| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
   |
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:25:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 18:26:48
 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.
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.
(Then again I'd say a high proportion of the forum respondents on these numerous threads FAIL as well, because while they are frothing and snarling about this administrative stuff there are actually a number of real gamplay issues that have made the Iceland agenda they'd be better served by talking about).
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:27:00 -
[182]
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.
Now it's everyone's fault... well at least that's a step in a direction.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:28:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
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.
Now it's everyone's fault... well at least that's a step in a direction.
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.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 18:37:00 -
[184]
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.
I apologize. It was not obvious to me with my limited linguistic skills that you were talking about a specific vote and not the meeting in general.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:38:00 -
[185]
I'm not suprised to see that CSM meetings aren't going as well as they could be. This comes from a flagrant disregard for the CSM documents and the rules mentioned within it, and a misintepretation of what the meeting with CCP will actually be. It also comes from some CSM member's assuming that they can just turn up for a quick meeting once a week and vote on some issues..
Your jobs, as CSM members, is to discuss, IN MEETINGS, the issues that players are concerned about. Those issues MUST be issues that affect the Majority of the EVE players, and they EACH must be posted in the forums for a period of no less than 7 days for player discussion etc. I pointed out that having 60+ issues as one agenda point was in disregard of this, but since it suited certain members to have it voted on as one issue, it was ignored. I see that you did not discuss each issue in the PDF as you said you would....
The CSM documents make it clear that each issue must be discussed by CSM members (and it is expected that the 9 members will have differing views etc), then a simple nay or aye vote taken. Since there are 9 of you, 5 votes in the 'aye' are required for an issue to be esculated. I see no mention of an abstain being allowed...but since you accepted it, that makes the 5 'ayes' harder to get, that is all. Accept that all issues WILL NOT get esculated to CCP for comment!!!
From the information, it is clear that you submit issues to CCP, they consider them and give their verdict in Iceland and the other meetings. You formally present the issues (not the arguments) to them, they reply at the meeting. You can then present further arguments on why X issue is important. However, since many of the issues have had POOR support, and you still esculated them without discussion, expect some pretty firm negative responses.
All of the changing of the rules, inventing new ones to suit and solidify a position etc is plainly wrong. STOP IT PLEASE. You pollute the waters ahead for those CSM members to come.
If you can't stay for a 4 hour meeting, I question why you stood in the first place. You must have accepted that you may not actually be able to play much EVE for 6 months! You are being flown to Iceland, this shouldn't be something that only requires a couple of hours a week to gain. Meetings should not have time limits...you need to discuss each issue, when you shove 75 on the agenda expect it to take 4 hours.
Arithron
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 21:52:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Arithron
I pointed out that having 60+ issues as one agenda point was in disregard of this, but since it suited certain members to have it voted on as one issue, it was ignored. I see that you did not discuss each issue in the PDF as you said you would....
If you can't stay for a 4 hour meeting, I question why you stood in the first place. You must have accepted that you may not actually be able to play much EVE for 6 months! You are being flown to Iceland, this shouldn't be something that only requires a couple of hours a week to gain. Meetings should not have time limits...you need to discuss each issue, when you shove 75 on the agenda expect it to take 4 hours.
Arithron
Would you please point me to where someone stated we were going to discuss them all?
And would you please read the chat log. You will see that the topic was voted for, provided it was split into chunks, in order to ease discussion.
As for the time issue. The first meeting was stopped due to the time limit was reached.
This time around, we wasted TOO much time on nothing. Some of us have stuff to do in real life, like exams or jobs. At least have respect for that, when you put it on a sunday or earlier on in the evening, so that those of us who lives in GMT+2, arent kept up till midnight.
Also, who are you to question why people stood in the first place(I'm sorry if I come out as angry or anything, but I see it as an insult)? I dont think you quite know what goes on behind the scenes.
I personally haven't pvp'ed since the beginning of the election, as I dedicated large majority of my time to CSM. And at present I spend about double the amount of time I'm actively ingame, to CSM related work.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:00:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 09/06/2008 22:00:51
Jade -
You viewed this thread - Linkage - you then responded with a positive vote and mentioned you'd bring it up in the CSM meeting. (Note - this thread was authored immediately once the CSM forum was active. The original thread is months old. The problem is YEARS old.)
However, I seen no mention of its discussion, or of it even being brought up.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:02:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Arithron on 09/06/2008 22:04:20
Actually, if you remember right, I also stood ;)
Please don't take everything personally...I may not have been referring to you!
Meetings will go on beyond the expected time...get the chairman to put them at better times.
I see that the 60+ issues being split up again will now require reposting for a period of seven days right? And all the other issues that weren't posted on the forums, such as abstaining from a vote, alternates etc...
meaning that a Representative cannot bring a topic up at a Council meeting without having it go through deliberation on the public forum
This is an interesting part of the CSM document that a couple of representatives need to read carefully.. (not you LV).
CSM Representative Conduct
Any behavior or actions considered to be a material breach of the EULA or TOS by a CSM R epresentative is grounds for immediate dismissal and permanent exclusion from all pending and future participation in the council. There are no exceptions, regardless of the infraction. Representatives are not only expected to uphold the social contract that all society members are held accountable to,
but should also set a behavior standard for everyone else to follow.
Anyway, I appreciate that you had other things to do than sit in a meeting (RL takes precedence always). Thats what the alternates are for though. I know you are working hard behind the scenes and putting time into the CSM...but then, thats what you stood and were elected to do!
Take care,
Arithron
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:06:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Silence Duegood
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 09/06/2008 22:00:51
Jade -
You viewed this thread - Linkage - you then responded with a positive vote and mentioned you'd bring it up in the CSM meeting. (Note - this thread was authored immediately once the CSM forum was active. The original thread is months old. The problem is YEARS old.)
However, I seen no mention of its discussion, or of it even being brought up.
I do apologise, I'll make sure its on there for next sunday and do my best to get it on the agenda okay?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:08:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Silence Duegood
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 09/06/2008 22:00:51
Jade -
You viewed this thread - Linkage - you then responded with a positive vote and mentioned you'd bring it up in the CSM meeting. (Note - this thread was authored immediately once the CSM forum was active. The original thread is months old. The problem is YEARS old.)
However, I seen no mention of its discussion, or of it even being brought up.
I do apologise, I'll make sure its on there for next sunday and do my best to get it on the agenda okay?
No sweat. It happens. Was just a friendly reminder from some who backed you!
|
|
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:39:00 -
[191]
I'd suggest it meets the criteria. If LaVista can break them up as separate issues for vote, we'd be fine.
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:34 ]Jade Constantine >Okay
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:42 ]LaVista Vista >I will split them up and have the documents ready in 24-48 hours
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:44 ]Inanna Zuni >LaVista ... I was explaining why I couldn't support the document en bloc
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:48 ]Jade Constantine >I'm going to propose this to the vote on that proviso
Now, exactly what did you vote on here?
Did you vote that all these go to CCP, but be broken up into seperate issues first (hence making it appear that you had discussed all the issues (60+) and voted seperately on each one..
Or did you vote for the issues to be broken up and brought up at the meeting on Thursday, where you will again discuss them and vote...
And, my final question, did you bypass the rule requiring each issue to be posted on the forum, due to workload etc? It certainly appears you have....
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:45:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Arithron
I'd suggest it meets the criteria. If LaVista can break them up as separate issues for vote, we'd be fine.
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:34 ]Jade Constantine >Okay
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:42 ]LaVista Vista >I will split them up and have the documents ready in 24-48 hours
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:44 ]Inanna Zuni >LaVista ... I was explaining why I couldn't support the document en bloc
[ 2008.06.08 19:18:48 ]Jade Constantine >I'm going to propose this to the vote on that proviso
Now, exactly what did you vote on here?
Did you vote that all these go to CCP, but be broken up into seperate issues first (hence making it appear that you had discussed all the issues (60+) and voted seperately on each one..
Or did you vote for the issues to be broken up and brought up at the meeting on Thursday, where you will again discuss them and vote...
And, my final question, did you bypass the rule requiring each issue to be posted on the forum, due to workload etc? It certainly appears you have....
Are you saying that you think we shouldn't be able to support any of those issues in LaVista's document unless he presents 60 individual issues Arithron?
I ask because we have a couple of other issues on the agenda that have several included - Inanna has a UI issue that has multiple fixes, Ank has a general fixes to the forum issue that has several issues there. Hardin is going to be supporting an RP issue that has plenty of individual sub categories?
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that in your opinion we are breaking the rules of the CSM to vote these "grouped" issues onto the formal agenda for Iceland?
(and a secondary question)
If we do break (change) the rules on this - what are you proposing to do about it?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:56:00 -
[193]
I'm saying that having 60+ issues lumped in together stops discussion on EACH issue on the forums and in a CSM meeting. I do not believe it was the intention for 60+ issues to be voted upon in one go by a SINGLE CSM vote. There was very little discussion (in fact, you started voting before discussion...) on any of the issues before the vote.
All issues should be posted seperate on the forum for discussion, regardless of what they are or how interconnected. Representatives can then choose to support each issue, or players can vote to support it.
What I'll do about it is ask CCP to make a ruling on it. I'm suprised that you haven't done so already and reported it to the public.
Take care,
Bruce Hansen
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:03:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Arithron
I'm saying that having 60+ issues lumped in together stops discussion on EACH issue on the forums and in a CSM meeting. I do not believe it was the intention for 60+ issues to be voted upon in one go by a SINGLE CSM vote. There was very little discussion (in fact, you started voting before discussion...) on any of the issues before the vote. And, as you say, you should be able to support any of the issues that Lavista proposes...and not support others that you disagree with. By having them all together, you deny this.
All issues should be posted seperate on the forum for discussion, regardless of what they are or how interconnected. Representatives can then choose to support each issue, or players can vote to support it.
Okay you would advise LaVista to submit 60 submission docs and we'll confirm each one with a vote on Thursday right?
(same with Inanna and her UI issues, Ank with the forum issues and Hardin with the RP issues?)
Quote:
What I'll do about it is ask CCP to make a ruling on it. I'm suprised that you haven't done so already and reported it to the public.
You are welcome to right to CCP to make a ruling. I think you'll be a little disappointed at how forthcoming they are able to be at the current time with the patch tomorrow and timescale constraints however. Don't assume we've been completely failing to ask CCP opinion on things.
Re LaVista and Inanna I'm going to ask them come and debate this issue with you first hand.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:07:00 -
[195]
I think he is saying "Do things properly so that the people have a chance to comment on each issue as required by the CSM document"
That isn't an unreasonable onus.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:18:00 -
[196]
Yes, LaVista needs to write 60+ topics for the threads, and the other representatives also. That's the rules you were elected under, that's what you have to do. This gives players a chance to discuss/debate each issue and for the representatives to do likewise, both on the forums and in the meetings. It also allows for the important vote on each issue seperately.
Take care,
Bruce Hansen
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:25:00 -
[197]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 23:25:36
Originally by: Arithron
Yes, LaVista needs to write 60+ topics for the threads, and the other representatives also. That's the rules you were elected under, that's what you have to do. This gives players a chance to discuss/debate each issue and for the representatives to do likewise, both on the forums and in the meetings. It also allows for the important vote on each issue seperately.
Take care,
Bruce Hansen
Okay I've asked LaVista and the other candidates with multiple item issues via our internal mailing list to come and respond to you specifically here Arithron. I hope you'll either come to a rational compromise on the issue or I'll advise that they need to be split out. Okay? Give tomorrow for some discussion and I'll make a call in the evening.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 23:32:00 -
[198]
I don't need to come to a rational compromise: The CSM representatives need to follow the clearly stated rules for posting issues.Please note I have been rational through this entire discussion.
I have highlighted above how circumventing this IMPORTANT procedure leads to a restriction or denial of discussion or rejection of issues (and the acceptance of issues, if there are a few good proposals lumped in with many bad ones).
I'm looking forward to making contributions to many of the issues when they are posted seperately on the forum 
take care,
Bruce Hansen
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:30:00 -
[199]
It's quite clear the CSM needs a set of standing orders or it won't function properly. It doesn't matter what mix of people you get on it, there will always be arguments about process unless it is set out clearly.
Overall, I feel that almost everyone involved is failing to respect the roles of officers, representatives and alternates on the CSM. Where Jade can justly be criticised is in being too forebearing and allowing chaos to reign.
I do agree that Jade should not have restated the issue of alternates motion but I am quite sure it was not intended in any malign way. The fact is that the agenda item was vague and Jade was trying to clarify it. It was mistaken because it should have been left to the mover of the motion to do this.
As to the things decided by the CSM regarding alternates, I think they are nothing short of disgraceful and should not have been on the agenda at all as they seek to significantly alter the role of alternates as set out in the summary document. As it is, the decision made is deeply unjust to those who were elected as alternates on the basis of the original documentation.
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the
next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement
does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates
when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
So, the order in which the candidates are elected is immaterial in terms of privileges, and it is made clear this extends to alternates when they are acting as representatives in a meeting. Many of the representatives appear to feel that as the primary representatives they have a special status over and above that of an alternate who is taking part in a meeting. They do not. Once summoned to a meeting by the Chair (which is explicitly a power of the Chair) the alternate is an equal on the committee. Once summoned it is repugnant, given what is written on the role, that they should be dislodged from the meeting by anyone.
Incidentally, yes, the entire paragraph is conflicted with the current process of selecting the Chair. The current process is in my opinion bad practice. A committee of equals should elect its own chair. Once selected the Chair does have certain powers as set out out in the roles of officers and members in the document. (The main power within a meeting being that of moderation.)
Next, the critical issue of alternates and terms:
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, Term Length and Duration of the CSM"
[...] No Representative or Alternate can serve more than two
terms on the CSM, consecutive or otherwise. An Alternate has been considered
serving a term the instant he or she attends a Council meeting in the absence
of a Representative; an Alternate can be elected more than two times if that
Alternate does not participates [sic] in any Council meetings. [...]
Like much in the CSM documentation this is somewhat ambiguous. The harshest interpretation is that an alternate who attends even one CSM meeting immediately expends one of their possible terms as either an alternate or representative. That is to say, it is possible to become ineligible to stand for election as a representative by attending one meeting as an alternate in one electoral session of the CSM and one meeting as an alternate in another electoral session of the CSM. Another possibility is that it means someone can only act as an alternate twice as well as as a representative twice. In either case, it indicates the seriousness of the act of attending a meeting as an alternate.
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 00:50:00 -
[200]
I read the chat log, Jade is in the right on this. Innana acted unprofessionally throughout the meeting, and on several occassions tried to turn votes about game issues into discussions about Jade's conduct. Darius JOHNSON seems to have picked up that standard and run with it since the meeting ended.
If this continues, I'd be in favor of removing both Darius and Innana in favor of CSM's who can remain focused on game issues.
|
|
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:19:00 -
[201]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
The fact is that the agenda item was vague and Jade was trying to clarify it
Are you serious?
"Members arriving to the discussion enter the discussion and voting at the beginning of the next agenda item" is neither vague nor did Jade "clarify" it. She flat out changed the meaning of the suggestion, not once, but twice
Quote:
Many of the representatives appear to feel that as the primary representatives they have a special status over and above that of an alternate who is taking part in a meeting.
As soon as the representative comes back, the alternative is no longer serving as an alternative and as such your argument is irrelevant
|
Kai Wooglin
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 01:25:00 -
[202]
Jesus, the Star Fraction drones and alts now even have goons agreeing with Goum.
|
RDevz
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:02:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Quoting this for posterity. I'd be interested to know whether Jade still stands by his words. |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:10:00 -
[204]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the
next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement
does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates
when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
(...)
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
In light of the quoted document I have to agree vigorously. It seems several CSM reps were not aware of this part of the CSM document, and treating Alternates as stand-ins to be inserted and removed at the leisure of the Representatives is all wrong.
Without that section of the CSM document I was inclined to agree with the way the Council voted, but reading it now it seems they were misinformed.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:24:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the
next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement
does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates
when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
(...)
I feel the whole concept of alternates has been misconstrued as if they are disposable stand-ins. They are not. They have a role, responsibilities and rights as defined in the document.
This decision should not stand.
In light of the quoted document I have to agree vigorously. It seems several CSM reps were not aware of this part of the CSM document, and treating Alternates as stand-ins to be inserted and removed at the leisure of the Representatives is all wrong.
Without that section of the CSM document I was inclined to agree with the way the Council voted, but reading it now it seems they were misinformed.
I am sorry where does the above quote say when alternatives are relieved? We have the mandate for representatives to attend in the absence of a rep, but not when the rep is not absent.
As voted by the council, when a representative returns or arrives, the alternate is no longer serving as an alternate at the moment the agenda item ends and as such, the afore mentioned passage no longer applies to them at the point the agenda item ends.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:31:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Goumindong
I am sorry where does the above quote say when alternatives are relieved? We have the mandate for representatives to attend in the absence of a rep, but not when the rep is not absent.
As voted by the council, when a representative returns or arrives, the alternate is no longer serving as an alternate at the moment the agenda item ends and as such, the afore mentioned passage no longer applies to them at the point the agenda item ends.
Well, if an Alternate serving in place of a Rep has equal power to a Rep, then the Rep doesn't have authority over that Alternate to displace them.
To displace an Alternate the returning Representative is exercising authority over them. But according to the CSM document the returning Representative has no authority over the Alternate, because they are equals.
To put it another way: On what authority does a returning Representative displace an Alternate?
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 21:41:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Kelsin
Well, if an Alternate serving in place of a Rep has equal power to a Rep, then the Rep doesn't have authority over that Alternate to displace them.
To displace an Alternate the returning Representative is exercising authority over them. But according to the CSM document the returning Representative has no authority over the Alternate, because they are equals.
To put it another way: On what authority does a returning Representative displace an Alternate?
The representative is not exercising authority. The Council is exercising authority. Just as a representative does not have authority to bring issues to CCP, the Council has the authority to bring issues to CCP. Etc Etc Etc. |
Hardin
TBH Holdings
The Black Horizon
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:11:00 -
[208]
Originally by: "CSM Summary Document, page 4, The Election Process
The nine highest tallies of this group will be elected as Representatives, while the
next five highest tallies will be elected as Alternates. Candidate tally placement
does not grant any special privileges, as all Representativesùand Alternates
when serving in the place of Representativesùhave equal power on the CSM.
Highlighted the important word there.
The debate was not about the roles and responsibilities of Alternates - it was about WHEN they could exert those responsibilities.
I had no problem with Tusko acting as a CSM rep in my absence and casting votes whilst I was away. I did have an issue with elected (as opposed to the non-elected) representatives being disenfranchised by the Chair on the basis of arbitrary rulings.
I would also like to point out that Jade specifically told me to bring the item forward for discussion at the next meeting when I complained about being gagged by him at the previous meeting.
The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
I would also like to point out - because it has been conveniently forgotten - that in addition to the clarification on when alternates should stand down in favour of the elected representatives I also put forward a proposal increasing the 'rights' of alternates by clarifying that they could step up when an elected CSM member dropped out of the meeting.
In my opinion both these proposals were straightforward and sensible and the majority of CSM agreed.
That said I do actually agree that CCP stating that an 'alternate' is considered to have served the 'term' even for temporary involvement is ridiculous and should be changed. Tusko should not be penalised for his sterling service!
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:22:00 -
[209]
Well Hardin, I agree that in general it's open to interpretation, but it's the equal powers line that makes it a harder argument to say an Alternate's status can be changed by the comings and goings of a Representative.
I'd contrast the scenario that the Council passed - where a Rep coming late to a meeting would displace an Alternate serving in their place at the end of the current agenda item (and likewise the Alternate would step in when a Rep needed to step away from the chamber) - with a scenario in which the meeting is called to start at a set time, the present eligible Representatives and Alternates are accounted for, and so long as a quorum is present, issues are discussed and voted on for the duration of the meeting.
Yes in the second scenario, if a Representative could be five minutes late and not be able to participate in the meeting. However it's also a more cut and dry rule, and it doesn't result in Alternates "sitting on the bench" only to be called in for one vote while a Rep takes a smoke break, and then kicked back off the field when the Rep is ready to return. I think there's something to be said for the interpretation of the rule passed by the Council degrading the role of Alternates, and that does seem to run counter to what was quoted from the CSM document above.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.10 23:24:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Hardin
The fact is that we as CSM candidates have been elected. The alternates were not. Yes the alternates can step in and have equal rights to the elected candidates when the elected candidates are absent for whatever reason, but not at the expense of excluding those who were rightfully elected when they are available to fulfil their duties.
Actually this I think is contradicted by the quote from the CSM document, and is the perspective I find disappointing - 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.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |