Am 14.08.2018 um 09:18 schrieb Adam Wight:
Nobody is language policing, this is about preventing abusive behavior and creating an inviting environment where volunteers and staff don't have to waste time with emotional processing of traumatic interactions.
[Note: this is in the abstract, touching on what I feel are the concerns that several of the people involved in this thread have. I'm not commenting on the case that triggered this discussion. That was merely the trigger, it's no longer what this discussion is about.]
I'm asking myself whether this is about form, or about substance. What I mean is: personal attacks are clearly not ok. Constructive criticism is ok. How about aggressive yet objective criticism? And does it make a difference what vocabulary that criticism uses?
Examples:
1) "You clearly didn't read the style guide. Go do that before you waste more of our time".
2) "Go read the fucking manual"!
3) "I can't believe this still hasn't been fixed! This buck has been open for two years, it's clearly a problem for the community! Someone apparently isn't doing their job!"
4) "What the fuck? Still not fixed? What are you guys doing all day?"
These are all Not Nice (tm). They are all aggressive. None of them contain a personal attack. Does it make a difference that two of them contain the word "fuck"? Is expressing anger ok, or a reason for blocking?
I personally don't care much about being "nice", I don't care about vocabulary. I care much about being objective and constructive. And I think it's ok to express anger and disappointment, as long as no personal attacks are involved.
Making people feel safe and welcome should be our goal, but making people feel uncomfortable is sometimes necessary if we want clear and direct communication. I personally consider it an insult to my intelligence if people wrap criticism in pretty language.
Emotionally processing criticism is something adults should be able to do as a matter of course. If we don't make mistakes, we probably don't do anything worthwhile. If nobody can tell us off for making mistakes, we are missing an opportunity to learn from them. If criticism has to be formulated as suggestions, we are loosing clarity, and open up to miscommunication.
So, is this about form? Or substance? Is it about how the recipient feels? About how to formulate criticism?
In my mind, "don't say anything that could make anyone feel bad" cannot be the criterion. "I find your CR-1 offensive" is not something we can accommodate. What, then, shall the criterion be to avoid personal attacks and to prevent verbal abuse?