Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

Ambassadors Training Session 3

OpenStudy Ambassadors
See more answers at
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer


To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

This section is going to have a wider range of videos. I have done my best to select shorter ones that keep on the key points. Remember, you have two weeks to get through the material, but there will be one more assignment next week. (And I was amazed by how poor some of the videos I skipped were. There was one where they did not even use the terms properly, but they claimed to be an expert on the topic!) After next week, the initial training will be over. You will have been exposed to the key concepts of organizational behavior, the rules, communications online, and conflict resolution. Exposure and proficiency are different things. This initial training cannot ensure the latter. That is part of why there will be more training later, but more along the lines of one or perhaps two things in a month. Now for this weeks main topic: Conflict Resolution. Conflict is a large part of life. Conflicts can be of any size, from a disagreement between two kids on up to wars between nations. The part I am going to focus on is mostly the smaller side of things: individuals and small groups. How pervasive is conflict resolution? Well, Conflict Resolution is a Masters Program: We are not going to cover that much here! For this lesson, I have selected a few sources that cover conflict resolution. I want you to go over them. When you are done, the assignment is simple. Discuss some methods you feel would apply on OpenStudy in your role as an Ambassador. As always, this content is similar to what has been covered in college classes I have taken, I see it used at work, etc. Now, where I will start is with those larger conflicts that we do not deal with on OpenStudy. It shows how even these huge events do come down to individuals, so the skills you develop here will still help in larger situations: An overview of what a conflict is, what happens, and a few things to look out for: Lauren Mackler at Harvard Business School - Managing Conflict Harvard's [Prof.] Daniel Shapiro at Davos, on conflict resolution And here is something far more specific to what you will deal with on OpenStudy. Conflict in Cyberspace: How to Resolve Conflict Online by Kali Munro, M.Ed., Psychotherapist And remember, as an Ambassador you do not need to jump into a conflict. You can step back from things, which can be a very good choice when stressed out! Now for that question: how do you think you can use these types of communications skills to help reduce the size of conflicts you see on OpenStudy?
I personally found the last link to be very clear and helpful :) Some things that I found useful from it: "Don't respond right away" - especially in times of erm... hormonal inconsistencies, I have found that this become very helpful. It has and will help keep me (and hopefully others) from sharing demeaning thoughts. "Assume that people mean well, unless they have a history or pattern of aggression" - because people get bad days and mood swings example: One does not need to react to aggression with aggression, so when one sees that someone is being mean, be as kind as one can and hopefully they can see reason :) "Clarify what was meant" - is a tactic that is best when interacting with users whose first language was not English, rather than attempting to infer meanings and mis-communicating "Use strictly feeling statements" - this is something I can personally work on, as I have difficulties putting what I actually feel into words, and when I do attempt this strategy my words seem untrue to me. I've attempted to work my way around my problem by speaking in third person when addressing problems. as in simply stating rules and a friendly tone without addressing anyone. but I am not sure if it is a proper approach? "Use emoticons to express your tone" - is a very important factor in casual online interactions. I have personally found that using more positive emoticons, makes me as a person thing more positively, as well as gives others a more relaxed feeling. How we can use the strategy: "Assume that people mean well" can be used in regards to chat problems. many times some people are mean just because they are having a bad day, so we must retain our composure and do not attack back. (sorry for grammatical errors >,< it will be something I need to work on...)
Yah, a lot of the top stuff is a primer for the last one. See how this is a world wide applicable skill, see how it is important in business, and some very direct tips to online use. I included a lot of the top stuff because I think it is important to see how broad and connected the topics are. A lot of what is suggested for handling online topics has some similarities to how that first guy is working towards creating some international understanding for the Middle East.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

  • JA1
Hmm, well i've kinda noticed a trend here, one that is indeed very useful, and that is space and time. I believe that no matter what issue, conflict, or problem you are going through you can never expect to get a good outcome if you speak or act when fueled by emotion or clouded by biased opinion, often times we need to step back and think, think about what the problem is, what the key objective is, and rid ourselves of any bias and/or sentiment that might influence our actions. Inclusively we need to always see things both ways, we need to be as polite and calm as possible, and as clear minded as we can get. I think these steps will make the outcome of any situation much more favorable.
It has been brought up that there is no transcript for the above videos. See, one person's speakers are on the fritz. However, I have some alternate sources: First, here is the TED transcript of the first video: The five Thomas-Killmann Conflict Modes and some notes on them: Transcript is the lower part of this page. This talks about some of the applications to closer relationships, so it is not 100% applicable, but there is a lot that it shows about how attitude and response it a huge part of it. More business orientated: So that should help give some references. The goal is the same. See how this could be applied on OpenSudy.
i found the last link very very useful. there were many points noted that we can use here at openstudy. firstly use emoticons. as u cannot see the facial expressions emoticons play that part to some extent. clarify what actually the other person means. think twice before responding. if u r unsure of ur reply try asking a help from your friend in this case maybe a mod or an ambi. i love the camel story...we have to be d intelligent woman...try to find a 3rd view to an argument. possibly try to divert the discussion if it is becoming a lil violent or overboard. if u r trying to resolve an argument..give an unbiased response.
