Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

As to the general complaints about muting raised here. I stand 100% behind what I did. And I'd do exactly the same next time, to any CSM member who ignores 2 formal warnings on disruptive behaviour. I'm expecting certain rules of courtesy from CSM members in council and these need to be respected if this process is going to go anywhere.

Its been established that raising a hand "!" in channel is to be used to indicate a desire to speak. From there the chair recognizes individuals by name and they speak in order as called. Once we've moved to a vote on an issue it is not appropriate to continue debating against the notion of the vote - clarification can be asked for, its considered respectful behaviour to listen to clarification while its being given.

Now text based meetings of this sort are extremely challenging - there is no verbal queue, no eye contact, and very little peer pressure on members of the council to behave properly. Yesterday's session is an example of what happens when moderation from the chair is not followed. We managed to get through the agenda by pure force of will and stubborn resolve on the part of the CSM officers however - if we'd ended on time - items 6 to 17 on the agenda would not have been heard.

But it does show there are problems. I'm pretty unhappy with the in-game chat system and its functionality in this medium. The mute function does not work as it should do, the word limits mean that statements are broken up and its too easy for people to interrupt and break the flow of meaning. I'd personally be much happier with a voice meeting or even using IRC chat where the moderation functions work correctly.

End of the day though, that agenda was discussed and resolved and what needed clarifying got clarified. I repeat, I'm a 100% behind the moderation decisions taken and will do exactly the same thing next time if people refuse to respect the process of the meeting and keep cross-talking and interrupting and behaving disruptively.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

Now it's the in-game chat system's fault you muted a CSM member without due authority.

---

Chair has the authority to mute disruptive csm reps.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

:words:

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Sadly we've been told we have to use eve-chat. I Agree with you its horrible. There are terrible problems with text chat meetings particular in the moderation - there is simply no useful way to stop people interrupting and cross-talking over recognized speakers without muting them. Which as we see from this thread makes people jump six foot in the air with mortified outrage at the attack on their their civil rights. What I wouldn't give for channel commander powers in the moderation role here.

Of course its all going to be different face to face because people by and large behave a lot better in physical proximity - but we are going to need solutions to this fiasco meaning form in the future.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Would you care to explain exactly what you mean by "editorialize" and "change results of votes"?

These are serious accusations, I'd like to know precisely what you mean?

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

Um... read the logs? Inanna called you on it. Hardin called you on it. I called you on it. Inanna was then muted. It's been quoted multiple times in this thread and I'm sure you've read it...
Go ahead and play coy and offended though.

---

I was asking to see if you actually understood the accusation you were making.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:25:24

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

---

Jade: The motion to kick alternates out of the room when a CSM has showed up late has passed.
Rest of CSM: That's not what we said.

---

That isn't what I said. Does that mean you are "editorializing" now?

---

Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah

---

As I've said before in the other thread, the mess cannot be attributed to just one person.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Yeah that does seem to be the undercurrent - don't worry though Ulstan, we got a decent set of issues through regardless and if the CSM votes in Iceland to make an electable chair in the constitution I'll be happy to sit back and just promote good issues for the next 4 months of the term. I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Yeah truth is everybody in that meeting FAILED. On that point.

I failed to just make a judgment call and say "the votes count this way"
Those in favour of the 5/9 decision (including Bane who actually said he saw it written that way in the document) failed.
Those against the 5/9 decision failed to point out it was written otherwise in the docs.
Inanna failed to actually explain herself rather than arching criticizing lack of committee knowledge and delaying the process

All nine of us failed and as a result all nine of us wasted more than an hour on a ridiculous sequence of discussions and accusations and hotblooded confrontations that have led to the fiasco here today.

---

Originally by: Jade Constantine

---

Well Darius I'm talking about a specific vote there. You played a part in that as well as I did. Any of us COULD have actually read the docs and said "actually it says clearly that simple majority voting is the rule" - NOBODY did.

---

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.

---

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?

---

Originally by: Arithron

---

A meeting is not considered valid unless seven council membersùin any combination of Alternatives and Representativesùare present. The published meeting notes will display the members in attendance, and the main Transcript Vault will keep a running tally of the meeting attendance of all Representatives. Where applicable, Representatives are encouraged to post chat logs as a supplement to the meeting notes as well. The recommended guideline for meetings is at least once per week,with a minimum of nine Representatives present.

This is from the CSM documents. The interesting part is highlighted by italics...

Maybe alternates, once given voting status, keep it for the rest of the meeting, regardless of how many representatives come after they do?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen

---

Originally by: Arithron

---

Inanna,

You need to split the issues apart for presentation to the PLAYERS and for discussion and voting by REPRESENTATIVES. The issues, if successful through the CSM vote, then are presented to CCP.

Currently, by lumping issues in together, players can not coherently discuss and debate each issue seperately, and arguments and discussions are hard to follow through a thread. It will be even harder when a particular issue is a source of contention or needs changing due to overlooked ramifications.

Additionally, when presented in a CSM meeting, having multiple issues makes discussion about each one much harder, if not impossible (eg, 60+ issues on Science and Industry). Each issue must be able to be discussed and debated in a CSM meeting by the representatives. A clear yay or nay vote on EACH issue must also be made by the CSM. By having multiple issues together, this is impossible. Poor issues get through the entire process, and CSM representatives get no opportunity to vote them down, without rejecting many good issues. The same is also true when a few good issues are amoungst many bad ones.

Your issues may all be good and serve the greater needs of the EVE players. However, it is important ALL issues are presented the SAME way and equal opportunity given to each issue for every player and representative to discuss/debate and the representatives to vote on.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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

---

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.

---