@Rook said in A Constructive Thread About People We Might Not Like:
This thread was started to level the conversation into greyness, so as to allow for abstract discussion. I think it can be agreed that the case in which we are specifically referring to is an extreme outlier to this conversation, yes?
I've been saying this for a while, actually, and in response to your concern regarding the Court of Public Opinion and blacklisting.
I don't remember which game you defended, Rook, but I've always advised staffers not to defend their policies or decisions. More often than not, you are shouting into a cacophony of ignorant noise. It is advisable to correct people who state blatantly false statements or premises regarding a decision, but unless a policy is so bizarre and indefensible so as to warrant an echo chamber of mockery, you will likely find one, two, or three people that will take up the mantle and vociferously defend your decision without you saying a word.
In the past decade or so, I think that players have generally adopted the policy that: (1) staff are responsible for their own games and have the authority to make whatever decisions they want; and (2) policies can be ignored where circumstances demand attention.
That said, I have been a proponent of the benevolent dictatorship.