Posted by Scarlet Olivia in Question for Parker Ticket and All Candidates
This election has been an unusual one for me, just when I think only one person is going to run, two people slip right in. I’ve stayed mostly quiet, but this first question is to Parker.

This is a good question and one I have expected to be asked so thank you for asking it.

Why are you running conservative?

Every time you ran Sidney you ran with TJ Morgan who was all for drastically radical and sweeping changes of natures that left people speechless. Yet here you are, running to change hardly anything at all and leave the status quoe undusted. So I find myself confused, where did all that drive go? I remember the last time you two ran, it was a memorable run when Archer was running for prez.

I am not one who likes labels of conservative or liberal. However I have ran with TJ in the past who had more radical views. If you look back in those debates I usually tempered some of the things TJ suggested and took a more moderate view. Its why TJ asked me to run with him several times. Because I had the ability to take a moderate view and privately challenge his more radical and sometimes hot tempered reactions. It did not always end up there because TJ was TJ in those elections and his passions many times overrode his ability to remain focused on the issue at hand. That’s all I will say on that as TJ is a friend and I respect his passion if not always the result. I myself would get caught up in it all defending TJ the person and lose sight of where it was all going.

Frankly I have held more radical ideas in the past. Especially about big government. However being in many discussions and in many project discussions I have learned that STF is unique and the systems we have created or compromises that we made in the end function well. A good example is the Gamemaster department. Even going back a year I felt that it was too convoluted and did not leave the door open to CO’s taking on that role with a lot less red tape and processes. In many discussions involving mostly Gene and Linds I learned that I might not have been right even though I did take the time to study it all. I wanted radical change and the fact is we arrived where we did by small logical changes based on the facts at the time and in general. Then I watched as the GM issue would right itself and if my premise had been right then how was it getting better at times. I took all that in and based my assumptions on the facts. That the GM issue was not a fault in our rules or system. These rules, which I read over several times, were functioning and did not need radical reassessment. Rather the fault lay in our membership numbers. Which I have spoken on before and that remedies, like continuity in the current MAC initiatives, might help fix.

I then translated that into other areas I had looked at and had other views and found that it applied there as well. So I want our Admin, if elected, to concentrate there. People grow and I feel I have as well. In that growth we must admit where we failed before and work toward changing in those areas. I think I have and that is why I am more “conservative” in this election. Not because I don’t think new initiatives are needed or might be needed in the near future but because we can fix a lot of the ones we currently have by well thought out but sometimes slow to achieve membership number initiatives. Our governing rules/regs I do not feel are the priority right now because they are working for the most part.

So the Drive is still there but redirected. I keep giving the same example but I want to give it again. Its not about the status quo. Its about putting more apples in the apple cart. Because turning it over and over to see what we can change just loses apples out and we never arrive at the destination. I want to get as many apples into that cart in a logical fashion while still being able to arrive where we want to go. I hope this answers your question.

For all candidates this is my question. What are your plans to keep the Academy active and to deal with the high turnover rate of activity that oft leaves the Academy struggling to keep going and worse, struggling to get more than say, one or two new members staying in the club?

Hopefully my questions are okay, this election seems to be so much more subdued than what I am used to lol.

—Scarlet

Well one I am happy its subdued because sometimes we associate chaotic as active and they are not the same thing. You know the Academy has been argued so many times I lose count. I have served as a CO, CNS, XO and DH in the Academy. We went through a huge discussion about the Academy less than a year ago. We have gone through the Mentoring subject as well. I feel the Academy is similar to the GM issue. Its a good system. People will join and leave in any Club. If you look at historical Clubs you will find attrition is always high for new members. The glow wears off quickly. It comes down to numbers. If you input enough people into the Academy then you will output enough mainstream players who are more likely to stay. We have to give the resources, new members, to the Academy for it to be successful. Again that is why I am so big on continuity. Lets permit initiatives to run their course. Evaluate them, take the good from them and move to other ideas that build on them. Were not going to get what we want from them in a day. Neither are we by changing the Academy with some new radical proposals without first inputting the resources it needs to succeed. All we will do is arrive at the same point again.

So I hope this answers your questions. Thanks.

Sidney
Sid/Tony