Yokiria wrote:Jocospor wrote:That's a very reasonable assumption. We responded to it in our initial telegram to delegates. Here's what we said on the matter:
"Another issue is that many will accuse this proposal as being along the lines of an eye for any eye. We will speak honestly. Certainly, if we hadn't have had a history with I.A., we probably wouldn't find ourselves writing this proposal. That said, most authors commending and condemning have a history with their subjects, and we also hope that the points raised within the proposal can be seen as going beyond some sort of protracted feud."
An apt response overall, with an exception I'll get to later. The points raised within the proposal are hit-and-miss, in my opinion. Some are objectively good rebukes of the material in the Commendation, others are questionable. With a well-written proposal overall, that houses a few questionable rebukes of key materials in Commendation, outside factors are what will push me off the fence and into a stronger stance.
Now-confirmed suspicion that you came up with this repeal idea based on a personal grudge, and the failure of your "most authors have a history with their subjects" line to convince me of the harmlessness of such intentions, pushes me off the fence and against this proposal.
If these other authors that commend and condemn based on personal animosity were also as obvious about it as you are, Jocospor, I would not support their bills either.
Unless we had similar motives, of course. IA has never crossed me, though, so that doesn't apply here.
It does not look like we shall sway you on this matter. Hopefully others believe us. We thank you for your input on this matter, it's appreciated.