Clean feedback

[Corrie van Wijk]

"Also people tend to shy away from putting stuff on forums if they are likely to be attacked, so i think we should remember what we write can be offensive or off putting to some.

Each of the young ladies does a few solo songs, then sing in groups of 2, 3, 4, and even all 5! In one of the songs, the 4 singers, Chloe, Lisa, Mauv, and Orla, are in like a ring and rotate so each has center stage for part of the song. The fiddler, Mairead bounces in and out and all around them, but most of the time is in back of them. Mairead is much shorter than the others, being only about 5 feet tall. She does half of her solo's barefoot, and the other half in high heels.[...]there is no in-fighting, just mutual respect and cooperation.[...] Sushi. They have a Rainbow platter which has about 5 different types of fish each with it's own brilliant color, texture and distinctive taste.

5 in Calais, pity they dont contribute here, are they also going to decide what goes on this forum? Or maybe its because they dont want to be growled at??

Apologies to those who want a Steve-free forum.

I am not interested in running or even belonging to a forum like so many others with long rambling exchanges of self-important pontification which occasionally descend into a soap opera of personal emotional exchanges, be they belligerent or sycophantic. IMO such stuff is not of much interest or relevance to anyone not involved in those emotions and is upsetting to the protagonists. [...] Now, I realise that's a colourful description! It is not meant to be insulting to anyone - I include myself as one of those who has taken part in such exchanges. It is an accurate summary of my impression of SOME of the exchanges that have gone on in the last few months. While there has been good stuff too, it is buried amongst the challenges and counter-challenges and quite hard to get at, so I doubt anyone is trying.

not many people feel motivated to post [...] 2 or 3 people are not tracking their contributions and are over dominating conversations

When people comment from a position of 'absolute expert' or 'personal affront'. This means I feel I'm in the company of fragile egos.

the site had become more welcoming with less 'flame'.

Maybe its nothing to do with ego's and everything to do with use, visit rates, busyness, and the general human malaise of apathy? If you look at the posting rate you will see that apart from when the few of us who regularly contribute, posts are few and far between [...] Most people bystand."

I very much object to feedback that is not a specific response to a specific person in a specific situation at a specific time.

My contributions to this forum are not for your entertainment, I simply share my experience of David and what I learned from that, because I hope it benefits others. I very much enjoy when others join in because from that interaction I gain new knowledge and together we develop new insights.

As Phil says: " ... the forum IS those contributions of its members - and we are in them, fragile egos and all."

So instead of being annoyed, hurt, whatever, just join in and from getting to know eachother (get together as well whenever you can) we'll learn how to appreciate each and every contribution and express that, so fragile egos get accepted and honoured and become a part of the clean community.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"highly intimidating. Posts from an absolute expert position [...]. Sometimes posts are needlessly intellectualised [...] being forced into a position of intellectualising [..] in order to avoid flames."

Anyone can only intimidate you if you let them; experts are only absolute because others acknowledge them as such; no-one can force you to intellectualise if you don't choose to; don't try to avoid flames, just stay out of the fire if you're not fond of heat.

[phil]

Thanks for your post, Corrie, and for acknowledging your part, as I have mine, in the 'shenanigans' of the past few months. I appreciate your openness and commitment to David's work and to the forum.

You mention 'just stay out of the fire, if you're not fond of heat' - maybe that is exactly why people have not been posting. Perhaps we need a furnace section where those who love a lick of flame can crisp each other, while the more temperately-inclined can relax in cool-tempered liveliness, knowing that flame-throwers will be evicted to the fiery fringes.

Your story of the 5 performers reminds me of where I came across the well-known 'yes... and' principle, which is going to be a fundamental principle of the forum from now on and so is why I introduce it here.

A few years ago I got involved in some playback theatre with a company called Random Acts, led by Tig Land.

In playback, a 'conductor' elicits individual stories from volunteers (called 'tellers') in the audience, one at a time. Each teller tells their brief story, which can be funny, tragic or just something that happened and their reaction to it. The main stipulation is that it be a first-person story, i.e. something that happened to them personally.

Listening on the stage are 4 - 6 'players'. After each story is told (facilitated more or less 'cleanishly' by the conductor), the conductor may allocate roles and suggest a 'form' for the piece to come or just say 'let's watch'.

The players then improvise a piece of theatre based on that story. Occasionally one player takes the role of the teller in the story, at other times the piece is more abstract. Nothing is planned beforehand and there is no knowledge of the stories in advance either.

The 'yes... and' approach comes in in the way the players work together. An individual player might make an 'offer', that is, an idea, a gesture, a sound which the group can use as part of the improvisation.

The other players can do one of three things with an offer: ignore it, reject it or accept it, building on it or incorporating it into what they are doing already.

This third option is the 'yes... and' I have referred to. It is the most challenging to consistently follow IMO. To honestly respond 'yes... and' to others' ideas and views requires a similar level of self-discipline to being clean. When practised enough, also like being clean, it can become second nature.

In playback theatre, 'yes... and' is far and away the most generative, constructive and entertaining for the players and for everyone watching. That's why I am keen to promote that kind of ethos hear* on cleanforum.

Phil

*sic! I only noticed this unconscious phonological ambiguity the day after I posted the message... Makes a kind of sense both ways so I leave it.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "Thanks for your post, Corrie, and for acknowledging your part [...] in the 'shenanigans' of the past few months."

That would be your qualification, again: I cannot comment on anything if it is not specific. My perception is that I contribute in any way the situation requires, ranging from mere expression to a fierce attack if I feel like it.

PhilL "I appreciate your openness and commitment to David's work and to the forum."

Thank you, you make me smile, just what I needed this morning.

"You mention 'just stay out of the fire, if you're not fond of heat' - maybe that is exactly why people have not been posting. Perhaps we need a furnace section where those who love a lick of flame can crisp each other, while the more temperately-inclined can relax in cool-tempered liveliness, knowing that flame-throwers will be evicted to the fiery fringes."

I don't think that would be necessary, a lively discussion may seem 'hot' to others because you can only read it, but I think the participants know each other well enough and there are no adverse feelings involved.

Phil: "Your story of the 5 performers reminds me ..."

I don't know what you mean by this?

[phil]

Phil: "Thanks for your post, Corrie, and for acknowledging your part [...] in the 'shenanigans' of the past few months."

That would be your qualification, again: I cannot comment on anything if it is not specific.

Yes, it certainly was. Maybe I misread your post of 4 days ago, where if I am right you have quoted various postings from various members of the forum? Because they are not attributed, I took at least some of them as your words - who knows - maybe they were mine?

My perception is that I contribute in any way the situation requires, ranging from mere expression to a fierce attack if I feel like it.

That's my perception of what you have been doing too. What I am saying is that the forum is now on a new vector towards collaborative, yes-and interaction. From now on, 'fierce attack' WILL elicit deletions, movings of posts right up to warnings, infractions, temporary and even permanent bans. A cool statement of differing point of view, a calm challenge to assertions in someone else's post; these will get through, this will be the way to be heard.

I realise that this is me enforcing my will as the administrator of this board. My purpose is to ensure the survival of the forum, which believe me is critical right now. For this, as we know, it needs members to post and feel part of things. Members are not posting (amongst other reasons) because they do not want to risk attack. They want to feel safe and to know that they will be treated respectfully. So I am acting to support that in the short-term.

In the longer term I am going to ask the whole membership via email what the rules of the forum should be.

Phil: "Perhaps we need a furnace section..."

I don't think that would be necessary, a lively discussion may seem 'hot' to others because you can only read it, but I think the participants know each other well enough and there are no adverse feelings involved.

I can see how it may feel that way inside the 'hot lively discussion'. From feedback and my experience of the last few months, it is clear that many do not want to participate in the kind of discussions that have been going on. 'Participating' includes reading them. They have felt put off from posting in case they get involved in that kind of exchange.

Maybe the furnace section could be private and hidden so that hot conversations can happen without everybody having to read it. Then people can opt-in if they want to, after reading a 'health warning'. After all, an audience isn't a necessary part of those conversations, is it?

Phil: "Your story of the 5 performers reminds me ..."

I don't know what you mean by this?

I am referring to the story about the 5 singers - perhaps it was not your story? It was in the post in your name of 4 days ago.

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "Maybe I misread your post of 4 days ago, where if I am right you have quoted various postings from various members of the forum? Because they are not attributed, I took at least some of them as your words - who knows - maybe they were mine?"

I quoted some of the contributions in this section to make clear that they were not addressed to anyone specific. I can't deal with that.

Phïl: "What I am saying is that the forum is now on a new vector towards collaborative, yes-and interaction. From now on, 'fierce attack' WILL elicit deletions, movings of posts right up to warnings, infractions, temporary and even permanent bans. A cool statement of differing point of view, a calm challenge to assertions in someone else's post; these will get through, this will be the way to be heard."

Well, here is a hell of a presupposition: 'a calm challenge is the way to be heard'. Life doesn't work like that! I'm not going to challenge someone calmly if they make me mad! (which doesn't happen very often)

Phil: "Members are not posting (amongst other reasons) because they do not want to risk attack. They want to feel safe and to know that they will be treated respectfully."

Everybody risks attack if they state something I don't agree with, as I do. The rule is to be specific and put in an argument that makes sense.

[phil]

Life may not work like that always or for everyone in every context. I think it can work like that on the forum. My specific point was that from now on if you want your challenge to be heard on cleanforum, it will need to be a 'calm challenge' in a 'yes-and' style and not an attack. Otherwise I will move or delete it and apply sanctions.

Everybody risks attack if they state something I don't agree with, as I do.
The fact is, Corrie, that from now on if you do attack someone, you will as a minimum receive an infraction and continued attacks will see you banned.

I am determined that others are entitled to have their say without risking your stated intent to attack them if they say something you don't agree with. So you can take that as your first warning.

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "it will need to be a 'calm challenge' in a 'yes-and' style and not an attack."

Nothing more deadly than a calm challenge, you should know better than that. All you accomplish is suppressed feelings, which will linger under the surface and can't be dealt with. It is just a way of being able to critise someone without having to account for it.

Now is this a calm challenge?

Do I get away with this one?

[Steve Saunders]

A calm challenge? I infer that, in my reality, Phil means "not attacking" but disagreeing by using clear argument, as opposed to something like "no you are wrong" ;-)

We are each responsible for how we communicate and how we react to other posts.

If I were to feel angry about a post, or intimidated, then I would address this response immediately - using pronoun-emotion scaling for example. And then I'd look at the post again and decide if I wished to reply or not.

We each show the world "our individual structures" by posting - it is easy enough to infer the inner child landscapes from the postings, especially after someone has posted a lot.

Maybe we need a little less "judgement about" and a little more "getting on with" sharing and evolving clean facilitation best practice.

So I would like to see more posts from more members and more regular contributions from more people.

Often the fear of something is worse than the actuality. For example, after the monster is seen in a horror movie it is then less scary than the unknown ... WOOF!

Steven

[phil]

I think that is getting closer to what I mean, Steve, if a challenge is really required.

What I am really looking for is a forum where people strive to manage their emotions before they post, are not needing to agree or disagree, where no-one needs to assert themselves to be right or others to be wrong, where people can distinguish between testing ideas and challenging people. The forum is now striving towards an environment where opinions and ideas can exist alongside each other and for new understanding and learning to emerge from that adjacency.

Sounds utopian? Maybe. So is being 100% Clean - yet it is worth striving for it because the lowest common denominator of learning in a clean exchange is far higher than that in an adversarial exchange IMO.

For (imaginary) example, if someone posts the following comment...

Alfreda: "For me, being Clean as a facilitator is all about trusting that the person you are working with has the resources to make their own changes."

... here are some quite different replies to that post:

Bertie: "You should know better than that! It is so much more than just trusting."
= NEGATE YOUR OPINION, PERIOD.

Clarissa: "I think you are wrong. The main point of Clean is not polluting their content with your own content."
= NEGATE YOUR OPINION, PROMOTE MY OPINION = 'No, and'

Dave: "Maybe, but I think you are missing the point. The critical thing about Clean is..."
= DIMINISH YOUR OPINION, PROMOTE MY OPINION = 'Yes, but'

Erica: "I take your point about trusting. At the same time, there are many other aspects to Clean that I would give equal importance, for example..."
= ACCEPT YOUR OPINION, PROMOTE MY OPINION = 'Yes, and'

Frank: "And when 'person... has the resouces to make their own changes', what kind of resources?" or "...then what happens?", etc.
= CLEAN QUESTIONING

Georgie: "Given all the posts in this thread so far, what do we know now?"
= CLEAN LEARNINGS CAPTURE

From these examples, perhaps you all can tell which kind of responses are the kind I think will take the forum in a constructive direction? :)
I like the idea of "getting on with" sharing and evolving clean facilitation best practice.
Let's do it!

Phil

[nickyp]

Much as I am very reluctant to suggest yet more sections to this enormous forum, on a bike forum I post on, there is a fights and flame wars section. Discussions which moderators consider to have become a fight or a flame war are moved to this section. In extreme cases the thread may be locked to further posts. This allows what has been said to remain accessible to the membership but protects forum members from prolonged attack. Sanctions for such posting also exist and rarely people are banned or excluded.

It saddens me that such measures should be required on a forum such as this. I see people being challenging in a way that negates the others point of view and I interpret this a failure in what we are trying to do. We are all more than capable of accepting an alternative position to our own with respect. I would further respectfully suggest that if an idividual is not able to consistently do that then i would develop serious concerns about them doing this kind of work. If others are lesser then how can you be clean?

I what Corrie quoted in post #2 was from one of my very first posts on the forum. I think that illustrates the problems on this forum very concisely indeed.

[Steve Saunders]

... would he be THE absolute expert or would he have to pretend he knows less to comfort fragile egos? [He often did, actually, so maybe we should emulate this?]

If a person (A) projects "absolute expert" at another person (B), then I would prefer that the projector (A) deals with their ego problem rather than blaming the other person (B) for their projection (A's).

[It is my projection that people project, as it was Freud's too - an old NLP adage: "perception is projection', and 'first cast the plank out of your own eye before complaining of the splinter in the other's eye' (Jesus - approx wording).]

I wonder if Phil will delete this as being "too aggressive", but who knows, maybe this forum can cope with people being asked to own their projections at others? I'm owning this one (projecting 'censor' at Phil).

After all, one of the key fundamentals of clean is to not project, thus minimising pronoun use, etc ... How about NO COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE, just keep to the technical content of the threads?

Look at the posting rates before Corrie and I engaged on sharing the EK, and look at the rate since - and work out the maths. The problem appears to be one of perception and lacking effort in making contributions than in those who have engaged a lot of their time to exploring openly the emergence work that we could have easily kept to ourselves. I have openly shared the only comprehensive manual on emergence with those who have asked.

Stop criticising and start contributing - make the volume of posts what you want. [I own projecting criticising at earlier posters in this thread - it feels like it to me.] At the clean conference, I offered a prize to the first person to post more than Corrie - go for it!

Phil, you introduced this feedback monster thread and you have encouraged people speaking to you offline (behind the backs of others). In a business this kind of management would not be tolerated for very long at all. As the creator and owner of this site, you are ultimately responsible for the behaviour on it and around it, including the policing, post-moving and judging. Instead of encouraging the behind-the-scenes chat, a good manager would get the parties to talk directly. In 25 years engineering I rarely came across politics or "behind-the-back" activity, but in the NLP and clean world it seems to be rife! The problems seem to have largely emerged when interference has happened.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

Nicky: "what Corrie quoted in post #2 was from one of my very first posts on the forum. I think that illustrates the problems on this forum very concisely indeed."

YES, I quoted: "highly intimidating. Posts from an absolute expert position [...]. Sometimes posts are needlessly intellectualised [...] being forced into a position of intellectualising [..] in order to avoid flames."

AND, I responded: "Anyone can only intimidate you if you let them; experts are only absolute because others acknowledge them as such; no-one can force you to intellectualise if you don't choose to; don't try to avoid flames, just stay out of the fire if you're not fond of heat."

And when ["that illustrates the problems on this forum very concisely indeed."] could you explain to me what it is about my response that illustrates the problems on this forum?

[phil]

Thanks Steve, hope you're feeling better for that! :) It's a good example of the 'No, and' pattern I put forward earlier in the thread. Your post IS fairly aggressive (MP=My Projection) - I wondered from the way you put it whether you were hoping it would be deleted (MP)? Since we are in this transition period for cleanforum and we are in the feedback forum, there is value (MP) in letting it stand to be answered.

On the other hand I categorise "Stop criticising and start contributing..." as 'bullying' (MP), which means you receive another point on your previous infraction.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Number of contributions
I appreciate the effort that the regular posters have put into sharing their interesting ideas on the forum. I value everyone's contributions, because it does take effort to post. And I would like to see a wider breadth of ideas represented. People already know a lot about what and how we regular posters think - I would like to hear more from others. I think welcoming and encouraging is more likely than bullying to be effective at getting postings from a wide range of people.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Can you clarify?
It isn't clear to me from your post whether you want this:

"maybe this forum can cope with people being asked to own their projections at others?"

or this:

"How about NO COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE, just keep to the technical content of the thread?"

And is there a relationship between:

"Stop criticising ..."

and

"...lacking effort in making contributions...", "In a business this kind of management would not be tolerated for very long at all."

They seem at odds to me (MP).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Duh management...
I'm sorry the management of the forum doesn't suit you, Steve. I am certainly responsible for managing the 'policing, post-moving and judging' - a time-consuming, difficult and unrewarding task that I have not done very well and not so badly either (MP).

What helps me is when people police and judge themselves and post things according to the forums already there and suggest new forums for stuff that doesn't fit, which mostly is what happens these days, thanks.

My purpose in sorting the information at all is to make it easier for people to find what they are looking for among the large range of topics. I think there is value in that (MP). There are always other ways to sort it. I do have another idea for organising the information alongside the current way and so far not the time nor the technology to implement it.

A third way would be for Emergence-related posts (since this is your main area of interest) to be all in one 'lump'. Maybe you can try this on your own forum.

Behaviour
I expect members to take responsibility for their own behaviour in the first instance - as you say in a previous post, Steve: "We are each responsible for how we communicate and how we react to other posts." When they don't (MP), I then take responsibility for protecting the forum and its readers from their behaviour, if I think it's necessary. Again, most posters do the first thing and the second thing isn't necessary.

Offline comms
When people, including you Steve, contact me offline, I respond. Sometimes I have encouraged others to post their feedback online. Sometimes they have and sometimes they haven't.

Phil