Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The Wiyrkomi megacorporation is known for the trustworthiness and stubborn patriotism of the founding Seituoda family, who are still thought to own the controlling interest in the company?

Author Topic: Re: A trend and a discussion.  (Read 1632 times)

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: A trend and a discussion.
« on: 19 May 2010, 19:31 »

and also, you're bitterly complaining
I haven't complained about anything; my opinion on this whole business is neutral.  I do think you're taking a pretty innocent comment (the one Soter made) together with the rest of this topic way too personally and bitterly complaining yourself, though, and could probably calm down?
Eh. The 'you' in the comments you're referencing wasn't meant to be you individually, and neither was the 'I.'

But I am using it to mean you and me individually now when responding to your post.
Quote
I'd quote stuff Lillith said in the post right before this one, but I'd be quoting like 90% of it so I might as well just point to it.
Let you in on a secret - I asked him to make that poast.  :ugh:

My outlook on this discussion is that it basically has to be considered as an IC question.

The Summit is an IC channel. IC it was founded as a neutral discussion venue with a 'CRC Auxiliary' which operated to maintain that neutrality and stop real disruption (ie. people doing OOC stuff in there or going totally beyond the pale with a thin veneer of IC on top of it.)

The name CRC Auxiliary in itself gives you an indication of intent, as does 'The Summit'. It was conceived as nothing less than an in-game channel equivalent to IGS.

As such, the core IC attribute of the channel was its utter and total neutrality.

Everyone could go there, their opinions could be heard, they could interact IC with others of any kind and any stripe.

That's the basic facts.
Yeah, you can get your CEO to redact all the things he said about the Summit NOT being neutrally managed by me before the conference, then.

Perhaps if you actually used it in the past six months, that belief you've announced above might be reflected in action; perhaps if anyone in your little group had used it, I would think for a second that this was an argument in good faith. But I'm not sure if you should be afforded a place in a discussion of such things since your ideological packmate keeps on denigrating comments from people on 'the sidelines.'
« Last Edit: 19 May 2010, 19:35 by Ashar Kor-Azor »
Logged

Ashar Kor-Azor

  • Banned
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
  • Banned
Re: A trend and a discussion.
« Reply #1 on: 20 May 2010, 12:11 »

To Ashar:

The amount of concerned replies here (in comparison to other issues) indicates that holding the conference in the summit channel was *not* a good idea.
This seems to be the crux of your point.

The trouble is, this doesn't do a terribly good job of reflecting things factually. There's seventy six replies including yours above, but what they maintain isn't based on their number; it's based on their content.

I've read them and spoken to the posters elsewhere in some cases. I'm going to break it down for you, here, because it seems you're reading a starkly different thread than I am.

People don't really like it when I do things like this, for some reason. It strikes them as unfair, as if I am cheating in presenting an argument by the numbers.

Here's a list of all the posters in the thread, broken into groups by opinions and positions they've espoused and arranged in their individual groups by order of appearance:

These are the people who, in the context of this thread alone, either supported the idea from the start or had their concerns addressed directly in a way they found satisfactory as far as I could surmise from their posts here and from ingame conversations:

1. Lillith
2. Izzy
3. Kaldor
4. Kaleigh
5. Saxon
6. lallara
7. Havvo
8. Ze'ev
9. Saxon
10. Jules
11. Lou
12. Vieve
13. Tomahawk Bliss (whom I hesitate to mention as I expect that in doing so, I will have it turned against me by same.)
14. Hamish

These are people who are either on the fence about it/in a position of compromise or in disagreement with something other than anything I have presented, or fact, or haven't spoken up again in the course of the thread:

1. Silver (who said something like 'let's see what happens, Ashar.')
2. Arvo Katsuya (who was last heard seeking compromise)
3. Seriphyn (who specified nothing until I asked ingame, and I remember the answer was pretty middling in its relevance)
4. Svetlana Scarlet (who has a different conception of the channel and conference than I do, and this matters because my conception of the conference shapes the conference more directly than anyone else's)

These are people that are or were in firm disagreement at the time of their last post:

1. Casi (who left in a huff after being told that 'seeming compromise' and real compromise were simply not the same thing because that was too unbearable, and is also not a user of the channel in question)
2. Merdaneth (who is raising a point about the number of responses in the thread as his main argument, and not about sentiments expressed)
3. The Cosmopolite (who is on bad terms with me currently, and so far has not contradicted me in claiming he's not a user of the channel in question)

You want me to not do something because a few people, so far, have come to me to express some irritation, at first?

Really?

I don't buy that irritating a couple of people for ten minutes by having someone else fuck something up or misrepresent me is a sinker for this concept.

I also don't buy that three to six people's objections over something should stop me pleasing a group ten to twenty times their size - ten beforehand, I might add - for the sake of not mildly irritating three to six people, for the same reason I don't buy not telling you out of character that your playstyle needs to go or your roleplay is wrong - or listen to people that tell ME that.

'Cause what it's all coming across, chiefly, is 'your perception of the purpose and function of this chunk of the setting we share is wrong! And you need positively everyone's permission to impact it to any extent.'

To which I can only say, really? Why? Why isn't it enough to let dozens of people have a party in the community pool on tuesdays if you get it back to normal the day after? The hard rules of the community let them do it - is it really their responsibility to go knocking on every door and gaining permission?

I don't really think it is.
« Last Edit: 20 May 2010, 12:15 by Ashar Kor-Azor »
Logged

Louella Dougans

  • \o/
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • \o/
Re: A trend and a discussion.
« Reply #2 on: 20 May 2010, 14:55 »

[mod]These posts contain things which break rules 3 and probably 11, so were moved.[/mod]
Logged
\o/