Rewild.info Conflict Resolution

REWILD FORUM
#18

I like the system. I think having a method to go by and to point to as we have to use it, lets everybody know what’s up so that there are fewer surprises next time.

REWILD has remained a peaceful place, full of good conflict, all kinds of personalities and great discussions for its life so far–until today when the conflicts turned sour and the discussion became too much of a personal attack.

[quote=“Plains, post:2, topic:300”]Ignoring sounds cool. There might be a point where it isn’t enough though, depending on the person involved and the situation.

If there need be any discussion of a conflict between the conflict creator and a mod, I would say keep it public. Not doing so has caused a lot of stupid grief in another forum I belong to. Maybe people here are cooler though.[/quote]

I agree that any conflict between mods and users should stay in the open so that moderator activity can be discussed by the whole group.

It may take a lot of ignoring before a conflictive user calms down. Which would probably result in a lot of one-sided posts by the agressor. I’m okay with that. If we can all just agree to not give in, then the agressor will probably calm down.

I don’t like banning. I don’t like censorship. I didn’t want to ban Ted today when he started picking fights. I’m glad I didn’t, and I’m glad he calmed his name calling down when I suggested the ban.

I like the idea of temporary bans if ignoring the offender doesn’t quieten the problem down.

#19

You think this is a fuck joke RiX?

Name calling? I am going to find Jason Godesky and beat his ass into a bloody pulp.

So laugh, act all superior. You are a bunch of fucktards. The conflict is Jason getting his ass beat.

If you wanted to resolve a conflict you dropped the ball

#20

Alright. Scout and I just discussed this possibility on the phone, and I’m going to put it into action now.

Anyone who uses the board to threaten physical violence against someone else gets banned.

So, as soon as I click the post button, I am banning Free_Range_Organic_Human from this forum.

Feel free to keep discussing this topic, including the action I am about to take.

#21

I have banned Ted, his email address and all of the IP addresses he has used.

As this is the first time I’ve had to use this feature of the forum, I may have overshot the ban and blocked someone else’s IP address as well as Ted`s. If you happen to not be able to post on the forum because I accidentally banned your IP when I was banning Ted, please send me an email at wilderix at gmail dot com telling me your username, and I will try to rectify the situation.

#22

The only thing I really don’t like is the (permanent) locking/closing of threads, unless the creator of said thread is the one attacking someone else. -cough cough- my thread got locked : / and I thought it was perfectly fine thread until it got distracted.

#23

You’re quite right, Fenriswolfr. You had a good thread going, and I would like to see it come back to life.

It would have been better for me to split the tangent from your thread before I locked it, and I will try to do that in the future.

Live and learn.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Likewise, any lock does not have to be permanent if the party or parties involved can cool the flaming down and get back on topic.

I’ll try to separate out the tangent and unlock your thread again, Fenriswolfr, but not tonight as I don’t have that much brainpower left after today’s events. In case I forget, feel free to PM me, but I’ll try not to forget. :slight_smile:

#24

okay thanks :slight_smile:

#25

Also, I think this thead belongs in the Suggestion Box/REWILD.info Forums board instead of here. But I’ll do that tomorrow, too.

#26

I feel sad about the angry language used in the conflict. :’( Sigh.

#27

I support REWILD (forums and wiki) as a resource for people who need help with rewilding and all that entails.

Much like in another thread, concerning my feelings toward Ken Wilbur, I don’t give a fig about what folks who don’t want to rewild think, in the sense of rewild that we understand it here. But I give my time away for free for those who just need some to talk to about this rewilding stuff.

I place a lot of value on the slowly increasing body of (ever-evolving!) rewilding knowledge here, both ‘philosophical’ and practical.

If someone has not come here either to learn, or to substantively contribute, I don’t think this place makes a good match for whatever they do want.

Learning requires a certain amount of openness; contributing requires a certain amount of openness.

I have no problem with the idea of booting folks who don’t make a good match with this place, in need or intention. It takes a lot to get to this point and make a poor match abundantly clear, as I think we’ve seen, but for clarity’s sake, booting ‘those who don’t belong’ can possibly encourage a certain amount of groupthink. So I also like the idea of the conflict resolution continuum offered, especially the ‘ignoring’ option, which I think we should flesh out.

#28

I have mixed feelings on the issue of banning users. On one hand, I don’t like to censor. Period. On the other hand, why should someone be allowed to drag down an otherwise healthy learning environment?

When I first “threatened” Ted with banning today after he hinted at violence and called Jason some childish names, I had to ask myself over and over “what constitutes a good reason for banning someone from such an otherwise open-to-conflict forum?” And I decided that petty and obviously personal name-calling really has nothing to do with the spirit of this forum. I thought “this behavior is just destructive when everything else on this forum–conflicts included–feels constructive.” So I decided to wave my ban stick around.

It seemed to have an effect for a while. Ted stopped being as petty in his argument style while still expressing his feelings–negative and otherwise. “Great,” I thought. “It’s just like animals. A little bit of posturing goes a long way to preventing the extreme by merely pointing out the extreme.”

Then Scout and I discussed our feelings about banning via email and telephone, deciding that we could explore other options like the conflict continuum Scout posted. But that the ultimate extreme of someone threatening someone else via the forum should be considered immediate grounds for banning. When we discussed this, I don’t think either of us expected it to come to that. Ironically, it was probably happening on the forum at that very moment that Ted was making serious threats.

It really hurt and pissed me off. I felt like I had extended a lot of latitude to Ted to share his sentiments, express his anger, continue the conflict–in a constructive manner. But he took it back to pettyness and then escalated into outright threats. I gave him a lot of opportunities to rise above his personal vendetta against Jason, but he spurned the opportunities.

