From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Conversational guidelines
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:39:07 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: SCA

*** WARNING: LONG.  YOU MAY WANT TO DUMP THIS TO A FILE AND ***
***                     READ IT IN HARD COPY....            ***

Greetings, all, from Angharad.  In email, Bertram suggested to my lord
and me that the Rialto needs some guidelines for behavior, to prevent
the kind of wasted energy that we have recently seen in the "courtesy
flame war", and that this was why he had tried to argue for courtesy as
such a guideline.

We do seem to need guidelines.  But just telling people to be polite won't
do the trick, because we both have trouble understanding messages
across dialects and have trouble figuring out which messages really are
rude, assuming we understand them right.   So I think instead of talking
about polite versus rude behavior, it may help to think about good
strategies versus likely-to-go-astray behavior.  The more guidelines can
be kept neutral as to the cultural differences that are complicating our
communication, the better.

Well, this is not exactly short and simple stuff, and the shorter I tried 
to make it, the longer it got.  So I canned everything that was there to
show I wasn't sure, in favor of a global statement that THIS IS JUST A
DRAFT, FOLKS.  I'm not sure of any of it.  But I think we need a starting
place, so I started.  In that spirit, I suggest the following ten notions.  
In sympathy with those who can't _believe_ how longwinded this is, I'm
listing the "bumper stickers" first, then giving some explanations of
why I think they're useful.

BUMPER STICKERS

1.  Communication is hard.  
2.  Intents live in cloud-cuckoo-land.
3.  Criticism that hits no target is useless; criticism that hits the wrong
    target is unjust.
4.  Criticism of ideas or positions is a good and constructive thing;
    criticism of their holders is a different thing,
5.  Useful criticism says both what is wrong, and how to make it better.
6.  Everyone has feelings.  Expressing feelings is fine.  Abusing people
    instead of expressing feelings is not.
7.  Differences are real, and deserve investigation.
8.  Hidden agendas usually aren't.
9.  Effective responses usually take time.
10. Blame is one of the most useless concepts ever devised.

ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING (and explanation)

1.  _Communication is hard_.  There are two sides to this: the writer's
and the reader's.  On the writer's side: clarity is a virtue, and begins at
home.  In speaking, many of us let the message ride between the lines.
Electronic communication is harder than communication in person, because 
we lose tone of voice, posture, and other indicators.  The single most 
error-prone area is picking up implications, i.e., reading between the 
lines.  On those grounds, I think it helps to write _on_ the lines, not
between them.  That is, write as directly as we can stand to -- with as
little euphemism, as little sarcasm, as few figures of speech, and as short
a distance from the thought to the word as possible: not so much bluntly
as literally.

Even this won't always transmit ideas successfully.  Communication is
hard.  If people don't understand, explain, and don't assume that they're
obtuse, let alone deliberately obtuse.  Remember that we can't use
language at all without lots of assumptions; this makes wrong assumptions 
a lot easier to sympathize with (and correct).  It's okay to have to say 
something several times.

On the reader's side: just because you got it doesn't mean the author gave 
it to you, especially if you got it reading between the lines.  If the
author didn't put anything between the lines, but you go looking for
something, it's like looking for pictures in clouds: you could see
anything.  It's okay to ask for clarification.  And when in doubt, the
author knows what the author meant -- _and you don't_.

2.  _Intents live in cloud-cuckoo-land._  No matter how strong an
"emotional impression" something seems to carry, _only_ the author
knows how s/he meant it.  If you take something in a better way than it
was meant, no harm can result.  But the worst construal is usually both
wrong and unjust

If a posting can be taken in more than one way, we should either assume 
it was meant in the way that reflects best on the author, or ask.  This 
is simple justice: burden of proof lies on the accuser: don't accuse what 
you can't prove.  The most ironic aspect of the recent flame war is that 
there _was_ a courteous interpretation of what Stephen said, it _was_ 
suggested to the Rialto, and virtually everyone posting on the side of 
courtesy ignored it in favor of a much more damaging reading that was by 
no means forced.  _This_ is _courtesy_?

Do not take offense where it is not forced on you; do not attribute malice
or ill intent where it is not patent; when you see a harmless meaning
that others don't, point it out; and when someone points out a harmless
interpretation you missed, ask the author or accept it.  Avoid attributing
intent as much as you can, especially attributing _bad_ intent.

3.  _Criticism that hits no target is useless; criticism that hits the wrong
target is unjust_.  If you have something nasty to say about some group, be 
sure it is clear of whom you are saying it.  Otherwise, it won't stick where 
you want it to, and it may stick where you don't.  

There are really two problems here.  First, vagueness invites wrongful
application of criticisms.  Nobody sane has strong opinions about the
dreadful nature of hypothetical purple cetacians from Mars.  If you have 
strong negative opinions about a group, you also think it has real members; 
if you criticize it, you are criticizing those real members.  The usual 
reason to be hypothetical is to avoid hurt feelings.  But if you don't 
make it clear who your targets are, readers are _forced_ to supply them.  
Those who wind up being supplied are damaged whether they know it or not.  
If they suspect that you or anyone else classifies them in the target zone, 
they _will_ be offended.  Some of them may be your intended targets, but 
others probably won't.  Specificity hurts only the intended targets; 
vagueness hurts both them and others.

Second, the usual move, when someone denies the charge, is to say, "I
didn't mean _you_."  Sometimes that's true.  But even then, whether you
had those people in mind or not, you may have injured them, especially
if there is reason why someone else would think you meant them; see
above.  But often the denial is a way to dodge criticism while slinging
mud, and further extend the offense by topping it with "if the shoe
fits...."  The deep, moral problem here is that this constitutes a slander
against which there is no possibility for innocent targets to defend
themselves.  If you care enough to criticize a group, you should be
willing to make it clear _exactly_ who you count in it, why, and what
exactly is wrong with them.  _That_, if they are innocent, they can answer.

4.  _Criticism of ideas or positions is a good and constructive thing;
criticism of their holders is a different thing_.  The first should
_always_ be freely permitted.  We are not the same as our opinions;
criticism of them is not criticism of us; and if we forbid any criticism of
ideas and positions because of the possibility of hurt feelings, we rapidly 
trivialize this forum.

5.  _Useful criticism says both what is wrong, and how to make it better_.
However obvious these things may be to you, they probably aren't to the 
rest of us.  This is a principle of effectiveness, not of politeness or
anything like it.  This has to do with strategy and effective communication.  
If Stephen had said exactly what he thought was wrong with filk at events, 
where he thought it did belong, and why, it would have been harder either 
to take personal offense or to attack him as rude.  We may still have had 
a debate, but it would have been over the place (or lack of it) for filk 
in the SCA, and whys and wherefores, not over whether Stephen was rude.

Likewise, if his critics had paid more attention to what he actually said,
to what specifically they considered wrong with it, and to how it could
better have been said, they would not have laid themselves open to the charge, 
in some cases, of rudeness and insensitivity in the cause of courtesy, or, 
in some others, to that of hidden agendas disguising themselves as 
exhortations to virtue -- both of which charges, given what was actually 
said, can reasonably be supported.

6.  _Everyone has feelings.  Expressing feelings is fine.  Abusing people
instead of expressing feelings is not_. There's a difference between
saying "This really makes me mad" and saying "You are an SOB to say this."  
The second is virtually never useful.  The reason to allow the first is 
less obvious, but I think important.  We are all human.  We all have feelings.  
If we talk about things that matter to us, our feelings will be involved.  
Denying this only results in indirections that lead to distrust. Nobody 
should be expected to be without feelings, or to deny the feelings they 
have, so long as they do not claim that their feelings arise from lack of 
human worth in others.

7.  _Differences are real, and deserve investigation_.  It has taken a
major shit storm to get some of the people from what I've taken to calling 
the central culture to explain where they stand, largely because every time 
anyone else -- usually me -- suggested that there _was_ a cultural 
difference, most of the Rialto chimed together to say, "What difference?  
We don't see a difference."  There is no One True Religion, there is no 
One True Political Stand, and there is also no One True Courtesy, or One 
True Dialect, or One True Way to Speak, or One True Rialto Culture.  Unless 
we acknowledge differences in senses of courtesy, dialect, and general 
culture, communication is impossible.  If we don't want to drive out 
members of other cultures, or practice cultural imperialism, the _only_ 
alternative is to recognize difference, acknowledge the validity of other 
approaches, and _all_ try to meet each other half way -- _not_ just demand 
those in the minority to come to our ground, which is what the demands for 
"courtesy" lately in the absence of such recognition and validation have 
amounted to.  This area needs lots of work.

8.  _Hidden agendas usually aren't_.  They're usually pretty easy to spot,
and they just make people mad and make communication even harder.  For 
instance, some of the people landing on Stephen were really concerned with 
courtesy.  But others made it clear in email to him that they were mad 
because they believe that filk has a place in the SCA.  This was also 
pretty clear online.  BUT -- on the Rialto, except for Yaakov, _none_ of 
them said this.  Instead, they castigated Stephen as rude.

Folks, it is _not_ rude to disagree with someone.  It is not even rude to
think that something dear to someone else's heart has no place in some
particular venue.  It _is_ rude to dress up disagreement as if it were a
question of courtesy.  This made Stephen real mad, it made it _much_ harder 
to convince him that _anyone_ really thought he was rude, and it generally 
got in the way of everyone's points.

9.  _Effective responses usually take time_.  It's easy to answer in haste.
The real problem is not so much that you are likely to be heated as that
it's _hard_ to be clear.  The more time you take, the shorter and clearer
you can make your response, and the more effective it is likely to be.
(The same, of course, goes for starting threads; but we're less likely to do
that hurriedly.)

10.  _Blame is one of the most useless concepts ever devised_.  Don't
waste your time trying to place blame for problems; it's better spent
solving them.

Well, there it is, my first try.  Any ideas out there?

Best wishes to all,

-- Angharad/Terry
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca