|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2013 6:01:55 GMT -5
Yes. Reefs also feels that his complaints get played down. That's why you're both still here. Normally - once some difficulty has developed - my (personal) advise would be to try "getting your message across" in as clear and honest a way as you're able to. However, in this particular case what I think is going on is that Reefs doesn't want there to be any sort of situation between you (do correct me if I'm wrong, Reefs) which is something I think you might find a little difficult to accept. I know I would. Now whether or not Reef's own need to participate in drama will cause him to make a hypocrite of himself, only time will tell Do you know what these two changes might look like? Peter, you said you are here to learn something, so I think it's worth replying to this post. As I said earlier, there's a bug in the forum structure. The bug is Shawn and you, Peter. Shawn is never here, which leaves you as the only active bug in the system. You have the means to end every drama whenever you want. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. So if there is never-ending drama, the finger has to always point back to you. What makes this situation with Silver so unique is that it shows very well where you are standing, your patterns of thinking, your interests and convictions. I know you for about a year now. I haven't seen any neo-advaitic ramblings from you so far (prove me wrong, please!). You usually stay far away from on-topic-only discussions. You don't post a lot so no one will really notice that. But you do have your regular appearances in threads that contain drama where you usually play the role of the calm 'voice of reason'. I call that mod-posting style. You did that even before you were a mod. Before you became a mod your role play of detached superiority was rather convincing. I call it role play because you can't keep it up anymore. Now you really are a mod and not just imitating or playing anymore and the contradictions in your behavior have reached bizarre proportions. I don't have to go into details here, we've discussed that already. My impression so far is that you are not really sincere about non-duality topics but more interested in forum gossip which could explain why you can't tell on-topic discussions apart from off-topic discussions. Can you answer these questions specifically and right away: 1) What is the forum purpose? 2) What would be an ideal member? 3) What is on-topic and what is off-topic? 4) What kind of drama is helpful and what kind of drama is damaging this community? Can you answer these questions right away or do you have to think about it or ask Shawn first? If you can't answer these questions right away then you are not ready for this mod position. ... and this just has to be said by someone ... Reefs, you've gone from insulting individuals to insulting the entire structure here. This isn't to say that there's no potential value to be had in either instance. It's just something that had to be said, because I don't see anyone else here generating the same type of content, and I don't see anyone else pointing this out. Deliberately involving a third party in your discussion might or might not be considered a form of drama in itself, but deliberately invoking the abstraction of authority most certainly is. Would you like me to make a list of the threads you have blown up into discussions of various other members content along with specific statistics? The reason I ask this is because you either seem to be missing something here or you aren't and just don't care. For instance, here we are in a Carlin thread, and what seems to me to be a very pertinent question is the following: I think the answer to whether or not someone needs to have read RM or Niz or Bhudda or Jesus or whatever in order to be "aware" is pretty obvious. Does someone need to have read anything by anyone else to be "aware of being aware"? Fair warning: if you answer this and cut it up I'll start a thread entitled "Pollution" to respond, if at all. Some things are sacred after all (l .... o ... l).
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 11, 2013 7:57:22 GMT -5
Peter showed very unbalanced behavior. Just look at how many warnings Silver got so far, 10? 20? Just now she got a warning again. How many warnings did Beingist get? Only one or two, then he banned him. How many warnings did Arisha get? More than just 2 but not more than 5 and then he banned her. How many warnings did Question get? I don't know, I wasn't around. How many warnings did Living get? Zero! People get banned when they cross the line into being abusive. Living did that quite clearly when he called Engima a Jáckass. Although I see Silver annoying you, I don't see her abusing you and where I have stepped in (eg "STFU") I acknowledge that there is precedent of that phrase being used in a light hearted manner (films, tv) so I feel I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. What did she do the last time you reported one of her posts - called you her "invisible man living in the sky"? Seems to me you're quite easy to wind up if something that innocuous gets your goat. But I can see it's unwelcome to you, so I ask her to back off. Question got serveral rounds of warnings and temp-bans. He posted doctored hard-core porn and spammed the same post across 20 threads so that was an easy call. I gave him more leeway than I would normally do because he'd previously made great contributions to the forum, especially with the Qualia discussions, but eventually the bad outweighed the good. So until Silver comes right out of the closet and starts calling you an a-hole (or similar) I'm afraid you're stuck with her. That said if you want to press for keeping topics more "on topic" then I'm all for that. I thought you'd changed your game plan, you and Enigma, after our last round of discussion by starting threads with your own thoughts and not interacting with people who weren't sticking to the plan - not fueling the fire. That seems to have taken a slide back into where we were last November?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 8:09:33 GMT -5
It's the drama about too-much-drama drama. Set in the Department of Redundancy Department.
Main characters are:
Popcorn Eater .. making remarks about eating popcorn (and too much drama) Drama Buster .. making remarks about how the overall drama is beset with bugs creating drama Snarky .. making remarks about how there's too much drama is just a drama
Supporting Cast continues typical dramas. Subthemes include, Grief poems not allowed, You can't handle the truth, I just don't understand, Kindergartners vs cool kids, personal vs impersonal
Coming to a screen near you
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2013 8:11:46 GMT -5
Max you are channeling GC just fine there guy
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 11, 2013 8:25:25 GMT -5
Can you answer these questions specifically and right away:
1) What is the forum purpose? 2) What would be an ideal member? 3) What is on-topic and what is off-topic? 4) What kind of drama is helpful and what kind of drama is damaging this community?
Can you answer these questions right away or do you have to think about it or ask Shawn first? If you can't answer these questions right away then you are not ready for this mod position. Ho ho. I suspect I'm handing you a rod with which to beat me here Reefs. You do seem to love giving me these ultimatums. But here goes, I'll try not to think about the answers and I'm open to discussion about them. They're just how I feel at time of writing: 1. To provide a place for people to share whatever they wish to share relating to "Spiritual". 2. Someone who's clear, insightful. To a lesser extent friendly and helpful. I said before that I've had no problem with Engima for quite some time now, because while (as I see it) he rarely makes an attempt to be friendly, he doesn't seem to get personal about what he's saying, either. You however Reefs, come over as most UNfriendly, which I don't like. Still, it's not a bannable offence. 3. On-topic is either related to the OP's post or is relevant to the natural flow of conversation. However, because I see "Dealing with your Stuff" and "Knowing Yourself" as an important part of the spiritual path, I don't have a problem with a degree of challenge and "reflecting back". Which is where the drama comes in. On Topic for this forum (ie what is allowable as an Original Post) - for me - is anything related to spiritual stuff. I don't need this forum to stick to non-duality topics, although I know many of you see it that way. 4. The trouble with Drama is that you never know when the participants are going to click and see something in themselves that's helpful. So to some extent it has to run for a bit before anyone could make the call if it's helpful or not. If it gets abusive that's an easy call and I can step in. If it's a low level gad-fly situation then that's more difficult. I think drama comes in "rounds" a bit like a boxing match, and when one round starts to repeat exactly the same pattern as a previous round (Enigma/Arisha, Top/Arisha, You/Silver, Figgy/Beingist) then it's time to say stop because the chances of anything positive coming out of it become vanishingly small. You do have the option of becoming a moderator, Reefs, if you want to have more control over how the board is run. To misquote Highlander - "There can be more than one".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2013 8:32:38 GMT -5
To misquote Highlander - "There can be more than one". ... uhm actually that's a paraphrase Peter ... A useful metaphor grounded in cinema for the proposed outcome would perhaps be the Bedford Falls where George Bailey decides to say "ahh the hell with it".
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2013 8:41:24 GMT -5
Reefs, you've gone from insulting individuals to insulting the entire structure here. This statement makes no sense whatsoever. How can I insult a structure? Are structures sentient beings with egos? I suspect you just said that for the sake of drama again.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 11, 2013 8:42:10 GMT -5
To misquote Highlander - "There can be more than one". ... uhm actually that's a paraphrase Peter ...Quick, it's the grammar police! RUN! Are we saying that correcting someone's English is On Topic, or Off Topic? Or can I make that decision on a case-by-case basis once I've checked if I'm right or not? You're saying I can only be misquoting if I get it wrong accidentally? I thought a paraphrase was where you kept the original meaning but used your own words? In this case, I was inverting the meaning since the original is "There can be only one".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2013 8:55:23 GMT -5
... uhm actually that's a paraphrase Peter ... Quick, it's the grammar police! RUN! Are we saying that correcting someone's English is On Topic, or Off Topic? Or can I make that decision on a case-by-case basis once I've checked if I'm right or not? You're saying I can only be misquoting if I get it wrong accidentally? I thought a paraphrase was where you kept the original meaning but used your own words? In this case, I was inverting the meaning since the original is "There can be only one". Ahhh ... the dictionary and the wikifolk are all on your side Peter ... I tried to salvage my snipe with a quick "inverted paraphrase" google ... but alas! I'm just wrong. ;D As far as on-topic is considered ... this is George Carlin.... and we're pickin' 'part words ... his jabones would be chatterin' in his grave by my guess is he preferred cremation!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2013 8:56:18 GMT -5
Reefs, you've gone from insulting individuals to insulting the entire structure here. This statement makes no sense whatsoever. How can I insult a structure? Are structures sentient beings with egos? I suspect you just said that for the sake of drama again. take the earphones off the kitty
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2013 9:11:17 GMT -5
This statement makes no sense whatsoever. How can I insult a structure? Are structures sentient beings with egos? I suspect you just said that for the sake of drama again. take the earphones off the kitty Admit it, you misplaced your Niz again.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2013 9:29:19 GMT -5
take the earphones off the kitty Admit it, you misplaced your Niz again. It's on my desk this morning instead of in the sh!tter where I usually read it, so yes, this is a relative truth.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2013 9:54:25 GMT -5
Ho ho. I suspect I'm handing you a rod with which to beat me here Reefs. You do seem to love giving me these ultimatums. But here goes, I'll try not to think about the answers and I'm open to discussion about them. They're just how I feel at time of writing: Thank you for your answers.I'm sorry that it comes across as some kind of ultimatum but I do consider these questions as essential for a better understanding of what 'in blazes' is going on here. You could have avoided a lot of trouble if you would have stated your take on forum focus and policies much earlier. When I read thru your answers it's even worse than I thought. Didn't Shawn give you a direction or some guidelines? 1) What is the forum purpose? 1. To provide a place for people to share whatever they wish to share relating to "Spiritual". Well that could be just anything. If sneezing makes me feel free and at one with my inner nature, that would be a go. I was under the impression that this place is for everything non-duality related. 2) What would be an ideal member? 2. Someone who's clear, insightful. To a lesser extent friendly and helpful. I said before that I've had no problem with Engima for quite some time now, because while (as I see it) he rarely makes an attempt to be friendly, he doesn't seem to get personal about what he's saying, either. You however Reefs, come over as most UNfriendly, which I don't like. Still, it's not a bannable offence. Well, the difference is that Enigma is willing to take detours to a certain extend while I'm always going for the straight beeline which comes across as rather friendly in Enigma's case and extremely rude and unfriendly in my case. Ideal member to me would mean sincere interest in discussions, not just wanting to hear oneself talking or just killing time. So top priority would be sincerity and not style. 3) What is on-topic and what is off-topic? 3. On-topic is either related to the OP's post or is relevant to the natural flow of conversation. However, because I see "Dealing with your Stuff" and "Knowing Yourself" as an important part of the spiritual path, I don't have a problem with a degree of challenge and "reflecting back". Which is where the drama comes in. On Topic for this forum (ie what is allowable as an Original Post) - for me - is anything related to spiritual stuff. I don't need this forum to stick to non-duality topics, although I know many of you see it that way. Well, it says so in the header: "late night neo-advaitic ramblings and whatever else". It says specifically neo-advaitic and the other stuff isn't mentioned specifically which I understand as top priority is neo-advaita but there's also an openness to other stuff. Your interpretation has no real focus, just anything seems to go. So if I would start a thread "Farting in public is the most spiritual thing you can do" you would give that a go? Probably yes. What about those key words for this forum: "spiritual teachers, spiritual friends, Ramana Maharshi, Peace Pilgrim and Nisargadatta Maharaj and Franklin Merrell-Wolff and John Wren-Lewis and advaita vedanta and spiritual groups and Jed McKenna and Douglas Harding and Richard Rose and Andrew Cohen and Joseph Sadony and philosophic friends and spiritual message board." Sounds very focused on non-duality from my point of view. 4) What kind of drama is helpful and what kind of drama is damaging this community? 4. The trouble with Drama is that you never know when the participants are going to click and see something in themselves that's helpful. So to some extent it has to run for a bit before anyone could make the call if it's helpful or not. If it gets abusive that's an easy call and I can step in. If it's a low level gad-fly situation then that's more difficult. I think drama comes in "rounds" a bit like a boxing match, and when one round starts to repeat exactly the same pattern as a previous round (Enigma/Arisha, Top/Arisha, You/Silver, Figgy/Beingist) then it's time to say stop because the chances of anything positive coming out of it become vanishingly small. Well, it goes back to sincerity. When sincerity isn't there to begin with, drama should be stopped right from the start. But if there is sincerity, it can be helpful. If there are repeating drama patterns that's a clear sign that sincerity is lacking. You do have the option of becoming a moderator, Reefs, if you want to have more control over how the board is run. To misquote Highlander - "There can be more than one". I know that. However, with that kind of flawed forum vision and together with you with that kind of priorities? That's a no-go. I would ban and close down threads and then you would unban them and reopen the threads.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 11, 2013 10:48:38 GMT -5
I disagree Reefs. I think Peter has been a very good moderator. There are many moderation styles and the style that Peter is exhibiting is basically staying off the boards as much as possible except when duty calls. We the participants on this forum create the environment for ourselves. Peter steps in when things degenerate. Peter showed very unbalanced behavior. Just look at how many warnings Silver got so far, 10? 20? Just now she got a warning again. How many warnings did Beingist get? Only one or two, then he banned him. How many warnings did Arisha get? More than just 2 but not more than 5 and then he banned her. How many warnings did Question get? I don't know, I wasn't around. How many warnings did Living get? Zero! He just banned him right away. I don't see here any 'style' except arbitrary behavior. The Silver-Peter relationship looks like the cart before the horse and the tail wagging the dog. The admin has to set the tone, not the mod. Besides, I've never seen Peter showing any interest in non-duality, especially neo-advaita. But I see him coming down to just gossip quite a lot. The topic of the forum doesn't matter. The vision has to be clear. This forum here has no clear vision. The A-H forum has a clear vision. On the A-H forum any discussions are welcome about anything that is somehow related to the A-H teachings. And as I already said, they let me talk non-duality there as long as it was somehow related to the A-H teachings. Shawn could do the same here and welcome any discussions on any topic as long as it is related to neo-advaita, that's how I read this statement about neo-advaitic ramblings. This is a discussion forum. It's about ways of discussion not ways of searching what a mod should be concerned about. Friend? Power grab? I think Tzu has a point somewhere. This forum is his brainchild, that's all I need to know. It's a reflection of his mind. It's not about Shawn or Peter for me anyway. It's about structures of communities/organizations and the patterns of thought behind it that brought them into being. I'm much more interested in the abstract mechanisms of thoughts and beliefs that are playing out here than in the personal stories everyone seems to be so occupied with. I'm working with concepts and patterns of thoughts and I share these insights here with all of you. The persons involved in the dramas here are easily replaced by others. Haven't you noticed that? It's different places different faces, or different threads different screen names, but basically the same over and over again because the thought patterns here stay the same. It's a place for the confused managed by other confused ones in order to get more clarity. That's not going to happen. That thought pattern is the bug. It's like putting a bunch of angry people together and let be supervised by another angry one in order to calm down everyone. That's not going to happen. There will be a never-ending series of explosions. That thought pattern has been hold in place by the top guy. And it's flawed. It's simple LOA mechanics from there down to the mod and members and topics/conflicts discussed. It's not rocket science. Since neither of us have talked to Shawn about his intent with the forum, and since he's not stepped in to correct how the forum is moving, we can infer a few possibilities: 1) The forums were a bit of an afterthought to building his website. 2) He's avoiding getting involved in the fray for any number of reasons 3) He's created a space for a bit of a social experiment and doesn't want to stir the pot himself. I suspect Shawn doesn't read the forums and discussions much, so a combo of one and two are likely. But three sounds fairly Bohmian. David Bohm, close friend of J. Krishnamurti, the guy who advocates undirected dialogue under the heading of exploring the nature of thought between peeps (aka what in the blazes is going on here) instead of focusing on the idea of non-duality. www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/Peter's moderation style is somewhat in alignment with how Bohm Dialogue would be moderated. So what we have here is a loose focus on non-duality, anchored by the forum heading and most of the peeps self-generated interest. You are advocating a harder (more narrowed) focus on non-duality. I find the looser focus to be more in alignment with non-duality than the harder focus. It has to do with compartmentalisation. If non-duality is something that applies to all aspects of life, the looser focus is warranted so that all aspects of life are allowed to arise and interact with that non-duality interest. A harder and more narrowed focus on non-duality turns it into a particular philosophy, a particular way of thinking, and feels more dualistic. It's no longer looking at thought in general but encouraging a particular line of thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 11:11:43 GMT -5
I vote 1 and 2. Basically he made a ratings website and then a discussion forum to supplement it. The forum started off in the beginning as primarily a 'spiritual friend finder' in the richard rose tradition -- build up your own private sangha. The other sections were added because they seemed logical -- spiritual teachers -- to suggest others or discuss the ratings etc, general for whatever, marketing, tech issues.
The 'purpose' is pretty vague as stated. The Bohmian idea is generous.
With the demise of the intelligent people forum and influx of members from there to here there has been an uptick in conversation that could be moderated. Previous to this, there had been very little moderation, mostly, I think, because of a comparatively trickle of dialogue. An RT dude got banned because they were advocating various self-love methods involving chainsaws. Tat got all litigious and spammy. lemongrass just reverted to offensiveness. Pretty low-hanging fruit for even the most laissez-faire moderation.
Peter volunteered to take ZD's place amidst -- it seems -- absolutely zero interest from anyone else. He's carried on the laissez faire mod method, but has had to do more simply because there is more.
|
|