I don’t feel bad for banning Ted. I do feel bad that the situation escalated so quickly–that we really didn’t have much time to discuss anything before it turned super ugly and reached what Scout and I had discussed as the worst possible extreme (threatening to physically harm someone).

So I propose a modified conflict continuum:

  1. Self-policing (don’t insult others)
  2. Report insults to moderators.
  3. Publicly ask for conflict to end. (no more posts)
  4. Lock thread
  5. Ignore any posts by abuser.
  6. Temporary Exile (ban user for a set period of time [3 days? 5 days? 7 days?]) and allow the community the opportunity to discuss the merits of the ban.
  7. Permanent Exile (ban user, email, IP indefinitely)–again, allowing the community do discuss the merits of the ban.

I don’t like that the admin option falls into a few hands–namely that my hands are among the few–who can possibly make rash decisions that affect the cohesiveness of the community. So I guess I want to temper that aspect by stating that I welcome any discussion and criticism from the community concerning my actions as a moderator and administrator. I hope that Willem and Scout and anyone else who might come into the position feel the same way.

I try to act with the community’s interests at heart whenever I have to take action like this. I think Willem’s last post expresses the sentiment very well. Which is why I like the option of a temporary ban that allows the community to respond to the situation and then to re-welcome the banee should the conflict pass. Now, the question remains: how long should a temporary ban last?

#29

Personally I think a week is a good amount of time. It allows people who don’t go online very often the chance to read the thread and think about their position on the ban, and it allows the offending person to spend a nice chunk of time in meat space to (hopefully) cool off, think about it, and then return if they want to.

#30

I agree. Less than a week, and there’s too great a chance that a good chunk of the community here will be prevented from using the time to review the contentious posts. That would be inviting a lot of problems, imo.

#31

Excellent points. I think a week sounds good.

That also not to say that anyone who didn’t happen to log on during the week of a ban couldn’t still post their thoughts after the fact and allow their thoughts to inform future situations.

#32

Woah, what did I miss?

#33

Haha, no it was US who MISSED you buddy!

#34

Hey, Rory! Yeah, you missed some crazy shit. But I have to agree with Scout–the shit doesn’t compare to how much we missed you.

Welcome back!

#35

Ya’ll are just tooooo sweet.

#36

Hey. I am a recent addition to the forum and I have just been reading threads, gaining context, and I came upon this one.

There is something about a straight warning and boot system that’s not settling as evenly as I’d like. I’m not saying the system sucks, I think it flys fine and I’d be feel peaceful about it if it stood as is.
But, to my knowledge, exile was an effective last resort among indigenous folks around the globe. There was nothing left when that happened. We recognized that the most precious things to us at our core were all gained through HUMAN connection, there are somethings even the wilderness can’t provide for us. To my understanding in the early times it was just matter of fact, whatever I feel about my group I know there is a line, and it’s not worth stepping over. Whatever feelings of anger, jealousy, sorrow, or just raw rage that I have, at least I have them w/ someone. There is even a good chance that someone I know has had these feelings too. And that is better than having them all alone.
I feel that in a sustainable-regenerative community there were checks for both sides of a conflict of this scale. For the “offender” he had to consider whether or not his current situation was “feeding” him. Was he in such a state of social mal-nourishment that what he needed was to let go and find greener pastures or that even nothing was better than this. I feel some terrific mythology has come out of thoughts and feelings that align with these.
I wonder about the things a community must weigh before casting an individual member out. Recognizing that we could be taking a life into our own hands. We only do this in exchange for our own, when we hunt for our families, harvest for our gatherings or medicines, or gather materials for our shelters and clothing. Even then there are ways around having to destroy a life completely. If we send this one away are we assuming we have the right to use sacred power that has been reserved for the Creator alone? Yet, what is worth enduring? How far do we bend for the sake of one? One snowflake can break the already laden branch.

Now I recognize that we are not sending anyone out to their demise, nor are we a fully functioning community with all the trimmings, heck I haven't even seen ya'lls faces or shaken your hands.  What I am trying to bring to the table is a context for gravity.  As I understand it, exile was the LAST resort.  Not to say it wasn't a reasonable, effective solution, it was just the one at the bottom of the list.  I also made clear that i feel the current resolution can stand, but I wonder what else could.  What other tools could we put in effect before we make the click.

 I am not saying I have full context, but I didn't see any reach to Free_Range_Organic_Human (FROH from now on.)  I not saying he made it easy heck I don't even like the guy.  But if we are reaching for something more human than what we got, there's gotta be more out flow on our part.  Clearly the guy's carrying a big hurt.  Where is our standing to look further into that?  Can we withstand he "assault" in order to see better this human's flame?  After all they are just words on a page.  When I see some physical action I'll raise an eyebrow.  And yet how do we cultivate space to synthesize our thoughts in a good meaningful way?

K this is the part where it would be easy to slide into endless questions with tough answers, so I won’t go that route. This all came about from wanting to suggest a single step to add to your conflict resolution progression. Outreach. I’m not saying we gotta go to a persons house and rub their back 'til they feel “expressed.” Nor do we even have to spend a bunch of our own time on trying to pull “this one” back in. But having all the context I just diarreahed maybe the least we could do is send a person a link for anger management or whatever a situation may warrant. It IS in a persons own hands to call. How many people on this forum are involved in transformation or facilitation of some sort anyway? I dunno. Maybe it’s silly. But it feels like even if you decided to send someone from the village out into the woods forever, you’d at least let them pack a lunch.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak my mind.

-R

#37

Thanks for speaking it.

Honestly, Ted (aka Free_Range_Organic_Human) has weighed pretty heavily on my mind.

I’m not sure where the line should be, but your suggestions seem worthy to me. Hopefully, if this scenario should arise again, we (as a community) can go a little further to address the underlying issues.