WEB: Why Attack? [was Revisit number forty two hundred]

[Joe Mabel]

I disagree.  If I think person A has attacked person B unfairly, I'm going 
to speak up, even if I'm otherwise a bystander (though I will usually 
address my remarks privately to person A).

In my opinion, conflict, even attacks on individuals, is not necessarily 
inappropriate or unfair, and that I'm suspicious that talk of "civility" 
becomes a means of restraining dissent. However, underhandedness is another 
story.  Writing an attack on someone and then weaseling out of it ("oh, I 
didn't mean YOU" without even so much as an apology that ones words read -- 
even accidentally -- like an attack) is either incivility, cowardice, or a 
refusal to see things from the other person's point of view.

I, for one, am a lot less offended if someone says, "Joe's totally wrong 
here" or even "Joe's lying" than if someone says, "One of our IPs who 
maintains a crisis resource directory seems to have an honesty gap," or 
some such...especially if I step forward to discuss the matter and they 
deny they meant me, or even pretend they don't see how I could take it as 
meaning me.

And just so I'm not accused of the same,
- yes, several people have done this sort of thing lately
- I've been to busy to even keep track of who is saying what, so I don't 
have names. Besides, I'm not particularly angry at anyone or picking a 
fight here (honest) but I'd like to see people think before they flame.  If 
anyone asks my opinion of a particular statement, I will gladly give it.
- the most egregious case of this was a recent email that indirectly 
impugned someone's honesty but left room for the writer to weasel out.
- the second most egregious was criticism of what is happening in certain 
roles in SCN where the writer (who probably had honestly been writing about 
roles, not individuals) seemed totally shocked, but not apologetic, that 
real human beings had these roles and took the attacks personally.  You may 
not have known who was doing these jobs, but obviously SOMEONE was.  Either 
you are critical of them and should stand your guns or you aren't and 
should drop the matter.  Saying, in effect, "Oh, I think things need to 
improve around here but it's nothing about your performance" is ridiculous. 
 Conversely, if someone is in a public role in the organization (board 
member, head of a committee, volunteer coordinator, they should expect 
criticism of their performance.  It is not uncivil to say, "I think 
conferencing software deserves much higher priority than it is receiving 
from the Hardware/Software committee."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mabel
206-284-7511
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." L. Frank Baum


-----Original Message-----
From:	Rich Littleton [SMTP:be718 at scn.org]
Sent:	Wednesday, June 30, 1999 11:35 PM
To:	Al Boss
Cc:	scn at scn.org; webmasters at scn.org; scna-board at scn.org
Subject:	Re: WEB: Why Attack? [was Revisit number forty two hundred]


I think I'm experiencing deja vu all over again.  I intend to discuss
civility a bit more in the future, but a succinct (and civil) comment at
this point.

99.9% "attacks" ("complaints" from a different perspective) occur because
Person X thinks he/she has run into a problem.

Thus, to complain about the complaint WITHOUT FIRST GETTING INVOLVED IN
SOLVING (or explaining away) the problem, is not helpful.

So, how about this being the basic rule:  No complaints about the
complaint (attack) unless one has first worked to solve the underlying
problem.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________

*****  Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded.  ******

On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Al Boss wrote:

> "It's not personal."
>
> People always say that. It's almost never the truth. What they mean is,
> "It's not personal to me."
>
> I got hit by a car a couple years ago. Neither the car nor the driver
> meant anything personal by it. It wasn't directed at me; my role as a
> bicyclist just conflicted with their role as a motor vehicle. It felt
> pretty personal to me, though.
>
> I used to work in an organization where warring managers used to play a
> version of org-chart chess, using their respective staffs as sacrificial
> pawns. It wasn't personal to those managers; they were scarcely aware of
> who we even were. That fact made it no less personal to the piles of
> emotional corpses of all those people who got screwed.
>
> It wasn't personal to the purchaser of a Big Mac, but it sure was
> personal to the cow.
>
> We all mean well, we call care about SCN, we're all passionate and
> involved or we wouldn't be having this conversation. And, we're not as
> awful as the examples I used above. And none of that matters when you're
> the one who's hurt, or who's dragged down in front of your friends and
> peers.
>
> Consider the consequences of what you do when you interact with other
> people. It's generally personal to the individual on the receiving end.
>
> Al
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
> .	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
> majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
> unsubscribe scn
> ==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
> * * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe webmasters
Messages posted on this list are available on the Web at:
http://www.scn.org/volunteers/webmasters/webmasters-l/

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *