Sometimes I Think People Just Don't Get 'It'

This was originally going to be a comment posted in Sarah Nerd's SNE article. But I've hijacked her thread enough and I think what I have to say needs to stand by itself. I'm also going to take this opportunity to make something clear about myself and other writers who deal with these issues, which you can find at the conclusion. I have struggled with how best to handle this for some time and I've finally reached the point where I can't justify holding back.

So here we go:

Sarah Nerd has decided to stay with the WSE. Do I agree? On principal, no, of course I can't. But it's real easy for a writer with 0L$ invested and well-documented contempt for the WSE to inject his personal opinion into Sarah Nerd's business decisions. It's easy for nameless critics to do it too. Sarah Nerd hardly needs the likes of me to 'defend' her, but there's an issue here I think people need to consider:

Being a GOOD CEO isn't fun and games. Like Bart Heart has said, I dunno, 800,000 times, "this is my RL job." Sarah Nerd has done good by her shareholders since she started at the WSE. I've researched Sarah and I'm fully convinced the woman doesn't play around. If she's staying with the WSE, she's doing it because she thinks it's the best move for the company. If you don't think she's thought it through, think again. If you disagree with the decision that strongly, take the buyout offer.

I have and always will encourage shareholders to take a critical view. What I can't and never will appreciate is people who eagerly change their position whenever the CEO makes a decision they don't entirely agree with. There are exceptions where this is entirely sensible, such as when a CEO you trust liquidates the company and runs off. But since investors, for reasons I will never understand, place so much emphasis on 'reputation,' I think it's important to point out- Even though it's YOUR company, YOU did not solely invest in the company, but the CEO's ability to bring plans and models to fruition as well.

What disturbs me the most is the ease by which 'trust' parallels 'how the company should be run according to me.' As a staunch advocate for shareholder's rights, I'd still have to say: If you can run the same type of company better than the person you're investing in, why the hell don't you?

A scenario for your consideration: The WSE opens tomorrow after a five month hiatus. You've been a critic of the WSE since, oh, February. Now that it's open, does your opinion change? Do you scurry to throw more money into the exchange? If you were a critic of Sarah Nerd's decision, would that change?

If yes, then, in my opinion, you're symbolic of everything wrong with the virtual exchanges -perhaps even the world- right now.

How easily do we forget that there's a CEO buying out the shares of their forcefully-delisted company for every Monkey Canning? How easy would it have been for say, Casper Trebuchet of Lemur Invest (LEM) to announce, "The WSE took all of my money. Sorry guys. We lost. I'm out." How easy would it have been for Arbitrage Wise to vanish after the banking ban?

Could Trebuchet and Wise disappear at whim and get away with it? Perhaps. And while I encourage critics to ask "Are either of these individuals doing this so they can take use their reputation for a future endeavor that, in the end, could be the 'big score?," I would expect people to temper their 'watchful eye towards the future' with an admission of present circumstances. The possibility of future schemes is intangible and can't ever be reconciled until they manifest in modern proposals. So skepticism based on future concerns hardly justifies ignorance of the fact that people who could have ran, haven't. Even if you have to add "haven't YET," they still haven't NOW.

Remember the past, appreciate the present, be mindful of the future.

Now why should I be writing on this? Let me give you two reasons.

My very first act as a shareholder was blazing criticism of Samantha Goldflake of VSTEX during the Second Life Creations SPO. There are decisions that I did not agree about that I never will. But this does not change two important facts: First, I made a hasty and ignorant investment decision. No convenient excuse or third-party accusation can excuse this. Second, events following SLC (and AVC that same month) led VSTEX to update their rules. Evolving. Changing. Remembering. Like I expect all virtual exchanges SHOULD. It's easy to blame Samantha Goldflake, Bo Beck, Arbitrage Wise, Cocky Dagger for everything that comes up. But if you see a gap that needs filling, why not step up and call attention to it? Try to fill it? Pure criticism costs you nothing.

Second, I'm a writer here for Y2P. We write for free. You can make the "google adsense" argument if you want, but the one guy who gets something from that puts it towards maintaining the server. In 2010 when I get a check, it'll go towards charitable purposes in SL. People like to assume we're all here for the attention. I'm a bright and creative guy that can write. If I wanted attention I'd have it. Arrogant much? In the last months, I've gone to Nobody Fugazi a dozen times concerned about the impact that a potential article might have. This isn't my personal stomping ground, even if I make a joke now and then. I agonize over the harm I could cause each time I step up to write an article or defend myself. You may ask anyone who knows me- the decisions I make hastily are few and far between and rarely repeated. But in the end, whatever I do here, I do it for myself. Years from now, I will be a lawyer, and my experiences here will have benefited me greatly. When and if I leave Y2P down the road, if I have done some good, all the more better. And if I 'fall from grace,' lose all credibility or am ignored, somebody will replace me. The latter is true in all things, not merely this. If you don't believe any of that, believe this: I write here by the grace of Nobody Fugazi. If NF felt I was a threat to the hard work he'd put into this website, I'd be gone. If I was posting blatant lies and flaming people, he'd intervene. It's just that simple. My actions are my own and I stand accountable for them, but don't think for a second I have carte blanche.

If what I've been trying to say hasn't prevailed in what you've just read, here it is: Just because you don't like a decision, don't be quick to assume that the person placed in the position to make that decision did so frivolously. If you believe that, stop investing in them, stop reading what they have to say, and save yourself the frustration. People say I'm arrogant because of what I'm doing, but I'm doing something. It's very easy to sit on the sidelines where it's safe and criticize everyone(and I'll warn you now to take a good look at my 'resume' before you tell me to 'put my money where my mouth is' where anything in this article is concerned). It's very easy to create alts to say the things you can't bring yourself to say as you are known. It's very easy to cry 'moral outrage' and then immediately shut up when you're coddled, leaving the real problems unaddressed. It is very easy to run off with people's money.

What isn't easy? Trying to good by people who 'trust' you or that you, for whatever reason, care about. Fulfilling your duty to shareholders even many turn on you at a moment's notice with little-to-no provocation. Having to write negative things or worry yourself about making decisions that do not necessarily reflect what you WANT to do, but what you feel will benefit those that 'trust' you. While good and bad are subjective and often retrospective, they are rooted in choice.

Where do YOU stand?

Think on it.