Dear Silvie -
This is a personal letter, data for you as an evaluator, one who can appreciate what I am about to tell you.
I have found the Real Why to the "org conflict" situation. And it applies to the historical track as well and is the reason "teams" of OTs just never seem to get formed up for very long and so don't finish the job.
It was on an echelon I had never compared the data to - the Games Master Level!
I had observed the "SITUATION" at the Qual Board, earlier Tech Meetings, and in Comm, Reports, Discussions. I was right there, kept looking at it (the SIT.) but couldn't see what it's major departure really was from. Many "explanations" were given, but I held back because to accept any as "The Why" - if wrong, would crash the stats - and the FZ is EXPANDING steadily overall.
I had even observed it on this recent tour and especially at the German Lecture where the 4 Org C/Os who gave it couldn't even agree to give me the full expense money and kept blaming each other!
Then on the way home, I was marooned for 3 days "somewhere in France" in the worst snowstorm in years. And so, in a newly built small hotel-motel near the freeway with 1 meter of snow all around (but luckily with plenty of food, wine, and heat, and only 1 month old and would have been uncovered next spring!) - I did have time to take a really deep look at the eval. And then the Why, Bright Idea, and handling all popped out like fireworks on Sylvester!
You will recall that I had aligned LRH policy on "Org taking on case of C/O" and started going up to higher echelons for the why. Well, I had not gone high enough because I had stopped at the point where our C/Os have done the bridge so the Orgs shouldn't have a "case". Then recall that I didn't myself have the same viewpoint about these conflicts but could keep all in good comm, but I did the same Bridge! Then I realized that you had a cog on doing the DSEC that "a barrier" had blown and you felt different about the "conflict" scene.
Was it something to do with DSEC on ability to evaluate? If so, what area?
Then in a series of logical steps, it came to me. I didn't DO these conflicts but I still didn't know WHY OTHERS did them - I still had to evaluate it, I used the DSEC as a tool to avoid the "why" for myself, but I still didn't know what it really was! I still had EFFORT there and without the training I had on DSEC probably would have been DRAMATIZING the conflict too - as so many leaders in the past track had done, so I took a new look at the whole eval - it was an omitted area - both from my understanding and therefore the BRIDGE because I did all of it as you did.
OK, we were all expanding, making a better game, ending off the interference game, and proposing a new one and there was conflict even though we all agreed to these purposes. Hell, there should be a true group there working in full cooperation, coordination, ARC, KRC, etc., etc. - so what the hell was it? That's when it jumped out - right at the Games Master Level!
«LRH said there can be Games Makers, Games Unmakers, and Games Umpires (or game Continuers).»
Thus there a 3 hats of a Games Master equivalent to a cycle of action of
| START | ------- | CONTINUE | ------- | COMPLETE |
| GAME MAKER | ------- | GAME UMPIRE | ------- | GAME UNMAKER |
«And we were doing all three at once and confusing the hell out of ourselves, our staff and our publics, because we had never removed the BPC of past experiences with the 3 hats ourselves.»
Not only that, but I found these hats become almost reactive to an OT who has not differentiated them!
Look at what we are doing!
| UNMAKING | the Implanter's Interference Game! |
| CONTINUING | the Dynamics Games to an improved conclusion! (especially for our publics) |
| MAKING | a new game in Loop 4 after realizing Loop 3 and the Rings are O/Run! |
So, your neighbor org goofs on a PC, or FAILS to do the CONTINUING GAME. Reaction - you try to UNMAKE his Game. He reacts and makes or "MAKES" a new game to 3P you out of business. We all have the power to do it as OTs. And we all have the CONFUSION of the 3 HATS and past experience (mostly conflicts of course) to draw upon. And since these "BPCs" are on the Games Masters Level, and there are no processes there to directly handle them, they are "OUTSIDE of GAME" charge and never got audited!
Well, that's a brief summary. I have written up the eval in abridged form and put out issues giving these processes to handle and call it the GAMES MASTER GRADUATE COURSE to be done during or at the end of the GMC.
But first, since its so new and totally unhandled in my experience, I am piloting the PGM on myself and on one or two others first.
Already, I have found out that EVERY PLAYER has experience as a Games Master (all 3 hats) even if you have to go back to PRE-LOOP GAMES to find it. BUT IT'S THERE AND IT'S NEVER BEEN HANDLED!
I invite you to help pilot the GMGC if you wish to come down for a couple days to get grooved in - or it could be done when I come in Feb. If it works all our org C/Os must do it (and they will want to).
Love, Capt. Bill.