"Thomas Dalton"
I try to apply it all the time, but apparently it is a dying kind of dispute resolution.
It isn't a form of dispute resolution at all. You can't really forgive someone until they accept they did something wrong (well, I guess technically you can, but it doesn't achieve much), and once they've done that, the dispute is already resolved. All "forgive and forget" says is "once the dispute is resolved, move on, don't try and punish people for their mistakes".
What is wrong with 'move on' as a form of dispute resolution? Beats vendetta and vindictiveness any day.
I begin to think 'Njal's Saga' should be required reading for those concerned with Wikipedia disputes. Here's a short version (spoiler warning: look away now).
Starts with brothers H and H and a Queen of Norway.
Much later: spectacular murders of almost unrelated G and N in their homes.
Much later again: F and K, representing the two feuding sides, and almost the only ones left standing, say 'to hell with it'.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
What is wrong with 'move on' as a form of dispute resolution? Beats vendetta and vindictiveness any day.
It's simply resolving the dispute by accepting defeat. In some cases, the dispute may be so trivial that it's easier to simply let the other person win, but not always.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
What is wrong with 'move on' as a form of dispute resolution? Beats vendetta and vindictiveness any day.
It's simply resolving the dispute by accepting defeat. In some cases, the dispute may be so trivial that it's easier to simply let the other person win, but not always.
Of course, when the offending party is the one saying "move on," it's just as bad as saying "I don't really care if what I did bothered you, I didn't do anything wrong."
-Jeff
Of course, when the offending party is the one saying "move on," it's just as bad as saying "I don't really care if what I did bothered you, I didn't do anything wrong."
The offending party can't move on, they can say "move on", but if the person that is accusing them doesn't want to move on, there is nothing the offending party can do about it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
What is wrong with 'move on' as a form of dispute resolution? Beats vendetta and vindictiveness any day.
It's simply resolving the dispute by accepting defeat. In some cases, the dispute may be so trivial that it's easier to simply let the other person win, but not always.
Saying "Move on" can be a convenient tactical strategem for winning an argument, especially if the article is in your preferred state when you say it. Sometimes finding a third path is preferable to putting the issue into a win/lose paradigm.
Ec
Saying "Move on" can be a convenient tactical strategem for winning an argument, especially if the article is in your preferred state when you say it. Sometimes finding a third path is preferable to putting the issue into a win/lose paradigm.
Saying "move on" rarely has any effect at all. If you want to move on, you have to be the one to move on, you can't tell the other party to move on.