On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
> >
> > Since I shouldn't have used the wand in the first place, let's not
> > think in terms of dings anymore. Let's think, rather, in doing what's
> > needed to make things right or to come to a truce. Have you offered
> > everything in the way of clarification and/or apology that you can and
> > should?
>
> I believe I have offered ample clarification. Since I did not issue any
> threats (even though some people misinterpret my statement as such), I see
> no reason for apology -- why apologize for a threat I didn't make?
Two reasons (and this is just my opinion, btw):
1) Because in the eyes of many of your readers, including Zimmy, you *did*
make the threat. Given more time to consider and a chance to read your
clarification, I'm pretty those readers have changed their original
evaluation of your words. But they're your words, and you are responsible
for them. Writers, including listmembers, are caught in the eternal
Catch-22 of language: only the writer can determine his true intent, but
only the reader can determine what the words actually mean.
"But I already gave a clarification," you might say, "So what's the point
of your lecture?" That brings me to point 2...
2) Taking the extra step to offer an apology demonstrates good
sportsmanship, and it reaffirms the principle that listmembers as people
are more important and valuable than the outcome, win or lose, of any
particular argument or exchange of words. Here's an analogy to show what
I mean:
Suppose you're playing a football (Euro-style, you know...where you
actually use the feet) game in your local amateur league. Since nobody's
going to win any money for winning or playing, and since there's no great
issue at stake, all the players in the league agree that playing football
this way is just a nice way to have fun and be friends and improve your
skills, just like Brin-L. Yes, you play hard and maybe there are some
players you don't like as much as others, but everything's pretty civil
most of the time, just like Brin-L. Now there's a game going on, and two
guys are going for the ball. There's a collision, and at the end of the
collision player A is still standing while player B is still on the
ground. The referee runs over, blowing on his whistle, and he looks like
he's about to pull out a penalty card.
Now, player A is positive he didn't attempt to do anything wrong, and he's
pretty sure player B isn't very badly hurt, so he argues with the referee
a little bit. Since this is an amateur league, maybe the referee actually
listens, or maybe he doesn't. Either way, no one minds that player A
decides to argue the call, as long has he doesn't go overboard and slow
down the game too much. As I see it, this is equivalent to the
clarification you offered regarding the so-called "threat." And since
referees are your fellow listmembers, and since we're all amateurs, we'll
actually listen and take your clarification into account.
But now, player B is shaking off the hit and slowly getting to his feet.
What does player A do at this point? 1) He might turn his back and walk
away, thinking, "Eh, he was trying to trip me anyway. He got what he
deserved," or even something like, "Eh, not my problem." Or, 2) player A
might offer player B a hand, help him up, offer a smile and a pat on the
back, saying, "Hey, you OK, buddy? I didn't mean to clobber you there."
>From the point of view of 3rd-party observers, choice #1 makes player A
look a jerk, and it makes the game less fun for everybody else because it
undermines the spirit of camraderie everyone wants to feel. Choice #2, by
contrast, makes player A look like a really nice guy who cares as much
about other people as he does about himself, and it reinforces the good
feelings that we generally want to get from amateur competition.
In the context of Brin-L, choice #2 is offering an apology for helping to
create a nasty misunderstanding. It makes everyone else feel good about
you, it offers an olive-branch to the other guy, and it reaffirms the
principles of generosity towards listmembers set forth in the etiquette
guidelines. Apologies of this nature are not admissions of guilt in the
sense of confessing that you had some kind of sinister intent in your
heart. They're simply a way of affirming that when all is said and done,
people are more important than the outcome of any given argument, and they
act as a good social lubricant and fire extinguisher when arguments get
out of hand.
> Again, I was only being helpful. Bob announced he was considering leaving
> the list, so I provided him with the information necessary to do so.
>
> I really don't want anyone to leave the list. However, if someone *does*
> decide to leave (be it Bob or someone else), I won't loose any sleep over
> it. No matter how valuable someone's contributions may be, everyone is free
> to leave when so desired.
Here's where I talk about how history and context color the way people are
going to read someone else's words. Doug mentioned that your comment
sounded more like saying "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out"
than it sounded like any kind of helpful assistance. Frankly, that's how
I read it too. Please let me explain why.
History -- Jeroen, you have a many-years-long history of trying to
promote and strengthen Brin-L as a list and as a community. The three
examples you gave Dan, in which a member asked for help and you told him
how to unsubscribe, support that view of your general helpfulness because
after all, a listmember asked for help and you provided it.
However, Zimmy's case isn't similar to the examples you gave Dan because
Zimmy did not ask for help in unsubscribing. It's obvious to me from his
words that if he's considering leaving Brin-L, it's not because he wants
to go as such. Rather, it's because he feels something you said may
compel him to leave. That is, most readers would look at Zimmy's words
and deduce not that he wants to unsubscribe for its own sake, but that he
may feel *forced* to unsubscribe by the actions of another listmember.
More history -- In the last couple of months, two longtimers have left
Brin-L, Charlie and Kat (and maybe others I'm forgetting? but these
stand out in my mind) and I think it's accurate to say that the consensus
of the list is that nobody actually wanted them to go. (This includes
Kristin, too, but she's a special case IMO.) If we look back a year, when
we lost David and Vera and a few others, nobody wanted them to go either,
despite the angry words said at the time. In general, it seems to me that
collectively--although Brin-L is happy to let people go and help them
unsub when they ask for help--we as a group really hate to see people
leave in anger. We're a pretty touchy-feely list in many respects, and as
a rule we'd rather see differences ironed out than become permanent.
(Maybe I'm projecting too much of my own feelings, but that's how I see
Brin-L.)
Now your personal history, Jeroen, includes some things that you said when
Charlie Bell left the list two months ago. You posted a message titled,
"Thanks a lot, JDG! :(" Here's the most relevant quote:
<<<Jeroen:
Apparently [Charlie] was so fed up with how things were going on this
list that he decided he had better things to do with his time. More
particularly, John Giorgis had a lot (if not everything!) to do with
Charlie leaving. :(
Congratulations, John. You managed to piss off someone so much that
he decided to leave. :(
>>>
Although Charlie later sent a message to the list clarifying his intent
and "exonerating" John, so to speak, any reader who remembers your post
will likely conclude that as a rule you, Jeroen, don't want to see
a listmember leave in anger and that you don't want anybody to ever feel
pushed off the list by another's actions.
Which brings us to context -- in terms of the argument itself, Zimmy had
made IMO a very bad move by saying he was considering leaving the list.
Although he may have had good reason to take the possibility of a lawsuit
seriously, the plain fact is that whenever someone threatens to unsub in
the middle of an argument, it give the appearance that the person knows
he's beaten and would rather run away than admit it. Your response,
talking about how Zimmy's fear of lawsuit was as good as a signed
confession, suggests to me that you felt you had "won" and were pretty
happy about it.
Context: At the end of that sort of exchange, telling Zimmy how to unsub
and saying "Bye" doesn't have the appearance of offering assistance. It
has the appearance of player A kicking player B while he's down and then
walking away. It may not be what you intend--but that's how it looks.
In addition, the fact that offering Zimmy a means to unsub in anger
appears to run counter to your genuine history of helpfulness, and
counter to your concern for not losing longtime members over petty
arguments, makes it really stand out in my mind. The appearance is that
whereas you never want people impulsively or angrily unsubscribe, in
Zimmy's case you're eager to make an exception.
Again, that may not be your intent--but that's how it looks to at least
several of your fellow listmembers.
> I think your understanding is correct.
>
> Just to be complete, I must explain what I meant with the "other things I'm
> not exactly happy about", as they are related to misunderstanding of my
> posts. The first one is the ocassional practice of putting words in my
> mouth. The second one (and the most important one) is formed by accusations
> without proof, based on misinterpretation of my posts.
I understand. I'll probably just treat these as side-effects of the
original misunderstanding, though, unless there's something really
compelling that leaps out at me.
> How far back in time am I allowed to go? I got a major case for you, dating
> back to late 1998.
That sounds pretty ancient to me. If the problem you want me to look at
is truly a recurring one, then I think we should have some more recent
examples to work with.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
"The ego that sees a 'thou' is fundamentally different from an ego that
sees an 'it.'" -- Joseph Campbell
