Speak-up! —a Guide to Great Communication L4O0H5

^L4O0H5: Revision 1853 -2010.09.22pst0824 (~77% complete 1st draft):

Speak-up! —a Guide to Great Communication

Contents --read carefully to know what's here

1. L5I9FN:  Preface
2. L4O11L:  Overview
3. L2YE8V:  Speak up & speak up often!
4. L2PJBS:   communicate via..
1. L304TB:  communicate via sharing with as many people as productive, ideally in public, as this:
2. L2ZZ29:  communicate via web pages and NOT via messages.
5. L5IACM:  handling communication to you
1. L4O1C1:  Don't blame the messenger: in general be glad to hear true unpleasant news.
2. L5IAF1:  Never forget to notice & act-accordingly when communication is private (not bringing you discredit nor fame in the eyes of outsiders)
3. L5IAU6:  Key factors determining how seriously to take communication to you, from roughly most-to-least important:
1. L5IK6C:  Is the message about you, else something/someone you're responsible for?
2. L5IBXE:  How much did it cost to personally send you this message?
3. L5IBJ9:  Extra points: Does the message contain/represent truth you wouldn't want to hear/face?
4. L5ICYK:  Does the speaker have integrity here? (plus/minus points) --including
5. L5IDX5:  Other factors? There are probably a few more.
6. L5IKK8:  A BIT LOWER: How many people are/will now see this message?
7. L5ICF4:  LAST (NOT first!): How pretty/entertaining/pleasing the message is
4. L5J70J:  Why are people today increasingly failing to appropriately reply to messages?
5. L5I9Y0:  Never ignore/block/return/delete communication from real person(s) which is just for you (not mass replicated), with very little exception
1. L5JZ1L:   In fact, if you believe the communication shows failure of L5ICYK: speaker integrity, you want to keep proof, NOT delete/block/return something as because it upsets you.
2. L5K3AW:  Typically & increasingly though, people ignore/block/return/delete (communications from real person(s) not mass-replicated) because of a failure in their own integrity.
3. L5IG1O:  On individuals blocking/ignoring other individuals,
4. L5J866:  On individuals blocking all communications (or blocking a whole groups of people): seriously messed up.
5. L5IA02:  Blocking/ignoring person(s) one's job is to lead: an absolute no-go.
6. L5JA53:  The combo: Blocking/ignoring everyone one's job is to lead: unbelievably wrong.
7. L5IJYD:  The exception are
6. “KVA16I:  Document Background & History”
1. L4NX0J: 2010.06.27pst0034 I DestinyArchitect “created & own this document”.

1. ^L5I9FN:  Preface

1. ^L5I9H1:  This document:
   
1. ^L5K43G:  addresses problem areas I've observed but is not yet comprehensive;
   
2. ^L5I9V4:  was first part of and is required by (Universal Rules & Guidelines for Meetup.com)L2PFGY (see its section L4O0F9:  Foremost follow (Speak-up! —a Guide to Great Communication)L4NX0J);
3. ^L5I9T8:  And it would apply to limitless situations.
   
4. ^L5I9UK:  So make it apply to your situations as well. :-)
   

2. ^L4O11L:  Overview

1. ^L2YED1:  As motivational teacher Tony Robbins says, "The quality of your life is the quality of your communication!" (and meaning two-way communication and even communication with yourself).
2. And specifically our goal is communication which is candid, constructive else constructive-intent, relevant, not-misleading, complete, quick & efficient, and -when time permits- polite.  Consequently, follow the rules below...
   

3. ^L2YE8V:  Speak up & speak up often! 

1. ^L2Q94O:  Expect no one to be a mind-reader!  Rather, if you are unhappy about something or have trouble with someone about something, then appropriately & clearly & promptly let him/her/them know and hear their response, especially BEFORE you take any action.
   (else DON'T hold anything against him/her -- as you didn't first appropriately speak up!).
1. ^L2YVPU:  This seems to be a huge problem for a lot of people.  Don't let you be one of those people!
   

4. ^L2PJBS:   communicate via.. 

1. ^L4O179:  As much as possible without being counter-productive nor violating other rules, try to communicate-via these means...
   

2. ^L304TB:  communicate via sharing with as many people as productive, ideally in public, as this:

1. ^L304US:  avoids else quickly stops anything bad going on,
2. ^L304XG:  gets more input (the more heads the better), typically getting you good answers from someone you've never heard of because you allowed them to hear.
3. ^L30519:  avoids having to repeat information again
4. ^L3052J:  Let's it be known how the information came about
   

3. ^L2ZZ29:  communicate via web pages and NOT via messages.

   L4O197:  This is the core idea of Wikis, of Google Docs & similar, discussion boards, modern blogs, and most especially one of the latest rages Google Wave.

   
   ^L4O1A7:  comparing the advantages of each method of communication, the choice should be obvious:

   feature	feature importance	via web pages, especially with links, discussion comments, and/or wiki-like (wikis, discussion boards/forums, blogs)	via messages & mailing lists (email & anything with an Inbox) possibly with attached documents
   L4MTZT:  A humans' general reaction		At first seems just unnecessarily extra complicated, but in the long term produces enormous benefit for everyone.	At first seems intuitive & easy & obvious "so just do it", but soon produces huge problems & unfortunately after the point where we can easily see where the problems come from, so not good.
   L3CN76:  complies with doing Links-Not-Copies --largely another way of phrasing this comparsion	97%	yes, exactly that	no, exactly the opposite
   L305WM:  Alerts you of the info	97%	yes, if done right (not obvious): if (1) you're subscribed to alerts on page/content changes (as MediaWiki (used by famous Wikipedia and other wikis) aptly does; indeed MediaWiki operates without even ever doing email) AND (2) used to checking for updates there (instead of say in your Inbox messages); but many people are still slow to get this improved way of doing things --so read next points and see why & how	yes, it's most obvious attribute.
   L3063X:  avoids message/email info overload	96%	L4MTJB:  yes, MINIMIZES our message/email overload including giving smallest messages: L4MTJL:  (1) all you get is alert messages with just a link to the details,  so the details & attachments/links on the topic are combined in one place, waiting for you when you're ready to look at them including featuring all the latest updates right there. Moreover, L4MTL0:  (2) if alerts are combined together into one clean & short message (as "Today, these pages you're watching were updated: ...") the number of alert msgs can be reduced several times over (from say 15 messages/day (very interruptive) to just 1)	L4MTMS:  no, CAUSES our message/email overload including big/huge messages: L4MTN6:  (1) details (& attachments) are scattered about in several messages typically across several days or months (& maybe years), so it's a project itself just to search for all those relevant messages and be sure to read them in the right order --but that's something you'll have to do unless you just did all that so have all this fresh in your mind. L4MX0W:  (2) A secondary consequence is that replies generally need to attach the message they are in reply to so the person remembers what they asked and the reply makes sense, but now we've got duplication to add to the message overload (and big: the reply message size is not only about double but arbitrarily huge, because by default one generally attaches all prior conversation) and still often not enough gets duplicated (as headers, attachments, & prior messages). So, after just a few replies in a conversation, things quickly become a mess.
   L3043Y:  Even after changes, can & generally does give one comprehensive view including everyone's replies/discussion so far and (if especially if a wiki) the latest comprehensive status	95%	yes, especially if supports replies/comments	no
   L2ZZ7J:  Can be updated, corrected, retracted (take back what you said), added-to later; even shared when partially-finished or being-drafted without creating a mess	90%	L4MXUT:  yes, very easily. L4MXVB:  Moreover since everyone doesn't check the web pages at once (unlike a message placed in everyone's Inbox), as you get responses you can update/correct your info well before you've found you've told everyone something you really regret.	L4MXDC:  almost never; L4MXJW:  (1) you need to send updates AND also explain what was changed on them & possibly why, easily further confusing, overloading, & annoying people and tending to give people a poor impression of you & your org (often changing what you do & say). L4MXK4:  And still (2) typically you cannot ever take something back no matter how much you regret saying it since --once you click send-- all recipients are now interrupted with your news, and all of them all-at-once, and your message is often-permanently archived (and increasingly indexed) in every recipient's Inbox -- so it's way-too-easy to all-at-once tell too many people without first getting some feedback, and everything you say you cannot take-back. L4MY2S:  Both of these negative consequences of messaging have serious consequences, including upsetting recipients plus discouraging senders from speaking up on the things they really need to be sharing.
   L3CMPL:  Offers good security (as info shared can be retracted at any time, and cannot be easily archived by anyone nor easily forwarded to anyone and without even the creator knowing)	88%	yes	no, a leading problem of sending by messages
   L306ED:  cures spam	83%	yes, on web pages, spam is easily prevented (by CAPTCHA and similar), else the offending comment & account is immediately spotted & removed before it troubles other people.	no, CAUSES us to have spam messages since our eye balls are in messages and (in most messaging systems) a simple program can send us messages in mass for free.
   L3CMTE:  eliminates attachments (which waste space and introduce a notable security (virus) risk as in typical email the sender can be easily faked)		yes, and indeed often there isn't a need for some additional data format (as web pages can contain JavaScript, objects, and are increasingly powerful) and when downloads are still needed, unlike attachments, they are easily verified they are from a legit source, can be sent encrypted if needed, and generally only take storage & bandwidth only when & as the recipient actually uses them.	no, ENCOURAGES attachments, and all their headaches.
   L3042G:  all participants are sure to get everyone's replies	80%	yes	no
   L303WH:  can be very well formatted with pics, video, etc for easy fun understandable reading	75%	yes	Somewhat: only if email; but it's fairly tricky, limited to only basic HTML, and still often won't work for all recipients
   L306ZV:  Encourages you to communicate with as many people as possible, even to the general public	70%	yes	no, as that contributes to message overload; moreover messaging everyone may simply be impossible/impractical
   L35GVF:  Encourages transparency in management & organizations	69%	yes, indeed instantly	no, you must then go thru and edit & publish selected messages & meetings, which very typically never gets done
   L3CO38:  enables revenue to be directly generated from the content (via embedded ads else subscriptions)	66%	yes, both embedded ads & subscriptions (pay for access) are easy & common	not generally: embedded ads are not easy to put in and generally don't work as JavaScript is lacking, and subscriptions are doable but not well as you can't stop anyone from forwarding it to all their friends and likely without the sender knowing.
   L3072A:  Indexes & makes search-able the content enabling better/much-better use of it	65%	yes generally, if the content is public or the web site has good search engine	only if the message reader provides search, and then the reader can only search over the portions just sent to them
   L3040F:  can include scripts, forms, & be interactive such as dynamic outlining	60%	yes	no
   L2ZZ97:  can provide useful related information (as history & related links) plus easily translated via say http://translate.Google.com	60%	yes	generally impractical
   L3048Q:  Maintains a history of all prior versions	55%	if designed right (as in MediaWiki), else if posts are time-stamped (as Meetup does) and not edited (but Meetup rightfully allows editing, so you have to do this manually if important)	yes
   L304CO:  Can automatically compute for you what has been changed, as since you last looked there	50%	ditto	no
   L3CMJD:  Minimizes storage costs & clutter		yes.  Indeed one alert email (with a URL for the detail) can be sent as an SMS msg (under 160 characters) and a general email in under 1KB, and technically only needs to be sent once (regardless of updates) to share all the details.	no, quite the opposite.  An email with details (especially with attachments) can easily be as large as 1MB or bigger (often without event he sender noticing!) and typically has to be resent to everyone with every significant update!

1. 
   

5. ^L5IACM:  handling communication to you

1. ^L4O1C1:  Don't blame the messenger: in general be glad to hear true unpleasant news.

1. L2PHPJ:  Feedback, criticism, opinions, and questions, even in public, are good provided only that it is (1) constructive else constructive intent, (2) not misleading, (3) relevant, and (4) in the proper space/field. Most especially in a person's RSVP comments but also everywhere, no person shall be faulted for anything other than not meeting these 4 basic criteria.

1. ^L2PJGZ:  Per the rule that comments should not mislead & be constructive, dramatic issues (as notable negatives) should be handled as much as possible in private and at the lowest possible level.
2. ^L2PJ04:  Especially in comments visible to others especially public, one should try to give sufficient praise before giving criticisms, though this is NEVER a requirement, as everyone also needs to be able to constructively take criticism.

2. ^L5IAF1:  Never forget to notice & act-accordingly when communication is private (not bringing you discredit nor fame in the eyes of outsiders)

1. ^L5IJP8:  Don't forget this and treat private talk as if it was public or circulated where it would have much more impact and in controllable ways.
2. ^L5IEDU:  Criticizing in private in good & appropriate, but some people are still children in ways so can't take criticism even in private.  In fact I've seen a few people do unkind or nasty stuff to me because I privately told them something wrong they were doing to me (and sometimes others, too) which they needed to know about & stop but absolutely didn't want to face in themselves.
1. ^L5IEXZ:  This happens pretty regularly to whistle-blowers like myself, and other people who are willing to confront.  In 2009-present (20100713), this nastiness was done by Marco Neumann, from Alec C. Marken, and (very seriously) AJ Blackwood; a few others (as Eddie O) also did something rather unkind to privately hearing truth, but then later realized and apologized & undid.
3. ^L5IFBS:  Similarly praising in private might feel nice, but don't get too seduced by it, especially if the praise is pretty-much only in private: it could be a trick -after earning your trust (to get something from you) the person could later go back to defame you and no one else would know as they didn't hear his praise.
   
