Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
White Ronin
Screenout
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:33:00 -
[1]
As a whole, the CSM are a waste of time and totally focused on self promotion and private interest and not the best interests of the general Eve subscriber.
If you read the minutes then you will see that it is nothing but a political power struggle to either replace daytime soups or hype their illusionary position as a decision maker in EVE.
Comments by some members to describe issues like the player base being "lazy" when it is obvious that they dont even know about the subject they are talking about is an initial good example.
Outright rejection of adding any content to the game based on it use in a "solo" playstyle obviously shows who you represents pretty clearly.
Rather then gathering and talking as a group focused on bettering the world of EVE, all one has to do is read their minutes and see they are nothing but a publicity stunt (as some have called it though I tried not to believe) or self interest group that has been given license and a personal forum by the EVE staff.
It is not that hard to just sit down and rationally discuss items that may or may not need ccp's attention. But you cant even do that. You run huge corps but cant stop waisting the time of the general population of Eve with your infighting and power mongering long enough to have one sane meeting. One meeting. Given your various positions in large guilds I find it hard to believe this is unintentional.
Many of the CSM members are part of an organization that has sworn to actualy destroy EVE. Your organization, or at least their leaders, have made these statements of their own free will so please dont come here and say otherwise. Ruining a route of communication and problem solving directly connected to the player base would seem a good start. And saying that is not what you are up to is like running down the street with a chainsaw saying you were gunna kill everyone and then saying "I didnt mean it" when the people dont unlock their doors to let you in.
You have been elected. But it can be argued that if the votes were counted up and compared to the player base you represent, then the results would correlate with who was elected pretty well. I am not saying wether it is true or not, but it could be successfully argued given the evidence.
You CSM members have had several meetings to actually do your jobs and have NO PROOF that you are actually focusing on the needs of the players of EVE or that you have done ANYTHING to promote their needs, understand their issues or expand the player experience to new players or old.
Almost every communication between the CSM's is a cat fight. THe minutes of the CSM meetings are childish fights and when issues are discussed it seems most of the CSM either dont care, dont want to waste the time on the issue or activily oppose it because of some hidden agenda.
You can not have members who have stated they want to destroy the game on a council ment to improve and better it.
You can not have leaders of large corps who publicly denounce a viable playstyle also be the people who represent its best interests.
The do not represent the general player base. They do not represent the best interests of EVE. They do not represent the general eve player, anyone or anything outside their own interests for themselves or their corps.
CCP never intended these guys to be either. They dont care about the general player base, only the large subscription blocks.
Proof: They had allowed these self same corps to use third party programs unmolested but when one of those self same programs gets released to the general public, it is a problem they fix immediately. Large corps can use programs that are considered "wrong" if the general public uses them. And CCP admitted they have known about it for a while.
No, the CSM are simply reps of the biggest subscription blocks. Not the representative of the general Eve player base. Not representative of the best interests of "EVEOnline" the game and community. A daytime soup and game. |
Yorda
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:40:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Yorda on 11/06/2008 14:42:19 Crossposting another goon
Quote: This more than anything is what's wrong with the CSM concept. When devs "listen to the players" it generally turns out to be a bad idea. The people who are loud enough to be heard are the selfish bitter vets. It's swarmed with people trying to get stuff for themselves, not improve the game. And certainly not add to their competition by letting newbies catch up.
Also, as another goon said "We dont want to ruin the game, we want to ruin your game". |
Winterblink
Body Count Inc. Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:20:00 -
[3]
Main post is a mess, but if I'm understanding you correctly your biggest beef is that you feel that the general player base is not being represented properly by people you perceive to be just alliance leaders with their own agendas. Is that a decent enough summary?
Personally I don't care if the whole council was Goonswarm, or Band of Brothers, or my own comrades, as long as they're able to take issues raised in the CSM forums which gain popular approval, and take them to CCP. That seems to be the case of what's happening. There are lists of issues that are going to get talked about, and those issues came from the forums.
