# Conflict Management: Keeping Private Conflicts off the Internet.



## Cruentus (Nov 6, 2003)

I hope that I am not overstepping my boundaries by posting this thread. I am not attempting to rehash arguments on previous threads that have been ongoing, locked, or thrown out. It was good that certain threads were locked or thrown out, however, the unfortunate thing is dismantling the threads doesnt resolve the conflict. The same problems that have been occurring recently are bound to resurface, unless we can come up with some sort of conclusion. An interesting question was posed by someone in another thread: Just wondering...what is it going to take to resolve the issue?
I think that the first part of the answer lies in defining some conflict management styles. I will do that here. The next part, I think, involves defining some simple rules that will keep ongoing arguments or feuds away from the public eye. A simple argument that can be resolved through communication is good to have on a talk forum, but if there is an ongoing feud between 2 parties, it doesnt belong on the Internet, period. However, situations occur when elements of an ongoing feud end up in the public eye where it doesnt belong. So, after defining some conflict management styles, I will attempt to define some ways of keeping arguments that dont belong on the Internet away from the Internet.
In every situation we are responsible for our actions. Conflict situations offer each of us an opportunity to choose a style for responding to the conflict. The key to effective conflict prevention and management is to choose the conflict management style appropriate for the conflict. Most of us have a favorite style that we use in conflict situations, but we are all capable of choosing a different style when it is appropriate.
*Cooperative Problem Solving*
Choosing a cooperative problem-solving style enables people to work together so everyone can win. Using this style, people try to find a solution that will help everyone meet their interests and help everyone maintain a good relationship.
*Competing*
Choosing a competitive style means that a person is putting his/her interest before anyone else's interests. In fact, sometimes people who use the competitive style try so hard to get what they want that they ruin friendships.
*Compromising*
People choose a compromising style when it is important for them to satisfy some of their interests, but not all of them. People who compromise are likely to say, "let's split the difference" or "something is better than nothing."
*Avoiding*
People who chose the avoiding style do not get involved in a conflict. A person choosing the avoiding style might say "you decide and leave me out of it."
* Accommodating *
People who choose an accommodating style put their interests last and let others have what they want. Many times these people believe that keeping a good friendship is more important than anything else.
*Which Style to use?* 
Which style one should adapt will depend on the circumstance, the environment, and the parties involved. There is no one correct way that fits every conflict. The key is, picking the right method given the circumstance. One thing to remember is that we are not talking about a friendly argument or disagreement here; we are talking about a conflict. Since this is the case, it is important to recognize that the goal is not to win the conflict, the goal is to come up with a solution that all parties are happy with.
Through accurate communication, most conflicts can be resolved. There are certain conflict resolution methods that are not compatible with each other, however. The combination of the 2 styles will only lead into a prolonged conflict rather then a resolution. Here are some incompatible strategies:
* Competing VS. Competing: * If both sides are unwilling to take a different stance, and both are determines to beat the other party, then most likely nothing will be resolved. Most likely both parties will continue to beat on each other, with no clear winner. Even if one side is in the right, and successfully beats the other into the ground, there most likely will be hurt feelings on both sides, and grudges from both the loser and winner. These grudges will only resurface later, causing more conflict. The only solution to this problem is one of the parties has to concede to taking on a different method. If one party decides to be accommodating, then the issue can be resolved. If both parties decide to compromise or use cooperative problem solving, then the issue can also be resolved in a successful manner.
* Competing VS. Any other Method:* If you decide to take on the competitive stance, it should only be because your are in immediate danger, or every other avenue had been used, and this is a last resort. Competing will only end in your favor one way, when the other party takes on the accommodating or avoiding role. When and if this does happened, there is almost no hope in maintaining a friendship or relationship with the other party. So, if you take on the Competing role, you must be prepared to reverse roles into a compromising or cooperative problem solving role immediately if the other party is open. If you remain competitive until the end, you must be sure that this was the only solution available. You must also be sure that there is not hope for a friendship with the opposite party. You must also have accepted the fact that by taking this stance, the conflict may NEVER actually be resolved. This is the riskiest stance to take, so one must be careful when considering a competitive position.
* Avoiding VS. Avoiding:* If 2 parties have a disagreement, but both are avoiding, then nothing will solve the disagreement. The 2 parties can live in harmony like this for some time, but what occurs is a lack of communication on the issue. This can lead to misunderstandings that can cause a blow up later on, with both parties not fully understanding the other. The best way to avoid this is to take the Cooperative Problem Solving approach, to come to a better understanding so future problems wont occur.
*Avoiding VS. Anything accept Competing:* Avoiding may be a good stance to take if someone is relentlessly taking a competitive stance, and you have no desire to entertain them in a conflict. It is also good if youre a third party, and you dont want to get involved in someone elses conflict. Avoiding is not always good in the other circumstances, however. If the conflict exists, then avoiding the issue only prolongs the conflict. If someone is trying to compromise of cooperatively solve the problem that they know exists, but youve been avoiding, then avoiding will only prolong or perhaps escalate the problem. The other party could become frustrated with your avoidance, seeing it as passive aggressive behavior, and they could escalate to a competitive stance. So one must be careful with avoidance, making sure that it is the right strategy, otherwise one may get much more of a conflict then what they bargained for. 
Other combinations that almost require both parties to take the same stance are Compromising Vs. Compromising and Cooperative Problem Solving Vs. Cooperative Problem Solving. You cant Compromise is the other side isnt willing to compromise, and you cant Cooperatively solve a problem if the other side isnt being cooperative. These are obviously the most advantageous stances to take, but both sides must be willing to take this stance.
One method that seems too be compatible with everything is accommodation. If you put their needs first, then this most likely will resolve any and all conflicts. The problem with this stance is that you most likely will not get what you want. So this is a good stance to take if your not very passionate about the subject, or if your biggest concern is for the needs of the other party over yours. If you have needs that must be met, however, then this stance will not be good for you in the conflict.
The key to successful conflict resolution is for both parties to COMMUNICATE, and find a common ground to find a way to resolve the issue. By both parties finding the appropriate method to take through the open communication lines, the conflict may be resolved in a timely fashion.
* Keeping ongoing Conflicts off the Internet. *
Now, some conflicts are simply ongoing. It takes 2 parties to have a conflict, but it also takes 2 parties to resolve a conflict. If one or both parties are continuously uncooperative, then the conflict will never be truly resolved. If a conflict is never going to be resolved between 2 parties, then how do we keep the ongoing feud off the Internet? Here are some easy steps to follow:
1.	This is the easiest, and really encompasses all 10 rules. Both parties refrain from bringing it on the Internet. If it is a private conflict, keep it private. 
2.	Dont make biased assessments or remarks about the other party because of your conflict. 
3.	Dont send other people to take shots at the other party for you. 
4.	Dont start arguments with others who may be affiliated with the other party just for the sake of getting too the other party. 
5.	Dont post up public messages with the guise that this is a private message between so-and-so and I, so I ask that only so-and-so addresses the issue. Its not a private message or a private argument if it is on a public forum. Once an argument is taken to a public forum, it is fair game for anyone; dont expect it to be anything different just because you say so. 
6.	Dont expect that if something happens offline between you and the other party, that if you mention the event or situation where the occurrence took place that the other party wont bring up the situation online. This one is difficult to explain, so Ill use an example: Lets say that I host a party, and I invite a bunch of people, including someone Ive been feuding with. Then lets say that I spike the persons drink I have been feuding with, I take photographs of naked women around him while he is unconscious and e-mail the pictures to his wife, and I drop him off at the doorstep of his mother-in-laws house with no pants on. Now, a week later, lets say that I get online and ask, Hey how was that party that I threw: Lets here some reviews! Guess what, Id better expect the person I have been feuding with to get online and tell everyone about the crappy time that they had at my party. I cant counter with hey that incident where I spiked your drink is between us, and had nothing to do with the general party! That would be nonsense. So, in other words, rule #6 basically means that if your away from the internet, like at a MARTIAL ARTS EVENT that you KNOW is going to end up on line with event reviews and such, THEN YOUD BETTER BE ON YOUR BEST BEHAVIOR. If your not on your best behavior, and a conflict occurs and ends up on the internet, the ITS YOUR FAULT, not the other parties.
7.	Dont rebuke other bystanders for putting there input on an issue that was brought up on a public forum. If you dont want people to comment on an issue, then DONT PUT IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE ANYONE CAN COMMENT!
8.	Dont play games on the Internet. Dont use the net as a vehicle to stage situations and occurrences for the sole purpose of hurting or one-uping the other party. If you truly want to keep the feud off the net, then dont use the net as a tool to aid you in your feud. 
9.	If the other party starts something on the Internet, dont try to finish it. Just ignore it, or dissipate it as best as you can. The other party may not let you dissipate the issue without them trying to make you look bad. If this is the case, then you have no choice but to handle the argument accordingly. But if they give you an avenue to dissipate the conflict, take it.
10.	If you inadvertently or accidentally start something, then apologize. You started it, so you can end it with an apology, and advise that if anyone wants to discuss the issue in private, they can. If you make the mistake, be the bigger person and just admit it.

