Subject: I see.
Author:
Posted on: 2013-07-04 11:21:00 UTC

What exactly would constitute '[meeting] with respect, or at least a bit of consideration'? I can see a few options:

1/ Offer an expression of sympathy, which achieves nothing.

2/ Immediately demand names, offenses, and appropriate punishments.

>The way Tray-Gnome was talking didn't necessarily indicate that there were specific people in question. In fact, Tray-Gnome said it was 'a general observation', which led me to the third option:

3/ Attempt to find out if there were actual people under discussion, by saying something like 'If you have noticed people being a problem...'. Then maybe I could have laid out the procedure in the Constitution, to whit: ask them to stop, explain what they're doing wrong, ask for an apology, and then, if they don't continue, to ask the community to intervene. I could have pointed out that the only person who can take the first three of those four steps is the person who notices something is wrong - that, in fact, 'the responsibility lies on [them] to start the process of fixing it' - ie, to bring it to the community's attention.

>This is, in fact, what I did.

And despite your protestations that a four-year-old would have done the things I suggested, Tray-Gnome hadn't. Of the two people she specifically named in the follow-up post, the people who she clearly indicated as repeat offenders, one of them was me. Guess what? Tray-Gnome had not previously raised this issue with me. In fact, the last time I had any contact with her, she specifically said that she was not angry with me and never had been. So, the answer to my questions was apparently 'no'. Tray-Gnome may have 'told people about the issues I'm having' - but she hasn't raised them with the people who are causing them.

You equate 'it's your responsibility to start the process' with 'sorry, no one else notices so you have to go solve it on your own'. That's not what I meant to say. What I meant was more along the lines of: the person who notices is the only person who can start things.If you notice something, you need to call people's attention to it. I have not seen Tray-Gnome do this on the Board in about a year. I do not know what has happened in the IRC; that's why I was asking. However, I do know that neither of the people she named use the IRC.

Lastly, in her response, Tray said you were treating her like a child, and that no-one listens to her. She also outlined what the problem was, albeit in an upset tone.

Your response to this, was to say that you were sorry she thought you were condescending, and then tried to give reasons as to why you weren't condescending.

So in other words, you didn't listen to her, exactly like she said happens.


Okay, I'm not sure if you're actually not noticing my words, or deliberately ignoring them.

I apologise for coming across as condescending. That was not my intent.

That in no way equates to 'I'm sorry you thought I was condescending'. It equates to 'I'm sorry I sounded that way'. The former shifts responsibility onto the listener - the latter retains it in its entirety for myself. I offered the explanation of my intentions as a way of reassuring her that the offence was accidental, not deliberate. If someone offends me in some way, that's something I'd want to know, not something I would get angry at them for telling me.

And no, Tray-Gnome did not use an 'upset tone'. She used a deliberately and aggressively insulting tone. She used my genuine attempt to help to attack me with pointless namecalling, and to tell me off for asking a question (to which the answer was 'no'), and to attack another member of this community who has not spoken to her in a year.

7. If someone says something that seems offensive, but you’re not sure exactly what they meant, ASK them first, before jumping down their throats. Astonishingly enough, most people aren’t out to offend anyone. [...] Don't be afraid to ask what someone meant- it isn't silly to want the full facts.

You and Tray-Gnome have completely ignored this section of the Constitution. Riese gave a nice example of the sort of response that should be given in this case - indicating the impression that was given, assuming good faith, and politely suggesting I 'double-check in the future'. Had that been the only reply, I would have come back with 'I sounded condescending? I'm sorry, I definitely didn't mean to. I was trying to [this this this]. Can you specify how it sounded condescending, so I can watch it in the future?'. You and Tray-Gnome did not. You launched an aggressive attack, refused to accept any of the six separate apologies I have offered, and in fact have spent most of your words in this thread dissecting in great detail why my apologies are not good enough for you. Whether in person or by proxy, Tray-Gnome has made absolutely no effort to apologise for her direct attacks and flames.

hS

Reply Return to messages