Hi Mike, Bruce, Philip, Paul, and everybody--
Mike, my technical suggestion is if we want and agree on rules/expectations,
we can put them on the XMCA webpage.
The question I have, although, is whether these rules/expectations can help
us mediate/solve conflicts unavoidable in any alive community? Bruce, do you
think that people run into conflicts because they do not know XMCA tacit
rules?
I agree with Philip that even if people agree on rules (and we may agree on
Bruce's ones) we may disagree on their interpretation (as Philip showed
nicely).
I think it is fair to say that we all try to be nice to each other (i.e.,
well-intended) but occasionally we are not nice. The question is how to
communicate that message of another person hurts in a way that does not
intend to be hurt back and how to listen to other people and to be sensitive
to their needs and feelings. It is a question of how to find an alternative
to three common reactions to pain caused by a message of another
participant: escalate adversarial (hidden or explicit) exchange, ignore, or
dropping from the conversation (or from XMCA). I do not want to say that
these three common reactions are inappropriate or undesirable -- sometimes
they do appropriate -- however, they seem to be too common to be always
right.
Bruce wrote,
>Ironically, I found the 'politeness clause' which Paul D.
> inserted into his initial reply to me to be more patronising than polite,
> but didn't attach much personal importance to it, partly because
> I thought
> it wasn't aimed at me in particular. Which only goes to show you can't
> please everybody all of the time ;}.
I found Bruce's "straight talk" attempt to communicate Paul that his
message's tone hurt Bruce is rather interesting and promising. Its success
depends entirely on Paul's reply.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 7:29 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: rules
>
>
>
> Hi Eugene--
>
> Bruce's rules are defacto in effect.
> I personally do not want to have responsibility for trying to block access
> to xmca and agree that not reading messages is good enough.
>
> Mostly, ANYTHING that increases the overhead of this enterprise does not
> have my vote.
>
> Nice to see you!
> :-)
> mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:11 PST