Recognizing and refraining from Interpersonal Disputes

[Rolig Loon]

40 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

The most well known example I can think of would be Don Rickles.

If a person was exposed to Don Rickles  and had NO idea who he was, or what he was about (i.e. context) one might well think he was just a mean person.

But if you know the culture and the context ... you could see that much of his humor was self depreciating, and was not mean spirited in any way. I always got the sense that Don Rickles wanted people to laugh, both at themselves, and at the world ... not as a means of putting people down, but as a means of seeing the common threads that bind us all together.

Interesting. I was thinking of Don Rickles when I said that some standup comics actually enjoy trading insults with hecklers.  He's one person that I could never stand listening to for more than minute.  I'd start to feel myself being annoyed, muttering under my breath, and I'd have to go do something else.  I couldn't find anything funny in his routines. As you say, there was a clear cultural difference between his world and mine. I would never be so bold as to say which one of us had the "right" view of how people should communicate, but I will say that we don't belong in the same room.   

[Rowan Amore]

32 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

No one?

There are people in this forum with whom I sometimes butt heads, but who also post things I "like". My opinions of those people rise and fall, and rise again, on the merits of their posts. If I block them at the ebb of those opinions, that's probably where my opinion will stay.

Can you think of anyone you thought of blocking at some point, but are now glad you didn't? If there's even one, is that an acceptable argument for not blocking?

ETA: Blocking also eliminates my opportunity to "like" posts from people I often disagree with, possibly feeding a perception that I've made up my mind about them.

I've blocked people temporarily over the brief time I've been here.  I've subsequently liked some of their posts and still butt heads on occasion.  I have no problem with debating a difference of opinion or even arguing.  What I will strike back at is someone questioning my integrity.  Especially someone who has no clue about me. That is stepping over the line IMO.  

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

still butt heads on occasion.

I figured out why you and Maddy butt heads with people..

..because you're GOATs! Greatest Of All Time!

[Kathlen Onyx]

16 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Can you think of anyone you thought of blocking at some point, but are now glad you didn't? If there's even one, is that an acceptable argument for not blocking?

 

My block list consists of people that have come on the forum and posted purely racist crap as their first post all over the forum. They immediately get blocked. The other two I am not sorry that I blocked because one always posted or started flaming threads every day *they must have either been banned from the forum or they decided they were better off not posting anymore*  and one person that typically just posts nonsense and simply just irritates me.

There is only one person that I ever thought of blocking and was glad that I didn't and they probably know who they are.  While we aren't friends we often agree on a lot of things that are posted and yes, I would have missed out on a lot of genuinely insightful things they have to say.  I contribute that to me being a new member back then and diving right in and not observing the room before I started posting and not completely thinking through things before I posted.  I often will type up a response now and let it sit on my screen for awhile and walk away for a bit, especially if it's a heated response, and come back to it. Quite often I will reword or remove some part of what I posted before I press "submit reply"

Besides that no one here has said anything to me that would warrant blocking.  Even the two people that consistently click the laugh emoji on my posts  I say if it makes them feel good, go ahead.  

[Rowan Amore]

19 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

I often will type up a response now and let it sit on my screen for awhile and walk away for a bit, especially if it's a heated response, and come back to it. Quite often I will reword or remove some part of what I posted before I press "submit reply"

I do this ALL the time.  

[Bree Giffen]

Thankfully, this type of conflict can't happen in the forums.

Eggo conflict

This kind of conflict comes up when a warm Eggo waffle pops up from a toaster and two or more individuals attempt to grab it whilst exclaiming, "Leggo my Eggo!"

[Silent Mistwalker]

[Love Zhaoying]

5 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I've always liked the wordplay / puns that can be gleaned from Eggo advertising: Ego, waffling, toast, etc.

[Theresa Tennyson]

Here's a purely hypothetical situation:

Say someone makes a post about, oh, problems with the viewer, which they are saying are problems with the code of the viewer. Let's say this is a user who has posted multiple threads about these issues in the past.

In reading the post, it's clear that most if not all of the problems are caused by their not understanding viewer settings. The user is not asking how to fix the problems, they're simply complaining about the "broken" viewer. Some of the settings have been explained to them in the past. Often when people try to explain things to this user, they pooh-pooh the advice without showing any signs of actually trying it, or say that they're seeing problems that nobody else using equivalent settings are seeing.

How do you address a situation like this without making it personal and about the poster? Because, in this case, it is.

[Love Zhaoying]

42 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

purely hypothetical

Sounds legit! The irony is strong, having read posts where the more "advanced" users in these categories will try to head off criticism by doing counterproductive and / or irrelevant things like ..[list of things] and somehow all that is supposed to be relevant to the "viewer" problem. It's easier to not engage at all.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

55 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

it's clear that most if not all of the problems are caused by their not understanding viewer settings. The user is not asking how to fix the problems, they're simply complaining about the "broken" viewer. Some of the settings have been explained to them in the past. Often when people try to explain things to this user, they pooh-pooh the advice without showing any signs of actually trying it, or say that they're seeing problems that nobody else using equivalent settings are seeing.

How do you address a situation like this without making it personal and about the poster?

You let the facts speak for themselves.  If said poster refuses to be swayed by those facts that's their problem.  As for anyone else that happens upon the thread if, as you said, "it's clear that most if not all of the problems are caused by their not understanding" and they're just complaining rather than seeking help then that fact will be equally as evident to others as it is to you, and they can decide for themselves whether the posters complaints are valid or the product of their own lack of understanding.

Simply put, you can't win an argument with someone that doesn't value fact over opinion, so state the facts and then leave them to their folly.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Fluffy Sharkfin

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Simply put, you can't win an argument with someone that doesn't value fact over opinion, so state the facts and then leave them to their folly.

Interesting how the same approach works with all manner of situations.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Interesting how the same approach works with all manner of situations.

Yes, it can be applied pretty much universally.  The tricky part is knowing when to give up on trying to elaborate and explain how the facts support your position and accept that the other person simply isn't interested in facts and just wants to argue or complain.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Here's a purely hypothetical situation:

Say someone makes a post about, oh, problems with the viewer, which they are saying are problems with the code of the viewer. Let's say this is a user who has posted multiple threads about these issues in the past.

In reading the post, it's clear that most if not all of the problems are caused by their not understanding viewer settings. The user is not asking how to fix the problems, they're simply complaining about the "broken" viewer. Some of the settings have been explained to them in the past. Often when people try to explain things to this user, they pooh-pooh the advice without showing any signs of actually trying it, or say that they're seeing problems that nobody else using equivalent settings are seeing.

How do you address a situation like this without making it personal and about the poster? Because, in this case, it is.

 

As frustrating as it may be, you just have to keep on providing support if you're a member of the support group or escalate the call like what is done at a call center. If you're just one of the people that likes to hang out and help when none of the mods are around all you can do is let the support team handle it.

This really isn't a hypothetical situation as I witnessed it occur in the Firestorm support group with more than one individual not understanding it wasn't a viewer issue. 

What it amounts to is you have to keep a lid on your temper and keep on repeating what you've already said. Maybe word it a bit differently. Other than that, there isn't a damn thing wrong with recommending they use the official or another TPV.

Never make customer/tech support personal. It's bad business.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Silent Mistwalker

[Rolig Loon]

It sounds like everyone so far is voicing the same advice. Unless you are stuck in the role of being an official support person, so you have little other choice, just walk away. As Lili Tomlin once said in her telephone operator voice: "Information cannot argue with a closed mind."  You've done your best to offer solutions that you know will work. It's up to the OP to take the advice or reject it.  Either way, it's not your problem any more.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

Yes, unfortunately customer support is one area where sometimes instead of recognizing stupid and rising above it you're forced to get down in the mud with it and wrestle it into submission.

ETA: Not that I would ever consider any of my own customers/clients (past, present or future) stupid of course, they are all exceptionally intelligent and upstanding individuals who I have the utmost admiration and respect for!

Edited April 25, 2022 by Fluffy Sharkfin
added Vague "no, not you guys, love you guys, I meant everyone else, honest!" Disclaimer.

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Here's a purely hypothetical situation:

Say someone makes a post about, oh, problems with the viewer, which they are saying are problems with the code of the viewer. Let's say this is a user who has posted multiple threads about these issues in the past.

In reading the post, it's clear that most if not all of the problems are caused by their not understanding viewer settings. The user is not asking how to fix the problems, they're simply complaining about the "broken" viewer. Some of the settings have been explained to them in the past. Often when people try to explain things to this user, they pooh-pooh the advice without showing any signs of actually trying it, or say that they're seeing problems that nobody else using equivalent settings are seeing.

How do you address a situation like this without making it personal and about the poster? Because, in this case, it is.

If you study clinical Psychology you'll find there are many techniques developed to open a closed mind.  Doesn't always work, but it's worth a try. The trick is in gently getting the ranting customer to realize they've gone into ranting mode and ceased trying to fix the problem. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

you're forced to get down in the mud with it and wrestle it into submission.

Sorry, I disagree. Even at a call center you have a choice. You are allowed to hang up if they get abusive. You are allowed to escalate calls.

There is no wrestling it into submission. All you're doing is making the pig happy in its own wallow, reducing your AHT, and getting dinged heavily on evaluations.

[Luna Bliss]

14 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

14 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Roasts are actually affirming that everyone has faults, aren't they?  I loved a roast I saw where Obama was the focus -- that yearly dinner in DC. It was fun to see Obama smile and take it all in stride, maybe a tinge of embarrassment here and there but he was a good sport. And the anticipation...the suspense...hoping the comedian doesn't go over the line...wherever that line might be as it is often different for different people.

Expand  

Yup. The satirist or comedian takes a risk by poking at people who might be able to have him "canceled" or jailed or might even walk up on stage and punch him in the face. 

Well I hadn't really analyzed this much, but you're pointing to the most important idea to keep in mind when analyzing this kind of 'roast' -- they are poking fun at someone who has an immense amount of power (the president) compared to the comedian doing the 'roasting'. It evens the score for just a bit by the comedian who has a minimal amount of power bringing to light the faults of someone with great power. This seems like a good thing to me (roasting someone who has that much power) vs if they'd be making fun of those with much less power in our society (for example, minorities or disabled people). That would be in very poor taste and I wouldn't find it funny at all. Nor would I find it funny if they went over the line and joked about, say, the wife of a president with cancer, or his child. 

Plus, these roasts bring to light the truth (just watching a clip where they were roasting Trump and joking about why he is awake and tweeting at 3am, joking that its because those are Russian business hours). He was, after all, far too cozy with Russia for various reasons.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

Just now, Silent Mistwalker said:

Sorry, I disagree. Even at a call center you have a choice. You are allowed to hang up if they get abusive. You are allowed to escalate calls.

There is no wrestling it into submission. All you're doing is making the pig happy in its own wallow, reducing your AHT, and getting dinged heavily on evaluations.

Oh there's a difference between stupid and abusive, and of course nobody is (or should be) forced to tolerate abusive behaviour, but when faced with a customer that "just doesn't get it" despite multiple attempts to explain you're still expected to continue attempting to assist them if they request it, whereas in our private lives we can simply walk away or ignore them if we've had enough.

[Arielle Popstar]

18 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

So, what was your intention in starting this thread?

Intention was and is to draw attention to the idea that interpersonal disputes are the predominant reason for the closing of many threads. Not only the reason for the closing but not even being able to start discussions for many topics because of the likelihood they will result in flame wars. This for a Forum mostly populated by an older, more mature crowd, many of whom are above average educated and professionals in their respective fields. To me, every closed thread is a fail in our collective ability to hold rational discussions about whatever the current issues might be.

I had no idea on what to expect but overall I think it has gone well with a number of posters making some good points about potential pitfalls and techniques for avoiding personal disputes in future.

[Luna Bliss]

There is a difference too between what's expected by members of a forum vs what's expected by an actual customer service representative.

I *think* Theresa was imagining a forum situation

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Oh there's a difference between stupid and abusive, and of course nobody is (or should be) forced to tolerate abusive behaviour, but when faced with a customer that "just doesn't get it" despite multiple attempts to explain you're still expected to continue attempting to assist them if they request it, whereas in our private lives we can simply walk away or ignore them if we've had enough.

No, you do not have to continue attempting to assist them. If you have never worked in a call center, you shouldn't argue about how they work with someone who has worked at them.

 

[Luna Bliss]

14 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

14 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

14 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Roasts are actually affirming that everyone has faults, aren't they?  I loved a roast I saw where Obama was the focus -- that yearly dinner in DC. It was fun to see Obama smile and take it all in stride, maybe a tinge of embarrassment here and there but he was a good sport. And the anticipation...the suspense...hoping the comedian doesn't go over the line...wherever that line might be as it is often different for different people.

Expand  

Yup. The satirist or comedian takes a risk by poking at people who might be able to have him "canceled" or jailed or might even walk up on stage and punch him in the face. 

Expand  

Yes, but that same roast took an ugly turn more than once in the years since Obama's time.

Where did the roasts take an ugly turn? Since Obama's time Trump wouldn't even attend these White House Correspondents' Dinners though he complained about them, and Covid eliminated the last two dinners.

[Rowan Amore]

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There is a difference too between what's expected by members of a forum vs what's expected by an actual customer service representative.

I *think* Theresa was imagining a forum situation

The "hypothetical" scenario is actually SOP for the "hypothetical" poster.  We've ALL seen it.  They don't actually want help, it seems.  Almost every single response is shot down for one reason or another until people just throw up their hands in exasperation.