FOOD FOR THOUGHT… [I offer the following, derived from my lecture notes of 9-10 years ago, for readers' perusal. Though it may be perceived to have a 'grandiose' tone, it is certainly not meant to have. It's content is indirect to the Website's core subject but remains relevant.] Any Website whose subject matter is founded on DEBATE (such as “ZeroGainâ€Â) inherently recognises that the boundaries encapsulating acceptable comment/language are set by: a) Custom and Practice; b) what the Group of Contributors wishes to live with; unscientific but ethically necessary. The Website has to 'police' itself. It is I feel easy for a newcomer to gain an impression of the boundaries by spending a little time examining previous discussions; the advantage is that the newcomer can make comments that are seen to be relevant and harmonious, thus avoiding (as much as possible!) adversity. Custom & Practice gets pressured as a new generation arrives, influenced by e.g. language expansion, discipline, rules and regulations; also by the generation testing the boundaries to check how much they give way. The key to staying constructive is for 'The System' (government, influential bodies (large and small / direct and indirect), to evaluate OBJECTIVELY, then adjust appropriately, by e.g. advising, changing rules, manipulating(!). It should not adjust if it judges that this would be giving way to something unacceptable. But taking this course usually throws up a) objections, b) misunderstanding, c) rejection. Objections can be further discussed. Misunderstanding can be clarified. Rejection – which has a great measure of deliberacy about it – is more difficult, as this contains personal agendas or limitations. Further discussion is always worth trying, as the rejection may be based on lack of knowledge or perhaps a bad previous experience. Sometimes the limitation may be due to deep-rooted influences causing a lack of self-insight – this may never change (or may need professional input). Realistically a decision may need to be made ignoring the person's comments. Maybe it is ironic that Debate itself, even when starting as well considered and objective, can create subjectively-based responses when disagreement is implied. To avoid this, one needs A MATURE ATTITUDE – a phrase for debate elsewhere, perhaps! – that is led by a keenness to learn more. Every contributor, just by joining in Debate, owns a responsibility to respect the boundaries, seriously consider others' views (whether ultimately accepted or not), be polite, and attempt to avoid confrontations (this last the most influential yet the most often forgotten). If confrontation that is regarded as unreasonable does occur (and it is always advantageous if this is judged by a group of (relevant) people), it is the mark of maturity that others avoid duplicating it, e.g.: a) to retain as high a level of objectivity as possible, maintaining the focus; b) to influence the arguer to calm down; c) to sidestep playing into the arguer's hands; d) to be, and be seen as, level-headed and fair. If all this fails to influence the arguer, then further formal action needs to be considered. Remember: this is about the behaviour, not the proffered opinion. My belief (and there is research to support it) is that, at least in the Western World where the principles of discipline have loosened, self-orientated opinion and behaviour is increasing. Unfortunately, with this goes an increasing lack of consideration for others, caused by deficient intellectual/social insight, and/or deliberate dismissal. Debate-based Websites are likely to find this an escalating problem. kas [I shall be intrigued to see whether this rather unexpected thread is left on. If it is decided that it should be removed, this is fine with me; as long as it is a group decision. Individuals can get up to so much mischief, can't they!!!] keep the phase keith
Sorry D., it is summarised... This, as part of a larger theme(!) plus discussions would fill a no. of sessions. keep the phase keith
If I'm completely honest it's a load of hot air, it says nothing of worth at all, IMO. It's the type of vacuous twaddle a bored HR person might doodle in their lunchtime whilst staring idly at their monitor. Can you tell I'm in a bad mood? Bloody England were shite, deserve to go out, crap crap crap.
Always prepared to re-evaluate work, however valued/commended it has been. Disappointedly - is that a word - I can't see either of the 2 responses actually offer anything of worth - happy to reconsider. keep the phase keith
Well I reckon that there are two main things that makes a forum discussion different from a physically present group thing; 1. You're not stood in front of the person/people and therefore are perhaps more likely to be a bit more forthright than you might be 'in the flesh' so to speak (like that road rage thing of shaking your fist furiously at someone in the safety of your own car knowing that you're not going to get punched on the nose in response)....and 2. It's not always obvious in what kind of emotion people are trying to communicate when so many posts are short-ish and you don't necessarily know the nature/character of the people who are posting. I.e it's all to easy too misinterpret the meaning (despite smilies), you can't see the persons face or expression which in a normal conversation face to face you can, and the face is very expressive, whereas text is not necessarily so. Other than that, all your original post really seems to say is 'play nicely', which is commendable but hardly an original thought.
Thanks for your comment (though the appended qualification unfortunarely negates its value), which I shall pass on to the dept for info - they may well put it in the 'non-constructive comments' slot after due consideration. Do you work in an HR setup? Having worked with HR depts frequently since their phoenix-style development out of Personnel/Welfare Services during 1980s, my experience is that they don't knock out material like my dept's work. Maybe when you have calmed down, you will re-read the material in a constructive way. To rebalance your phrase "vacuous twaddle", the larger work from which my thread is taken forms the basis of training curriculums in, at the last count, 9 health authorities and consequently 1000s of staff. keep the phase keith
Thanks - the overall point you make in 1 + 2 is certainly one of the issues that the thread embodies: for reasonable and realistic debate the 'forum' setting needs more mature/considerate thought. (Although, with your point about “…forthright…â€Â, you might adjust your opinion if you took part in the sessions - they don't half get lively). If threads just comprised "original thought" forums would be very sparse. The 'original' part of the material is that we intentionally went back to basics and took the groundwork from people's experiential examples, building the sessions around this. Although our approach is not unique of course, much research for training is developed, as you may know, from material already written and consequently this struggles with its 'conversion' into practicality. “Stolen from one person = plagiarism; stolen from many sources = researchâ€Â. keep the phase keith
No, not really. Sometimes threads are much more interesting when confrontations occur, especially to the casual reader, and interesting sub-plots can develop. Of course sometimes things get out of hand, but they soon calm down. What we don't need is a big patronising bible of politically correct rules to tell you that you're upsetting someone because you said their shiny wire is crap. The moderators on most forums seem to keep things in a sensible kind of zone. Most forums aren't about debate anyway, they're about personal preference, personal experience, personal prejudices, they're full of different characters with different opinions, and sometimes we all like to shout 'BOLLOCKS' whan someone's talking out of their arse. What's wrong with that? Your text could be applied to any social interaction, and does not seem specific to web forums. It also comes across as extremely and unneccessarily wordy, and I struggled to read it all without beginning to lose the will to live. It's also so overly politically correct and patronising that it actually makes me want to become offensive to rebel against what I'm reading! It reminds me of the kind of guff that local govenment churn out, long-winded and pointless. I really don't mean to sound offensive but I've been obliged to read stuff like that before (I worked for the Benefits Agency for a while) and it really annoys me. It's as though entire departments of beaurocrats exist purely to churn out as many words as possible on utterly banal subjects. For example I recently sent off for a job description for a position in the planning department of Dorset County Council, and what I received was about 12 pages long and utterly devoid of any job description at all as far as I could see. It was all wordy pap, a mass of jargon and crap about 'working within this framework, adhering to these guidelines, utilising this template, blah blah blah. Mind you, it came in a full colour laminated cardboard folder, so it's nice to see local Government spending our council tax wisely. . Anyway, back to the point.... I've read the text three times now, and it still says the same thing to me: 'play nicely'....or 'don't be an arsehole', or 'try to be considerate and understanding'. So, again, it's dramatically and obviously.......twaddle. Feel free to drop this into the same 'non-constructive comments' slot as the previous post, unless that slot is already full up . Btw, no, I never worked in HR, but I shared an office with a load of them once, never again .
