Well said, RicHARD.

BTW, you seem plenty courageous to me. We just all have our different ways of speaking out and saying what we believe to be true.

If I am making a mistake, then I would prefer to have it spelled out. I received my first negative point last night, and I have no idea why. And, unless the person tells me why, I won't much care.

Debbie Gleason said:

If I am making a mistake, then I would prefer to have it spelled out. I received my first negative point last night, and I have no idea why. And, unless the person tells me why, I won't much care.

I kinda think this whole idea about correcting other's mistakes with negative points is very egotistical.

I don't think there is ANYTHING negative about you. AND others agree.

Love RicH

I tend to agree with Richard's position on not punishing.

Though I've been tempted :)

I've got two, both anonymous. No comment whatsoever, even though one came after the new system was set up.

It didnt tell me anything, obviously.

I also wondered if they simply didnt understand what I was saying.

I should probably regard it as Debbie suggests.

Michael,

I cannot imagine you receiving negative points. You have always seemed a clss act to me.

I think that there's been so much tension that a lot of people are kind of hairtrigger around here. Guess I'll wear mine like a badge of honor.

And RicHARD,

There's plenty negative about me. We all have our dark sides. Just that I go about trying to be the best Debbie I know how to be at any given moment. And, as for that link, I am so overwhelmed with gratitude that I cannot even begin to tell you what that means to me to be thus honored. I've never had such care and consideration shown me, at least not in a good, long time.

Debbie Gleason said:

There's plenty negative about me. We all have our dark sides. Just that I go about trying to be the best Debbie I know how to be at any given moment.

I think there is a measurable difference between being a "fucked-up, vulnerable, less than perfect" human being and choosing to be negative. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of the Lord!" so to speak. We have been raised in a fucked up culture. Excuse the language, but no other word adequately describes how bad human culture is today.

I am not talking about Amerikan culture anymore than I am European or Asian culture; I am talking about human culture that is today so death-oriented and not moving very fast or very far away from worshipping death. Human beings got to do something or we're not gonna be here. I'm talkin' about the kind of deliberate negative energy that forms the basis for so many people's daily outlook. You do not have that sort of negativity -- that I have seen.

And I'm pretty sure ALL those who were so happy about you being gifted and honored feel at least partially the same. RicH

Thanks for the distinction. With that, I will own up to my neuroses an foibles, nothing more nothing less.

Interesting that you talk about a death oriented culture. I more see that this is a youth culture. I suppose, though, in a certain sense, that's just the other side of the coin. Die young and leave a beautiful corpse. We dishonor our old folks. We shuffle them off. We don't honor their memories. We don't listen to their stories. We don't pay attention to their experience. First we dress up to look older. Then, when we're older, we take measures to look younger. All is vanity, sayeth the Preacher. And he is right.

As for negative energy, I try to neither give it nor receive it. If I feel the energy is too negative, I disappear. Otherwise, I absorb it.

I've said elsewhere that I figure if you get no negs, your probably not trying hard enough ;-), but then I just looked and RicHARD doesn't have a single one (yet), and he's trying harder than most of us.

I definitely agree about punishment, though. On the other hand, when our four year old won't stop trying really dangerous things ... It's more about getting her attention focused on the message. Follow up hugs are sometimes required.

There's a joke that I don't remember where a farmer wacks his mule with a board, "just to get his attention". You're not going to get my attention with anonymous points. A real person telling me that something I did or said was hurtful to them personally is another story.

I have stated elsewhere and I restate it here: I think that negative points are a tool and should not be considered punitive. This tool has to function within a mathematical construct in order to work on our computers but if we remember that this is an experiment in online community building, the 'negative' point can be the equivalent of faintly shaking our head in a face to face meeting.

I am just thinking out loud here. . . but I've been thinking about nature and how nothing in nature is allowed to have unlimited, unchecked growth. I don't understand how it can be a healthy system if only positive growth points are awarded: unlimited growth is unsustainable in nature and I suspect it is unsustainable in human systems. If people only get positive points and points grow and grow and grow. . . . we will see collapse.

Just thinking. . .

I do prefer it when someone directly communicates with me when I have displeased them but I prefer that disagreement be voiced openly online. I hate getting criticized via private message because the energy of the negativity remains a part of the larger group but it cannot dissipate if it is contained in a PM.

