[Christopher Halsey]

Greetings.

As you may be aware the role of Fleet Issues Secretary has recently been passed to myself and I think it fits quite well under the umbrella of Chief of Staff.

The Fleet Issues Secretary is a central point of contact that manages both the feedback given by members and member issues/complaints and it is an aspect of the second of these responsibilities that I would like to talk to you all about today.

I think we've got a very successful and friendly community in The United Federation of Planets. We are all here because we want to game and socialise in a fun environment, nobody wants to have a bad time and I don't think anyone wants to cause others to have a bad time. But from time to time one member will do something that another member will be unhappy about and it is really important that we deal with that correctly.

This is an area where I don't think any one person can just say 'this is how we should deal with these issues' this is a time when the community needs to think about what it wants. Now if someone clearly breaks the rules then it makes matters quite simple but what if someone is perhaps treading the line? What if someone does or says something that another member does not like but we can't establish whether or not it was meant to cause offence and does that even matter?

The way I see it there are two sides, a slightly extreme version of each would have one being an almost 'nanny state' practicing zero tolerance, if someone upsets someone then it is to be reported straight away and firm action is quickly taken. Now the other end of the spectrum would be one where people are 'treated as adults' where unless a matter involes the wider community or a breaking of our rules those involved are left to work on and resolve the problems themselves.

Being extremes neither of these systems are likely to be perfect. The first would make it very difficult to say or do anything for fear someone might be unhappy about it, the second results in people being able to get away with more so long as they don't clearly break any rules.

So, I ask you, our community. What does the community want?

As members of our community how would you have our community deal with what (to make it easier to refer to) we shall call 'anti-social' behaviour, the act of doing or saying something that perhaps doesn't break our rules yet makes another member unhappy?

[Grace Pryde]

I know Chris you say that it may not break the rules. But I also believe that there is also the spirit of the rules/code of conduct. Treat your fellow members with respect, treat them the way you would wish to be treated.

I understand how hard it can be to police such infractions and it's a case of what was implied and what was inferred. All I can say is I believe that if something caused offence, then it doesn't really matter whether it was intended or not. Sometimes we all do or say something we didn't believe would cause offence but sometimes it doesn't matter what you mean to do but what you actually do.

That said, I would hope that if anyone did cause an offence, that they would understand why something they said would cause offence when spoken to about it. I personally try and take everyone at face value (whether rightly or wrongly) and as a one off, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that by highlighting the incident, that they would try and be more aware and conscious of how people may interpret comments. If it was a recurring trend however, then it may be that it may need to be escalated. Beyond that I'm not sure...maybe that could just be an official warning.

[Christopher Halsey]

Thanks for your feedback Grace, you made a couple of comments that I would really like to pick up on.

I will appologise now for the length of my post but I find this sort of thing fascinating its like a puzzle really.

Treat your fellow members with respect, treat them the way you would wish to be treated.

This is one of those areas where things can become a little tricky, what if I treat someone in a way I would like to be treated but that is not how they wish to be treated and in doing so they were not happy?

Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be to treat members as we believe they would wish to be treated since how you wish to be treated may well differ from how they would wish to be treated but with that in mind is there then some onus on the second member to make it clear to the first in what manner they wish to be treated?

I understand how hard it can be to police such infractions and it's a case of what was implied and what was inferred. All I can say is I believe that if something caused offence, then it doesn't really matter whether it was intended or not. Sometimes we all do or say something we didn't believe would cause offence but sometimes it doesn't matter what you mean to do but what you actually do.

If one member said or did something that caused offence to another member, should them taking offence where it may not have been intended to be offensive mean that the first member is definately in the wrong or should it be for someone to decide whether or not what they did or said was wrong regardless of whether or not any offence was caused?

For example what if I were to say that your post in this topic offended me (don't worry it didn't lol just an example). Now you have in my opinion clearly not said anything that anyone could feel caused offence, but going back to the example if I say it caused offence does that mean I am right to expect something to be done about it? Now obviously that example is a little bit silly as noone would report a post you made like your last one for causing offence but I think it does highlight that we could find ourselves in a situation where someone feels offended and wants something done where really to everyone else or perhaps the majority of other people there wasn't anything said that we believe should have caused offence, in that situation it would probably make sense to explain that and take no further action but hang on, if we do that we are telling someone how they feel and surely the best person to know how they feel is them.

Its a bit like that Voyager episode 'Repentance' when Neelix is talking to Joleg about the Nygean legal system. Neelix talks about a Judge or Jury deciding on sentencing, in Nygean law the victim or family of the victim has the final say in sentencing. Neelix thinks this is unfair, that someone independant should decide as they are impartial, Joleg counters with the example of what would happen if he stole Neelix's Kadis-kot board, to someone impartial it might just be a game board of little value but to Neelix it might hold far greater value so how can someone impartial put a price on someone elses loss?

I see it as a similar conundrum here. If someone is offended by something and the intent may not have been to cause offence is it for the offended party to say that someone was definately in the wrong or is it for someone else to decide?

On the one hand surely the victim is the person who is best to gauge whether or not someone has offended them but on the other would we run the risk of not being able to give constructive feedback or express unhappiness with someone what so ever? Do we want to be at either extreme and if instead we want a happy medium where do we draw that line?

Where this can get even more confusing is when offence may be caused indirectly, say for example I make a remark about another member being unproductive or lazy for example and the person or persons I make the remark in front of pass that on to the member in question and they are offended by it. Now in such a situation the first person (who in the example above was me) might have been making a perfectly legitimate observation backed up by solid reasoning or they may have meant it as an insult. The fact that what is passed on to the target of the comment by someone else rather than directly might also impact how the victim feels about what has been said, delivered one way they could see the above comment as being genuine constructive criticism, if delivered another way they could see the above comment as a hurtful attack upon them.

To make things even more complex what if the comments were made outside of {UFP} control or influence such as over the phone or via an instant messenger, not only might this make it difficult or impossible to provide evidence but if there is a strong challenge as to whether it had anything to do with {UFP} and was instead a private conversation by two people exercising free speech whilst not acting in their capacity of {UFP} members do we have any right to intervene at any level?

I don't think we have any members that want to offend each other, the number of issues we get between members is extremely low for a group this size but I really am keen to get feedback on how people want this sort of thing dealt with if and when it does occur. I'm not expecting any one person to be able to answer these questions if someone can then they are truely amazing, I am just keen to see what the majority of people's views are about this sort of thing because it can be very tricky. Obviously we want to do the right thing and I think in the absence of a clearly defined right way of dealing with this sort of thing it makes sense to define the right thing as what the majority of the membership want.

[Ninja]

First of all it is impossible to cover all situations and to create a utopia where everyone is happy and get's along all the time. It is ultimately a futile act to continually talk about the "what ifs". It goes without saying that pretty much everyone here knows what constitutes "respectable and decent" behavior. If a conduct is done outside of the UFP, a private conversation where there's no evidence or circumstantial evidence then it's really not anything UFP should have jurisdiction over. Private is private. Resolution of conflict is less about proving what happened, or who did what, or who was wrong and who was right as it is more about WHY.

1. I think first and foremost it has to be understood that we are all adults here and should be able to resolve issues and discuss them.
2. Misunderstandings and miscommunications happen.
3. Resolution has to be between the parties directly involved with a possible mediator. It has to be discussed calmly and in the open (after a cool down period)
4. Clear cut infractions (depending on severity) should have consequences with minor ones having a "3 strikes" based system.
5. Deliberate, and malicious intent along with gross misconduct should be dealt with severely.
6. We are all here because we want to be and were invited. It is a privilege not a right.
7. A simple system of escalation whereby two or more individuals who cannot resolve things after trying to talk to each can request a mediator and someone to help moderate a discussion/compromise.

[Silynn]

I agree with Grace on that we follow the general guidelines of "Respect" (it is part of the Entrance Exam) when dealing with one another in the community. Also, what was said about 'intent', I agree with. A person may say something that offends someone. But was their intent to offend someone? Was their comment taken out of context?

Everyone follows some basic rule when they deal with others in this Digital Medium. Be it taking things at Face Value, With a Grain of Salt, or just developing "Thicker Skin".

My basic rule is would I act and talk like that to my parents or sister/brother (whom I respect and cherish dearly).

In today's world, the Digital Medium is quite profound. Communication in its own right is complex. Moving that to the Digital Medium adds several new layers of complexity to simple and basic communication. Without a 'human' reference sitting across from you, you can't see the facial expressions or even gauge the inflections in tone. Everything is pretty much... dependent on how the receiver perceives you and how they interpret what you said.

Add to that other issues such as untimely responses (perhaps the person is afk & you didn't know or even the line of text you typed got pushed way out of the window by loads of "zone chat" spam or even combat spam), language barriers (English might not be a person's primary language), culture, typing speed/familiarity, current mood, and numerous other factors.

But seriously, I don't think anyone wants to have to police everything. It will drain you. I was an officer in a wow raiding guild. Dealing with complaints about loot drops going to person X instead of person Y or how come this person is allowed to attend when their DPS numbers are sub-par, etc got old fast. When you want to play a game and instead spend the next hour or two sorting out a spat between two players... you often ask yourself, "Why do I even login?"

The Bottom Line… MMOs are high social affairs, but one thing people often overlook is that when they finally leave the game, they can only take two things with them. It isn’t their piles of pixalized gold or elite purple gear. It is memories and friendships. Memories are your own and the Terms of Service or User Agreements can never take those from you. Friendships form and can last quite a long time. Both those things are what make MMOs popular in my book.

[Grace Pryde]

Chris, you're making me engage my brain on a day when it is very much in need of a refurb!!

Thanks for your feedback Grace, you made a couple of comments that I would really like to pick up on.

I will apologise now for the length of my post but I find this sort of thing fascinating its like a puzzle really.
This is one of those areas where things can become a little tricky, what if I treat someone in a way I would like to be treated but that is not how they wish to be treated and in doing so they were not happy?
Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be to treat members as we believe they would wish to be treated since how you wish to be treated may well differ from how they would wish to be treated but with that in mind is there then some onus on the second member to make it clear to the first in what manner they wish to be treated?

You're absolutely right. I suppose what I tried to get at is that there are rules which reside in the CoC. And then there is the spirit of the rules. Maybe these out to be put somewhere like but you’re right. I believe there are some core tenants of the {UFP} CoC which are implied rather than stated. It’s about etiquette.

If one member said or did something that caused offence to another member, should them taking offence where it may not have been intended to be offensive mean that the first member is definitely in the wrong or should it be for someone to decide whether or not what they did or said was wrong regardless of whether or not any offence was caused?

I’m more than happy to concede that in the vast majority of cases, people don’t mean to cause harm but it’s very much apart of life that we do on occasion. I will also concede that as the fleet grows, there will always be issues and it comes with the territory.

I think things get more complicated when viewing how to handle the issue. As an isolated issue, I would hope a private chat is sufficient and I would hope that other factors would play their part in determining the seriousness of the issue.

For example what if I were to say that your post in this topic offended me (don't worry it didn't lol just an example). Now you have in my opinion clearly not said anything that anyone could feel caused offence, but going back to the example if I say it caused offence does that mean I am right to expect something to be done about it? Now obviously that example is a little bit silly as no one would report a post you made like your last one for causing offence but I think it does highlight that we could find ourselves in a situation where someone feels offended and wants something done where really to everyone else or perhaps the majority of other people there wasn't anything said that we believe should have caused offence, in that situation it would probably make sense to explain that and take no further action but hang on, if we do that we are telling someone how they feel and surely the best person to know how they feel is them.

I see it as a similar conundrum here. If someone is offended by something and the intent may not have been to cause offence is it for the offended party to say that someone was definitely in the wrong or is it for someone else to decide?

On the one hand surely the victim is the person who is best to gauge whether or not someone has offended them but on the other would we run the risk of not being able to give constructive feedback or express unhappiness with someone what so ever? Do we want to be at either extreme and if instead we want a happy medium where do we draw that line?

I take a view that it’s not necessarily about right or wrong. It’s about whether an offence was taken and that to me is more black or white and something I can work with. I take your argument and I agree but that’s why I feel that by placing no blame, it becomes just constructive feedback.

I’ll give an example of what I mean (even though I’m sure you get where I’m coming from already) but I’m a project manager by day. I manage project and programme plans and ensure that those who are working for me are completing each task on time and to the specified quality level. When something goes wrong, I don’t blame anyone but I do investigate and reach out to all parties involved as part of any wash up activities. The result is a report which I present up to the project or programme board which highlights what went wrong and what actions should have been taken which would have mitigated the issue. At no point is blame laid at anyone’s door. To apply my example to the topic at hand, I believe that feedback, a private chat, doesn’t have to imply wrongdoing or guilt. A polite suggestion though to be more aware or conscious of what they are saying…

Where this can get even more confusing is when offence may be caused indirectly, say for example I make a remark about another member being unproductive or lazy for example and the person or persons I make the remark in front of pass that on to the member in question and they are offended by it. Now in such a situation the first person (who in the example above was me) might have been making a perfectly legitimate observation backed up by solid reasoning or they may have meant it as an insult. The fact that what is passed on to the target of the comment by someone else rather than directly might also impact how the victim feels about what has been said, delivered one way they could see the above comment as being genuine constructive criticism, if delivered another way they could see the above comment as a hurtful attack upon them.

I don’t believe you can ever legislate for every eventuality. In more complex examples, there has to be a certain amount of human judgement and they have to be taken on a case by case basis. But to reply to your example above, I personally believe that making such a remark as someone is lazy is inappropriate. I would go so far as to say that whether there was solid reasoning or not, it should not be aired in public. If someone has a personal issue or feedback they wish to provide on someone, then where {UFP} stands out, is that it has a very clear chain of command. It should be obvious about who to go to.

To mimic you slightly :p, to make it more complex further is where the comment is made but it is a joke. I always distinguish jokes with a smiley i.e. :p but this time I didn’t. Someone takes offence. There has to be some kind of judgement based on previous behaviour. We all enjoy (or most of us) some banter. But there has to be some judgement made by everyone as to whether the intended target of that banter would appreciate it. Now I know I can make a comment about seeing the USS Glasgow in more than 2 pieces because I often have a spot of banter with Dodgers. Would I do so with someone I don’t know as well? No I wouldn’t until I’d built up that relationship.

To make things even more complex what if the comments were made outside of {UFP} control or influence such as over the phone or via an instant messenger, not only might this make it difficult or impossible to provide evidence but if there is a strong challenge as to whether it had anything to do with {UFP} and was instead a private conversation by two people exercising free speech whilst not acting in their capacity of {UFP} members do we have any right to intervene at any level?

See I see this as easy. You can’t and nor should you, police everything. If I am talking to Dodgers outside {UFP} as an extension of our friendship then I see it as being something that I ought to deal with Dodgers on my own. In all fairness, the {UFP} membership is not immature and I don’t have a UFP to go to every time someone offends me, no matter how slight that offence. But if it would impact on the {UFP} or either of our gameplays, it might be worth highlighting it to say the STO CO/XO.

I don't think we have any members that want to offend each other, the number of issues we get between members is extremely low for a group this size but I really am keen to get feedback on how people want this sort of thing dealt with if and when it does occur. I'm not expecting any one person to be able to answer these questions if someone can then they are truly amazing, I am just keen to see what the majority of people's views are about this sort of thing because it can be very tricky. Obviously we want to do the right thing and I think in the absence of a clearly defined right way of dealing with this sort of thing it makes sense to define the right thing as what the majority of the membership want.

The only thing I can suggest is maybe an academy course on moral behaviour. It should be unnecessary but it would possibly highlight areas which are possibly ambiguous or at least shows what behaviour the {UFP} expects of its members. It could possibly sit alongside the introduction course. I’ll admit it’s an imperfect answer but it’s an imperfect world. :p

[Stormy]

I'd like to weigh in on this as well, and make a point which has yet to be brought up.
While members should never intentionally offend another member, or anyone else for that matter, it will happen on occasion. The first step in a resolution would be to determine if the offense was intentional or not. If the offense would be deemed benign to a majority of people, it is possible the one offended is acting too sensitive. It is easy to point a finger at the offender, but it is not always their fault. We all know people who take things to the extreme (both ways) and how difficult it is to deal with someone who is overly sensitive. If we are to be a close-knit unit, the only logical option is to meet in the middle. Those who tend to be a little harsh must learn to tread a little softer and those who wear their heart on their sleeve must tuck it into a pocket.

As far as settling issues between themselves, this is well and good as long as it doesn't develop into hostile feelings. Members should be given the opportunity to solve problems without fleet intervention via messaging or chat if it is possible. In cases where an honest effort is made and no resolution is found, I believe it would be wise to have mediators who can step in and calmly resolve the problem.

[Soundwave]

1. I think first and foremost it has to be understood that we are all adults here and should be able to resolve issues and discuss them.
2. Misunderstandings and miscommunications happen.
3. Resolution has to be between the parties directly involved with a possible mediator. It has to be discussed calmly and in the open (after a cool down period)
4. Clear cut infractions (depending on severity) should have consequences with minor ones having a "3 strikes" based system.
5. Deliberate, and malicious intent along with gross misconduct should be dealt with severely.
6. We are all here because we want to be and were invited. It is a privilege not a right.
7. A simple system of escalation whereby two or more individuals who cannot resolve things after trying to talk to each can request a mediator and someone to help moderate a discussion/compromise.

As I think Ninja has highlighted here, this is a very complex issue. One that can only really be solved on a case-by-case basis. I like the idea of a system of escalation - for instance at school when I was a kid we had a bullying policy that increased with levels depending on the severity of the situation. Level 1 was a lunch-time detention, the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Level 5 was suspension, with possible expulsion.

And like yourself Chris, I find these kind of topics very interesting (I'm a psychologist, a career maybe you should consider? :emoticon_ShiftyEyes). It'll be interesting to see how our different cultures can come to an agreement on this and what everyones points of view are, since we have a global membership.

Whatever we decide on I think we should only have one person to be the mediator/judge/jury/executioner to maintain consistency.

[Christopher Halsey]

This is getting to the stage now where I think it becomes all the more interesting and enoyable as we've got a few different people weighing in with their viewpoints and opinions. It is really quite fascinating.

Personally I think that basic conflict resolution is a skill that most people pick up quite early in life. If someone says or does something that you don't like you speak to them privately about it and explain to them why you aren't happy. Without this feedback someone might well think their actions are acceptable, if noone is challenging them on their behaviour then you can't lay the blame soley at their door if they haven't been given any feedback.

I think a common issue can be that to avoid conflict people avoid challenging unacceptable behaviour, it is easier in the short term to bury your head in the sand and hope that either someone else takes care of it or the person 'in the wrong' behaves better. I also think that when people do challenge unacceptable behaviour they fall in to the trap of being negative rather than giving constructive feedback, now judging from the responses in this thread thus far I think everyone in here has a clear understanding of the difference but to summarise briefly for anyone else constructive feedback or constructive criticism isn't a bad thing because you are trying to achieve a positive outcome in a constructive manner, if like in the example I gave earlier someone calls someone lazy it might be accurate but it isn't constructive, being constructive involves being a lot more specific than giving someone a label, it is about specifically identifying what it is that someone has done and working with them on ways to put things right and move forward.

As Ninja said why is at the very heart of the matter, if someone upsets someone there is a reason for it and if you can identify that reason then it becomes considerably easier to tackle the issue. How can you solve a problem that you can't understand? Short answer, not easily.

Silynn makes a very good point about context. In an online interaction like these forums or on TeamSpeak you have a lot less to go on. What is it they say about how much of communication is actually verbal when compared to body language? We miss out on a big part of what it is people are communicating to us which makes it very easy to get the wrong impression. Grace Pryde mentioned about using emotes to make it clear when a joke was being made and thats a good point, if you say something as a joke that someone takes seriously then how they react could be completely different to how you intended.

I love the quote that Stormy came out with. "Those who tend to be a little harsh must learn to tread a little softer and those who wear their heart on their sleeve must tuck it into a pocket." how perfectly fitting is that for a lot of issues between people?

As for what Soundwave says I agree with his assessment of how Ninja talks of dealing with this sort of situation. I see that sort of clear cut system as being very attractive it is nice to have that framework that everyone can see and easily understand that outlines where we go with things, its nice to have structure so everyone has a clear understanding and expectation but of course within a system that still allows flexibility where the human element is not removed.

Chris, you're making me engage my brain on a day when it is very much in need of a refurb!!

You have to admit that its been quite interesting though, surely that makes it all worthwhile

[Grace Pryde]

Oh I agree it is interesting and you've highlighted some great points made by everyone. I do believe though that conflict resolution/mediation...it's an imperfect science. There are many shades of grey and all we can do is go with our best judgement. If I made a comment that someone thought inappropriate, I would hope that I come across approachable enough that they would have a word with me.

In interviews I always state that I am able to not just build but maintain relationships (it's just one of those stock interview things you say..) but maintaining relationships is an important skill and it's very much a part of life that little niggles occur but I'd hope that the incident would actually bring me closer together with the other person and would better my understanding of them.

[Christopher Halsey]

Oh I agree it is interesting and you've highlighted some great points made by everyone. I do believe though that conflict resolution/mediation...it's an imperfect science. There are many shades of grey and all we can do is go with our best judgement. If I made a comment that someone thought inappropriate, I would hope that I come across approachable enough that they would have a word with me.

In interviews I always state that I am able to not just build but maintain relationships (it's just one of those stock interview things you say..) but maintaining relationships is an important skill and it's very much a part of life that little niggles occur but I'd hope that the incident would actually bring me closer together with the other person and would better my understanding of them.

Very nicely summed up.

As a few people have said its definately an impefect science, if there were some magical golden rule that sorted out any and all problems the world would be an unthinkably different place, all we can do is try out best at every opportunity given and hope that our combined knowledge, will, sense and empathy will be enough to get the best outcome we can. It doesn't always happen, in this world it simply can't so we just have to do our best and hope.

Building and maintaining relationships isn't always easy and it is definately a two way street, this is why I think that a lot of the time people are too quick to blame someone for doing or saying something wrong when they actually need to understand that in many cases they have a part to play, things are seldom purely one sided. Linking back to what I just said in my previous paragraph its about everyone involved giving it their best efforts.

If I made a comment that someone thought inappropriate, I would hope that I come across approachable enough that they would have a word with me.

I agree with everything you have said but this sentance in particular I just want to draw more attention to and again sort of links in to my point about everyone having a role to play. For me I find it really annoying if someone has an issue with me that they don't feel comfortable enough to speak to me about, I see it as a failing on my point if people get the impression that they can't come and talk to me about an issue they might have.

[Ninja]

I feel it should point out that the Starfleet Academy Command Course has some good ideas on CR (conflict resolution) and states thus: I would also point out that there are a lot of similar points that are discussed in real life corporate management training sessions.

DEALING WITH DISAGREEMENTS

Everyone has disagreements. Learning how to deal with them effectively will help you resolve them quicker and easier.

It is important to be assertive when in a disagreement. You can't let someone walk all over you but neither can you get worked up and react aggressively. Make sure you have read 'Being Assertive' for help with this.

Take your time. A very simple little tip this one. Whenever dealing with an issue don't allow yourself to be rushed, take your time. Just because something is important doesn't mean it is urgent. Make sure you have time to think clearly about something before taking action. The longer you wait the more objective you are likely to be.

Where possible or appropriate try to have someone else there you will feel more comfortable with support and they may be able to help by looking at things from a different angle and may have ideas on how to resolve the problem that you or the person you are dealing with did not think of.

Incidents can often be dealt with a lot easier if everyone thinks about how they put what they want to say so communicate clearly. Try to use short sentances and paragraphs to help those you are talking to, the longer you make your sentances the more likely they are to miss something important or miss-interprete what you say.

When dealing with a complex issue don't try and address every aspect of it at once. Break it up in to smaller pieces (for example if challenging or responding to what someone else has said try to address each element of what they have said seperately) and only move on when you have got your point across, if the two of you can't agree then 'table' or 'park' the specific point and come back to it later (remember take your time).

When someone says something to you, read it, think about it then try and briefly communicate back what they have said. This helps you to ensure you understand what they have said and ensures they know you understand what they have said.

Put yourself in the person you are dealing with's shoes. If you were them how might you see the situation? What might you want out of the situation? What might you be prepared to conceed? By understanding their side of things you can understand how they will react to you which helps you pick a course of action. You may see them in the wrong and assume they know they are in the wrong, on the flipside they most likely think the same about you. Show you understand their point and their situation and treat them as you would want to be treated. Showing a little empathy can help diffuse tense situations.

Most disagreements and issues are very simple but we over-complicate them. Think of an issue like a math formula. What you want, what they want and a solution. By looking at things this way you can often create a solution that gets both parties what they want.

You want a solution, the other party wants a solution. Acting like a 'fan boy' won't help you reach your solution. As above, identify what you both want and then try and find solutions, ultimately a solution will suit both parties so think of as many options as you can (whether they favour you or not) then when you have a list of solutions look for the best ones for everyone.

Try not to hold a grudge against any person. Try to forgive them and bear in mind that it is not realistic to just expect someone to do and act as you want them to. They have their own agenda as do you and you are both trying to reach the best outcome for yourselves.

If a solution might 'cost' you something weigh up the cost against the gains of resolving the issue. It might just be worth it.

Just because you are dealing with a serious thing doesn't mean you can't lighten the situation. Try to be humorous or witty when talking to an offending person. The smiles and laughter you would cause could release the tensions. Don’t be sarcastic though it may well sound witty to you but it will not sound funny to the person you are talking to. If you can make them relax then they will stop seeing you as a rival and see you as someone to deal with and will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say.

Perhaps the most important point here. It sounds difficult especially in an adversarial environment but really it is surprisingly easy to keep your calm even if the person(s) you are dealing with can't. I am no phycologist but I do have a few tips that I use or have helped others with.

If someone gets angry explain that you are trying to help them, clearly and simply explain the available options (you may need to repeat). Suggest that they take some time out to calm down, if they don't think they are angry then state that you wish to take a break for a few minutes, this will give them the time to cool down.

[Christopher Halsey]

I'm glad you like the content in the Command Course relating to conflict resolution. Do you think that is something that would be of benefit if it were accessable to everyone?

[Silynn]

I'm glad you like the content in the Command Course relating to conflict resolution. Do you think that is something that would be of benefit if it were accessible to everyone?

It is a great course, but it is also heavy reading. Great reading, but it is involved.

[Christopher Halsey]

It is a great course, but it is also heavy reading. Great reading, but it is involved.

And there I was thinking I had done a good job of a quick crash course on the subject its definately shorter than the stuff I try to get SFC and SFHQ to read although they have developed an effective counter... simply not reading it

Do you think if it were re-written or shortened then there might be value in it being available to everyone?