11-22-2015, 01:12 AM
You know, I feel it troubling to see the how things are being discussed in some cases around the site as of recent. It seems that more often than not, anyone who expresses a desires to discuss and question the way something functions seems to be shut down very quickly at the hands of some who hold a position of power within the site.
Examples of this being the recent discussion on Water Walking, as well as the whole "Clone Debacle".
It confuses me as to why, when presented with questions about how and why something works the way it does, and question of if it's something that should be considered for change, that said questions are met with harsh responses that reduce down to "This is the way it works period." Shouldn't they instead be met with deliberation on said question(s) merits and, based on its weight relative to the site and it's workings, if there is in fact something that needs changing?
An example of this in action would be the discussion on Time Manipulation that resulted in it's price reduction.
In that case, things were actively discussed and supported with facts, theories, and then accompanied by proposed ideas. This, i believe, should be the way things are handled when it comes to discussion of site and rule functions and the potential change thereof.
The general attitude, I feel, that is held by a number of individuals with power is this;
that they more seem to enforce the rules, rather than seek to consider every angle presented by those that may question it in an intelligent manner. And that anyone who would question the way things work is one who is trying to break or stretch the rules. More often than not, those who question these things are not blatantly trying to bend the rules to favor them, but instead see how far they can take the tools that have been given, and what they can do with them. And isnt that the kind of creative skills that we as writers pride ourselves in nurturing?
Now, no where among these questions and statements do i mean to point fingers, seek revenge for any ruling that may have affected myself in anyway, or say that the staff as a whole is anything but the most helpful and respectful they can be, but instead to hopefully bring to light what seems to be a vast miscommunication and general misplaced attitude that often arises between those that question the system for the better, and those that must abide by it as per their job.
There is always room for improvement in any system, any while I make no accusations as to the worth of the systems we have in place now, I ask this; we have come together to effect change of these systems for the betterment of the site before, so why shouldn't we continue to ponder its could-be faults, and its might-be improvements.
Thank you for your time and i hope any who respond would do so with respect and an intellectual process of thought.
Examples of this being the recent discussion on Water Walking, as well as the whole "Clone Debacle".
It confuses me as to why, when presented with questions about how and why something works the way it does, and question of if it's something that should be considered for change, that said questions are met with harsh responses that reduce down to "This is the way it works period." Shouldn't they instead be met with deliberation on said question(s) merits and, based on its weight relative to the site and it's workings, if there is in fact something that needs changing?
An example of this in action would be the discussion on Time Manipulation that resulted in it's price reduction.
In that case, things were actively discussed and supported with facts, theories, and then accompanied by proposed ideas. This, i believe, should be the way things are handled when it comes to discussion of site and rule functions and the potential change thereof.
The general attitude, I feel, that is held by a number of individuals with power is this;
that they more seem to enforce the rules, rather than seek to consider every angle presented by those that may question it in an intelligent manner. And that anyone who would question the way things work is one who is trying to break or stretch the rules. More often than not, those who question these things are not blatantly trying to bend the rules to favor them, but instead see how far they can take the tools that have been given, and what they can do with them. And isnt that the kind of creative skills that we as writers pride ourselves in nurturing?
Now, no where among these questions and statements do i mean to point fingers, seek revenge for any ruling that may have affected myself in anyway, or say that the staff as a whole is anything but the most helpful and respectful they can be, but instead to hopefully bring to light what seems to be a vast miscommunication and general misplaced attitude that often arises between those that question the system for the better, and those that must abide by it as per their job.
There is always room for improvement in any system, any while I make no accusations as to the worth of the systems we have in place now, I ask this; we have come together to effect change of these systems for the betterment of the site before, so why shouldn't we continue to ponder its could-be faults, and its might-be improvements.
Thank you for your time and i hope any who respond would do so with respect and an intellectual process of thought.
We are Unbound and Limitless potential
Entomb in mongrel flesh and blood.
Imprisoned in a Cage
that Reduces us to that of a lowly
Human.
We will No Longer stand for such Treatment.
You know Nothing of Who we are;
of What we are.
Entomb in mongrel flesh and blood.
Imprisoned in a Cage
that Reduces us to that of a lowly
Human.
We will No Longer stand for such Treatment.
You know Nothing of Who we are;
of What we are.