Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rastasunniesman
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:42:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
(post here if you think Jade is dum)
Postin
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:46:00 -
[122]
Is there some good reason to do this in terrible text format? There is no way you're ever going to moderate anything as its not a discussion it looks like this:
Quote: JC > ********************************* DJ > no u :cripes: LaVista > WHAT ABOUT ICELAND FFS ICELAND GARGLE GLOMP IZ > can I have a word here Diedra > lol Serenity > let not America go wrong in her first hour :( bane > lol LaVista > ok bye exam JC > bye bane > bye Darius> get out
Just do it via voice coms so there is as little miscommunication as possible and so it has the pretense of question and answer. After all no one's accent is so egregious that this misbegotten text "method" offers any advantage. I think the CSM was so preoccupied with being romantically political and transparent that it forget no has ever had a meaningful exchange in between the lols and other dross. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 13:59:00 -
[123]
OK; I've been debating making a comment or not in this thread, and need to quickly state a couple of points.
Originally by: Jade Constantine That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances.
1. Where, precisely, was I being "disruptive"? and where, precisely, was that "extreme circumstances"? (I'm leaving aside the question of whether you even have the right to mute an elected representative for the moment)
Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre ... CSM's meetings seem to have overlooked ... that the Chairman should not be voting.
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.
Originally by: Jade Constantine 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.
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?
Further, I have been accused by the Chair of interrupting. Example: [ 2008.06.08 18:33:26 ] Jade Constantine > please phrase your 2nd part of the vote please Hardin ? [ 2008.06.08 18:33:29 ] Hardin > 2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason [ 2008.06.08 18:33:41 ] Jade Constantine > @ inanna please stop interrupting I'm sorry to point out that I see no interruption by me, so?
On-line meetings have their own particular difficulties, not only the prevalence of spelling errors but primarily based around lag time (comms delay, reading-typing delay, multi-line comments interleaving) so asking for comments needs to be clearly separated from asking for the vote to permit time for responses. However: [ 2008.06.08 19:24:51 ] Jade Constantine > does anyone actually oppose this issue ? [ 2008.06.08 19:25:15 ] Jade Constantine > moving to a vote then ... all those in favour - [ 2008.06.08 20:09:32 ] Jade Constantine > anybody else want to speak on the issue ? [ 2008.06.08 20:10:04 ] Jade Constantine > okay then lets move to a vote on the principle of raising this discussion with CCP and when I tried to actually respond you kept interrupting until [ 2008.06.08 20:11:46 ] Darius JOHNSON > You can let inanna finish - [ 2008.06.08 20:35:32 ] Jade Constantine > yep anyone against this one ? [ 2008.06.08 20:36:10 ] Jade Constantine > kk moving to the vote - etc.
Then lets look at voting; instead of noting whether everyone has voted and waiting until they have you pre-empt things. (see [ 2008.06.08 20:31:00 ] Jade Constantine > "Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty System" --- aye or nay onwards)
Now let's look at this "warning" business. First time around went [ 2008.06.08 19:47:28 ] Inanna Zuni > ... ]if the "yes" is greater than the "no" then IT PASSES! how can that even be a question! ... [ 2008.06.08 19:47:37 ] Jade Constantine > no Inanna I'm giving you a formal warning so no explanation of what I was alleged to have done that was "disruptive" there, other than ask a question. Moments later we even had [ 2008.06.08 19:48:03 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I object to this issue and withdraw my vote. This all followed your *refusal* to accept validly cast votes from myself and Dierdra: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote abstrain - I dont care either way [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). later (cont.d)
My principles |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:02:00 -
[124]
(cont.d from above)
[ 2008.06.08 19:37:12 ] Jade Constantine > yeah to be honest I don't really understand the point of abstains 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 [ 2008.06.08 19:44:52 ] Jade Constantine > so I need inanna and Tusko to register a vote please and then, presumably because it suited you: [ 2008.06.08 19:46:32 ] Jade Constantine > okay I'm going to record no votes from Tusko and Inanna [ 2008.06.08 19:46:38 ] Jade Constantine > option A passes then despite [ 2008.06.08 19:46:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Objection! you "warn" me.
Later you bring it all up again, but others in this thread have commented on that.
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.
IZ
My principles |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:11:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon
That said, I agree completely on the following points: - The muting was jumping the gun. From the logs, the meeting was obviously getting heated and people were getting tired (not the least Jade himself). What should have been done was to call a break, let everyone cool off, and continue separately. - The idea that abstains count as no is bizarre in this case. Abstains should count as votes not cast. That is the point of abstaining in this kind of a meeting - letting whoever does have an opinion decide.
Yes the meeting was overlong. But we were caught on the horns of dilemma there. Any issues that didn't get heard at that meeting were not getting on the Iceland agenda since they needed to be agreed and then have written documentation produced this coming thursday for submission to ccp. And if you review the logs - we actually got through the substantive issues in about an hour - and spent 3 hours arguing about complete tosh. Yes I was tired, yes I was hot and frustrated and yes I really wanted the meeting to end. But we had a seriously problem. Half the CSM thought the vote on issue 3 had failed, half the CSM thought it was successful. Thats where all the "wtf does abstention mean?" debate came from. Sure in the cold light of day I'm going to put my hand up now and say what I should have done was say:
"I'm making a call on this this - Chair says we're using simple majority voting - moving on."
(though I'm guessing that would have led to some toys being thrown out of prams and more accusations of chair claiming too much authority again - sometimes you can't win).
But as it was we needed to get clarity on that issue to prevent a situation where ank was going to produce minutes showing one result for issue 3 where half the CSM thought it had gone the other way.
I'd dearly have loved to call a break Elebeth, but we'd not have reconvened afterwards - people were desperate to be away and it would have led to us denying the electorate the chance to get some of their issues on the agenda. For all the drama and spats and foot-stamping and goon-trolling its led too I'm glad to have persevered and gotten to the end of the agenda.
What led to me mute Inanna was her interference in the two separate votes on the simple majority issue. Doesn't matter she was right - (and I agreed with her on the principle) what mattered is that she was further stalling the process of a lengthy and fractious meeting by arguing against us having a vote to decide the issue. If she had gotten her way and there had been no vote we'd be arguing right now about whether issue 3 had passed or not, since at the midpoint of that meeting we had 4 CSM reps: Serenity Steele, Dierdra Vaal, Darius and Bane [ 2008.06.08 19:41:38 ] Bane Glorious > i'm voting A because that's what the CSM document's rules say Supporting the principle that 5/9 majority is required for a vote to pass.
3 CSM reps: Ank, Lavista, and myself
Supporting the principle that simple majority is required.
1 CSM rep (Hardin/Tusko) not available to vote. and 1 CSM rep Inanna refusing to vote because:
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal
As it ended up THAT vote finished 4 yes 3 no (2 no opinions) which would actually have pushed through the notion of 5/9 majority voting being required.
But it didn't finish the argument since 2 of the 3 no voters and 1 abstainer refused to accept the verdict believing (correctly as it turned out) that it contradicted the spirit of the founding CSM document.
Hence the secondary vote on the issue with more information (supplied by Tusko) that led ultimately to an overturn of the earlier decision and confirmation of the principle of simple majority voting.
Sometime you just need to get the vote done. People have a time to object. Once noted they need to shut up and vote (or abstain) - interfering with the process of a vote will earn a mute.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:16:00 -
[126]
For those too lazy to read chatlogs, on the second vote the first Inanna warning which was completely unwarranted :
[ 2008.06.08 18:30:27 ]Jade Constantine >1st is issue is = can a candidate walk back in a meeting in process that has empowered an alternate and immediately dislodges the alternate and regains his position? [ 2008.06.08 18:30:40 ]Hardin >great phrasing their Jade [ 2008.06.08 18:30:43 ]Darius JOHNSON >That's a misleading way of framing it [ 2008.06.08 18:30:47 ]Inanna Zuni >Issue of proxies is not on the table [ 2008.06.08 18:30:51 ]Jade Constantine >rephrase it please Hardin [ 2008.06.08 18:30:59 ]Jade Constantine >and we'll vote on your phrasing [ 2008.06.08 18:31:02 ]Jade Constantine >go [ 2008.06.08 18:31:11 ]Inanna Zuni >Yes, biased statement there by Chair .. [ 2008.06.08 18:31:29 ]Hardin >1st issue is can the elected candidate return to a meeting and regain voting rights when the debate moves on to the next item on the agenda [ 2008.06.08 18:31:46 ]Serenity Steele >I vote NO. [ 2008.06.08 18:31:49 ]Bane Glorious >aye [ 2008.06.08 18:31:51 ]Jade Constantine >I vote no [ 2008.06.08 18:31:52 ]Ankhesentapemkah >Nay. [ 2008.06.08 18:31:56 ]Hardin >Aye [ 2008.06.08 18:31:57 ]Darius JOHNSON >yes [ 2008.06.08 18:32:02 ]Inanna Zuni >Aye [ 2008.06.08 18:32:05 ]Dierdra Vaal >vote against (at least until the issue of alternate terms has been solved) [ 2008.06.08 18:32:07 ]LaVista Vista >Aye [ 2008.06.08 18:32:16 ]Jade Constantine >okay its carried [ 2008.06.08 18:32:30 ]Hardin >Thank you [ 2008.06.08 18:33:05 ]Jade Constantine >alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting [ 2008.06.08 18:33:08 ]Jade Constantine >next part [ 2008.06.08 18:33:15 ]Ankhesentapemkah >Nay [ 2008.06.08 18:33:16 ]Inanna Zuni >Jade! [ 2008.06.08 18:33:22 ]Inanna Zuni >please do not editorialize a decision [ 2008.06.08 18:33:27 ]Jade Constantine >please phrase your 2nd part of the vote please Hardin ? [ 2008.06.08 18:33:29 ]Hardin >2nd issue is should an alternate step and begin voting when an elected rep leaves the meeting for whatever reason [ 2008.06.08 18:33:42 ]Jade Constantine >@ inanna please stop interrupting [ 2008.06.08 18:33:56 ]Inanna Zuni >Jade ... please chair "neutrally" then [ 2008.06.08 18:34:26 ]Jade Constantine >I'm going to ask you formally now Inanna ... please stop interrupting the process of the vote [ 2008.06.08 18:34:33 ]Bane Glorious >inanna has a point
So Jade states the vote incorrectly, allows Hardin to do it properly, then when he loses the vote attempts to summarize the vote in his intial framing. Inanna correctly calls him out on it and gets a warning.
Jade, either your parting shot :
[ 2008.06.08 18:33:05 ]Jade Constantine >alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting
A) Not understanding a word Hardin proposed and the council agreed to vote on. B) An attempt to rewrite on record the vote in your personal wording to fall back on should this happen. C) A childish jab at the vote since you lost.
Which was it?
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:23:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Jade Constantine For all the drama and spats and foot-stamping and goon-trolling its led too I'm glad to have persevered and gotten to the end of the agenda.
"Goon-trolling"? I fail to see any occur last night (are you?)
Originally by: Jade Constantine What led to me mute Inanna was her interference in the two separate votes on the simple majority issue .... and 1 CSM rep Inanna refusing to vote because:
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal
Somewhat selective there! That comment was way after I had voted "abstain" (see post above) and was not part of any vote; it was a response following: [ 2008.06.08 19:39:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Noone has the right to force you to choose, Dierdra. [ 2008.06.08 19:40:16 ] Jade Constantine > Option A: 5/9 needed to make the agenda .... Option B: simple majority needed [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose 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.
Originally by: Jade Constantine People have a time to object. Once noted they need to shut up and vote (or abstain) - interfering with the process of a vote will earn a mute.
And as I have noted in the posts above, if you are giving people a "time to object" you need to actually wait and *give* them that time. Their responding to you call to comment is not an 'interference' in any way. ps. saying "vote (or abstain)" is a tautology as 'abstain' *is* a vote.
btw. Having read the full logs now, might I enquire re the following: [ 2008.06.08 21:59:06 ] Jade Constantine > If we want to do this discussion Lavista - i muted her for the 3 specific instance of her blocking the ability to move to a vote with disruptive behavour
So again, as I and others have requested, where are the 3 specific instance of her blocking the ability to move to a vote with disruptive behavour (sic)? I have no "blocking" ability (although you subsequently demonstrated that you do)
IZ
My principles |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:29:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 14:29:42
Originally by: Inanna Zuni "Goon-trolling"? I fail to see any occur last night (are you?)
Talking about this thread obviously.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:30:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
[ 2008.06.08 19:37:12 ] Jade Constantine > yeah to be honest I don't really understand the point of abstains 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 [ 2008.06.08 19:44:52 ] Jade Constantine > so I need inanna and Tusko to register a vote please and then, presumably because it suited you: [ 2008.06.08 19:46:32 ] Jade Constantine > okay I'm going to record no votes from Tusko and Inanna [ 2008.06.08 19:46:38 ] Jade Constantine > option A passes then despite [ 2008.06.08 19:46:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Objection! you "warn" me.
How else would you interpret 4 yes votes, 3 no votes, and 2 CSM candidates that refuse to register a vote? I recorded you'd cast no meaningful vote (effectively an abstain) so the measure passed by simple majority voting 4 to 3.
Quote: 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.
Ultimately Inanna you need to examine your own behaviour as well. Look back through the log and count the number of comments you interject without asking to be recognized by the Chair, look at your reaction to a vote being called, look at the generally insulting and demeaning way you post with accusations against the competence of other reps, continual correcting of grammar or spelling, haranguing other reps and the Chair and generally refusing to be called to order.
I'm not expecting any kind of democratic resolution here Inanna, but I'm going to tell you right now that if you keep behaving as you did in that last meeting then I'll be warning you each time you speak without asking to be recognized and I'll be doing this not to bully or intimidate you, but since it is the only way to be fair to the other CSM reps, and to the electorate that voted for us to actually make progress in these committee meetings rather than listen to 101 interjections and snippy one-liners.
If you (or any other) CSM rep don't think this is reasonable then you have the option of tabling a motion to suggest how we moderate these meetings in the future.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:34:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
So again, as I and others have requested, where are the 3 specific instance of her blocking the ability to move to a vote with disruptive behavour (sic)? I have no "blocking" ability (although you subsequently demonstrated that you do)
IZ
See my post for instance number one above, would like Hardin and other CSM's imput as well.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:41:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Erotic Irony Is there some good reason to do this in terrible text format? There is no way you're ever going to moderate anything as its not a discussion it looks like this:
Quote: JC > ********************************* DJ > no u :cripes: LaVista > WHAT ABOUT ICELAND FFS ICELAND GARGLE GLOMP IZ > can I have a word here Diedra > lol Serenity > let not America go wrong in her first hour :( bane > lol LaVista > ok bye exam JC > bye bane > bye Darius> get out
Just do it via voice coms so there is as little miscommunication as possible and so it has the pretense of question and answer. After all no one's accent is so egregious that this misbegotten text "method" offers any advantage. I think the CSM was so preoccupied with being romantically political and transparent that it forget no has ever had a meaningful exchange in between the lols and other dross.
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.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:41:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Jade Constantine :words:
I'd highly recommend you stop blaming Inanna for your actions. She did nothing wrong whatsoever. I know it's difficult for you to accept but you were (and are) completely out of line.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:44:00 -
[133]
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.
Everyone can read the logs. I'd stop insinuating that anyone other than yourself was the cause of the disruptions. You muted a CSM member for the dire offense of disagreeing with you and calling you on your attempts to editorialize and change the results of votes. Where you get off blaming everyone and everything else for this, or even insinuating that anyone else was doing anything untoward I don't know.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:48:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON calling you on your attempts to editorialize and change the results of votes. Where you get off blaming everyone and everything else for this, or even insinuating that anyone else was doing anything untoward I don't know.
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?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:49:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 09/06/2008 14:52:19
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Inanna Zuni "Goon-trolling"? I fail to see any occur last night (are you?)
Talking about this thread obviously.
"Obviously"?? Nope. Let's look again at your original statement:
Originally by: Jade Constantine For all the drama and spats and foot-stamping and goon-trolling its led too I'm glad to have persevered and gotten to the end of the agenda.
In other words, you were referring to "goon-trolling" in the meeting as only that had an agenda and could reach an end. This thread has neither.
Originally by: Jade Constantine I recorded you'd cast no meaningful vote (effectively an abstain)
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.
Originally by: Jade Constantine I'll be warning you each time you speak without asking to be recognized ...
Oh dear, so a special rule for me whereas (I look at the logs) others, including yourself, will be free under your 'rule' to speak whenever they wish?
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.
IZ
My principles |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:57:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON calling you on your attempts to editorialize and change the results of votes. Where you get off blaming everyone and everything else for this, or even insinuating that anyone else was doing anything untoward I don't know.
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?
Hardin : Ok, a vote if the sky is blue in Iceland. Hardin : I vote yes. Jade : NO Jade buddy :NO Jade Buddy #2 :NO Bane : Yes, sigh what are we doing Darius : Yes, ughh... Inannaa : Yes Lavista : Yes Other Person : Yes Jade : Ok the vote has passed, the sky is blue on days that begin with the letter "W", ok on to the next vote... Inannaa:Wait a second, that's not what the.... Jade: I DEMAND ORDER, THIS IS YOUR FIRST WARNING, YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!!
|
Anton Marvik
AnTi. Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 14:57:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'd stop insinuating that anyone other than yourself was the cause of the disruptions.
At the risk of agreeing with a Goon, Jade...take some personal responsibility. YOU were out of line. It is YOUR responsibility to Chair the CSM in a neutral and professional manner, which YOU failed to do. YOU are responsible for your own actions.
Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? I have to say, I'm not any happier with your response to the general disgust with your actions than I am with your actions in the first place.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:01:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni 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.
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question?
I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance.
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.
Yep its a long and sad thread and it does show a pretty poor side to the CSM for sure. All I can say is as distasteful as I find your behaviour in council I'll continue to try to work with you and give you the same respect as I afford to others involved with this process. If at the end of the day you find you can't follow the procedures of the council chamber you've got the option to raise a vote to change them I guess. Be assured that while you are introducing your vote I'll be keen to stop over people interrupting, talking above and generally trying to disrupt the points YOU are making.
Funny that.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:01:00 -
[139]
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?
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.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:10:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Jade Constantine I'm telling you the Chair has the authority to moderate meetings. That can involve muting disruptive CSM members in extreme circumstances. We can get involved in debate as to whether silencing a council member for 30secs while the chair was actually stating the terms of a vote that would allow us to finish a meeting that had ALREADY overrun by 2 hours is - "extreme circumstances" by all means. But ultimately I made the call and I'd do it again.
If any CSM members feel this was wrong then its their right to bring up an issue for the next agenda proposing specific rules or limitations on moderation or indeed ideas as to how one does deal with ongoing and disruptive cross-talk and interruptions to keep a 2 hour meeting under a 4 hour timespan without having the sanction to silence a member who has already ignored repeated requests to follow the protocol of the meeting.
Bring it to a vote by all means. If the CSM does manage to vote itself out of all moderation in text chat then we'll see where that takes us.
The thing about text-based meetings is that it's pretty hard to actually interrupt proceedings - you don't silence somebody by typing over them, you just scroll the window faster. Since I assume all the CSM reps are sensible, and are sitting docked with the chat window essentially full-screened, scrolling is hardly a capital offense. It's not impossible, and a dedicated spammer can certainly ruin a window, but Inanna was nowhere even close to that line.
As for the CSM bringing up rules on the topic, I don't think that would solve the problem. Disruption is hardly something easy to set down in formal law - it will always require interpretation. You don't solve the problem of excessive moderation by laying down rules, you solve it by getting a Chair who has some understanding of what their job is supposed to be. Clearly, you're not it. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:10:00 -
[141]
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.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:11:00 -
[142]
You can be assured that all voting will be reflected the correct way in the minutes in the manner agreed upon before the vote. However Jade phrased it afterwards is not relevant and was not agreed upon by the vote, and thus will be omitted.
Yes, there clearly were mistakes made during the discussion and voting itself. But they will be corrected. No need to start an argument about it here or during the discussion. Please, act in a professional manner, we will all benefit from making this CSM a success and the best way to work on that is stop this pointless fighting amongst ourselves. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:13:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Yep its a long and sad thread and it does show a pretty poor side to the CSM for sure. All I can say is as distasteful as I find your behaviour in council I'll continue to try to work with you and give you the same respect as I afford to others involved with this process. If at the end of the day you find you can't follow the procedures of the council chamber you've got the option to raise a vote to change them I guess. Be assured that while you are introducing your vote I'll be keen to stop over people interrupting, talking above and generally trying to disrupt the points YOU are making.
Seeing as people have actually read the chatlog i'm amazed you continue to push the blame over to someone else.
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:14:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question?
I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance.
And ... yet again, you are attempting (and failing) to obfuscate the point here. The *vote* had been held some minutes earlier! Your call for vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:38 ] Jade Constantine > **************************alll in favour of CSM electing its own chair .... aye or nay My vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). You then tried to force the two abstentions (myself and Dierdra Vaal) to change our votes. even though [ 2008.06.08 19:38:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > its their right to abstain. so you tried to re-open a concluded vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose and, not surprisingly, I didn't bend to this attempt to run roughshod over the decision that the CSM had just made.
As I said, editorialising decisions to make them appear different to how they were presented and decided upon.
IZ
My principles |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:17:00 -
[145]
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.
Here let me spell it out for you in shorthand... I apologize for the brevity.
*Votes on a motion to allow council members to enter a meeting and take over for the alternate who had stepped up in their place*
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.
Jade: You're out of line
*mutes dissent*
Does that spell it out for you for the 50th time? How about that time we voted that not everyone in the channel would have moderation capability and you decided that meant you should? Does that help?
Much like the meeting yesterday you continue to waste everyone's time for your own purposes. You're wrong. Get over it.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:19:00 -
[146]
ITT: 'Jaded' getting new meaning. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:22:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 09/06/2008 15:25:14
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.
Not condescending at all...
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah No need to start an argument about it here or during the discussion. Please, act in a professional manner, we will all benefit from making this CSM a success and the best way to work on that is stop this pointless fighting amongst ourselves.
I'm going to have to disagree - it's not pointless. For the Council to function, you're going to need a good Chair, and Jade has proven that he's not it. Strife sucks, but it's usually better than giving up on things that matter. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:24:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 15:26:21
Originally by: Inanna Zuni Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 09/06/2008 15:19:19
Originally by: Jade Constantine
[ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:41:18 ] Inanna Zuni > Why are you asking this pointless question?
I took that to understand you were refusing to vote, I recorded your position as an abstain. You are quick to make these accusations of editorializing - but they have no real substance.
And ... yet again, you are attempting (and failing) to obfuscate the point here. The *vote* had been held some minutes earlier! Your call for vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:38 ] Jade Constantine > **************************alll in favour of CSM electing its own chair .... aye or nay My vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:33:55 ] Inanna Zuni > Having read all the thread (http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783042) and responses to my own posts therein, I'm still neutral on this; there are good and bad points to it. Abstain (tending towards reject.). You then tried to force the two abstentions (myself and Dierdra Vaal) to change our votes. even though [ 2008.06.08 19:38:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > its their right to abstain. so you tried to re-open a concluded vote: [ 2008.06.08 19:40:25 ] Jade Constantine > please choose and, not surprisingly, I didn't bend to this attempt to run roughshod over the decision that the CSM had just made, resulting in [ 2008.06.08 19:40:26 ] Inanna Zuni > I *choose* to decline to support or reject this proposal [ 2008.06.08 19:40:36 ] Ankhesentapemkah > As stated previously, if 5 votes would be required then all abstains would count as no, so this is silly. Abstain is abstain. [ 2008.06.08 19:40:51 ] Jade Constantine > then please choose [ 2008.06.08 19:40:53 ] Jade Constantine > A or B where you *again* refused to accept my abstain vote.
As I said, editorialising decisions to make them appear different to how they were presented and decided upon.
IZ
You completely misunderstood what was going on there Inanna. The electable chair vote ended with a 4/2/2 result and half the CSM committee felt that meant it failed, half felt it passed. We moved to a secondary vote on the principle of majority voting (in general) to clarify whether the result was a pass or a fail. Your behaviour makes a lot more sense now in retrospect if you actually did confuse these two issues and assumed it was a revote on issue 3 specifically.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:25:00 -
[149]
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?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:26:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
You can be assured that all voting will be reflected the correct way in the minutes in the manner agreed upon before the vote. However Jade phrased it afterwards is not relevant and was not agreed upon by the vote, and thus will be omitted.
Thank you Ankh, would be nice to see this from Jade and why he thinks his non-relevant and confusing statements are helpful to the process.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |