Neike Taika-Tessaro
Archon
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 126
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: Leiren Trelliven |
 |
|
Leiren Trelliven, co-founder of the Dark Arcadian core concepts, and known by no other name, was declared Dark Arcadian Citizen 16:23 UCT, Sunday, 28th of October 2007. The following log has been posted with her permission (timestamps are UCT+1).
| Quote: | Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:19:16): The following test may take an hour of your time. As you have already taken half of one before, I may choose to cut this short in your favour depending how things go, and your own wishes in the matter. Do you have this time at your current disposal?
Leiren Trelliven (16:19:26): Yes.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:21:51): In hopes you do not tire of the question - the name you last chose for Dark Arcadian purposes was "Leiren Trelliven". Are you still happy with this name, or do you wish to submit another? (Submitting another can occur now or at a later date, if you are unhappy with your name, then you should state so now, regardless of knowing alternatives off-hand.)
Leiren Trelliven (16:22:13): Yes, I'm happy with that name.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:22:41): I can skip the question if you're still interested in Dark Arcadia, can't I?
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:22:52): *doesn't really want to invent new words to describe its lethargy*
Leiren Trelliven (16:22:53): Yes lol
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:23:05): Wonderful.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:25:36): In that case, I'll proceed. Leiren, I would like to use our personal situation at the moment in this, but if you're uncomfortable answering questions in its regard, because you feel it will make me biased, or that I will not accept answers that do not paint me in a good light, then please object.
Leiren Trelliven (16:26:06): That's fine with me, please proceed.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:26:32): Thank you. *gathers thoughts, then*
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:29:05): Much has already been said about the topic recently gone awry. You have expressed your opinion that you believe that both sides have not acted in accordance to the ideals they subscribe themselves to (the "Paradigm Shift" codex and basic ideal). Would you be so kind as to state what you perceive separates the involvees (yes, both of them) from their own rules of conduct?
Leiren Trelliven (16:32:39): Well, to begin with, we can start with Lilamara's reaction. Probably the best reaction in this situation that would have been within those Codex standards was to express her dislike of the situation in a more calm and rational manner. Saying something along the lines of, I don't think that's a good idea because many still find it a sore spot, might have been better received on your end, and over all. Probably in light of that response you would have entered some debate with her over the idea, which could have led to a decision everyone could be happy with.
Leiren Trelliven (16:35:44): In your case, I think the particular aspect that stuck out to me as non-Codex abiding would be that you were equally as infuriated as she was by her response, which is notably understandable. However, neither of you chose the more... Shifter minded way of working out the details. Lilamara with her language, you with your 'stay away from me.' I really think the Shifter Codex above all is there to help keep OOC relationships, at the least, civil. I think that the Codex is there to encourage us to take our OOC grievances with another person and work them out in a rational, calm manner so that we can maintain good OOC relationships even though we may have differences of opinion IC or OOC.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:39:59): Two questions:
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:40:06): Pertaining to the concept of having chosen the path of rational debate, instead of choosing to apply the first rule of the codex, do you believe it could have caused more harm than good in any one perceivable hypothetical situation? (To elaborate: this is not meant to redeem the choices made - but to understand the depth of your view.)
Leiren Trelliven (16:42:08): I think if, from the start, there had been more rational debate that there wouldn't have been more harm than good. I think things would've been sorted out clearly on both sides and both sides would've been able to see where the other side was coming from. I just.. don't feel that if we started off rational, we would've led to any other conclusion than a rational decision in the end.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:43:02): The second - the true founding ideals of the group in question was never publically announced in a non-contestable way. You have expressed a view on what the basic ideal should be - do you think there should ever be any one authority in the matter, or should it be left to interpretation much like a work of art? Do you think either variant would be a harmful path to take - and why?
Leiren Trelliven (16:46:00): I think both could be harmful, to be honest. If we stick with one authority then we're likely closing off our minds to other points of view which really could defeat the entire purpose of the group. On the other hand, if we leave it simply to interpretation we have no real foundation to stand upon. I think defining the core principle while acknowledging that there will be differences of opinion on how the codex is perceived is going to be the best way to go, simply because by doing so we are neither completely open to interpretation nor are we locked into one solid mind set.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:47:53): Continuing that thought, how do you expect differences of opinion to be handled, should disputes arise, to avoid a splintering of the group?
Leiren Trelliven (16:52:21): Ideally I would hope everyone would find it within themselves to at least try to see the other side's point of view, even if they don't agree with it. I think that really is key in a group like this. If we start out with the intention to at least... resolve the situation with an open mind and the will to reach a solution, then we have a lot going for us in that we can resolve the dispute. Where as, if we are simply determined to strictly adhere to one point of view, we're doomed to fail at resolution from the start.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (16:55:19): Once more continuing the thought: what do you suggest should be done if either the other point of view cannot be seen despite the intentions you describe, or this intention is simply not present?
Leiren Trelliven (16:58:09): I suppose that if the intention is not present.. or the disputers cannot at least agree to disagree, the best thing would be a non-interaction such as you chose. If the subject matter is that great that no resolution can be resolved after debate, then it is unlikely that the two (or more) disputers could remain on good terms with the other. Hopefully a complete non-interaction would stem the problem from becoming too large.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:01:55): All right - I will not pry further into that particular subject, as it is extensive, and we have only limited time at our disposal, but thank you for the answers you have given. So - moving on. What do you believe redeems the involvees of the mentioned dispute as friends?
Leiren Trelliven (17:04:51): I think the ability to at least try to see the other person's side plays a big part, and the ability to say "you feel this way/you see it this way, that's your decision and I don't necessarily agree but I can respect that decision." Basically, I think you have to be willing to work towards remaining friends more than getting your point across. It is usually safe to assume both sides at least know what your point of view is. So making the decision to remain friends despite the varying points of view is the key factor.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:07:51): It seems I was unclear with the wording of the question. Do you want me to ask it again, rephrased, or move on to the next? Moving on will not mean that this answer is held against you, if my questions are not clear enough, then this is my responsibility. I would be willing to extend our time by ten minutes if you wish it to be rephrased, providing you want that.
Leiren Trelliven (17:08:11): Please, ask again.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:09:56): You are still friends with both involvees, even though they have betrayed their own ideals. What has redeemed them as your friends, if anything? If nothing has, how much has their reputation suffered in your eyes?
Leiren Trelliven (17:13:45): I think I'm a bit disappointed with both reactions, though I can clearly see both sides of this situation and validity of both sides feelings on the matter. I think the redeeming quality in both has been that I can see the impact this has made on both sides. It has brought out the more raw emotions on both sides, and that, for me, is a good reminder that both sides have feelings that were trod upon in this situation, which is what really led to the disagreement.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:15:29): Lastly, why do you think I chose the topic I did for the purpose of your citizenship application?
Leiren Trelliven (17:16:57): I think probably because it wasn't an easy "open and shut" topic. I think too, that you chose it because you wanted to see if I could answer you very truthfully about something that could potentially touch a nerve with you, and might not be something that would necessarily make you... happy.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:18:33): Do you have any of your previous answers to expand on? We have another ten minutes in case you do.
Leiren Trelliven (17:18:56): Um. No, I think they all stand.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:23:47): In that case, I grant you Citizenship of the meritocratic nation of Dark Arcadia. [...] You will formally be known to your fellow Arcadians as Leiren Trelliven henceforth.
Leiren Trelliven (17:24:08): *big smile* Thank you!
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:26:46): I normally give an analysis of answers before I grant Citizenship. I will do that in a moment, providing you wish it. I do want to ask what you thought of this round of questions, though.
Leiren Trelliven (17:27:48): lol Sure, I'd love to hear. And I think you chose a good topic, it was a good way to see whether I could hold up for sure.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:35:44): Regarding the first question - you went into depth about what you would have liked to see as opposed to what did occur. [...] the question was about the nature of the deviation. In doing so, though, you allowed further questions to be strung to it, though.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:40:26): In those, then: You're very much an idealist. This is what made me have to pry so much, in fact. You like to think about things how they could or should be - you may be a bit lacking in the practical department. Even in the last question, you avoided saying who should do the enforcing... as in, who, abstractly, would have the right to make these decisions and act on them. Of course, ideally, the involvees themselves would enact it upon them. Ah, the glory of bottomless pits. I'll leave you with this one, but what I said continues to hold true - it's an extensive subject.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:41:33): Re: redemption. I'm not sure my reactions to Lilamara can be classed as emotional in the truest sense. But that's being nitpicky in ways I don't even want to be nitpicky. *squirms* :P
Leiren Trelliven (17:41:54): lol
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:46:15): [...]
Leiren Trelliven (17:48:11): [...]
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:48:32): That's all of the analysis / expected answers / whichever you wish to call it.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:49:11): Leiren Trelliven... I believe my status must be adjusted.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:49:17): Wouldn't you agree?
Leiren Trelliven (17:49:28): *nod*
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:50:53): *wonders if you know what you're nodding about* :)) It is not my part to declare you Archon, good lady, as this is not a hierarchy in the classical sense, but you have my blessings to call yourself this.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:51:37): Humbly, I resign. If you wish me to continue with the application forms, however, you are, of course, free to delegate this job to me. *bows*
Leiren Trelliven (17:51:52): I think you're most qualified to do so.
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:52:51): I thank you for the honour of serving you this way. I hope to ensna- ahm, accept Whit Porter into our ranks at next opportunity.
Leiren Trelliven (17:53:11): Hehe. I hope you're able to do so!
Neike Taika-Tessaro (17:54:17): I must ask you one last question, Mrs. Trelliven - would you object to the log of this application test being posted on our forum?
Leiren Trelliven (17:54:30): Not at all. |
|
|
