Just a brief comment on what Eugene and Mike said.
My aim in making explicit some basic rules of behaviour was to try to draw
a line between what 'any reasonable person' (to use a legal phrase) would
agree with - and could thus form the basis for a minimal consensus - and
what should be subject to negotiation, self-restraint or heated debate
(unfortunately - as in my view discussion of tone, mode of address etc is
unproductive). So, in reply to Eugene: No, I don't see knowledge of these
rules as a means of avoiding conflict, but rather as a way of saying there
are certain minimal things that definitely are not acceptable to the list
as a whole. I also agree that any interpretation will be fuzzy to some
extent.
Mike: I do accept that the rules are de facto in force. There may be some
point in stating them explicitly though - perhaps just as the occasion
demands. I was certainly not trying to create more work for you in policing
every message! Nor was I trying to say that everyone should see the risk of
being expelled from the list hanging over them every time they post or to
violate anyone's right to free speech. I have however seen on other lists
people set out to be deliberately destructive of the list's purpose so that
ultimately expelling them from the list has been the only option if the
list is to retain any other people. I emphasise that I do not see this
happening on XMCA (now or in the future), nor is it intended to refer to
any individual currently on the list. Perhaps the 'delete' button _is_
enough sanction in this environment.
On Tuesday, February 22, 2000 3:09 AM, Eugene Matusov
[SMTP:ematusov@UDel.Edu] wrote:
[...]
> 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.
As I said above, I don't think you can legislate for that or even reach
much of a consensus on how to do it. So I think you have to accept it as an
unfortunate fact of life.
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.
I think you're right to say that sometimes 'escalation' is an appropriate
response.
> 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.
It's interesting that you should read it that way, Eugene, because that
wasn't what I thought I was doing. I was trying to point out (as someone
else did way back in the discussion) that formal politeness is not a
guarantee of putting everyone at ease. I also felt that _for me_ the tone
of the main part of Philip's message did not merit the 'politeness clause'
at the end. As I said, I didn't feel particularly offended by it because I
thought it was addressed to those people who _had_ objected to Phil's tone.
Oh dear, sucked into writing about those not very interesting topics again.
Bruce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:11 PST