|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 19, 2014 2:28:41 GMT -5
Sorry, but since no one else is allowed to post in laffey's thread, per laffey's request, I must offer another thread to respond. And respond I must. In said thread, laughter repeats assertions that Figless, Andrew, and Tzu are 'disrespectful' in their posts. Here, I just wish to register my own assertion that I, for one, do not share such a perspective. I have seen nothing from either Figs or Andrew that would indicate anything disrespectful to anyone. In fact, even while I was calling Figs a 'snake' (indeed, a disrespectful act, in itself), she still took it like a trooper, and did not, at least not to my recollection (seems years ago, now), return the disrespect. Andrew I hold in similar light, and in fact, consider his calmness in the face of blistering accusations from the likes of Reefs a characteristic to admire. As far as Tzu, well, I have no further comment regarding disrespect, because, as anyone who's spent time here knows, his agenda seems focused on Enigma, and I cannot honestly say that in his responses to E, he hasn't been disrespectful (for those who have a hard time with double negatives, that is to say that he may or may not have been disrespectful, in my perspective). I think some credit should go to E for his patience, where Tzu is concerned. He doesn't seem to let up, in any case. I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. That is all. Thank you  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2014 2:36:20 GMT -5
I have seen nothing from either Figs or Andrew that would indicate anything disrespectful to anyone. In fact, even while I was calling Figs a 'snake' (indeed, a disrespectful act, in itself), she still took it like a trooper, and did not, at least not to my recollection (seems years ago, now), return the disrespect. She deleted her account and left after your last snake attack. Andrew got banned twice for crusading against Reefs. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2014 3:26:01 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics.
So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 4:00:05 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. As my name is mentioned here. When I arrived I entered into general discussion with no reference to forum dynamics. It was the admin here that moved my post to this board under a title about accusation of sock puppetry. Since then I have created posts in the general section, for general discussion, which have again been moved by admin to the un-moderated section and had subjective accusations and pictures of trolls attached to them. I originally came here because I saw an interesting discussion. I have shared contemplations that I find interesting. To that end, I am creating a new site that I hope will bring interesting discussion. It is the admins here that brought my words over to the unmoderated forum and brought me into the crap that was here long before I came, by accusing me of being someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 19, 2014 8:48:59 GMT -5
Sorry, but since no one else is allowed to post in laffey's thread, per laffey's request, I must offer another thread to respond. And respond I must. In said thread, laughter repeats assertions that Figless, Andrew, and Tzu are 'disrespectful' in their posts. Here, I just wish to register my own assertion that I, for one, do not share such a perspective. I have seen nothing from either Figs or Andrew that would indicate anything disrespectful to anyone. In fact, even while I was calling Figs a 'snake' (indeed, a disrespectful act, in itself), she still took it like a trooper, and did not, at least not to my recollection (seems years ago, now), return the disrespect. Andrew I hold in similar light, and in fact, consider his calmness in the face of blistering accusations from the likes of Reefs a characteristic to admire. As far as Tzu, well, I have no further comment regarding disrespect, because, as anyone who's spent time here knows, his agenda seems focused on Enigma, and I cannot honestly say that in his responses to E, he hasn't been disrespectful (for those who have a hard time with double negatives, that is to say that he may or may not have been disrespectful, in my perspective). I think some credit should go to E for his patience, where Tzu is concerned. He doesn't seem to let up, in any case. I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. That is all. Thank you I agree with all of that. Plus I struggle with double negatives, so thanks for the translation. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 19, 2014 9:01:17 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. I respectfully disagree. Heh heh. The moderation style here does allow for food fights and style discussions, but it also allows for Rainbow Rules of Non-Duality and your own (and others') interest in re-educating non-duality 'offenders'. I like the diversity. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2014 10:16:27 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. I respectfully disagree. Heh heh. The moderation style here does allow for food fights and style discussions, but it also allows for Rainbow Rules of Non-Duality and your own (and others') interest in re-educating non-duality 'offenders'. I like the diversity. You respectfully disagree and then mock? Or was that just sarcasm?  I guess then it's safe to assume that what you've said here ... I've said before, I don't like sarcasm or mockery - don't see the need for it or the humor in it. Personally, I don't see any reason for mockery. ... was just ... bunk? I'd say it's time you give back your toaster, Quinn.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 19, 2014 11:00:38 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. Heh heh. The moderation style here does allow for food fights and style discussions, but it also allows for Rainbow Rules of Non-Duality and your own (and others') interest in re-educating non-duality 'offenders'. I like the diversity. You respectfully disagree and then mock? Or was that just sarcasm? I guess then it's safe to assume that what you've said here ... I've said before, I don't like sarcasm or mockery - don't see the need for it or the humor in it. Personally, I don't see any reason for mockery. ... was just ... bunk? That wasn't mocking. It was framing what you do in the same way that you framed others in your post. No way.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 19, 2014 11:24:54 GMT -5