So if there's a failure somewhere of issues reaching their attention, guess who's shoulders that gets laid upon?
The real test is how those issues are presented to CCP. If the people being assigned the issues do their job and bone up on the subject at hand and present it not as an opinionated blowhard but as a representative of the community, I'm happy. That's where the real test of the process will occur.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:36:00 -
[4]
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case. Seeing the big picturełin this case, the needs of a society with over 220.000 individualsł is the primary responsibility of a CSM Representative...
From the CSM summary paper. Nothing wrong with the idea of the CSM, so long as they adhere to the structures put in place by CCP. Many of the issues fail the italicised part above. Many more will fail if the CSM council keep considering their job is to just bring numerous issues to the CCP meetings without discussing them fully beforehand in meetings. From the chatlogs, I see little discussion or debate on many of the issues raised. The same could be said for many issues on the forum. I have been urging CSM members to look at the structures carefully to make sure they are fully aware of their remit and the structure they work within. I think much of the infighting and confusion stems from stepping outside this remit and a misunderstanding of the purpose of how and what the CSM actually is for.
Bruce Hansen
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:42:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 15:45:23
To a degree I agree with you White Ronin. I did expect some degree of political maneuvering and head-banging in advance, I did see a danger of the appointees of big alliance blocks becoming poor CSM's and said as much during the campaign - but I had hoped we'd be able to get by that with some simple decisions on interpretation of CSM docs and spend our time discussing the issues. Instead it has turned into a straight power-play slug fest with the least and simplest issue of Chair moderation launching 1001 threads and sparking the most ridiculous histrionics I've seen in many years on these forums and many CSM reps involved in actively stoking the flames rather than showing collective responsibility to the organization's best interests.
So I'm now convinced that the CSM should not be allowed to re-write the founding rules with its current composition because frankly - I don't trust people involved to make the decisions without self-interest and political bias coloring their votes. In order for us to actually get down the business we were elected to do - actually considering substantive player issues and bringing them to CCP attention we are going to need a full and unambiguous guide to how the council offices work, how the meetings work, how moderation works, what sanctions can exist for handling bad behaviour in meetings.
All this stuff is going to need spelling out and underlining in a position document from CCP because at the moment ANY ambiguity in the process is being seized on by opportunistic forces trying to subvert the process of the council. Our biggest failure as a collective body is the way more effort has been put into factional in-fighting on the council than actually reading and casting informed votes on Issues. I too was absolutely disappointed with the outcome of the exploration vessel vote White Ronin. And its shameful what we spent more time discussing a motion to allow CSM reps to come and go in meetings and contradicting the stated role of alternates than we did on supporting a gameplay profession and focus for solo players and people interested in exploration. Calling solo players "lazy" for not bringing friends was shocking and I'm going to apologize for the fact that happened - it was inappropriate and insulting and is not the kind of language the CSM should be using.
But I'm going to try to put this right. I've started by making a ruling that all potential changes to the constitution/founding documents must be raised in the form of documented ISSUEs and join the queue with the rest for CCP approval. I hope this will stop these things clogging up the beginning of meetings.
ANK has gone a step further with a motion effectively saying we should agree that we have no say on these changes and CCP must be asked for a ruling on all issues of interpretation/change of the documentation.
At the moment though you are right, its a warzone and it has to stop. I would like here and now to call on my fellow CSM reps to stop briefing against each other publicly and privately - we shouldn't be fighting over matters of procedure on the forums, and we definitely shouldn't be taking disagreements over meeting moderation to the court of public debate. Nothing will come of this except noise and mob stupidity. No good result will arise. All that will be achieved by playing politics at the expense of fellow CSM reps will be less time for substantive discussion of gameplay issues. Anyone carrying on this behaviour should stop immediately.
