The Mediation Table

Reactivate Unit 7 by asking which pragmatic move each line is making and which room it's built for.

Output: One diagnostic label per line: style, move, room.

Teacher gives you five short lines (a low-context ask, a high-context softener, a complaint that owns its reading, an apology with a specific take-back, an ironic aside without a signal). For each, in ten seconds: label style (low/high-context), name the specific move (ask, softener, complaint, apology, irony), and say what would break if you tried the same line in the opposite room.

Set the parties, the misread of intent and the joint sentence you'll aim to land on before you sit in the chair.

Output: A one-page mediation card: parties + default styles + misread of intent + two draft joint sentences.

Choose ONE real cross-style disagreement — from work, family or community — that you can mediate in the next 45 minutes. Draft: (a) both parties and their default communicative styles, (b) the misread of intent — what one hears as X that the other means as Y, (c) the two draft JOINT SENTENCES you'd try to land on, one for each party in their own room. Read the card aloud to teacher; teacher challenges the sentence that shames someone in the room.

• · Option: a director from a low-context corporate culture and a designer from a high-context one, disagreeing on a launch date.
• · Option: a longstanding supplier and a new client from opposite corners of the transparency spectrum, on price.
• · Option: a returning colleague and a new manager, misfiring on how much detail belongs in status updates.

Warm the pragmatic muscles by delivering the same operational message twice, back-to-back, to opposite rooms.

Output: Two 2-minute deliveries of the same message plus one sentence naming what you gave up in each.

Draft one operational message from the mediation you're about to run (a boundary you'll set, an ask you'll make). Deliver it for 2 minutes in a LOW-context version, then 2 minutes in a HIGH-context version. Teacher plays whichever room you didn't choose. After both, in one sentence: name what you gave up in each version and which one you'd send if you had to choose.

If you're in a group: In pairs, one delivers both versions, the other rates which one they'd trust more coming from a stranger and coming from a longtime colleague.

Rehearse the complaint, apology and taboo-entry you'll need in the mediation, without any line beginning with 'you'.

Output: Three 90-second live exchanges — complaint, apology, taboo entry — with clean openers and specific take-backs.

Teacher plays the counterparty. In 90 seconds each: (a) MAKE THE COMPLAINT that has to be made in the mediation, opening on 'from where I'm sitting' or similar, (b) DELIVER THE APOLOGY you also owe in the same relationship, with a dated specific take-back, (c) ENTER THE TABOO topic with permission asked and an out offered. Any line beginning with 'you' resets that round. Any hedged 'if'-apology resets that round.

If you're in a group: In pairs, the counterparty refuses to accept any opener that begins with 'you' — the exchange restarts until it doesn't.

Rehearse humour triage under time — because the mediation will need one moment of lightness, and it will need to survive translation.

Output: One translated joke delivered aloud with a flagged substitution + one straight-with-flagged-loss version of a joke you chose to cut.

Choose two pieces of humour from your first language — one you'll TRANSLATE into English (with a visible flagged substitution) and one you'll CUT (delivered as a straight observation with the loss named). Deliver both to teacher in 3 minutes total. Teacher plays a room from a culture unlike either of the two parties in the mediation. Then, in one sentence: which of the two would you actually use inside the mediation itself, and why?

If you're in a group: In pairs, one delivers, the other says 'wait, do you mean that?' at any ambiguous ironic line and forces a signal on the retake.

Rehearse the four face-moves you'll need at the mediation table so they arrive on purpose, not by accident.

Output: Four 60-second lines, one for each face-move, delivered aloud with a written note on which of the two mediation parties each is aimed at.

Draft one line for each face-move you'll need in the mediation: (a) a POSITIVE-FACE protection for one party, (b) a NEGATIVE-FACE protection for the other, (c) a HOLD-YOUR-OWN line for yourself as chair, (d) a DELIBERATE FACE-COST for the moment softening would cost the mediation the deal. Deliver each in 60 seconds. Teacher pushes the one line where the softener is louder than the ask.

If you're in a group: In pairs, the second person tallies the face-moves and flags any over-softened ask on the delivery.

Bring the rehearsed moves together in a real live mediation with all the pressure of unpredictable response.

Output: A 10-minute live mediation with all four mediation moves executed and two joint sentences landed at the close.

Teacher plays BOTH parties from your mediation card (voice-switched, with a clear signal). You sit in the chair. In 10 minutes: NAME THE GAP in both directions, TRANSLATE THE STANCE at least once, HOLD A SILENCE out loud if one lands, and CLOSE on two joint sentences — one for each party's own room. You may not use 'you should', 'you need to' or 'you're right' to either party. If you break neutrality, teacher hands you back the chair and continues.

If you're in a group: In groups of 4, one mediates, two take the parties, one is a silent scorer counting every neutrality-break and every 'you should'.

Turn the five rounds into named, repeatable moves for the next real mediation you run.

Output: A 5-line summary: best style-switch · best repair move · best humour choice · best face-move · best mediation line.

Together, rebuild the strongest moment from each round. Teacher names one strongest move per round; you name a different one. Then, in one sentence: which of the five rounds most changed how you'd approach the actual real-world version of this mediation next week?

Compress the whole 60 minutes into the two sentences that would land tomorrow in each party's own room.

Output: The two joint sentences, written down and dated, plus one sentence naming your commitment as the chair.

Write, in a single short paragraph: (a) Party A's joint sentence to their own team tomorrow, in Party A's voice; (b) Party B's joint sentence to their own team tomorrow, in Party B's voice; (c) one sentence naming what you as the chair will do differently the next time you sit in this seat. Use at least FIVE Unit 7 target items naturally.