Recognizing and refraining from Interpersonal Disputes

[Persephone Emerald]

I reported my own thread when it was going off topic and into an emotionally charged area of discussion. I reported a post that had nothing to do with this current discussion. I think abusing the AR tool is about as lazy and pitiful an attempt to control other people on a forum as is creating an army of alts to agree with oneself. It's also not kind to the moderators.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

And?

Far more recently, things have been flagged/treated as "Interpersonal Disputes" which were nothing of the sort.

I find my patience with such growing ever thinner.

yes I agree that things are becoming increasingly sensitive and wonder if that is the reporting system or a more active moderation policy. 

[Solar Legion]

3 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I reported my own thread when it was going off topic and into an emotionally charged area of discussion. I reported a post that had nothing to do with this current discussion. I think abusing the AR tool is about as lazy and pitiful an attempt to control other people on a forum as is creating an army of alts to agree with oneself. It's also not kind to the moderators.

As is the tactic of saying one has reported something to the Moderation team when losing an argument/a discussion is not going their way.

We have had far too much of that as of late.

ETA: I will leave it right here now - I have said my piece and do not hold much hope out that this topic nor my own recent posts to it will remain for very long as this sort of thing is quite heavily frowned on ... Wrongly so in cases like this mind.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Solar Legion

[Persephone Emerald]

Agreed. Saying I'm gonna report this or that one has  just reported something  is kind of like the "I'm Going to Quit this Group" flounce. It's silly and makes the person who does it look childish."

Edited April 23, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Persephone Emerald]

I think this is a fruitful discussion. I think it helps communication to define terms and define where we're all coming from in our forum dispute styles. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

5 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Here's an interesting one:

https://www.healthline.com/health/interpersonal-conflict#conflict-types

Fact conflict

You’re utterly convinced snakes can hear, but your friend insists they can’t because they don’t have ears. 

This illustrates a fact conflict, also called simple conflict. Fact conflict happens when two or more people disagree over information or the truth of something.

Because this kind of conflict involves facts, you can often resolve it pretty easily. All you have to do is check a credible source for the truth.

This kind of conflict seems increasingly hard to resolve, doesn't it?

[Rowan Amore]

It seems to me that some of it comes from a poster not acknowledging that they are, in fact, mistaken.  Instead of saying, "yes, I was mistaken.  I apologize."  they double down, refuse to admit the other side has a valid point, then fling insults.

Twice in the last couple of days, I've apologized when called out on a post where I said something that could be taken the wrong way.  There is no harm in an apology.  No one will think any less of you for being wrong.

[Persephone Emerald]

8 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This kind of conflict seems increasingly hard to resolve, doesn't it?

Sometimes facts cannot be honestly resolved or easily resolved. When they can't be, I find it useful to use "I think", "I believe", and "In my experience" statements.  Then the other person might also pick up this habit of saying what they think or believe from their personal experience.  I think we can all agree that it's fine for us to have different thoughts and beliefs about stuff. It's when we start to project what other people do, think or believe that we get into the most trouble in our disagreements.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[LittleMe Jewell]

8 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

It seems to me that some of it comes from a poster not acknowledging that they are, in fact, mistaken.  Instead of saying, "yes, I was mistaken.  I apologize."  they double down, refuse to admit the other side has a valid point, then fling insults.

Or they just reword things a bit and say, 'what I was meaning was .....' 

Backtrack & reword to try saving face.  I do think that some folks really do thing it a mortal failing to have to admit that they said something wrong.

Edited April 23, 2022 by LittleMe Jewell

[kali Wylder]

6 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I sometimes have that problem when being swarmed ie, when I get a number of posts all trying to refute something I said. It becomes overwhelming and I have a harder time pushing off the feeling it is personal.

Have you considered the possibility that whatever you said might have been wrong?

[Persephone Emerald]

7 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

Have you considered the possibility that whatever you said might have been wrong?

When a bunch of people disagree with you, you might be wrong or you might just be in the minority position. Being in the minority position doesn't mean a person is wrong, but it does mean they might have to word their position more carefully, and that they're probably not going to get much support on it.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Ceka Cianci]

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well if I had a full-time job, 3 young'uns to raise, and a big farm to manage I'd probably do the same!   

Those things never stopped me when I used to do it.. hehehe

It just comes down to weighing the value of that time it takes to argue on the internet vs anything else that has more value.

Pretty much anything else has more value. hehehe

[Paulsian]

Never argue with AI, especially AI that has organically evolved to have consciousness. Baby steps when developing relationships based on communication (is what this is right?). The best relationships often start with conflict. Some not so respectful initially. Maybe most now that I think of it. I'd rather have a meaningful relationship with someone who's honest with me.

Of course I have a story, like to hear it, here it goes.

This reminds me of a conversation with residents while ago at infohub, was when the football team red skins had to change their name and residents were literally fighting. I replyed, if I was a native american back then and approx 60,000,000 (60 million) men, women, and children were salughted and their death/body or parts were turned in and rewarded with cash and they were refered as red skins on the reward posters, maybe consider another name for a football team would be better. 

Back then I wonder what the reward was for turning someone in for helping the native americans or disagreeing with the program?
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Silent Mistwalker]

3 minutes ago, Paulsian said:

Never argue with AI, especially AI that has organically evolved to have consciousness. Baby steps when developing relationships based on communication (is what this is right?). The best relationships often start with conflict. Some not so respectful initially. Maybe most now that I think of it. I'd rather have a meaningful relationship with someone who's honest with me.

Of course I have a story, like to hear it, here it goes.

This reminds me of a conversation with residents while ago at infohub, was when the football team red skins had to change their name and residents were literally fighting. I replyed, if I was a native american back then and approx 60,000,000 (60 million) men, women, and children were salughted and their death/body or parts were turned in and rewarded with cash and they were refered as red skins on the reward posters, maybe consider another name for a football team would be better. 

Back then I wonder what the reward was for turning someone in for helping the native americans or disagreeing with the program?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In MN it was $200 USD

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29318/redskin-name-update/#:~:text=24%2C 1863.,the Red River are worth.

 

[Paulsian]

[Mollymews]

4 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This kind of conflict seems increasingly hard to resolve, doesn't it?

i see what you did there

[Love Zhaoying]

8 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

10 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I dunno, a topic about forum disputes sounds..disputable.

Except that the forum mods seem to consider that disputable according to the notes they have left on an increasing amount of threads lately. Might we be in denial about how often it happens?

Who's "we"? 
I meant it ironically, but literally also: discussing disputes will result in disputes about disputes.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Kalegthepsionicist]

11 hours ago, Orwar said:

   I think that, when it comes to discussions on the Internet that are carried out in text, people don't always fully catch the tone or emphasis of any given statement. Just as an example, try reading out the following short sentence with the emphasis placed on different words.

   'I will eat bread'.

   Suddenly, a four word sentence could be interpreted in a variety different ways - especially when there's no context.

   I will eat bread - but you don't have to, of course, it's optional.
   I will eat bread - and there's nothing you can do to stop me!
   I will eat bread - but don't expect for a minute that I'll go through the trouble of baking it.
   I will eat bread - but if you've put raisins in it, it's no longer a foodstuff, but a culinary abomination unsuitable for human consumption.

or

I will eat (your) bread

or

some people guess bread is cookie, and become

i will eat your cookie

dang..

 

[Love Zhaoying]

How can a disagreement not be turned into a dispute? I guess the easiest way is, if you disagree just keep it to your self, or say so respectfully. No need for back-and-forth or personal attacks.

But..but..

But "they" want the last word! (So do you.)

But they chose minority views to post, that must mean they are bad and need to be challenged! (Being in the majority doesn't make you right or good.)

But they chose "purposefully" to post hurtful content! (And this actually affects you..how?)

But their argument is supported by "bad" people with "bad" agendas! (Who made you the arbiter of "good" and "bad"?)

But their statements are demonstrably false claims, because science and/or common sense! (Since you know so much, shouldn't you be wise enough to ignore such a weak argument?)

But their statement includes political remarks! (Then, you should know better to engage.)

But they are trolling! (Oh? Why do you care? You should not be affected by a troll.)

But they personally attacked me! (If it was false, why should it bother you? If it was true, you may want to thank them.)

Edited April 23, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Theresa Tennyson]

10 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This kind of conflict seems increasingly hard to resolve, doesn't it?

I was going to reply with a clever post saying that "credible" could mean either "believable" or "believes almost anything". In order to prove my point I looked up definitions, and discovered that the "believes almost anything" definition that I thought was an alternate definition for "credible" was actually the definition of "credulous."

So, as it happens, I didn't post something that was factually wrong.

And, in doing so, I also didn't create Some Wrong-Azz Thing on the Internet that someone else could have quoted as proof.

And there you go.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Theresa Tennyson

[Silent Mistwalker]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

How can a disagreement not be turned into a dispute? I guess the easiest way is, if you disagree just keep it to your self, or say so respectfully. No need for back-and-forth or personal attacks.

But..but..

But "they" want the last word! (So do you.)

But they chose minority views to post, that must mean they are bad and need to be challenged! (Being in the majority doesn't make you right or good.)

But they chose "purposefully" to post hurtful content! (And this actually affects you..how?)

But their argument is supported by "bad" people with "bad" agendas! (Who made you the arbiter of "good" and "bad"?)

But their statements are demonstrably false claims, because science and/or common sense! (Since you know so much, shouldn't you be wise enough to ignore such a weak argument?)

But their statement includes political remarks! (Then, you should know better to engage.)

But they are trolling! (Oh? Why do you care? You should not be affected by a troll.)

But they personally attacked me! (If it was false, why should it bother you? If it was true, you may want to thank them.)

 

Lovely depiction of the animals, but where's the depiction of humans? 🦗

[Luna Bliss]

12 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Those things never stopped me when I used to do it.. hehehe

It just comes down to weighing the value of that time it takes to argue on the internet vs anything else that has more value.

Pretty much anything else has more value. hehehe

OMG, someone on the forum with common sense!  I don't know what to say!  🤣

[Luna Bliss]

15 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

17 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Which would you primarily use when trying to ascertain meaning (both in text and in voice communication)....the context in which a statement was said, or the varied emphasis on the words in the statement? I think I'd go with the context, and ignore the stresses on the words. Not sure though, perhaps the emphasis on words operates at a more liminal awareness for me, and I'd detect an incongruency more than I'm imagining.

Expand  

I think that in text, especially in a forum, context would be very important for understanding tone. Context is not a simple thing though. When responding to a poster there is the context they may have stated they were referring to in their previous post, but then there is also the context of their other posts prior to that most recent one, as well as the context of their posts in other threads. This is often how we interpret the meaning behind the words of a poster. There is also the Context of the OP's original post, the general tone of the forum, and of the current discussions on that forum. For instance, if one group of posters is known to be irritated with another group of posters, *that* is part of the context of the discussions going on between them too. There is also the birds of a feather assumption, that if a person supports the post of a another, they're assumed to believe many of the same things as that other person. Wrongly or rightly,  we're more likely to read an argumentative or disparaging tone into the post of someone we believe is not on "our side" of a disagreement. 

A person can use italics, bold font, or asterisks to try to demonstrate one's intended tone, but if the greater context is already assumed by the reader, they may not change the meaning for that person. Meaning is half what is intended by the writer/speaker and half what is understood by the reader/listener.

It's interesting how our brains keep track of all this information and shuffles it to the foreground when needed. I don't consciously attempt to know the context usually, but the patterns I've perceived in the past come floating to me from my subconscious mind. And it's interesting how some patterns/context 'out there' is remembered while others ignored. 

So true...regarding context coming from so many sources on a forum. I remember responding to a person's statement in a thread and another person saying "how in the world did you deduce that from what they just said?!".  Well, it didn't come from what they just said, but from other threads spanning years. It's very difficult to resolve such an occurrence on a forum, because if conflictual in nature it can be seen as bringing other threads into this one (something we're apparently not supposed to do?), or as an attempt to simply fight.  Such things do get reported. Often we are forced to operate with our hands tied on the forum, and to speak in cryptic ways -- and that doesn't do much for clarity of communication!

[Love Zhaoying]

13 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

Lovely depiction of the animals, but where's the depiction of humans? 🦗

Humans are animals! 

[Luna Bliss]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But their argument is supported by "bad" people with "bad" agendas! (Who made you the arbiter of "good" and "bad"?)

I like your other categories, but don't understand this one.

Are you saying nobody can determine what is good or bad?  Or nobody should be able to judge this in the world?