| Author |
Message |
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 23:28 · Edited by: Feeble
Reply
I'm sorry that I keep pushing these questions, but I would like an answer without personal attacks and libelous offensive things. I repost my two posts from the last thread here so that we discuss what is happening rationally. If you have the desire to immediately post and jump down someone's throat - I request you to walk away from the computer before posting in this thread. I am aware sometimes I am guilty of this, so please do not bring that up in this thread (and also, Iain has a point that we often mistaken tone on first examination of a piece of writing on the internet). I am asking these questions to clarify what we as a community can expect of situations that have unfolded in the past few days, and why it has happened, so that we can work towards it not happening again.
I do have personal investment in this situation, I don't deny it. However, I can see why people jump to conclusions and why people shoot and why people defend their friends - these questions are not actually about that - it is to clarify what can we expect as members, both senior and junior, and how our behaviour reflects who we are... without further ado
Post one) In this issue, a senior officer has neither expressed apology, or offered recompense for:
a) belittling a chat room user in their opinion when it was asked for expressly
b) shooting out said officer without warning, or without just cause
c) Stripping not only that officer but yet another officer of their chat rights and login access (a ban of sorts, no matter how we play with the words)
d) Further belittling that officer in private email
e) not stopping extremely harsh words and personal attack sent from another officer in higher echilon circles
f) incites discent in the community in his own email with, and I shall quote 'anyone who agrees with [that officer] is welcome to join him. But he won't be at OTF.'
after a long history of a certain amount of other incidents that are beginning to come out of the wood work...
There are numerous PDs and ISA protocols being broken, not to mention just incongruous and bad behaviour which is not being accounted for or discussed or explained to the community. I think we deserve an explanation as to
a) why we have ISA to punish some members actions, and not others
b) why those actions have not been followed through in this case - regardless of the rank (we are often told that it matters not who breaks the rules, as seen in Candice's case)
c) why the apologies and admissions of fault have come from other people's usernames, and why there has been no accountability for such actions.
I think that's fair.
Post two (to clarify my stance on the issue, and to remind people that this isn't necessarily all about the individuals in this battle):
Why does everyone suggest this is all about personal vendettas?
Jon, yes it is a chatroom - but that does not mean we are above respect and honour, and admitting when we are wrong. In fact - calling again to our principles - that is the very notion on which this place is founded. If the leader cannot rule by example, and the head of the disciplinary body cannot judge without sufficient bias, then there is no point in having this body - it should be a free for all.
I do -love- how everyone is sticking into the emotional side of these arguments, digging in the claws and bandying about all sorts of personal jabs that they know all too well will hurt the people that they are aimed at, and yet, when people are asking dispassionately and reasonably for an explanation - I think the community deserves more than 'it's a chatroom', and is owed a well addressed reply that isn't circular and offers some real recompense.
Sure, we all make mistakes, but those of us who make them must acknowledge when our foibles come to light. This is not a matter of 'stick a bandaid on it and make up' because this issue is more than the PDs and it is more than the personal issues. We can write cutesy limericks that belittle people's feelings and opinions (a theme seems to be running here) and we can make jokes to say that we shouldn't be stirring the pot - but I for one want my question - which was phrased in multiple parts so no confusion was made and which was thought out as rationally as possible - addressed without bold accusations such as 'you're just taking sides' or 'you want to overthrow the administration' or 'you have no idea what you're talking about'. These are questions we all diserve answers to.
And finally, just because we're on the end of a computer line doesn't mean we don't have feelings, and personal barbs dig deep sometimes more over a phone line than they do in person... can everyone take a breath before they respond to a post because sometimes I don't think we realise how much we can hurt with a single word... thank-you.
|
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 2 Jul 2008 23:42
Reply
Hal, I also wanted to say (I hope for many people) that I am grateful for what you and Iain have done in maintaining the outpost - I feel that that has been lost in previous posts. Moving to a new server was a big task, and one that - probably - you both don't get thanked for enough... so sincerely, thank-you for keeping us running.
From my point of view there has been a severe break in communication on both 'sides' (not that I see this as something that has to be seen from one point of view exclusively), and there was a breaking point, for all of us. We have all behaved somewhat badly in different situations - again, human. Is this a fair summation?
Andrew, I think people are glad that you've moved the server and that the outpost is still functioning - again, thank-you. But at this stage - I believe what people are trying to say - is that they need more from their leadership.
A big step in this, would to admit that the situation was handled badly (from your point of view) and while people have perhaps gone a little wild with their reaction (including belittling people and their opinions and their persons on all sides), there was a communication break down that led to this awful situation which got out of hand. This would go a long way to reassure a lot of people that this is about more than the chatroom and that it is, in fact, about people.
I think a lot of people have been personally hurt (again, by one or two words) in this whole debacle, and I think we all need to say sorry and try to explain what we are trying to say without barbed words.
It's human to flip out and react when we feel threatened, it takes a good man to step forward and say, 'I'm sorry, I mighta done something wrong'...
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 00:34
Reply
Is it really necessary to bring this up again? The other topic has run its course, and I've said all that I intend to say on the forums. Now please just let it go and let it drop.
|
mezoti
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 01:51
Reply
I agree with HAL. All that's being done is running in a circle, saying the same things over and over and over and over.
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 01:57 · Edited by: babel
Reply
Using an idea that works is not the same as stealing work. Thought I would point that out. 
And no, I'm not going to post again, just thought I would defend myself against the supposed PD7 breach.
|
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 06:48 · Edited by: Feeble
Reply
Ok, been sitting on writing this all day to figure out my thoughts and press why it's important to flesh this out in, first, a dispassionate forum, and second to get it clarified.
To the first - it has not been the first time today that I have read people commenting that they've got strong opinions on an issue going on in OTF, but they don't want to raise it or talk about it because they will be flamed on the forums for expressing what the think. It would seem to me, many of us who do wade in on the forums have thick skins - to a certain extent - and masochistically seem to come back for more. Therefore, there is a misconception that those of us who start forums or speak verbosely on them are the only ones who care. It probably is the case that many more people read the forums than take part given the particularly nasty behaviour that - again - most of us display.
Continuing on from this idea as a side note - the forums being the place to discuss V3, the quickness of people's reactions gives little time or little scope for those who may have an opinion from speaking. Hence, the establishment of a thread which - hopefully - can remain above the belt and set an example that it can be done with a little self control.
As to why it is necessary to bring this up again, is that I don't feel that my question - which Iain asked me to clarify - has been addressed, either clearly or appropriately. If the OTF community is going to continue in the future, we need to know in what direction we intend to go in every aspect. As Lee has said, at the moment, we have one rule for one member, and another for another member - this is no new concept in OTF. Many times I have seen someone make almost the same joke, but given it is a senior officer versus a junior officer (or a n00b) the senior officer is given a blind eye while the junior is heavily reprimanded - this was my point in removing names from the situation at hand. As a community are we comfortable with this double standard when it is applied to higher echilons of command, or even when it is split between someone who has proved their years here over and over again vs someone who has only been in the chat for one week.
As I said, this is bigger than the individual people involved in the matter and is bigger than this one localised event. To start with, at the least I - personally, I believe I am speaking for many - would like a reasonable explanation, without angry words or personal vendettas as to the justifications for the behaviours exhibited the other day in the chat, and a response from ISA as to why this situation was acceptable.
Second, I would like to hear from the rest of the community (there have now been 70 views of this forum - i know some will be repeat visitations, but still) if the way these systems work as they now stand do, in fact, work for us as a whole?
I don't believe that these are too far out requests - but maybe I am out of line...
|
majin_fett
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 07:27
Reply
Here's what I currently see as the problem:
Yes we are talking in circles; however, I think the reason for that is that no one is really willing to look in the middle and see the problem, and if they do see the problem, they're not willing to admit it.
Is that a correct analysis?
|
aeon
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 12:34
Reply
One of many.
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 13:43
Reply
First of all, apologies in advance. I'm not trying to attack anyone, sleight people or tarnish reputations and history.
So... Babel in general has a point about expressing opinions and all. Perhaps 10F does need a change. Perhaps we need to stop, shut everything down and start back up from scratch, as opposed to keeping an old, creaky system going.
HAL is fairly justified in his actions. Perhaps the action itself was extreme. However, there are times that for the betterment of the whole, in this case, 10F, extreme action must be taken. Ejection and a "Take a time out. Breathe and think about what you said. Then come back and think about it."
So let's face it. They were both acting for what they believed was for the greater good of 10F. Personally, I would have done what Babel would have done, though maybe not so... Emphatically; and I would have done what HAL would have done, to ensure the security of 10F against a person who was rather... Vocal in their opinions.
Perhaps, like I mentioned, it's time for a fresh start. When I took over Simming several years ago, I pretty much started from scratch again and I changed the whole way Simming did things. Some things worked, some things didn't. I saw that Simming's issues weren't going to be fixed easily and looking back, I would have done things very differently.
But the point was, I did something different. If I didn't, Simming would've still done the same old thing and plodded along. When I changed it all, people started coming out and interacting. There was fairly lively discussion whereas before there was none.
If you really want your utopia (in the sense of a perfect society) in 10F, let those people who can make a difference know so. Iain's commented that he was more than willing to listen to discussion.
But... There are times when the goal can't be reached. There are plenty more lakes for the fish to swim in.
I will close by saying one thing: We're getting so fed up because we love 10F. Can we say that out loud three times and think about what it means and then do something about it?
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 14:00
Reply
Ah, the double standard. I actually did research on this - proper research, mind, and I asked people on both sides. Having been in the ISA myself - and having left it for reasons I won't discuss - I guess I'm somewhat on middle ground myself.
I will explain it as simply as I can.
1) No one is victimised just because. I have never, ever, seen a new member here being picked on by "the powers that be" just because they felt like it. I think we can agree so far. The ISA, for example, does not just pick on a new member because they feel like it. Right?
2) Newer members are dealt with more harshly than older members. Correct. It's got something to do with the following: if a random newbie logs in and insults me, I take it at face value and warn them. If Ray logs in and insults me, I laugh at it because I know him. So yes, Ray gets away with something I'd warn a newbie about. Because I know that Ray doesn't mean it, while with a newbie, I don't; I have to at least keep an eye on him/her. If that's favouritism, everyone is guilty of it.
3) Some long-standing members are dealt with more harshly than others. Again, correct. And why? Because they have a history of causing trouble, being difficult, not fitting into the system, whatever. If you disagree, explain to me why it is that I have never felt "victimised" in the way that some others seem to have. And don't blame "cliques", because the group I was in with at the start were all CL3s and CL4s. There is NO WAY that your own behaviour was up to scratch all the time and yet, you were still repressed. NO WAY. It's a little something called "Rights and Responsibilities". They go hand in hand. You can't expect to have all these rights and make no effort to use them responsibly on the other hand.
And to all those who would say "Yes, I behaved wrongly but now I've changed and I'm still being treated like a lamer", I say: Prove it. Don't whine about it, don't talk about it, don't complain about it, just DO. You have something to prove, so do it. Don't talk about it.
4) I honestly think people are seeing problems where there are none. Funnily enough, the people who seem to have a problem with "The Law" are those who tend to end up on the wrong side of it. Sorry to say, but that's life. That's kind of in the nature of the thing.
5) "Our leadership sucks and we need a new one". Ahem. No it doesn't. Our leadership makes mistakes, yes. However. Our leadership also does a lot of work for the community. Our leadership is willing to listen to people's complaints. Our leadership is willing to apologise for something that isn't their fault (yes, I mean Iain). Our leadership is willing to admit the possibility that they make mistakes and misjudge. That's a LOT more than I could say for some of those who are eager to blame the "higher-ups" for everything.
So. Before you go pointing the finger at other people, take a look at yourself. Ask yourself, "What might I have possibly done to set certain people against me?" If you don't find an answer, ask them. And then don't argue with them against it, but think about it. Try seeing it from their point of view.
And speaking of points of view, which these debates are full of: Try seeing things from HAL's or Iain's point of view. Imagine being in charge of this site, having to do all that work, most of which goes unthanked, and then having people criticise you and asking you to resign. And then imagine getting that constantly and always from the same people, and never being allowed to so much as let your temper slip a bit because it's fodder for the repression propaganda machine.
I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. I'm trying to explain something. And I'm trying to get people to stop blaming each other for stuff and start looking at their OWN actions for a change. Y'know - if I were constantly complaining about being treated unfairly, you wouldn't like me, either.
Change leaders as much as you want, change the system as much as you want, you're always going to have misfits who complain.
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Jul 2008 14:35
Reply
I've written a blog post on the matter, and that is the final word from me on this subject. We had a small group lead a rather nasty personal attack, and it's over now. It's time to move on.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Jul 2008 01:09
Reply
Bria = genius.
|
lzrman
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Jul 2008 04:26
Reply
Genius = Bria  !
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Jul 2008 17:13
Reply
I actually hadn't planned on weighing in on this conversation to any significant degree, but perhaps I should clairfy something...I'M a misfit. Always have, everywhwere I go, and I suspect I always will be.
Quoting: bria I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. I'm trying to explain something. And I'm trying to get people to stop blaming each other for stuff and start looking at their OWN actions for a change.
Misfit Polson doesn't think there's anything wrong with agreeing with this statement. It pretty much goes in any area of life actually. I'm pretty sure there was a guy somewhere who said something about the speck in your brother's eye and the plank in your own. Whether or not you know who the guy is, or give a rat's ass about him, that was a pretty damn smart statement.
If you can look back on your actions and say, "Hey, there wasn't a thing I could have done differently, nothing I could go back and change that would produce a better outcome or solve the problem in the first place," then, well, that's all you can do. And I'm assuming, if you can say that and believe it, when people point fingers at you there isn't a need to get angry because you have assurance of self - and I think the one thing we all learn by grade 7 is that you can't force anybody to change their mind about you and it's a waste of time to try.
If you did everything possible to resolve the situation, then be proud of yourself.
Personally, I'm not done examining my thoughts and actions over the past six months in regards to OTF. I'll let you know what I come up with.
|
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 4 Jul 2008 22:37
Reply
Quoting: Feeble people have perhaps gone a little wild with their reaction (including belittling people and their opinions and their persons on all sides), there was a communication break down that led to this awful situation which got out of hand.
Quoting: Feeble A big step in this, would to admit that the situation was handled badly (from your point of view) and while people have perhaps gone a little wild with their reaction (including belittling people and their opinions and their persons on all sides), there was a communication break down that led to this awful situation which got out of hand.
Quoting: Feeble given the particularly nasty behaviour that - again - most of us display.
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear - but I too was saying we all had something to be responsible for... I'm not proud of some of my actions, and I don't support some of the ways things have been handled - by many parties - and I do/did (as this forum has effectively been cut off at the knees) intend to get everyone speaking rationally and openly about what's getting their goat and hopefully apologise for some of the more childish behaviour each of us is exhibiting. When you're backed into a corner, there are two (usual) courses of action, one cower and the other lash out - I firmly believe we've stopped reading what eachother are saying (and have noted big points being missed) because we're already standing with our hands over our faces ready to attack and to be attacked - again, talking about all of us.
This really was not my intention in this thread (to further attack) - to continue to attack - and I do think these discussions are important, not only for senior members but for junior members too. Personally, for a very long time I didn't think I had earned the right to think about this place and how it worked until I'd proved my right to (through joining a department or whatever), but, on the other hand, it is the junior officers who make the majority of this community - and that's what people become when they join the community - so I'm not entirely sure that isn't backwards thinking?
finally, just wanted to redraw your attention to:
Quoting: Feeble From my point of view there has been a severe break in communication on both 'sides' (not that I see this as something that has to be seen from one point of view exclusively), and there was a breaking point, for all of us.
My suggestions of apologies etc etc have come from a place within me where I've been told that if you've hurt someone personally, you should apologise, whether you believe you were in the wrong or not, and also, that people cannot move on without knowing that their feelings and thoughts have not been discredited.
I have been guilty of these actions.
I know I've said things to people and I'm not proud of it, and I know I've said some things after such events that have been discredited given my earlier quick-to-emotion reactions. If that makes me look weak and look like a poor example for the community - to suggest I've done things wrong - then I am happier to look weak in the eyes of many, than to wear my pride and defenses as a cloak...
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Jul 2008 10:44 · Edited by: ajcardall
Reply
If OTF is not a democracy, why express views in a democractic way?
And if leaders can't accept they are going to get criticism - no matter how unjustified - they shouldn't be leaders. That's life.
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Jul 2008 14:20
Reply
Quoting: Feeble I firmly believe we've stopped reading what each other are saying (and have noted big points being missed) because we're already standing with our hands over our faces ready to attack and to be attacked - again, talking about all of us.
That's kind of what I was trying to get at. I completely agree with you, incidentally. And I think that if people can be more ready to see things from a different point of view, things will get a lot better. Otherwise the same arguments will just continue ad infinitum and we'll never get anywhere. And I think THAT - people being unwilling to see the other side - is the core of the problem, not any inherent unfairness, outdated code, or crap leadership.
Quoting: Feeble If that makes me look weak and look like a poor example for the community - to suggest I've done things wrong - then I am happier to look weak in the eyes of many, than to wear my pride and defenses as a cloak...
That doesn't make you weak, it makes you strong, and I applaud you for it.
Quoting: ajcardall If OTF is not a democracy, why express views in a democractic way?
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I haven't seen anyone express anything in a democratic way, really. Diplomatic, certainly, but not democratic. Do you mean speaking democratically as opposed to tyrannically? Because in that case the answer is pretty obvious.
And our leaders ARE accepting criticism, and are even reacting to it. It's just that destructive criticism doesn't necessarily warrant a constructive, or even a diplomatic, response. And I think that if you offer criticism, you need to accept the consequences. That's life, too.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Jul 2008 14:14 · Edited by: ajcardall
Reply
You do have a point, Svenja. I will concede that. But my point is (as it was originally badly worded!) that, as you have rightly said, people should be more constructive in offering any criticism and voicing any opinions that they may have. I agree with you on that. What my point is, is that surely it is also the responsibility of the leaders to react to criticism - even destructive criticism - in a manner that doesn't involve armoury shots. You may say that Hal was entitled to his reaction due to the nature of the criticism, and perhaps he was, but similarly, you surely have to admit that a leader should set an example, and a better response would have been to take the barb, and then to open discourse with Jeremy, attempting to find the root cause of the issue.
Leaders should set examples, not follow them.
That make [more] sense?
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Jul 2008 14:59
Reply
Yep, makes more sense, and: agreed.
I'm also not defending Hal's actions. He's quite capable of doing that himself. My point was more that in some cases people might want to look at their own actions instead of blaming everything on the leadership, than that we have a blameless leadership. Yes, in this case, Hal might have misjudged, although with the precedent of Alivan and the general tendency for people in general to go off in a huff and do stupid things, it was perhaps at least understandable as a precaution. But that's not for me to say, nor to deny.
But to have everyone jump on him because of that one mistake - which, incidentally, was fixed - is, again, not very constructive. And to argue whether or not it was the RIGHT reaction is, at this point, redundant. It's done. And it was fixed as best as possible, as I recall that Jeremy's rights etc were given back to him.
What I've been trying to do is to get people seeing both sides. Not to defend one side and condemn another.
|
aeon
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Jul 2008 15:57 · Edited by: aeon
Reply
This will never work. If that would work, the world would be free of wars, hunger, and everything. What you try to achieve is utopia, because only a few people in the world are graced with empathy. What, if anything, should be achieved is a communication between sides. What we're having now is that someone voices their opinion, another one reacts, yet another one butts in, until the one who's targeted decides that the topic is over. That's one-way communication, and not exactly helpful.
However, communication is never easy, and you'll never succeed to make everyone happy. In economics, this theory is called "magic quadrangle", meaning that you can only achieve three out of four goals while the fourth one is impossible to match with the others. What we should learn here at OTF is to try and achieve as many goals as we can and accept the fact that we can't have a solution for anything.
And we should also learn, that this is more than just a chat room. I actually hate that quote. It's basically true, but people put a lot of emotion into this place, otherwise it wouldn't be here anymore. People should respect other people's feelings when they're talking to each other. No one's better than the other here. A higher rank or a good position doesn't make you better than someone else, so it doesn't give you any right to talk down to people.
It is only logical, that you can't be friends with everyone. But instead of pushing them away, when you disagree with them or don't want to hear what they say, you should let them say what they have on their minds. Like with jokes, there's always a grain of truth in arguments, even if they're only subjective. But if you keep pushing people away, you'll end up being alone, and that's hardly anything OTF needs.
Edited, because no paragraphs = eye cancer
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Jul 2008 16:10
Reply
*nods*
The Alivan point is well made, and not something I had originally taken into account.
Such as yourself, I mean not to judge either side, but it seemed as though people were attempting to portray Jeremy in a negative light, when the others involved - on both sides - have reacted/acted in much the same manner.
Hopefully both sides - and us on the sidelines - can learn from all of this, and in future, look to air any opinions (be they positive or negative) in a forum that encourages difference of opinions and seeks to take all on board, and where possible, act upon. Obviously you can never please anyone, but as long as people feel their views are being taken into account, it does go some way to bringing them together for the greater good. It is clear people do have issue with Hal, for whatever reason, and the only way to deal with them is for both parties to, as said, sit and have a frank and open discussion. Tempers and emotions may sometimes get worked up during the discussion, but as long as the other side can remain calm, then everything should be resolved nicely!
Ah look, I sound like a right little dreamer!!
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Jul 2008 16:26
Reply
Annie, I'm not looking for utopia. I know it won't happen. I know it can't happen. I know that if it did happen, I'd hate it and nothing would work anymore.
However, that doesn't mean one can't try to introduce a little bit of perspective into the fray. And if my first post got through to only one person, it'll have been worth it. I've seen far too much complaints à la "I'm being victimised" or "it's all your fault" and I had to say something about it. And honestly, I think that sometimes we do make mountains out of molehills.
That's really all I have to say on the matter. 
|
aeon
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Jul 2008 19:55
Reply
Svenja, I know you weren't looking for that. I, like you, just wanted my post to get through to someone, too. 
And that with the molehills is right, too. Especially here, and it's like I said: we often forget that this, despite that it's "only a chat room", here is a bunch of actual people who have feelings, too. They're not only text-on-screen, but it's very easy to forget it. Or, things like handles and avatars make it easy for us to forget that this "Looke Skaiw0lker62" is a real person.
It is a known fact to everyone that people not only communicate by words, but expressions, sounds, and all that jazz, too. In a chat room, we only have words, though, and because of that, we can't tell if someone says something with a sarcastic undertone or not. We see what we see, and that is why people have to be extra careful with what and how they say it. If you want to voice your opinion (whether you are the one blaming someone, or you're the person targeted) try to be as precise as possible, and avoid putting emotions in your words, if you want to debate properly. Say what you want, straight to the point, and you'll see that this can be indeed helpful.
My opinion...
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Jul 2008 20:00
Reply
Wise words. 
|
kaela_donos
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Jul 2008 02:52 · Edited by: kaela_donos
Reply
it's hard to write something that is critical and tactful, people spend their lives doing it. I think people here have been really trying to do this, and some of you guys did a good job! and for (maybe the first time) i agree completely with Kaze's statement.
When i read this i see that people are trying to look at large issues, larger trends that stretch back though out the history of the outpost and that are still strongly present and the only clear complete example is a recent one.
This is not aimed at damaging ego or being a personal attact but rather rather it is a critic of actions aim at improvement!
I notice that people tend to think that if your not with me your agenst me, this isn't true. This isn't a black and white issue, just because she is saying that the leadership could be improved it doesn't mean that the other group was right. I am pretty sure that everyone involved made a ton of mistakes.
There is something else that is very imported about the people making the comments. If they didn't care, if they didn't think we could all do better then they wouldn't spend the mental energy or the time writing this out. These comments, both positive and negative are complements, people making comments says that they think that the outpost is worth fighting for and that the leadership has not unlocked all of their potential.
I think people are trying to say that there were missed opportunities, tactics and methods. That better methods could be implemented in the future. They are saying that they care and they want to be listened to and they want to see this place be great. They want to see there issues heard even if others think that this is last weeks bread.
so basically, To recap, people are criticizing because they care! If they didn't care, they wouldn't try to reopen this topic. I am saying this because i care! I want to see every one do well! and even if this make no difference to the outpost i hope people think about this when it comes to life in general.
That's all
With love and a purple hat
Kaela
|
aeon
Member
|
# Posted: 7 Jul 2008 10:51
Reply
Amen to that.
|
cellucci2
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jul 2008 01:02
Reply
What is going on here?
This place gets weirder and weirder.
|
monny
Member
|
# Posted: 8 Jul 2008 15:25
Reply
Quoting: cellucci2 This place gets weirder and weirder.
Ya know!?
*goes back to sleep to prepare for her nightshift*
|
