Fail?

[UnfairBear]

Ok so this has been bothering me for a while, and I only kinda collected my thoughts on it now. It's partially from the discussion in the Triad Announcement thread but it's also kinda seperate from that too.

A while back Dan posted his 'Triad Trauma' video. In it, he said that any Triads in which one member wasn't active or pulling their weight had failed. He said that there was nothing wrong with failing, that it was admirable to have even tried the whole thing.

Firstly, fair enough saying there's nothing wrong with failing; there isn't, and it is admirable to try with a risk of failure. But. I do think there's something wrong with stipulating that someone has failed when they have not even tried.

Fair enough saying that the people in the triads had a responsibility to contact people and to keep them involved etc etc, maybe in that sense its ok to say that they tried and failed, at least as a triad. But what about the triads who were never actually able to get in contact with one of their members? In that case, they have tried and failed to contact their members, and that is all they have done. They havn't all talked to eachother, they don't have a name, in fact, the only reason they are called a triad is because someone (Dan or one of the First Gen triads) said so. I don't consider that a triad. Maybe it's an attempt to become a triad, and that attempt has failed, but the actual people in the triad aren't the ones trying in that case. So I think, while it's logical to say that the triad as a THEORY has failed, I think it's totally unfair to say that the members have failed.

So I'm probably mostly bringing this up cause it might happen to me and my other triad member... but yeah, Dan, If you call me a failure for this I'mma metaphysically punch you! And anyone else for that matter. Hrmph.

[/rant]

[ninjaearl]

Freelance triads, go! <_<

[UnfairBear]

That's not the pooooiiiiint >.<

[MCPuppet]

I completely agree. If you cannot contact someone in your Triad, there is no way you can encourage them to participate.
Your triad may fail because of this, but in no way are the other members responsible.

[ninjaearl]

lol I know.
It is unfair to be called a failure because someone else didn't make an effort. It's not really a failure if you were never given the option to succeed in the first place

[Johncoyne]

I personally hate the term "fail" because it connotes that the people aren't any good.

[UnfairBear]

Apr 9, 2010 19:53:05 GMT -5 Johncoyne said:

I personally hate the term "fail" because it connotes that the people aren't any good.

YES. This too! Listen to this guy!

[T3CHN0B4BBL3]

I'm just gonna quote what I have said in the other thread:

I don't see the big deal in pairing up the people left out of being in a triad and the active people from triads that failed due to inactive members. I'm sure there will be plenty of people to make sure we have 21 triads altogether.

I'm not saying they should be freelance, just take the people who did not get chosen and the people who had to drop their triads due to inactivity, and randomly make new ones.

As of now, one of my members hasn't contacted me yet and I have spoken with my other member in Skype. I know we still have a week but still, I would like to get the show on the road.

[UnfairBear]

Ok, while I totally agree with you, my point in posting this was to protest the whole 'you fail' thing, rather than to discuss how triads should be organised, which is pretty much being covered in the other thread.

Iyam not trying to be mean I swers, I just I just I just.. here, have a cookie *cookie* >.>

[Breepop]

Dan's making a POGOTOK soon, guys.

He'll probably address this. Or he won't. But he might.

[T3CHN0B4BBL3]

I know, but as of now, I'm currently 'failing' and would like to defend myself haha. But I'll take a cookie anyways! =]

[UnfairBear]

Apr 9, 2010 20:09:26 GMT -5 Breepop said:

Dan's making a POGOTOK soon, guys.

He'll probably address this. Or he won't. But he might.

Heee beetteeeer *shakes fist*

Apr 9, 2010 20:10:27 GMT -5 T3CHN0B4BBL3 said:

I know, but as of now, I'm currently 'failing' and would like to defend myself haha. But I'll take a cookie anyways! =]

You so don't fail. You win the human race. AND you have a cookie.

[ninjaearl]

I also don't like the term fail, since it implies there was a chance to succeed that was missed. If your members don't respond though you never missed the chance cause you never had it, and so did not actually fail. but yeah *waiting for next pogotok*

[Rob]

So then this is a semantical matter, aye? I mean, the triads in question certainly didn't "succeed" here. So if they didn't succeed, what did they do? I think that no matter what word(s) you use, it means the same thing. That's probably why Dan was so persistent in saying that "to fail" is not "to be bad"; rather, "to fail" is "to learn." That's my take on the matter.

[UnfairBear]

By that logic you could say "If you didnt "fail" then you succeeded". So why couldn't he just say they all succeeded? and that meant "to learn" =P

I don't think it's semantics. By saying someone fails, you're saying they tried. But if they didn't try, then you're telling a mistruth. If they DID try, they may have succeeded. But if they didn't try, then you're judging their actions when they havn't even done anything. If they didn't try, they can't have failed, they can't have succeeded and they can't have learned anything.

[Rob]

But I mean, they volunteered. They said they were committed by doing that. I think right there is when they've "tried" to be a triad.

Also, I was genuinely asking you to tell me what you think they did if they did not "succeed." Would it be that they succeeded in some places and failed in others? Or something else? It is for this reason that I believe this boils down to a semantical argument.

Though, it looks like you're getting at saying there are 3 options: succeed, fail, do nothing. To me, since they volunteered, they definitely don't qualify for "do nothing." Since they were unable to fully form, they definitely didn't "succeed." I'm honestly asking what it is they did then. I'm looking for another option. In doing so, I feel that this is definitely a semantical argument.

[ninjaearl]

Apr 9, 2010 20:38:58 GMT -5 Rob said:

But I mean, they volunteered. They said they were committed by doing that. I think right there is when they've "tried" to be a triad.

Also, I was genuinely asking you to tell me what you think they did if they did not "succeed." Would it be that they succeeded in some places and failed in others? Or something else? It is for this reason that I believe this boils down to a semantical argument.

Though, it looks like you're getting at saying there are 3 options: succeed, fail, do nothing. To me, since they volunteered, they definitely don't qualify for "do nothing." Since they were unable to fully form, they definitely didn't "succeed." I'm honestly asking what it is they did then. I'm looking for another option. In doing so, I feel that this is definitely a semantical argument.

It's not about whether or not the no-shows failed, it's about whether or not the rest of the triad deserves to be labeled as a failure as a result of the third person's lack of following through

[Rob]

Apr 9, 2010 21:27:00 GMT -5 ninjaearl said:

Apr 9, 2010 20:38:58 GMT -5 Rob said:

But I mean, they volunteered. They said they were committed by doing that. I think right there is when they've "tried" to be a triad.

Also, I was genuinely asking you to tell me what you think they did if they did not "succeed." Would it be that they succeeded in some places and failed in others? Or something else? It is for this reason that I believe this boils down to a semantical argument.

Though, it looks like you're getting at saying there are 3 options: succeed, fail, do nothing. To me, since they volunteered, they definitely don't qualify for "do nothing." Since they were unable to fully form, they definitely didn't "succeed." I'm honestly asking what it is they did then. I'm looking for another option. In doing so, I feel that this is definitely a semantical argument.

It's not about whether or not the no-shows failed, it's about whether or not the rest of the triad deserves to be labeled as a failure as a result of the third person's lack of following through

Ah, I see. Well, I think the fact is certain that the triad failed. The blame for the failure need not apply to the 2 that tried their best to make it work, though. If the other 2 exhausted all options within reason, then they themselves certainly are not failures. But the triad still failed.

Sorry if I took this in another direction, but, hey, it's better that all the thoughts are out there.

[chelseeyuh]

Ok, I'm going to be terse about this: I agree, but I don't know if we can do anything about it. The 7 original triads can't just do anything they want, and it seems like changing the triads falls under the "things we're not allowed to do" category. I 100% agree what everything you said, but that really doesn't matter. We are held up to some standards that we must uphold, whether we agree with them or not. Please don't take our not replacing inactive members personally. Let's just wait until the pogotok comes out, and see if anything changes from that.

[Johncoyne]

^ agrees.

Filling in triads is against the point of what it's all about. There's always going to be another round.

I just don't like the word "Fail" to describe it.