| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
   |
Posted - 2008.06.13 06:46:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: White Ronin
Now what was differant about this one meeting and the other 3?
Serenity's absence 
Seriously? A week of forum drama nobody wanted to repeat, combined with a total lack of procedural issues, controversial issues, and controversial procedural issues. Also, I don't think the first two went all that badly, either.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jane Spondogolo
NoobWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 09:23:00 -
[92]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Re the chatlogs - I'm not all the way through them yet, but I caught a line about how CCP won't let you abstain. What's the deal with that?
Well, I don't think it's as much CCP allowing us to abstain. They just never intended it to be an option.
But in questions like this, it's simple. The options for voting are:
Escalate issue
Deny escalation of issue
It can thus be argued that there is no middle-way and that representatives should want one of above to be true.
I think there is some matters where abstaining is viable. But thus far I see no reason to abstain.
So I don't think it's CCP's intention to now allow us. They just had in mind that either you voted Yes or no.
But CCP wants us to shape the council. So we could raise an issue and discuss if this should be changed.
CCP mandated that abstaining is an option.
Read the documents. They have formally said that the system uses "Simple majority", not "Absolute majority". What this means is that all votes are what are known as plurality votes.
Yes
No
Abstain.
You look at the results of all 3, and if there are more Ayes than Naes, then the vote wins. If more Naes than Ayes the vote fails. Where its contentious, is what happens when there are more Abstains. An abstain is neither a yes , nor a no. So in Simple Majority, you look at if there are more yes's than no's and you don't count abstains as no's. If you count them as naes, its called "Absolute majority", because in absolute majority the rule is "You need 50% aye for the motion to succeed" rather than "More ayes than naes".
The reason why its contentious is if the majority of votes are abstains. Does this mean that that the vote is rejected, or does it mean that the vote is undecided. Normal political theory says that because its a plurality voting system (3 or more options), the vote remains undecided. This does match what common sense would suggest that "If most people can't decide, it hasn't really been discussed enough yet". But sometimes it just means that the motion is killed because its too divisive.
Either way, to be a "simple majority" system, you MUST have the option to abstain, else it is not simple majority, but rather Absolute majority.
If you count abstains as no's, then you are not following CCPs instructions in the CSMSummary document which state the method MUST be used.
______
Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 10:59:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Re the chatlogs - I'm not all the way through them yet, but I caught a line about how CCP won't let you abstain. What's the deal with that?
Well, I don't think it's as much CCP allowing us to abstain. They just never intended it to be an option.
But in questions like this, it's simple. The options for voting are:
Escalate issue
Deny escalation of issue
It can thus be argued that there is no middle-way and that representatives should want one of above to be true.
I think there is some matters where abstaining is viable. But thus far I see no reason to abstain.
So I don't think it's CCP's intention to now allow us. They just had in mind that either you voted Yes or no.
But CCP wants us to shape the council. So we could raise an issue and discuss if this should be changed.
CCP mandated that abstaining is an option.
Read the documents. They have formally said that the system uses "Simple majority", not "Absolute majority". What this means is that all votes are what are known as plurality votes.
Yes
No
Abstain.
You look at the results of all 3, and if there are more Ayes than Naes, then the vote wins. If more Naes than Ayes the vote fails. Where its contentious, is what happens when there are more Abstains. An abstain is neither a yes , nor a no. So in Simple Majority, you look at if there are more yes's than no's and you don't count abstains as no's. If you count them as naes, its called "Absolute majority", because in absolute majority the rule is "You need 50% aye for the motion to succeed" rather than "More ayes than naes".
The reason why its contentious is if the majority of votes are abstains. Does this mean that that the vote is rejected, or does it mean that the vote is undecided. Normal political theory says that because its a plurality voting system (3 or more options), the vote remains undecided. This does match what common sense would suggest that "If most people can't decide, it hasn't really been discussed enough yet". But sometimes it just means that the motion is killed because its too divisive.
Either way, to be a "simple majority" system, you MUST have the option to abstain, else it is not simple majority, but rather Absolute majority.
If you count abstains as no's, then you are not following CCPs instructions in the CSMSummary document which state the method MUST be used.
No. An email from CCP, which I of course can't show you, suggests otherwise.
Abstain wasn't intended.
|
Benilopax
Pulsar Combat Supplies
Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:10:00 -
[94]
Where were the Goons?
Is it a coincidence that they were silent/absent and the meeting ran smoothly?
|
Swamp Ziro
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:43:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Benilopax
Where were the Goons?
Is it a coincidence that they were silent/absent and the meeting ran smoothly?
Yeah it was totally a coincidence that the meeting was scheduled during american work hours
|
Wednesday Sheffield
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:56:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Benilopax
Where were the Goons?
Is it a coincidence that they were silent/absent and the meeting ran smoothly?
Its not as if they said in this very thread (which isn't too long to skim either) that they wouldn't be there.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:58:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Swamp Ziro
Yeah it was totally a coincidence that the meeting was scheduled during american work hours
Blame CCP for putting the submission date during a work day 
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 12:51:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Benilopax
Where were the Goons?
Is it a coincidence that they were silent/absent and the meeting ran smoothly?
That's kind of a cheap shot.
First two meetings ran relatively smoothly and Goons participated effectively in them.
From my perspective the reason this meeting ran a lot smoother than the infamous 'third' was a general acceptance that we need to focus on the gameplay issues and a more relaxed attitude from those running the meeting.
All in all a good result!
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 13:21:00 -
[99]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Swamp Ziro
Yeah it was totally a coincidence that the meeting was scheduled during american work hours
Blame CCP for putting the submission date during a work day
Could have delayed it 1-2 hours...
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 13:32:00 -
[100]
No Goumindong. That would mean that for the majority of the council it would have been past midnight. Since the majority of the council and EVE works in GMT, it would be bad to move it back 2 hours.
Also due to the fact we have a submission deadline. 2 hours would make a HUGE difference in regards to that.
|
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 13:39:00 -
[101]
I'd see it entirely on CCP for the exclusion of non-europeans from the meeting. The fact this had to happen during the week is going to be exclusive for at least one timezone. In the future these things should only happen during weekends to allow for everyone to be present. What happens in the future, when/if some antipodeans get elected is only going to further highlight this issue. CCP should nip it in the bud now.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 13:44:00 -
[102]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
No Goumindong. That would mean that for the majority of the council it would have been past midnight. Since the majority of the council and EVE works in GMT, it would be bad to move it back 2 hours.
Also due to the fact we have a submission deadline. 2 hours would make a HUGE difference in regards to that.
So instead of staying up for a few more hours you deny the ability of two players and an alternate to attend?
Staying up 2 more hours is not a big deal. Ditching work is.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 14:18:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Jane Spondogolo
CCP mandated that abstaining is an option.
Read the documents. They have formally said that the system uses "Simple majority", not "Absolute majority". What this means is that all votes are what are known as plurality votes.
Yes
No
Abstain.
You look at the results of all 3, and if there are more Ayes than Naes, then the vote wins. If more Naes than Ayes the vote fails. Where its contentious, is what happens when there are more Abstains. An abstain is neither a yes , nor a no. So in Simple Majority, you look at if there are more yes's than no's and you don't count abstains as no's. If you count them as naes, its called "Absolute majority", because in absolute majority the rule is "You need 50% aye for the motion to succeed" rather than "More ayes than naes".
The reason why its contentious is if the majority of votes are abstains. Does this mean that that the vote is rejected, or does it mean that the vote is undecided. Normal political theory says that because its a plurality voting system (3 or more options), the vote remains undecided. This does match what common sense would suggest that "If most people can't decide, it hasn't really been discussed enough yet". But sometimes it just means that the motion is killed because its too divisive.
Either way, to be a "simple majority" system, you MUST have the option to abstain, else it is not simple majority, but rather Absolute majority.
If you count abstains as no's, then you are not following CCPs instructions in the CSMSummary document which state the method MUST be used.
I hate to disagree with the standard take by the e-lawyers, but generally when writing club constitutions, "simple majority" is opposed by 2/3 majority, not by an absolute majority. Mind you, it's a simple majority of votes cast - Serenity's "abstain = no" position is absurd - but the rule to ban abstentions is "No abstentions", it isn't "simple majority", since that phrase just means 50%+1.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 14:25:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
I hate to disagree with the standard take by the e-lawyers, but generally when writing club constitutions, "simple majority" is opposed by 2/3 majority, not by an absolute majority. Mind you, it's a simple majority of votes cast - Serenity's "abstain = no" position is absurd - but the rule to ban abstentions is "No abstentions", it isn't "simple majority", since that phrase just means 50%+1.
Ironically it turned out that there was an appendix written for the original documents that explicitly stated that there was no abstention facility in voting on issues - as LaVista said the options were:
Support Escalation, Deny Escalation.
In order for an agenda ISSUE to reach the conference shortlist it needs a majority of "Support" votes from the those present. 5 for 8/9 - 4 for 7. And essentially Serenity was right. In this system you can't abstain and unless you are registering a "support" vote you are effectively saying "no".
That said, I certainly don't blame anyone on the CSM or indeed anyone in the voting electorate for being confused on these issues, we're discovering these principles bit by bit in discussion and asking for clarification and its a bit playing pass the parcel with new ideas and interpretations hidden underneath each layer of wrapping paper.
Main thing I think ALL of us (CSMs and forum public) can do is deal with this process with a few more philosophical shrugs and good humor. Lets not jump to conclusions and accusations. Its a bit of a mr slippies wild ride of adventures at the moment and we're discovering new things each week.
All the best.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 14:30:00 -
[105]
Nice work Reps, that meeting looked like it went very smoothly. |
Hermia
Steel Daggers
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 14:41:00 -
[106]
yeah well done guys, i skimmed the log quickly, the whole thing looked cordial enough. Feels like the creases are getting ironed out.
Heh, the trials of being pioneers
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 16:20:00 -
[107]
I was disappointed that the issues presented were hardly split at all. Poor issues were voted through simply by being lumped in with good ones, even though some representatives expressed concern for 'wooliness' and bad issues.
This can not happen again. All issues MUST be presented seperately on the forums for debate and discussion, and a vote taken on EACH issue, not a bunch of issues under a topic. Many of those issues that are now going to CCP are very poor, affect a small amount of Eve Players, and have not been explored further to see that they will have negative ramifications on the whole.
This undermines the percieved effectiveness of the CSM, both in the players eyes and CCP eyes.
PRESENT ISSUES SEPERATELY ON FORUMS (this is not an issue that needs voting on- its an underlying implication in the CSM documents).
You effectively votes 4 times for 60+ issues...very poor indeed.
Bruce Hansen
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 16:22:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Arithron
I was disappointed that the issues presented were hardly split at all. Poor issues were voted through simply by being lumped in with good ones, even though some representatives expressed concern for 'wooliness' and bad issues.
This can not happen again. All issues MUST be presented seperately on the forums for debate and discussion, and a vote taken on EACH issue, not a bunch of issues under a topic. Many of those issues that are now going to CCP are very poor, affect a small amount of Eve Players, and have not been explored further to see that they will have negative ramifications on the whole.
This undermines the percieved effectiveness of the CSM, both in the players eyes and CCP eyes.
PRESENT ISSUES SEPERATELY ON FORUMS (this is not an issue that needs voting on- its an underlying implication in the CSM documents).
You effectively votes 4 times for 60+ issues...very poor indeed.
Bruce Hansen
Passing Votes Omnibus is acceptable if someone doesn't have an issue with the issues in the package but when they do they are supposed to be broken out. Its obvious to me these people haven't read how to actually hold a meeting of this nature or they would know this.
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 16:36:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Arithron
I was disappointed that the issues presented were hardly split at all. Poor issues were voted through simply by being lumped in with good ones, even though some representatives expressed concern for 'wooliness' and bad issues.
This can not happen again. All issues MUST be presented seperately on the forums for debate and discussion, and a vote taken on EACH issue, not a bunch of issues under a topic. Many of those issues that are now going to CCP are very poor, affect a small amount of Eve Players, and have not been explored further to see that they will have negative ramifications on the whole.
This undermines the percieved effectiveness of the CSM, both in the players eyes and CCP eyes.
PRESENT ISSUES SEPERATELY ON FORUMS (this is not an issue that needs voting on- its an underlying implication in the CSM documents).
You effectively votes 4 times for 60+ issues...very poor indeed.
Bruce Hansen
Bruce,
once again you prove to me you have no idea at all what you are talking about. Since you havent seemed to even read the chat logs which described the 6 issues it was split into, nor have you seen the submission templates, you would notice that your logic is totally broken.
There isn't 60 issues in total. I had to cut large parts of it away because of the HUGE overhead with voting and submission templates.
So Bruce, how can this undermine the effectiveness of CSM in both the players and CCP eyes? You aren't CCP. I actually talked to CCP and the original 60+ issue document was no problem. We COULD have submitted it and it would have been fine. But it was the council's wish to split it into more sizeable chunk.
And since you haven't proved to me that you know what you are talking about, I suggest that you stop throwing around wrong assumption and start getting a grasp of reallity.
Unless you can prove further that your assumptions are right, I think you should watch what you accuse people of before you start posting.
|
Zaphroid Eulthran
Imperial Visions
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:02:00 -
[110]
Jade,
I cannot find the issue of mid sized freighters listed in your op, according to what I read in the meeting chatlog this issue was supported by all members present at that meeting.
Has this issue been dropped from the points being taken to CCP for some reason? if so why?
|
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:21:00 -
[111]
It went through at the third meeting (i between all the fun) and should be on iceland agenda  |
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:22:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Zaphroid Eulthran
Jade,
I cannot find the issue of mid sized freighters listed in your op, according to what I read in the meeting chatlog this issue was supported by all members present at that meeting.
Has this issue been dropped from the points being taken to CCP for some reason? if so why?
I own the small freighter issue. The issue was submitted to the agenda on the 12th. But I think it might have been missed.
I will figure out what happened. Hold on. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:26:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
it isn't "simple majority", since that phrase just means 50%+1.
[Lawyer]"Simple Majority" is >50%. In cases with small voting bodies 50% +1 would require more than a simple majority. E.G. 9 votes are cast, 5 yes, 4 no. 50% of 9 is 4.5. 50%+1 is 5.5. The measure fails because 5.5 votes were not cast in favor.[/lawyer] |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:03:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Zaphroid Eulthran
Jade,
I cannot find the issue of mid sized freighters listed in your op, according to what I read in the meeting chatlog this issue was supported by all members present at that meeting.
Has this issue been dropped from the points being taken to CCP for some reason? if so why?
I think its just a case of me mucking up and forgetting it on the op post I'm afraid. LaVista has the issue. He'll submit it directly to CCP with our apologies and we'll our best to get it on the agenda in Iceland. Sorry about that.
(I'm going to edit it into the op now with an explanation)
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:12:00 -
[115]
The issue was overseen during the indexation of all issues. We will be submitting it as soon as possible in hope that CCP has a bit of goodwill. |
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:13:00 -
[116]
LaVista,
From your topic post on the Science and Industry issues, Assembly hall:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782682
Serenity Steele posted:
Posted - 2008.05.29 08:00:00
________________________________________
It's a very nice summary of a whole lot of separate issues, many of which overlap with other issues in the Assembly Hall.
Please break down into separate posts so each can be discussed in detail.
Additionally, myself and at least 4 other players asked for all the issues to be separated to be discussed separately. I note that you DO NOT EVEN DISCUSS OR CLARIFY anything in this thread- your first post seems to be your only post on these æimportantÆ issues. Objections to some of the issues is also ignored ( a representative even disagreed with an issue).
From your PDF (Which, after all, is what you submitted as an agenda item right and agreed to æsplit upÆ into smaller topics for discussion at ThursdayÆs meeting) I still count 61 ISSUES. If, as you say, you have cut large chunks away why is the PDF still showing 61 issues? Additionally, why is the thread not being changed to show this? May I also point out that if you are changing the PDF content for a CSM meeting, you need to repost the new issues in the Assembly hall for 7 day discussion, as you have changed the issues to be discussed (and not told the PLAYERS which issues are going to be discussed and which are no longer up for discussion).
Of course I read the meeting minutes. It is clear that you split the issues into 6 topics, but there are obviously more than 6 individual issues. CSM members even disagree with some of the issues under each of the topics. It is VERY UNCLEAR which issues you have just voted through to CCP! If you have changed the number, which ones are no longer there? I canÆt see the submission templates remember? You have failed to inform the player base of changes, so how can you expect the player base to know about changes? I find this logic rather odd.
I actually talked to CCP and the original 60+ issue document was no problem.
Well, IÆll take your word on that! IÆm sure they donÆt mind a document coming to them with 60+ issues. However, that wasnÆt my point (go and read my points). My point was that the issues need to be presented to the PLAYERS as separate issues in the Assembly hall, and VOTED on as separate issues in a CSM meeting. I clearly explain why this is needed, and others also ask the same thing (read your own thread in the assembly hall). After discussion on the thread below, the chairperson asked you to respond, although I canÆt seem to find your response.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=788122&page=7
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.
cntd...
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:16:00 -
[117]
IÆll also help you out a little and quote a section from the CSM documents:
After each CSM member presents their opinion to support or disprove a motion, the matter is brought to vote; a majority rule passes the issue for escalation. All CSM deliberations are to be documented by the Secretary, including the reasons for supporting or denying the measure.
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case.
What you have is a lot of issues lumped together under some topic headings. ItÆs clear that CSM members vote and discuss each ISSUE (highlighted above), not topics with multiple issues.
It would also be good to be able to see the Council reasons for supporting the measures.
May I remind you politely that I am not hiding behind a character here in these forums. I find your responses to me insulting and belittling and bordering on inflammatory. IÆm politely asking you to stop being personal and follow this guidance from the CSM document:
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.
Take care,
Bruce Hansen
|
Serenity Steele
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 23:00:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Arithron
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.
QFT. You could save typing by copy/pasting that quote onto many thread.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 02:34:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
it isn't "simple majority", since that phrase just means 50%+1.
[Lawyer]"Simple Majority" is >50%. In cases with small voting bodies 50% +1 would require more than a simple majority. E.G. 9 votes are cast, 5 yes, 4 no. 50% of 9 is 4.5. 50%+1 is 5.5. The measure fails because 5.5 votes were not cast in favor.[/lawyer]
Rounded down, obviously. Much as I might love my lawyering, there is still such a thing as too many technicalities.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 20:22:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
it isn't "simple majority", since that phrase just means 50%+1.
[Lawyer]"Simple Majority" is >50%. In cases with small voting bodies 50% +1 would require more than a simple majority. E.G. 9 votes are cast, 5 yes, 4 no. 50% of 9 is 4.5. 50%+1 is 5.5. The measure fails because 5.5 votes were not cast in favor.[/lawyer]
[Mathematician] Pass = INT(electorate size/2+1) [/Mathematician] ;-P
(using normal operator precedence rules)
btw. Goumindong; As there were three known Council members unable to attend and who sent apologies, then as second alternate were you contacted to request your attendance?
IZ
My principles
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |