Critique of MaM for discussion

In the Fully Engaged pod yesterday, Mike made the following observation in response to what I was sharing about what I was hoping to accomplish in Mediation and Moderation.


Seems like you're more involved in managing disputes between the members of the M&M pod, then making it a safe place for which others will choose to have a dispute managed. In fact, it looks to me like one member was recently disenfranchised and her voice completely closed off from further engagement.

In addition, if the employees have the final decision on termination and editing why bother? They'll do whatever they choose, regardless of what you or anyone in your pod decides (I think that has been made crystal clear as of lately). People can swim in the process of fully engaging no matter what pod they're a member of, unless, of course, that pod is rigidly limited to what can or cannot be expressed.


First of all, I was unaware of disenfranchising and closing off anyone. I apologise to whomever that was and hope I may learn of it so I may make amends.


Second, I would like to get your input on how we can stop this being a place of squabbling and help it become a safe space for mediation.


Love,


Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Ok, since I have no takers yet, may I explicitly invite my moderators to comment here, when you have a chance? Tom? Torch? Dov? Tai? Dale?

Thanks,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Nicole, you simply cannot please everyone, and attempts to do so at the expense of your own principles is a sure way to destroy your own credibility. You have to make a firm decision and take a stand somewhere even if it antagonizes a few people. The ones who are loyal to you will understand what you are doing and you will keep their loyalty. No one admires a sell out.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Hi Dale, it is not a question of pleasing everyone or my principles. My concern is whether or not this pod is perceived by those who require mediation or help with moderation issues to be a place where they can find help. If not, we are just talking to ourselves and deceiving ourselves.

What do you think? What do others think?

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Well, since Mike raised the question with You, either we had better go over there to discuss it, or Mike come over here to discuss it, since He has the input and perceives a problem that He dropped in Your lap.

That seems to be modus operandi over there.

 They drop vague accusations in Your lap, trying to make You look culpable, and then, in Your attempt to “vindicate yourself by being responsible for yourself”, based upon vague accusations, and their implied accusation of your responsibility,

 your natural reaction is to defend yourself and in the process, you frustrate yourself because of the inadequate details, and in providing them with more detail, in order to make your case, you are just giving them more ammunition to shoot back at you with.

 kind of like when dorothy tried to pick the apple off the apple tree, and the tree got mad, you get flustered.
 instead, you should do what the scarecrow did, he insulted the tree, saying “i dont want any of those wormy apples”, and the tree threw its apples at dorothy.

 that is what mike is doing. he is on a fishing expedition, and you are the fisher.
simply say “whatever, mike - you are so perfect, and your group never has any problems, expecially lately, right mike”?
 
 right. who is calling the kettle black, here ?

 and nahnni doesnt mod over there, either, right ? bull.

and i suppose that andrews being asked to leave, had nothing to do with
mike and nahnni and the others calling you on the carpet repeatedly ?

yeah. they are so ….perfect. Not.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

 instead, you should do what the scarecrow did, he insulted the tree, saying “i dont want any of those wormy apples”, and the tree threw its apples at dorothy.

torch: Did you really just recommend that Nicole insult someone?

Personally, I didn't find the question Nicole posted above to be “dropping a problem in [ her ] lap,” to me it seemed a genuine and valuable sharing of perspective. And I think mikeS does have a point; any group is going to be limited by the inevitable biases of those who moderate or hold the space. I wouldn't go so far as to say that (as Nicole put it) we'd be “deceiving ourselves” by denying this; given that human beings, and not robots, are involved, there is always the possibility for someone shifting perspective or opening into a new understanding. For this to happen, though, it's my belief that the person needs to be supported, not attacked / insulted. And treating others with the perspective that their questions are intended to help, not hurt, is a part of that. :)

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Siona said: “torch: Did you really just recommend that Nicole insult someone?”

Of course he didn't. You know that, right? Torch might just as well have used different words to convey the same meaning, such as “the scarecrow challenged, confronted or tricked the tree.”

“…there is always the possibility for someone shifting perspective or opening into a new understanding. For this to happen, though, it's my belief that the person needs to be supported, not attacked / insulted.”

In my experience, a shift in perspective or opening can also happen when someone is directly confronted with the unvarnished truth of astutely insightful feedback… or by being shocked into a sudden realization, as well as in a variety of other ways.

Dear Siona, you have stated your preference many times over and made your desire to avoid any kind of friction on Gaia perfectly clear. What puzzles me in this is that you, an adept in the techniques of verbal Aikido, are seemingly refusing to allow other Gaians to also learn how to expertly play the polarities as outlined here.

What's up with that?

Love ya,

M

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

I was hoping to get a direct response from Siona to my post above, especially this part:

Dear Siona, you have stated your preference many times over and made your desire to avoid any kind of friction on Gaia perfectly clear. What puzzles me in this is that you, an adept in the techniques of verbal Aikido, are seemingly refusing to allow other Gaians to also learn how to expertly play the polarities as outlined here.

What's up with that?

Love ya,

M

Now I'm wondering if my way of addressing you is deemed too challenging, not nicey-nice and ass-kissy humble enough… This place with all its spiritual correctness squads constantly on the prowl takes its toll on you, I tell ya.

Sheesh.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Mascha, Siona has answered many challenging posts recently. What I should have said yesterday as I was speaking to this very paragraph in your post is that she had spoken about some of the reasons she struggles with this issue in the Andrew thread on Fully Engaged pod. 

Let me see if I can find her posts that I am thinking about there, because it is a very long thread now… 

Ok have a look at what Siona says here and here and here and here

Notice too how Siona reponded to this response from the cultivator 

Had to smile ruefully at the spiritual correctness squads on the prowl. Sheesh indeed

Love you,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Nicole, thank you for assembling all those links. Two of Siona's answers I hadn't seen before, so that helps. Still, my fundamental question remains unanswered. That's okay. We are ongoing processes, evolving through and with one another, not fixed entities who are solidifying positions.

The bottomline for me in all this wrangling comes down to bringing Andrew back and helping to create an atmosphere that allows our more edgy envelope-pushers to be themselves instead of withholding their unique gifts.

Love you too, with an oomph behind it! :D

M

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

(((Mascha))) Sorry the fundamental question is unanswered. I suppose when Siona is ready… worse comes to worst, you can always ask at the next Town Hall meeting.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

the world is full of people who merely say that your group wont work.
fill your head with doubts, so that you will self-destruct, and then they laugh,
and say “i told you that it wouldnt work”, and walk off, feeling superior.

once your clients see that you dont believe that you can serve them,
they will disappear, fast. nothing scares a client faster than an uncertain owner.
so, in your own nervousness, you have already failed.
only the determined succeed.    

the clientele and the service that they get from this pod will determine the answer to that question. de facto profundo, status quo.

 we cannot serve any better than we can serve, and people who decide that we cannot serve them, have already made it impossible for them to serve.

 those who decide that we can serve them can be served. the rest is up to us.

 same thing for any group. try to serve the mission statement, or do something else, change the mission statement, and change the name.

 a business is a business. as long as a business has clients, it is a business.

 if the business changes its service to what the clients use it for, instead of its mission statement, what difference does it make ?

 the clients determine the nature of the business, not the owner.

 that is how most businesses end up going out of business.
 they dont give the clients everything they are looking for.

they never thought to ask, never provided it.
so the clients go somewhere where they can get all that they are looking for.
one stop shopping.  like wal-mart.

a tentative owner might as well go on vacation.
at least he will have fun.
  

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Hi Torch, Siona, Mascha, 

Of course, I responded to Mike in that original discussion, but upon reflection, I realised this could be the beginning of a valuable self-reflection for us as a group, and hope that others here who are not mods will also share their points of view.

So, it is not a question of defending myself. You're right, that is wasted energy. 

And may I ask everyone again to re-read the “About this group?” We don't want to target anyone specifically in this group.

Our rules of engagement:

holding space for each other, always mindful of the Gaia Terms of Service;

avoiding gossip or targeting specific people in our discussions but rather working together on general principles for mutual growth and learning;

working together on listening more closely and pausing to reflect when we encounter challenging ideas or puzzling posts from others;

asking clarifying questions of each other if we need to understand something better rather than assuming and attacking.


Siona, thanks so much for dropping by. As Mascha said, it was clear to me that Torch did not ask me to insult anyone :) it was just a function of the language he was using with regards to that story that was referenced. 


Personally, I didn't find the question Nicole posted above to be “dropping a problem in [ her ] lap,” to me it seemed a genuine and valuable sharing of perspective. 


Thanks for understanding that.


And I think mikeS does have a point; any group is going to be limited by the inevitable biases of those who moderate or hold the space. I wouldn't go so far as to say that (as Nicole put it) we'd be “deceiving ourselves” by denying this; 


I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. If we have a group here that no one sees as being a valid place where mediation and valid mentoring on moderating can take place, and we think that is what we are doing here, then we are deceiving ourselves.


given that human beings, and not robots, are involved, there is always the possibility for someone shifting perspective or opening into a new understanding. For this to happen, though, it's my belief that the person needs to be supported, not attacked / insulted. 


Indeed. So, this is why I wanted to have this discussion with everyone here. I want to ask each one, whether you are a mod here or not - if someone posts here, whether or not you agree with what is being said, do you approach that person with a supportive attitude?


And treating others with the perspective that their questions are intended to help, not hurt, is a part of that. :)


Indeed.


Mascha,


In my experience, a shift in perspective or opening can also happen when someone is directly confronted with the unvarnished truth of astutely insightful feedback… or by being shocked into a sudden realization, as well as in a variety of other ways. 

Yes. However, my question is how best to share this astutely insightful feedback? I have seen some very wonderful examples of this in many of the discussions you, Tom, Annie and I (and others) have had, where we delve deeply into the world of feelings and memories and all kinds of vulnerability.


But I have also seen instances in other discussions where people are smacked over the head with someone's idea of unvarnished truth in a way I do not see as helpful, and in which it is clear by the person's reaction that he or she did not find it helpful either.


 Dear Siona, you have stated your preference many times over and made your desire to avoid any kind of friction on Gaia perfectly clear. What puzzles me in this is that you, an adept in the techniques of verbal Aikido, are seemingly refusing to allow other Gaians to also learn how to expertly play the polarities as outlined here.


Siona and I were talking about verbal Aikido over the weekend, and I was also talking with her about verbal Tai Chi, which is something I am beginning to learn from my Robert, who has been going deeply into physical Tai Chi and using the energy of it in his work as a nurse.


This is fascinating stuff, I would really like to explore it in a discussion of its own soon.


Thank you so much for sharing, my dear Mascha. I love you,


And much love to you, Torch and Siona,


Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

i will go on record as saying that i never ask anyone to insult anyone,
because people are quite able to do that themselves, as inadvisable as that might be, usually in hindsight.

 i am a great believer in consequences, and i always measure consequences in my actions, before i advocate anything.

 nicole has nothing to be defensive about. mike was accusing her “tree” of having wormy apples, by saying that her group was going to be mostly worthless, because she has moderators.

  but its an empty argument, unsubstantiated, like arguing that a newly built parking garage wont get any customers.

what is mike, now? is he an oracle ?
i suppose neither mike, or any of his members are biased, either.
evidence indicates otherwise.

 a new business is always a failure, until it is a success.
a business that magnifies its failures fails to succeed.

the root of the problem is that mike has a problem with moderators, because he has run into so many problems with them, that he started his own group, and will not allow moderators, or even admission of moderating behavior.

but he still has more than his share of problems in that group.
so naturally, he accuses nicole and her group of that, since it is obvious that she has moderators. apple growers have apples, too.

just because mike only wants to grow oranges, doesnt make nicole guilty.

but it seems that lack of moderators or moderating doesnt help mikes group one bit, now does it ? his group seems to have the lions share of problems.
they had no problem ganging up on me, when i said it wasnt fair for them to demand that nicole answer stars accusations publicly.

then they persisted, and that was the last we saw of andrew.
thanks “for holding that space, for nicole”, mike.

see it for what it is. mike is mad at nicole for “using his group to air out her problems with OLMW's”, and he is trying to “make her pay for it”.

that is “mikes perspective”, and he has not changed it, and has made no secret of it. look at his older posts.

all we can do, here, is try to be reasonable, sensible, and considerate.
that seems to be a rare commodity lately.
especially since everyone seems to be now “biased”.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Hi Torch, we were posting at the same time. Please see my response to several comments, just above yours.

Hugs,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

I just noticed a great new thread Tom is starting at IPS which will be great food for thought and is somewhat related to our discussion here:

http://groups.gaia.com/ips/conversations/view/534766#534799

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Nicole, check your Gaiamail, please:)

Shalom,
Dov

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Point noted, Dov. See my response in yours,

Hugs,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

done and replied - now I need to go to the shop to be able to feed a family that claims it's STARVING :D

Shalom,
Dov

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

By all means feed the starving family and when you have a chance my further reply awaits. Now, must really dash! See you all tomorrow,

Hugs,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

I'll echo your link to Tom's discussion, Nicole, with a blog entry and comments discussion.

http://dovaryeh.gaia.com/blog/2010/2/otm-manipulation-without-a-puppet

Dov

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

I have no idea about what Mikes 's talking about and reading his message with no background I can only say that he's angry for a reason I don't know.

But I have to agree on one thing and that is that this pod cannot be a neutral place to resolve conflicts. 

P.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

the mystic way has good on one side, bad on the other side,
 and chaos merely one misstep away.

 walking the edge of the razor is the mystic way,
the balance between, but can be very unforgiving.
 flip a coin, and play i ching. oops ! my bad.

 however, it does wreak havoc with your personality,
and causes people not to trust you, because you are unpredictable, by nature.

 it is a good way to divide and conquer,
 but i have no interest in these lesser games, myself.
a very trolling thing to do, being unpredictable,
 and i dont tend to like trollers, how about you, mascha ?

 i almost prefer troublemakers, because i can count on them,
 trying to cause trouble, but chaotic divide and conquerors,
 wear many masks, and are generally better avoided.

personally, i try to be lawful, myself, even when the laws are unjust.
self-preservation thru lawfulness is preferable to me, even in injustice.
the unjust tend to be sidelined by people, who see them that way.

of course, the troublemakers and the chaotics hate justice and laws, and authorities, but it just ends up backfiring on them, because they are fighting a battle they cant win.

how about you, dear friend, mascha ? love you.!!      

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Hi Patrick, I would be interested to hear more from you because I recall you speaking on this point before but not elaborating.

Dov, thanks, that is an informative blog.

Torch, what interests me is how I can learn from everyone, the so called troublemakers and the chaotics, as you call them. There is a fascinating thread in Fully Engaged called Controversial that speaks to the contributions to Gaia of a very particular pod that no longer exists, and that contrasts it to the current situation here on Gaia. Great food for thought.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

If I was you I wouldn't give anything that person says any value. He is at war against Siona and the others. He knew very well already when he joined what kind of community this is, and now he is trying to hide behind words like “democracy” and “freedom” while it is obvious that all he wants is to have his way. “Oh, I'm not going anywhere, I kind of like it here. I'll just bother you until you do as I want things to be done.” Brrr.
I am not going to join his group because of that, but I think it is important for people here to be aware of that discussion:

There are a couple of things you say, that are connected to this group and how things are going to be done here, and I find them very problematic.

Firstly,

Nicole, you tell Siona that “I realise that you probably weren't aware that in MaM we have a policy against the deletion of posts that are not personal attacks. — As much as I respect your authority as site leader, it is a blow to a pod cultivator to have its guidelines overstepped even though the principals involved were ok with the post in question.”

I have hosted groups in a debate forum, and I can tell you - and Siona - that it is not a blow at all when the forum owner goes over your head and moderates posts.
I have neither ever thought badly of another group owner, when that happens to them.
I am fully aware of that we are all just people, and while the poster didn't think he/she was posting anything inappropriate, and while some of the people agreed, some others don't agree, and if one of those “others” happens to be a moderator, it's for me just to accept that the post is moderated. Nothing said is so important that it would be a great damage if it is moderated. We are all full of it and know nothing, and it's all small stuff anyway. There are more important rights than the right to speak crap with the exact form I choose in debate forums to fight over. Some people don't even have right to internet :-D

What I have problems with is that you are berating Siona of something you yourself DEMANDED SHE*D DO in Mike's group. Mike had stated very clearly that nothing is to be moderated in his pod, but you asked just that. In my mind what you asked to be moderated wasn't even bad, but what Siona moderated here, was very bad in principe. No-one is to share private information given to them in confidence, how ever nice and good people they are, how ever good their intentions are and even when the person whose private information was shared was kind enough to oversee the offense.

Siona was right to moderate the post, and you are wrong to berate her, or even set such guidelines for this group. There are things that are not allowed by the Gaian rules, but are not personal attacks and therefore, in your mind, should be allowed to stay in this group. No way, Nicole!
For example, posting my email address might seem quite harmless to you, and it is not a personal attack, might be even allowed by Gaian code of conduct, but it might cause me a lot of trouble, and I would strongly object and expect someone to delete it, no questions asked. I would delete in a blink of an eye any such information from my groups, even if the person whose email address was posted thinks it's ok.

Secondly,

If the way you act in that thread is the manner things are going to be mediated here, I really don't want to be part of that. Especially the last post to Dov is horrifying.

More important than that is this sentence:
“I actually neglect things I need to get done for work and myself to spend as much time on Gaia as I do. I cannot afford to continue doing this.”
No, you cannot! I advised you already a week ago that you should leave Gaia, at least for the time it takes for you to get your real life in order, because if you continue this way, you are going to harm yourself, and that sentence says clearly that your addiction to Gaia has taken over your life!
You are NEGLECTING YOUR LIFE for Gaia, a volunteer work no-one even asked you to do!
Gaia is just an internet forum, and even if one makes friends here, has some fun here, finds wisdom and healing here, it should not REPLACE anything you have in your real life!
If you don't have the sense to take a time-out yourself, your friends should make an intervention and keep you away of Gaia 24/7, with force if necessary!

I'm probably still talking to deaf ears, because you don't accept that to be the truth, even when you say it yourself… Which is very sad. But - with all this in mind - who is going to mediate, how and why? I suppose the person is right, not in that the reason for why this group will never work is the “government”, but because none of us is capable of removing the beams from our own eyes.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Ket, I actually do appreciate your sharing your thoughts, and no you aren't talking to deaf ears. But both you and Dov are missing a very important distinction that it looks like I cannot explain to you.

Thanks for your advice, you are very kind to keep offering it,

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Nicole,

Could it be that Ket (and I from what I see) are actually right, and we are not missing any important distinctions and you are simply wrong?

Perhaps? Maybe? Is that conceivably possible, as an alternative interpretation?

Shalom,
Dov

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Of course, Dov. But similarly, you  and Ket do not seem to allow for the possibility you are wrong.

Read my response in Fully Engaged, and if you wish, we can pursue this further off forum - probably not today, but over the coming days, a bit at a time. I am severely limiting my time on Gaia and Robert will be arriving tonight for a few days.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

I would prefer if you didn't bunch us together, Nicole.

I would also prefer that you take responsibility of things you have started.
As I see you take time to flutter around saying empty nothings here and there, you could also show some respect to your fellow Gaians and finish the things you have started.
I don't agree to disagree and then leave discussions. I have learned that that feeds misunderstandings and creates [and now I give in - i have no energy left but this is important to me that you understand - leaving discussions, taking discussions somewhere else, don't solve anything, don't create peace and understanding, on the contrary
don't take this discussion somewhere else. it is importnat to have it here and now
don't say you leave Giaa when you don't, really. you leave just he uncofortable disucions.

damn it.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

I am having a really bad day today. Now I have rested.

I wanted to say also this:
there are a couple of reasons that tell me why I don't think we are wrong. Anything is possible, and the truth usually lies somewhere between.

This situation - these situations we are talking about - are not personal to me, but very much so to you, Nicole. I think you are too close to see straight.

Also, as I see it, our interpretation, POV, opinion is kinder and fairer to everyone involved.

Moderation has been done, and it is impossible to undo it, so what can be reached by berating the moderator? What can be reached by the public humiliation you have put Siona through? Why couldn't THAT part of discussion been done in private? Did you ever stop to think what such public humiliation does to the credibility of the administrator? You are very upset because the rules of YOUR group have been overrun and what that does to you, but what about Siona? It isn't helpful to say she is oh so wonderful administrator, while you scold her because you are worried about your own reputation.

I am dealing with this issue beyond specifics and names, you hang on to details and see the issue as totally different because of the people involved. You make it personal. When we make things personal, we cannot avoid getting the facts tainted with feelings, preferences, prejudice, the little things we know of the people involved. We loose our impartiality.

Also, by talking about Jill and Jack, we make Jill and Jack the issue, and it could well happen that Jill and Jack take offense. Or might be that Jack thinks it's ok, but Jill doesn't - as happened in the thread. This is one reason why it is important to say “I am so angry, because someone did this and this”, and not “I'm so angry with Jill, because Jill did this and this”.

These are some of the reasons why I think I'm right and you are wrong when it comes to this issue.

The thing here is that I am not discussing about who's right and who's wrong. That is totally uninteresting information. What is to be done with that? The winner gets a gold medal? What?
I am discussing about ethics aired in the discussion and how these expressed ethics influence the function of this group. If you want to be right, believe to be right, then you can come back here and answer the questions.

Unless, of course, you are taking a time out from Gaia, in which case I think it would have been nice to know.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

You are still around, aren't you, Nicole?
Which means that you are not hearing what I say. Obviously your “friends” don't understand either.

You are addicted to Gaia, Nicole.
You are allowing your addiction to damage your work and your personal life.
The situation has got out of your hands.

I understand that you like being here, but it doesn't matter. You need to set your priorities right.

——————————————————————————-

You seem to think I'm stupid.

I didn't communicate much when I married the man I plan spending the rest of my life with 11 years ago. He made it impossible for me not to communicate. If he didn't get what I tried to say, or the other way around, we tried to say it again, with other words. We tried dozens of different ways of saying things. So, if your communication partner doesn't understand something you try to explain, you just keep explaining, with different words, different examples… heck, try drawing a graph or bending it on wire, but giving up because it LOOKS LIKE something, that is not an option, at least if you plan to give “Mediation and Moderation” any kind of future.

Someone said something like this:
“Too many causes are lost because they are considered lost too early”
I have no energy to go and google the correct quote, but you know what I mean.

but, as you don't seem to understand, let's put this in a graph, hopefully you will see the similarities better this time:

==========================================================================

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Hi Ket and Dov,

I will not address you both together unless you are both focussed on the same thing, as you often are, and are here once again. Also, everything I have to say below applies to you both.

You will be delighted to be reminded that I am strictly limiting my time on Gaia to a brief morning session reviewing discussions and blogs that are most relevant to me, thus because of the length and detail of your posts I will be unable to address them today, which is a work day for me. It is quite likely I will not be able to get to all the aspects you highlight any time this week as Robert, my work and my offline life must take priority.

I have much to say in response, but it will probably take a number of different threads over the course of the coming days to fully address all the issues that have arisen around these questions.

In the meantime, I invite you to look again at the title. It said, “Critique of MaM” not “Critique of Nicole”. As generous as you are in offering your deep personal insights on my character, personality and so on, a casual reader of this thread could be astonished at the intensity with which you were addressing me personally and be discouraged from participating, afraid that he or she might be similarly focussed on.

Thank you for your consideration in this regard,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Yes, I am delighted to see you limit your time in Gaia and take care of what is really important. Not because I would want to see you gone from Gaia, if that idea has crossed your mind. I think you are very valuable in Gaia, and bring a lot of joy to a lot of people, but your life, your wellbeing, your joy, your family should be most important to you, don't you agree? So, yes, I am delighted to see you limit your time in Gaia.

I don't expect you to respond immediately or within a certain timeframe - I don't think this issue is the most important you need to take care of in Gaia, and I have time and patience, but I expect you to respond.

“I have much to say in response, but it will probably take a number of different threads over the course of the coming days to fully address all the issues that have arisen around these questions.”
I suppose you are right in that, and I think that is very good, because I'm still not well, and appreciate a slower pace. I would appreciate though that the different discussions that may arise will be linked back, so that I don't need to wander around seeking them.

I have a bad habit of using the words of the people I write to. I started writing “I invite you to look again what I wrote and try to take a less subjective point of view”, but then I remembered that people find that habit of mine irritating, and decided to use other words :-)

I asked, who is doing the mediation in this group. That is very important and relevant to this group. I assume it is going to be you, as you are the cultivator of this pod, and this pod is your brainchild. I assume that you think you are a good mediator and think there is a need for that in Gaia, and if that is what you think, I agree with you. Except when you take the issue personally. In that case your mediator skills - just as anyone else's - are not very good.

I don't think you need to be afraid of intimidating possible “customers”. A casual reader wouldn't focus on a couple of posts in the middle of the thread. Besides, I'm just a member of the pod, so my intensity shouldn't be of any concern to anyone. I might be astonished by why everyone is being quiet like a mouse and not trying to calm me down, as this issue is obviously very important to me, and if I was the casual reader, I would be more afraid of that kind of treatment, or the kind you are giving me and Dov in this thread, and Dov in Fully Engaged, also considering that you are the cultivator of this group, and I am a “customer”. I don't see why a prospective “customer” would identify with you and not with me.
But what do I know.

I also disagree very much with “you are offering your deep personal insights on my character, personality and so on”

I don't know you. I have been talking about my observations concerning your behavior and words in a couple of incidents here in Gaia, incidents that are connected and very personal to you. That can hardly be called “deep personal insights on your character, personality and so on”.

If you are referring to my assessment that you are addicted to Gaia - there too I go by your own words: “I actually neglect things I need to get done for work and myself to spend as much time on Gaia as I do”.
Any objective person knowing anything about addictions would come to the same conclusion I did, so no “deep personal insight” here either.

Your response confuses me somewhat though… because when you “kindly” ask me to look again at the tile, it gives me an impression that you haven't noticed any critique of MaM in my posts, even though earlier you mention “the issues that have arisen around these questions”. Am I to take your “kindness” as an effort of sarcastic bashing, or your promise to respond to my questions as mere polite business talk. “Don't call us, we'll call you”?

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Thank you Dov, and thanks to you, too, Ket.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Ok Nicole, I will elaborate. It may not make you happy though.

First of all: The foundation of this pod, was subsequent to a conflict you found yourself in. The pod was built up as the conflict was not resolved. Most of the people who are or where active here, are people who “took side “with you, or people who felt on the same wavelenght.

