|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 17:26:00 -
[1]
Same old song and dance.
Point out Ank's own words? You're trolling. Point out Ank's own stated beliefs and behaviors? You're smearing her. If you post an accurate report of Ank's own actions? Why, you have to step down from the CSM! The truth is a rumor, stating the facts is a vendetta, ayieeeee!!
****ing troll, go away already.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 21:13:00 -
[2]
There's nothing inherent in this that demonstrates that the CSM can't function professionally. In point of fact, noting that a member behaves in a childish manner and throws temper tantrums (complete with pitching silverware) points out that member's behavior, only. And her voters as well as the rest of EVE have a right to know that this sort of stuff is going on. It's actually a bit disconcerting that your response is to be annoyed that people reported what went on. Don't you think that the EVE playbase deserves to know who's on the CSM and what its issues are?
If you chucked a spoon at someone would it be news? Maybe, maybe not. It probably would if you were developing a noticeable history of being difficult to work with and pulling childish stunts when you don't get your way.
It's also odd to call this a "witch hunt". That implies that the situation is baseless and anybody is just casting around for a scapegoat. Quite the contrary, it seems that your objection is that the facts are 100% accurate and everything said has been truthful, but you believe it paints the CSM in a poor light. It doesn't. It paints one single CSM member in a poor light, based on that member's verified actions.
The person who put you into an unpleasant situation is the one whose behavior has sparked this discussion, not the people who mentioned that behavior. The attitude "don't talk about the systemic misbehavior of one of the CSM members, it makes us look bad!" will make the CSM look bad. Forthright and honest discussion would be quite a different issue. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 21:53:00 -
[3]
Quote: it diminishes the CSM as a whole.
Except this does not diminish the CSM as a whole. That's the whole point, that most of the CSM is working diligently at doing their assigned task. There should be full transparency and honest reporting. Otherwise the CSM looks bad.
Saying that the CSM looks bad for being open and honest about what's going on is nonsensical.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 22:06:00 -
[4]
No, you really don't always operate as a "united front". That sort of behavior makes you look really, really bad when things screw up. Actively opposing transparency and accountability makes organizations look bad. Actively having a commitment to deal openly and honestly with issues and fix them quickly does not. And it looks especially bad to actively campaign against honestly relating facts to the playbase.
Why would it have made the CSM look bad if we knew that each and every single member was diligently working to improve things, except for one?
Up until now we had a story where one CSM member was unable to act like an adult. Now we have a statement which heavily suggests that the proper course of action would have been a coverup and for the voters to be none the wiser, come the next election, as to what's actually going on. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 22:38:00 -
[5]
Are we back at the standard Ank-ploy, those who point out the facts about her that are unflattering are trolls? I think most of us have had enough of that game.
In any case, transparency rather obviously means more than the simple minutes that are put out for meetings. This is both obvious and very, very basic. There is more that goes on in an organization than what is recorded by a secretary.
Don't call the facts "spin". An organization that conducts itself with honesty and openness doesn't seek to hide the fact that one of its members is unable to properly do their job simply because it's not on the record.
And you may hold CCP in such low regard that you think they're morons who live by the fallacies of composition and division, but if they've got half a brain in their heads they'll judge the summit by what was actually accomplished and not by the misbehavior of one (and only one) member. The entire reason that the CSM was formed in the first place was that, when faced with the misbehavior of one of its members, instead of prompt and transparent action, CCP tried to prevent a "united front" and lost almost all credibility for years. The lesson to be learned is not that CCP should've just backed T20 even more or that Kugu really was the badguy for pointing out the facts, but that secrecy and bull**** 'solidarity' is self-defeating when obvious mistakes have been made. The lesson is not, "well, you just need to be even more dedicated to closing ranks and being even more tight-lipped when obvious problems come up."
The story yesterday was "one lone CSM member repeatedly behaving badly." The story today is "some elements of the CSM want to keep the playerbase in the dark about misbehavior going on in the CSM so they can preserve their image rather than achieving transparency when dealing with the playerbase."
This is not an improvement. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.26 22:48:00 -
[6]
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 26/06/2010 22:50:46 Obvious troll alt is obviously trolling.