Well, based on all of the links I found the last one the be the most helpful with explaining how to manage conflicts. Lately in the chats I have come across users who are threatening to kill them self, or simply saying very rude comments. I wont say specific users to avoid any further conflict on here. Either way, the users would go back and forth causing major drama in the chats. Here are some examples: ~death threats to self~ User 1: No one cares about me User 2: Sucks to be you User 3: Now don't say that I'm sure many people care about you User 2: It's called you get off this site no one cares User 1: I'll just go kill myself User 3: No please don't some people care User 1: No I'm done User 2: Good burn in hell I have actually come across a situation very similar to the one I just provided. How I handled it was by basically breaking each person apart by speaking to all in the chat. Not sure if that makes sense or not. Anyway, the user who made the self threats are still active on here, the rudeness had ended (for the most part). I feel like I could have been better by privately messaging some of the users reminding them of the rules, and so on. I had done reports too. Another example I have noticed recently is racism. ~spanish people are stupid~ User 1: Hola, ¿cómo estás? User 2: No one cares about you Spanish people User 1: uhm? excuse me? User 2: You come on here to use us like you do everywhere else User 1: You racist User 2: How about you go back to your own country Now, with this I had simply reminded them of the rules at first. I started to be treated rudely for trying to form simple peace. Was I a bit annoyed at that point? Yes, I very much was. However, I did not let that get to me. I continued to get them to stop going back and forth by saying things like "hey, remember users of all ages are on here" That didn't really work all that much. I had reported the users and watched over the chat once it had started to simmer down. I also feel like I could have messaged the users personally, and calmly reminded them what not to do. Of course not making it seem like their world should stop. Just be simple and kind about it. After going through those links, it opened my eyes to how I can react to certain situations. I will work on my skills, and try much harder with how things go. Situations that I know for a fact I cannot stop (spamming) I will just report. (both examples are based on events that have happened, just different wording of the situations)
@e.mccormick , I submitted my response on Yammer when you first posted. Will that be accepted?
Yes, the site has been glitchy at times so I put this one there too.
Perfect key points: Assume that people mean well, unless they have a history or pattern of aggression - I am agree with this only to the extent of, "Assume that people mean well" I do not feel it is an ambassadors job to go beyond that. We are not admins or mods... so if we assume that people mean well in some conflict we can respond well and polite. An ambassador would not be prone to giving in and throwing in a bunch of emotion. If the person has a history of aggression online then I feel a moderator should be notified. Clarify what was meant - sometimes it can just be a simple misunderstanding. It is quite hard for most people to interpret someone's feelings when they made a post. The reader may think that the original poster is being rude or snarky in some sense. So if the ambassador or reader is not sure just ask for clarification first. Figure out is this person really trying to be hostile or maybe they did not choose the proper wording to express themselves. So basically do not just to conclusions. Choose your words carefully and thoughtfully - When responding to individuals again assume they mean well. When we speak/type it should be in a professional manner. Remembering that ambassadors are role models to some users and we are apart of a much greater team. Ambassadors are one part of the puzzle. So being with that said wording says a lot about oneself. An ambassador should know how to be respectful I mean it is not that hard. Sorry @e.mccormick for the wait...
The wait is fine. I knew a few people had finals and other things come up right when this was posted... on top of the web site deciding to be a pain in the anatomy!
@e.mccormick , I would like you to elaborate on the, "assume that people mean well," statement. I know this has been addressed several times before. I think we can dive deeper into this concept. Buddha taught us several notions I can base my argument around. • People mean well for them - for their beliefs and preferences • What one person believes in, another may agree with, but another may disagree. One may become offended and the other a supporter. I know a lot of witty comments are made, a lot of sarcasm and humor is tossed around OpenStudy. I, myself, make a lot of jokes to keep spirits high. Recently, I made a joke about your quotations and you were somewhat offended, even though I meant well. I feel the best course of action at this point would be to private message the user and address it personally to understand their personality. Now, I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest an additional form of communication I learned in psychology. These are "only" statements and humor. When you say, "only," you're reducing the amount of emphasis on that particular object. At Burger King, we may say, "your total is \(only\) $6.85." This can be used in the OpenStudy community, too. For example, "Hey, lets try to be be kind. You \(only\) need to follow one rule: be nice.:) " Of course, on the internet, we could add some visual emoticons. Images express emotion and work well with, "I statements," and other forms of language that work to relieve conflict. The second thing I want to talk about is humor. I usually use humor as a way to deescalate a situation. I can later solve the conflict via private message. It's a way to solve a situation without getting directly involved in the situation. It keeps spirits high and helps things move fluidly. Thoughts? Opinions?
The idea of "assume that people mean well," is gone over in the videos. Take another look at it if you were unsure what they meant. Humor is a risk in online communications. Here are some reasons why. 95% of humor is cultural. Jokes are the hardest things to translate. Much of humor is based on tone of voice. The difference between "acting silly" and "looking like an idiot" can be as small as point of view by two people. The same is true between joking and insulting. Anyone with a range of specific neurological conditions can have a disconnection from humor and be confused by it. An example of a problem with humor is how little of Shakespeare’s humor is understood today. People find a lot of the plays funny, but experts have commented a number of times that range of jokes and puns perceived by a modern audience is a fraction of what is in the work. The use and understanding of OP changes the level of the jokes completely. That level of difference is within a single language and culture: English. Add too this the differences between American and English cultures and even less is understood. Still the same base language, but further from the source and more problems arise. Inside a singular group, humor can be great. It aids in memory. It can create a more relaxed atmosphere. However, much of this is conveyed through body language: something that disappears on the Internet. It is an unfortunate fact that humor has to be approached very carefully because of these problems. I went over this to some extent when talking about sarcasm. Things that may seem funny to people that know each other might seem insulting to outsiders. This means you must have care in what type and level of humor is used. As for direct replies to an individual (there is no such thing a private on OS as not even the message system is exempt from review,) it is also a mixed blessing. A public display of misbehavior that is left alone with no public reply can create a situation where you are promoting people to behave badly. In the work place, you can take a person aside for an action and that action is no longer happening because they are no longer there. But when people are posting in a message that sits there forever, it is a completely different situation. This is where being able to delete things helps. The bad example is removed, which allows for a private reprimand. Without that sort of power, the only thing you are left with is a public reply to attempt to clarify where the errors are at. I am not saying that the public action is a good choice. Good or bad is hard in this context. I am simply pointing out that in some situations you have no better choices.
I agree, but disagree on minute levels. There are exceptions for everything. Once stress and emotion are brought into balance your capacity for joy, pleasure and playfulness is unleashed. Joy is a deceptively powerful resource. Studies show that you can surmount adversity, as long as you continue to have moments of joy. Humor plays a similar role when facing conflict. You can avoid many confrontations and resolve arguments and disagreements by communicating in a humorous way. Humor can help you say things that might otherwise be difficult to express without offending someone. However, it’s important that you laugh with the other person, not at them. When humor and play are used to reduce tension and anger, reframe problems, and put the situation into perspective, the conflict can actually become an opportunity for greater connection and intimacy. As the mediator, your ability to express serious demeanor, professional presentation, occasional humor, and just plain charisma is necessary. \[ \begin{array}l\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{C}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{f}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{R}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{S}}\color{blue}{\text{k}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{:}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{T}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{g}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{C}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{f}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\\\color{blue}{\text{O}}\color{blue}{\text{p}}\color{blue}{\text{p}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{J}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{S}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{g}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{P}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{D}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{M}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{S}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{W}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{b}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{1}}\color{blue}{\text{8}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{A}}\color{blue}{\text{p}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\\\color{blue}{\text{2}}\color{blue}{\text{0}}\color{blue}{\text{1}}\color{blue}{\text{4}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{}}\end{array} \] We see that discussion involving humor is not inherently evil. It all depends on how you use your humor. The above study suggest that after the conflict has deescalated, you can use humor between two parties to remove any ill temperament behavior. Studies suggest that laughing about areas of conflicts with opposite parties helps resolve conflict. You've probably noticed the effect that satire language has on people, especially when the audience understands as a whole. I've had no trouble with my jokes in the chatbox, and it's a prefered method that I enjoy using. It's all about context and how you convey your message. You're going to upset people if you go into a church and make an Anne Frank joke. It's all about the company. Belittlement is another part of humor. If we use satirical language, we can make ideas seem silly or unimportant. Again, we are \(not\) attacking the person, but the idea. I'm sure you've heard this before: "you're complaining about that while kids are starving in Africa?" The idea is rather complex, but through humor mixed with comparisons and satirical language, you can make a user realize that there is a time and place for everything. For example, \[ \begin{array}l\color{black}{\text{"}}\color{black}{\text{H}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{,}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{T}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{k}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{b}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\\\color{black}{\text{I}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{T}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{v}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\\\color{black}{\text{H}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{k}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\\\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{;}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{b}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{S}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\\\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{v}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{,}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{"}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{}}\end{array} \] This statement utilizes both humor and belittlement as an effective mediator statement. The idea is constructive belittlement. What would \(they\) think if they saw you doing this? Different methods are required for different people and different situations. People are complicated and dynamic, and sometimes some people just don’t buy your act and jive with you. And you nevertheless need to work with them. Baseball, like work, goes on (and on, and on, and on), and sometimes the very best you can do is make the most of the cards you’ve been dealt.
Am I causing this disagreement? :(
@MathLegend , certainty not. We're having an academic argument. There is nothing wrong with discussion based around our training. It's actually the preferred method and you can learn a lot.
Do your sources talk about the differences in online and personal communications? How about the problem with attacking the idea in ways that are ambiguous due to you language, poor word choices, etc. that make it seem like an attack on the person? And then there is the question of cultural differences in humor. Is that addressed at all in your sources? See, what I read in your posting is about humor \(\textbf{ in general }\), which has very little to do with differentiate for online communications and how humor can backfire when the context is not clear.
So what is humor? When is it good? Where is the line between laughing with someone and laughing at them? Exactly what queues differentiate these things and which ones are available in spontaneous, textual messages? See, humor can backfire. This is a topic of study: There are tons of examples of the backfiring of humor: Humor itself is a deep topic of study: There are studies that show that the use of humor is actually a device that is used to exert force in communications. Look into Thimm and Augenstein on this. One of the major dangers they point out is that this can cause the other party to feel that the sender of the humor is trivializing the recipients position. Now, if we apply this idea to online communications you can see the trap that is created. When sender S sends humor to recipient R, there is non-verbal feedback in normal communications. S can adjust for R and not overdo things. Online, this feedback is removed. Therefore, it is exceptionally easy to actually insult someone simply by being funny. Not attacking their topic. Not attacking them. Just being funny can cause a major situation because of the negative feedback loop that is ignored as the person feels trivialized. All of this points to how humor is dangerous in online communications.
I felt I was very precise and gave interpersonal examples and experiences on OpenStudy. The "\(\textbf{ in general }\)" part can be applied to a broad range of online communication situations. A large portion of what I said came from Joseph W. Goodman, an online conflict resolution expert. He discusses the importance of online mediators. I also used information from Creighton.Edu. While I agree sources are important, the argument takes prominence. My goal was to put some emphasis on what I've experienced personally, and put that up for debate. When I'm in good company, certain jokes are acceptable. I know when and when not to hold my tongue. After you've exhausted every method, I feel humor would be the best course of action. You can often build a relationship with a trouble user by making him laugh. It will give you the opportunity to have an impact on his performance. Like aforementioned, sometimes users won't jive with you. You just have to accept that and make the best with the cards you've been dealt. I would like to point out a few things I agree and disagree with. ○ \(\textbf{ "Jokes are the hardest things to translate" }\) • I agree. We also discussed the importance of emoticons, which can add to the user's understanding. "He's back," and , "He's back :)" have two different meanings. One is a dreary, "Oh, look, it's back," and the other one is enthusiastic. The same concept can be applied to online humor. ○ \[ \begin{array}l\color{black}{\text{"}}\color{black}{\text{I}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{,}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{b}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{I}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\\\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{I}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{x}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{.}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{H}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{v}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{,}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\\\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{v}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{b}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{:}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{p}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\\\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{I}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{r}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{"}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{}}\end{array} \] • Once again, I agree. A lot of the troubled users are just that. "Troubled users." They've been here for awhile and have a history of repetitive behavior. The conflict usual involves the same group of people. In the English chat, you may have 4 - 5 users online, and 2 - 3 are arguing. Eventually, the whole chat is drawn into it. I'm very comfortable among this group of people because they all know me and I know them. In the past, humor has been a great deterrent to ill behavior. ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ ▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁ @SecondPost.... \(\textbf{ First Source }\) Your first source talks about a few behaviors of online marketing to avoid. "(1) features highly threatening attempts at humor rather than mildly threatening attempts, (2) threatens specific people rather than people in general, and (3) motivates avoidance rather than approach" The idea is not to make a threatening attempt and advocate avoidance. Have you ever seen the Panda Cheese commercials? If not, Google them! They're hilarious. Humor can be good and bad, which is what I am getting form this source. "Marketers should continue to create humorous marketing communications in order to attract attention and entertain consumers, but they need to be careful not to inadvertently hurt their brand in the process." It seems to agree with what I am saying. One of the sources you linked mentioned how we should think about what we say before we say it, which I completely agree. Read and re-read it. Ask yourself, "would this be appropriate." As Ambassadors, we should have the judgement to know what type of humor is and is not acceptable upon completion of this course. \(\textbf{ Second Source }\) Now, this is about a business magazine being snarky and inappropriate. Again, I agree. We should never be snarky or profane with our humor. It should reflect OpenStudy morals. It also mentions a few good key concepts, a few of them I addressed. • Be respectful • Speak in context • Use company values as a guidepost Humor should never be our first course of action. It should be used sparingly, and only with people you're 100% positive with. Do you agree or disagree? \(\textbf{ Third Source }\) Now, this is 20 pages long, and it's late here, so I read the first few pages. It appears to talk about social norms in humor. It mentioned the likely hood of you laughing at a television show compared to the same show but with a bnuch of friends. That's true! Studies show that laughter is actually contagious, and may not be directly correlated to humor itself. Ever found yourself laughing just because your friends were, even though you didn't understand what was going on? When we see people around us effected in a positive way, we want to follow them. Their happiness is often like a virus, spreading over into the whole community. The user doesn't need to understand the humor in some cases. If he sees the people around him moving on and having a good time, then he will likely not realize the King is naked. There are also universal forms of humor we could discuss. Such as historic figures and celebrities. The way we form our sentences and the context plays a huge role.
