Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Help requested - public vs. private

Expand Messages
  • smoroi <smoroi@yahoo.com>
    Dear All, Recently, I have observed something happening in an online community, which has left me dumbfounded and more than just a bit at a loss for words. I
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 4, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,

      Recently, I have observed something happening in an online community,
      which has left me dumbfounded and more than just a bit at a loss for
      words. I would like some feedback from you all -

      I am regular reader, silent but observant, of this e-group. I am a
      doctoral student/"Professor" (here in Germany, it is possible to
      become a full professor without the PhD in hand) of organisational
      behaviour with my research focussing on global virutal teams (GVTs)
      and the intercultural aspects of distant team processes.

      There was some off-line/back-channel e-mailing between two members of
      an online community. One of the persons subsequently posted the
      other's e-mail within the group without any forewarning or permission
      from the person who sent the mail. There was not foul language,
      crudity or outright or in appropriate abuse in the mail. But, what
      the person who posted the mail did was use it against the other in an
      abusive manner: ridiculing the person for poor language, asking silly
      questions, and throwing accusations at the e-mail author. The context
      of the post was rather damnifying of the original author because it
      was clear that the message was personally addressed to someone and
      not the group.

      Briefly, my issue: what do private discussion (off-group)/e-mails
      between two people have to do with the group as a whole? How can
      there be a culture of privacy once this practice is out in the open?

      Perhaps you all could help me to understand in a more
      appropriate context for me because I do not see a connection between
      what I perceive as a deliberate attempt to discredit someone
      by publicly posting a private e-mail and what was claimed
      as, "exposing the person because it was judged that discrimination in
      order to serve the greater good was worth the risk".

      I am concerned about the implications of such feelings because it has
      turned the current discussions, and potentially the atmosphere of
      trust, into something nasty. If, for example, one has the right to
      post someone's private thoughts into a public area, what more could
      then expect from others?

      I do not feel the idea of privacy and ethic has anymore more merit
      than others but, my gut feeling is that someone forces the
      privacy/lack of privacy onto someone else, it will lead to diminished
      participation within the online community.

      Ethics comes more to my mind than privacy in this case. I concede
      that privacy/confidentiality are far from being universal values.
      But, will this lead to an atmosphere of people required to add a
      signature to their e-mails saying, "Do not further post this
      information, copyrighted, bla-bla-bla"? In my opinion, this kind of
      private/public or online-back channel communication choices must be
      left up to the individuals or we remove the choice of participation
      from one member by posting their private thoughts and only offering
      a partially 'fair'(oh, I hate this bland word...) platform for a
      discussion.

      What kind of attitude do you all expect from the group to have after
      such actions? What about the attitude of the person whose e-mail has
      been publicly posted? Would any of you be willing to send your
      private e-mails, knowing that someone, seemingly, distributes
      them as he/she deems appropriate?

      Please post your comments about this, I would love to get some advice
      from you all. Any resolutions in mind?

      I wish you all a pleasant New Year,


      Roy
    • Sally Irvin
      ... I happen to agree with the above statement. It looks like an excuse to me! Just because we are online and don t shake hands and look each other in the eye
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > Perhaps you all could help me to understand in a more
        > appropriate context for me because I do not see a connection between
        > what I perceive as a deliberate attempt to discredit someone
        > by publicly posting a private e-mail and what was claimed
        > as, "exposing the person because it was judged that discrimination in
        > order to serve the greater good was worth the risk".
        I happen to agree with the above statement. It looks like an excuse to me!

        Just because we are online and don't shake hands and look each other in the
        eye does not mean we leave the common courtesies behind. My gut reaction is
        that the person who did this was unethical and at the very least should be
        put on probation in that particular community. And assuming that there is a
        moderator for that community he or she should be using that position to
        start smoothing over ruffled feathers but as far as "copywriting" everything
        we say or speak - that is just not realistic. These things happen in the
        "real" world and we move on. I think we should try to do the same online -
        but common sense just tells us to be careful what we say or write in the
        first place.

        Sally

        Online Community Development Services
        Pam Thomas, CEO
        Jon Nix, Executive Vice President
        http://www.cornerways.com
        http://www.cwlive.com
        http://www.communityanswers.com


        ____________________________________________________________________
        > ________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 1
        > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:26:45 -0000
        > From: "smoroi <smoroi@...>" <smoroi@...>
        > Subject: Re: Help requested - public vs. private
        >
        > Dear All,
        >
        > Recently, I have observed something happening in an online community,
        > which has left me dumbfounded and more than just a bit at a loss for
        > words. I would like some feedback from you all -
        >
        > I am regular reader, silent but observant, of this e-group. I am a
        > doctoral student/"Professor" (here in Germany, it is possible to
        > become a full professor without the PhD in hand) of organisational
        > behaviour with my research focussing on global virutal teams (GVTs)
        > and the intercultural aspects of distant team processes.
        >
        > There was some off-line/back-channel e-mailing between two members of
        > an online community. One of the persons subsequently posted the
        > other's e-mail within the group without any forewarning or permission
        > from the person who sent the mail. There was not foul language,
        > crudity or outright or in appropriate abuse in the mail. But, what
        > the person who posted the mail did was use it against the other in an
        > abusive manner: ridiculing the person for poor language, asking silly
        > questions, and throwing accusations at the e-mail author. The context
        > of the post was rather damnifying of the original author because it
        > was clear that the message was personally addressed to someone and
        > not the group.
        >
        > Briefly, my issue: what do private discussion (off-group)/e-mails
        > between two people have to do with the group as a whole? How can
        > there be a culture of privacy once this practice is out in the open?
        >
        > Perhaps you all could help me to understand in a more
        > appropriate context for me because I do not see a connection between
        > what I perceive as a deliberate attempt to discredit someone
        > by publicly posting a private e-mail and what was claimed
        > as, "exposing the person because it was judged that discrimination in
        > order to serve the greater good was worth the risk".
        >
        > I am concerned about the implications of such feelings because it has
        > turned the current discussions, and potentially the atmosphere of
        > trust, into something nasty. If, for example, one has the right to
        > post someone's private thoughts into a public area, what more could
        > then expect from others?
        >
        > I do not feel the idea of privacy and ethic has anymore more merit
        > than others but, my gut feeling is that someone forces the
        > privacy/lack of privacy onto someone else, it will lead to diminished
        > participation within the online community.
        >
        > Ethics comes more to my mind than privacy in this case. I concede
        > that privacy/confidentiality are far from being universal values.
        > But, will this lead to an atmosphere of people required to add a
        > signature to their e-mails saying, "Do not further post this
        > information, copyrighted, bla-bla-bla"? In my opinion, this kind of
        > private/public or online-back channel communication choices must be
        > left up to the individuals or we remove the choice of participation
        > from one member by posting their private thoughts and only offering
        > a partially 'fair'(oh, I hate this bland word...) platform for a
        > discussion.
        >
        > What kind of attitude do you all expect from the group to have after
        > such actions? What about the attitude of the person whose e-mail has
        > been publicly posted? Would any of you be willing to send your
        > private e-mails, knowing that someone, seemingly, distributes
        > them as he/she deems appropriate?
        >
        > Please post your comments about this, I would love to get some advice
        > from you all. Any resolutions in mind?
        >
        > I wish you all a pleasant New Year,
        >
        >
        > Roy
      • Deb
        Copyright or not... a trust was betrayed. Roy, have you posted any guidelines for behavior to your group? I personally don t like long lists of dos and
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Copyright or not... a trust was betrayed.

          Roy, have you posted any guidelines for behavior to your group? I personally
          don't like long lists of "dos" and don'ts" for my groups, but I do refer them
          to other sites which address the rules of netiquette with their welcome
          letter... then remind them of infractions (referring back to the netiquette
          site) when things of this nature occur.

          One reference I use frequently is the web version of the book Netiquette by
          Virginia Shea, published by Albion Books.
          http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html
          A net search on the phrases "netiquette" and "listserv netiquette" yields
          hundreds more references.

          Other list areas (such as Yahoo Groups) have a list of Terms of Service which
          can also be used as a reference when greeting new members or sending reminders.

          What usually works for me is an open letter (written by me) to the entire group
          (without naming names or referring to specific incidents) reminding
          participants that a certain level of trust develops in a community which is
          compromised when private thoughts are communicated to the group as a whole
          without prior permission. This mainly serves to reassure group members that I
          am concerned about the community and am taking steps to protect it as
          moderator. Depending on the hostility involved between the two (or more)
          involved, sometimes private "if you don't stop" warnings are necessary--but I
          don't usually find this to be necessary in professional groups.

          Obviously the person who committed this faux pas was aware it was wrong or they
          wouldn't have included the part about 'serving the greater good,' so I doubt
          that any further censure on your part would serve any purpose.

          In a short time, the blunder will likely be forgotten by all but the two
          involved, and perhaps their personal champions.

          Deb Byster,
          Director of Internet Communications
          http://www.newseminary.org

          > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:26:45 -0000
          > From: "smoroi <smoroi@...>"
          > Subject: Re: Help requested - public vs. private

          <snip>

          > There was some off-line/back-channel e-mailing between two members of
          > an online community. One of the persons subsequently posted the
          > other's e-mail within the group without any forewarning or permission
          > from the person who sent the mail. There was not foul language,
          > crudity or outright or in appropriate abuse in the mail. But, what the
          > person who posted the mail did was use it against the other in an
          > abusive manner: ridiculing the person for poor language, asking silly
          > questions, and throwing accusations at the e-mail author. The context
          > of the post was rather damnifying of the original author because it
          > was clear that the message was personally addressed to someone and not
          > the group.

          > Briefly, my issue: what do private discussion (off-group)/e-mails
          > between two people have to do with the group as a whole? How can there
          > be a culture of privacy once this practice is out in the open?>>

          <snip>
        • Max Schupbach
          Happy New Year, dear friends!!! thanks for an interesting discussion. I am on one list, where something similar happened, and we had a huge discussion about
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Happy New Year, dear friends!!!
            thanks for an interesting discussion. I
            am on one list, where something similar
            happened, and we had a huge discussion
            about it, which lasted for months. The
            final consensus was, that on that
            particular list, whatever you say to
            someone, can be brought back to the main
            discussion list. the group, maybe
            similar to yours, opted finally after
            all the pros and cons, that this should
            be the rule.
            I felt uncomfortable, but also strangely
            relieved about the decision.
            Uncomfortable, because it is a horrible
            decision in my viewpoint, strangely
            relieved, because it is really like f2f
            gossiping, where of course when you
            "gossip" it often leaks out, too.
            If you say something to someone, about
            someone else, the first law of gossip
            applies: tell the person whom you gossip
            about directly, next time you meet them.
            If you can't, don't tell it to anyone
            else in the first place.
            what do others think?
            Max


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Sally Irvin
            [mailto:spirvin@...]
            Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:05 AM
            To: onlinefacilitation@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [of] Re: Help requested -
            public vs. private


            > Perhaps you all could help me to
            understand in a more
            > appropriate context for me because I
            do not see a connection between
            > what I perceive as a deliberate
            attempt to discredit someone
            > by publicly posting a private e-mail
            and what was claimed
            > as, "exposing the person because it
            was judged that discrimination in
            > order to serve the greater good was
            worth the risk".
            I happen to agree with the above
            statement. It looks like an excuse to
            me!

            Just because we are online and don't
            shake hands and look each other in the
            eye does not mean we leave the common
            courtesies behind. My gut reaction is
            that the person who did this was
            unethical and at the very least should
            be
            put on probation in that particular
            community. And assuming that there is a
            moderator for that community he or she
            should be using that position to
            start smoothing over ruffled feathers
            but as far as "copywriting" everything
            we say or speak - that is just not
            realistic. These things happen in the
            "real" world and we move on. I think
            we should try to do the same online -
            but common sense just tells us to be
            careful what we say or write in the
            first place.

            Sally

            Online Community Development Services
            Pam Thomas, CEO
            Jon Nix, Executive Vice President
            http://www.cornerways.com
            http://www.cwlive.com
            http://www.communityanswers.com



            ________________________________________
            ____________________________
            >
            ________________________________________
            ________________________________
            >
            > Message: 1
            > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003
            23:26:45 -0000
            > From: "smoroi <smoroi@...>"
            <smoroi@...>
            > Subject: Re: Help requested - public
            vs. private
            >
            > Dear All,
            >
            > Recently, I have observed something
            happening in an online community,
            > which has left me dumbfounded and
            more than just a bit at a loss for
            > words. I would like some feedback
            from you all -
            >
            > I am regular reader, silent but
            observant, of this e-group. I am a
            > doctoral student/"Professor" (here
            in Germany, it is possible to
            > become a full professor without the
            PhD in hand) of organisational
            > behaviour with my research focussing
            on global virutal teams (GVTs)
            > and the intercultural aspects of
            distant team processes.
            >
            > There was some off-line/back-channel
            e-mailing between two members of
            > an online community. One of the
            persons subsequently posted the
            > other's e-mail within the group
            without any forewarning or permission
            > from the person who sent the mail.
            There was not foul language,
            > crudity or outright or in
            appropriate abuse in the mail. But, what
            > the person who posted the mail did
            was use it against the other in an
            > abusive manner: ridiculing the
            person for poor language, asking silly
            > questions, and throwing accusations
            at the e-mail author. The context
            > of the post was rather damnifying of
            the original author because it
            > was clear that the message was
            personally addressed to someone and
            > not the group.
            >
            > Briefly, my issue: what do private
            discussion (off-group)/e-mails
            > between two people have to do with
            the group as a whole? How can
            > there be a culture of privacy once
            this practice is out in the open?
            >
            > Perhaps you all could help me to
            understand in a more
            > appropriate context for me because I
            do not see a connection between
            > what I perceive as a deliberate
            attempt to discredit someone
            > by publicly posting a private e-mail
            and what was claimed
            > as, "exposing the person because it
            was judged that discrimination in
            > order to serve the greater good was
            worth the risk".
            >
            > I am concerned about the
            implications of such feelings because it
            has
            > turned the current discussions, and
            potentially the atmosphere of
            > trust, into something nasty. If, for
            example, one has the right to
            > post someone's private thoughts into
            a public area, what more could
            > then expect from others?
            >
            > I do not feel the idea of privacy
            and ethic has anymore more merit
            > than others but, my gut feeling is
            that someone forces the
            > privacy/lack of privacy onto someone
            else, it will lead to diminished
            > participation within the online
            community.
            >
            > Ethics comes more to my mind than
            privacy in this case. I concede
            > that privacy/confidentiality are far
            from being universal values.
            > But, will this lead to an atmosphere
            of people required to add a
            > signature to their e-mails saying,
            "Do not further post this
            > information, copyrighted,
            bla-bla-bla"? In my opinion, this kind
            of
            > private/public or online-back
            channel communication choices must be
            > left up to the individuals or we
            remove the choice of participation
            > from one member by posting their
            private thoughts and only offering
            > a partially 'fair'(oh, I hate this
            bland word...) platform for a
            > discussion.
            >
            > What kind of attitude do you all
            expect from the group to have after
            > such actions? What about the
            attitude of the person whose e-mail has
            > been publicly posted? Would any of
            you be willing to send your
            > private e-mails, knowing that
            someone, seemingly, distributes
            > them as he/she deems appropriate?
            >
            > Please post your comments about
            this, I would love to get some advice
            > from you all. Any resolutions in
            mind?
            >
            > I wish you all a pleasant New Year,
            >
            >
            > Roy



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT




            to unsubscribe:
            <mailto:onlinefacilitation-unsubscribe@y
            ahoogroups.com>


            http://www.fullcirc.com/community/commun
            itymanual.htm


            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
            to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Max Schupbach
            I wonder how you guys fare with guidelines. I find in many of the lists that I deal with, especially if they are grassroot lists, guidelines seem to irritate
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I wonder how you guys fare with
              guidelines. I find in many of the lists
              that I deal with, especially if they are
              grassroot lists, guidelines seem to
              irritate people more then that they
              help, and if ever there is a real issue
              in the air, and people get irate, noone
              sticks to guidelines anymore. I find
              they work well on lists, where you
              either have a hierarchical structure,
              that allows you to enforce guidelines,
              like a company or association or what
              have you, or a list that is run by a
              moderator, who makes arbitrary decisions
              when the guidelines are violated and
              when not.
              A couple of years ago, I was on a big
              facilitator list, which I am sure some
              of you are also, where there was an
              incident of the moderator throwing
              someone off the list, because of his
              rude behaviour. It started a big
              discussion, which lead to a large
              segment of the group leaving the list
              altogether. Maybe Nancy's method works
              the best, framing the problem,and
              feeding it back to the group and
              allowing democracy to take its course,
              and trusting that the people can work it
              out together, or at least that is what
              recently happened, but I might have
              wrongly generalized her intent. what do
              you all think?
              Max


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Deb [mailto:revdebaz@...]
              Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:10 AM
              To: onlinefacilitation@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [of] Re: Help requested -
              public vs. private


              Copyright or not... a trust was
              betrayed.

              Roy, have you posted any guidelines
              for behavior to your group? I
              personally
              don't like long lists of "dos" and
              don'ts" for my groups, but I do refer
              them
              to other sites which address the rules
              of netiquette with their welcome
              letter... then remind them of
              infractions (referring back to the
              netiquette
              site) when things of this nature
              occur.

