Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ungdall
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:26:00 -
[151]
What's this? A representative was chosen because of their e-rep in the world of flames and straw-man debates? And you say it's going, not in circles, but in shattered half-moons of chaos, destruction and a waste of CCP's money? Why I never!
Is anyone really surprised at this? it's Jade.
|
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:28:00 -
[152]
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?
You are a terrible chairperson and should step down. You can't control the meetings and you are lashing out in extremis, making things even worse. Do yourself, the CSM and the community a favour and step down from the position. You have every right to represent those who voted for you but you are destroying this excellent chance for the community to get their views across more succinctly to CCP and actually have them acted upon.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:30:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Goumindong on 09/06/2008 15:30:47
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.
"editorializing" is not a difficult concept to grasp. Are you seriously wondering whether Darius is able to comprehend what it means?
But hell, since you don't seem to understand this simple concept, i will explain it for you.
It means that when the Council voted to pass a measure that was defined in one specific way, you made a note that the measure passed defined in a different specific way. Now, i will assume for the sake of courtesy that you are both literate and not a polemic dillweed(though it there is ample evidence for the contrary) and will present both the issue voted on and the issue you editorialized. Precisely so that you can comprehend what is going on here (however dense, intentionally or otherwise, you would have to be to not understand)
THE VOTE: 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
THE EDITORIALIZING: alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting
(Note: those are above quotes of the issue[italics are me for emphasis], and this happened twice where you made that same mistake, this quote being the second time after the official vote)
Do you just not care enough to read what you are voting on or is this a concentrated effort to subvert the will of the CSM since they voted against you?
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:31:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
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.
What was decided on this? Does it require 5 or more "yes" votes to pass something, or just more "yes" votes than "no" votes? It's confusing to determine reading the log.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:33:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Kelsin What was decided on this? Does it require 5 or more "yes" votes to pass something, or just more "yes" votes than "no" votes? It's confusing to determine reading the log.
They eventually reconsidered their first, self-negating vote at the end of the meeting, and decided that yes > no = pass. Only took them three hours to come to a decision that should have taken ten seconds - thank you Serenity, for the gifts you have brought us. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:37:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto 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.
Jade has made some mistakes in this meeting. We are reviewing what happened, and will try to make sure it won't happen again next time. I'm pretty sure that what people call "editorializing" on those votes was not intentional. It got blown way out of proportion, and people reacted in an unprofessional manner.
It was already a brewing mess in the chat, so I understand why Jade wanted to stop the endless arguing and bickering and just get to the vote, hence ignoring a complaint that would probably be valid. If the debate was otherwise conducted orderly, I'm sure that the complaint would have been heard and addressed appropriately.
As I've said before in the other thread, the mess cannot be attributed to just one person. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:37:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
So the measure failed to pass and then you attempted to get the two members who didn't vote to vote so that it might?
You moved to a secondary vote? What the heck does that mean for people who don't reside in "Jade Land"
And where was the movement for the "secondary vote" and where was the second on the movement for the "secondary vote" and where were all the other votes in the secondary vote that would have to be recast.
No, you were badgering the people who didn't vote to vote. Its a simple concept how hard is it to understand?
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:39:00 -
[158]
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?
Yes, now you get it! The logs of what you really said are contained elsewhere in this thread and that was merely an interpretive and not entirely inaccurate portayal of the events. I've wasted enough time on you for today and 4 hours yesterday. I'm not going through the logs again to point out what multiple people already have, including... 5 I think other CSM reps?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:41:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I'm pretty sure that what people call "editorializing" on those votes was not intentional
While i would like to share this sentiment, Jade has a long long history of doing this intentionally. As stated earlier, he was banned from the forums for just this sort of behaviour. Having tried to have discussion with Jade based on logic where he devolves into ad hominem attacks and strawman i can't in good conscious say that this was anything but intentional.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:43:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
As I've said before in the other thread, the mess cannot be attributed to just one person.
I respectfully disagree... only one person muted anyone and editorialized votes to suit their own whims. That is the source of this mess. Thusly this mess can be attributed to just one person.
|
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:44:00 -
[161]
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?
The actual referents are: [ 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 18:33:02 ] Jade Constantine > alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting 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.
IZ
My principles |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:48:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
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?
The actual referents are: [ 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 18:33:02 ] Jade Constantine > alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting 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.
IZ
The best part imho is Anhk voting on Jade's editorializing imho :
[ 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
Or was Anhk preemptively voting on the next subject before it was even announced?
|
Lumen Atra
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:15:00 -
[163]
Wow. I thought all of the talk about "votes of no confidence" were jokes related to Star Wars aimed at showing a dislike for Jade. After reading, I see they are 100% serious.
Jade: You have evaded a question: Where do you get the power to administer formal warnings and, subsequently, mute a CSM rep? We don't care if you would do it again. That is not the question. We don't care if you are the chair. That is not the question. We don't care if you felt Innana was being disruptive. That is not the question.
The question is: Where do you get the power to administer formal warnings and, subsequently, mute a CSM rep?
|
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:16:00 -
[164]
Jade you are an abismal chair. As I posted in the other related thread, I have gone through the chatlogs and its practically unbelievable. Even more so when in this thread you insist in defending your reprehensible behaviour.
Minmatar Boost Brigade |
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:23:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I'm pretty sure that what people call "editorializing" on those votes was not intentional. It got blown way out of proportion, and people reacted in an unprofessional manner.
I have no idea of whether it was intentional or not. But I do assure you that in a RL meeting, intentional or not, he wouldn't be coming back. And that's only referring to the editorializing part.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
As I've said before in the other thread, the mess cannot be attributed to just one person.
I attribute it in whole to the chair from what I've read in the logs. And that chair is Jade.
Minmatar Boost Brigade |
Ankhesentapemkah
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:26:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 09/06/2008 16:27:49
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I respectfully disagree... only one person muted anyone and editorialized votes to suit their own whims. That is the source of this mess. Thusly this mess can be attributed to just one person.
It wasn't Jade Constantine's fault that over half an hour of time was wasted on the first issue, before the voting even started, most of us dragged out the discussion. This is one of several things that affected the atmosphere in a bad way, and likely attributed to the mistakes further down the road. I was definately itchy after wasting so much time, and later on I was close to losing my temper when people were casting (in my opinion) uninformed votes demanding an absolute majority for votes to pass. My apologies for my behaviour there.
Secondly... I really don't want to get involved in this "editorializing" discussion, but I just read the chatlogs yet another time.
If we compare Hardin's formulation the two of Jade, we'll clearly see differences, which I bolded:
Originally by: Chatlog
1) 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 2) 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? 3) Jade Constantine > alternates can be removed from CSM rep voting status at any time by a candidate arriving at the meeting
However, the item was phrased very differently on the agenda:
Ankhesentapemkah > 1. Alternates and Voting (if an alternate is empowered to replace a full rep for the meetings does can a rep come back mid-way through and take the alternates place once again?)
From my perception, Jade Constantine saw this issue as black-and-white as "either they can come arrive during a meeting and regain voting rights, or they are excluded from voting until next meeting". The nuance of the timing in which they would regain the rights in the meeting was lost. This is understandable if we look at when exactly this particular aspect of the issue was mentioned:
Originally by: Chatlog
[ 2008.06.08 18:12:01 ] Hardin > That once one of the duely elected CSM candidates returns to a meeting he resumes his voting rights on the next item of the agenda (...) [ 2008.06.08 18:15:49 ] Inanna Zuni > ... at the end of the current item
Then, the debate went off in an other direction and other aspects of the issue were covered. It was not discussed at all for almost 15 minutes, when Jade called the vote:
Originally by: Chatlog
[ 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?
Upon which people attacked Jade for leaving out the aforementioned detail.
From my hopefully neutral perspective, this was not intentional and merely miscommunication. In the future, I humbly request of all of you to politely correct other council members when they make mistakes, instead of assuming the worst.
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was. ---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:48:00 -
[167]
ITT many people who are way too caught up in meaningless minutiae of the rules.
Maybe they can combine with the mass of Jade Haters to prevent the CSM from accomplishing anything!
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:51:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Ulstan ITT many people who are way too caught up in meaningless minutiae of the rules. Maybe they can combine with the mass of Jade Haters to prevent the CSM from accomplishing anything!
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.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:53:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 09/06/2008 16:28:55
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I respectfully disagree... only one person muted anyone and editorialized votes to suit their own whims. That is the source of this mess. Thusly this mess can be attributed to just one person.
From my hopefully neutral perspective, this was not intentional and merely miscommunication. In the future, I humbly request of all of you to politely correct other council members when they make mistakes, instead of assuming the worst.
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was.
[ 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 "neutral
Perhaps when correcting the chair, not only should "Please" be used, but perhaps following "with sugar on top" as to not offend.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:55:00 -
[170]
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.
As was stated directly in the meeting, and repeatedly otherwise and ignored selectively, there's nothing preventing the chair from stepping down so a new one can be elected right now. There's also no 'constitution'. Don't let me get in the way of you framing your own reality however.
|
|
Hardin
Praetoria Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:55:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Hardin on 09/06/2008 16:57:30
Quote: I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
I suppose you would have preferred sheep eh Jade?
----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:58:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Hardin Edited by: Hardin on 09/06/2008 16:57:30
Quote: I'm sure the next chair will enjoy herding these cats.
I suppose you would have preferred sheep eh Jade?
Would you?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Vanessa Vale
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:00:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
From my hopefully neutral perspective, this was not intentional and merely miscommunication. In the future, I humbly request of all of you to politely correct other council members when they make mistakes, instead of assuming the worst.
Or you can always mute them, and then go on the forum and ask what was this 'editorializing' about and brush off any kind of observations about bias.
Paraphrasing: - "You are not being neutral <due to editorializing>" - "this is an unnecessary discussion give the results of vote 1" - "ok" - "and the votes of vote 1 have already established that <editorialized>"
So apparently Jade didn't give a damn about either neutrality or what this "editorializing" was. If he didn't know he was doing it, he could have asked after the first or second time he was pointed out.
Minmatar Boost Brigade |
Hardin
Praetoria Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:01:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was.
Which is actually a good point. Despite the choas at stages all proposed business got done. We may end up all hating each other on CSM by the end of our time in Iceland - but if a result is delivered for the players of EVE it might well be worth it.
I do wonder who will even want to stand enxt time though? ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:05:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah However, the item was phrased very differently on the agenda:
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Details entering the topic during the discussion should be included in the re-stating of the issue at the time of the vote. Perhaps by the person who brought up the issue to avoid confusion? In this case it might have helped if Hardin had been asked to re-state the issue in his understanding prior to the vote, at least so that you're starting with the person who is sponsoring the issue and working from their definition of the vote.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:05:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Last, I really want to thank all council members and alternates for their commitment in seeing the meeting through to the end, no matter how frustrating it was.
Which is actually a good point. Despite the choas at stages all proposed business got done. We may end up all hating each other on CSM by the end of our time in Iceland - but if a result is delivered for the players of EVE it might well be worth it.
I do wonder who will even want to stand enxt time though?
To be honest its the light at the end of the tunnel. If we do actually get these issues into useful discussion and help get some decent changes through it all becomes worthwhile. These horrible meetings do have a purpose. End of the day all the forum trolling and nonsense means nothing if we make a positive impact on the game.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:09:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
To be honest its the light at the end of the tunnel. If we do actually get these issues into useful discussion and help get some decent changes through it all becomes worthwhile. These horrible meetings do have a purpose. End of the day all the forum trolling and nonsense means nothing if we make a positive impact on the game.
You mean the discussion you are avoiding having on the forums as required by the CSM document? That discussion? The CSM is not a place where you get to make your argument to CCP, its a place where a group of people can come together and judge and present the communities wishes, reservations, and needs to CCP so that they can better create a game that we play.
But you actually have to have a place where wishes, reservations, and needs can be presented to you before that happens and all that takes is a little will on your part to get it done.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:11:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah However, the item was phrased very differently on the agenda:
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Details entering the topic during the discussion should be included in the re-stating of the issue at the time of the vote. Perhaps by the person who brought up the issue to avoid confusion? In this case it might have helped if Hardin had been asked to re-state the issue in his understanding prior to the vote, at least so that you're starting with the person who is sponsoring the issue and working from their definition of the vote.
He did, after which Jade then summarized him in an incorrect and unflattering manner.
It would not have been very different had there been a vote on "re-examine 0.0 sovereignty" and then at the end, Darius JOHNSON had said "Vote to **** over small alliances has passed"
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:13:00 -
[179]
I suggest the following things happen before the next meeting:
1) Every CSM brushes up on parliamentary procedure 2) A moderator with no voting powers is appointed to handle the appropriate procedural points of order
|
Kallynda Nai
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:14:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Ulstan The more I look at the whole brouhahah over the issue of abstained votes, the more I shake my head in dismay. That issue should have been dealt with in about 10s. Abstaining votes don't count in any way whatsoever, that's why they're 'abstain' instead of 'yes' or 'no'.
It just means "I'm here but lets pretend I'm not for the purpose of this vote"
Anyway hopefully that's all threshed out now and future meetings can deal with more weighty matters.
Get into Coattails irc, you knob.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |