----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:07 AM Subject: RE: List Administration & Etiquette
I'm going to use a post by Brett as the basis for something I've been thinking about. I would appreciate it if everyone tells me why the agree or disagree. >In the main, I think we're still a group of grownups who get a > bit contrary from day to day. Strange thing that, when you consider that the > Brin hisself is the archetypal contrarian. Maybe it's something we have in > common? Whaddayaknow There is one other thing I know about DB is that he prefers direct confrontation to passive aggressive attacks. While I, like he, can certainly misidentify something that is not a passive aggressive attack as one, they do exist. I'll give an example of aggressive first: some of the confrontations between Gautam and Nick have contained very aggressive language. I picked this confrontation for two reasons. First, I consider both of them to be on line friends. I respect both of their opinions. Second, they have seemed to be agreeing from time to time, and have managed to accept their roles in confrontation in a polite manner. While I agree it would be better if things didn't get heated, I also believe that the honesty involved in being open and honest in what you say allows for reconciliation. IIRC, after a particularly heated exchange, they both apologized and went on quite reasonably. These are people I can get in a heated debate with and still be friends. To show it, look at an exchange between Nick and myself a week or so ago. I was upset and said it, and we reconciled. (At least from my perspective; I cannot speak for Nick.) Now to the second. Jeroen: > >>Did I ever mention the existence of a table that contains the names of list >>>members and the number of times they were insulting? You just upped 1 >>> point. > > >Dan M. > >How many points does it take to get kicked off by you or Eileen? > > > Dammit all It Was A Joke. > > Rotten timing for it, but it was a joke. > > This whole thing is getting ridiculous. Well, let me first quote the Etiquette guidelines: "We use emphasis to make our comments clear. (Stars, smilies, etc.).... If our message is funny, frivolous, humourous, or is generally silly in nature, we add a "Silly/Humor" flag to the subject line so others can identify it easily." If this were done, then I would have taken it as a joke. But, as it stood, I didn't really know. Remember the earlier "joke" when Jeroen talked about an itchy finger for kicking people off the list. I guess this is a good time to mention that I've been married to a psychotherapist/family therapist for over twenty years now. Part of what I've gotten from her is a viewpoint on the dynamics of passive aggressive. One of the dynamics is the use of jokes that aren't really jokes. N**** jokes are an example of this. Its a means of putting people in their place. Another is a boss who jokes about firing employees. Everyone knows what is being said and denied. There are several obvious problems with this. First, it breaks down trust. Second, it allows no real response. The statement is made, denied, and then the person who tries to address it is accused of inventing stuff or twisting words. (As a quick aside, let me point out a dig that I thought was very appropriate: > I'm not sure how many of my posts you've missed, but it seems to be a good > fraction. :-) You got almost all of Alberto's. The conclusion is very simple then. Your posts are too long Dan. ;o) I took that as a smirk and a gentle poke in the ribs joke. It certainly followed the rules, with the smiley telling me to not take it seriously. Sonja did a nice job of gigging me there. A good example of this from the list is the mention of people getting sued in response to a post by Zimmy. Zimmy came close to leaving over it. I realize that some would just say "don't let the door hit you on the way out." However, I think Zimmy is a unique addition to this list. It wasn't just a fit of pique. He pointed out that he has been subjected to frivolous lawsuits before, and that he had to weigh the risk to his family in staying on this list. When it was brought up, it was claimed to be just a friendly warning. That sort of veiled attack and denial breaks down trust. Even though the general consensus was that it sounded like an attack, everyone who addressed this was accused of "twisting Jeroen's words." Then the warning/threat from Eileen. We've had numerous violations of the etiquette rules over the year, and most just slipped past. This one, in a post that itself violated the rule "We DO include a few lines if our reply can't stand on its own" told JDG he was one step closer to being banished. And then it was just called a warning. One thing I remember from my wife's work with abuse is that when someone with power says they may use that power over someone who has no recourse, then its a threat. > I personally don't care if anyone on this list tells me to pull my head in. > Maybe I'd prefer it in private, maybe I deserve it in public. I know I've on > occasion sent a "Pull yer head in, mate" message. It's all part of > communicating. We're supposed to be civilised here, remember? > A "pull in your head mate" would be perfectly reasonable. A "you two are getting a bit heated and not much light is coming from it, could you both cool it..would be even better." But, one step closer to the door without any indication of how many steps there are is a lot more than a "pull in your head mate." > Now, I think the listowners have some rights - the same as we all do. Yes > they have the power to bounce any one of us, but for chrissake, apart from > our late unlamented friend Kyle when have they done so? Right, never. > Right. But, up until this time, they had never told anyone that they were "one step closer to banishment." I don't think they told Alberto that...if they did...I'd like to see the reference...but I had never seen it before the last two weeks. > So, by all means discuss the meaning of the list. Get passionate. But for > heaven's sake remember we're only one little micro in a whole big cosm and > we are all members of a civilisation. > That's true. But, from my perspective, a civilization can stand a direct arguement much more than it can stand passive aggressive stuff. The first just gets people mad. The latter undermines the ability of the people to reconcile after they get mad.
