Former Community – We Moved

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

ForumResources: Researches, Studies, TheoriesLearningFeedbacks & clarifications

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Feedbacks & clarifications

#111 · February 15, 2021, 2:55 pm

I should not have encouraged the backlinks.

I'm thinking about the best way to address sub-optimal posts.
This is also a way for me to learn to give better feedback.
Good for the forum and for myself.

Some points:

Point to the relevant links
Address forum etiquette
Give feedback on how to write more effective posts

Lucio Buffalmano and Sam Wellington have reacted to this post.

#112 · February 15, 2021, 3:12 pm

All good Matthew, you did well, it was just about spotting the "fishy" link/behavior.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#113 · February 15, 2021, 3:34 pm

Thanks for the feedback Lucio.

#114 · February 16, 2021, 11:18 am

Matthew: see the group dynamics above. Not at this point.

John, I don't feel that this is polite.
I am offering suggestions, and this is a demanding statement for me to re-read your post again.

#115 · February 16, 2021, 12:30 pm

Quote from John Freeman on February 16, 2021, 12:30 pm
I think my statement might have been taken personally. Here is my perspective:
This sentence is taken out of context. Here is my actual answer:
Quote from John Freeman on February 16, 2021, 10:53 am
Thanks Lucio!
Matthew: see the group dynamics above. Not at this point. They would not understand why I’m doing that. These people still think that nasty social climber A. is cool. So I would be the manipulator to their eyes and he would be the victim.
Just like in Star Wars people think that the senator Palpatine has good intentions so they listen to him.
My strategy is to let the whatsapp group die out. I will keep making events and stuff but without using the group. At the end of the year, when the group will be solid in real life, I will delete the group.
2. In the answer above, I am taking the time to re-explain in more details what I already explained in the first post. I think it was clear to Lucio but not to you. I could have just referred you to the first post (what you are inferring). Instead I am explaining to you once more the group dynamics. Notice also that I take an example to make my answer more clear. I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you. And instead of asking a question to clarify, you repeat the same idea that you proposed. Here, for instance: kicking him out of the group. You already advised this strategy in another post (could not find it) and you are advising it once more. Here, I am explaining to you twice why I think it's not the optimal strategy and you're accusing me of being impolite. Not cool.
Here is the first post:
Quote from John Freeman on February 15, 2021, 10:41 pm
Loss of control: now I cannot kick people out of a group without looking like a d##k. So I use the group as little as possible. That's the paradox: I'm the administrator but if I kick a value-taker I take the risk that he will make a new group without me. So I have to endure this mistake.
3. If you are able to show me the words that were not polite: I'm sorry but I cannot see them.
So I refute your accusation and prove to you here that actually it was the opposite. We already talked about the risks of interpreting cooperative intentions as aggressive. I think this is the case here. They also talk about it in "Difficult conversations".
I hope this is more clear. In case more clarifications are needed, let me know.

I think my statement might have been taken personally. Here is my perspective:

This sentence is taken out of context. Here is my actual answer:

Quote from John Freeman on February 16, 2021, 10:53 am
Thanks Lucio!
Matthew: see the group dynamics above. Not at this point. They would not understand why I’m doing that. These people still think that nasty social climber A. is cool. So I would be the manipulator to their eyes and he would be the victim.
Just like in Star Wars people think that the senator Palpatine has good intentions so they listen to him.
My strategy is to let the whatsapp group die out. I will keep making events and stuff but without using the group. At the end of the year, when the group will be solid in real life, I will delete the group.

2. In the answer above, I am taking the time to re-explain in more details what I already explained in the first post. I think it was clear to Lucio but not to you. I could have just referred you to the first post (what you are inferring). Instead I am explaining to you once more the group dynamics. Notice also that I take an example to make my answer more clear. I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you. And instead of asking a question to clarify, you repeat the same idea that you proposed. Here, for instance: kicking him out of the group. You already advised this strategy in another post (could not find it) and you are advising it once more. Here, I am explaining to you twice why I think it's not the optimal strategy and you're accusing me of being impolite. Not cool.

Here is the first post:

Quote from John Freeman on February 15, 2021, 10:41 pm
Loss of control: now I cannot kick people out of a group without looking like a d##k. So I use the group as little as possible. That's the paradox: I'm the administrator but if I kick a value-taker I take the risk that he will make a new group without me. So I have to endure this mistake.

3. If you are able to show me the words that were not polite: I'm sorry but I cannot see them.

So I refute your accusation and prove to you here that actually it was the opposite. We already talked about the risks of interpreting cooperative intentions as aggressive. I think this is the case here. They also talk about it in "Difficult conversations".

I hope this is more clear. In case more clarifications are needed, let me know.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.

#116 · February 16, 2021, 1:59 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on February 16, 2021, 1:59 pm
Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply.
I appreciate the intention to clarify.
I should have written a more detailed clarification.
This sentence is taken out of context. Here is my actual answer:
I focused on that sentence because that is the part where I am uncomfortable with.
I am comfortable with all the other segments of the post.
They were framed in an objective manner.
We are having a discussion, and we can agree & disagree on certain points.
I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you. And instead of asking a question to clarify, you repeat the same idea that you proposed.
It can be challenging to discern the context behind the situation.
For example, when you advise me on my own situation and I feel that the context portrayed was not clear, I thank you for the advice because you came out time to write that. I don't expect a clarification question to be asked. But that is a matter of preference. If you would do me a favour, bear with me, and I will explain further.
I'm taking the threads to be individual, in different contexts.
In this case, I was NOT proposing that you kick out the value-taker.
I was suggesting that a new group was formed.
Maybe that was not clear, and I will take responsibility for that.
If you would prefer me to not comment on your posts unless I am 95% clear of the context, I am comfortable to do that.
If I am 70% clear of the context, and you would prefer me to clarify till it's 95%, I can do that as well.
Though I would find it more challenging to get my ideas out.
I can preface this by saying "this is my opinion of the context".
You already advised this strategy in another post (could not find it) and you are advising it once more. Here, I am explaining to you twice why I think it's not the optimal strategy and you're accusing me of being impolite. Not cool.
I think it's fair to have different opinions on a situation.
And it's fair to share the same opinion in another context.
I'm not accusing you of being impolite because we have different opinions.
We have shared the same opinions and disagreed on different threads.
3. If you are able to show me the words that were not polite: I'm sorry but I cannot see them.
I'm only uncomfortable with this sentence "Matthew: see the group dynamics above.".
I feel that it is demanding.
It is a form of tasking.
This could be phrased in a more polite manner:
Matthew, could you check the post above for the group dynamics?
We already talked about the risks of interpreting cooperative intentions as aggressive.
I'm not saying that the statement is aggressive.
I'm saying that it is impolite.
I did not view this as an attack.
I felt that it is a form of tasking.
And I need to clarify that I'm not accusing you of being impolite.
I'm saying that the statement is impolite.
Thank you for taking the time to read my reply.
I am separating the content of this clarification from the clarification itself.

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply.
I appreciate the intention to clarify.

I should have written a more detailed clarification.

This sentence is taken out of context. Here is my actual answer:

I focused on that sentence because that is the part where I am uncomfortable with.
I am comfortable with all the other segments of the post.
They were framed in an objective manner.
We are having a discussion, and we can agree & disagree on certain points.

I noticed it a few times already: sometimes something is not clear to you. And instead of asking a question to clarify, you repeat the same idea that you proposed.

It can be challenging to discern the context behind the situation.

For example, when you advise me on my own situation and I feel that the context portrayed was not clear, I thank you for the advice because you came out time to write that. I don't expect a clarification question to be asked. But that is a matter of preference. If you would do me a favour, bear with me, and I will explain further.

I'm taking the threads to be individual, in different contexts.
In this case, I was NOT proposing that you kick out the value-taker.
I was suggesting that a new group was formed.
Maybe that was not clear, and I will take responsibility for that.

If you would prefer me to not comment on your posts unless I am 95% clear of the context, I am comfortable to do that.
If I am 70% clear of the context, and you would prefer me to clarify till it's 95%, I can do that as well.
Though I would find it more challenging to get my ideas out.
I can preface this by saying "this is my opinion of the context".

You already advised this strategy in another post (could not find it) and you are advising it once more. Here, I am explaining to you twice why I think it's not the optimal strategy and you're accusing me of being impolite. Not cool.

I think it's fair to have different opinions on a situation.
And it's fair to share the same opinion in another context.
I'm not accusing you of being impolite because we have different opinions.
We have shared the same opinions and disagreed on different threads.

3. If you are able to show me the words that were not polite: I'm sorry but I cannot see them.

I'm only uncomfortable with this sentence "Matthew: see the group dynamics above.".
I feel that it is demanding.
It is a form of tasking.

This could be phrased in a more polite manner:

Matthew, could you check the post above for the group dynamics?

We already talked about the risks of interpreting cooperative intentions as aggressive.

I'm not saying that the statement is aggressive.
I'm saying that it is impolite.
I did not view this as an attack.
I felt that it is a form of tasking.

And I need to clarify that I'm not accusing you of being impolite.
I'm saying that the statement is impolite.

Thank you for taking the time to read my reply.
I am separating the content of this clarification from the clarification itself.

Sam Wellington has reacted to this post.

#117 · February 16, 2021, 2:47 pm

Matthew, for the last time: this statement is NOT impolite. Let's agree to disagree. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. I hear that it makes you uncomfortable. To me, what you are doing above is what I would call emotional blackmail. I think this is actually not polite. And you insisting makes it even worse. It took me some time to identify why I was not comfortable with, since it's the second time you're using this technique on me. Now I know.

I'll answer in the appropriate thread regarding the content.

#118 · February 16, 2021, 2:59 pm

The offer for external feedback stands.

As something similar happened a couple of times, it might be useful.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#119 · February 16, 2021, 3:03 pm

Hello Lucio,

I agree with you. What do you think is happening in these kind of exchanges?

#120 · February 16, 2021, 3:04 pm

Do you mind if I get on the phone to clarify with you?

I want to preface everything before this discussion.
I value our friendship.
This is why I would like to clarify with you.

My intention is not to blackmail.
I am not implying any consequences.

I will share my email here if you have some time to speak:
cookiescookiesmonsters@gmail.com

What I meant is that in order to protect both of our privacies, we can exchange our contacts through this email.

Samson and Sam Wellington have reacted to this post.