              One reference I use frequently is the
              web version of the book Netiquette by
              Virginia Shea, published by Albion
              Books.

              http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/in
              dex.html
              A net search on the phrases
              "netiquette" and "listserv netiquette"
              yields
              hundreds more references.

              Other list areas (such as Yahoo
              Groups) have a list of Terms of Service
              which
              can also be used as a reference when
              greeting new members or sending
              reminders.

              What usually works for me is an open
              letter (written by me) to the entire
              group
              (without naming names or referring to
              specific incidents) reminding
              participants that a certain level of
              trust develops in a community which is
              compromised when private thoughts are
              communicated to the group as a whole
              without prior permission. This mainly
              serves to reassure group members that I
              am concerned about the community and
              am taking steps to protect it as
              moderator. Depending on the hostility
              involved between the two (or more)
              involved, sometimes private "if you
              don't stop" warnings are necessary--but
              I
              don't usually find this to be
              necessary in professional groups.

              Obviously the person who committed
              this faux pas was aware it was wrong or
              they
              wouldn't have included the part about
              'serving the greater good,' so I doubt
              that any further censure on your part
              would serve any purpose.

              In a short time, the blunder will
              likely be forgotten by all but the two
              involved, and perhaps their personal
              champions.

              Deb Byster,
              Director of Internet Communications
              http://www.newseminary.org

              > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003
              23:26:45 -0000
              > From: "smoroi <smoroi@...>"
              > Subject: Re: Help requested - public
              vs. private

              <snip>

              > There was some off-line/back-channel
              e-mailing between two members of
              > an online community. One of the
              persons subsequently posted the
              > other's e-mail within the group
              without any forewarning or permission
              > from the person who sent the mail.
              There was not foul language,
              > crudity or outright or in
              appropriate abuse in the mail. But, what
              the
              > person who posted the mail did was
              use it against the other in an
              > abusive manner: ridiculing the
              person for poor language, asking silly
              > questions, and throwing accusations
              at the e-mail author. The context
              > of the post was rather damnifying of
              the original author because it
              > was clear that the message was
              personally addressed to someone and not
              > the group.

              > Briefly, my issue: what do private
              discussion (off-group)/e-mails
              > between two people have to do with
              the group as a whole? How can there
              > be a culture of privacy once this
              practice is out in the open?>>

              <snip>



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




              to unsubscribe:
              <mailto:onlinefacilitation-unsubscribe@y
              ahoogroups.com>


              http://www.fullcirc.com/community/commun
              itymanual.htm


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
              to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Nancy White
              ... For me, in the end, guidelines are only a tiny part of the process through which a group establishes it s norms and agreements. They are the codified,
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                At 10:13 AM 1/5/2003, you wrote:
                >I wonder how you guys fare with
                >guidelines. I find in many of the lists
                >that I deal with, especially if they are
                >grassroot lists, guidelines seem to
                >irritate people more then that they
                >help, and if ever there is a real issue
                >in the air, and people get irate, noone
                >sticks to guidelines anymore.

                For me, in the end, guidelines are only a tiny part of the process through
                which a group establishes it's norms and agreements. They are the codified,
                "tangible" part, but the parts that really matters in daily practice seem
                to be:

                1) how we consciously and unconsciously develop and evolve the norms and
                agreements
                2) how we introduce new members to the norms and agreements
                3) how we first behave towards real or perceived transgression of the N&A
                both as individuals and as a group
                4) how we evolve competence at using N&A for productive vs. controlling
                uses within the group

                I've been thinking about the email thing that got this rolling. It is a
                story I've heard told many times. The idea that the Well
                (http://www.well.com) developed around "you own your own words" was an
                agreement that meant two very important things. You were responsible for
                what you wrote and no one else could use your words without your
                permission. This agreement encapsulated both the personal and social
                aspects of text based communications. How that agreement has lived out over
                the Well is fascinating and varied (yeah, inconsistencies happen!) But what
                is most salient to me is that the phrase "you own your own words" is well
                known by the members. It is for the most part understood at some level. It
                is not just on a list of rules. It is a living thing. That's the kind of
                agreement that becomes useful in a group, online or off.

                At a very practical level, I often offer a newly formed group a short list
                of "starter agreements" -- and one of those is not to republish or forward
                anyone's email without their permission. It is like taping a phone call
                without the other party's knowledge. It just does not feel right. IN
                addition, private communications are a very real and often essential part
                of a group's communications pattern. That it IS private is an issue. That
                you can TRUST that it will stay private is an issue.

                Now, the role of back channel or private communications is a whole nuther
                ball of wax. I'll restrain and leave that for now! ;-)

                At one point a bunch of us shared our sample agreements. That has been a
                few years ago. Time for another round?

                Nancy

                p.s. Happy New year!


                Nancy White
                Full Circle Associates - http://www.fullcirc.com - 206-517-4754
              • Gail H. Devoid
                Max, it depends on what the purpose of the list is. If it is to incorporate as many viewpoints as possible, then certainly stifling expression of one can lead
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Max, it depends on what the purpose of the list is. If it is to
                  incorporate as many viewpoints as possible, then certainly stifling
                  expression of one can lead to a group of participators leaving. If
                  members place a higher value upon civility, then the rogue expression
                  that leads to uncivil behavior will find less tolerance.

                  People sometimes forget that words from people we do not know can cause
                  hurt feelings. Netiquette certainly frowns on publishing private
                  communication from someone else without their knowledge in a public
                  forum. I get around that by not writing anything I want to keep private.
                  By doing so, it becomes very difficult for someone to hurt me that way.
                  Getting close to me is quite the trick, and it takes at least one
                  face-to-face meeting. In spite of that, I still find I have much to say.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Nancy White
                  ... YES YES YES YES! And I think it is important to add that we might not be just talking about lists as one form of online group communication, but
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 10:25 AM 1/5/2003, you wrote:
                    >Max, it depends on what the purpose of the list is.


                    YES YES YES YES! And I think it is important to add that we might not be
                    just talking about "lists" as one form of online group communication, but
                    discussion boards, mixed tool sets etc. Not all online groups are lists!!

                    (sorry, I normally avoid yes yes posts, but this one is essential,
                    particularly after I forgot this caveat in my post posted just about at the
                    same time as Gail's!)

                    N




                    Nancy White
                    Full Circle Associates - http://www.fullcirc.com - 206-517-4754
                  • Max Schupbach
                    wisely spoken, Gail, and thanks Nancy for those enlightening viewpoints in the post before gails. I love how both of you point out the multifaceted aspects of
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      wisely spoken, Gail, and thanks Nancy
                      for those enlightening viewpoints in the
                      post before gails. I love how both of
                      you point out the multifaceted aspects
                      of it all, and link it to a larger
                      INTENT of the community, and interlinked
                      with that, the final form. That supports
                      my own experiences and frames my
                      thinking in a helpful way. Especially
                      around very diverse groups, where as a
                      whole any guideline or concept of
                      civility will always be scrutinized for
                      oppression by other especially
                      marginalized groups. Great to see Nancy
                      bringing in consciousness as major agent
                      in how this will all work out. In our
                      facilitation mode, we generally work
                      within the paradigm, that raising the
                      level of awareness around what is
                      happening will somewhat already
                      facilitate the overall flow.

                      Part of hashing out the general intent
                      is frequently around different agendas
                      of different groups. What looks like a
                      personal fight is really more two
                      streams of intent trying to work out
                      where they want to go now that they are
                      flowing together. Framing these streams
                      and asking the group what to do about
                      has brought generally good results for
                      me.
                      Max





                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Gail H. Devoid
                      [mailto:gdevoid@...]
                      Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 10:25
                      AM
                      To: onlinefacilitation@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [of] guidelines


                      Max, it depends on what the purpose of
                      the list is. If it is to
                      incorporate as many viewpoints as
                      possible, then certainly stifling
                      expression of one can lead to a group
                      of participators leaving. If
                      members place a higher value upon
                      civility, then the rogue expression
                      that leads to uncivil behavior will
                      find less tolerance.

                      People sometimes forget that words
                      from people we do not know can cause
                      hurt feelings. Netiquette certainly
                      frowns on publishing private
                      communication from someone else
                      without their knowledge in a public
                      forum. I get around that by not
                      writing anything I want to keep private.
                      By doing so, it becomes very difficult
                      for someone to hurt me that way.
                      Getting close to me is quite the
                      trick, and it takes at least one
                      face-to-face meeting. In spite of
                      that, I still find I have much to say.


                      [Non-text portions of this message
                      have been removed]


                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      ADVERTISEMENT




                      to unsubscribe:
                      <mailto:onlinefacilitation-unsubscribe@y
                      ahoogroups.com>


                      http://www.fullcirc.com/community/commun
                      itymanual.htm


                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
                      to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Walker Geoff
                      ... Two points which might be of relevance here:- 1. The Greek origins of the word dialogue are interesting in this context. Dialogue appears to have its roots
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Nancy White (05/01/2003 18:23):
                        >But what is most salient to me is that the phrase "you own >your own words" is well known by the members. It is for >the most part understood at some level.
                        Two points which might be of relevance here:-
                        1. The Greek origins of the word dialogue are interesting in this context. Dialogue appears to have its roots in two words *dia* and *logos* with the literal translation being *meaning flowing through*.
                        2. Nonaka talks of the relationship between the use of metaphor, analogy and models which facilitate situated learning and the knowledge creation process. Metaphoir creates contradictions; analogy recognises distinctions; models develop shared concepts...


                        **********************************************************************
                        This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
                        intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
                        are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
                        the system manager.

                        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
                        MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

                        City of Newcastle website:- www.newcastle.gov.uk
                        Developing Newcastle:- www.newcastle.gov.uk/devnewcastle
                        Tyne Offshore Suppliers:- www.offshore-suppliers.com
                        Newcastle Schools website:- www.newcastle-schools.org.uk
                        Competitive City:- www.newcastle.gov.uk/compcity
                        Going for Growth: www.newcastle.gov.uk/goingforgrowth
                        **********************************************************************
                      • Radu Floricica <radu_floricica@yahoo.com>
                        A layman s opinon: I think there s a big difference between gossip and forwarding mail. Gossip comes with resonable doubt attached. You don t reproduce
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 5, 2003
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          A layman's opinon: I think there's a big difference between gossip
                          and forwarding mail. Gossip comes with "resonable doubt" attached.
                          You don't reproduce exactly what he/she said, but your
                          memory/interpretation of it. Forwarding mail is more like recording
                          the conversation and making it public, which I don't think anyone
                          would appreciate.

                          I also beleave this kind of behavior may be self-regulated. Many
                          people in that list will think twice before writing personal mail to
                          the offender.



