Welcome to Gaia! ::

How polite of you.

Now, my first order of business. I happily give my permission to any and all people who feel they have a valid grievance against myself or Mironi to post here with the same freedoms granted above.

I take serious issue with the way that you, Miro, chose to deal with any and all problems that have come up recently in the guild. You've only vaugely listened to the public if you chose to listen at all. You've restricted our power by adding many many superfluous rules, and even blatantly taken it away from us at one point.

You've directly attacked me with these new rules that you've set up, and refused to own up to it, wouldn't respond to it without attempting to make me look stupid or dodge the question entirely. You've threatened not only me, but my significant other, and I can only assume that you've done the same to others in private. That sort of spineless behavior, dodging the public eye and going around to address people and their fears personally, I find absolutely unacceptable in a leader.

You even ask for private conversations from everyone. A plane that you may easily deny or ignore while you sweep all their worries under the rug, or threaten and bludgeon them into submission as needed. It's a tactic that I can only see as an attempt to divide and conquer.

You feel the need to change every little aspect to your liking simply because it is your guild now. It's not your guild, it's EVERYONE'S guild. and has been ever since creation. You need to understand this if you are ever going to be successful as a leader. In order to do this, every change you make needs to be discussed in public.

I don't just mean discussed either. You need to listen to what people are saying, and not just as underlings complaining to your overlordship, but as equals who love this guild and care about it just as much as you do.

When people speak En'mass, it is not that we plotted behind your back, it's that we agree with one another. And when we agree, we aren't attempting to cause dissent or a riot, we are attempting to change something. Just because what we are changing is something you like dosn't make it a personal attack against you. You must understand this.

You will say that you do.
Your actions have said that you don't.

You are going to disagree with me on everything I have said here, and call me a liar, attempt to discredit me, or drag me off topic.
Your past actions have lead me to these conclusions. And I only hope you prove me wrong. Josiah.

-A Record of What has Transpired as of this Writing (02/08/11)

January 10, 3 AM EST, Eme gives Mirouni the guild and retires. Squad 2 is vacant at that point. There is no thread made to provide warning of such a change, nor is there informal notice given to parties other than Mirouni and possibly an intoxicated Ezru (citation needed). A guild announcement is made noting that there will be a guildwide plot and further details will be updated with progress.

Fefnir speaks to Mirouni via Skype and voices concerns about the method in which the change has occurred, and his concerns are dismissed. Discussion is calm at first, but grows heated. The reasoning provided by Eme for the choice of Mirouni over Fefnir is cited as a “lack of trust”. Further speaking with Eme confirms this to an extent, though the cause of distrust was admittedly a grudge and errant reasoning.

COVrock posts a thread questioning the same subject, and is met with Mirouni’s answer, wherein he apologizes for keeping the intent to change leaders a secret and ends with: “My promise to ALL of you, is that I will never make a decision without first consulting the ENTIRE crew. This guild is meant to work as a unit, and I intend to treat it as such. I will also maintain an attitude of professionalism and respect, and I expect the same from all of you.”

Mirouni begins action on Jan. 12 by moving threads from the Crew forum into crew storage. Again, no notice is made of changes. Some regular threads are also moved to storage. This event goes generally unnoticed, though crew logs show that no fewer than 5 crew log pages of threads were moved within the span of the day.

The next day Mirouni creates a thread stating that Missions will be implemented regardless of crew input. Red_moon_wolfess voices concerns regarding the system and feels it is not effective, also commenting that a lack of choice about the implementation is reminiscent of dictatorship. Some other scattered discussion is made, but the thread does not have an effect in the long term as of yet.

Fefnir creates a thread and it is decided that Yomiko ( Another R-Reflection ) will become Squad 2 captain and fill the position abdicated by Eme.

Some amount of discontent is notable among the crew. Heated talks are held on Skype in a group designed to exclude Mirouni.
A regular member posts a picture which is called fake by Mirouni. Arguments ensue, and during which time Mirouni admittedly intentionally baited the member in question. Said member quit the guild because of the harassment. He was then added by Mirouni to the list of banned members in crew forum despite having not broken any guild rules.

Mirouni creates a thread regarding the Bount. His intention is to eliminate the race as they are not active and the general consensus is that they are disliked as a race within the confines of RP. The crew moves to eliminate them in a small plot.

There are a few days of relative silence while the group discontented with Mirouni’s leadership gains followers and assembles a list of grievances, which are posted on Jan. 16. These grievances speak for KyrosDevil XIII, Asuma Haruka, Zaine93, Another R-Reflection, Tez Tickle, BullenE, Ezru the Fang, Red_moon_wolfess, COVrock, and Hoarfrost Dirge.

Primary points:
-Proper succession to a GVC was not observed.
-Mirouni has less experience than other members, which may cause friction.
-There was no warning of a change occurring and no discussion regarding it.

Others add specific concerns and comments to show that they themselves did support this. Notable, COVrock cites a change to the rules made on the 13th that was not discussed made by Mirouni, and Red_moon_wolfess gives warning about the zealous pursuit Mirouni has made toward his goals in such a short amount of time. The end result is a vote for GC.

Nominations are made, and due to varying circumstances, the opponents of Mirouni in this vote withdraw themselves. Mirouni keeps GC status and declares that there will be a vote for GVC status to Fefnir in Skype. Mirouni also indicates that there will be a revote at the time chosen by Fefnir should he request it due to his reason for withdrawal from the vote. Emotions are high, causing doubt among some about the motivations of the GVC vote.

Threads are made for nominations, and all practices are observed in order for it to be legitimate until the voting portion begins. Mirouni creates a thread wherein people are instructed to vote openly. Several people comment that this makes them uncomfortable and that they want anonymity in their voting. This is met with hostility from Mirouni. TheWickedTruth indicates that it was her idea to vote in such a way and makes apologies for it. Red_moon_wolfess comments regarding the usefulness of polls. A back and forth ensues between Red_moon_wolfess and Mirouni spanning PMs, crew posts, and Skype messages. Red_moon_wolfess receives a warning for calling Mirouni a benevolent dictator, though it must be noted that the reason was a subjective understanding of what was written and in response to an insult to his character, so it can be considered in some views as illegitimate.

Some futher discussion takes place, but is cut short by a proclamation by Mirouni, stating that the ‘privelage of democracy has been revoked’ and that the crew will no longer be able to call for votes. Fefnir, who had been breaking from crew, was informed of this massive change in the structure of the guild and makes a counterpoint calling such a thing the move of a dictator and tyrant who is forcing a group into submission because they do not agree with him. Fefnir calls upon the promise by Mirouni to revote at Fefnir’s choice of time. Mirouni responds by denying the vote and stating outright that he will not change the decision. Mirouni then makes a thread to decide what should be done with it and strikes out the original. TheWickedTruth then indicates that it was her proposed solution used by Mirouni. Fefnir makes note of this, makes clear why he is against the measure being taken, and warns against things such as this as signs of dictatorship being enacted. He also says he has no faith in Mirouni as a leader due to his observed hypocrisy and cites several examples.

After talking in skype, Fefnir is removed from crew for one month starting on January 28 and ending February 28. Other issues are discussed, and it is decided that there will be a discussion and poll regarding whether or not to use the poll or ballot format in the future. It is decided that the poll format will be used. There is also a thread made to create rules to be followed by crew. The original 5 rules are restated from the rules Daven established, and have no problems noted by crew. Mirouni later adds two new rules and a section regarding the specific powers of each class of crew, as well as an “ultimatum” which reads “The next person who follows the history of conflict in this guild and makes an attack against my personal character, the character of those who have helped me, or the character of ANYONE in this guild, will be banned without warning, and in a permanent fashion. Period. This includes s**t-talking outside of guild forums.”

Red_moon_wolfess indicates a small clarification should be made to a rule, and comments that the ultimatum is a gag rule with too much power. A protracted exchange occurs between Mirouni and Red_moon_wolfess. The ultimatum is amended, apologized for on Skype to Red_moon_wolfess, then the ultimatum is outright removed. Some conduct guidelines have been added, and have not yet been addressed.

End Events
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Commentary as written by Fefnir

Personally, I think this record shows quite clearly that there are several problems in the leadership of Mirouni. We see that he tends to act from emotion rather than reason and in his rulings often makes rash decisions that are not explained or discussed. This is flaw number one.

1. Mirouni makes decisions by himself and then attempts to apply them without providing reasoning for them.

We see this demonstrably in the situation regarding the GVC vote method. As there had been disagreements with the method of voting for GVC and some argument with him regarding which method should be used, his conduct made it clear he was frustrated with the show of disagreement with his choice, which he had not discussed prior to enacting it. Because of this frustration, rather than explaining why he wanted the vote to be out in the open, he declared that the crew were not responsible enough to handle democracy, and would thereby not be able to vote, which is gross misconduct in my opinion. Tension from a lack of clear motive lead to problems in his receptiveness to criticism, and those criticisms were then handled improperly. This is flaw number two.

2. Mirouni uses too much emotion in his decision making.

This is not to say that no emotion should be taken into making choices, as such a thing is impossible. The problem is that he brings the wrong emotions into the choices, something evident in many situations even back to his days as a vice captain. Mirouni seems to take challenges to his choices as direct threats to his character and person. While admittedly there have been attacks on his character and person in the past, he seems unable to distinguish where the line is drawn, often falling into the style-over-substance fallacy in the process. He cannot differentiate between a good idea with aggressive or angry tone and a bad idea, which leads to his rejection of better choices on the grounds of ‘taking offense’ to the writer. There are a great many examples of this throughout Mirouni’s time as GC. For example, we have the situation with Red_moon_wolfess arguing against the “ultimatum”. Intense fighting took place over Skype, PMs, and the crew forum, and the anger between the two is evident. However, Mirouni makes the mistake of, instead of examining the reasons given why she was so vehemently against such a measure, reading her tone and assuming that her intent is simply to attack him for any decision he makes. Such an assumption (and I must make one as well regarding his observation of Red’s posts) destroyed any possibility of a quick or clean resolution to the situation, and when combined with his first flaw, wherein he does not justify his decisions publicly, created a roadblock to a positive dialogue. Such a thing is not a rarity for Mirouni; he has without fail done so with every situation in which he has been challenged thus far. It is not until he has relaxed and shed himself of the emotion that he can retroactively solve the problem, and that is why I believe his leadership is still being tolerated despite these major shortcomings. This is flaw number three.

3. Mirouni does not stand by decisions or words.

It is worth noting that some will call this strength, where I see it as weakness. It says to me that there is a lack of conviction or a surplus of hypocrisy as he goes back on that which he claims to stand for. There are several striking examples of this in my mind. The first is, on the very night he was promoted, Mirouni said to me on Skype that he would run a democracy. He then made a declaration which removed any sense of democracy from the crew, and after severe words from me removed it, to be replaced with rules. In the GC thread, Mirouni made the promise to give me a re-vote upon my return. When this return occurred, he denied the vote because he ‘was not gonna roll over on this one’. In other words, because I disagreed with his position taking away crew votes, the vote would not be upheld. Now he promises to uphold this word in the future. He made clear that he would listen to the crew and value their input, but then has sought out ways in his ultimatum and revocation of democracy to silence them when they disagree. Both of these things were then repealed when they met strong resistance. He requests that problems with him be discussed one on one, away from the eyes of others, but then demonized and demonizes those who talk about issues ‘behind his back’ in private, even going so far as to take steps to punish those who discuss things without him. All of the things which he has purported to stand for and all of the decisions he has thus far made have been invalidated, reversed, broken, and otherwise made into examples of hypocrisy.

A selection of quotations that lead me to my points:

“You have all made your opinions clear, and I appreciate that. Now, I will make mine.
This crew has shown itself incapable of handling a full democracy. That privilege is now revoked.”

[2/4/2011 9:07:56 PM] Josiah Ingram: It's a gag order against causing a shitstorm or major drama, yes. But not against disagreement in general.
[2/4/2011 9:08:18 PM] Josiah Ingram: I worded it poorly, as it seems to say "Hey, don't saying anything bad"
[2/4/2011 9:09:12 PM] Fefnir and Red: Well, even if it is against "Shitstorms" I think that shitstorms and drama are an essenchal part of life, and therefore this guild. I mean... It's one of the best ways to solve problems if you let it happen...
[2/4/2011 9:09:20 PM] Fefnir and Red: They may be storms, but storms can pass quickly if you let them.
[2/4/2011 9:10:06 PM] Josiah Ingram: Okay, but that is where I disagree with you. They may be a part of life, but that doesn't mean they need to happen.
[2/4/2011 9:10:11 PM] Josiah Ingram: They cause s**t. Lots of it.
[2/4/2011 9:10:18 PM] Fefnir and Red: Uh... duh...
[2/4/2011 9:10:19 PM] Josiah Ingram: They cause dissent, and things like COV taking a break from crew.
[2/4/2011 9:10:34 PM] Josiah Ingram: So, if they are started, there will be consequences.
[2/4/2011 9:11:45 PM] Fefnir and Red: You do realize COV is taking a break because of you right?
[2/4/2011 9:12:05 PM] Josiah Ingram: Yes. I do.
[2/4/2011 9:12:47 PM] Fefnir and Red: Then you are subject to your own rule in this case. Causing enough s**t to fly for COV to GTFO is enough dissent caused on your own behalf to enact your ruling.

[2/4/2011 9:27:46 PM] Fefnir and Red: Strike two. Keep pushing old news and I will ban you.
[2/4/2011 9:27:54 PM] Josiah Ingram: Yep.
[2/4/2011 9:27:56 PM] Fefnir and Red: That is a direct quote from you.
[2/4/2011 9:27:59 PM] Josiah Ingram: Okay?
[2/4/2011 9:28:01 PM] Fefnir and Red: That means it's an official warning.
[2/4/2011 9:28:01 PM] Josiah Ingram: Your point?
[2/4/2011 9:28:10 PM] Josiah Ingram: I chose for it not to be one, because I am trying to be nice here.
[2/4/2011 9:28:11 PM] Fefnir and Red: You never told me what for.
[2/4/2011 9:28:28 PM] Josiah Ingram: You didn't drop something I told you to drop.
[2/4/2011 9:28:41 PM] Fefnir and Red: So, you're pressing a gag rule on me?

[2/4/2011 9:30:10 PM] Josiah Ingram: A voice does not mean free reign to say whatever you please.
Josiah Ingram
[2/4/2011 9:31:14 PM] Fefnir and Red: A voice means that I do have the right to say whatever I please. It's in the constitution if nothing else. You can't silence me. It's unconstitutional, and it's just streight up wrong to do in a place for DISCUSSION.
[2/4/2011 9:32:04 PM] Josiah Ingram: I'm not silencing you, silencing would imply that I wouldn't allow you to state your opinion, which I did. Continual pressing of it, however, I can and will tell you to stop.
[2/4/2011 9:32:42 PM] Josiah Ingram: You want to be unquestioned.... you want to be a dictator.

Conspire against me? Get out.
Talk about me in anything but a positive light? Get out.
Dissagree with me? Get out.

Thats all I've been seeing lately. My old english teacher once said something incredably apt for this situation.
"The best evil characters don't believe they are evil. They have motivations that are good, however their methods aren't always the best."
[2/4/2011 9:32:44 PM] Josiah Ingram: You see that?
[2/4/2011 9:32:50 PM] Josiah Ingram: 1.) You implied that I was evil.
[2/4/2011 9:33:04 PM] Josiah Ingram: 2.) You called me a tyrant and a dictator, however indirectly.
[2/4/2011 9:33:28 PM] Josiah Ingram: I removed Kyle for that kind of fearmongering. The fact that I have not done the same with you is indicative of my excessive patience for your bullshit.
[2/4/2011 9:33:42 PM] Josiah Ingram: That is what I warned you for.
[2/4/2011 9:33:45 PM] Josiah Ingram: And it was deserved.
[2/4/2011 9:33:54 PM] Fefnir and Red: Actually I called you good, with poor method.
[2/4/2011 9:34:18 PM] Josiah Ingram: [Friday, February 04, 2011 9:32 PM] Josiah Ingram:

<<< The best evil characters don't believe they are evil.
[2/4/2011 9:34:24 PM] Josiah Ingram: implies that you were calling me evil
[2/4/2011 9:34:28 PM] Josiah Ingram: and that I only BELIEVE I am good.
[2/4/2011 9:34:31 PM] Fefnir and Red: "They have motivations that are good"
[2/4/2011 9:34:42 PM] Fefnir and Red: "However their methods aren't the best"
[2/4/2011 9:34:47 PM] Fefnir and Red: This means, at heart they ARE good.
[2/4/2011 9:34:59 PM] Fefnir and Red: they just can't execute it correctly.
[2/4/2011 9:35:20 PM] Fefnir and Red: That is the true point of that quote.
[2/4/2011 9:36:02 PM] Josiah Ingram: Then you should have stated it as much, instead of insinuating that I was evil. That quote directly means that an EVIL person is EVIL, but doesn't BELIEVE they are evil. That doesn't take away from the fact that they are still evil, just that their motivations aren't.
[2/4/2011 9:36:51 PM] Fefnir and Red: -.-;; I figured you would be smart enough to read into it that much.
[2/4/2011 9:38:01 PM] Josiah Ingram: So now you're insulting my intelligence?
[2/4/2011 9:38:06 PM] Josiah Ingram: Good way to go about this.
[2/4/2011 9:38:19 PM] Fefnir and Red: Actually that was a complement to your intellegence. I assumed you smarter.
[2/4/2011 9:38:30 PM] Josiah Ingram: If anything, I can applaude you for being consistent in your insulting demeanor.
[2/4/2011 9:38:52 PM] Fefnir and Red: I am nothing if not true to my blatent nature.
[2/4/2011 9:39:03 PM] Josiah Ingram: So was Maxi.
[2/4/2011 9:39:06 PM] Josiah Ingram: Look what happened there.
[2/4/2011 9:39:27 PM] Fefnir and Red: Maxi wasn't constructive.
[2/4/2011 9:39:35 PM] Josiah Ingram: Neither are you.
[2/4/2011 9:39:49 PM] Josiah Ingram: You come into a place, and with a single post cause it to degrade into chaos.
[2/4/2011 9:39:55 PM] Josiah Ingram: Because you are rude and abrasive.
[2/4/2011 9:40:01 PM] Josiah Ingram: And have no regard for authority of any kind.
[2/4/2011 9:41:03 PM] Fefnir and Red: I do not cause it to degrade into chaos. I cause discussion on points I belive in. The fact that you don't listen, or ignore what I have to say most of the time, often drives it off topic as I attempt to defend myself and my point.
[2/4/2011 9:41:27 PM] Josiah Ingram: I am not required to listen to you in the fashion you want me to.
[2/4/2011 9:41:47 PM] Josiah Ingram: You seem to be operating under the understanding that the ability to cause a veto of a decision gifts you with equal standing.
[2/4/2011 9:42:05 PM] Josiah Ingram: You are not equal in authority to me, and yet you consistently talk down to me.
[2/4/2011 9:42:11 PM] Josiah Ingram: People have been banned for less than that.
[2/4/2011 9:42:21 PM] Josiah Ingram: People have been shunned for less than that.
[2/4/2011 9:42:38 PM] Fefnir and Red: Look if you aren't going to ban me stop threatening me right now. It's not scaring me.
[2/4/2011 9:42:46 PM] Josiah Ingram: I'm not threatening you.
[2/4/2011 9:42:51 PM] Josiah Ingram: I'm trying to get you to realize something.
[2/4/2011 9:42:55 PM] Fefnir and Red:
"People have been banned for less than that"
[2/4/2011 9:43:14 PM] Fefnir and Red: Implies that you are concidering banning me, or it's an indrect threat.
[2/4/2011 9:43:34 PM] Fefnir and Red: I realize I could be banned, I will continue to fight for what I belive is right even if it gets me banned.
[2/4/2011 9:43:50 PM] Josiah Ingram: I am trying to get you to see that you are wrong here as well.
[2/4/2011 9:44:00 PM] Josiah Ingram: To admit that the way you're doing things is destructive.
[2/4/2011 9:44:04 PM] Fefnir and Red: Also, you ignored the point I made about me not making discussion "Degrade"
[2/4/2011 9:44:09 PM] Josiah Ingram: You do.
[2/4/2011 9:44:14 PM] Josiah Ingram: You start fights.
[2/4/2011 9:44:28 PM] Josiah Ingram: Look at this conversation
[2/4/2011 9:44:44 PM] Fefnir and Red: Point me in one place where I cause a fight that dosn't involve you being the one who rises up to fight against me as opposed to someone starting discussion over it.
[2/4/2011 9:44:47 PM] Josiah Ingram: I came here with an attitude and intent of apology, and you have managed to bring out the worst in me.
[2/4/2011 9:45:05 PM] Josiah Ingram: The point here is that you are constantly starting fights with me.
[2/4/2011 9:45:30 PM] Josiah Ingram: You don't want me as the GC. You want Kyle as the GC. So you are fighting me constantly.
[2/4/2011 9:45:40 PM] Fefnir and Red: NO!
[2/4/2011 9:45:48 PM] Fefnir and Red: I do not want Fefnir as GC.
[2/4/2011 9:46:05 PM] Fefnir and Red: I would love more than anything, to see him out of the guild, so he can be free and focus on life, and our new home.
[2/4/2011 9:46:16 PM] Fefnir and Red: But of his own volition.
[2/4/2011 9:46:20 PM] Josiah Ingram: Then I apologize for assuming that. The rest of it still stands.
[2/4/2011 9:46:22 PM] Fefnir and Red: Because I also want him happy.
[2/4/2011 9:47:24 PM] Fefnir and Red: I wouldn't mind you being GC, in fact I'm fine with it. Other than the method you are going about it. I will consistantly point this out in an attempt to change it so I can be happy with you as GC. However, if you continue down this path, I don't want to see you as GC. That I will admit.
[2/4/2011 9:47:43 PM] Josiah Ingram: To which path are you refering?
[2/4/2011 9:48:29 PM] Fefnir and Red: One of iron fisted ruling. You have said thats not something you are aiming for, but with things like gag rules and taking away people's voice I can't see you aiming at another goal post.
[2/4/2011 9:50:25 PM] Josiah Ingram: The gag order was appropriate in the context. And I am not trying to take away people's voice, I am trying to stop fighting.
[2/4/2011 9:50:40 PM] Josiah Ingram: Also, if you don't want Kyle in the guild, why vote for him for GVC?
[2/4/2011 9:50:58 PM] Fefnir and Red: WHo says I voted for Fefnir?
[2/4/2011 9:51:07 PM] Josiah Ingram: I say. I was watching the vote count.
[2/4/2011 9:51:29 PM] Fefnir and Red: Great way to keep an annon vote annon.
[2/4/2011 9:51:51 PM] Josiah Ingram: It's still anonymous. I was just observant.
[2/4/2011 9:52:04 PM] Fefnir and Red: It's not annon if you know who votes for who.
[2/4/2011 9:52:05 PM] Fefnir and Red: It's the deffinition.
[2/4/2011 9:52:38 PM] Fefnir and Red: Also, there was a whole section Fef got enraged about where you took away our "Democracy"
[2/4/2011 9:52:39 PM] Josiah Ingram: It is anon, because technically I still don't KNOW, it's just the most likely scenario based on the given facts.
[2/4/2011 9:52:41 PM] Fefnir and Red: THat would be taking our voice.
[2/4/2011 9:53:02 PM] Josiah Ingram: And if you continue down that road, I will ban you. That is dead and buried, and revoked.
[2/4/2011 9:53:45 PM] Fefnir and Red: It still happened. That is the point I am making. I'm happy you revoked it and realized your mistake.
[2/4/2011 9:54:56 PM] Fefnir and Red: Also, fighting is part of not only human nature, but how we solve problems. Try to stop it as you may, it will only cause more problems. Ones that can't be solved because we can't talk about them, because we can't fight.

[2/4/2011 10:09:14 PM] Josiah Ingram: The point here is that your belief about decisions is flawed.
[2/4/2011 10:09:37 PM] Josiah Ingram: You harm the process by fighting.
[2/4/2011 10:09:40 PM] Josiah Ingram: You don't help it
[2/4/2011 10:10:13 PM] Fefnir and Red: I once again challenge you to point me to a thread where I have not started discussion, but instead started fighting with someone who isn't you.
[2/4/2011 10:10:30 PM] Josiah Ingram: The point here is that you fight me.
[2/4/2011 10:10:37 PM] Josiah Ingram: When you could discuss politely.
[2/4/2011 10:10:53 PM] Josiah Ingram: Ask, not assume, be respectful, not condescending.
[2/4/2011 10:11:28 PM] Fefnir and Red: You are making me out to be someone who fights with everyone. When really it is you who wishes to fight with me because you dissagree with me. That is the point I am making.
[2/4/2011 10:11:44 PM] Josiah Ingram: You yourself have all but stated that you fight with everyone when you don't agree with them.
[2/4/2011 10:12:00 PM] Josiah Ingram: I am stating that in this process you are causing trouble, and not helping, and that it needs to stop
[2/4/2011 10:12:09 PM] Fefnir and Red: All but stated being the key words. You assume there.
[2/4/2011 10:13:08 PM] Josiah Ingram: [Friday, February 04, 2011 9:54 PM] Fefnir and Red:

<<< Also, fighting is part of not only human nature, but how we solve problems. Try to stop it as you may, it will only cause more problems. Ones that can't be solved because we can't talk about them, because we can't fight.
[2/4/2011 10:13:09 PM] Fefnir and Red: Find me a thread where I intentionally started a fight with you.
[2/4/2011 10:13:37 PM] Josiah Ingram: If I could we would not be discussing this, you would be gone. The point is also that you don't intend to start fights, they just happen around you.
[2/4/2011 10:14:02 PM] Fefnir and Red: You are the one who always responds and calls it a fight.
[2/4/2011 10:14:18 PM] Fefnir and Red: And you always point the finger at me, so clearly I must be the cause.
[2/4/2011 10:14:25 PM] Josiah Ingram: I respond because you break a rule. If I unintentionally steal something, it's still treated as stealing.
[2/4/2011 10:15:03 PM] Josiah Ingram: I also apologized for my part.
[2/4/2011 10:15:29 PM] Josiah Ingram: I recognized my part, saw the aspects of it that I was wrong in, and made ammends. Whereas you are consistently being aggressive and fighting me on everything I do.
[2/4/2011 10:15:48 PM] Fefnir and Red: The thread about rules discussion was pointed to as a fight, I recieved no warning and broke no rules. and yet you still responded.
[2/4/2011 10:16:00 PM] Josiah Ingram: You did break a rule.
[2/4/2011 10:16:12 PM] Josiah Ingram: You attacked my character.
[2/4/2011 10:16:30 PM] Josiah Ingram: Something that by all rights, according to a rule that you tried to call me on earlier, I should have just banned you for.
[2/4/2011 10:17:01 PM] Fefnir and Red: We where discussing that rule, or at least I had assumed so. And you still posted long before I "Broke" that rule.
[2/4/2011 10:17:59 PM] Fefnir and Red: Also, I am passonate, another way to say "Agressive" I am "Agressive in my passion" And I am fighting you only in places I see fit. The best example being, when the first rules for the crew where posted up I let you alone.
[2/4/2011 10:18:07 PM] Fefnir and Red: And I agreed with you.
[2/4/2011 10:18:46 PM] Fefnir and Red: So I am clearly not fighting you on "Everything"
[2/4/2011 10:21:08 PM] Josiah Ingram: You cause at least one fight for every topic I create.
[2/4/2011 10:21:25 PM] Josiah Ingram: There, now it's not so vague.
[2/4/2011 10:21:50 PM] Fefnir and Red: No. I can look in the crew form and look up at least two, probably more threads that I haven't commented in at all, explicitly posted by you as a GC>
[2/4/2011 10:22:15 PM] Josiah Ingram: Sigh.. this is circular.
[2/4/2011 10:23:06 PM] Josiah Ingram: Stop fighting. I don't care if you express that you aren't in agreement with something, but do so professionally, as is stated is required of ALL members of the guild in the already established conduct rules.
[2/4/2011 10:23:52 PM] Josiah Ingram: I apologize for the poor wording of certain things that have offended you, and for the misunderstanding behind those events, as well as anything I have I said that may have offended you. I recogize that it takes two to fight, and so for that, I am in the wrong, and I also apologize.

[1/10/2011 3:43:50 PM] Josiah Ingram: I was letting you know that I intend to change nothing, and that the role was a title.

[1/10/2011 4:03:41 PM] Josiah Ingram: I am me. And I intend to run this guild as a democracy, not as a dictatorship, and not as a disorganized mess.
[1/10/2011 4:04:13 PM] Josiah Ingram: two new GVC's will be put in. One's who do not have personal ties with me. And I intend to have them elected, not merely promoted.

[1/10/2011 4:17:41 PM] Kyle McCormick: I might trust you, and I might respect you, but I'm going to check you.
[1/10/2011 4:18:19 PM] Josiah Ingram: Meaning what.
[1/10/2011 4:19:11 PM] Kyle McCormick: Meaning that if you make a stupid decision, I'm going to call you on it, and even if I like a decision, I'm going to ask you to justify it.
[1/10/2011 4:19:49 PM] Josiah Ingram: I expect nothing less. That's part of why I want you as a GVC, because I know that you are capable of doing that, and that you will.
[1/10/2011 4:21:12 PM] Josiah Ingram: There is actually a bible verse which sums up my feelings on this, and I know that probably makes you hestant, but it's nothing to do with religion, but rather morality.
[1/10/2011 4:21:15 PM] Josiah Ingram: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
[1/10/2011 4:22:01 PM] Josiah Ingram: When I was crew, I thought like crew, I acted like crew, not a Captain. Now that I have become the Captain, I have to put that thinking behind me. My thoughts now need to be directed at the whole, not the individual, but the individual still needs to be included.
[1/10/2011 4:22:19 PM] Josiah Ingram: In short.. I will not think as I did before, I will think collectively, and make decisions based on that.

[1/12/2011 3:56:08 PM] Josiah Ingram: I wouldn't want people to feel like I was taking everything away from them.

[1/26/2011 9:44:45 PM] Josiah Ingram: I know that you won't take offense when that happens.. but I do, because when I'm angry I say things in ways that are exactly what I am against.
[1/26/2011 9:44:48 PM] Josiah Ingram: It's hypocritical of me.

[1/28/2011 10:44:02 AM] Josiah Ingram: What the ******** is your problem?
[1/28/2011 10:45:49 AM] Josiah Ingram: You have approximately ten minutes to convince me to not ban you.
[1/28/2011 10:45:51 AM] Josiah Ingram: Talk. and talk fast.
[1/28/2011 10:46:23 AM] Josiah Ingram: I'm going to go get something to drink, and when I get back there better be a good ******** explanation.
[1/28/2011 10:46:30 AM] Josiah Ingram: And I swear to you, if this is more of the same, you're done.
[1/28/2011 10:47:13 AM] Kyle McCormick: That is my reasoning behind everything I've said against you. I provided it because that is what I observe, what I feel, and what I think should be the course of action in the future.
[1/28/2011 10:48:22 AM | Edited 10:48:30 AM] Josiah Ingram: No. What that was is a speech about how I am a tyrant who doesn't make his own decisions.
[1/28/2011 10:48:41 AM] Josiah Ingram: That was completely uncalled for. But I'm not surprised.
[1/28/2011 10:49:00 AM] Josiah Ingram: I was expecting you to do something, but I wasn't expecting you to drag Raven into your s**t.
[1/28/2011 10:49:23 AM] Josiah Ingram: I am DONE with your holier-than-thou, Fef-knows-best, s**t.
[1/28/2011 10:49:25 AM] Josiah Ingram: DONE.
[1/28/2011 10:49:29 AM] Josiah Ingram: You did this to Daven.
[1/28/2011 10:49:31 AM] Josiah Ingram: You did this to Evil.
[1/28/2011 10:49:41 AM] Josiah Ingram: You did this, and are continuing to do this to me.
[1/28/2011 10:49:45 AM] Josiah Ingram: I'm thinking the problem is you.
[1/28/2011 10:49:48 AM] Kyle McCormick: Incedentally, I specifically removed the majority of the things I was going to say about Raven.
[1/28/2011 10:49:58 AM] Josiah Ingram: Good. Because that's probably the only reason I'm talking to you.
[1/28/2011 10:50:11 AM] Josiah Ingram: You're doing a pretty shitty job of convincing me to keep you around.
[1/28/2011 10:50:16 AM] Josiah Ingram: Incidentally.
[1/28/2011 10:50:43 AM] Kyle McCormick: I conveyed with complete honesty what I felt about the situation, and what I observed.
[1/28/2011 10:50:55 AM] Josiah Ingram: You conveyed your fears and paranoias.
[1/28/2011 10:51:02 AM] Josiah Ingram: Not what you observed.
[1/28/2011 10:51:34 AM] Josiah Ingram: So, your all-knowingness. Since you are completely aware of how all of this works and has happened. Tell me why I'm not going to ban you.
[1/28/2011 10:51:45 AM] Kyle McCormick: Simply enough, you will.
[1/28/2011 10:51:51 AM] Kyle McCormick: And then you will regret it.
[1/28/2011 10:51:58 AM] Josiah Ingram: At this point, I probably won't.
[1/28/2011 10:52:07 AM] Josiah Ingram: You are nothing but trouble.
[1/28/2011 10:52:40 AM] Josiah Ingram: See, after all the trolling you do, and all the bitching and moaning, it seems that you've actually become a troll and a b***h.
[1/28/2011 10:52:53 AM] Josiah Ingram: You listen to your own thoughts and your own decisions.
[1/28/2011 10:52:58 AM] Josiah Ingram: But you don't listen to anyone else.
[1/28/2011 10:53:05 AM] Josiah Ingram: Because when you decide something, you don't change.
[1/28/2011 10:53:12 AM] Josiah Ingram: Some might see that as a good thing. But I don't.
[1/28/2011 10:53:32 AM] Josiah Ingram: You have shown yourself to not be my friend, that s**t is done.
[1/28/2011 10:53:45 AM] Josiah Ingram: But because this guild has so much history with you. I really don't want to remove you from it.
[1/28/2011 10:53:49 AM] Josiah Ingram: But I am done with your bullshit.
[1/28/2011 10:54:04 AM] Kyle McCormick: I do not regret saying what I said, because it is my fears, and by saying them, I hope to prevent them.
[1/28/2011 10:54:19 AM] Kyle McCormick: It is my paranoias, it is my worries, I don't deny that.
[1/28/2011 10:54:46 AM] Josiah Ingram: When you speak fear, you create chaos.
[1/28/2011 10:54:57 AM] Josiah Ingram: That's all what you said will do.
[1/28/2011 10:55:09 AM] Josiah Ingram: It paints me as a tyrannical b*****d who can't make his own decisions.
[1/28/2011 10:55:37 AM] Josiah Ingram: And I am sick to death of being bastardized for something Daven himself did. And don't tell me he didn't, the thread is still in crew.
[1/28/2011 10:55:55 AM] Josiah Ingram: http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=13042233
[1/28/2011 10:55:57 AM] Josiah Ingram: Top of the list.
[1/28/2011 10:56:01 AM] Kyle McCormick: I don't deny it.
[1/28/2011 10:56:09 AM] Kyle McCormick: I didn't like it then, if I recall.
[1/28/2011 10:56:15 AM] Josiah Ingram: Ah, but you weren't so willing to b***h out Daven?
[1/28/2011 10:56:20 AM] Josiah Ingram: At least not there.
[1/28/2011 10:56:38 AM] Josiah Ingram: You chose to instead rip into every aspect of Daven, the person, when he didn't make you GVC.
[1/28/2011 10:57:17 AM | Edited 10:57:27 AM] Kyle McCormick: Actually, if you'll recall, I only did that in one post, the rest being legitimate points. I then apologized for it because it was wrong of me to do.
[1/28/2011 10:57:34 AM] Josiah Ingram: I do recall.
[1/28/2011 10:57:39 AM | Edited 10:57:40 AM] Josiah Ingram: Doesn't change that it happened.
[1/28/2011 10:57:54 AM] Josiah Ingram: Doesn't change that it's still how you handle yourself.
[1/28/2011 10:58:18 AM] Josiah Ingram: You turn your rage and frustration into 'righteous' anger, and turn it on anyone you don't agree with.
[1/28/2011 10:58:31 AM] Josiah Ingram: You don't care who you hurt, or how many things you destroy.
[1/28/2011 10:58:35 AM] Josiah Ingram: As long as you get what you want.
[1/28/2011 10:58:42 AM] Josiah Ingram: That. is what I have observed.
[1/28/2011 10:58:47 AM] Josiah Ingram: That. Is my fear with you.
[1/28/2011 10:59:02 AM] Kyle McCormick: I assume you're upset, and thus I pose the question, where are our differences?
[1/28/2011 10:59:26 AM] Josiah Ingram: Our differences lay in that I am willing to change. You are incapable of change.
[1/28/2011 10:59:57 AM] Josiah Ingram: I'm not upset, I'm tired of you
[1/28/2011 11:00:16 AM] Kyle McCormick: I have made a mistake.
[1/28/2011 11:00:19 AM] Josiah Ingram: No s**t.
[1/28/2011 11:00:28 AM] Josiah Ingram: When you told me you were taking a break because you wanted to change.
[1/28/2011 11:00:38 AM] Josiah Ingram: That is why I said I would call a re-vote when you came back.
[1/28/2011 11:00:54 AM] Kyle McCormick: I understand, though, that it is a mistake in scope rather than a mistake in point.
[1/28/2011 11:00:56 AM] Josiah Ingram: When you did, and proved you're the same person who tore into Daven, I was not willing to follow through.
[1/28/2011 11:01:04 AM] Josiah Ingram: No, it's a mistake no matter which way you look at it.

[1/28/2011 11:14:45 AM] Josiah Ingram: I was wrong for making the benevolent dictatorship bit.
[1/28/2011 11:14:58 AM] Josiah Ingram: I did it because I was tired of people not respecting me, but it just created trouble.
[1/28/2011 11:15:17 AM] Josiah Ingram: So for that, I apologize to you. And the thread for the rules is being made to keep this from happening again.
[1/28/2011 11:16:21 AM] Kyle McCormick: That is the one bright spot I can take from this situation. I promise, and I think you understand why I say this, you'd have regretted such a ruling.
[1/28/2011 11:16:30 AM] Josiah Ingram: I would have.
[1/28/2011 11:16:48 AM] Josiah Ingram: I of all people should have known that when you have a single ruler, there is discord.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this writing, there have been other issues that I feel have not been sufficiently resolved, such as a threats made against me by Mirouni today on skype and other smaller issues. This post is not all inclusive, but only the best semblance of my take I can produce and the most accurate and objective record of what has taken place I can make. I cannot say I feel confident in his leadership in light of these things, but should they be resolved, I am willing to work with him in the future.

Fefnir, you're angry and defensive in this situation. I do know you, I think that should be a prerogative by now for me, and I can see it. Everyone is on edge as it is, and again there is nothing but fear mongering thrown left and right at the moment. You apologized to me personally, about the fear mongering, and again I'm seeing it. Dysfunction, dissent and accusation in the Crew are everything I hate to see, and I personally don't want to be any part of a Crew infested with it.

Mirouni has made mistakes, and I'm of course more biased towards him, all considering. However, I've tried to look at all sides. Observation tells me that a good number of Crew members are intensely uncomfortable with what's been going on. In all, he has made mistakes and has apologized for most, and has tried to make amends. I've seen it happening, even if I took a much needed sabbatical for a week. I can't teach the needed skills for running a Crew, and right now I'm letting him make his own mistakes and fix them. Truth be told, he doesn't hold the respect, in a broad sense when it comes to the Crew. Specifically from past experiences with overzealous attempts to improve the system, and now the same sort of overzealous attempts, along with changes made to smaller bits in the Crew forum, and re-clarification of the rules.

No, he originally did not say he was going to do just that, and later made reparations towards the Crew and those who expressed dislike or hate for the action without Crew approval. Again, I have to ask myself, isn't this how the pervious GC's went about tasks and 'needed improvements' in the guild? Yes, Daven was notorious for it. Hypocrisy for what's been done before is rampant right now. That, and on a more personal note, I can't stand you attacking Mirouni in the way you have.

You did it to Daven and did it to Evil. Every time there is a person put in power above you, you tear at them and then feel accomplished for doing so. Now, don't peg me for hypocritical, I didn't appreciate a myriad or rulings by Daven, and I completely did not respect Evil as a GVC or Captain. I'll make that as plain as day that I greatly disliked her.

Now, if this has all been an attempt to bring change to TSRT, and make it a more democratic...or at least give the Crew all equal/equivalent power...then what I've seen going on, in my opinion, has been the worst way to go about it. Nothing has been in the open, and from the beginning everyone has been going behind each others back. I've mainly only talked to Mirouni, Fang and occasionally Asuma in the past few weeks. So, please don't accuse me of going behind others as well. Red, I ask the same of you as well.

I do feel that my inactivity with the Crew has been a fault of my own, but I honestly couldn't bring myself to say anything without a measure of malice for how Mirouni has been treated. One would expect it, wouldn't they, considering our relationship? So, I'm at least trying to get across how upset I've been over the whole proceedings. I up and left, and in a way that is scathing from my typical posting in Crew forums. I'm having a hard time as of now, I don't like giving up or hurting my friends. I consider both you and Red as such. However, emotionally, I feel like ripping at the both of you for what you've put Mirouni through, emotionally over the past few weeks. Can I do it? No, I'm too soft to outright yell at you or spurn you. Friendships are wearing thin…and I can only grasp at what’s going to happen to this guild.

I love being able to roleplay, and I love being able to interact with the people of this guild and help with profiles and whatnot when I can. But, I can’t stand by and watch you tear down Mirouni, just like you’ve done to Daven and Evil alike, no matter my feelings towards the latter two. You did request to be banned to prevent yourself from fear mongering, and all I see know is the same thing.

(Yes, for the sake of what I consider to be politeness, I’ve kept everyone’s name to a know part of their username, or former username, on Gaia.)

I created no such rule. That rule was put into place by Daven a long time ago, I merely suggested it be placed into crew. I do not attack both party's character repeatedly, and this is the first time I have done so. I have been very careful to make sure that it is something I do not do, so I really don't know where you are getting this. The rest of what you said is entirely valid, and part of why I have made this thread is because I am regretting a lot of what I've done.



So say as much in the thread, I created it for that purpose. If you feel that they could be worded better, suggest something.



I follow my own rules, and I have never once intentionally talked down to any of you. I'm sorry that you feel that way, but it is not my intent. I have stated my reasons for refusing the re-vote, and I will stand by them. The original vote itself offended me greatly, as it is not something that has ever been done before, and yet still it was forced on me. The 'sigh' I post is not meant to be taken as condescending, but rather to show that I am tired, whether physically or emotionally.

@Mirnoui



I believe I asked him about this and his answer was "I might have been drunk". It was clearly not solid, and I put that it needed citation for that very reason.

Accurate: 1
Inaccurate: 0



Readers, keep this in mind when he later accuses me of trying to paint him in a bad light. He returns the favor here.

Accurate: 2
Inaccurate: 0



Accurate: 3
Inaccurate: 0



I feel as though you should have at least told us you were doing so before hand.

Accurate: 4
Inaccurate: 0



Thank you.

Accurate: 5
Inaccurate: 0



Accurate: 6
Inaccurate: 0



You also admitted that you intentionally baited him and then punished him pursuant to that. Where was your warning? Where was your punishment for breaking the guild's rules as well?

You apologized, this is true. However, this is meant to be as accurate a listing of your actions as I can make, and thusly includes good and bad. I personally did not remember every detail in my writing, and I will admit that I was mistaken in leaving that out.

Accurate: 6
Inaccurate: 1



That would be the general consensus part. Others agreed and contributed.

Accurate: 7
Inaccurate: 1



This is meant to be as accurate a conveyance of the information as I can make. Proper succession was one of the points brought forth by the group, and was thus communicated as such.

The statement you reference regarding Red's complaint is again a faithful passing of a claim made against you in that thread. I did not say it was correct, I said it was notable.

Accurate: 8
Inaccurate: 1



It is as accurate to my knowledge as is possible.

Accurate: 9
Inaccurate: 1



A cursory glance at the thread in question will show quite clearly that there is hostility from both sides, and I, having access to both the PMs and skype messages, can give in good faith my word that such hostilities also were present there.

I believe that you said in that thread that she was warned for calling you a benevolent dictator. Your conduct in that thread is, in my opinion, also worth a warning.

Accurate: 10
Inaccurate: 1



Accurate: 11
Inaccurate: 1



The text in this was written three days ago, and thus your second point is invalid. I was not given early reprieve at the time of this writing.

I will note, you opened the conversation with the words "What the ******** is your problem? You have approximately 10 minutes to convince me not to ban you. Talk, and talk fast. I'm going to get a drink, and when I get back, there'd better be a ******** good explanation." I also left that out because I felt it was not important to the point being made, which was that a break from crew happened. If you notice, I haven't generally included the leadup to these decisions in great detail, and this section is no different in that.

Accurate: 12
Inaccurate: 1



Accurate: 13
Inaccurate: 1

I think we can see quite clearly that I was as accurate as can be reasonable with this description of the events in question.



This does not make such things disappear. I have attempted in this commentary to make clear just what problems I see and have seen, and to without innuendo, rudeness, or other unneeded or personal criticism convey why I have and do take issue with the things you do.

This will obviously be a subjective view on things, and is never represented as anything but my opinion and my reasons for it.



If we cannot learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it. What I see in this situation is exactly that. I have, with great care in fact, removed any criticisms which I feel are unnecessary and have made many efforts to make what must be a critique of character as simple and painless as possible. Yes, it does target you and show what I feel your faults are. No, it is not there for the sake of defaming or otherwise insulting you. I mention it because it needs to be addressed, in my view.

You have responded to my efforts in making this as painless as possible by accusing me of doing so out of anger and calling me blinded by such things. To make this clearer, you say "Look at what I am doing now." and say that this shows you are not "a bad person who is incapable of making decisions without being biased, and as someone who is entirely irrational and angry in everything he does". You then tell me, "See reason rather than your own anger towards my decisions", which is making roughly the same accusation against me, saying that I am incapable of seeing past emotion to make decisions and evaluate situations. That is rude, and I do not appreciate it. Your interpretation is roughly making my point.

As for the ultimatum, it was your right to make it. It was also her right to fight against it. I personally did not see it as fair when you showed me the text, and did not like your edit of it. This was made clear via skype. As of the writing of this, I do not believe I was aware of the reasons behind the repeal.



I will respond with the quote that lead to the statement you've taken out of context.

[2/11/2011 6:47:56 PM] Josiah Ingram: Currently, I am walking a razorblade. I am willing to work with people, I am willing to make changes.
[2/11/2011 6:48:07 PM] Josiah Ingram: Push me hard enough, and I may very well become the things that you are so concerned about.
[2/11/2011 6:52:16 PM] Fefnir and Red: And we will destroy you without hesitation.
[2/11/2011 6:52:52 PM] Josiah Ingram: You're really not getting where I'm coming from with this.
[2/11/2011 6:52:59 PM] Josiah Ingram: So threatening me isn't really the right way to go about it.
[2/11/2011 6:53:10 PM] Fefnir and Red: That isn't a threat. It is our duty.
[2/11/2011 6:53:21 PM] Josiah Ingram: It is a threat, and don't play it differently.
[2/11/2011 6:53:52 PM] Josiah Ingram: I swear to you, if you try to stage another coup, I will bring the hammer down on your head so hard and fast you will be shitting teeth.
[2/11/2011 6:54:08 PM] Josiah Ingram: That's what I'm saying.
[2/11/2011 6:54:24 PM] Fefnir and Red: No, Mirouni, it isn't. The greatest show of faith in a government is to rebel against it when it ceases to represent you.
[2/11/2011 6:54:32 PM] Josiah Ingram: The thing that is staying my hand in these matters is that I care about our friendship, and not just you and I, but the others as well.
[2/11/2011 6:54:42 PM] Josiah Ingram: Remove that factor, and it is I who will do the crushing.
[2/11/2011 6:54:53 PM] Fefnir and Red: And you will rule a kingdom of shadows.

It is rather hard not to take such a thing as a threat when you say that the only thing keeping you from becoming a dictator (what I fear you'll become, above) is that we're friends, and that you're friends with others. That says to me, 'stay on my good side or I will punish you for it' and I think that my reaction to your words as a threat was justified. When you threaten me, you make an enemy of me. When you make an enemy of me, I will not hesitate to act as just such an enemy.

From here, I will say that it is very clear you are using emotional appeals in order to do that same thing you say I am doing to you. I reiterate, I have taken great pains to make this as streamlined as possible, to make the reasons for my opinions clear, and to make it very easy for such things to be dealt with. You are taking it as a personal attack, as if it were my goal to hurt you. When you make your emotional appeals, attacks on my character, etc., you are attempting to sway public opinion against me and discredit me in front of my peers rather than deal with the actual problems which I have made clear here.

In other words, and to summarize what you wrote, "I might be bad, but I'm going to ignore the bad parts about me because I think you're worse than I am. Everyone look at how bad that guy is!"

This is simple deflection.

I would have posted something that was very subjective and very hurtful and designed not to illuminate my position and instead demonize yours had it been my intention to do so. I could have railed for pages on the personal slights between us and the anger we lace into every word on skype. But instead, I structured my thoughts carefully, and have tried to make those problems I see clear so they can be addressed. I could have been very angry with every line of what has taken place and every opinion, but I am trying to be constructive with this.

