EVE Search - CSM Could Use a Neutral Arbitrator

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Could Use a Neutral Arbitrator

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Adhamhnon Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:10:00 - [1] Edited by: Adhamhnon on 09/06/2008 16:13:54 After reading the lengthy chatlog of the recent meeting of the CSM, it becomes quite apparent that they really need a neutral arbitrator torun the meetings. Someone with no vote, who enforces rules of order and the like, and can keep the meeting from turning into a free for all. It was quite clear that Inanna didn't think Jade had the authourity to give "warnings" and it was also clear that Jade was frustrated by what he felty were disturbances to the voting process. This could be solved by someone with no personal agenda as a representative conducting the meeting in a neutral fashion. This person would have no vote, and their only goal would be to make sure that everything is handled fairly and even handedly. Something along the lines of the parliamentary "Speaker of the House" (at least the way it's used here in Canada.) --------------------------------- KSUDruid stole my coffee table. :(
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:23:00 - [2] more people, more imaginary and misunderstood powers, more fail ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Inanna Zuni The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:28:00 - [3] To clarify re Originally by: Adhamhnon It was quite clear that Inanna didn't think Jade had the authourity to give "warnings" I am quite happy that a Chair should be able to warn a member that they have done something clearly wrong but in both cases, as I had not (indeed past meetings have had comments from others clearly disruptive to the smooth flow of the meeting) I asked for a clarification of what I was supposed to have done and what a "warning" actually signified. Instead of getting answers to my questions (and neither did others get responses when they asked) I was muted and locked out of the discussion. imho far exceeding any 'authority' that the Chair may have. IZ My principles
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 16:37:04 Originally by: Inanna Zuni I am quite happy that a Chair should be able to warn a member that they have done something clearly wrong but in both cases, as I had not (indeed past meetings have had comments from others clearly disruptive to the smooth flow of the meeting) I asked for a clarification of what I was supposed to have done and what a "warning" actually signified. I had clearly explained the process in the previous meeting: [ 2008.05.31 19:26:41 ] Jade Constantine > let me address the muting stuff [ 2008.05.31 19:26:59 ] Jade Constantine > As chair I would take the following steps on moderation: [ 2008.05.31 19:27:09 ] Jade Constantine > if somebody is disruptive I'd ask them to stop [ 2008.05.31 19:27:20 ] Jade Constantine > if they don't stop I'll eventually give a warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:25 ] Jade Constantine > then a second warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:33 ] Jade Constantine > then use the mute function outside of voting [ 2008.05.31 19:27:43 ] Jade Constantine > I hope these are steps that will never be needed (this led to a vote on the principle of operator rights that confirmed that CSM officers would maintain operator rights) Yesterday I took your request for re-clarification of this statement on record to be spurious and again an attempt to prevent the vote in progress from coming to a conclusion. Quote: Instead of getting answers to my questions (and neither did others get responses when they asked) I was muted and locked out of the discussion. imho far exceeding any 'authority' that the Chair may have. The discussion was over. We'd moved to the vote. You were not locked out of the discussion. You were muted to prevent you continuing to obstruct the process of the vote. As you can see from the timing of the log I attempted to un-mute you the moment after I formally called for voting preferences. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:59:00 - [5] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/06/2008 16:37:04 Originally by: Inanna Zuni I am quite happy that a Chair should be able to warn a member that they have done something clearly wrong but in both cases, as I had not (indeed past meetings have had comments from others clearly disruptive to the smooth flow of the meeting) I asked for a clarification of what I was supposed to have done and what a "warning" actually signified. I had clearly explained the process in the previous meeting: [ 2008.05.31 19:26:41 ] Jade Constantine > let me address the muting stuff [ 2008.05.31 19:26:59 ] Jade Constantine > As chair I would take the following steps on moderation: [ 2008.05.31 19:27:09 ] Jade Constantine > if somebody is disruptive I'd ask them to stop [ 2008.05.31 19:27:20 ] Jade Constantine > if they don't stop I'll eventually give a warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:25 ] Jade Constantine > then a second warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:33 ] Jade Constantine > then use the mute function outside of voting [ 2008.05.31 19:27:43 ] Jade Constantine > I hope these are steps that will never be needed (this led to a vote on the principle of operator rights that confirmed that CSM officers would maintain operator rights) Yesterday I took your request for re-clarification of this statement on record to be spurious and again an attempt to prevent the vote in progress from coming to a conclusion. Quote: Instead of getting answers to my questions (and neither did others get responses when they asked) I was muted and locked out of the discussion. imho far exceeding any 'authority' that the Chair may have. The discussion was over. We'd moved to the vote. You were not locked out of the discussion. You were muted to prevent you continuing to obstruct the process of the vote. As you can see from the timing of the log I attempted to un-mute you the moment after I formally called for voting preferences. You're grasping at straws if you think any amount of silencing a person on that council for any circumstance is acceptable.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:10:00 - [6] Originally by: Aprudena Gist You're grasping at straws if you think any amount of silencing a person on that council for any circumstance is acceptable. Obviously I disagree with you. (I'm disagreeing with a lot of goons today it seems). CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:11:00 - [7] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist You're grasping at straws if you think any amount of silencing a person on that council for any circumstance is acceptable. Obviously I disagree with you. (I'm disagreeing with a lot of goons today it seems). Say the Guy Role Playing e-Hookers :rolleyes:
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:20:00 - [8] Originally by: Jade Constantine [ 2008.05.31 19:26:41 Jade Constantine > let me address the muting stuff [ 2008.05.31 19:26:59 ] Jade Constantine > As chair I would take the following steps on moderation: [ 2008.05.31 19:27:09 ] Jade Constantine > if somebody is disruptive I'd ask them to stop [ 2008.05.31 19:27:20 ] Jade Constantine > if they don't stop I'll eventually give a warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:25 ] Jade Constantine > then a second warning [ 2008.05.31 19:27:33 ] Jade Constantine > then use the mute function outside of voting [ 2008.05.31 19:27:43 ] Jade Constantine > I hope these are steps that will never be needed (this led to a vote on the principle of operator rights that confirmed that CSM officers would maintain operator rights) Stop Lying liar. This is the vote in question [2008.05.31 19:31:38 ] Jade Constantine >Everyone in favour of everyone having op rights in the CSM channel say aye : [ 2008.05.31 19:31:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah >Yes for universal op rights. [ 2008.05.31 19:31:45 ] Inanna Zuni >Aye [ 2008.05.31 19:31:52 ] Darius JOHNSON >no [ 2008.05.31 19:31:55 ] Jade Constantine >Nay [ 2008.05.31 19:31:56 ] Serenity Steele >No [ 2008.05.31 19:31:56 ] Dierdra Vaal >aye [ 2008.05.31 19:31:58 ] LaVista Vista >Nay [ 2008.05.31 19:32:04 ] Bane Glorious >gonna go with nay [ 2008.05.31 19:32:21 ] Tusko Hopkins >Aye [ 2008.05.31 19:32:43 ] Jade Constantine >thatÆs a No then ... So it looks like you are again redefining a vote to suit your needs. Note how there is nothing in that vote that says "The CSM Chairman retains OP rights and the ability to mute others" it simply says that this right should not be given to everyone. It does not say, anywhere that the right should be given to anyone, just that it should not be given to everyone The discussion then moved on to the template document.
Adhamhnon Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:45:00 - [9] I think this again demonstrates the need for a neutral arbitrator with no vote. Clearly there is a point of view issue here, and neither side is being objective on the issue. This is what I believe in the end will make the CSM useless. Some good things were done in that meeting, but it has already started to degenerate. Personalities will always clash, as will ideas and what some people think is right and wrong. A neutral arbitrator with a clearly defined set of rules and practices can help keep the process working, instead of degenerating into a free for all. --------------------------------- KSUDruid stole my coffee table. :(
Hardin Praetoria Technologies	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:56:00 - [10] I choose Verone... Maybe SirMolle ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Dex Nederland Lai Dai Infinity Systems	Posted - 2008.06.09 18:17:00 - [11] Edited by: Dex Nederland on 09/06/2008 18:17:30 Chribba might also be a good choice. Founder Heiian Society
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2008.06.09 18:31:00 - [12] Isn't there some sort of Scandinavian word for this kind of role? Ombudsman? Is that what this arbitrator would be? -------------------
Adhamhnon Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.06.09 19:17:00 - [13] Originally by: Jacque Custeau Isn't there some sort of Scandinavian word for this kind of role? Ombudsman? Is that what this arbitrator would be? An ombudsman is more of a supervisory position that would check onthings for the public interest. (like a legislative investigator.) What I'm thinking of is someone who would attaempt to keep the peace in a CSM meeting using something like "Robert's Rules of Order" or something similar, so that issues could be discussed and voted on without bogging down forever, and things could be accomplished. It also has the advantage of helping meetings not become overlong, etc. --------------------------------- KSUDruid stole my coffee table. :(
Joe Starbreaker	Posted - 2008.06.09 19:50:00 - [14] Arbitrators are cool but you might need something with more firepower here. Perhaps an Abaddon. ------------------------------------------------
Jita Jolene	Posted - 2008.06.09 21:29:00 - [15] All that needs to happen here is for the CSM who do not have the floor to SHUT UP, until the Chair gives them the floor. That is the essence of their job. If the Chair fails to fairly grant the floor, ask CCP to replace them. Looking at the logs, it is obvious half of the group have no clue how to behave in a text meeting. The next meeting should have Jade directly giving the floor to an individual, priority based on the item list sponsor as a primary speaker and secondarily to impromptu requests for the floor. In all cases the only interruption is a ! in the chat. Abuse and repeated interjection would be the only justification for muting. In the case of this meeting, it was chaos from the start due to people feeling anarchy was the mode and nobody was their boss. Somebody is different, and that is the chairman. They sort the traffic. Word to the chairman: Never paraphrase the content of a vote. Cut and paste verbatim. Word to the committee: Shush till you have the floor!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 21:36:00 - [16] Originally by: Jita Jolene Word to the chairman: Never paraphrase the content of a vote. Cut and paste verbatim. Word to the committee: Shush till you have the floor! This, and everything will be fine.
Adonis 4174	Posted - 2008.06.09 22:10:00 - [17] Yes. To properly fulfil their roles CSM members must be emotionally invested in their motions. To properly maintain order a speaker must be emotionally detatched. CSM members can't act as speaker as well as debating motions. ---- Infiniband can do more than just prevent lag
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.09 22:12:00 - [18] Originally by: Jita Jolene All that needs to happen here is for the CSM who do not have the floor to SHUT UP, until the Chair gives them the floor. That is the essence of their job. If the Chair fails to fairly grant the floor, ask CCP to replace them. Looking at the logs, it is obvious half of the group have no clue how to behave in a text meeting. The next meeting should have Jade directly giving the floor to an individual, priority based on the item list sponsor as a primary speaker and secondarily to impromptu requests for the floor. In all cases the only interruption is a ! in the chat. Abuse and repeated interjection would be the only justification for muting. In the case of this meeting, it was chaos from the start due to people feeling anarchy was the mode and nobody was their boss. Somebody is different, and that is the chairman. They sort the traffic. Word to the chairman: Never paraphrase the content of a vote. Cut and paste verbatim. Word to the committee: Shush till you have the floor! Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll try my best to make sure this happens. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.10 00:08:00 - [19] Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 10/06/2008 00:08:26 [wrong thread] The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.10 01:04:00 - [20] Originally by: The Cosmopolite The motion failed, thus the status quo remained as it was before. This implicitly confirms the officers as having operator rights. You vote simple yes/no. You do not have the power to vote towards an idea. The vote was whether or not everyone had power. The vote was no. There was no "implicit confirmation of operator rights". There was no "implicit confirmation of the right of the Chairman to mute". Pull your nose out of Jades ass and examine the facts of the situation. Jade was abusing his power. Jade got called on it. Jade muted and then kicked the person calling him on it.
Kis Kecheri School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.10 20:58:00 - [21] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: The Cosmopolite The motion failed, thus the status quo remained as it was before. This implicitly confirms the officers as having operator rights. You vote simple yes/no. You do not have the power to vote towards an idea. The vote was whether or not everyone had power. The vote was no. There was no "implicit confirmation of operator rights". There was no "implicit confirmation of the right of the Chairman to mute". Pull your nose out of Jades ass and examine the facts of the situation. Jade was abusing his power. Jade got called on it. Jade muted and then kicked the person calling him on it. No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification. Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.10 21:05:00 - [22] Originally by: Kis Kecheri No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification. Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough. I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened?
Jamie Hara	Posted - 2008.06.10 21:06:00 - [23] I agree with Adhamhnon. The CSM could use a guiding hand.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.10 21:13:00 - [24] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kis Kecheri No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification. Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough. I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened? He underlined it in the post you quoted.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.10 21:28:00 - [25] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kis Kecheri No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification. Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough. I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened? He underlined it in the post you quoted. No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.10 21:33:00 - [26] Originally by: Goumindong No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna. Making a statement that contradicts the truth is, in some quarters, referred to as "lying".
Kis Kecheri School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.10 21:38:00 - [27] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kis Kecheri No he did not. The logs show the system auto-kicked him. Jade tried to unmute on the 2nd system notification. Please stop lying Goum. Your reputation is already terrible enough. I am sorry, i missed that, would you please show me where this happened? He underlined it in the post you quoted. No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna. Show me were in the logs that Jade muted then kicked Inanna? It doesn't. In fact the logs show that she wasn't on the blocked list and rejoined after an invite. Inanna said she didn't leave on purpose so the only reasonable conclusion was the system auto-kicked her during the mute period. You said Jade kicked Inanna on purpose. The logs refute that. Thus, you were lying.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.10 21:45:00 - [28] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Goumindong No, he underlined a statement of mine. I don't know about you, but I do not consider my statements to be Logs of the CSM meeting. Let alone "the" logs that show that the system auto-kicked Inanna. Making a statement that contradicts the truth is, in some quarters, referred to as "lying". Only if its intentional. Such I am asking him to substantiate his claim, if its true, and the logs do indeed show that Inanna was accidentally kicked from the channel and Jade attempted to unmute her, then I am wrong and will retract my statement. There is a very simple resolution here, and i suggest you take it.
Kis Kecheri School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.06.10 22:05:00 - [29] Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry the logs show no such thing, nor would they necessarily show all kicks(especially if the kick was performed by removing someone from the invited lis)t. Nor do channels work the way you state in eve. You are invited and can join at any time if you are on the list. When you are invited you are added to the list. That Inanna was only able to rejoin once she was invited again is evidence that she was removed from said list. This is the way non-public channels in eve work. Said evidence directly contradicts your claims which is that the logs show that it was an accident. You made that claim, and i would love to see what substantiated it. Wrong. You made the original posit. Jade kicked Inanna. The logs, not just the system msg, but the other members declaring that she wasn't on the blocked list, show that this was not the case. Thus you have no evidence other then conjecture to make such a statement. You can't make a baseless posit then try to dismiss a counter-argument on the fact that points out the negative. Really, this is logical argument 101. You are trying to 'win' this by making the challenger to your posit prove a negative. The logs, all of it, show that your original statement has no support. [ 2008.06.08 21:45:45 ]Jade Constantine >she quit the channel apparently [ 2008.06.08 21:46:14 ]Jade Constantine >she isn't blocked from rejoining [ 2008.06.08 21:46:50 ]Ankhesentapemkah >she's locked out of the channel though [ 2008.06.08 21:47:27 ]Dierdra Vaal >she isnt on the blocked list
The MapMaker	Posted - 2008.06.10 22:15:00 - [30] It has been previously stated the kick was likely a side-effect of Eve's unwieldy chat system; to remove someone from the muted list also removes them from the conversation, or something. Regardless, the issue here is Jade muting a CSM member after being called out for childishly putting spin on the outcome of a vote that did not go his way- whether or not said objector was later kicked is irrelevant to the meat of the issue.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.