It's always fun to lead with an ad hominem, though I feel (and this is just personal opinion) that there should be something more to your argument too. Insults can add flavour, but they don't have much nutritional value.Joemanji wrote:This thread proves yet again why Darkson is not only unsuitable to de facto head moderator here, but possibly one of the most poisonous characters in our community.
The correct way to go about things is the way that gets shit done. The more ingrained a system is, the less likely systemic problems are to be solved through what conservatives consider "proper channels". The reason conservatives ardently promote "proper channels" is those are the channels they have gotten good at using to block change they don't like.Joemanji wrote:This was not the correct way to go about this.
Weren't you NAF's tournament coordinator or some such? I hope this isn't how you approached that role.Joemanji wrote:But this is just another example of you lacking even basic social skills. Grow up.
Darkson is not applying any formalized force against anyone here, so lets not pretend this is an attack on democracy. If you truly believe that, on a given issue, the consensus is that what he opposes should be done, then public discussion shouldn't be an issue - it should result in an expression of that consensus. Issues do not end when the NAF decides they do, they end when everyone who cares about those issues decides they don't care enough to talk about them.hutchinsfairy wrote:There was a vote and the consensus was that Brets and Khorne should be included. What Darkson is doing looks suspiciously like someone litigating because consensus and public discussion did not deliver the verdict they wanted. Hardly an expression of democratic ideals.
Besides, the actual decision being questioned here is the NAF's decision to record people's games whether they want them recorded or not, whether the person is a NAF member or not. That was not put to a general vote, it was a committee decision.
Yeah, I think the Vogons said something like that, didn't they? I hope there's no follow-up poetry...sann0638 wrote:You'll notice that the minutes were published showing this decision in November. People chose not to read them, sadly.
I don't disagree that there are reasons to take part in the NAF, I'm saying that it has never been the focus of the NAF to foster an environment in which newcomers easily see those benefits before being hit with "you have to join the NAF or you can't..." which makes it feel more like press-ganging. Now, admittedly, this is anecdotal... I'm speaking from my own experience, and the experience of the people I play BB with, but I can't imagine we're the only ones facing that experience (but who knows?).sann0638 wrote:I think you are anonymous, is that right? So difficult to know if you have seen any of the benefits from the work of myself and other committee members over the last couple of years. I would say some of these hold, but no doubt you will disagree: http://www.thenaf.net/2015/12/why-join-the-naf/