And yet if you took the time to read Selene's blog as represented on the subject there are CSM council members who consider it an important part of the CSM duties.

As the editor of the minutes, I can address your question.

The main reason we don't individually attribute statements is a practical one; it would take a huge amount of extra time, and would delay the release of the minutes. Also, the AV recording of the meeting is a single camera with a built-in mic, and it's often hard to tell who is making a fool of thems... er, expressing their well-considered opinions.

Many of the more communicative members of the CSM, such as Meissa, Seleene and myself, have publically posted their personal positions on a variety of items in the minutes.

You should, of course, assume that any CSM who does not do so is violently opposed to your own personal position, whatever it might be.

Interesting. Some posts are now missing from this thread.

That kind of leads right into what I was saying. When information can be manipulated, it will be. Not that everybody has a reason to or would even try. the fact is, once the idea that only unverifiable summaries become the norm, that's were it stays. Its hard to raise the bar once lowered, regardless of good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with those.

We did it in earlier CSMs and got out minutes out much faster than we see as typical these days.

You served on CSM2 and CSM3 IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken, the CSM2 summit minutes were 10 pages long and contain references to individual CSMs; the CSM3 summit minutes were 16 pages long -- and do not contain references to individual CSMs.

The minutes from the most recent CSM summit were 44 pages long. Admittedly, we had an extra day of meetings, but even so, apparently we talk twice as fast and get twice as much done.

Oh, and by the way, you are not credited with having done any work on the above-mentioned minutes.

You served on CSM2 and CSM3 IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken, the CSM2 summit minutes were 10 pages long and contain references to individual CSMs; the CSM3 summit minutes were 16 pages long -- and do not contain references to individual CSMs.

The minutes from the most recent CSM summit were 44 pages long. Admittedly, we had an extra day of meetings, but even so, apparently we talk twice as fast and get twice as much done.

Oh, and by the way, you are not credited with having done any work on the above-mentioned minutes.

My view of the role of the CSM 2 was oversight of the POS exploit scandal and worked on influence after hours with 1:1 to CCP employees. If you look at all the individual meeting minutes you will see that I was quite active in all the meetings.

One thing to note is that the Wiki is screwed up. The minutes listed as the second CCP/CSM meeting are not the CCP/CSM Iceland meeting with the second CSM. Look at the members present, you can see that was a meeting with the first CSM. So your claim I wasn't credited with having done anything is wrong.

My personal preference is to favor putting the time and effort into describing in as much detail as possible what things were discussed, as opposed to detailing exactly who said what brilliant or stupid thing. You can disagree with that position, but you aren't doing the work.

What a load of "codswallop". More like protecting your anonymity it seems.

As has been argued I really fail to see the practical difficulty in changing pronouns for names or how that would seriously detract from being able to complete things with the same level of detail. I'd suggest getting someone to take on the editorial role with some competence if so.

You're missing the point. Petty he/she-said spaceship politics are irrelevant in the context of what the summit as a whole is about.

I don't mind one bit that a) there are realities of time and manpower preventing full disclosure and b) that there exists one area of the CSM free from politics and pandering in which the CSM can discuss and debate 'hot topics' internally without worrying about the forum lynch mob.

The argument you put forward is really only relevant if sufficient trust is afforded.

Well that's where we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. I think you're reading to far into what is essentially people volunteering their free time to attend a three-day workshop encased in darkness with a room full of nerds for a larger community of angry nerds who salivate over the idea of dissecting said workshop with the least amount of civility possible.

It's not that I 'trust' them. It's that I feel bad enough for them already.

Well they should have considered that before taking on board the duties and responsibilities of being a CSM council member then.

What, NPC forum alt disapproval?

(ban npc forum alts from csm forums)

But seriously changing pronouns to names is really that much of a big ask?

Not really, just a lack of "professionalism" even if they are volunteers.

As its just another smack in the face to CCP intentions for the CSM and every "paying" player as a result.

Yes ok great you got an axe to grind and want to come here to throw silly punches. Are you wanting a serious discussion or is this just a drive by poop post?

And yet the overall page length really wouldn't be that affected by this request.

This may be hard for you to understand, but as a voter I thought I might express my opinion on the matter. If you simply want to dismiss it by projecting "your" inaccurate take on things thats up to you. Seems you simply have (maybe a pattern of behaviour on the subject).

Not really, just a lack of "professionalism" even if they are volunteers.

As its just another smack in the face to CCP intentions for the CSM and every "paying" player as a result.

I explained my reasons why, trebor explained his. I took the time to break down some other reasons why it won't work this time around (not to say that it is impossible for the future) and you post to throw punches right after these explanations.

You suggested we're unprofessional, explain why in this context.

You suggested that we're dismissing somehow by... explaining our reasoning? Maybe this whole 'reading' and 'words' thing is a tough one to grasp?

If you want to have an adult conversation about this subject then back up a bit, rethink your post, and engage on an adult level instead of posting silliness like:



See? You aren't even talking to us, you're just trying to make a snarky one liner.

Please explain why I should afford to explain my reasoning to someone who childishly accuses me of having an "axe to grind" and doesn't support any of their reasoning or explantion for their baseless accusations? Pot, kettle, black, Sir.

One rule for you, different rule for everyone else I guess. Otherwise I'm free to express my concerns how I like. Just because you disagree with a persons opinions does not make them invalid. As such I don't see it as a "snarky one liner" but a strong reflection of how dissapointed Iam with members of the CSM on this matter, seemed pretty obvious to me.

Or is now the primary concern of the CSM total mind control and censorship of all "unregulated" posting against their interests?

I seem to have missed where you even commented on any specifics of what we've been saying. Link? Heh that was a joke.



Did you read what I posted? Care to comment?

Simply fulfill your remaining term of office as you suggested and resign as you have announced it will be one less "clown" on the Council.

Please explain why I should afford to explain my reasoning to someone who childishly accuses me of having an "axe to grind" and doesn't support any of their reasoning or explantion for their baseless accusations? Pot, kettle, black, Sir.

One rule for you, different rule for everyone else I guess. Otherwise I'm free to express my concerns how I like. Just because you disagree with a persons opinions does not make them invalid. As such I don't see it as a "snarky one liner" but a strong reflection of how dissapointed Iam with members of the CSM on this matter, seemed pretty obvious to me.

Or is now the primary concern of the CSM total mind control and censorship of all "unregulated" posting against their interests?