You misunderstand me if you think I am defending the MSA or the MSA way of doing things.
What I am pointing out is that following exactly the same behaviour, for exactly the same reasons, as was followed by the MSA in arriving at their current position is likely to end in the same result.
Every decision made by the MSA was made for all the best reasons (or at least so the people proposing them thought) and they had a number of unforeseen consequences.
Very simply, if IKR gets to a point where winning becomes important to enough people, then people will explore unpredicted ways of winning.
Secondly, increasing numbers will lead to an increasingly complex situation. Things that could be made to work, with goodwill, for 30 people won't work for 150, some of whom don't have good will.
Thirdly, my questioning attitude seems to have triggered a defensive attitude in some of the posters. Carry that forward and defending the status quo becomes a corporate behaviour. One of the regular complaints against the MSA is a defensive or secretive behaviour.
|
|