I don't usually go against the people I work with like this (then again, that's one of my jobs in the ministry), but I have to say this:

I feel like the other leaders took the debate quite personally quite early on and only stated that the assembly can't run the ministry since it doesn't have experience with it and while that is fine (I am a firm believer that the crowd cannot rule an executive position) the fact that they didn't mention any reason why the assembly didn't know how to run an executive position nor what it had missed in its arguments was one of the major factors that started all of this. I'd say that if the MoRA had emphasised its arguments on previous evidence and, well, actual points, and spent fewer messages (and maybe less angry words) saying that the assembly didn't know anything about the MoRA, like my (admittedly extremely late) argument, then this whole thing would have been a lot more civil.

I can't put the blame entirely on the MoRA's leadership, though. In the last time we did this, we had a few polls (one was an unofficial one which I think had, whether intentional or not, loaded questions, the other 4 were the official polls for the vote) all of which (especially the aforementioned opinion poll) suggested that a small majority of the assembly wanted a split (and, yes, the previous thread had the same kind of bad arguments from the MoRA). Basically, technically correct in the most pointless kind of way.

Considering the recent drama of that thread, and how many people were suggesting a split should be debated again, Jay decided (quite reasonably) to try a soft split inside the ministry where he would become less important of a figure and would place more importance on the deputy ministers which acted more like the proposed ministers.

Now, I don't want to use this as an argument for or against the split inside this thread, because it should go in the debate, though I will say that it didn't work and showcased perfectly why the split was a bad idea but, more importantly, when we came to the round two, this entire system, made specifically to showcase what a split would look like, was taken to mean how bureaucratic the ministry was. Or, in other words, the assembly pressured and elected a person to create a system to simulate their proposal and then later complained that the system they elected Jay for didn't work and they should instead... do the proposal...

I think our leaders had some good reason to be upset - they've been working for the last term and a half to please the assembly - and I also think that the assembly should look at itself and realise that it did bad things too.

However, I should state this clearly: both sides are at fault here, the MoRA for taking things personally and the assembly for its misguided goals and actions, and I'd probably argue the MoRA is more than at fault. However, we should not be blaming people for this. We should be acknowledging that people made mistakes and that we can fix them.

I've been an aviation enthusiast for a long time - and here in aviation, we have a thing called a "Blame-free culture" that has long been a characteristic of aviation safety. It's the practice of recognising that mistakes and bad practice are regular and even expected parts of work, and in each and every safety investigation, the investigators respect this. They make sure that anything that is not an obvious and deliberate crime - even an argument or a really obvious mistake or not getting enough sleep - is a mistake that we all do, and the punishments usually revolve around making them go through some aspects of training again, or a refresher course, or a pay cut, or sometimes even, for someone with a really good record other than this one thing for a very long time, giving them a stern warning and telling them to try not to do it again.

This whole exercise I've done here, laying out the facts, seeing who is at fault and who is not, was to show that, like most cases, everyone is at blame. Even I'm at blame. I helped fuel some of the hostility. I was angry at the original proposal back last time. I may have indirectly helped some people be in a bad move and made them, in turn, say angry things. But this should not be taken as a hit list of people to blame for bad practice. We also should not be having an argument here about who is at blame and who is not - everyone is at blame, some more than others, everyone has done something wrong, and we need to all learn to respect this, apologise, and move on with knowledge of our mistakes.

And with that, I apologise.

Reply

You might consider this completely odd, but it's very much how I'm trying to live, so I've reflected upon this situation in the context of a passage of Scripture and posted it in the Church of the South Pacific. You can read it here. Even if you completely disagree with what it contains, my position at the end of it is important. I am going to try to be a neutral bystander in this debate from now on and will make myself available as someone to talk to should people feel the need.

A Reflection on our Current "Crisis"

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply