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)

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)

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)

Perhaps put a page on the YSTV Wiki in the Members Section? Kate 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Here's what I'm going to do for now... finish the article in the level of detail it's at, then probably remove great chunks(!) I'd like to have a complete version for myself if nothing else, and the full version can maybe go on the YSTV Wiki. Then we can work out what's the best way to approach it on here. I definately think we need to be careful, for James' sake... Does that sound OK? Rowan 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gets my vote! Anyone else? Kate 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Er, though, the history of this page will have all the old edits of it, so anyone could go through to find what you removed. We'll have to find a way of clearing that somehow (even if it means wandering into the database...) Rick 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point! Could you look into that?? Pretty please? Make a database backup first though! Oops, you're not Tole... ;) Sorry Tole! Rowan 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell, 3rd time trying to post this but people keep getting in before me and it says I can't! I wasn't concerned about the emails per se (although Kate makes a good point about the personal side of it), just the level of detail which seems a bit excessive and could be seen as a bit personal towards James. One of the things he was concerned about the most was his name being "sullied" on campus in his future endeavours if it made it into the papers (although as he later proved at Halifax he was perfectly capable of doing that himself what with all the "president" nonsense). However with jobs etc it does become a bit more problematic. I'm sure it'd be possible to summarise each event more consicely (whilst still keeping the key nature of each dispute in so as to demonstrate how we all got pissed off so quickly, such as standing up in the station meeting so it was quicker in return for drinks - remember that?) and I'd be happy to do that myself if the page was unlocked. Also to save him a bit of face the title "Criticism of Richard Ash" is a bit strong and seems to be covering a fairly minor point thgat at least doesn't deserve it's own section.

I'm not knocking the effort you're putting in Rowan - I think we can all say we appreciate the effort you're giving this! (even if most of us should be working...) Jonathan 17:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon - no offence taken, I absolutely want and need everyone's input here. I think we're reaching some consensus. Will it be OK by everyone if I sort it out tomorrow? (though I might do it tonight...) Rowan 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)