@e.mccormick , please read about Happiness and social media. "New research from Harvard Medical School and the University of California, San Diego suggests that happiness is influenced not only by the people you know, but by the people they know. The study showed that happiness spreads through social networks, sort of like a virus, meaning that your happiness could influence the happiness of someone you've never even met." Read more:
Did you read the part in "Happiness Is Contagious" where they define some of the "Social Networks" they mean? This is not online. It is things like your spouse vs. your spouses friends. They mean personal connections: face to face. As for my sources, they were to help show the sort of things that can happen and how much research is involved. What you keep passing over is how different humor is online vs. offline. In online, there are positive effects. These have been studied: The problem is in the interactive nature of humor. Here is some on that: And the cultural aspects of humor: But there are dangers in using humor. I have been through many classes in my sociology degree that have dealt with this, and love, and other topics that seem innocent but are actually very hard. So even though I already have a degree on people, I am going for a second degree in computers and information. Frankly, it is a far easier topic with less areas that are as difficult as things like humor. Some things that talk about the dangers of humor (in general): Chapter 6 in this book... wish I had it for this: But psychological use of humor is something anyone can find a dozen or more examples of argument over: How it is dangerous in the classroom: A look at humor and work by a person that studies humor, with the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4 talking about problems of humor in work: The fact of the matter is that as you research more deeply for find that there is danger in humor in all situations. Care must be used at all times. This leads to another concept: Bad Humor vs. Good Humor is, and has been for a long time, a very powerful tool. Sadly, very powerful tools have problems that people need to be aware of. First, what do I mean by a very powerful tool or even problem? A knife is an example of a very powerful tool. It is even one of the most powerful ever. A knife has shown up in varied forms. There is the blade of a lawn mower, the dinner knife, the scalpel, the pair of scissors, the sword, and so many more. The knife has more uses than in does forms. You cut more than one thing with about every form of knife and you may do other things than cut! Some of these uses are positive. There is the surgery that saves a life, the cutting of food stuffs for dinner, and far too many to list. Some of these uses are negative. Murdered by knifing... start there and just go down the list of woe that comes from knives. Near the bottom there will be accidents by improper use. Again, this is just far to much to list. There is it, the double edged sword of a very powerful tool: the knife! Humor falls into this same classification. Studies of humor and its use are at least thousand years old. It is noted in the ways to memorize things for oration back before there was a printing press. Jokes and uses of humor in learning are seen in some of the earliest written documents that still survive. However, humor is also used to attack people. The worst cases are seen in cyberbullying and malicious insults. However, this does include things as simple as using humor at the wrong time. This leads to my primary point. Humor, while it can be good, it always a risk. How much of a risk depends on the situation, type of humor, how applied, people involved, and more. It is not as simple a topic as people may think. Lets take humor in a speech. If you use a little humor at the right times, you make a speech more memorable. You can see this in the best TED talks and RSA speeches. Wrong times or too much and, well, Romney felt the backlash of that in his presidential campaign. You can alienate the audience as easily as captivate them. You will always alienate some people with humor. If it is say 10% of a large crowd then the positive reaction of say 60% can carry the rest. They will push the ambivalent to enjoyment, and some of the alienated back to ambivalent or enjoyment. Suddenly only 1% or less are really out there in such a positive reaction. But what if you alienate 50%, or just 30%, and you have a much weaker positive reaction? The cascade can work against you in these cases. The keys to managing these situations are in things like judging the reaction and making sure the humor is within certain bounds. If the humor is too far out of the norm, improper for the audience, or otherwise made poorly, the backlash starts. It is then up to the speaker to judge these reactions and reformulate things. Failure to do so is a disaster. When you do not use humor with care, it can be the verbal version of wandering in a swinging a knife wildly. Which brings us to humor in online communications. First, it is a lot harder to know when humor is proper. You can't see the target of the humor. Are they already so angry that even the slightest humor will be seen as laughing at them, not with them, and an attack? This is exactly the sort of thing that causes arguments in OpenStudy chat and many reports. Small jokes that people take out of context because how they are feeling and they go right to the offensive replies happen left and right. You may not know a person well enough to realize the triggers. Some humor is very individual and what one person sees as a day to day topic another may see as a huge mistake to even mention. The boundaries of what is normal, what is just out of normal and humorous, and what is too far out of bounds and offensive are not set in stone! These are individual traits that mist be judged. All the feedback you normally have is dead. Tone of voice, blushing, surprised looks, rage, and so on are all wiped off the board unless the other person types back. Then, if they hate you enough for what you said, they may not even type back just how bad things are. All of this causes massive feedback errors. In the end, the tool of humor is handicapped online. It has been chopped down and malformed until it is a fraction of what it is in person. This is especially true is you try to use it in trying to defuse an online situation where you are NOT exceptionally familiar with all parties involved. You have an exceptionally high chance of falling into the trivialization trap where your trying to liven the mood will trigger someone to feel belittled. Then they will bite back, forcing things to a worse state. Suddenly, your help turns to harm. Earlier is easier than later, but really late is also not too bad. A little humor early can sidetrack things. Once the bad path is really under foot the chances for mistakes are higher. It is like a mine field. There are less at the edges than in the middle. When an argument is just starting or finally ending, then people can be ready for a little humor. It is better to avoid it than to use it. Many forms of humor are based on being vague, on the fringes, plays on words, and so on. All of these are horrible in clear communications. If you can not establish clarity first, then knowing when to add in a little humor does not exist. This means that avoiding humor can help establish clarity. This is even more true when cultural values are involved, such as different ethnicities, genders, or countries. These things can even happen under one household, where all other values are the same. Therefore, it is more likely that there are problems online that you need to avoid by limiting or eliminating humor. I could go on, but the simple truth is this: humor is a skills and a very powerful tool. It is easy to abuse and takes practice to perfect. Online, it is much, much harder to properly apply. When unsure, it is simply safer to avoid humor and opt for clarity. This will avoid bad humor and help keep situations good. It can be great, but never forget that it can also be the driving force of mistakes and mist be approached very carefully. Too much, too far, wrong time, and you are faced with an opposite reaction to what was intended. This has always been true of humor and is more so of online communications.
Phew... that was a lot of reading! I'd like to turn the tables and discuss three particular Tips for Resolving Conflict in the Psychology of Cyberspace. \(\textbf{ Respond later }\) We often cannot respond later. A lot of the conflict that needs diffusing takes place in the chatbox. We can encourage users to reflect on what they've said, and the behavior of the antagonist. \(\textbf{ Read the post again later }\) Again, this is often hard, if not impossible, to do in the online chatboxes. Problems need immediate addressing, and not responding can actually do more harm than done. \(\textbf{ Clarify what was meant }\) The best way to combat the first two issues is by clarifying the central conflict. We can then convey it to our audience so they both understand. The first two Tips for Resolving Conflict are impractical in chat. I feel this document puts more emphasis on resolving conflict between you and another person, rather than being the mediator. I also want you to know I'm not an anarchist trying to tear apart every argument you make. I'm being so critical because I want to get the ball rolling back and forth so we cover a broad range of topics before the 2nd batch of Ambassadors are released.
The next batch will not be responding to these same exact prompts. Also, I am thinking about having people go through the first bit before their application is approved. It does not hurt to have users go through the CoC/TaC before the course, and it gives me another week to adjust things. Also, the question was how things can be applied here. Yes, chat is not an easy one to grapple with. There are plenty of other examples of where things can be applied as opposed to can't be.
Assignment 3 on OpenStudy
This is probably all I have got to add for this assignment.
@e.mccormick When is the next assignment going to be put up?
It's on Yammer already.
I don't see it. Let me check once more then. Thanks!
I guess humor adds insult to injury and makes matters worse. I, now, think it should be avoided.
The last assignment is hidden in the comments on the ambassadors' guide post.
@e.mccormick , I actually point out possible trouble areas and solutions. For example: "We can encourage users to reflect on what they've said, and the behavior of the antagonist. " "The best way to combat the first two issues is by clarifying the central conflict. We can then convey it to our audience so they both understand." And, "Again, this is often hard, if not impossible, to do in the online chatboxes. Problems need immediate addressing, and not responding can actually do more harm than done." - which is saying we should try to address problems immediately in the chatbox. I am saying what and where certain things are possible and appropriate, and trying to outline what works and what does not work.
I believe we both have a consensus on what is and is not acceptable, what works and what does not, etc...etc...etc... I'm trying to discuss the extremities of their usefulness. \(\textbf{ "Yes, chat is not an easy one to grapple with." }\) I agree, which is why I emphasized, "I Statements," "Feeling Statements," and just general experience with mediating when it comes to chatbox conflict. Another one I would like to discuss is located in the Psychology of Cyberspace. \[ \begin{array}l\color{blue}{\text{D}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{w}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{w}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{k}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{w}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{y}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{}}\end{array} \] When we, as Ambassadors are brought into a conflict that needs resolution, and the other person does not have conflict resolution experience, then it can actually do more harm than good. I feel Ambassadors should go to Global Interns, Moderators or other Ambassadors. It can be disastrous to encourage users to talk about it with other people. Those people they choose are likely in a close pool, and have unspoken grudges. They may make the situation more temperament. Triangular Conflict Theory suggest the best way to keep peace is by first defining violence. Which is a reason I am suggesting the pros and cons of each method. "Where are they most applicable? "What is the usefulness?" "When aren't they practical?" If person A goes to person B, person B may also have a grudge against person A. Which only escalates the situation. How do you feel about discussing situations with someone else? I feel they can prove effective when discussing it with someone who has a background in conflict resolution; or someone levied toward that degree of maturity. However, considering OpenStudy is mostly composed of teenagers with a temper, it may be a bad idea to ask them to discuss it with anyone else other than a staff member.
Not \(\textbf{ only }\) am I showing where we can help students and resolve conflict, but I am \(\textbf{ also }\) pointing out areas of possible conflict and methods we should avoid. It's all up for debate.
Exactly: not only. The question only asks for one of the things. Yes, there are lots of related topics. However, the assignment is specific videos and web pages and how those skills can be applied on OpenStudy. Not where the real trouble areas are, where to avoid using some tactics, etc. Simply, "how do you think you can use these types of communications skills to help reduce the size of conflicts you see on OpenStudy?"
Well, of course - I understand the rules crystalline. Not a single aspect that I did not comprehend. I've read every citation, source and video you've posted in this thread. I don't like giving generic arguments and responding to generic prompts, because quite frankly it bores me. In my last few posts, I actually brought up some good questions and solutions about discussing issues with other people, whether we personally do so or encourage users. \[ \begin{array}l\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{I}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{f}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{A}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{b}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{g}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{G}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{b}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{I}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{M}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\\\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{A}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{b}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{}}\end{array} \] \[ \begin{array}l\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{I}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{g}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{w}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{w}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{y}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{I}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{p}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{z}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{I}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{S}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{F}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{g}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\\\color{blue}{\text{S}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{,}}\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{j}}\color{blue}{\text{u}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{g}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{x}}\color{blue}{\text{p}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{r}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{w}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{d}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{g}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{w}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\\\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{m}}\color{blue}{\text{e}}\color{blue}{\text{s}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{h}}\color{blue}{\text{a}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{b}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{x}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{o}}\color{blue}{\text{n}}\color{blue}{\text{f}}\color{blue}{\text{l}}\color{blue}{\text{i}}\color{blue}{\text{c}}\color{blue}{\text{t}}\color{blue}{\text{.}}\color{blue}{\text{"}}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{ }}\color{blue}{\text{}}\end{array} \] I also asked you a question to see if you generally agreed or disagreed with what I am saying, which did not receive a reply. \[ \begin{array}l\color{black}{\text{"}}\color{black}{\text{H}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{y}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{f}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{b}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{d}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{c}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{g}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{u}}\color{black}{\text{a}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{w}}\color{black}{\text{i}}\color{black}{\text{t}}\color{black}{\text{h}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{m}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{o}}\color{black}{\text{n}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{ }}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{l}}\color{black}{\text{s}}\color{black}{\text{e}}\color{black}{\text{?}}\color{black}{\text{"}}\color{black}{\text{}}\end{array} \] Now, I want to hop over to one of the YouTube videos: Conflict Resolution Strategies • Avoiding: This is one method I would like to emphasize for the chatbox. It moves fast, a lot of stuff is said. In such a fast pace environment, it's better to change the topic and avoid it all together. Preetha has discussed this in the past to Ambassadors. • Conflicts tend to fester when ignored. Lets say we have a thread on OpenStudy, and two people are arguing vehemently. Mediators should try to reduce the size of the users on the thread to talk to the remaining users personally. Our \(\bf\Large\color{#00B4ff}{}\color{#7cc517}{}\color{}{}\color{#872af0}{~~Ⓐ}\color{#478903}{}\)'s grab their attention. This, to a degree, would fall under Competitive Resolution because of our rank and expertise. Now, the people involved are often arguing based off of their perception. As a mediator, we can be that "third division," to help give a clearer view and clarify what was meant. We should clarify what was said and collaboratively negotiate a solution. That is, we all give up something, whether it be an ,"I'm sorry," or, "I understand what I did." Conflicts are a learning experience. Leaving them alone will only allow them to fester later. I'd like to loop back around to humor. We both agreed that in certain situations, humor can be used as a tool of conflict resolution. For example, close groups of people like the Moderators and Ambassador in their respective Yammer section. Are there any more situations you can think of where humor would be appropriate? Even if you generally agree it's bad - there are circumstances.
Tomorrow makes 21 days (3 weeks.) After tomorrow, I will cease to respond to this thread. 2 - 3 weeks seems to be the rune-time for these threads.
Yes, it was supposed to be 1 to 2 weeks, but there have been finals in India, AP exams a few places, a few holidays in different parts of the world, and other issues. This caused some replies to be slower than hoped for, but it is not a big deal. As long as people notified us in advance, we were OK with all of that.
Well, I feel my presence here has run its course. Just a recap of what you and I covered. • Humor in language • Waiting before responding • Re-reading posts later • What does and does not work in the chatbox • Collaborative, Authoritative, and compromising negotiation. • Addressing posts now instead of later • "I statements," "Imagine statements," and "feeling statements." • Authoritative constructive belittlement • Address situations with someone else • "Only" statements • Ad-Hominems • Clarifying what was meant As always, I enjoyed having this constructive conversation with you @e.mccormick , and I hope you had a happy Easter.
@ParthKohli The "assume people mean well" is in the context of business or family conflicts. Lets take a little deeper look at what it says. There are also people that don't mean well. Let me give some examples. Former President Bush (the son,) stated on Leno that as President you must assume that what you are doing is right and go with it, otherwise you would go mad. While less intensive jobs don't require this, just about every politician means well. The context of "well" is what changes. I'll come back to this idea in a moment. When we step down from these extremes to say basic business dealings, most business people want success. That is the basic intent. They mean to do well in business. However, some things can run that off the tracks. If you look at the recent hosing issues in the USA, global economic downturn, etc. you see all sorts of things caused by people that went away from doing well into flat out pure greed. And if we go all the way down to a family fight, siblings might both want the same thing for their own selfish purposes. If two people want the one thing that can not be shared, well, then there is very little other than self interest involved! So how can we apply "assume people mean well" to all of these? Simple! Do not assume there is evil intent. Do not choose a side right from ground zero. You need to come at things more slowly, assuming that there is the possibility for negotiation. If you disagree with the "well" of a politician, it will not help to come charging at them. If you view all business deals as shady, you can't understand their position. If you see all fighting children as selfish brats, you leave no room to talk to them more openly. If you assume they mean well, you can approach each group more openly and try to curb the problem rather than cause it to be worse. Even with a troll, it is best to give them a chance not to be a troll. If they waste it, well, that is their choice. By assuming they mean well, you do not stoop to their levels.
I think I statements are a very important method of communication especially for ambassadors. Letting a user know what you think is wrong without directly accusing them will probably result in them respecting you and them discontinuing what they were doing wrong. Also, emoticons are important to show the tone of what is being said. Chatting online doesn't allow for body language or setting during communication and can result in things being interpreted the wrong way. Lastly, clarify. Clarifying assures people they understood what you were saying correctly. Many arguments arise from people not clarifying.
Hello there, This was a nice set of material to go through. In the first assets it teaches you how to deal with conflicts when you're the third side, which is what ambassadors often encounter in the chats when they have to deal with people arguing over some random matter. It also introduces different conflict management styles: + Competition, when the most important thing is to win the argument/make the other lose and forcing ones opinion as a best option. + Compromise (lose-lose situation) or finding a middle ground to solve the conflict. + Accommodation or giving in to the other party's point of you. + Collaboration (win-win situation) which is one of the best ways to resolve conflicts. Although it can take time, it offers a solution that can be satisfying for both parts. And finally + Avoidance, my personal favorite. When you feel that a discussion is heading into a conflict, avoid it. Unless it's absolutely necessary to have that argument. Ignoring the issue also gives you time to cool off and think about it. The last asset emphasizes on online conflicts especially when you're part of it. While ambassadors should generally not get involved in conflicts, it's useful to keep some stuff in mind if you do get involved in one. There's a lot of advice given in article like rereading the post, not responding right away... I prefer this one over all : "say something positive or don't say anything at all" this should keep you from getting into useless time-consuming arguments. The paper also gives some valid reasons as of why people get in conflicts online more than in real life like the absence of facial expressions and body language. Also the invisibility makes it easier for people to say things they would never say to someone's face. You'll never see a troll or a spammer doing his thing in real life because he'd get left out and rejected by the others. It's the anonymity that gives him power to do what he does. I would also like to thank @e.mccormick for all the effort he put into this. It must've taken hours to put together the training program. Best regards !

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question