I don't mind getting negative points. I am a powerful person with ideas that push people sometimes and I am accustomed to being disagreed with.

What I mind is getting anonymous hate mail. Give me negative points if you must but please don't send me a letter telling me you don't like what I am doing in o.net and telling me you will take back your negative punishment point if I learn to behave myself. It is the anonymity that is venom, not the negativity. IMHO>

Therese Fitzpatrick said:

I don't mind getting negative points. I am a powerful person with ideas that push people sometimes and I am accustomed to being disagreed with.

I think this is what I meant above referring to not getting any negatives. If you never do, you're probably holding back. RicHARD is just the exception that proves the rule.

What I mind is getting anonymous hate mail. Give me negative points if you must but please don't send me a letter telling me you don't like what I am doing in o.net and telling me you will take back your negative punishment point if I learn to behave myself. It is the anonymity that is venom, not the negativity. IMHO>

I agree with this completely. I got an anonymous message with a negative point recently. The message wasn't even worded that strongly, but it gives no opportunity to change or respond. I don't even know exactly what prompted it, so I couldn't fix it if I wanted to.

Thank you, Gerry.

I came into o.net feeling all warm and fuzzy this morning. . . and I have picked up two negative points since I got here and an email labeled "feedback received" from Administrative User. I deleted the message without reading it: of course, I did assume that whoever gave me the two negative points within the last twenty minutes sent that note. . . and I invite that person to engage with me openly.

Thanks, Gerry. I assume anonymous poison pen notes are written by people who resent my power or who live in fear of their own. The world needs the anonymous, poison-pen writer to own their fear and not be afraid that I own mine.

I do not open o.net private messages from 'administrative user'.

RicHARD, I like your approach of only giving positive points and I like your vision for a conflict-free world. . . but some conflict is valuable data.

We do not have to give dissonance negative power but it is often quite valuable to turn and face conflict so we can discern the data embedded in that dissonance.

Or, maybe, we could be more like RicHARD and live in the field beyond conflict. . . I'm not there, yet.

Good morning ALL,

I'm going to answer these back to front because ALL of them are VERY important to me. When I come and find a ton of new postings, I groan, but I am ALSO filled with delight and wonder. I appreciate the opportunity to work on these thoughts without getting a punch in the nose, as might happen discussing/arguing about them in a bar, or even at work.

I want to begin by demarcating "discussing/arguing" used above. I know that discussing and arguing have two different meanings and are "used" by my culture to denote two seemingly very different forms of communicating: The first given a tint of rationality by its implication of calm, reasoned presentation. The second is viewed as more emotional, graphic, less productive.

I am going to say that I have seen lots of calm rational discussions that led to real enmity and great acts of harm. There is a movie about how the decision was made to send Jews to the gas chambers. The movie is set mostly in a board room where these very reasonable men are having a discussion about how to eliminate all these human beings: Very scary.

Indeed, I have seen arguing lead to fistfights and even greater violence and I agree that arguing can be a very uncertain form of communication when done poorly.

Having said ALL that: I believe it is okay to argue; I enjoy arguing. I grew up in a predominantly black culture where "loud-talking" one another was not necessarily grounds for increased violence: The same with name-calling. Where I come from, somebody talking about YOUR Mama, not your Mama, Gerry, but somebody's Mama ain't really cause to come to blows unless there is some underlying pathology.

"Get it on, Brother-man!" and "Come with it, Badass!" ain't necessarily fighting words where I come from. "IF you got it like that, YOU ain't got to worry. If you don't, YOU better get right with God, Honey."

Those who have ears can hear.

I choose "underlying pathology" deliberately, as well. I could have used history and that would have been a suitable word-choice, but I got a lot of friends who got considerable history with me and we don't box. Generally speaking, violence caused by arguing is not really about history when that history is long and isolated. Friends find expression for that sort of history over the years; I'm sure both of you have these kinds of relationships.

Therese Fitzpatrick said:

RicHARD, I like your approach of only giving positive points and I like your vision for a conflict-free world. . . but some conflict is valuable data.

