EVE Search - CSM Formal Meeting 4. Thursday 12th June. 20:00hours Eve Time

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Formal Meeting 4. Thursday 12th June. 20:00hours Eve Time

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:36:00 - [1] CSM Issue sign off meeting, thursday 12th June, 20:00 hours Eve time. This is a sign off meeting for the Issues raised onto the agenda for Iceland so far. The intention is to check that we have formal submission documentation for each issue raised, supported and voted onto the agenda so the documentation can be bundled up and indexed and sent to CCP by the CSM secretary following the meeting. All items for submission need to be mailed to Ankhesentapemkah before by 01:00 hours on Thursday afternoon for the issue to be heard at the sign-off meeting that evening. Any items that are not received in time may be struck off the agenda of issues to be discussed in Iceland at the discretion of the committee The list below shows issues cross-referenced with the CSM rep responsible for those issues, we expect the CSM reps listed below to produce the submission docs from the template here and have these documents mailed to the CSM secretary (by csm mail address) by the deadline of 01:00 hours Thursday afternoon. Delegated to: Ankhesentapemkah Removal of 30/90 day gametime codes Logserver exploitation and Bacon Making suicide-ganking more difficult General Eve Forums improvement/fixing Delegated to: Bane Glorious Skill Queue Functionality Delegated to: Darius Johnson Re-examination of 0.0 Sovereignty Delegated to: Dierdra Val Evaluation of empire war dec mechanics Reload all Ammo Delegated to: Hardin Drone Implants Improve Bombs Delegated to: Inanna Zuni 5% voter issue Alliances and Faction Warfare Proposals for UI Improvements Replace double-click in a chat channel Cargo hold size of ships in hanger but not in use Delegated to: Inanna Zuni Delegated to: Jade Constantine Improvements to Black Ops CSM should vote for its own chairman Feasibility of Outposts going boom Aggression timer is too short/variable hull fix Delegated to: LaVista Science Industry + Secondary Market (Issue passed on the condition that document is split into major topics for individual confirming votes prior to submission) Rigged ships and cargo Delegated to: Serenity Steele Jumpbridges and Cynojammer fix Transferable Killrights Funky POS Alterations To recap, these Issues need to be properly written up and mailed to Ankhesentapemkah by 01:00 hours - Thursday June 12th. Then we'll check to documents at the meeting in the evening (20:00 hours) prior to giving the CSM secretary permission to index and send directly to CCP in advance of the formal meetings next week. (In the event that Eve is still down following the patch - we'll do this by IRC.) CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Waterfowl Democracy The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:37:00 - [2] I feel it's unfair to relegate my issue with cynojammers and jumpbridges to Serenity Steele, a CSM representative who has no concept of the problems involved in this issue. He advocated a form of CONCORD in 0.0 space for god's sake.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:41:00 - [3] Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy I feel it's unfair to relegate my issue with cynojammers and jumpbridges to Serenity Steele, a CSM representative who has no concept of the problems involved in this issue. He advocated a form of CONCORD in 0.0 space for god's sake. Life is unfair. I emphasize with your plight I really do. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Ceros X GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:50:00 - [4] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772 the issues discussed in this thread, namely the ability of the council to call for a vote of no confidence in the chairperson and a formalization of the powers of the position of chairperson to moderate discussion during formal sittings of the council needs to be added to the agenda tia
Waterfowl Democracy The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:51:00 - [5] Originally by: Jade Constantine Life is unfair. I emphasize with your plight I really do. Sarcasm doesn't suit you. Perhaps something red and slimming (and maybe it should hide your bulbous nose). I have raised my concerns with the CSM process and I will continue to do so at every opportunity. Strangely CCP wanted subscriber input in the process not some computer programmer on a power trip attempting to control it.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 12:56:00 - [6] Originally by: Ceros X http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772 the issues discussed in this thread, namely the ability of the council to call for a vote of no confidence in the chairperson and a formalization of the powers of the position of chairperson to moderate discussion during formal sittings of the council needs to be added to the agenda tia Get a CSM rep to post here requesting it and they will be. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Waterfowl Democracy The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:04:00 - [7] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Ceros X http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772 the issues discussed in this thread, namely the ability of the council to call for a vote of no confidence in the chairperson and a formalization of the powers of the position of chairperson to moderate discussion during formal sittings of the council needs to be added to the agenda tia Get a CSM rep to post here requesting it and they will be. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772&page=5#142 - Bane giving his support http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772&page=5#145 - La Vista giving his support OH SNAP (YOU GOT SERVED) ((TALK ABOUT OWNED)) (((GO BACK TO YOUR MASTERS IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE AND LEARN TO READ A THREAD)))
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:05:00 - [8] Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Ceros X http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772 the issues discussed in this thread, namely the ability of the council to call for a vote of no confidence in the chairperson and a formalization of the powers of the position of chairperson to moderate discussion during formal sittings of the council needs to be added to the agenda tia Get a CSM rep to post here requesting it and they will be. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772&page=5#142 - Bane giving his support http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772&page=5#145 - La Vista giving his support OH SNAP (YOU GOT SERVED) ((TALK ABOUT OWNED)) (((GO BACK TO YOUR MASTERS IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE AND LEARN TO READ A THREAD))) They can post in this thread requesting it on the agenda and it'll be done. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:08:00 - [9] Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Ceros X http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772 the issues discussed in this thread, namely the ability of the council to call for a vote of no confidence in the chairperson and a formalization of the powers of the position of chairperson to moderate discussion during formal sittings of the council needs to be added to the agenda tia Get a CSM rep to post here requesting it and they will be. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772&page=5#142 - Bane giving his support http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777772&page=5#145 - La Vista giving his support OH SNAP (YOU GOT SERVED) ((TALK ABOUT OWNED)) (((GO BACK TO YOUR MASTERS IN ARTHURIAN LITERATURE AND LEARN TO READ A THREAD))) But I also stated that I at this time do not wish to bring up this issue. Learn to read a thread.
Waterfowl Democracy The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:15:00 - [10] Edited by: Waterfowl Democracy on 09/06/2008 13:18:39 Edited by: Waterfowl Democracy on 09/06/2008 13:18:18 Originally by: Jade Constantine They can post in this thread requesting it on the agenda and it'll be done. [in character] Frantically Jade struggles to grasp the fish that represented his meagre power in the CSM process. It was greasy however and it slipped one last time out of his hands and into the turbulent waters below his feet. "NOOOOO", Jade called out to the emptiness surrounding him, "MY PRECIOUS." [out of character]
Waterfowl Democracy The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:18:00 - [11] Originally by: LaVista Vista But I also stated that I at this time do not wish to bring up this issue. Learn to read a thread. It is not my fault that you cannot stay facing one direction long enough to stop getting dizzy. Your support post in that thread indicates that you do wish it to be discussed at the CSM. And yet later you state that you don't. Please make up your mind before telling other people to read threads, you can't even manage to read your own previous posts.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:19:00 - [12] Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Originally by: Jade Constantine They can post in this thread requesting it on the agenda and it'll be done. [in character] Frantically Jade struggles to grasp the fish that represented his meagre power in the CSM process. It was slippery however and it slipped one last time out of his hands and into the turbulent waters below his feet. "NOOOOO", Jade called out to the emptiness surrounding him, "MY PRECIOUS." You really are trying quite hard today. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:24:00 - [13] Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Originally by: LaVista Vista But I also stated that I at this time do not wish to bring up this issue. Learn to read a thread. It is not my fault that you cannot stay facing one direction long enough to stop getting dizzy. Your support post in that thread indicates that you do wish it to be discussed at the CSM. And yet later you state that you don't. Please make up your mind before telling other people to read threads, you can't even manage to read your own previous posts. Don't cry waterfowl, maybe Bane will post the issue for you. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Tabouli GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:27:00 - [14] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Originally by: Jade Constantine They can post in this thread requesting it on the agenda and it'll be done. [in character] Frantically Jade struggles to grasp the fish that represented his meagre power in the CSM process. It was slippery however and it slipped one last time out of his hands and into the turbulent waters below his feet. "NOOOOO", Jade called out to the emptiness surrounding him, "MY PRECIOUS." You really are trying quite hard today. he's posting here because he was muted on our own forums which is pretty ironic really
Gorfob GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:31:00 - [15] Edited by: Gorfob on 09/06/2008 13:32:28 :(
Bane Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:34:00 - [16] "Capital Ships Online" Buff Large Autocannons (especially Dual 650mms and 800mms) Abolish Learning Skills
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:36:00 - [17] Originally by: Tabouli he's posting here because he was muted on our own forums which is pretty ironic really heh, agreed! You know it did strike me that one of the masterstrokes of CCP's CSM concept was that it has acted as a flycatcher/bugzapper for all of goonswarms most annoying posters who get drawn to these assembly/jita forums and by consequence spend less time messing up CAOD ... makes you think. /tinfoil. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Waterfowl Democracy The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:42:00 - [18] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tabouli he's posting here because he was muted on our own forums which is pretty ironic really heh, agreed! You know it did strike me that one of the masterstrokes of CCP's CSM concept was that it has acted as a flycatcher/bugzapper for all of goonswarms most annoying posters who get drawn to these assembly/jita forums and by consequence spend less time messing up CAOD ... makes you think. /tinfoil. Actually I almost never post in COAD. It's crap.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:42:00 - [19] Originally by: Bane Glorious "Capital Ships Online" Buff Large Autocannons (especially Dual 650mms and 800mms) Abolish Learning Skills Those will be for the Sunday following Bane - to be announced. Since they are 7 day issues that need to be formally voted. Remember that as agreed yesterday you'll need to provide the fully-written submission template with each of those and if they get voted through. This Thursday meeting is currently purely to confirm items for submission before the CCP deadline. + any crazy admin sack the chair / abolish moderation style procedural votes that people want to bring to filibuster the meeting with if they get bum-rushed into it by forum nonsense. Anything after that / including the sunday issues we'll be submitting as a secondary group and asking CCP to make an exception on the 7 in advance rule if we have the time on the agenda. TL:DR version. I'll put those on the agenda for the Sunday meeting, but you'll need to make sure each issue is fully documented with the CCP submission template. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Tabouli GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tabouli he's posting here because he was muted on our own forums which is pretty ironic really heh, agreed! You know it did strike me that one of the masterstrokes of CCP's CSM concept was that it has acted as a flycatcher/bugzapper for all of goonswarms most annoying posters who get drawn to these assembly/jita forums and by consequence spend less time messing up CAOD ... makes you think. /tinfoil. no it's ironic because he was muted
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:45:00 - [21] Originally by: Tabouli Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tabouli he's posting here because he was muted on our own forums which is pretty ironic really heh, agreed! You know it did strike me that one of the masterstrokes of CCP's CSM concept was that it has acted as a flycatcher/bugzapper for all of goonswarms most annoying posters who get drawn to these assembly/jita forums and by consequence spend less time messing up CAOD ... makes you think. /tinfoil. no it's ironic because he was muted Yes I know. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Tabouli GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:50:00 - [22] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tabouli Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tabouli he's posting here because he was muted on our own forums which is pretty ironic really heh, agreed! You know it did strike me that one of the masterstrokes of CCP's CSM concept was that it has acted as a flycatcher/bugzapper for all of goonswarms most annoying posters who get drawn to these assembly/jita forums and by consequence spend less time messing up CAOD ... makes you think. /tinfoil. no it's ironic because he was muted Yes I know. "could no longer talk or contribute to discussion through the direct actions of a moderator"
Draven Stone GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 13:59:00 - [23] Originally by: Jade Constantine Life is unfair. I emphasize with your plight I really do. Casual and vaguely smart-arsed dismissal of concerns like this do nothing to counter the growing perception that you are approaching the CSM as your own personal plaything rather than your actual role as a player representative. You either dismiss or completely ignore any and all criticism of your actions, which is surprising given your unique talent of using a thousand words where ten will suffice. Your openly hostile attitude towards goonswarm players regardless of the content of their posts completely undermines your weak cries of impartiality in the CSM. Contrast this to the responses of Darius JOHNSON in his CSM candidacy thread, and in this forum in general. He has consistently responded to blatant trolling by people, and has done so in a far more patient, courteous, and level-headed way than many of the questions deserved. The fact that the goonswarm rep is approaching the CSM far more mature and responsible fashion than the Star Fraction guy would be merely amusing if that was the only issue with your actions thus far, however your astounding display of incompetence today clearly demonstrates your utter unsuitability as the CSM chairman, and calls into question the appropriateness of your role as a CSM candidate altogether.
Hardin Praetoria Technologies	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:04:00 - [24] Originally by: Jade Constantine I'll put those on the agenda for the Sunday meeting, but you'll need to make sure each issue is fully documented with the CCP submission template. I would like to put the following items on the Sunday agenda and take responsibility for getting the Template worked up. Completion of unfinished Story Arcs: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789648 Promotion of Roleplay Interests in EVE: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791735 Jade, these two issues are very interrelated and can I believe be incorporated into one 'issue' template for the Sunday meeting - particularly as Rodj's fits within the scope of Kai Zion's. I would therefore like to bring this forward these as a 'Developing a coherent roleplay strategy' issue which will be more effective in terms of CSM time! Similarly, I would also like to flag up another two issues which I also believe fit together and would come under the heading 'Standings Management' and would be helful for the administrators of Standings throughout the galaxy. Increase the number of corporation standing slots: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789692 Corps should automatically obtain alliance standings: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791955 The second issue does not have much support (no opposition either) probably because it is a peripheral item of relevance to a relatively small number of players but I think it can be addressed relatively easily within the scope of the 'Standings Management' issue. Thanks ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:10:00 - [25] I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend.
Inanna Zuni The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.06.09 14:38:00 - [26] Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 09/06/2008 14:39:18 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend. I would concur with this, despite my UK base I have long experience of world-wide online meetings (and the innate difficulty in scheduling them) but when it is known that two of the CSM are US-based then it is unreasonable to intentionally schedule a meeting they cannot be present at. The timezones the current 'CSM 9' are in are, I believe, CDT, BST(GMT+1) and EDT so there is a six hours gap. This is very clearly a problem on a weekday (due to school / college / work / etc), thus an actual 'meeting' might not be the right way to proceed (midnight European being 6pm East Coast is the nearest to a possible time and is still very imperfect) so maybe a thread on the unused-so-far 'Proclamations' forum is the right way to go here, with each Council member posting their submission as a new thread and CSM members only posting an acceptance of it. This has the side-benefit of getting all the current issues to be submitted in one clear place separate of the discussions still taking place on other topics so that all pilots can see what we are taking forward. IZ My principles
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.09 15:31:00 - [27] Originally by: Inanna Zuni Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 09/06/2008 14:39:18 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend. I would concur with this, despite my UK base I have long experience of world-wide online meetings (and the innate difficulty in scheduling them) but when it is known that two of the CSM are US-based then it is unreasonable to intentionally schedule a meeting they cannot be present at. The timezones the current 'CSM 9' are in are, I believe, CDT, BST(GMT+1) and EDT so there is a six hours gap. This is very clearly a problem on a weekday (due to school / college / work / etc), thus an actual 'meeting' might not be the right way to proceed (midnight European being 6pm East Coast is the nearest to a possible time and is still very imperfect) so maybe a thread on the unused-so-far 'Proclamations' forum is the right way to go here, with each Council member posting their submission as a new thread and CSM members only posting an acceptance of it. This has the side-benefit of getting all the current issues to be submitted in one clear place separate of the discussions still taking place on other topics so that all pilots can see what we are taking forward. IZ I like this. Puts everything into easily-logged text format, and avoids scheduling issues. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Furb Killer USC Militia	Posted - 2008.06.09 15:34:00 - [28] Quote: Logserver exploitation and Bacon Bacon (and similar programs) wont work anymore after EA has been deployed...
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:47:00 - [29] If someone would support minmatar capital review or maybe minmatar bs and above review that be great, because they are really terrible.
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 18:18:00 - [30] Originally by: Tabouli Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tabouli Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Tabouli he's posting here because he was muted on our own forums which is pretty ironic really heh, agreed! You know it did strike me that one of the masterstrokes of CCP's CSM concept was that it has acted as a flycatcher/bugzapper for all of goonswarms most annoying posters who get drawn to these assembly/jita forums and by consequence spend less time messing up CAOD ... makes you think. /tinfoil. no it's ironic because he was muted Yes I know. "could no longer talk or contribute to discussion through the direct actions of a moderator" It is a pretty good joke, yes, but you are probably going to have to quote it 5 more times and then parse it into individual lines with commentary for Jade to get it

CCP Mitnal C C P	Posted - 2008.06.10 22:01:00 - [31] Cleaned, please stay on topic and attempt to discuss the issues at hand without resorting to personal insults.

Orion Moonstar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:17:00 - [32] Originally by: Jade Constantine Delegated to: Jade Constantine CSM should vote for its own chairman How on earth does this make sense. It's like asking a president about to get impeached if impeaching should be allowed. This should be delegated to someone that isn't GS/you/people you muted
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:21:00 - [33] Originally by: Orion Moonstar Originally by: Jade Constantine Delegated to: Jade Constantine CSM should vote for its own chairman How on earth does this make sense. It's like asking a president about to get impeached if impeaching should be allowed. This should be delegated to someone that isn't GS/you/people you muted How about the fact I want to measure to get through? I want it written into the constitution and I want to make sure all future CSM Chairs are elected by the committee. Kinda gives me a decent motive to make it happen doncha think?
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:24:00 - [34] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend. Someone seems to have conveniently overlooked this comment.
Winterblink Body Count Inc. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:27:00 - [35] Originally by: Jade Constantine How about the fact I want to measure to get through? I want it written into the constitution and I want to make sure all future CSM Chairs are elected by the committee. Kinda gives me a decent motive to make it happen doncha think? That's not the point being made.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:27:00 - [36] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend. Someone seems to have conveniently overlooked this comment. Sorry Darius, couldn't find a way to do it this time. Still, we do have two meetings this week, I'm just posting up the details of the sunday one where you can bring up your votes and motions and whatnot. As we all agreed last week this mid-week one is for confirming the issues are properly documented and sent to Ank. Make sure you get yours done and emailed by the deadline on thursday and all well.
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:29:00 - [37] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend. Someone seems to have conveniently overlooked this comment. Sorry Darius, couldn't find a way to do it this time. Still, we do have two meetings this week, I'm just posting up the details of the sunday one where you can bring up your votes and motions and whatnot. As we all agreed last week this mid-week one is for confirming the issues are properly documented and sent to Ank. Make sure you get yours done and emailed by the deadline on thursday and all well. so why not have them saturday/sunday? how does it make any sense to not allow the elected members to participate?
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:30:00 - [38] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend. Someone seems to have conveniently overlooked this comment. Sorry Darius, couldn't find a way to do it this time. Still, we do have two meetings this week, I'm just posting up the details of the sunday one where you can bring up your votes and motions and whatnot. As we all agreed last week this mid-week one is for confirming the issues are properly documented and sent to Ank. Make sure you get yours done and emailed by the deadline on thursday and all well. I never agreed to this meeting. It was scheduled so that American attendees could not make it. This is actually your second attempt at this. Should I re-forward you the note from CCP regarding meeting scheduling from the last time?
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:33:00 - [39] Originally by: Aprudena Gist so why not have them saturday/sunday? how does it make any sense to not allow the elected members to participate? We're having one on Sunday. This thursday one is a sign-off meeting to ensure we've got relevant documentation agreed for all the ISSUEs submission templates we're taking to Iceland (agreed from the previous weeks). They need to be bundled up and sent to CCP by ANK by thursday evening at the latest. The meeting in this case is a formality to let us sort out the last issues and double check everyone has done their stuff. If we had to wait till sunday we'd be flying to Iceland with no Issues to discuss. While I can understand that might make Darius' workload a little easier its probably not the best use of our time or CCP's ISK.
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:36:00 - [40] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist so why not have them saturday/sunday? how does it make any sense to not allow the elected members to participate? We're having one on Sunday. This thursday one is a sign-off meeting to ensure we've got relevant documentation agreed for all the ISSUEs submission templates we're taking to Iceland (agreed from the previous weeks). They need to be bundled up and sent to CCP by ANK by thursday evening at the latest. The meeting in this case is a formality to let us sort out the last issues and double check everyone has done their stuff. If we had to wait till sunday we'd be flying to Iceland with no Issues to discuss. While I can understand that might make Darius' workload a little easier its probably not the best use of our time or CCP's ISK. i guess if all your trying to do is steal votes sure.
Omber Zombie Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:38:00 - [41] Originally by: Jade Constantine The meeting in this case is a formality to let us sort out the last issues and double check everyone has done their stuff. in that case why aren't all the issues posted in the Proclamations forum for everyone to see? As long as they are all there with the relevant CSM reps commenting, I see no point to this meeting. oh, and as an alternate I again will be unavailable due to timezone issues.
Chalion	Posted - 2008.06.11 00:45:00 - [42] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist If we had to wait till sunday we'd be flying to Iceland with no Issues to discuss. While I can understand that might make Darius' workload a little easier its probably not the best use of our time or CCP's ISK. Not my CSM chairperson.
HClChicken GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 01:31:00 - [43] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist so why not have them saturday/sunday? how does it make any sense to not allow the elected members to participate? We're having one on Sunday. This thursday one is a sign-off meeting to ensure we've got relevant documentation agreed for all the ISSUEs submission templates we're taking to Iceland (agreed from the previous weeks). They need to be bundled up and sent to CCP by ANK by thursday evening at the latest. The meeting in this case is a formality to let us sort out the last issues and double check everyone has done their stuff. If we had to wait till sunday we'd be flying to Iceland with no Issues to discuss. While I can understand that might make Darius' workload a little easier its probably not the best use of our time or CCP's ISK. It's not a question of making a workload esier, it's that you continually schedule meetings that conflict with at least two delegates, and one alternate. There could be more than this, but as far as I know you are forcing 2 elected delegates to skip out of their paying job, or visiting time with their family so you can get an extra hour of sleep. The meeting doesn't have to wait until sunday, and when you are unyielding to the other delegates needs it shows how well you are at doing your primary job of CSM, that of scheduling meetings. If you can't get that right, then how can you do the secondary job, that you gave yourself, of moderation?
Inanna Zuni The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.06.11 01:42:00 - [44] Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 11/06/2008 01:43:13 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I believe these meetings are supposed to be scheduled in such a way that all may attend. 4pm East Coast US time on a week day is typically during the work day. I'm going to ask that you reschedule for a time when all of the elected representatives can attend. Someone seems to have conveniently overlooked this comment. Sorry Darius, couldn't find a way to do it this time. Chair, could I please ask what "a way to do it this time" means? Despite over 50 emails flinging their way around the internet today on the CSM group email there was nothing that I saw asking Council members about their time availability. Similarly I made a comment above about using the third forum channel here for what is its apparent purpose, and making it clear to everyone which matters they will be receiving guaranteed responses from CCP about as we put them forward. The matters for this coming meeting are not ones which actually need everyone online at the same moment. Aside, given that you have scheduled this when at least two elected members cannot make it (and can clearly be deemed already to have sent their apologies, which I am sure they will also put on record before the meeting if you still go ahead on this schedule) then have you asked the top two pilots on the Alternates list (ie #10 and #11) to stand by, and have they indicated that they are able to make this timeslot? IZ My principles
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 16:23:00 - [45] This Thursday meeting is there purely to check we have the adequate documentation for the issues we have already voted for. AND to vote on the individual elements of multipart issues we've included on principle but haven't yet individually decided on. Its not going to be a formal meeting in the form of agenda and administrative stuff, its mostly a document-checking collaborative session. Members that can't make this meeting are welcome to send in the votes on individual parts of LaVista's, yours, and Ank's multi-part issues and we'll record them for the record. As for the timing it can't be helped really, we had to do this by Thursday as you know. It can't wait till the weekend and on a weeknight we have an issue with whats doable for the US people is too late for some EURO people. I took a decision based on what we have to achieve at that meeting. If it turns out to be me, ANK and you and six sets of mailed in multi-part votes then we won't be officially quorate but we can still help ANK on the secretarial duties of assembling the documents for CCP. All these things have already been voted "yes" on principle and we are within our rights to send them on. Re the proposal to use the proclamations forum for this - we haven't yet been told what that forum is for, it won't be read only and in the current climate of extreme forum trolling/spam campaigns from a certain group I don't believe it will be a conducive environment for this. Also its a waste of effort on our part, we're assembly word docs that will be available for all CSM reps to examine via the eve-csm list at the moment. I see no reason to increase the administrative burden on everyone further by reproducing this stuff on another forum section. We'll get the job done. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 16:26:00 - [46] To be frank, provided it's not an actual voting meeting but rather an informal get-together where our opinions and such can be mailed in it's not really a big deal in my opinion.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 16:39:00 - [47] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 16:41:18 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON To be frank, provided it's not an actual voting meeting but rather an informal get-together where our opinions and such can be mailed in it's not really a big deal in my opinion. That was always the point Darius, its what I said when we brought it up last week. The formal meeting this week is Sunday 15th 18:00 hours. This one was always a document checking thing first and foremost. The mailed in votes we will need are on these 3 issues : UI (separate issues discussed in the op) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=783206 Forums (several issues discussed in op) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778049 Economics (60 issues on PDF) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=782682 CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 18:06:00 - [48] So are you going to document check/editorialize like you did with hardins idea? Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Cursive Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 20:01:00 - [49] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy I feel it's unfair to relegate my issue with cynojammers and jumpbridges to Serenity Steele, a CSM representative who has no concept of the problems involved in this issue. He advocated a form of CONCORD in 0.0 space for god's sake. Life is unfair. I emphasize with your plight I really do. You're an awesome chairman. Really, you are.
Inanna Zuni The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:18:00 - [50] Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 11/06/2008 22:19:16 Something I've just noticed whilst re-reading some stuff in preparation to complete my submission documents ... Originally by: Jade Constantine All items for submission need to be mailed to Ankhesentapemkah before by 01:00 hours on Thursday afternoon Originally by: Jade Constantine mailed to the CSM secretary (by csm mail address) by the deadline of 01:00 hours Thursday afternoon. Originally by: Jade Constantine To recap, these Issues need to be properly written up and mailed to Ankhesentapemkah by 01:00 hours - Thursday June 12th. Ignoring a moment that you've repeated yourself, the time is actually unclear and depends on your country of origin. In some countries the use of a 24-hour clock is normal at "01:00" would be read as 1am not pm, but given the "Thursday afternoon" you quoted twice I believe that 1pm (aka 13:00) was intended and will act accordingly. (I also don't believe it likely that Ankh is intending to be awake at 1am to edit them all!) IZ ps TQ came back early and stable yay! ps2. Jade: You didn't answer about the two Alternates My principles
Gabriel Darkefyre Crystal Ship	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:37:00 - [51] Originally by: Inanna Zuni <Snip! - Post regarding Time confusions> A simple solution to this matter given that you guys are all in different timezones would be for you to make any future deadlines in 24 Hour Format using Standard In-Game Time as the guide.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:41:00 - [52] OK I guess I post this question here for the CSM reps. Since I can not find a decent thread to post in that is not either a)buried on the 13 page or b) is not strewn with eye poking. I would like to understand how an issue is brought up to the CSM from the Assembly forum that has an overwhelming non support from the player base, that clearly does not have the support? It does not seem right. How can CCP sit there and with a straight face and look at the "suggestion" brought up by the CSM when the player base says they do not want it? Aren't you a little bit concerned that by pushing agendas that has no or very little support from the player base makes the CSM look foolish in the eyes of CCP? So when you do ask to push a "HOT BUTTON" item that has the support from the player base, CCP is not going to look at you and not take you seriously?
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:44:00 - [53] Originally by: Gabriel Darkefyre Originally by: Inanna Zuni <Snip! - Post regarding Time confusions> A simple solution to this matter given that you guys are all in different timezones would be for you to make any future deadlines in 24 Hour Format using Standard In-Game Time as the guide. Thats how we've been doing it so far.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:48:00 - [54] Originally by: Farrqua Aren't you a little bit concerned that by pushing agendas that has no or very little support from the player base makes the CSM look foolish in the eyes of CCP? So when you do ask to push a "HOT BUTTON" item that has the support from the player base, CCP is not going to look at you and not take you seriously? Takes personal judgement really. If an issue has 30 decent supports and 200 iterations of the same argument against by the same corp/pressure group then the issue can still be raised by the decision of a CSM rep. We all have to learn to spam filter the issue threads and ignore the background noise. Our job is to get what we believe are decent suggestions that will be of value to the player base on the agenda. Its not our task to be popular by agreeing with the barking of a mob. That said, I think we've presented a very good cross-section of issues for this first session that do represent all the best suggestions made on the assembly hall that could be raised within the time constraints and 7 day advance discussion rule. If you feel we've forgotten something important that will have been up for open discusion for the 7 day mark by sunday's meeting then feel free to ask one of us to take a look.
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:06:00 - [55] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Farrqua Aren't you a little bit concerned that by pushing agendas that has no or very little support from the player base makes the CSM look foolish in the eyes of CCP? So when you do ask to push a "HOT BUTTON" item that has the support from the player base, CCP is not going to look at you and not take you seriously? Takes personal judgement really. If an issue has 30 decent supports and 200 iterations of the same argument against by the same corp/pressure group then the issue can still be raised by the decision of a CSM rep. We all have to learn to spam filter the issue threads and ignore the background noise. Our job is to get what we believe are decent suggestions that will be of value to the player base on the agenda. Its not our task to be popular by agreeing with the barking of a mob. That said, I think we've presented a very good cross-section of issues for this first session that do represent all the best suggestions made on the assembly hall that could be raised within the time constraints and 7 day advance discussion rule. If you feel we've forgotten something important that will have been up for open discusion for the 7 day mark by sunday's meeting then feel free to ask one of us to take a look. No Jade, There is nothing in particular that I have in mind. I have no aspirations of any of the topics presented by the CSM or the player base. I just "try" to look at them with a different eye. (Playing Eve regularly for little over 5 years now I have learned to accept and adapt what has been handed down to me) I have been reading a lot of issues about "game mechanics". "I am not even going to touch the other crap that has to deal with Goons or your self." It is when I see a thread that has 20 support votes and 200 posts like you said. That is a red flag for me. When the thread came up about Changing ammo, and I saw 84 posts and 82 support, I just peaked at the initial post and knew that was a no brainer. When there is a disparity of the number of votes I have to wonder and I take the time to read some of the posts and gloss over the repeat threadnoghts and look for new posts that would easily be counted to show a majority of non-support.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:15:00 - [56] When are turning Titans into monster trucks getting on the docket it has more support than your ******** destructible outposts you role playing female love slave lady of the night you.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:20:00 - [57] Originally by: Fallorn When are turning Titans into monster trucks getting on the docket it has more support than your ******** destructible outposts you role playing female love slave lady of the night you. 200 ducks can quack at the same time, doesn't mean their composing an opera. And yes, I mean that goon threadnaughts mean nothing. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:37:00 - [58] As discussed during the last meeting, I will be unable to make the Thursday discussion due to previous non-negotiable commitments. Please arrange for an Alternate to stand in my place. /Serenity.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:38:00 - [59] Edited by: Fallorn on 11/06/2008 23:38:40 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Fallorn When are turning Titans into monster trucks getting on the docket it has more support than your ******** destructible outposts you role playing female love slave lady of the night you. 200 ducks can quack at the same time, doesn't mean their composing an opera. And yes, I mean that goon threadnaughts mean nothing. So your saying you would not give it any time at all even though you issue has less support just because you ducks masterbate to the thought of you. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:51:00 - [60] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Farrqua Aren't you a little bit concerned that by pushing agendas that has no or very little support from the player base makes the CSM look foolish in the eyes of CCP? So when you do ask to push a "HOT BUTTON" item that has the support from the player base, CCP is not going to look at you and not take you seriously? Takes personal judgement really. If an issue has 30 decent supports and 200 iterations of the same argument against by the same corp/pressure group then the issue can still be raised by the decision of a CSM rep. We all have to learn to spam filter the issue threads and ignore the background noise. Our job is to get what we believe are decent suggestions that will be of value to the player base on the agenda. Its not our task to be popular by agreeing with the barking of a mob. That said, I think we've presented a very good cross-section of issues for this first session that do represent all the best suggestions made on the assembly hall that could be raised within the time constraints and 7 day advance discussion rule. If you feel we've forgotten something important that will have been up for open discusion for the 7 day mark by sunday's meeting then feel free to ask one of us to take a look. Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Fallorn When are turning Titans into monster trucks getting on the docket it has more support than your ******** destructible outposts you role playing female love slave lady of the night you. 200 ducks can quack at the same time, doesn't mean their composing an opera. And yes, I mean that goon threadnaughts mean nothing. So anyone who opposes you is automatically a Goon and some insulting-sounding variety of animal, and as such their opinion can be discounted without further consideration? There are third-world dictators with less ego and chutzpah than that. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:54:00 - [61] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So anyone who opposes you is automatically a Goon and some insulting-sounding variety of animal, and as such their opinion can be discounted without further consideration? There are third-world dictators with less ego and chutzpah than that. You might have a point if the titans into monster truck thread didn't exist. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:00:00 - [62] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So anyone who opposes you is automatically a Goon and some insulting-sounding variety of animal, and as such their opinion can be discounted without further consideration? There are third-world dictators with less ego and chutzpah than that. Those dictators have at least proven they can lead a country.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:23:00 - [63] Originally by: Jade Constantine You might have a point if the titans into monster truck thread didn't exist. Hey, nobody here is saying that Goons are universally straight-laced, moderate, reasonable people - Tress is, from the looks of it, an avatar of at least 40% of what's wrong with the Internet. But in a group of 5000 people, there's bound to be at least a few rational, intelligent ones, and you ignore them at your own peril. And that's not even getting into your non-Goon detractors - is Hardin a barking duck? Am I? ------------------ Fix the forums!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:26:00 - [64] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Jade Constantine You might have a point if the titans into monster truck thread didn't exist. Hey, nobody here is saying that Goons are universally straight-laced, moderate, reasonable people - Tress is, from the looks of it, an avatar of at least 40% of what's wrong with the Internet. But in a group of 5000 people, there's bound to be at least a few rational, intelligent ones, and you ignore them at your own peril. And that's not even getting into your non-Goon detractors - is Hardin a barking duck? Am I? Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So anyone who opposes you is automatically a Goon and some insulting-sounding variety of animal, and as such their opinion can be discounted without further consideration? There are third-world dictators with less ego and chutzpah than that. Those dictators have at least proven they can lead a country. A fair point, but given that Jade lives in a country ruled by Gordon Brown, I think Jade could lead a country just as well. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Farrqua Turbo Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:31:00 - [65] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So anyone who opposes you is automatically a Goon and some insulting-sounding variety of animal, and as such their opinion can be discounted without further consideration? There are third-world dictators with less ego and chutzpah than that. You might have a point if the titans into monster truck thread didn't exist. Ok there has to be a point when common sense in these matters comes in to play. If the CSM and the playerbase can not actually tell the difference between Internet space ships and a frigging monster truck, well there is no wonder CCP has the attitude they do. I would too. This makes absolutely no sense.
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:33:00 - [66] Originally by: Farrqua Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So anyone who opposes you is automatically a Goon and some insulting-sounding variety of animal, and as such their opinion can be discounted without further consideration? There are third-world dictators with less ego and chutzpah than that. You might have a point if the titans into monster truck thread didn't exist. Ok there has to be a point when common sense in these matters comes in to play. If the CSM and the playerbase can not actually tell the difference between Internet space ships and a frigging monster truck, well there is no wonder CCP has the attitude they do. I would too. This makes absolutely no sense. Dude its Lord Emperor Jade Palatine why would he have to make any sense he has all the power to do whatever he wants.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:36:00 - [67] Why wouldn't the empires build giant monster trucks symbols of strength from tera where battles of wills and determination were won by sheer guts and determination. Its not like it would hurt anything it would be a symbol of pride. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Zorda	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:43:00 - [68] Originally by: Jade Constantine That said, I think we've presented a very good cross-section of issues for this first session that do represent all the best suggestions made on the assembly hall that could be raised within the time constraints and 7 day advance discussion rule. If you feel we've forgotten something important that will have been up for open discusion for the 7 day mark by sunday's meeting then feel free to ask one of us to take a look. I propose the inclusion of the drone module proposal. Considering that when the drone issuses get presented to CCP, the module and implant issues should be presented together, since there are obvious balancing challenges affecting both. (Not sure if this was the right place to post this, since it is quite hard to find stuff in here and the Assembly Hall atm)
Inanna Zuni	Posted - 2008.06.12 15:07:00 - [69] Back to timing a moment, I'm not quite sure why it has only just hit me but I'm partially double-booked this evening with a 'real life' meeting also taking place (probably because it was originally going to be last Thursday and got postponed a week, which I hadn't twigged was the same evening as this CSM meeting!) Anyway, the other meeting starts at 7pm UK (ie 6pm EVE) and isn't too far from my home, so I will hope to be online by 8pm EVE. I'll take my laptop and mobile connection dongle too so worst case is that I am battery powered in the car ;-P IZ
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.12 15:55:00 - [70] Originally by: Inanna Zuni Back to timing a moment, I'm not quite sure why it has only just hit me but I'm partially double-booked this evening with a 'real life' meeting also taking place (probably because it was originally going to be last Thursday and got postponed a week, which I hadn't twigged was the same evening as this CSM meeting!) Anyway, the other meeting starts at 7pm UK (ie 6pm EVE) and isn't too far from my home, so I will hope to be online by 8pm EVE. I'll take my laptop and mobile connection dongle too so worst case is that I am battery powered in the car ;-P IZ Just in case of connection problems then can I ask you to make sure you mail in a list of vote preferences on the multi item Issues that we do need to vote for this evening please? CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Toffles GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 16:28:00 - [71] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Fallorn When are turning Titans into monster trucks getting on the docket it has more support than your ****** destructible outposts you role playing female love slave lady of the night you. 200 ducks can quack at the same time, doesn't mean their composing an opera. And yes, I mean that goon threadnaughts mean nothing. Well Jade, I tallied the votes in that thread and out of 75 votes only 36 were from Goonswarm. That actually makes us the minority but nice try at trying to write off everything you disagree with as a goon conspiracy. I think if it came down to a vote between your horrible destructible outpost idea and the monster truck one most people would say yours is worse. 16 pages of discussion and only 39 votes of support is terrible. 5587 people viewed your thread and the vast majority chose not to support it. This just confirms what most people already know, that you're a biased**got ruining the CSM for your own petty purposes.
Deldrac Bat Country Aegis Militia	Posted - 2008.06.12 19:40:00 - [72] Edited by: Deldrac on 12/06/2008 19:40:15 Is it possible to join the channel as an observer? These things are comedy gold, and would be fun to watch live while ratting. We should also set up a second commentary channel for viewers to chat about the slapstick antics live as they happen.
Gabriel Darkefyre Crystal Ship	Posted - 2008.06.12 20:22:00 - [73] Originally by: Toffles 16 pages of discussion and only 39 votes of support is terrible. 5587 people viewed your thread and the vast majority chose not to support it. Um, not to throw too big a wrench into these statistics but that doesn't indicate that 5587 people viewed the thread but rather that the thread have been viewed on 5587 different occassions. It could easily mean that the thread was viewed 100 times each by 55 different people. Which is exactly why this forum really needs the potential to vote aginst a proposal as well as for it. Either that or only add to the views count on the very first time you view a thread. Then you'd get a more accurate idea of what the true level of support for an issue.
Daktarin Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.06.12 21:59:00 - [74] Edited by: Daktarin on 12/06/2008 22:00:18 Originally by: Fallorn Edited by: Fallorn on 11/06/2008 23:38:40 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Fallorn When are turning Titans into monster trucks getting on the docket it has more support than your ****** destructible outposts you role playing female love slave lady of the night you. 200 ducks can quack at the same time, doesn't mean their composing an opera. And yes, I mean that goon threadnaughts mean nothing. So your saying you would not give it any time at all even though you issue has less support just because you ducks masterbate to the thought of you. No, he's saying that if you trained thousands of roaches to vote for you it doesnt make the issue worth dealing with. The problem with this was always going to be goons collectively thinking they can force issues by getting the person using the alliance braincell to tell everyone else to vote for something. Unfortunately for roach-swarm this int working and you are now all having a massive cry fest because you cant have your own way. If u dont like it, quit, the game would be better for it... But hey let me guess, I just "dont get goons"... well, thats no probem. I dont get **roaches either, it doesnt make them anything other than nasty little grubs.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.12 23:13:00 - [75] Meeting 4 is concluded, we discussed the documentation and debated the multi-item Issues. Took almost 3 hours with some good high quality debate from the CSM reps in attendance. Big thanks to everyone for this. Serenity should be adding the chatlogs to the CSM site soon, but until then I've posted the log on the Jericho public forums and is viewable here. Enjoy. Next meeting is on Sunday.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.13 03:32:00 - [76] A quick question? What the hell are you voting on? How can you "support" if a template document has been filled out?" Didn't you already vote on this stuff?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.13 03:51:00 - [77] Originally by: Goumindong A quick question? What the hell are you voting on? How can you "support" if a template document has been filled out?" Didn't you already vote on this stuff? We were voting on the multi-part issues which were voted in last time, provided that they were split into more than 1 issue in order to ease discussion. So we voted on if we could support the specific topic of each issue.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.13 03:53:00 - [78] I just want to thank everybody who turned up yesterday. It was a most excellent job in my eyes. Thanks for being so patient despite how many issues we had to vote about. Hopefull the rest of our meetings will go like that!
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.13 04:02:00 - [79] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong A quick question? What the hell are you voting on? How can you "support" if a template document has been filled out?" Didn't you already vote on this stuff? We were voting on the multi-part issues which were voted in last time, provided that they were split into more than 1 issue in order to ease discussion. So we voted on if we could support the specific topic of each issue. Well I can answer that. Each issue didn't have a discussion thread, you couldn't. Point of note on the meeting as i read it: Inanna you are wrong about the market. The highest buy order and lowest sell order that is possible to be filled ALWAYS gets the item/isk when you well. No matter if you select a different order to fill or not. iirc this is currently done to prevent money laundering where an isk buyer buys a bunch of isk then buys something on the market for an exorbitant price listed by an alt. The seller of the item could then claim "I just listed it at an exorbitant price there is no way i could have known the isk was bought". This is to prevent that.
Nynaeve Ares Animus Incarnate	Posted - 2008.06.13 04:19:00 - [80] Good job chairing the meeting LaVista Vista. Is this permanent or is there a rotating chairmanship now?
Anton Marvik AnTi. Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.06.13 04:32:00 - [81] Edited by: Anton Marvik on 13/06/2008 04:32:29 Originally by: LaVista Vista Hopefully the rest of our meetings will go like that! Hopefully
Wednesday Sheffield GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.13 05:06:00 - [82] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 12/06/2008 01:26:13 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So anyone who opposes you is automatically a Goon and some insulting-sounding variety of animal, and as such their opinion can be discounted without further consideration? There are third-world dictators with less ego and chutzpah than that. Those dictators have at least proven they can lead a country. A fair point, but given that Jade lives in a country ruled by Gordon Brown, I think Jade could lead a country just as well. Gordon Brown never made a hobby out of pretending to be a prostitute (that we know of.)
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.13 05:13:00 - [83] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong A quick question? What the hell are you voting on? How can you "support" if a template document has been filled out?" Didn't you already vote on this stuff? We were voting on the multi-part issues which were voted in last time, provided that they were split into more than 1 issue in order to ease discussion. So we voted on if we could support the specific topic of each issue. Well I can answer that. Each issue didn't have a discussion thread, you couldn't. Point of note on the meeting as i read it: Inanna you are wrong about the market. The highest buy order and lowest sell order that is possible to be filled ALWAYS gets the item/isk when you well. No matter if you select a different order to fill or not. iirc this is currently done to prevent money laundering where an isk buyer buys a bunch of isk then buys something on the market for an exorbitant price listed by an alt. The seller of the item could then claim "I just listed it at an exorbitant price there is no way i could have known the isk was bought". This is to prevent that. Ikeep hearing this but I can buy any order I want. and if not then there is a way around this, lets say there are two sellorders one for 100,000isk with 2 in stock the other at 50,000 isk with 10 in stock. I buy the 100,000 isk one and put in 10 to buy. I press buy. I check market the 2 are still there at 50,000 I spent 1 million isk.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.13 05:33:00 - [84] Originally by: Nynaeve Ares Good job chairing the meeting LaVista Vista. Is this permanent or is there a rotating chairmanship now? The reason I was leading debate was because I was raising the issues in question. But maybe that is a good thing, that it is kinda rotating in a sense? So each time we have a new person on the block to moderate the debate. I like that idea. Judging from yesterday, it could even work too! Very interesting idea. We should talk about it, certainly!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.13 05:35:00 - [85] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Nynaeve Ares Good job chairing the meeting LaVista Vista. Is this permanent or is there a rotating chairmanship now? The reason I was leading debate was because I was raising the issues in question. But maybe that is a good thing, that it is kinda rotating in a sense? So each time we have a new person on the block to moderate the debate. I like that idea. Judging from yesterday, it could even work too! Very interesting idea. We should talk about it, certainly! Yep I think a rotating chair is a great idea. Share the admin load and give everyone a chance to do a bit of running meetings. Excellent stuff. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.13 05:40:00 - [86] 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? Originally by: Wednesday Sheffield Gordon Brown never made a hobby out of pretending to be a prostitute (that we know of.) Yeah, but he's like Paul Martin without the personality. I'll take a bit of good old-fashioned eccentric sexual roleplay over the horrific reality of boring politicians of the centre-left.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.13 05:47:00 - [87] Originally by: MotherMoon Ikeep hearing this but I can buy any order I want. and if not then there is a way around this, lets say there are two sellorders one for 100,000isk with 2 in stock the other at 50,000 isk with 10 in stock. I buy the 100,000 isk one and put in 10 to buy. I press buy. I check market the 2 are still there at 50,000 I spent 1 million isk. No, you can buy at any price, and sell at any price you want, but not any order. The item will come from the person with the lowest sell or highest buy order, 100% of the time, all the time.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.13 05:49:00 - [88] 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.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.13 06:03:00 - [89] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 13/06/2008 06:04:51 Okay, finished. I'm amazed - you managed to have a drama-free meeting. There had better be beer and videocamers in Iceland, because I peace on the CSM is just wrong somehow. And Inanna, you're wrong - you invariably buy from the cheapest order in the station, no matter which price you pay. I got burned hard by this one when I was about a week into the game(lost my whole 3 million isk wallet) and I haven't forgotten it since. 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. I see abstention as mostly an "I have no idea how that section of the game works, so I don't want to fool around with it too much" vote in practice - I know there's a few issues I'd abstain on, and if someone as opinionated as me is willing to shut up, it's probably a good idea to let me
White Ronin Screenout	Posted - 2008.06.13 06:33:00 - [90] Great meeting imo. I hope everyone involved thought so also. Now what was differant about this one meeting and the other 3? Anyway, great job and thank you.
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. ≡v≡ Strategic Maps now in Eve-Online Store - Includes Black Rise & Empyrean Age
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
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.14 20:46:00 - [121] Originally by: Inanna Zuni 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 Doesn't this part of the post kinda suggest that Goumin is an alternate? Surely that ins't the case? OZ is the second alternate afaik.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.14 21:44:00 - [122] Originally by: Inanna Zuni 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 I am not an alternate.
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution	Posted - 2008.06.15 10:08:00 - [123] Looks interesting. Unfortunately, my #1 problem with EVE does not appear to be on that list (nanos). This leads me to the conclusion that either the CSM believes they are fine and doesn't want to change them...or you folks haven't gotten to them yet. I'm hoping for the latter, though, knowing the mindset of today's playerbase, I doubt that's the case. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.15 15:49:00 - [124] Originally by: Wrayeth Looks interesting. Unfortunately, my #1 problem with EVE does not appear to be on that list (nanos). This leads me to the conclusion that either the CSM believes they are fine and doesn't want to change them...or you folks haven't gotten to them yet. I'm hoping for the latter, though, knowing the mindset of today's playerbase, I doubt that's the case. If you think they're a problem, put up a thread on Assembly Hall. I don't think anyone has yet. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution	Posted - 2008.06.16 06:37:00 - [125] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto If you think they're a problem, put up a thread on Assembly Hall. I don't think anyone has yet. Done. Not the best articulation of the problem, by far, but it was the best I could do in my current, sleepy state. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Dippin Dots	Posted - 2008.06.17 06:34:00 - [126] Originally by: Jade Constantine How about the fact I want to measure to get through? I want it written into the constitution and I want to make sure all future CSM Chairs are elected by the committee. Kinda gives me a decent motive to make it happen doncha think? What constitution? This CSM.pdf is NOT a constitution or any other form of founding document. That is a buisiness proposal explaining why its a good idea for CCP to encourage the formation of a player government, and only in very general terms what kind should be encouraged. This is a constitution Constitution for the Council of Stellar Management.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.