Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 16:02:00 -
[1]
Simple question, to all candidates. If you're elected with the most votes and become Chair, will you step down from the position, and allow it to be filled by a vote of the whole CSM? You'd of course be able to run for the position again.
I've committed to stepping down as Chair before the first meeting is out and allowing a vote to fill the position, and I was wondering if other candidates would be willing to publicly state that they would do the same. It seems best to get this all down before the election, rather than waiting until after and debating about it when somebody has already won.
|
Garion Avarr
Amarr Zero Zero Traders YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 16:53:00 -
[2]
Yes, I would step down and let a vote be taken by the CSM. I also believe that we should have a clear understanding of what rules of order are being used and what duties the chair is expected to perform under them, and if the chair is allowed to take part in debate, before any election of a chair.
|
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 17:40:00 -
[3]
it was pretty much the basis of my platform for election in the first CSM - nothing has changed ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 17:53:00 -
[4]
Depends if there are 5 or more Goons in the council or not.
I don't really want to be chairman but I'll do it if I think it's in the best interest of Eve and the CSM as a whole. ---
NEW MOVIE! CSM Campaign Thread |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 17:56:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Depends if there are 5 or more Goons in the council or not.
I don't really want to be chairman but I'll do it if I think it's in the best interest of Eve and the CSM as a whole.
Assuming the Goons don't conquer the universe(*shudder*), is that a yes or a no? If you place first, will you step aside and call a vote, or will you continue as Chair without a CSM vote?
|
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 18:43:00 -
[6]
I have stated I would elsewhere!
It makes sense to do so. However, it might make more sense for the elected chairperson to remain until the first meeting and act as coordinator etc.
I would step down and re-run though, regardless of who was elected onto the council. I trust those that run are running for the right reasons for the betterment of Eve for players.
Arithron
Vote Arithron for CSM!
Check out my thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=899358 |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 20:59:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Depends if there are 5 or more Goons in the council or not.
I don't really want to be chairman but I'll do it if I think it's in the best interest of Eve and the CSM as a whole.
I definitely would as I have no intention of ever being chair. Also, that's a bit of a silly thing to say Ankh as you're pretty much my favorite councilperson and would most likely have my vote. <3
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 22:44:00 -
[8]
The goon part was a bit of a joke, of course. Been talking to Avalloc this night and he doesn't seem match the stereotypes floating around at all, even though I disagree with his opinion on the Eve cemetery. But hey, that's Eve.
I haven't actually given this much thought and haven't decided either way yet, but I think that democracy is important so I'm very likely to put it up for voting. After all, the other positions including the vice chair are voted on as well, so it would be logical to have all of them open. And it would likely result in a chair that everyone is reasonably happy with. If it cuts down on internal bickering and powergames, I'm all for it. So note that down as leaning heavily towards yes.
And as I said, I'm not very eager to have this sort of job as I don't like telling people when they should shut up, who knows what positive input I might cut off that way. If I would somehow be assigned this role I'd certainly do my best and put all my effort into it to ensure unbiassed and professional conduct from my end. ---
NEW MOVIE! CSM Campaign Thread |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Evil Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 23:59:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Scagga Laebetrovo on 01/11/2008 23:59:09 Resign a chair position if it is given to me? If there was a good reason to I'd consider it. I don't see any point in spending time to elect a new chairperson (and all the potential things that can go wrong with that kind of activity) if the nominal chair is fine with (Edit: and at) the job. Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints! |
Rorin Cutter
Caldari Ghosts of the Past
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 00:28:00 -
[10]
This begs for another question. If the player base elects you to be chairperson, are you following the will of the pilots who elected you, our your own?
You see, in my opinion this is what the last council forgot. They were elected to do the will of the pilots / player base who elected them. Unfortunately the last counsel started and ended in personal fighting and bickering and really did not listen to anyone except themselves, lets get it right this time. Lets not forget that every change we pass along to ccp affects 100% of the players to one degree or the other. So we need to be sure that it is the majority who want the change. Not just the few, who are loudest. Because as it is right now, CCP is nerfing things to fix the nerfs that should have fixed the nerfs, lol. The same principle is valid for who is elected chairperson.
And therefore my answer must be no, if the player base elects me and I become chairperson, then I will not step down without a very good reason or a conflict of interest / personal issues. Because, there is no possible way that I could know better then the player base themselves.
-Rorin
|
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 00:53:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Rorin Cutter This begs for another question. If the player base elects you to be chairperson, are you following the will of the pilots who elected you, our your own?
This raises the question of what players are voting for when they cast a ballot with your name on it. I would argue that they're trying to put you on the council, not that they're trying to make you the Chair. It's obviously impossible to tell what the numbers are, but my guess is that the person with the most votes is the person that the most people want to see on the Council, but not necessarily the person that the most people want to see as Chair. Also, the Chair is a fundamentally internal position - most voters don't care how you make your decisions, they care whether they get made and what they are.
Now, if it came down to a race between two people who wanted the top slot explicitly, and the vote was based on who would be better running the Council, with the assumption that both would make it on, then I could see you standing behind "The voters put me here". Similarly, if Darius wanted the spot(I mention him by name because he's about the only one who could pull it off), and got the most votes by explicitly getting his alliance to vote for him in the top spot, a similar argument would apply.
But neither of us are running with the goal or expectation of getting the most votes. If it happens that I do win the most votes, I'm pretty sure it will be because a lot of people liked my vision and not because a lot of people wanted me running the show per se. As such, I feel that I would not have a mandate to lead based purely on the votes cast by pilots, and that I would need to seek approval from the rest of the CSM in order to hold the spot legitimately.
If you feel differently, that's fine. My goal here is to get the positions of as many candidates as possible down explicitly, not to attack them for holding one position or the other. If a vote for you is a vote for you holding the Chair if elected to it, voters can know that now and can vote accordingly. But that's where I'm coming from here.
|
Garion Avarr
Amarr Zero Zero Traders YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 01:34:00 -
[12]
Being qualified to be a delegate on the CSM and being qualified to be a chairperson are two seperate things, and it is a grave mistake to have them decided upon by the same vote.
Just because CCP has set something up in a certain way does not mean that it is perfect -- isn't that part of the idea of having the CSM in the first place? It applies not only to the game, but to how the CSM is elected and run.
|
Issler Dainze
Minmatar Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 01:47:00 -
[13]
I vote for "rock/paper/scissors" among the CSM members after the election! :-)
Actually I would prefer the chair is determined by the CSM as part of the initial face to face meeting of the CSM. The chair will need a particular set of interpersonal skills that cannot be determined by popular vote and having the CSM get a sense of each other's personal dynamics would likely produce the best choice.
Issler
|
Splagada
Minmatar Tides of Silence KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 13:30:00 -
[14]
ofc ------
Tides of Silence |
Omber Zombie
Gallente Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 16:48:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Issler Dainze
Actually I would prefer the chair is determined by the CSM as part of the initial face to face meeting of the CSM.
so... no chair for a month or so after the election? ----------------------
CSM 08 Blog |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 18:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Simple question, to all candidates. If you're elected with the most votes and become Chair, will you step down from the position, and allow it to be filled by a vote of the whole CSM? You'd of course be able to run for the position again.
I've committed to stepping down as Chair before the first meeting is out and allowing a vote to fill the position, and I was wondering if other candidates would be willing to publicly state that they would do the same. It seems best to get this all down before the election, rather than waiting until after and debating about it when somebody has already won.
Assuming the CSM is diverse in its composition (ie, no more than a third of the members of one alliance get elected), then most definately yes.
|
ee21k
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 19:00:00 -
[17]
Honestly, No. And I don't believe anyone else should either.
The general players of eve pick and choose (ideally at any rate) the person they believe will mediate in a fashion representing their preferred method and values. The person that the player base choose to be their spokesperson should accept that responsibility. Having elected officials appoint themselves into positions of power (in this case the power to control direction and subjects of discussion) cheapens the entire electoral process.
Yes. It may mean we get someone who is less than qualified in the chairman's position, but I would argue that the CSM is small enough in size so that ANYBODY can learn quickly enough to perform adequately in the position.
While the CSM would benefit from some limitations on discussion (no reintroducing failed votes without new content as Herschel pointed out in his thread is one I personally very much agree with) I believe a more free form discussion environment would benefit the CSM more.
While this is my opinion, should the elected leader step down and submit to a vote for the chairmanship or indeed decide not to step down (as long as he announced this to be his intention before becoming elected) this too is fine. As long as the chairperson acts in accordance with his election promises then they will have my support. ...... Bring along the other shoe.
