EVE Search - CSM Formal Meeting 5. Sunday 15th June. 18:00 hours Eve Time

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

CSM Formal Meeting 5. Sunday 15th June. 18:00 hours Eve Time

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 01:06:00 - [1] 5th CSM Meeting: 15th of June 18:00 Eve Time Initial Agenda Items: 1. ALL discussions of the CSM to be ruled as "public record". This will include the private CSM mailing list. DARIUS 2. "It will be prohibited to bring the interpretation of the CSM document into discussion or vote, all questions regarding the interpretation will be sent to CCP." Ankhesentapemkah * 1.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 2.Buff Large Autocannons (especially Dual 650mms and 800mms) Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785820 3.Abolish Learning Skills Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779267 4.Completion of unfinished Story Arcs: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789648 Promotion of Roleplay Interests in EVE: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791735 5. Increase the number of corporation standing slots: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789692 Corps should automatically obtain alliance standings: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791955 6. Nighthawk Needs a powergrid Increase** (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777872 IÆd like all CSM representatives/alternatives that will be able to attend on Sunday to inform themselves about the council/public issues that weÆll be discussing in advance of the meeting. Please read the threads, check out the drafts and review the previous meeting minutes/chatlog so we donÆt waste any time allotted to us. If any CSM representative wishes items added to the agenda for Sunday please reply to this thread before 14:00 hours on Friday afternoon with a brief overview of the issue + link to the assembly hall thread. Make sure that the issue you are advocating will have been open to public debate for 7 days by the time of the meeting on Sunday. Since this is the last possible opportunity for ISSUEs to be raised in time for the Iceland trip all agenda items discussing issues must be coupled with COMPLETED submission template documents that must be available for inspection at the time of this meeting. Technically we are missing the deadline for the ISSUES discussed in this meeting, but we'll be sending them off anyway in a separate batch and asking that they be made available for discussion in Iceland if we have time following the main items submitted on thursday. *Note, order of the agenda will be tweaked if necessary to ensure that all CSM reps get their issues heard within the scope of the meeting. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
RDevz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 06:28:00 - [2] Edited by: RDevz on 11/06/2008 06:29:31 Oh, where to put my face. Sunday is not a working day.
Inanna Zuni The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:41:00 - [3] Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 11/06/2008 22:42:03 Originally by: Jade Constantine 1. ALL discussions of the CSM to be ruled as "public record". This will include the private CSM mailing list. DARIUS From the email discussions there is clearly a difference of opinion between different Council members over whether the CSM mailing list has ever been 'private'. Might I suggest a more neutral term to use for this discussion therefore would be "This will include the closed-circulation CSM mailing list." IZ Related Information: Following the start of raising of this topic by Darius I stated: I am completely happy with this, including all retrospective emails. In part, because I had presumed that this use of eve-csm.com was to be a very temporary measure whilst CCP played catch-up and that we would then either use CCP-provided forum space locked to our use or an email list providing a similar service where CCP would receive copies of all mails anyway. I was elected as a member of the Council; as such all my activities as that elected member are subject to public (voter / pilot) scrutiny, and these emails are no different in that respect. with which a number of other Council Members have associated themselves whilst others have not commented. This provides part of the background on this topic My principles
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:43:00 - [4] Re item 1, Darius' motion - I'm not convinced this is a good idea. In my experience, most committees function far more smoothly when there are informal channels to use in advance of the meeting. You won't hammer out contentious stuff there, but to make sure all the stuff everyone agrees on goes smoothly, a private list that doesn't get seen by anyone else is invaluable, if only because you don't need to worry about keeping up false pretenses. Similarly, your private conversations should be sealed, even when they're about CSM business. I know Darius is our resident anarchist, and I know he'll disagree with me on this, but there's nothing wrong with the occasional back room. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:50:00 - [5] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 23:52:02 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Re item 1, Darius' motion - I'm not convinced this is a good idea. In my experience, most committees function far more smoothly when there are informal channels to use in advance of the meeting. You won't hammer out contentious stuff there, but to make sure all the stuff everyone agrees on goes smoothly, a private list that doesn't get seen by anyone else is invaluable, if only because you don't need to worry about keeping up false pretenses. Similarly, your private conversations should be sealed, even when they're about CSM business. I know Darius is our resident anarchist, and I know he'll disagree with me on this, but there's nothing wrong with the occasional back room. Yeah for the record I think its a terrible idea too and will be opposing it. And if the measure passes I won't be using the csm list for future communications. But we're not talking proposals for "the good of the csm" here Herschel, we're talking personal power plays and strategies for personal gain and more time wasted on admin wrangling and ego wars between people that dislike each other rather than actually talking about the issues on the agenda. Cynical perhaps but there you are. End of the day though he asked for the administrative Issue and it had to go on since it doesn't contradict the founding documentation. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.11 23:55:00 - [6] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 23:52:02 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Re item 1, Darius' motion - I'm not convinced this is a good idea. In my experience, most committees function far more smoothly when there are informal channels to use in advance of the meeting. You won't hammer out contentious stuff there, but to make sure all the stuff everyone agrees on goes smoothly, a private list that doesn't get seen by anyone else is invaluable, if only because you don't need to worry about keeping up false pretenses. Similarly, your private conversations should be sealed, even when they're about CSM business. I know Darius is our resident anarchist, and I know he'll disagree with me on this, but there's nothing wrong with the occasional back room. Yeah for the record I think its a terrible idea too and will be opposing it. And if the measure passes I won't be using the csm list for future communications. But we're not talking proposals for "the good of the csm" here Herschel, we're talking personal power plays and strategies for personal gain and more time wasted on admin wrangling and ego wars between people that dislike each other rather than actually talking about the issues on the agenda. Cynical perhaps but there you are. End of the day though he asked for the administrative Issue and it had to go on since it doesn't contradict the founding documentation. So you want your Transparent Player council to be Translucent or Opaque. You are here to serve us and serve us you shall. I dont understand for one moment why you need to have private communications for a player council that is supposed to be submitting player issues to CCP for them to review.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:01:00 - [7] Originally by: Jade Constantine Yeah for the record I think its a terrible idea too and will be opposing it. And if the measure passes I won't be using the csm list for future communications. But we're not talking proposals for "the good of the csm" here Herschel, we're talking personal power plays and strategies for personal gain and more time wasted on admin wrangling and ego wars between people that dislike each other rather than actually talking about the issues on the agenda. Cynical perhaps but there you are. End of the day though he asked for the administrative Issue and it had to go on since it doesn't contradict the founding documentation. A simple "I disagree with it too" would have sufficed, you didn't need to go into how he raped your dog and killed your mother. Has it occurred to you that he may actually believe what he's saying? ------------------ Fix the forums!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:02:00 - [8] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/06/2008 00:03:07 Originally by: Jade Constantine Yeah for the record I think its a terrible idea too and will be opposing it. And if the measure passes I won't be using the csm list for future communications. But we're not talking proposals for "the good of the csm" here Herschel, we're talking personal power plays and strategies for personal gain and more time wasted on admin wrangling and ego wars between people that dislike each other rather than actually talking about the issues on the agenda. Cynical perhaps but there you are. End of the day though he asked for the administrative Issue and it had to go on since it doesn't contradict the founding documentation. What do I have to gain from our own words being published? What does that have to do with politics? You're an absolute loon. Even if only because you truly believe anyone buys into your bull****. :edit: I can't help it if you're embarassed by your own conversations. Perhaps you should choose your words more wisely and not act like a baby when speaking with people.
Demarcus Killjoy.	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:03:00 - [9] Originally by: Jade Constantine Since this is the last possible opportunity for ISSUEs to be raised in time for the Iceland trip all agenda items discussing issues must be coupled with COMPLETED submission template documents that must be available for inspection at the time of this meeting. You know there is this funky new thing the kids are using called the interweb, wtf does a trip to Iceland have to do with anything? ------------------------------------- You are all worthless, and weak.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:05:00 - [10] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Has it occurred to you that he may actually believe what he's saying? Honestly, no. I have to work with the guy. I don't have to trust or like him. I am deeply suspicious of this measure and the reasons for its promotion. But hey, its my responsibility to put it on the agenda and I've done so. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:09:00 - [11] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/06/2008 00:10:12 Originally by: Jade Constantine Honestly, no. I have to work with the guy. I don't have to trust or like him. I am deeply suspicious of this measure and the reasons for its promotion. But hey, its my responsibility to put it on the agenda and I've done so. Let me fill you in there cream puff... We're a public council. Our official communications are public record. Again... How does that help me politically? :edit: Here's a hint. It doesn't. I don't need any votes.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:13:00 - [12] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Has it occurred to you that he may actually believe what he's saying? Honestly, no. I have to work with the guy. I don't have to trust or like him. I am deeply suspicious of this measure and the reasons for its promotion. But hey, its my responsibility to put it on the agenda and I've done so. Well no one trust or likes you, and you are a loon. That doesn't change that fact you power play all the time and the fact that the council should be able to vote on its governing not be like ohh Eris Discordia [CCP] who was one of those La Maison people (Lianhaun). Help me my ability to be god emperor is in jeopardy. Eris Discordia you are my only hope. Also learn how to not have every thing you say seem like: WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT I honestly believe this is a real issue. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:14:00 - [13] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Let me fill you in there cream puff... We're a public council. Our official communications are public record. Again... How does that help me politically? You think up your own silly schemes. I could ask you how having the sole channel of private communication we still have, opened to public comment and politicized debate and trolling, might help the process of the CSM function. But then maybe you don't want us to be able to talk without putting on the boxing gloves and adopting the combative stances of the factions we've devolved into? Who knows. Any which way I think its a bad issue and will be voting against. We'll see what happens. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:16:00 - [14] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/06/2008 00:16:16 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Let me fill you in there cream puff... We're a public council. Our official communications are public record. Again... How does that help me politically? You think up your own silly schemes. I could ask you how having the sole channel of private communication we still have, opened to public comment and politicized debate and trolling, might help the process of the CSM function. But then maybe you don't want us to be able to talk without putting on the boxing gloves and adopting the combative stances of the factions we've devolved into? Who knows. Any which way I think its a bad issue and will be voting against. We'll see what happens. My bet is on you losing, throwing a tantrum, muting any dissent then declaring the vote null after the fact. This is purely based on past experience.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:17:00 - [15] I'd be voting to get you to time meeting when the only representatives in the US could attend and not be a giant sack of meat that is out to get them. Your 39 its not like you have a bed time any more. 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 - 2008.06.12 00:35:00 - [16] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Has it occurred to you that he may actually believe what he's saying? Honestly, no. I have to work with the guy. I don't have to trust or like him. I am deeply suspicious of this measure and the reasons for its promotion. But hey, its my responsibility to put it on the agenda and I've done so. That's odd, because this is a guy who could pretty easily have put himself in your seat if he wanted to promote his own interests. Even if you don't agree that you've been misusing the powers of the Chair, I'm sure you'd agree that the powers you claim could be misused by someone with as horrible of intentions as you seem to suggest that Darius has. Everything he's said and done thus far that I've seen is consistent with him legitimately believing that you're all equals and the only rightful task of the Chair is calling votes, and that everything should be as public as humanly possible. I use "anarchist" as a one-liner to describe him - it's not really accurate, but "radical populaist" doesn't have the same ring to it. It's not a viewpoint I stand behind, but I'll defend him against what I perceive to be unfair criticism, just like I'll defend you from the same. It's not because I see eye to eye with either of you, it's because I prefer to stand up for truth and fairness as best I can, and said truth is rather more fair to both of you than each other would like to admit. I'd make a terrible partisan politician because of it - I'm way to quick to turn on my own side in public - but it's the right thing to do if you're going to get involved in debates like this in the first place. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:12:00 - [17] I believe most documents in the house of lords and house of commons are public. Surpisingly enough their private correspondences, phone calls, messages and meetings are not. Further, almost all committee's have un-minuted business to discuss issues frankly and bluntly. Otherwise we get all sorts of crap being thrown about in public. Jade, might be good to just state the Agenda and step back. Seriously consider taking the alloted meeting time, divide it between the issues over 90% and set 10% as AOB. If an issue fails to make it to a vote in its time limit then it gets canned to AOB. If it fails there then it gets canned to the next meeting.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:24:00 - [18] Originally by: Sapphrine I believe most documents in the house of lords and house of commons are public. Surpisingly enough their private correspondences, phone calls, messages and meetings are not. Further, almost all committee's have un-minuted business to discuss issues frankly and bluntly. Otherwise we get all sorts of crap being thrown about in public. Jade, might be good to just state the Agenda and step back. Seriously consider taking the alloted meeting time, divide it between the issues over 90% and set 10% as AOB. If an issue fails to make it to a vote in its time limit then it gets canned to AOB. If it fails there then it gets canned to the next meeting. Yeah moving administrative stuff to the end does actually sound like a damn good idea - I think I'll do it CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:26:00 - [19] Originally by: Sapphrine I believe most documents in the house of lords and house of commons are public. Surpisingly enough their private correspondences, phone calls, messages and meetings are not. Further, almost all committee's have un-minuted business to discuss issues frankly and bluntly. Otherwise we get all sorts of crap being thrown about in public. This isn't the House of Lords but either way I'm willing to bet they held an actual vote or something to decide that. I'm unfamiliar with that political system but here in America we agree on and publish our rules prior to stating their existence.
Jade Constantine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:29:00 - [20] Originally by: Inanna Zuni From the email discussions there is clearly a difference of opinion between different Council members over whether the CSM mailing list has ever been 'private'. Might I suggest a more neutral term to use for this discussion therefore would be "[i]This will include the closed-circulation CSM mailing list. Nope disagree on this. On reviewing Serenity's statement on the issue (list) I'm happy with the wording. It was intended to be a private mailing list and specifically stated as such - while this motion is to publicize its content. Motion stands as stated. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:40:00 - [21] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON This isn't the House of Lords but either way I'm willing to bet they held an actual vote or something to decide that. I'm unfamiliar with that political system but here in America we agree on and publish our rules prior to stating their existence. i'll try again. Pretty much all political structures have back channels of communication not open to the public. Belief that you can define all council business as public is just naieve. Ever tried getting minutes of republican whips meetings with senators when they're trying to encourage them to vote? :)
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:41:00 - [22] Originally by: Jade Constantine Yeah moving administrative stuff to the end does actually sound like a damn good idea - I think I'll do it now step away from the agenda :P
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:41:00 - [23] Originally by: Sapphrine i'll try again. Pretty much all political structures have back channels of communication not open to the public. Belief that you can define all council business as public is just naieve. Ever tried getting minutes of republican whips meetings with senators when they're trying to encourage them to vote? :) I'm naive then. I thought this was a videogame space council not the UN.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:48:00 - [24] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm naive then. I thought this was a videogame space council not the UN. It's a committee trying to get work done. The pitfalls for such groups are pretty universal, as are the ways of getting around them - it doesn't matter if you're the House of Commons or the Greater Tuktoyaktuk Rotary Club, you want to have a back channel you can use to smooth things over without getting into ****ing matches or meeting formalities. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:51:00 - [25] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto It's a committee trying to get work done. The pitfalls for such groups are pretty universal, as are the ways of getting around them - it doesn't matter if you're the House of Commons or the Greater Tuktoyaktuk Rotary Club, you want to have a back channel you can use to smooth things over without getting into ****ing matches or meeting formalities. I don't personally have any need for secret meetings. If I did I'd say HEY MISTER THIS IS A SECRET MEETING and you could decide whether it remained so. If you spilled the beans then I'd know never to tell you another secret. v0v
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:52:00 - [26] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto It's a committee trying to get work done. The pitfalls for such groups are pretty universal, as are the ways of getting around them - it doesn't matter if you're the House of Commons or the Greater Tuktoyaktuk Rotary Club, you want to have a back channel you can use to smooth things over without getting into ****ing matches or meeting formalities. I don't personally have any need for secret meetings. If I did I'd say HEY MISTER THIS IS A SECRET MEETING and you could decide whether it remained so. If you spilled the beans then I'd know never to tell you another secret. v0v Yup, that's about how it works. Hence my comment about the 8-man mailing list. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:54:00 - [27] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm naive then. I thought this was a videogame space council not the UN. Yet constantly argue it should mirror real world systems? surely not. If its not really meant to be taken seriously why bother doing it? Near enough any committee / executive board has off the record channels of communication with each other, its one of the ways to thrash out differences before meetings informally so that things don't get so heated under time pressure in the meetings. It helps alot with committee cohesion. What reason is there to see every single word a committee says during informal discussion? Their decisions can only be voted on during meetings and they are minuted. As long as any issue debated is outlined clearly in the meeting then debates where opinions collide noticeably will be recorded and stuff will actually get done.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:56:00 - [28] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Yup, that's about how it works. Hence my comment about the 8-man mailing list. Mailing lists by nature have multiple members and aren't assumed to be private FYI. At least not where I come from. Perhaps there's a cultural difference here.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:58:00 - [29] Originally by: Sapphrine Yet constantly argue it should mirror real world systems? surely not. If its not really meant to be taken seriously why bother doing it? Near enough any committee / executive board has off the record channels of communication with each other, its one of the ways to thrash out differences before meetings informally so that things don't get so heated under time pressure in the meetings. It helps alot with committee cohesion. What reason is there to see every single word a committee says during informal discussion? Their decisions can only be voted on during meetings and they are minuted. As long as any issue debated is outlined clearly in the meeting then debates where opinions collide noticeably will be recorded and stuff will actually get done. Where did I say it's not meant to be taken seriously? My statement which you've misconstrued was meant to say that real world rules need not apply here. If they did they'd have been documented. That's how I do things in the real world. I document them to let everyone know what they are. What reason is there not to see what THE ENTIRE COUNCIL discusses? I'm not talking about private personal emails. I'm talking about communications sent to everyone. We may end up having to agree to disagree because I really don't have a problem with everything I write as a representative of the council being posted anywhere on the internet... My actions are public actions.
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:23:00 - [30] its to do with ease and convenience for councillors darius. Councillor A has some suggestions and wants peoples feedback, he mails council mailing list for a chat. Alternatively, he mails each one individually... whats the difference?

Kallynda Nai	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:26:00 - [31] Originally by: Sapphrine its to do with ease and convenience for councillors darius. Councillor A has some suggestions and wants peoples feedback, he mails council mailing list for a chat. Alternatively, he mails each one individually... whats the difference? Why would this exchange need to be kept private?
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:27:00 - [32] Originally by: Kallynda Nai Originally by: Sapphrine its to do with ease and convenience for councillors darius. Councillor A has some suggestions and wants peoples feedback, he mails council mailing list for a chat. Alternatively, he mails each one individually... whats the difference? Why would this exchange need to be kept private? because we only have so many csm meetings and because people need to discuss things before meetings if they're going to get anything done.
Anton Marvik AnTi. Atrocitas	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:28:00 - [33] Edited by: Anton Marvik on 12/06/2008 02:28:26 Originally by: Jade Constantine Who knows, perhaps knowing that we are open to full scrutiny might even help us all better focus on the task at hand. I agree, Jade, I agree.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:28:00 - [34] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 12/06/2008 02:32:03 Originally by: Sapphrine its to do with ease and convenience for councillors darius. Councillor A has some suggestions and wants peoples feedback, he mails council mailing list for a chat. Alternatively, he mails each one individually... whats the difference? The difference is that the first one works way better, and that only the second would be private if Darius' motion passes. Edit: Misread quoted post.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:28:00 - [35] Originally by: Sapphrine its to do with ease and convenience for councillors darius. Councillor A has some suggestions and wants peoples feedback, he mails council mailing list for a chat. Alternatively, he mails each one individually... whats the difference? In one he emailed a list and in one he emailed each councilor individually... the size of the "to" field would be one notable difference. As I've said where I come from lists are treated differently. If the councilors don't want me discussing what they say on the list then they're free to remove me from their conversations they wish to remain private and use the list for announcements necessary for the CSM. As I've said to them and here I had no reason to believe this was some super secret list and I'd made them all aware of that. If you do not wish me to talk about a conversation then either tell me so or don't have it. I've never been anything other than honest.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:30:00 - [36] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 12/06/2008 02:30:09 Dammit, I have to quit hitting "Quote" instead of "Edit"... Originally by: Kallynda Nai Originally by: Sapphrine its to do with ease and convenience for councillors darius. Councillor A has some suggestions and wants peoples feedback, he mails council mailing list for a chat. Alternatively, he mails each one individually... whats the difference? Why would this exchange need to be kept private? Maybe they don't want to risk looking like an idiot publicly? Maybe they want to duck controversy by doing a straw poll on an issue and then backing down? Maybe they're proposing something that their corpmates will hate?
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:30:00 - [37] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The difference is that the first one works way better, and that only the second would be allowed if Darius' motion pases. Both would be allowed if the motion passes. The list would be public. If people want to have a private conversation nothing's stopping anyone from doing so. I don't control the internet.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:31:00 - [38] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Maybe they don't want to risk looking like an idiot publicly? Maybe they want to duck controversy by doing a straw poll on an issue and then backing down? Maybe they're proposing something that their corpmates will hate? If you don't want to get caught with mud on your hands don't play in wet dirt.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:32:00 - [39] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 12/06/2008 02:33:36 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The difference is that the first one works way better, and that only the second would be allowed if Darius' motion pases. Both would be allowed if the motion passes. The list would be public. If people want to have a private conversation nothing's stopping anyone from doing so. I don't control the internet. True, I thought the word "private" was in the post I quoted. My bad - it's fixed above. Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Maybe they don't want to risk looking like an idiot publicly? Maybe they want to duck controversy by doing a straw poll on an issue and then backing down? Maybe they're proposing something that their corpmates will hate? If you don't want to get caught with mud on your hands don't play in wet dirt. I don't want people feeling forced to not do the right thing because it might damage their public persona. There's no way to arrange face-saving if everything is public, at a minimum.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:48:00 - [40] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I don't want people feeling forced to not do the right thing because it might damage their public persona. There's no way to arrange face-saving if everything is public, at a minimum. Do the right thing and be proud of it. I'm sorry but I honestly don't see how "doing the right thing" and "public" are mutually exclusive. At the end of the day your vote's going to be public anyway. You ARE accountable to the public. I don't get why anyone should try to hide anything unless they've deliberately mislead people. You may not agree but that's my opinion.

Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:49:00 - [41] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON As I've said to them and here I had no reason to believe this was some super secret list and I'd made them all aware of that. If you do not wish me to talk about a conversation then either tell me so or don't have it. I've never been anything other than honest. I have to ask, when you signed up to that mailing list, did your read the EULA because if it specified privacy like most lists then you're in breach... I'm not on the committee darius but where you come from (America i believe) Mailing lists are either open or closed, the same as everywhere else in the world. If you're not willing to keep a private mailing list private, you should remove yourself, not wait to be removed.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:56:00 - [42] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/06/2008 02:56:30 Originally by: Sapphrine I have to ask, when you signed up to that mailing list, did your read the EULA because if it specified privacy like most lists then you're in breach... I'm not on the committee darius but where you come from (America i believe) Mailing lists are either open or closed, the same as everywhere else in the world. If you're not willing to keep a private mailing list private, you should remove yourself, not wait to be removed. The EULA, which I'll admit I didn't read until yesterday, forbids the reposting of emails. An act which has not been done. I HAVE talked about some of the discussions the council has had on that mailing list, an act not forbidden by anything. Nobody and no EULA can forbid me from discussing my experiences. If I relay entire conversations that's one thing. Me saying LOL JADE IS RENAMING ALL THE SUBJECT LINES LIKE THAT PROVES SOME POINT WHAT A TOOL! Violates nothing. Where I come from nothing is private unless explicitly stated as such in a clear and concise manner. I'll also note that I did not ever request to be a member of any mailing lists. If the admin wants to remove me, then he can remove me. Something I've also said to the admin and the entire council.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 02:57:00 - [43] Originally by: Sapphrine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON As I've said to them and here I had no reason to believe this was some super secret list and I'd made them all aware of that. If you do not wish me to talk about a conversation then either tell me so or don't have it. I've never been anything other than honest. I have to ask, when you signed up to that mailing list, did your read the EULA because if it specified privacy like most lists then you're in breach... I'm not on the committee darius but where you come from (America i believe) Mailing lists are either open or closed, the same as everywhere else in the world. If you're not willing to keep a private mailing list private, you should remove yourself, not wait to be removed. Darius had personal permission to post the private communications that he posted. This trumps any such privacy agreement. Why is this true? Well because Darius only shared HIS communications. Which he has the express right to do.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:01:00 - [44] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I don't want people feeling forced to not do the right thing because it might damage their public persona. There's no way to arrange face-saving if everything is public, at a minimum. Do the right thing and be proud of it. I'm sorry but I honestly don't see how "doing the right thing" and "public" are mutually exclusive. At the end of the day your vote's going to be public anyway. You ARE accountable to the public. I don't get why anyone should try to hide anything unless they've deliberately mislead people. You may not agree but that's my opinion. Some people are a lot less devil-may-care than you. Face-saving compromise is necessary to a lot of people on occasion, and I'd rather not cut it off at the knees just because it's something you don't intend to make use of. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:04:00 - [45] and i never stated that he'd reposted anything anywhere though it is interesting that he did and that he hadn't read the EULA. Suffice to say, a method where members of CSM members can debate issues informally in private is useful. Arguing that you don't want to therefore everyone elses discussions should be public isn't really an argument. Remember, this has to work past just this iteration of the committe.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:05:00 - [46] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Some people are a lot less devil-may-care than you. Face-saving compromise is necessary to a lot of people on occasion, and I'd rather not cut it off at the knees just because it's something you don't intend to make use of. Then let people have private conversations. I'm not stopping them. Leave me out of it.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:06:00 - [47] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 12/06/2008 03:06:54 Originally by: Sapphrine and i never stated that he'd reposted anything anywhere though it is interesting that he did and that he hadn't read the EULA. Suffice to say, a method where members of CSM members can debate issues informally in private is useful. Arguing that you don't want to therefore everyone elses discussions should be public isn't really an argument. Remember, this has to work past just this iteration of the committe. I'm sorry but I can't be any clearer than saying "IF YOU WANT SOMETHING TO BE PRIVATE TELL ME SO OR DON'T SEND IT TO ME". I didn't ask to be added to any mailing lists or receive any emails. Also... I posted my own emails. So what? They're mine. It's my right to decide they're not private. Nobody else has that right.
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:08:00 - [48] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Some people are a lot less devil-may-care than you. Face-saving compromise is necessary to a lot of people on occasion, and I'd rather not cut it off at the knees just because it's something you don't intend to make use of. Then let people have private conversations. I'm not stopping them. Leave me out of it. and Originally by: Darius JOHNSON 1. ALL discussions of the CSM to be ruled as "public record". This will include the private CSM mailing list. DARIUS I think you can save a lot of time now then darius and just drop that agenda item as you've just conceded that even you think that people should be able to have their own private conversations. I'd also suggest that at this point you should probably leave that mailing list as its clear you don't support its purpose. Or you could wait to be removed but I don't see what that would achieve tbh.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:10:00 - [49] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Some people are a lot less devil-may-care than you. Face-saving compromise is necessary to a lot of people on occasion, and I'd rather not cut it off at the knees just because it's something you don't intend to make use of. Then let people have private conversations. I'm not stopping them. Leave me out of it. Like I said, that's exactly what I expect will happen if full disclosure of everything you see is how you want to do things. I can hardly make you stop, I can just suggest that you're being counterproductive and trying to tie the CSM's hands, present and future, into a poor way of doing business. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Jane Spondogolo NoobWaffe	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:14:00 - [50] Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 12/06/2008 03:15:20 Originally by: Sapphrine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON As I've said to them and here I had no reason to believe this was some super secret list and I'd made them all aware of that. If you do not wish me to talk about a conversation then either tell me so or don't have it. I've never been anything other than honest. I have to ask, when you signed up to that mailing list, did your read the EULA because if it specified privacy like most lists then you're in breach... I'm not on the committee darius but where you come from (America i believe) Mailing lists are either open or closed, the same as everywhere else in the world. If you're not willing to keep a private mailing list private, you should remove yourself, not wait to be removed. Most legal opinion on the subject holds a full disclosure right to recipients of emails. In many (most? Its possibly different in the US which has some very strange copyright laws) cases the laws transfer full reproduction rights to recipients. Regardless fair use means your always allowed to reproduce a mail. You know those attachments on mail that says "You may not reproduce this email blah blah" ? There isn't a court in the world that holds those things valid. They are the equivalent of the shop sign that says "No refunds", totally invalid. edit: Exception to above. Generally if the inbox is owned by your employer, the mail becomes property of the company, as you recieved it in the role of a servant of the entity. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.

Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:15:00 - [51] Originally by: Sapphrine I think you can save a lot of time now then darius and just drop that agenda item as you've just conceded that even you think that people should be able to have their own private conversations. I'd also suggest that at this point you should probably leave that mailing list as its clear you don't support its purpose. Or you could wait to be removed but I don't see what that would achieve tbh. To your first point the agenda item and people's private conversations are mutually exclusive. The two items are not related. As I DID state I don't control the internet. Nor do you or the CSM. Have private conversations. Do them in private places. The way the list was used council statements and rules were handed down and defined among other things. I think that should be part of the public record. Nothing I've said contradicts that. I never asked to be on the mailing list. I cannot remove myself and I didn't add myself. I already said that as well. Twice.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:17:00 - [52] Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Most legal opinion on the subject holds a full disclosure right to recipients of emails. In many (most? Its possibly different in the US which has some very strange copyright laws) cases the laws transfer full reproduction rights to recipients. Regardless fair use means your always allowed to reproduce a mail. You know those attachments on mail that says "You may not reproduce this email blah blah" ? There isn't a court in the world that holds those things valid. They are the equivalent of the shop sign that says "No refunds", totally invalid. edit: Exception to above. Generally if the inbox is owned by your employer, the mail becomes property of the company, as you recieved it in the role of a servant of the entity. I was trying to avoid the legal argument on purpose Jane as now I expect a flood of e-lawyers. What you've said is however correct.
Jane Spondogolo NoobWaffe	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:18:00 - [53] Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 12/06/2008 03:18:54 edit: Ok. Sorry darius. I'll back down on the e-lawyering. ______ Unrepentant Southern Federation Cheerleader.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:23:00 - [54] Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Edited by: Jane Spondogolo on 12/06/2008 03:18:54 edit: Ok. Sorry darius. I'll back down on the e-lawyering. Oh the main issue at hand there though, which I'm sure people will bring up, is that only two of the recipients were American. This is the MAIN reason no emails were ever published save my own. I am not familiar with their laws nor do I care to be.
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:23:00 - [55] A mailing list you can opt out of recognises that a committee has collective needs to discuss issues and provides an easy method of facilitating this. You can of course opt out as you've stated. They're hardly mutually exclusive. You just argued against your own argument conclusively. The committee needs to have tools when you're long gone. You've conceded people can, do and will have private discussions. The objective of a mailing list is to allow for more conscise and meaningful debate in actual CSM sessions. These ARE public. Your argument for making it public is that you want it that way. That is your entire argument based on the last page and a half and simply isn't a reason to do it. Meeting should likely go, Agenda item open, say your piece, someone summarises reasons against, council votes. Over in about 5mins. Or, given you've concluded its personal choice and people can opt out, it doesn't even need to be on the agenda as trying to limit peoples ability to have personal discussions, even about CSM issues, is not within your remit.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:39:00 - [56] Originally by: Sapphrine A mailing list you can opt out of recognises that a committee has collective needs to discuss issues and provides an easy method of facilitating this. You can of course opt out as you've stated. They're hardly mutually exclusive. You just argued against your own argument conclusively. The committee needs to have tools when you're long gone. You've conceded people can, do and will have private discussions. The objective of a mailing list is to allow for more conscise and meaningful debate in actual CSM sessions. These ARE public. Your argument for making it public is that you want it that way. That is your entire argument based on the last page and a half and simply isn't a reason to do it. Meeting should likely go, Agenda item open, say your piece, someone summarises reasons against, council votes. Over in about 5mins. Or, given you've concluded its personal choice and people can opt out, it doesn't even need to be on the agenda as trying to limit peoples ability to have personal discussions, even about CSM issues, is not within your remit. You can restate your version of my statements until you're blue in the face. I'll prefer to say your statements are yours and mine are mine. Don't make a different statement than I did and say it's mine. I said all group communications should be public at the very least where they involve council duties. Saying I didn't say that or saying I said something else doesn't change it. My statements are obvious because they have my name next to them. Not yours. Really I can only continue to respond to this with the same things I've already said. It appears you disagree. That's your prerogative and I respect your opinion. A circular argument I will not have. FYI, you can disagree without editorializing other people's statements.
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:42:00 - [57] I agree to disagree then. I hope the meeting is smoother this time.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.12 03:53:00 - [58] Originally by: Sapphrine I agree to disagree then. I hope the meeting is smoother this time. That makes two of us.
JafoPBCFR	Posted - 2008.06.12 11:40:00 - [59] All email unless deemed Security sensative are public. in the US Govt. I know this as I have had a few of my Emails made Public due to the Freedom Of information act. Now In Jades Char View over her Subjects. the Commitee Shouldnt allow anything Public. Perhaps the Chair should have CCP fund a KGB style unit. Darius will be taken in the middle of the nite and shot his acct canceld and A fake Post made in his name stating that he was reallyy a WOW player all along and wanted to make Elfs in EVE the whole time. Thus a Trator to EVE! All Crap aside. It seems the EVIL darius of Goons wants to make sure theres no question of His dedication to the players. And Not his Corp/Aliences. And This I applaud him for. as for Jane. Step Down your not winning support your just makeing things worse with every word you type.
Natalia Kovac Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.06.12 14:59:00 - [60] Look at Minnie capitals dammit. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779753

Jane Spondogolo NoobWaffe	Posted - 2008.06.13 09:27:00 - [61] Originally by: JafoPBCFR All email unless deemed Security sensative are public. in the US Govt. I know this as I have had a few of my Emails made Public due to the Freedom Of information act. Now In Jades Char View over her Subjects. the Commitee Shouldnt allow anything Public. Perhaps the Chair should have CCP fund a KGB style unit. Darius will be taken in the middle of the nite and shot his acct canceld and A fake Post made in his name stating that he was reallyy a WOW player all along and wanted to make Elfs in EVE the whole time. Thus a Trator to EVE! All Crap aside. It seems the EVIL darius of Goons wants to make sure theres no question of His dedication to the players. And Not his Corp/Aliences. And This I applaud him for. as for Jane. Step Down your not winning support your just makeing things worse with every word you type. Do you mean jade?
JafoPBCFR	Posted - 2008.06.13 19:49:00 - [62] Originally by: Jane Spondogolo Originally by: JafoPBCFR All email unless deemed Security sensative are public. in the US Govt. I know this as I have had a few of my Emails made Public due to the Freedom Of information act. Now In Jades Char View over her Subjects. the Commitee Shouldnt allow anything Public. Perhaps the Chair should have CCP fund a KGB style unit. Darius will be taken in the middle of the nite and shot his acct canceld and A fake Post made in his name stating that he was reallyy a WOW player all along and wanted to make Elfs in EVE the whole time. Thus a Trator to EVE! All Crap aside. It seems the EVIL darius of Goons wants to make sure theres no question of His dedication to the players. And Not his Corp/Aliences. And This I applaud him for. as for Jane. Step Down your not winning support your just makeing things worse with every word you type. Do you mean jade? Yes I did my appologies
Serenity Steele	Posted - 2008.06.13 20:05:00 - [63] Edited by: Serenity Steele on 13/06/2008 20:09:14 On the issue of whether or not email conversations should be private or public, it is understandable that people draw real-world parallels, as this is an obvious connection to make. However, as several players and fellow council members like to remind everyone, this is an internet space game and as such, lacks the equivalent communication channels that RL provides for a group of people physically located in one place. It strikes me as a little poorly thought out to assume that all communication should therefor be made public, when there is no online equivalent of meeting in the halls of government, untapped phone conversations and a walk in the park or golf. For such an equivalent online, we could arguably use voice communications instead, however there is a matter of simply being able to respect the need for other non-recorded forms of communication (via email or private forum) and with that respect not require twisting and bending to find alternative channels. Last I looked, every council member agreed unanimously for a closed private forum. While it may be scatelogically amusing to read every time FARTs into a chat log, it is not productive to providing community focus on dealing the with real issues the CSM is meant to deal with. I would far rather have 200 people posting up in arms about a suggested nerf than 2000 people posting about a petty argument over the colour CSM should have when they type in local. Not in the least part because it would not reward CSM members with fame and forum scoring points for wasting everyones time with relatively unimportant matters, but only for dealing with the key issues players face.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.13 20:44:00 - [64] Originally by: Serenity Steele Edited by: Serenity Steele on 13/06/2008 20:09:14 On the issue of whether or not email conversations should be private or public, it is understandable that people draw real-world parallels, as this is an obvious connection to make. However, as several players and fellow council members like to remind everyone, this is an internet space game and as such, lacks the equivalent communication channels that RL provides for a group of people physically located in one place. It strikes me as a little poorly thought out to assume that all communication should therefor be made public, when there is no online equivalent of meeting in the halls of government, untapped phone conversations and a walk in the park or golf. For such an equivalent online, we could arguably use voice communications instead, however there is a matter of simply being able to respect the need for other non-recorded forms of communication (via email or private forum) and with that respect not require twisting and bending to find alternative channels. Last I looked, every council member agreed unanimously for a closed private forum. While it may be scatelogically amusing to read every time FARTs into a chat log, it is not productive to providing community focus on dealing the with real issues the CSM is meant to deal with. I would far rather have 200 people posting up in arms about a suggested nerf than 2000 people posting about a petty argument over the colour CSM should have when they type in local. Not in the least part because it would not reward CSM members with fame and forum scoring points for wasting everyones time with relatively unimportant matters, but only for dealing with the key issues players face. I guess I'll have to agree to disagree. I learned a long time ago to never say anything on the internet that I wouldn't want everyone in the world to read. It's a valuable lesson. There are two schools of thought to this obviously... The first is that the council for some reason needs a line of private communications beyond their own personal mailboxes. Why would this private line of communication need to exist? So people could say things they didn't want the voters to see? For what cause? Because they're embarassed by their actions or don't want to be held accountable for them? That is an idea I simply find abhorrent. Publishing your communications isn't a means for anyone to "score political points" if you haven't said anything you wouldn't want anyone to see. I take the perspective that we are public figures and should act as such. If you can't keep from acting like a jerk in your communications with the other representatives why should the players not be able to see that? If good and hard work is going on outside of the meetings and a good dialogue is being had why should the players not be able to see that? If you have a reason for supporting or not supporting an issue and state it why should the players not be able to see that? Really the only reason I can conceive for not wanting council discussions conducted via email (The ONLY other medium used right now aside from the meetings) to be public is that you feel you have something to hide. All of the reasons I've seen to support this have involved the need for people to "be able to save face". Save face from whom? I'm sorry but this is a public council having public discussions about issues that are the public's concern. They have every right to know what is being said about issues. They have every right to know what edicts are being given. They have every right to know if the person they voted for is really supporting their issues and living up to the standards the voters applied to them when they were elected. I posit that anyone who feels they can not handle that scrutiny has something to hide. I don't think it's the business of the council to hide. We're not a shadow government.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.13 20:48:00 - [65] Originally by: Serenity Steele Edited by: Serenity Steele on 13/06/2008 20:09:14 On the issue of whether or not email conversations should be private or public, it is understandable that people draw real-world parallels, as this is an obvious connection to make. However, as several players and fellow council members like to remind everyone, this is an internet space game and as such, lacks the equivalent communication channels that RL provides for a group of people physically located in one place. It strikes me as a little poorly thought out to assume that all communication should therefor be made public, when there is no online equivalent of meeting in the halls of government, untapped phone conversations and a walk in the park or golf. For such an equivalent online, we could arguably use voice communications instead, however there is a matter of simply being able to respect the need for other non-recorded forms of communication (via email or private forum) and with that respect not require twisting and bending to find alternative channels. Last I looked, every council member agreed unanimously for a closed private forum. While it may be scatelogically amusing to read every time FARTs into a chat log, it is not productive to providing community focus on dealing the with real issues the CSM is meant to deal with. I would far rather have 200 people posting up in arms about a suggested nerf than 2000 people posting about a petty argument over the colour CSM should have when they type in local. Not in the least part because it would not reward CSM members with fame and forum scoring points for wasting everyones time with relatively unimportant matters, but only for dealing with the key issues players face. To address the last paragraph... I'm sure you would rather people are concerned with the issues. Who are we to force that on the population? Do you honestly think that by operating behind a curtain we're going to control behavior? That's not our job. I think it bears repeating that if you don't want people posting about a petty argument don't have one. I don't think it's a viable alternative to self control to have said petty argument in private and put on another face in public. You are correct that this IS NOT real world politics. By that same token this shouldn't be treated with the same broken and falsely insulating shells of secrecy.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.13 21:04:00 - [66] I can see both sides of it, and at the base level I agree with Darius about the "don't say anything you wouldn't want made public". But at the same time I think there's a danger to every conversation and exchange being more performance than substance, something that I think has been far too much a part of some of the earlier meetings. There are many situations in life where a dispute can be resolved by a private conversation between two people - but when that conversation is public record it presents an obstacle to compromise between strong personalities "on stage" as it were.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.13 21:14:00 - [67] Originally by: Kelsin I can see both sides of it, and at the base level I agree with Darius about the "don't say anything you wouldn't want made public". But at the same time I think there's a danger to every conversation and exchange being more performance than substance, something that I think has been far too much a part of some of the earlier meetings. There are many situations in life where a dispute can be resolved by a private conversation between two people - but when that conversation is public record it presents an obstacle to compromise between strong personalities "on stage" as it were. In no way am I suggesting that two people cannot have a private conversation and IN NO WAY, as I've said repeatedly but has been repeatedly misconstrued and twisted, does my motion prevent that. My aim is for ALL group communications of the council, all debates, all edicts, all suggestions and thoughts that are sent to all to be made public. If it's good enough to be communicated to the ENTIRE COUNCIL then it's good enough to be shared with the subscribers. Part of the problem here is that we're using an email list for what a forum should be used for. I'd be just as happy to have a forum which is read only to the public whereby all council communications can occur. At the end of the day I'm not hung up on "scoring political points" as some detractors are trying to suggest. I have my votes. I don't need to score points. If we hold another election tomorrow I'd be elected in a heartbeat. That entire argument is silly on its face. I believe that by keeping GROUP communications, edicts, debates and any other GROUP communications veiled in shadow we're merely perpetuating the problem the council was created to address by creating the perception of a separate elite class. This will only create the same distrust with the public that was the cause of the problem in the first place. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.13 21:55:00 - [68] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If it's good enough to be communicated to the ENTIRE COUNCIL then it's good enough to be shared with the subscribers. I'm with you on that, I meant to go on to say it just depends where you draw the line with what's public and what's private. That's a good rule of thumb.
KeratinBoy GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.13 22:20:00 - [69] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I fail to see what creating a separate hidden caste does to address Mr. Petursson's concerns, or the Eve-o community's. Damn you and your sensible ways, God damn you all to hell!
Serenity Steele	Posted - 2008.06.13 22:54:00 - [70] Edited by: Serenity Steele on 13/06/2008 22:57:26 Deleted. Darius, Let's just agree to disagree, as I don't think that this debate will ever come to an end, and submission to CCP of issues is more important to focus on right now.

Kai Wooglin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 04:52:00 - [71] Well, the debate will come to an end with the vote. That is what will decide if the council is for transparency or not.
Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.06.15 07:03:00 - [72] Darius, CSM emails should be kept confidential unless specified otherwise. If you need a reason outside of respecting your fellow CSM's wishes, let me spell it out for you: your alliance trolls every CSM issue and communication, from major to minor to minute. Get it?
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.15 08:47:00 - [73] Edited by: MotherMoon on 15/06/2008 08:49:56 Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Let me fill you in there cream puff... We're a public council. Our official communications are public record. Again... How does that help me politically? You think up your own silly schemes. I could ask you how having the sole channel of private communication we still have, opened to public comment and politicized debate and trolling, might help the process of the CSM function. But then maybe you don't want us to be able to talk without putting on the boxing gloves and adopting the combative stances of the factions we've devolved into? Who knows. Any which way I think its a bad issue and will be voting against. We'll see what happens. sorry jade I support you but what nonsense are you going on about? what does this have to do with powerplay? or votes? yes it might not be a good idea maybe even a bad idea in some people opinions. However it has nothing to do with powertrips. sorry you lose my support on this issue Jade, I don't understand how you can reply to something daris posted with was clear and to the point with flamebait. Stay to the facts don't start trying to make people hate someone or love you. also as for my stance on the subject. Quote: council discussions conducted via email If it's a CSM discussion it should be public, if it's an information chat or e-mail like meeting at 5, sure whatever. but if it's a meeting it should be public, and if not public, it should be public to the CSM memebers at least.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.15 09:04:00 - [74] Originally by: MotherMoon If it's a CSM discussion it should be public, if it's an information chat or e-mail like meeting at 5, sure whatever. but if it's a meeting it should be public, and if not public, it should be public to the CSM memebers at least. No, it's hardly discussions. So far the list has been used for publishing agenda items, submission templates, updates on agenda items like our internal calendar and things like that. Oh, and mud throwing(Hence why Darius probably wants everything to be public, so it can cause more drama). I have nothing to hide on that mailing list. But I do want people to respect my privacy. I want to be able to communicate with my fellow council members without having goons running around twisting my emails and putting words in my mouth, which will happen. It's obvious why people want the mailing list public. But I will vote against this. If the community wants CSM to run, we NEED communcation paths that can reach all council members, without threadnaughts spawning from every single email. If we don't have this ability, we will be unable to work effeciently. Thus, I'm stronly against it.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 10:46:00 - [75] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: MotherMoon If it's a CSM discussion it should be public, if it's an information chat or e-mail like meeting at 5, sure whatever. but if it's a meeting it should be public, and if not public, it should be public to the CSM memebers at least. No, it's hardly discussions. So far the list has been used for publishing agenda items, submission templates, updates on agenda items like our internal calendar and things like that. Oh, and mud throwing(Hence why Darius probably wants everything to be public, so it can cause more drama). I have nothing to hide on that mailing list. But I do want people to respect my privacy. I want to be able to communicate with my fellow council members without having goons running around twisting my emails and putting words in my mouth, which will happen. It's obvious why people want the mailing list public. But I will vote against this. If the community wants CSM to run, we NEED communcation paths that can reach all council members, without threadnaughts spawning from every single email. If we don't have this ability, we will be unable to work effeciently. Thus, I'm stronly against it. So the public doesn't get to see these agenda items and submission templates? Why? What is wrong with them? You are fundamentally wrong in your characterization of goonswarm. We will put no words into your mouth. On the contrary we will quote you directly. Had jade not been saying things like "The only mistake i've made is allowing a little too much democracy" then we wouldn't have had to keep quoting it. Did Goons threadnaught the second meeting? No, we did not? Why did we not? Because people behaved themselves and didn't run ridiculous power plays. Just go look at the thread if you want proof. The only people posting in the thread is me, who has been disappointed in the lack of discussion that issues are getting due to inaction of the council and has been disappointed the entire time since the first agenda was laid out. And Athiron who has taken issue with roughly the same thing except with the specific instance of the council allowing multiple issues be lumped into the same votes.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.15 11:00:00 - [76] Originally by: Goumindong So the public doesn't get to see these agenda items and submission templates? Why? What is wrong with them? The agenda items are here to see right on the forum. As for the submission templates, I see no reason why the public shouldn't see them.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 11:37:00 - [77] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong So the public doesn't get to see these agenda items and submission templates? Why? What is wrong with them? The agenda items are here to see right on the forum. As for the submission templates, I see no reason why the public shouldn't see them. So then what is the problem with making the communication public? If you don't talk about things that shouldn't be public anyway then why not just make it public? Its seems the only reason would be to allow yourself the opportunity to be petty and to enact power plays without the public being able to see just who is being dishonest with their vote and who is trying to screw all the others out of the votes that they cast.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.15 12:08:00 - [78] Originally by: Goumindong So then what is the problem with making the communication public? If you don't talk about things that shouldn't be public anyway then why not just make it public? No votes are casted via email. All votes are done during meetings, which are public. So your assumptions, which are extremely wrong, are just plain wrong. The reason why I don't want them public? Because I think it wont make a difference other than causing more drama. I do see why some wants that high degree of transperancy. But I think it's too easily abused as well. As I said, I have nothing to hide. I just think we should have at least some privacy. We could have to discuss things which are subject to NDA. Again, I wouldn't change my way nor usage of the mailing list, should it be public. It's that simple.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 12:27:00 - [79] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong So then what is the problem with making the communication public? If you don't talk about things that shouldn't be public anyway then why not just make it public? No votes are casted via email. All votes are done during meetings, which are public. So your assumptions, which are extremely wrong, are just plain wrong. The reason why I don't want them public? Because I think it wont make a difference other than causing more drama. I do see why some wants that high degree of transperancy. But I think it's too easily abused as well. As I said, I have nothing to hide. I just think we should have at least some privacy. We could have to discuss things which are subject to NDA. Again, I wouldn't change my way nor usage of the mailing list, should it be public. It's that simple. I am sorry, i thought you said Quote: The agenda items are here to see right on the forum. As for the submission templates, I see no reason why the public shouldn't see them. It doesn't matter if we can see votes. I am not talking about votes(to get past your ridiculous strawman). The process is important and we have a right to view it. I want CSM reps to be voting based on what they think and not power plays. When a rep goes on a power trip I want to know about. There is no reason for reps to be insulated the voting public. So lets go over what we would see if it was made public Agenda items: Template Documents: Both of these are the public interest. Anything else there that should not be cannot be construed as have a public interest to be private unless its specifically discussing items covered by the NDA. The only reason to keep them secret is to allow people to exert influence over other reps for the purpose subverting the game towards a partisan agenda. So we have ample reason to make the records public because as you say, they ought to be. And we have ample reason to make them public to prevent any representative from any alliance from attempting to subvert the will of the people who rightly voted for their representatives.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.15 12:41:00 - [80] Originally by: Goumindong Agenda items: Template Documents: The first is already public. Please check the VERY first post in this thread. The template documents I see ABSOLUTELY no reason not to release. Again, I see a lot of good reasons why it should be public. But I also think that there is reasons why it shouldn't. I thus go with that it shouldn't, because there needs to be some kind of privacy so that the CSM can work without drama at every damn step we take. There was a reason the mailing list was created. What do you think will happen if the mailing list does go public? Those who have things to hide use other means of communication. It's like disallowing drugs in real life. If things are disallowed they will be less obvious, more violent and much harder to investigate. I think the only thing that would make me accept a public mailing list, would be if it was delayed 1-2 weeks so that nothing can be taken out of context because things are work in progress, just like certain people tend to do

Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 13:07:00 - [81] Originally by: LaVista Vista There was a reason the mailing list was created. No the mailing list was created because there was no read only forum that the CSM could post in but not anyone else. Quote: What do you think will happen if the mailing list does go public? Those who have things to hide use other means of communication. It's like disallowing drugs in real life. If things are disallowed they will be less obvious, more violent and much harder to investigate. This is nothing like drugs. There is no trade going on. There are no fiscal interests. Yea, people will communicate in other means. It happens. But that doesn't mean we cannot make all the communication we can as transparent as possible. Public institutions rely on transparency to keep undue influences from corrupting the process. Corruption of the process produces results that are not inline with the right and proper will that grants their authority. I.E. it makes it so the council will do less good for the game or more bad. How can that be a positive and why would anyone want to push for a situation that would increase the likelihood of that outcome. Quote: I think the only thing that would make me accept a public mailing list, would be if it was delayed 1-2 weeks so that nothing can be taken out of context because things are work in progress, just like certain people tend to do I am sorry, who is taking what out of context? Are we taking Jade barring a representative from a meeting out of context? Are we taking Jade editorializing a decision of the council out of context?
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.15 13:11:00 - [82] Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, who is taking what out of context? Are we taking Jade barring a representative from a meeting out of context? Are we taking Jade editorializing a decision of the council out of context? Why are you saying "we"? Do you feel aimed at? This has nothing to do with Jade either. Lets face it. The forum is filled with trolls and people who take things out of context for lulz and drama.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 13:47:00 - [83] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong I am sorry, who is taking what out of context? Are we taking Jade barring a representative from a meeting out of context? Are we taking Jade editorializing a decision of the council out of context? Why are you saying "we"? Do you feel aimed at? This has nothing to do with Jade either. Lets face it. The forum is filled with trolls and people who take things out of context for lulz and drama. We being the general forum population. There was no drama over the 2nd meeting when there was no clear problem. Why do you think that people are going to make problems when they have demonstrated both that if there is is nothing to be alarmed about they will not make it an issue?
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.15 16:29:00 - [84] Originally by: LaVista Vista Why are you saying "we"? Do you feel aimed at? This has nothing to do with Jade either. Lets face it. The forum is filled with trolls and people who take things out of context for lulz and drama. Those "people who take things out of context" are the ones voting for the CSM. They're voters and you're no better than them. They have a right to see what's going on even should it be misinterpreted. Also, the mailing list has been used numerous times for official communications. You need only look at the emails to see that. You state that the council has some need for privacy in its communications and I will ask once again, to what end? What purpose does creating us as some separate class from the playerbase achieve? How does that fit in with what the CSM is supposed to be? I don't see any responses to that. I see blind opposition and mischaracterization. I want drama? What the hell are you on about? If you conduct yourselves like reasonable human beings what drama is there to be had? I find it hilarious that I'm blamed for people's responses to the actions of others. I'm guilty for mentioning the crime as opposed to the person who committed it and now seeks to cover it up. Puhleeze. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.06.15 17:42:00 - [85] Quote: Those "people who take things out of context" are the ones voting for the CSM. So? They are still taking things out of context. Quote: They're voters and you're no better than them. Did he claim he was better than them? Is not having your email read by the entire game some sign that you think you are better than everyone else? If so, we're all guilty of it as I'm not aware of any email that is open to the public. Quote: They have a right to see what's going on even should it be misinterpreted. They already see what's going on in both the meetings and here on the boards. And of course, they have CSM's like yourself to warn them if some plot to take over EvE is secretly being hatched in the CSM email... Quote: Also, the mailing list has been used numerous times for official communications. You need only look at the emails to see that. Good. If it were used more often for official business, maybe these boards would be more about player issues and less about Goonswarm throwing a hissy fit. Quote: You state that the council has some need for privacy in its communications and I will ask once again, to what end? So that they can communicate with other CSM's without having Goons troll each and every communication, wasting council members time defending themselves against accusations that they are trying to unfairly influence council affairs by, for example, scheduling a vote on a Thursday. Quote: What purpose does creating us as some separate class from the playerbase achieve? You should tell us that. As far as I know, you're the only CSM member to claim their constituency is not the playerbase as a whole (just Goonswarm). What purpose does that achieve, Darius? Quote: How does that fit in with what the CSM is supposed to be? All the CSM members were elected. It's not unreasonable for them to ask that they be able to carry out their work unmolested. Players can still see what their council is doing, and ask direct questions to their council members. Quote: I don't see any responses to that. Why would there be? You're the only person who believes that an internal email is going to subvert the whole process. Quote: I see blind opposition and mischaracterization. I want drama? What the hell are you on about? You just accused the council of blind opposition and mischaracterization because they want an internal email system. That's being dramatic, dude. Quote: If you conduct yourselves like reasonable human beings what drama is there to be had? Plenty. Look anywhere on the EvE boards. Quote: I find it hilarious that I'm blamed for people's responses to the actions of others. I'm guilty for mentioning the crime as opposed to the person who committed it and now seeks to cover it up. Puhleeze. No one's blamed you for anything in this thread, and no one has called you guilty of anything. Stop being a drama queen.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.15 19:03:00 - [86] Originally by: Qaedienne Horribly formatted :words: Why am I somehow not surprised an alt has again taken up the torch here? I apologize but there's no way I'm going to play the quote game here as I don't have 7 hours to respond to every sentence in your post. I'll respond overall though if it doesn't involve me repeating myself. You have a flair for the dramatic. Quote me the part where I suggest people should have their email read by everyone? You're making it seem as if what I'm suggesting will force people to divulge their personal emails. That is not the case as I've said repeatedly. I am only concerned with the SEMI-OFFICIAL CSM mailing list. Private conversations are just that. Why should I be responsible for raising issues? So I can be accused hilariously of "trying to score political points"? If people can see the mailing list of the CSM then I won't have to. Those who care can read it and those who don't can ignore it. Uh-oh Goon conspiracy quote detected. Perhaps it would be wiser to say that if it were only used for official communications that people were proud of then nobody would have a problem with people reading them. You're comparing apples to oranges. They did schedule a meeting on a day the US members could not attend. What does that have to do with email? Where did I claim my constituency is not the playerbase as a whole? I stated that I had the votes to be re-elected. As a matter of fact I've specifically stated the opposite multiple times. Nobody's asking for them to be molested. I'm asking them to be transparent. There's a difference. Again you refer to "internal" mail. There is no such thing. There is a mailing list and people's personal emails. I am also far from the only person supporting this issue. Saying it's just me doesn't make it so. Re: My responses... read the thread. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.06.15 19:45:00 - [87] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Stupidly evasive answer... More BS about alts. Get over it. Not going to bite on your strawman argument about email. No email is available to the public. You want CSM email to be available to the public. It's unusual, and your arguments for it are tangential at best, while the cons of it are obvious to everyone but a member of Goonswarm, apparently. You're a member of the CSM. You raise the issues and make the arguments within the council, intead of asking that all council business be made available to the public so that your loud-mouthed alliance can trash it for you. If that's too much work for you, too bad. Uh oh, Goon blinders spotted. Darius isn't aware his alliance craps all over every piece of council business. Perhaps it would be wiser to say if feedback from Goons was constructive or useful then nobody would have a problem with making more information public. (See what I did there?) The example of scheduling was used to point out that even mundane matters are crapped on and flamed by your alliance-mates. Specifically they accused Jade of being anti-American (or pro-Euro, possibly), among other things, because the timing didn't favor the U.S. CSM's. It'll take me some time to find it, but basically someone was taking you to task for CSM business, and you used that as an excuse. Don't need to ask for them to be molested, they already are. They are trying to get some work done despite this, and you are arguing for things that will enable and encourage the harassment while simultaneously not even acknowledging any harrassment exists. Draw your own conclusions.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 19:48:00 - [88] There is a lot here that is just plain terrible Qaed, so ill just get a few choice ones. Originally by: Qaedienne You should tell us that. As far as I know, you're the only CSM member to claim their constituency is not the playerbase as a whole (just Goonswarm). No. The only Candidate to do that has been Jade Constantine. For someone who is complaining about the level of drama, it seems you haven't read it. Quote: Plenty. Look anywhere on the EvE boards. Look especially in the agenda threads for the first two meetings. Lord, the drama was thick, the forums were being threadnaughted! [/sarcasm]
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 19:54:00 - [89] Originally by: Qaedienne The example of scheduling was used to point out that even mundane matters are crapped on and flamed by your alliance-mates. Specifically they accused Jade of being anti-American (or pro-Euro, possibly), among other things, because the timing didn't favor the U.S. CSM's. Instead of asking for the Euros to stay up an extra hour or two he demanded that the U.S. representatives, whom he had already shown bias against leave work early in order to make the meeting. They aren't accusing Jade of being anti-American, they are accusing her of using the meeting scheduling to skew the votes on the council. How in the world can you not understand that dissent can be justified? The judgment on the dissent is always hinged on the judgment of the cause of the dissent. If someone was making a stink because a someone said a bad word it would be one thing. This is entirely another.
Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.06.15 21:53:00 - [90] Quote: No. The only Candidate to do that has been Jade Constantine. For someone who is complaining about the level of drama, it seems you haven't read it. Haven't read what? And feel free to link where Jade said that. Quote: Look especially in the agenda threads for the first two meetings. Lord, the drama was thick, the forums were being threadnaughted! [/sarcasm] I think you should no longer be able to critique other's posts...

Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.06.15 22:15:00 - [91] Originally by: Goumindong Instead of asking for the Euros to stay up an extra hour or two he demanded that the U.S. representatives, whom he had already shown bias against leave work early in order to make the meeting. The Euros were up past midnight already. He didn't demand anything regarding the U.S. CSM's, he simply scheduled the meeting. He explained why the meeting had to be held on Thursday, also (submission deadline). He also scheduled a second meeting for Sunday so that all could attend. Obvious drama queen is obvious? Quote: They aren't accusing Jade of being anti-American, they are accusing her of using the meeting scheduling to skew the votes on the council. Perhaps that's what they meant. That is not what they posted, however. Quote: How in the world can you not understand that dissent can be justified? The judgment on the dissent is always hinged on the judgment of the cause of the dissent. Dissent can be justified. Do you feel like you have done this? Do you feel like most of the things you have accused Jade of can even be justified? I do not. You are irresponsible in your dissent. You are dissenting simply to dissent. Your constant and unjustifed dissent is now just a distraction to everyone who reads this board, mostly because you throw baseless accusations into every thread and fail to follow up and prove them, or let them go when you cannot. Quote: If someone was making a stink because a someone said a bad word it would be one thing. This is entirely another. Scheduling meetings is mundane. Your claim that there's some malfeasance going on regarding this has been proven baseless, but you persist in your accusation.
Tress Macneille Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.15 23:24:00 - [92] Originally by: Qaedienne The Euros were up past midnight already. He didn't demand anything regarding the U.S. CSM's, he simply scheduled the meeting. He explained why the meeting had to be held on Thursday, also (submission deadline). He also scheduled a second meeting for Sunday so that all could attend. Obvious drama queen is obvious? Also ccp told him not to <:]
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 00:37:00 - [93] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 16/06/2008 00:38:05 Another epic meeting: 1. Nighthawk Needs a powergrid Increase (Jade) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=777872 Escalation Denied 2 votes for (Jade, Hardin) 6 votes against 2. Completion of unfinished Story Arcs/Roleplay Interests in EVE: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789648 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791735 Escalation Supported 8-0 Escalation Supported 8-0 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. 4. Moon mining Improvements: LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778035 (Issue sent back to incorporated with dynamic moon distribution possibilities) Escalation Supported 9-0 5. Ownership of Wrecks Jade http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778546 Escalation Supported 9-0 6. Increase the number of corporation standing slots/Corps should automatically obtain alliance standings: Hardin http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=789692 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=791955 Escalation Supported 9-0 Escalation Supported 8-0 7.Buff Large Autocannons (especially Dual 650mms and 800mms) Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785820 Escalation Supported 5-4 (Jade, Serenity, Leandro, LaVista opposed) 8. Colourblind UI LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784427 Escalation Supported 8-1 (Darius opposed) 9. Account Security Jade http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=781256 Escalation Supported 8-1 (Ankhesentapemkah opposed) 10. Abolish Learning Skills Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779267 Escalation Denied 2-7 (Bane and Ankhesentapemkah voted yes) 11. Mac/Linux client LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=778522 Escalation Supported 9-0 12. Multi-monitor support LaVista http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784389 Escalation Supported 9-0 +Additional Issue from Darius The use of email as a logging facility for corporate events. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=792405 Escalation Supported 9-0 Any Other Business: 1. ALL discussions of the CSM to be ruled as "public record". This will include the private CSM mailing list. DARIUS Escalation Denied 4-5 (Darius, Bane, Hardin, Inanna voted for) 2. Request that Internal Affairs make time available to talk to the CSM group as part of the Iceland Conference. DARIUS Escalation Supported 9-0 2. "It will be prohibited to bring the interpretation of the CSM document into discussion or vote, all questions regarding the interpretation will be sent to CCP." Ankhesentapemkah Escalation Denied 3-6 (Jade, Ank, Dierdra voted for) ************ Serenity will be hosting the chatlog on the eve csm site at some point this week but until then feel free to view the raw chat log at http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.msg94219#msg94219 Enjoy. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 01:46:00 - [94] what the hell why did you vote down capital ships that is like the only really important thing on the entire agenda
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 01:55:00 - [95] Okay so I finished reading the chatlogs, that is incredible. Jade and co. are so caught up in the bureaucracy of everything that they aren't willing to vote yes on "talking to ccp about capitals" Ahahahahahaha that's incredible
Kai Wooglin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 02:24:00 - [96] I love that those who ran on supporting transparency are now voting to keep CSM-wide communications away from the public. It really is pathetic and feeds into all the negative things being written about the CSM. Absolutely amazing.
Keddren Fel	Posted - 2008.06.16 02:50:00 - [97] 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. What? What possible reason was there not to escalate this?! That's insanity.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 03:42:00 - [98] Originally by: Keddren Fel 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. What? What possible reason was there not to escalate this?! That's insanity. Originally by: Martin VanBuren what the hell why did you vote down capital ships that is like the only really important thing on the entire agenda I do agree that it's an important topic. But the issue wasn't presented clear enough and the documentation wasn't available at the time, which was expected for all issues presented yesterday. So in order to get issues submitted the right way, I voted no. But please DO notice that it was stated that it didn't mean that it would be a nice if it was raised for next CSM -> CCP agenda.
Illaria	Posted - 2008.06.16 04:13:00 - [99] While the capital ship issue is a good issue and I actually agree a lot with Bane on it, it was not very well presented and it was very unclear what was being voted for. From the chatlog it read like "Too much capital ships are bad, mkay?". It's a bit too fuzzy to vote on this. It should have been separated in discrete motions that can be voted individually on like: a) Reduce skill requirements for capital ships, esp. Carriers and Dreadnoughts. b) Review the Doomsday effect, esp. regarding the stacking issue of multiple DD on the same grid. c) ... d) ... etc. Just voting on "We should talk about the whole undefined complex with CCP. I will work some presentation out." would be a bit naive. I really don't know why Bane hadn't something more concrete and precise prepared on this important issue. We all know that he's very well capable of doing this. Another thing that applies to a lot of the CSM members: When you ran for CSM you made a commitment. You should all have been aware that it will cost you time and effort. That people can't be bothered to be on time and come prepared to such a meeting, or even review their documents for who voted on what I find a bit disappointing. If you don't want to put in the effort, because you're time constrained then you shouldn't really have run. It certainly isn't a problem if you miss a meeting now and then, but randomly dropping in and out, don't have your stuff ready when it's voting time, or unwillingness to document your issues properly makes some of you look rather amateurish. ---- Darius Johnson, not MY CSM.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 04:21:00 - [100] Originally by: Illaria While the capital ship issue is a good issue and I actually agree a lot with Bane on it, it was not very well presented and it was very unclear what was being voted for. From the chatlog it read like "Too much capital ships are bad, mkay?". It's a bit too fuzzy to vote on this. It should have been separated in discrete motions that can be voted individually on like: a) Reduce skill requirements for capital ships, esp. Carriers and Dreadnoughts. b) Review the Doomsday effect, esp. regarding the stacking issue of multiple DD on the same grid. c) ... d) ... etc. Just voting on "We should talk about the whole undefined complex with CCP. I will work some presentation out." would be a bit naive. I really don't know why Bane hadn't something more concrete and precise prepared on this important issue. We all know that he's very well capable of doing this. Another thing that applies to a lot of the CSM members: When you ran for CSM you made a commitment. You should all have been aware that it will cost you time and effort. That people can't be bothered to be on time and come prepared to such a meeting, or even review their documents for who voted on what I find a bit disappointing. If you don't want to put in the effort, because you're time constrained then you shouldn't really have run. It certainly isn't a problem if you miss a meeting now and then, but randomly dropping in and out, don't have your stuff ready when it's voting time, or unwillingness to document your issues properly makes some of you look rather amateurish. We were voting on whether or not to discuss an issue in Iceland. That issue being capital ships. I think we got a bit tied up in the details of what Bane's ideas were regarding the subject, which was an acid test I don't recall putting any other issues to. Each of us will have opinions on each of the issues presented in Iceland. We haven't had to examine all of them in order to decide they were worth discussing. v0v Personally I think the council got a bit too tied up in the details and lost site of the actual motive. Some of us don't even have a use for capitals to be honest so how you could be opposed to discussing something you don't understand is something I don't get. I've voted to discuss issues I didn't understand for the most part because I don't feel it's my place to deprive people of the conversation when I clearly don't have the knowledge required to say whether the subject's broken or not. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM

Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 04:51:00 - [101] Edited by: Toman Jerich on 16/06/2008 04:54:46 Ultimately I think that by not allowing any leeway on how well the i's were dotted and t's were crossed with the presentation of the cap ships issues, they simply diminish their own usefulness and importance. Reading the log: Inanna and LaVista voted against because Bane's write-up wasn't all in order, Serenity voted against because he got caught up in the details of a specific sub-point Bain made involving capital skill training time (Serenity likes the timesink), Ankh voted against because she just never has or will encountered a capship while tooling around high-sec in her miner or mission runner or whatever and so doesn't see any issue worth discussing, Jade wrote that his problem was with the documentation, but he waited to the last (to see if he would be the difference-making vote) and probably just took an opportunity to vote against an issue raised by a goon. **** whatever was voted on here. However you guys can get them to talk about capships once you get to iceland, do it. It's not like they're going to hit your face if you try. e: I can just picture the devs focused on capships reading this like "WTF, how did they miss this opportunity to talk to us?? What did we even make this council for? Now we have to go back to sounding out our ideas with dev blogs."
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution	Posted - 2008.06.16 05:45:00 - [102] Of all of the items on that list, the two I didn't expect to fail were the nighthawk grid issue and capital ships online. Seriously. Anyone who has ever tried to fit an active tank setup on the nighthawk while using HAMs knows that the nighthawk has serious issues. Trying to cram a MWD, injector, and large booster on there in addition to 6 HAM II's requires two RCU II's even at maxed fitting skills, FFS! I'm guessing the folks who voted against have either never flown the nighthawk or just don't use HAMs and thus don't care. As for Capitals Online, I own (and am skilled for) both a carrier and a dreadnought, and even I think something should be done about the damned things. They're crowding out normal PvP in all too many cases. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 05:53:00 - [103] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON We were voting on whether or not to discuss an issue in Iceland. That issue being capital ships. I think we got a bit tied up in the details of what Bane's ideas were regarding the subject, which was an acid test I don't recall putting any other issues to. Each of us will have opinions on each of the issues presented in Iceland. We haven't had to examine all of them in order to decide they were worth discussing. v0v Well. The agenda for yesterday clearly stated that submission templates had to be in place before the meeting. I would have voted for the item if Bane had sticked to the submission template he did submit. But he started talking about capital shield transfers and all kinds of stuff. It wasn't just about capital ships online being bad. There is a big difference between capital shield transfers taking too much PG and then the topic at hand. I would have supported it if Bane split the issue up in pieces and had submitted templates for everything he started discussing, but that wasn't the case. I hope he will submit it for our CCP agenda in 2 months. It's an important issue, but I think he tried to do waaay too much.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 05:54:00 - [104] Originally by: Wrayeth Anyone who has ever tried to fit an active tank setup on the nighthawk while using HAMs knows that the nighthawk has serious issues. Trying to cram a MWD, injector, and large booster on there in addition to 6 HAM II's requires two RCU II's even at maxed fitting skills, FFS! I'm guessing the folks who voted against have either never flown the nighthawk or just don't use HAMs and thus don't care. No. You would see that several people stated that they agreed with the issue in general, but bringing it up in Iceland wasn't in order. They were all for bringing it up at the next agenda though. Also that in general, CSM, as I see it, doesn't like bringing up issues about specific ships. It's waaay too easy to blame us for being based, if we did.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 06:06:00 - [105] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Darius JOHNSON We were voting on whether or not to discuss an issue in Iceland. That issue being capital ships. I think we got a bit tied up in the details of what Bane's ideas were regarding the subject, which was an acid test I don't recall putting any other issues to. Each of us will have opinions on each of the issues presented in Iceland. We haven't had to examine all of them in order to decide they were worth discussing. v0v Well. The agenda for yesterday clearly stated that submission templates had to be in place before the meeting. I would have voted for the item if Bane had sticked to the submission template he did submit. But he started talking about capital shield transfers and all kinds of stuff. It wasn't just about capital ships online being bad. There is a big difference between capital shield transfers taking too much PG and then the topic at hand. I would have supported it if Bane split the issue up in pieces and had submitted templates for everything he started discussing, but that wasn't the case. I hope he will submit it for our CCP agenda in 2 months. It's an important issue, but I think he tried to do waaay too much. Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck:
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 06:09:00 - [106] Originally by: Goumindong Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck: I don't have access to the document Bane submitted. But that wasn't the topic of the document from what I recall. The document never talked about CST's and RAR's of any kind. When he started talking about those things, it was bound to fail because of the difference between the submission template and what he was on about. :psyduck:
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 06:34:00 - [107] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck: I don't have access to the document Bane submitted. But that wasn't the topic of the document from what I recall. The document never talked about CST's and RAR's of any kind. When he started talking about those things, it was bound to fail because of the difference between the submission template and what he was on about. :psyduck: See point 1 1. disincentivizing carrier spam (gangs of 20+ carriers), 2, revisit titan doomsdays, 3. incentivize the use of smaller quantities of carriers (1-6)
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:15:00 - [108] Edited by: MotherMoon on 16/06/2008 09:25:36 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong So the public doesn't get to see these agenda items and submission templates? Why? What is wrong with them? The agenda items are here to see right on the forum. As for the submission templates, I see no reason why the public shouldn't see them. So then what is the problem with making the communication public? For the same reason we can't pay the beta that CCP is currently running of ambulation.if it's not done it should not be public. Should book companies let the rough copies of major books be public? you need to be able to tie up a bundle of sticks before you throw them out or someone will take that lose unbundled pile of sticks and take what they what out of context. EDIT:note my point is we should NOT under any circumstances be allowed to beta ambulation even if they have it running right now. It would lead to mass whinage blah and balh not getting in and such. I don't think everythign should be public. Just important thing. also how pointless would it be to read all the e-mails throwing the list back and forth editing it and making sure it's all sound and the link work and such. Why would you want to read that if we get the final document. we voted these guys in if something evil happens I hope that the person I support will tell th community.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:22:00 - [109] Quote: 10. Abolish Learning Skills Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=779267 Escalation Denied 2-7 (Bane and Ankhesentapemkah voted yes) damn :/ even though I'm sure the documentation on it was very very weak anyways it's still something I'd like to see changed I should of did more support on the issue since day one. Then again the 1st person that ever brought this up was a dev during the alliance tournament interviews saying he hated learning skills in his game so maybe we won't have to worry about it :P also your not going up to iceland for another 2 months?
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:27:00 - [110] Originally by: MotherMoon For the same reason we can't pay the beta that CCP is currently running of ambulation.if it's not done it should not be public. Should book companies let the rough copies of major books be public? you need to be able to tie up a bundle of sticks before you throw them out or someone will take that lose unbundled pile of sticks and take what they what out of context. The CSM is not a company, they have no financial interest in keeping its discussions public as authors and content creators do. They are a public institution accountable to the public. Your analogy is thus false.

MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:34:00 - [111] Edited by: MotherMoon on 16/06/2008 09:36:23 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: MotherMoon For the same reason we can't pay the beta that CCP is currently running of ambulation.if it's not done it should not be public. Should book companies let the rough copies of major books be public? you need to be able to tie up a bundle of sticks before you throw them out or someone will take that lose unbundled pile of sticks and take what they what out of context. The CSM is not a company, they have no financial interest in keeping its discussions public as authors and content creators do. They are a public institution accountable to the public. Your analogy is thus false. when your analogy lets you down, find a new analogy! hmmm this time I'll state it using one word. Goumindong this is why they shouldn't be public as it would not be profitable to CCP to let Goumindong happen :) ... You know what never minds lets let "Goumindong" happen I've had a change of <3. 1st step? we implant chips in the CSMs brains to make sure we know there every word! I mean hell if they can't talk over e-mail they will jsut talk over the phone or in person right? right? or maybe... can't help myself... they will use MSN! :P
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 09:40:00 - [112] When your analogy fails instead start strawmanning?
LASER WATCHER GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:02:00 - [113] Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god _____
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:12:00 - [114] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Keddren Fel 3.Capital Ships Online Bane http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 Escalation Denied 4 votes for (Bane, Darius, Dierdra, Hardin) 5 against. What? What possible reason was there not to escalate this?! That's insanity. Originally by: Martin VanBuren what the hell why did you vote down capital ships that is like the only really important thing on the entire agenda I do agree that it's an important topic. But the issue wasn't presented clear enough and the documentation wasn't available at the time, which was expected for all issues presented yesterday. So in order to get issues submitted the right way, I voted no. But please DO notice that it was stated that it didn't mean that it would be a nice if it was raised for next CSM -> CCP agenda. How come you have allowed many other worse presented ideas with badly thought out solutions go through with the intent of just loosely talking about the issue? The issue itself should be pretty clear to anyone that spends time in 0.0
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:13:00 - [115] Originally by: LASER WATCHER Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do
LASER WATCHER GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:15:00 - [116] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: LASER WATCHER Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do So, if there is a reason to not trust him, the information should stay private? _____
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.06.16 10:16:00 - [117] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: LASER WATCHER Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do If Jades emails will hurt him so badly he better think a bit more before sending them. This just confirms the impression i get of Jade on the forums.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.16 11:39:00 - [118] I got the impression that the Capital Ships Online topic just needed a one-line summary that encompassed the totality of what would be presented to CCP in writing. It sounded like it was the unknowns in Bane's planned presentation that were throwing people off, and next time around if it's all written up ahead of time and summarized in a way where the reps are clear what they'd be supporting, it will be easily escalated.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 11:45:00 - [119] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong Capital shield transfers/RARs are an intimate part of capital balance, or lack there-of :psyduck: I don't have access to the document Bane submitted. But that wasn't the topic of the document from what I recall. The document never talked about CST's and RAR's of any kind. When he started talking about those things, it was bound to fail because of the difference between the submission template and what he was on about. :psyduck: See point 1 1. disincentivizing carrier spam (gangs of 20+ carriers), 2, revisit titan doomsdays, 3. incentivize the use of smaller quantities of carriers (1-6) I will point to my original point. I got the submission template right in front of me. This document describes NOTHING about the things Bane were talking about yesterday. I would have happy to vote it on if those details were in the document though. I don't know what the rules are about posting these documents. But if it's ok with the council, I would happily prove it to you by showing you the submission template that was submitted, which is the reason I voted no.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.16 11:54:00 - [120] Originally by: Goumindong Well, what was his paragraph on it say? And what did the links say. Aside: This wouldn't be a problem be if discussion list was public. Oh ** now were taking things out of context because there isn't the context to back ** up. Its almost as if that is more likely to happen when the list is private. Or maybe it wouldn't have happened if all submission templates were public.

Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 11:57:00 - [121] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Goumindong Well, what was his paragraph on it say? And what did the links say. Aside: This wouldn't be a problem be if discussion list was public. Oh ** now were taking things out of context because there isn't the context to back ** up. Its almost as if that is more likely to happen when the list is private. Or maybe it wouldn't have happened if all submission templates were public. The template is public, Jade released it in the meeting for agenda subject. The submission isn't. I still fail to see how more context can ever be bad.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 13:17:00 - [122] LaVista, there are basically two valid cases here you could have fallen under. 1) You don't know anything about capital ships. In that case, I would at least expect you to know that Bane himself is pretty much the living document of capital ship issues and potential solutions, and that you really ought to just trust that he's going to send something worth discussing to CCP. 2) You're familiar with capital ships and have an intuitive grasp of the issues with them and how interrelated those issues all are, and so you would cut Bane some slack because you have an intuitive grasp of the issues he was pointing at in the 5 minutes or whatever you gave him to write his explanation out in the meeting. But you chose: 3) Stand in the way of progress in the interest of covering your ass, because oh no what rogue ideas will Bane send to CCP that you would actually have objected to if only you had known what crazy things he was going to write! Surely that mad goon won't send anything within the realm of the hundreds of Eve-o posts he's made on the topic. And what if CCP doesn't approve of how well the submission is organized! They might frown at you and scold you in iceland! Basically, you're like the FAA telling Santa Clause he can't deliver presents to the little kids because he didn't get the paperwork in for his pilot's license.
Keddren Fel	Posted - 2008.06.16 13:38:00 - [123] Why do you hate the little children, LaVista? :(
Theramin Dogon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 13:49:00 - [124] Originally by: Toman Jerich LaVista, there are basically two valid cases here you could have fallen under. 1) You don't know anything about capital ships. In that case, I would at least expect you to know that Bane himself is pretty much the living document of capital ship issues and potential solutions, and that you really ought to just trust that he's going to send something worth discussing to CCP. 2) You're familiar with capital ships and have an intuitive grasp of the issues with them and how interrelated those issues all are, and so you would cut Bane some slack because you have an intuitive grasp of the issues he was pointing at in the 5 minutes or whatever you gave him to write his explanation out in the meeting. But you chose: 3) Stand in the way of progress in the interest of covering your ass, because oh no what rogue ideas will Bane send to CCP that you would actually have objected to if only you had known what crazy things he was going to write! Surely that mad goon won't send anything within the realm of the hundreds of Eve-o posts he's made on the topic. And what if CCP doesn't approve of how well the submission is organized! They might frown at you and scold you in iceland! Basically, you're like the FAA telling Santa Clause he can't deliver presents to the little kids because he didn't get the paperwork in for his pilot's license. If we can't trust the CSMs to pay attention to issues other than their own, I guess we'll never see any progress. Hell, hardly any of them post anyway, which doesn't do the public any good. Darius and Jade are the most prolific posters, but all they seem to do is argue. You'd think that with all the energy they spend arguing, they'd both be against the release of e-mails...but Darius wasn't. Jade even said before the meeting that if it did pass, he'd stop using the mailing list and use something else where he could keep his communications secret. What does Jade have to hide? He'd even said he was in favor of a more open, transparent process, but I guess he was just assuming there would a goon conspiracy.
Illaria	Posted - 2008.06.16 13:49:00 - [125] Originally by: Toman Jerich LaVista, [...] But you chose: 3) Stand in the way of progress in the interest of covering your ass, because oh no what rogue ideas will Bane send to CCP that you would actually have objected to if only you had known what crazy things he was going to write! Surely that mad goon won't send anything within the realm of the hundreds of Eve-o posts he's made on the topic. And what if CCP doesn't approve of how well the submission is organized! They might frown at you and scold you in iceland! Basically, you're like the FAA telling Santa Clause he can't deliver presents to the little kids because he didn't get the paperwork in for his pilot's license. No one right in his mind, will vote on a carte blanche, just to cut you some slack. Yes, while Bane is indeed one of the more respected GoonSwarm members and the capital issue appears less politically "loaded" now that the BoB vs. Coalition war is over, it doesn't relieve him of the duty to clarify and define what he puts up for vote. It's a bit amusing that Goons like to paint themselves as champions of transparency in one case, but demand that the other CSM members will blindly vote on their issues, relying only on good faith. ---- Darius Johnson, not MY CSM.
Anthony Pants	Posted - 2008.06.16 14:17:00 - [126] [ 2008.06.15 21:24:19 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Sorry, I must also say no because I dont have insight in the documentation and because I do not think this issue is currently unbalancing. [ 2008.06.15 21:54:29 ] Ankhesentapemkah > people do not even understand my issue [ 2008.06.15 21:54:45 ] Ankhesentapemkah > no listen to what I have to say HOW IRONIC.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 14:26:00 - [127] Originally by: Illaria Yes, while Bane is indeed one of the more respected GoonSwarm members and the capital issue appears less politically "loaded" now that the BoB vs. Coalition war is over, it doesn't relieve him of the duty to clarify and define what he puts up for vote. It's a bit amusing that Goons like to paint themselves as champions of transparency in one case, but demand that the other CSM members will blindly vote on their issues, relying only on good faith. It did however, relieve quite a few other members of that responsibility.
Slanty McGarglefist University of Caille	Posted - 2008.06.16 14:34:00 - [128] I assume then that the 30 & 90 day GTC issue will not be raised to CCP at Iceland? I'm surprised it wasn't one of the discussed topics. __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 14:42:00 - [129] Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist I assume then that the 30 & 90 day GTC issue will not be raised to CCP at Iceland? I'm surprised it wasn't one of the discussed topics. allready happen
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 14:43:00 - [130] Originally by: LASER WATCHER Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: LASER WATCHER Edited by: LASER WATCHER on 16/06/2008 10:02:16 CSM is a council that is supposed to represent us to CCP, I want to know how they are deciding to represent us fully before they go and do it. i am agreeing with goumindong i am agreeing with goumindong oh god to bad I don't trust people that have an agenda (note I'm talking about a LOT of people that want to target jade) to take these e-mails that will nothing to do with CSM and they will use them. I mean hell if I had something against him that's what I do So, if there is a reason to not trust him, the information should stay private? no it should go to CCP so they can chem him apart. and then be made public as CCP sees fit.

Slanty McGarglefist University of Caille	Posted - 2008.06.16 15:19:00 - [131] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist I assume then that the 30 & 90 day GTC issue will not be raised to CCP at Iceland? I'm surprised it wasn't one of the discussed topics. allready happen Thanks. __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.16 15:38:00 - [132] The problem with the capitals online issue was that A) we didn't get to see the presentation notes and the documentation we did see was very brief and generalized. and B) (and this is an important one) - there were some very specific and contentious ideas expressed there that needed to be split up into different topics in order that we could vote on each element properly. An idea like "reducing the skill reqs for capital use" is a huge thing and its an entirely different issue to "rebalancing the cpu reqs on capital shield xfer modules". Basically the issue was TOO big and all-encompassing while at the same time presenting some specific proposals that a majority of the CSM did not support. I'll happily go on record and say right now that I do not find a good argument in the proposition that the "capitals online" problem can in any way be solved by reducing the skill reqs for capital pilots and allowing more alliances to spam capitals in fleet combat. It just didn't make ANY sense to me and I couldn't in all conscience vote for an issue that included this as a proposal. As I've already stated elsewhere in relation to my campaign docs and the Issues I have supported, I believe the solution to "capitals online" is to increase the incidence of capital combat and loss through introducing greater necessity to expose these ships to formal combat risk and let natural attrition handle the problem. This could be done in various ways: changing the sov system to be less defensively orientated. Aggression timers for station warfare, hell maybe introducing a timer to re-enter POS shields after you fire or activate a repper. I've already spoken on the Titan issue and I'd like them to be forced to remain on the field longer after they DD. But basically I think the solution to "capital spam" is make the game harder for capitals and increase the risk they suffer on involvement in pvp contention. See more of them explode, we'll see less ridiculous over-spam. So thats my position on the issue, and I completely oppose the principle that you deal with a "problem class" or "technique" by lowering the barriers to entry for that class or technique. Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 15:58:00 - [133] yo I aint reading that
Nynaeve Ares Animus Incarnate	Posted - 2008.06.16 16:33:00 - [134] Edited by: Nynaeve Ares on 16/06/2008 16:34:24 The "!" and "(end)" things needs to be used properly. Towards the end the meeting it went to crap with people being skipped, people interrupting and people repeating what they had already said over and over because some stated an opposing view. If you can't explain yourself properly or have a misleading title for an issue well thats your own dam fault, take some time on it and bring it up in a later meeting. Also we only need Support and Deny as options for when taking votes not: aye, nay, support, not support, yes, no, yeah, no support, support escalation, ****ing nay, deny.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 17:48:00 - [135] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 16/06/2008 17:49:07 We can say what we will about the documentation provided, to date voting to bring an issue to Iceland has had very little to do with the individual's opinion. It was a recognition that the root issue warranted a discussion with CCP. This was something you'll find I even stated during the meeting, but which was glossed over in the interest of nitpicking about Bane's individual discussion points. As I said... for a discussion issue each of us is perfectly capable of providing their own viewpoint. Just because Bane already has some ideas that doesn't mean that these ideas are the only things that will be considered by CCP in Iceland. We're voting to have a dialog. Not to approve the individual proposed solutions. The results of the vote yesterday indicate that 5 out of 9 of our CSM reps do not want to have a dialog about capital ships with CCP. Interestingly enough most of the dissenters live in empire if not all, where capital ships serve no purpose. Voting to discuss an idea never had anything to do with agreeing with the details of an individual's specific proposal. I don't agree with some of the specifics in Jade's proposal regarding destructible outposts for instance. I still voted to have the conversation in Iceland because I feel it's a worthy conversation to have and who am I to say that simply because an idea only had 40 votes of approval we shouldn't talk about it? Ultimately I don't believe the negative vote was an act of maliciousness, but attribute it to either a short-sighted myopia or a flat-out lack of concern because the issue doesn't impact the people involved. Either way isn't positive. Hopefully next time around people can look at the issue objectively or at least admit that they don't understand it and allow those who do to have their conversation. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 19:02:00 - [136] Originally by: Jade Constantine Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field. Your thinly veiled jabs at BoB just earned you a few points in my book.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 19:10:00 - [137] Originally by: Jade Constantine So thats my position on the issue, and I completely oppose the principle that you deal with a "problem class" or "technique" by lowering the barriers to entry for that class or technique. Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're the big boys. Getting cap ship pilots is not a problem for us.
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.06.16 19:25:00 - [138] Originally by: Serenity Steele [2008.06.15 18:18:58 ] Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships? As someone who voted for Serenity I have to admit that the above statment is pretty damn disappointing. The rather brief and casual glance that the Nighthawk issue/thread was apparently given, and the total lack of understanding of the problem (and some of the amazing responses), have me genuinely concerned over some of the CSM choices.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 20:06:00 - [139] Originally by: Silence Duegood Originally by: Serenity Steele [2008.06.15 18:18:58 ] Serenity Steele > Almost every ship class has a lame-duck ship in 1/4 races of EvE. Is the NightHawk any different to the lame duck for field command ships? As someone who voted for Serenity I have to admit that the above statment is pretty damn disappointing. The rather brief and casual glance that the Nighthawk issue/thread was apparently given, and the total lack of understanding of the problem (and some of the amazing responses), have me genuinely concerned over some of the CSM choices. As I said during the voting... I don't think it's our place to get caught up in the minutiae of buffing or not buffing individual shiptypes. I'd honestly prefer we concern ourselves with at least the barest oversight was was initially intended and high-level issues. If the Nighthawk issue gains more support then I'd be happy to bring it, as is required. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.06.16 20:22:00 - [140] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 16/06/2008 20:23:48 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON As I said during the voting... I don't think it's our place to get caught up in the minutiae of buffing or not buffing individual shiptypes. I'd honestly prefer we concern ourselves with at least the barest oversight was was initially intended and high-level issues. If the Nighthawk issue gains more support then I'd be happy to bring it, as is required. Thanks for the response, Darius. In some ways I agree with your take that the CSM should try to refrain from getting too engaged with micromanaging nuances, versus tackling larger issues. However, as Caldari ships go (I have four characters, one for each race) this is a fairly glaring issue. It's the only missile-based Caldari Command Ship, and the problem is not a small one (which a moderately focused read of the thread(s) will show). The problem has existed as long as the ship (read years). I don't expect a huge quantity of support, as not many people bother flying it. However, if you look at the linked thread from the Ideas and Features forum, it is up to 17 pages if I recall, and months old. The numbers and math are there. It would take the Devs all of 10 minutes of coding to fix the issue. When you compare the ship to the Sleipnir (also a shield tanking Field Command) the Nighthawk is truly a joke. Trust me, I do realize and very much respect your take on wanting to avoid small balance changes to ships. However, this is an old issue, one for which there is plenty of firm evidence and math to back it up (not opinions or preferences), and one which it would take only a trivial bit of coding to fix. So, while it might seem to be a small ship balance issue, it's an old problem, and trivial to prove and to fix. Investment in time versus reward on the problem is enormous.

