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

Author Topic

NerftheSmurf
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:21:00 - [241]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
president.


precedent

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:22:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: NerftheSmurf

precedent


Arrrg, too quick trusting the firefox spell checker. Woe is me.

Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:01:00 - [243]
 

Ok. Jailhouse lawyer time. Is there a document that lays out standing orders for all this?


The Ubernomicon
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:07:00 - [244]
 

Edited by: The Ubernomicon on 11/06/2008 05:11:34
I am having a hard time believing that someone seriously compared issues in the CSM to Brown vs. Board of Education.

The only reason an alternative is allowed to vote is because someone had stuff that was more pressing then internet spaceship politics. When that person come in to an already started meeting it is only reasonable they assume the position they would have held normally.

At this time Jade has complete control of what topics are talked during the meetings. He also has control of when the meetings take place. Jade can stack votes by scheduling meetings to exclude members of the CSM. An example of this is happening Thursday. US based Reps who work a normal 8 to 5 schedule will not be able to attend the meeting. This specially targets Bane and Darius.

And to top it off he has the ability to mute people *HE* views are being disruptive.

Members of the CSM have expressed the intent to put forward a vote to elect a new chair. In response Jade has clearly stated he has no intent of letting democracy runs it's course. He stated he will not allow any vote that reduces his power or threatens his ability to decide what the provided documentation means.

Jade has even gone a step further. He essentially vetoed a passed resolution, because he decided it not inline with the documentation provided by CCP. At the very least he could have raised his concerns to the other Reps and held another vote. Not Jade, he just decides it is not valid.

I am saddened by these events. The entity I am most upset with is not Jade, which is just being himself. CCP contrived this entire mess and has remained silent the entire time. It is about time CCP starts clarifying the documentation it wrote and not leave it up to the CSM.

Draven Stone
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:24:00 - [245]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

At the time they did, but most hadn't read the appropriate documentation and since the vote outcome contradicts the role of alternates on the CSM I'm going to declare it void pending feedback from CCP. I'm of the opinion now that we shouldn't be messing with the founding documentation - especially not in areas that concern voting privileges and the responsibilities and duties of CSM members.



You don't get to declare anything void, sunshine. The whole reason you are having these excrutiatingly boring votes is because the meaning of a lot of the CSM documents are unclear. The votes were meant to clarify existing issues, such as "how do alternates work?", "What power is available to the chairman to direct conversation", etc. Given the lack of direction from CCP, you have a responsibility to ensure that all members agree on how it should work, and then act in the agreed-upon manner until CCP explicitly states otherwise.

You were quite happy to go along with this process until a decision was made that you didn't agree with. As soon as this happened, you began acting like a spoiled child, showing zero respect for the wishes of your council members. You tried to change the wording of the resolution after it had been adopted, because you didn't agree with it. You tried to bully people into changing their vote. You muted people that called you out on your unjustifiable actions. And now, after presumably losing the confidence of your peers in your ability to run the chair, you've decided that you have the power to void the entire process, in effect making the hours and hours of tedious debate you've presided over even more worthless?

It bears repeating: who the hell do you think you are? You casually write off what the CSM has done thus far because you've changed your mind, and consider yourself within your rights to do so? How do you propose to deal with the vagueness of procedures governing (for example) alternates, now that you've grandly declared that agreed-upon measures don't apply?

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:25:00 - [246]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Jade Constantine

Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting:

"and Alternates when serving in the place of Representatives—have equal power on the CSM."

I took a rule that you couldn't reasonable arrive late and dislodge an alternate sworn in as a representative for that meeting.



You are not entitled to rule on the CSM document and make rules based on said reading.


Actually, that's one power he really ought to be exerting more often. The rules of order exist, the Chair interprets them, and the Council can overrule with 2/3. That's how it works in Robert's Rules, and it's fairly common in other rules of order too. Would have neatly cleaned up the issue of abstaining, too - interpret, maybe get a challenge, but it's disposed of.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:41:00 - [247]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Jade Constantine

Watch your language please Hardin. You were not "gagged" you were told you couldn't arrive at the latter half of a meeting and dislodge an empowered alternate. That was my read of the role of alternates - by being sworn into that meeting Husko was accepted as a full status representative for the duration of meeting:

"and Alternates when serving in the place of Representatives—have equal power on the CSM."

I took a rule that you couldn't reasonable arrive late and dislodge an alternate sworn in as a representative for that meeting.



You are not entitled to rule on the CSM document and make rules based on said reading.


Actually, that's one power he really ought to be exerting more often. The rules of order exist, the Chair interprets them, and the Council can overrule with 2/3. That's how it works in Robert's Rules, and it's fairly common in other rules of order too. Would have neatly cleaned up the issue of abstaining, too - interpret, maybe get a challenge, but it's disposed of.


I am sorry, but we are not using Robert's Rules and there is nothing to interpret. There is no "sworn in" nor was he "accepted for the duration of the meeting". All of these are made up fantasies of Jade Constantine. Except for the Robert's Rules part. Those are fantasies of everyone else who has to deal with Jade Constantine subverting the process when things don't go his way.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:43:00 - [248]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 11/06/2008 05:54:54
Originally by: Kelsin
Ianna I think the CSM documentation contradicts you pretty directly as described above, where it says that Alternates serving on the Council in place of Reps are fully equal to Reps themselves.

To say an Alternate serving on the council in place of a Rep can be displaced at a non-serving Rep's leisure is to treat them unequally, since the non-serving Rep cannot displace another Rep instead. The RL example being the USA's Brown vs. The Board of Education which said that "separate but equal is not equal". If a serving Alternate is subject to some effect that a serving Rep is not, then they are not being treated equally.


Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.

Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:49:00 - [249]
 


http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=793804

Adopt this issue reps. Its to clarify standing orders in an official document.

I hadn't read the end of the minutes when I wrote it, so feel free to clarify the discussion points in it.

Qaedienne
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:54:00 - [250]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.


It is a procedural issue, however. It should be addressed better before it leads to a problem, such as a delegate returning mid-vote and demanding their vote be counted even though the alternate has already voted, or some such.

Anyway, not holding out much hope. Most of the folks on the council seem to have their head up their ass, or an agenda.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:56:00 - [251]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry, but we are not using Robert's Rules and there is nothing to interpret. There is no "sworn in" nor was he "accepted for the duration of the meeting". All of these are made up fantasies of Jade Constantine. Except for the Robert's Rules part. Those are fantasies of everyone else who has to deal with Jade Constantine subverting the process when things don't go his way.


No, we're not using any rules of order, and that's the problem. But that said, I've never seen a set of rules of order anywhere - legislatures, committees, courtrooms, whatever - that do not give the presiding officer the power to be the first interpreter of the rules of order that the meeting is operating under. The two powers fundamental to the Chair are the power to moderate discussions(including ejection in extreme cases) and the power to interpret the rules of order - it's what being the Chair means. Any conceivable rules of order give those two powers to the Chair, because without those powers being somewhere the meeting will almost inevitably descend into anarchy at some point(cf. half of the last meeting), and there is no logical place to vest those powers except the presiding officer of the meeting - i.e., the Chair. Trying to operate without those powers in place is insanity - it'd be like deleting the Crown from the Westminster system, the whole thing just falls apart in extremis. And given how this CSM seems to be functioning, "in extremis" is a thrice weekly affair.

Originally by: Qaedienne
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.


It is a procedural issue, however. It should be addressed better before it leads to a problem, such as a delegate returning mid-vote and demanding their vote be counted even though the alternate has already voted, or some such.

Anyway, not holding out much hope. Most of the folks on the council seem to have their head up their ass, or an agenda.


Actually, that one was dealt with correctly at the beginning of the last meeting. Full points to the CSM there for a rational compromise.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.11 06:29:00 - [252]
 

Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
(post here if you think Jade is dum)


Quoting myself from page 4. Nice to see so many of you agree with me.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:13:00 - [253]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

No, we're not using any rules of order, and that's the problem. But that said, I've never seen a set of rules of order anywhere - legislatures, committees, courtrooms, whatever - that do not give the presiding officer the power to be the first interpreter of the rules of order that the meeting is operating under. The two powers fundamental to the Chair are the power to moderate discussions(including ejection in extreme cases) and the power to interpret the rules of order - it's what being the Chair means. Any conceivable rules of order give those two powers to the Chair, because without those powers being somewhere the meeting will almost inevitably descend into anarchy at some point(cf. half of the last meeting), and there is no logical place to vest those powers except the presiding officer of the meeting - i.e., the Chair. Trying to operate without those powers in place is insanity - it'd be like deleting the Crown from the Westminster system, the whole thing just falls apart in extremis. And given how this CSM seems to be functioning, "in extremis" is a thrice weekly affair.



Well that is great. And when the council agrees on rules of order and when the rules of order give first interpretation to the chair then the chair will be right within their power to do so.

However, rules of order come about by votes in the political process. No body starts out and before it gets going has everything in place. No, they vote it out and get their rules of order in order by consensus or majority. Robert's Rules did not spring miraculously out of thin air, and nor have any rules for any governing body.

Jade doesn't want to play by the rules. He usurps power he does not have, he invents rules and order that do not exist, he interprets original documents which is outside his scope, and attempts to modify the result of votes already recorded.

Its perfectly reasonable, especially for a small body such as this one to operate by majority or consensus and adopt rules in such a manner. There was a problem "how do we deal with x" they voted on it, it was accepted. Except that since it didn't go the way Jade voted he mis-characterizes the vote. And then when another vote does not go the way he wants, he badgers equal representatives into changing their votes.

It simply does not work that way. And if there is any passage of the original document that directly shows that it is the one where it says "all voting members are equal". Equal does not include more rights than others. Ever. And that means that there can be no right of the chairman to interpret anything first. And there can be no right of the chairman to veto and there can be no right of the chairman to prevent others from discussing or voting.

Sorry, if anything the powers described and actions taken are expressly forbidden.

Sarmaul
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:29:00 - [254]
 

Wait, goum is still hounding the CSM after losing miserably (both in votes and behaviour)?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:35:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: Sarmaul
Wait, goum is still hounding the CSM after losing miserably (both in votes and behaviour)?


No, where have you been?

Narine Evan
Derelik Capital Constructions
Posted - 2008.06.11 09:30:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Sarmaul
Wait, goum is still hounding the CSM after losing miserably (both in votes and behaviour)?


Yes, where have you been?


There we go fixed that for you.
Wink


Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:11:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.


Hey Herschel - I'm not saying anyone is bound by a decision made in any other system. I'm just drawing on the logic used there because it applies here given what is in the CSM document - if you like, forget I brought up that example, the argument is the same without it.

You say "You're not supposed to be equal" but the CSM document directly contradicts you and that's what needs to be recognized.

Having some special status while serving at a council meeting whereby you can be bumped as soon as some person not at that meeting decides its time, is not being equal to other people who do not have that special status. That's my point.

And maybe it's an arcane point and it probably doesn't matter - but Ianna clearly doesn't get it, and I think most of the rest of the council hasn't considered it much. But the equality argument based on the CSM document is pretty solid.

Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:21:00 - [258]
 

Edited by: Halca on 11/06/2008 12:21:14
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Even if we take the fanciful assumption that SCOTUS decisions are binding upon an Icelandic private corporation's advisory body, the comparison still doesn't follow. This isn't "separate but equal", it's "alternate but not delegate". You're not supposed to be equal - the delegates won, the alternates got the consolation prize. When they're both members they're treated equally, because members are treated equally, but there's no equality rights when it comes to exercising somebody else's vote when that person gets back to the table.


Hey Herschel - I'm not saying anyone is bound by a decision made in any other system. I'm just drawing on the logic used there because it applies here given what is in the CSM document - if you like, forget I brought up that example, the argument is the same without it.

You say "You're not supposed to be equal" but the CSM document directly contradicts you and that's what needs to be recognized.

Having some special status while serving at a council meeting whereby you can be bumped as soon as some person not at that meeting decides its time, is not being equal to other people who do not have that special status. That's my point.

And maybe it's an arcane point and it probably doesn't matter - but Ianna clearly doesn't get it, and I think most of the rest of the council hasn't considered it much. But the equality argument based on the CSM document is pretty solid.


They are only equal in the context of when they are substituted for an absent member. I don't understand how you guys struggle with this concept so much. Alternates are clearly not equal to standing CSM delegates by virtue of the fact that they don't get to vote unless they are substituting. The key point is when they attain equality and when they lose it.

Brock Brannigan
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:23:00 - [259]
 

Edited by: Brock Brannigan on 11/06/2008 12:23:29
bah stupid alt.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:35:00 - [260]
 

Originally by: Halca
They are only equal in the context of when they are substituted for an absent member. I don't understand how you guys struggle with this concept so much. Alternates are clearly not equal to standing CSM delegates by virtue of the fact that they don't get to vote unless they are substituting. The key point is when they attain equality and when they lose it.


Halca, I think the bit "while serving on the council" indicates clearly that they gain that equality when they are asked to step in and they do not lose it until the meeting is over. At the next meeting the Chair calls in the Representatives (and any Alternates needed, in order per the CSM document) and the process begins anew.

"When" is pretty clear - and it's strange to think that the When is arbitrarily based on when a Rep chooses to re-enter the chamber, because that gives the absent Rep power over an Alternate that they do not have over one of the first 9 Reps, which is unequal.

Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:42:00 - [261]
 

Edited by: Halca on 11/06/2008 12:42:12
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Halca
They are only equal in the context of when they are substituted for an absent member. I don't understand how you guys struggle with this concept so much. Alternates are clearly not equal to standing CSM delegates by virtue of the fact that they don't get to vote unless they are substituting. The key point is when they attain equality and when they lose it.


Halca, I think the bit "while serving on the council" indicates clearly that they gain that equality when they are asked to step in and they do not lose it until the meeting is over. At the next meeting the Chair calls in the Representatives (and any Alternates needed, in order per the CSM document) and the process begins anew.

"When" is pretty clear - and it's strange to think that the When is arbitrarily based on when a Rep chooses to re-enter the chamber, because that gives the absent Rep power over an Alternate that they do not have over one of the first 9 Reps, which is unequal.


They are substitutes for someone absent. If the absentee returns they are no longer needed. They are not equal when the person they replaced returns. This is logic. Insisting that this is some sort of subversion is sensationalist for the sake of it. We are not talking about life changing decisions here, we're talking about spaceships.

The equality statement is there to allow alternates to vote with equal voice while they are substituting. It does not state anywhere that they should remain in the meeting for any length of time. It makes sense to allow them to stay for the conclusion of an issue they have become involved with in the process of substituting for an absentee but once that person returns, it is simply an arbitrary decision to say whether they should stay for the remainder of the meeting or leave once the issue has been concluded and in this sense they are not equal and implying that's what the document states is clearly disengenuous.

Now you have got me talking on CSM points which I argued against the CSM itself doing yesterday. If there is a problem understanding something (and there clearly is) then CCP should be approached. If CCP want the CSM or the chair to arbitrate and construct rules then they should unequivocably state this. All arguments about the finer points before this occcurs are pointless and irrelevant.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:54:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Halca
The equality statement is there to allow alternates to vote with equal voice while they are substituting. It does not state anywhere that they should remain in the meeting for any length of time. It makes sense to allow them to stay for the conclusion of an issue they have become involved with in the process of substituting for an absentee but once that person returns, it is simply an arbitrary decision to say whether they should stay for the remainder of the meeting or leave once the issue has been concluded and in this sense they are not equal and implying that's what the document states is clearly disengenuous.


(Heh, sorry for getting you into a debate, I just find this stuff interesting, and it is funny that we're having a "Constitutional argument" over internet spaceship politics)

It's not disingenuous, that's actually what the document says - and all it says - about Alternates. You're adding an additional interpretation when you say that the equal clause "only applies until the Rep gets back". If you read over the CSM documents there's nothing at all about Reps stepping out of the chamber for a while and having an Alternate take their place until they come back. All it says about Alternates is that if a Rep cannot attend a meeting, the Alternate replaces them and when serving in that capacity they are equal to all other Reps.

I maintain the argument that if you can be bumped out of the meeting at any time, you are not equal to other Reps who cannot be bumped out.


Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
Posted - 2008.06.11 13:12:00 - [263]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Halca
The equality statement is there to allow alternates to vote with equal voice while they are substituting. It does not state anywhere that they should remain in the meeting for any length of time. It makes sense to allow them to stay for the conclusion of an issue they have become involved with in the process of substituting for an absentee but once that person returns, it is simply an arbitrary decision to say whether they should stay for the remainder of the meeting or leave once the issue has been concluded and in this sense they are not equal and implying that's what the document states is clearly disengenuous.


(Heh, sorry for getting you into a debate, I just find this stuff interesting, and it is funny that we're having a "Constitutional argument" over internet spaceship politics)

It's not disingenuous, that's actually what the document says - and all it says - about Alternates. You're adding an additional interpretation when you say that the equal clause "only applies until the Rep gets back". If you read over the CSM documents there's nothing at all about Reps stepping out of the chamber for a while and having an Alternate take their place until they come back. All it says about Alternates is that if a Rep cannot attend a meeting, the Alternate replaces them and when serving in that capacity they are equal to all other Reps.

I maintain the argument that if you can be bumped out of the meeting at any time, you are not equal to other Reps who cannot be bumped out.




If they were equal then all alternates would vote all the time. They do not. They are only equal for the purposes of replacing an official rep and when the rep cannot be at the meeting. You have stated this yourself. If a rep returns the replacement is no longer needed. This seems pretty simple to me.

You are talking about one case where someone can't attend a meeting and extending it into the situation where someone is late to a meeting or someone needs to step away for a time. You've also stated yourself that the document does not state any rules in this regard so why are you also extending an argument to say it does? In my estimation common sense would dictate that while a rep cannot be present a substitute should be called for and when they are present the substitute should step down. I don't think that is too much of an extension and does not in any way impinge on the rights of an alternate in voting when they are there.

Rules and exceptions should be made to err on the side of the reps, not the alternates because they are alternates.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.11 13:54:00 - [264]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 11/06/2008 13:57:47
Originally by: Kelsin
You're adding an additional interpretation when you say that the equal clause "only applies until the Rep gets back". [cut for space]




If the equal standing does not end when the first elected rep gets back, when does equal standing end?

Since the document defines no end point except by defining the terms of which alternates serve "when the representative cannot attend". If you are saying that when the representative returns the alternate is still entitled to vote, then either the alternate can never be displaced and the council is now 10 members. Or the representative can never return.

Both of these interpretations are ridiculous. And they are the only options that must necessarily flow from your interpretation of the language. But you support neither of these. You support something entirely different. You support the representative coming back at the end of the meeting. Regardless of the duration that "he was unable to attend". This is a direct contradiction of any reading of the language.

Furthermore, there is no "additional interpretation" about it "only applies until the rep gets back". The equality clause states that the alternate has equality when acting as an alternate. Such, the equality clause only applies during the time that the alternate can be acting for the first elected representative.

Such you then find in the document where it says when alternates take that position. Only during the time in which the document says alternates take that position does the equality apply.

Here is a good example. Suppose you and your mother were having an argument. You wanted to play video games and stay up late, and your father wanted you to go to bed at 9 PM sharp. So your mother says "you can stay up and play video games as long as you want when your father is not home". Because she doesn't care so long as your father doesn't find out.

Now, if you went to her later and said "father left for an hour then returned, so i stayed up and played video games for four hours because that was as long as i wanted to" she would say "You're grounded, the section regarding as long as you wanted only applied when your father was not here, once your father returned, that part no longer applied and you could no longer play video games as long as you wanted but had to go to bed".

You are the one saying that the result applies regardless of the condition, when instead the result only occurs when the condition is met.

When do they have equality? When serving in a voting capacity for a representative. When do they serve in a voting capacity for a representative? When the representative is unable to attend. If the representative is present is the representative unable to attend? No, if the representative is present the representative is able to attend, since if the representative were unable he could not be present. If the representative is able to attend does the alternate serve in a voting capacity? No. If the alternate is not serving in a voting capacity do they have equality? No.

The resolution reached by the council is actually more lenient than a strict reading of the language. It gives more rights to the alternates by ensuring that agenda items are completed as a whole. Its the equivalent to your mom saying "its o.k. if you finish that level so you can save" instead of her walking in and shutting your game system down. Its a reasonable compromise that both upholds the integrity of the representative while not wasting an alternates time by making him take part in a discussion where he will not vote, or the councils time by having to repeat information or wait for the representative to catch up and state their case.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:46:00 - [265]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 11/06/2008 14:47:47
Good lord look at all these interpretations. Let's be clear on something. The statement in the document regarding equal standing is in effect ONLY when people are serving as representatives. The equal standing clause ONLY applies to representatives.

There is OBVIOUS ambiguity when it comes to whether or not an alternate can be called in during a meeting and then unseated when the elected official returns. We sought to clarify this with a vote. The results were not liked and were unilaterally overturned. Hopefully CCP will provide further clarification since voting on the issue democratically has been deemed by one to be insufficient. I have to wonder what the whole point is at that point but it is what it is. Some of us think it's a council and others a dictatorship.

I believed that line to be a boilerplate and common statement in documents of this type which in essence merely states that for purposes of voting all votes are equal. Jade got 43 or so votes more than Hardin but in terms of voting Jade's votes do not count for any more. I believe that to be pretty much the sole purpose of this paragraph of the document. That all reps are equal.

CCP openly stated that they wanted us to "fill in the blanks". We attempted to do so. Someone didn't like the results. Now we have to wait for CCP to say again "Fill in the blanks" because obviously the first time wasn't good enough. Really as far as I'm concerned it's all just a waste of time as there was never any need for this stupid circlejerk of a "leadership" structure in the first place. Someone has interpreted a "chair" as being some form of absolute leader over a council of adults and we've wasted ****loads of time debating that, when in reality everyone should just shut up and talk about spaceships. Sure someone needs to schedule meetings and organize the agenda, but 9 adults do not need to be lorded over, muted or told how to vote.

This ONLY works if the person asserting they have some form of "power" doesn't use it or abuse it. I don't think I'm wrong in stating that there at least 8 people on the council that would love to be discussing Eve. Discussing and voting on issues related to a videogame as adults. Not as insignificant children who need to be herded or lead by some self-appointed demigod.

All of this debate is an unfortunate distraction from the issues at hand and has really shown the worst sides of some people, but I also don't think many are surprised whatsoever. Personally I'm going to remember that a snake is a snake. If someone brings it into your house it's going to bite you. You can't hate the snake for being a snake. I believe CCP's hope was that these things could be worked out reasonably internally but I believe you can all see from the results of last weekend's vote and subsequent "overturning" of that vote that this is simply not going to happen. I personally hold CCP far more accountable for the current status than I do Jade.

I don't like snakes but common sense dictates that I blame their appearance in the chicken coop on the people who put them there. This is just plain stupid and unfortunately a democratic solution will not be allowed to prevail. At least if nothing else we're proving to CCP why their proposed "structure" is silly at best.

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:52:00 - [266]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Good lord look at all these interpretations. Let's be clear on something. The statement in the document regarding equal standing is in effect ONLY when people are serving as representatives. The equal standing clause ONLY applies to representatives.

There is OBVIOUS ambiguity when it comes to whether or not an alternate can be called in during a meeting and then unseated when the elected official returns. We sought to clarify this with a vote. The results were not liked and were unilaterally overturned. Hopefully CCP will provide further clarification since voting on the issue democratically has been deemed by one to be insufficient. I have to wonder what the whole point is at that point but it is what it is. Some of us think it's a council and others a dictatorship.

I believed that line to be a boilerplate and common statement in documents of this type which in essence merely states that for purposes of voting all votes are equal. Jade got 43 or so votes more than Hardin but in terms of voting Jade's votes do not count for any more. I believe that to be pretty much the sole purpose of this paragraph of the document. That all reps are equal.

CCP openly stated that they wanted us to "fill in the blanks". We attempted to do so. Someone didn't like the results. Now we have to wait for CCP to say again "Fill in the blanks" because obviously the first time wasn't good enough. Really as far as I'm concerned it's all just a waste of time as there was never any need for this stupid circlejerk of a "leadership" structure in the first place. Someone has interpreted a "chair" as being some form of absolute leader over a council of adults and we've wasted ****loads of time debating that, when in reality everyone should just shut up and talk about spaceships. Sure someone needs to schedule meetings and organize the agenda, but 9 adults do not need to be lorded over, muted or told how to vote.

This ONLY works if the person asserting they have some form of "power" doesn't use it or abuse it. I don't think I'm wrong in stating that there at least 8 people on the council that would love to be discussing Eve. Discussing and voting on issues related to a videogame as adults. Not as insignificant children who need to be herded or lead by some self-appointed demigod.

All of this debate is an unfortunate distraction from the issues at hand and has really shown the worst sides of some people, but I also don't think many are surprised whatsoever. Personally I'm going to remember that a snake is a snake. If someone brings it into your house it's going to bite you. You can't hate the snake for being a snake. I believe CCP's hope was that these things could be worked out reasonably internally but I believe you can all see from the results of last weekend's vote and subsequent "overturning" of that vote that this is simply not going to happen. I personally hold CCP far more accountable for the current status than I do Jade.

I don't like snakes but common sense dictates that I blame their appearance in the chicken coop on the people who put them there. This is just plain stupid and unfortunately a democratic solution will not be allowed to prevail. At least if nothing else we're proving to CCP why their proposed "structure" is silly at best.


Hahaha, a goon being the voice of reason. The CSM really is that terrible.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:53:00 - [267]
 

I hate to admit this, but I have to agree with Goumindong... it seems quite straight forward to me...

At some point in a meeting, if one of the 9 CSM Representatives is not able to be there for what ever reason, then an alternate steps in. at this point the alternate is an equal member for voting purposes, their vote counts just like the rest of the 9... if the Missing Representative arrives, returns or otherwise shows up, the Alternate would be required to step aside (if mid-vote, the elected representative may wish to allow the alternate to complete the vote if they feel their vote, after missing the prior discussion, would be uninformed, but this would be up to the representative, not the chair or the alternate).

Regardless of the make up of the CSM, rules like this all need to be defined in a way that limits the ability to interpret them, in this case I think they were (the not available clause).

If you wanted to clarify this better, there is no reason why all 14 Representatives (9 CSM members and 5 Alts) should not make an effort to be in and be included in all online meetings, this way the Alternates are informed if asked to step in for a time. The alternates could add to the discussion (within reason) but would only be able to vote if they were acting in the stead of one of the 9.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:24:00 - [268]
 

A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council members—in any combination of Alternatives and Representatives—are present. The published meeting notes will display the members in attendance, and the main Transcript Vault will keep a running tally of the meeting attendance of all Representatives. Where applicable, Representatives are encouraged to post chat logs as a supplement to the meeting notes as well. The recommended guideline for meetings is at least once per week,with a minimum of nine Representatives present.

This is from the CSM documents. The interesting part is highlighted by italics...

Maybe alternates, once given voting status, keep it for the rest of the meeting, regardless of how many representatives come after they do?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:50:00 - [269]
 

Originally by: Arithron
A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council members—in any combination of Alternatives and Representatives—are present. The published meeting notes will display the members in attendance, and the main Transcript Vault will keep a running tally of the meeting attendance of all Representatives. Where applicable, Representatives are encouraged to post chat logs as a supplement to the meeting notes as well. The recommended guideline for meetings is at least once per week,with a minimum of nine Representatives present.

This is from the CSM documents. The interesting part is highlighted by italics...

Maybe alternates, once given voting status, keep it for the rest of the meeting, regardless of how many representatives come after they do?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen


Another way to look at that is that a meeting needs a combination of nine (reps and alternates to begin) but it remains quorate as long as there is a combination of seven reps and alternates present. Of course this is me guessing and its very ambiguous - lets add it to list of things we need clarified by ccp I guess.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:56:00 - [270]
 

Quote:
As regards my own UI issues, in writing them up for CCP consideration I had already split them up individually. So far as I can see, in my own cases all the comments were (s) positive, and (b) covered all the contained issues, so I see no reason to suggest that they need additional time in what is solely a different presentational format. What other CSM members feel I can't say, but I would suggest that where a discussion thread has covered the proposals then it has covered the proposals no matter what the exact presentation


Inanna,

You need to split the issues apart for presentation to the PLAYERS and for discussion and voting by REPRESENTATIVES. The issues, if successful through the CSM vote, then are presented to CCP.

Currently, by lumping issues in together, players can not coherently discuss and debate each issue seperately, and arguments and discussions are hard to follow through a thread. It will be even harder when a particular issue is a source of contention or needs changing due to overlooked ramifications.

Additionally, when presented in a CSM meeting, having multiple issues makes discussion about each one much harder, if not impossible (eg, 60+ issues on Science and Industry). Each issue must be able to be discussed and debated in a CSM meeting by the representatives. A clear yay or nay vote on EACH issue must also be made by the CSM. By having multiple issues together, this is impossible. Poor issues get through the entire process, and CSM representatives get no opportunity to vote them down, without rejecting many good issues. The same is also true when a few good issues are amoungst many bad ones.

Your issues may all be good and serve the greater needs of the EVE players. However, it is important ALL issues are presented the SAME way and equal opportunity given to each issue for every player and representative to discuss/debate and the representatives to vote on.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen


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