Looking back at the last few weeks, there was one thing which has been nagging at me. But, thinking about it, I had to realize that I too am part of this problem.
What I am talking about is pushing people into classifications, and the resulting cliques which form. If you read Tamarinds post, and some of the comments, you should see what i mean. In the end, there are two things. One is the use of The Felchers to describe a group of people. Now, this may be a completely correct description for a number of people, but unfortunately, it also includes an evaluation – a negative one, in this case. Negative in two ways – none should want to be member of this group, and the members of this group are not considered friends.
The other is the topic of cliques. And as i wrote in a comment to his post, i do think it is almost inevitable that cliques will form. And it is not necessarily a bad thing. Any larger group of people will consist of a number of smaller cliques of friends who hang out and talk about things. People tend to move towards those with similar / the same interests, and it is not unusual that there are some in your group to whom you have little contact. I see little wrong with that. Quite the contrary – by demanding that a group is homogenous across its members, the group’s size and diversity is severely limited. That, in my eyes, is a bad thing. After all,for example in discussions, it is usual the controversial points which give the best results. When everyone agrees, the discussion often turns very short. And i do believe the same to be true in a guild. Yes, it does need a common ground, and a set of rules, but built on that ground and kept within the rules, diversity is a good thing. Here, i would like to quote a line from one of the comments :
… The problem comes when the cliques start polarizing so people feel unwelcome, or as your example above, excluded on the grounds they belong to another group. …
That is what lies at the bottom of this, really. People feeling uncomfortable or unwelcome – that is rarely good for a group.
Now, I would be claiming to be a better person than I am if i didn’t admit that there have been people whom I thought had no place in the guild I am in. Fortunately, this is not my decision to make, because my views are not necessarily right, and not necessarily what is best for the guild as a whole. I have been in such a situation before (being an officer in a guild, responsible for getting new people in), and it is not something I want nowadays. Therefore, I am left with two main options when something like that happens. I can accept that said person is part of the guild, and stay because I want to stay with the rest of the guild, or i can decide that it is really unacceptable – and leave. The often perceived third option – trying to convince the guild that this person really is not good for them – that is in my eyes invalid.
Unfortunately, things do not end here. If we take a closer look at the event which Tamarind mentioned, things get very difficult. Just to make things easier for me, i will proceed with calling said person “Max”. Taking a big step back, there were a number of reasons which spoke for inviting Max into the raid. On the other hand, there were several (valid) reasons not to. Unfortunately, there was also the ‘clique’ issue. So, whichever decision was taken, it was in any case tainted by the fact that the clique issue exists.
This makes things doubly dangerous. One reason, obviously, being that only one person knows (or should know) exactly why a specific decision was taken. And looking in from the outside, it is extremely hard to judge if this one issue had any bearing on the final decision or not. Now, I said should know, because more often than not, some gut feeling decisions are based on feelings which even the person deciding does not fully comprehend at that time. And again, I too am not exempt from this, both on the decision-making side and on the side that questions the reasoning behind certain decisions.
So, what is the bottom line of this ? For me, there are three important things.
- I need to stop thinking of people as part of a group or category. Throwing Max in with The Felchers (rightfully or not) is a bad thing. Because when I do, i judge his possible behavior based on the group’s reputation.
- I need to get better with judging people based on their actual behavior. I doubt if anyone would begrudge me if I do not invite Random Person A into my raid, simply because i know he is prone to long, unannounced afk and sudden bouts of disappearing, and has done so with me before (Although, even in this case it might be The Right Thing™ to do to tell him ‘you can come, but…’)
- I need to give people the benefit of the doubt that their decisions are based on reasons which are free of favouritism and unconnected to any clique effect. Especially when my mood is already not too good. As I wrote in a previous post – WoW is like a mirror – you get out of it what you put in.
Heeding these three things should help improve things greatly. Both for me and for the guild. And that should be well worth it.

shattering china
Hello everyone.
This post is somewhat special. Why ? Because i once promised myself i would not carry things out here, but instead try to resolve things with the people involved in private, and thus spare myself, and them, the public dissection of things done, said, not done and not said.
But in this case, the incident™ carries implications which range further than i can currently foresee, and discussing them in private is something which for various reasons does not seem to work. So, instead of just mulling it over in my brain, i decided to put it out here for everyone to read. (Everyone who cares to, that is).
So, everyone who does not care for this sort of blog post, feel free to go here, here or here for some less troublesome and more WoW related content.
There – that is out of the way. There is one more little disclaimer, which i need in order to protect the little sanity i have left (or perhaps not that little). In the remainder of the post, i will refrain from naming people. I will refrain from describing the incident™ in any more detail than needed. Because, in the end the incident itself does not matter. What matters is how people dealt with it, and what the end result was. (And no, i am far from happy with the result)
Right – now that that is out of the way, let me lay out the facts.
So far, so good. Now enter stage 2.
And that is where things lie now. Considering that i am writing this post, it should be obvious that i am anything but happy with the situation. But the reasoning may not be. And in the end, this post has very little to do with any attempt to change anyones mind – i know i do not have the words (or whatever else is needed) to do that. It has to do with a few basic assumptions which lie underneath the decision, and which i consider dangerously flawed.
Dangerously flawed, because they make a decision seem sensible which really does not at all address the core issue behind the problem, and which in the end causes a lot more unhappiness than several other options.
But i get ahead of myself.
If i understand the reasoning correctly, one basic assumption is that
I would say that this assumption is true. And anyone blogging should be aware of that. It is all but impossible to write good blog posts without being at least a little judgemental in what you write. And that always carries the risk of stepping on peoples toes.
There is another assumption related to that.
This, also, is a rather sensible assumption. It means that people will judge you based on your blog posts. And sometimes, you may not like how they read your posts, and have to deal with the echo which comes from that.
Now, based on those two assumptions, it would seem reasonable to say
At first glance, this indeed does seem reasonable. At second glance, this unfortunately reminds (at least me) of John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckward Theory
Before anyone jumps onto this – no, I do NOT think that the idea behind the decision is to be allowed to become a “total fuckward”. Still, what is the anonymity needed for, if not for the saying (or writing) something which you perhaps would not write if you were not anonymous ?
So, how about another deduction from the assumptions above ?
This also seems to make sense. And it is actually part of my own blogging routine. I try to blog in a way that does not needlessly step on peoples toes. The keyword there, though, is needlessly. I am sure i have stepped on several toes already, and most likely will again.
Actually, this post had a hard time getting past the deduction above. But in the end, i decided that the need to write the post outweighed the risk of antagonizing people with it. And i decided that i rather deal with angry comments than keep all this bottled up. But back to the actual post.
Looking through blog posts, and blog post comments, there is a huge number of fanboy/fangirl posts, which contain sentences like “i would love to be part of that” or “wouldnt an all blogger guild be fun” and the like. This is not limited to specific blogs, or specific persons. No, most reputable blogs had a number of like comments from a number of readers. So, based on that, i would conclude that
Oddly enough, this contradicts the deduction of anonymity above. Also, again reading through various blogs – it seems that the more successful ones are ones where people can relate to the person blogging. It would be the absolute opposite of anonymity. (Ok, Snottydin may be seen as a counterpoint to this theory, but in this case, i claim that snottidyn is more satire than blog, and hence the rules do not fully apply)
Also, many blogs have a number of followers who read it simply because they can relate to the stories, and know what is written about, not just for the witty comments and funny jokes.
And there is where, in my eyes, the dangers lie, and why i consider the reasoning dangerously flawed.
Yes, it is difficult to be a blogger and be part of a group. Yes, it does require quite a lot of care to not accidentally damage the group with a badly written blog post. And even with the good posts, there is a certain risk for group drama to occur once the posts are made. But in most cases, this drama can easily averted without resorting to censorship on the blog posts. Sometimes, all it requires is to first speak with people, and then write a post.
Yes, it may lead to a few posts not being written, or rather, being written in a different manner. And it may lead to a few dryer posts, because many people just love to read about drama, as long as they are not personally involved. And it may lead to a different way of dealing with problems. But all that does not make for less good a blogger, or less good a person. I would even go as far as to say it leads to the opposite.
I apologize if this sounds spiteful, but to me, moving into anonymity is like running away. Yes, it will help in the short run, but in the long run, you still need to face whatever you ran from, or you will run into its relatives again. Alternatively, charting a course which allows you to stay clear of any like situations will ultimately force you to limit yourself, and in turn take more from you than what it would have cost to stay and try to mend the situation.
So.. what is the bottom line ?
Being a blogger means that sometimes you shatter things. Shattering illusions seems like fun. Shattering china seems like a waste. Both will happen. Being a blogger means that you have the responsibility of dealing with that. And dealing with it is definately not always easy. But dealing with it by running away, leaving others to stare at the spot you just vacated, wondering what he hell just happened is