Talk:Ructions

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

I have judged that quoting emails is the best way to give an impartial account, as written records are the only solid thing we have. However, Jonathan argues that this may not be wise as it could come across as a bit of a character assasination. I see his point, but am not sure whether I agree or not. Opinions would be greatly appreciated!!! Rowan 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For those of us interested in the events, this full account is brilliant. However, for those newer to the society, they may not be so bothered by the blow-by-blow... but then again, how do you simplify it without making it sound even worse? What we've got at the moment is an accurate account of the event (I trust!), which might be better than cutting it down and making it biased. Rick 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting idea... could we maybe have a simpler version here which is more of a brief summary, and doesn't go too much into what James did "wrong" (only says that his leadership style was not in accordance with the opinions of some members), then have some kind of YSTV members only page with more detail? I must admit I am worried about James' future collegues/employers/etc googling him and finding this - much as I disagreed with the way he handled some things at the time I really don't want to harm him or his prospects... Rowan 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know Rowan will endeavour to make this as impartial as possible as we're long past point scoring, but my initial worry would be with the publishing of personal e-mails that James never intended to make public (at least outside ystv) without his permission. Although it in a way gives him a voice in an article where he can't give his side of the argument, it's also feels a bit invasive. I think if this was pared down to state just what happened instead of the reasoning behind why it happened that would give it a more impartial feel overall. Kate 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)