Difference between revisions of "User:Aulan"

Latest revision as of 05:33, 29 September 2017

I have a dilemma.

On the one hand, I love Flexible Survival. I love the space, the players, the opportunities for expression. I want to contribute; I want to help solve problems, and perhaps even write content.

On the other hand, I see some kind of cultural predisposition from staff to dismiss items of suggestion or criticism without consideration. Whether dismissal is warranted or not, this strongly discourages contribution.

In the real world, if two reasonable people disagree on a matter in which they have a mutual stake and investment, they are obliged to discuss it until consensus, compromise, or understanding is reached. One is supposed to try to do this discreetly, privately if possible, without bothering bystanders or causing harm. If either party breaks away before some form of resolution can be had, conflict persists.

In the real world, there is no guarantee that anyone will be reasonable. Good faith requires you to try to be reasonable anyway. To communicate. But to break with reason, to close off communication, is to act in bad faith. Bad faith erodes confidence, perpetuates conflict, and causes harm. You are bound to encounter unreasonable people, but if you act in bad faith toward them, you rob yourself and the other of dignity by denying them choice. This is the first and most basic form of violence: to remove choice from an other.

I've tried, in good faith, to discuss potential solutions to small problems or to ask questions in open channels, only to be told that I am in the wrong channel, even when it is not the wrong channel, even when there may not be a right channel, even when it is easier to just look at the problem or answer the question. I've tried, in good faith, to open suggestions with staff as I have been told to do, only to be denied without discussion, even when the reason given is factually incorrect, even when staff disagree among themselves as to what that reason is. I've tried, in good faith, discreetly, privately, without bothering bystanders, without causing harm, to honestly pursue explanations so that I can submit better content in the future, only to be told that such discussion is harassment, even when there is no other way to achieve understanding but to discuss the problem. If it is judged that I do wrong, but seeking the reason for the judgment is further wrong, how then can I learn to do right? In what version of the scenario where a choice is forced upon an other is it possible to solve problems of mutual interest?

Perhaps I am too sensitive to rejection. Perhaps I am wrong to seek validation. Perhaps I am unskilled at communicating effectively. Perhaps discussion is simply unwanted here.

But I've made friendships here, and I do not want to leave them behind or let them languish. I've invested in my place here, and I do not want to give that up.

I feel stuck. Do I try to contribute at the risk of taking abuse, or do I avoid contribution at the risk of never doing better? Do I pursue discussion, or do I break away? Do I act in good faith and assume contribution is welcome, or do I act in bad faith and assume that speaking will be met with hostility? What do I choose when the stakes include access to my friends?

In the real world, there is no guarantee that acting in good faith will yield a mutually beneficial result. The best efforts of a rational person can be perverted by those of an irrational one. If you act in good faith, you can still do harm; but if you act in bad faith, you can only do harm.

Let us therefore give one another the benefit of the doubt. We should aspire to a condition wherein it may never be harmful to talk honestly, even in dissent. Only in such a condition do I see a solution to the dilemma.