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
but ur less obnoxious about it than most of them
anyway, it's a bit hard to find common ground with the 'well good thing ur opinion isn't the majority so we can just ignore u' types
[keith]
the thing is, ALASTAIR has audentes so excited to save the fucking multiverse, they're not willing to even think about doing things that might not be Good and Decent
and every time anyone says something like that, they take it like that person is really just itching to hurt someone
instead of that they're open to the p o s s i b i l i t y
so idk where we can overcome it when it always literally comes down to "i literally refuse to even talk about these things as potential options", sometimes with an added side of "also fuck u for even suggesting it"
no subject
The strange thing is, I'm quite sure the minority opinion has reversed since I was recruited. At least, it felt that way to me. Maybe the loudest voices are determining how we see the balance, but I can't assume as much.
As you and others have pointed out, that's a serious problem. Some decisions are going to be polarizing, which is where having some guidelines would be pretty handy, but without those...well. We do need to be able to express and explore different opinions, without the hostility you're pointing out. Not an easy thing, considering the matters at hand, and some have doubtless felt burned already by prior attempts...still.
If only one side or another is ever heard, we'll waste a lot of time and energy.