|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2013 12:00:52 GMT -5
What does your reply exactly has to do with my post? I was responding to what I thought was criticism. You didn't think what I had to say was relevant? I assume not. Ah well. I'd appreciate to hear something clarifying about your extended latitude logic for Question instead. Well now, I'll try. The idea was that since 7 people thought that I'd miss-called Questions behavior as unacceptable, that if he was to come back I would need to put some sort of buffer/delay/relaxing on my response to him otherwise he'd likely just be out the door again within a week. So 7 people see something as acceptable where I think (but of course I'm not sure) that it's not acceptable and since Question is very clear that He's Not Wrong and He's Not Going To Change, then it has to be me that changes. And yes, I noted that this was a double standard. But neither you or Enigma have been banned in any form so far, so why worry about what "special" exceptions might apply to other players? You manage to keep just within the lines, so what's the problem? Do you want to be able to break the rules and get away with it too? I don't think you fully understood what I was talking about there. I guess you can shut down your shields since it was more in general. I've said it the other day that it is said in the Daodejing how more rules only create more decline/chaos. So if Q's extended latitude would suddenly apply to all folks and not only to Q, then maybe we wouldn't have these discussions here about how to best toilet train everyone and could instead talk some content. That's how I remember it from about 1.5 years ago. I'd say things went smoother when they could take their natural course, conflicts appeared and died down. Now it seems more that conflicts are put on display by the forum shrink and are then suppressed by the mod. The momentum of the conflict, however, is still there. It's coming out in more subtle ways now (see Hetero's "back in January" grudge). I understood your extended latitude logic as having something to do with 'mocking'. But Q was clearly name calling there and it looks a little strange that Q's name calling should go unmentioned while other's name calling immediately results in a forced vacation. That's what causes serious head scratching. So, no, I don't want to be able to break rules, I'd rather wouldn't have these rules at all as we had it before. It felt more like a place for adults back then.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jun 24, 2013 12:09:42 GMT -5
So, no, I don't want to be able to break rules, I'd rather wouldn't have these rules at all as we had it before. It felt more like a place for adults back then. What I remember from that time was that there were MORE accusations of "Boy's Club" and misogyny than we're seeing currently. Call me Knight on a White Charger if you like, but it suits those in power to have the constraints removed so they can do whatever they want. Authority is supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable (I know it doesn't work like that in practice). And since you (edit: by which I mean those in Top's category of "not obviously feeling types") don't seem to be too worried about who you upset or how upset they are, and you yourself don't appear to get actually upset (just self righteously offended) I think there's a need for some protection to exist on this board. Of course if I receive a poll saying the board (and I mean 80% of recently active senior members) want me to adopt a ZD style of moderation then I exist to serve the people and I can do that no problem. Additional: You're looking back 1.5 years. If you look back 4 years, you'll see the board was a very different place again. And I think that what's changed since then is that we now have a bunch of posters who see "social norms" ie playing nicely as irrelevant or even a restriction to "seeing clearly", or something.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 24, 2013 14:52:42 GMT -5
Enigma,
What is your understanding of the reason why the "witch hunts" as you call them fixate on you and Reefs?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 24, 2013 18:54:17 GMT -5
Well, of course, only she can clear the question up. And I'm not going to disagree with you, because indeed, super-niceness can be a cover for deeper issues. But, still, I think she's basically calling me a creep. It's okay. I don't mind. Been called much, much worse. What is the question that has been raised? The question was whether or not you thought I was a creep.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2013 20:28:07 GMT -5
Ha! Until I say something that unsettles you, right? **rubs hands menacingly** (You're not on mine, either) haha, yeah this place used to unsettle me a lot, but not so much recently perhaps I should go swimming in the E&R pond and see if I fall prey to any of their hooks ;-) Don't be shy, farmer.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2013 21:57:59 GMT -5
Could you possibly be any more evasive? Question: How can I set right a tangle which is entirely below the level of my consciousness? Nisargadatta: By being with yourself.....by watching yourself in your daily life with alert interest, with the intention to understand rather than to judge, in full acceptance of whatever may emerge, because it is there, you encourage the deep to come to the surface and enrich your life and consciousness with its captive energies. This is the great work of awareness; it removes obstacles and releases energies by understanding the nature of life and mind. Intelligence is the door to freedom and alert attention is the mother of intelligence. Problems cannot be resolved on the same plane they were created on... If not now, when? Is there a point by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2013 22:02:12 GMT -5
None. We're all doomed! Speerichule peeps are the most unstable malcontents on the planet. They definitely should not be sold guns or allowed to operate machinery. Yup, especially those on the love path. Without a doubt, those are the most hateful of all.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2013 22:05:42 GMT -5
Yup, especially those on the love path. Without a doubt, those are the most hateful of all. I suggest to 'specially stay far away from those who tell that they quite fully 'embody' this or that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2013 23:07:58 GMT -5
I was responding to what I thought was criticism. You didn't think what I had to say was relevant? I assume not. Ah well. Well now, I'll try. The idea was that since 7 people thought that I'd miss-called Questions behavior as unacceptable, that if he was to come back I would need to put some sort of buffer/delay/relaxing on my response to him otherwise he'd likely just be out the door again within a week. So 7 people see something as acceptable where I think (but of course I'm not sure) that it's not acceptable and since Question is very clear that He's Not Wrong and He's Not Going To Change, then it has to be me that changes. And yes, I noted that this was a double standard. But neither you or Enigma have been banned in any form so far, so why worry about what "special" exceptions might apply to other players? You manage to keep just within the lines, so what's the problem? Do you want to be able to break the rules and get away with it too? I don't think you fully understood what I was talking about there. I guess you can shut down your shields since it was more in general. I've said it the other day that it is said in the Daodejing how more rules only create more decline/chaos. So if Q's extended latitude would suddenly apply to all folks and not only to Q, then maybe we wouldn't have these discussions here about how to best toilet train everyone and could instead talk some content. That's how I remember it from about 1.5 years ago. I'd say things went smoother when they could take their natural course, conflicts appeared and died down. Now it seems more that conflicts are put on display by the forum shrink and are then suppressed by the mod. The momentum of the conflict, however, is still there. It's coming out in more subtle ways now (see Hetero's "back in January" grudge). I understood your extended latitude logic as having something to do with 'mocking'. But Q was clearly name calling there and it looks a little strange that Q's name calling should go unmentioned while other's name calling immediately results in a forced vacation. That's what causes serious head scratching. So, no, I don't want to be able to break rules, I'd rather wouldn't have these rules at all as we had it before. It felt more like a place for adults back then. I think it's useful, assuming it's possible, for peeps to notice that the more it appears that there is a flexible regulatory structure, the more interested folks are in looking for ways to flex it. Active moderation shows up, and folks start thinking about how moderation could improve their experience. The moderation takes a democratic turn and there is interest in exercising personal control. Part of this is more and more talk about what's wrong and what we can do to fix it. More style and behavioral discussion, more complaining, more childish bickering and back biting. The overall effect is the unwillingness to take personal responsibility for the direction of the forum discussions. A lack of that soberness that comes naturally to the shipwrecked crew on a deserted island. After all, the rescue boat is coming so lets party. Yes, 'a place for adults' says it well. I remember times of sincerity and courage, inspiration and wisdom, hard falls and lessons learned, and yes, God help us, even melt downs. Maybe that didn't really happen, I dunno, but it seemed clear peeps joined a spiritual forum because of their interest in spirituality, if not a downright determination to wake the hell up and be done with the nonsense once and for all. That's not clear at all anymore. I read Top's lengthy post about what the problem is. I thought it was insightful and pretty much on target. I won't tell you what my next thought was, but it rhymes with 'Now can we sh*t can all of that childish nonsense and just grow the f*ck up'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2013 23:20:27 GMT -5
Enigma, What is your understanding of the reason why the "witch hunts" as you call them fixate on you and Reefs? I think you did a pretty good job of describing it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2013 23:24:41 GMT -5
Without a doubt, those are the most hateful of all. I suggest to 'specially stay far away from those who tell that they quite fully 'embody' this or that. I learned to avoid 'love-n-light' groups after being beaten senseless a few times. (with love, of course.) Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2013 0:40:37 GMT -5
So, no, I don't want to be able to break rules, I'd rather wouldn't have these rules at all as we had it before. It felt more like a place for adults back then. What I remember from that time was that there were MORE accusations of "Boy's Club" and misogyny than we're seeing currently. Call me Knight on a White Charger if you like, but it suits those in power to have the constraints removed so they can do whatever they want. Authority is supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable (I know it doesn't work like that in practice). And since you (edit: by which I mean those in Top's category of "not obviously feeling types") don't seem to be too worried about who you upset or how upset they are, and you yourself don't appear to get actually upset (just self righteously offended) I think there's a need for some protection to exist on this board. Of course if I receive a poll saying the board (and I mean 80% of recently active senior members) want me to adopt a ZD style of moderation then I exist to serve the people and I can do that no problem. Additional: You're looking back 1.5 years. If you look back 4 years, you'll see the board was a very different place again. And I think that what's changed since then is that we now have a bunch of posters who see "social norms" ie playing nicely as irrelevant or even a restriction to "seeing clearly", or something. I don't remember that. I only remember Tath/Freejoy complaining. Apart from the infamous twins, I don't recall anyone else complaining. maybe you can name some names. You don't have to protect the vulnerable. This is a place for adults. If someone feels getting beaten up here on a regular basis and suffers, then this begs the question why that someone is still logging in every day and reads thru these verbal beatings. Sounds kinda silly and childish to me. No one is forced to log in here every day and endure 'abuse'. Also, maybe you are confusing rights with privileges. This is not a public place like Times Square. I don't know how it looked back then 4 years ago since I haven't been there. But Enigma is here since 3 years and his style and content hasn't changed one bit. When I arrived here, Tath was the most prolific poster and all over the forum, not Enigma. So, ZD style sounds like the only sane way to go now. More rules is certainly not the way. At the moment, I can only see Silver and Top opposing that idea. All others, I speculate, would like to see this as a place for adults again.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 1:12:02 GMT -5
What I remember from that time was that there were MORE accusations of "Boy's Club" and misogyny than we're seeing currently. Call me Knight on a White Charger if you like, but it suits those in power to have the constraints removed so they can do whatever they want. Authority is supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable (I know it doesn't work like that in practice). And since you (edit: by which I mean those in Top's category of "not obviously feeling types") don't seem to be too worried about who you upset or how upset they are, and you yourself don't appear to get actually upset (just self righteously offended) I think there's a need for some protection to exist on this board. Of course if I receive a poll saying the board (and I mean 80% of recently active senior members) want me to adopt a ZD style of moderation then I exist to serve the people and I can do that no problem. Additional: You're looking back 1.5 years. If you look back 4 years, you'll see the board was a very different place again. And I think that what's changed since then is that we now have a bunch of posters who see "social norms" ie playing nicely as irrelevant or even a restriction to "seeing clearly", or something. I don't remember that. I only remember Tath/Freejoy complaining. Apart from the infamous twins, I don't recall anyone else complaining. maybe you can name some names. You don't have to protect the vulnerable. This is a place for adults. If someone feels getting beaten up here on a regular basis and suffers, then this begs the question why that someone is still logging in every day and reads thru these verbal beatings. Sounds kinda silly and childish to me. No one is forced to log in here every day and endure 'abuse'. Also, maybe you are confusing rights with privileges. This is not a public place like Times Square. I don't know how it looked back then 4 years ago since I haven't been there. But Enigma is here since 3 years and his style and content hasn't changed one bit. When I arrived here, Tath was the most prolific poster and all over the forum, not Enigma. So, ZD style sounds like the only sane way to go now. More rules is certainly not the way. At the moment, I can only see Silver and Top opposing that idea. All others, I speculate, would like to see this as a place for adults again. You presume I would be opposed to that idea. What does being an adult look like to you? Would your behavior change? If not, why would anyone else's?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2013 2:18:29 GMT -5
My succinct take on the core of his position is that in some cases the ego might be strengthened in forming up an opposition to you -- to be clear I'm not advocating for one position on this issue or the other, largely based on lack of a base to speak from. In some cases, maybe that's what needs to happen. I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does either. The psych stuff puts me out of my depth but what you said there I understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 2:21:18 GMT -5
What is the question that has been raised? The question was whether or not you thought I was a creep. I don't.
|
|