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

#551 · January 2, 2023, 7:23 pm

Hello, LOF, thank you for apologizing. Apologies given and received by both sides, it does close a cycle.

Feedback: from a power dynamics perspective, "sorry" is not ideal because at the time I remember saying "I apologize", which is stronger than "sorry", and I did it more than once. So when you say "sorry" now, it doesn't match the intensity of the apologizing. But, truly, this here is a feedback regarding future interactions - with me, sure, but also with other members and people in general, because the net effect of a mismatch is that the person who apologized more vehemently remains disempowered. I understand what you meant in spirit though, and for me it's more than enough.

I disagree with some details in your recap of those events, but I don't see any benefit in revisiting them now (feels a bit like thread-expanding, as per Lucio's explanation above). Let's bury that way behind and way below ourselves and soar up from now on together. I'm more than glad to have you as a brother in arms here in TPM!!

Lucio Buffalmano and leaderoffun have reacted to this post.

#552 · January 3, 2023, 2:23 am

Quote from leaderoffun on January 2, 2023, 6:07 pm
I agree this didn't happen, and I'm surprised this step is so important. But now that I see it, I think it would have helped. Sorry @Kavalier I didn't see this pretty obvious thing in retrospect at the time.

It wouldn't have helped, it was fundamental.

Saying "it would have helped" feels like an attempt at minimizing the significance of it.

And it's hard to believe one is suprised that apologizing after having a) having pulled some not-so-cool power moves and b) received an apology is necessary because it was clearly stated more than once (not going to back to pull out quotes, but they're there).

As for what happened, there was already an analysys.
Presenting one's own interpretation after this long can easily feel like wanting to favorably frame the narrative, and asking for more clarification now is not a good idea (see step #4 above: "like you're asking questions to play dumb, divert from the issue, task others, make them invest with their explanation, and "dilute your ownership and apology").

So, still I don't see very straight talk here.

But overall, I truly don't want to get dragged down again into this.
if Kavalier is cool with the apology, I'm glad to finally see that the matter is closed.

I strongly hope there will be lessons learned going forward.
Namely, I'd like to see less (covert) power moves / games, and more straight talk. And, in case of issues, more straight up ownership of one's own contributions to those issue.

And I can only end by quoting Kavalier as there:

Quote from Kavalier on January 2, 2023, 7:23 pm
Let's bury that way behind and way below ourselves and soar up from now on together. I'm more than glad to have you as a brother in arms here in TPM!!

Cheers!

Ali Scarlett and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#553 · January 3, 2023, 8:40 am

Quote from John Freeman on January 3, 2023, 8:40 am
Hello Lucio,
First, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to answer this.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 28, 2022, 8:43 am
Hello guys,
I have read quickly along the way and not going to review every single step.
So please don't quote me on precise lines, I'm not lawyering here, but more giving a "general feel" (which is more helpful since in real life people judge and assess based on "general feels" and not on verbatim words).
What is lawyering? I looked up in the usual dictionary, the urban dictionary, the TPM dictionary and the forum with no success. I only found the official definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Here's my review of the situation:
OVERVIEW:
At the foundations, the dynamics here are a mild/better version of LoF/Kavalier and, in part, LoF/me.
And it's a milder/better version of old John/Matthew and John/me (there were some important improvements, with still some way to go).
And those dynamics are:
not enough and not clear enough ownership of the original power move, plus adding some more power moves along the way.
Specifically, the long replies, requests for clarifications, and long time spent on "I meand this, not that" do feel like water muddling and like a "dilution approach" to water down the apology (John did it present an apology, but not clear-cut enough, and when you mix some more power moves along the way it never feels genuine).
I understand. So to make things clear once and for all: I fucked up guys, my bad: I'll be more watchful and careful next time!
SOLUTION:
Generally speaking, it's much better to do this:
own it
apologize
keep your explaining brief (or it feels like diluting)
mark your questions as "an aside" (or it feels like a power move. Like you're asking questions to play dumb, divert from the issue, task others, make them invest with their explanation, and "dilute your ownership and apology")
Thank you very much, that is what I was looking for. In my notes.
Also:
Even if you didn't mean it, it's still a power move.
If you bump into someone, you don't turn and explain "why you didn't mean it and where you mean to go".
You just say "sorry" or "my bad".
This is a great example, thank you. For communication's sake how I felt was like this: It's like if you look arab and go to a muslim country and start a meal and eat with your left hand (hygiene reasons as you all know) in the common dish without knowing the custom. Someone tells you: "You have to eat with your right hand!". So you're dumbfounded surprised and go back to the meal and eat with your right hand. However, you don't know what you did wrong. So at some point you ask: "but why do you have to eat with your right hand?". They're like: "come on you know: you're arab." thinking you're playing dumb. So at this point either you drop it: "yeah yeah right I know" (pretend you know) or you insist (which I did and was not the best move). Anyway, thanks I understand it was obvious for everyone and it looked bad from the outside. And re-reading my answer I can totally see how it looked diluting and manipulative. I tried (and failed) going diplomatic. I'm taking the ownership. For me it's important to feel understood so I wrote this above, if this feels like a power move, please let me know.
In longer conversations, there is more place for explaining and asking, but don't overdo them.
The main dishes are ownership and apology so make sure the rest are side dishes.
Got it! Thanks, in my notes.
Plus, long replies tend to be lower power and feel less "straight".
Yeah definitely, I'm working on that. To me it's an art that I respect a lot: saying a lot with few words. I've watched an interview of David Bowie some years ago and was very impressed by his ability to do that.
Even when you're not sure, it's often just much simpler to say:
"my bad, sorry guys, didn't mean it. Just for me to better understand though... (ask for clarification)".
Right, I will do this from now on. In my notes, thank you very much!
STEP-BY-STEP:
There was an original power move: the "if you have more ideas, more than welcome" feels like "credit withholding" rather than, say a more neutral "happy to read" or a more giving "I appreciate any feedback on what I did well/wrong".
It's a form of social scalping, and whether or not you wanna call it "power move", it does feel off and "not cool".
The misunderstanding: John meant that line as in "let's learn together", but didn't realize there were some important issues to address in the texts he shared. So Growfast (and everyone replying felt they were going to address some important issues for John (giving) rather than with John (win-win)
Exactly, that's what I meant. Thank you for the understanding. I was a bit naive and Polyannish, did not cross my mind it could be interpreted like this.
The overall tone of the first post felt power-thirsty rather than win-win: the approach in the group chat with real-life friends felt off and too much power-movey. That may have also framed Growfast's interpretation of the last line, and made Growfast not really like/trust John based on how he approached his friend (harsh, but a fair feeling: I wouldn't have liked a friend sending me those texts either)
Definitely. That is also why his answer confused me. I own it and will be more careful with these formulations in the future. Since this time I learned from you and I'm applying that it's better to work on being high power in general than defending from (small) power moves. So to let go of the "Perfect!" and minor power moves I encounter rather to try to defend against them which looks and is petty.
Growfast pointed it out too strongly: it would have been fair for John to say "I'm not comfortable with the tone", albeit that would have only been complete if at the same time he recognized the big value he was getting in that thread and his own original power move and took ownership of it
Definitely. I'm working on this: to express my boundaries while keeping good relationships. I find it much easier in real life than on a forum. In my notes.
John justifies and explains the original power move rather than "check the tone and own": John not addressing the tone but instead thanking and not owning feels not genuine and not "straight" (as per PU lesson).
I think it's fair for Growfast to wonder "how can you not understand it", since John is an advanced member.
There do seem to be some power moves in the reply as well, such as "excuse me if I offended you" and "thanks for you feedback" feels like a power move, since if one has power moved the only appropriate answer is to own it, rather than frame it "a feedback" (= "your opinion")
Yeah right. Well I take it as a compliment that you guys think I'm an advanced member and I sincerely thank you for that. I have a lot to learn and I approach every situation with humility. That i:s there are many things I don't know and want to improve on. My intention to learn is sincere so when I asked this question it was a real question. I understand it looked like it was an attempt to have Growfast invest more, an interpretation I also was afraid with my interaction with Bel below and hopefully did not happen. I think it because I better separated the acknowledgment from the request for clarification
I understand your point. At this point as I was still not understanding what I did wrong it came out like that, my bad! It does look as I'm painting Growfast as upset for no reason. A better way would have been to use the sequence you propose so I could first settle it down.
I'll give an example from an interaction I had with Bel (@Bel) some time ago from here where I think it was better and therefore there was no misunderstanding.
Me: There is still one thing not clear to me though: so for you it's not allowed to talk about the "risk of a Turkey spiral" when talking about someone's answer?
Bel: Thank you, John. It’s all good, I don't have absolute truths, and I'm also learning in talking with you. My thoughts are it's a matter of balance and power-protecting. It's possible to write whatever you want to convey in relation to another person's opinion (including the turkey-spiral reference) in a way that is more power-protecting; and one way to do so, may be to objectivize the discussion and make it impersonal. In this case, my personal opinion is that removing the reference to the source would have been ok. Or, if one wanted to keep reference to the source, smoothing out the language a bit. It's also linked with repetition. I think referring to another person once, even in a strong way, can be a minor thing (Anon did it once, strongly, with reference to something I said, and he didn't super-power-protect). On the opposite, I think calling into play another person's opinion or words multiple times is probably going to require more power-protecting than average.
Me: It's clear now for me. I agree with you. Thank you very much!
So I guess what I did right above is that I separated the apology from the question, is that right?
John closed the door too early and unilaterally here with the "it's in the past": unless both parties feel re-empowered and respected enough, you can't close the conversation unilaterally.
And I think it was pretty obvious there were some unresolved issues there, so it did feel like a power move indeed.
True. I felt it was going nowhere fast, I did not want to have a discussion knowing the tone which to me felt not ok (if this is a power move please let me know, best formulation I came up with). I did try to check the tone later as an experiment to no avail. So I'm still missing some tools for dealing with these situations. I think because I took too much time to check the tone, it was already out of hand if I'm not mistaken.
John:
I see a lot of improvements.
And I'm not saying just "to preserve rapport": I really do.
Thanks!
There was more ownership now, more direct talk, less convolution, and generally just (a lot) better handling of the situation.
Thank you very much. I could learn more about myself and my reactions in case of conflicts. I also see I still have a lot to learn regarding conflict management.
Still, I still see sometimes seeking power over win-win.
And there were some power moves both in these feedback exchanges and outside that would be a lot better to avoid (I can think of some teacher frames in the recent past).
If you would care to tell me which ones that would be helpful. I've been working for sometime on eliminating those so that would be helpful.
In terms of friendship, I personally find it extremely difficult to get close to anyone who pulls power moves, no matter how small.
Makes sense. It might sound funny but since 2 weeks and this episode I became more emotionnally sensitive to power moves (more power awareness emotionnally speaking). So I also understand better now your perspective and Growfast's.
And if I saw a leader doing it, I'd check out immediately (and either challenge him, or leave the group).
Many others guys who "see" them are the same.
I understand. This opens up a question for me. Remember the girl from our committee's WhatsApp group who wanted that we put the names of the women's first in our committee public's announce? (Now it seems ludicrous to me knowing how much work I put into it). As you advised me I did not answer her and moved forward which was the right thing to do, thank you for that. After that it seemed like she was a bit aggressive with me, were not answering my messages and did not answer for the dinner I proposed for our committee (as all the other are enthusiastic). Is it because not answering her (which was a power move) fell in the case you describe above? Or for some other unknown reason maybe.
And you'll also get a lot smoother dating and relationships when you approach them high power and high warmth.
Thanks for the advice!
I checked this post for power moves. I marked the parts where I doubted. Please let me know if you spot any, I did my best here.

Hello Lucio,

First, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to answer this.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 28, 2022, 8:43 am
Hello guys,
I have read quickly along the way and not going to review every single step.
So please don't quote me on precise lines, I'm not lawyering here, but more giving a "general feel" (which is more helpful since in real life people judge and assess based on "general feels" and not on verbatim words).

What is lawyering? I looked up in the usual dictionary, the urban dictionary, the TPM dictionary and the forum with no success. I only found the official definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Here's my review of the situation:
OVERVIEW:
At the foundations, the dynamics here are a mild/better version of LoF/Kavalier and, in part, LoF/me.
And it's a milder/better version of old John/Matthew and John/me (there were some important improvements, with still some way to go).
And those dynamics are:
not enough and not clear enough ownership of the original power move, plus adding some more power moves along the way.
Specifically, the long replies, requests for clarifications, and long time spent on "I meand this, not that" do feel like water muddling and like a "dilution approach" to water down the apology (John did it present an apology, but not clear-cut enough, and when you mix some more power moves along the way it never feels genuine).

I understand. So to make things clear once and for all: I fucked up guys, my bad: I'll be more watchful and careful next time!

SOLUTION:
Generally speaking, it's much better to do this:
own it
apologize
keep your explaining brief (or it feels like diluting)
mark your questions as "an aside" (or it feels like a power move. Like you're asking questions to play dumb, divert from the issue, task others, make them invest with their explanation, and "dilute your ownership and apology")

Thank you very much, that is what I was looking for. In my notes.

Also:
Even if you didn't mean it, it's still a power move.
If you bump into someone, you don't turn and explain "why you didn't mean it and where you mean to go".
You just say "sorry" or "my bad".

This is a great example, thank you. For communication's sake how I felt was like this: It's like if you look arab and go to a muslim country and start a meal and eat with your left hand (hygiene reasons as you all know) in the common dish without knowing the custom. Someone tells you: "You have to eat with your right hand!". So you're dumbfounded surprised and go back to the meal and eat with your right hand. However, you don't know what you did wrong. So at some point you ask: "but why do you have to eat with your right hand?". They're like: "come on you know: you're arab." thinking you're playing dumb. So at this point either you drop it: "yeah yeah right I know" (pretend you know) or you insist (which I did and was not the best move). Anyway, thanks I understand it was obvious for everyone and it looked bad from the outside. And re-reading my answer I can totally see how it looked diluting and manipulative. I tried (and failed) going diplomatic. I'm taking the ownership. For me it's important to feel understood so I wrote this above, if this feels like a power move, please let me know.

In longer conversations, there is more place for explaining and asking, but don't overdo them.
The main dishes are ownership and apology so make sure the rest are side dishes.

Got it! Thanks, in my notes.

Plus, long replies tend to be lower power and feel less "straight".

Yeah definitely, I'm working on that. To me it's an art that I respect a lot: saying a lot with few words. I've watched an interview of David Bowie some years ago and was very impressed by his ability to do that.

Even when you're not sure, it's often just much simpler to say:
"my bad, sorry guys, didn't mean it. Just for me to better understand though... (ask for clarification)".

Right, I will do this from now on. In my notes, thank you very much!

STEP-BY-STEP:
There was an original power move: the "if you have more ideas, more than welcome" feels like "credit withholding" rather than, say a more neutral "happy to read" or a more giving "I appreciate any feedback on what I did well/wrong".
It's a form of social scalping, and whether or not you wanna call it "power move", it does feel off and "not cool".
The misunderstanding: John meant that line as in "let's learn together", but didn't realize there were some important issues to address in the texts he shared. So Growfast (and everyone replying felt they were going to address some important issues for John (giving) rather than with John (win-win)

Exactly, that's what I meant. Thank you for the understanding. I was a bit naive and Polyannish, did not cross my mind it could be interpreted like this.

The overall tone of the first post felt power-thirsty rather than win-win: the approach in the group chat with real-life friends felt off and too much power-movey. That may have also framed Growfast's interpretation of the last line, and made Growfast not really like/trust John based on how he approached his friend (harsh, but a fair feeling: I wouldn't have liked a friend sending me those texts either)

Definitely. That is also why his answer confused me. I own it and will be more careful with these formulations in the future. Since this time I learned from you and I'm applying that it's better to work on being high power in general than defending from (small) power moves. So to let go of the "Perfect!" and minor power moves I encounter rather to try to defend against them which looks and is petty.

Growfast pointed it out too strongly: it would have been fair for John to say "I'm not comfortable with the tone", albeit that would have only been complete if at the same time he recognized the big value he was getting in that thread and his own original power move and took ownership of it

Definitely. I'm working on this: to express my boundaries while keeping good relationships. I find it much easier in real life than on a forum. In my notes.

John justifies and explains the original power move rather than "check the tone and own": John not addressing the tone but instead thanking and not owning feels not genuine and not "straight" (as per PU lesson).
I think it's fair for Growfast to wonder "how can you not understand it", since John is an advanced member.
There do seem to be some power moves in the reply as well, such as "excuse me if I offended you" and "thanks for you feedback" feels like a power move, since if one has power moved the only appropriate answer is to own it, rather than frame it "a feedback" (= "your opinion")

Yeah right. Well I take it as a compliment that you guys think I'm an advanced member and I sincerely thank you for that. I have a lot to learn and I approach every situation with humility. That i:s there are many things I don't know and want to improve on. My intention to learn is sincere so when I asked this question it was a real question. I understand it looked like it was an attempt to have Growfast invest more, an interpretation I also was afraid with my interaction with Bel below and hopefully did not happen. I think it because I better separated the acknowledgment from the request for clarification

I understand your point. At this point as I was still not understanding what I did wrong it came out like that, my bad! It does look as I'm painting Growfast as upset for no reason. A better way would have been to use the sequence you propose so I could first settle it down.

I'll give an example from an interaction I had with Bel (@Bel) some time ago from here where I think it was better and therefore there was no misunderstanding.

Me: There is still one thing not clear to me though: so for you it's not allowed to talk about the "risk of a Turkey spiral" when talking about someone's answer?
Bel: Thank you, John. It’s all good, I don't have absolute truths, and I'm also learning in talking with you. My thoughts are it's a matter of balance and power-protecting. It's possible to write whatever you want to convey in relation to another person's opinion (including the turkey-spiral reference) in a way that is more power-protecting; and one way to do so, may be to objectivize the discussion and make it impersonal. In this case, my personal opinion is that removing the reference to the source would have been ok. Or, if one wanted to keep reference to the source, smoothing out the language a bit. It's also linked with repetition. I think referring to another person once, even in a strong way, can be a minor thing (Anon did it once, strongly, with reference to something I said, and he didn't super-power-protect). On the opposite, I think calling into play another person's opinion or words multiple times is probably going to require more power-protecting than average.
Me: It's clear now for me. I agree with you. Thank you very much!

So I guess what I did right above is that I separated the apology from the question, is that right?

John closed the door too early and unilaterally here with the "it's in the past": unless both parties feel re-empowered and respected enough, you can't close the conversation unilaterally.
And I think it was pretty obvious there were some unresolved issues there, so it did feel like a power move indeed.

True. I felt it was going nowhere fast, I did not want to have a discussion knowing the tone which to me felt not ok (if this is a power move please let me know, best formulation I came up with). I did try to check the tone later as an experiment to no avail. So I'm still missing some tools for dealing with these situations. I think because I took too much time to check the tone, it was already out of hand if I'm not mistaken.

John:
I see a lot of improvements.
And I'm not saying just "to preserve rapport": I really do.

Thanks!

There was more ownership now, more direct talk, less convolution, and generally just (a lot) better handling of the situation.

Thank you very much. I could learn more about myself and my reactions in case of conflicts. I also see I still have a lot to learn regarding conflict management.

Still, I still see sometimes seeking power over win-win.
And there were some power moves both in these feedback exchanges and outside that would be a lot better to avoid (I can think of some teacher frames in the recent past).

If you would care to tell me which ones that would be helpful. I've been working for sometime on eliminating those so that would be helpful.

In terms of friendship, I personally find it extremely difficult to get close to anyone who pulls power moves, no matter how small.

Makes sense. It might sound funny but since 2 weeks and this episode I became more emotionnally sensitive to power moves (more power awareness emotionnally speaking). So I also understand better now your perspective and Growfast's.

And if I saw a leader doing it, I'd check out immediately (and either challenge him, or leave the group).
Many others guys who "see" them are the same.

I understand. This opens up a question for me. Remember the girl from our committee's WhatsApp group who wanted that we put the names of the women's first in our committee public's announce? (Now it seems ludicrous to me knowing how much work I put into it). As you advised me I did not answer her and moved forward which was the right thing to do, thank you for that. After that it seemed like she was a bit aggressive with me, were not answering my messages and did not answer for the dinner I proposed for our committee (as all the other are enthusiastic). Is it because not answering her (which was a power move) fell in the case you describe above? Or for some other unknown reason maybe.

And you'll also get a lot smoother dating and relationships when you approach them high power and high warmth.

Thanks for the advice!

I checked this post for power moves. I marked the parts where I doubted. Please let me know if you spot any, I did my best here.

#554 · January 3, 2023, 10:14 am

Time for edit timed out. I see I did the same mistake again. Correction, please ignore the long explanation, replacement below:

If you bump into someone, you don't turn and explain "why you didn't mean it and where you mean to go".
You just say "sorry" or "my bad".

This is a great example, thank you. Thanks I understand it was obvious for everyone and it looked bad from the outside. And re-reading my answer I can totally see how it looked diluting and manipulative. I tried (and failed) going diplomatic.

#555 · January 3, 2023, 12:28 pm

Quote from Kavalier on January 2, 2023, 7:23 pm
From a power dynamics perspective, "sorry" is not ideal because at the time I remember saying "I apologize", which is stronger than "sorry", and I did it more than once. So when you say "sorry" now, it doesn't match the intensity of the apologizing.

Then I apologize Kavailer, and I'm embarrassed it took me this long to understand the concept.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 3, 2023, 2:23 am
So, still I don't see very straight talk here.

Feedback for @lucio

So far you have made two serious accusations that I feel are unjustified and based on your subjective perception:
- That I don't care about win-win
- That I don't use straight talk

This is serious because it can easily feel as Character assassination. From wikipedia:

A deliberate and sustained effort to damage the reputation or credibility of an individual

Don't ever do that again, more so because as admin, host, or leader you naturally have more power and every action of yours is magnified (in this forum!)

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#556 · January 3, 2023, 3:24 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 3, 2023, 3:24 pm
LoF,
My assessments as a subject matter expert have been confirmed over several posts, unluckily.
And, for the record, I also discuss some of the dynamics in here with a couple more people that have shown a strong grasp of power dynamics.
Several people had the exact same negative impressions I had from those posts -or worse-.
So, no, it's not about "subjective perception" -by the way: look at that! Another power move in your post. How shocking-.
And it's also not about isolated posts.
It's several instances of "not-so-cool" behavior, let's say.
I'd have glossed over the details to save face if you had at least refrained from that attempt at playing the "righftul anger of the just" with the "unjustly attacked frame" (really thought it was gonna work?)
But you leave me no other option.
Why "I didn't know an apology was important" feels (a lot) like an excuse
I confirm this:
I don't believe for one second that you "didn't understand the importance of apologizing".
At best, it was an excuse -an understandable one, in a way: after having failed to do the right thing for that long, it's natural and human to want to save face-.
What's even a lot less cool than a "simple" excuse though is that you stayed behind the cover and stood on that excuse to then go ahead and tried to frame me as unfairly attacking you.
No, sorry man.
That, I cannot let pass and it's where I cross the line.
You knew it was not cool to withhold an apology.
And now I'll tell you exactly why.
1. You were told very clearly
First off, between us, most 6 year olds probably know this.
But let's afford the benefit of the doubt:
OK, you really didn't know.
Still...
You were told very clearly.
This is straight from the feedback given directly to you in the recent past (bold is mine):
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 7, 2022, 7:08 pm
I've seen an apology from Kavalier so far, not yet from LOF.
If you LOF agree with the feedback given, then there should be no reason why you also can't apologize to Kavalier, and that's the only way to truly move forward without leaving personal scars.
It's up to you of course, but you should be aware of the consequences: it doesn't look good when both parties agree they've been in the wrong, but only one apologizes -and that would disempower Kavalier, too-.
So you wanna tell me that while you were active and crafting long posts, you didn't read the one post that was most relevant for you?
After you took no action on that, I really just lost a ton of respect man.
That's definitely not win-win behavior in the slightest -and not really that subjective, either. It's part of "power hoarding". Maybe you wanna say you didn't know because it's not on Wikipedia?-.
It's far, far from win-win.
So, sorry to say, but strike 1, confirmed.
Checking "not-cool" behavior: a NECESSITY to keep great people and great teams
After that, I seem to recall Kavalier mentioned he wanted to take a break from the forum.
And he said he wished he had never flagged the initial power move.
That was a wake up call for me because it's how toxicity takes over a group.
And it's also what motivated me to raise the bar for the forum.
Because that's how poor teams become poor teams: poor teams become poor when shitty behavior goes unchecked and drives away the good people.
Which is also why I was SO glad to see people here checking power moves: it was the sign that the community was starting to self-police, rooting out turkey behavior and promoting eagle behavior.
Back to the "importance of an apology":
2. It was repeated several times to you
The simple notion that an apology was both crucial and missing was then repeated several times.
So you may have missed one... But can you really miss all?
Taking from another feedback to you, to which you replied (so no way you didn't see it):
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 15, 2022, 1:18 pm
I seem to spot a hierarchy of values that puts personal power far above fair relationships and win-win.
And the sign that power trumps win-win and respectful dealing with others is the subject of this last feedback:
There is not a single apology that I'm seeing in either these last messages, and in the full history here on the forum.
So the not going for win-win was already mentioned.
Interesting you only remember now to react to it.
Playing devil advocate now, and I may be wrong:
Could it be though that it was more convenient back then to ignore and disappear and then come back hoping people forget -here's a thing about me BTW: I almost always move on, I often forgive, but I never forget-?
But now it was impossible to ignore and the only option left was to play the offended, hoping I'd backtrack?
3. You YOURSELF acknowledged that you took note of the importance of apologizing
Little later YOU replied:
Quote from leaderoffun on October 25, 2022, 9:06 am
I see that there's a lot of activity and additions to PU that ARE about apologizing and power protecting.
This makes me understand that Lucio was deeply touched when he asked for an apology, and that me not offering one would be a bad thing.
So, after all of this:
You understand that when you come back here and say "I'm surprised this step (apologizing) is so important" there are plenty of reasons that justify the feeling of "this is big load of BS".
So, no straight talk confirmed, strike 2.
In that same message you did apologize, by the way.
Though, notice again, it couldn't have been just a simple "sorry man" and end it there.
Nope, it had to go with another covert power move:
LoF: "Lucio was deeply touched".
Well, many people here know what that is.
A covert power move, seeming neutral or even "empathic".
But instead it frames me as "touchy-feely" and frame the situation as a question of emotions.
Instead, the situation was more like: one guy expects the other to own his shit and cut the games, and one who doesn't own it and keeps playing games.
I was laughing as I quoted that "deeply touched" by the way because... It's probably the best thing to do when you see 10 power moves per message.
And for the record, no, I wasn't "deeply touched" man.
Power moves like these DESTROY relationships: the "disgust" factor
Growfast said he gets disgusted at power moves.
Cheers to Growfast for that: I'm the same.
As a matter of fact, that's exactly why I started TPM.
Again, we see something that we repeat over and over here:
Power moves and various manipulation work with power unaware people and may achieve short-term goals.
But the costs are high.
Especially with eagles and people who see through them.
As for the last message:
The apology is finally here! And with such a convenient timing... Should we play devil's advocate?
Finally, there was an apology.
Wow, was that a honest change of heart?
As a reminder, the Machiavellian politicain said:
To think bad you may sin, but you get it right
When you spot a trend of "not-so-cool" behavior over time, the "thinking bad" angle becomes more and more justified.
Here's the dynamics that may be at play:
When one assertively calls all power moves out, it doesn't look well for the one playing games.
The reputation tanks, and one desperately looks for ways to regain some points.
So let's play the devil's advocate then:
Could it be that you needed to quickly recover some social capital right before the last-ditch attempt at playing rightful anger?
If I show you the door when you're at your lowest social capital, it's hard not to leave like a parahia.
But if you can quickly gain some brownie points, then you may claim good faith -or even "unfairness"-.
Nice try.
Really, some of those were some the most advanced power moves seen on the forum.
Again though, not the right place for that.
I'll skip the appeal to authority power move quoting Wikipedia.
That was a banal power move, not worth of your best form (by the way, here's a new definition for you: self-character assassination. You did the moves, I only pointed them out).
Please man, please please, really I say this from the heart:
You're only a nickname here, you have NO real reputation to uphold.
You lost nothing and can gain a lot.
You're smart, you've shown that, don't use those smarts for games. Put them to a better use.
Decision: one-week ban (and feedback most welcome!)
I spoke with Ali about this decision.
He had great feedback (as you'd usualy expect from Ali).
Ali said we must be careful to ban someone right after an escalation with a moderator because of what it might sub-communicate and what it might do to the community.
Namely, people may fear giving feedback or speaking their mind -especially towards a moderator-.
John even straight out mentioned that.
I totally agree with that.
So to make it clear: the ban is 20% because of leadership power dynamics considerations -to stay on topic: open a new thread if you're curious about that-.
And most of it, the 80%, is to uphold the "higher expectation for forum use" and put action behind the intentions -and that's good for all-.
Feedback on both this exchance and the decision are more than welcome.
If you thought this was too much, or if you thought I went in too strong (or if you thought it was fair, of course): please share it :)
Lucio / LoF: not so good right now :), but hopefully good soon
This was an escalation that ended not in a clarification, but in a big break.
No way to dance around that reality.
I stand behind my not-so-good impressions from a few posts BUT I've ALSO seen great behavior from LoF and think great of him in a ton of ways.
And for the part that can be improved, I know that people can improve their approach to socialization.
So, it's not necessarily an end and may as well be just a tiny bump over a longer and great road.
Some of the best relationships are born from breaks and misunderstandings.
For now, let's stick with a regenerative break.
We both have negative social capital with each other that must be undone, but that's very doable when there's two people willing to mend things and re-build good vibes.
I'm ready to do my part for that.
I hope you can come back and I truly hope we can be good again in the future, LoF.
You did great things in your life and will do a ton more.
You're a bright mind LoF, really.
And you added a ton of value to people in your life -including to this place.
Cheers.

LoF,

My assessments as a subject matter expert have been confirmed over several posts, unluckily.

And, for the record, I also discuss some of the dynamics in here with a couple more people that have shown a strong grasp of power dynamics.

Several people had the exact same negative impressions I had from those posts -or worse-.

So, no, it's not about "subjective perception" -by the way: look at that! Another power move in your post. How shocking-.

And it's also not about isolated posts.
It's several instances of "not-so-cool" behavior, let's say.

I'd have glossed over the details to save face if you had at least refrained from that attempt at playing the "righftul anger of the just" with the "unjustly attacked frame" (really thought it was gonna work?)

But you leave me no other option.

Why "I didn't know an apology was important" feels (a lot) like an excuse

I confirm this:

I don't believe for one second that you "didn't understand the importance of apologizing".

At best, it was an excuse -an understandable one, in a way: after having failed to do the right thing for that long, it's natural and human to want to save face-.

What's even a lot less cool than a "simple" excuse though is that you stayed behind the cover and stood on that excuse to then go ahead and tried to frame me as unfairly attacking you.

No, sorry man.

That, I cannot let pass and it's where I cross the line.

You knew it was not cool to withhold an apology.

And now I'll tell you exactly why.

1. You were told very clearly

First off, between us, most 6 year olds probably know this.

But let's afford the benefit of the doubt:

OK, you really didn't know.

Still...

You were told very clearly.

This is straight from the feedback given directly to you in the recent past (bold is mine):

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 7, 2022, 7:08 pm
I've seen an apology from Kavalier so far, not yet from LOF.
If you LOF agree with the feedback given, then there should be no reason why you also can't apologize to Kavalier, and that's the only way to truly move forward without leaving personal scars.
It's up to you of course, but you should be aware of the consequences: it doesn't look good when both parties agree they've been in the wrong, but only one apologizes -and that would disempower Kavalier, too-.

So you wanna tell me that while you were active and crafting long posts, you didn't read the one post that was most relevant for you?

After you took no action on that, I really just lost a ton of respect man.

That's definitely not win-win behavior in the slightest -and not really that subjective, either. It's part of "power hoarding". Maybe you wanna say you didn't know because it's not on Wikipedia?-.
It's far, far from win-win.

So, sorry to say, but strike 1, confirmed.

Checking "not-cool" behavior: a NECESSITY to keep great people and great teams

After that, I seem to recall Kavalier mentioned he wanted to take a break from the forum.

And he said he wished he had never flagged the initial power move.

That was a wake up call for me because it's how toxicity takes over a group.

And it's also what motivated me to raise the bar for the forum.
Because that's how poor teams become poor teams: poor teams become poor when shitty behavior goes unchecked and drives away the good people.

Which is also why I was SO glad to see people here checking power moves: it was the sign that the community was starting to self-police, rooting out turkey behavior and promoting eagle behavior.

Back to the "importance of an apology":

2. It was repeated several times to you

The simple notion that an apology was both crucial and missing was then repeated several times.

So you may have missed one... But can you really miss all?

Taking from another feedback to you, to which you replied (so no way you didn't see it):

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 15, 2022, 1:18 pm
I seem to spot a hierarchy of values that puts personal power far above fair relationships and win-win.
And the sign that power trumps win-win and respectful dealing with others is the subject of this last feedback:
There is not a single apology that I'm seeing in either these last messages, and in the full history here on the forum.

So the not going for win-win was already mentioned.

Interesting you only remember now to react to it.

Playing devil advocate now, and I may be wrong:

Could it be though that it was more convenient back then to ignore and disappear and then come back hoping people forget -here's a thing about me BTW: I almost always move on, I often forgive, but I never forget-?
But now it was impossible to ignore and the only option left was to play the offended, hoping I'd backtrack?

3. You YOURSELF acknowledged that you took note of the importance of apologizing

Little later YOU replied:

Quote from leaderoffun on October 25, 2022, 9:06 am
I see that there's a lot of activity and additions to PU that ARE about apologizing and power protecting.
This makes me understand that Lucio was deeply touched when he asked for an apology, and that me not offering one would be a bad thing.

So, after all of this:

You understand that when you come back here and say "I'm surprised this step (apologizing) is so important" there are plenty of reasons that justify the feeling of "this is big load of BS".

So, no straight talk confirmed, strike 2.

In that same message you did apologize, by the way.
Though, notice again, it couldn't have been just a simple "sorry man" and end it there.
Nope, it had to go with another covert power move:

LoF: "Lucio was deeply touched".

Well, many people here know what that is.

A covert power move, seeming neutral or even "empathic".

But instead it frames me as "touchy-feely" and frame the situation as a question of emotions.
Instead, the situation was more like: one guy expects the other to own his shit and cut the games, and one who doesn't own it and keeps playing games.

I was laughing as I quoted that "deeply touched" by the way because... It's probably the best thing to do when you see 10 power moves per message.

And for the record, no, I wasn't "deeply touched" man.

Power moves like these DESTROY relationships: the "disgust" factor

Growfast said he gets disgusted at power moves.

Cheers to Growfast for that: I'm the same.

As a matter of fact, that's exactly why I started TPM.

Again, we see something that we repeat over and over here:

Power moves and various manipulation work with power unaware people and may achieve short-term goals.
But the costs are high.
Especially with eagles and people who see through them.

As for the last message:

The apology is finally here! And with such a convenient timing... Should we play devil's advocate?

Finally, there was an apology.

Wow, was that a honest change of heart?

As a reminder, the Machiavellian politicain said:

To think bad you may sin, but you get it right

When you spot a trend of "not-so-cool" behavior over time, the "thinking bad" angle becomes more and more justified.

Here's the dynamics that may be at play:

When one assertively calls all power moves out, it doesn't look well for the one playing games.
The reputation tanks, and one desperately looks for ways to regain some points.

So let's play the devil's advocate then:

Could it be that you needed to quickly recover some social capital right before the last-ditch attempt at playing rightful anger?

If I show you the door when you're at your lowest social capital, it's hard not to leave like a parahia.
But if you can quickly gain some brownie points, then you may claim good faith -or even "unfairness"-.

Nice try.

Really, some of those were some the most advanced power moves seen on the forum.

Again though, not the right place for that.

I'll skip the appeal to authority power move quoting Wikipedia.
That was a banal power move, not worth of your best form (by the way, here's a new definition for you: self-character assassination. You did the moves, I only pointed them out).

Please man, please please, really I say this from the heart:

You're only a nickname here, you have NO real reputation to uphold.
You lost nothing and can gain a lot.
You're smart, you've shown that, don't use those smarts for games. Put them to a better use.

Decision: one-week ban (and feedback most welcome!)

I spoke with Ali about this decision.

He had great feedback (as you'd usualy expect from Ali).

Ali said we must be careful to ban someone right after an escalation with a moderator because of what it might sub-communicate and what it might do to the community.

Namely, people may fear giving feedback or speaking their mind -especially towards a moderator-.
John even straight out mentioned that.

I totally agree with that.

So to make it clear: the ban is 20% because of leadership power dynamics considerations -to stay on topic: open a new thread if you're curious about that-.
And most of it, the 80%, is to uphold the "higher expectation for forum use" and put action behind the intentions -and that's good for all-.

Feedback on both this exchance and the decision are more than welcome.

If you thought this was too much, or if you thought I went in too strong (or if you thought it was fair, of course): please share it :)

Lucio / LoF: not so good right now :), but hopefully good soon

This was an escalation that ended not in a clarification, but in a big break.

No way to dance around that reality.

I stand behind my not-so-good impressions from a few posts BUT I've ALSO seen great behavior from LoF and think great of him in a ton of ways.
And for the part that can be improved, I know that people can improve their approach to socialization.

So, it's not necessarily an end and may as well be just a tiny bump over a longer and great road.

Some of the best relationships are born from breaks and misunderstandings.

For now, let's stick with a regenerative break.

We both have negative social capital with each other that must be undone, but that's very doable when there's two people willing to mend things and re-build good vibes.

I'm ready to do my part for that.

I hope you can come back and I truly hope we can be good again in the future, LoF.

You did great things in your life and will do a ton more.
You're a bright mind LoF, really.
And you added a ton of value to people in your life -including to this place.

Cheers.

Ali Scarlett, Mist1102 and 6 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#557 · January 4, 2023, 4:34 pm

Quote from Growfast on January 4, 2023, 4:34 pm
This response is for the latest response by John Freeman.
I will be quoting what you wrote in your latest message.
I understand. So to make things clear once and for all: I fucked up guys, my bad: I'll be more watchful and careful next time!
This is owning the mistake but still not a apology. Owning and learning from your mistakes is good for you but for me or anyone who got powermoved on, your apology is what builds trust which is still not found anywhere.
Thank you very much, that is what I was looking for. In my notes.
you are completely omitting the apology part everytime. So this statement isn't entirely true.
Anyway, thanks I understand it was obvious for everyone and it looked bad from the outside. And re-reading my answer I can totally see how it looked diluting and manipulative.
Looked the same from the inside for me too. Your Statement frames as if everyone else completely misunderstood what was happening and everything is good between us (which isn't true).
I tried (and failed) going diplomatic. I'm taking the ownership.
Failed why? Because you had a lot of powermoves in your responses (which is true and has been pointed out many times) or is it something else to do with me.
Again keeping it vague like this is not ownership.
Since this time I learned from you and I'm applying that it's better to work on being high power in general than defending from (small) power moves. So to let go of the "Perfect!" and minor power moves I encounter rather to try to defend against them which looks and is petty.
Again you twisted the entire explanation to make yourself look like an eagle.
As many pointed out in the original thread no one told you to not defend against powermoves, it was that you started with an unprovoked powermove on your friends.
My intention to learn is sincere so when I asked this question it was a real question. I understand it looked like it was an attempt to have Growfast invest more, an interpretation I also was afraid with my interaction with Bel below and hopefully did not happen.
It doesn't come off as an intention to learn. Comes off as gaslighting.
I even used the same powermove on you to make you understand while calling it out myself.
However you didn't respond in anyway to that and expect others to invest their time and energy explaining your powermoves which is quite hypocritical.
Also why would anyone even explain it to you when you never apologize for your powermoves and also it takes a lot of back and forth for you to own it too.
Another trend is that whenever called out you resort to your same old powermoves to putforth a PR move by going on long explanations of how it might have looked different to the other person and you didn't mean that at all but still you own it (trying to look like you are taking a loss for the good of the interaction, while in reality you are power moving them and also not apologizing)
I did try to check the tone later as an experiment to no avail. So I'm still missing some tools for dealing with these situations. I think because I took too much time to check the tone, it was already out of hand if I'm not mistaken.
Don't see any post where you mentioned anything about the tone.
The situation also went out of hand when you didn't own your powermoves and it resulted in a long back and forth. (Omitting this is called not owning and many times this has been pointed out and since you have owned some powermoves, you do know this omitting is something you did on purpose)
Makes sense. It might sound funny but since 2 weeks and this episode I became more emotionnally sensitive to power moves (more power awareness emotionnally speaking). So I also understand better now your perspective and Growfast's.
Pwermoves where? on the forum or in person?
If someone interprets this as on the forum it's a powermove on us as you got called out for many powermoves in our back and forth, apart from my tone there was no unprovoked powermove on you here. (Since you are always talking about perspective and formulations isn't it important you considered this?)

You are more power aware and still repeating the same powermoves?

(Don't see any apology or the word sorry even now).

This response is for the latest response by John Freeman.

I will be quoting what you wrote in your latest message.

I understand. So to make things clear once and for all: I fucked up guys, my bad: I'll be more watchful and careful next time!

This is owning the mistake but still not a apology. Owning and learning from your mistakes is good for you but for me or anyone who got powermoved on, your apology is what builds trust which is still not found anywhere.

Thank you very much, that is what I was looking for. In my notes.

you are completely omitting the apology part everytime. So this statement isn't entirely true.

Anyway, thanks I understand it was obvious for everyone and it looked bad from the outside. And re-reading my answer I can totally see how it looked diluting and manipulative.

Looked the same from the inside for me too. Your Statement frames as if everyone else completely misunderstood what was happening and everything is good between us (which isn't true).

I tried (and failed) going diplomatic. I'm taking the ownership.

Failed why? Because you had a lot of powermoves in your responses (which is true and has been pointed out many times) or is it something else to do with me.

Again keeping it vague like this is not ownership.

Since this time I learned from you and I'm applying that it's better to work on being high power in general than defending from (small) power moves. So to let go of the "Perfect!" and minor power moves I encounter rather to try to defend against them which looks and is petty.

Again you twisted the entire explanation to make yourself look like an eagle.

As many pointed out in the original thread no one told you to not defend against powermoves, it was that you started with an unprovoked powermove on your friends.

My intention to learn is sincere so when I asked this question it was a real question. I understand it looked like it was an attempt to have Growfast invest more, an interpretation I also was afraid with my interaction with Bel below and hopefully did not happen.

It doesn't come off as an intention to learn. Comes off as gaslighting.

I even used the same powermove on you to make you understand while calling it out myself.

However you didn't respond in anyway to that and expect others to invest their time and energy explaining your powermoves which is quite hypocritical.

Also why would anyone even explain it to you when you never apologize for your powermoves and also it takes a lot of back and forth for you to own it too.

Another trend is that whenever called out you resort to your same old powermoves to putforth a PR move by going on long explanations of how it might have looked different to the other person and you didn't mean that at all but still you own it (trying to look like you are taking a loss for the good of the interaction, while in reality you are power moving them and also not apologizing)

I did try to check the tone later as an experiment to no avail. So I'm still missing some tools for dealing with these situations. I think because I took too much time to check the tone, it was already out of hand if I'm not mistaken.

Don't see any post where you mentioned anything about the tone.

The situation also went out of hand when you didn't own your powermoves and it resulted in a long back and forth. (Omitting this is called not owning and many times this has been pointed out and since you have owned some powermoves, you do know this omitting is something you did on purpose)

Makes sense. It might sound funny but since 2 weeks and this episode I became more emotionnally sensitive to power moves (more power awareness emotionnally speaking). So I also understand better now your perspective and Growfast's.

Pwermoves where? on the forum or in person?

If someone interprets this as on the forum it's a powermove on us as you got called out for many powermoves in our back and forth, apart from my tone there was no unprovoked powermove on you here. (Since you are always talking about perspective and formulations isn't it important you considered this?)

You are more power aware and still repeating the same powermoves?

(Don't see any apology or the word sorry even now).

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#558 · January 4, 2023, 4:41 pm

Quote from Mats G on January 4, 2023, 4:41 pm
Looking through the interaction between LoF and Lucio I'd like to give the following feedback with the clear caveat that I might be wrong:
I'll only be commenting on your last message and decision here @lucio, not the whole interaction, in order to avoid bringing new life into an already (hopefully) solved exchange.
Again, this is all just my outside perspective and can (maybe should) be taken with a grain of salt.
Overall fair feedback
I think that the points that you lift are fair, and it is constantly backed up by specific examples. Also, since other people have agreed it further strengthens the case that the feedback is on point:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 3, 2023, 3:24 pm
My assessments as a subject matter expert have been confirmed over several posts, unluckily.
And, for the record, I also discuss some of the dynamics in here with a couple more people that have shown a strong grasp of power dynamics.
Several people had the exact same negative impressions I had from those posts -or worse-.
This is also why I think that the decision of a one week ban was fair, but I'll get more into why I like this decision at the end.
Since the post is quite long and full of examples, I won't lift them all up. Instead I'll just say that, from an outside perspective, the concrete examples and explanations for why you write what you write makes the feedback seem fair and accurate.
Some parts are too strong
Although the feedback is fair, there are several places where, in my opinion, the tone becomes too strong.
Now, obviously, it can be fair and effective to use a strong tone to check power moves. Still, there are some parts that, in my opinion, shifts away from the fair feedback into more personal territory.
Here are the examples that I personally think came off as too strong (note that many of these are fine on their own, but add them together the message becomes quite strong):

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 3, 2023, 3:24 pm
First off, between us, most 6 year olds probably know this.
I wouldn't really consider this one to be too strong, but I'll throw it in because, together with the other examples, it adds to the feeling of a too strong message.

That's definitely not win-win behavior in the slightest -and not really that subjective, either. It's part of "power hoarding". Maybe you wanna say you didn't know because it's not on Wikipedia?-.
(The bold is mine). The first sentence here is fair and to the point, but the second sentence seems unnecessary and gives a feeling of bitterness. As I read it, it doesn't seem to add any real value to the post, but does run the risk of worsening the relationship.

Taking from another feedback to you, to which you replied (so no way you didn't see it):
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 15, 2022, 1:18 pm
I seem to spot a hierarchy of values that puts personal power far above fair relationships and win-win.
And the sign that power trumps win-win and respectful dealing with others is the subject of this last feedback:
There is not a single apology that I'm seeing in either these last messages, and in the full history here on the forum.
So the not going for win-win was already mentioned.
Interesting you only remember now to react to it.
(Bold is mine). The "Interesting you only remember now to react to it" feels personal and even a bit sneaky (very little though). Again, on its own I would hardly think anything of it, but coupled with the other examples it makes the overall tone feel strong and personal.

The apology is finally here! And with such a convenient timing... Should we play devil's advocate?
This could very well be true... but we don't know. It is of course perfectly fine to assume the cynic instead of the optimistic (or naive?) intention behind another persons actions. However, it will make the message come off as stronger and might also make the receiver feel slighted by not being given the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, but depending on the end goal it might be counterproductive.

Wow, was that a honest change of heart?
Same as above. It could be an honest change of heart, and it could also not be. If the end goal is to rebuild rapport it might be more effective to err on the side of optimism.

