Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- procedures:repeated_warning [2025/03/01 20:29] – ultracomfy
+++ procedures:repeated_warning [2025/04/09 19:51] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~Title:Repeated Warning~~
 <WRAP center centeralign>
 <fs xx-large>S3-Repeat Warn</fs>\\
@@ Line 6: / Line 7: @@
 \\
 \\
-Ideally, the first warning I issue is always //casual// with the goal of raising awareness, whereas subsequent warning are meant to add emphasis and communicate escalating severity/urgency((The level of severity/urgency will typically be communicated in [[:qualifier|qualifiers]].)). While reacting to the first warning is always appreciated, a repeat warn is about the time where a reaction (in //some// way) is expected. This means changing the behavior, opening a conversation, etc.. Opening a conversation is particularly useful because the assumption is //never// that - whatever the problem is - it's the fault of the other person and that //they// need to be held accountable. What I'm asking for is an explanation, //why// are you doing it, what is the reasoning? I may inquire further to gather more information or, later if I think the reasoning is flawed, to question the logical validity of the reasoning.
+Ideally, the first warning I issue is always //casual// with the goal of raising awareness, whereas subsequent warning are meant to add emphasis and communicate escalating severity/urgency((The level of severity/urgency will typically be communicated in [[:qualifier|qualifiers]].)). While reacting to the first warning is always appreciated, a //Repeated Warning// is about the time where a reaction (in //some// way) is expected. This means changing the behavior, opening a conversation, etc.. Opening a conversation is particularly useful because the assumption is //never// that - whatever the problem is - it's the fault of the other person and that //they// need to be held accountable. What I'm asking for is an explanation, //why// are you doing it, what is the reasoning? I may inquire further to gather more information or, later if I think the reasoning is flawed, to question the logical validity of the reasoning.
 Obviously, this is //still// not about telling people that what they are doing is wrong or that their reasoning is wrong. This can be about things people do that are wrong, but this can very much also always be about things that are //generally reasonable// but damaging to our interaction //specifically//. Up to this point, nothing bad has happened yet and the goal of this step is to communicate that the current course, for positive or negative reasons, will not be able to continue indefinitely.