Boosh! |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 19:44:00 -
[18]
Originally by: ee21k (no reintroducing failed votes without new content as Herschel pointed out in his thread is one I personally very much agree with)
Introducing that was one of the first actions of this first council...
Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:58:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: ee21k (no reintroducing failed votes without new content as Herschel pointed out in his thread is one I personally very much agree with)
Introducing that was one of the first actions of this first council...
He mis-stated my position. The promise was no resubmission without a new supporter, not new content. It's not a major thing - I mostly stuck it on because I was in a mood to keep writing - but it is different enough from what's already been passed to not be crazy.
|
Pixel SonursCreen
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 12:16:00 -
[20]
no, if i would get the most votes i would stay chairman. seems reasonable enough to me. the person with most votes represents the largest amount of players/voters so seems ok to have that person hold the chair. Stepping down makes no sense to me really.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 20:17:00 -
[21]
The council chair is an administrative duty, not an authoritative duty. Without an administrator that the council itself elects the liklihood that it functions well is diminished.
Such i would definitely step down and let the council decide. |
Asuri Kinnes
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 04:41:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Goumindong The council chair is an administrative duty, not an authoritative duty. Without an administrator that the council itself elects the liklihood that it functions well is diminished.
Such i would definitely step down and let the council decide.
I hope you guys remember this thread, as the council chair has to have authority...
Roberts Rules of Order already exist. Don't re-invent the wheel...
AK |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 14:01:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Asuri Kinnes
Originally by: Goumindong The council chair is an administrative duty, not an authoritative duty. Without an administrator that the council itself elects the liklihood that it functions well is diminished.
Such i would definitely step down and let the council decide.
I hope you guys remember this thread, as the council chair has to have authority...
Roberts Rules of Order already exist. Don't re-invent the wheel...
AK
The CSM does not use roberts rules and likely, being a small body, does not need it. Even then, roberts rules are administrative and if no one will cooperate with that administration then they will not work.
The council chair arranges meetings and moves along the meeting discussion, that is all. It has no authority. |
Garion Avarr
Amarr Zero Zero Traders YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 17:01:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Goumindong
The CSM does not use roberts rules and likely, being a small body, does not need it. Even then, roberts rules are administrative and if no one will cooperate with that administration then they will not work.
The council chair arranges meetings and moves along the meeting discussion, that is all. It has no authority.
Small bodies are just as capable of petty infighting and stubborn disagreements as large bodies are.
My time on the Student Senate taught me that Robert's Rules are invaluable and that we should definitely use them on the CSM.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.11.17 21:43:00 -
[25]
Asuri, as far as the CSM is concerned, RRO does not exist.
Gou, as far as I'm concerned, they should. I've run a group before where the rules of order consisted entirely of "Don't be a jerk" and that functioned in perfect harmony doing so. And hey, that works great for a group of buddies running a campus club whose primary activity consists of weekly trips to the pub. However, I've also been on groups where debates over who could do what when have gotten to rather extreme levels. In the case where RRO was in place and understood by all parties, it merely created long-term adversaries. In the case where it wasn't, it led to people ragequitting groups that had been their life up until then and physical violence. The former is bad, the latter is far worse.
The CSM is a group of egotistical geeks who only know each other from forum argument. The fact that the first Council had half a dozen low-level wars raging for its entire term of office surprises me not a bit. When harmony is nonexistent, you need to replace it with either bureaucracy or force. Of those choices, I prefer bureaucracy, and thus rules of order. I don't like the need for it, but I don't see the world through rose-tinted glasses. Rules of order make groups function better, small or large, and they're necessary for any but the most peaceful group that wants to consider itself well-run.
As for the role of the Chair, that can be debated - nobody has said what the rules would have to be, RRO has just been an assumption. Even if you don't like RRO, I hope you can agree on the need for some kind of rules to exist. |
Inanna Zuni
Minmatar The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 14:50:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The CSM is a group of egotistical geeks
Opinion isn't fact.
Inanna (pleased to be sitting it out this time around but might re-enter the fray in the summer) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 20:15:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Garion Avarr
Small bodies are just as capable of petty infighting and stubborn disagreements as large bodies are.
My time on the Student Senate taught me that Robert's Rules are invaluable and that we should definitely use them on the CSM.
