This is an interesting pledge. One sentence in particular jumped out at me: Generally, I want people to have no regrets when they act in the way I would like them to act. I think I understand what you mean; however, some editors may misinterpret its meaning. Best regards, momoricks (make my day) 17:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for your comment. An example for what I had in mind instance happened just yesterday, in the ArbCom election, when I asked a candidate about their achievements as a MedCab coordinator. The answer "Mostly not noteworthy. :) [...]" was obviously not what I had hoped to see, but I do want people to answer honestly to my questions. Therefore, I did not let this influence my vote negatively and voted the same as if I hadn't asked the question. If the candidate had embellished their achievements, I would have at least abstained, or voted against them, depending on the extent.

Unfortunately, I can't see how someone could misunderstand my wording. Could you please help me and write how you think some people might interpret it? — Sebastian 18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is harder to convey meanings with written words than when you are speaking to someone in person, as I'm sure you know well from you work as a mediator. I was thinking perhaps some editors may interpret that sentence as you will tell them how to act or that they should have regrets if the do not act the way you want them to. I just wanted to give you my two cents and may be totally off base on this one. Best, momoricks (make my day) 01:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks a lot! That's indeed a possible interpretation. Maybe it would be clearer, then, to say "I want to act towards others in a way that I don't give them a reason to regret any virtuous action." The problem with this one is that it sounds like a tautology. I'll have to sleep over this. — Sebastian 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. That is a tough sentiment to convey. Take care, momoricks (make my day) 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I stumbled across your principles quite by accident, but I like them very much, particularly PINOT and 1RR. I'd like to promote the same ideas on my user page, but I have a very slightly different perspective on them. Would you mind me using the ideas, but changing the wording just a bit? I certainly won't do it if it would bother you for me either to use your words or to make changes to them. Or, if you'd like, I can give you the right of approval over the rewrite before I post it. Whatever you prefer is fine with me.

Also, regarding the discussion above, if I understand your meaning correctly, maybe you could say something like, "I will do my best never to act in a way that causes another to regret behaving with integrity"?

I look forward to your reply. Have a great week. -- edi(talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd be delighted if you did something similar. I'm only experimenting with these myself, so I might end up using your version. But you don't need to refer to my page; I started an essay at WP:Pledges, and I'd be happy if you could edit that. (I know the way I started it was quite personal, but if I want it to become a guideline some day, then it needs to reflect other people's view.) — Sebastian 20:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the wording from the discussion above, I actually mean more than just integrity. For example, somebody can act with complete integrity, while still being guarded towards me. Openness is not a condition for integrity. But I do appreciate it! By my pledge, I want to make sure people can be open to me without being afraid of ever regretting it. — Sebastian 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind note. I'm excited about looking at what you've written, but I'm currently in the middle of a big project at work so it may be a little while before I can. I'll certainly let you know when I've looked at it and what I think. Thanks again for writing. Have a great week. -- edi(talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This experience made me think that we could amend AGF by something like “Assume some intelligence” or, more generally, “Take another look”. Somehow, when another person acts in a way that seems odd to us, our instincts tend to lead us to rather react with "I don't see" than take another look. Of course, in the short run, it often works: It empowers us to quickly reply (which is naturally a primary concern for our instincts), which often suffices to discourage the other person. Problem solved – time saved. But that may only be a short lived victory, and it's anathema to conflict resolution. I wonder how to find a reasonable balance between the time saving instinct and the time consuming second look. Should we really take another look each time we feel the urge to say “I don't see”? One case in which it is probably always better not to take another look is when someone tries to sell us something. When I don't see why I should buy it, why should I take another look? In that case, even answering “I don't see” can be too friendly, as it may be seen as an invitation to reinforce the sales pitch. ◅ Sebastian 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]