Hello,
I, as an interested player, have no readable records of the discussions that lead to these decisions.
This bothers me because I can’t get to know what conflicts arose and who contributed to these discussions, knowing this will help me form a more informed opinion, hopefully convincing me that the decision was the right one. Beyond convincing me, it will give VALVe actual knowledge to sift through.
The gap between the two main philosophies about whitelists is growing too big to be ignored anymore, I’m very uncomfortable seeing people paint the “opposition” as harmful, especially when they're important figures. You're absolutely playing with fire, people will move on.
We all love 6v6 and want it to grow bigger, be taken more seriously, especially by VALVe, it’s irrational to start attacking someone because they aren’t willing to sell out the integrity of the gamemode for hypothetical dev attention.
What bothers me beyond this is that there are better ways to help the gamemode, such as listing bugs that affect the competitive scene, deciding for a global ruleset (even if it's changed soon), and more.
A rigorous and serious effort needs to be made if you want any change to have an undivided following from our players.
My ideal scenario would have a forum (not randomly timed voice meetings, not instant messaging garbage) where people would argue for and against changes. It would contain selected, willing people (as long as everyone in prem/invite is contacted and invited) and be moderated heavily. It would be entirely readable by anyone. It would have clearly defined goals, agreed upon by everyone (there's no point in trying to create a whitelist without a definition of what this whitelist should do).
Thanks for reading and apologies for any confused/confusing sentences.