An Attempt at Mutual Understanding IV: Final Report

Over the past 12 months, Leon S. Kennedy and I have repeatedly sat down with Caspar and NewMan to fairly discuss the criticism from the FCA team regarding my reappraisal of the conflicts between us on my blog. I reported on this here, here, and here. In the process, we identified areas where changes were clearly needed and, in the next step, revised the relevant posts accordingly. We would like to summarize this process and everything surrounding it here (hopefully conclusively) and answer right at the outset the question that FCA asked several times: Why do we consider a public reckoning with the past to be important?

The four texts in question are:

• My send-off from Fate and Challenge
• Welcome to Max’ 2 Cents
• How and why politics triggered walking away from FCA
• The Icing on the Icing on the Cake — Leon, FCA and me through 2024

First: Why do we discuss this publicly at all?

In a self-help project that is the largest and best-known of its kind in the German-speaking world—and one that has historically placed great emphasis on maintaining the highest possible level of professionalism—high standards, honesty, and transparency are essential. In short: the highest possible level of professionalism. A great deal depends on this for those seeking help. However, there’s no need to beat ourselves up or broadcast personal differences to the world. In self-help, we’re dealing with people who have an enormous need for security and who, in their trust and ability to accept help, can be incredibly easily upset. Everyone surely has different views on how and where to strike the “happy medium” for their own organization and platform.

It is also a fact, however, that good intentions to protect a cause can be interpreted so broadly that they end up covering up unacceptable actions. Where do you draw the line?

One step toward this line is the moment when you first realize that you’re “putting on a brave face.” This state is defined as “necessarily accepting something unpleasant without letting one’s displeasure show”¹ or, more succinctly, as “going along reluctantly,” “not showing one’s annoyance at an unpleasant situation,” or “ignoring an imposition because one can’t do anything about it.” ² This is undoubtedly sometimes sensible or necessary for the sake of politeness, fairness, acting diplomatically, or enduring a difficult situation. It’s also part of professionalism.

But there’s a catch. Speaking of “reluctantly,” “annoyance,” and “imposition”—do these definitions sound like something that would be healthy if experienced long-term, or when it comes to serious matters? Does overtime at your workplace get overlooked once or constantly? Is it a tiny splinter that wasn’t logged in the first-aid log today, or a concussion? In the 2024 review, I wrote:

Leon’s departure was […] a direct consequence of persistent poor communication. Not even my departure seems to have served as a wake-up call for the team to improve this in the meantime. […] As mentioned, the exclusion of Leon has been going on for a very long time and has not been stopped despite repeated requests to do so. This time factor, combined with the lack of communication, are the two main reasons why we are now addressing these issues publicly rather than continuing to handle them internally […]

The key factors here are the scale, the time frame, and whether keeping things internal has been effective in the past.

• The scale of the problem: the project had already suffered massive damage (team conflicts, work was disrupted, and two of the most senior and key team members had quit).
• Time factor: the problem persisted for years.
• Internal criticism: every civilized means of offering criticism was tried, yet no improvement followed. In some cases, things actually got worse.

If you ask someone to keep quiet publicly and instead speak to the team in confidence, you must have established trust in advance that this will actually be effective. If it becomes clear that the team isn’t responding appropriately, insisting on purely internal feedback is no longer appropriate. How does it come across, for example, when someone says, “Everything is fine; you can trust us that we’ve taken this and that into account”—while you can verify for yourself that this isn’t the case at all?

Then it is no longer time for “putting on a brave face” and being considerate of what could fall apart because the most essential thing is already broken. Then, as Leon and I say quite clearly, such things belong in the public eye.

There are actually many more details and issues that we didn’t approve of, but which we consider to be personal matters—or where we have to admit that they may be a matter of opinion. That’s not what this is about for either Leon or me. Bringing all of that up would turn this process of “working through the past” into a “mud-slinging match”. We have instead very carefully selected what we address and how. Things that are too big to hide, that have also affected others, or that were still ongoing. We didn’t want to poke the wound to make it hurt, but so that it would finally be stitched up before the patient dies from it.

Second: What exactly did we do

We held several video and conference calls during which Leon and I spoke with NewMan and Caspar, who were representing FCA. We discussed some points of criticism verbally and also received notes regarding specific parts of the text. At first, however, at FCA’s urgent request, I took the relevant texts down from the internet entirely. This seemed to be of utmost importance to them. As a gesture of thanks, they restored some of the deleted links to my blog on their sites. Later, after an initial review, I put the uncontroversial parts of the texts back online. Only the criticized passages remained hidden. After all my blog was not supposed to remain so patchy indefinitely.

In our conversations, Leon and I discussed the criticism with Caspar and NewMan. Some points seemed inaccurate or irrelevant to us, and we discussed this with them as well. I thoroughly researched the remaining points of criticism and began gradually incorporating them into the hidden text passages behind the scenes.

When I finished at the end of October, the review process began: Leon and I went through the final drafts one by one, made some final changes, and started publishing the first two texts. In the meantime, unfortunately, the discussions with FCA had broken down. Given this, it seemed inappropriate to us to submit the revised version to NewMan and Caspar for approval beforehand. This publication was followed by the surprising ban of my account on the GSA forum on December 5, 2025. In my view, this confirmed that decision. At the same time, FCA once again removed the links to my blog from its platforms, which had been restored months earlier. In our eyes, this was very childish behavior.

During our discussions, NewMan and Caspar had announced that they, for their part, would publish statements and comments on our reappraisal once it was finished. Whether and in what form they will do so is unknown to us. What’s important is: What you’re reading here on my blog regarding the processing of past events has been approved by both me and Leon and thus reflects BOTH OF OUR views. We both stand united behind it.

The Veto Issue

For several years, I was under a mistaken impression that is very embarrassing to me: From 2022 onward—until the topic came up in a conversation with NewMan and Caspar in early 2025—I assumed that the team had violated a veto rule that had been agreed upon in writing between us at the time. That would have been really bad, but I was completely wrong. My assumptions were stupid and embarrassing because I simply should have checked our written guideline.

Therefore, I owe both my readers and FCA an explanation and an apology. How did this happen? Let me quote from the moderation guidelines:

1.4. Vorstandssitzungen (nicht nur für GSA relevant sondern für SuH insgesamt)

Der Vorstand besteht derzeit aus 5 Mitgliedern: Caspar, Leon, Max, NewMan und Sirius. Die Vorstandsmitglieder haben im Forum Zugang zum Teamforum auch wenn sie weder Admin noch Mod sind.

Der Vorstand tritt nach Bedarf zu Treffen zusammen und hat die Aufgabe die Arbeit der Projektteams zu unterstützen und im Sinne der Ziele von SuH zu lenken. Ein Vorstandmitglied kann eine Sitzung einberufen und sie sollte dann möglichst zeitnah und möglichst mit allen Vorstandsmitgliedern stattfinden. Ist dies nicht rechtzeitig möglich ist der Vorstand ab drei Anwesenden entscheidungsfähig. Die anderen können zur Not jeweils einzeln verbal oder schriftlich informiert werden und sich nachträglich einbringen, wenn sie wollen.

Der Vorstand hat als Aufsichtsgremium ein Veto-Recht über alle Entscheidungen der Unterteams der einzelnen Projekte von SuH.

Findet mindestens ein Vorstandsmitglied eine Projektteam-Entscheidung so falsch, dass sie dringend korrigiert werden sollte, kann es eine Sitzung einberufen. Die Situation wird zunächst nach Bedarf auch mit den betroffenen Mitgliedern der Projektteams erörtert, damit alle Vorstandsmitglieder im Bilde sind und deren Gedanken nicht untergehen. Der Vorstand entscheidet dann mehrheitlich ob die Entscheidung des Projektteams gekippt werden sollte oder nicht. Falls ja kann er das jeweilige Projektteam beauftragen neu zu entscheiden oder die Entscheidung stattdessen selbst treffen. Es können sich auch einzelne Vorstandsmitglieder nach eigenem Ermessen aus einer bestimmten Entscheidung heraushalten. Etwa wenn sie sich in der Sache nicht für kompetent halten.

This means that this right to object applied a) only to decisions made by sub-teams (such as those of the GSA Forum, Shadows Project, or future sub-projects) and b) an individual board member could only initiate a review by the board, which could then have decided on a veto collectively.
However, I had mistakenly recalled that it was instead a comprehensive emergency veto right for each individual board member against the association’s activities, which could then have been reviewed and overturned by a regular board meeting. I apologize.

To those who immediately think of abuse of power when they hear “comprehensive veto power for individuals,” I respond in a brief additional comment so as not to distract from the main topic here.

What Remains of the Issue

My first objection regarding the wording of the letter (it would be better to offer gentle reminders and point out problems rather than make demands) was thankfully taken into account by Caspar and NewMan. I raised my second objection when I got the impression that my teammates were losing their professionalism under time pressure. It was ignored. I can understand that better today, but I still do not see that there was an emergency or that it was appropriate to prioritize the matter over the team member. I personally found some details of the course of action very demeaning and hurtful, others even problematic under association law, but no one can reliably reconstruct that today.

What I would have liked to see was an acknowledgment that this wasn’t a matter of life and death, as well as a more measured approach—for example, by omitting the signature “on behalf of the association” as a possible compromise. That would have had a de-escalating effect and wouldn’t have detracted from the letter; in fact, it might even have made it look much more dramatic. Like this for example:

Best Regards
  Caspar Ibichei (board member Fate and Challenge Association)
  NewMan (board member Fate and Challenge Association)
  Markus (Fate and Challenge Association)
  Mascha (Fate and Challenge Association)
  Gilgamesh (online activist)

I find it shameful and sad that I didn’t look up the veto rule, how much that distorted my assessment of the situation, and how much more it inflamed the conflict with my old team. It added an unnecessary and unfair element of tension. I am very sorry about this, and I hope I have since consistently edited this out of my texts.

Shadows Project

In mid-2024, Shadows Project (SP) suddenly went offline. This was triggered by significant disagreements regarding how an FCA team member handled Leon’s and my intellectual property (see here). This was apparently preceded by their team misunderstanding that, by leaving the team, I had also turned my back on SP.

This matter was clarified to the extent that, during conversation with Leon and me, Caspar and NewMan explicitly distanced themselves from Markus’ actions on behalf of the team: They stated that this was neither their intention nor something they knowingly tolerated, as they were unaware of both the sequence of events and the agreements between Markus and me at the time. They apologized.

Leon and I find this convincing and consider this dispute between FCA and us to be resolved.

The relevant sections of text have been slightly revised and reposted.
Please—and I mean this seriously—address your communication issues!

General Remarks

NewMan and Caspar had also cited other points that they considered “defamatory” or factually incorrect. To address this, I removed unnecessary details and otherwise tried to phrase things more objectively, shifting the focus away from the person and more toward the issue at hand.

However, after reviewing the “factually incorrect” category, we could only agree on one additional point: namely, that Mascha had not fully agreed with my veto on the forum, but had merely concurred in the sense of “Yes, it would normally be better, but there’s not enough time now.” I wrote everything about this in An Attempt at Mutual Understanding II. In short: While I didn’t find my original wording inaccurate, I have amended the relevant part of the text so that this nuance should now be clear. (See here)

Leon and I have carefully reviewed the remaining points in this category and, after discussing them with NewMan and Caspar, have come to the conclusion that, in our opinion, nothing was misrepresented. The only point that could be vaguely disputed is whether a board meeting actually took place regarding the dispute over the letter to the state ministers of justice: if one wishes to count a situation in which one board member phoned two others one after the other and spoke to them separately as a “valid board meeting,” on the grounds that a meeting with three attendees is considered quorate … well, I can only smile at that and clearly reject it.

My Role

Since I was asked to also address my own role in the major conflicts, I added a section on this topic in the third post regarding the processing of the past. To sum it up: Today, I think I’ve always been a good planner and someone who builds systems, but never a good team leader.

Conclusion

Communication was “bumpy,” not free of escalations and hurt feelings, and ultimately it broke down. But in my view, it led to higher-quality blog posts. For that: thank you. The FCA team will probably still not like them, but I hope that tempers can now cool down. I already see things calming down between Leon and me. What matters to me is a fair way of working together and an end to the ridiculous we-don’t-link-to-Max practice.

I would like to be able to close this chapter soon. It has already cost far too much work, time, and energy, but it was also important to reflect on mistakes and one’s own role in them. The unpleasant aspects—this conflict and the effort to reach an understanding (even when one has long since had enough)—are also part of what our future is built on. Without addressing this past openly (within appropriate bounds), any future collaboration with the international community would stand on shaky ground. It would carry a bitter aftertaste and would be unstable in the long run.

What Leon and I would like from the former team is a more open process of coming to terms with the past. Trust your user base to recognize that mistakes have been made. You have called on me to examine my own mistakes honestly. If that is your stance, then please also look at your communication and at how serious conflicts and ruptures within the team have often been reduced, outwardly, to phrases like “XY has decided to leave” or “for personal reasons.” And how this puts those in the know under pressure not to show grief or irritation. The constant appeal to internal matters and the fear of unsettling the clientele—this is not a culture of accountability, but its opposite.

My bottom line: I view the direction of the Fate and Challenge Association very critically. I consider the behavior toward Leon and me to be bullying. And I observe how the positive influence of FCA, built up jointly by Marco, NewMan, Anne, and others, is increasingly being lost.