|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Qaedienne
    |
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:57:00 -
[1]
Vote against. Jade acted appropriately in muting Innana, who was clearly in the wrong and disruptive to the meeting. Furthermore, Innana has acted even less professionally since the meeting, and is now making wild accusations on these boards instead of working with the council to get past the issue.
If anyone should be removed, it's Innana.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:55:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Whilst you are certainly welcome to your opinions (and if everyone thought exactly the same the world of EVE or 'real life' would be very boring) please point me at any evidence for these claims. "wild accusations"? hardly ...
IZ
ps. I do not presently support the removal of Jade from the position of Chair of the CSM. Obviously, being a rational human being, this opinion is subject to change in the light of future events.
Here:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=788122
Quote:
I noted during the meeting that Jade was editorialising positions and not being a neutral Chair (indeed arguably *the* function of being the chair of a committee). In my opinion it went downhill from there.
Quote:
I don't know where this might have been "established" but the meeting last night was the *first* time anyone used this mechanism ([ 2008.06.08 18:22:13 ] Serenity Steele > !) which was without explanation. Maybe a back channel somewhere without all members present?
Quote:
This all followed your *refusal* to accept validly cast votes from myself and Dierdra:
Quote:
and when I tried to actually respond you kept interrupting until
Quote:
Then lets look at voting; instead of noting whether everyone has voted and waiting until they have you pre-empt things.
Quote:
and after more discussion wherein those who understand that 'abstain' is a perfectly rational and acceptable position to take argued with those who, seemingly, do not, Jade typed
Quote:
As a point of principle, I always support the Chair of any body on which I serve, whether I am that Chair or 'just' a member. But a Chair has to show that they have the capability and capacity to undertake that task responsibly and to do it properly. That requires their being independent of the subject under discussion (passing the chair to someone else for a moment should they wish to talk on the subject) so that they can remain even-handed. My view was that the editorialising, returning to subjects, and general bullying of myself suggests that there are issues in the present incarnation of the CSM. One cannot demand trust, one has to earn it.
Quote:
which, by no stretch of an imagination, is a call to a vote when the members present *had already voted*. It is, however, an example of bullying to try and get the result you wanted.
Quote:
And *again* you are being disrespectful to council members. An 'abstain' (which is, as I have noted, the vote I cast) *is* a meaningful vote, and that you choose to editorialise the decision I (and others on this and other motions) chose to make sadly shows you do not understand so seek to cast aspersions.
Quote:
Clearly this thread has gone on long enough and others have made the points that needed to be made. That you are not answering the questions asked of you is ... a pity ... and that you seeking to place the blame elsewhere, just sad.
Quote:
And ... yet again, you are attempting (and failing) to obfuscate the point here.
Quote:
and, not surprisingly, I didn't bend to this attempt to run roughshod over the decision that the CSM had just made, resulting in
Quote:
As I said, editorialising decisions to make them appear different to how they were presented and decided upon.
Quote:
which, while not exactly as per Darius do demonstrate that you were editorialising the decision in your own way rather than be a neutral Chair reporting the decision of the vote just completed.
Based on your responses quoted above, along with the accusations you made during the meeting, I'd ask you to stop making trouble in and about the CSM or resign your position.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:57:00 -
[3]
Originally by: The MapMaker
You're telling a CSM representative to resign because they were unfairly muted and went on to talk about it? I think you've forgotten to put your Star Fraction ticker on there buddy.
Inanna accused Jade of willful wrong-doing in the meeting before she was muted, so obviously that didn't have to do with the muting. She did it multiple times, also. Then she accused Jade of willful wrong-doing for muting her, and continues to accuse Jade of willful wrong-doing both for muting her, as well as for pretty much everything else Jade did in the meeting.
Inanna has been consistently focused in her accusations against Jade, both before the muting as well as after. It needs to stop, or Inanna should step down. She is not acting in the interest of the player base. She didn't add anything to CSM meeting 3 except her criticisms of Jade, and she isn't doing anything now to resolve the issues the council is having.
She can certainly do all of that from the e-o-boards, just like all the members of Goonfleet. There's no reason to waste a council seat for that. Give it to someone who can focus on game issues. |
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:33:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Theramin Dogon
The CSMs are representative of the players.
