[FCON DIRECTOR Proposal: To in future meetings use Roberts Rules of Order

[Jean Leaner]

This seems like alot of work but once set up this should save lots of time at meetings while still allowing productivity. This is really long I know but its like a blueprint for shortening times on events.

Meeting Agenda would be as follows
a) Read off the minutes of last meeting.
b) Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees
c) Reports of Special Committee
d) Unfinished Business
e) New Business (these are when the topics for voting come out)
f) End Meeting

A study of this section by the average member will allow him to understand the basic principles of what is going on and at least allow him to ask fairly intelligent questions. The use of the large table at the end of this section will answer most specific points of order likely to arise in ordinary organization meetings.

Motions
A motion is the proper form of bringing a question for consideration or a proposal of action before a meeting. The Alliance CEO or presiding officer will refuse to receive a motion unless it is in writing.

Main Motions
A main or principal motion brings a particular subject before an assembly for consideration. When a corporation CEO/Director wishes to bring any matter before the leadership for its consideration, he X’s, addresses the Alliance CEO, and, when recognized, states his motion; as, for example, "I move that a committee of three be appointed by the Alliance CEO to inquire into the possibility of constructing a caldari outpost for more research slots."

The mover should be very careful to word his motion so that it may not be misinterpreted. A principal motion must be seconded. In seconding a motion, strict parliamentary rules require that the member wishing to second it type in procons, address the chair, and, when recognized, say, I second the motion," or "I second abdiel’s motion."

Resolutions
When the motion is lengthy, it should always be in writing. In this case it is known as a resolution. The member wishing to put a resolution before the alliance should carefully write out the resolution in advance. When the proper time arrives for the consideration of such business, he should address the chair, and, when recognized, say, "I move the adoption of the following resolution." (Here he reads the resolution and passes it to the chairman.) The resolution may now be seconded and acted upon in the same way as any other motion. Any member who is in doubt as to the wording or the meaning of some part of the resolution may request that a part of all of it be read again. Upon request of the Chair (Alliance CEO), the Secretary (scribe) should then read part or all of the resolution.

Withdrawal
A motion which has been made and seconded may be withdrawn by the maker without consent at any time before it is stated by the chair, but not after.

Rescinding
At any time after a motion has been passed, it may be annulled by passing a motion or resolution to rescind or repeal it. If notice of such proposed action is not given at a previous meeting, a two-thirds majority of those present or a majority of all the membership is required to rescind. The motion to rescind is a main motion without any privilege, and can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. The effect of a motion to rescind is to revoke or set aside a previous act.

Subsidiary Motions
When a principal motion has been made and seconded and has been stated by the chair, the chapter is not at liberty to consider any other business. A motion bearing on any other subject would be out of order and could not be considered. However, certain motions are always in order and may have precedence over others. Such motions are known as subsidiary motions.

Addressing the Chair
The term "Chair" is a parliamentary form used in speaking of the person who presides at a formal meeting, and refers to the one who occupies the presiding officer’s chair.

Having the Floor
A member is said to "have the floor" when he has been granted by the presiding officer the privilege of speaking to the members.

A Member Speaks But Once
Except to clear a matter of fact or to explain himself in some material part of his speech, a member can speak but once on any motion or question before an organization. When all have spoken who wish to do so, a member may speak a second time if permitted by the chair or by a majority vote of the assembly.

Members Must Vote

Decorum
From the time the meeting is called to order until it is adjourned, dismissing the assembly, loud talking, and indiscriminate laughing should not be indulged in by any member.
Permission to Withdraw from Meeting
No member of an organization should leave during the progress of a meeting unless he is formally excused by the presiding officer. Courtesy demands that any member wishing to leave should X, address the chair, and, when recognized, courteously ask to be excused. This is by no means stating that you should wait if an emergency is occurring.

Recess
When the business under discussion at a meeting seems to demand an informal treatment, it is often wise to take recess for a short time to allow members to move about and talk informally.

Meetings
Regular meetings are those fixed by the constitution or the bylaws or by the rules of the body. Special meetings are called in the interim between regular meetings.

Quorum
A quorum is such a number of members of an assembly as must be present in order that business can be legally transacted.

Voting
Various forms of voting are in use. The simplest and most common is the voice vote, in which those in favor say aye and those opposed say no.



Changing a Motion
When it is desired to change a motion which is regularly before the alliance, by unanimous consent, the maker may change it, the seconded giving his consent. Instead, however, any member, on being recognized, may propose an amendment to the motion. The amendment, if seconded, is debatable and should be voted on in the same way as any other motion. If carried, it becomes part of the original motion.

Adjourn
This motion isn’t a motion for FCON meetings. All business must be taken care of before ending a meeting.

Commit or Refer to a Committee
If a motion becomes involved through amendments, or in any other way, or is unexpectedly introduced and not well understood by the members, a motion may be passed referring it to a committee for further consideration. The motion to commit is intended to take the subject from the main body and transfer it to the consideration of a smaller number, or to the whole number acting under broader privileges than those of the formal body.

The committee chair shall be appointed by the Co-CEO that best deals with the area of expertise. After that the committee members shall be appointed by the committee chair. They should include people of different corps if possible.

Lie on the Table
If at any time the alliance does not wish to consider further a motion which is before it, or wishes to dispose of the question permanently without allowing it to come to a vote, a motion may be introduced that the question lie on the table. The motion is neither debatable nor amendable, and permanently disposes of the question until a majority see fit to take it up again.

Postpone to a Certain Time
A motion to postpone the question before the alliance to some definite future time is in order, except when a speaker has the floor. It is debatable as to the question of postponement only.

Reconsider
A member who voted with the majority on a motion may, on the same day or at the same session in which the motion was disposed of, make a motion to reconsider the previous motion. Such a motion can be made in the midst of debate and when another member has the floor, but cannot be considered while another motion is pending. However, when it is taken up, it has precedence over every other motion except a motion to adjourn. If the original question was debatable, the motion to reconsider is debatable, but not otherwise. If the motion is carried, the original question is before the chapter for consideration. If a motion to reconsider is entered on the minutes, it need not be acted upon at that meeting, but it must be acted upon at the meeting following or it is lost.

Take from the Table
A motion to take from the table a question which lies there may be made at any time under the head of unfinished business. If adopted, it cannot be reconsidered; if lost, it can be reconsidered. It cannot be amended, is not debatable, and does not open the main question to debate.

Previous Question
If the debate on any motion/question becomes long and drawn out any member may when recognized by the chair propose to move a motion/question forward. At this point a quick vote is put forth to the leadership where all those in favor type “X” and all those who wish to continue the debate type “Y”. If this passes favorably a vote is immediately taken, if this does not pass debate continues.

To Limit Debate
A motion to limit debate to a certain number of minutes for each person on each side may be made, if there is a tendency to prolong debate unnecessarily.

Filling Blanks
Propositions are often introduced with blanks purposely left to be filled in by the meeting. These can be filled by suggestions without the formality of a motion if the assembly consents. If there is objection, action on these may be taken as on any amendment.

Unanimous Consent
The decisions of a parliamentary body are usually ascertained by voting, but the judgment of the body may be ascertained in two ways: first by vote; second, by "unanimous consent," the latter method being employed particularly in matters of routine or on questions of little moment. If anyone objects to unanimous consent then a standard vote will be used.

Point of Order
While the chair should insist on conducting the affairs of an organization according to parliamentary rules, it frequently happens that he fails to do so. If the violation of order is a flagrant one or if, when continued, it would result in a procedure different from that which would result if the affairs were conducted according to rule, some member should rise to a point of order. At this point someone shall “X – Point of Order” in chat and should immediately be recognized. Once recognized he should state what is incorrect and this should be rectified by the chair immediately

Some of that we can use I'm sure.

There are practical issues in that we are meeting virtually. Not everyone present has the power to vote (IE non CEO's, and we have no way of knowning for sure who is the CEO's proxy). We could conduct a written vote in FCON CC (which ought to be FCON Leadership + CEO's + Vice-CEO's only - but it would still be an open rather than secret vote which is not always appropriate).

Therefore we would have to use the CEO's voting tool (or equivelent) to ensure a vote is taken properly on the majority of occassions. I'm speaking to Pizz about how flexible that tool is and what it can/will allow us to do.

By using a tool like that for formal votes, it means we cannot take instant votes, that means a lot of the above is rendered inappropriate.

Ok, in emergencies (an open vote for critical things like 3 weeks ago when Chokta sacked Renarri) we can do a roll call and go through all the corps manually making notes of who voted and checking they are CEO's or vice-CEO's etc. But that would be a single issue meeting called at relatively short notice.

I would hope that the majority of the CEO's/Corps are not in favour of attempting to micro-manage the executive on a weekly basis.

My personal opinion is that the CEO's will:
1. Elect an Alliance CEO by vote
2. Approve/reject the Alliance CEO's proposed management team
3. Approve/"reject with comments" an Alliance Budget
4. Approve/"reject with comments" any major policy initiatives or changes
5. Have the power of recall (IE sack an Alliance CEO)
6. Be involved in any spending decision above a threshold (lets say 5bil) unless it is a critially time-sensitive decision in which case the decision has to be discussed at the next meeting and approved or an admonishment given.
7. Otherwise, the content each week is for communication, feedback and to "get the mood of the meeting" which the Leadership ought to listen to and take into account.

CEO's provide input, ideas, oversight and hold the executive to account. BUT NOT MICROMANAGING. Therefore I wouldn't expect to see lots of votes or motions or resolutions (hopefully).

I might write this up as part of a proposal for a form of government actually.

Remember this is simply a way to organize meetings not a way to run the alliance. The alliance runs as it does we simply organize the meeting such that people spend less time talking about frivolous things or repeating themselves 3-4 times. Also when we have an issue instead of spending 1 hour 45 minutes on a topic such as RENNT we spend 30 minutes and then make the decision to put up the vote.

You must remember I was trying to copy this system over from a RL organization to Eve where things run at different speeds and with differing degrees of emergence. Taking something to vote would never make a major decision since we do those on the forums... it would simply end the discussion and then post the vote to the forums.

Very strongly agreed, though a few tweaks to make the system manageable over voice comms rather than an in-person meeting are in order. (really makes me want to write our own comms server where people can raise virtual their hand somehow)

One particular thing that wasn't working well this week was discussion, especially discussion between only two or three sides. A short made up example to illustrate the problem:

A (speaks): Now we discuss FCON industry. Does anyone have any questions on the industry?
B (x's up)
C (x's up)
Chair: B, speak
B (speaks): I have a question, I need a carrier made for my corp, can anyone help?
D (x's up)
Chair: C, speak
C (speaks): We have a problem supplying the minerals, can we get some help freighting them from Jita?
E: (x's up)
Chair: D, speak
D (speaks): B, my corp is building carriers - which one do you want?
Chair: E, speak
E (speaks): I can haul stuff for you C, just make a contract to E
etc.


Basically, someone who has an answer to a question posed by another person has to wait until his turn, even if the people asking to talk before him meant to bring up a completely different issue. I suggest having a separate "X IRT <name>" which means you want to reply to someone's question directly. These would have priority over the normal x-es.

There are a few comments on this I would like to make and have you consider.

1. While this process is detailed, I think that it is a little more involved than neccessary. It could be drastically simplified. We do not need that much formality. There should just be limited debate during the meeting. The meeting should be able to have things defered to the forums for debate and then taken up as first orders of business the next week.

2. At NO and I repeat at NO time should a verbal vote be used to rattify policy. The verbal vote should only be grounds to send it to the forum for a 6-7 day span vote to give the CEO's a chance to review said policy properly.

3. Voting percentages should never use the total population of corps but only the ones that voted. This prevents non-cast votes from bogging down legislation. For example: the policy is motioned , and seconded. The verbal I's or yes's in majority send the policy to the forums for a 6-7 day vote. After the alloted time for the vote has past, the vote is closed. The votes are tallied based on the votes received not the votes possible to receive. If a CEO does not vote then he has waved his right to be heard on this issue. That means if you only get 20 votes, then 20 votes is your 100% mark. If you have 15 votes for the policy, that policy garnered 75% and a 25% opposed. Proxi-voting should be allowed when a CEO designates someone to speak for him if he is going to be gone. Only the designated person has the proxi voting right.

I laid out a much more simplified version of this in a different thread. I can see adding some to that but not to the degree of the OP's post.

I am reposting it here for the sake of this discussion:

(((((Any CEO can bring policy recomendations to the meeting floor. I will explain further in a minute how to determine its merit for a CEO policy vote. They must have a written policy that can either be linked from Google Docs or on the alliance forums.

Rules to validate said proposed policy to a CEO vote:

1. The authoring CEO (the person that came up with the proposed policy) brings a point of order.
2. The document is then reviewed or read alouded to the Senate.
3. Their must be at least 2 supporting motions and majority affirming to bring the policy to full forum vote.

For example(explanation of rule 3): Legislation A has been propsed by DVVD. Cold Steel likes the Proposal and Gives a Motion for a vote. FMUI also likes legislation a and Seconds the motion. The motion carries and is then put to a quick Yes or No vote by the CEO's present. The oposition gets a chance to voice their dislikes for a brief period of time. A second yes or no is done. If the majority present say Yes then proposed legislation A then gets posted to a vote thread on the forums for 6 or 7 days. Voting is then closed. The votes are then tallied and the majority rules.

If legislation A never gets at least 2 motions -- it dies. Next order of business is then pursued.
If it gets 2 motions yet the majority present say No then a thread is opened for debate and amendment yet no vote is held. At the next CEO meeting, this topic is covered at the begining of the CEO meeting for unfinished business. If at that time the amendended legislation gets more yes votes by those present, it goes to the forums for 6-7 days for an offical vote. If it does not garner further support and is voted no by the majority present -- legislation A then dies or gets pushed for further debate and amendment(this would require a further debate motion and yes vote). If it does not garner support after second week of forum debate, the legislation then dies. Next order of business is then pursued.

Several of these proposals can be done in one meeting. It makes for shorter times spent on any given issue in the meetings,and gives the opposition a chance to form a counter point to sway opinion or support. Meetings should have a moderator to keep time spent to a minimum.))))

This is the simular poceedure to Ivan's, yet much more simplified. It can be added to but not to the point it becomes as complicated as the OP's proposal.

Lets start simple and add to it when we see the need. Lets get everyone use to following a procedure. Going from little organization to a complicated organized process will end up causing confusion. After all -- you do not go out and run 5k for a race with out training.

Well...in the last meeting the only time I wanted to intervene in discussions was to calm down Scaarl and Ty frisco with their verbal fight about money and indy stuff, and i was kicked out from channel by someone with rights in server. I dont know if was Chokta or Scaarl...and i dont care anymore.
So...my answers is:

IVAN- Seems u cover all the posibility to how its work a meeting and i apreciate ur work. Well done my friend!

AUTOMA- Agree with most of ur points but:
1. Elect an Alliance CEO by vote (make that a general vote....any FCON member have right to put his opinion for election, not only corp CEO`s)

2. Approve/reject the Alliance CEO's proposed management team
3. Approve/"reject with comments" an Alliance Budget
4. Approve/"reject with comments" any major policy initiatives or changes
(for points 2,3 and 4 we can make that only with corp CEO`s which their corporation have at last 6-six mounths in FCON and they r the real SENATORS like a full members)

5. Have the power of recall (IE sack an Alliance CEO)-( Is not necesary because the last alliance CEO have right to participate for the next election like any member in FCON)

6. Be involved in any spending decision above a threshold (lets say 5bil) unless it is a critially time-sensitive decision in which case the decision has to be discussed at the next meeting and approved or an admonishment given.-( I`m not agree with this point. That's the responsibility of the management team and every corp CEO who want to see what happend with the budget they can observe the wallet of holder corp.)

7. Otherwise, the content each week is for communication, feedback and to "get the mood of the meeting" which the Leadership ought to listen to and take into account.( HAVE NO COMMENT)

Ofcourse....this is the short list for begining a constitution in FCON and we have much more to be discussed and modified until its final form.
And Automa....i know it will be a hard work for u but we need to have in a single topic with a crude form of constitution for the views and opinions of all CEO's, who posted in the forum and let be disscused on the next meeting point by point.

ABDIEL- u have right with rules for meetings and i`m agree with u.

FEKALINE- At one point(because we have the RENNT matter) u have right and i must said i`m agree with u, but ivan cover all that things much better.

Well, I have the feeling that any of us are in broad agreement with the big picture but we all have our own ideas about the small details.

I suspect that everyone won't get their details included in the final draft but would go with the majority view.

Well, I have the feeling that any of us are in broad agreement with the big picture but we all have our own ideas about the small details.

I suspect that everyone won't get their details included in the final draft but would go with the majority view.

This is the way it should be. We should all find common ground on the broad strokes. This allows individual corps to come up with the details that suit them best.

Hey guys I can do another re-write using your stuff and gutting some more of the oddball items of my list. It will just take me time to build up the courage to do so... should have it done in the next couple of days.

Hey guys I can do another re-write using your stuff and gutting some more of the oddball items of my list. It will just take me time to build up the courage to do so... should have it done in the next couple of days.

Thanks much Ivan.

AUTOMA- Agree with most of ur points but:
1. Elect an Alliance CEO by vote (make that a general vote....any FCON member have right to put his opinion for election, not only corp CEO`s)

Sorry Amarr this is the only point that I have to disagree with you on. we are a Republic in this very sense the meaning of a republic is having heads of state, in this case CEO's, perform the votes such that legislature can be moved along quicky rather than get bogged down in the exact numbers. This also helps keep large and small corporations fairly balanced. A true democratic style government was never really intended. Could you imagine all the alts a corp might create just to sway political opinion.

Mess

Sorry Amarr this is the only point that I have to disagree with you on. we are a Republic in this very sense the meaning of a republic is having heads of state, in this case CEO's, perform the votes such that legislature can be moved along quicky rather than get bogged down in the exact numbers. This also helps keep large and small corporations fairly balanced. A true democratic style government was never really intended. Could you imagine all the alts a corp might create just to sway political opinion.
Mess

Hello Trila,

we at DUST just saw the drawbacks that occur when an Alliance Leader will be elected only by CEO's. At ME Tekai pepealed future Alliance CEO elections and saved his reelection by buying and extorting votes from CEO's. Now he can only be deselected by a 2/3 majority of the CEO's which he can avoid with the buyed votes. So the bottom line is that he is alliance leader of ME for liftime now. If the meber of the ME corporations would be asked a majority of the corp Members woudn't elect him because they don't like the direction ME goes under his administration. The problem is most of ME corporation CEO's don't ask their members before they vote.

There is a solution to avoid that without disturb the balance of large and small corps. Each Corp has one voice at alliance CEO election. The decision who get this voice has to be done by an internal election in every corporation. The corporation CEO is bound to this decision at alliace CEO election. So every Member has an influence on alliance CEO election without undermining the republic orientation of the alliance.

The problem is most of ME corporation CEO's don't ask their members before they vote.

I do hope none of FCON CEOs would do that. The CEOs are supposed to represent their corps, the voice of a CEO is that of the corp. If the CEO disagrees with their corp, something is terribly, terribly wrong.

We might not like it but the game mechanics only allow you to do so much:
1. Corp CEO's are in effect dictators, individual pilots cannot remove a CEO (unless shares have been given out).
2. Alliance CEO's are subject to member corp CEO's ultimate veto of moving the Executor Corp. Now that may cause more problems than it solves but alongside some checks and balances (such as other alliance officers having shares and "sacking" the holder corp CEO) it's a bit more managable.

Commenting on the above... How each corp runs it's own internal affair is surely down to each corp.

I don't see how FCON as an alliance can dictate to it's member corps you have to do internal elections to nominate a spokesman/cast a vote etc.

HOWEVER, what FCON can do is be open and transparent with info. Any pilots on these forums or who read alliances mail can see what is going on. Nothing behind closed doors (apart from opsec/confidential stuff ofc).

If pilots in a corp don't like what their CEO is doing, then they can speak up.

We might not like it but the game mechanics only allow you to do so much:
1. Corp CEO's are in effect dictators, individual pilots cannot remove a CEO (unless shares have been given out).
2. Alliance CEO's are subject to member corp CEO's ultimate veto of moving the Executor Corp. Now that may cause more problems than it solves but alongside some checks and balances (such as other alliance officers having shares and "sacking" the holder corp CEO) it's a bit more managable.

Commenting on the above... How each corp runs it's own internal affair is surely down to each corp.

I don't see how FCON as an alliance can dictate to it's member corps you have to do internal elections to nominate a spokesman/cast a vote etc.

HOWEVER, what FCON can do is be open and transparent with info. Any pilots on these forums or who read alliances mail can see what is going on. Nothing behind closed doors (apart from opsec/confidential stuff ofc).

If pilots in a corp don't like what their CEO is doing, then they can speak up.

Or more directly to the point no closed door voting, as a ceo of my corporation I tell my players how I plan to vote usually after discussing the issues at hand with them. Public accountability at the CEO level is something the alliance can provide. A public record of which way a vote is cast is common place in most offices. If you cannot be honest about your vote to your corp then you will ring your own neck as a CEO player base will leave and realign with a CEO who follows what they believe to be right.

Now in the end dirty politics are just horrible, with the above open vote policy each corporations memberships has an open door to the end result. maybe not the debates arguements or sensitive data. But the end result is on record and a matter of public discourse. This in the end holds the CEO or whomever the corp uses as the voter accountable for said vote.

We in HVA, we have a democratic orientation.....!
I read ur post TRILA and i can say something about our ceo`s from another corps who said:
-I`m CEO of my corporation and my members will vote how i say to vote.....because i said so and no one else know what is better for my corporation.(period)

I dont want to give u names but i heard 3 CEO`s in the same direction. If we want to consider this alliance like one single group our members need to have individual vote.
1. Is good for alliance to have all members register in this forum;
2. when we have a alliance CEO(or President) elected by each member of FCON, hes policy it will be, in did, for whole alliance and not for a group of CEO`s, who can be manipulated;
3. If CEO`s put a vote of no confidence in the actual alliance CEO(President) and the ppl r not agree with corp CEO`s decision, we can see that on the new election when will come;
4.if i have 8 characters in my corporation this mean i have 8 vote....What means 8 vote against 1800-2000? Nothing...
5.Remember that!.....i said only the corp CEO`s who have at last 6 months in this alliance can vote of no confidence in actual president and not all CEO`s. They can debate and participate to the meetings, they can vote for anything else but not for put down a President.(we can debate this point 5, because that is only HVA opinion)


And we have many things to discuss and so many opinions....but we have`t the time to do that because is a very short time(only a mounth and a half) Thats why i will make a topic with our constitution and we can debate point by point.

We in HVA, we have a democratic orientation.....!
-I`m CEO of my corporation and my members will vote how i say to vote.....because i said so

My brain just died a little bit inside.

Ok, I have been reading this as people post, and a lot of things noted. Here is the idea I have for our next meeting, and hopefully it can be a fair step for getting our meetings in order.

1. The meeting admins/moderator/chairs (AMC) (whatever you feel the need to call them) will be announced.
2. Points of the meeting will be officially announced, and repeated for those that are writing things down.
3. Prior meeting points will be reviewed by the AMC (yes you see how I linked that, pretty smooth huh :-)
4. If you are going to 'X' up then next to your X note what you are x'ing about.
5. If your comment/answer question does not apply to what is being discussed, then it will be ignored. SO keep you 'X' to the point at hand
6. Each area of the meeting can only have 1/2 an hour dedicated to it, unless people feel more time is needed.

Now if we get topics that truly need time, sub-committees will be formed on the spot so those in question can go discuss it while the meeting carries on. They will be expected to report back on any consensus that is reached.

Also on the note of sub-committees, they will be becoming the norm. So those most directly involved can take care of business, and then those points will be brought up to the Leadership team as a whole in the weekly meetings.


7. Once all points are covered and their discussion is complete, the meeting will be over. Ideally I do not want the main meeting to ever run over 2 hours, that is just killing us and wasting our time. So we will need to take appropriate action to keep our meetings shorter rather than longer.


That's it, the next version of how to keep our meetings tidy.

Also remember if you post in the meeting thread...you will be called upon to speak. So if you really don't have something to say then do not post on a topic, but it does mean if you do you become a priority speaker since I would think you have something on your mind.

Thanks for your time in reading this.

Popolytho....dont take what u want to heard.
Dont read between the lines....
First fraze was a remark!!!

**** We in HVA, we have a democratic orientation.....!****
I read ur post TRILA and i can say something about our ceo`s from another corps who said:
-I`m CEO of my corporation and my members will vote how i say to vote.....because i said so and no one else know what is better for my corporation.(period)****

The third fraze was`t mine.....was one CEO in our alliance ......dude!

Popolytho....dont take what u want to heard.
Dont read between the lines....
First fraze was a remark!!!

**** We in HVA, we have a democratic orientation.....!****
I read ur post TRILA and i can say something about our ceo`s from another corps who said:
-I`m CEO of my corporation and my members will vote how i say to vote.....because i said so and no one else know what is better for my corporation.(period)****

The third fraze was`t mine.....was one CEO in our alliance ......dude!

Holy guacamole, AmarrMan!
I´m sorry, I didn´t realize it was a quote from another person! =D
You gotta admit it would seem contradictory ;D

I do apologize for the misunderstanding, my heart was in the right place, but my eyes and my brain failed to communicate with each other properly.

[Iseeyouseemeseeyou]

FCON

[Jean Leaner]

Space Democracy will surely triumph.

[Wusti]

To think mittani and the boys have aked us to go North and help save the like of these...

These faggots truly have way too much time on their hands.

[Jean Leaner]

Just wait for the corp dues thread

[Iseeyouseemeseeyou]

To think mittani and the boys

Was that a "Dirty Mike & The Boyz" Reference?

[Thrak Tokah]

Meetings: because none of us is as dumb as all of us. This is some srs bsns retard internet spaceships action they've got going on.

[MrFish]

To think mittani and the boys have aked us to go North and help save the like of these...

These faggots truly have way too much time on their hands.

So Wusti, why are you going to help these cunts... If the whole of the NC is structured like this, then please for the love of humanity, let it die in a fire...

[Entaran]

FCON have DUST in them. Why am I not suprised SPACE DEMOCRACY is taking hold?

[Jean Leaner]

The DUST guys actually appear to be the ones AGAINST space democracy v0v

[Petyr]

And I thought my space democracy was unwieldy and ponderous. This makes it look like a Teflon-coated laser beam fired in an olive-oil factory by comparison.

[ZavulonSukkot]

The only thing more dreary than waiting on the right moment for internet spaceship action is blabbing endlessly about (a lack of?) internet spaceship action. Please tell me they make a public record of the blabbing for the amusement of the rest of the alliance. That's really the only way it could pretend to be worthwhile -- otherwise its just a circlejerk, and why waste a good circlejerk if it doesnt go direct to video?

[Manny]

My god just ....my god

[Arrador]

Tell FCON to ask how space democracy worked for Majesta Empire.

[JimFromIT]

holy shit.......

[Tristan Acoma]

Tell FCON to ask how space democracy worked for Majesta Empire.

Seems like they should already know given DUST joined them

[Manfred Hideous]

I saw this sort of thing coming a year ago. Their big problem (administratively) was the fact they recruited literally dozens of corps. I think that there were maybe eight to ten corps when they went north and probably six of those mattered.

Now they have thirty to sixty voices in an alliance meeting. I could see why Ivan (who was actually a pretty cool dude) want to bring some order but the issue can't be solved by lengthy rules of order. What they need is a serious corp consolidation or purging.

[Razzor]

what the fuck

[Phineas Freak]

what the fuck

i have been thinking about a witty punchline for over an hour now. i'll just go with razzor before i start pulling out my wisdom teeth myself.

[Lorax]

This is the perfect example of why Dictators and Leet-PvPers run this game....

In other news, FCON will failcascade within 30 days, this I predict.

[Grath]

KOS used to have sunday meetings like these.


See how well that worked for them?

[Checkbox Poll]

people schedule meetings in advance?

[Thrak Tokah]

people schedule meetings in advance?

There is no finer thing to do than have a debate about when the meeting will be scheduled and what the agenda will be.

[Faife]

There is no finer thing to do than have a debate about when the meeting will be scheduled and what the agenda will be.

and which corp is being discriminated against cause they're malaysia timezone or something

[Petyr]

My space democracy of glorious uncontested elections is heatedly debating where to move our JBs post-patch; because we have all of 6 systems and it's probably the most important thing of all time to use them to their maximum tactical advantage.

[Thrak Tokah]

My space democracy of glorious uncontested elections is heatedly debating where to move our JBs post-patch; because we have all of 6 systems and it's probably the most important thing of all time to use them to their maximum tactical advantage.

I hope that you were voted in as the historian or record keeper so that the fine discussions which surely resulted will be recorded for all time in as eloquent a manner as they surely occurred.

[Faife]

My space democracy of glorious uncontested elections is heatedly debating where to move our JBs post-patch; because we have all of 6 systems and it's probably the most important thing of all time to use them to their maximum tactical advantage.

if there was only some subforum of an internet discussion board where this might be archived for the viewing of a few select scholars.

[Iseeyouseemeseeyou]

if there was only some subforum of an internet discussion board where this might be archived for the viewing of a few select scholars.

OMG WHY DON'T WE HAVE THAT?

[Internet Spaceships]

Has someone told FCON directorate that this is video game?

[Skabbor]

We've recently started a major project at work. This project involves quite a few people, lots of complex systems and millions upon millions of credit card transactions. We don't take meetings that seriously.
Just...what the fuck? Really?

[monkeytek]

Umm, they shot this down right? Seriously is this while they are getting shat upon?

So just about any decision should be a good 3-4 weeks late in response to anything that happens, if they are lucky.

[Dots]

These meetings are an excellent way to really do nothing while pretending that you are doing a lot. Needless to say I would not read these walls of text even if someone paid me to.

[Sirius A]

GTFO

[Mira Z]

Since I suspect none of you have ever actually attended an FCON leadership meeting, let me assure you they are in fact nothing like you imagine.

They are much worse...

[true]

Making motion to tackle that dramiel while requesting parliament to appoint a greeting commission on the other side of the stargate

[Atticus]

Enough bureaucracy. It only creates more problems - it solves nothing.

Bow before the glorious leader or feel their wraith. No discussion. Hit the road if you disagree.

[jimmychrist]

Not being able to feel them is like the whole thing about wraiths.

[Chef]

Not being able to feel them is like the whole thing about wraiths.

Soo... yeah, People's Free Republic of FCON:



Anyone know how they responded to Ev0ke's "ultimatum/eviction notice" to Pure Blind? Or are still deliberating the viability of proposing a motion to set up a comittee to discuss the pros and cons of addressing it?

[Goblin]

Tell FCON to ask how space democracy worked for Majesta Empire.

We took a series of votes to agree on a process to evacuate our assets.

[Silva]

i have been thinking about a witty punchline for over an hour now. i'll just go with razzor before i start pulling out my wisdom teeth myself.

I second this idea

[Deniera]

Widot used to have bi-weekly meetings, which ended up being total crap because we didn't use a real meeting format. Having meetings like that, even in a space dictatorship are useful. All this shows is that the people in Fcon are competent enuff to know that if you are going to have meetings you might as well do hem properly. Anyone who has been involved in committees or groups hat had formal meetings where policy might be decided will recognise the stuff in the first post - because it's standard procedure. If you havnt been a part of these kind of meetings then it will look like nonsense, and then you're simply showing your ignorance thinking that's it's some form of nerd council beaurocracy. As for the CEO voting crap, I personally don't think CEOs should be able to micromanage alliance policy, that's for a small group dedicated for the alliance to decide. Mainly because of conflict of interest stuff. CEOs should be able to replace whomever is running the alliance tho.

[Deniera]

If you think this is complex you'd want to see the voting system I did for electing diplos for widot.Laugh all you like, but it worked fucking beautifully.