Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:27:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Hardin I would also like to point out that Jade specifically told me to bring the item forward for discussion at the next meeting when I complained about being gagged by him at the previous meeting.
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.
Quote: The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
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.
Quote: I would also like to point out - because it has been conveniently forgotten - that in addition to the clarification on when alternates should stand down in favour of the elected representatives I also put forward a proposal increasing the 'rights' of alternates by clarifying that they could step up when an elected CSM member dropped out of the meeting.
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.
Quote: In my opinion both these proposals were straightforward and sensible and the majority of CSM agreed.
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.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:27:00 -
[212]
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 -
[213]
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 |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:32:00 -
[214]
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. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:37:00 -
[215]
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. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:38:00 -
[216]
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.
Where in the hell do you get off thinking you can void something that passed a vote? I don't know what in the hell you think of yourself in this council but you do not have any power to veto or unilateral power to do anything but facilitate a meeting.
Quote: 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."
It also quite clearly says that an elected Representative can move aside an alternate when they come back or did you fail at reading part of this document.
This entire thing is out of hand and you have no idea what it is your are doing and there needs to be a moderator that has nothing to do with the council as per real group think strategies.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:58:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 10/06/2008 23:57:56
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Where in the hell do you get off thinking you can void something that passed a vote? I don't know what in the hell you think of yourself in this council but you do not have any power to veto or unilateral power to do anything but facilitate a meeting.
I'm declaring it void because I don't think we have the power to change the constitution outside of a formally-raised issue that is presented to the CSM/CCP conference. Just like I don't think we have the power to change the constitution on an electable chair. Just like we don't have the power to pass no-confidence votes or boot off elected members for being disruptive.
Quote: It also quite clearly says that an elected Representative can move aside an alternate when they come back or did you fail at reading part of this document.
Link please.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Anton Marvik
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:02:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Anton Marvik on 11/06/2008 00:01:58
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm declaring it void because I don't think we have the power to change the constitution outside of a formally-raised issue that is presented to the CSM/CCP conference. Just like I don't think we have the power to change the constitution on an electable chair. Just like we don't have the power to pass no-confidence votes or boot off elected members for being disruptive.
We is plural. Please say "I".
Furthermore, please quote the part of the CSM documentation that gives you the power to void votes and veto them.
Its nice that you're using community outrage to attempt to usurp even more power, but I don't think its going to happen.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:04:00 -
[219]
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.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:05:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 11/06/2008 00:05:38 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 11/06/2008 00:05:13
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.
The council felt otherwise and voted as such.
:edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
|
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:08:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such.
Yeah I know - but you seemed pretty concerned with the CSM documentation and what it said regarding the powers of the Chair, so I would think the same thing would apply here.
Side note, if the CSM documentation doesn't give the CSM the power to change these rules on the fly, doesn't that conflict with your prior opinion?
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:09:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such. :edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
Yep, the council was wrong on this instance and we can't be voting constitution changes that contradict the founding documentation. Next time lets ALL read the documentation a little more closely eh?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:11:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such. :edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
Yep, the council was wrong on this instance and we can't be voting constitution changes that contradict the founding documentation. Next time lets ALL read the documentation a little more closely eh?
Or we could simply change the rules mid-game to suit our own purposes. Whichever interpretation floats your boat.
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:14:00 -
[224]
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.
Yea i was just gonna dig this part out. It clearly shows they are supposed to sub in when an elected member can't be there but are relived when they come back.
|
HClChicken
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:15:00 -
[225]
Edited by: HClChicken on 11/06/2008 00:15:41
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON The council felt otherwise and voted as such. :edit: This was before of course our right to do so was unilaterally revoked as a matter of convenience.
Yep, the council was wrong on this instance and we can't be voting constitution changes that contradict the founding documentation. Next time lets ALL read the documentation a little more closely eh?
Jade, it's been proven time and time again, that you do not have the capabilities to read. This has been shown through your inability to construct a clear, concise and brief argument. I promise you the only one here who needs to read it is yourself. So until you get hooked on phonics stop posting about things you do not understand.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:24:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
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.
Yea i was just gonna dig this part out. It clearly shows they are supposed to sub in when an elected member can't be there but are relived when they come back.
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
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:28:00 -
[227]
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 -
[228]
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. |
Cursive
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:51:00 -
[229]
Edited by: Cursive on 11/06/2008 00:52:40 I'm just going to chime in here and note that constitutions of any governing body are always up to interpretation.
This is why most countries have levels of courts and the likes, in the US is is the Supreme Court which as a body decides on (votes on) what the interpretation of a given point of the constitution is.
Jade - You hold no more power over the outcome of voting then any other member in there and have no right to veto/void/nullify a vote, even if it were a vote on the specifics of the constitution.
The majority vote should apply even if you feel it violates the constitution and you should be careful to not try to interfere with that process based on your personal interpretation of the constitution. You should also not assume everyone serving with you are a bunch of mindless illiterate idiots, or rather, if you do feel that keep it to yourself and keep the inflammatory remarks about your colleagues reading abilities to yourself. If you feel a topic violates the constitution, then vote against it, that is all the power you have - one vote.
You do not hold sole domain over the interpretation of the constitution and you may be better off remembering that. |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:12:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Hardin The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
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.
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.
Let me make a 'real life' comparison, if I may.
There are a number of RL elections which take place on the 'party list' system. The GLA in London is one, another it the UK European Parliament elections (I use UK examples as you are based in the UK; other countries also operate list systems however).
If party A wins five seats and party B wins 4 then the top f on A's list and the top 4 on B's list are elected and serve. Nobody else is part of that parliament or assembly.
Some time later, someone dies / resigns / goes off their trolley and cannot serve anymore. At that time the next person on the list of that party takes over from the member leaving. From that point they are the new 'elected member'. Before that they had nothing, and now they do.
This is the same distinction as between the top nine and the next five; those five are *not elected* they just happen to be the people ready to step in if required. Indeed, should some dread illness strike pilots down and six of the nine disappear into the night then the next person after those five would get their call-up papers.
The CSM results were a *list* system, and the top nine of those available / able / willing to serve the electorate are those who are the elected members.
And nobody else.
IZ
|
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:17:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Arithron Okay I've asked LaVista and the other candidates with multiple item issues via our internal mailing list to come and respond to you specifically here Arithron. I hope you'll either come to a rational compromise on the issue or I'll advise that they need to be split out. Okay? Give tomorrow for some discussion and I'll make a call in the evening.
Okay, so you clearly forgot that it was patch deployment day! I still see no posts from LaVista and other representatives with multiple issues. So now you are advising them to split them into seperate topics right?
I'll check back when I wake up (about to fall into bed as 2:15am here - ah, the life of a CSM member!) but whilst I recall a pointer about this thread I don't recall it being specific to ask us to comment. I'll check properly later.
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. ymmv though, clearly ...
IZ
|
Zeitgueist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:20:00 -
[232]
Edited by: Zeitgueist on 11/06/2008 01:20:41 Jade:
You are an advisory board specifically given no power because none is needed as such. You will not change anything. Your job is that of a focus group for CCP, an informal and neutered watchdog, and a gameplay thinktank.
It was not in CCP's best interest or original intent to give you any kind of actual power whatsoever, and certainly you should not have the right to mute, void, or negate any opinions of the other elected representatives. Your position exists because SOMEBODY needs to call the meeting to orders and keep things on topic if someone starts talking about the latest sports scores or some such. You achieved chairman be receiving the most votes from a tiny fraction of the gaming public who all thought that you were going to be equals. Everyone in the CSM seems to understand their marginal usefulness in this role except you.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:25:00 -
[233]
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
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 02:47:00 -
[234]
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.
|
Kai Wooglin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:00:00 -
[235]
You didn't really just compare the CSM to Brown v. Board did you? Yeah you did. Christ.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:02:00 -
[236]
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.
|
NerftheSmurf
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:21:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Goumindong president.
precedent |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:22:00 -
[238]
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 -
[239]
Ok. Jailhouse lawyer time. Is there a document that lays out standing orders for all this?
|
The Ubernomicon
Eight year old girls
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:07:00 -
[240]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |