Dialog across difference #7: Your feet. My feet. The fire.

 A formal dialog session can benefit from some shared ground rules. I have three on which I insist: 

1. No identity slurs nor ad hominem attacks.

2. Be respectful of time--allow for all voices equally.

3. All agree that we want a fair outcome.

The reasons for the first rule are obvious. No one should have to anticipate being called names based on any portion of their identity, nor should anyone be expected to enter into a session in which their character may be attacked. As one facilitation guide says, "Criticize ideas, not individuals."

The second ground rule is also obvious. No mic-hogging.

The reasons for the third rule that I require are less obvious. Those reasons, for me, include: 

• setting the aspirational tone as seeking a fair outcome
• seeking to reduce any asymmetry in power by getting a commitment from all, however vague, to try for a fair outcome
• providing a default reference when one person suggests a particularly lopsided outcome so that anyone can then ask, OK, does that seem fair to everyone? If I am moderating it gives me permission to hold their feet to the metaphorical fire in that regard. It may seem like a weak tool, but it does keep the door open to discussing fairness at any sensitive point. And when I agree to that ground rule as a party myself, I am ceding that same right to all others, thus doing a small bit to build the trust we need to either create or rebuild.