Jita Park Speakers Corner

You have placed your "excuses" down twice not several.

And, whilst I certainly appreciate the work you do as a volunteer to this process, I personally think you are just making excuses. Especially to the inability of distinguishing voices or just reluctance to even approach a techological solution or ask CCP for assistance in the minute taking. You haven't even tried from my apparent view.

And I find your attitude of simply wanting to repudiate the responsibility afforded to accurate record keeping and its relevance to the player base dissmissive and not an atttitude I find warrenting my vote in the next election. If thats not good enough for you, then I'm sorry, but we have to be able to make informed decisions.

I have to discount the CSM versions where they afford full editorial control to how they represent themselves. And please don't come back with a trust issue as clearly the idea CCP placed some importance on ensuring the players can make informed decisions following the CSM minutes and given the current player climate of misstrust expressed by the community concerning the CSM it is extremely relevant. (And of course is the topic of the thread)

I appreciated your colleagues explanation that the view is for members of the CSM to avoid drama which CCP has allowed them as opposed to competence issues with minute taking as a much better and plausible reason.

Which I have to say isnt an unexpected viewpoint:

To help demonstrate my point,

An incongruous part of the recent CSM minutes where you can't discern who said what, but has interesting views unrepresented:



and some comments from your CSM thread:



But I cannot easily validate in the CSM minutes who is claiming to speak about these things. Might be obvious, but I had to hunt down these views. Since given the apathy to the current CSM doesn't afford the awareness to these issues as advertised through the public notes. The above notes do afford some annonymity however should they be required.

However:



I havent seen much blog material about bus homicide in various personal blogs. And struggling to find a connection as a result.

---

I personally find the lack of responsibility, due diligence and neglect to certain issues quite indiciative of the current CSM Council and likley affords the attitude of representation and accountability as pretty laughable. Not that it isn't clear from comments.

However, I'm sure you'll simply use this as an opportunity to exclaim with the usual predjudice that pubbies are deranged idiots as opposed to actually trying to give some intergrity to your position and purpose. Especially as you see the repsonsibilities you have as trivial.

As a result I'm finding very few exisiting members of the council worthy of a vote.

Both not new to the discussion.

Thankyou however for clarifying the stance but not answering any of the points made.

At one time the CSM meetings including releasing notes that attributed every CSM members comments. If and of the VoR candidates are elected to the CSM 7 we will insist that the practice be reinstated!

Issler Dainze
Voice of Reason Party CSM 7 Candidate

And yet if you took the time to read Selene's blog as represented on the subject there are CSM council members who consider it an important part of the CSM duties.

We did it in earlier CSMs and got out minutes out much faster than we see as typical these days.

Issler

If the posts were adjudged to be irrelevant to the topic by the accepted moderators that removed troll content really isn't going to hurt the actually debated topic.

Some censorship is actually useful, or as an example shall we "just" let the CSM Council talk only about types of cheese they like at their iceland meetings?

And yet the overall page length really wouldn't be that affected by this request.

All I have simply asked for since the start of this thread is replacing the use of descriptors like "someone" as currently voiced in the minutes with the appropriate ownership of the speaker where significant points of view have been expressed.

Not looking for a word by word account.

Which is besides the point; you made the claim that previous CSMs got the minutes out faster and with individual attributions, and I demonstrated that not all CSMs individually attributed their summit minutes, and that CSM minutes have gotten significantly longer and more detailed as time went by.

My personal preference is to favor putting the time and effort into describing in as much detail as possible what things were discussed, as opposed to detailing exactly who said what brilliant or stupid thing. You can disagree with that position, but you aren't doing the work.

If you do get elected, I look forward to seeing you lead by example in this matter.


Another thing to note is that I didn't reference the Wiki at all. I linked to CCP's PDFs of the summit minutes. And I didn't claim you did nothing on CSM3; I merely noted that there was no evidence you did any work preparing the minutes.

And as for your inability to fully contribute to CSM3 until after the summit, while I am sure there were extenuating circumstances, if the matter of individual attribution was so important, surely it would have only taken a moment to bring it up -- certainly much less time than you have devoted to the issue in recent days.

You're missing the point. Petty he/she-said spaceship politics are irrelevant in the context of what the summit as a whole is about.

I don't mind one bit that a) there are realities of time and manpower preventing full disclosure and b) that there exists one area of the CSM free from politics and pandering in which the CSM can discuss and debate 'hot topics' internally without worrying about the forum lynch mob.