

Tamir Lenk
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:52:00 - [128]
 

CCP forum enforcement should not override popular vote, especially with the rolling alternate system of replacement.

This proposal puts even the CSM member with the greatest electoral mandate (i.e., the most player votes) at the risk of any forum enforcement -- no matter what forum and with no reliably objective standard of conduct.

The "next in line" alternate system aggravates the problem. Consider this example, Joe Repro is elected to CSM with a huge plurality of player votes. He/she gets into a random flame war on the Science and Industry forum and is temp banned. Now in addition to the forum ban penalty (which may only be for cooling off), Joe loses his CSM seat. More importantly, that huge segment of voting players loses its representation in favor of some other guy for whom far fewer players voted. The potential for disenfranchisement is enormous.

Forum misconduct requires suitable penalties. Those penalties should be gauged according to the conduct penalized, not according to the status of the player at issue. In real elected governments, commission of a crime does not strip a person of elected office. He or she might certainly resign in shame (e.g., Nixon), or it might be cause for potential removal through a separate process (e.g., Clinton impeachment), or it may cause them to lose re-election (e.g., possibly Ted Stevens). In the case of a separate process like impeachment or censure, however, that process includes a filter that prevents it from being triggered by every possible infraction and is limited to "high crimes and misdemeanors." An elected ruler should not face removal every time they get a speeding ticket. Thus, having a forum ban auto-trigger a CSM removal vote still makes the CSM office too precarious.

To emphasize the problem of enhancing penalties because of status, consider the reverse model. Should CSM members be immune from forum bans because of their status? They need forum access to do their jobs right? The justifications for this rule could just as easily be flipped to immunize CSM from the rules of forum protocol. That would be wrong.

Just as CSM Members should not be "above the law" with regard to forum posting, they should not be specially penalized under those rules either.

Game bans are another story. If you are not part of the body governed, you should not be in the governing body. If you are stripped of EVE citizenship, then your CSM status should plainly follow.


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:52:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Second Amendment
If I didn't want my CSM delegates to act like Goons, I wouldn't have voted for Goons in the first place. This proposal effectively disenfranchises people like us.


That has to be one of the funniest justifications I've seen in a while. The thing is, though, I'm not sure it's invalid.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:56:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Tamir Lenk

Game bans are another story. If you are not part of the body governed, you should not be in the governing body. If you are stripped of EVE citizenship, then your CSM status should plainly follow.




That is already in the agreement I believe.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.10.09 14:58:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

:edit: Asking Goons not to post is pretty silly. They have just as much of a right to voice their opinion as anyone else, including you.


I didn't ask them not to post, I asked them not to post abuse and personal attacks.

Courthouse
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:01:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/10/2008 14:04:53

The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.


The CSM is not a venue for you to exercise your own personal agenda against those players who cause you, of your own volition, to step down from your high horse. I'd like to ask the CSM members in this thread to kindly shut up and start discussing issues that matter to the people who voted you into the council. It should be possible to vote 9 people into a committee without every other proposal coming off like a slap fight between a couple babies who all want the Tickle-Me-Elmo to themselves.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:02:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine


I didn't ask them not to post, I asked them not to post abuse and personal attacks.



If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?

Arcika Toalen
GoonFleet
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:06:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/10/2008 14:04:53

The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.





The don't come up with banana republic style plans of political take overs.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:09:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?


I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:17:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?


I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.



I honestly don't care if you want to change the subject. Answer the freaking question.

What is this supposed problem or situation you are trying to solve?

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:18:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.



Perhaps they view this issue thread as a fairly transparent attack on individuals within the CSM and are voicing their opinions as such. I'd say that forum moderation is left to the moderators, and none of us really has any input into that. There's a lot of posts on these forums I don't like. I ignore them. No big deal.

Courthouse
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:18:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

If they pretty up their attacks and veil them in [ISSUE] tags will it be considered more appropriate?


I honestly don't care what they do as long as they stop using assembly hall as a venue for personal attacks and flaming. Discuss the pros and cons of the issue in the thread - or post other issue threads, but its never appropriate to use this AH for flaming and personal attacks against eve players.



Nor is it appropriate to introduce or support issues designed as a thinly veiled attack against another player, especially when you are personally just as culpable for being banned in the past.

Alkie
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:24:00 - [139]
 

Jade is trying to pull an ACORN in the CSM.

Sentinel Eeex
Caldari
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:37:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: Serenity Steele
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 06/10/2008 18:13:36
I'm sure I'll need a flame resistant suit for this, however it's a pretty simply Issue;

If CSMs are banned from the forums or banned from EVE, they should be removed from the CSM immediately., gives the CSM members the right to vote on whether the banned CSM member is kicked from the CSM. One vote may be taken per forum banning. This should be the case for both Temporary and Permanent bans.

The issue I can see with this is that it provides CCP with a mechanism for removing CSM members, so it would need to be documented that the person in question has received warnings first, and notified to the whole CSM that this is occuring.

On the other hand - do you really want someone who gets banned representing you?

Note: The situation of what happens when a CSM member gets removed is already dealt with: An Alternate is raised up in their place, in order of max votes received

Vote!

Edit: Revised based on feedback: text removed text added


What? Hahahahaha.

Forum bans - no point even talking about it. It's not up to forum moderators to ultimatelly decide who CSMs will be. End of the story.

If CSM got an ingame permaban for serious violation(s), I don't think CCP is gonna ask anyone what to do. Pretty sure they'd take care of it by themselves.

Pointless thread.

Moon Kitten
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:50:00 - [141]
 

I have to agree with Sentinel Exx because that is a very reasonable argument that makes sense.

KIAEddZ
Caldari
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2008.10.09 15:55:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: KIAEddZ on 09/10/2008 16:23:39
Originally by: Jade Constantine



Which CSM members are currently banned? Which of them is the person you dont like?

As far as I know (or have been informed as CSM chair) - currently no CSM delegates are forum banned.




Well, simply put, I dont believe this is not personally motivated.

You can say I don't "know" you, but in the past 5 years I have read probabbly 100s of 1000s of words written by you, I feel I have a fairly good idea of your motivation within Eve. Its has always been about you for you, maybe an accusation you can sling back at me, but truthfull none the less.

This topic is about getting some people you don't like removed from the CSM, and indeed I would feel getting the ability going forward to influence the CSMs makeup.

Bait subject A with alts, watch his posts like a hawk, report anything that might get him a warning..

You are fickle, and see through, you always have been. Most people reading this thread deserve to know the feelings of others towards you, people that have experienced your poison pen once before.

People "voting" on this issue deserve to know as much as possible about the person raising it for discussion, and allow formation of political discussion on the motivations behind it.

You dont get to hide in CSM, your personality, your motivations, your drivers are on public display, and thats EXACTLY the way it should be.

This entire suggestion is ridiculous, i have received forum warnings, i could be very close to another one, what if I got temp banned? that would in some way restrict my ability, and knowledge of the game to attempt in helping influence the way the game goes forward...

Its a ridiculous concept, and nothing more than an attempt by you to add to your tools.

No doubt this post will be reported.

But this is a delagation of peers charged with making the game a better place for all of us, your personality is in question as much as your suggested policies, much like your questioning of others personality within this thread it is both reasonable and expected.

Cannibal PLT
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.09 16:35:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
What is this supposed problem or situation you are trying to solve?

I think we've found the heart of the issue. If this can't get answered convincingly, then there's really no point in discussing anything further.

Ralph42nd
Gallente
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.10.09 16:58:00 - [144]
 

Adding a method for removal of Elected officials, by people who may or may not have alternative motives is by definition itself dumb.

Granted I only became aware of the CSM recently, but from my research it is an elected body of players who are tasked at bringing in-game issues to the attention of CCP. The elected are elected by the player base, based on who they want representing them.

The additional mechanism for removal shows a serious lack of foresight and thought to the point of just plain dumb.

I won't even discuss the potential for this "post", or "issue" to be a personal attack on someone at one time banned or not. I won't discuss this not because I have a strong feeling one way or the other, I won't discuss this because previous statements speak for themselves.

You can hide your motives only for so long before transparency takes effect. Once this is done, you and your idea will be hung for the idiocy presented here and not for the issue. You know as well as any this is a bad idea, funny though it may be, take a look around and count how many support and how many do not support this idea, and where they come from.

Ultimately however we ask in the spirit of level headed debate that you answer the questions provided.

For what reason do you want to see this "idea" implemented?

What "issue" will this remedy?

What are the ramifications of this "issue"?

oh and ...

why are you against the debate of an "idea" by attempting to silence those who appose you?

Quote:
The assembly hall is not an excuse for flaming and personal attacks and I'd like to ask the Goonswarm posters in this thread to stop it immediately. It should be possible to debate and even disagree without the need to be openly abusive towards other Eve players.


Prior to this post the only thing I can come up with that is close to a personal attack seems to me ...

1. disagreement with your idea
2. not directed at you
3. a figment of your imagination

The quoted above was a prime example of why this "idea" is laughable at best. Furthermore, without attempting to make the quoted statement a point of contention, if forums rules (re: personal attacks, etc) were violated there is a proper process with which to handle this. Calling it out in a thread is flame bait, but you already knew this.

Have a nice day just the same :durh:

Chloridane
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:23:00 - [145]
 

No, this is just stupid. Getting someone kicked off the CSM because another player thinks they are being flamed is wrong.

Why don't you go stealth bomb something about it.

RDevz
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:48:00 - [146]
 

Edited by: RDevz on 09/10/2008 17:47:50
Originally by: KIAEddZ

This topic is about getting some people you don't like removed from the CSM, and indeed I would feel getting the ability going forward to influence the CSMs makeup.

Bait subject A with alts, watch his posts like a hawk, report anything that might get him a warning..


If this goes through, I pretty much plan to do this to Jade whenever I get a free moment. Alt accounts are relatively cheap, and get you 3 characters with which to troll him.

In addition, I'd like to modify this so that people who are temp banned can't vote on the vote to exclude. With sufficient people timing their trolling, I should be able to get anyone I don't like evicted from the council.

I'd like to throw my weight behind this issue - there's not a chance that it could be misused by the CSM delegates at all.

Ar'tee
DarkStar 1
Posted - 2008.10.09 17:50:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: DaiTengu
This is a horribly veiled attempt by Jade Constantine to get Darius kicked off the CSM. Nothing more, nothing less. If the moderators had one ounce of intelligence, they'd lock this thread.



The fact that this thread is still open tells me what a good idea the OP isn't.

Ionie
Gallente
Exmoor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:17:00 - [148]
 

Where is the "vote no" option, or rather, why hasn't anyone bothered to included one.

POSGunner
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:32:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
Given that you cannot apply to be on the CSM if you have had a ban in the past, that seems not unreasonable.

So you would support an immediate ban of Jade from the CSM then?

Galactic Overlord
The Fantastically Pantless Sporkmen
Posted - 2008.10.09 18:45:00 - [150]
 

Any idea how many unfair bannings there have been? CCP shoots first and asks questions later, I myself have been banned on an assumption alone and coincidentally CCP didn't get back to me until the ban time had already expired. Dumb thread.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

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