Sociopath Community

C. Messages by TK and Hypercube viewing conflict resolutions as "fake/external pretending" and view as "Emily imposing the process"

C1. it is an internalized process, not holding hands and signing kumbaya on the outside

C2. it is a mutual process, and is never resolved by any one person imposing on others

If anything, this perpetuates conflict. So it cannot be the process or it wouldn't even work.

B. TK stated this assumption: "You fear not having control"

When TK was threatening "to go post whatever she wanted in whatever sections"

TK was the one "not okay" with Luna owning and controlling the forum.

TK was the one attacking HER, posting obscenity trying to exert some kind of power

TK was the one expressing fears of moderation leading to more moderation

I am perfectly fine with decisions Luna makes developing the forum using member input.

I have never blown up as TK has, posted nasty things about Luna in rejection, etc.

I have asked nicely and suggested things openly where anyone is free to object.

What is wrong with that? 

Why this projection on me as being a 'control freak'? Where is this coming from again?

NOTE:

To be fair to TK and her sensibilities which do have reasons behind them,

Maybe TK was reading into my anxiety and fear "IRL" that I had given up after years and years of living under political duress.  If you really want to know what I was afraid of is how much more damage it will cost in the millions to fix that Freedmen's Town project.

Maybe THAT was the anxiety and stress that people were sensing.

But it was nothing to do with the forum here. Maybe TK was "reading" that in me?

Not sure, but it's not from anything here. Luna clearly manages things here on her own.

Sorry if you felt projections NOT coming from me controlling anything here since I'm not.

Hi Hypercube, if TK didn't have issues she wanted to express,

then WHY DID "SHE POST TO ME" when I was addressing Toaster?

That wasn't coming from ME, did you NOTICE that Hyper?

by Dave Chappelle

by hypercube

Stop spamming the forum with your fake conflict resolution drama.

If you would like to resolve your conflict with Thrill, accept the fact that she doesn't respect your opinions and leave her alone.

There.  Conflict solved.  You're welcome.

I do respect Thrill Kill enough to resolve it. She doesn't UNDERSTAND my opinions or intentions, or else she would respect me equally as I am trying to understand and respect her. The same things preventing her from understanding me, prevent her from understanding Luna or anyone else. So TK will ultimately benefit from overcoming this.

If nothing else, by resolving our issues INTELLIGENTLY  this will end the common perception of TK as being STUPID / IGNORANT.

I do have faith she cares enough to get it straight. So she can prove anyone wrong who has spread this perception of her and reinforced it.

 

 

 

 

...is this really a topic?

Yes, it's actually a discussion of PERCEPTIONS of conflict resolution.

A. I see the process as mutually involving everyone equally.

B. TK thought I was trying to dictate or control things.

C. you brought up the "desire for order"

I think the main difference is I have faith that people can reach resolution and end up being better off, the benefits afterwards outweigh the problems getting to that point.

Most ppl here don't seem to have faith conflicts can be resolved. So it just looks like to them "one person" is trying to push or control things. It is not seen as a mutual process where everyone benefits from the outcome.

How do you see the conflict resolution process, Turncoat?

Have you ever seen a difficult case of mediation that ended up better than either side expected? That tends to happen more often than not with me. People get more things they didn't expect, after going through hassle they "dreaded" fearing it wasn't going to get anywhere. And only afterwards, they realized how it helped everyone equally.

I suppose I can play along.

In reply to you from here:


"Actually it's to resolve issues that don't need to be junking up the forum." 

"Resolving issues"? Sounds more to me like you're judging the content in front of you and trying to control it into becoming something you'd prefer. "Junking up the forum" is a fairly telling thing to say.

"The natural chaos can be more free flowing if you DON'T have to keep re-addressing the same issues over and over that get OLD."

But it's not always answered in the same way. It's how things are answered that gives subtext on the one answering the question. Topics that have been answered before still show things about the ones answering it, and inevitably the thread goes off topic somewhere to discuss different things that show other aspects of who people here are.

"For Example if conflicts between TK and me get resolved, she doesn't have to posts posts in EVERY SINGLE THREAD saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...."

You sound annoyed.

"Get it?"

Oooh, not used to this side of you.

"The more we resolve or drop the "nonissues" the more we can focus energy on real interests that offer more benefit in general."

What kind of benefits are you looking for? I myself get plenty of entertainment from these "nonissues" as you call them, at least in the most annoying of cases in retrospect.

"EX: implying/assuming over and over and over that I am "magically" in charge of the forum is wasting time space and energy every time it comes up. When it's not even true."

And what would you prefer people be doing?

"Plus, if TK resolves where this issue IS coming from, then it solves a lot of other problems as well. So there is multiple benefit in resolving conflicts instead of repeating them. That's just plain common sense."

Mm, implying anyone who doesn't share your view must lack common sense. Tsk tsk.

RE: "But it's not always answered in the same way. It's how things are answered that gives subtext on the one answering the question. Topics that have been answered before still show things about the ones answering it, and inevitably the thread goes off topic somewhere to discuss different things that show other aspects of who people here are."

Hi Turncoat: Thanks for your thoughtful replies and analysis, as always.

Yes, I agree that it takes this kind of hashing out from all angles, and this is good not bad.

However, it is still done best when both people are open to the process, not fighting the process itself, distrusting or attacking the other person so it is strained.

As Hypercube complained on that thread, it comes across as "drama" "spamming the forum"

So I find it is best to resolve those CORE issues of "fear of conflict or control" and get THAT out of the way. The rest of the process can be here or there, and it's fine.

I guess underneath it is about building trust, rapport and connection. Once it's clear both people have the best intent, that part isn't questioned over and over. Then we can USE that rapport to explore the other issues FREELY no matter where it goes.

Not trying to dictate where the whole thing goes, no one can do that! Just trying to get past the initial trust issues that throw the whole thing off track in tbe gutter.

Thanks Turn

Yours truly,

Emily

"I think the main difference is I have faith that people can reach resolution and end up being better off, the benefits afterwards outweigh the problems getting to that point."

That's your conclusion, and how you get there isn't the same as how others do. Let other people resolve their own issues, burn their own bridges, and make their own mistakes in their own ways.

"Most ppl here don't seem to have faith conflicts can be resolved. So it just looks like to them "one person" is trying to push or control things. It is not seen as a mutual process where everyone benefits from the outcome."

I believe conflicts can be resolved, I just don't think it will be fixed by having someone who isn't a part of it try to pry their way into it.

"How do you see the conflict resolution process, Turncoat?"

I personally don't think everyone has to get along. If they get along down the road, that's great, but if they don't, what's the big deal? Why can't people have the option to not getting along with somebody?

"Have you ever seen a difficult case of mediation that ended up better than either side expected? That tends to happen more often than not with me. People get more things they didn't expect, after going through hassle they "dreaded" fearing it wasn't going to get anywhere. And only afterwards, they realized how it helped everyone equally."

They didn't ask for you to mediate them. Doing so without them approving of it is no longer mediation, it's imposing.

Hi Turncoat:

Once people like TK make a false accusation of me, then it is their responsibility to resolve that.

They do not have the option of "imposing" a conflicting/false perception against the good reputation and intention of someone, and then "turn around" and not want to resolve it.

If they don't want that, they shouldn't preach or post such false accusations in public.

If they don't accept responsibility for conflicts from imposing false statements. Simple as that.

Either resolve it or refrain from imposing a false opinion if you feel conflict resolution is too imposing.

Not to worry, this happens all the time in forums. Issues that already exist get projected onto whoever is willing to resolve them. Like the trickle down system or passing the buck.

This stuff was going on before I got here.