@ftxcommando said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:
@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:
I have not been removed as councilor and the council hasn't been restructured; so for all practical purposes, I'm still administrative councillor and will remain so until a restructure has been decided on. That means I'm involved in day to day operations.
Great, feel free to come into the Council now and give input on votes we do now. I'm talking about the long term future beyond the transition period and I respect your intelligence enough to know you also are aware of that. No point in trying to deflect the crux of this paragraph with pedantic timeline arguments.
What "pedantic timeline arguments"?
Another great example of your trolling argumentative style; attack personally instead of actually considering the subject matter.
Throwing an accusation back at a person when it logically fits them better is not trolling. The logic is above and sound. You have not addressed any aspect of the logic. Just attempted to avoid it through a timeline technicality that would be irrelevant in the long term.
The "logic" you're saying I didn't defend is that somehow I'm power grabbing; yet all the FAF time I've spent this year on—outside of utterly needless debates with you— has been setting up the association and facilitating a transfer of the IP to a group of people.
I did not feel like I needed to explain that.
The board cannot and should not "pledge" anything further than they already have. They are not bound specifically to the council structure and legally cannot permanently delegate away control to non-association members. We've had this discussion.
It's a pledge dude. The point is that the Board has total legal control but they need the Council to accomplish anything they actually want to do. If the contributors aren't on the side of the Board, then it's dead in the water. Same as when the Board isn't on the same page with the Council and just flat out say you can't do something like remove SteamLink.
You're not familiar with Danish law; I'm familiar enough to know that this is not something the association should put into writing, or it might risk losing it's association status. Is your egoistic need for retributtal signature of what you're derogating to be "just a pledge dude" so important that you're willing to risk the legal structure of FAF?
You cannot accuse me of power-grabbing and creating an environment where I do not work with anyone when I've literally been arguing to create said environment and this pledge is the literal evidence of it.
The Board is not LEGALLY bound to anything. Doesn't mean that it doesn't have PRACTICAL limitations.
The board will work with and collaborate with anyone who shares the objectives enshrined into the statutes; which you helped write.
It's more than sufficient.
I can be removed. Are you really saying that I "baited" you into making disparaging remarks? How exactly did I do that?
No you are confusing the issue again and in fact contradicting yourself.
Contradicting myself how?
You can be removed as President of the Board.
That's not what I was referring to.
But you still hold essentially total legal rights of FAF.
Who gave you that idea?
So we remove you and then what? Can we remove you as Admin Councillor? No, we cannot.
You could, if you'd opted to become a part of the association and have voting rights at the general assembly. Instead you opted to leave because you didn't get your way.
I know you cannot because we had a discussion on having Admin Councillor voted upon by the rest of the Council to be a "project manager" back when I was moving to make Council seats accountable by who they are meant to represent and you said that would essentially never be possible.
I said that under the current ownership and legal structure that wouldn't be possible.
And in any case, this was all irrelevant to the point. You cannot be removed from the Council room by anyone in the Council room. You are the admin of the Zulip. That is what I mean by you not being able to be removed.
I don't think I'm the only admin of the zulip. I certainly didn't set it up.
Yes, you did bait me into the response that finally resulted in me being removed for disparaging remarks. I intended to have a discussion about the reality between the total legal control of the Board and the actual day-to-day power held by Councillors and their contributive teams. You instead decided to paint it as a power-grab move by me and the accusation was so baseless that I responded in kind.
It's not baseless.
You have been making power-grabbing moves for a long time and refusing to accept when a group of peers disagree with your views; to the point of reacting quite wildly. If anything this is another proof of that.
That's not what that means.
It means that until there's a use for the money; there's no reason to go out there and promote it and ask for more than we need. I did not make these decisions unilaterally. This was made in collaboration until you came along and decided it wasn't enough and wanted to spend more on tournaments, all by yourself, without asking or including anyone in a discussion about it first.
This was never said anywhere and is just ex-post facto justification. It's my fault that I didn't recognize this? Man, it was like a year ago when the Council even realized how much money was in the Patreon and that we lose like half of it due to income taxes! This literally shocked half the Council to total silence in the voice call!
Yes; another reason why I didn't feel like promoting it further until the association legal structure was setup so we didn't have to absurdly high taxes on it. You were present on that call so how is this ex-post facto justification?
You've been pestering me about payment and donations all year despite knowing that the tax situation wasn't resolved and yet you went out of your way to order a payout in my name regardless. Come on.
That's great; why didn't you bring any of this up to the council? Why didn't you come up with actual uses before complaining that there aren't enough funds?
Because I had worked with Promotion Councillors in the past and they had failed to gain access to the Patreon. I considered the move a waste of time and instead went to consider other solutions.
You've mentioned one councilor and I've never refused him access.
This is why I had to talk to Swkoll about whether we need to create a new Patreon.
You never thought to chat with me about this as well? Or ask for a bigger tournament budget?
A logical place to go to regarding a new patreon or other source of income would be me.
This is a part of the reason why we have FAFLive.
And you did go to me for this. You had me sign the tax paperwork and consider it an official source of FAF funds.
Then you went ahead and withdrew it to your personal paypal without noticing or discussing it with me or anyone in the council.
While knowing that the tax situation wasn't resolved and while I had explicitly asked you to await with any payouts until the association bank accounts were up.
There are still plenty of funds that can be used but no way in hell are you getting the right to spend them without discussing with the rest of the council, which quite clearly appears to be what you want — and what you have been doing with FAFLive.
Don't mind it. We don't even have an actual balance sheet of what funds are in the Patreon, where they have been spent, and how much goes into what expenditures. How am I supposed to discuss where to spend money when I don't even know what I'm working with?
The bank accounts are setup and in due time you'll have all this information. The board is going to discuss how that's going to work.
You said you would set this up for the Council by the way. That never happened.
I last gave an overview at the association meeting, which you attended. Anyone else who's asked in the council has received the information; and I have given statements before to the entire council on calls.