I still think this can recovered, but yes, we do need to make changes and from this point forward anyone seeking to bring admin/procedural items onto the agenda above player submitted ISSUEs needs to be demonstrating clearly how these things are in the interest of the electorate and the general good of the CSM.
|
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
This is insane. For you to have the gall to put this on the other members of the council when you have undeniably been proven through the chatlogs to have been one of the two main instigators of CSM rulemongering and bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy I simply cannot fathom how you can have such a break with the reality of this situation.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:58:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 15:59:21
Originally by: Halca
Originally by: Jade Constantine
This is insane. For you to have the gall to put this on the other members of the council when you have undeniably been proven through the chatlogs to have been one of the two main instigators of CSM rulemongering and bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy I simply cannot fathom how you can have such a break with the reality of this situation.
And so it goes. Your side say that, another side says something different. My supporters say that other side has behaved appallingly, the goons say I've behaved appallingly. Rules lawyers of both sides go through the chatlogs and interpret things from that, interpretations get challenged, insults get exchanged ... blah blah blah. And so on.
Reality is nothing will be changed by forum frothing and faux outrage. You are going to have to live with the current CSM you have now for another five months. So decide, you're going to flame and troll with the rest for 150 days and then wring your hands wondering why "its all gone wrong". Or maybe you take some responsibility for YOUR own behaviour too and move onto taking in interest in actual decisions rather than childish temper tantrums and petty political games.
Grow up. Learn to listen. Concentrate on the ISSUEs not the political powerplays and maybe you get to have a good influence on matter. And preempting your inevitable mock outrage that I dare to hold you responsible for frothing inanities on this forum ... tough. If think you are posting like a fool I'll tell you that. If you can tell me you look at those chatlogs and claim that one person is responsible for that trainwreck then I'm going to say you are either blind, or have an agenda to wreck this process. Either way your input is not helpful to this thread.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:01:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Halca on 11/06/2008 16:01:19
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Halca
Originally by: Jade Constantine
This is insane. For you to have the gall to put this on the other members of the council when you have undeniably been proven through the chatlogs to have been one of the two main instigators of CSM rulemongering and bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy I simply cannot fathom how you can have such a break with the reality of this situation.
And so it goes. Your side say that, another side says something different. My supporters say that other side has behaved appallingly, the goons say I've behaved appallingly. Rules lawyers of both sides go through the chatlogs and interpret things from that, interpretations get challenged, insults get exchanged ... blah blah blah. And so on.
Reality is nothing will be changed by forum frothing and faux outrange. You are going to have to live with the current CSM you have now for another five months. So decide, you're going to flame and troll with the rest for 150 days and then wring your hands wondering why "its all gone wrong". Or maybe you take some responsibility for YOUR own behaviour too.
Grow up. Learn to listen. Concentrate on the ISSUEs not the political powerplays and maybe you get to have a good influence on matter. And preempting your inevitable mock outrage that I dare to hold you responsible for frothing inanities on this forum ... tough. If think you are posting like a fool I'll tell you that. If you can tell me you look at those chatlogs and claim that one person is responsible for that trainwreck then I'm going to say you are either blind, or have an agenda to wreck this process. Either way your input is not helpful to this thread.
I'm on no side you presumptuous twit, except my own. I'm a low sec pirate with no ties to any entity represented on the CSM. I care about the game and I saw the CSM as a chance to change that but continue along your merry way with your wrong assumptions and arrogant demeanour. Meanwhile, the chatlogs are there for all to see.
|
Innominate
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:01:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Jade Constantine I've started by making a ruling that all potential changes to the constitution/founding documents must be raised in the form of documented ISSUEs and join the queue with the rest for CCP approval. I hope this will stop these things clogging up the beginning of meetings.
When was this voted on? Or should I assume it will be voted on at the next CSM meeting?
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Halca
Originally by: Jade Constantine
This is insane. For you to have the gall to put this on the other members of the council when you have undeniably been proven through the chatlogs to have been one of the two main instigators of CSM rulemongering and bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy I simply cannot fathom how you can have such a break with the reality of this situation.
And so it goes. Your side say that, another side says something different. My supporters say that other side has behaved appallingly, the goons say I've behaved appallingly. Rules lawyers of both sides go through the chatlogs and interpret things from that, interpretations get challenged, insults get exchanged ... blah blah blah. And so on.
