My moderating style – or what I believe it should be, rather – is inclusive. An invitation, it is inviting and warm. It operates on the assumptions that all comments are safe and well-received, and it is sustained through fostering an environment of low tension and overall acceptance. My moderating style holds little power, save only for hopefully drawing out thoughts from the silence of an outnumbered guy or a shy girl. I aim to be mostly a mere calming smile – who can be inquisitive at times. Absolutely no condescension. Idealistic? Perhaps. But I believe that walls and presuppositions can only be knocked down with openness, and I even more strongly believe that these walls of stubbornness must go.
Why do I strive for such idealism? As a product of an environment surrounded by extreme partisanship (and bashing) that has ultimately left a sour taste, I have grown to have little tolerance for hard-headed one-sidedness. It has shown to create theatrics and a universal us vs. them attitude – yet little else. To me, the term moderation lends itself to the idea that people must be moderate – at least in terms of an absence of non-negotiable, steel convictions. Beliefs are okay, but that’s just it. Beliefs are okay. I aim to avoid spirals of silences and overbearing opinions, again, most likely in rebellion of my at-times seemingly brainwashed family and some friends. For this reason, my goal is the opposite: an anti-conflict environment in which each position or possibility is explored, regardless of whether those beliefs are shared by group members themselves or instead led into discussion by yours truly – the moderator. Eventually, opinions may and should be formed, but only as long as group members are led to truly consider the options and implications.
I love where you’re heading with this, Shannon! I don’t think it’s too loosey-goosey at all. I love the artfulness and the precise word choice throughout. Like Allison and Melissa, I wonder about where your examples might go. It’s so tightly woven now that it’s difficult to see a spot for them. You may end up needing to divide that second paragraph. But, I think you’re off to a fantastic start, and I have no doubt you’ll find just the right examples and space for them.
I think you should probably strive for more structure here, in order to achieve a clear frame. You do state your philosophy with a clear term (inclusive). You do not include many obvious spaces for examples. I would suggest splitting up the second paragraph into several body paragraphs with examples. You do a really good job at establishing a personal connection and being engaging: your tone is creative. You could throw in specific personal examples though. I really like your focus on and description of what is inclusive. I do think you need to be more structured and less vague. Good start! Can’t wait to see what you come up with.
And to answer your question: it is not too “loosey-goosey” at all. It shows your true personality, like your moderating philosophy should!
I think your philosophy has a clear frame – one of being an inviting, non-intimidating moderator. I like your final sentence. I think that is some form of reflection – to reflect on other people’s opinions, being open to them, and forming your own from their ideas. Where do you plan on adding examples? I think a good spot would be after you talk about spiral of silence. If you see this happening during the deliberation, you could talk about how you used your philosophy to discourage this silence. After reading this philosophy, I think it reflects you very much which makes me feel more connected to you. It seems like it really incorporates your personality well. From what I know about you, you are always smiling and very kind. You don’t give off the condescending vibe at all, like you mentioned in your first paragraph. I think it is extremely personal and engaging. Maybe you can incorporate some of your own personality qualities and relate these to your principles for your moderating philosophy. I think that you need to work out where you will place your examples, but right now that may be a little hard to do. My favorite part of your philosophy is how you phrased encouraging those who tend to be quieter to talk up (“My moderating style holds little power, save only for hopefully drawing out thoughts from the silence of an outnumbered guy or a shy girl”). You said it so eloquently. You mentioned how you do not want to have too much power (a moderator shouldn’t), but you want to have enough power to hear everyone’s opinions (as a moderator should). Great job, I think your draft is coming along really well!
I’m totally going to comment on my own post because I have a specific question for you guys: I know that I said that I enjoyed the more “artfully-written” teaching philosophies from before, but does this outline seem too loosey-goosey (for lack of a better term)? I just kind of wrote what I felt, and although a specific framework may come out of a stream of consciousness, I’m afraid I was musing a little too much. Thanks guys!