Intergalactic Summit

See, I thought that too... but then someone told me attention seeking behavior was bad.

Now, now, everyone has a right to publish their own propaganda.

Meanwhile, Imperial Impressions reports filthy Gallente degenerates literally eat their own babies while fornicating with animals. Check in tonight with our analysis of the situation! Topics will include: is it really bestiality if one is genetically modified to look like an animal? And then is it really cannibalism since they are no longer human? At least we can all agree they look silly.

Let's see if I follow you on this. You're saying that we shouldn't act as if something's amiss when a Capsuleer posts an article about how mean things said about that same Capsuleer overshadows the deaths of tens of millions, including seven million of his own countrymen?

Because it stands to note, dear sock puppet, that Soter is indeed bringing to public attention an article that claims that someone saying mean things about Soter overshadows the death of seven million Gallente citizens.

There's marketing when you want to attract attention to a cause, and the good you're doing, and then there's marketing to feed (or protect) your pride and/or fill your own emotional voids.

It's maybe sometimes a little hard to distinguish between the two, and there definitely gets to be ego involved even in some places it really shouldn't be. Pride's sneaky. It comes with success, even if what you've been successful at is staying humble.

So, maybe a little pride's kind of inevitable. I'm not sure it's ever really desirable, either way, though, since it doesn't take a lot to turn it into something awful.

Maybe sometimes I'm harder on people than I maybe need to be. Maybe it'd be better to just withhold judgment entirely than to beat up on someone for who they've ended up being, even if it's surprising and sad. It seems like I might have hurt Mr. Syagrius a little that way. There's a part of me that feels unhappy about that; I've never really set out to be cruel. There's another part, though, that says, "Good. He was a fool. Let him suffer for it."

However I look at it, that's pride. Maybe it's making a fool out of me, and I'll be the one suffering.

Probably Ms. Priano has stuff like that going on too. Probably most people do.

And then there's going the other way, and needing praise all the time to validate who you are. (Not that the two are mutually exclusive.) It's not like lacking self-confidence or needing encouragement is necessarily a big problem, but needing to fill a hole like that is maybe kind of a major problem in a leader. It seems like that's maybe more what's going on with Mr. Soter-- though maybe I shouldn't speculate so far. Motives get tangled up, pride's sneaky, and it's hard to tell, but, this doesn't really seem very ambiguous to me.

For me, I guess, the border is often a willingness to admit limitation or fault. Being able to accept that we're wrong, or that there are things much more important than ourselves (even if we might have some trouble focusing on them), seem like kind of strong clues to a reasonably well-adjusted ego. (My predecessor weaponized this kind of honesty, though, so it's not an absolute thing.)

Eh ... sorry. Kind of going on a little, and rambling a lot. It seems like there should be a principled way to tell the difference between necessary and important self-promotion and the gratuitous and damaging kind.

Maybe it kind of boils down to motive? Only, a large and fragile ego might still accomplish great things....

Sometimes.

Hm.

Yeah, I stand corrected. He's got too much specific agenda to be just a troll.

Clearly I'm striking a nerve when your only response is to call me a sock puppet.

I'm merely an interested media observer who's fascinated by the fact that a certain someone is so obsessed with overplaying the significance of one obviously ill chosen word in the headline, and ignoring the content of the article itself. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that a certain organization is implicated in the article as the source of the leaflets.

If you don't think people should care about the leaflets why did you print them?

Still a whole lot of protest and objection over something almost entirely inconsequential. When people get this riled over a single article or a fresh face - sockpuppet or not - there are definitely buttons getting pushed with disproportionate response.

It's of course a far cry from evidence of anything, but it's... intriguing. Nerves don't get that raw all by themselves, and egos that get so bruised tend to have been dis-proportionally large targets to begin with.

I genuinely didn't think anything of the article or the contents of this new rag, but when they stir up this much emotion in a group, something's up.

No, Ms. Del'thul, just bored.

With apologies, Ms. Del'thul, but you may be reading too much emotion into what I'm writing. Accountants have been droning at me for hours, so my prose may have become fraught.

That, and this new sock puppet is serving up so many easy pitches that I can't help but swing.

I had been content to sit this particular discussion out, but it seems that's no longer possible.

It is true that after being approached my Mr Raimo, we did speak on a number of occasions regarding the leaflets.

I also brought his attention to a poster repeating what were claimed as quoted remarks by Gen. Soter, which had been put up in the main inquest hall, on the second day.

Even with Mr Raimo going to lengths to catch the culprit, the distribution continued regardless, and so must have been conducted discreetly.

The delegation from ARC was not discreet.

They were a conspicuous presence at the Inquest in uniform, bearing named ID badges at all times that I saw them. I am more than happy to go on record to say I do not believe it possible for them to have successfully scattered those leaflets under Mr Raimo's very nose.

Consistently.

For three days.

Any claims that I suggested they may have been responsible are completely untrue.