Reality is nothing will be changed by forum frothing and faux outrange. You are going to have to live with the current CSM you have now for another five months. So decide, you're going to flame and troll with the rest for 150 days and then wring your hands wondering why "its all gone wrong". Or maybe you take some responsibility for YOUR own behaviour too.
Grow up. Learn to listen. Concentrate on the ISSUEs not the political powerplays and maybe you get to have a good influence on matter. And preempting your inevitable mock outrage that I dare to hold you responsible for frothing inanities on this forum ... tough. If think you are posting like a fool I'll tell you that. If you can tell me you look at those chatlogs and claim that one person is responsible for that trainwreck then I'm going to say you are either blind, or have an agenda to wreck this process. Either way your input is not helpful to this thread.
By inferring there is some political powerplay conspiracy you insult any CSM that has voted with a Goon member, any Eve player that voted for said CSM, and by justifying your fiat with this nonsense you are destroying the whole proceeding.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:08:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 16:10:47
Originally by: Halca I'm on no side you presumptuous twit
Quote: And preempting your inevitable mock outrage that I dare to hold you responsible for frothing inanities on this forum
I'm a prophet apparently
All I can say is read again, take on the range of 3rd party opinions, read the op post and have a think about this. Or better still, get over it. If you are interested in the CSM go comment on some actual ISSUEs and stop whining about the fact we're in the jerry-springer show while you're the one trying to burst onto the stage chanting "jerry jerry jerry".
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:12:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
I'm a prophet apparently
All I can say is read again, take on the range of 3rd party opinions, read the op post and have a think about this. Or better still, get over it. If you are interested in the CSM go comment on some actual ISSUEs and stop whining about the fact we're in the jerry-springer show while you're the one trying to burst onto the stage chanting "jerry jerry jerry".
MAN IF EVERYONE WOULD JUST SHUT UP AND AGREE WITH ME WE WOULDNT BE ARGUING
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:23:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Reality is nothing will be changed by forum frothing and faux outrage.
I am sorry Jade, but i have to inform you that reality is in fact objective, and can be measured as such.
Quote: Concentrate on the ISSUEs not the political powerplays and maybe you get to have a good influence on matter
Lord, if everyone would just let me take over the CSM and use it to do whatever the hell i want we wouldn't be having a problem. Why wont you people just shut up about my flagrant usurpation of power? If it wasn't for you making a fuss about this no one would care!
|
Halca
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:28:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 16:10:47
Originally by: Halca I'm on no side you presumptuous twit
Quote: And preempting your inevitable mock outrage that I dare to hold you responsible for frothing inanities on this forum
I'm a prophet apparently
All I can say is read again, take on the range of 3rd party opinions, read the op post and have a think about this. Or better still, get over it. If you are interested in the CSM go comment on some actual ISSUEs and stop whining about the fact we're in the jerry-springer show while you're the one trying to burst onto the stage chanting "jerry jerry jerry".
Maybe if you actually did what you say I'd have an ounce of respect for you but your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I stopped reading your crap after the first paragraph but continue, you apparently seem to love the attention.
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:37:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 15:45:23 And its shameful what we spent more time discussing a motion to allow CSM reps to come and go in meetings and contradicting the stated role of alternates.
Still bitter your interpretation and lack of reading comprehension is not shared by all the CSM's I see. I guess the CSM's that voted for this are just ignorant.
Good thing you overturned it by non-existant means!
|
Gone'Postal
Scoopex The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:29:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Jade Constantine Reality is nothing will be changed by forum frothing and faux outrage.
I am sorry Jade, but i have to inform you that reality is in fact objective, and can be measured as such.
Quote: Concentrate on the ISSUEs not the political powerplays and maybe you get to have a good influence on matter
Lord, if everyone would just let me take over the CSM and use it to do whatever the hell i want we wouldn't be having a problem. Why wont you people just shut up about my flagrant usurpation of power? If it wasn't for you making a fuss about this no one would care!
Quotin this as CSM fact.
Questions, Comments, Problems, Please address them to the CSM.. Now CCP Never have to visit the forum. -V8I-
|
Kallynda Nai
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:45:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 15:45:23
But I'm going to try to put this right. I've started by making a ruling that all potential changes to the constitution/founding documents must be raised in the form of documented ISSUEs and join the queue with the rest for CCP approval. I hope this will stop these things clogging up the beginning of meetings.
Er...you can't actually do that. |
Fallorn
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 17:55:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kallynda Nai
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 15:45:23
But I'm going to try to put this right. I've started by making a ruling that all potential changes to the constitution/founding documents must be raised in the form of documented ISSUEs and join the queue with the rest for CCP approval. I hope this will stop these things clogging up the beginning of meetings.
Er...you can't actually do that.
He is like the vice president he can do anything even shoot someone in the head and not get in trouble for it because he is emperor palpatine . |
Trojanman190
Altruism. Malice.
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:09:00 -
[19]
You guys are all hilarious. Its politics. Real politics. You think that everyone is completely objective at the UN? You think people genuinely step away from their country for the betterment of all of the members of the UN? Hahaha. The council members just haven't learned how to hide their true motives yet. They haven't learned how to smile about one thing while stabbing someone in the back, they just do it openly right now. It's a brand new council. Remember.. the first attempt at the UN, Wilson's League of Nations, failed miserably before WWII and had to be completely remade.
Now I can't say everything is 100% just like real life but it was naive to believe that the council would be completely unbiased. The members will ALWAYS have their own interests in mind. A good analogy to the situation is the energy crisis. The solution to this crisis would result in the betterment of everyone in the world as a whole. Why would agreeing to reduce your country's emmissions be a bad thing? Yet at almost every international meeting on the issues staleamtes are reached and no representative ever comes out and says "This is a f***ing no-brainer! Let's save the planet! Reduce emissions by 50%!!!" If that happens the conferences would be 2 minute teleconferences while everyone involved says "Yay to saving the world". But those conferences last weeks. And most of the time nothing is solved. Cutting emissions would reduce industrial output, or cost money to implement emission reducing technology... etc etc.
Its never so simple as "lets solve problem X", yay or nay." I'm not shocked that the council is the way it is, it would be inhuman for it to be unbiased. Real world experience has shown us that. Whining about the situation is like whining about the UN. But at least we can read the meeting minutes and laugh because nobody is listening anyways. |
JafoPBCFR
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 18:23:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 16:02:34
Originally by: Halca
Originally by: Jade Constantine
This is insane. For you to have the gall to put this on the other members of the council when you have undeniably been proven through the chatlogs to have been one of the two main instigators of CSM rulemongering and bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy I simply cannot fathom how you can have such a break with the reality of this situation.
And so it goes. Your side say that, another side says something different. My supporters say that other side has behaved appallingly, the goons say I've behaved appallingly. Rules lawyers of both sides go through the chatlogs and interpret things from that, interpretations get challenged, insults get exchanged ... blah blah blah. And so on.
Reality is nothing will be changed by forum frothing and faux outrage. You are going to have to live with the current CSM you have now for another five months. So decide, you're going to flame and troll with the rest for 150 days and then wring your hands wondering why "its all gone wrong". Or maybe you take some responsibility for YOUR own behaviour too and move onto taking an interest in actual decisions rather than childish temper tantrums and petty political games.
Grow up. Learn to listen rather than simply mash the keyboard with the mob. Concentrate on the ISSUEs not the political powerplays and maybe you get to have a good influence on matter. And preempting your inevitable mock outrage that I dare to hold you responsible for frothing inanities on this forum ... tough. If think you are posting like a fool I'll tell you that.
If you can tell me you look at those chatlogs and claim that one person is responsible for that trainwreck then I'm going to say you are either blind, or have an agenda to wreck this process. Either way your input is not helpful to this thread.
WOW you are a pompous little twit.
I too feel your Not able to conduct yourself. Im not a good Im a player. One who you are suposed to rep. Keep you goonswarm crap out of the issues i elected you for.
Your little preschool crap has got to stop. you wanted to have the job. Doit and doit rite. Not keeping others from a vote not muting others not making snide comments after every vote. Others seen to take what there doing with high reguard. Your just on some Agrophobic pre pubecent power trip.
I swear i wish i voted for someone with more maturity. Hell Goontards would have been better.
|
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:59:00 -
[21]
Whilst I'm watching you each flame the other here, I do have to ponder the following:
Originally by: Jade Constantine I would like here and now to call on my fellow CSM reps to stop briefing against each other publicly and privately - we shouldn't be fighting over matters of procedure on the forums, and we definitely shouldn't be taking disagreements over meeting moderation to the court of public debate.
I concur that all the CSM would be better serving the electorate if they would moderate their tone and act more reasonably, but these public fora are basically the place presently provided. As the quote goes "There are two things you don't want to see made: sausages and laws." Well, we aren't making laws but we are certainly trying to sort out policies and procedures which is a close thing, and just as you wouldn't expect our state legislatures to hide away in private I do not believe the CSM should either. We were elected in the public eye and should be seen to serve in the public eye. Oh, and yes, I include myself in that 'could all do better' piece.
But then - after enjoining everyone to create world peace and harmony - you then go and write
Originally by: Jade Constantine a motion to allow CSM reps to come and go in meetings and contradicting the stated role of alternates
*again* editorialising a decision of the CSM. Nobody asked for the ability to "come and go", and your re-write to suggest they did is the opposite of "definitely shouldn't be taking disagreements over meeting moderation to the court of public debate".
IZ
My principles |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:09:00 -
[22]
Re the OP I must disagree with it in the main. I especially dislike the accusations that:
Originally by: White Ronin Outright rejection of adding any content to the game based on it use in a "solo" playstyle obviously shows who you represents pretty clearly.
I am primarily a 'solo player' and am very much supporting reasonable moves in this area!
Originally by: White Ronin Given your various positions in large guilds I find it hard to believe this is unintentional.
"Guilds" I believe are in some other passtime, but my corp has under ten members (that I've even been online with, anyway) and Electus Matari is an RP alliance which is certainly not 'large'. I have no "position" with either grouping.
Originally by: White Ronin Many of the CSM members are part of an organization that has sworn to actualy destroy EVE.
If this is meant to be describing Goons, then there are two of them, Of nine members. Not really "many" by any stretch of the imagination.
Originally by: White Ronin Almost every communication between the CSM's is a cat fight.
Atually it might surprise people, but the in-game channel is usually a reasonable discussion (out of meetings) and is friendly. Generally, in fact, I feel we are friendly towards each other excepting the occasional 'heightened discussion' over some matters which we may not all agree on (yeah, ok, "cat fight" might be a bit accurate) and I certainly have no animosity to any of my Council colleagues in person at all, whatever happens in CSM meetings (or, indeed, in game should I meet them near some dark asteroid!)
That the issues presently on the table that we will take *for guaranteed response* from CCP next week are, this time around, ones where there is a high level of general agreement, oth from pilots (on this forum) and within the CSM (as I said, not all discussion happens in the meeting itself) so I think we're doing pretty well so far.
But thank you for your input.
IZ
My principles |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:16:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 23:17:10
Originally by: Inanna Zuni Whilst I'm watching you each flame the other here, I do have to ponder the following:
Originally by: Inanna Zuni Oh, and yes, I include myself in that 'could all do better' piece.
I guess by saying "you" it means "us" right?
Quote: But then - after enjoining everyone to create world peace and harmony - you then go and write
Originally by: Jade Constantine a motion to allow CSM reps to come and go in meetings and contradicting the stated role of alternates
*again* editorialising a decision of the CSM. Nobody asked for the ability to "come and go", and your re-write to suggest they did is the opposite of "definitely shouldn't be taking disagreements over meeting moderation to the court of public debate".
