Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 2:10:11 GMT -5
I think there should be a rule that if you ask a peep a question more than 6 times and they still deliberately avoid answering then they should be whipped or stoned (or a bit of both)  Yeah, but for our American friends, that would be a violation of the 5th amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2017 2:28:23 GMT -5
How's this all working out? Good question. If someone just can't jump in and defend or demolish an argument, then this isn't a discussion forum. To say nothing of who gets to decide who is in which team, whatever that means. What's the need for this? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Read what I wrote and remember the no giraffe rule. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2017 2:37:42 GMT -5
All,
this is not a suggestion thread or a discussion thread. This thread is intended to introduce the new rules and clarify them where necessary. Moderation rules and moderator decisions are not intended to be part of any public discussion. We've tried that in the past and it didn't work out. If you don't have any specific questions regarding the OP then please go back to your regular discussion thread.
Thank you.
R
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 2:47:05 GMT -5
That'sā crossed the line with me. I'm outta here. Bye!
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2017 2:53:27 GMT -5
That'sā crossed the line with me. I'm outta here. Bye! Adios, amigo! |
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 5:33:34 GMT -5
Good question. If someone just can't jump in and defend or demolish an argument, then this isn't a discussion forum. To say nothing of who gets to decide who is in which team, whatever that means. What's the need for this? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Read what I wrote and remember the no giraffe rule. If you are not careful That can creep into becoming a "no interpretation" rule....right? If you are banning one's capacity to interpret what another is saying then you are banning human nature....and as an aside, turning this forum into a place where only your interpretations of what other's have written are allowed aren't you? Seem pretty subjective doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 5:40:40 GMT -5
Can you explain this giraffe thing. I've never understood it. And what's a crusade? Is that not simply stating a belief, which is what peeps do on forums. A giraffe is something that isn't actually there. It refers to the he said/she said stuff, A claiming B said something that B never actually said. That happens all the time and can be resolved real quick by providing a link or quote. So it's basically about accurate quoting. However, if A should be proven wrong by the archive and continue anyway with those false claims, then that would be called giraffing. A crusade is the attempt to prove someone wrong at all costs, no matter what the other has to say. If that goes on for a longer period of time, when someone is actively campaigning against someone, that would be called crusading. To that last bit about Crusading....if you decide to go to far with that....you will be banning people for not agreeing....or worse....not agreeing as quickly as you personally decide is appropriete no? |
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 5:52:46 GMT -5
And finally...the title of this thread (that you chose) along with the terse tone and addressing the contributors here as "All"...well, maybe I shouldn't interpret too much?
I will offer some advice though.
This forum is not YOUR forum.
You would do well to remember that as a moderator, your job is to enforce the TOS, and whatever mutually agreed upon additional rules that the community here chooses for itself.
Not to shape or limit the discussion...or choose whose interpretations are valid and whether or not someone should be agreeing with someone else on a timetable that you determine is appropriete based on your own interpretation of events.
Agreement is not the same as acquiescence.
You can force acquiescence, but you can never force agreement...which by its very nature requires often hard won consensus through a rigorous exchange of ideas and communication.
I would argue that at a forum like this, one has no business trying to FORCE acquiescence OR agreement.
Do you know why?
