Jita Park Speakers Corner

Well that's where we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. I think you're reading too far into what is essentially people volunteering their free time to attend a three-day workshop encased in darkness with a room full of nerds for a larger community of angry nerds who salivate over the idea of dissecting said workshop with the least amount of civility possible.

It's not that I 'trust' them. It's that I feel bad enough for them already.






edit: hey andski, ~suck it~~~

I have no specific issues with this, I don't care who sees what opinions I'm representing at the summit. The problem for me, as somebody who wrote several minutes, is the style we used just wouldn't have worked well with this. We didn't just puke out a log of the conversation, we tried to write it in a way that gave the ideas and set up the bigger picture as much as possible. Well, that's how I did it. My logs would have looked kinda crappy if I had to go in and attribute what each person said not to mention it would have been impossible for the most part.



... Impossible??

Yes, impossible. They recorded the meetings and we knew they were being recorded and uploaded for review. The only problem is since we knew they were doing this (having experienced it the first summit) few of us took detailed notes knowing we'd have the whole meeting available for review afterwards.

The camera recorded the CCP speakers but all I saw was the back of laptops and several drinks on the table from the CSM side. I couldn't have properly attributed specific statements if you paid me for it.

Yes ok great you got an axe to grind and want to come here to throw silly punches. Are you wanting a serious discussion or is this just a drive by poop post?

You apparently are suffering from the misapprehension that I (and other CSMs who work on the minutes) have an infinite amount of time. Let me assure you that we do not.

As I have now explained several times, individual attribution is more time-consuming. This is both because of the mechanics of transcription and the materials we have to work from, and also because of the extra time ensuring that the attributions are correct.

Given that we have a limited amount of time, I am of the opinion that that resource is best spent on detailing what was said as opposed to who in particular said it.

With respect to accusations that I (and others) are protecting our anonymity, I would point out that several of us have posted detailed blog entries stating our positions on various issues raised in the minutes. Here is mine.

I explained my reasons why, trebor explained his. I took the time to break down some other reasons why it won't work this time around (not to say that it is impossible for the future) and you post to throw punches right after these explanations.

You suggested we're unprofessional, explain why in this context.

You suggested that we're dismissing somehow by... explaining our reasoning? Maybe this whole 'reading' and 'words' thing is a tough one to grasp?

If you want to have an adult conversation about this subject then back up a bit, rethink your post, and engage on an adult level instead of posting silliness like:



See? You aren't even talking to us, you're just trying to make a snarky one liner.

I seem to have missed where you even commented on any specifics of what we've been saying. Link? Heh that was a joke.



Did you read what I posted? Care to comment?

laffo.


-edit-

If anybody wants to comment on what we've said about the subject go for it otherwise this one looks done.

your opinions are worse than invalid: not only are they incorrect, they are powerless

have a nice day~

All these threads talking about the CSM and the rage.

idgi..

I voted last election 4 time for the Mittani. I felt perfectly represented by the candidate I chose, and feel like he carried through on the things he said he was going to do. At no point was I dissapointed in who I voted for (hell sometimes there was even an immense entertainment value involved on the meta level).

The best thing to do is not just troll the forums, but actually get out there and stump for your candidate I think if you want to see a change to the CSM to people who represent you. If people who represent you can't get voted in, that's cause to the majority of people who can be arsed to vote, your views suck. Deal with it.

"herp derp, I make my mind up before I read the issues".

Two words: Informed choice (it's kind of what the topic is about if it escaped you)