Geras commented that 'it's okay to have a Conflict of Interest' so long as it's disclosed", and that reminded me of a few things I thought I'd raise for discussion. Conflicts of Interest aren't about being a good person or a bad person, but are rather shaped because of a circumstance where one's personal needs or desires conflict with those of another. Intrinsically, as people are no more valuable than one another, it cannot be morally wrong for a person to wish to advance or to have desires that others disagree with. Thus, this is why a conflict of interest is not something to be guilty about or inappropriate to have. The issue about hiding it is more around equality of power in negotiations, which may be required in a corporate and legal setting, but I'm not certain everyone will agree that we're required to disclose Conflicts of Interests in our personal or private lives. Certainly, some are legislated, but those are ones that protect people financially during investment and business ventures, not ones that say 'you must tell your wife that you slept with her sister' kinda things.
Something this topic brings to mind, however, is claims of bias. I've seen them a few times, and they're inherently related to the idea of a conflict of interest in that they're an expression of a person's opinions, priorities and values that may be contradictory to another's opinions, priorities and values. So, for example, if Angela is an Inquisitor, she'll probably have a bias towards their point of view as opposed to Bob the mage who approaches a situation with his point of view. In my mind, neither person is wrong for approaching the table with their own point of view (ie, bias).
Fundamentally, I think a bias is the expression of a difference of opinion as opposed to an expression of facts. For example, Angela and Bob will probably both agree that The Inquisition is a MUD, but Angela might think mages are evil whilst Bob believes Inquisitors are evil. That is, only when we move away from facts and into the realm of opinion can bias be displayed as facts are facts. And when it comes to opinions - well, they're neither right nor wrong.
In my mind, that both Angela and Bob have a right to their opinions, and by extension, a right to whatever biases come with their diversity of experience and psychology. Neither one of them are bad people for it either. Rather, it's a natural expression of their point of view. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that for bias to exist in Bob, he has to encounter Angela's opinion, and vice versa. In the very act of those two points of view colliding, both persons are now biased - so if Bob accuses Angela of bias, it is because he himself is detecting a difference in his base opinion from Angela's (eg, his accusation stems from his own bias). Without Angela's opinion, there's no positioning of them to form bias. So, fundamentally, a bias accusation is the pot calling the kettle black.
To me, it seems naive at best and immature at worst for people to expect other people to cut out parts of their psyche or sublimate their opinion to the will or needs of someone else, which is what I inherently see/feel when people accuse other people of bias. Sometimes, I think it's just an attack to gather people of a similar persuasion against someone by an acccuser attemping to peer pressure that person into changing their mind. Generally, I think this is abusive and disrespectful of whomever is the underdog, and I really don't like to see it on the forums or on the game. I'll probably start asking people to kindly drop it if they start down this vein in the future.
Why? I'm trying to get at the idea that accusing people of bias is irrelevant. Adults discuss differences of opinion; they don't attack each other. Accusing people of bias won't take away or alter any bias they might have, it'll just make them angry. I don't want to see TI's social interactions be like that.
Thanks for listening!