So let's play the devil's advocate then:
Could it be that you needed to quickly recover some social capital right before the last-ditch attempt at playing rightful anger?
If I show you the door when you're at your lowest social capital, it's hard not to leave like a parahia.
But if you can quickly gain some brownie points, then you may claim good faith -or even "unfairness"-.
Nice try.
Really, some of those were some the most advanced power moves seen on the forum.
Again though, not the right place for that.
I'll skip the appeal to authority power move quoting Wikipedia.
That was a banal power move, not worth of your best form (by the way, here's a new definition for you: self-character assassination. You did the moves, I only pointed them out).
(Bold is mine). This whole section is fair, and also provides a lot of value by breaking down the dynamics of what happened. Again though, this is erring on the cynical side (although the preface of playing devils advocate power protects and mitigates much of the strong tone). The bolded part, however, felt again more personal.
More thoughts on a strong tone
In PU we learn that a strong tone is often useful to check a strong tone. I think that's perfectly fine.
However, when using a strong and personal tone it can come off as an overreaction. It also sends the message that "you got to me and made me angry" which is disempowering.
Depending on what the goal is this can still be fine, but a safer option would be to use a strong impersonal tone. For example:
3. You YOURSELF acknowledged that you took note of the importance of apologizing
Little later YOU replied:
Quote from leaderoffun on October 25, 2022, 9:06 am
I see that there's a lot of activity and additions to PU that ARE about apologizing and power protecting.
This makes me understand that Lucio was deeply touched when he asked for an apology, and that me not offering one would be a bad thing.
So, after all of this:
You understand that when you come back here and say "I'm surprised this step (apologizing) is so important" there are plenty of reasons that justify the feeling of "this is big load of BS".
So, no straight talk confirmed, strike 2.
In that same message you did apologize, by the way.
Though, notice again, it couldn't have been just a simple "sorry man" and end it there.
Nope, it had to go with another covert power move:
LoF: "Lucio was deeply touched".
Well, many people here know what that is.
A covert power move, seeming neutral or even "empathic".
But instead it frames me as "touchy-feely" and frame the situation as a question of emotions.
Instead, the situation was more like: one guy expects the other to own his shit and cut the games, and one who doesn't own it and keeps playing games.
I was laughing as I quoted that "deeply touched" by the way because... It's probably the best thing to do when you see 10 power moves per message.
And for the record, no, I wasn't "deeply touched" man.
Here the tone is still strong, but it never feels personal because everything is backed up with facts and concrete examples. Reading this, it's almost impossible to disagree or get angry.
One week ban
I said earlier that I think this was a good choice, and there are several reasons for this:
LoF has contributed to TPM for a long time, and it would be a lose-lose situation if he was permanently banned.
A one week ban isn't permanent, but does give the member some time away to clear their head and think through how to move forward.
Being banned, even if temporarily, is a wake up call that you need to change something about the way you interact with people.
It makes the forum more realistic with real consequences.
I also want to comment on this:
Ali said we must be careful to ban someone right after an escalation with a moderator because of what it might sub-communicate and what it might do to the community.
Namely, people may fear giving feedback or speaking their mind -especially towards a moderator-.
John even straight out mentioned that.
I totally agree with that.
I don't think this is a problem actually. Since the TPM forum is a place to study power dynamics, there is great benefit in keeping it as realistic as possible. In real life, there are consequences to having conflicts with your superiors. In PU we learn on multiple occasions that you should be mindful of how you interact with your superiors or you will face consequences. If our forum follows different rules, i.e. there are no consequences of having conflicts with moderators, the forum also loses some of its value in terms of real life application.
Closing thoughts
Overall I think the post and decision were fair, especially since the post ends on a positive note that invites for a collaborative relationship. The strong tone is also fair, but feels a bit strong when it takes on a personal tone at the same time.
I think the temporary ban is a good way to regulate the forum. Especially more advanced members are likely to see it as a call to grow rather than an unjust attack. For members who are newer and haven't yet worked on developing a growth mindset or an anti fragile ego it might not have the same effect though.
Writing this I also see just how difficult it is to give feedback in a way that isn't disrespectful. I hope I succeeded, otherwise if anybody sees something in this (or any of my other posts) that isn't cool please call it out, even if it's minor.
If anybody has any thoughts on this feel free to share.

Looking through the interaction between LoF and Lucio I'd like to give the following feedback with the clear caveat that I might be wrong:

I'll only be commenting on your last message and decision here @lucio, not the whole interaction, in order to avoid bringing new life into an already (hopefully) solved exchange.

Again, this is all just my outside perspective and can (maybe should) be taken with a grain of salt.

Overall fair feedback

I think that the points that you lift are fair, and it is constantly backed up by specific examples. Also, since other people have agreed it further strengthens the case that the feedback is on point:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 3, 2023, 3:24 pm
My assessments as a subject matter expert have been confirmed over several posts, unluckily.
And, for the record, I also discuss some of the dynamics in here with a couple more people that have shown a strong grasp of power dynamics.
Several people had the exact same negative impressions I had from those posts -or worse-.

This is also why I think that the decision of a one week ban was fair, but I'll get more into why I like this decision at the end.

Since the post is quite long and full of examples, I won't lift them all up. Instead I'll just say that, from an outside perspective, the concrete examples and explanations for why you write what you write makes the feedback seem fair and accurate.

Some parts are too strong

Although the feedback is fair, there are several places where, in my opinion, the tone becomes too strong.

Now, obviously, it can be fair and effective to use a strong tone to check power moves. Still, there are some parts that, in my opinion, shifts away from the fair feedback into more personal territory.

Here are the examples that I personally think came off as too strong (note that many of these are fine on their own, but add them together the message becomes quite strong):

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on January 3, 2023, 3:24 pm
First off, between us, most 6 year olds probably know this.

I wouldn't really consider this one to be too strong, but I'll throw it in because, together with the other examples, it adds to the feeling of a too strong message.

That's definitely not win-win behavior in the slightest -and not really that subjective, either. It's part of "power hoarding". Maybe you wanna say you didn't know because it's not on Wikipedia?-.

(The bold is mine). The first sentence here is fair and to the point, but the second sentence seems unnecessary and gives a feeling of bitterness. As I read it, it doesn't seem to add any real value to the post, but does run the risk of worsening the relationship.

Taking from another feedback to you, to which you replied (so no way you didn't see it):
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on October 15, 2022, 1:18 pm
I seem to spot a hierarchy of values that puts personal power far above fair relationships and win-win.
And the sign that power trumps win-win and respectful dealing with others is the subject of this last feedback:
There is not a single apology that I'm seeing in either these last messages, and in the full history here on the forum.
So the not going for win-win was already mentioned.
Interesting you only remember now to react to it.

(Bold is mine). The "Interesting you only remember now to react to it" feels personal and even a bit sneaky (very little though). Again, on its own I would hardly think anything of it, but coupled with the other examples it makes the overall tone feel strong and personal.

The apology is finally here! And with such a convenient timing... Should we play devil's advocate?

This could very well be true... but we don't know. It is of course perfectly fine to assume the cynic instead of the optimistic (or naive?) intention behind another persons actions. However, it will make the message come off as stronger and might also make the receiver feel slighted by not being given the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this, but depending on the end goal it might be counterproductive.

Wow, was that a honest change of heart?

Same as above. It could be an honest change of heart, and it could also not be. If the end goal is to rebuild rapport it might be more effective to err on the side of optimism.

So let's play the devil's advocate then:
Could it be that you needed to quickly recover some social capital right before the last-ditch attempt at playing rightful anger?
If I show you the door when you're at your lowest social capital, it's hard not to leave like a parahia.
But if you can quickly gain some brownie points, then you may claim good faith -or even "unfairness"-.
Nice try.
Really, some of those were some the most advanced power moves seen on the forum.
Again though, not the right place for that.
I'll skip the appeal to authority power move quoting Wikipedia.
That was a banal power move, not worth of your best form (by the way, here's a new definition for you: self-character assassination. You did the moves, I only pointed them out).

(Bold is mine). This whole section is fair, and also provides a lot of value by breaking down the dynamics of what happened. Again though, this is erring on the cynical side (although the preface of playing devils advocate power protects and mitigates much of the strong tone). The bolded part, however, felt again more personal.

More thoughts on a strong tone

In PU we learn that a strong tone is often useful to check a strong tone. I think that's perfectly fine.

However, when using a strong and personal tone it can come off as an overreaction. It also sends the message that "you got to me and made me angry" which is disempowering.

Depending on what the goal is this can still be fine, but a safer option would be to use a strong impersonal tone. For example:

3. You YOURSELF acknowledged that you took note of the importance of apologizing
Little later YOU replied:
Quote from leaderoffun on October 25, 2022, 9:06 am
I see that there's a lot of activity and additions to PU that ARE about apologizing and power protecting.
This makes me understand that Lucio was deeply touched when he asked for an apology, and that me not offering one would be a bad thing.
So, after all of this:
You understand that when you come back here and say "I'm surprised this step (apologizing) is so important" there are plenty of reasons that justify the feeling of "this is big load of BS".
So, no straight talk confirmed, strike 2.
In that same message you did apologize, by the way.
Though, notice again, it couldn't have been just a simple "sorry man" and end it there.
Nope, it had to go with another covert power move:
LoF: "Lucio was deeply touched".
Well, many people here know what that is.
A covert power move, seeming neutral or even "empathic".
But instead it frames me as "touchy-feely" and frame the situation as a question of emotions.
Instead, the situation was more like: one guy expects the other to own his shit and cut the games, and one who doesn't own it and keeps playing games.
I was laughing as I quoted that "deeply touched" by the way because... It's probably the best thing to do when you see 10 power moves per message.
And for the record, no, I wasn't "deeply touched" man.

Here the tone is still strong, but it never feels personal because everything is backed up with facts and concrete examples. Reading this, it's almost impossible to disagree or get angry.

One week ban

I said earlier that I think this was a good choice, and there are several reasons for this:

LoF has contributed to TPM for a long time, and it would be a lose-lose situation if he was permanently banned.
A one week ban isn't permanent, but does give the member some time away to clear their head and think through how to move forward.
Being banned, even if temporarily, is a wake up call that you need to change something about the way you interact with people.
It makes the forum more realistic with real consequences.

I also want to comment on this:

Ali said we must be careful to ban someone right after an escalation with a moderator because of what it might sub-communicate and what it might do to the community.
Namely, people may fear giving feedback or speaking their mind -especially towards a moderator-.
John even straight out mentioned that.
I totally agree with that.

I don't think this is a problem actually. Since the TPM forum is a place to study power dynamics, there is great benefit in keeping it as realistic as possible. In real life, there are consequences to having conflicts with your superiors. In PU we learn on multiple occasions that you should be mindful of how you interact with your superiors or you will face consequences. If our forum follows different rules, i.e. there are no consequences of having conflicts with moderators, the forum also loses some of its value in terms of real life application.

Closing thoughts

Overall I think the post and decision were fair, especially since the post ends on a positive note that invites for a collaborative relationship. The strong tone is also fair, but feels a bit strong when it takes on a personal tone at the same time.

I think the temporary ban is a good way to regulate the forum. Especially more advanced members are likely to see it as a call to grow rather than an unjust attack. For members who are newer and haven't yet worked on developing a growth mindset or an anti fragile ego it might not have the same effect though.

Writing this I also see just how difficult it is to give feedback in a way that isn't disrespectful. I hope I succeeded, otherwise if anybody sees something in this (or any of my other posts) that isn't cool please call it out, even if it's minor.

If anybody has any thoughts on this feel free to share.

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#559 · January 4, 2023, 8:16 pm

Quote from Kavalier on January 4, 2023, 8:16 pm
Hello, Mats G
I think Lucio's strong reaction is justified. LOF pulled power move after power move, and even after being warned a great many times, he continued leveraging ignorance and power hoarding, until he blasted a major power move against the founder/moderator just after being called out. It was a big one, especially considering that Lucio has just raised the bar against power moves in the forum.
This message was not at all straight. My power move count in that short post is in the dozens – but they're very, very covert. Most of them I see just because I was involved and remember very well what happened. The overall structure of LOF's post is just a token apology to introduce a reframing of past events and get everyone else to sign below. Really really snicky.
Not wanting to be dragged down to revisiting those incidents again, not wanting to refuse an apology in public, giving him the benefit of doubt, and remembering gramma saying that Rome wasn't built in a day, I wrote the post above and chose to address just ONE – the most obvious – issue (the "sorry" mismatch) as a feedback.
The problem now I see is that the post I wrote was too nice. And it came right after @01ascarlett liked LOF's post (it's not a criticism to Ali, though. I spotted the manipulation only because I was involved and wrote long posts when the disagreement between me and LOF took place, and Lucio spotted because he's Lucio). I think Lucio (perhaps he might shed some light on his perspective, if I'm wrong) saw very advanced manipulation stuff seemingly flying under the radar of a regular poster and a titan-level power aware moderator and co-author, which could send the message that people could still get away with power moves if it had gone unchecked.
It's a tricky situation to be in. Checking power moves in the forum is tiresome. And power moves done by power aware super sharks in a power forum tend to be very low profile, so checking them (especially in a crystal clear manner) often looks thin-skinned. If the power mover refuses to own it and reacts with defiance, then we can only escalate or leave him to get away with it (and then lose control), but then we'll get drawn to a long series of back and forth (all the while having lots of real trouble to deal with in our real lives). That's why I wanted to take a break from the forum after flagging the initial power moves months ago. But, then, Lucio is right: it drives away potential new posters. TPM grows everyday, but only a minority of the new users use the forum – I myself was just starting to do that. So, crafting a power moves free environment in the forum is a necessity, because we should be concentrating our efforts in helping each other address power moves in the real world, not between ourselves. Some friction is still bound to happen no matter what, but it can be minimized by raising the bar.
I still think Leader of Fun is a great guy. Whatever he does in the forum, it doesn't come from malice. If we were in person, most of this stuff would have been meaningless in face of his whole presence, because I bet he gives loads of value to everyone around and is an overall good companion. The "onlinety" (I'll still win the Oxford Word of the Year one day; won't stop trying!!!) of an internet forum limits the possibility of display of such value, though, and all we can see is the power moves. Leader of Fun, you must improve your written communication, man.
I overall think that the main issue is that he has gone through much less than half the PU course, as he himself said before, and that he doesn't read the forums much. He just posts. So yeah, while he has been warned several times, I truly believe that he's "surprised"; but he's surprised because he just skim reads the most recent posts before posing his questions in the forum.

Hello, Mats G

I think Lucio's strong reaction is justified. LOF pulled power move after power move, and even after being warned a great many times, he continued leveraging ignorance and power hoarding, until he blasted a major power move against the founder/moderator just after being called out. It was a big one, especially considering that Lucio has just raised the bar against power moves in the forum.

This message was not at all straight. My power move count in that short post is in the dozens – but they're very, very covert. Most of them I see just because I was involved and remember very well what happened. The overall structure of LOF's post is just a token apology to introduce a reframing of past events and get everyone else to sign below. Really really snicky.

Not wanting to be dragged down to revisiting those incidents again, not wanting to refuse an apology in public, giving him the benefit of doubt, and remembering gramma saying that Rome wasn't built in a day, I wrote the post above and chose to address just ONE – the most obvious – issue (the "sorry" mismatch) as a feedback.

The problem now I see is that the post I wrote was too nice. And it came right after @01ascarlett liked LOF's post (it's not a criticism to Ali, though. I spotted the manipulation only because I was involved and wrote long posts when the disagreement between me and LOF took place, and Lucio spotted because he's Lucio). I think Lucio (perhaps he might shed some light on his perspective, if I'm wrong) saw very advanced manipulation stuff seemingly flying under the radar of a regular poster and a titan-level power aware moderator and co-author, which could send the message that people could still get away with power moves if it had gone unchecked.

It's a tricky situation to be in. Checking power moves in the forum is tiresome. And power moves done by power aware super sharks in a power forum tend to be very low profile, so checking them (especially in a crystal clear manner) often looks thin-skinned. If the power mover refuses to own it and reacts with defiance, then we can only escalate or leave him to get away with it (and then lose control), but then we'll get drawn to a long series of back and forth (all the while having lots of real trouble to deal with in our real lives). That's why I wanted to take a break from the forum after flagging the initial power moves months ago. But, then, Lucio is right: it drives away potential new posters. TPM grows everyday, but only a minority of the new users use the forum – I myself was just starting to do that. So, crafting a power moves free environment in the forum is a necessity, because we should be concentrating our efforts in helping each other address power moves in the real world, not between ourselves. Some friction is still bound to happen no matter what, but it can be minimized by raising the bar.

I still think Leader of Fun is a great guy. Whatever he does in the forum, it doesn't come from malice. If we were in person, most of this stuff would have been meaningless in face of his whole presence, because I bet he gives loads of value to everyone around and is an overall good companion. The "onlinety" (I'll still win the Oxford Word of the Year one day; won't stop trying!!!) of an internet forum limits the possibility of display of such value, though, and all we can see is the power moves. Leader of Fun, you must improve your written communication, man.

I overall think that the main issue is that he has gone through much less than half the PU course, as he himself said before, and that he doesn't read the forums much. He just posts. So yeah, while he has been warned several times, I truly believe that he's "surprised"; but he's surprised because he just skim reads the most recent posts before posing his questions in the forum.

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#560 · January 4, 2023, 8:47 pm

Oops, I came real quick for a correction:

As many pointed out in the original thread no one told you to not defend against powermoves, it was that you started with an unprovoked powermove on your friends.

Yeah you're totally right thanks for pointing it out, my bad. As a reminder, here is the original post.

Me: Let's meet at 5pm, tell me if that if that's ok with you (coming from higher power)
Him: Perfect! ("good job" judge power move)
Me: Cool! (to check and stay warm)