Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-1073312-20140816013529/@comment-5172448-20140817024254

Disclaimer : This is My Analysis and I make assumptions. If any assumptions are wrong then just disregard the Assumption.

As a user who doesn't get into arguments, these are my beliefs on the faction system and the resolution of arguments. First of all, I believe that the faction thing is here to stay. In any social group there are bound to be people you feel closer to than others, whether this is because of similarities, shared interests or anything. No factions implies that everyone is equally close to each other, and thats ludicrous given how different we all are. Of course the problem is then how to prevent factions from being power blocs which shout each other down just because they are in separate factions. The answer to this is that you can't, because people will stick to their beliefs and those who have the same beliefs and will oppose those who have antithetical beliefs.

First of all, I need to make it clear that I don't believe that arguments are a bad thing. It would be absolutely horrible if everyone had the same viewpoints on everything. What is bad, is when an argument boils out of control and ends up with ad hominem and lots of hurt feelings as well as nothing resolved. The problem then becomes, how do you resolve arguments peacefully so that coexistence is possible and nobody gets pissed off.

This needs to be done by bilateral communication by both parties. This has to be done from the start to prevent the argument from festering into something bad. If there is a problem, confront it immediately - don't just ignore it until it grows into something horrible. State what you want, and why you want it. Ask the other party what they think you're trying to say and if they have completely misinterpreted what you are trying to say, tell them exactly what you mean. Both parties should do this.

Now that both parties know what each other wants and share the same interpretations, they can reach a compromise. Everyone has good intentions or at least benign ones - I doubt anyone on the wiki does anything expressly to screw someone over. My analysis of the Gigaquadrant Conflicts situation is that Angrybirds sent out the UDB post as an in-universe reaction. He was never going to involve the MCA in the war, he just wanted to continue with the trend of realistic political reactions, and his UDB post was a realistic political reaction.

However, he did this with the assumption that the MCA users would be alright to get involved in GC even if it was just responding to this text with another realistic political reaction. What he did not know, however, was that the MCA users did not want to get involved period (not even in fiction).

Angrybirds did not have any malicious intention of sabotaging the neutrality of the MCA and dragging in users who wanted to remain uninvolved. However, I think that was the interpretation of the MCA people of his UDB post. On the other hand, Angrybirds should have asked the MCA people if they were alright with him replying to the nonaggression pact thing in fiction. However, to his disadvantage I don't think he had any idea that the reaction would be anything like this.

The conflict could have been resolved so easily. The MCA people could have made it explicitly clear that they did not want to get involved in GC even in-fiction. Angrybirds then would have known that they didn't want him to respond to the turndown of the Nonaggression pact. If Angrybirds asked for additional clarification regarding whether they would reply to an in-fic reply to the french reaction to the declining of the NAP and the MCA people said yes, then he could have done it with no repercussions. Problem solved. All sides would then have gone about doing fiction.

I've only had one serious controversy(not an argument)in my entire time in the wiki and it started not through anyones fault, but because of miscommunication. This was when Oluap vented on the Tyranny being OP (Perfectly Valid Point to Make) and me having Pathogis without his permission and settling into Borealis without his permission (Perfectly Good Reasons to Be Angry). These were all problems that could have been settled if we communicated to each other earlier. Yes I agree the Tyranny is overpowered, however thats only so it could be main antagonist of a story that involves pretty much the entire fictionverse, and a story that ends with it being killed off (I'm not sure if that was clear at the time). Admittedly the DT is overpowered in every possible way, so that gripe was perfectly valid, though the OP becomes justified once one knows why its there.

Now about the Pathogis, I originally asked Xho about making a Klowpar overseer since they were a Cult species and then he said ask Oluap. I asked Oluap and he said ask Xho. I interpreted this as saying go for it you have permission. The reasoning is this. I interpreted Xho's ask Oluap as "I have no objections check if Oluap has any". I Interpreted Oluaps's ask Xho as "I have no objections check if Xho has any". The two statements implied that there were no issues and I had permission. Again, that problem would have been averted if I made my assumptions clear to all parties involved.

About Borealis, I think I asked Jo if I could settle down there and she said either Yes or Ask Oluap(i forgot). Being impatient, I interpreted that as a yes and settled down in Muvogura. Why settle in a sector right next to the Junction? Explicitly for the reason that for AD which I had been telling everyone would kick the Tyranny out of it's extragalactic holdings and I wanted the Junction to kick the Tyranny out since I wanted to collaborate with Oluap. Once again, an issue caused by miscommunication.

TLDR : We all have good intentions, we should just communicate better.