As with many of my peers there's a lot I've wanted to say here but I've chosen to wait until my chimp is under control. I think one of my main issues, not just with the Exemplar changes but with the programme leadership in general, is the lack of openess, transparency, engagement, consultation or anything I'd recognise in a business context as “leading people through change”. I'll try to illustrate why with a few quotes below.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

Do I realize that I'm essentially saying “trust me”? Yes. Is that a big ask? I hope not. But I realize that's a bridge too far for some people, and that's why I asked Damian to look over my shoulder challenge the results.

I'm afraid it is too big an ask. We've never met, and all I have to judge you on is your reputation, the written word (which as well all know is highly ineffective), and past observations of your online interactions.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

You are perceiving it wrong, or at least, if it was the general perception in some areas, it wasn't based on facts. When Foils were discontinued from GPs, compensation from the TOs increased to compensate. In the time immediately following, many GPs were the highest compensated ever. There were a few GPs where I came home with multiple cases of product. Then TOs started pulling back the compensation. Some gradually, some abrubtly.

But, GP compensation was GP compensation, and Exemplar was something new and different and unrelated to GPs at all. It was ‘extra’.

When we communicate we encode then transmit a message which is received and decoded. I'm not sure what you intended to say here, but I hope your impact did not meet your intentions. What you said was above. What I read is as follows: "You are perceiving it wrong". You are wrong. I'm not interested in understanding, discussing, debating your point of view. Your reality doesn't match mine and I dismiss it. It is wrong.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

Also, does the amount of criticism/concern you are currently seeing from judges approach what was anticipated?

Yes and no. So Im going to be real human here for a moment. I knew that making this announcement people were going to be upset and I was going to need to take the brunt of it. That's my job, my responsibility. This announcement was about 2 weeks late because I kept finding other things to do instead of posting it.
However, I feel that this is the right call and best for the health of the project. Dealing with frustrated Judges isn't worth it otherwise.

If you were a local L2 I'd be holding this up as exemplar-y, but as an experienced L3 heading up the Exemplar project and representing such a high-level collective of judges the programme needs you to do better. Once again, I feel your language is telling. "I knew that making this announcement people were going to be upset and I was going to need to take the brunt of it." We need you to be reaching out to the programme to openly and transparently discuss the issues, seek peoples views, invite solutions and constructive discussion. Instead a closed group of mystery judges in an ivory tower have made a decision behind closed doors which they refuse to explain to us, insisting it's for our own good.

I used to think it would be impractical to consult the whole programme, but a Google Form or Snapsurvey can capture the qualitative and quantiative information you require with relative ease.

Originally posted by Kevin Binswanger:

Keep in mind when you discuss this that there are other factors in this decision you aren’t and won’t be privy to.

Indeed, but why aren't we privy to it? This lack of trust breeds resentment and a lack of trust in the leadership making these decisions. This toxicity is not healthy for the programme and only seeks to reinforce the divide between the leadership and the majority of the programme's members; small wonder that disengagement and malcontentment run rife.

Originally posted by Nicola DiPasquale:

The award here is the recognition, not the foils. Please remember that fact as you continue onward in your journey as a judge.

Despite widespread assertions to the contrary? This feels like the upper eschelons of the programme closing ranks and towing the corporate line again rather than engaging, listening and responding to the concerns of the programme.

…

I mentioned prior online interactions, and I wanted to mention this thread, about RCs selling their Imperial Seal judge rewards before other judges had access to them in Exemplar waves, as another example of some of the leaders of the judge programme when their views were challenged.

…

I do have some (very strong) views on the wave 12 changes, but I haven't shared them here. I don't feel as if the exemplar project team is in listening mode - see below.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

Nearly* every concern I've seen brought up in this thread was either already addressed prior to the review or addressed during the review.

I hope I've kept this reply quite clinical and emotion free. That I've decided to self-censor should be feedback in itself, and I hope the reasons why are obvious.

To anyone I've misinterpreted I apologise. As I've said, what we transmit isn't always what people receive…

EDIT: Any edits are for grammar and spelling, not for content

Edited Steve Ford (Dec. 20, 2017 04:01:22 PM)

Steve makes numerous good points. I endorse all of his post. I hope he will receive the considered response he deserves.

(He is also one of the most calm, collected, considerate, and caring judges I know, and is not given to baseless rants. Or any rants.)

To be honest, I love the Vanguard token. But chose one Vanguard from thousands of judges? Come on, that's like you get a Kaladesh invention from a single booster peck. Can we have more Vanguards in a single wave?

Originally posted by Steve Ford:

I mentioned prior online interactions, and I wanted to mention this thread, about RCs selling their Imperial Seal judge rewards before other judges had access to them in Exemplar waves, as another example of some of the leaders of the judge programme when their views were challenged.

Hi Steve,

as I was the original poster in the thread you have mentioned, I feel obligated to express myself.

In my life, I care very much for transparency. The Judge Program has evolved into a structure which, while based on volunteer work, resembles some aspects of a corporate culture. The leaders of the program may disapprove, however they are like managers in a big global corporation. There are thousands of certified judges after all (8066 registered in Judge Apps at the moment). My view is that the high level Judge management used to lack a clear approach to the transparency and communication towards their “ordinary subordinates” (exaggeration).

However, since my last year's rant about Imperial Seals, I can personally see that the things are changing. Maybe too glacially for someone, but they ARE. Have you for example noticed the initiative from Riccardo Tessitori to inform all judges about what is being discussed and worked upon among high level judges?

I beg every judge to stay patient. I understand that for some of you the point of view of the program is getting narrowed to bad feelings with the recent news. I wish that you take it positively, as a kind of a cleansing process. Do not forget that the main and crucial principle of the Judge Program is the drive for perfection via iterative approach (an endless loop of feedback, analysis and implementation of the findings).

I have the following to say to the aforementioned “judge management”: You are on the right track. Please, take more steps for your brothers and sisters in arms to bring the “rule of transparency”. I may a bit utopian here, but please consider at least some of these:

1) Communicate what is the long term strategy of the Judge Program. What are “the pillars”.

2) Communicate what is the mid term strategy of the Judge Program. That means, what are the concrete actions, initiatives and projects to build and support those pillars.

3) Communicate regularly. For example, we have Magic Judge Monthly - why not include news similar to Riccardo's of what is going on?

4) Stop the obfuscating practices. We are honest with you. Will you do the same for us? Why is almost everything relevant kept behind the closed doors of secret Judge Apps forums and projects and the public learns about the outcome only after everything is done and decided? What is the purpose of having L3-only forums? Do you really believe that your colleagues of different certification levels are not capable of comprehending what is being said there? Are they lesser beings just because they are not L3? Is it a kind of fear of “riots”? Are you afraid of WotC? In case you see an upcoming issue for the program why don't you just present the options and ask the community in a poll to express their informed decision? Are you afraid it would destroy the Program (and a source of nice income for some)? Is it just a lack of available time to do it?

5) Part of the official Judge Program strategy should contain stances towards topics like “Diversity”, “Customer relations towards players”, “Customer relations towards TOs”, “Customer relations towards WotC”, “Sustainable financing and management of judge resources”, “Digitization of Judge Program”, “Digitization of Magic as a game”, “Restructuring of the Program - removal of levels, introduction of skill trees”.

6) The strategy should be easily reachable by anyone. Everyone who visits our Internet main page should come across the principles. Every judge should emanate the message. BTW. why is the no main page, when someone goes to www.magicjudges.orgs - this should be the main point of contact, this should be the display window of the Judge Program.


In conclusion, be patient and be transparent. Gossip kills.

Have a nice holiday season, everyone!

Milan

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

brothers and sisters

Please consider avoiding such dual expressions that invisibilize agender and non-binary people who do not identify neither as men nor as women. Please favor epicene words and gender-inclusive language instead.

Good point, thanks for that, Loïc.

Originally posted by Steve Ford:

Indeed, but why aren't we privy to it?

Hey Steve,
I don't have the answer to your question.
But it's not unusual, when you have information you're unable to communicate, to also be unable to communicate why, or even to clearly state that you're unable to communicate them.

For this reason, while it's a very frustrating experience to not get answers to some questions, I also learnt that asking these questions is only increasing the frustration on both sides, and not solving anything.
I'm not saying it's the case here, but it's something to keep in mind in general interactions with other judges.

- Emilien

Edited Emilien Wild (Dec. 21, 2017 04:52:10 AM)

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

For this reason, while it's a very frustrating experience to not get answers to some questions, I also learnt that asking these questions is only increasing the frustration on both sides, and not solving anything.
I'm not saying it's the case here, but it's something to keep in mind in general interactions with other judges.

That does not mean that we should stop asking such question, though.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to read my comments, for all of the replies, discussion and debate, and to those of you who are still contemplating. Alas, I have to work this evening but I hope to reply to you all in the fullness of time.

Originally posted by Bowei Shi:

To be honest, I love the Vanguard token. But chose one Vanguard from thousands of judges? Come on, that's like you get a Kaladesh invention from a single booster peck. Can we have more Vanguards in a single wave?

Cool idea! It would be awesome to have a Vanguard for each judge-region!

Just going to poke my head in here and say that the limiting factor on
Vanguards is the art production, both time and cost. The secondary
limiting factor is the communication time with the person becoming
Vanguard, because the info has to come back from them in a timely fashion,
and I'm personally figuring translation overhead into that communication.

Right now the art production is a significant but not overwhelming part of
the total cost. Making 27 vanguards every quarter would be a huge circus
of getting art arranged and info from 27 people. It would cost at least
four times as much to order 27 pieces of art as the whole cost to produce
tokens *including *international shipping. In addition to all this, it
also can't be done in time - to get quality art like rk's it is a 3-4 hour
process from a very fast professional artist, and that means we would need
to pay him for probably two full weeks of work every quarter, and he does
not have that time to commit to something like this at any cost. This
means it would have to jump to multiple artists. Managing the production
of 108 pieces of art a year across multiple artists with hard production
timelines is a job for a full time art director, not something I can get
done alone. It's not something I would even trust to the structure of the
judge program. Anything that big and complicated needs an employee,
someone who is getting paid for their time and has that time dedicated to
the job at hand.

If Vanguard ever does expand, it will do so slowly. (And this is not
promising anything about it ever getting bigger at all.) Just one Vanguard
and token production for it is a fairly large amount of work, my best guess
is 30+ hours per quarter for at least the first couple of quarters until
the process is regular and more streamlined. And expanding to one per
region is impossible unless we somehow come up with the budget to hire
someone on full time and also get a budget of at least $12k/year for the
art alone. It's just not feasible with the resources at hand.

I've spent some time looking at this, and the goal is to start with
something slightly difficult but doable (4 production cycles of one piece
and shipping to 26 other RCs per year), and see how that works out, with no
hard commitments to anything huge and complicated until we are sure the
most straightforward implementation works well. And we might be at the
straightforward implementation forever, because having smaller that works
is better than something bigger that fails, in my opinion.


I'm deliberately avoiding commenting on other things until and unless I
have time and mental/emotional capacity to do so. Everything on this
thread gets read, and I know Bryan and I have talked about a lot of it.
Bryan is ultimately in charge of Exemplar - I'm just a project member with
an idea and a desire to get some work done to mitigate some problems with a
necessary change. So don't think you are being ignored here. It's just a
lot of work to sensibly respond to this stuff and not look like concerns
are being dismissed. They aren't, but life is messy and not everything can
get done, as my illustration of budget and time and throughput breakdowns
above demonstrates.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Thanks for the explanation Rob! :)

Originally posted by Steve Ford:

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

Do I realize that I'm essentially saying “trust me”? Yes. Is that a big ask? I hope not. But I realize that's a bridge too far for some people, and that's why I asked Damian to look over my shoulder challenge the results.

I'm afraid it is too big an ask. We've never met, and all I have to judge you on is your reputation, the written word (which as well all know is highly ineffective), and past observations of your online interactions.

Sure. I realize that. For context, I was talking about people trusting me not to abuse the randomization method to do something shady. I know that some judges don't really have a reason to trust me (there are 7000+ of you) so I've constructed a system that has several checks and balances. As far as the randomization method, it was vetted by a subset of the Exemplar Team, and shared with the PCs and RCs for discussion. Its coded by Judgeapps developers and they generate the list based on the methods. They are currently doing dry runs so we can see what the result profile looks like before we do it for realz. Then there's another Judge outside the Exemplar team looking over my shoulder to confirm that I “stick to the list” and don't go making changes based on personal whims.

Originally posted by Steve Ford:

When we communicate we encode then transmit a message which is received and decoded. I'm not sure what you intended to say here, but I hope your impact did not meet your intentions. What you said was above. What I read is as follows: “You are perceiving it wrong”. You are wrong. I'm not interested in understanding, discussing, debating your point of view. Your reality doesn't match mine and I dismiss it. It is wrong.

I don't disbelieve he was told that Exemplar was somehow supplimental GP compensation. I spent time reading his post to understand what he believed, and attempted to correct his misconceptions. You are correct that I wasn't interested in a debate, because that specific item wasn't a matter of opinion or belief. He said “I understand its was supposed to work in way X. Am I correct?” He asked if his understanding was correct. My reply was “that understanding is incorrect. Here is how it did work and does work”.
If someone comes on the forums and says “I was told we don't shuffle a library when a player gets L@EC.” we don't debate if that is the correct solution. We point to the document and say our IPG, our “first source”, says otherwise. It's not dismissing the Judges opinion. Its correcting a factual error.

Scott Marshall also posted that the judge was incorrect in his understanding. Scott was one of the L5s at the time involved in the initial discussions regarding GP Foils going away. I would consider him a “first source” on the topic. I've also been around for a while, and have quite an intimate understanding of Exemplar and how it formed and how it's used. I feel confident asserting I am a “first source” for this type of stuff as well.

Originally posted by Steve Ford:

We need you to be reaching out to the programme to openly and transparently discuss the issues, seek peoples views, invite solutions and constructive discussion. Instead a closed group of mystery judges in an ivory tower have made a decision behind closed doors which they refuse to explain to us, insisting it's for our own good.

I used to think it would be impractical to consult the whole programme, but a Google Form or Snapsurvey can capture the qualitative and quantiative information you require with relative ease.

This is one of those paragraphs where Im gonna sound like an asshole no matter what I say, so please read it assuming a tone gentler than the words sound. I understand the desire for transparency. I update the Exemplar blog relatively frequently, with updates and changes in advance. I spend more time publicly and privately talking to judges about exemplar than probably any project lead ever has in the history of the program. (Highly subjective and not actually measured ;)

However, this is not a decision for the whole program to make. It is not a topic where all information is to be shared.
I did discuss the issues, sought peoples views and had constructive discussions with people. It wasnt a massive group, but it represented a large range of opinions and people motivated to find workable solutions. Yes, those discussions were behind closed doors, thats not a bad thing. Its just a thing.

Originally posted by Steve Ford:

I mentioned prior online interactions, and I wanted to mention this thread, about RCs selling their Imperial Seal judge rewards before other judges had access to them in Exemplar waves, as another example of some of the leaders of the judge programme when their views were challenged.

While those foils were in the Exemplar Wave immediately following the conference, they were not “Exemplar Foils”. The Exemplar Program quite literally had nothing to do with it.

I went back and looked at my comments on the thread you mentioned. I still stand by them. “First Happens” It always happened. The ‘leaders of the program’ you referred to tend to be older judges and remember things like the feeding frenzy around ‘The first GP following a foil packet rotation’ or ‘The PT the packs were introduced’ where groups of people got foil packs a week or three ahead of other judges, and those came out in a slow trickle..a few each week. Thats a perspective they come from. It was just a thing that happened and you accepted it. Someone has to be first. Newer judges are much less likely to have experienced that, where the Exemplar Team and the RCs work together so that releases are as close to simultaneous as logistics allow.
Its a difference of perspective and experience.

I will also point out, that nothing like it has happened since. ;)

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Hi Steve,

as I was the original poster in the thread you have mentioned, I feel obligated to express myself.

In my life, I care very much for transparency. The Judge Program has evolved into a structure which, while based on volunteer work, resembles some aspects of a corporate culture. The leaders of the program may disapprove, however they are like managers in a big global corporation. There are thousands of certified judges after all (8066 registered in Judge Apps at the moment). My view is that the high level Judge management used to lack a clear approach to the transparency and communication towards their “ordinary subordinates” (exaggeration).

However, since my last year's rant about Imperial Seals, I can personally see that the things are changing. Maybe too glacially for someone, but they ARE. Have you for example noticed the initiative from Riccardo Tessitori to inform all judges about what is being discussed and worked upon among high level judges?

Hi Milan. I must confess that the linked thread is shorter than I remember it, and I feel as if my reply to it is missing. I could provide a clinical analysis of that thread as I have with this one, but I will limit myself to one comment that I feel supports my earlier assertions; specifically that some leaders of the judge programme are not open to challenge.

I know that you spoke passionately and from the heart in your post, and you expressed frustration I feel is similar to my current feelings about the behaviours of leaders who do not seem to* consider the impact of their behaviour on others. Whether or not you were factually correct about the source of the foils was largely immaterial to me as I shared your views and those expressed later by some colleagues that a significant number of judges learning about the Imperial Seal foils because someone was selling them on eBay was a faux pas.

*I say seem to because I cannot possibly know, only extrapolate from what I read, and it's only fair to acknowledge the danger of that.

The first reply to your post is some 6 hours later from arguably the most famous and influential judge in the programme, and I found the tone hostile and belittling. It was as if the poster felt personally attacked (which I can understand, and why Bryan deserves a personal reply from me for his considered response) and went straight on the attack. There was so much I wanted to say in that thread, but the behaviours of leaders left me scared to reply, and with a feeling that I cannot challenge or express concerns to a number of former L4 and L5 judges lest I be met with outright hostility. If anyone thinks this last sentence is nonsense then I refer you back to Thomas Ralph above.

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

Hey Steve,
I don't have the answer to your question.
But it's not unusual, when you have information you're unable to communicate, to also be unable to communicate why, or even to clearly state that you're unable to communicate them.

For this reason, while it's a very frustrating experience to not get answers to some questions, I also learnt that asking these questions is only increasing the frustration on both sides, and not solving anything.
I'm not saying it's the case here, but it's something to keep in mind in general interactions with other judges.

Thanks Emilien. It's almost like a catch-22 situation; if I ask for clarity that the <insert name here> team feels it can't give then it increases feelings of distrust and frustration, but if I don't ask then I'm still frustrated and I don't feel trusted. Alternatively, we could have this public discussion as a programme over why we can't talk about these things, which I personally think would be much healthier for the programme and remove some of the toxicity and dissent. With respect to exemplar I would have preferred “I can't tell you because it's commercially sensitive and WotC have sworn me to silence over some aspect of the foils” or “I can't tell you because there's a strong suggestion people are gaming the system to get extra foils and we can't undermine the other work we're doing in conjunction with exemplar changes to address that”. Both of these at least feel more honest and healthy. :)

Originally posted by Rob McKenzie:

Just going to poke my head in here and say that the limiting factor on
Vanguards is the art production, both time and cost. The secondary
limiting factor is the communication time with the person becoming
Vanguard, because the info has to come back from them in a timely fashion,
and I'm personally figuring translation overhead into that communication.

Thanks for taking the time to go into the detail Rob. There's obviously a lot going on here and now that we know the detail we have a much better idea of what are and are not viable options when we offer comment. This is exactly the kind of transparency I like to see.

Originally posted by Rob McKenzie:

I'm deliberately avoiding commenting on other things until and unless I
have time and mental/emotional capacity to do so. Everything on this
thread gets read, and I know Bryan and I have talked about a lot of it.
Bryan is ultimately in charge of Exemplar - I'm just a project member with
an idea and a desire to get some work done to mitigate some problems with a
necessary change. So don't think you are being ignored here. It's just a
lot of work to sensibly respond to this stuff and not look like concerns
are being dismissed. They aren't, but life is messy and not everything can
get done, as my illustration of budget and time and throughput breakdowns
above demonstrates.

Thank you for your well-considered reply. I can tell from the tone that you have put some thought into it, and the same applies to Bryan, and you deserve an equally well-considered reply. Please feel assured that I do not feel dismissed :)

Bryan, thank you for your reply. I can tell that you've taken some time to reflect on what I've said and to compose a suitable reply. I suspect you've spent some considerable time doing so, and after the things I've said above that deserves to be acknowledged. Contrary to your fears you don't come across as an asshole.

I wanted to start this post with an apology, because it goes against the grain for me to call things out publicly and not address them face-to-face or via a review or PM. I sought advice from colleagues first and I tell myself it was important for this debate, but it still sits badly with me and I apologise. Being the recipient of such treatment it would be normal and natural to feel angry, attacked, frustrated, under-appreciated or any number of other emotions, and so it's to your credit that you've ruminated on my comments and responded in such a measured and professional way. This is the kind of leadership I expect. Thank you.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

Sure. I realize that. For context, I was talking about people trusting me not to abuse the randomization method to do something shady. I know that some judges don't really have a reason to trust me (there are 7000+ of you) so I've constructed a system that has several checks and balances. As far as the randomization method, it was vetted by a subset of the Exemplar Team, and shared with the PCs and RCs for discussion. Its coded by Judgeapps developers and they generate the list based on the methods. They are currently doing dry runs so we can see what the result profile looks like before we do it for realz. Then there's another Judge outside the Exemplar team looking over my shoulder to confirm that I “stick to the list” and don't go making changes based on personal whims.

And for the record I don't distrust you to implement the agreed-upon system. My worry is that the system has been agreed upon for reasons I can't understand and the team won't share with me. The reasons why the team won't share with me can't or won't be shared with me. It doesn't engender trust.

I know there's lots at play here, and lots of things on both sides of the scales. For the day-to-day running of the judge programme we can't expect judges to be consulted on every little detail, and for this reason we have a hierarchical structure with experienced and capable people in charge of projects and spheres. I would argue, though, that exemplar effects so many of us and is such a significant source of discontent and online argument that it's an exception to that structure.

Likewise, there are some top-level things to which I cannot possibly contribute and a professional structure with commercial management decisions is entirely appropriate, such as WotC sales strategy. One notable exception might be the John Lewis Partnership business model where every member of staff has a say in how the business is run.

And you wouldn't want anyone but the Captain issuing orders on a nuclear submarine, would you? David Marquet's 's TED talk on leadership is well worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

As it stands I'm frustrated that I disagree with a decision that's already been made that I have no chance of influencing let alone changing. Could we have used a Google Form to capture some quantitative and qualitative feedback around exemplar and proposed changes? I maintain that it was viable. I believe that I have offered some ideas that are at least worth discussing.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

If someone comes on the forums and says “I was told we don't shuffle a library when a player gets L@EC.” we don't debate if that is the correct solution. We point to the document and say our IPG, our “first source”, says otherwise. It's not dismissing the Judges opinion. Its correcting a factual error.

Scott Marshall also posted that the judge was incorrect in his understanding. Scott was one of the L5s at the time involved in the initial discussions regarding GP Foils going away. I would consider him a “first source” on the topic. I've also been around for a while, and have quite an intimate understanding of Exemplar and how it formed and how it's used. I feel confident asserting I am a “first source” for this type of stuff as well.

Fair point. I accept that it's reasonable to correct factual inaccuracies, but the manner in which one does so has an impact. Our words, tone etc. have an impact, and I think you've implicitly acknowledged that by taking the time to reflect on what I've said and carefully craft a well-worded response to it with very deliberate language. To be fair to you and Rob, the tone of your replies encourages me and lets me know that you are both willing to listen to challenge; sadly I cannot say the same for some of your peers - rightly or wrongly - for the reasons I have illustrated above.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

However, this is not a decision for the whole program to make. It is not a topic where all information is to be shared.
I did discuss the issues, sought peoples views and had constructive discussions with people. It wasnt a massive group, but it represented a large range of opinions and people motivated to find workable solutions. Yes, those discussions were behind closed doors, thats not a bad thing. Its just a thing.

Taking you at face value, we have a system where we have to trust people we don't know at the top of a hierarchical system to make judgements they think are in our best interests without understanding why. After those decisions are made they aren't explained to us. If they don't make sense we might come to a forum post and question them but an answer of “I can't tell you that and I can't tell you why I can't tell you that” is very frustrating. It leaves those of us further down the programme feeling frustrates and disconnnected, and with a sense that the leadership is disconnected from us.

How many ideas are lost due to this idea that all of the decisions have to be made at the top? How much of the programme feels disengaged and that their opinions, thoughts and feelings aren't valued? I know which version of the programme I'd rather see.

The whole programme can't make the decision, because that's clearly not viable - someone has to decide, and I appreciate that sits with you. It's a heavy burden to hear and you're never going to please everyone. I know it's not black and white, and there's a lot on both sides of the scales, and I don't envy you that responsibilty. All I can say is that I would feel much more comfortable knowing that more people had been given a chance to have their say and decisions were being made on the widest possible consultation, and the reasons why those decisions having been made being clearly explained as best as possible.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

I will also point out, that nothing like it has happened since. ;)

To your credit.

…

Thank you for your consideration.