Tuesday, September 21, 2004
I never expected that my entry in the platoon's Occurrence Book (dated 16 September 2004, about the scolding incident) would stir up so much trouble.
Sergeant Elson read it, felt it was unfair, called me down after lunch and berated me for writing such things, telling me not to be a "reporter" when it comes to writing the occurrence book. Then some people in the platoon are angry that Sergeant Elson is behaving like this - his personal ego is so high that he refuses to take such a beating, they feel.
So it results in conflict, with many broken people.
Thanks go to Ronald for persuading Sergeant Elson to speak to us in the evening to clear up all misconceptions that have arisen due to the entry. On that very evening, we are enlightened as we find out more about Sergeant's personality and the reasons for the things he does, and he hears our side of the story about the entry on him.
What exactly is the role of the occurrence book? Is it merely a log book, where the events of the day - hard, cold facts - are merely stated as a reminder of what the platoon has done for the day? Or is it the platoon's diary, where thoughts are written down after the day's training, with the hope that a commander will come and read it and understand how we feel about things, emotions which we are unable to relate to our commanders in the course of training. And perhaps the commanders will write a word or two based on their "side of the story". For example, when I wrote that Sergeant Dexter once made us march what seemed to be endless after breakfast, and eventually knocked us down outside Battalion HQ, he himself put onto the book that a minority of us refused to heed his instructions to sing loudly and march properly. Therefore he punished us. When I wrote the account of last week's incident, I very much expected the same thing to happen: Sergeant Elson would probably state his reasons for being so confrontational and for scolding us out of the blue. No: instead he becomes angry and confronts the platoon again.
We can see that words in the occurrence book merely tell one side of the story, and may not please the other party, because there is no place for him to counter-argue within the paragraphs already printed on paper. Therefore dialogue is more effective in that sense. A person may be able to tell one thing of the story, and the other party can listen and instantaneously (not interruptedly, though) push forth whatever he has to say to put out the fire, or to allow the misinformed to comprehend. And this is exactly what we did on this Tuesday night. I must say that we are less likely to get into conflict or trouble again, because now we understand both parties. We are more able to pre-empt Sergeant's outburst in the future - once he issues his first warning, we shall be quick to correct our mistakes to avoid a subsequent notice that can possibly lead to an explosion of temper.
¶ 9/21/2004 04:53:00 pm Sergeant Elson read it, felt it was unfair, called me down after lunch and berated me for writing such things, telling me not to be a "reporter" when it comes to writing the occurrence book. Then some people in the platoon are angry that Sergeant Elson is behaving like this - his personal ego is so high that he refuses to take such a beating, they feel.
So it results in conflict, with many broken people.
Thanks go to Ronald for persuading Sergeant Elson to speak to us in the evening to clear up all misconceptions that have arisen due to the entry. On that very evening, we are enlightened as we find out more about Sergeant's personality and the reasons for the things he does, and he hears our side of the story about the entry on him.
What exactly is the role of the occurrence book? Is it merely a log book, where the events of the day - hard, cold facts - are merely stated as a reminder of what the platoon has done for the day? Or is it the platoon's diary, where thoughts are written down after the day's training, with the hope that a commander will come and read it and understand how we feel about things, emotions which we are unable to relate to our commanders in the course of training. And perhaps the commanders will write a word or two based on their "side of the story". For example, when I wrote that Sergeant Dexter once made us march what seemed to be endless after breakfast, and eventually knocked us down outside Battalion HQ, he himself put onto the book that a minority of us refused to heed his instructions to sing loudly and march properly. Therefore he punished us. When I wrote the account of last week's incident, I very much expected the same thing to happen: Sergeant Elson would probably state his reasons for being so confrontational and for scolding us out of the blue. No: instead he becomes angry and confronts the platoon again.
We can see that words in the occurrence book merely tell one side of the story, and may not please the other party, because there is no place for him to counter-argue within the paragraphs already printed on paper. Therefore dialogue is more effective in that sense. A person may be able to tell one thing of the story, and the other party can listen and instantaneously (not interruptedly, though) push forth whatever he has to say to put out the fire, or to allow the misinformed to comprehend. And this is exactly what we did on this Tuesday night. I must say that we are less likely to get into conflict or trouble again, because now we understand both parties. We are more able to pre-empt Sergeant's outburst in the future - once he issues his first warning, we shall be quick to correct our mistakes to avoid a subsequent notice that can possibly lead to an explosion of temper.
