On the subject of the accusatory tone (Questions about the Grey Ribbon Technique)

inSite21.com
Services and support available through this site are now available by private access only.

July 6, 2025

Questions about the Grey Ribbon Technique

On the subject of the accusatory tone
continue >>>

Here we respond to feedback (questions) about the accusatory tone of the presentation of the Grey Ribbon Technique. See Qnum 1

Q.) The content within the five part sequence is very accusatory.

The presentation is a discussion of a proposed technique for the management of behavioral circumstances that qualify as defined. In that spirit, it is definitional, not accusatory.

Clearly, when and if the presentation is presented to an individual whose behavior qualifies as defined, at that point, the suggestion that it does apply to them would be an accusation.

It is the nature of complaints, if they are to be effective, to present a clear statement of the behavior in question. That is the starting point. We do not share the view that seems to be common in certain cultural circles, that softening the presentation of a complaint is a good way to accommodate an anticipation that its validity will be challenged. Rather, we recommend that complaints should not be made at all, until the propositions as to their validity are unassailable. That third parties will not be in a position to assess whether such complaints are unassailable should not be weighed into the balance. The matters are personal, between the parties involved, and not open to the judgment of others who do not have all the facts.

In the case of the proposed Grey Ribbon Management techniques, when they become relevant, by our proposal, two levels of complaint arise. The first, address the underlying behavioral issues that were the object of repeated proposed discussion that has already been declined. The second, and the one that is more to the point of the Grey Ribbon Technique, addresses the decline (disrespectful avoidance) of the discussion that has been proposed.

The underlying questions of the precipitating behavior may or may not continue to involve levels of uncertainty yet to be explored. Clear probable cause for suspicion gives rise to the validity of exploratory questions and the legitimacy of exploring them, if they qualify for an inquiry in other respects. Certainty about the underlying issues is not necessarily required, under our proposal, to invite an exploration. Certainty about the probable cause for suspicion does.

It should be clearly understood that our proposal is applicable where such certainty about probable cause for suspicion clearly exists or has been exceeded; an exploratory conversation has been requested; and it has been unequivocally, or effectively denied (by avoidance).

The unequivocal denial, or effective denial (by avoidance) of the exploratory conversation, by our recommendation, should be unassailably evident before the Grey Ribbon Techniques are employed.

Accordingly, the larger complaint at issue is the complaint that illegitimate avoidance has occurred and is ongoing (in violation of a social contract or obligation), as it applies to a legitimate invitation for a discussion of clearly evident suspicions (or facts) about the underlying behavior of the accused. To be legitimate, the underlying behavior would have to be something that the complaining party has a legitimate interest in questioning.

These principles are clearly well established in the legal system. They are often managed quite sloppily and with disregard in arenas outside the legal system. This is a chronic social problem exploited by manipulators who rely on unchallenged avoidance as part of their manipulative repertoire.

So, to the contributor's question (challenge) that the presentation is "very accusatory". That it is accusatory when and if presented to the party who is the object of the complaint... well... of course it is, and unapologetically so. That it is "very accusatory"?? Well... "very" is a term of subjective judgement (presumption) that generally suggests something to be excessive. The only circumstances in which the accusatory nature of the presentation would be "excessive" is where the presentation is made improperly and in a manner or under circumstances that are contrary to our proposal.

Continue...

continue >>>

Moscow @ 23:59:54
Paris @ 21:59:54
London @ 20:59:54

Reykjavik, Iceland @ 20:59:54

Sao Paulo @ 17:59:54
Buenos Aires @ 17:59:54

New York @ 16:59:54
Dallas @ 15:59:54
Denver @ 14:59:54
San Francisco @ 13:59:54
Anchorage @ 12:59:54

Honolulu @ 10:59:54

Nadi, Fiji @ 08:59:54  July 7, 2025
Sydney, Australia @ 07:59:54  July 7, 2025
Tokyo, Japan @ 05:59:54  July 7, 2025
Hong Kong @ 04:59:54  July 7, 2025

UTC: 21:59:54