Roberts rules does not negate petty infighting. It formalizes a system by which people interact. This system reduces confusion when a large amount of people have to deal with one another. If people do not recognize the authority, no bureaucracy is going to change that and the petty infighting will be just as bad as it is with or without RRO.
The CSM should be a sufficiently small body that it does not need a formalized bureaucracy in order to function, and as long as everyone accepts the administrator then there should be few conflicts.
The problems of the first CSM had nothing to do with a lack of bureaucracy and everything to do with the members not accepting authority claimed by the chair and the actions taken.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 22:41:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The CSM is a group of egotistical geeks
Opinion isn't fact.
Inanna (pleased to be sitting it out this time around but might re-enter the fray in the summer)
I should clarify that sentence - I don't mean it as an insult, and I do include myself in that. "Geeks" is fairly obvious - we're all people who not only play an internet spaceship game and spend goodly amounts of time on it, we like it enough to want to run for office inside the game and care enough about political processes to want to fight and win elections.
"Egotistical" is a bit more tenuous, but I think it's a fair generalization - I know quite a lot of politicians, and few are truly humble, even though a lot of them pretend. Nobody would run for office unless they had a certain force of personality. You have to think you can do well in the job(better than your opponents, usually), and you have to think that you can win. Some candidates are jokers or slackers, but they don't really count. The average candidate who gets elected has a strong vision, a strong commitment to seeing it enacted, and a strong belief in the merits of themselves and their ideas. Those generally aren't bad things, but they do certainly lead to conflict.
Originally by: Goumindong Roberts rules does not negate petty infighting. It formalizes a system by which people interact. This system reduces confusion when a large amount of people have to deal with one another. If people do not recognize the authority, no bureaucracy is going to change that and the petty infighting will be just as bad as it is with or without RRO.
The CSM should be a sufficiently small body that it does not need a formalized bureaucracy in order to function, and as long as everyone accepts the administrator then there should be few conflicts.
The problems of the first CSM had nothing to do with a lack of bureaucracy and everything to do with the members not accepting authority claimed by the chair and the actions taken.
They don't negate it, they do channel it. And while large groups will always need rules of order, small groups will still usually need it - I've seen groups as small as five where dedication to the rules was critical to continued function. Besides, 9-14 isn't especially small as groups go, especially when there's no clearcut groups to simplify interactions.
As for everyone accepting the administrator, therein lies the biggest problem of the first term's discord - there was serious disagreement over the proper roles and powers of the Chair last term. For that matter, those still haven't been solved, there's just been non-aggression on that front for the last few months. You say that there wouldn't be a problem if everyone agreed on what the Chair did and how, and for that matter you're right. Now when you tell me how to get Jade Constantine to agree with you on those issues, I'll think that your ideals are achievable. Until then, I'd prefer to use rules rather than an assumption of agreement when no agreement exists. It's not ideal, but it's better than closing your eyes to reality. |
Garion Avarr
Amarr Zero Zero Traders YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.11.18 23:01:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto The CSM is a group of egotistical geeks
Opinion isn't fact.
I would like to state for the record that I, Garion Avarr, am an egotistical geek.
I do like to think that I'm not blindly egotistical, though. But egotistical enough to think that I have good ideas and would make a good CSM member.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 05:48:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
They don't negate it, they do channel it. And while large groups will always need rules of order, small groups will still usually need it - I've seen groups as small as five where dedication to the rules was critical to continued function. Besides, 9-14 isn't especially small as groups go, especially when there's no clearcut groups to simplify interactions.
As for everyone accepting the administrator, therein lies the biggest problem of the first term's discord - there was serious disagreement over the proper roles and powers of the Chair last term. For that matter, those still haven't been solved, there's just been non-aggression on that front for the last few months. You say that there wouldn't be a problem if everyone agreed on what the Chair did and how, and for that matter you're right. Now when you tell me how to get Jade Constantine to agree with you on those issues, I'll think that your ideals are achievable. Until then, I'd prefer to use rules rather than an assumption of agreement when no agreement exists. It's not ideal, but it's better than closing your eyes to reality.
To clarify... the chair has no "power". Its roles are explicitly laid out in the founding document. It schedules meetings and arranges paperwork. That is all. When it has been left to that there have been no issues, nor do I anticipate there will be. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |