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'd call this the tip of the iceburg, so I haven't ventured terribly far. Still...I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought me much too soft for what I've had to do in actuality. And maybe there's some benefit to considering that we all have more to us than might first be evident.
At least, I'd like to think it'd help. I derived my approach in part from a discussion we once had, but we'll see how it goes.
no subject
So far the general consensus skews towards a lack of trust.
no subject
On the one hand, it makes us very diverse. On the other, it means more work needs to be applied, and more consideration shown... And as a team, we haven't always managed that.
I realize it's no easy thing.
no subject
the problem lies within- the average group has come together due to an agreement of some kind. And there are people here who don't really believe in the goals. They just want to go home... Or have their own agendas.
Understandable, yet difficult to work around.
no subject
[There's a bit of machination in that, but...well.
Maybe that's what it would take? If they don't agree on a goal, as long as those goals are well-served by teamwork, surely the end result would be the same]
no subject
Honestly, I always assumed that's why everyone stayed with the team, rather than simply finding alternate means, but... perhaps a harsh reminder of the situation would help. People get comfortable in their frustration, and assume there is no going home at all, and perhaps they're right.
But that's not a risk I would take if I were them.
no subject
Hell, he's let himself be seen a certain way when he needed to, so it's the same difference]
I'd imagine most people do want that route home. And I think you're right that it's far from wise to draw the assumption. They might miss out on an opportunity that way. Besides, if their own world or universe is ever threatened, they might not be equipped to handle if when they've gone back.
Much as I doubt any of us liked being ripped away, getting things settled seems about the only good chance there is so far.
no subject
[given how his own relies on such a delicate balance that is easily thrown out of the loop, it wouldn't be surprising at all if his was. hell, he's compared the whole affair in Nalawi to the Quincy War enough times to recognize what seems to contribute to a Timeline-altering event, and Soul Society never seems to have a shortage of them.]
no subject
[Nobody should allow Haise to engage in wordplay. Not one at all]
Sometimes, I think it's easy to lose perspective when so many worlds are so much unlike our own.
no subject
Clever, Sasaki-san~
But it is true. Woodhurst was closer than most, and I really do think that got to some of the people here. It's still slow work...
no subject
People did seem more personally invested, and that may have contributed to the tensions we've seen, even if it was one mission in which we could agree on our approach for the most part.
[Aside from the debate about ending Percy's life. He doubts anyone would feel merciful having encountered the Zymandis agent, though]
no subject
There was always a risk, of course. And I can't even say for certain that a complete lack of mercy would have changed things either. Zymandis might have just found another way. We're not the only team that uses Oska as a thoroughfare, after all.
no subject
I likewise advocated for keeping prisoners and captured some myself. But if we decide that it's all on us, and that only our actions count for better or ill, we're magnifying our own significance past the point that we ought to, bearing what you've said in mind.
That we operate well does matter, but we had no way of knowing the outcome.
no subject
[he can say that because he has been both.]
But self-importance seems to run quite heavy in this lot. I can't say I blame them for it- many of us had significant roles to play in our own worlds, but that only excuses a lack of flexibility so far. I didn't like to be considered one more cog in a machine when I first arrived here, and that hasn't changed now. I've just... adjusted my perspective a bit.
no subject
[Coming from the CCG, he has distinct ideas about how this works, as well. He's been responsible for certain prisoners, and this much was set clearly into place...not tacked on after something went wrong for others to eschew responsibility]
It might be a matter of adjustment for all of us, one way or another. For my part, I was always a cog in the machine, but I wasn't accustomed to so many other factors and so little organization.
no subject
[which he makes sound as nonchalant as possible, even in text form. it's not always about manipulation. it could just as easily mean he knows the people in his sphere and knows that they'll do whatever it takes.
which is true. there's just a lot more push than necessary.]
But it can't be helped on a grand scale. It has to come on an individual level first.
no subject
[Though he suspects as much isn't entirely possible.
Some of them have been here too long, and with the disparity in their arrivals, it would be difficult to use that shared circumstance to work better with one another. Easiest to stick with common interests, it seems]
But I suppose you're right.