1. ^L5IFR7:  In fact many years ago I've met one con-artists (a former new manager I had years ago) which would give me enormous praise in private in order to have me reveal to him my good ideas, which then he would go present as his own to the rest of group (who were not as technical) while criticizing me before the group for my "crazy" ideas(!). (So after speaking to his boss, which didn't take it seriously, I quit; the con then pleaded with me, "Just stick around to write up your ideas and we'll pay you $5K". I said No.)

3. ^L5IAU6:  Key factors determining how seriously to take communication to you, from roughly most-to-least important:

L5LZTU: In short, L5IK6C:  Is the message about you, else something/someone you're responsible for? L5IBXE:  How much did it cost to personally send you this message? L5IBJ9:  Extra points: Does the message contain/represent truth you wouldn't want to hear/face? L5ICYK:  Does the speaker have integrity here? (plus/minus points) L5IDX5:  Other factors? There are probably a few more. L5IKK8:  A BIT LOWER: How many people are/will now see this message? L5ICF4:  LAST (NOT first!): How pretty/entertaining/pleasing the message is

1. ^L5IK6C:  Is the message about you, else something/someone you're responsible for?

1. ^L5J3JA:  As a rule of thumb, in this case, you should always appropriately respond, unless there is an offsetting failure of L5ICYK: speaker integrity here (detailed below).
   

2. ^L5IBXE:  How much did it cost to personally send you this message?

1. ^L5J4TH:  As a rule of thumb, every message which personally took someone 3 minutes or more more to think of & write you or say, you need to appropriately reply to else hire someone to appropriately reply to --unless there is an offsetting failure of L5ICYK: speaker integrity here (detailed below).
1. ^L5J5Y2:  Everyone has failed at this from time-to-time. But for many people, it's become a serious problems: see L5J70J:  Why are people today increasingly failing to appropriately reply to messages?
2. ^L5IAPT:  The cost to personally send you the message is: (the total person-hours involved in writing the message plus cost for every send of it (generally <$.10 if email or SMS message, ~$.50 if by postal mail) divided-by (the # of real people the message got to).
1. ^L5J560:  Almost always marketers hide the # of people they a sending to, but as a rule of thumb, if it's a generic or only-machine-customized message, then it's probably sent to at least 20 people, very easily hundreds or thousands of people or more.  This dramatically reduces this cost, so no matter how pretty the message, you have weigh that it was sent to probably many many people so the to deliver to you may be just pennies, or less (in the case of radio & TV broadcast & websites).
   
3. ^L5IB0M:  consequently,
1. ^L5IAJN:  constantly remind yourself: "Is this message machine replicated-to & generated-for many people, as is increasingly easy? Then, no matter how attractive I find it, I need take it secondary (in other words first read & respond to) all the messages for me which are not."
   
2. ^L5IB5J:  if was one real person sending this message just to you or just to a few people, that needs to be taken with top-seriousness with regards to these factors, most especially if it's a longer or carefully reasoned-out/crafted.
   
3. ^L5IB6E:  but if it was spammer cleverly making a mass form email which looks like it was written just for you, that you need to take much lower priority.
1. ^L5IB8H:  for instance, if it was the cleverest spammer of them all, Facebook software, making what looks to be a custom email just for you (indeed cleverly identifying & listing all your friends before you've even joined them) of your friends pleading you to join them, that needs to be taken with low priority -- you need to realize that was just auto-generated message sent out to all your friends' friends once Facebook talked them into revealing their address books to them.
1. ^L5KM1N:  FYI, these emails are of the form subject “Check out my (Facebook profile|photos on Facebook)” containing “See who else has invited you to Facebook:” and subject “Reminder: X invited you to join Facebook...” containing “Other people who have invited you to join Facebook:” (core search phrase “invited you to (|join) Facebook”), giving name & photos of everyone on Facebook who has your email on their electronic address book and has divulged their address book to Facebook.

   
   

   
   
4. ^L5IBCW:  Unfortunately today's email & mail mechanisms make no distinction and mass marketers & spammers today have gotten so clever that such mass communications much more seem to direct us than the individual personal ones - indeed personal communications now seems to get lost in all this other email & messaging.
5. ^L5IO9R:  At least for humans, roughly guessing the cost to send ("$10 spent on me, or $.10") is usually easy  ("Was this TV program really written for just me? Hardly! So why did I watch it and neglect my family?") BUT we easily forget (or are made to forget by entertainment of the message), and so get manipulated on a huge scale. And with large number of messages we get everyday (as emails & tweets), it's still a problem to balance.  So it's occurred to me that messaging clients could be developed which prioritized ones messages automatically, but, other than grouping related matters together (as threaded discussions & blog comments do) nothing easy has occurred to me nor I've seen.
   

3. ^L5IBJ9:  Extra points: Does the message contain/represent truth you wouldn't want to hear/face?

1. ^L5IDLI:  -then this is what I NEED to hear/face so fight the reaction to dismiss it & blame the messenger.

4. ^L5ICYK:  Does the speaker have integrity here? (plus/minus points) --including

1. ^L5ICS2:  Has the speaker taken-time else tried to personally get to know and/or spend time with subject?

1. ^L5IKBE:  Remember "the subject" could be "you, else something you're responsible for", for instance "Has the speaker taken-time else tried to personally get to know and/or spend time with you?"
2. ^L5ICUS:  Does the speaker practice what they preach here, and especially not being a hypocrite?
3. ^L5ICXE:  Is the speaker careful to state things accurately and tell the whole story?
   
4. ^L5INL3:  Is the speaker respecting "handle things at the lowest level" (such as described in L2PGK2(before taking in action...))
   
1. ^L5INMJ:  First correctly verified there was a problem.
2. ^L5INMZ:  Then clearly and as privately-as-possible told the person responsible what it is and ideally has said that it if it is not fixed within reasonable time then x action will be done.
3. ^L5INRA:  privately brought it up to the next lowest level, etc., until the top is reached OR the system is corrupting.
5. ^L5J7UP:  Is the speaker giving you criticism as privately as possible or praise in public - these should both give points.
   
6. ^L5J445:  Has the speaker, after 1 or 2 contact attempts, left a message about what exactly he/she is contacting you about? --if not, serious negative points for each additional unexplained contact (it becomes harassment, a common tactic of collection agencies)
   
7. ^L5J4AN:  Only if your prior requests of the speaker have been very reasonable (by most people's standards), then has the speaker reasonably complied else well-explained why not? --if not, negative points.
8. ^L5J4IU:  Are you now or have you recently NOT kept your promise to the speaker? If so, then extra points for the speaker.
9. ^L5IBHS:  Does the speaker have good intent -- hard to determine; but if much of the above are true, then it's probably likely.
   

5. ^L5IDX5:  Other factors? There are probably a few more.

6. ^L5IKK8:  A BIT LOWER: How many people are/will now see this message?

1. ^L5ILO9:  Most everyone gets this point. Indeed the crime of blackmail wouldn't exist if they didn't. However sometimes it seems that's all they get/worry-about as...
2. ^L5ILQ2:  What I've seen many people NOT getting is appreciating & appropriately handling the private critical message so that it doesn't become public (or a worse situation). Don't be one of those people.
1. ^L5LZ9C:  Handle the internal problems promptly & cleanly so there CAN be no threat of them going public.
   
3. ^L5ILY4:  Moreover, if the message goes public, depending in part on how you handle it, it may not be as quite bad as you fear, as:
1. ^L5LWGK:  If it's questionable that L5ICYK: the speaker has integrity and that can be seen by the message ("smart" nasty people will try to hide that point), then likely people will see that (not just you) so will discount the message -in a severe case, it can turn around and much more hurt the speaker.
2. ^L5LWM5:  How you respond to it -hearers of the message will then look to you for your response. You usually have some chance to undo & even reverse things for yourself, but that chance is usually very short & fleeting.
   
1. ^L5LY3Y:  The witty & funny quick come-back. Almost always this is a total win for you in the eyes of onlookers (even when they know it shouldn't be, and even if you know it shouldn't be), but many people (myself included) aren't good at that.
   
2. ^L5LXN4:  If you appear shameful you will be seen as guilty; if you apologize, admit, and make corrections, you will seen as guilty but may be forgiven maybe even praised for your doing the right thing. If you appear somewhat angry & indignant, you will probably be seen as not guilty. If you loose your cool & dignity, you probably be seen as guilty. If you counter attack, you may be seen as guilty or nasty, or innocent, and it could get messy. If you don't respond, most people will wait some time, but it's not quite clear, and eventually you MAY be labeled as neglect and guilty; however in face-to-face confrontations or where onlookers know you've clearly heard, not to respond usually makes people think you are guilty.
   
3. ^L5LXO2:  While it's quite understandable for outsiders to want to know what's true, their desire seems so strong in most cases that they will decide quickly even if there isn't enough data; it seems most people give next to 0 time to sort out whose telling the truth and instead rely way to heavily on each person's instant (less than 1 minute) reaction, or simply on the person's reputation. Therefore, in replying, one's first few words and gestures are critical.
4. ^L5LXWT: You may have a choice to respond by writing or by talking. It's important to choose which one is best for you.
   
3. ^L5LY8N:  Going totally public (or open to all the group) is probably not as fully bad as you think (that is, if you care about those besides yourself, which some don't), especially if it can be done in writing (as on a web discussion board) or some group/media leader can insure all sides are hashed out. It must be done carefully for this; and yes, you will probably get damaged, maybe destroyed or (in some cases) killed, and sometimes undeservedly, but overall good to society will be done --even if not now, it will be remembered.
   
4. ^L5IM5N:  As democracy proves, people are often not as stupid collectively as one may think - indeed they can be brilliant (as Wikipedia shows), however, individuals and small groups can get messed up or corrupt. So
1. ^L5IMU4:  for a negative matter, four basic privacy levels/steps and their likely consequences are:
1. ^L5IMAO:  One person knows - that is generally bad.
2. ^L5IMAY:  Two or three or a very small close group knows, and they are dealing with it. This is generally very good.
3. ^L5IMBW:  A small or medium-sized loose group knows, but they are NOT dealing with it constructively --common & understandable but bad for everyone, including the community.
   
1. ^L5LYMB:  This is common, and often maintained as good doers want to respect chain-of-command and most everyone wants to protect the organization/industry (and thus their jobs and careers) so no one wants to be the one to speak up, but
   
2. ^L5LYY5:  this is probably the worst situation, where easily the people least deserving (as the ones speaking up) get the most hurt (even hurt by those who are also being hurt by bad matter!), so this where things should likely be instead taken to the next level:
4. ^L5IMDR:  It's public, posted publicly. Everything is on the table --hardest on all the players (sometimes easily deadly) but also what the guilty most fear and almost always best for the community/society when above methods have failed.
   
1. ^L5LYKZ:  Since is nasty figure-pointing all over the place, even the innocent don't find this easy and may even get destroyed, but with enough exposure (and this happening enough times) the truth will get out and things, especially for society, probably get rectified instead of getting worse.
2. ^L5LYLD:  As painful as it is to go open about something and one often has to do so so very carefully, it's helpful to remember that that bad doers even MORE don't want public exposure.
   

7. ^L5ICF4:  LAST (NOT first!): How pretty/entertaining/pleasing the message is

1. ^L5ICHQ:  Clever mass marketers/spammers play on our desire for entertainment & pleasure so well that (by their design) we easily forget that their message is to hundreds, thousands, or sometimes millions, and have gotten so good at it (especially now with machines able to do massive cheap replication of messages) that we get addicted to this amazingly good entertainment and forget/dismiss/loose the communication from the individuals in our lives even though they much more really see & care for us, as we don't find what they have to say nearly as fun (and of course: they don't have thousand/million dollar budgets to make it so; but what the're saying is most about us.)  --This is tragic.
   

4. ^L5J70J:  Why are people today increasingly failing to appropriately reply to messages?

1. ^L5J71J:  Not knowing else appreciating & following communication rules as spelled out in this document.
   
2. ^L5J62C:  Even the best people at it fail sometimes. Usually it's when something about the message was unexpected (sometimes bad OR good), or an unexpected event happened at the time. But still the rules of this document would dictate an appropriate reply.
   
3. ^L5J62V:  However there is growing number of people (maybe the majority) where failure here is routine, where it's seemingly become OKAY to often not reply to personal messages.  This is very serious to society as a whole, in both time wasted and general frustration from being ignored.  Causes include:
1. ^L5J652:  Overload & distraction by increasingly skillfully generated spam and other mass messages.  Personal messages end in the Junk folder or are just lost in all the auto-messages.
   
2. ^L5J67G:  New more powerful phone & communication technology which makes people more reachable (so they don't have to give out their home address even to "close" friends, and today the norm is not to) so that plus the new technology making it dramatically easier to (wrongfully) avoid people (instead of giving your home address (where you can be confronted in person) or a shared home phone (where others could answer and hear of the wrong you did) which in 1990 and before didn't have caller ID (so you'd easily answer all sorts of calls), today you give out your private cell phone, which now can easily identify & block any number) plus also increasingly meeting many more people online where you may never meet in person and can easily block, too, making it all too easy to be rude and break promises and lie about talking & getting together and nobody you care about EVER finding out (you don't even need to hear the person you abused), leading to rampant abuse of L5IG1O:  On individuals blocking/ignoring other individuals - see that for more details.
   
3. ^L5J6OZ:  Now we can stroke ourselves by easily having hundreds or thousands of "friends" on MySpace and Facebook, terribly (but falsely) combating the feeling of being alone.  But:
1. ^L5J7EQ:  The word "Friend" starts taking on new meaning, if everyone most happened to meet for a few minutes becomes one, and you've now got hundreds or thousands. It then becomes routine to "blow off" your "friends".  MySpace and the other social networking websites deserve a class-action lawsuit for mutilating the meaning of "friend" in this way.
2. ^L5J7LG:  And with so much "social" time spent online (plastered in front of Facebook or equivalent) managing hundreds of friends, it becomes way too easy to similarly blow of real-world friends & family plus of course people we meet in person - people in person start to become little different than the infinite ones we can meet online (or meet in person just once) and never meet again.
   
3. ^L5J7IT:  And now one gets status updates and/or tweets from most all of these hundreds of "friends".  But with so many messages (plus the message size getting smaller), it's just okay (indeed sometimes unavoidable) to loose messages routinely. This then leads to repeat messages, sometimes lots of repeats, to the word out, producing more overload & loss.
   
4. ^L5J6EM:  Too many inboxes to check: your phone (both SMS, vmail, missed calls, ringing) for every line, formerly your faxes, your email boxes, and now our Facebook, MySpace, and other website messages.  I've had a few young adults say "I never check my email, just my MySpace email."  However my guess is that people increasingly realize this problem and are combining & minimizing their inboxes consciously, because this also quickly causes them to loose messages they were really hoping to get.
   
5. ^L5J6BS:  Maybe most serious of all, acceptance of the above. Because of the commonality of the above, it then itself becomes an excuse for more. For many people (at least young adults) it now seems "OKAY" to blow off personal messages here and there, and routinely on new people you meet.

5. ^L5I9Y0:  Never ignore/block/return/delete communication from real person(s) which is just for you (not mass replicated), with very little exception

1. ^L5JZ1L:   In fact, if you believe the communication shows failure of L5ICYK: speaker integrity, you want to keep proof, NOT delete/block/return something as because it upsets you.

2. ^L5K3AW:  Typically & increasingly though, people ignore/block/return/delete (communications from real person(s) not mass-replicated) because of a failure in their own integrity.

1. ^L5JZG6:  Such as by the unhealthy habit & thinking of many people: "If something bothers you, just delete it" - something being "a message" but it's now increasingly including "people".
2. ^L5K3JP:  See the following text for more details on this.
   

3. ^L5IG1O:  On individuals blocking/ignoring other individuals,

1. ^L5IGN9:  this is becoming increasingly common
   
1. ^L5IG6O:  This is because, starting with caller ID back around 1995, it has become way too easy & common to ignore & block emails from people,
1. ^L5IGCX:  --especially against individuals who doesn't have the resources to break thru these barriers (repeat dialers, contacting from various addresses or from addresses one would know, etc).
2. ^L5IGD7:  As I recall, call screening was originally marketed primarily to help prioritize calls (so not to be interrupted with a matter which could be handled later) but now heavily being used (abused) to just accept calls now (which you will accept) and trash the rest.
2. ^L5IGHS:  The "feature" of caller OR message ID is now heavily being abused by those who just don't want to face nastiness they have done to someone -it's just too easy now to not take nor even see the message, and lie and get away with it.
1. ^L5IGOZ:  For instance, most single men (in at least urban areas of the US) report that it the NORM for women today to give out their phone number and even set up a date, with no intent of every answering the phone else following thru (of course wasting the guy tons of time & hope) --as "thanks" to our new technology, rather than the woman having to experience the "unpleasantness" of saying "no" or "I'm not sure", she can now just pleasantly give out her number & email and set up a date then trivially block all communication when she never follows thru (IF the guy has no way to get back at her for being so rude & wasteful, else she would never do this) but of course this costs the guy hours of wasted hope & work which he never gets back (trying to get her reply, wondering if she's getting the messages, not trying to be rude when he likes her, often even showing up to the meeting spot (maybe even bringing a gift) only to have her not show). Single guys (in at least urban areas of the US) report this is now the norm, and have developed minor protection: "She must store her number in her phone else you'll never hear from her again. As today she won't answer calls she doesn't know AND she doesn't listen to messages."; but even this is not nearly enough, as she could actually be saving the number under "ignore".  Other women do answer unknown calls, but only to say "Who is this?" and then when they remember say, "Oh thanks for calling. I'm busy now, but let me call you back." while they then hang up and now store the number under "ignore" so in fact will never answer again.  It's very nasty and totally immoral.
   
3. ^L5IGMK:  and so this is becoming a serious societal problem.
1. ^L5IHQO:  "Thanks" to the new technology, we now have the power to tell people, especially new people, nasty little lies (in order to spare themselves a tiny & appropriate discomfort) and in doing so  waste others hours of false hope & frustration (sometimes per incident), without ever being held accountable for doing this.  It's like throwing trash into your city streets just as long as no one sees you do it: indeed it's considerably worse, as while it might take just a minute to pick up someone's trash, the cost of being tricked & secretly rejected (often by someone you were praising) are much more upsetting and costly.
2. ^L5IIOE:  And what is done as response today?
   
1. ^L5IHR1:  For the most part, the problem goes unreported (seemingly why society isn't seriously facing it yet)
1. ^L5IHVC:  And why? Well who wants to admit he or she has been sneakily tricked & rejected, indeed by someone they were claiming to really like, especially a man being tricked by a woman. While very upsetting and wrong, it's also quite embarrassing, and even when one gets over that, can and does frequently lead others not to trust the person either, and even do more of this cruelty to him/her ("If others are rejecting him, and he tells me that, then hell, I'll reject him, too.").  There are wrong but very real social stigmas, as just as one "Who wants to be romantic with a person who has been raped", "Who wants to be friends with a person who has been nastily rejected". While not as serious as offense as rape, at least in most rape situations it's understandable that a weaker person could be raped by a stronger person, but here more often than not the stronger person is wrongfully tricked & hurt & rejected by a weaker person, making it much more embarrassing, probably especially to men who are expected to be stronger. So it virtually never gets reported.
   
2. ^L5IIQR:  So (in the case of dating) guys have developed some minor protections, but in the long term they still aren't good enough:
1. ^L5IIS1:  Call the # when the girl gives it to you (since you both have cell phones) so you can verify it on the spot. This seemed to start about 2005 and stopped girls giving out fake #s as they were so easily caught.
2. ^L5IITN:  So, starting at around 2008, see the girl stores your # in the phone (on 2010.07.04, I saw a drunk guy say to a woman he was trying to pick up, "Can you store my number in your phone") as explained above, but also explained above how this protection against the normal dishonesty is fooled as well.
   