CCP is not going to scrap all the CSM's proposals and input because Ank can't behave like a grownup, much less because someone else related the 100% true and accurate facts. And you know it. Stop trolling.
This "Ayieeeee, now the CSM is undone! Not because a member is behaving badly, but because other people commented on it!!!" simply does not fly. You're not fooling anybody.
And seriously, enough of your trolling. Enough of your trolling. Enough. That's it. No more of this "The facts are trolling! Damn the facts, damn them!!!" No more calling relating facts "smears" or a "vendette". Yes yes, reality has a clear anti-Ank bias, damn reality right to hell!
This is the same exact trolling we've seen since the campaign, and it's idiotic. You're like a pack of Scientologists. You can't face the facts, so when they're pointed out you just go into rabid attack dog mode and angrily gum the ankles of those pointing out the facts. No defense, always attack. If someone points out that Ank is unbalanced and cannot behave like an adult? Why... then they must not be behaving like adults!
We all know you don't really believe it, and you're not fooling anybody. At all. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 01:24:00 -
[7]
Quote: acting like a gargantuan prick towards everyone who disagrees with you.
Indeed, the very model of decorum.
Quote: If you like the game, and want it to perform, you'll give a proper process like a CSM that has a job to do, room to do its job. If you don't, by all means continue as current.
Ahhh, the standard song and dance. If someone honestly and logically doesn't agree with you, they must be trolling! Of course, you and I both know that giving a body "room to do its job" has nothing, at all, to do with pointing out when members of that body aren't doing their jobs properly. In fact, the ability to point out when folks aren't working properly within the group is essential to maintaining transparency and accountability.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 03:50:00 -
[8]
Quote: someone had just accused you of committing journalism.
Well, you know what they say... if people would just stop talking about what elected officials do when they're not making public statements, they'd have a much easier time crafting a public image. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.27 21:29:00 -
[9]
Hell, we've seen people demand the resignation of folks who simply reported on the fact that Ank is a silverware flinger. I'm not sure that many folks are fooled that those same folks would be just fine if it was a question of people chucking things at Ank, instead. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.28 00:41:00 -
[10]
Ahhh... disagreeing with your opinion is trolling. Classic.
It certainly was a bit odd that Mynx's response was to get upset that the 100% accurate and correct facts were related to the playerbase. If one of the CSM members responds to frustration by not only constantly complaining about conspiracies against her and refusing to work with people who disagree with her, but by actually throwing things at people she doesn't like... well, the playerbase deserves to know about it. That's what transparency and accountability are all about. And, if nothing else, the voters deserve to know what's going on now rather than waiting till the next election cycle to be bombarded with all this **** at once.
Mynxee is generally a quality player and seems to be a decent leader, but getting upset (in public) when the truth was reported is always a bad tactic. The best way to stop the playerbase learning of temper tantrums like the one that was reported is to make sure that CSM members aren't throwing temper tantrums. And nobody is responsible for anybody else's behavior. |
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.28 12:12:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Killer Gandry
Odd to see that I was rather obviously trolling you, so you used the word "troll" to describe my behavior.
I know! Isn't it ironic? Dontcha think?
Originally by: Killer Gandry
Anyone not agreeing with you is a troll.
Now Gandry, we've talked about your compulsion to lie in order to troll me, and you really should stop. Now get back to trolling me by suggesting that unlike everybody else who isn't a CSM and who posts on the forums, somehow I'm supposed to be a CSM.
Originally by: Killer Gandry
Now I'm going to troll you and engage in some deliberate dishonesty so I can claim that even though you're just a normal forum poster like almost everybody else in EVE, and nobody who's just a forum poster has done anything at all on the forums other than state their opinions, you haven't been able to do anything really constructive like flying out to Iceland and meeting with CCP. Nyeh nyeh!
That a boy!
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.09 18:58:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Mynx explained it for you in her ragepoast, what more explanation do you need?
Except, of course, if the CSM had stood behind Sok (who was only speaking the truth anyways) and simply said that they'd gotten a lot done but that throwing things in a fit of pique was beyond the pale, there would have been less CSM infighting and tehy'd have stood together against the bad behavior of a member who was removed from the CSM anyways.
Ah well. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 18:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Libin Herobi
Reasons to ignore such incidents could be to avoid giving the impression to be a group that cannot work together without petty drama ("Ankh did that...").
Think about that for a bit. Seriously, see if what you said makes sense. If we should ignore facts that show that someone in a group cannot work with the other members without causing petty drama, are we really "avoiding giving [a mistaken] impression", or are we actually covering up the facts because of how we fear they'll be received?
Originally by: Libin Herobi
One might even argue that this information is only suitable to create conflict but nothing more. It's not like this would have removed her from the CSM or made CCP ignore her or void her vote. No, this would only have negative effects on how the CSM is perceived by others, namely players.
1. One might argue that, but it'd be a silly argument. Showing how a (ex)CSM member behaved is part of transparency and keeping the players updated on how their elected representatives are working. If every attempt at transparency is met with claims that it's "only going to create conflict", obviously the answer then is to cover everything up for PR reasons so as to keep control of information of public perception. This is a rather Bad Thing to do.
2. Your argument that only things which should be reported are those that would "remove someone from CSM or get CCP to ignore them or void their votes" is an absurdity. Part of accountability and transparency is keeping tabs on how elected reps are behaving and what's going on, and keeping that on the record. Imagine if, instead of being removed for violating the NDA, Ank has stuck around through this entire term. What would the difference be if at the very end of the CSM some people said "Oh yeah, and she was difficult to work with through the process!" versus having a paper trail of documentation through the months showing what actually happened? By your argument, we shouldn't even be shown the minutes and raw text of a meeting.
3. Anybody who judges an entire group by the behavior of one of their members is operating on a cognitive level so low as to discredit themselves immediately. Such sloppy thinking is the basis of every bit of prejudice, bigotry and racism through history. It's just dumb. Anybody who looks at a group of several people and sees one behaving badly, and then says "that entire group is bad!" is the kind of a person whose time can most profitably be spent counting grains of sand on a beach and leaving the grownups alone.
Originally by: Libin Herobi
So this has only increased the impression of the CSM being a group of people that kill time together, unable to overcome normal differences/difficulties to work towards a goal.
Again, this makes no sense. If we have, say, 100 people who form the Galactic Senate (or whatever). 99 of them routinely work together and get stuff done, and one throws temper tantrums whenever they don't have a vote go their way... and they also throw things at other people they don't like. Does his mean that the entire Galactic Senate cannot function, or that they're actually doing pretty well and one rogue loon can't get with the program?
This is not rocket science. Google "fallacy of composition" and "fallacy of division". They're not called fallacies because they're awesome arguments.
Honestly, this Ank-WhiteKnight meme has to die already. "You can't criticize Ank or show how she's behaving, or the entire CSM is all for naught!" is just silly. She's gone already, people can stop WK'ing for her. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 07:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Libin Herobi
The "I tell the full unadorned truth and what will be will be" is really only stubborn and simple minded. And that's not me saying they should lie.
Yes, it is. Your argument is that people shouldn't tell the truth and/or should cover it up if the truth reflect poorly on one CSM member.
Originally by: Libin Herobi
I never said only things that will give someone the boot should be reported.
Yes, you did indeed say that; anything that's true but that you don't like (for whatever reason) but that isn't earth-shattering is just 'throwing mud' and shouldn't be reported. At least maybe until it's been repeated a few times. Why that, then, is no longer 'throwing mud' is anybody's guess.
Originally by: Libin Herobi
I have no idea why you bring racism and bigotry into that.
So you didn't google the fallacies, eh?
Originally by: Libin Herobi
You seriously think "spoongate" will not affect how people think about the CSM as a whole?
I've mentioned the fallacies of composition and division (although you refuse to google them), they don't suddenly become non-******ed in this context.
Originally by: Libin Herobi
But they aren't 100 people.
Ah, I see you've trained Point Evasion V. Whether they're 2 people or 2000 people, judging other people by one person's actions is, yep, tarded again.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.07.11 13:51:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Libin Herobi "I know what you think and do and whatever you write I still know you meant something else"
Actually, as I've quoted and directly responded to your arguments which you then try to alter, it's much more a case that you're trying to change what you've said after the fact. That's okay, I suppose, but it's better to just retract your errors and move on. Ah well. |
|
|
|