All the above rules evolve around one issue: Keep the conflict off the Internet! If you want to keep the conflict off the Internet, then just simply do so. It really isnt that difficult.
So, for those of you who truly dont want to see ongoing feuds continue on this forum, now you have guidelines to go by.


----------



## Tapps (Nov 7, 2003)

I dunno,

A good pissin' match can be wildly entertaining!

And you Pauley have given me lots of amusement here !

    

Seriously

You're right !  People say things on the internet that they wouldn't dream of saying face to face.

Some old fashion courtesy can go a long way.

Paul from Buffalo.

:soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox: :soapbox:


----------



## Datu Tim Hartman (Nov 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Tapps _
> *I dunno,
> 
> A good pissin' match can be wildly entertaining!
> ...




Hey , call me on my cell when you get a chance.

Tim
432-0600
:asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 7, 2003)

> And you Pauley have given me lots of amusement here !



Glad I made at least one person laugh!


----------



## Mathusula2 (Nov 9, 2003)

I must admit... I truly agree with Buffalo Paul.  The entertainment value of this recent flare-up has been outstanding, to say the least.  I'm watching that thread like a hawk for the same reasons that I'm looking forward to sit down in front of the TV and root for "Stone Cold" Steve Austin in the WWE!! opcorn: 

For Michigan Paul... keep fighting the good fight!

Back to Buffalo Paul... hey man!  Where have you been?  We miss you up at the school!

:cheers:


----------



## Tapps (Nov 14, 2003)

Dude.... life happens.


More details =:drinkbeer :drinkbeer :drinkbeer

 :cheers: :cheers: 

:armed: :armed: 

:boing1: 

:drink2tha

 :rtfm: :rtfm: %think%


----------