|
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 6:07:09 GMT -5
All, this is not a suggestion thread or a discussion thread. This thread is intended to introduce the new rules and clarify them where necessary. Moderation rules and moderator decisions are not intended to be part of any public discussion. We've tried that in the past and it didn't work out. If you don't have any specific questions regarding the OP then please go back to your regular discussion thread. Thank you. R |
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 6:07:54 GMT -5
šššššššššš
Bet he bans me for that lol
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 8, 2017 6:34:05 GMT -5
šššššššššš Bet he bans me for that lol I see it somewhat differently. Many serious seekers do not post on the forum because they fear being attacked and/or ridiculed. The primary issue is ad hominem attacks and posts that demean or belittle people who don;t agree with various postulated definitions or interpretations of non-dual issues. The oneupmanship game of "I'm more enlightened that you are" is another major problem, and it leads to endless food fights. If Reefs can improve the level of discourse by reducing incivility and encouraging open discussions, then IMO this website will become a much better vehicle for helping people who are searching for the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2017 7:27:23 GMT -5
If you are not careful That can creep into becoming a "no interpretation" rule....right? If you are banning one's capacity to interpret what another is saying then you are banning human nature....and as an aside, turning this forum into a place where only your interpretations of what other's have written are allowed aren't you? Seem pretty subjective doesn't it? Moderation will always be subjective. There's no way around it. To that last bit about Crusading....if you decide to go to far with that....you will be banning people for not agreeing....or worse....not agreeing as quickly as you personally decide is appropriete no? I'm not planning being part of any ongoing discussions. I may post a comment here and there from time to time as ZD does, but apart from that I'll stay in the background. The way I see it, a moderator shouldn't get involved in regular forum activity. So this kind of dilemma shouldn't even arise. And finally...the title of this thread (that you chose) along with the terse tone and addressing the contributors here as "All"...well, maybe I shouldn't interpret too much? I will offer some advice though. This forum is not YOUR forum. You would do well to remember that as a moderator, your job is to enforce the TOS, and whatever mutually agreed upon additional rules that the community here chooses for itself. Not to shape or limit the discussion...or choose whose interpretations are valid and whether or not someone should be agreeing with someone else on a timetable that you determine is appropriete based on your own interpretation of events. Agreement is not the same as acquiescence. You can force acquiescence, but you can never force agreement...which by its very nature requires often hard won consensus through a rigorous exchange of ideas and communication. I would argue that at a forum like this, one has no business trying to FORCE acquiescence OR agreement. Do you know why? The entire mod team is in agreement about the new rules and new direction of the forum. And if you should have actually read the original user guidelines you'd see that I am not really trying to enforce anything new under the sun. Calling someone a "d.ick in a box" is not acceptable, neither under the already existing user guidelines nor under the new rules. šššššššššš Bet he bans me for that lol No, I'm not going to ban you, Steve. But I have to give you a warning since you've been violating the already existing user guidelines. So consider this your official warning #1. |
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 7:57:33 GMT -5
šššššššššš Bet he bans me for that lol I see it somewhat differently. Many serious seekers do not post on the forum because they fear being attacked and/or ridiculed. The primary issue is ad hominem attacks and posts that demean or belittle people who don;t agree with various postulated definitions or interpretations of non-dual issues. The oneupmanship game of "I'm more enlightened that you are" is another major problem, and it leads to endless food fights. If Reefs can improve the level of discourse by reducing incivility and encouraging open discussions, then IMO this website will become a much better vehicle for helping people who are searching for the truth. Then shouldnt we be monitoring incivility versus Reefs 3 pet peeves? ššš |
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 8:02:09 GMT -5
If you are not careful That can creep into becoming a "no interpretation" rule....right? If you are banning one's capacity to interpret what another is saying then you are banning human nature....and as an aside, turning this forum into a place where only your interpretations of what other's have written are allowed aren't you? Seem pretty subjective doesn't it? Moderation will always be subjective. There's no way around it. To that last bit about Crusading....if you decide to go to far with that....you will be banning people for not agreeing....or worse....not agreeing as quickly as you personally decide is appropriete no? I'm not planning being part of any ongoing discussions. I may post a comment here and there from time to time as ZD does, but apart from that I'll stay in the background. The way I see it, a moderator shouldn't get involved in regular forum activity. So this kind of dilemma shouldn't even arise. And finally...the title of this thread (that you chose) along with the terse tone and addressing the contributors here as "All"...well, maybe I shouldn't interpret too much? I will offer some advice though. This forum is not YOUR forum. You would do well to remember that as a moderator, your job is to enforce the TOS, and whatever mutually agreed upon additional rules that the community here chooses for itself. Not to shape or limit the discussion...or choose whose interpretations are valid and whether or not someone should be agreeing with someone else on a timetable that you determine is appropriete based on your own interpretation of events. Agreement is not the same as acquiescence. You can force acquiescence, but you can never force agreement...which by its very nature requires often hard won consensus through a rigorous exchange of ideas and communication. I would argue that at a forum like this, one has no business trying to FORCE acquiescence OR agreement. Do you know why? The entire mod team is in agreement about the new rules and new direction of the forum. And if you should have actually read the original user guidelines you'd see that I am not really trying to enforce anything new under the sun. Calling someone a "d.ick in a box" is not acceptable, neither under the already existing user guidelines nor under the new rules. Girrafe šššš¦š¬š§š¦šššššššššš Bet he bans me for that lol No, I'm not going to ban you, Steve. But I have to give you a warning since you've been violating the already existing user guidelines. So consider this your official warning #1. |
|
|
|
Post by steven777 on Apr 8, 2017 8:04:31 GMT -5
See wut I did ther? ššš
|
|