I LOVE conflict. Most people have rather too little conflict than too much. Avoiding conflict is deadly and ALWAYS leads to violence: Either violence toward someone else and their ideas, or violence toward oneself. "Stifle, Edith!"

I'm not looking for a conflict-free world. Conflict is natural. I think this is what you are talking about Therese, when you point out "negative" occurences. An avalanche sweeping a busload of school children over a cliff aiin't negative to the snow, only to the parents and other loved ones. The snow just being snow.

Additionally, I do not advocate "only giviing positive points."

I mean to see the whole junior-high-popularity-point giving thing ended; I'm not taking that on with anything like "crusading zeal," but I am morphing into an pro-pointless virus.

Keeping score only discourages the weaker players. "Dealin' card games with the old men in the club car. Penny a point ain't no one keepin' score." WE don't need their pennies. WE need the conversation that goes on during the card game, especially when that conversation is negative. You cannot correct an error IF you will not look for its cause.

The negative point system says in effect, "Shut up! We don't want to hear that talk." How do we address problematic talk when we won't let the person go on long enough to find the cause? WE need to find what NCBI, the National Coalition Building Institute calls "their Oww-wee! PEOPLE ARE NEGATIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE HURT AND SCARED.

I know ALL CAPS is a no-no here, and I do not want to generate ANY conflict, of course, but it is important that people KNOW this: PEOPLE ARE NEGATIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE HURT AND SCARED. ALL violence is some sort of fear-expression. Fear is not necessarily bad either, but what WE do with our fear can be deadly.

Conflict is not always "good." A lot of that comment revolves around the inadequacy of the word "good." When we facilitate at Alternatives to Violence Project weekends, we do not stigmatize conflict in any way. This is going to shake some trees, but we work hard not to stigmatize violence itself. It is very difficult to carry on a dialog with twenty really violent men, all of whom have led violent lives and committed crimes of violence by making violence the enemy. We don't give violence any negative points.

Violence is an effective problem-solving method. Violence never works in the long term, but as a brief shortcut to solving an immediate problem confronting US, violence can sometimes be, excuse my usage here, a really kick-ass tool.

I am going to say that violence and conflict like peace and war are NOT causally related. Despite 6 or 7 thousand years of propaganda by the priest-warrior class, I KNOW this claim to be TRUE. Anyone aho has seen the film, Gandhi can see where a person can be brutally assaulted and not return violence. Many, many, many people over time have taken the stronger, more honest Path of nonviolence when confronted by the worst sorts of conflict.

Ask ALL the Christians on this site IF OUR Lord Jesus ever returned hatred for hatred and many will point to Jesus driving the moneylenders out of the Temple. Setting aside the obviously and historically documented, anti-Semitic desire of those who wrote the Bible to stigmatize Jews and those same author's further need to justify their own violence, choosing Christ with a whip to justify violence is still not an innocent tactic, nor a correct one.

Whenever I use ANY example to justify my own violence, I am justifying ALL violence. In my opinion, violence which has nothing to do with conflict, despite warmaker propaganda, IS ALWAYS WRONG. "But you said yourself that it is sometimes useful?!? In a sick society not everything that is useful is healthy, just or right.

We do not have to give dissonance negative power but it is often quite valuable to turn and face conflict so we can discern the data embedded in that dissonance.

I completely agree, but I would also say that not all conflict, or even most conflict in my opinion, comes from dissonant negative power. Conflict, in my opinion, is mostly neutral; what we DO with conflict CAN become very quickly an exercise in positive and negative.

Or, maybe, we could be more like RicHARD and live in the field beyond conflict. . . I'm not there, yet.

My world is full of conflict. I probably generate more conlict deliberately than any two people you and Gerry know. I ain't looking to avoid conflict. I tell guys at seminars that I am a "conflict-generator." My adjective name is "Riotous RicHie." I stand ready right NOW to cause the largest LOVE riot in history.

Wanna help?

First we got to get together and figger out how, cause I don't have a clue; I have identified the problem though, with only 25 years of research. The next twenty-five ought to be a wild ride. Love RicH

Wow, when you comment, you really run the table. How can I add anything, but I will try ...

First, I will inject another option into your discussion/argument duo. Dialog acknowledges the other and attempts to build bridges between our worlds, conflicting or not. When you speak, RicH, I am enriched and empowered, thank you.

You also touch upon themes of moderation. My friend Phil says that moderation is the tone/style of power, of the judge issuing declarations from the bench, and you'd better hold your tongue or you'll be slapped with a contempt charge. The veil of authority rules dissent out of order.

Moderation when deployed by the powerless is a path that ends on the Cross. Few have the courage to take it that far, so it is best not to start down that road or pick up that Cross.

RicHARD Makepeace said:

The negative point system says in effect, "Shut up! We don't want to hear that talk."

This is what it says to you,RicHARD, not what it says.

The point system holds different meaning to different people.

Richard said:

Conflict is not always "good."

We do not have to give dissonance negative power but it is often quite valuable to turn and face conflict so we can discern the data embedded in that dissonance.

I completely agree, but I would also say that not all conflict, or even most conflict in my opinion, comes from dissonant negative power.

Therese says: You have distorted what I wrote, RicHARD. I did not write that conflict is dissonant negative power. I said it was dissonance. You have projected your own ideas of negativity onto my words about conflict as dissonance. Dissonance is not negative. It is dissonance.

Gerry Gleason said:

First, I will inject another option into your discussion/argument duo. Dialog acknowledges the other and attempts to build bridges between our worlds, conflicting or not.

Dialog another good tool, just like arguing and discussing. ALL these communication tools bring something of value, or WE wouldn't have them. I'm not dissing discussion; I was working to uplift arguing. I'm feeling that there is a very narrow language protocol here and I am uncomfortable coloring between the language lines.

When you speak, RicH, I am enriched and empowered, thank you.

I was just gonna say, "I don't know about all that; it really seems like a lot of responsibility. Whatchu gonna do when I bring ya down and leave ya feelin' powerless?"

Then my right brain said, "O. Rich, don't be a stingy bully; at least thank the man." See my right brain evn spel & punk-chew-ate right. I hate my right brain, but I thank you for your very kind words. Remember them when ya get pissed off at me.

You also touch upon themes of moderation. My friend Phil says that moderation is the tone/style of power, of the judge issuing declarations from the bench, and you'd better hold your tongue or you'll be slapped with a contempt charge. The veil of authority rules dissent out of order.

Moderation when deployed by the powerless is a path that ends on the Cross. Few have the courage to take it that far, so it is best not to start down that road or pick up that Cross.

Yeah, I don't know where you picked up the moderation in my post, but I agree with you and Phil; moderation is not a tool for the weak. I am not an advocate of moderation or extremism; I am an advocate for peace and love. I don't think either of those tools are moderate and I don't believe that they can be too extreme. I know that little comment will cause a lot of rain, but IF it hurts, it ain't love and peace.

Always, RicH

WOW!! Therese, you go right at it, don't you. I love that in a woman -- person, I mean person; I love that in a person. Let's see IF we can straighten out some of these things and get back on the same side of the field.

Therese Fitzpatrick said:

RicHARD Makepeace said:

The negative point system says in effect, "Shut up! We don't want to hear that talk."

This is what it says to you,RicHARD, not what it says.

This is a fair comment. Yes, in part the negative point system says in effect, "Shut up! We don't want to hear that talk." to me. I would make the point though that IF the negative point system says that to me then for at least one person it says in effect, "Shut up! We don't want to hear that talk."

I can make a thousand qualifiers for each sentence, but constantly qualifying in some mealy-mouthed way is the sort of demand upon MY free speech that I am talking about happening here. "All God's chillun got shoes." AND all god's chillun need to play nice and speak pretty at omidyar.net.

Why?

Another fair response to your comment, "This is what it says to you,RicHARD, not what it says." would be to say back to you, "Not what it says, but what it say to you, Therese."

Please work to hear me saying this with the most respectful tone imaginable in as pacific a posture as possible in an extreme effort NOT to offend. WE could go back and forth like this ad infinitum.

Let's break the cycle before WE get started. Please?

What do you think negative points mean? How do you use them? Why do you think they are useful? Wouldn't other negative forms be just as worthwhile? Stabbing and nuclear events come to mind, but I can't say that here. There's a U2 song that's entitled, "Peace and Love, or Else." Don't negative points really say, "or else?"

Richard said (it is too hard to do the capitol letters, darnit): PEOPLE ARE NEGATIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE HURT AND SCARED.

This is your assumption and projection, not why all people give all negative points.

This is neither an assumption on my part, nor a projection. My personal view comes from many years spent in the study of violence and the uses of negative reinforcement and as such, is at least a mildly informed view. This is where I am tempted to either vomit down the front of my shirt, or justify myself to you by telling you how smart and educated I am.

In my mind, vomiting and education are about the same value when someone is hurting, or feels misunderstood or left out. I cannot justify myself to you, but I will stand by this comment: Whenever I see negativity and violence I I I I I "know" that there is pain and fear involved. This is not a belief on my part, it is a fully tested, carefully examined part of my knowledge base.

There is considerable research supporting this view; it is not an idea I just thought up. NOTHING I say would be something I just thought up; I don't think up much AND I have a real phobia about vomitting.

This comment is about ME and MY worldview. I get to write my side. I think that I get to write my side as declarative sentences too, but WE can negotiate that IF it makes you feel more comfortable. I would grant that there are other views of negativity and violence extant, but I would test mine against ANY other. I do not know the world is round, but I believe it to be so.

I know that ALL violence and negativity come from either past or present pain AND are ALWAYS fear-based.

WE are a society SO immersed in fear and pain that WE cannot separate out OUR other reasons for violence; we simply cannot see them. This includes me, for ALL my study and knowledge.

I was not projecting anything onto anyone. I was commenting ONLY upon MY, let me say that again, MY what I consider to be informed opinion concerning violence and negativity. Again, IF my comments hurt, I apologize. I would ask that we talk about the hurt, or the upset rather than my "assumption and projection."

We could talk about some of the reasons others might use negative points because I agree, I do not know ALL the reasons people might use negative points. To have this discussion, I would need to be allowed to voice opinions that might be contrary, uninformed, and perhaps even, projective in ways that might be totally flip and unsettling.

And I find myself resenting that you blast us with a whole sentence in caps even though you know it is unnecessary dissonance.

I do not "know" that ALL CAPS is "unnecessary dissonance." I am not troubled by the use of capitals. I prefaced my use of capitals with "I know ALL CAPS is a no-no here" because I wanted to use them for strong emphasis.

I also wanted to point out that various language avenues are closed to exploration, or use here at omidyar.net. Indeed, on the entire Web by "good" netizens. This goes back to: "All God's chillun got shoes." AND all god's chillun need to play nice and speak pretty at omidyar.net.

Richard said:

Conflict is not always "good."

We do not have to give dissonance negative power but it is often quite valuable to turn and face conflict so we can discern the data embedded in that dissonance.

I completely agree, but I would also say that not all conflict, or even most conflict in my opinion, comes from dissonant negative power.

Therese says: You have distorted what I wrote, RicHARD. I did not write that conflict is dissonant negative power. I said it was dissonance. You have projected your own ideas of negativity onto my words about conflict as dissonance. Dissonance is not negative. It is dissonance.

In this you are completely correct. I did misunderstand what you were saying and interpreted dissonance as "negative dissonance."

I apologize most heartily. I now understand that what you describe as "dissonance" is very similar to how I feel about conflict. Both are neutral.

Again, I am not projecting any ideas of negativity onto you, or onto your speech.

I do wonder why my post seems to affect you so personally and so adversely. I was NOT attacking YOU, or YOUR ideas. My ONLY goal was to talk about how I experienced negativity and the negative point system. I hold no animosity toward you, nor toward anyone on this board, nor right at this time, toward anyone, anywhere: Though that last bit is subject to change at anytime; I'm still workin' on it.

Why do you feel that I am attacking you? Is it my tone? My language? That horrible way I have of attempting to make everything seem impertinent and comical? I know I "write strong!" I also know that I am gentle, kind, compassionate to a fault. I am not afraid; I do not live in fear and negativity today, but neither am I implying that other individuals do. Some people have freed themselves from the violent negativity and fear that OUR culture is predicated on.

ALL of my knowledge is assertion. I do not feel that my knowledge is superior to another person's knowledge, but IT is mine. I get to say MY part. Sometimes I speak MY part fiercely. I am a human animal and ALL human animals are occasionally fierce under certain, mostly personal, conditions.

Again, I am tremendously sorry IF I have hurt you, frightened you, or wronged you in ANY way. NEVER was it my intention to harm you, or even to upset you, though I can take no responsibility for another's upset. I live in a heliocentric world; the sun does not revolve around me. I take ANY and ALL responsibility for MY actions.

I hope that I have not troubled you, or lost the chance to increase OUR friendship: That would sadden me a great deal.

Peace and good fellowship to you, your gentle admirer, RicHARD Makepeace

I may have been a bit more direct with you, Richard, than I should have because of your demeanor in private posts: I believed you when you said you valued my open expression of my real thoughts. Yet here when I share them with you, you excoriate me with a veneer/claim of gentility.

I now conclude that you, Richard, are just looking for a place to trill your ideas and that is OK . . . I get to be me and you get to be you. I do not feel that you actually value it when I accept your invitation to be myself fully.

I experience RicHARD to be sincere and genuine, almost to the point of pain, Therese. I wouldn't say he is gentle exactly. More like a force of nature.

I'm feeling that there is a very narrow language protocol here and I am uncomfortable coloring between the language lines.

Not really, each of us has a style and approach to expressing themselves in this evolving medium. You have a gift RicHARD, keep working on it, it gets better all the time. By the way, do you know how to do bold and italics (**bold** and *italics*) for additional shades of emphasis?

I was just gonna say, "I don't know about all that; it really seems like a lot of responsibility. Whatchu gonna do when I bring ya down and leave ya feelin' powerless?"

Bring it on, buddy, I can always use good sparing partners.

Then my right brain said, "O. Rich, don't be a stingy bully; at least thank the man." See my right brain evn spel & punk-chew-ate right. I hate my right brain, but I thank you for your very kind words. Remember them when ya get pissed off at me.

Your continued presence is enough thanks. I don't think you could piss me off, not that I don't get plenty pissed off at some people, Debbie probably thinks more often than not she's the one doing it, but it ain't so. I'm not always successful in letting her know how much I do appreciate her. She's always surprised when people express their appreciation for her presence, but I'm not.

Yeah, I don't know where you picked up the moderation in my post, but I agree with you and Phil; moderation is not a tool for the weak. I am not an advocate of moderation or extremism;

Not so much picking up on it as extending your point. If not for the weak then the powerful, right? Depends on what kind of power and how it is applied.

I am an advocate for peace and love. I don't think either of those tools are moderate and I don't believe that they can be too extreme. I know that little comment will cause a lot of rain, but IF it hurts, it ain't love and peace.

I've often found that the two ends of the scale are right next to each other. Like I said, depends on what sort of power. The power of peace and love, or forgiveness and compassion in the end will overwhelm coersive power. Isn't this what Jesus taught? Ghandi? Martin Luther King? The message is that we gotta keep showing up and giving our voice for justice and healing.

It's hard to express these thoughts completely. I think you are advocating a middle way, and I do too. Either extreme, moderation or extremism lead to martyrdom. Whether it is the black martyrdom of the Cross, or in our time, the gurnee which has replaced the noose and the chair, or the white martyrdom of the Irish monks on their skelligs, or the red martyrdom of warriers for the cause.

I say there must be a better way. I trust you more than anyone to help us find the way. Welcome.

RicHARD Makepeace said:

I do wonder why my post seems to affect you so personally and so adversely. I was NOT attacking YOU, or YOUR ideas. My ONLY goal was to talk about how I experienced negativity and the negative point system.

My only goal was to talk about how I experience negativity and the negative point system but when I express myself with a bit of strength, you immediately seem to rush to dismantle my power. I did not personalize what you wrote. I did not feel attacked. I feel that you are portraying what I wrote in a highly manipulative, aggressive manner and then hiding behind your allusion of peace.

I get to say MY part. Sometimes I speak MY part fiercely. I am a human animal and ALL human animals are occasionally fierce under certain, mostly personal, conditions.

It sure as heck seems like you get to speak your part fiercely but I am not free to be fierce back. And Carla sure seems to like that you are fierce with me.

I hope both you, Richard, and Carla can read my words with peace in your hearts. Gently, Therese