A third person perspective into the inner-workings of Omni

I'm sitting here on my lunch break, and I decided to whip up a small bit on the current state of affairs.


We have been ordered to an Amnesty, it also appears our opposition the clan has been as well. If anything there seems to be a multitude of ways this has been interperated.

Within Omni there is far more conflict than anyone needs. The arguments are generally about the same thing each and every time.

1. To support the Amnesty to the letter
2. To support the Amnesty with conditions
3. To rebel against the Amnesty.

Each org is responsible for interperating our orders in any way you see fit. Obviously each order can be interperated in many diffrent ways.

I see some pacts/groups for example, outright pvping and staging attacks against the other side. This apply's to both sides.

As I see this happening, I also see a multitude of orgs opposing these actions strongly. Which in itself is fine.

A few things people are NOT taking into account, that perhaps they should before condeming fellow leaders.


1. Each leader in leader chat, Omni or Clan ... has the same job title. As such, NONE of you have the right to become the Jury/Judge/Executioner of Leaders you do not agree with. Simply enough it's not your place.

2. Each leader that disagree's with an event, such as the DC member assasinating the dupe of Radiman, is completely OUT of place to critisize that party openly. After all, you share the same job title. When was the last time you where at work, and had the ability to fire someone that has the same job as you?

3. Unauthorized pacts and treaties could be just as wrong as directly disobeying orders. This is not your corporation(omni), it is definatly not in your job description to modify current procedures and protocol. That is Mr. Ross's job.

4. There is no way of knowing an org was not ordered to perform a certain task with silence. How are we to know DC for example wasn't given direct orders from Ross himself to assasinate the dupe as a distraction while the real Radiman took an alternate route?

5. By condeming other factions openly, you could be directly interfearing with orders placed by your respective leaders. Acting beyond what orders where given to you could in fact, label yourselves traitors much faster.

6. Unity is strength, and as such.. you will find much more success if you do NOT attempt to become "All powerfull" by creating pacts. The best and most simple solution is to use the panel of leaders that you where supplied with. Your all already unified under a common organization, and a common pact. The pact you have with Omni. That should be sufficient.

7. Compromise. Everyone is going to have to learn to compromise. Realize that each leader represents a percentage of the population, and as such represents a set of beliefs. You can convince the messanger, but you won't convince the folks that sent the message. As such, a common ground must be found in any situation.



Just a few thoughts,


Windowlicker
President
First Order(Rk1)
www.omni-elite.com

Thank you for this summary, Windowlicker. I am certainly glad to see that you do have Omni-Tek’s best interests at heart. I think all of us, though given different agendas, would like to see a strong, profitable Omni-Tek, unified in purpose. All of us, I believe, have found so little communication from Omni-Admin to be very frustrating.

While your intent is good, I believe, I do have some disagreements with some of your points.

Quote:

---

1. Each leader in leader chat, Omni or Clan ... has the same job title. As such, NONE of you have the right to become the Jury/Judge/Executioner of Leaders you do not agree with. Simply enough it's not your place.

2. Each leader that disagree's with an event, such as the DC member assasinating the dupe of Radiman, is completely OUT of place to critisize that party openly. After all, you share the same job title. When was the last time you where at work, and had the ability to fire someone that has the same job as you?

---

Yes, we all bear the same title in our corporation. (I believe that clan leaders are a bit different, but for sake of argument, I’ll go with you on that here.)

I disagree, though, about the ability to criticize other leaders or debate. Of course, we cannot render final judgement on one another and mete out consequences. That can only come from our supervising authorities. However, the ability to discuss and disagree about interpretation of Omni-Tek policy is VERY critical given the small amount of input we receive from our superiors.

Quote:

---

3. Unauthorized pacts and treaties could be just as wrong as directly disobeying orders. This is not your corporation(omni), it is definatly not in your job description to modify current procedures and protocol. That is Mr. Ross's job.

---

Again, I disagree. What would be wrong is for factions and subsidiaries of Omni-Tek to form binding agreements which they believe to be in effect for ALL of Omni-Tek. For example, if The Black Alliance believed their manifesto to apply to all Omni-Tek employees, that would be out of line.

To make agreements, benefits, arrangements that only affect signed parties…well, that’s just business. It happens in any large corporation, and will continue to happen for sub-groups with aligned interests to be able to cooperate with efficiency in pursuing their duties for the corporation.

Quote:

---

4. There is no way of knowing an org was not ordered to perform a certain task with silence. How are we to know DC for example wasn't given direct orders from Ross himself to assasinate the dupe as a distraction while the real Radiman took an alternate route?

5. By condeming other factions openly, you could be directly interfearing with orders placed by your respective leaders. Acting beyond what orders where given to you could in fact, label yourselves traitors much faster.

---

In the same vein, how do you know that those who oppose the ‘assassins’ are not under direct orders, either?

All we can do is follow Omni-Tek policy as we understand, as you mentioned earlier. While there isn’t much to go on, there ARE a few very easily understood agendas (ICC Contract, PR release of the Amnesty, interviews and quotes from Philip Ross) that help to clarify our direction. When an organization acts in opposition to these very public corporate agendas, then we can only respond as we have—that is, point out their violation of known policy and ask them to review their goals.

Also, I don’t believe any leader who had given ‘secret’ orders that were contrary to publicly posted company policy would take exception to those who worked to preserve that policy, even if it was in opposition to the ‘secret’ orders. We know what we know, and it only makes sense that we are expected to act on what we know…not what we assume.

Quote:

---

6. Unity is strength, and as such.. you will find much more success if you do NOT attempt to become "All powerfull" by creating pacts. The best and most simple solution is to use the panel of leaders that you where supplied with. Your all already unified under a common organization, and a common pact. The pact you have with Omni. That should be sufficient.

---

Omni-Tek has many departments, and many agendas. I agree that it would be wrong for a pact or ‘alliance’ to assume they could become ‘all powerful’. You’re absolutely right—that is what Omni-Tek is for. However, I see nothing wrong with pacts or agreements for the pursuit of sub-goals, that pertain to our individual faction’s businesses.

Quote:

---

7. Compromise. Everyone is going to have to learn to compromise. Realize that each leader represents a percentage of the population, and as such represents a set of beliefs. You can convince the messanger, but you won't convince the folks that sent the message. As such, a common ground must be found in any situation.

---

We must learn to work together, yes. But more than that, we must learn to follow corporate policy. We are Omni-Tek employees, and retain our titles, pay, and positions because we were hired.

We are not a republic; we are not a government. We are employees. Our employment with Omni-Tek is a privelage, not a right.

So, compromise in the fulfillment of day-to-day tasks? Yes, when needed.

Compromise on publicly stated corporate policy from our superiors? No.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Davyn


I disagree, though, about the ability to criticize other leaders or debate. Of course, we cannot render final judgement on one another and mete out consequences. That can only come from our supervising authorities. However, the ability to discuss and disagree about interpretation of Omni-Tek policy is VERY critical given the small amount of input we receive from our superiors.



To make agreements, benefits, arrangements that only affect signed parties…well, that’s just business. It happens in any large corporation, and will continue to happen for sub-groups with aligned interests to be able to cooperate with efficiency in pursuing their duties for the corporation.


In the same vein, how do you know that those who oppose the ‘assassins’ are not under direct orders, either?

All we can do is follow Omni-Tek policy as we understand, as you mentioned earlier. While there isn’t much to go on, there ARE a few very easily understood agendas (ICC Contract, PR release of the Amnesty, interviews and quotes from Philip Ross) that help to clarify our direction. When an organization acts in opposition to these very public corporate agendas, then we can only respond as we have—that is, point out their violation of known policy and ask them to review their goals.


Omni-Tek has many departments, and many agendas. I agree that it would be wrong for a pact or ‘alliance’ to assume they could become ‘all powerful’. You’re absolutely right—that is what Omni-Tek is for. However, I see nothing wrong with pacts or agreements for the pursuit of sub-goals, that pertain to our individual faction’s businesses.


We must learn to work together, yes. But more than that, we must learn to follow corporate policy. We are Omni-Tek employees, and retain our titles, pay, and positions because we were hired.

We are not a republic; we are not a government. We are employees. Our employment with Omni-Tek is a privelage, not a right.

So, compromise in the fulfillment of day-to-day tasks? Yes, when needed.

Compromise on publicly stated corporate policy from our superiors? No.

---

I think you caught what I was trying to say for the most part. Let me clarify a few points.


1. To do something such as directly violate the Amnesty is definatly out of line, and in direct violation of orders presented to us by Omni. My main point was in our corporate structure, it is not our place to pass judgement on these party's, rather allow our employer to do so. It's impossible to fire someone that holds the same job title as you, when you have a boss that's paid to do that job correct?

2. I was not trying to say we have no right to debate or critisize other guild leaders/members, more I was trying to put across the point it's not our place to pass final judgement. And untill such a time as a judgment is passed by our superiors, we should treat each faction as an equal. I'm not saying we have to support them in all actions (For some of those actions may be in our opinion in direct violation of orders).

3. I am not directly opposed to forming Pacts, rather I'd like to point out they are proven (Very vibrently) to create enemies of other factions immediatly upon signing. Rather what I was trying to point out, is that we should remain unified under a common leader, which would be omni. Within any corporation you are not free to create another "rank" without authorization from the boss. My point was these pacts that nominate "heads" or "leaders" of said pact, are in theory.. quite possibly acting against the wishes of Omni. Again, I am for unification... so I am not condeming partys which currently use such a system. Simply enough I would wonder why these party's have not brought each pact to Boss Ross for aproval before going ahead with the agreement(s) in question.

4. What the leaders of Omni need to accomplish right now is setting their sights on a common goal. At this moment it's my strong feeling that if we have our factions concentrating on fighting the clan, we may be wiped out by the Cyborgs. We already have procedure in place to deal with an clan element that may attack, I would be more concerned with this unknown threat that has presented itself in the past weeks. It makes me very uneasy to know that these cyborgs have presented themselves, and instantly we find ourselves in the midst of an Amnesty with none other than the clans themselves. Our organization has set its sights on eliminating this threat to not only us, but the clans as well. These cyborgs threaten our very way of life on Rubika, and we may very well require the help of the clans to eliminate them.


All in all, what we SHOULD be looking for is some way of resolving the inner conflict that plagues our company. If anything is destroying efficiency ... if anything is creating an enviroment where the enemy could penetrate our defences and cause harm to our corporation. The arguing and bickering is.

Our factions standpoint is completely beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm not looking to promote myself or the org I represent. Rather I'm trying to encourage growth and forward movement. Growth and forward movement that will eventually see our leaders ally and focus on a generalized common goal.

For example, focus on eliminating the cyborg threat. I think it's pretty safe to say at this point, there arn't any factions on EITHER side that support these freaks.

Knowing that, why in gods name have we not rid ourselves of them? .. Why do they continue to cause us grief? ... Simply enough, because the leaders are bickering like a bunch of children in a schoolyard at recess.

Each leader represents a percentage of the population on each side. Every other leader is going to have to realize that the leaders they speak with, are simply representatives of a group of the populace. As such, simply bickering with that leader over viewpoint is not going to acheive anything, as that group he/she represents will not change the outlook they have instructed said leader to portray to the other factions.

We need to strike a balance between the current school's of thought. We are quite powerful with the leaders and factions divided. Unified, we would be unstoppable.

I would love to form an agreement to outline this, however I don't belive it would do anything more than create enemies. I don't belive that would be the right step to take in this. Rather, I would implore leaders to simply take more of a compassionate, compromising position, where you can speak of things in an adult manner, where you can step outside of yourself for a moment, and see diffrent points of view.


Think in circles, not in squares ;)

Great words Windowlicker


With any political situation there is a lot of fuss and ruckus at all ends of the spectrum - it's natural and neccesary to find the best solution.

On one end you have the ultra-traditionalist conservatives (The Black Alliance)
On the other end, you have the ultra-progressive liberals (Athen Accord Members)
And there's a bunch in the middle that are against both extremes (MOTHER included)

Every action has a reaction... along the whole spectrum. TBA going public and killing Radiman forced many members to the other camp, but at the same time drew a lot of people in because they saw TBA was action. Unfortunately, AA members haven't seemed to be to horribly true to their word - they've tried, but against strong resistance.

Some more cents to the pot

Now, first, I agree with the thought behind you statement Window...

Though a couple of things I have to comment on:

1 and 2: Since Derva, quite straight forward told us all that the assasination was wrong, and the guilty will be punished, and this is the only order we have been given, we must assume that OmniTeks whises are the guilty to be caught.

Since OmniTek appaerantly does not want to give a reward to those that killed Mr Radimans body double, but rather punish them, we can also assume those attempted the assasination is to be looked upon as criminals...

3 Could not agreed more! Though of course there is no law against speaking with the enemy yet, so affairs could still be made between the two fractions.

4 If that had been the case, the situation would now be under control, and that is not the case. And if you are true in your assumption that every leader has the same amount of influence, there would be no secret orders given...and Davyns comments is ofcourse right regarding this matter.

5-7 Agrees! Unity is what OmniTek is all about. But unity can not be created in any other way then under the protection of Omnitek. And this can not be untill these minority stops shouting that Ross must be replace, and that we must kill him. There is not much room for compromises there...

Still, the Church of Omnitek will indeed put theire wrong doings behind, if they only could stop asking for Ross resign/death and encourage everybody to defie the amnsety together with OmniTeks orders.

There is no conspiracy here.

Derva after the asassination, and on the Omni-Tek news page the act was considered a crime and will be punished.

The purpose of sending the clone in was to draw out those that want to ruin Ross' efforts.

To add to that, Truwind (leader of the guild that Aberic is in) openly suggested that everyone follow suit of his guild and: "kill all clans and omnis who group with clans"


Ha, and Truwind thinks he's going to be found innocent! hahah.

mege, TBA did not take part in the assassination of Radiman's double. Aberic did it on his own, and Truwind offered the support of TDC (Dark Carnival, Aberic's faction) later on.

I can't help but feel sad when I hear people crying for justice and revenge, when people are dying every day trying to stop the Clans from invading our territories.

Aberic and Truwind are on trial because Omni-Tek failed them.

Let's say Omni-Tek fires them both, what is stopping them from using the amnesty to rejoin our ranks? The clanners are doing it every day, by killing OT employees and afterwards saying "Hey sorry, but we can do what we want because of the amnesty". The pro-Ross factions are even defending these murderers! Should not the same rules apply to our own employees?

Some say they should be forced to join the neutral side, but how can you justify sending some of our most fanatical anti-clan soldiers to the neutrals? You can't just force them to suddenly be neutral in the conflict. (OOC: what are you thinking?)

Some radicals say they should be permanently killed, but that is just the ramblings of madmen. I fear for Omni-Tek's future if our leaders continue to behave in this way...

The thruth is, Omni-Tek let Aberic kill Radiman's clone because it suits their agenda. Think for a second; the PR value of Omni-Tek "saving" Radiman is immense, if I were Chairman Ross I would have arranged the assassination myself. "Omni-Tek saves Clan leader!" can be used in so many ways it would be illogical not to do it, and I'm sure Ross knows this. Aberic was just a handy scapegoat, someone to blame just when they needed him.

Omni-Tek was once a democratic corporation run by the same people it served, what happened?

Mr Teatime

1 By fireing the assasins, they would not become clans. If they would want to join the clans they could, although I assume, no clans would alowe them. They did not become clans by oposing the will of Omnitek, they became LIKE the clans...Theres a subtle difference.

2 Those who dies deffending our land, has choosen to do so, that is what they are hired for. Not to think, secondguess the will of OmniTek or be shouting about the resign of Mr Ross. Do what you are hired for, do your duty, only then there can be unity within the corperation

3 Fanatical soldiers are only good if they act on the will of Omnitek. If they acts against the will of OmniTek, they are useless and should be excluded from omniTek.
Though I agree on one point...a perma death would proberbly not be the best solution.
Quite frankly, I think they all are good people, who only would need to spend some time with our exelent staff at Omni-Reform

4 If it would be so, that OmniTek wanted someone to Kill this decoy, then so be it. but to make this beliveble, OmniTek would need to punish the scapegoat as well. Then the assasins should be happy to obey the will of OmniTek, and accept this punishment.

5 OminTek has stoped use democratic ways, since this process is a slow process, without any true possibilitys to prosper. The only fast, and true way to gain profit is by the ways we use today. besides, there are extremly few democratic companies.

Thank you for listening

Justice has been served it seems.

If anything it seems to be a warning rather than a punishment.



Windowlicker
President
First Order
www.omni-elite.com

In light of current events, I'd like to bump this as a reminder of First Order's policys.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ymodem-G
In light of current events, I'd like to bump this as a reminder of First Order's policys.

---

I would also like to mention that these policies are admirable. First Order's intentions are clearly putting Omni-First by design. DARC Ops supports this agenda completely.

General Eleetist
DARC Ops