open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM Formal Meeting 3. Sunday 8th June (18:00 hours eve time)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (10)

Author Topic

Rashonna
2H Industries
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:44:00 - [91]
 

[ 2008.05.31 20:02:57 ] Bane Glorious > also darius has informed me that he just warped into a fleet fight in BWF, so hes a bit lagged
[ 2008.05.31 20:03:03 ] Bane Glorious > let's not have any votes for a while
[ 2008.05.31 20:03:14 ] Jade Constantine > heh we're going to be firing through several
[ 2008.05.31 20:03:24 ] Inanna Zuni > (I would suggest that all members of CSM should *not* be active in EVE during meetings ... defeats the point!)
[ 2008.05.31 20:03:42 ] Serenity Steele > I'd suggest Darius is either attending the meeting or fighting a fleet battle, take his pick.
[ 2008.05.31 20:03:49 ] Inanna Zuni > agreed
[ 2008.05.31 20:03:58 ] Bane Glorious > well that's out of his control at present
[ 2008.05.31 20:04:06 ] Bane Glorious > i'll remind him later
[ 2008.05.31 20:04:07 ] Darius JOHNSON > No I'm here
[ 2008.05.31 20:04:20 ] Darius JOHNSON > I said I'm here

comedy gold

Zorda
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:52:00 - [92]
 

[ 2008.05.31 21:01:53 ] Bane Glorious > that said, i'm going biking, goodbye now

hahaha

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 08:30:00 - [93]
 

Hate to tell you I told you so... but I did.

Although it seems a vote of no confidence vote in the CSM Chair has been supported by a CSM member meaning it can be brought up at the next meeting. When it is I would hope that all those CSM representatives who feel that Jade Constantine has acted in a disgusting manner vote no confidence in him.

Maybe then the CSM can spend time discussing matters of importance instead of having 4 hour long meeting where they are lectured at by a man child who has never had a position of power in his life.

Tharrn
Amarr
Epitoth Fleet Yards
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:01:00 - [94]
 

Maybe you should discuss whether you should discuss if the left or right arm should be used for voting. I guess you could fill two hours that way.


Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:10:00 - [95]
 

I would just like to point out one thing about the 'chat log' posted here.

The chat log came from a member of the Committee who had channel rights, which is why it contains a note about Inanna being muted by Jade.

Unfortunately, the other members of the Committee, who do not have channel rights, did not see that notification and therefore had no idea that Jade had gagged Inanna and Jade didn't inform us.

I only became aware that Inanna had been gagged when she mentioned it to me in a separate convo.



Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:41:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Tharrn
Maybe you should discuss whether you should discuss if the left or right arm should be used for voting. I guess you could fill two hours that way.




Left arm no doubt. I'm left-handed and won't have right-handed buggers get their way.

Rashonna
2H Industries
Posted - 2008.06.09 09:59:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Hardin
I would just like to point out one thing about the 'chat log' posted here.

The chat log came from a member of the Committee who had channel rights, which is why it contains a note about Inanna being muted by Jade.

Unfortunately, the other members of the Committee, who do not have channel rights, did not see that notification and therefore had no idea that Jade had gagged Inanna and Jade didn't inform us.

I only became aware that Inanna had been gagged when she mentioned it to me in a separate convo.





the plot thickens

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:19:00 - [98]
 

Ok, I just got home from my exam. So I went a bit trough the logs.

From meeting 2, while discussing time limits, Jade wrote:
[ 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
So it seems to me like this will happen to a person who is disruptive:
1. First warning.
2. Second warning.
3. Mute.

This means a person effectively have to disrupt 3 times.

So lets look at the logs from yesterday:
[ 2008.06.08 19:47:37 ] Jade Constantine > no Inanna I'm giving you a formal warning
[ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ] Jade Constantine > Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:58 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote".
[ 2008.06.08 21:40:29 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:10:28.
[ 2008.06.08 21:44:06 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:14:05.
[ 2008.06.08 21:49:30 ] Jade Constantine > You were muted after a 2nd formal warning for disruptive behavior Innana

Well?

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:21:00 - [99]
 

What gives Jade the right to mute people he deems disruptive other than his own mind? He made up a punishment system and then enforced it unilaterally without consultation. A dictator indeed.

Heroldyn
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:36:00 - [100]
 

lol. what a chatlog :P almost coad quality.

however, after reading the logfile i found the chairmans behaviour to be inappropriate. Ianna was by no means disruptive in a way that would have justified a mute or even a "Formal Warning" *G*.

i believe the chairman should abstain from muting people in the future and state an apology at last.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:40:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista

This means a person effectively have to disrupt 3 times.

So lets look at the logs from yesterday:
[ 2008.06.08 19:47:37 ] Jade Constantine > no Inanna I'm giving you a formal warning
[ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ] Jade Constantine > Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:58 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote".
[ 2008.06.08 21:40:29 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:10:28.
[ 2008.06.08 21:44:06 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 21:14:05.
[ 2008.06.08 21:49:30 ] Jade Constantine > You were muted after a 2nd formal warning for disruptive behavior Innana

Well?



My logs look like this:

[ 2008.06.08 21:35:52 ] Jade Constantine > Innana I'm giving you a second formal warning for this session for interruptions and interfering with the process of the chair
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:08 ] Jade Constantine > Now then:
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:11 ] Inanna Zuni > and what do you mean by that?
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:13 ] Hardin > what is a formal warning?
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:19 ] LaVista Vista > I'm sorry Jade?
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:21 ] Inanna Zuni > "Formal warning" is a misnomer
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:25 ] Darius JOHNSON > Your warnings don't mean a thing FYI
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:35 ] Inanna Zuni > and how can I be interriptiing when I am completeing what i type?
[ 2008.06.08 21:36:57 ] EVE System > Inanna Zuni was muted by Jade Constantine., Effective until 2008.06.08 22:06:57, Reason: "till the vote".

***

We had reached an issue that needed to be handled within that meeting. We had CSM members that that believed we needed a full majority 5/9 yes for an issue to reach the agenda, we had CSM members who believed simple majority was enough. We had been through one vote already that Inanna had refused to vote on and virtually protested through. Now we needed clarification because it was ridiculous and would have been a failure on the part of the chair to allow a meeting to close with the CSM split on what the interpretation of a successful vote actually was.

[ 2008.06.08 21:34:00 ] Jade Constantine > I'm going to suggest we clarify right now
[ 2008.06.08 21:34:06 ] Jade Constantine > Inanna your objection is noted
[ 2008.06.08 21:34:09 ] Serenity Steele > motion to vote.

***

[ 2008.06.08 21:34:28 ] LaVista Vista > I think we just need to do something. 1 over time still.
[ 2008.06.08 21:34:29 ] Bane Glorious > i move we drop the whole thing and forget we ever discussed it because this is just asinine

I can understand you were tired and frustrated but without clarifying those voting rules we had 4 CSM members who believed that we needed 5 yes votes for an issue to pass. That would have let to us publishing contentious minutes that would not have been acceptable to other members of the CSM.

***

[ 2008.06.08 21:35:14 ] Inanna Zuni > Actually, I see no decisions on topics which we have taken which are compromised in any way

Aside from the issue that finished with 4 yes 2 no 2 abstain that led to the discussion of voting majorities needed in the first please? An issue that 4 of 9 CSM members would consider hadn't passed and others would consider had passed? Now external commentators can certainly point things and say that as CSM members we should never have questioned simple majority voting but that doesn't change the fact that these things were questioned and once questioned the chair has the authority to hold a vote on the point of principle to clarify the issue and make sure the meeting ends with votes we all agree happened and game to results we are all clear on.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:47:00 - [102]
 

Jade, how will you be voting on the issue of No Confidence in your position as CSM Chair?

I also note that you posted another few thousand characters that don't address the issue in question. Here I'll make it nice and bold for you.

WHY DID YOU MUTE A CSM MEMBER FOR NO REAL REASON?
The logs you posted don't make your case any stronger. You got angry that people weren't respecting your non-existant authority. At one point you gave her a "formal warning" (something you can't give because you have no authority to do so) for typing something that was sent in the same second as your statement for her to stop talking.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.09 10:53:00 - [103]
 


As to the general complaints about muting raised here. I stand 100% behind what I did. And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour. I'm expecting certain rules of courtesy from CSM members in council and these need to be respected if this process is going to go anywhere.

Its been established that raising a hand "!" in channel is to be used to indicate a desire to speak. From there the chair recognizes individuals by name and they speak in order as called. Once we've moved to a vote on an issue it is not appropriate to continue debating against the notion of the vote - clarification can be asked for, its considered respectful behaviour to listen to clarification while its being given.

Now text based meetings of this sort are extremely challenging - there is no verbal queue, no eye contact, and very little peer pressure on members of the council to behave properly. Yesterday's session is an example of what happens when moderation from the chair is not followed. We managed to get through the agenda by pure force of will and stubborn resolve on the part of the CSM officers however - if we'd ended on time - items 6 to 17 on the agenda would not have been heard.

But it does show there are problems. I'm pretty unhappy with the in-game chat system and its functionality in this medium. The mute function does not work as it should do, the word limits mean that statements are broken up and its too easy for people to interrupt and break the flow of meaning. I'd personally be much happier with a voice meeting or even using IRC chat where the moderation functions work correctly.

End of the day though, that agenda was discussed and resolved and what needed clarifying got clarified. I repeat, I'm a 100% behind the moderation decisions taken and will do exactly the same thing next time if people refuse to respect the process of the meeting and keep cross-talking and interrupting and behaving disruptively.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:03:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour.


What about chairmen who ignores other council members'(Notice plural) motions. Can they be muted too? Razz

Adonis 4174
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:08:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Jade Constantine
And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour.


What about chairmen who ignores other council members'(Notice plural) motions. Can they be muted too? Razz

I suggest the CSM think seriously about appointing a speaker so that decisions like this aren't taken by people involved in the debates.

Gabriel Darkefyre
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.09 11:45:00 - [106]
 

Ironically, for a group concerned with keeping a business meeting model for the CSM's meetings they seem to have overlooked one item that's usually traditional for this style.

Namely that the Chairman should not be voting.

His/Her position is simply to regulate the flow of the meetings and to cast a deciding vote ONLY if the vote is tied between the other council members.

Damion Zyne
Queens of the Stone Age
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:00:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre
Ironically, for a group concerned with keeping a business meeting model for the CSM's meetings they seem to have overlooked one item that's usually traditional for this style.

Namely that the Chairman should not be voting.

His/Her position is simply to regulate the flow of the meetings and to cast a deciding vote ONLY if the vote is tied between the other council members.


So the person who got the most votes should not be allowed to vote ???

I agree that there should be a neutral chairman but only CCP could provide this person. Dont get fooled into the idea that any player is actually neutral.

As on the drama in this thread, you cant have a chairman w/o the tools to actually chair. Muting might not be the best way but possibly the only atm. It wouldnt be needed if people would actually behave and wait till its their turn.... well I forgot... they are all super special equal. Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:02:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

As to the general complaints about muting raised here. I stand 100% behind what I did. And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour. I'm expecting certain rules of courtesy from CSM members in council and these need to be respected if this process is going to go anywhere.

Its been established that raising a hand "!" in channel is to be used to indicate a desire to speak. From there the chair recognizes individuals by name and they speak in order as called. Once we've moved to a vote on an issue it is not appropriate to continue debating against the notion of the vote - clarification can be asked for, its considered respectful behaviour to listen to clarification while its being given.

Now text based meetings of this sort are extremely challenging - there is no verbal queue, no eye contact, and very little peer pressure on members of the council to behave properly. Yesterday's session is an example of what happens when moderation from the chair is not followed. We managed to get through the agenda by pure force of will and stubborn resolve on the part of the CSM officers however - if we'd ended on time - items 6 to 17 on the agenda would not have been heard.

But it does show there are problems. I'm pretty unhappy with the in-game chat system and its functionality in this medium. The mute function does not work as it should do, the word limits mean that statements are broken up and its too easy for people to interrupt and break the flow of meaning. I'd personally be much happier with a voice meeting or even using IRC chat where the moderation functions work correctly.

End of the day though, that agenda was discussed and resolved and what needed clarifying got clarified. I repeat, I'm a 100% behind the moderation decisions taken and will do exactly the same thing next time if people refuse to respect the process of the meeting and keep cross-talking and interrupting and behaving disruptively.



Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority. Rolling Eyes

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:07:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority. Rolling Eyes


Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps.

Heroldyn
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:12:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:13:44
Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:12:37
the majority of the csm representatives did not find Inannas behaviour disruptive

at last, from what i can tell by reading the chatlog.



LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:16:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Heroldyn
Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:13:44
Edited by: Heroldyn on 09/06/2008 12:12:37
the majority of the csm representatives did not find Inannas behaviour disruptive

at last, from what i can tell by reading the chatlog.




That is also what I thought. Quite a few of us questioned the call.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:16:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority. Rolling Eyes


Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps.



Find that quote in the CSM document please. Not a vague sentence that may or may not mean it, the quote itself. Because clearly if you are saying so authoritatively that you have this ability it would be backed up in writing for everyone to see.

It would, of course, not be only mentioned in the chatlogs of a meeting where you decide (without any vote) that these are your powers and how you will be enforcing them.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:29:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority. Rolling Eyes


Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps.



Where did that authority come from? Besides your mind I mean.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:29:00 - [114]
 


I'm telling you the Chair has the authority to moderate meetings. That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances. We can get involved in debate as to whether silencing a council member for 30secs while the chair was actually stating the terms of a vote that would allow us to finish a meeting that had ALREADY overrun by 2 hours is - "extreme circumstances" by all means. But ultimately I made the call and I'd do it again.

If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting.

Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:32:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

I'm telling you the Chair has the authority to moderate meetings. That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances. We can get involved in debate as to whether silencing a council member for 30secs while the chair was actually stating the terms of a vote that would allow us to finish a meeting that had ALREADY overrun by 2 hours is - "extreme circumstances" by all means. But ultimately I made the call and I'd do it again.

If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting.

Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us.



So I was right. You did just make that up. It's not stated anywhere in the official documents.

Draven Stone
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:36:00 - [116]
 

Jade: Quite aside from your pathetic little power trip, the fact that you allowed a meeting to run two hours overtime clearly demonstrates your sad lack of competence at performing the most basic role of a chairman. The CSM may well be the most important thing going in your life right now, but it's a gross mistake on your part to assume that the same is true for the other members of the committee. You have not accepted the responsibility for allowing the meeting to run so horrendously overtime. You have not acknowledged your role in ejecting an elected representative from the meeting and holding a vote in her absence. Such complete ineptitude would not be excusable from the chairperson of a high-school debate, yet you can somehow manage to write an after-action report congratulating yourself on a job well done.

Furthermore, your inability in both this and your own CSM thread to reply to any criticisms of your positions or attitudes, coupled with your repeatedly-stated intentions to ignore a sizable percentage of the playerbase that you have been elected to represent, demonstrate that you are barely competent at performing your role as a CSM representative, let alone that of the chairperson.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:40:00 - [117]
 


Within wishing to interrupt the flow of goon flaming too much, could I ask a little favor and suggest you skip over to Meeting 4 sign off on items 12th June 20:00 hours and continue your wild flights of fancy and hilarious attempts to wind me up there please? Very Happy

(thats the current agenda for issues sign off that we need to get done by thursday and if you'd care to troll and flame me in that thread we can serve the dual purpose of keeping it bumped and letting you have your fun)

Fair enough?

Tharrn
Amarr
Epitoth Fleet Yards
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:46:00 - [118]
 

Maybe you could just mute them here? *scuttles off snickering*

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 12:55:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Within wishing to interrupt the flow of goon flaming too much, could I ask a little favor and suggest you skip over to Meeting 4 sign off on items 12th June 20:00 hours and continue your wild flights of fancy and hilarious attempts to wind me up there please? Very Happy

(thats the current agenda for issues sign off that we need to get done by thursday and if you'd care to troll and flame me in that thread we can serve the dual purpose of keeping it bumped and letting you have your fun)

Fair enough?



Do not attempt to belittle the serious concerns that have been raised in this thread about your abilities as a CSM Chair. They are serious and concerning. And considering the majority of them relate to your conduct in the meeting this thread is about surely this is the correct place for them.

(post here if you think Jade is dum)

Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:29:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon on 09/06/2008 13:29:45
Guys, give Jade a couple of meetings more to get into it.

Might be he is just on a power-trip, but might also be that chairing meetings if you are not used to it is a pain in the ass, and chairing meetings in text is a real pain in the ass, and more so to someone who is used to being a charismatic dramatic colorful character type instead of a neutral, careful mediator type. Also do bear in mind Jade did not ask to be the chair - in fact, he's asked the procedure to be changed from the one that made him so.

That said, I agree completely on the following points:
- The muting was jumping the gun. From the logs, the meeting was obviously getting heated and people were getting tired (not the least Jade himself). What should have been done was to call a break, let everyone cool off, and continue separately.
- The idea that abstains count as no is bizarre in this case. Abstains should count as votes not cast. That is the point of abstaining in this kind of a meeting - letting whoever does have an opinion decide.




Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (10)

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