So yesterday I wrote my editorial on why I think a commissioner could fix the problems of the DPC. The main initial reason as to why I wrote the article wasn't to give my thoughts on the Skem/Kuku issue more room than others. I wrote it because I felt frustrated about the discussion that was going on. The community has become stuck in this... ultra-focused discussion. A microcosm where this is the only issue. We were discussing how to treat the symptom and not the cause. I wanted to see if I could make people look up and expand the discussion.
So jump forward a few hours and I had just published my article. I have a policy of never commenting on what I've written (but that doesn't mean I'm F5ing the hell out of the thread). The reason for this policy is that if someone misunderstands my writing, I should blame myself for not doing a good enough job instead of the commenter for not understanding me. Still, as the comments started ticking in I felt a rage starting to bubble up. Suddenly my article about fixing issues regarding communication had become a discussion of PC culture and freedom of speech. Not was I was aiming for. People had taken a step back but they didn't respect the confines I had given them. And that's where I stopped myself. Because that took me back to a discussion I had with SirJolt a few years back.
He brought up the subject of interpreting artistic work. No matter if it's a painting, a movie, or a book: is there a right and a wrong way to interpret what the artist had done? I jumped in head first, without giving it proper thought (as I often do, one of my biggest flaws) saying that yes, of course there is. The artist clearly had something in mind when creating his work. So if I misinterpret that, I'm doing just that: misinterpreting it. That's wrong. Now I don't fully remember the retort but I believe he countered by saying: what if I enjoyed the piece due to that misinterpretation. Does that mean I'm enjoying it wrong? We're all colored by the experiences we've had in life so why would I want to take someone's interpretation (or enjoyment) away from them by saying they're wrong?
The same applies to the editorial I wrote. Who am I to put my foot down and force people to limit the scope of the discussion? Why is my interpretation of the situation the correct one? Is the lack of communication really the root cause? What this made me realize is that while I technically may have copyright over the article, I can't control it. I don't own it. What I wrote belongs to the LiquidDota community once it's published and they're free to think and discuss whatever they feel like discussing. What I've written doesn't belong to me. And that's OK.