Coaching and genuine chances to change

Respondents are supported, not discarded: a clear, human-centric coaching process (working name FLAME, modelled on corporate performance-support) walks with a person toward change, escalating toward exclusion only if unresolved — because exclusion without support may itself be harmful, and punishment alone does little for the person. Even someone the community must act against should be helped toward a safe, supportive path. The limit is honest: the community cannot want someone's change more than they do, and repeated conversations that produce no change are themselves a signal; sometimes the community's clear "it ends here" is the crisis that finally prompts change.

Deliberately left open — FLAME is a working name defined nowhere in the sources (glossary: to confirm with group). The professional outside resource for respondents (OPIN-095) is to be identified.

Where this comes from · 9 source items

This draft merges what the community actually said across 9 source items — every source ID is permanent and traceable.

GTC-046 Establish a coaching process for responders, FLAME
GTC-064 Supporting responder, as exclusion without support and help, if accepted, may be harmful
GTC-089 We cannot be more committed to a person’s change than they are
OPIN-065 The moment you are more committed to their healing than they are then the efforts are lost. Sometimes people need a crisis to change, and getting a "it ends here" from an entire community could be the crisis they have been waiting for.
OPIN-094 Repeated conversations with people, not changing
OPIN-095 If we do this, professional outside resource – for offenders to contact for support
OPIN-132 route to remedy - "jail" or banishment helps the victim and the community but does very little to help the guilty party (Let's call him Lloyd).
OPIN-133 And if Lloyd is also a part of the community then I'd want to help him. That seems like the point to me. Safe supportive community.
OPIN-158 Implement a coaching process that is clear Re coaching people/offenders, I have ideas regarding this. In the corporate world, when I worked for an excellent employer, we had processes that were really human-centric for helping those not meeting expectations. They were aimed at clearly explaining the issue and then having the person come up with ideas for solutions, offer support or resources, and working together on follow ups, with set deadlines (as appropriate), and then clear communication about consequences if/when needed. The focus was always education and support first, with kindness, as people are often just unaware and not trying to act poorly. Especially with people new to our community, they really may not know any other way. And they can read the principles, and they may not understand. So, benefit of the doubt, of course in the nuanced cases. And then you see. We usually set an expectation of two meetings, and then if the problem persists, then it was communicated that the consequence could be termination. It was not threateningly said, just more as "hey, just so you know this is important and serious"

Themes · respondent support and coaching · repercussions and exclusion · education and onboarding

Your signal on this draft

Sentiment only — no action is taken from these tallies. You can change it any time.

Comments · members only

Comments and tallies are visible to registered members. Log in.