Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:05:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Goumindong If the equal standing does not end when the first elected rep gets back, when does equal standing end?
Well when the meeting ends the Alternate ceases to serve in the meeting and the equality issue goes away. When the next meeting is set up the first 9 Reps are again requested to attend and if one or more can't Alternates can be called in their place. You'll note that the CSM document doesn't say Alternates "jump in" when a Rep has to step out, it says they are asked to attend the meeting when a Rep cannot make the meeting. So the whole subbing in, subbing out thing is not covered in the CSM document, except where it cautions against using Alternates lightly. Technically I think according to the CSM document you could start a meeting with 8 Reps (the minimum for a valid meeting is 7) if someone is going to be five minutes late. Likewise if someone has to step out as long as the total doesn't go below 7 there's no conflict with the documentation. It's only situations where a Rep says they can't make it, or can only be there for a small portion of the meeting, that the documentation suggests an Alternate should be called in to serve for the meeting.
That said, it's academic as Darius noted. It's only of interest because obviously nobody considered what the CSM document said before the vote, and there are still some Reps, including Ianna, holding an interpretation that runs counter to what little can be found there.
I will ask you not to put words or thoughts into the heads of people who voted. The document in no way runs counter to the results of the vote as I've stated. To say that "The people who voted clearly didn't take into account the document" is assinine and unfounded. The document is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that the majority of the council holds is different from yours. There is no one right answer to this question, but only one way to follow it. Thus the council voting. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:08:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I will ask you not to put words or thoughts into the heads of people who voted. The document in no way runs counter to the results of the vote as I've stated. To say that "The people who voted clearly didn't take into account the document" is assinine and unfounded. The document is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that the majority of the council holds is different from yours. There is no one right answer to this question, but only one way to follow it. Thus the council voting.
I'm not talking about the results of the vote - I think there's a fair argument to make that you work with what you got. I'm referring to Ianna's statement that Representatives and Alternates are not equal, when the documentation contradicts that and says that when serving in a meeting, they are. That's all. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:09:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I will ask you not to put words or thoughts into the heads of people who voted. The document in no way runs counter to the results of the vote as I've stated. To say that "The people who voted clearly didn't take into account the document" is assinine and unfounded. The document is subject to interpretation. The interpretation that the majority of the council holds is different from yours. There is no one right answer to this question, but only one way to follow it. Thus the council voting.
I'm not talking about the results of the vote - I think there's a fair argument to make that you work with what you got. I'm referring to Ianna's statement that Representatives and Alternates are not equal, when the documentation contradicts that and says that when serving in a meeting, they are. That's all.
Inanna is right as well. Representatives are equal. Alternates are not representatives. Only when they are appointed and BECOME representatives due to the lack of an elected one being there do they become equal. This paragraph states nothing more in my opinion than that all votes are equal and it's been overblown to hilarious proportions by sideline wannabe e-lawyers. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:10:00 -
[274]
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 -
[275]
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. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:18:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
Goum...
Firstly there's a huge pink elephant in the room that everyone's ignoring in this regard and that's the fact that we were given a VERY limited timeline to get issues on the table to even bring to Iceland. That doesn't leave a lot of room to get the process perfect as we're having to spend all our time scrambling just to have issues to bring. The reason there's no time being given to debate is that CCP did not give us the time to debate. As many things as I have problems with this is a huge one and it's simply not the council's fault. Again, pretty cute idea but I feel the ball was completely dropped in the execution.
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) |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:18:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Inanna is right as well. Representatives are equal. Alternates are not representatives. Only when they are appointed and BECOME representatives due to the lack of an elected one being there do they become equal. This paragraph states nothing more in my opinion than that all votes are equal and it's been overblown to hilarious proportions by sideline wannabe e-lawyers.
I can accept a standard of interpretation like that no problem, but the same kind of standard applies to ruckuses about the definition of what powers are involved in moderating a meeting, what constitutes "discussion", etc. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:21:00 -
[278]
Originally by: Kelsin
I can accept a standard of interpretation like that no problem, but the same kind of standard applies to ruckuses about the definition of what powers are involved in moderating a meeting, what constitutes "discussion", etc.
I agree. The difference of opinion lies in the difference between democracy and dictatorship. In one case the group decides it's a problem and steps up. In the other one person gets to decide what conversation is allowed by their own judgement. I do not think this was EVER remotely the intent of the CSM whatsoever. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:23:00 -
[279]
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. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:26:00 -
[280]
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 -
[281]
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)
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:33:00 -
[282]
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.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:45:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Goumindong
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)
Not much I can do about it now. There's a lot about this process we clearly didn't anticipate. I personally could not conceive that CCP would allow this to be run this way. Next time around we'll put a Goon in the chair instead of assuming it's a democracy and we'll deal with it from there.
For now I work with what I have to work with. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:18:00 -
[284]
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?
|
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:44:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Next time around we'll put a Goon in the chair instead of assuming it's a democracy and we'll deal with it from there.
So you guys pushed two representatives in order to have more votes, expecting a democracy. And for the next CSM term you're realizing that the way to power/control is to grab the Chair position, rather than more council votes.
Sounds like thinking has changed from "let's control the issues" to "let's control the whole CSM process", due to what's happening now. Yes, it's completely politics, on all sides involved, and has always been. Don't know if CCP expected anybody to do all the work of separating the signal from the noise for them for free and with their (or the game's) best interests at heart, but they were stupid if they did.
This is EVE's community, after all.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:10:00 -
[286]
Edited by: Arithron on 11/06/2008 18:10:52 Darius,
Actually, the multiples were presented by representatives, for example: Science and Industry (LaVista PDF document, 60+ issues).
Issues should be presented seperately- representatives should not support multiple issues (presented together as one topic/issue) in the issue forum or propose multiple issues.
Bruce
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:23:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Arithron Edited by: Arithron on 11/06/2008 18:10:52 Darius,
Actually, the multiples were presented by representatives, for example: Science and Industry (LaVista PDF document, 60+ issues).
Issues should be presented seperately- representatives should not support multiple issues (presented together as one topic/issue) in the issue forum or propose multiple issues.
Bruce
Bruce,
My apologies then I can't speak to what other people do. I've personally only adopted issues which were raised by others, with the exception of one which is pretty cut and dried. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll let LaVista handle his own laundry.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:25:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Letouk Mernel
If the CSM is a political body whose purpose is to alter game mechanics in the interest of various groups within the community, then everyone is on the right track here, and in fact you should form parties and have campaigns and all that stuff.
If the CSM, on the other hand, is supposed to just be a bunch of secretaries responsible for pointing CCP towards the various [issues], then why the hell did anyone sign up? One lousy trip to Iceland doesn't seem to be worth the effort/work.
The CSM wasn't defined well at all by anyone. You're right. As it stands today it's not worth the effort in my opinion and had it been done before and turned out this way I'm sure many people wouldn't have run. If it gets fixed then awesome. We'll just have to wait and see.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:52:00 -
[289]
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. |
Kallynda Nai
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 19:38:00 -
[290]
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.
Why? There's nothing of actual substance in them.
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 20:01:00 -
[291]
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. |
Fallorn
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 21:06:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Kallynda Nai
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.
Why? There's nothing of actual substance in them.
It's called the LALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU defense. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
|
vanda wolternix
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 13:37:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Hardin Edited by: Hardin on 09/06/2008 16:57:30
Quote: I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
I suppose you would have preferred sheep eh Jade?
Priceless !!!!!
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:15:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Arithron on 13/06/2008 22:15:38 Doh! |
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 06:55:00 -
[295]
Edited by: Tzar''rim on 17/06/2008 06:56:36 There is a difference between people who take on responsiblities and power because they feel it needs to be done and step up to the plate, and people who want power because of... power.
From my IRL experience and having lead/joined many a guild/corp/whatever in my gaming life; the people who write the most for the sake of creating walls of text tend to be bureaucrats who talk about ranks and rules while making 'use' of those same ranks by misusing/abusing any powers they might have.
In other words; they waste time and effort while completely swamping any serious discussion in useless crap about rule 85 section E and how that interferes with rule 37 Sub A.
Is anyone really surprised?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |