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.
