Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

30 Apr 2013 05:53 - 30 Apr 2013 05:59 #47955 by KevinM

Replied by KevinM on topic Re: Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

Jeff wrote:
The fact this situation had disintegrated into even necessitating a C&D letter demonstrates the systematic judgmental lapses by the VEKN Inner Circle and Design Team Leader, and unwillingness to communicate, despite outstanding issues.

Making the letter public only gives credence to the idea that such a letter was even necessary. It would have been easy for the IC to find a suitable agreement with us if they were only willing to talk.

I call bullshit. The IC led, the DTL did as they asked, it was you that refused.

vekn.net/index.php/forum/5-generic-vtes-discussion/24814-open-letter-to-jeff-kuta-from-the-ic#24814
"The Inner Circle was asked - by you - to lead in this matter, and that is what we did.

We said we felt strongly that the Design Team Leader was still best equipped to guide this set to completion, and that we really wanted you to do your best to get through it with him. We asked that the members of the entire Design Team, including the Leader, cooperate, discuss, and come to a consensus on cards that could be presented to playtesters for round 2.

The Design Team Leader did as we asked as evidenced by the fact that he has been posting, asking for feedback from the team, and attempting to participate in the process every single day since the SKYPE meeting.

Removing yourself from the equation, refusing to participate, and eventually jeopardizing the work of the Design Team, indicated to us that you were unwilling to accept the decision that you asked for, and that dismissing the Design Team Leader was the only way you would move forward."

It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards either sucked horribly or were too complicated and relied on an outdated, weak mechanic. It's well-known that every playgroup said that the Inquisitor cards, if they were to be considered at all, should be considered for a Storyline Event. It's well-known that every playgroup said "Where are the cards that our clans/sects/disciplines need?"

You said that Inquisitors must stay or "bad things would happen". Then you got fired.

Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Last edit: 30 Apr 2013 05:59 by KevinM.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

KevinM
Offline
Antediluvian

30 Apr 2013 11:31 - 30 Apr 2013 11:32 #47970 by Shockwave

Replied by Shockwave on topic Re: Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

Considering we all play a game that revolves around foresight, prediction of outcomes and resource management, it's pretty much hilarious that people don't recognise all this pointless infighting is only damaging for the game at large in the long run.

I mean, I'm sure it's exciting to finally settle the Jyhad (lol) of who has the largest intellectual e-penis, but it'd really be a better idea to just get over it and work from where we are, rather than mudslinging ad nauseum.

If you feel this statement was 'aimed' at you personally...
1. Ego check! I don't care that much, I'd just prefer to see productive activity instead of bickering.
2. Oh what the hell, sure, why not? Yeah, it's YOU. YEAH, YOU.

Here we go again....
Dave Knowles (Advanced)
Sabbat Bishop of Manchester

Last edit: 30 Apr 2013 11:32 by Shockwave.

The following user(s) said Thank You: Jussi, drnlmza, Ashur, Trochomancy, Reyda, self biased, direwolf, Ohlmann

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Shockwave
Offline
Elder

30 Apr 2013 12:25 #47971 by Ohlmann

Replied by Ohlmann on topic Re: Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

Shockwave wrote:
2. Oh what the hell, sure, why not? Yeah, it's YOU. YEAH, YOU.

At least someone who recognize my genius.

The following user(s) said Thank You: Shockwave, ReverendRevolver, Trochomancy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Ohlmann
Offline
Antediluvian

01 May 2013 10:05 #48011 by johannes

Replied by johannes on topic Re: Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

Jeff wrote:

johannes wrote:
My exact words:

"PKC seeks to attack the V:EKN"
I let the community build their own opinion about the current effort of PKC to influence the creation of the official V:EKN set.

I am not sure where you see "provocative rhetoric" here. I think a threat of litigation is very clearly an attack and then it is a single introductory sentence on why I post this letter, so the community can form their opinion on your efforts.

I think the outrage was more based on your douche-baggy letter than on my allegedly provocative rhetoric.

Johannes, the header you wrote is clearly provocative. To impartially let "the community form their opinion", any number of headers could have been used, such as "PCK Sends the VEKN a Cease & Desist Letter". There was already plenty of outrage, quite a bit directly from members of the IC. Publishing the letter only incited tensions again.

Do you have an actual argument why it is provocative? When I see people use the phrase "it is clearly" most of the times they just want it to be without having an argument. And that an arbitrary number of other headers could have been used is obvious given the variety of the English language, it is not an indication that the one I used was provocative.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

johannes
Offline
Inconnu

01 May 2013 10:37 - 01 May 2013 10:38 #48013 by DeathInABottle

Replied by DeathInABottle on topic Re: Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

It's pretty difficult to form clear arguments about rhetorical devices, but I agree with Jeff that the phrase "attack the VEKN," located on vekn.net, is intended to provoke a response from the members of the VEKN forums. It's meant to prime forum members at the stage where they are simply reading the header, before they have read the details of the incident, into identifying as someone who is similarly attacked ("you attack the VEKN and you attack me"); it's a way of getting people onside before you tell them your version of the story. If we were in an introductory English course in university, I'd call it an appeal to pathos rather than logos.

I say this just from the perspective of someone who's thinking about the rhetoric, and not as someone who has an opinion on the conduct of the two parties.

Last edit: 01 May 2013 10:38 by DeathInABottle.

The following user(s) said Thank You: Jeff Kuta

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

DeathInABottle
Offline
Methuselah

01 May 2013 10:37 #48014 by Daidalos

Replied by Daidalos on topic Re: Eric Chiang's Transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator

Do you have an actual argument why it is provocative? When I see people use the phrase "it is clearly" most of the times they just want it to be without having an argument. And that an arbitrary number of other headers could have been used is obvious given the variety of the English language, it is not an indication that the one I used was provocative.

Well my suggestion is: the PCK are a band of clowns.
Honestly, is there an end to this nonsense?

"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
:trem: