@faraday said in The 100: The Mush:
How is being polite and respectful a dangerous mentality to adhere to?
That's not what I was objecting to. What you described was a situation where staff adopted a dangerous mentality: "I will devote my free time only to those players who share my vision of this game."
It makes sense superficially, but it's dangerous in practice. If those players manipulate the vision of the game, then staff are no longer serving that vision; rather, staff are serving those players. This is how the Ham Clique worked; this is how Spider gets into positions of power.
When people complain, they ought to be listened to. Reasonable, mature people can discern the difference between a legitimate concern and griping. Presuming that, the cacophony about the pervasive IC antagonism as a cause to drive players out should draw some attention. Maybe the IC antagonism is what the staff want, and that's fine, but what if the players who "follow the vision" change their preferences? Will the staff agree and shift away from IC antagonism?
Then you get a game where staff are catering to the "loyal." You get concerns about upsetting the "pillars" of the game. Then the game no longer belongs to staff; it belongs to the players. And that's not as good a thing as it sounds.
Edited to improve conclusion and clarify:
Staff should devote their free time and money to maintaining their vision of the game. Players will come and go. Serve the game.