佐々木 琲世 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ex_adept136) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
futurology2017-04-25 08:10 pm
ex_adept136) wrote in futurology2017-04-25 08:10 pm
text | un: Sasaki
[Haise has talked with several teammates about the lack of cohesion, and how difficult it is for all of them to coordinate. It was something he'd meant to discuss, or perhaps encourage others better suited, to bring up when they had some down-time. In the wake of a rather heated debate he chose to sat out on, he thinks maybe conversations about how they unify can't wait]
It seems that some of us may be feeling a little hot under the collar after recent events. Since I am an advocate for mercy, and am only alive because as much was extended to me when others may have argued against it, I don't want to touch on moral disagreements. Our stances will naturally differ, because our organization doesn't give us any unifying principles to abide by.
As a member of the CCG, I had very set guidelines to follow. Those weren't all things I agreed with, or felt right about. But they did maintain order, and did keep people safe. They made us an effective team, and more than once it's come up with colleagues here that we might benefit from that.
This was something I'd hoped might come up on Oska, when people had time to relax, but considering the circumstances...
Would any of you be interested in opening that discussion? That is, talking about our backgrounds, where we're coming from, and what we believe. If we start there, surely we can find a way to work together. If we're constantly at odds with one another, that isn't good for anyone. When I first joined, that division was certainly in place, but those I disagreed with still took the time to speak with me, and we did have common ground. I'd like to suggest that, as a team, we try to find that...for all our sakes.
Edit: Although I spoke of my own background in the example I provided, by no means am I suggesting that everyone do the same. Most importantly, we need to establish where we stand on issues we're often confronted with in our line of work. These things would inevitably show in our actions, so speaking on personal matters is not necessary for discussion.
What each of us believes and what course we're inclined to take is what I mean to inquire about.
[ooc: Naturally, thread-hop/jack as desired]
It seems that some of us may be feeling a little hot under the collar after recent events. Since I am an advocate for mercy, and am only alive because as much was extended to me when others may have argued against it, I don't want to touch on moral disagreements. Our stances will naturally differ, because our organization doesn't give us any unifying principles to abide by.
As a member of the CCG, I had very set guidelines to follow. Those weren't all things I agreed with, or felt right about. But they did maintain order, and did keep people safe. They made us an effective team, and more than once it's come up with colleagues here that we might benefit from that.
This was something I'd hoped might come up on Oska, when people had time to relax, but considering the circumstances...
Would any of you be interested in opening that discussion? That is, talking about our backgrounds, where we're coming from, and what we believe. If we start there, surely we can find a way to work together. If we're constantly at odds with one another, that isn't good for anyone. When I first joined, that division was certainly in place, but those I disagreed with still took the time to speak with me, and we did have common ground. I'd like to suggest that, as a team, we try to find that...for all our sakes.
Edit: Although I spoke of my own background in the example I provided, by no means am I suggesting that everyone do the same. Most importantly, we need to establish where we stand on issues we're often confronted with in our line of work. These things would inevitably show in our actions, so speaking on personal matters is not necessary for discussion.
What each of us believes and what course we're inclined to take is what I mean to inquire about.
[ooc: Naturally, thread-hop/jack as desired]
no subject
I agree. It depends upon the situation. Which is why it will be difficult for us to come to a consensus.
no subject
Especially because we're always under a time crunch when shit hits the fan.
Anyway, is a consensus necessary? I mean, I'm not about to change how I operate, that's for sure. I get that moral arguments are a pain, but... [Making everyone happy is going to be impossible.]
no subject
no subject
A consensus that one size fits all morality doesn't work would be nice, though.
no subject
You are not incorrect. An argument will be had, regardless. But I do not believe instigating an argument from our team as a whole will not do anything but divide us.
[ He doesn't mean you of course, Fiona. ]
no subject
Well, look at that. We reached an agreement without calling each other names or anything.
no subject
It was possible all along. I just hope the others reach this same conclusion. I am hesitant to interfere.
no subject
no subject