Apply for the 2014 LOTRO Players Council

[spelunker]

For starters I want to apologize for this thread singling you out the way it has (though to be fair I GoB was honestly trying to promote your views in a positive light, though maybe not in the best way). I always want to thank you for your post and for clearing up your side of things.

To address this, as the 'singling out' of me has come up a few times. I could see where some one might be offended, or at least made uncomfortable by these posts but I'm not at all and I know our mutual friend GoB knows this as well. I have positive posts, and negative posts, and even VERY negative posts, but its very rare I have one I regret making based upon its content. I do generally think posts through and am perfectly fine with my posts, my posting history, and how all that stacks up with my in-game actions being picked apart if people choose to make that effort. If I wasn't, I wouldn't involve myself in the 'community'.

[GodOfBrandywine]

Do you see the irony of that statement at all?

No, I don't see the 'irony' in that statement at all.

Either the 'team' would have invited spelunker on their own, or they wouldn't. It seems the case is that they didn't; in fact, they had no idea who he was. To me, this means that I did exactly what I should have done: nothing. Let's say I had submitted a nomination for spelunker, and that after reading my nomination, they decided to send him an invite. Let's even say he accepted, and became a PC member. It would help LOTRO, sure, but it wouldn't address the fundamental incompetency that made them overlook him in the first place. And as long as that incompetency exists...well, then there's nothing that I, spelunker, or anyone else can do that will have any meaningful difference. That's my point. That's why I didn't submit a nomination.

[Comstrike]

I think this is an important point. Anyone who shares their views, suggestions, creativity, etc. is sticking their neck out in some way, and putting themselves in the line of fire from those who are not like-minded, or who for one reason or another deem that person worthy of mockery or contempt. Online discussions can be an extremely hostile environment. As a result, not everyone who has great ideas is willing/able to come forward online to share those ideas. Who could blame them? Heck, even being on the PC is often used as an excuse to deride and mistreat those who stick their necks out by being involved.

So it's valuable if at least some of the members of the PC are actively social in multiple venues - here, fansites and unofficial forums, social media, in-game, etc. so that they might be able to encounter and bring forward some of the more hesitant voices that would otherwise not be heard. That's why I think Turbine's approach of attempting to bring a variety of personalities together is key to the whole process.

Indeed. And as I noted in my comment back to Sapience, I’m not advocating some “galactic senate” full of people shouting at each other in person or online. I’m targeting a very specific technical approach. Setup is one thing, but in function it could be pretty hands-off. It would give the PC a tool of sorts that could allow for discreet exploration without something being floated in the forums and taken as gospel or portents of doom.

Plus frankly if tracked correctly you can spot gems in the rough that might have demurred to the community, forums, or simply just want to login and logout without side-trips to other venues.

And speaking to a couple of Pal’s point, I’m not and surely do not feel any kind of “governing body” is in order. Likewise I’m well aware of having to have a thick skin about such things.

[TheCrossbow]

Straw Man Argument:

"The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition."

I don't "expect council members to know all posters or read every post." I said no such thing. This is a straw man argument. Fairly sure this qualifies as a violation of the forum CoC (trolling/baiting). If you wish to engage me in a conversation, please construct a serious post next time (and please, cut down on the melodrama).



Straw Man Argument:

"The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition."

I'm getting deja vu...

Here, you use quotes around the words "deserved" or "expected," but I'm not sure why. You give the illusion that you're quoting something, when in reality they're your own words. Again, you create a straw man and attack a fabricated statement. I can't tell if you're trolling again or if you actually wish to be taken seriously?

It is called interpreting what you said. It is pretty clear that you are expecting Turbine to pick someone who you think deserves a spot on the council. It didn't take much effort to read the attitude that was dripping from your words.

Like I said before, if Turbine isn't willing to help themselves, there's nothing I can do that will make any difference.

If they can't see on their own that spelunker would be a valuable asset, then they are beyond help.

So... again... if *you* thought that Spelunker would be such a valuable asset... then why didn't you take the time to nominate him and support him?

Oh, that's right... you could take the time to post comments in this thread deriding Turbine for not picking Spelunker... which, btw, you wouldn't know until Thursday unless you have inside knowledge... but, you couldn't spare the time to send a nomination email which would have probably taken less time?

And do you always take personal shots at people over the internet? You come across as an angry teenager. If you aren't able to engage in a conversation without making melodramatic attacks at someone's character, perhaps you should take a break from the forums until you cool down a little bit.

In this case, I am specifically responding to you. I guess it is impossible to respond with comments directed at someone specific without being viewed as "personal shots".

But, it seems that *you* are allowed to come on here and make some very pointed disparaging comments insulting a variety of people... but if someone dares call you on it... oh noes! you are being personally attacked.

Take some deep breaths and stop frothing at the mouth. I debated going through this histrionic rant and responding to each of your tirades in kind, but...nah. I'll save my time for posters who can engage in an adult conversation.

What's the matter? Can't handle someone calling you on all the... to be blunt... BS you were spewing?

You chose to select Spelunker and use him as a battering ram to attack the folks at Turbine... prior to the announcement of any decision. Not only that, but you were using Spelunker whether or not he was a willing participant.

Not only this... but you raise Spelunker up as this important and great poster who should be on the council... and then promptly basically admit that you couldn't even be bothered to voice your support for him in a way that would have mattered.

If you were looking for "adult conversation"... well, that should have started with your first post. You could have just said... "I hope Spelunker is on the council because I think he would be a great contributor." And left it at that.
Do you? Nope. You go on this big tirade about why Spelunker should be on the council... because he is such an important guy, how could Turbine possibly not pick him (all the while insulting anyone else as automatically being lesser than Spelunker). Then, you turn around and lambaste Turbine if they don't choose Spelunker... or at least didn't offer him a spot.

You want "adult conversation" but you can't even do that yourself? All Sapience did was announce that the invitations had gone out... not who was selected... and you (and a couple others) come in and turn the announcement into a platform to (once again) batter the folks at Turbine.

Perhaps I do come across a little... passionate... in my response to you. Frankly, I have sat silent far too much as the repeated battering of Turbine staff seems to go unchallenged... mostly because I already have my hands full with a full life and being part of a very active kinship which doesn't leave me with a lot of time for much else. Sure, Turbine has its own share of faults. But, there is absolutely no call for the way *some* people act. And, I am sick of it. There is no person on earth who (regardless of how despicable they may be) deserves to be treated in this way.
And, it makes me doubly sick to read the words of someone like you who clearly has an axe to grind... but you couldn't even be bothered to take advantage of a chance to make a meaningful impact on the game simply by nominating someone you would like to see on the council. That, more than anything else you say, speaks volumes.

[Galuhad]

I don't think I've ever asked for a post to be closed before, but I think I may make an exception to this one.

Sapience, would you please?

[Sapience]

I don't think I've ever asked for a post to be closed before, but I think I may make an exception to this one.

Sapience, would you please?

As technically we've already gone through the entire process of application, selection, and notification I think the intent of the thread has already passed its useful shelf life, so sure.