You have made what was not an attack into one. I do not appreciate such a thing. I will be patient with you and with this situation because it is my choice to do so.



You continue to deflect with insults to me. If I wanted to sway the opinion of the crew, do you not think I would do so in secrecy? All the better were I angry at you, since you say you were hurt after the last time we all united. It would hurt you deeply, and I am aware of that, and if it was my goal, I would have done something to hurt you deeply.

But what have I done here? Made my position and why I think what I do public. I have made it so that you have full knowledge of everything behind what I know and do not know. I have utterly revealed every single thing that could be used against you in a coup and made them available for your rebuttal.

You have used this opportunity to reach a peaceful resolution poorly, instead electing to do that which you claim I am attempting to do: defame. Rather than in some way providing a source or citation of something I said which you disagree with, you make the general statement that I am emotional, unstable, and unreliable as a person. You attack the man, not the points he makes. This is the ad hominem fallacy.

You say I have flung insults. I have not insulted you, I have cited what I see as problems and examples of these problems. You say my objectivity is a joke. You have admitted in this very post that 95% at least of the things I have said regarding the events that have taken place, the only portion where I have claimed to be objective at all, are accurate. You call this fearmongering and defaming. I have made clear in my words just what issues I take with you, and you have instead elected to do just that which you believe I have done.

If this dialogue is to continue to a resolution at all, you are going to need to stop your deflection and actually address my words. Currently, the discussion with you has reached a dead end. I will not continue to make efforts to work with you to solve this problem if you will not make an effort to work with me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@TheWickedTruth



It is not my intent to be a fearmonger. It was my intent to make clear just what problems, past and present, are between Mirouni and I. I did not write that post today, I wrote it several days ago when there was a lull in what has become a cyclical battle on skype. It was not written in anger, but in order to gather my thoughts and make them clear. In fact, it was never intended to be posted at all, anywhere, ever, but because I was angry with him after his threat to me, I elected to use it in place of angry words, in an attempt to actually have some progress occur.



This is all fine, and I can understand. The problem comes in when he makes decisions which he does not run by the crew first, and when he is, in my opinion, rather rude and dismissive of evidence and reason to the contrary of what he thinks. It is this unwillingness to change until there is a loud enough outcry that is both frustrating and one of the biggest issues I have with him. He then likes to say that he changed, and we should just forget about how ridiculously long and hard we had to fight to make that change happen.

Perhaps if he were more inclined to post things in crew rather than simply use his own judgment alone when making changes to things, this would be less of a problem. There would be no need to apologize at all, and fewer problems between people who are forced into things they do not like without any say in making such a thing happen.



I'm rather hard pressed to think of something which Daven simply did without letting us know first and seeing what we thought. With Evil, yes, but I'm fairly sure we're all aware of how I felt about her. And while it's all well and good that he's apologized and fixed it, he is trying to justify such actions as if they were correct, and they weren't.

In response to the last line, he's working rather diligently to make me his enemy. I'd like to say that isn't so, but it is.



What generally gets forgotten in regards to my problems with the various leaders is that there was a very long time where I never even once snapped at a higher up before I was angry with Daven for disregarding what his GVC had voted on. The situation was very intense, and is not something I'm proud of in retrospect. With Evil, I can't feel proud of it, but I do feel like the actions I took, though harsh, made things better.

I assume this refers to the quote Mirouni pulled from our conversation today, wherein I snapped at him after he threatened me. The intent in context was to show that people don't just sit there and take threats, and that the fear he was trying to create in me was not going to be effective. It was also indicative of the reasoning behind such things I've done against past leaders; when I feel they are unjust, I make it very clear that I am not happy with it in whatever way I feel has the best effect.



I agree with this, but I will correct one thing. This hasn't been an attempt to bring change, but rather, to prevent change that Red and I ( I can't speak for others ) think is for the worse. It is to prevent the loss of the democratic system we're used to.

It isn't the best way, no, but the way of diplomacy seemed a hard road to take because of the words Mirouni says and how he conducts himself. You'll notice, if you read this whole post, that I'm trying to be at least somewhat diplomatic about all this and come to a peaceful resolution. Mirouni responded by insulting me and my motivations.



If we can get past being threatened, decisions being made to spite people, angry discussions forced when things aren't told to crew, etc., we'll be fine.

Yes, it hurts. Yes, there are problems. No, I don't want there to be problems. I've felt very forced by Mirouni's demeanor to be aggressive and angry, lest my opinion be completely ignored.



It's not like I want to tear him down. He just doesn't leave me many options. I disagree with his politics, and I disagree with how he conducts himself, and he makes it very, very hard to work with him if you don't agree with him. I'd like to sit down and actually work out ideas - god knows we've done it and succeeded before! - but recently it's started with him being angry and aggressive, and I've been trying to be patient about it, but it's really rather difficult to do so, and I've failed at that patience many times because of it.

When it comes to my problems with him as enumerated in my previous post, I think I am solidly correct. When it comes to personal or away from guild conduct, that being one on one with Mirouni, we clash terribly and we have a great deal of problems. I realize this is an impediment to meaningful discourse, but it is the result of strong feelings in either side of a policy. It's worth noting that in any regard except the guild, we tend to get along just fine, but when the guild is a subject, we almost always fight.

Pursuant this, I'll likely stop discussing the guild with him via skype and simply post in the guild. I think things could be just fine between us on a personal level if that guild factor was removed and we kept work at work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Kyros



I don't mean to imply people shouldn't check my decisions or ideas. That said, you're correct in that I should not have threatened Mirouni in return. In the same line, he should not have threatened me, either. His threat was not in regards to checking a decision, it was, in my view, there to scare me, to make me stop riding him for his mistakes so hard. I have nothing to my knowledge that would counter that interpretation of it, and I responded in turn. Returned threat was too far, outrage at being threatened was justified.



I should give a reason for this. I had a divine vision, as it were, wherein I found myself in a black void and heard a voice tell me to "Let it go". I had been thinking about the GC election and the guild as a whole at the time. Being an atheist, an experience such as this rocked me to my core, and I took myself not only from GC running, but also the guild in general for a while. In retrospect, a mistake, but I think understandable. It was one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had, and I needed time to process it.

Then why leave it in at all? It's completely irrelevant to say that he 'may' have been drunk. I spoke with Kazi on multiple occasions on multiple days about Eme retiring, it's impossible for him to be drunk for all of that.



It was yet another thing you forced on me with your 'good intentions'. In that light, it was not as you painted it to be.




If you look very carefully at that thread, and my response, you will see that I wasn't saying she wasn't warned for the comment, and also that it wasn't the wording of the comment, as you made it seem, but the fact that she continued to be snide with me when I asked that she stop.

Am I hostile with you? Yes. What other reaction can there be, given your history towards these situations? From the beginning, you called me a rat and a sneak, unjustly. You attacked Daven mercilessly when he did something you didn't agree with, why should I expect anything else from you?



As you left it entirely out of the essay you wrote, the point is still valid.
I did open the conversation with that, and I was entirely justified in doing so. You wrote an essay about as long as the one you wrote here, trying your damnedest to make me seem a tyrant. That was fearmongering, unnecessary, and cruel.



A single inaccuracy removes the title you placed for your essay, that was my point, and it was a small one.



Again, I am human, and I have apologized for it.



If what you said is truly how you see me, then you were never my friend in the first place, and your eyes are blind to everything but what you want to see. My words and decisions have been poorly chosen on numerous occasions in this. I don't deny that. But my actions have not been subject, as you claim them to be. I have banned no one. I have given a single, valid warning for breaking guild conduct rules, and I have repealed every decision the crew has asked me to.
Look at the crew forum. I have brought every issue to that place. Everything I have thought could use change, has been posted there. So why do you continue to claim that I do the opposite?



[2/11/2011 9:15:17 PM] Josiah Ingram: Love plays a bigger part in this than anything else.
[2/11/2011 9:15:28 PM] Josiah Ingram: You are an idiot if you think I have been showing you anger and fear.
[2/11/2011 9:15:34 PM] Josiah Ingram: I am not afraid of you, or anyone in that crew.
[2/11/2011 9:15:44 PM] Josiah Ingram: Nor am I afraid of all of you combined.
[2/11/2011 9:15:56 PM] Josiah Ingram: You will not move to destroy something you love anymore than I will
[2/11/2011 9:16:16 PM] Josiah Ingram: That is why I negotiate with you, that is why I think about my decisions objectively, often after I make them.
[2/11/2011 9:16:39 PM] Kyle: You should be afraid. You call me self destructive. I will destroy what I love to get to you if you choose to rape it before my eyes.
[2/11/2011 9:16:57 PM] Josiah Ingram: Why should I be afraid of you?
[2/11/2011 9:17:24 PM] Josiah Ingram: Because you can fling words around eloquently and paint me a tyrant? Because you think you can single-handedly destroy the guild?
[2/11/2011 9:17:27 PM] Josiah Ingram: You won't. Because you love it deeply.
[2/11/2011 9:17:37 PM] Josiah Ingram: I won't. Because I feel the same.
[2/11/2011 9:17:42 PM] Kyle: I have before. I have been banned before for saying my thoughts. I have been willing to risk everything I've worked for for years to make my point. Do you think that you will dissuade me with petty things like restraint?
[2/11/2011 9:17:58 PM] Kyle: I put the nails in Evil's coffin.
[2/11/2011 9:18:05 PM] Kyle: You're building yours for me.

Anger. Plain and simple. You were reacting in anger to something that I said, and I know enough about emotion to know that it doesn't disappear in the short time between then and that post.



As I said before, I removed it because I felt like it wasn't something we needed to have.



And I will include the part that you left out of context.

[2/11/2011 8:47:08 PM] Josiah Ingram: So I feel like I need to say something here.
[2/11/2011 8:47:24 PM] Josiah Ingram: And after reading pages upon pages of Jung and Freud, it's something that should be let out so it doesn't fester.

And, shall we continue with this?

[2/11/2011 9:23:21 PM] Kyle: Done with you. Fears have foundations. You told me you were on the razors edge, swinging toward despotism.
[2/11/2011 9:23:30 PM] Josiah Ingram: Despotism? No.
[2/11/2011 9:23:37 PM] Josiah Ingram: Dictatorship? No.
[2/11/2011 9:23:43 PM] Josiah Ingram: I'll not play the tyrant.
[2/11/2011 9:23:51 PM] Kyle: As you said you would.
[2/11/2011 9:24:10 PM] Josiah Ingram: But these freedoms you have given yourselves, the ones that were absent in Daven's time, those are subject.
You are not the master of this guild, by your own rules.
[2/11/2011 9:24:46 PM] Kyle: I expect you to follow your own rules.
[2/11/2011 9:25:05 PM] Josiah Ingram: I am saying that I will take that mantle if you force my hand. If you operate within the parameters of the rules.. there will be no trouble.
[2/11/2011 9:25:12 PM] Josiah Ingram: Make no mistake, I will follow my rules.
[2/11/2011 9:25:24 PM] Kyle: In other words, stay on my good side or get the ******** out.
[2/11/2011 9:25:26 PM] Josiah Ingram: Nope.
[2/11/2011 9:25:32 PM] Josiah Ingram: Again, you misread what I'm saying.
[2/11/2011 9:25:46 PM] Kyle: Stop talking, I'm done with your evasion.
[2/11/2011 9:25:51 PM] Josiah Ingram: I'm not evading.
[2/11/2011 9:25:58 PM] Kyle: STOP. Talking.
[2/11/2011 9:26:39 PM] Kyle: Red: I'm Hoooooome.
[2/11/2011 9:26:39 PM] Josiah Ingram: Look back at this conversation, at everything you've said in response to what I said.
[2/11/2011 9:27:05 PM] Josiah Ingram: Hypocritical responses. Behavior that mirrors the very thing you are criticizing me for.
[2/11/2011 9:27:11 PM] Josiah Ingram: Congratulations, you've proved my point.
[2/11/2011 9:27:17 PM] Kyle: Fefnir isn't here anymore.
[2/11/2011 9:27:21 PM] Josiah Ingram: I know.
[2/11/2011 9:27:24 PM] Josiah Ingram: But the message remains.
[2/11/2011 9:27:59 PM] Kyle: You're honestly just being a d**k to him now then.
[2/11/2011 9:28:06 PM] Josiah Ingram: I'm proving a point.
[2/11/2011 9:28:15 PM] Kyle: Dosn't make you any less of an a**.
[2/11/2011 9:28:21 PM] Josiah Ingram: Sure, if you want to call me that.
[2/11/2011 9:28:29 PM] Josiah Ingram: I'll take it. That was a d**k move.
[2/11/2011 9:29:06 PM] Josiah Ingram: You and him have both admitted that you would go to far greater lengths to prove a point.
[2/11/2011 9:29:17 PM] Josiah Ingram: So, all I've done is show him something, and hopefully you as well.

As you have failed to realize, and failed to address, everything I said there was to prove a point. That you lash out irrationally and violently when opposed, and base your decisions on emotion while in that state, the very thing you are accusing me for. Was I serious when I said I would ban you if you stage a coup? Yes. Very much so. The rest of it? Cathartic, and to prove a point, nothing more. As I admitted to above, and apologized to you for later, it was a d**k move, and again, I am sorry.



Personal attack? Yes. It is one, and don't pretend that it isn't. You have accused me of being irrational and too emotional to lead. I'm not attempting to discredit you in front of your peers, as you are doing to me, instead I am trying to get you to see that you are being largely hypocritical in everything that you are bringing against me, and ignoring the things that are not valid to the way you want things to be seen.
When something is brought against me, I have apologized in every situation. I have tried to make amends, I have corrected my wrongs once they have been made known. That is not irrational, that is rational.



Where have I said that I am ignoring the bad parts about me? I'll be the first to tell you that I'm not perfect, and that I make mistakes. I've made a lot of them in this crew, from my initial Vice Captaincy until now. I have been repentant of my mistakes, and I have changed when I need to. And you have failed to ascertain the purpose of this thread. I am not addressing the crew, I am addressing you. You, are addressing all, with comments that are aimed at me. So who is the one pointing the finger and saying, "Hey everyone! Look at how bad that guy is!"?



I don't lace anger into my words on skype, and I'm sorry that you do. When I have had a problem with you, I have grown frustrated on occasion, but those are things that I have not brought into this guild. As this is not about my person, as you have claimed, it is well and good that you did not bring those things into this, as that would have made you more of a bully than I have claimed.

Now, allow me to paraphrase: ""You say I'm being a bully, but look at how much worse it could have been!" Showing that you are capable of more evil does not remove anything, it only adds to it. I would not bring such things into this even if I were so livid that I was smashing holes in the wall of my bedroom. You are being quite constructive, I'll not deny that, because that wasn't the problem I am having. The problem I am having is that you are being constructive in your ways of finding ways to further tear me down. If you have issue with me, address me, not the crew.



Again, "I could have been worse." And I'm not deflecting, I'm being honest about how I see you, about how you have painted yourself to me.



What you have done, is bring things to the crew, not to me, about me. That is not bringing them to me for rebuttal, that is defaming me.



You say I have used the opportunity poorly, but I am not. I am remaining calm in this, I am not allowing my emotions to say a damn thing beyond what I know is not sparked by anger or fear. I am doing my best to work towards an end to these arguments, but I will not sit by while you bring attacks against my personal character that are exaggerated and biased.

And ad hominem, is it?

"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"

I don't disagree. But I am not trying to defame you. You have brought your issues about me into the light, and I have done the same. The things I brought against your character are things you have shown with your actions to be entirely true, that is not fallacy.



And you continue to do it. Proving my point.
And You are not being objective, because objective means coming from a place of non-bias. Was I in the wrong on more than one occasion? Yes. Was I the only one? No. You left out all others in your objectivity, save me. You may claim that this is because you were addressing me, and not them, but that again removes the objectivity.



I am addressing your words. Not deflecting. If this conversation has reached a dead end, it is because you are treating it like it is a competition. I have admitted my wrong doings, I have apologized for them, and even now I am trying to make amends for them. You continually press them, for reasons I can only guess at, and thus would not be constructive to this conversation to say. Dismiss me if you wish, I won't stop you, but neither will I harden myself, I will work towards a conclusion in this, even if one with you cannot be reached.

Unfortunately, your apology does not solve any of the problems presented against you. It simply gives an opportunity to avoid dealing with the things this thread was designed to deal with.

I will continue the thread even in light of your admittance of fault in pursuit of the purpose of the discussion, that being to resolve issues.

A post will be forthcoming in response to you, and Red wishes to respond as well when she is able. I also notice you did not address Kyros and his words at all.

Minor edit: I missed your response to Kyros.