Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Base noter:
    
    No sympathies here.  I agree with the policy.  
    
    Kathy

As I pointed out to the author by mail, the problem is not necessarily
limited to an ex who works for DEC.  There are many ways that the content
of a note can get back to its identifiable subject, and this must be kept
in mind at all times.

As a moderator, I get uncomfortable about notes which contain very negative
remarks about other people, whether they be DEC employees or not.  I do think
it's possible to talk about problems and experiences in a way so as to not
cause obvious offence to an individual.

In truth, there are lots of restrictions on what we can say in NOTES.  Some
would have us believe that we should be free to say anything we want in the
name of "free speech".  To them I say "Sorry, but the term 'free speech' does
not apply to notes written using the computer systems and network of
Digital Equipment Corporation.'   We just have to learn to work within the
rather broad limits defined for us, lest those limits suddenly become much
more confining.

					Steve

    In answer to base note... No, it does not sucks.  It is the way it
    should be.  One employee cannot talk bad or criticize another, at
    least, good manners prevent doing so, and if an employee marries another
    Dec employee and then divorce him/her is a personal choice, it should
    never be brought into the office.  People don't like to hear negative
    remarks, gossip or whatever about other people they know, regardless if
    they are employee or not, but certainly, not if they are employee
    within the same company... Work environment should be kept that way,
    just for work, and if a person needs to talk to other employee about
    personal matters there is nothing wrong in having a drink after work
    and talk the heart out, nobody would be upset then. Friends are found
    everywhere. But the office should, at all times, be clean of gossip or
    anything not pertaining to work.

    I also agree with the present policy.  I don't have an ex-wife to
    concern myself with, but I am careful about the notes I write so as
    not to offend someone who may read it and/or forward it.  You can 
    participate in these discussions and write notes about your ex-wife
    without offending anyone, including her.  You just have to be careful.
    
    For example, notes like "She was a lousy cook and a lousy lover" don't
    have any place in these Notes conferences anyway, regardless of
    whether the person referred to is a Digital employee.  Steve and 
    moderators of other conferences have been pretty good about flagging
    messages that appear to be against corporate policy and/or just in
    plain bad taste and delete/hide them, appropriately.
    
    So I say, "Get out of that anonymous umbrella and let us know what you
    think!"
    
       - Larry  :-)               
    

    I don't think that the base noter is saying that the 'policy'
    prohibiting him from 'talking about his ex' is what sucks. I think that
    what he's saying is that he doesn't have the same luxery as 'everyone
    else' does. By that I mean, he can't openly ask advice with an identity
    attached. He can't have that 'support system' that others can. 
    
    Almost sounds a little lonely....
    I can relate to what he's saying in that there have been many times in
    notes that I wanted to reply, or pose some questions that I thought
    were interesting, but because my spouse is also a deccie (two cubes
    away no less!), I have to ALWAYS remember that anything I say could be
    misinterpreted and get back around in some way that would be
    embarrassing (best case it would ONLY be embarrassing!) 
    The one advantage to having your spouse nearby is that they get blamed 
    for replies that YOU put in!!!!!:;-)
    
    Sorry for blabbing on....I just think that I read something differant
    into the base note then the previous replies did. 
    I don't think hes asking "can you please change the policy so I can
    rag on my ex in the notes file". 
    
    I *THINK* he's saying, "I wish I had someone to talk to openly like
    everyone else does"...
    
    so, am I WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off base here mr. anonymous?? Or do you really
    WANT the gag order lifted so you can blast that person from the past?
    
    ??

    re: .5
    
    From the base note,
    
    >> employee. We are under this gag order because company policy prevents
    >> us from making disparaging remarks about other employees through the
    >> use of company facilities.
   
    Let's see..."disparaging"...ah, here it is..."disparage" v. - To speak of
    as unimportant or inferior; belittle.  Well, as I see it, this "gag
    order" is standard operating procedure in Notes, whether the remarks
    are made at an employee or non-employee.
    
    >> There is a relatively large class of people who are divorced DEC
    >> employees whose ex-spouse does _NOT_ work for DEC who are free to enter
    >> into discussions about issues related to their ex-, expounding on the
    
    Yes, they are free to enter into discussions, but they cannot
    circumvent DEC policy and make remarks that malign someone else.
    Since these ex-spouses may have friends that work at Digital, it's
    quite possible for them to receive notice of these remarks.  Therefore
    it is in the best interest of all concerned to keep disparaging
    comments to a dull roar.
         
    >> For those of us whose ex- is a DECcie, we don't have that freedom,
    >> because we need to be constantly concerned that anything we say might
    >> be seen by, or get back to, or be recognized as pertaining to, that DEC
    >> employee to whom we used to be married. Yes, we can enter into
    
    For those of us whose ex is NOT a DECcie, we don't have that freedom.
    It's been my experience, that anything anyone writes about anyone else
    can get back to anyone.
    
    To the author of .5, it seems to me that the base author was
    questioning this policy.  Since the policy applies to all, I fail to
    see the problem.  As others have mentioned, it IS possible to enter
    discussions, relating personal experiences, without maligning or
    belittling an ex-spouse, ex-SO, or ex-friend.
    
       - Larry

re: .1 through .4
 
Apparently I didn't make myself clear enough in the basenote.
 
I wasn't lobbying for support to have the policy changed. I believe the policy
is correct as it stands. Neither am I looking for permission to launch personal
attacks on my ex-.
 
The issue I was discussing was the fact that some of us are virtually prohibited
from openly engaging in many topics in notes conferences simply due to the fact
that we are divorced from other employees of the company.
 
The policy says you can't say disparaging things about other employees. I'm not
looking to make disparaging comments about my ex-. But some ex-'s may construe
any exposure of personal issues, regardless of how innocent, as disparaging.
The rule of thumb in DEC seems to be that if there's a question about somebody
being disparaged, the supposed disparager is most likely to be the one who
pays.
 
In my case, as an example, my ex- has made it perfectly clear that if it ever
comes to his/her attention that I've been discussing things relative to our
relationship or situations (present or past) on the net, that he/she will do
his/her damnedest to have me relieved of my job for discussing such issues of
a personal nature regarding him/her, another DEC employee.
 
Between this conference, WOMANNOTES, MENNOTES, NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENT, PARENTS,
BLENDED_FAMILIES and a few other conferences which I am personally interested
in, there are probably at least 20% of the topics related to issues on
marriages, divorces, relationships on the rocks, family problems related to
divorce or domestic problems, etc., etc. These topics are, for all intents and
purposes, closed to me, unless I choose to respond anonymously (which I don't),
since I constantly have to be concerned that if I express my feelings about the
issues based on my own personal experiences, I'll potentially be faced with
retribution from my ex-spouse. Now, it doesn't really matter whether or not
he/she could actually do anything which would "stick" as far as the company
goes - the point of the matter is that I'd have to put up with some level
of personal grief to which the company has no connection!
 
And I'm not talking about entering notes which say "My ex- is a miserable
low-down so-and-so" - people who know me personally know for a fact that
I'm not the type of person who does that sort of thing. I'm talking about
simple statements like "When what you're speaking of happened in my
relationship I did such-and-such". You see, I can't say those simple things -
they "expose" personal issues that my ex- has warned me against discussing.
 
Another example - I love my kids - I think kids are wonderful. When I
read a note about a child who's being affected by a problem in a parental
relationship I want to respond with something from my own personal
experiences, but I can't without fearing the ex- will come back on me
with an "I told you not to discuss that" attack. Likewise, I can't openly
look for advice or discussion about things that come up with my own kids
as a result of the broken relationship between their parents - the ex- finds
that to be inappropriate for me to discuss.
 
So the policy is fine. And I don't want to rag on my ex. But should I
have to live with this gag in my throat on topics I'd like to openly
participate in?
 
I've thought of four solutions. 1) Hope the ex- gets the package, 
2) Hope the ex- gets counseling and abandons this threatening
posture (chances - slim to none - and I'm certainly not in a position
to influence him/her), 3) Hope the ex- just drops dead, 4) Purchase
hand weapon (just kidding folks!)
 
Does this clarify anything, or do you all still think I oughta dry up
and blow away?
 
I just happened to think that maybe I misstated the problem. The gag
order is more imposed by the ex- than it is by DEC - I realize that -
but what's happening here is the ex- is using a DEC policy to restrict
my freedoms. It's not a company issue (yet). It's not a legal issue (yet).
And neither of us has any desire to speak with the other so it's not
going to get resolved between us. Guess that still leaves me with a choice
of the four above solutions, huh?
 
-Frustrated

    re .6
    
    Do you honestly think that a Dec employee would say "I don't think it
    is fair that I cannot openly harrass, embarass, humiliate, insult,
    rag on, berate, malign, threaten, and otherwise be rude to my ex spouse
    because he/she is a Dec employee. I think that the policy should be
    changed so that I will be free to do these things"?
    
    Try to look behind the words, and ask yourself "would ANYONE really
    be THAT stupid???????????????"
    
    I don't think so. I like to give people more credit than that. (most
    people!!)
    
    I don't think that the base noter is stupid. I stand by my opinion....
    He/she is simply stating that he does not have the same luxery that
    others have to comment/reply/write notes that may be misinterpreted
    and get him into trouble with a fellow deccie, in this case his/her
    ex. 
    
    (Isn't this fun....debating what we THINK someone MIGHT mean!!)
    
    :-)

    Too bad these folks cannot have a phantom sign in. AS in the way the
    base noter has sent mail to the mod, but this time they are granted a
    special login/access that gives them the access to write in to these
    files and reply in an adult manner and if they do abuse their rights,
    their permision to log in via this special alis method is revocted and
    they are then delt with as they would be if they had violated any of
    the major corprute policies. 
    
    These folks will have to show the moderator that they do indeed have
    an Ex as a Deccie.
    
    Just a Though
    George

    	I can relate, and I've never even been married (to a DECcie or
    otherwise).  ;-)


    	It seems that I keep dating people who are DECcies and either
    already read H_R, or start reading it after they know me awhile.  In
    general I don't mind this in the least, but there have been instances
    when I wanted to respond to a note but didn't because I knew the other
    person would see it, and maybe it was something that I didn't want to
    discuss with them or wasn't ready to discuss with them.  This in no way
    implies that the subject matter was necessarily *about* them!  It
    certainly can be a frustrating thing.


    	But in *your* case, I think I might do what Mike suggested (you'll
    never know how much it hurt to say that, Mike  ;-)) -- use your own
    judgement.  If you talk about things which aren't intensely private
    (and I know this can be a subjective thing), and which aren't negative
    towards the other person, I don't see how you could get in trouble.
    Probably safest is if you couch it as, "In that type of situation my
    reaction was...."  If you talk more about yourself, and not so much
    about your EX, how can they object?  (I realize that this is not
    totally satisfactory, but compromises never are -- I guess that's why
    they call them a compromise.  ;-))



    Brian

    Re: .9 -mike z
     
    >	I can talk about my past without specifiying particulars.
     
    OK - I'll bite. How do you do that when everything you say in a notes
    conference is tied by user name to not only yourself but your ex-?
     
    The node names differ but the usernames are the same. And we're the
    only two people in the company with that surname. It's no mystery as to
    who's who.
     
    So anything I say about my past is necessarily a particular which is
    immediatly identified with the ex- by default.
     
    And re: telling him/her to take a flying leap:
       How would you suggest I do this without jeopardizing my job since
       he/she has already warned me to shut my face about what's gone
       down in our previous affairs?
     
    This is not an ODP situation.
     
    -Bummed out
    

   Re: <<< Note 1105.12 by QUARK::HR_MODERATOR >>>
       -< Response from anonymous author of base note >-

   Uh, just real quick, from anybody:  What does ODP stand for?

   Thanks.


   							Terza

re:  <<< Note 1105.13 by TERZA::ZANE "Consciousness before being -- V. Havel" >>>

>   Uh, just real quick, from anybody:  What does ODP stand for?

Open Door Policy

-Jack

    
    
    Your ex can only follow through on her threats if what you say is in
    direct violation of DEC policy.  She can not tell you what or not what
    to discuss.  Sounds like the typical power play that often results
    from divorce.  

Re: .15

Unfortunately, that's NOT true.  As I have seen many times, DEC will agree
that someone is being harassed if that person says that they're being
harassed, despite what was said (or even if the author claims they were talking
about someone else).  I don't discount the fears of our anonymous author,
I have seen too much to say "it won't happen".  It really could.

But this doesn't necessarily apply to ex-spouses - I've seen similar
flare-ups between people who had been dating for a while, or even those who
just argued in a notes conference.

My advice in this case would be to admit that the notes conferences aren't
perfect, and to seek professional counsel through the EAP program.  It's
free and it's confidential, and you can say ANYTHING you want about your
ex.  Take it from one who's "been there" - it's very helpful and I'm grateful
to DEC for making the service available.

			Steve

    re: .*
     
    Just out of curiosity, since I've been careful to phrase all of my
    submissions
    as gender-neutrally as possible, and I think Steve has done likewise in
    his responses, what makes any of you assume that I'm male?
     
    re: EAP
     
    EAP helps in the instances where I'm looking for advice or assistance
    (e.g. re: my kids). But it's not free after the third hour or so. And
    it doesn't offer the breadth of experience available from the
    readership of these conferences. And it doesn't do any good when it
    comes to my desire to contribute things from my own experiences since
    EAP counselors aren't looking for support like conference readers are.
     
    So are we saying that the only way I can play in here is with this bag
    over my head, because my ex- wants it that way? Perhaps. Is it fair? I
    don't think so - that's what I'm trying to find out. Is it correctable?
    I dunno.
     
    re: .17
     
    > You could talk about your ex-spouse without specifying that the
    > subject is your ex-spouse.  It could be from the And, perspective of
    > "someone you were involved with", "someone you dated", or "someone you
    > once loved".
     
    Yes, but I guess the point is, as Steve mentioned, that if my ex-
    decides it looks personal a stink will be raised and I'll be the
    stink-ee.
     
    > I am personally willing to test "policy" or restrictions that seem
    > unfair, even if that means I will be officially reprimanded (as Steve
    > Lionel points out in .16).
     
    Well, business being what it is, I can't conscionably cause undue
    stress to the overhead of the company by "testing" it - we're supposed
    to be trying to find ways to save money, not waste it. Disciplinary
    actions are costly, even if only in terms of the wasted manpower.
     
    >	By the way, I think that the following is unfair:
    >
    > [extracts from my .7]
     
    I'm sorry, Mike. I don't understand. What's unfair? My Ex's position or
    the fact that I tried to clarify it? If the latter, how would any of
    this have made any sense if I hadn't divulged it?
     
    

	How come just about every response to this note assumes that
	the basenote author is male?

	Remember, the basenote author has been EVERY careful to
	not be gender-specific.


	kathy

	RE: last two!


	Notes clash!!!!!!!!!!!!  .18 was entered while I was entering
	.19.

	kath

    -kath
    
    well I've been aware that the basenote writer and the moderator
    have both been careful to refer to hir in gender neutral terms.
    
    however I found myself thinking that the basenote writer was a male
    and when I examined my reasoning I realized it was because I was
    subconsiously assuming that the type of behavior exhibited by the
    ex is something a woman would do not a man.
    
    it is interesting when we stop and analyse our preconceptions and
    discover the steryotypes that under lie them.
    
    I was quite surprised to realize what I had assumed.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .18

 >>   I'm sorry, Mike. I don't understand. What's unfair? My Ex's position or
 >>   the fact that I tried to clarify it? If the latter, how would any of
 >>   this have made any sense if I hadn't divulged it?

    I believe that Mike meant that your ex's position was unfair, he or 
    she sounds like a vindictive person to hold this over your head.  Then
    again, if I had an ex-lover who worked at Digital and wrote in Notes, I
    may be a bit curious as to comments made about me (even indirectly). 
    However, threatening disciplinary action BEFORE the fact is uncalled for.
      
    I'm glad you brought this up, since it's easy to become complacent and
    forget that anyone can read, forward, or printout any note or mail
    message.  I recently received a memo describing a situation in Notes
    where an employee made some comments about a local business and it
    "leaked out".  From your comments in .7, I have the feeling that you
    are more upset of this "cloud of fear" that your ex has given you than
    the Digital policy in question.  I don't really know what steps you can
    take to alleviate this situation.

       - Larry

    From .18 ...
    
 >>   Just out of curiosity, since I've been careful to phrase all of my
 >>   submissions
 >>   as gender-neutrally as possible, and I think Steve has done likewise in
 >>   his responses, what makes any of you assume that I'm male?
 
                 
    From .19 ...
    
 >>	How come just about every response to this note assumes that
 >>	the basenote author is male?
    
    
    Some statistics:
    
    GENDER NEUTRAL:       .0-.2, .6-.14, .16, .17            83.3%
    GENDER SPECIFIC:	  .4, .5, .15                        16.7%
    
    Of course, why a few of the authors (including myself) assumed that you
    were male is probably the topic of another note.
     
       - Larry

    I can empathise with the base noter.  It's not always easy to respond
    to certain topics when a number of people you work with, or know you,
    read the conference.  I've had problems, and my spouse also works for
    DEC.  There are times when I feel I'd like to respond to soneone, but
    then I think "Should I?".  And there's a good reason for it.  Rumors
    run rampant - even more so than a wild fire in a patch of dead trees
    and I've been the topic of a number of "conversations" within this past
    year.  THAT is not pleasant - and the fact that it's a bunch of BS
    doesn't even matter.  I don't always have "1st hand knowledge" of the
    subject being discussed, but guarenteed I write something in here about
    it and jaws will start to flap.
    
    As a suggestion to the base noter.  If you feel you can help someone
    that's having a problem, even if they have entered it anonymously, send
    them mail.  I have done that a few times.  It's less "public" and you
    don't have to worry about any unpleasant situations arising from it.
    
    

    
    	I too got caught by the "that's something a woman would do"
    prejudice and inately read the base note author in a male tone
    of voice. 
    
    	I now find myself curious about a man's supposed feel for words
    as simply a means of conveying an informational exchange, while a
    woman's supposed feel for words is moreso in the realm of the emotions.
    
    	These differences in perception between men and women, if true, may be
    part of why I felt, on a purely subjective basis, that our anonymous
    base noter was male. That "he" was defending "his" right to carry
    one a purely informational exchange, while "she" would react with
    an emotional response to becoming aware of that exchange.
    
    	Topic for a different note -
    
    	Joe

Anon,

	If you put in a reply that was written in the "me, I" tone with no
real description of a situation, a reply that simply gave "your" thoughts, I
really fail to see how you ex could in any way say it was related or relating
a situation that involved the ex.  I know that's kinda cloudy so I'll follow
with an example.

	Example....note put in about a couple having a problem with when
Sunday dinners should be and where (parents, in-laws, or at home).  Your
reply could be as follows:

	If it was me, I would opt for having the Sunday dinner at home and
alternate inviting each set of parents and having some without parents.

In the above, if your Ex had a problem with that.....your Ex is indeed the
one with a problem.  As long as you didn't use such statements as "what we
did was this" "I did it this way", I would think you would be reasonably
safe from your ex's threat.  After all, all you would be doing would be
expressing *YOUR* opinion.

Faith

P.S.  By the way, regarding the gender....I had assumed the ex was a male.
Something to do with remarks about "my kids".  Again, interesting about
stereotyping.