Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Social LifeDealing with a power showdown in …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Dealing with a power showdown in a WA group

#1 · December 20, 2023, 9:39 pm

Quote from John Freeman on December 20, 2023, 9:39 pm
Hello TPM community,
This is a challenge I'm happy I succeeded and I owe it to TPM (again).
Context
I'm organising a board game in the WA group I created for that purpose. I set a poll in WA about the date. I see a mistake right after creating it and I delete it. I create another one 1 min later (documented on WA, for later). People answer, I wait a few days (5) and thank them and confirm the date. I saw that everyone in the group read the message on the day I created it. So everyone knew there was a poll and answered or not. Then out of nowhere my "friend" Bernard (more of an acquaintance I play board games with now with the distance I took due to his behaviour) accuses me after several messages sent by people after my confirmation.
I'll provide a couple more message for more context. I'm also putting messages together for better readability. The game is game A and is 5 player game we wanted to play for about a year.
John: It's going to be War! I'm looking forward to it.
JB: I'm looking forward to it as well.
Bernard: I had already voted some dates but apparently you changed them?
JB: I thought I voted first after John and my votes did not change. So did the dates. Up to John ("To be seen with,.." in French).
Norbert: 5 is the max for this game? Can we do it at 6 players and integrate Bernard?
Bernard: [posts the "proof" of my deletion as an image of the message I deleted]. Just in case I'm available on Saturday.
JB: Ahh I did not see that. Board game A is not possible at 6 but maybe board game B + C?
Norbert: are we doing a 6 player game? For instance I have game D. Can we do a game? Ah shit it's a 4 player games apparently game D. I would like to try this game [posts a picture of game E]. We can play up to 8 players.
John: that's right Bernard. I created a poll saw a mistake deleted in the minute and made a new one. Apparently you read the new poll according to WA?
John: But it's not important. If you want to give your availability gladly et we have a look at the dates.
John: In the poll please, it helps me to organise. Thanks :)
Bernard : [votes in the poll]. Yes, thanks for your organisation.
John: Thanks to you! :)
John: [proposes a few board games for 6 players, among one there are camels. I say the one I prefer which is not the camel one]
Bernard: Top! The camels I'm interested.
Analysis
John: It's going to be War! I'm looking forward to it.
Expresses my joy.
JB: I'm looking forward to it as well.
Bonds with me
Bernard: I had already voted some dates but apparently you changed them?
Accusation of having changed the dates. Implies I'm sneaky and that I betrayed him/fucked him up. Instead of acknowledging he read the poll and did not vote. Here I must answer as it's attack on my character: implies I took from him.
JB: I thought I voted first after John and my votes did not change. So did the dates. Up to John ("To be seen with,.." in French).
JB defends me using his own observation. Power-protects me.
Norbert: 5 is the max for this game? Can we do it at 6 players and integrate Bernard?
Norbert submits to Bernard's frame that is: you did not invite me and left me aside. So now there is some repair to do. I don't think there is any repair since there is no fault from me. And no we cannot do 6 for this game.
Bernard: [posts the "proof" of my deletion as an image of the message I deleted]. Just in case I'm available on Saturday.
Pushes forward the accusation with a material "proof". Actually we can see that the next poll has been created 1 min after the first one. He always communicates on WA with minimal effort. I think he's both lazy and it's a power move. Let us know his availability by written message instead of voting in the poll (a few clicks) so now it's up to me to do the work to check with the other dates. He also only chooses one date so now it's up to us: either we integrate him on his favourite date or there's no option. So basically frames himself as the prize.
JB: Ahh I did not see that. Board game A is not possible at 6 but maybe board game B + C?
JB falls for the material proof giving Bernard the benefit of the doubt. Tries to find a common ground while still power protecting me ("maybe" + "?"). Very leader-like while still respecting my leadership.
Norbert: are we doing a 6 player game? For instance I have game D. Can we do a game? Ah shit it's a 4 player games apparently game D. I would like to try this game [posts a picture of game E]. We can play up to 8 players.
Norbert still follows Bernard's frame and now starts to start his own frame of what he wants. It's not anymore about me organising a certain 5 player game. It's about accomodating Bernard and playing any game (game E is WTF).
John: that's right Bernard. I created a poll saw a mistake deleted in the minute and made a new one. Apparently you read the new poll according to WA?
I use a slightly judging frame: "that's right". I am now under attack so I cannot refute the facts. So I state them as short as possible without going into too much details (doing my best to emulate PU). At this point I have to push back on his frame. Maybe there was a possibility of not explaining/justifying but I could not see it in the moment.
The next part is a bit covert aggressive and I could have gone more eagle-like. I use "apparently" in the same covert aggressive way he did. Also states the facts. Basically saying: "this is bullshit."
John: But it's not important. If you want to give your availability gladly and we have a look at the dates.
Being magnanimous (the "but" negates what's before). Moves on to the matter at hand: organising the game. Leader-like. Also power protects him ("If you want") and displays the plan.
John: In the poll please, it helps me to organise. Thanks :)
I don't want him to spew a few dates without using the poll (a few clicks!). So I instruct him and tells him that it helps me while still saying I am the organiser. The "thanks" is a social balm here. I was afraid of a conflict or that he would be pissed off at this point. In my own mind I took a risk. I think I could have gone: "It's easier for me to organise". "Helps" frames me as needing his help.
Bernard : [votes in the poll]. Yes, thanks for your organisation.
Complies. I was surprised. But it's the minimum. He never (never) organises events at his place, comes dozens (for real) at my place to eat the meals I prepare and play the board games I organise. I think a few clicks is not asking too much. And he uses a slight judge power move ("your organisation") which is slightly more "you serve me" frame than "the organisation" in my mind. Could be wrong. He gets ton of values from these games but he's replaceable. I have more power in board games: I know them, I organise them, etc.
John: Thanks to you! :)
Rebuilds rapport after power show down and domination where he complied publicly. Smiley to add a bit of friendliness/submissiveness intentionally. Same with the "!". But I think it was too submissive in that context still.
John: [proposes a few board games for 6 players, among one there are camels. I say the one I prefer which is not the camel one]
Now I can move on with the organisation.
Bernard: Top! The camels I'm interested.
Talks about a game he's interested. Does not make a step towards me like saying that the game I like is fine. Also "Top!" in French is the same as "Super/Perfect/good" so again a judge power move.
Conclusion
I won the power showdown because I was higher quality (assertive, told the truth) than him but I was a bit covert aggressive in my defence, explained myself too much and at the end of the power showdown submitted a bit too much. So to me I know since some time that Bernard is quite a selfish person. He can be generous but sparingly and strategically.
If you have any comments/opinion on this dynamics I'm curious to hear your opinion.
PS: if the admin find a more fitting description, please feel free to modify the title.

Hello TPM community,

This is a challenge I'm happy I succeeded and I owe it to TPM (again).

Context

I'm organising a board game in the WA group I created for that purpose. I set a poll in WA about the date. I see a mistake right after creating it and I delete it. I create another one 1 min later (documented on WA, for later). People answer, I wait a few days (5) and thank them and confirm the date. I saw that everyone in the group read the message on the day I created it. So everyone knew there was a poll and answered or not. Then out of nowhere my "friend" Bernard (more of an acquaintance I play board games with now with the distance I took due to his behaviour) accuses me after several messages sent by people after my confirmation.

I'll provide a couple more message for more context. I'm also putting messages together for better readability. The game is game A and is 5 player game we wanted to play for about a year.

John: It's going to be War! I'm looking forward to it.
JB: I'm looking forward to it as well.
Bernard: I had already voted some dates but apparently you changed them?
JB: I thought I voted first after John and my votes did not change. So did the dates. Up to John ("To be seen with,.." in French).
Norbert: 5 is the max for this game? Can we do it at 6 players and integrate Bernard?
Bernard: [posts the "proof" of my deletion as an image of the message I deleted]. Just in case I'm available on Saturday.
JB: Ahh I did not see that. Board game A is not possible at 6 but maybe board game B + C?
Norbert: are we doing a 6 player game? For instance I have game D. Can we do a game? Ah shit it's a 4 player games apparently game D. I would like to try this game [posts a picture of game E]. We can play up to 8 players.
John: that's right Bernard. I created a poll saw a mistake deleted in the minute and made a new one. Apparently you read the new poll according to WA?
John: But it's not important. If you want to give your availability gladly et we have a look at the dates.
John: In the poll please, it helps me to organise. Thanks :)
Bernard : [votes in the poll]. Yes, thanks for your organisation.
John: Thanks to you! :)
John: [proposes a few board games for 6 players, among one there are camels. I say the one I prefer which is not the camel one]
Bernard: Top! The camels I'm interested.

Analysis

John: It's going to be War! I'm looking forward to it.

Expresses my joy.

JB: I'm looking forward to it as well.

Bonds with me

Bernard: I had already voted some dates but apparently you changed them?

Accusation of having changed the dates. Implies I'm sneaky and that I betrayed him/fucked him up. Instead of acknowledging he read the poll and did not vote. Here I must answer as it's attack on my character: implies I took from him.

JB: I thought I voted first after John and my votes did not change. So did the dates. Up to John ("To be seen with,.." in French).

JB defends me using his own observation. Power-protects me.

Norbert: 5 is the max for this game? Can we do it at 6 players and integrate Bernard?

Norbert submits to Bernard's frame that is: you did not invite me and left me aside. So now there is some repair to do. I don't think there is any repair since there is no fault from me. And no we cannot do 6 for this game.

Bernard: [posts the "proof" of my deletion as an image of the message I deleted]. Just in case I'm available on Saturday.

Pushes forward the accusation with a material "proof". Actually we can see that the next poll has been created 1 min after the first one. He always communicates on WA with minimal effort. I think he's both lazy and it's a power move. Let us know his availability by written message instead of voting in the poll (a few clicks) so now it's up to me to do the work to check with the other dates. He also only chooses one date so now it's up to us: either we integrate him on his favourite date or there's no option. So basically frames himself as the prize.

JB: Ahh I did not see that. Board game A is not possible at 6 but maybe board game B + C?

JB falls for the material proof giving Bernard the benefit of the doubt. Tries to find a common ground while still power protecting me ("maybe" + "?"). Very leader-like while still respecting my leadership.

Norbert: are we doing a 6 player game? For instance I have game D. Can we do a game? Ah shit it's a 4 player games apparently game D. I would like to try this game [posts a picture of game E]. We can play up to 8 players.

Norbert still follows Bernard's frame and now starts to start his own frame of what he wants. It's not anymore about me organising a certain 5 player game. It's about accomodating Bernard and playing any game (game E is WTF).

John: that's right Bernard. I created a poll saw a mistake deleted in the minute and made a new one. Apparently you read the new poll according to WA?

I use a slightly judging frame: "that's right". I am now under attack so I cannot refute the facts. So I state them as short as possible without going into too much details (doing my best to emulate PU). At this point I have to push back on his frame. Maybe there was a possibility of not explaining/justifying but I could not see it in the moment.

The next part is a bit covert aggressive and I could have gone more eagle-like. I use "apparently" in the same covert aggressive way he did. Also states the facts. Basically saying: "this is bullshit."

John: But it's not important. If you want to give your availability gladly and we have a look at the dates.

Being magnanimous (the "but" negates what's before). Moves on to the matter at hand: organising the game. Leader-like. Also power protects him ("If you want") and displays the plan.

John: In the poll please, it helps me to organise. Thanks :)

I don't want him to spew a few dates without using the poll (a few clicks!). So I instruct him and tells him that it helps me while still saying I am the organiser. The "thanks" is a social balm here. I was afraid of a conflict or that he would be pissed off at this point. In my own mind I took a risk. I think I could have gone: "It's easier for me to organise". "Helps" frames me as needing his help.

Bernard : [votes in the poll]. Yes, thanks for your organisation.

Complies. I was surprised. But it's the minimum. He never (never) organises events at his place, comes dozens (for real) at my place to eat the meals I prepare and play the board games I organise. I think a few clicks is not asking too much. And he uses a slight judge power move ("your organisation") which is slightly more "you serve me" frame than "the organisation" in my mind. Could be wrong. He gets ton of values from these games but he's replaceable. I have more power in board games: I know them, I organise them, etc.

John: Thanks to you! :)

Rebuilds rapport after power show down and domination where he complied publicly. Smiley to add a bit of friendliness/submissiveness intentionally. Same with the "!". But I think it was too submissive in that context still.

John: [proposes a few board games for 6 players, among one there are camels. I say the one I prefer which is not the camel one]

Now I can move on with the organisation.

Bernard: Top! The camels I'm interested.

Talks about a game he's interested. Does not make a step towards me like saying that the game I like is fine. Also "Top!" in French is the same as "Super/Perfect/good" so again a judge power move.

Conclusion

I won the power showdown because I was higher quality (assertive, told the truth) than him but I was a bit covert aggressive in my defence, explained myself too much and at the end of the power showdown submitted a bit too much. So to me I know since some time that Bernard is quite a selfish person. He can be generous but sparingly and strategically.

If you have any comments/opinion on this dynamics I'm curious to hear your opinion.

PS: if the admin find a more fitting description, please feel free to modify the title.

Transitioned, Kavalier and Power Duck have reacted to this post.