Timeline for When we see only one side of the story
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2017 at 16:19 | comment | added | anongoodnurse | If it's blatant, can it qualify to be closed as a thinly veiled rant? | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 18:10 | history | edited | gerrit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 185 characters in body; edited title
|
| Aug 30, 2017 at 17:32 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 13 | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 17:02 | comment | added | Shog9 | The critical factor there, IMHO, is whether you're just assuming that the asker is lying because askers lie, or recognizing that the asker is biased and encouraging them to reexamine the facts of the situation in a different light, @hamlet. We've seen plenty of both, and the former tend toward being... Not useful. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 16:33 | comment | added | user288 | @Shog9 If someone were to write an answer that solely consisted of saying "gain a better understanding of those you interact with and effective communication will follow", then I would downvote it. If someone wrote an answer that broke down the assumptions in the OP's question and explained why the other parties in the dispute were acting the way they are (through experience with being on the other side of the dispute, perhaps), or if someone wrote an answer explaining how the OP could better understand the perspectives on the other side of the dispute... those would be good answers. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 16:10 | comment | added | Shog9 | That's a cop-outs, @hamlet; yes, 90% of questions here can be answered with "gain a better understanding of those you interact with and effective communication will follow", but presumably we want somewhat more specific answers for most scenarios. To do that, we need to understand the scenario, even if the best we can do is understanding the author's perspective on it. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 16:08 | answer | added | English Student | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 15:17 | comment | added | user288 | @Catija I am not convinced by that answer, but I suspect there's a difference of philosophy here. My interpretation is that Shog wants questions to demonstrate an openness towards understanding the other side (e.g. not calling the other side names). My take is that it should be the responsibility of answers to move the OP to considering the other side's perspective. It might be that a combination of both philosophies is needed. Shog's approach might work if a question contains insults that can be easily edited out, but you can't edit in missing information. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 14:57 | comment | added | Catija Mod | I think Shog's answer here is very relevant to this discussion. | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 14:18 | answer | added | user288 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Aug 30, 2017 at 13:49 | history | asked | gerrit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |