@GirlCalledBlu
I just want to point out that there's a difference between being a good storyteller and being effective at being a good game administrator.
I think we've all played in games that had excellent plot but had absolutely batshit management of the game going down. And because the plot was good, people put up with the batshittery far longer than they should have.
To be clear: I am not saying that your handling of the 100 was to that level.
I am, however, saying that while your storytelling chops were solid, your organizational prowess at running said plot and running the wider game were problematic. And when games start out on a bad administrative note, they tend to snowball pretty quickly when there's a lack of awareness or a refusal to accept that the feedback you're being given as a game runner is valid when its pushing back on things that are a problem.
My experience of The 100 in terms of game running was that of an echo chamber. Decisions would get made about timing or logistics IG and OOG that inconvenienced more players than it helped or were often bizarre/weird/nonsensical that it proved a distraction (sometimes really large) from participating in the story on offer. Sometimes these changes to format would happen midplot or midstream when PCs had already established their PCs as doing 'x' for months, making it harder for players to find ways to gracefully pivot on months of actions or RP to whatever abrupt change was happening just then.
This was often made worse by a lack of any communication about expectations or timing to players. Players would politely explain why they weren't tracking the leaderships logic or decisions about these things or why from a player perspective things were problematic.
You and @Seraphim73 would often say 'oh, yes, I see your point' or 'oh, yes, I apologize we didn't communicate this sooner but...' and then assure us that you were going to logistically compensate the situation. Players would then think that the situation was resolved and then the exact opposite of that would happen anyway.
And one time or twice is just attributable to miscommunications or misunderstandings but it happened a lot. To the point where it often seemed as though, you would collectively take player feedback, agree to adjust, discuss it amongst yourselves, and basically blow us off collectively. And perhaps that's not what actually what happened but it was frustrating to feel like at best, your attention span as game runners was highly challenged or at worst, you were pretending to listen with the intention to disregard player response at many turns.
Game running is a skill we develop, and I stand by my comments made previously in this thread that we improve over time from doing and @sunny has said the same. My assessment was that because your vision of the game was uniform enough, there was often not much room for effective alternative viewpoints or polite pushback. It created an echo chamber problem that compounded a lot of the other issues going on in the game. It makes me sad to think though that an opportunity for clarity on this issue was missed so often while the game was still running because it was all right there, just not recognized.
Good luck on future endeavours.