RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Uther · **06-27-2013, 12:00 AM**

(06-26-2013, 11:55 PM)Nate is Blue Wrote:
Quote:including accusations of attempted sabotage toward the RPC in general.

This is my point. Right here. But this back-and-forth is getting us nowhere.

Granted, I don't know all of the facts. You're correct on that one and I'll admit to it. Once again though, if people are asking for less transparency, why not give it to them? No names have to be released for obvious reasons, but why not just put whatever was going to be said when someone asked via PM into the log?

Corin Winterborne · **06-27-2013, 12:08 AM**

(06-27-2013, 12:00 AM)Uther Wrote:
(06-26-2013, 11:55 PM)Nate is Blue Wrote:
Quote:including accusations of attempted sabotage toward the RPC in general.

This is my point. Right here. But this back-and-forth is getting us nowhere.

Granted, I don't know all of the facts. You're correct on that one and I'll admit to it. Once again though, if people are asking for less transparency, why not give it to them? No names have to be released for obvious reasons, but why not just put whatever was going to be said when someone asked via PM into the log?

People are making a mountain out of a molehill. Â The only reason that information is redacted was to avoid drama. Â There isn't a need for more transparency, because it's already transparent. Â There's no legitimate need to disclose specific names for these issues. Disclosing the names would only serve to shame or ostracize the parties involved, which is something I'd think we all want to steer clear of. Â These issues do need to be discussed at times, rarely, and outside of the immediate public view to avoid big dramastorms.

I think during the next meeting, I'll try and start a discussion to get a definition of the scope of the LS leaders meeting, and a less nebulous guidelines on what should be redacted.

Uther · **06-27-2013, 12:12 AM**

(06-27-2013, 12:08 AM)Nate is Blue Wrote: There's no legitimate need to disclose specific names for these issues except to shame or ostracize the parties involved.Â

...

I think during the next meeting, I'll try and start a discussion to get a definition of the scope of the LS leaders meeting, and a less nebulous guidelines on what should be redacted.

1. No one on this thread has asked for a name.

2. That's fair.

Corin Winterborne · **06-27-2013, 12:17 AM**

(06-27-2013, 12:12 AM)Uther Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 12:08 AM)Nate is Blue Wrote: There's no legitimate need to disclose specific names for these issues except to shame or ostracize the parties involved.Â

...

I think during the next meeting, I'll try and start a discussion to get a definition of the scope of the LS leaders meeting, and a less nebulous guidelines on what should be redacted.

1. No one on this thread has asked for a name.

To my knowledge that was the only thing that's ever been redacted or kept from the membership's general knowledge.

I think the issue today was a result of the last parts of the log that was an accidental oversight due to the forum character limit.

I'm just hoping people will put down their pitchforks and torches until something actually happens.

Shuck · **06-27-2013, 12:19 AM**

(06-26-2013, 11:55 PM)Nate is Blue Wrote: The emphasis is mine. Â The drama was between this person & linkshells involved. Â The "sabotage" was brought up as a result of the drama that was being discussed: not the primary topic of discussion.

Further, Kylin offered to disclose the contents of the discussion, only redacting the persons involved.

Goofy sniping aside (which I'll note is unnecessary, and does nothing to actually help your point), I'll shed some light here:

As someone who was present, I'll go ahead and correct you. It was the primary topic of part of the discussion, and lead to another series of questions/statements that we all went back and forth on for a bit in a kind of microcosm example of this exact exchange here.

Deirdre · **06-27-2013, 12:25 AM**

(06-27-2013, 12:17 AM)Nate is Blue Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 12:12 AM)Uther Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 12:08 AM)Nate is Blue Wrote: There's no legitimate need to disclose specific names for these issues except to shame or ostracize the parties involved.Â

...

I think during the next meeting, I'll try and start a discussion to get a definition of the scope of the LS leaders meeting, and a less nebulous guidelines on what should be redacted.

1. No one on this thread has asked for a name.
To my knowledge that was the only thing that's ever been redacted or kept from the membership's general knowledge.

I think the issue today was a result of the last parts of the log that was an accidental oversight due to the forum character limit.

I'm just hoping people will put down their pitchforks and torches until something actually happens.

I just want to correct a little bit.
The issue was not brought up because the last part of the log was missing, it was redaction of content in logs (not limited to the redacted item you are speaking of, it was not the only thing redacted).
It was already concluded by LS Leaders that they will speak of redaction.

Asyria · **06-28-2013, 10:13 AM**

Looking at this thread, I can't help but think there shouldn't even be round table meeting minutes. Just have the LS leaders share with their LS. We're a (big) bunch of gamers, not an actual government or company with responsibilities and paychecks.

Now that's my personal opinion.. but what isn't an opinion is that taking these things too seriously inevitably leads to drama. It's happened before and I have bad memories of it (and I wasn't even involved!)

So whatever you all do, take it easy!

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (5): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5

Linkshell Leader Meeting Transparency

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes