User:Tennessee Ernie Ford

Tennessee Ernie Ford is the nom de web of the author of RPG guides. No relationship to the fantabulous gospel singer of the same name is intended or implied.

Curse outage
I'm outraged by Curse's response to their outage:
 * Apparently, they did not thoroughly test their backup systems (else they would have known that their hardware was incompatible with their software).
 * Apparently, they did not thoroughly test their backup plans (otherwise they would have been able to prevent several of the failures in their supposedly multiply-redundant systems).
 * Apparently, they don't care enough about GWiki to have bothered to post a formal apology here for bringing this site up last. (Even now, Guild Wiki is not listed under the footer at their main page or at Guru.)

→ If I were an advertiser, I'd be asking for some money back and a renegotiation of my current contract.

→ If I were paying for hosting, I'd be doing the same.

Curse's recent actions show how little they have invested in this site (financially or otherwise). If Curse survives this catastrophe, I am sure they will have a better handle on backups. However, I read this as evidence of a corporate culture that will allow other issues to plague them...and, one way or another, Guild Wiki will pay part of the price.

Sabbatical
I am taking a sabbatical from this wiki, primarily to allow me time to gather some perspective about how I'd like to continue to contribute. The world has changed a lot since Wikia told us that GW@Wikia was their website (and not the community's): we moved, many of the actors here have changed, the mood is different, and the game keeps evolving in small, but play-changing ways. In my opinion, Guild Wiki needs to catch up.

When I've brought it up before, it's always seemed to me that there's been more interest in the latest Drama. I dunno, mebbe ppls are talking about this in email or IRC or I haven't noticed.

I've ranted about the wiki's goals before, so I won't go into depth now. The short story is (my opinion anyhow): we shouldn't try to compete with GWW anymore; we should try to emphasize the things that we do better. If the community thinks that the status quo is just fine...then I have to question whether I'm able to offer anything of value.

Mendel's departure
This is a bad thing. It's a bad thing for the wiki and a worse thing for the community.

Yeah, I've been a harsh critic of some of Mendel's actions. However, even after discounting his past contributions, Mendel's benefit and importance to the wiki is huge:
 * He is the only person who understands wikicode enough to challenge and suggest alternatives to our other wikifu expert. (Monopolies are always less efficient and effective than than healthy competition.)
 * He often has awesome ideas for presenting content and for dealing with disputes (yeah, he has some boneheaded ones, too — don't we all).
 * He almost always catalyzes awesomeness by others.

Worse than that is the way in which Mendel left. I don't agree with everything he posted about this (heck, perhaps not even with most). But: I do agree that other people have been allowed to behave inappropriately without consequence for too long.

Let's all make a greater effort to discuss ideas...and to avoid commenting on the people who express those ideas. Let's call people on poor behavior, politely... separate those discussions from those involving content.

Mendel's departure did not solve any of this wiki's problems; it only complicates them. At best, all it does is allow Mendel time for his head to heal, after repeatedly bashing against the same wall.

Personalization
Does someone actually have to say, "I guess you try to be a complete, motherfucking, holier-than-thou, male-chauvinist-piggish, Republican, Nazi asshole," before we consider it an attack? Since when is it okay to personalize a discussion without any consequences?

As such, it should be noted that it is advised, that you can simply...
Can't we just advise?

Listening vs negotiating
One practical definition of conversational listening is being willing to be changed by what someone else says. One description of effective aggressive salesmanship is being able to take what someone else says, in order to rephrase those ideas/concerns/goals as reasons that other party should agree to your own terms in the negotiation.

I have spent far too much of my brief stay on this planet engaged in what I hoped to be a conversation, but was really a negotiation; two cannot Tango if one is dancing the Fox Trot. So, going forward, when my interlocutor prefers responsive speechifying (my turn, their turn, my turn)...without a willingness to reevaluate their ideas...well, I'll just have to let them continue their monologue without me.

Unfortunately, a side effect of this will be leaving unchallenged claims, both outrageous and subtle, for which there is insufficient evidence, no consensus, and/or one/more alternative views. Some people will, wrongly, assume my tacit approval or endorsement. Still, life's too short to spend it arguing with someone who isn't willing to change their mind.

Current Haiku
 True. Also witty. The results of committee: Couplets out of rhyme.