(04-28-2020, 07:30 PM)Roavin Wrote: It seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) that this is a sort of defeatist attitude stemming from the "MoRa vs the World" perception that, once again, I think is unnecessary and just making it difficult for everyone involved (but mostly for MoRA personnel).

I can assure you that we at the ministry don't perceive this as particularly the Assembly as a whole making this effort. We've made it extremely clear among ourselves that we don't believe that the entire ministry, rather, the adamant and oftentimes disrespectfully vehement push to work behind us by proposals are the ones in primary opposition by us. If you believe we're trying to self-reinforce that "all others can't possibly make decisions for us, only we can", then that's an unfortunately incorrect extrapolation from what we've been trying to express. 

I believe if there was an effort to work with MoRA from the beginning on a split with an agreed proposal from both active and past members, and even those unaffiliated, it would have gone over far, far better and we wouldn't be having the issues as it stands.

My personal belief is that a proposal for a split can indeed work. However, such a proposal should not interfere with the current flow of management, nor the existing zeitgeist (to use a word Omega used earlier) of the mission behind internal and cultural affairs. I believe in many respects that the worries and concerns regarding the Ministry are misplaced in the premise that a split will inherently fix these problems, whereas many of us in the Ministry believe that the problems that easily could arise (which we have been attempting to express, to the dismay of the supporters of Omega's proposal, as I see it) would outweigh the potential benefits. We cannot create a distinct "how" if our "if" is misaligned. If we don't understand what would directly become a benefit and what would be a detriment of a split, then the debate will of course stop dead in its tracks. 

I appreciate your concerns for the matters at hand, but I want to address one thing that I've also noticed among the debate going on in this thread: it seems to be attacking and re-attacking the same points instead of providing constructive proposal. I believe, personally, the best way to continue this discussion is if we try to improve on agreed ideas. I've tried to address my concerns, and propose a better way of looking at many of the concerns that the proposal attempts to address, but they have been, unfortunately, overlooked to my knowledge. Roavin, and even Omega, Seraph, Tsunamy, anyone who's been the distinct opposition to current MoRA staff, I want to personally address this to you: 

We do not want to demonize you. We do not want to attack you on points under the pretense that it's a MoRA vs. The Assembly situation. We do not want to demoralize your cause or invalidate your reasoning. I believe your concern for the Ministry is a pure and understandable one. All we want is to have our own voices considered in a way that doesn't inherently attack us. What you may call "disagreeing" has unfortunately come off as dismissive and disrespectful to our beliefs, and while that doesn't apply to each and every one of you, I want to say that I have been open to your considerations and have actually had several of my smaller opinions change over the course of this debate. 

I can already see this thread soon becoming a series of accusations, if it so decides to continue. I've been extremely close to simply being cruel and unreasonable during this time myself. I'm not clean from that desire. I simply wish that we can hold this debate with the consideration and active reach to collaborate from MoRA, as it does directly affect us. 

If you've gotten this far, thank you for reading this.