Dickery in yet another WPI group.
Nov. 26th, 2007 01:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hazliyaSo, due to things like Dad being in the hospital and the stress of a new school, I haven't been able to make it to Empty Set (my comedy group) rehearsals. I talked to Dan, the producer, on a few occasions, and it was concluded that I should take a break from Empty Set for a few terms. Apparently, he never told anyone else that, because this morning I got the following e-mail:
---
At our most recent meeting, it was brought up that you missed many rehearsals without informing anyone in advance. This isn't the first time this has happened; you were actually given a second chance with the group back in the spring after the same problems occured. While we understand that you may have had good reasons to miss rehearsals, people are so uncomfortable with your attendance that a vote was called (as is allowed for in the constitution, apparently).
Enough votes were cast in order to make it official that you're no longer a part of Empty Set.
We didn't know how else to tell you...sorry things turned out this way.
-Dan & EJ
--
So, without so much as a "hey, come explain yourself," they jumped ahead to a last-resort constitutional clause that revokes membership? What? But I stayed civil, and sent this back:
--
Okay! It's completely understandable.
If things clear up in my life enough that I'm able to come back to Empty Set, what's the procedure for that? Re-auditioning, or do I not get to come back?
Thanks for telling me, anyway.
---
Reasonable and calm, yes? I didn't give it much thought, as I was headed off to class.
---
Actually yeah, I think you'd have to re-audition. God...I never even really thought about any of this before now. Again...sorry :(. I'd vote for you - but, I guess you'd have to really work on making sure to tell people about missing stuff before it builds up like it did these past few terms.
-Dan
---
So, again, rather than talking, we have to go through formal procedures? There are eight people in the group, which is hugely informal in itself, and now we're "official procedure" nazis? We have an alum who is still a full-fledged member, and we've bent the constitution countless times before - even looking for enough loopholes to let in someone who has never been a WPI student (he only took one class).
So I collected my thoughts, sighed, and sent them a reply.
---
I have to say, it stings that I wasn't warned. I thought it was enough to talk to you about it in passing - like at strike for R+J, when I mentioned that I'd be taking this term off too. I think that I at least deserved a chance to come in and talk, and be present at the vote. Or defend myself. Or at least know that it was going on. It seems a little too clandestine, like telling me would have made it wrong to do. Or impromptu, like no one really cared too much about it. Either way, it's rough. And I've kept the lines of communication open, even though I wasn't involved with the group - I was on AIM and answered e-mails and calls. No one mentioned a thing. A quick e-mail just saying "Hey, we're concerned, come talk to us" would have been more than enough. Invoking constitutional procedures should, in my opinion, be a last resort when all else has failed. Not one person, outside you, has even mentioned my absence to me. And it hurts that a few people in particular in the group know just how destructive that jumping to constitutional clauses without discussion with the parties involved can be, but went ahead and did it anyway, knowing what they do. It seems, in retrospect, intentionally hurtful.
And if people were uncomfortable, no one mentioned anything to me about it. I saw almost everyone on a regular basis, mostly due to R+J. Also, I assumed that when I talked to you, you passed on the message and people knew. I know that it should have been my responsibility to e-mail the group, but I guess I assumed too much. That's okay, though - it wasn't your responsibility to tell anyone why I couldn't make it.
Agh, I'm rambling. In short, I feel hurt because I felt uninformed about something that has a good deal to do with me. And that in the particular manner it was gone about, while it may not have been intended that way, comes across as sneaky and cowardly. I'm sure you guys didn't mean for it like that, but you should be mindful of how it comes across.
Next time, please keep in mind the other person's feelings and the need to consult them before decisions are reached.
-Haz
P.S. I'm CCing the entire group as a way to open the floor for any of their questions that I can answer for them. I think it's a good idea, since there are apparently things I need to address that were never mentioned to me before.
---
It's clear, concise, and states what my problems with the situation were. Yes, it was dickish. And yes, they're being a bit hypocritical. But I love that group. I love hanging out, coming up with crazy ideas, and performing with them. I don't dislike a single person in there. I like them all very much, in fact, on a personal level. But the fact of the matter is, I wasn't even told by a single person, even though I saw them all the time, that there was even a problem. I wasn't made aware, and suddenly they've brought club legislation in and made it out to be a huge dramatic gesture.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elenuial is more angry about it than I am, having seen what club politics and dickery goes on better than anyone else. I'm just horribly surprised - I thought these guys were better than that. Or less awkward, I should say. And what really confuses me is that two people in the group are (or, until recently, were) SFS officers and involved in that huge debacle. They know what happens when people don't discuss things with the people involved, just skip ahead to the action part of it.
This just blows my mind.
I'll keep you guys posted on their responses. I really want them to save their skins on this one, I really do. I don't want to be disappointed in them.
Am I stupid for still wanting very much to be a part of a group that would do this?
-Haz
---
At our most recent meeting, it was brought up that you missed many rehearsals without informing anyone in advance. This isn't the first time this has happened; you were actually given a second chance with the group back in the spring after the same problems occured. While we understand that you may have had good reasons to miss rehearsals, people are so uncomfortable with your attendance that a vote was called (as is allowed for in the constitution, apparently).
Enough votes were cast in order to make it official that you're no longer a part of Empty Set.
We didn't know how else to tell you...sorry things turned out this way.
-Dan & EJ
--
So, without so much as a "hey, come explain yourself," they jumped ahead to a last-resort constitutional clause that revokes membership? What? But I stayed civil, and sent this back:
--
Okay! It's completely understandable.
If things clear up in my life enough that I'm able to come back to Empty Set, what's the procedure for that? Re-auditioning, or do I not get to come back?
Thanks for telling me, anyway.
---
Reasonable and calm, yes? I didn't give it much thought, as I was headed off to class.
---
Actually yeah, I think you'd have to re-audition. God...I never even really thought about any of this before now. Again...sorry :(. I'd vote for you - but, I guess you'd have to really work on making sure to tell people about missing stuff before it builds up like it did these past few terms.
-Dan
---
So, again, rather than talking, we have to go through formal procedures? There are eight people in the group, which is hugely informal in itself, and now we're "official procedure" nazis? We have an alum who is still a full-fledged member, and we've bent the constitution countless times before - even looking for enough loopholes to let in someone who has never been a WPI student (he only took one class).
So I collected my thoughts, sighed, and sent them a reply.
---
I have to say, it stings that I wasn't warned. I thought it was enough to talk to you about it in passing - like at strike for R+J, when I mentioned that I'd be taking this term off too. I think that I at least deserved a chance to come in and talk, and be present at the vote. Or defend myself. Or at least know that it was going on. It seems a little too clandestine, like telling me would have made it wrong to do. Or impromptu, like no one really cared too much about it. Either way, it's rough. And I've kept the lines of communication open, even though I wasn't involved with the group - I was on AIM and answered e-mails and calls. No one mentioned a thing. A quick e-mail just saying "Hey, we're concerned, come talk to us" would have been more than enough. Invoking constitutional procedures should, in my opinion, be a last resort when all else has failed. Not one person, outside you, has even mentioned my absence to me. And it hurts that a few people in particular in the group know just how destructive that jumping to constitutional clauses without discussion with the parties involved can be, but went ahead and did it anyway, knowing what they do. It seems, in retrospect, intentionally hurtful.
And if people were uncomfortable, no one mentioned anything to me about it. I saw almost everyone on a regular basis, mostly due to R+J. Also, I assumed that when I talked to you, you passed on the message and people knew. I know that it should have been my responsibility to e-mail the group, but I guess I assumed too much. That's okay, though - it wasn't your responsibility to tell anyone why I couldn't make it.
Agh, I'm rambling. In short, I feel hurt because I felt uninformed about something that has a good deal to do with me. And that in the particular manner it was gone about, while it may not have been intended that way, comes across as sneaky and cowardly. I'm sure you guys didn't mean for it like that, but you should be mindful of how it comes across.
Next time, please keep in mind the other person's feelings and the need to consult them before decisions are reached.
-Haz
P.S. I'm CCing the entire group as a way to open the floor for any of their questions that I can answer for them. I think it's a good idea, since there are apparently things I need to address that were never mentioned to me before.
---
It's clear, concise, and states what my problems with the situation were. Yes, it was dickish. And yes, they're being a bit hypocritical. But I love that group. I love hanging out, coming up with crazy ideas, and performing with them. I don't dislike a single person in there. I like them all very much, in fact, on a personal level. But the fact of the matter is, I wasn't even told by a single person, even though I saw them all the time, that there was even a problem. I wasn't made aware, and suddenly they've brought club legislation in and made it out to be a huge dramatic gesture.
elenuial is more angry about it than I am, having seen what club politics and dickery goes on better than anyone else. I'm just horribly surprised - I thought these guys were better than that. Or less awkward, I should say. And what really confuses me is that two people in the group are (or, until recently, were) SFS officers and involved in that huge debacle. They know what happens when people don't discuss things with the people involved, just skip ahead to the action part of it. This just blows my mind.
I'll keep you guys posted on their responses. I really want them to save their skins on this one, I really do. I don't want to be disappointed in them.
Am I stupid for still wanting very much to be a part of a group that would do this?
-Haz