You respectfully disagree and then mock? Or was that just sarcasm? I guess then it's safe to assume that what you've said here ... ... was just ... bunk? That wasn't mocking. It was framing what you do in the same way that you framed others in your post. I wasn't making fun of anyone. You were clearly mocking. And you've just lost all credibility in this ongoing anti-mocking campaign. Alright, we will come back to this later.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 11:38:25 GMT -5
I'm sorry ~ but you just can't discredit everyone and everyone's opinions and beliefs and feelings by pointing out and deriding them for being the same way you are ~ human. Nope, no can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 19, 2014 11:39:33 GMT -5
The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. I respectfully disagree. Heh heh. The moderation style here does allow for food fights and style discussions, but it also allows for Rainbow Rules of Non-Duality and your own (and others') interest in re-educating non-duality 'offenders'. I like the diversity. I agree, though I allow for the diversity. It's conducive to letting stuff go. I don't always like it.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2014 11:45:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. The way I see it, the current moderation style encourages endless food fights. The reason why ZD's moderation approach worked is that he 1) didn't get into discussions about his moderation style/decisions and 2) didn't try to re-educate 'offenders'. Therefore we had very little talk about forum dynamics in the past. That kind of style also had the side effect of not attracting members like Silver, Top, Lolly and Autumn who are mostly (or only?) interested in discussions about forum dynamics. So, if the majority of active members here should be more interested in on topic discussions than discussions about forum dynamics, I'd suggest instead of trying to re-educate 'offenders' to just show them the door and stick to those decisions. I respectfully disagree. Heh heh. The moderation style here does allow for food fights and style discussions, but it also allows for Rainbow Rules of Non-Duality and your own (and others') interest in re-educating non-duality 'offenders'. I like the diversity. Lest ye be threatened with banishment, know that such wording might be interpreted as a punishable offense.. 're-education' is also associated with 'brain-washing', and you've seen the warnings issued for describing that activity.. just a friendly heads-up.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jan 19, 2014 12:02:53 GMT -5
Sorry, but since no one else is allowed to post in laffey's thread, per laffey's request, I must offer another thread to respond. And respond I must. In said thread, laughter repeats assertions that Figless, Andrew, and Tzu are 'disrespectful' in their posts. Here, I just wish to register my own assertion that I, for one, do not share such a perspective. I have seen nothing from either Figs or Andrew that would indicate anything disrespectful to anyone. In fact, even while I was calling Figs a 'snake' (indeed, a disrespectful act, in itself), she still took it like a trooper, and did not, at least not to my recollection (seems years ago, now), return the disrespect. Andrew I hold in similar light, and in fact, consider his calmness in the face of blistering accusations from the likes of Reefs a characteristic to admire. As far as Tzu, well, I have no further comment regarding disrespect, because, as anyone who's spent time here knows, his agenda seems focused on Enigma, and I cannot honestly say that in his responses to E, he hasn't been disrespectful (for those who have a hard time with double negatives, that is to say that he may or may not have been disrespectful, in my perspective). I think some credit should go to E for his patience, where Tzu is concerned. He doesn't seem to let up, in any case. I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. That is all. Thank you The entire obsession with style and whether or not someone is being disrespectful just seems like a spin off from serious forum addiction. Conversations get thin and so people have to talk endlessly about inane nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2014 12:10:36 GMT -5
Sorry, but since no one else is allowed to post in laffey's thread, per laffey's request, I must offer another thread to respond. And respond I must. In said thread, laughter repeats assertions that Figless, Andrew, and Tzu are 'disrespectful' in their posts. Here, I just wish to register my own assertion that I, for one, do not share such a perspective. I have seen nothing from either Figs or Andrew that would indicate anything disrespectful to anyone. In fact, even while I was calling Figs a 'snake' (indeed, a disrespectful act, in itself), she still took it like a trooper, and did not, at least not to my recollection (seems years ago, now), return the disrespect. Andrew I hold in similar light, and in fact, consider his calmness in the face of blistering accusations from the likes of Reefs a characteristic to admire. As far as Tzu, well, I have no further comment regarding disrespect, because, as anyone who's spent time here knows, his agenda seems focused on Enigma, and I cannot honestly say that in his responses to E, he hasn't been disrespectful (for those who have a hard time with double negatives, that is to say that he may or may not have been disrespectful, in my perspective). I think some credit should go to E for his patience, where Tzu is concerned. He doesn't seem to let up, in any case. I also find it somewhat peculiar that laughter should request no other posters in his thread, as it prevents anyone but the accused to respond to make any further response to the accusations. Seems as though he wanted set up his own court of law. So be it. That is all. Thank you The entire obsession with style and whether or not someone is being disrespectful just seems like a spin off from serious forum addiction. Conversations get thin and so people have to talk endlessly about inane nonsense. That is reasonably well said -- although conversations get 'thin' for many reasons and while complaining doesn't usually do much good, I don't think talking about it is 'inane nonsense'. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 19, 2014 12:48:34 GMT -5
That wasn't mocking. It was framing what you do in the same way that you framed others in your post. I wasn't making fun of anyone. You were clearly mocking. And you've just lost all credibility in this ongoing anti-mocking campaign. Well, I don't much care if I've lost credibility. But I wasn't mocking you. I was showing how re-educating offenders is a very subjective call and that what you do might also be seen like that.  |
|