1. Its not editorializing its a CSM representative expressing an opinion as to what was voted on. 2. I didn't say you explicitly "asked for it" I said you have voted for the option that allows you to come and go as you please. 3. In my opinion yes, it does contradict the stated role of alternates in the documentation. 4. This is not a disagreement over moderation.
Don't accuse me of re-writing when I'm expressing an honest opinion of what went on and how the vote contradicted the documentation. You seem to think you have free reign to make accusations of the Chair editorializing issues and Chair bias while simulataneously opposing all notion of Chair authority to moderate meetings Inanna. Obviously we disagree, we will continue to disagree and this argument will continue as long as you choose to sustain it.
I have my opinion over what went on. I have my opinion on what was voted for. I have my opinion on the implications of that vote and I have my opinion on how it contradicts the documentation we were supposed to be basing CSM processes on.
As a result its now my opinion that this CSM committee is not an appropriate body to be voting on these procedural issues at the current time and we'd be much better doing as Ank suggests and asking CCP for rulings in these cases while we get on with the business we were actually elected to perform - selecting and presenting player issues for the forthcoming summit.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:32:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 11/06/2008 23:35:40
Originally by: Jade Constantine 2. I didn't say you explicitly "asked for it" I said you have voted for the option that allows you to come and go as you please.
Please re-read the motion which was passed and accepted by the CSM. It is quite explicit and does not state "come and go as you please". There is no "opinion" about that now; the motion had its form of words and was passed in that form of words; it cannot be re-written now (or at least should not).
Originally by: Jade Constantine You seem to think you have free reign to make accusations of the Chair editorializing issues and Chair bias while simulataneously opposing all notion of Chair authority to moderate meetings Inanna.
Please do not try to put your words* in my mouth. You have editorialised some issues which you should instead now just put behind you and accept the wording the CSM agreed, and you have showed bias (cf. many threads and comments on these fora noting that).
I do not oppose the Chair's authority to moderate meetings; clearly it is a pre-requisite!
I do, however, most strongly object that when I ask you to explain your view about something that instead of answering you muted me, and have repeatedly refused (on these forums and on the closed-circulation CSM email list) to explain yourself, demanding that I ask you in a private channel only. The CSM is a public (fsvo) body and all communication regarding the activities of its members should, therefore, be public.
IZ
* or anything else! ;-P
My principles |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:44:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 23:46:00
Originally by: Inanna Zuni I do, however, most strongly object that when I ask you to explain your view about something that instead of asnwering you muted me, and have repeatedly refused (on these forums and on the closed-circulation CSM email list) to explain yourself, demanding that I ask you in a private channel only. The CSM is a public (fsvo) body and all communication regarding the activities of its members should, therefore, be public.
Well Inanna, for the record I also strongly object that rather than asking the Chair and Vice Chair to clarify the muting decision in a private channel where we could address the issue in a calm and adult fashion you chose to stamp around making accusations and accusing me of lying in a public recorded CSM chat and directly sparked this current ridiculous flamewar over the issue of a moderation decision that most sensible people have admitted that the Chair of a meeting has the right to make.
This was a decision supported by the Chair and Vice Chair. You have also been called out by the general public on the issue in many places here here and here for example.
You have never approached me privately and asked for explanation. You have constantly pressed for a public showdown on the issue and are trying to grandstand and stoke up controversy for its own sake. You know perfectly well that there can be no public discussion of CSM matters at the moment without extreme Goon trolling and you are playing to that crowd.
So the only public answer I'm going to give you is the same answer I've given you all along. You were disruptive in the meeting, you were warned several times, in the end I felt I had to mute you in order to get the terms of a vote stated between your increasingly insulting and bad-tempered interruptions. These are matters of public record. People can read the chat logs and don't let the chorus of goons convince you that the public is truly behind you on this issue Inanna. At this moment you are the person who will not get over this and its becoming quite obvious you have a chip on your shoulder about CSM moderation authority and won't let this go.
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 23:46:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 11/06/2008 23:17:10 Don't accuse me of re-writing when I'm expressing an honest opinion of what went on and how the vote contradicted the documentation.
You were mad that you lost the vote, and tried to twist the verbage in your sick little mind to show that 9 adults couldn't agree on menial tasks that CCP asked you to fill in.
And you got called out on it, and I hope the other CSM's watch for this Sunday. |
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:02:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Well Inanna, for the record I also strongly object that rather than asking the Chair and Vice Chair to clarify the muting decision in a private channel...
You have never approached me privately and asked for explanation.
And I never will do so in a private channel! The chat log is a public document and as such everything pertaining to it is also public. To permit such an 'explanation' to take place where it is not and could not be made public would go against serving the voters and players generally who, as much as I do, want to know why you acted as you did (and contrary to your own rules as you have set them out even if not accepted by other members of the CSM)
Clearly, I am not going to get an answer from you; that much is clear. And I have to accept that you will continue to hide behind that statement. You must, therefore, accept that I will continue to feel aggrieved for that same reason.
IZ
My principles |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:13:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Yep and you need to accept that I still feel you have acted extremely poorly in taking your complaints over moderation decision agreed by the Chair and Vice Chair of a meeting to the court of public sympathy where you've continued to stoke the flames of scandal and trolling. We aren't going to agree, we clearly don't have much time for each other but we have to work together for good or ill. Ultimately its a matter for your own conscience whether you want to keep up the public attacks over a moderation decision you disagreed with.
What part of "public" scares you so much? The one where you're held accountable for your actions? Really I don't get the need to hide anything whatsoever. Although if I acted like you I might try to obscure it as well. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:38:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jade Constantine Well Inanna, for the record I also strongly object that rather than asking the Chair and Vice Chair to clarify the muting decision in a private channel where we could address the issue in a calm and adult fashion you chose to stamp around making accusations and accusing me of lying in a public recorded CSM chat and directly sparked this current ridiculous flamewar over the issue of a moderation decision that most sensible people have admitted that the Chair of a meeting has the right to make.
This was a decision supported by the Chair and Vice Chair. You have also been called out by the general public on the issue in many places here here and here for example.
You have never approached me privately and asked for explanation. You have constantly pressed for a public showdown on the issue and are trying to grandstand and stoke up controversy for its own sake. You know perfectly well that there can be no public discussion of CSM matters at the moment without extreme Goon trolling and you are playing to that crowd.
So the only public answer I'm going to give you is the same answer I've given you all along. You were disruptive in the meeting, you were warned several times, in the end I felt I had to mute you in order to get the terms of a vote stated between your increasingly insulting and bad-tempered interruptions. These are matters of public record. People can read the chat logs and don't let the chorus of goons convince you that the public is truly behind you on this issue Inanna. At this moment you are the person who will not get over this and its becoming quite obvious you have a chip on your shoulder about CSM moderation authority and won't let this go.
Unless you propose to have censored the chatlogs before they went live, this had to take place in public - the mutings were in there, as was the subsequent debate over precisely what had happened. Even if Inanna had done exactly what you wanted, everybody else would still be here, and we'd still be saying the same things about your decision. The criticism started well before Inanna said anything, and I doubt it'd end even if she asked it to. |
Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 00:51:00 -
[30]
*slow claps*
Congratulations CSM on proving the OP correct. As it stands you're incapable of doing your job. Take a step back, think and then shut up.
Things that could improve your meetings: a) strictly adhered to time limits. Items failing to be completed in their times move to AOB. A show of hands if the issue can be voted can be used rather than full votes in a first instance if needed. b) agenda order - Game issues first, then AOB, then debate about council mechanics if people still want to after 4 hrs. c) Lobby CCP for an independent chair for all meetings. I suggest a CCP employee rather than a player due to the sporting chance that all members of the committee might at least treat them like a human being and also trust in their impartiality.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |