Re: "I would love to hear other ideas on how to facilitate conflict in this type of environment."

As a recent entrant to the world of discussion groups, I find that Michael's insightful request as the silver lining to this whole discussion. As facilitators, can we innovate an on-line conflict resolution methodology?

Some of the givens (I think) are:

1. Large global group with spontaneous participation

2. Pseudo-anonymity of participants

3. Power of moderator to intervene

4. General common motivation of the advancement of Facilitation and/or personal professional enhancement of knowledge and skill in the craft

Suggested process:

A. A conflict, or apparent conflict, occurs in open forum between one or more participants;

B. Any member may post to the list moderator that in his/her opinion, this conversation/discussion/topic has escalated to a point that requires on-line mediation;

C. Moderator posts to conflicting parties that an on-line mediation has been requested, and asks them to participate. They may reject the mediation, but in that event they must agree to cease the particular discussion in both open and private forum. If they refuse to mediate or fail to cease that particular discussion, then their membership of the forum is terminated;

D. If both/all parties agree to mediation, they are given the option of on-line or private mediation;

E. The mediator may be the list moderator or someone else suitable but impartial (ie hasn't participated in the discussion/issue);

F. The mediator asks each party to the conflict to list in point form the "headings" that summarises the conflict (in their opinion) and the order that he/she/they would like the matters resolved. There is an understanding that the resolution of all topics/headings will see a resolution to the entire matter in question.

G. The mediator works to secure agreement of the parties to an agenda of topics/headings that will deal with the matters in hand;

H. The mediator circulates to the list the headings that will be covered in the mediation and requests input as to the comprehensiveness of the topics as viewed by those who have been involved in the "conflict". This circulation is irrespective of whether the mediation itself is on-line or private.

I. Once the final agenda is set by the mediator, he/she then commences the mediation taking each heading/topic in turn until an outcome is resolved. The mediation would follow traditional mediation principles (state issue; surface feelings; acknowledge feelings; suggest solution; etc...)

J. Where the mediation is on-line, then the mediator may ask for input from the list, however the purpose of the on-line medium is to keep list members informed of progress and issues of the conflict (since they were involved in its cultivation and the discussion may also be a technical learning experience), but not to necessarily get them involved in the mediation;

K. It is OK for conflicting parties to acknowledge other parties' opinion and agree to a "difference of opinion", rather than to agree to a common view. The intention of the mediation is to resolve the conflict (i.e. remove the heat, personalisation, dysfunction) and not necessary to create unanimous views. Differences are important in order to grow our understanding and skills.

L. Once the mediation is complete in the mediator's opinion, then he/she advises the list that an outcome on the topics in question has been agreed by the parties (but not the detail if the mediation was in private unless the parties agree).

M. The mediated issues/topics may be revisited by anyone on a professional level in the future, but due to the mediation, should not generate a similar conflict (at least from those parties involved first-time around).

The key attributes of this process are:

1. It identifies when a conflict exists but before it escalates to a destructive level;

2. It identifies a resolution process;

3. It identifies a resolution agent;

4. It surfaces the issues;

5. It enables parties to table their opinions and feelings;

6. It enables all parties to acknowledge other parties' positions;

7. It involves the list where that is appropriate;

8. It has a formal process;

9. It has a conclusion;

10. It proposes and is able to enforce a "netiquette" on list members.