Alex T.,
Thank you for the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unprofessional ultimatum. You are correct, I have not responded for the past five days. Of course, I was out of town and away from e-mail contact for three of those days and almost physically incapable of walking around my apartment and staying awake on another of those days. So, basically, I took a day to sort my thoughts out. I am sorry if that is too much time for your schedule. But, like I said, thank you for the ultimatum. It helps me to sort out exactly how I wish to respond.
First, for the sake of our audience, allow me to provide all of the background that has lead to this e-mail.
My initial DB comments that were placed on Colin's application (at low visibility so Colin wouldn't have to deal with them):
Colin is a wonderful player. In fact, he is one of the very rare few in this entire organization that I feel can be trusted with anything. Therefore, I have little concern about how he will use this item.
My only true concern is that the MST office is usurping the power of the ST chain. This is one of many instances of this recently. If a player went to any other game, and the presiding ST thought the player should earn an item, it would require approval (possibly only low, but still approval). Yet, in this case, the MST has decided to simply "make it be". Thus, the power of the VST is usurped and instead of an approval, a notification exists. This is NOT in the spirit of organization, the ST hierarchy, or the Camarilla Handbook (even if the letter of the rules allow it).
Sadly, this isn't even the first time this has happened recently. This same usurping of power has been implemented with increased XP caps for convention attendance. Again, rather than make it approval, the MST office has declared it to be a given. I find these actions deplorable and hope that the MST office starts acting more responsibly, soon. This is an insult to the organization, creates bad precedence, and is a bad example to lower level STs.
Second, your response to my comments (some formatting to improve readability):
Michael,
I'll try to address your points one-by-one.
> My only true concern is that the MST office is usurping the power of the ST > chain.
The MST office is part of the ST chain.
> Yet, in this case, the MST has decided to simply > \"make it be\".
Wrong. This is a storyline effect which took place as part of an unusual storyline at the Golden Ticket LARP.
In addition, if you dislike its effect, it is SPECIFICALLY written so the ST can disallow its use at any game as they see fit, without giving any further reasons.
> Thus, the power of the VST is usurped
As already demonstrated above, this is wrong.
> instead of an approval, a notification exists
The notification is for an effect that took place due to a storyline. If you re-read the effects, you will notice that it in fact requires the approval of the VST EVERY TIME the player wishes to use it BEFORE and AT *every game.*
> This is NOT in the spirit of organization, the ST > hierarchy, or the Camarilla Handbook
I am afraid that you are making unsupported generalizations. Please feel free to quote specific instances, but until then your accusations are simply untrue.
> This same usurping of power has been implemented with > increased XP caps for convention attendance. Again, > rather than make it approval, the MST office has declared > it to be a given.
This is also incorrect. Convention attendance XP over cap is awarded by the regions or nations that run the conventions in question, or rare one-off events such as the Golden Ticket LARP. As such the awards are made by a region or nation.
> I find these actions deplorable
I urge you to retract that accusation.
> and hope that the MST office starts acting more responsibly
I once again urge you to retract the accusation of irresponsible actions.
> This is an insult to the organization
As above.
> and is a bad example to lower level STs
And once more.
Your comment suggests significant displeasure that is - judging from your accusations - based on lack of knowledge of the system and the processes of the Camarilla. I urge you to reconsider and rephrase those statements as they create an unfortunate precedent of directly insulting other members of the ST chain.
If you wish to take this to private email - which I suggest you ought to - please contact me at camstoryteller@...
And, finally, your e-mail to me 5 days later:
Mr Strauss --
it has been five days since I replied to your two comments in the DB regarding notification USA-EC-LA-0504-43644. You have failed to reply to the comments so far and to explain your highly inflammatory and unprofessional accusations and the ways in which you levelled them and you have failed to take this to private communication, which I had offered to you.
I am giving you an additional three days, until Friday the 22nd of April to provide a satisfactory explanation for your behaviour to me. This will give you a total of nine days since Mr Strauss' initial accusations and my subsequent replies.
Your replies will be free of further accusations. They will explain your failure to maintain an effective and cordial line of communication and your failure to focus on issues pertinent to the notification. They will explain why you disregarded the built-in mechanisms in the notification in question which gives Storytellers full 'denial' authority over that item. Inability to provide sayisfactory responses will not only be considered a failure to perform in your positions as Assistant Domain Storyteller, but also an unwillingness to do so. Such an unwillingness is equal to a permanent inability to cooperate with and work within the Storyteller chain of the Camarilla.
I await your responses.
--------------
Well, now I will give you my responses. First, allow me to say that you have
no authority to limit how I may respond. As an officer, you must be willing to
accept criticism of how you do your job, just as I must, too. Your responses
show that you are incapable of seeing criticism in anything but the worst
possible light. You refer to all of my statements as accusations, when many of
them were simply points of fact or criticism. Your inability to differentiate
shows a blindness that is unfortunate for one in your position. Your rapid
acceleration of what should be a rather minor issue into a major issue stinks
of brinksmanship and is in violation of the code of conduct. You have taken
actions that have increased discord between us rather than attempting to
decrease it.
Now, let me respond to your database response. You claim that any ST may disallow this item in their game, and therefore it is equivalent of an approval. That is a dangerous precedent to set and you are beginning to walk a slippery slope. There ARE differences between approvals and notifications that may be denied entrance to any game. With approvals, the VST has the right to deny an item outright. And, if denied, it cannot enter any game anywhere. By making this a notification, you have usurped that right of the VST (and DST and RST). Furthermore, while not all VSTs are top-notch, the role of the VST, when deciding on approvals, is to consider whether the item is reasonable for the character (mechanically and thematically) and whether the player is responsible enough to have the item. By removing that authority, you remove that safety net which other STs rely on to improve the national game. It is all good and fine to say that any ST may prevent the item from entering the game, but if they have never met the player and are unfamiliar with the how the player plays their character, they have no real way to judge whether to allow the player to bring in the item.
You attempted to defend your decision (multiple times) by claiming that any ST may deny it, and yet you never responded to my initial statement, which continues to be true: The granting of this item is NOT an approval it is little more than a poorly disguised dictatorial directive. Without consulting with ANY ST in his hierarchy (yes, you are in the hierarchy, but you can't consult with yourself), you simply granted Colin something that would normally require master approval. You can twist it any way you want, but no matter how you twist it, that is NOT an approval and, even if allowed by letter of the rules, is in violation of the spirit of the rules.
In your database response, you requested that I quote specific instances of rules you have broken. Unfortunately, you failed to note that I did not state that your decision broke the rules. I stated that it broke the spirit of the rules. As an officer, I would hope you understood the spirit of the rules and that I would not need to explain them to you. Still as a Camarilla member for almost a decade, and someone who has been a part of the ST hierarchy for at least half that time (if not more), I have a strong understanding of the spirit of the rules and would be happy to explain them to you. In simplicity, you are granted (nearly?) unlimited authority in your role as MST. This authority is granted so that you can make decisions to strengthen and protect the international game (when necessary) without having to consult with or gain approval from anyone. Yet, the game itself is set up with MANY checks and balances. This is because the game is best protected by multiple STs with limited authority. Since you do have unlimited authority, you must use it guardedly and only when it is in the best interest of the international game. It is possible that it is in the best interest of the international game that Colin have something that is basically impossible to get, but if this is true, then it should be permissible in every game. The fact that you allow any ST to prevent its entrance into their game proves it is not essential to welfare of the international game, and thus you should not be exerting your power to make it so.
Now we get to the XP policy. You claim that the over-cap XP awards are awarded by the nations or regions. Unfortunately, without an MST policy stating so, the national and regional STs do not have the authority to simply award over-cap XP. It is the policy, created by your office, detailed in the addendum (and over ST lists) that allows national and regional STs to do this. You cannot hide behind lower level STs when their authority only exists because you created a policy to allow it to exist. In fact, recently on the EC-ST list, you stated that regional awards of over-cap XP are AWARDS no matter what region they originate from and do not require approval. You may have mistated and meant not to say that, but it does not appear so. So again, that which requires approval in most circumstances (when one does not attend a convention) is automatically awarded in a different circumstance. This is the policy that I disagreed with (and condemned) and you made this policy. Thus, you are the appropriate person to give feedback to relating to this policy. Allow me to quote again:
> I find these actions deplorable
I urge you to retract that accusation.
> and hope that the MST office starts acting more responsibly
I once again urge you to retract the accusation of irresponsible actions.
> This is an insult to the organization
As above.
> and is a bad example to lower level STs
And once more.
You comments indicate that you believe every one of these statements is an accusation. Again, I state that you are overreacting and choosing to see my statements in the worst possible light. My first statement is an opinion and nothing more. I have the right to criticize your actions and the right to state my opinion. My opinion is that your actions were deplorable. That is not an accusation. The next two lines have some implied accusations, but are also opinions. Obviously you disagree with them. Unfortunately, instead of trying to consider why I would have such an opinion, you simply reacted defensively and demanded retraction. That response would be irresponsible if I gave it to a player and it is irresponsible when you give it to me. For the final line, I consider it a statement of fact. STs have reasonably strong authority (within their scope). By demonstrating a willingness to use your full authority in a situation which does not call for it (in my opinion, and from the comments on EC-ST, I believe the opinions of other STs as well), you show, through example, that similar actions are reasonable for STs under you. From years of being an ST, I have learned that not only must an ST follow the rules more carefully than other players, but they must APPEAR to follow the rules at all times, too. Even if you follow the rules, the appearance of cheating (or nepotism or powergaming, etc.) is just as bad actually doing wrong. Either one creates a state of mistrust that is hard to dispel. Even if your policies are reasonable (which I do not believe is true), your actions appear unreasonable and thus you may as well have acted unreasonably. Lower level STs WILL see your actions as a precedent that they make flex their authority to the extreme (even when it is not called for) and that will hurt the global game.
And now I can respond to your letter. As I noted earlier, my response was put at Low Visibility. I felt that it was appropriate for STs to see it, but I did not think Colin should be included. As I have explained above, I did not disregard the build in mechanisms for "denial" in the application. I read them, and I considered them unreasonable, an abuse of discretionary power (discretionary being the important word here), and lacking the strength, safety nets, and mandate that is inherent in a true approval. That my response was not pertinent to the notification is true and I admit it fully. It is, according to the Handbook, a Minor Offense and deserving of an official warning. If either the US NST or EC RST wishes to deliver that warning, I will accept it without debate or appeal. As for whether I was cordial or not, I believe I have already covered that. I believe that my statements were sharp and to the point, but were made calmly and with care given to being as non-combative as possible given their nature (note the use of MST office in my initial comments instead of Alex). From the combative nature of your first and second posts and the threats that you made towards me, I have to assume that it is your nature to take any criticism as an attack on you personally and immediately assume any criticism in the worst possible light. And finally, allow me to deal with your outright threat. You have threatened to remove me from the ST chain permanently. You have threatened to do this based on a conflict regarding your policies. This is the first conflict we have ever had and was a reasonably tame conflict (until you chose to aggravate the situation). This is not only uncalled for, but it is a flagrant abuse of your power and in violation of the Camarilla Membership Handbook and its directives on disciplinary action. At best, it is a Moderate Offense in line with: "A verbal or written personal attack in a public forum such as in front of witnesses or on an e-mail list". Though, I would argue that the database does not constitute a public forum. As such, the consequence would most likely be a brief suspension or a small loss of prestige. Though, I have argued and firmly believe that my statements were not as unreasonable as you claimed them to be and that they are in part mitigated by your overreaction. Thus, I request from you an apology. Your threat to permanently remove my ability to be a storyteller is out of line, in violation of both the letter and spirit of the Membership Handbook, and creates unnecessary hostility in a situation where such hostility previously did not exist. I believe that your statements can only be taken as harassment, threats, and goading. While I feel these things should be punished, I am willing to accept a written apology and leave it at that.
Sincerely,
Michael Strauss
US2002023736
ADST Resources PAD08
Member since 11/95