Hamfast	Posted - 2008.06.16 20:25:00 - [141] Now that it's too late... It seems to me that a CSM member with no idea or opinion on a subject when the vote comes up would be to abstain from that vote... thus a issue could be approved (or fail) with a 3/2 (4 abstain) vote... On the Public nature of the CSM, with luck, there will be another CSM after this one, and another after that... making the vast majority of what the CSM does Public would help the later CSM's skip over the problems this one faces having learned from it. Granted, some of the communications need to held private as they may cross the NDA line. Lastly, Darius, I think you are mistaken on the "Submitted" information, while there will be "discussions" with CCP in Iceland, they (CCP) is required to respond to the documented issues submitted, if the document is lacking focus, then the response will be of little value. --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 20:33:00 - [142] Originally by: Hamfast Lastly, Darius, I think you are mistaken on the "Submitted" information, while there will be "discussions" with CCP in Iceland, they (CCP) is required to respond to the documented issues submitted, if the document is lacking focus, then the response will be of little value. The problem is, is that many issues have been passed onto CCP in the guise of "having a discussion"
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 20:44:00 - [143] Originally by: Silence Duegood It's the only missile-based Caldari Command Ship, and the problem is not a small one (which a moderately focused read of the thread(s) will show). The problem has existed as long as the ship (read years). I don't expect a huge quantity of support, as not many people bother flying it. However, if you look at the linked thread from the Ideas and Features forum, it is up to 17 pages if I recall, and months old. The problem is, on the scope of things fairly small, and non-critical. Its one ship in a line of missile using ships for a purpose that directly mimics what Drakes do(and the Drake is fantastic). Now, it may be clearly lacking in powergrid(or hams using too much), but how easy an issue is to see doesn't necessarily mean that it should be escalated. I don't personally think it something that requires the council discussing it with CCP yet. And it looks like the majority of the council agreed. However, you can always ask Jade to see if he can make the argument on the side regarding the issue. It just means you won't get an official response and Jade probably can't tell you anything about how it went(NDA). But it might get something done.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.16 21:15:00 - [144] Originally by: Hamfast It seems to me that a CSM member with no idea or opinion on a subject when the vote comes up would be to abstain from that vote... thus a issue could be approved (or fail) with a 3/2 (4 abstain) vote... I'm pretty sure CCP has banned abstentions. A stupid decision, IMO, for exactly this reason, but it's hardly one I can overturn. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.06.16 21:17:00 - [145] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Silence Duegood It's the only missile-based Caldari Command Ship, and the problem is not a small one (which a moderately focused read of the thread(s) will show). The problem has existed as long as the ship (read years). I don't expect a huge quantity of support, as not many people bother flying it. However, if you look at the linked thread from the Ideas and Features forum, it is up to 17 pages if I recall, and months old. The problem is, on the scope of things fairly small, and non-critical. Its one ship in a line of missile using ships for a purpose that directly mimics what Drakes do(and the Drake is fantastic). Now, it may be clearly lacking in powergrid(or hams using too much), but how easy an issue is to see doesn't necessarily mean that it should be escalated. I don't personally think it something that requires the council discussing it with CCP yet. And it looks like the majority of the council agreed. However, you can always ask Jade to see if he can make the argument on the side regarding the issue. It just means you won't get an official response and Jade probably can't tell you anything about how it went(NDA). But it might get something done. I agree to a degree and will chat with Jade about going forward to CCP with the problem (thanks for the advice regarding that, btw). However, how many years should a ship be totally out of whack and broken till CCP finds 10 minutes to fix the code on it? Seriously, the lack of grid on the Nighthawk takes grade-school math and a tiny portion of logic to understand (this is totally excluding its useless Missile Precision bonus). Yes, there are other ships that need tweaks also. However, the Nighthawk has been this broken since the day it was introduced, which is years ago. I do believe the longer-standing a problem is the more priority it should be given.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 21:23:00 - [146] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Hamfast It seems to me that a CSM member with no idea or opinion on a subject when the vote comes up would be to abstain from that vote... thus a issue could be approved (or fail) with a 3/2 (4 abstain) vote... I'm pretty sure CCP has banned abstentions. A stupid decision, IMO, for exactly this reason, but it's hardly one I can overturn. CCP didn't BAN anything. They made some suggestions which we could choose to or not to follow. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 21:24:00 - [147] Originally by: Silence Duegood I agree to a degree and will chat with Jade about going forward to CCP with the problem (thanks for the advice regarding that, btw). However, how many years should a ship be totally out of whack and broken till CCP finds 10 minutes to fix the code on it? Seriously, the lack of grid on the Nighthawk takes grade-school math and a tiny portion of logic to understand (this is totally excluding its useless Missile Precision bonus). Yes, there are other ships that need tweaks also. However, the Nighthawk has been this broken since the day it was introduced, which is years ago. I do believe the longer-standing a problem is the more priority it should be given. Get more than 40 people to support it in assembly hall. As it stands it has less support than destructible outposts which is downright sad. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Silence Duegood	Posted - 2008.06.16 21:33:00 - [148] Edited by: Silence Duegood on 16/06/2008 21:33:57 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Silence Duegood I agree to a degree and will chat with Jade about going forward to CCP with the problem (thanks for the advice regarding that, btw). However, how many years should a ship be totally out of whack and broken till CCP finds 10 minutes to fix the code on it? Seriously, the lack of grid on the Nighthawk takes grade-school math and a tiny portion of logic to understand (this is totally excluding its useless Missile Precision bonus). Yes, there are other ships that need tweaks also. However, the Nighthawk has been this broken since the day it was introduced, which is years ago. I do believe the longer-standing a problem is the more priority it should be given. Get more than 40 people to support it in assembly hall. As it stands it has less support than destructible outposts which is downright sad. While I understand support for an issue does play a role, I'm not sure how much weight that should be given. If an issue can clearly be shown to exist with any aspect of the game (with actual evidence and proof of such an issue), why should the popularity of the issue hold priority over common sense?
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 21:40:00 - [149] Originally by: Silence Duegood While I understand support for an issue does play a role, I'm not sure how much weight that should be given. If an issue can clearly be shown to exist with any aspect of the game (with actual evidence and proof of such an issue), why should the popularity of the issue hold priority over common sense? Everyone who has an issue be it a pet issue or not is themselves convinced that the evidence is CLEAR. I personally don't fly nighthawks and know nothing about them. The bottom line is that if an issue is CLEARLY a problem you should be able to get more than 40 people to support it. Unfortunately it's as good a measurement as any that I'm personally going to get to go by because, as I said, I don't fly them though some goons have complained about it. Who knows? If the issue's that clear then maybe the devs will see it on their own and we won't even have had to bring it to their attention? Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.16 21:46:00 - [150] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Everyone who has an issue be it a pet issue or not is themselves convinced that the evidence is CLEAR. I personally don't fly nighthawks and know nothing about them. The bottom line is that if an issue is CLEARLY a problem you should be able to get more than 40 people to support it. Unfortunately it's as good a measurement as any that I'm personally going to get to go by because, as I said, I don't fly them though some goons have complained about it. Who knows? If the issue's that clear then maybe the devs will see it on their own and we won't even have had to bring it to their attention? Please, even the most obvious of issues like corporate email logging which would reasonably have every single CEO in the game telling their corps to vote for it to force it being pushed to the CSM have only received 500 votes. You voted to discuss destroying stations despite it having less than 40 votes at the time and having large opposition and effecting probably fewer people than the nighthawk problems did. Don't pull that populist BS. Either there was a good reason to not bring it to CCP or their wasn't. "I don't know what is going on" is not a good reason, though understandable since there is no easy mechanic by which the CSM can be educated and informed on the topic(with proper dissent of course), but the excuse of ignorance does not make the reason any better.

MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.06.16 22:42:00 - [151] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Jade Constantine So thats my position on the issue, and I completely oppose the principle that you deal with a "problem class" or "technique" by lowering the barriers to entry for that class or technique. Thats just counter-intuitive and in this specific case transcends game-balance into the realm of seeking partisan advantage for a hypothetical alliance for superior numbers of relatively low-skilled pilots and an aspiration to sit at the big boys capital table without doing the same training their rivals have already done to attain competency and military advantage in this field. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're the big boys. Getting cap ship pilots is not a problem for us. oh your SO BIG.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.16 23:16:00 - [152] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Everyone who has an issue be it a pet issue or not is themselves convinced that the evidence is CLEAR. I personally don't fly nighthawks and know nothing about them. The bottom line is that if an issue is CLEARLY a problem you should be able to get more than 40 people to support it. Unfortunately it's as good a measurement as any that I'm personally going to get to go by because, as I said, I don't fly them though some goons have complained about it. Who knows? If the issue's that clear then maybe the devs will see it on their own and we won't even have had to bring it to their attention? Please, even the most obvious of issues like corporate email logging which would reasonably have every single CEO in the game telling their corps to vote for it to force it being pushed to the CSM have only received 500 votes. You voted to discuss destroying stations despite it having less than 40 votes at the time and having large opposition and effecting probably fewer people than the nighthawk problems did. Don't pull that populist BS. Either there was a good reason to not bring it to CCP or their wasn't. "I don't know what is going on" is not a good reason, though understandable since there is no easy mechanic by which the CSM can be educated and informed on the topic(with proper dissent of course), but the excuse of ignorance does not make the reason any better. What on earth are you on about? Nothing I said in that statement is incorrect and I've already stated why I voted to support destructible outposts. The fact of the matter is I didn't bring the issue. The issues I did bring I am willing to justify. The votes I've made, I am willing to justify. If you don't like my explanation then that's fine. Insinuating that it's wrong because you don't like the result is what I would call ignorant. If you're going to call me on "BS" show the "BS". My statement was that I did not want to get into shiptypes. My statement was that if something was clearly a problem more people would support it. How is either of those incorrect in your eyes? Because some issues haven't gotten support? Because in YOUR OPINION it's a major issue even though very few seem to care enough to do anything about it? What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 01:45:00 - [153] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If you're going to call me on "BS" show the "BS". My statement was that I did not want to get into shiptypes. My statement was that if something was clearly a problem more people would support it. How is either of those incorrect in your eyes? Because some issues haven't gotten support? Because in YOUR OPINION it's a major issue even though very few seem to care enough to do anything about it? What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? If it was clearly a problem more people would support it was your claim. The counter argument to that was "if that was true then we would see more support for issues such as email logging which affect a larger and more powerful userbase." That is, since we aren't your claim is false, whether or not its clearly a problem has little to do with the amount of support it gets. Quote: What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? An objective unit of measurement obtained by examining the issue so that you are no longer unfamiliar with it Quote: If you don't like my explanation then that's fine. Insinuating that it's wrong because you don't like the result is what I would call ignorant. You might want to note that I would not have supported escalating this to CCP. It is not the result I am criticizing its the process.
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 03:43:00 - [154] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If you're going to call me on "BS" show the "BS". My statement was that I did not want to get into shiptypes. My statement was that if something was clearly a problem more people would support it. How is either of those incorrect in your eyes? Because some issues haven't gotten support? Because in YOUR OPINION it's a major issue even though very few seem to care enough to do anything about it? What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? If it was clearly a problem more people would support it was your claim. The counter argument to that was "if that was true then we would see more support for issues such as email logging which affect a larger and more powerful userbase." That is, since we aren't your claim is false, whether or not its clearly a problem has little to do with the amount of support it gets. Quote: What other unit of measurement would you have me use when looking at issues I'm unfamiliar with? An objective unit of measurement obtained by examining the issue so that you are no longer unfamiliar with it Quote: If you don't like my explanation then that's fine. Insinuating that it's wrong because you don't like the result is what I would call ignorant. You might want to note that I would not have supported escalating this to CCP. It is not the result I am criticizing its the process. So you don't like the process... ok. v0v Have a T-shirt made. Nobody else likes it either. It's on the agenda for Iceland to discuss. Regarding support, you can't hold the council accountable for the disinterest in the playerbase in solving these issues. If they don't use the forum to support the issues then the forum will be useless. You can lead a horse to water... That doesn't make my claim of support any less valid. I'm telling you that if you want attention paid to something to drum up support for it. You're saying the lack thereof isn't indicative of whether or not there's a problem. I agree with that but am saying that if you want attention paid to something that's the way to do it. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Martin VanBuren GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 03:48:00 - [155] Edited by: Martin VanBuren on 17/06/2008 03:48:19 GOUM GET BACK IN LINE, YOU'RE RUINING THE WHOLE CONSPIRACY
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 13:42:00 - [156] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON So you don't like the process Maybe i am not being clear. The process of how you are making the decision to vote no. If you don't think the issue warrants being sent to CCP, fine. If you don't learn about the issue before the vote, not fine.
Hamfast	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:46:00 - [157] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Darius JOHNSON So you don't like the process Maybe i am not being clear. The process of how you are making the decision to vote no. If you don't think the issue warrants being sent to CCP, fine. If you don't learn about the issue before the vote, not fine. A month of weirdness... I find myself agreeing with Goonsà Darius, I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... if you do vote (yes or no) it should be done with a reason, not a "I have no idea so I voted..." An example would be "I voted No on that because I did not think we should be worrying about individual ships when whole classes of ships have issues." Then again, I could be wrong. --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.17 16:57:00 - [158] Originally by: Hamfast I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... I got the impression from the chatlogs that the CSM had word from CCP about abstaining, suggesting that it requires 5 "Support Escalation" votes to move an issue forward, and that an abstention is the same as a No vote because of that. Is that true?
Yuki Santara Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:05:00 - [159] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Hamfast I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... I got the impression from the chatlogs that the CSM had word from CCP about abstaining, suggesting that it requires 5 "Support Escalation" votes to move an issue forward, and that an abstention is the same as a No vote because of that. Is that true? That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:27:00 - [160] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Hamfast I think what Goumindong is saying is that CSM members who are not informed on an issue should not vote "No" but abstain... I got the impression from the chatlogs that the CSM had word from CCP about abstaining, suggesting that it requires 5 "Support Escalation" votes to move an issue forward, and that an abstention is the same as a No vote because of that. Is that true? Yep there wasn't supposed to be an abstain option. Bottom line is nobody who was running for the position of CSM should really be abstaining on gameplay issues - our homework for the meetings is the read the threads, talk to players, understand the argument and reach an informed decision. I've certainly had multiple convo's open during some of these votes and been taking external advice on the technicalities - I'm doing my best to cast an informed "support/deny" vote based on what I perceive to the be the best interest of the game. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Momo chan	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:46:00 - [161] SUPPORT EVERYTHING AND MAKE CCP CRY ABOUT HOW MANY TOPICS THEIR ARE. Really if you don't know about the topic just support it so that they can discuss it and hear ccp's opinion.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.06.17 17:51:00 - [162] Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs.
Yuki Santara Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:01:00 - [163] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs. Agreed, still abstaining would seem like the lesser evil than generally voting no under such circumstances.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:06:00 - [164] Originally by: Yuki Santara Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs. Agreed, still abstaining would seem like the lesser evil than generally voting no under such circumstances. Well if a CSM really cannot get enough understanding of an issue to put their name with conscience behind a support vote it doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or failing - it could mean the issue is not well stated or is confusingly argued - in these cases voting "no support" can mean "sorry but I'm not convinced" and thats fair enough in the process. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:08:00 - [165] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Yuki Santara Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Yuki Santara That's only a technical difference though, one could always wait until everyone who cares has voted and then vote with the majority. That's true, they could do that - but I agree with Jade that if you're elected to the CSM you should do some research and talk to people in order to gain an informed opinion, not abstain. I think people abstaining from votes are not doing their jobs. Agreed, still abstaining would seem like the lesser evil than generally voting no under such circumstances. Well if a CSM really cannot get enough understanding of an issue to put their name with conscience behind a support vote it doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or failing - it could mean the issue is not well stated or is confusingly argued - in these cases voting "no support" can mean "sorry but I'm not convinced" and thats fair enough in the process. Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered?
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:20:00 - [166] Originally by: Yorda Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered? I don't understand what you are asking there Yorda? If people don't agree/understand the proposition on the table they can't really vote "support". CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:44:00 - [167] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Yorda Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered? I don't understand what you are asking there Yorda? If people don't agree/understand the proposition on the table they can't really vote "support". If people don't understand the issue[not proposition, issue] maybe they should get informed? I mean, God forbid we have a place on the forums where that can happen, or a time for when CSMs can ask questions...
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:52:00 - [168] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Yorda Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it right now so you can have a discussion in Iceland about it and hopefully have your questions answered? I don't understand what you are asking there Yorda? If people don't agree/understand the proposition on the table they can't really vote "support". The whole point of the votes right now is to decide what you discuss with CCP, if the issue really is so complex that you cant understand it don't you think that having a face to face discussion with the person presenting it and CCP would maybe clear up some of the issues?
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 18:58:00 - [169] Originally by: Hamfast An example would be "I voted No on that because I did not think we should be worrying about individual ships when whole classes of ships have issues." Then again, I could be wrong. That was exactly why I said I voted down the issue. The issue of getting more support for a topic was secondary. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 19:00:00 - [170] Originally by: Yorda The whole point of the votes right now is to decide what you discuss with CCP, if the issue really is so complex that you cant understand it don't you think that having a face to face discussion with the person presenting it and CCP would maybe clear up some of the issues? Well its actually about which questions we ask CCP. We are supposed to frame these things in the term of questions in our documentation. For example my "destructible outposts" thing actually boiled down to "hey ccp can you envisage a future for 0.0 space that includes destructible outposts?" (yes/no) The CSM voted to support me asking that question. Problem with some issues (particularly the capital ships online one) was that it was very specific on some of the proposed solutions and had stuff like fixing captial ship proliferation by reducing skill reqs and that really wasn't very persuasive. I certainly didn't find any single issue that got raised that I couldn't cast an informed vote on. But there were issues that I found poorly framed or badly argued or simply unconvincing and I had to vote "no support" with my conscience. End of the day we do have a responsibility to decide the priority of issues being raised and can't simply blanket support all of them and leave it for ccp to sort out or else whats the point of the CSM itself? I'd be happy to see capital issues come up again certainly, but I'd like to see each distinct proposal split into a separate issue and fully argued and described so we can vote support/no support on an informed and decisive basis. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!

Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 19:21:00 - [171] Originally by: Jade Constantine Well its actually about which questions we ask CCP. We are supposed to frame these things in the term of questions in our documentation. For example my "destructible outposts" thing actually boiled down to "hey ccp can you envisage a future for 0.0 space that includes destructible outposts?" (yes/no) The CSM voted to support me asking that question. Actually we voted for the CSM to have a discussion with CCP regarding the issue. At least that was my intention in voting yes. That in no way implies support for the subject matter, merely support for the conversation. We're not going to fill 2 or 3 days with yes's and no's. There will be back and forth or we will have wasted a significant amount of everyone's time. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.17 20:10:00 - [172] Am I missing something? Voting on issues to have a discussion with CCP about them? It'd be good if someone can point out where this is the stated purpose of the CSM...I must have missed it in my readings... I really hope that the CSM will one day split issues out into seperate issues for the purpose of making issues crystal clear, having a well-framed question, and making discussion and voting easier and meaningful (ie, each issue is voted on its merits/concerns). Additionally, when will the CSM start to take the 'benefits to the majority of Eve players' into account when discussing and voting on issues. 40 supports counts as an issue concerning the majority of Eve players? Representatives are free to bring up anything in a meeting, so long as it has been on the forum for a period of 7 days...submission templates before meetings hinder this process... When will CSM members (with the exception of a couple) start to interact with the populace via the forums and actually debate/discuss issues that are posted? It seems to me that many CSM reps are uninformed about issues and the implications of changes due to not asking questions of the issue and digging a little deeper. Many simply stick an issue up, make zero further contribution and then bring it up for vote...obviously with a pre-determined opinion on the issue. I've certainly had multiple convo's open during some of these votes and been taking external advice on the technicalities - I'm doing my best to cast an informed "support/deny" vote based on what I perceive to the be the best interest of the game. Maybe this would be better before a meeting? At least you are trying to understand some issues! When will we see discussion about issues, and their ramifications, in meetings? When will we see voting ON an issue occurring, rather than voting just to make a list look bigger? Take care, Bruce Hansen
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 20:34:00 - [173] Originally by: Arithron Am I missing something? Voting on issues to have a discussion with CCP about them? It'd be good if someone can point out where this is the stated purpose of the CSM...I must have missed it in my readings... I really hope that the CSM will one day split issues out into seperate issues for the purpose of making issues crystal clear, having a well-framed question, and making discussion and voting easier and meaningful (ie, each issue is voted on its merits/concerns). Additionally, when will the CSM start to take the 'benefits to the majority of Eve players' into account when discussing and voting on issues. 40 supports counts as an issue concerning the majority of Eve players? Representatives are free to bring up anything in a meeting, so long as it has been on the forum for a period of 7 days...submission templates before meetings hinder this process... When will CSM members (with the exception of a couple) start to interact with the populace via the forums and actually debate/discuss issues that are posted? It seems to me that many CSM reps are uninformed about issues and the implications of changes due to not asking questions of the issue and digging a little deeper. Many simply stick an issue up, make zero further contribution and then bring it up for vote...obviously with a pre-determined opinion on the issue. I've certainly had multiple convo's open during some of these votes and been taking external advice on the technicalities - I'm doing my best to cast an informed "support/deny" vote based on what I perceive to the be the best interest of the game. Maybe this would be better before a meeting? At least you are trying to understand some issues! When will we see discussion about issues, and their ramifications, in meetings? When will we see voting ON an issue occurring, rather than voting just to make a list look bigger? Take care, Bruce Hansen Actually the stated purpose of the CSM was to serve as an oversight committee. Beyond that our role has been altered to one of taking player issues directly to CCP with the guarantee of a response from them. If you'd prefer we do that without discussion that's just fine by me, but I fear we may not accomplish much. Re: debate/discussion of issues. I involve myself minimally with the issues I'm most familiar with in various locations. I fail to see how my input would be any more relevant than your input on a subject with which you are more familiar. To top that off the Assembly Hall sucks for this purpose. Sorry have to run for a conference call. I'll come back. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Windjammer	Posted - 2008.06.17 21:16:00 - [174] Re: Capital Ships Online. This one was a bit of a jaw dropper for me. It looked like Bane wanted to bring the topic in its unspecified totality to CCP for discussion. He indicated he had some specific ideas on how to nerf them or make them more accessable and he also had some ideas he hadn't presented. I mean......come on......let's talk about Capital ships? You may as well say, "let's talk about Outposts" or "let's talk about Battleships" or "let's talk about the Amarr", etc. It's too large a topic to not break down into specific proposals for a vote. Unless I was missing something, voting aye on that proposal would have given Bane carte blanche to present anything he wanted to CCP regarding changes to capital ships and mechanisms which control them without having the specifics of the presentation reviewed by the CSM. At the very least he was asking the CSM to vote on documents that weren't available to them at the time of the vote. At this point I won't suggest that Bane was trying to pull something. I'm not convinced he was. I will, however, say this needed to be presented in a more organized manner and broken down into specific proposals. For that reason alone it was appropriately voted down. Then posts on the forum which suggest the CSM should have voted to escalate it because it's "an important issue". There was even one poster who suggested that those who voted against escalation of Banes proposal were uniformed about it, should have been informed about it and had no business voting against something they didn't understand. What colossal conceit. Some of what Bane was suggesting in the CSM meeting wasn't even on the forum thread he started on the subject i.e. shortening the skill training necessary to pilot a capital wasn't in the OP of the thread. Looking at the OP of Banes thread http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=785828 I see a list of things that should be brought up in Assembly Hall as individual topics for approval. Regards, Windjammer
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.06.17 21:18:00 - [175] Originally by: Windjammer Unless I was missing something, voting aye on that proposal would have given Bane carte blanche to present anything he wanted to CCP regarding changes to capital ships and mechanisms which control them without having the specifics of the presentation reviewed by the CSM. At the very least he was asking the CSM to vote on documents that weren't available to them at the time of the vote. I've already addressed that in this very thread. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.06.17 22:25:00 - [176] Originally by: Jade Constantine Serenity will be hosting the chatlog on the eve csm site at some point this week but until then feel free to view the raw chat log at http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.msg94219#msg94219 That's nice, but he hasn't posted the last one, let alone this one. I guess we're switching to Jericho Fraction's site for the CSM stuff now. And, yeah, CCP haven't posted the FIRST meeting minutes yet. Everyone dropping the ball all over the place.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.06.17 22:33:00 - [177] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 17/06/2008 22:34:33 Originally by: Letouk Mernel Originally by: Jade Constantine Serenity will be hosting the chatlog on the eve csm site at some point this week but until then feel free to view the raw chat log at http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.msg94219#msg94219 That's nice, but he hasn't posted the last one, let alone this one. I guess we're switching to Jericho Fraction's site for the CSM stuff now. And, yeah, CCP haven't posted the FIRST meeting minutes yet. Everyone dropping the ball all over the place. Well complain about it or say "thanks" to the people trying to do their best in trying circumstances. This really ain't an easy task and despite that we've pretty done the thing. Keep in mind Serenity had no formal responsibility to do this - he set up the eve.csm site (and our mailing list) because he wanted to make the CSM a success not because he was obligated too. He could have sat back and watched ccp not get the resources in place in time and watch us fail to achieve much but no, he gave it a go and tried his best. Thats what I'm doing by hosting these chatlogs on the Jericho Fraction site. I could sit back and not publish the logs but I'm trying to do the best I can to keep the promises we collectively made as the CSM. Sheesh. CSM Manifesto 2008 \| Destroy Outposts!
Nynaeve Ares Animus Incarnate	Posted - 2008.06.18 01:35:00 - [178] I've had epiphany. You guys are slave labour for ccp, you exsist so CCP doesn't have to wade through all the crap on the forums. You should demand some sort of wage or recompense for your time tbh.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.06.18 02:56:00 - [179] Originally by: Letouk Mernel Originally by: Jade Constantine Serenity will be hosting the chatlog on the eve csm site at some point this week but until then feel free to view the raw chat log at http://www.jericho-fraction.net/smf/index.php?topic=10310.msg94219#msg94219 That's nice, but he hasn't posted the last one, let alone this one. I guess we're switching to Jericho Fraction's site for the CSM stuff now. And, yeah, CCP haven't posted the FIRST meeting minutes yet. Everyone dropping the ball all over the place. Actually, CCP posted the first three meetings' minutes a little while days back. They're not obvious, but they're on the left sidebar - CSM is 6 below Forums. They need to fix up the filenames, but they're there. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Yuki Santara Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Celestial Imperative	Posted - 2008.06.18 03:51:00 - [180] Originally by: Nynaeve Ares I've had epiphany. You guys are slave labour for ccp, you exsist so CCP doesn't have to wade through all the crap on the forums. Well, duh. :P Note however that CPP doesn't "have" to do that anyway, public forums are usually largely ignored by developers. There is no other way to stay sane. Quote: You should demand some sort of wage or recompense for your time tbh. One would hope that all candidates ran with the intention to put some effort into working for the greater good of the community (and CPP).

LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.06.18 08:33:00 - [181] Originally by: Nynaeve Ares You should demand some sort of wage or recompense for your time tbh. You don't think a free trip to Iceland is a good enough recompensation? I certainly think it's more than what could be expected from volunteer work.
Orb Lati ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.26 04:00:00 - [182] A may be in correct in saying this ... but why is Item 10 in this list of issues to be raised? Reading through the linked thread it seems that most of the respondents disagreed with this suggested idea. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2008.06.29 19:02:00 - [183] Originally by: Orb Lati A may be in correct in saying this ... but why is Item 10 in this list of issues to be raised? Reading through the linked thread it seems that most of the respondents disagreed with this suggested idea. Because it (Abolish Learning Skills) is on the Goonswarm wish list. You can also see the trend of this wish expressed in Bane Glorius's suggestion of reducing the time it takes to learn the skills for capital ships. The trend is: goonswarm would like to significantly reduce the training times in EVE and by doing so reduce the advantage of older players over younger players.....oh and incidentally make the goonswarm alliance that much more powerful that much more quickly. There are two ways an issue may be brought up for an escalation vote in a CSM meeting. One; it can get more than 40 approval (thumbs up) posts in a thread in the assembly area of the CSM forums. Or two; it can be taken up by a member of the CSM who finds it worthy regardless of how many approval posts were made or lack thereof. If the majority of CSM representatives vote to escalate the issue, then it is assigned an "owner" and presented to CCP by the owner at a CSM/CCP meeting. Because the minutes from CSM meetings #4 and #5 have yet to be posted by CCP or Serenity it's difficult to see the exact method used to get this issue on the agenda for the CCP meeting. However, as Bane is the "owner" of the issue, it seems likely that he brought the issue to the CSM meeting and asked for a vote to escalate. Bane has said Goonswarm depends upon new players and he feels these new players he sees are turned away by having to take the time to train the learning skills. Further he feels it's virtually a requirement to train learning skills to high levels. Thus he seeks to eliminate learning skills. You can see from the posts on the topic and from speaking to other players in EVE that goonswarms view is not shared by most of EVE, but it nevertheless made it to the CCP meeting. Can't wait to see those CSM meeting minutes posted as well as the CSM/CCP meeting minutes. Windjammer


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [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.