Thanks for pointing that out. Jade Constantine was returned as the top vote-getter, and per the CSM rules is the chairperson of the council. Just wanted to bring that up now, as it's going to be something you fail to recognize throughout the rest of your whine.
Quote:
Nobody voted for someone to get silenced during the council.
That's not something that is voted on. The chairperson has that responsibility.
Quote:
After it was discovered that she had been muted, and then kicked (due to the bug we've all been made aware of), she had every right to criticize Jade, as did the other council members.
Before she had been muted, she had:
*Asked if Bane had apologized for showing up late.
*Pointed out PIE had retracted a war.
*Pointed out 2 council members did not have *****es.
*Accused Jade of making a biased statement in phrasing the first vote.
*Accused Jade of editorializing in the phrasing of the 2nd vote.
*Accused Jade of not being a neutral chairperson.
*Accused Jade of not being neutral again.
*Accused Jade of editorializing again.
*Corrected Jade's phrasing of "if we run out of time" to "if we have spare time".
*Corrected Jade's spelling (your/you're).
*Abstained from a vote.
*Argued that abstention was a vote (it's not, by definition).
*Accused Serenity of abuse.
*Accused Serenity of suggesting she (Inanna) doesn't care.
*Suggested Serenity learns what abstention means.
*Argued the council should not determine if simple majority is necessary, rather than at least 5 "aye" votes being required, calling it a pointless question.
*Accuses the council of not meeting the minimum requirement for understanding how a committee/organization works before standing for election.
*Argues again that the council should not determine simple majority vs 5 aye votes, as it's being voted on.
*Refuses to vote on the question of simple majority vs 5 aye votes, as she feels it's obvious simple majority is correct. With irony abounding, 5 aye votes wins by simple majority vote, 4-3, with Inanna heavily favoring simple majority but abstaining on philosophic grounds.
*Objects to having no vote recorded.
*Asks Jade to "Chair this meeting sensible".
*Emotes pity for anyone reading the meeting log.
*Interrupts the vote regarding outpost destruction to point out that not enough time was given for discussion. When offered the chance to speak for the record, votes no instead.
*Abstains from voting on large hull exploration ship.
*Refuses to recognize the vote on simple majority vs 5 aye votes.
*While Jade checks the chat log to verify the vote count on simple majority vs 5 aye votes, Inanna accuses Jade of calling the vote twice.
*Accuses Jade of wishing "to interpret other people's positions" regarding votes.
*On the re-vote of simple majority vs 5 aye votes, Inanna refuses to participate saying that the matter is concluded (simple majority winning) even though the council previously voted against (with Inanna abstaining).
*Accuses Jade of attributing a nonsense position to her(Inanna) in the first vote.
*Corrects Jade's spelling again (bare/bear).
*When given a formal warning for "interruptions and interfering with the chair" (a vote), Inanna claims "'Formal warning' is a misnomer".
To be continued...
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:02:00 -
[5]
Quote:
The only CSM who has expressed any interest in silencing other members is Jade Constantine.
That's a solution when there are CSM's who treat a council meeting the way Goons treat the CAOD board.
Quote:
He's stated that he may have been "too democratic".
He is being too democratic. The last meeting went 4 hours long and they never even agreed to how their own votes will be determined. If Jade hadn't been pushy about it, they might not have gotten all the player issues voted on in time for their meeting with CCP.
Quote:
In fact, it's been Jade Constantine who has been more contrary towards the other CSMs than the other way around, yet he still believes that the rest of the council needs unilateral moderation.
You're wrong. Darius by himself has posted more **** about Jade then she has about the rest of the council. The council needs to focus on getting the player issues to CCP, not *****ing about the chair and calling points of order and ****.
Quote:
This is not how a council is supposed to work, and this is why there are now threads about a vote of no confidence.
A council is supposed to take so long to meet that nothing gets accomplished? A council is supposed to not even agree on what constitutes a successful vote? A council is supposed to nit-pick the **** out of each others spelling and phrasing instead of getting through the topics? Individual council members are supposed to disagree with and recognize the exact opposite results of whatever votes they prefer?
Councils require strong chair-persons for the reasons I listed above, and Jade was elected the chairperson democratically. It is her responsibility to chair the council, and anyone who tries to remove her as chair is messing with the democratic process of the council.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 05:10:00 -
[6]
Quote:
That is absolutely correct. Turns out, people are starting to disagree with him; Herschel Yamamoto, for example, says he voted for Jade, but now feels disenfranchised by his recent actions. Some people think that waiting for the next election period is only going to make things worse.
And some people think some people shouldn't try to overturn a democratic process just because some people's panties are in a twist.
Quote:
No.
Lol. Yes!
Quote:
Says who? CCP hasn't said anything. There's nothing like that in the CSM documentation. It was Jade's idea.
Says me. If you disagree, please find an example of a chairperson who does not have any control of the meetings they run.
Quote:
So I guess what you want to say is that the Chairman is the only one who should be able to say anything, and that the rest of the CSMs are there for "aye" and "nay" votes?
Unsurprisingly, you guessed wrong. CSM members do not get to hijack meetings and interfere with votes. Jade was more than obliging with Inanna.
Quote:
If not, please clarify each of these points (to include context) with why you think they are worth bringing up so we might address them and understand your stance.
Err, that is context. You want the context of the context now?
Lol, goons.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:40:00 -
[7]
Quote:
Unfortunately. these godforsaken forums won't let me fisk that list properly inside of ten posts. That said, at least 2/3 of the actions posted on there are both reasonable and correct, and the rest are no worse than other, non-silenced, people's actions.
I have a hard time believing a rational person can claim Inanna's constant and focused attempts to be disruptive throughout that meeting are reasonable and correct, and then turn around and have a hissy fit over a single action, that actually was reasonable and correct.
Perhaps you can explain it for me.
Quote:
Seriously, you're calling abstaining misconduct?
I didn't say abstaining is misconduct. I do think abstaining is a sign the CSM candidate is not prepared. The playerbase has put forward ideas to make the game better. I think the least a CSM candidate can do is review it enough to form an opinion about it, and either support it or reject it.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:55:00 -
[8]
Quote:
And heres the nuts of the problem. Jade has no formal power to issue warnings. They certainly are not "formal". Heres why.
Theres an aparent contradiction in the CSM summary that says
1) The chair moderates the meeting
BUT
2) "A simple majority vote is required for passage"
Now under almost all legal jurastictions, 2) is generally read to mean what is known as a "Limited freedom of speech". Specifically that the person involved is permited full freedom of speech on any matter pertaining to the democratic process. Because if members are barred from speech, it is therefore not a democracy. For an example of a ruling of this , see "The crown vs the Communist Party of Australia", and note that this heuristic is backed up from follow up rulings around the world.
So how does the "Freedom of speech" thing interact with the seemingly contradictory power of moderation?
The key is in the word "Limited". The moderator has no power to stop a person speaking to matters pertaining to the meeting. If someone is a pain in the arse, but is speaking about matters regarding democracy or topics of discussion, that person has an inviolable right to do so. If however people start doing "z0r chains" or posting "farts", or whatever, then yes, the moderator can intervene. But only to the extent is restrains THAT behavior.
To mute someone for interjection or uncomfortable speech that is within the scope is a denial of Natural Law within the scope of democracy.
Jade stuffed up, and should conceed as much. I wouldn't support a no confidence, but I would if the behavior continuted. It is unbecoming of a chair (Along with Jades, and admittedly much of the councils concept of what an abstain vote means) and I'd remind Jade, that Jade does not have a choice in the matter. The chair is constrained by the very clear wording of "Simple majority" to permit ALL democratic speech, and respect the meaning of "Simple majority" to not count an abstain as a "Nae".
The chair is not required to permit "all democratic speech", whatever that means. Regardless, time was given to people who wanted to discuss a topic. She isn't required to allow time to people who just want to emo-rage.
Also, Inanna's interruption of a vote, and demands that the council support the opposite verdict of a previous vote (that she willfully abstained from and allowed to pass), is a direct contradiction of democracy, and the democratic process. For what it's worth.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 12:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ethaet
Jade Constantine alt spotted.
Inanna's actions were fine, Jade muting and then kicking him/her for disagreeing with his point of view is not.
Lol. I'm not Jade. Glad I could get under your skin though. 
Inanna was an ass in that meeting, she should have been kicked earlier. It's not like she was voting much anyway.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 13:00:00 -
[10]
Quote:
PS. Qaedienne, post with your main.
Lol, CAOD troll spotted. |
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 13:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Pnuka
Originally by: Qaedienne
Originally by: Ethaet
Jade Constantine alt spotted.
Inanna's actions were fine, Jade muting and then kicking him/her for disagreeing with his point of view is not.
Lol. I'm not Jade. Glad I could get under your skin though.
Inanna was an ass in that meeting, she should have been kicked earlier. It's not like she was voting much anyway.
The fact you hide behind a alt pretty much negates anything you because in fact you could be Jade.
I am a sinner and a lazy person, but at least I'm not a goon.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 12:41:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 11/06/2008 23:59:13
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
So Apparely you can deny Darius Mail about the Vote of no Confidence then anyways?
Can I ask what you are talking about please?
He send a Mail the other day on your Fancy E-Mail List thing about a vote of no confidence in the chairman of the CSM i do believe and you said you would not add item so said agenda for the meeting.
Is/should it even be possible for the council to alter a position determined by popular vote in the CSM elections?
I'd say no.
Also, Goons continuing to stir **** up just shows that despite all their talk, they are undemocratic. They are all in favor of democratic elections, they are not in favor of the results of democratic elections. |
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 06:47:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Qaedienne on 15/06/2008 06:48:27
Quote:
No, if Jade can bend over for Goons there is nothing wrong with Jade being the chair. Jade should only be removed if he disagrees with a Goon. If there is anything "not diplomatic" its telling an elected Goon to follow the rules that apply to every other CSM.
We all know what happens when you tell a Goon that they can't have their way. Jade did it, and we have to deal with hundreds of crying Goons, every day.
Fyp.
Seriously, grow up. The Goons have 2 members on the council and still ***** every day. It's ******* pathetic, and so are you.
Also, all the critics need to stop using democracy as their reason. You clearly don't understand it, or you wouldn't attempt to overthrow the top democratically elected official while simultaneously claiming you're doing it for "democracy". Jade was elected chair, and is the top vote-getter in the CSM elections. In light of that, she wins every argument that uses democracy as the measurement. Period. And, by definition, every attempt to remove her as chair or limit her ability to act either as a CSM or chair is undemocratic.
From reading the complaints against Jade, what most of them seem to be getting at is that she is authoritarian (or against anarchism). That is not incompatible with democracy, as in most democratic systems the elected officials have all/most of the authority.
Edit - Learn your governments, noobs!
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 07:09:00 -
[14]
Originally by: LASER WATCHER
my government has the ability to impeach presidents that were democratically elected because they are bad
Then your government is a republic.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 08:35:00 -
[15]
Quote:
Assuming that Mr. All Caps is an American then you're right, but your statement does not logically follow from what he said. For example, in a Westminster system, if the MPs lose confidence in one person as Prime Minister and decide that they'd prefer another person to have the title, then that second one becomes PM. The person at the top gets kicked out, but it's hardly undemocratic - if anything, it's a better expression of democracy, since the voters changing their minds results in a change in the outcome. Similarly, see any type of recall vote.
In a Westminster system there is no direct popular vote regarding any position other than MP, so your point is muddled at best. The example of a Presidency was better to use, as that position is voted on directly by the populace but can be ousted by something other than another popular vote. Obviously, in that case the rule of law is greater than the popular vote. In your example it's rule of law on both sides and no direct elections have occured.
Recall votes can be democratic, but I should point out that they are unnecessary in a true democracy. In a true democracy there would simply be another election whenever the voters wanted.
Quote:
Using words like "undemocratic" is excessive - the worst that can be said is that people are looking to do something not allowed by what passes for the constitution. That statement at least has the virtue of accuracy.
No, it's not excessive. Jade was elected to the chair by popular vote. By definition, anything other than another popular vote that removes her is undemocratic. Your argument that the Westminster system allows for more democracy because it allows voters to change their minds only carries weight if the replacement mechanic/system is at least as democratic as the method used to place the person in office to begin with. The two are the same in the Westminster system, it is undemocratic if the council removes a chair voted in by popular vote.
And let's not stray too far from the point here: Jade was elected to the chair by popular vote. The Goons claim to want to remove her for "democratic" reasons. I am pointing out that there is only one truly democratic way to remove or replace a directly elected position.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 18:45:00 -
[16]
Quote:
lets not make any mistakes here.
The first letter of a sentence is capitalized. You fail. 
Quote:
This started when Jade Constantine threw out Hardin from a meeting against the language in the CSM founding document. He exerted powers that he did not have in order to gain an advantage over an in game enemy.
You mean this?:
[ 2008.05.31 20:51:54 ]Hardin >okay happy to let tusko go on those
[ 2008.05.31 20:52:05 ]Hardin >but donĘt agree with the administrative principle
[ 2008.05.31 20:52:24 ]Jade Constantine > kk we'll get a proper discussion and vote and decide on it with open discussion Hardin
[ 2008.05.31 20:52:32 ]Jade Constantine > for next time okay?
[ 2008.05.31 20:52:36 ]Hardin >sure
The menacing way Jade says "for next time okay?" is chilling. Just chilling.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Quote:
This escalated when Hardin brought a general motion to the council to formalize when alternates were to stand in for elected representatives. Jade argued hard against this vote, and why wouldn't he, he had just, the previous meeting, excluded another representative with no grounds or authority. When Jade lost that vote he editorialized it in a manner to make everyone else look bad. A member of the council named Inanna Zunni objected to this.
You don't have to assign your own motives to Jade's discussion and vote of this topic, she gave them herself in the chat logs and it wasn't because it would make her decision in the previous meeting look bad.
She had also restated the proposal earlier in the conversation in the exact way you claim is editorialized, and no one objected:
[ 2008.06.08 18:14:52 ]Jade Constantine > okay does anyone want to say something against hardin's proposal - which is (in effect) that any alternative who takes a seat at a meeting can be displaced at any point in that meeting by a csm candidate returning to take over the voting on the remainder
[ 2008.06.08 18:14:57 ]Serenity Steele > It seems unreasonable to me, in the current term serving criteria for alternates, to only partially participate in a meeting after making the time free to attend.
[ 2008.06.08 18:15:07 ]Inanna Zuni > so far as someone leaving during the meeting, depends if they have "gone" or their comms line went down. Should we penalize for an ISP failure>
[ 2008.06.08 18:15:38 ]LaVista Vista >If the person comes back, he just takes over
[ 2008.06.08 18:15:49 ]Inanna Zuni > ... at the end of the current item
[ 2008.06.08 18:16:00 ]Hardin > yep
[ 2008.06.08 18:16:06 ]Serenity Steele > Inanna, IMO yes, we should penalize for an ISP failure. Those are the breaks - get a better ISP or back-up if it's that critical.
[ 2008.06.08 18:16:07 ]Dierdra Vaal > I agree with serenity, except I believe the solution is to change the rules so an alt is not counted as having served a term...
[ 2008.06.08 18:16:14 ]LaVista Vista >But we can't be halted because someone have a failure. The person looses out on a vote or two, no big deal.
Really, you are trying too hard.
Quote:
Later, in that same meeting, Jade muted Inanna for making points of order without explanation which many of the council members objected to and then during another vote badgered council members who had already voted into changing their vote before it ended.
Jade muted Inanna for disrupting a vote. This was something that was voted on in the first meeting, and it is right for her to do this.
You're going to have to point out where she did the "badgering". Your spin is so unspecific I can't tell what you mean.
Quote:
Are Goonswarm just "defending their own" in some partisan political play?
Are strawmen really that dangerous to Goonswarm?
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 19:01:00 -
[17]
Quote:
Unlikely, Hardin is no friend to goonswarm, we are neutral. We have worked together in the past but typically fight each other. We have a mutual understanding that each will use each other for their own means until such a time as it becomes strategically expedient to do the opposite.
I'm not aware of anyone (other than yourself) claiming that there is a conspiracy going on in the council.
Looks like another strawman argument.
Quote:
We can work together on the council...
Your consistent and focused attacks on council members proves that you can't work together in the council.
Quote:
It is only if the council is to be subverted from its goal of making the game better that we would have any reason to be up in arms. Because we have a stake in having fun.
According to Darius, he only represents Goonswarm interests on the council. You guys had better get your stories straight.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 21:49:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Qaedienne
According to Darius, he only represents Goonswarm interests on the council. You guys had better get your stories straight.
I will welcome you to provide the quote of me saying this alt.
Hmm, can't find the post so I'll retract it for now.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:11:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
Am I doing this right?
Trolling? Yes, you are doing it right.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 01:08:00 -
[20]
Most of her detractors were already moot.
|
|