                          --- In onlinefacilitation@yahoogroups.com, "Max Schupbach"
                          <max@m...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Happy New Year, dear friends!!!
                          > thanks for an interesting discussion. I
                          > am on one list, where something similar
                          > happened, and we had a huge discussion
                          > about it, which lasted for months. The
                          > final consensus was, that on that
                          > particular list, whatever you say to
                          > someone, can be brought back to the main
                          > discussion list. the group, maybe
                          > similar to yours, opted finally after
                          > all the pros and cons, that this should
                          > be the rule.
                          > I felt uncomfortable, but also strangely
                          > relieved about the decision.
                          > Uncomfortable, because it is a horrible
                          > decision in my viewpoint, strangely
                          > relieved, because it is really like f2f
                          > gossiping, where of course when you
                          > "gossip" it often leaks out, too.
                          > If you say something to someone, about
                          > someone else, the first law of gossip
                          > applies: tell the person whom you gossip
                          > about directly, next time you meet them.
                          > If you can't, don't tell it to anyone
                          > else in the first place.
                          > what do others think?
                          > Max
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Sally Irvin
                          > [mailto:spirvin@g...]
                          > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:05 AM
                          > To: onlinefacilitation@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [of] Re: Help requested -
                          > public vs. private
                          >
                          >
                          > > Perhaps you all could help me to
                          > understand in a more
                          > > appropriate context for me because I
                          > do not see a connection between
                          > > what I perceive as a deliberate
                          > attempt to discredit someone
                          > > by publicly posting a private e-mail
                          > and what was claimed
                          > > as, "exposing the person because it
                          > was judged that discrimination in
                          > > order to serve the greater good was
                          > worth the risk".
                          > I happen to agree with the above
                          > statement. It looks like an excuse to
                          > me!
                          >
                          > Just because we are online and don't
                          > shake hands and look each other in the
                          > eye does not mean we leave the common
                          > courtesies behind. My gut reaction is
                          > that the person who did this was
                          > unethical and at the very least should
                          > be
                          > put on probation in that particular
                          > community. And assuming that there is a
                          > moderator for that community he or she
                          > should be using that position to
                          > start smoothing over ruffled feathers
                          > but as far as "copywriting" everything
                          > we say or speak - that is just not
                          > realistic. These things happen in the
                          > "real" world and we move on. I think
                          > we should try to do the same online -
                          > but common sense just tells us to be
                          > careful what we say or write in the
                          > first place.
                          >
                          > Sally
                          >
                          > Online Community Development Services
                          > Pam Thomas, CEO
                          > Jon Nix, Executive Vice President
                          > http://www.cornerways.com
                          > http://www.cwlive.com
                          > http://www.communityanswers.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________________
                          > ____________________________
                          > >
                          > ________________________________________
                          > ________________________________
                          > >
                          > > Message: 1
                          > > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003
                          > 23:26:45 -0000
                          > > From: "smoroi <smoroi@y...>"
                          > <smoroi@y...>
                          > > Subject: Re: Help requested - public
                          > vs. private
                          > >
                          > > Dear All,
                          > >
                          > > Recently, I have observed something
                          > happening in an online community,
                          > > which has left me dumbfounded and
                          > more than just a bit at a loss for
                          > > words. I would like some feedback
                          > from you all -
                          > >
                          > > I am regular reader, silent but
                          > observant, of this e-group. I am a
                          > > doctoral student/"Professor" (here
                          > in Germany, it is possible to
                          > > become a full professor without the
                          > PhD in hand) of organisational
                          > > behaviour with my research focussing
                          > on global virutal teams (GVTs)
                          > > and the intercultural aspects of
                          > distant team processes.
                          > >
                          > > There was some off-line/back-channel
                          > e-mailing between two members of
                          > > an online community. One of the
                          > persons subsequently posted the
                          > > other's e-mail within the group
                          > without any forewarning or permission
                          > > from the person who sent the mail.
                          > There was not foul language,
                          > > crudity or outright or in
                          > appropriate abuse in the mail. But, what
                          > > the person who posted the mail did
                          > was use it against the other in an
                          > > abusive manner: ridiculing the
                          > person for poor language, asking silly
                          > > questions, and throwing accusations
                          > at the e-mail author. The context
                          > > of the post was rather damnifying of
                          > the original author because it
                          > > was clear that the message was
                          > personally addressed to someone and
                          > > not the group.
                          > >
                          > > Briefly, my issue: what do private
                          > discussion (off-group)/e-mails
                          > > between two people have to do with
                          > the group as a whole? How can
                          > > there be a culture of privacy once
                          > this practice is out in the open?
                          > >
                          > > Perhaps you all could help me to
                          > understand in a more
                          > > appropriate context for me because I
                          > do not see a connection between
                          > > what I perceive as a deliberate
                          > attempt to discredit someone
                          > > by publicly posting a private e-mail
                          > and what was claimed
                          > > as, "exposing the person because it
                          > was judged that discrimination in
                          > > order to serve the greater good was
                          > worth the risk".
                          > >
                          > > I am concerned about the
                          > implications of such feelings because it
                          > has
                          > > turned the current discussions, and
                          > potentially the atmosphere of
                          > > trust, into something nasty. If, for
                          > example, one has the right to
                          > > post someone's private thoughts into
                          > a public area, what more could
                          > > then expect from others?
                          > >
                          > > I do not feel the idea of privacy
                          > and ethic has anymore more merit
                          > > than others but, my gut feeling is
                          > that someone forces the
                          > > privacy/lack of privacy onto someone
                          > else, it will lead to diminished
                          > > participation within the online
                          > community.
                          > >
                          > > Ethics comes more to my mind than
                          > privacy in this case. I concede
                          > > that privacy/confidentiality are far
                          > from being universal values.
                          > > But, will this lead to an atmosphere
                          > of people required to add a
                          > > signature to their e-mails saying,
                          > "Do not further post this
                          > > information, copyrighted,
                          > bla-bla-bla"? In my opinion, this kind
                          > of
                          > > private/public or online-back
                          > channel communication choices must be
                          > > left up to the individuals or we
                          > remove the choice of participation
                          > > from one member by posting their
                          > private thoughts and only offering
                          > > a partially 'fair'(oh, I hate this
                          > bland word...) platform for a
                          > > discussion.
                          > >
                          > > What kind of attitude do you all
                          > expect from the group to have after
                          > > such actions? What about the
                          > attitude of the person whose e-mail has
                          > > been publicly posted? Would any of
                          > you be willing to send your
                          > > private e-mails, knowing that
                          > someone, seemingly, distributes
                          > > them as he/she deems appropriate?
                          > >
                          > > Please post your comments about
                          > this, I would love to get some advice
                          > > from you all. Any resolutions in
                          > mind?
                          > >
                          > > I wish you all a pleasant New Year,
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Roy
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          > ADVERTISEMENT
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > to unsubscribe:
                          > <mailto:onlinefacilitation-unsubscribe@y
                          > ahoogroups.com>
                          >
                          >
                          > http://www.fullcirc.com/community/commun
                          > itymanual.htm
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
                          > to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.