3. ^L5IIFM:  So rather nasty false promises (of meeting again and even talking) are becoming  "accepted". Indeed since about 1995 the slogan "Take the hint" has become widespread among at least young adults, meaning "Expect new people (as new women) you meet to do nasty things to you, and just look for it as soon as possible, and when you see it, hate them and leave." And it's understandable response, because as an individual, what can you really do? The technology (cell phones, caller ID, email) enabling this to be done is here stay, so what you can you do? Seemingly nothing.
4. ^L5IJ0C:  This is essentially "Expect your community to be cruel to you if they can get away with it, which they routinely can today, but just do nothing when they are." -it is VERY unhealthy value, and certainly NOT something I'm going to sit around and accept in my community.  I actively work against it & encourage you to do the same -- see my upcoming article to be linked in here.

4. ^L5J866:  On individuals blocking all communications (or blocking a whole groups of people): seriously messed up.

1. ^L5J8A8:  This is obviously pretty crazy -- everyone or even large groups of people wouldn't deserve this.
   
2. ^L5J87A:  Most people don't do this, at least for most of the time.
   
3. ^L5J88O:  However, people cutting out all messages and phone calls and maybe even in-person contact for days or weeks, seems to be slowly increasing, and maybe even "okay".
1. ^L5J8IJ:  I recall certain recent movies were someone gets into a funk and does this: the hero in Swingers (1996) and in Office Space (1999) and I'm sure others.

5. ^L5IA02:  Blocking/ignoring person(s) one's job is to lead: an absolute no-go.

1. ^L5J8WT:  This is ridiculous, you would think unheard-of, as it:
1. ^L5J99G:  is overtly disrespectful to persons being lead.
   
2. ^L5J8YR:  Becomes impossible for those one leads to privately or at-all ask you questions, to bring you problems, give you feedback, etc, which then means most all these the problems fall on the person's boss, plus now the additional frustration & time waste from not having been blocked/ignored.
3. ^L5J9F7:  And unless the boss somehow also had some strange integrity lack, would just piss off the boss and the person's bad treatment of those s/he left plus failure in basic leadership.
   
2. ^L5J9DG:  So would suggest the person blocking/ignoring was either audacious else just pain selfish & stupid.
   
3. ^L5J9KG:  But at least on Meetup I've seen it:
1. ^L5J9M6:  I once had an Event Host (an Asst. Organizer) Lisa block me (and without ever saying, nor saying why). I don't know why exactly but if it what I am guessing (just a piece of helpful advice I shared with her that, if her reason, she was to stupid to understand), it was just stupid, and probably because in her personal life she is just used to casually blocking other people and just thinks she can carry over those bad habits to her job here. And it caused problems later with an event she was running where she didn't advertise it right where we were meeting but now I couldn't reach her (a person who makes one mistake will likely make others). No big this time, I just didn't show as a consequence; but sad. But fortunately not too common.
2. ^L5JA3N:  And it may have happened worse: see the combo.  
   

6. ^L5JA53:  The combo: Blocking/ignoring everyone one's job is to lead: unbelievably wrong.

1. ^L5JA8Y:  Combining the problems of both the above (L5J866:  On individuals blocking all communications (or blocking a whole groups of people): seriously messed up. and L5IA02:  Blocking/ignoring person(s) one's job is to lead: an absolute no-go.), you'd think this situation would be unheard-of.  But
   
2. ^L5JA7N:  2010.07: I've seen an Assistant Organizer of a major Meetup group who is blocking all communications from everyone on Meetup (except for her superiors whom Meetup doesn't allow blocking - their minor enforcement of some reasonable standard!).  

7. ^L5IJYD:  The exception are

1. ^L5INB8:  MUCH rarer than most people practice;
2. ^L5INBL:  exceptions are:
   
1. ^L5K2NX:  Storage overload - the system can't effectively handle more messages; in which case ideally just message summaries/key-points are kept.
1. ^L5K2QB:  Rarer than many people think: except in the case of content produced by much machine replication (as spam, some mass legit emails, some audio, and video), it is virtually impossible overload modern storage systems (as used by gmail): you can & should store every personal communication wherever possible.
   
2. ^L5INHN:  from a person who is legally considered mentally insane and have seen the official diagnosis & assured it's legit.
3. ^L5INGR:  due a notable failure of L5ICYK: speaker integrity here, you may temporarily hold else stop communication, maybe for a long time if truly serious, but never permanently:
   
1. ^L5JYT0:  If you've clearly (in words, not just gestures) let the speaker know you can't handle the matter right now and, if appropriate (as usually if asked), explained why and your reason is quite reasonable, but the speaker keeps contacting; then postpone these messages.
2. ^L5JYWF:  if the messages are public or violate the rules of the meeting place (as outbursts or profanity in court) postpone else (in extreme cases) ignore.
4. ^L5JZHW:  Even opening-the-message or answering the-call would unavoidably give away significant information (such as you are there or you got the communication or are at this address) and L5ICYK: speaker integrity here has been quite bad and you've notified them of such.
1. ^L5K25I:  Relevant background: in some email systems, opening a message is reported, sometimes unavoidably.  In certified mail, receiving a message is reported.  And clearly just answering a call, the fact it was answered and the voice answering it gives certain information. Sometimes this info can be abused.
2. ^L5K22X:  The most extreme example, in the movie The Air I Breathe (2007), a woman just answering the phone results in the murder of her boyfriend and future father of her child, plus worse. How? Fingers wants to extort-else-kill Gina and so Pleasure is hiding her at his place but she accidentally answers his phone, and just because a female voice is heard when Pleasure was expected, this results in Fingers killing Pleasure and recapturing & extorting Gina.
5. ^L5K2EZ:  There could be more exceptions but all need to be done with best integrity.
   

---

6. “^KVA16I:  Document Background & History”

1. ^L4NX0J: 2010.06.27pst0034 I DestinyArchitect “created & own this document”.

1. “^L2MXTP:  Confidentiality & Copyright: This document is copyrighted & could be confidential; specifically the document's owner(s) require all having this document abide by LoveRules.Info ownership & access rights (on LoveRules.Info About) with no exceptions unless its owner(s) state otherwise below or here:” no exceptions now.
2. “^KVA3T1:  Initially formed by: copying as directed” Writely doc KUJWXV “Revision 1110 -2010.06.27pst0028” to new Writely doc L4NX0J http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc6vsxdw_285f8zd8sf2.
3. “^KVA3VQ:  Motive at creation:” I originally created this section of "^L2PJSX:  above all: Communicate!, and Communicate as best you can! --this is essential" for L2Q8EC:  General values for everyone within L2PFGY(Universal Rules & Guidelines for Meetup.com) but since it universally applied (and that doc was already huge), now moving all the general stuff here .
   
4. “^KVA3WV: Title at creation: desiring name”[Speak up!]; “renamed to” title[(Speak-up! —a Guide to Great Communication)L4NX0J].
5. “^KVA579:  Initially Published-at URL:” http://LoveRules.Info/2010/06/l4nx0j.html
2. ^L95MJZ:  Tried new bookmark standard for L2ZZ29; had no CSS, added LoveRules.Info post template KUJWXV CSS L6QZ39; title[Speak-up! —a Guide to Great Communication L4O0H5].
   
   

Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better L8RWP2

^L8RWP2: Revision 649 -2010.09.14pst2242 (~50% complete 1st draft):
..

Contents —Read for a quick full-picture of what's here

1. L4JND9:  The problem: nearly every age-based group today has age criteria with 2 serious & hurtful consequences
2. L4JIOU:  My reaction to all this is deep & bitter-sweet: mere numerical age criteria hurts, we can do better.
1. L4JIXQ:  In fact I react here more profoundly than you might guess, as
1. L4JJAP:  I've 9+ months of experience founding & running a local young adult group myself
2. L4JIY6:  indeed it touches me personally as I've been the first-hand victim of numerical age discrimination, seemingly more than most
2. L4JJOV:  On the positive, I well see the need age-based groups:
3. L4JK54:  But on the negative, Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better!
1. L4JNQT:  Einstein said "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.", but mere numerical criteria is TOO simple so it hurts.
1. L4JK76:  Mere numerical age criteria is unnatural & regularly heavily inaccurate so hurts.
2. L4JNXJ:  Secondarily, mere numerical age criteria is also incomplete: as explained above, it cuts out the often-crucial supporters who don't fit that age range so hurts again.
4. L4JKEU:  Now I DO see good solution isn't obvious: yes, the problem is tricky.
5. L4JKGE:  And, if you're interested, I know of a group (though only one) which has apparently solved all these problems
6. L4JUBZ:  So better criteria exists, and is not hard to do: just copy what they've done!
3. L4JQ3H:  Easy things you can do about this...

1. ^L4JND9:  The problem: nearly every age-based group today has age criteria with 2 serious & hurtful consequences

   ^L4JH7U:  Though I'm sure it's unintentional and the designers did the best they could at the time, as of today 2010.06.24 EVERY group but one that I've seen which caters to a particular age range seems to have two serious & hurtful problems as far as its membership criteria:
   
1. ^L4JHAF: First & foremost, as far as the targeted age, it either arbitrarily (so hurtfully) discriminates or else is confusingly unclear:
1. ^L4JH9H: Analogous to the US law saying 18=adult, it simply gives specific numerical age rage, as 18 to 35 for a Young Adult group, and basically says you need to be this age to join and once you've grown beyond this age often suggestively saying "please leave so we don't have to remove you"
2. ^L4JHIF:  It tries to defer that ugly last situation with words like "-ish", as by instead defining Young Adult as "18 to 35ish", so now we get to argue & drag out & put off (until it becomes an overwhelming problem) when to not allow people and throw people out as they grow older.
3.  ^L4JHNK:  It skips the age question, for instance just says "We're young adults", possibly intentionally to avoid these obviously sticky situations, but that opens up a new problem of now what age range the group is for. For instance, for "young adult" does this mean 18 to 25, 18 to 30, 18 to 40?  In fact, I've also heard, especially in the book market, that "young adult" can also mean 14 to 18, could be really messy mixing in non-legal adults.
2. ^L4JHYS:  And secondly, as as far as any other involved ages are concerned, most of the time they are forgotten.  But the reality is that no age group (including groups of an age group) exist in a vacuum, and success (which probably should include membership) comes from the interaction & support of other ages of people.  Most notably, serious trouble would result in many kids groups if the group didn't also include adults to supervise -- well how do you word these sort of things into the membership criteria. In the case of infants & children, the need for adults being involved is so critical that almost certainly this will be somehow worded in.  But for groups of most all other ages, the need is still there (just not is strong) but is generally forgotten.  For example, with young adult groups focusing on a particular topic, many times there will be people older who, thinking of the future, are very interested in and involved in seeing these groups succeed, but typically the group's membership criteria will have no place for such people, even though they can play a very important & sometimes even official role in the group.
   

2.  ^L4JIOU:  My reaction to all this is deep & bitter-sweet: mere numerical age criteria hurts, we can do better.

1. ^L4JIXQ:  In fact I react here more profoundly than you might guess, as

1. ^L4JJAP:  I've 9+ months of experience founding & running a local young adult group myself

   (indeed developing one which could be franchised & replicated across the globe), and so, as always I strive carefully & fairly devise rules, so have thought about this age-criteria problem deeply, and
   

2. ^L4JIY6:  indeed it touches me personally as I've been the first-hand victim of numerical age discrimination, seemingly more than most

   ^L4JNMK:  And nervously letting myself be the Guinea Pig here, I'll share my personal experiences so to help explain the problem (but not to poke apart me!):
   
1. ^L4JL3O:  I have the normal priorities & needs of the age that I look (dating, dancing, networking, flirting (I do that a lot), hanging out with others who look like me, etc) and
   
2. ^L4JL42:  if I nobody knows my numerical age, everything goes fine indefinitely (hey, life got by 3.8 billion years without numbers, so no surprise); but
3. ^L4JL4J:  if I reveal my numerical age, typically I have all that good stuff wrongfully taken away from me, and frequently brutally --over number(!), merely because of people's over-faith of what those two digits mean --for, other than possibly medical doctors, no one is schooled in exactly what a numerical age truthfully implies, but most everyone today seems to feel they can brutally judge by those two digits --that hurts and is wrong!
   ^L4JMB7:  Now if everybody (and I mean everybody) has first gotten to know me for months, then my numerical age is just fine to most people - they know me now so it doesn't matter, as yes, without the number, I was what just what they first saw; BUT (1) that's rarely possible since many groups & forms & people that demand your age up front (I don't ask people any more, of either sex); and still (2) "How old is x" is a super common question, so if they tell anyone they know who doesn't know me, that person will likely flip out and think they and I are both crazy --so for me it's generally best never to tell.
4. ^L4JLDU:  But NOT telling my age isn't easy.
1. ^L4JN6T:  Especially of younger adults, youth, & men, people often ask "How old are you?" without even thinking anything of it.
2. ^L4JN74:  And the best reply I've ever come up with his "Hey, you know men never tell their age." (and then avoid further questions of it).
   
3. ^L4JN8B:  As by telling really why I don't tell & my numerous painful experiences doing otherwise even when it seemed okay, that usually just gets people more curious about my numerical age. Indeed now you're probably curious, too! --Please don't be, please focus on other things, as back to the subject:
   

2. ^L4JJOV:  On the positive, I well see the need age-based groups:

1. ^L4JJPE:  Humans of all ages generally prefer to most deeply socialize with others who look about the same age and have the same needs of that age group.
2. ^L4JJR2:  And young adult groups are especially important:
1. ^L4JJTI:  As young adults especially need to network ("it's not what you know but who you know" and "It's not what's happening but who's going") in order find mates & jobs and friends & families of their own in order to get inedpendently established in life.
2. ^L4JJWL:  And young adult groups on a particular topic or mindset are especially important to seriously carry on that topic or mindset to future generations.
3. ^L4JJZA:  Moreover, in UU, young adults, or at least single young adults, mostly-if-not entirely don't exist within all UU congregations I've seen (unlike most other popular religions in the US), so I'm delighted to see UU majorily addressing this, in this case of UU Church of the Younger Fellowship (CYF) --a national congregation of UU young adults.

3.  ^L4JK54:  But on the negative, Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better!

1. ^L4JNQT:  Einstein said "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.", but mere numerical criteria is TOO simple so it hurts.

1. ^L4JK76:  Mere numerical age criteria is unnatural & regularly heavily inaccurate so hurts.

1. ^L4JKAD:  I hate to see anyone excluded from anything based simply on numerical age since age is agreeably an arbitrary measure. Indeed numeric age is VERY arbitrary: remember life has "only" existed on this planet for 3.8 billion years (all but the last 37K) without even knowing what a number was; so for 99.999% of history life operated WITHOUT even knowing what a number was (and all life forms but humans still DO operate without knowing), suggesting conscious numerics are HARDLY fundamental to to the cores of life (in the order of .001%), something social & especially religious groups are *supposed* to be all about. Moreover,
2. ^L4JKCL:  I see the practice of numerical age exclusion (even suggestively) deeply contrary to the fundamental Unitarian Universalist values of inclusion and anti-discrimination.  In fact UU prides & features itself that it includes everyone (even GLBTQ and even every major religion) and is rather a place where one protecting against wrongful prejudice & descrimination. So now would it be okay for UU groups to exclude & discriminate against people based on age, and numerical age at that? Of course not! Therefore any UU group which is n
   
3. Moreover,
   
4. ^L4JKCU:  Membership criteria of (an exact age range and nothing more) is contrary in-the-big-picture to official UUA (UU USA) Young Adult policy of "There is no official, required age range for young adult groups. ... It is not the intention of the UUA to provide a universal, strictly defined age range for youth or young adulthood." rather "we hope Unitarian Universalist congregations and communities will dialogue with different demographic groups" (emails the Office Administrator Deborah Neisel-Sanders 2010.06.09 09:30 speaking for the Director Erik Kesting). Now I say "contrary in-the-big-picture" because...
   
1. ^L4JS8J:   Currently, on the sub-group level, UUA incorrectly DOES allow sub-groups to merely specify exact numerical ages as she adds "Unitarian Universalist congregational polity allows each congregation to create programs that fit their needs at their discretion. Some UUA programs and services are provided specifically for those in certain age ranges..."
1. L4JSNF:  Indeed, UUA is allowing the sub-groups to hash out a solution (as pick "the" right age), similar to federal law being sometimes vague allowing the states to hash out solution)
   
2. ^L4JSAI:  However, on their (top) level, UUA intends NOT "to provide a universal, strictly defined age range for youth or young adulthood"
   
3. ^L4JT4Y:  So why the contradiction?
   
1. ^L4JSRX:   Almost certainly because UUA (very correctly) realize this is a sticky matter where we don't want to arbitrarily be excluding people which would happen for whatever numerical age you picked (if that's all you did)
   
4. ^L4JSSM:  BUT if that's UUAs intent (to avoid arbitrary age based discrimination), then why doesn't UUA just come out and state that prohibition instead of allowing it??!
   
1. ^L4JT83:  Probably because it hasn't occurred to UUA something like that there could exist a uniform membership criteria format for an age-based group which wouldn't exclude anyone supportive, as the one example here, else they probably would have mandated that.
2. ^L4JV4C:  Still, seemingly regardless of the actual reason for this, allowing young-adult sub-groups to exclude people by mere numerical age contradicts much more fundamental UU values which apply to all UUs, so should be stopped.
   



3. 
   

2. ^L4JNXJ:  Secondarily, mere numerical age criteria is also incomplete: as explained above, it cuts out the often-crucial supporters who don't fit that age range so hurts again.

2. ^L4JKEU:  Now I DO see good solution isn't obvious: yes, the problem is tricky.

1. ^L4JO8P:  I see that its hard to see how membership criteria can accomplish all three key goals at once:
   
1. ^L4JO90:  target/gather/focus-on a particular age group (as young adults) and
2. ^L4JOCW: be some some sort of SIMPLE & PRECISE membership criteria that everyone can understand, and
   
3. ^L4JOEJ:  be truly fair and NOT causing arbitrary discrimination problems and include everyone necessary who (seemingly contradictorily) may be notably NOT in the targeted age range.
2. ^L4JOFF:  And I see seemingly because of this challenge, that that 3rd criteria is sadly but typically forsaken.

3. ^L4JKGE:  And, if you're interested, I know of a group (though only one) which has apparently solved all these problems

   (which has pioneered age-range targeted membership criteria which is both simple & precise-enough yet also non-discriminatory and inclusive of anyone (any age) supportive who just follows the other rules). 
   
1. ^L4JUMW:  Just post a comment here asking me and I'll tell you which.
   

4. ^L4JUBZ:  So better criteria exists, and is not hard to do: just copy what they've done!

3. ^L4JQ3H:  Easy things you can do about this...

1. ^L4JQ4O:  If you've experienced or know of a group which uses mere age based criteria or which just does or could result in negative age discrimination, point the leaders of that group to this web page and keep after them to fix these problems.
   
2. ^L4JQ8G:  If you are one of the leaders of such a group, update your group rules & documentation so to avoid the two problems mentioned here. Making it much easier to do this, just copy examples as the one example here. So then when someone asks "How okay is it for a person of ANY age outside the target age range to join & be a member?" your leadership can answer "Any age is fine via..." the exceptions & provisions you anyone supportive (and following the other rules) can be included.
   

 

 

---

^KVA16I:  Document Background & History

1. ^L4JGJT:  2010.06.24pst1448- I DestinyArchitect created & own this document (Writely doc KUJWXV).
   
1. ^KVA3T1:  Created from: copying as directed Writely doc KUJWXV “Revision 1039 -2010.05.18pst1459”
2. ^KVA3VQ:  Motive (at creation): TBA
   
3. ^KVA3WV: Title (at creation): desiring name[Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better]; renamed to title[(Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better)L4JGJT].
4. ^KVA579:  Published-at URL: http:///LoveRules.Info/2010/06/l4jgjt.html
5. ^L2MXTP:  This document copyright: see LoveRules.Info About's LoveRules.Info ownership & access rights for exact details.
   
2. ^L8RWR2: renamed to title[Mere numerical age criteria hurts; we can do better L8RWP2] per the 2 new titling standards.