jamescfm wrote:Please stop posting the exact response on every thread relating to this topic. If the numbers you are quoting here were true then you wouldn't have to present them in the first place. The only reason you do so is in the hope that players will take your bullshit at face value without reading the thread themselves and that's because you know that anyone who reads the thread will see it for what it is: the majority of the active playing community coming out in support of the proposed reforms.
For the sake of those players who don't have time to read the thread, Aquinas (or Phil Piratin as he was back then) is patently lying about the positions of several players. He says that there are nine players against the reforms and then lists those names. The fact of the matter is that at least three of those players (Kubrick, LukasV and Roosevelt) were not actually against the reforms at all, leaving us with an 11-6 majority in favour even if we utilise his bizarre methodology.
Aquinas, if you aren't willing to add anything other than poisoning the well then I would appreciate if you refrained from involving yourself in the conversation further and allowed other players to contribute.
James is fully aware of my objection to this post, and has had ample opportunity to retract his statements if he had wished to do so. I sincerely hoped the need for me to comment here could be averted, but in the circumstances, I do feel compelled to defend myself.
James claims I am "patently lying" about who opposed the culture reform proposals during the public consultation about culture reform on the forum, and that because of this, I do not want people to read the thread for themselves. This is not true. Indeed, I linked to the thread myself, so that anybody who was interested in reviewing it for themselves could very easily do so. With regards to the discussion which took place at the time, I regard it as regrettable that we do not actually have more transparency than we do. As I stated at the time, I feel it is regrettable Moderation decided to remove the original consultation thread from the forum, as that means a significant portion of that discussion is no longer accessible to us.
The
assessment I made at the time of who in the public consultation was for or against the proposals was based on what people were saying. Anybody who wanted to challenge that assessment or suggest corrections etc. was completely free to do so, and in fact I
openly encouraged them to do so. There was no intention at all of any misrepresentation on my part. Naturally, I do not completely preclude the possibility that somehow or other, I inadvertently placed someone in the wrong "camp", but I do point out that at the time, persons had the opportunity to point out any mistakes, and that nobody did. This included James himself, who was actively involved in that consultation, and I am quite sure would have been the first to challenge me if he felt I was trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I also add that James has failed to demonstrate that any misrepresentations were actually made.
James accuses me of "poisoning the well" and describes my point of view as "your bullshit". There has been no "poisoning" or intention of "poisoning" on my part; nor has there been any "bullshit" or intention of purveying "bullshit" on my part. That lurid and negatively personal language is not appropriate from a GRC member who one would reasonably expect to have a positive attitude towards encouraging and facilitating open constructive discussions about the game, and respecting the presence of a diversity of views in those discussions.
James goes on to state "I would appreciate if you refrained from involving yourself in the conversation further and allowed other players to contribute", his implication being simultaneously (a) that I am trying to prevent persons from contributing to the discussion here and (b) that I should myself not feel welcome to participate further in the discussion. With regards to (a), this is false. I welcome discussion, and have made no attempt to discourage anybody from joining in. With regards to (b), it can clearly be seen, I hope, that it is James himself who appears to be trying to discourage persons from contributing who might disagree with his views. This was also, as some will recall, a trait he and others appeared to prominently display during the original culture reform consultation.
When it comes to any set of proposals for reforming the game, it is important we are careful not to assert the Big Claim that there is a consensus of support for those proposals when (a) the proposals have not yet been made clear and/or (b) a community consensus of support has yet to be convincingly demonstrated. Too often, an unfortunate and unfair consequence of doing this is to discourage persons from dissenting from or asking challenging questions about the proposals in question. This is particularly the case when this is being done by persons with positions of authority within the game. I can verify the reality of this myself, as I remember the conversations I had with various community members during the original consultation.
Evidently, we are now in a situation where a GRC member is demanding a community member be silent just for challenging the assumption that there is a consensus for the plans he personally supports. I invite James himself, and also the GRC collectively, to carefully consider whether or not this is a development to be welcomed.
The argument I put forward is that any proposals for reforming the game ought to be debated respectfully, rationally and on their own merits. If you believe your plans are a good idea and you believe you have a consensus for them, then by all means, please try to demonstrate that. But please do not shout people down just because you are irritated by having certain of your assumptions challenged.