An Attempt at Negotiations
This evening was an interesting trial in conflict negotiations. As background information, my roommate, Mike, has three good friends from his major, two of which are, to put it nicely, difficult to tolerate (fortunately, the girl he is dating is a good person). Mike comes home after an organic chemistry study session with these three girls, and in good natured fun, they take two of our liquor bottles (we have a HUGE liquor bottle collection on the shelves above our TV from the countless glasses of alcohol served at our parties), and my personal shot glass given to me by my parents from their vacation to New Mexico. They play around a little, wrestle, flirt, etc., but as they leave, we ask them to return the stolen goods, and they ensue running down the hall back to their rooms. The bottles and shot glass were taken in pseudo-devious methods, one person would distract Mike and the other would take a bottle, or Mike would take something from them (such as a student ID) and offer to exchange it for the bottles, but when he returns it, they do not return with the goods. Fortunately, one of the girls had left her key chain (her room key, mail key, car key, house key, and other knickknacks) on our table, so I put it in my pocket knowing they would eventually come back. Mike IMs one of the girls, and says if she wants her keys back, she would have to return the bottles.
In a few minutes, they come to the door. I was studying for a statics and mechanics test tomorrow, but I got up to answer the door. Through the peephole, I saw the three girls, and they had a white bag. I asked them to remove the three items from the bag before letting them in, so as to not waste more time I could have used to study. They refused, but they cited good reason that an RA may end up walking down the hall and see them. I accepted, and offered to let the one in with the bag, being a perfectly reasonable solution to end a game clearly no one wanted to play anymore. Two of the girls step away, but as I open the door, all three of them (two being rather "large" girls), push open the door and enter my room. They ensue tearing the place apart looking for the keys, including one girl (Mike's girlfriend) locking herself in my room to, in my best conclusion, either look through my stuff or take something (as they have done before). I tell them I know where their keys are, and all they have to do is return the bottles and the shot glass to where they found them, and I would return the keys. They refuse, so I, clearly not wanting the bottles nearly as bad as she wanted the keys, refused as well. They whine, but I stuck to my word, arguing that they simply undo their action (the one they started), and I would undo mine. They really weren't the type to trust (as from the previous examples of not returning the stolen goods in exchange for something returned of theirs, or their lying about one person entering the room), so I continued playing hardball in hopes she wanted her keys bad enough to return the bottles. Instead, despite clearly not having an upper hand, continued to whine. They returned my shot glass saying they didn't know it was mine, but still wouldn't return the bottles. They attempted to make an offer by placing the bag with the presumed bottles (they would never open it) on the couch, but would not leave it unguarded for me to take them back, so I refused the offer. I clearly did not want to play around, I had studying to do, but they would end it by undoing what they stole. They ensued whining again, and one of their male friends came in wondering what was going on. We told him, but he couldn't make heads or tails of the situation, and was, for the most part, a distraction. The girl whose keys I had was on the verge of tears, but being pretty unfeeling, I simply asked her to do the fair thing and return the bottles and I would return the keys as promised (they clearly had shown their untrustworthiness, but I had yet to go against my word). Eventually, our other roommate Geoff walked in, and commented on how childish we were acting (which, by and by was true, but I like to contend I was handling the situation calmly, but the other parties were being emotional and making a simple solution complicated). Eventually, the girl whose keys I had went upstairs with the bag, and I gave Geoff, priding himself as a politician (political science is one of his majors), the keys under the condition that if he failed to get back all the stolen goods, he would owe me $10 as part of a one-sided bet. He went up to her room while she was there by herself, played hardball much like I had the whole night, and said if she did not give back the bottles in the next twenty seconds, she would never see her keys again (though he did make a personal threat, which was uncalled for). Sure enough, she returned them and he gave back the keys, simple as that. Situation ended much as I had hoped.
I like to think this thing blew up simply because the other participants were not thinking with a clear mind. The situation was resolved using the same tactic I employed the entire evening, but was done one-on-one, as I wished I could have done originally when I asked only the person with the bag to enter the room. I am not an ethicist, in fact, being a postmodernist, I believe ethics are subjective from person to person, but since most people like to believe in a right and a wrong, I will play along for the sake of argument. If party A commits a generally unacceptable action α (such as stealing), and party B commits an equal act β in response to α, it is not unreasonable for party A to completely undo α before party B undoes β. The first two actions following chronologically created what can fairly, in an ethical context, be assumed an alternating pattern A, B, A, B. This alternating pattern creates a fair distribution between the two parties. If the pattern were A, B, B, A, this would give party A an unequal gap in time (time being described in number of actions) between actions, plus give them a greater summation of knowledge of prior events regarding party B, allowing them an unfair advantage in the situation. All other patterns (assuming A, B as the starting parties, and A and B are allotted equal, fair, number of actions) have similar problems. We can conclude from this ethical analysis that the fairest action would have been for them to undo their action, return the bottles and shot glass to their original positions, before returning the keys. If we want to throw in another variable, the issue of trustworthiness, they had clearly proved themselves lacking and if any party could not trust the other, it would have been me. I had done no untrustworthy action the entire evening. I clearly had the upper hand, having the item they valued more, and all I had hoped for was an generally conclusive ethical undoing of α and β.
If we step back and look at this as merely a game, we have to ask a few questions. First off, were all parties interested in playing? I, having much to accomplish, was not interested in a game being played anywhere around me (as was happening when they first came to take the bottles). Secondly, if this was a game, why was one of the girls almost in tears? There is no crying in games (unless you are a poor loser), so the situation clearly stepped away from being a game, so why did she not want to end an uncomfortable situation fairly? I was uninterested in playing, but if they still wanted to continue, why did they not play along and return the stolen items as should have been done rather than get upset? All in all, I contend these girls were being unfair, confused, pathetic, and weak.
Too bad the situation resulted in hurting regulars to my room, and one of my roommates, Mike, who values their friendship (yet will not acknowledge that maybe they were in the wrong). Neither Geoff, nor I, enjoys the company of two of the girls, but this will probably keep all three from coming down again. The confused third-party male even went so far as to make threats against Geoff for how he ended up handling (in my opinion, the right way except for the personal threat) the situation.
This has been a lesson in negotiation and ethics.
In a few minutes, they come to the door. I was studying for a statics and mechanics test tomorrow, but I got up to answer the door. Through the peephole, I saw the three girls, and they had a white bag. I asked them to remove the three items from the bag before letting them in, so as to not waste more time I could have used to study. They refused, but they cited good reason that an RA may end up walking down the hall and see them. I accepted, and offered to let the one in with the bag, being a perfectly reasonable solution to end a game clearly no one wanted to play anymore. Two of the girls step away, but as I open the door, all three of them (two being rather "large" girls), push open the door and enter my room. They ensue tearing the place apart looking for the keys, including one girl (Mike's girlfriend) locking herself in my room to, in my best conclusion, either look through my stuff or take something (as they have done before). I tell them I know where their keys are, and all they have to do is return the bottles and the shot glass to where they found them, and I would return the keys. They refuse, so I, clearly not wanting the bottles nearly as bad as she wanted the keys, refused as well. They whine, but I stuck to my word, arguing that they simply undo their action (the one they started), and I would undo mine. They really weren't the type to trust (as from the previous examples of not returning the stolen goods in exchange for something returned of theirs, or their lying about one person entering the room), so I continued playing hardball in hopes she wanted her keys bad enough to return the bottles. Instead, despite clearly not having an upper hand, continued to whine. They returned my shot glass saying they didn't know it was mine, but still wouldn't return the bottles. They attempted to make an offer by placing the bag with the presumed bottles (they would never open it) on the couch, but would not leave it unguarded for me to take them back, so I refused the offer. I clearly did not want to play around, I had studying to do, but they would end it by undoing what they stole. They ensued whining again, and one of their male friends came in wondering what was going on. We told him, but he couldn't make heads or tails of the situation, and was, for the most part, a distraction. The girl whose keys I had was on the verge of tears, but being pretty unfeeling, I simply asked her to do the fair thing and return the bottles and I would return the keys as promised (they clearly had shown their untrustworthiness, but I had yet to go against my word). Eventually, our other roommate Geoff walked in, and commented on how childish we were acting (which, by and by was true, but I like to contend I was handling the situation calmly, but the other parties were being emotional and making a simple solution complicated). Eventually, the girl whose keys I had went upstairs with the bag, and I gave Geoff, priding himself as a politician (political science is one of his majors), the keys under the condition that if he failed to get back all the stolen goods, he would owe me $10 as part of a one-sided bet. He went up to her room while she was there by herself, played hardball much like I had the whole night, and said if she did not give back the bottles in the next twenty seconds, she would never see her keys again (though he did make a personal threat, which was uncalled for). Sure enough, she returned them and he gave back the keys, simple as that. Situation ended much as I had hoped.
I like to think this thing blew up simply because the other participants were not thinking with a clear mind. The situation was resolved using the same tactic I employed the entire evening, but was done one-on-one, as I wished I could have done originally when I asked only the person with the bag to enter the room. I am not an ethicist, in fact, being a postmodernist, I believe ethics are subjective from person to person, but since most people like to believe in a right and a wrong, I will play along for the sake of argument. If party A commits a generally unacceptable action α (such as stealing), and party B commits an equal act β in response to α, it is not unreasonable for party A to completely undo α before party B undoes β. The first two actions following chronologically created what can fairly, in an ethical context, be assumed an alternating pattern A, B, A, B. This alternating pattern creates a fair distribution between the two parties. If the pattern were A, B, B, A, this would give party A an unequal gap in time (time being described in number of actions) between actions, plus give them a greater summation of knowledge of prior events regarding party B, allowing them an unfair advantage in the situation. All other patterns (assuming A, B as the starting parties, and A and B are allotted equal, fair, number of actions) have similar problems. We can conclude from this ethical analysis that the fairest action would have been for them to undo their action, return the bottles and shot glass to their original positions, before returning the keys. If we want to throw in another variable, the issue of trustworthiness, they had clearly proved themselves lacking and if any party could not trust the other, it would have been me. I had done no untrustworthy action the entire evening. I clearly had the upper hand, having the item they valued more, and all I had hoped for was an generally conclusive ethical undoing of α and β.
If we step back and look at this as merely a game, we have to ask a few questions. First off, were all parties interested in playing? I, having much to accomplish, was not interested in a game being played anywhere around me (as was happening when they first came to take the bottles). Secondly, if this was a game, why was one of the girls almost in tears? There is no crying in games (unless you are a poor loser), so the situation clearly stepped away from being a game, so why did she not want to end an uncomfortable situation fairly? I was uninterested in playing, but if they still wanted to continue, why did they not play along and return the stolen items as should have been done rather than get upset? All in all, I contend these girls were being unfair, confused, pathetic, and weak.
Too bad the situation resulted in hurting regulars to my room, and one of my roommates, Mike, who values their friendship (yet will not acknowledge that maybe they were in the wrong). Neither Geoff, nor I, enjoys the company of two of the girls, but this will probably keep all three from coming down again. The confused third-party male even went so far as to make threats against Geoff for how he ended up handling (in my opinion, the right way except for the personal threat) the situation.
This has been a lesson in negotiation and ethics.