As such, it is definitely not a neutral space.

So it can definitely be a place where some people reflect and share about mediation, but it can in no way be a neutral place where conflict are solved.  The mods here are not neutral, you are not neutral and nobody is.

I think there's a link here that dates a couple of weeks ago and Siona had the following idea:

 http://groups.gaia.com/gaiamediation/conversations/view/516551#516612

it's worthfull, it seems, as you say it was not elaborated enough, to read the whole thread again.

I personally totally agree here with Siona's position and idea. I also said I hoped it would not be lost in cyber-space, but I see it was.

So again, I think some place on this pod could be created to resolve the conflicts arising on this pod. That would be a nice idea. But i believe it can in no way become a place where conflicts arising in other pods could be resolved.

There are two more things that are important to me and that spring up from that premisses (i.e. this is not neutral space):
The first one is that if people here think this is a neutral place to resolve global Gaia conflicts, then it's a big mistake and they're up to serious frustration. Specially because there is no aknowledgement by the Gaïa team of such objective. Only the Gaïa team have the power to create a neutral space- or the most neutral space that one can find here. We can think that is good or not, but it's just a simple fact.

So this is not going to be nice to hear but here it is: The premisses on what this pod is built is partly misleading:”This pod is a place for Gaians who wish to discuss issues related to mediation, moderation, personal growth, relationships with others, and community, openly and deeply. We will also work together on creating a space for mediation for those who have had conflicts with other Gaians“


The first part of the objective is fine and perfect. The second part is totally out of line. No one in the Gaïa team gave, to my knowledge, this pod the authority to resolve conflicts arising on global Gaïa.


Again, Siona's idea on the link provided above, is a very good idea if it could be implemented.


So we need to be clear about what we do here, as to not feel frustrated. For me it's a place where we can discuss mediation and that is already an amazing objective. But not a safe place to resolve conflicts.


So I think we should all loosen up a bit the rules and the ideal here.


Otherwise here's the situation that will spring up…Now I feel like the oracle in Matrix…mmmmm feels good: a false sense of power will arise….says the oracle…but without the authority…and there will be authority without real authority…and all will follow blindly…and a crazy sub-culture will be created….starts to be delicious…with special taboos…like not naming names…like not taking sides…a crazy not neutral distorted space will arise…then real authority will come…and anger will arise…and confusion…and trying again harder to be neutral… and the space will become more crazy and distorted…till it's so crazy that it blows up…pouf!


So to prevent this, I think that some humility is needed and in the end it's very simple: let it be a pod where mediation is discussed. It will fertilize Gaïa, that's for sure. But let's forget about the part where it's supposed to resolve Gaïan's conflicts.


This will really save us all much energy.


Hugs,


P.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Thanks, Patrick. You are always a breath of fresh air.

 I remember that Suggestion, by Siona, and I do think that that is what Siona had in mind, for a “neutral zone, for mediation”,
a new group created, expressly for that purpose,
 assuming that the Team and Siona cant agree upon a better way
 to resolve the issues, with a “neutral team” selected by both sides,
and agreed upon, by both sides, and one advocate selected to support the primaries, in the unfolding of the process.

 This new group could be public or private, but by the nature of it,
 it would probably be private, with members invited or invited to leave,
 as soon as their need to be there, expires.

 We batted around the preliminaries of it, before,
but I dont think any final decision arrived.

 The option clearly exists, but that does not mean that M&M
 cant be a platform to “launch the second stage”, now, does it ?

 Clearly, management and consensus has always driven expansion,
 as well as new insightful approaches by new or creative “leaders”,
who inspire them, to a new vision, to solve their needs.

 The “Illusion of Control” has a tendency to polarize people into
 “those, who feel in control, and abuse the control”,
 and “those, who feel controlled, and want to take back the control”,
 as well as “factions of control over areas and functions”,
 and polarizing into factions, and infighting between all of these areas.

 The more we get attached to control, and behave that way,
 not in voluntary service to others, but in egoic enjoyment of the control,
the more the reaction comes against us, and defeats our rightful control position, due to the fact that it is no longer supported by the people that we would serve.

  This is a caution against being seduced by control and leadership,
 and power, thereof.

 This is a law of human dynamics, and explains the chaos that ensues,
everytime the organism grows and new leadership emerges,
with new groups and leaders, and then hope, resentment, disillusionment, betrayal, and infighting, and even collapse of the new expanded growth.

 To everything, turn, turn, turn, there is a season.
 What does this mean, to Me.?
To Me, it is - “Dont be fooled by the Illusion of Control”,
 and “If You are in Control, beware of using it, instead of serving others, with it”, because success is determined by the majority served, and not by the leaders of the majority, who exist by the support of the majority of their customers or subjects.

 The critical masses do matter, and those, who serve, have a responsibility to them, that is unavoidable, because the masses will hold them responsible for their service.

 Consequences, again. This Humanity and the Unavoidable Consequence of Serving Humanity is responsible for the phenomina of Chaos and Order,
that We see, in all organizations of Humanity.

Peace only reigns in consensus.

 Understanding this, We serve, and protect.
This is My take on this, and others may have a different view,
and probably will.   

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Dear Nicole ( Prudence ? - Heheheheh ! ) - and Mascha

—————————————————————————————————————-
Torch, what interests me is how I can learn from everyone, the so called troublemakers and the chaotics, as you call them. There is a fascinating thread in Fully Engaged called Controversial that speaks to the contributions to Gaia of a very particular pod that no longer exists, and that contrasts it to the current situation here on Gaia. Great food for thought.
—————————————————————————————————————
Trying to see Your side of it….Heheheheh..!!

Tony Joe White - Even Trolls Love Rock & Roll

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Patrick, and Torch,

This is fantastic, and just what I was hoping in terms of the frankness and the possibilities for new direction.

Clearly we need to have an open talk about the rules and the whole set up of the group. Then it looks like a rewrite of the about this group will be in order.

Wonderful, I am very pleased and excited by this, and hope you will continue to give your input as time permits, Patrick.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

All sides of any discussion need to be looked at, but if I am too attached to My own side, and wont entertain the possibility of the other side, or sides, before I reject them, I appear biased, and no one will take Me seriously, and in reaction against Me, will tend to argue against Me, even at the risk of being wrong.

Then I might further entrench, and insist that everyone else is wrong, and that I Am the only one who is right, and My way is the only way.  They, in turn will entrench and insist that I am wrong, and it will escalate.

This all comes from being too attached to a position, early, whereas, if we entertain possibilities, with no bias, then sides are not taken, and the issue can gently evolve, when everyone is entertaining all the possibilities at first, and the choice evolves under consensus, instead of ego.

It is what it is.  If it is the right way, it will evolve.  If it is the wrong way, then it will be obvious, down the road.  The more consensus you have, the better chance for success. The more egos you have clashing, the less chance you have for determining the right way, and the less support you will have.

If you dont have a consensus, you dont have a solution, You have an opinion, and allies, but then you also have opponents with their own opinions, and the ones who dont agree with you will oppose your opinion, and forward their own opinion.

 This is no mystery to anyone here. We have seen it happening lately, and are frequently dumbfounded to the illogic of the whole process, because  we are looking for logical answers, and cant see that the clash of egos is causing the mexican standoffs.

Once the standoffs are set, in a discussion, agreement between parties can be very difficult, and take 3 or 4 days for things to cool down.
The issue may never be resolved, because it may be seen as a bone to pick,
and the sides may be entrenched, and unwilling to compromise.

All the more reason to seek for all possibilities, entertain each persons possibilities, allow each person to be heard and felt valued, and to allow the issue to evolve, without immediately taking sides.

being overly attached to the ideas, causes resistance to take hold, and then the opposition seeks to defeat our opinions, seeing that we are too attached to our opinions.

 In effect, they are opposing us, because they can see we are too attached to our opinions, and they seek to humble us, since we will not accept their opinions as possibilities, and appear to be trying to humble them.

It is a strickly my ego against your ego thing.
Those who would be proud, would be humbled by the opponents.
Those who would be humbled, would humble those who would be proud.

It has nothing to do with being logical, or looking for solutions.
unfortunately, if you dont get past the humility thing, you run the real risk
of the mexican standoff, and never getting the solution off the ground.

This is the real crux of “being biased” argument. In a mexican standoff, both sides think that the other side is biased.

since neither side will “stand down”, both will be biased, because they are not willing to entertain the possibility that there are any other answers.

One side, or both sides could be wrong, and a third option completely overlooked, due to the conflict.

If we see engagement in discussion as a “flow”, with give and take, and entertaining each other, and allow the flow to predominate, with no power tactics, then ( assuming that there are none trying to prevent agreement of any kind - trollers and troublemakers ) then agreement will evolve by consensus.

the more clashing egos that we have in a discussion, the less likely we will find agreement, in that discussion. 

the less clashing egos we have in a discussion, the better our chance of finding agreement will be.

the willingness to entertain each other and accept each other is a large determining factor to any agreement. without peace, no agreement.

humbly entertain each others possibilities, or accept the consequences of not
entertaining the possibilities. there will be consequences, there always are.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Thank you, Torch,

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Thank you Torch: you did put in words what I was thinking but could not say.

Nicole: thank you for your answer. I was a bit afraid of being to harsh, which I might have been, but I'm glad your open to the perspective I expounded.

 Indeed I have very little time, but I'll be back…Hum!

I also wanted to say that I did a clear separation between some of the content of MikeS post. The tone, the conflict, that I really do not care about, as first I was not involved in it, and that I've no intention on reading things to know what it's about. So I stripped the post of the negative emotions and looked at the content. I think he did hit on something. As for the attitude and the way it's being said…well it's to foggy, confused and angry as to do anything with it.  

Hugs to all of you…

P.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Patrick, I hear the separation re the content of the post, and appreciate your clarity. Looking forward to hearing more from you when you are back,

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Nicole:

My take on Fully Engage is that they take great pride in creating controversy, because it generates lots of traffic. Unfortunately, the tone of their communications tends to detract from the casual visitor's perception of Gaia and its purpose.

I think that being targeted by Mike is a reflection on your success here.

As for controlling the squabbling: the only way to accomplish that is for the community to take the squabbling off-line. I would also like to be able to filter by poster. This isn't necessarily to impose a moral judgment on the individuals involved. It's just that I have experience that indicates my world view does not mesh well with their world view, and I would benefit more from reading things by people with other points of view.

Eventually, if enough people exclude those posters, they'll find themselves on the outside looking in, and hopefully take their energies to a place where it creates a positive response. I just don't see why I should be forced to wade through pages and pages of material that appears tangential to the discussion, and inappropriately intrusive in other peoples' lives.

Love dearly to you all

Trichronos

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

“I would also like to be able to filter by poster.”

That is an excellent idea!

I'd love that, the ability to filter out posters and content I don't need or feel adverse to or even find offensive.

Most other Web Communities have it - to minimize personal squabbling, so why not Gaia. I have a nice list of posters whose 'content' I'd rather be without.

Shalom,
Dov

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Hi Trichronos,

Sounds like a good suggestion for the Team, that filtering content. Thank you so much for your sharing, that really helps.

I also agree with taking squabbling offline. Oftentimes discussions are intensely personal between two people so in the middle of a discussion group is not the appropriate place to hold that, and is distracting and energy draining for others who would like to go on with the actual discussion at hand.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

“that really helps”
How do you think that helps?

If the “squabbling” is to be taken off-line, what is the purpose of this group?

You have been posting everywhere, but I haven't seen you addressing my concerns.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

“My take on Fully Engage is that they take great pride in creating controversy, because it generates lots of traffic.”
“they”? Who are these “they” you are referring to?
Most of the members of Fully Engage are there to have meaningsful discussions and “they” “create controversy” to make people think in stead of being just meek sheep.

“Unfortunately, the tone of their communications tends to detract from the casual visitor's perception of Gaia and its purpose.”
Why do you think that is unfortunate? In my mind respected and appreciated members' perception of Gaia and its purpose is more important and interesting than some casual visitors'… and if the casual visitors think less of Gaia because of Fully Engaged, I don't think they are the sort of people who would be beneficial to Gaia as more than casual visitors.

“I think that being targeted by Mike is a reflection on your success here.”
Hmm. I think being “targeted” by Mike is Mike questioning this group's viability. That is an opinion shared by many.

“As for controlling the squabbling: the only way to accomplish that is for the community to take the squabbling off-line.”
Not at all. One could also try to avoid jumping into conclusions and calling people's communication squabbling just because it doesn't fit the idea you would like to upkeep of the world.
What about thinking that the people “squabbling” are trying to say something they find important? What about trying to listen to people?
What about stopping thinking that one knows everything there is to know, because one has heard a lot of compliments on how wise and spiritual and enlightened one is, and one has researched things? We are all full of it and know nothing, the more we know, the more aware we are about our ignorance. That goes for me and you too, Trichronos, even though you find me to be just an irritating and intimidating squabbler :->

So your world view doesn't mesh well with the world view of some other people, whom you therefore classify as squabblers… and you think the best way to deal with them is to freeze them out of the community, so that they “hopefully get the message” and remove themselves peacefully, so that you can keep “benefitting” from the points of views of people who share your world view…

Now, are you aware of that freezing people out of community is bullying? You are suggesting we bully people, and people YOU think “don't mesh well with your world view”.

Please, tell me, how do you benefit more by discussing with the yay-sayers than the nay-sayers?

“Opposition is a natural part of life. Just as we develop our physical muscles through overcoming opposition - such as lifting weights - we develop our character muscles by overcoming challenges and adversity.”
Stephen R. Covey

“Don't be afraid of opposition. Remember, a kite rises against, not with the wind.”
Hamilton Wright Mabie

“Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.”
Jane Austen

“Variety is the spice of life.”
Proverb

“Honest difference of views and honest debate are not disunity. They are the vital process of policy among free men.”
Herbert Hoover

“We allow our ignorance to prevail upon us and make us think we can survive alone, alone in patches, alone in groups, alone in races, even alone in genders.”
Maya Angelou

“The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men.”
John F. Kennedy

“A human being is a part of the whole that we call the universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest – a kind of optical illusion of his consciousness. This illusion is a prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for only the few people nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living beings and all of nature.”
Albert Einstein

“I just don't see why I should be forced to wade through pages and pages of material that appears tangential to the discussion, and inappropriately intrusive in other peoples' lives.”
Why should you? How could anyone force you to read anything you don't wish to read?

If you are referring to me posting the link to a discussion in Fully Engaged, I'm sure you don't see the reason to why I posted it, as you think I'm a troll :-D But that's just shows the proof of what happens when you classify people according to how “well they mesh with your POV” :-D

“You know so much that no man can tell you anything. Indeed, no man is going to try, for the effort would lead only to discomfort and hard work. So you are not likely ever to know any more than you do now, which is very little”
- an old Quaker friend to Benjamin Franklin according to Dale Carnegie

I posted a link to a discussion that is, in my mind, very relevant to this discussion, as in that discussion the cultivatrix and creatrix of this group is expressing views and opinions that are very important for people who are interested in getting this group functioning in the way it is dreamed to function. If there is any intrusion in other people's lives, that is only more reason to discuss what is intruding the privacy of people!
Is it inappropriate to share in public what has been discussed in private? Of course it is!
Is it inappropriate to share with a larger public what is being discussed publicly? I don't think so :-D

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

I have just spent hoooooouuuuuurrrrrrs reading through this thread and I think you are all right/wrong about everything you say.

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

a little more detail would be in order, mikey dee…

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Mikey, like torch I am intrigued by your comment and would like to know more about your views.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Private messages would be acceptable, in these days of paranoia, if you dont feel comfortable “airing out your dirty laundry, or others”. We wouldnt want to be accused of “attacking anyone”, now would we ? 

Re: Critique of MaM for discussion

Certainly, torch, we are always open to private messages if anyone doesn't feel comfortable writing in the open forum. The important thing is to share any feedback you have, Mikey or anyone.

Love,

Nicole