|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2013 11:12:46 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! 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. I rather think that somebody (Peter) should call someone (Shawn) and demand a clear-cut statement on forum focus, intention, on-topic/off-topic subjects etc. is the best way to go. Maybe we can compile a few questions and send them to Shawn. The reason why I tend to go for a more narrowed down focus is a simple one: we usually never even get to step one, we usually are busy with the spiritual circus. So there is never any discussion about certain subtleties that usually get overlooked. I've never really seen neo-advaitic ramblings here. If there is any neo-advaita related discussion going on then it's usually anti-neo-advaitic ranting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 11:21:56 GMT -5
I rather think that somebody (Peter) should call someone (Shawn) and demand a clear-cut statement on forum focus, intention, on-topic/off-topic subjects etc. is the best way to go. Maybe we can compile a few questions and send them to Shawn. The reason why I tend to go for a more narrowed down focus is a simple one: we usually never even get to step one, we usually are busy with the spiritual circus. So there is never any discussion about certain subtleties that usually get overlooked. I've never really seen neo-advaitic ramblings here. If there is any neo-advaita related discussion going on then it's usually anti-neo-advaitic ranting. How 'bout this: Peter, in non-Highlander style, you give Reefs full dominion over moderating a 'neo-advaitic rambling' thread?
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 11, 2013 11:22:00 GMT -5
I rather think that somebody (Peter) should call someone (Shawn) and demand a clear-cut statement on forum focus, intention, on-topic/off-topic subjects etc. is the best way to go. Maybe we can compile a few questions and send them to Shawn. Demanding answers is the best way to go? I think we'll agree to differ on that one. Look, if you want to ask Shawn what his intentions for this site were then go right ahead. He's a nice guy, loves to chat. You're the one who's not happy, why don't you be proactive about doing something about it? ahh, I see you've responded on why you don't want to do the Moderator job. I'll look at that next...
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 11, 2013 11:22:52 GMT -5
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. I rather think that somebody (Peter) should call someone (Shawn) and demand a clear-cut statement on forum focus, intention, on-topic/off-topic subjects etc. is the best way to go. Maybe we can compile a few questions and send them to Shawn. The reason why I tend to go for a more narrowed down focus is a simple one: we usually never even get to step one, we usually are busy with the spiritual circus. So there is never any discussion about certain subtleties that usually get overlooked. I've never really seen neo-advaitic ramblings here. If there is any neo-advaita related discussion going on then it's usually anti-neo-advaitic ranting. What is Reefs formal definition of Neo-Advaita? (So we can say definitively what is and isn't neo-advaita).
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 11, 2013 11:31:10 GMT -5
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. Well since I don't really post that often, except when I'm pulled in, I don't think my forum vision has much effect on what happens here. If your mod style would be to get involved in shutting down drama earlier than I would get involved, then I'd be able to sit back and just mop up the odd marketing spam post. Heck, I might even think about discussing something spurchual. You might be surprised at the lack of powers I have. I can delete posts and I can ban users. Oh and I recently found that I can make threads "sticky", but I haven't seen any good reason to do that yet. So I can promise not to un-ban anyone that you ban and as for closing down threads, well you can't unless you want to nuke the whole thing - deleting each post one at a time. Also, it's not my decision. Maybe you could broach your proposed approach to moderating when you write to Shawn with your questions about his forum vision. When we last talked about it he said he was happy to have multiple moderators - cover more time zones. Do ask him if you can repost his reply.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2013 11:35:31 GMT -5
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. Well since I don't really post that often, except when I'm pulled in, I don't think my forum vision has much effect on what happens here. If your mod style would be to get involved in shutting down drama earlier than I would get involved, then I'd be able to sit back and just mop up the odd marketing spam post. Heck, I might even think about discussing something spurchual. You might be surprised at the lack of powers I have. I can delete posts and I can ban users. Oh and I recently found that I can make threads "sticky", but I haven't seen any good reason to do that yet. So I can promise not to un-ban anyone that you ban and as for closing down threads, well you can't unless you want to nuke the whole thing - deleting each post one at a time. Also, it's not my decision. Maybe you could broach your proposed approach to moderating when you write to Shawn with your questions about his forum vision. When we last talked about it he said he was happy to have multiple moderators - cover more time zones. Do ask him if you can repost his reply. Yeah, I might do that. And first thing I'm going to do when I'm mod is banning farmer, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 11, 2013 11:42:34 GMT -5
Well since I don't really post that often, except when I'm pulled in, I don't think my forum vision has much effect on what happens here. If your mod style would be to get involved in shutting down drama earlier than I would get involved, then I'd be able to sit back and just mop up the odd marketing spam post. Heck, I might even think about discussing something spurchual. You might be surprised at the lack of powers I have. I can delete posts and I can ban users. Oh and I recently found that I can make threads "sticky", but I haven't seen any good reason to do that yet. So I can promise not to un-ban anyone that you ban and as for closing down threads, well you can't unless you want to nuke the whole thing - deleting each post one at a time. Also, it's not my decision. Maybe you could broach your proposed approach to moderating when you write to Shawn with your questions about his forum vision. When we last talked about it he said he was happy to have multiple moderators - cover more time zones. Do ask him if you can repost his reply. Yeah, I might do that. And first thing I'm going to do when I'm mod is banning farmer, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 11, 2013 11:46:57 GMT -5
How 'bout this: Peter, in non-Highlander style, you give Reefs full dominion over moderating a 'neo-advaitic rambling' thread? The Mod powers are very limited here. Mods are not specific to threads. Mods cannot grant powers to anyone else. So it's got to go through Shawn. And it looks like Reefs is considering asking to join the management team here, so we'll see what comes of that. In the meantime, Reefs could try starting his own thread with "ON TOPIC ONLY" if he wants, and I can delete any post that gets reported as being off topic. The "No Discussion" threads seem to have been well respected.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 11, 2013 11:55:16 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! 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. 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. Agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2013 12:00:54 GMT -5
How 'bout this: Peter, in non-Highlander style, you give Reefs full dominion over moderating a 'neo-advaitic rambling' thread? The Mod powers are very limited here. Mods are not specific to threads. Mods cannot grant powers to anyone else. So it's got to go through Shawn. And it looks like Reefs is considering asking to join the management team here, so we'll see what comes of that. In the meantime, Reefs could try starting his own thread with "ON TOPIC ONLY" if he wants, and I can delete any post that gets reported as being off topic. The "No Discussion" threads seem to have been well respected. That's not going to happen. I'm more a visionary than an actionary. I don't do things, I tell people what to do and actually not even that. I just give a direction to go. Being a mod would mean that I would have to read stuff I don't want to read and browse thru threads I would never ever touch - total horror! Starting "Only on topic" threads is pre-kindergarten level. The "no discussion" threads are already kindergarten and nobody here seems to be interested in discussing the quotes posted anyway. So there's no sincerity. But what I really might consider doing is writing to Shawn and then posting his reply because that could end a lot of misunderstandings around here and - depending on his answer - could be used as a guideline for everyone who wants to continue participating here.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 11, 2013 12:19:37 GMT -5
The Mod powers are very limited here. Mods are not specific to threads. Mods cannot grant powers to anyone else. So it's got to go through Shawn. And it looks like Reefs is considering asking to join the management team here, so we'll see what comes of that. In the meantime, Reefs could try starting his own thread with "ON TOPIC ONLY" if he wants, and I can delete any post that gets reported as being off topic. The "No Discussion" threads seem to have been well respected. That's not going to happen. I'm more a visionary than an actionary. I don't do things, I tell people what to do and actually not even that. I just give a direction to go. Being a mod would mean that I would have to read stuff I don't want to read and browse thru threads I would never ever touch - total horror! Starting "Only on topic" threads is pre-kindergarten level. The "no discussion" threads are already kindergarten and nobody here seems to be interested in discussing the quotes posted anyway. So there's no sincerity. But what I really might consider doing is writing to Shawn and then posting his reply because that could end a lot of misunderstandings around here and - depending on his answer - could be used as a guideline for everyone who wants to continue participating here. I can only imagine the number of posts from Reefs saying: "But Peter, you're not doing your job. This is what Shawn said the purpose of the forum is, and the way I see it so-and-so is not meshing with my understanding of what Shawn's intent is."
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 11, 2013 12:26:13 GMT -5
That's not going to happen. I'm more a visionary than an actionary. I don't do things, I tell people what to do and actually not even that. I just give a direction to go. Being a mod would mean that I would have to read stuff I don't want to read and browse thru threads I would never ever touch - total horror! Starting "Only on topic" threads is pre-kindergarten level. The "no discussion" threads are already kindergarten and nobody here seems to be interested in discussing the quotes posted anyway. So there's no sincerity. But what I really might consider doing is writing to Shawn and then posting his reply because that could end a lot of misunderstandings around here and - depending on his answer - could be used as a guideline for everyone who wants to continue participating here. I can only imagine the number of posts from Reefs saying: "But Peter, you're not doing your job. This is what Shawn said the purpose of the forum is, and the way I see it so-and-so is not meshing with my understanding of what Shawn's intent is." I would probably add a long long list. But you are right, I should better just do an adios thread and bugger off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 12:31:11 GMT -5
The Mod powers are very limited here. Mods are not specific to threads. Mods cannot grant powers to anyone else. So it's got to go through Shawn. And it looks like Reefs is considering asking to join the management team here, so we'll see what comes of that. In the meantime, Reefs could try starting his own thread with "ON TOPIC ONLY" if he wants, and I can delete any post that gets reported as being off topic. The "No Discussion" threads seem to have been well respected. That's not going to happen. I'm more a visionary than an actionary. I don't do things, I tell people what to do and actually not even that. I just give a direction to go. Being a mod would mean that I would have to read stuff I don't want to read and browse thru threads I would never ever touch - total horror! Starting "Only on topic" threads is pre-kindergarten level. The "no discussion" threads are already kindergarten and nobody here seems to be interested in discussing the quotes posted anyway. So there's no sincerity. But what I really might consider doing is writing to Shawn and then posting his reply because that could end a lot of misunderstandings around here and - depending on his answer - could be used as a guideline for everyone who wants to continue participating here. I'm interested in what you envision as an 'on topic' discussion is like. But it seems to me that, since this is your vision, you should be responsible for keeping it on topic. That may mean that you nominate someone to do such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 11, 2013 12:32:12 GMT -5
I can only imagine the number of posts from Reefs saying: "But Peter, you're not doing your job. This is what Shawn said the purpose of the forum is, and the way I see it so-and-so is not meshing with my understanding of what Shawn's intent is." I would probably add a long long list. But you are right, I should better just do an adios thread and bugger off. To be clear, I'm not trying to get you to leave the forum. I enjoy your insightful contribs when they are not focussed on pouring gas on a person and grinning meniachally to see if they will light the match! ;D
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 11, 2013 12:52:21 GMT -5
I would say there is a bit of a club here, though maybe the word 'band' (as in 'band of...') fits more than 'club'. I would say that this is when it took shape: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=misc&action=display&thread=1761I don't consider the band/club to have been shaped (nor maintained) consciously/deliberately. Prior to this I would say there were normal allegiances and biases on the forum, but no band/club. For those that looked at the link, Exactamente is now Reefs though I guess most people here know that.
|
|