______________
When I first read over the leaked Administrative Forum thread this morning, I was not angry.
I was hugely pleased.
Now, at last, we have some honest unfiltered administrative attitudes, that we can discuss. We, on each side of this damn fence, can finally compare some notes, plain of propaganda, and see if we can make some progress.
You see, this is "my thing," that I enjoy throughout numerous aspects of my life. To look at conflicts, see both sides, and figure out why they're not seeing eye-to-eye.
When two parties are in stubborn conflict, it's generally because of either conflicting self-interests or, surprisingly more often, missing premises.
That is, what is one party failing to see, that is assumed by the other? The latter bases a position on an unarticulated assumption, the former never registers that assumption, and they are damned never to see eye-to-eye, and irreconciable struggle.
I consider it my specialty to examine and identify these premises, and improve mutual understanding to everyone's benefit. I've helped businessmen make sense of techheads, couples at least understand their differences (if not always overcome them), and allies tighten up their arguments against opposing forces by foreseeing the premises they'd fail to allow for.
In fact, if you think I'm blowing smoke, ask someone who's seen me in action before:
spyed
I know most of you don't know me to speak of, and perhaps you've mistaken me for some knee-jerk rabble-rouser who's always itching for a fight with the administration.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And if spyed would report honestly (and I think that he would), he'd confirm that. I have backed up him and the administration on countless occasions before.
When others were calling to arms over their issues of the day, I looked over the administrative position, and aimed my "special skill" for the administration's benefit almost without fail.
Even in cases where I was sceptical of a position, I would offer to Angelo or Scott or whomever, "yeah, but you're being misunderstood because of x," or "you're being distrusted because you're not being clear on y," or, "You're missing their point by not allowing for z."
And in every case I'm aware of, these guys have been glad I spoke up, and felt my level head made a useful difference.
(Remember that "we are all artists" response to the Mobile flap? I'm pretty sure I had something to do with getting that premise out of assumption and into declaration, as a good example.)
So, all I'm asking is, don't write me off as a knee-jerk rabble-rouser. And tinfoil slides right off my head so I can never manage to wear it.
So when this flap started, for instance, I spent a solid day and a half just researching, examining, deconstructing, and trying my damndest to imagine the adminstrative point-of-view.
And even then, once I decided I didn't like it, my first reaction was not to cause trouble, but simply to pack up my things and leave.
BUT...
...
Let's start looking over some excerpts from the leaked threads, and see how they can help us understand one another. At last, we can talk about our concerns, in a context of yours.
Sometimes we'll take something out of context, but never for an unfair purpose, but rather for a useful phrase or insight. Often about a point that's lost on you, by your own admissions.
It's not our intention to be unfair to you people here.
And, worth noting, it's not our intention to bash you for blowing off steam in a private context. I know you guys are in a very difficult position.
But it's our hope to at least make all of us understand one another better.
So let's start with Chris, cweeks, who started the thread by saying:
"Aren't senior members supposed to support the community and not start some insurrection?"
Well, yes, and no, and maybe.
Surely we're supposed to support the community, and surely we feel as if we are. We do want to live in a community we can be proud of.
Not starting some insurrection? Well, when the integrity of our community is on the line, when does insurrection become mandatory?
Here's a good example of a missing premise. When we're unhappy, when we're being stonewalled, when no one seems to care that we're upset, insurrection is the only power we have other than leaving.
My own private reaction had been to just go away. I don't have time for this shit. In the last four days, I've blown off a professional assignment, a household emergency, a day of work, and an unprecedented backlog of laundry. The last person who wanted to be in the center of a shitstorm was me. But this has been too important to ignore.
(Oh, and do you know about my wrist ailment that makes excessive typing extremely painful? Well, let's just say these have been an excrutiating few days, in more ways than one.)
But within a day after virtually announcing surrender, I realized people around here wanted a lot better answer than that.
For instance, flameturret said:
"They need to set an example, they are our pride, our seniors."
And I gotta tell you, I feel like I am setting a very important example.
In simplest terms, I am not being a sheep.
When the regime is strongly suggesting, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," and that we graze in the lovely fields of DA instead, I'm not playing along with that, and suggesting no one else should either.
My prevailing attitude during this whole flap has been that we must not treat jark's dismissal as "business as usual." Because it shouldn't be.
dxd said:
"What really gets me, is a lot of them are doing this because they think it's 'what jark wants,' when I would bet my bottom dollar that jark would rather people be a community, instead of trying to make a war."
Well, Scott has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want us to take this lying down. So in a very literal sense, some form of insurrection is what Scott wants. It's either mistaken or specious to believe otherwise.
But now, on the other hand, lolly pointed out that:
"A certain senior said something along the lines of 'go swallow broken glass'."
And you're right, Richard, that is absolutely unacceptable.
To anyone else reading this letter, WE MUST STOP THE HATE.
HATE will not get us listened to. HATE will not make our position more appealing. HATE will not encourage anyone to consider our point of view. And HATE will never, EVER win an argument.
To each and every one of you who's in the right about all this, you MUST stop the HATE.
If the admins are boiling to their bursting point at us, they have good reason to be.
And what good is that?
It's okay to be angry, but don't write angry. Write FIRM. Write resolute. Write unflinching. Write right.
We are in the right to press this issue of the day, we are absolutely justified.
But HATE betrays our higher road. HATE makes the enemy of those who could be our most important allies. HATE seals their ears, closes their eyes, and shuts down their minds.
Nothing will be worked out amicably by snarling animals.
Be strong, but be good. Or else you have completely wasted your chance to speak up, with a self-indulgent lapse of bitter passion instead.
Admins, hear me, I have never encouraged HATE, and I am truly sorry you've felt so much of it. I hear you, believe you, and want so truly to turn the disagreement to a different angle.
BUT...
theartofjayharrison said:
"What gets me more, are all the gosh darn bandwagoners."
And I just gotta tell you, I have never been so thankful for the bandwagon instinct in my entire life.
Yes, it's true, many people aren't clear on what they're fighting for. They've got a handy pre-packaged icon to champion, and there's so much lack of clarity that I wince at it often.
But I'm thankful for it anyway, you know why?
Because if there were just twenty of us (seniors or otherwise), who had perfectly lucid arguments and assessments, rigid grips of the facts, razor-accurate insights, and the most compelling arguments possible...
We would be ignored.
Waited for us to get over it or go away.
Not seriously listened to, or barely even noticed, let alone merit any attention for "what the hell is going on here?"
Because the wrong side of this debate is counting on this whole mess to blow over. That's been the strategy from the beginning, you can't deny it.
The bandwagon is saving the damn day for deviantART right now. It's a whole hell of lot more ugly than it needs to be, but they are making the right side of this debate impossible to ignore (even while not necessarily putting its best foot forward either).
It's funny, but :devfirelite-photo: wondered aloud:
"I wonder how many people are yellow so that they can get pageviews."
And I say, more power to 'em. Let them mix self-interest with community-interest, I think that's pretty cool.
Though, it's worth noting, it's not doing me much good. I've racked up 20,000 pageviews in four days (which I never expected), but none of those people have seen my art, cause it's been hidden.
Which kinda gets back to my fundamental point here: I don't want to benefit from a site that got away with such a shabby treachery against its founder. That's why my first action (after that day and a half of study) was to hide my work right away.
Notice a weird twist there. I didn't say, "I don't want the site to benefit from me," but that I don't want to benefit from that site.
I simply could not accept "business as usual." Certainly not for my own sake. Or my own convenience.
Certainly not at someone else's expense.
At one point, Subversive-imaginati said,
"I'm surprised though how many people have over-reacted to this whole thing."
And let me say plainly that I'm surprised how many administrators have UNDER-reacted to it. More on that in just a moment, cause now we're about to really get somewhere.
serpentinekiss made the comment that,
"Whats pissing me off more than anything is the fact that everything is completely based on rumours."
And therein we will find an extraordinary missing premise.
Now, we're gonna pull a really neat trick here, watch my smoke. I am going to cede numerous implied premises, meet you far more than "halfway," and pull it off without budging an inch from our own position.
"We," out here who I've been talking with, feel something has been done that's grievously wrong. And "you, in there," obviously don't agree with us. How could we fail to see eye-to-eye in such a profound way?
Here's where we'll cede you some ground:
I have never suggested that it's necessarily wrong to sack a company's founder. Or a site's founder. Or even an art site's founder.
Not once have I called that the crime. (Other, perhaps, than in a hasty reply, but never in my calls to action.)
Does that surprise you? It shouldn't. I've been corporate half my life, know how business is, and know that sometimes the time must come.
So if your position is "sometimes the founder has got to go," fine, I'll grant you that. That is not intrinsically wrong, unto itself.
Maybe, but not necessarily, so we'll cede the point to you.
...
I have also never personally suggested that "corporate" was bad for deviantART.
It's been a popular bandwagon for a long time, but I've never been attracted to it.
Surely a business has to stay in business, employees have to be paid, research has to be invested, and so on. And jeez I can't imagine what the tech costs are for DA, they must surely be astronomical.
I've been annoyed by some moves in the last year or two, sure, but have never climbed on any brigade to complain about them. "Corporate" makes sense for a site like this, on enough levels to challenge any knee-jerk stigma.
I'll cede you that, and all the issues associated with that. Even when I don't like 'em, I won't argue that they're wrong. Not unto themselves. Not necessarily.
Yes, the bandwagon bitches about things like above lately, and may be beside the point. But I'm thankful for the bandwagon regardless, because they've helped bring us here.
...
Now, in the interests of meeting you "more than halfway," it's gonna become more of a reach now.
There's a very important pragmatic position that you might be using to justify "business as usual" around here. And I don't agree with it, but it can make sense to me.
That premise is "shit happens."
Now, I personally think "shit happens" is lazy. I think it's nihilistic, caters too easily to convenience, and won't ever encourage anyone to live up to their moral potential. I think "shit happens" is a CROCK.
It could be argued that the prevalent conflict of political thought could be boiled down to "Shit happens," vs. "But it shouldn't."
But if your response to the recent indignation is "shit happens," I can't even argue with that. I can see your point of view.
I don't like it, but I can't tell you that you're wrong to embrace it. I will cede that premise in theory, while never adopting it personally.
So, you see, I'm cutting you huge amounts of margin here, to believe that "business as usual" is all well and good.
It is NOT necessarily wrong to sack a company founder.
It is NOT necessarily bad for deviantART to be a forward-looking corporation.
And "shit happens," though ugly as a rationalizaton, is a reasonable response when the eye's on a different prize, just trying to get on with "business as usual."
...
So, it was :devfirelite-photo: who asked, smartly,
"What exactly IS backing Jark?"
Well, we've regard it as demanding respect for him, that he hasn't been shown.
Specifically, demanding attention to the crime.
But what crime is left, if I've ceded all those above?
It's that there is a difference...
Between "shit..."
And "needless shit."
There is a difference between, "well, it couldn't be helped..."
And "we didn't even bother to try."
Now, remember what we're responding to, that serpentinekiss said,
"Whats pissing me off more than anything is the fact that everything is completely based on rumours."
That is patently false.
Last week, virtually in front of over a million community members, plain as day,
Scott Jarkoff was treated like SHIT.
And he did not HAVE to be.
"What exactly IS backing Jark?"
It is calling on this site, this community, this administration, YOU...
To acknowledge what has been so plain to so many of us.
Not based on rumor, not on speculation, with no plausible excuse, and no moral escape.
If someone had just tried, it could have been radically less ugly to him.
Five years of his life, spent sweating over this site, making a vision come true.
One admin, frustrated, says,
"Dude... once... can we just not hear that argument..."
And I say, not until you hear it to begin with.
Imagine if your dad came home, and this had been done to him.
Imagine if your best friend came over, and he'd been treated so shabbily.
Imagine if it happened to YOU.
Five years of the most profound artistic accomplishment of your LIFE, yanked out of your hands by someone who didn't give a damn how you felt about it?
"Tough shit?"
...
godofodd pointed out,
"I've been surprised by the actions of a number of members."
Well, suffice it to say, we have been surprised by the reactions of a number of the administrators, who think that "business as usual" is the appropriate reaction to an atrocity.
"In the best interests of the Community?"
A huge portion of "the community" does not agree.
Now, I have been cutting you adminstrators some slack, for being in the middle, for being somewhat in the dark about what's been going on yourselves. If you didn't "get it" before, we've seen how that's possible.
But that slack ended about six paragraphs ago.
If you are not sick to sinking from what you witnessed last week, plain as day...
That would just be utterly baffling.
...
But now, your reaction might be quite the opposite, a violent instinct toward retribution, that we've made you so uncomfortable. If we've made you squirm.
Perhaps the most extreme position was,
"Every one of them that fanned the flames should be gone."
You think?
Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and observation, and moral integrity are qualities less important in an art community...
Than your own personal comfort level?
Is moral clarity really so dangerous, to an art community?!?
Are you really that small?
I expect to be banned, I expect this to be gone, subject to the most ferocious gloss-over attempt made at DA over the last week.
I know what we're saying plainly here is extremely dangerous to "business is usual."
Hell, it's almost like art, isn't it?
Deviant art.
...
So Subversive-imaginati suggested that,
"There really is no clean way to deal with our current PR debacle."
Well, actually, THERE IS.
:devfirelite-photo: confirmed a strange position,
"I am not saying we deserve nor should know what the true story behind the Jark situation is..."
Why NOT?
And in a different part of the thread, Subversive-imaginati speculated,
"I suspect most of the members wouldn't accept any truth but what they've already decided is the truth."
Well, would you at least give us a chance?!?
You're so riled up because we're so riled up.
We're so riled up because we want answers.
And we've taken that out on you, to a very real extent...
Because we expect YOU to want answers too.
Why was Scott Jarkoff treated like SHIT?!?
Why are WE the only ones asking?
...
Subversive-imaginati pointed out that,
"It's also made people's attitudes and maturity pretty apparent."
And there, my friends...
Is the most important missing conclusion.
</i>
</i>
</i>
________________
If anyone cares, I spent about seven hours writing the assessment above.
Please GOD pimp this. We are trying to make a difference here.
Previously:
The Minimum Standard - the crime that was committed
A Plan for Action</i> - first drafts of discontent
DA is Under PROBE-ation - the latest action plan
Keep in mind I'm updating the Shoutboard every day or so. If this shows up in your DevWatch again, it's cause I've made some significant update.
Hey! What long-time deviant has the time and skill to do a complex jark-themed vector piece?!? I've got an awesome vision
but I don't have the skillz! 
Please do comment. It makes a useful difference.
</i>
