|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:26:00 -
[1]
Nothing being done to facilitate discussion? No word on what that template you voted on last time was?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:51:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
The general conclusion was that posting issue threads in the Assembly Hall for seven day minimum was the best means of facilitating discussion.
Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
Put up a thread where we can have a discussion. Its not difficult, its no undue burden, all it requires is a little honesty and a smidgen of initiative.
Quote:
If you read the 2nd meeting chatlog you'll see that we didn't have it ready and had to defer - should have it up this week.
I read the chatlog and it looked to me like you voted to approve it.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 21:07:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Goumindong Bull****, you never discussed it. Hell your post in the "Look at 0.0 sov" thread is "I support this"
way to have a facilitate discussion!
There is only a chance in hell of having a discussion if a CSM starts the topic and even then its flooded with **** by all the idiots who don't realize they don't need to "vote" anymore.
I've told you before about swearing and insulting people in your posts Goum. Learn to behave with a little respect and maybe you'll get some discussion. Continue like this and you'll continue quite rightly being ignored.
Welcome to the internet. Now are you going to answer my charges, buck up and get something useful done or are you going to go and cry to your mommy because someone said a mean word?
I don't ignore you when you ad hominem, strawman, and use all sorts of fallacious and specious logic. You should not ignore anyone else when they use adjectives.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 01:03:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 05/06/2008 20:22:12
Originally by: Arithron No items on the agenda for CCP before flying to Iceland would be a failure of the current CSM council, rather than a failure of the rules. Nothing needs changing- you just have to make sure that meetings etc are held in the proper timeframe before the 14 day period, and issues are properly discussed and voted upon.
We (meaning CSM+CCP) are altering the rules this time Arithron. I've told you the rationale. And I'm confident that eve-players will understand the intention to get more useful issues on the agenda for Iceland rather than less of them. You are free to disagree but this decision is made.
I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 02:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, how are we going to get useful ideas on the agenda when you guys won't even give us official threads where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes?
That is kinda like having big pharma write the medicare bill with no input from the public and claiming its been widely discussed and the public has had the chance to weigh in.
God damn it, man, how thick-headed are you? Threads in Assembly Hall ARE OFFICIAL.
where we can explain the problems and concerns of changes. You cannot do that in the Assembly Hall threads. They're rallies, not discussions.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 00:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Thus we need both, stop saying it's not one or the other it's both, it's just not done perfectly.
I've never said that the system is perfect or that its anyones fault. I have said that the CSM needs to take some initiative and make the threads in here where we can discuss the issues without the ******** mechanics getting in the way.
It doesn't take ANY effort except making a post that says "discuss this issue in here" and then reading it. Hell you will probably save time since you now don't have to deal with the **** in the other thread.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:30:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Goumindong on 09/06/2008 15:30:47
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it... Go ahead and play coy and offended though.
I was asking to see if you actually understood the accusation you were making.
"editorializing" is not a difficult concept to grasp. Are you seriously wondering whether Darius is able to comprehend what it means?
But hell, since you don't seem to understand this simple concept, i will explain it for you.
It means that when the Council voted to pass a measure that was defined in one specific way, you made a note that the measure passed defined in a different specific way. Now, i will assume for the sake of courtesy that you are both literate and not a polemic dillweed(though it there is ample evidence for the contrary) and will present both the issue voted on and the issue you editorialized. Precisely so that you can comprehend what is going on here (however dense, intentionally or otherwise, you would have to be to not understand)
THE VOTE: 1st issue is can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda
THE EDITORIALIZING: alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting
(Note: those are above quotes of the issue[italics are me for emphasis], and this happened twice where you made that same mistake, this quote being the second time after the official vote)
Do you just not care enough to read what you are voting on or is this a concentrated effort to subvert the will of the CSM since they voted against you?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:37:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You completely misunderstood what was going on there Inanna. The electable chair vote ended with a 4/2/2 result and half the CSM committee felt that meant it failed, half felt it passed. We moved to a secondary vote on the principle of majority voting (in general) to clarify whether the result was a pass or a fail. Your behaviour makes a lot more sense now in retrospect if you actually did confuse these two issues and assumed it was a revote on issue 3 specifically.
So the measure failed to pass and then you attempted to get the two members who didn't vote to vote so that it might?
You moved to a secondary vote? What the heck does that mean for people who don't reside in "Jade Land"
And where was the movement for the "secondary vote" and where was the second on the movement for the "secondary vote" and where were all the other votes in the secondary vote that would have to be recast.
No, you were badgering the people who didn't vote to vote. Its a simple concept how hard is it to understand?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I'm pretty sure that what people call "editorializing" on those votes was not intentional
While i would like to share this sentiment, Jade has a long long history of doing this intentionally. As stated earlier, he was banned from the forums for just this sort of behaviour. Having tried to have discussion with Jade based on logic where he devolves into ad hominem attacks and strawman i can't in good conscious say that this was anything but intentional.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:09:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
To be honest its the light at the end of the tunnel. If we do actually get these issues into useful discussion and help get some decent changes through it all becomes worthwhile. These horrible meetings do have a purpose. End of the day all the forum trolling and nonsense means nothing if we make a positive impact on the game.
You mean the discussion you are avoiding having on the forums as required by the CSM document? That discussion? The CSM is not a place where you get to make your argument to CCP, its a place where a group of people can come together and judge and present the communities wishes, reservations, and needs to CCP so that they can better create a game that we play.
But you actually have to have a place where wishes, reservations, and needs can be presented to you before that happens and all that takes is a little will on your part to get it done.
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:11:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah However, the item was phrased very differently on the agenda:
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Details entering the topic during the discussion should be included in the re-stating of the issue at the time of the vote. Perhaps by the person who brought up the issue to avoid confusion? In this case it might have helped if Hardin had been asked to re-state the issue in his understanding prior to the vote, at least so that you're starting with the person who is sponsoring the issue and working from their definition of the vote.
He did, after which Jade then summarized him in an incorrect and unflattering manner.
It would not have been very different had there been a vote on "re-examine 0.0 sovereignty" and then at the end, Darius JOHNSON had said "Vote to **** over small alliances has passed"
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:07:00 -
[12]
I think he is saying "Do things properly so that the people have a chance to comment on each issue as required by the CSM document"
That isn't an unreasonable onus.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite The fact is that the agenda item was vague and Jade was trying to clarify it
Are you serious?
"Members arriving to the discussion enter the discussion and voting at the beginning of the next agenda item" is neither vague nor did Jade "clarify" it. She flat out changed the meaning of the suggestion, not once, but twice
Quote: Many of the representatives appear to feel that as the primary representatives they have a special status over and above that of an alternate who is taking part in a meeting.
As soon as the representative comes back, the alternative is no longer serving as an alternative and as such your argument is irrelevant
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:24:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
(...)
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
In light of the quoted document I have to agree vigorously. It seems several CSM reps were not aware of this part of the CSM document, and treating Alternates as stand-ins to be inserted and removed at the leisure of the Representatives is all wrong.
Without that section of the CSM document I was inclined to agree with the way the Council voted, but reading it now it seems they were misinformed.
I am sorry where does the above quote say when alternatives are relieved? We have the mandate for representatives to attend in the absence of a rep, but not when the rep is not absent.
As voted by the council, when a representative returns or arrives, the alternate is no longer serving as an alternate at the moment the agenda item ends and as such, the afore mentioned passage no longer applies to them at the point the agenda item ends.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:41:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kelsin
Well, if an Alternate serving in place of a Rep has equal power to a Rep, then the Rep doesn't have authority over that Alternate to displace them.
To displace an Alternate the returning Representative is exercising authority over them. But according to the CSM document the returning Representative has no authority over the Alternate, because they are equals.
To put it another way: On what authority does a returning Representative displace an Alternate?
The representative is not exercising authority. The Council is exercising authority. Just as a representative does not have authority to bring issues to CCP, the Council has the authority to bring issues to CCP. Etc Etc Etc. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:27:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Kelsin Well Hardin, I agree that in general it's open to interpretation, but it's the equal powers line that makes it a harder argument to say an Alternate's status can be changed by the comings and goings of a Representative.
If they cannot then the status of the representative cannot be changed and they were never entitled to vote in the first place. They have those rights when they are acting as representatives, when they are not, that status ends. There is no interpretation where this is concerned, the only question is when that status changes. By your definition, Tusco would have full voting rights at all subsequent meetings, and be entitled to go to Iceland. These are clearly not intended nor can be read into the document. If it cannot and the reading that supports your claim must necessarily support that claim as well then yours must be wrong.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:32:00 -
[17]
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 Representativesùhave 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.
Quote:
I think this is poor argumentation. We all received votes from the electorate and its entirely possible that one or more of the alternates will have to serve on the CSM in this session. You are making artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates that I do not see in the CSM documentation.
No, he does not. The distinction is made by the language "when serving in the place of a representative". You are deliberately attempting to change the language in order to secure partisan advantage.
Quote:
Of course thats also problematic because in order to "step in" they'd need to be sworn-in. This would count as them having served on the CSM for the session and by my reading of the CSM rules I see no reasonable expectation they should be dislodged again should the "original nine" CSM rep return.
The CSM document states no such "swearing in". You are again making things up of whole cloth.
Quote:
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 do not have the power to declare a vote of the CSM valid. you are equal to all the other representatives and have no special power over them as we can clearly see in the language |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:37:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong By your definition, Tusco would have full voting rights at all subsequent meetings, and be entitled to go to Iceland.
Nope, that doesn't follow from what I said. You must have misunderstood.
Indeed it does. You see, it says he has equal standing when he is serving in the place as a representative and it says he serves as soon as anyone is absent. Such equal standing and rights if it means that when the real representative cannot displace them that either the real representative can never replace them or both must go. If both must go, then as soon as the replacement goes absent for any reason, another alternate must be appointed. Because that alt has the same rights as the other representatives which includes having an alternate vote in their stead if they are out.
Both of these are ridiculous. Such the differentiation of "when" cannot be confused with the "equality". Defining the "when" is thus an important part of what the CSM or CCP must do. And since CCP cannot act speedily the CSM must set out a way that they can operate. This is typically by way of a vote.
Oh look we had a vote. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:28:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Goumindong on 11/06/2008 00:28:27
Originally by: Kelsin I'll just reiterate:
The Alternates WERE elected, and when serving in the place of an absent Representative should be treated the same as any other Rep. That they can be displaced at a time not of their convenience demonstrates inequality.
Reading over the documentation about Alternates, there's a consistent theme that their substitution is not meant to be taken lightly:
Originally by: CSM PDF Alternates may not be chosen arbitrarily to fill in at meetings if a Representative cannot be present. Instead, they must be selected in the order in which they were elected, beginning with the first Alternate (which was the 10th highest vote tally in the general election), and going up the last (14th highest vote tally) as determined by their availability. There are three reasons for this: to discourage reliance on Alternates, to prevent collusion with Alternates, and to honor the "weight" of each Alternate as determined by votes durng the election.
I think having them act as placeholders or seat-warmers runs counter to the spirit of this sort of language, and as I said above, runs directly counter to the concept of them being fully equal to other Representatives when serving during a Council meeting.
1. They are not being replaced at any time. The CSM voted on that and reached a contradictory outcome despite how Jade and yourself want to continually editorialize the decision
2. If they cannot be removed then when does the first elected representative get to vote? Do not they also have equal rights. If the first elected representative never gets to come back because the alternate cannot be removed then the elected representative has become lesser than the alternate.
This isn't difficult. The issue of "when" isn't an issue of equality. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:32:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
It doesn't show anything of the sort. They fill in for meetings when a representative cannot be there. They get appointed to rep status and they act in the meeting with the full and EQUAL powers of a representative for that meeting. Good heavens, talk about clutching at straws
There you go, thanks for clearing that up for us. As soon as the representatives CAN be there the alternate is displaced. Since the alternates only serve when the first representatives cannot be there and since by definition if they are there they cannot be of the status "cannot be there", this means that as soon as the first elected rep returns the alternate is displaced.
I am kinda wondering why you voted against delaying that return until after the next agenda item though, it seems kinda harsh towards the alternate. |
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:25:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni so I see no reason to suggest that they need additional time in what is solely a different presentational format.
They need to have time for discussion because they may or may not be valuable. And they may or may not be as optimal as possible. Part of the discussion is refining ideas and changes so that they are as good as possible in a reasonable time frame.
Giving the players the time to discuss allows the players to contribute to issues that they know will be addressed in some way.
Frankly its rather important
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Inanna Zuni I find this conclusion that people not elected are equal to people who are elected quite amazing. There is no "artificial distinction between the top nine and five alternates" there is an *absolute* distinction between them; only that top nine have been elected, the others have not.
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.
Are you going to read the direct counter argument to that or are you going to do like your Dear Leader and cover your hands over your ears and scream "La la la la i can't hear you"
But lets deconstruct this one and go over all the ways its wrongs.
1. This is not the U.S. Judicial system. Brown v. Board has no president.
2. Even if it did it would not apply because the language of the statement is very clear on when they are equal and when they are not. They are equal when they are serving. They are not when they are not.
The Document does not state when they are serving except to state that they are serving when the first elected rep is not present. And that issue is not in question, except how to best facilitate a representative returning to the debate. If anything the specific wordage of the section is more strict towards the alternates for when they are removed
3. The document does not contradict what Inanna says. As she says nothing towards how alternates are treated when they are being an alternate only how they are treated when they are in transition.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:22:00 -
[23]
Originally by: NerftheSmurf
precedent
Arrrg, too quick trusting the firefox spell checker. Woe is me. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:41:00 -
[24]
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 Representativesùhave 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.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:13:00 -
[25]
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. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 07:35:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Sarmaul Wait, goum is still hounding the CSM after losing miserably (both in votes and behaviour)?
No, where have you been? |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 13:54:00 -
[27]
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.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:10:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Bruce,
The issues we've been putting together to discuss are being put together as the players presented them. I think we can all agree that the issues forum is less than optimal in many many ways. Given that all we can do as a council is attempt to take the issues AS PROVIDED and STATED and attempt to re-frame them for discussion. If you don't like the way an issue is framed in the issue forum, frame it yourself another way. The council does not CREATE issues. We pass them on.
I understand your calls for clarity and agree with you. Perhaps your call should be raised as an issue on the issues forum so we can discuss it. We'd actually discussed the idea of even having all of these issues submitted by players in a template. The bottom line however is that it's our obligation to address these issues as they're presented. If they're given to us poorly in a lump by players then that's what we have to work with.
The end result will hopefully be much clearer when it's presented but it's not to us to take one issue and make it 20. It's not to us to do that in order for players to debate. The forum for debate is there though crappy and we have no control or input into the environment that takes place in aside from telling CCP we think it sucks.
Darius,
There are clear and easy steps that you can take to remedy the situation. You can vote down multiple issues presented and send them back to the players with the explanation "we cannot vote on multiple issues".
You can provide an area to discuss each issue in this very own forum where no one would be hindered by the support mechanism and could present logical arguments under threat of moderation by CCP.
The problem comes in that the CSM is fundamentally shirking its duty to have the public discussions required one each issue before voting. It is the result of these discussions that are to be taken to CCP based on the judgement of the CSM. It is not the CSMs duty to be a messanger to CCP. They can read the forums as well as anyone else. Its your duty to examine and judge what is important, to explain why, and explain reservations against possible fixes. I.E. to convey legitimate "DO WANTS" and "DO NOT WANTS". Its not happening.
But beyond that, its out of order according to the CSM document when said lump issues are presented since each issue needs to have its own separate discussion and vote. Just as it is beyond Jades power to veto bills its beyond the CSMs power to vote on the block issues and present them to CCP. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:14:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kelsin
Well when the meeting ends the Alternate ceases to serve in the meeting and the equality issue goes away.
I am going to bold this so it gets though.
Unless the CSM document specifically says that the Alternate serves an entire meeting regardless of the attendance of the first elected representative then there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation, unless the CSM agree that that is the point at which they will return. You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:26:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong I am going to bold this so it gets though.
Unless the CSM document specifically says that the Alternate serves an entire meeting regardless of the attendance of the first elected representative then there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation, unless the CSM agree that that is the point at which they will return. You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth.
You're incorrect on all counts, despite the bolding. We can only agree to disagree Goum, as usual.
And i am sure you are going to quote me the section that says "Alternates serve an entire meeting regardless of the attendance of the first elected representative"?
I am going to be very clear on this a second time. If such a passage exists, I am wrong and will retract all statements. If such a statement does not exist, then I am right and you are wrong.
So you say i am incorrect on all counts. Prove me wrong. That is all you have to do, page number and paragraph(preferably with the small or large document so i don't have to go fishing through two). It will be quite easy since, as you say, i am so clearly wrong. Right? |
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:30:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
tl;dr the debate isn't happening because we haven't had sufficient time. Blame CCP. Regarding the CSM document... discussing that at all is a moot point because no votes will be allowed to be had on that. Raise it as an issue in the other forum and we'll see if bringing it to Iceland doesn't get unilaterally vetoed. (Hint: it's too late to do this as an issue has to exist for 7 days before brining it to council and CCP needs all issues 7 days before the meeting)
Then you bring less. You've had 2 official meetings 7 days apart. You were not required to have game issues at both. It sucks, but its what you had to work with.
Its better to do it right and bring less issues, but more important ones with better input than it is to do it wrong and bring more issues with no direction and input.
Its too late now, but it wasn't when this was brought up(1 day after the first official meetings agenda was published, which was the second meeting by Jade Constantine's reckoning)
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:18:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Kelsin This is what you were incorrect about:
1) there is no reading of the language which can make that a reasonable interpretation
2) You are outright fabricating rules out of whole cloth.
Neither is correct. What I outlined is a reasonable reading (there are others), and it was based only on the CSM document and so not fabricated out of nothing.
Time to let it ride cause we're not going to agree.
Also, I agree with Darius regarding getting stuff done > rules lawyering, it's just fun to play constitutional law with internet spaceship councils.
Where did you outline it? I have explained three times how your "outline" based on equality is false. All you have said is "nuh uh".
You and Jade Constantine do not get to declare things the truth. You must present your argument or show the truth.
Show it or make your argument. Where is the statement in the document that defines what you are describing?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 20:01:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong You must present your argument or show the truth.
Show it or make your argument. Where is the statement in the document that defines what you are describing?
You may re-read all my posts above at your leisure.
Treat me like an idiot who is unable to scroll up. Lay out the argument step by step. Feel free to include a rebuttal to the CSM document which clarifies when the alternate is equal and when they are not. |
|
|
|