| Random Page
suggests that often naming a specific pattern, particularly a conflict pattern, helps solve the conflict. However, mentioning a pattern may also make a message seem insincere as it looks mechanical rather than warm and willed. To feel warm and welcoming a message must at least seem
not to have any motivation beyond genuine warmth. So mentioning CommunityExpectation
s right off the bat is okay (as CommunityExpectation
s are not patterns), but mentioning how
we are introducing those CommunityExpectation
s (a pattern, such as to WelcomeNewcomer
s) is not always.
Before mentioning a pattern, be sure that the target of your message can AssumeGoodFaith for this message. When the other person is in an AngryCloud (towards you, or the world in general), or you haven't built up any trust yet, there's no use in a message that seems mechanical.
Remember that people on meatball are the good guys, so we're pretty good at assuming GoodFaith. Don't shy away from mentioning patterns if you think they will help. We certainly shouldn't stop talking out of fear of emotional unstability.
Also, this is MeatballWiki where we develop those patterns. If we apply a Pattern without mentioning it and then learn something from doing so, we will write about it on the page in question, and the target will notice and feel even more aggrieved. It's better to be overt about this so you are free to talk about it.
- WelcomeNewcomer: We care about every new user, but we don't want to sully our welcome message by saying to them we're only doing this because it is prescribed in some policy document that we don't even consciously follow. After all, WelcomeNewcomer was written to describe existing practice, not to define it.
- A while ago Sunir mentioned that he was using the NameTheConflict and OpenDiscussion patterns in a discussion. However, this felt cold to his discussion partner, as past events made him unable to AssumeGoodFaith.
A related AntiPattern is the style particular to Meatball, the PatternFight?.