Lockjaw Rotation Updated - 8/15/15

I wouldn't be happy about having listeners that don't belong in the channel if everyone didn't agree to it. What makes the special few any different than just releasing recordings of the whole meeting? Nothing. The council apparently voted for only transcripts to be released and these silent listeners apparently got privilege over others for some odd reason?

Maybe it was just officers and maybe you guys voted on it or something but it strikes me as odd.

If it wasn't petitioning, Darth probably threatened to expunge the whole rotation all together because having those people in the channel is close to and, I feel, against something your council had already voted against. If you are making contradicting rules, the whole meeting is meaningless and the rotation is rendered illegitimate. (just a guess)

I would be very displeased too if I couldn't release the recordings but, for some reason, some people were allowed to listen in. Releasing recordings and having someone listen in are things that aren't a whole lot different to me.

If one is voted against, the other should be too and vice versa.

It's a matter of degrees. That Teamspeak host probably would not have had a fraction of the capacity necessary to handle all of the observers that would have wanted to sit silently and listen in.

However, it's incredibly hypocritical for Darth and company to be the ones complaining about the majority vote when he was the first person to advocate for less exposure and not more.

As Zublak often says, this is pretty much all politics. But some people are willing to score any points they can, regardless of how inauthentic they are being, how many times they threaten to act out when their point of view isn't adopted by the majority, or of how many people they hurt in the process.

It was two different issues. Darth's ultimatum was issued in response to the majority vote to not release audio recordings - not the observers.

Weird, I don't remember hitting like on many insults, or what you might deem an insult. What I do hit like on are the people who explain things better than myself.

But yeah, this whole enforced rotation and drama surrounding it is nothing but complaining and politics. It's pretty pathetic.

Not that I expect any results from this, but I'm curious if any guild leaders are brave enough to actually answer.

Who is against muted listeners on rotation/server talks? Who is for muting all but the guild leaders?
Who is against releasing the transcripts for the community to read? Who is for it?

I think I laughed and said if you try an exclude Faceless Insanity from the rotation meeting and votes that I would contact Daybreak and tell them to go ahead and suspend my account because I wouldn't recognize a rotation that refused to allow me to attend?

Or was it something else?

I don't know. Release the transcripts and let us read/hear them.

To piggyback on your questioning line:

Who is against releasing recordings of the meetings but for having muted folks that can listen in on the meetings?

What is the difference between listening to a meeting without being able to have any input and listening to a meeting recorded 1 hour earlier without being able to have any input?
Sounds like 1 hour difference to me and nothing else.

I would guess these folks listening in were "advisers" that were just sending tells. Was it offered to all guilds to allow these advisers into the meeting or were the advisers primarily from a select 1 or 2 guilds?

Something like that. I wasn't surprised to hear you again threatening to violate the rotation when you couldn't get the majority to agree to your point of view on the matter and wouldn't stop when the council asked you to.

Edit: Truthfully, the times I find myself most at odds with you are invariably the times you're threatening to violate the rotation if people don't agree with you.

NICE! I guessed correctly DING DING!!! Illegitimate rotation = no ration! What do I win?!?!?!!?! WOO!


***Please say AON please say AON please say AON***

At the last meeting we were required to only have 2 people, my own Officer Frosin was disallowed the ability to listen by Dupree (the host then and now)

When Yukan brought an extra officer I merely brought it up. That officer did leave, but later Dupree had multiple of his own officers in the channel and no one (including me said anything)

As a sidenote it was agreed upon to have 5 members from each guild attend next time so that more people could hear it. But, only 2 could talk.

It's like OMG that Darth, trying to make sure all the rules are followed, what a POS!

So instead of answering the question you deflect it. Was that information to be a silent listener made public? I am honestly shocked in your response as you have post after post said how you are here to benefit the community. I would at least like to hear that you were also in support of making the recordings public to everyone.

Otherwise your either a hypocrite or just firmly believe that you know best and the community should just trust you.

I hope you slip on your jump to conclusions mat.

I don't make threats friend. I just tell you how it's gonna go down.

It never got that far. The objection was so strenuous that when the original MM officer who was supposed to attend the meeting logged in (I was attending in his place subject to him logging in), I was actually anxious in trying to log out as fast as I could so Darth wouldn't use the overlap to attack my guild yet again.

Personally, I'm fine with having access to one or the other...or both. I don't see the need for observers necessarily, unless the transcript is not going to be released. If it is going to be released, observers aren't really needed.

Guild leaders.....let's hear some answers please.

The first line you quoted there is your answer. I have no idea why the majority voted against releasing the audio. Nice try at mis-characterizing my answer to use in a ridiculous attempt to attack me though.

Let's get back to my original question, which you answered by way of asking me a question instead. Why is the Faceless guild leader, the guild leader of The Guild That Cares, threatening to break the rotation every chance he can?

That is a threat. You can argue the semantics over it as much as you want, but it is a threat.

Like, for example, here!

I'm curious on this as well. Any input from those that voted against releasing information?