Originally by: Foyle

---

Edited by: Foyle on 21/09/2004 05:51:58

---

Originally by: Foyle

---

Edited by: Foyle on 21/09/2004 05:51:58

---

Originally by: HavokTBP

---

I wonder what kinda drugs xirt slipped lall an chow to think they regretted me being in they're corp. I never done shinra wrong ever, an lall I think you need to talk to tancrid about that.

---

Originally by: HavokTBP

---

I wonder what kinda drugs xirt slipped lall an chow to think they regretted me being in they're corp. I never done shinra wrong ever, an lall I think you need to talk to tancrid about that.

---

Originally by: HavokTBP

---

Na just seems to me like you guys are all up on the ebay crap, an xirt says something, an oh it has to be true right?

I wonder what kinda drugs xirt slipped lall an chow to think they regretted me being in they're corp. I never done shinra wrong ever, an lall I think you need to talk to tancrid about that.

My comment was an insult to CA to think they can insult others without knowing.

Technically I couldn't even sell my account, its KOS by everyone on Eve.

Only because I haven't been proven wrong..... cept maybe with the whole evol exploit thing.... although I still don't like them anyways.

---

Originally by: HavokTBP

---

Na just seems to me like you guys are all up on the ebay crap, an xirt says something, an oh it has to be true right?

I wonder what kinda drugs xirt slipped lall an chow to think they regretted me being in they're corp. I never done shinra wrong ever, an lall I think you need to talk to tancrid about that.

My comment was an insult to CA to think they can insult others without knowing.

Technically I couldn't even sell my account, its KOS by everyone on Eve.

Only because I haven't been proven wrong..... cept maybe with the whole evol exploit thing.... although I still don't like them anyways.

---

Originally by: Duke Droklar

---

Since the CA is run by a democratic Council and has a War Council with elected CA Gemerals that have certain authorities it makes one wonder what grave injustices they are whining about. Notice they only state vague accusations without backing it up with details or facts.

1- POS controled by a CA Holding corp? Nope, nearly unanymous Council vote of approval.

2- 15% Tax rate? Nope, 20% was shot down in vote and 15% was then approved by majority vote.

---

Originally by: Duke Droklar

---

Since the CA is run by a democratic Council and has a War Council with elected CA Gemerals that have certain authorities it makes one wonder what grave injustices they are whining about. Notice they only state vague accusations without backing it up with details or facts.

1- POS controled by a CA Holding corp? Nope, nearly unanymous Council vote of approval.

2- 15% Tax rate? Nope, 20% was shot down in vote and 15% was then approved by majority vote.

---

Originally by: Valentine Keen

---

Originally by: Duke Droklar

---

Since the CA is run by a democratic Council and has a War Council with elected CA Gemerals that have certain authorities it makes one wonder what grave injustices they are whining about. Notice they only state vague accusations without backing it up with details or facts.

1- POS controled by a CA Holding corp? Nope, nearly unanymous Council vote of approval.

2- 15% Tax rate? Nope, 20% was shot down in vote and 15% was then approved by majority vote.

---

The issue arises because both of these decisions and the recent removal of some member corporations were only approved by council after they had been implemented.

While they may have been good and justifiable decisions, the fact remains they should have been approved before action was taken. Anything else leads to the very pertinent question over who actually controls the policies of the alliance.

By acting without approval and then asking for people to approve it, you undermine the position of those that might oppose it and reduce the ability of members to rationally and carefully consider the proposals.

---

Originally by: Valentine Keen

---

Originally by: Duke Droklar

---

Since the CA is run by a democratic Council and has a War Council with elected CA Gemerals that have certain authorities it makes one wonder what grave injustices they are whining about. Notice they only state vague accusations without backing it up with details or facts.

1- POS controled by a CA Holding corp? Nope, nearly unanymous Council vote of approval.

2- 15% Tax rate? Nope, 20% was shot down in vote and 15% was then approved by majority vote.

---

The issue arises because both of these decisions and the recent removal of some member corporations were only approved by council after they had been implemented.

While they may have been good and justifiable decisions, the fact remains they should have been approved before action was taken. Anything else leads to the very pertinent question over who actually controls the policies of the alliance.

By acting without approval and then asking for people to approve it, you undermine the position of those that might oppose it and reduce the ability of members to rationally and carefully consider the proposals.

---

Originally by: XeQtR

---

Come on.
We've been over this. Even I have learned now how it works.
The generals have the right (A right in itself aproved by the council btw.) to take these actions if there is an emergency and there simply is no time to call a council meeting (Calling such a meeting would take at least 24 hours I'd imagine) The actions of the generals would THEN be aproved in retrospect. Now, claiming that would make it hard for some members of the council to vote against that decision is just plain wrong. If a council member doesn't have the courage to vote against the decision he shouldn't be in the council at all. With power follows hard decisions. That's the main reason I'm glad I'm NOT in the council.

---

Originally by: XeQtR

---

Come on.
We've been over this. Even I have learned now how it works.
The generals have the right (A right in itself aproved by the council btw.) to take these actions if there is an emergency and there simply is no time to call a council meeting (Calling such a meeting would take at least 24 hours I'd imagine) The actions of the generals would THEN be aproved in retrospect. Now, claiming that would make it hard for some members of the council to vote against that decision is just plain wrong. If a council member doesn't have the courage to vote against the decision he shouldn't be in the council at all. With power follows hard decisions. That's the main reason I'm glad I'm NOT in the council.

---

Originally by: Valentine Keen

---

Edited by: Valentine Keen on 21/09/2004 14:59:34

Originally by: XeQtR

---

Come on.
We've been over this. Even I have learned now how it works.
The generals have the right (A right in itself aproved by the council btw.) to take these actions if there is an emergency and there simply is no time to call a council meeting (Calling such a meeting would take at least 24 hours I'd imagine) The actions of the generals would THEN be aproved in retrospect. Now, claiming that would make it hard for some members of the council to vote against that decision is just plain wrong. If a council member doesn't have the courage to vote against the decision he shouldn't be in the council at all. With power follows hard decisions. That's the main reason I'm glad I'm NOT in the council.

---

If this is the case, should not this be set out in the charter? The charter gives no mention of this authority.

As a member not part of the council, I could only abide by the rules as the alliance stated them to be. Is the understanding of the members so undervalued that the charter is left a blatant lie, only for it to have to be explained after situations like this?

As I've said in other posts, run the alliance how you will, but at least make sure it's known open and honestly. Lack of information on how the people at the top act, can only lead to mistrust when these things occur.

It is this general disregard for those not in the inner circles or associated corporations that has lead to such a level of in-fighting in the first place.

Edit:

I also fail to see what threat to life and limb waiting a day to discuss, approve and implement the taxes would have done, but again the fleet acted on it's own before the matter could be decided by the alliance as a whole.

And by doing so, they caused it to be far more of a problem, because it leaves members prone to bad decisions, such as the rate being implemented at 20% in a punitive and confrontational manner, rather than raising the idea sensibly as something that could clearly be seen, and I believe was, a good idea for the alliance as a whole.

---

Originally by: Valentine Keen

---

Edited by: Valentine Keen on 21/09/2004 14:59:34

Originally by: XeQtR

---

Come on.
We've been over this. Even I have learned now how it works.
The generals have the right (A right in itself aproved by the council btw.) to take these actions if there is an emergency and there simply is no time to call a council meeting (Calling such a meeting would take at least 24 hours I'd imagine) The actions of the generals would THEN be aproved in retrospect. Now, claiming that would make it hard for some members of the council to vote against that decision is just plain wrong. If a council member doesn't have the courage to vote against the decision he shouldn't be in the council at all. With power follows hard decisions. That's the main reason I'm glad I'm NOT in the council.

---

If this is the case, should not this be set out in the charter? The charter gives no mention of this authority.

As a member not part of the council, I could only abide by the rules as the alliance stated them to be. Is the understanding of the members so undervalued that the charter is left a blatant lie, only for it to have to be explained after situations like this?

As I've said in other posts, run the alliance how you will, but at least make sure it's known open and honestly. Lack of information on how the people at the top act, can only lead to mistrust when these things occur.

It is this general disregard for those not in the inner circles or associated corporations that has lead to such a level of in-fighting in the first place.

Edit:

I also fail to see what threat to life and limb waiting a day to discuss, approve and implement the taxes would have done, but again the fleet acted on it's own before the matter could be decided by the alliance as a whole.

And by doing so, they caused it to be far more of a problem, because it leaves members prone to bad decisions, such as the rate being implemented at 20% in a punitive and confrontational manner, rather than raising the idea sensibly as something that could clearly be seen, and I believe was, a good idea for the alliance as a whole.

---