|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 9:11:25 GMT -5
That's done as a playful way of challenging preconceptions. Well, and it annoys Gopal. Duly noted
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 9:18:31 GMT -5
Some suggestions / questions... 1. Can we stop posting ChatGPT answers here? It's a large-language-model. Its language skill is impressive, but it's not that "smart". Posting its full answers is like posting the text of wikipedia articles. Maybe make a dedicated thread for it if a few people think it's fascinating. Stackoverflow and other forums have a "no ChatGPT" rule. 2. About Figgles. If you don't want to answer her questions, say something simple and kind like: "Figgles, I don't want to answer most of your questions, so I'm going to ignore most of them. Take care." See. No need to lecture her about how she is "uncivilized", "insane", "malicious troll" loser at the bottom of some imaginary scale of humanity, etc. Then, if she persists in spamming the forum with tons of questions that are being ignored, okay, that probably requires moderator action at some point, later. Maybe she won't spam the forum like that, because she has her own blog/forum for that kind of thing. 3. About Reefs' identity, or Figgles opinions about it. Again, it's not that important. Zendancer and some others here have online identities with photos, videos. You can talk to them in person at retreats. On my part, I really like that, and I like the personal stories that (for me) give authenticity to the whole thing. (The impersonal + the personal; the archetype + individual.) But with some others, like Reefs, you have no idea who they are unless you trust his or her word on it. Fine. That's okay. Who cares. Misgendering Reefs should not be bannable offense. I'm not defending everything Figgles might do or did in the past. But don't invite someone back and then immediately berate them, and then ban them before giving things a chance to calm down. edit: misgendering someone a couple times should not be a bannable offense. Repeatedly doing it on purpose, after the person says they are a he or a she... that I have no opinion on. It gets into the whole trans thing, and I didn't mean to do that. 🤦♂️. I'm not learning ze/zer pronounces and all that! Haha. edit2: apologies to wikipedia. Their articles are written by humans and are usually higher quality than ChatGPT answers. But you get my point. 1) Apparently other people seem to benefit from those posts. So no action will be taken. 2) Been there done that, multiple times. Doesn't work. If you don't believe me, ask Laughter. And I've answered her questions. I just don't answer the exact same questions multiple times. Waste of time. 3) Agreed, the misgendering isn't the issue. The trolling is the issue, plus the lack of interest in deescalation. Thanks for your input, Robert.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 1, 2023 9:19:40 GMT -5
The process by which distinctiveness itself arises. The path it takes. I'm just saying that distinction is a natural part of the process of expression unfolding as a whole. Regardless of whether or not any extraneous mental overlay arises. Possibly a bit vague, idk. But I can't really talk in terms of boundaries when it comes to impressions, i.e distinctiveness. It might seem odd to talk about impression and distinctiveness in the same breath. But perception is an unfathomable (and predominantly subconscious) process of differentiation. A cascade from vague to acute. In terms of expression, that encompasses 'the conditioned'. So ocean as a whole, and wave-like individuated aspects.
When I'm talking about vagueness, I should probably mention that I do absolutely grok ATA, which is an alert and therefore vivid state of direct sensory perception absent mental overlay or narrative. I'm sure that's been clear anyway. But maintain that a process of distinction or differentiation is still going on in such a state, in the form of subconscious mental processing. Which is one of the reasons I tend to employ a broader conception of mind than others it seems. Although I do understand the way they use mind to point to those surface level aspects which are quiescent. .. but see that as merely the cessation of 'monkey-mind'.
I got a new book yesterday, it came yesterday. It's a ND-Enlightenment book. (Yes, I keep trying). Oddly, he emphasizes the word distinction. No, I don't get ZD's ontology, I'm sure it's consistent, within his mind. I think ZD accepts an exterior world (acknowledging for him there isn't an inner and an outer). But he is a contractor, you kind of have to. E used to drive me bananas, he seemed to *believe* the whole universe arises anew from nothing at every moment. That loses me. So I don't get ZD's use of the word distinction (he wrote about it a couple of days ago). But the new book-guy basically says when the unmanifest makes one distinction, the manifest world begins. That sounds pretty same in my book. So for me, rocks and water and s__t and stuff has existed for 13.8 billion years. New book-guy doesn't say it (about 1/2 done, big letters), but the Big Bang could be called the first distinction. IOW, the mind can't make distinctions unless they already exist. I even think that's the whole point of G Spencer's Laws of Form. (But haven't read it in years). The Big Bang would not be a distinction until THIS evolves into an organism that can make that distinction. For an amoeba there never was a Big Bang because the Big Bang is an idea that is beyond its capacity to imagine. The act of distinction, from my POV, is an intellectual/imaginative projection. To put it another way, THIS can't know itself (even indirectly) until it can imaginatively divide itself into two separate and imaginary states--an observer and that which is observed. I think that this is how G. Spencer described the situation, but I would state it somewhat differently. I would say that THIS cannot know itself (even indirectly) until it can imagine itself as divided into two imaginary states--an imaginer and an imagined "other." G. Spencer basically says that if we/THIS make a single distinction a world comes into existence, and that's what I was pointing to when I discussed what the word "exist" can be taken to mean. A world (ex-ists) "comes forth from" THIS that is fundamentally indivisible via an act of imaginative abstraction. IOW, we imagine existence into existing, and if there is no imagining, there is only "what is"/THIS undivided into artificial and abstract states. I understand why applying the word "imaginary" to things like trees is bothersome to people, but the word is not being applied to what the tree IS; it's only being applied to the concept of the tree as a separate thing being seen by a separate observer. Like G. Spencer, I'm pointing to an act of the intellect when I refer to an act of distinction. THIS cannot know itself directly; it can only be itself. In order to know/episteme itself as something (some thing), it must imagine itself as divided into abstract states. This is why the Tao Te Ching begins, "The Tao that can be named (distinguished) is not the Tao."
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 1, 2023 9:22:05 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the last expression of the "reefs is sharon" conspiracy theory was within the last year over on gab, and I think even within the last 4 months. I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I’ve b I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ . This weird fixation on your gender has been around for years. Its the fixation itself that would catch my attention. Unfinished business is the realm of the SVP, and not a truly realized being who would have no interest in holding grudges against itself on a non-duality forum such as this one where distinctions such as gender have no bearing on who one really is. Couple that with a tendency to call others liars without a shred of evidence and I think there is something a bit twisted going on here.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 9:36:54 GMT -5
Some suggestions / questions... 1. Can we stop posting ChatGPT answers here? It's a large-language-model. It's language skill is impressive, but it's not that "smart". It's like posting full text of wikipedia articles. Maybe make a dedicated thread for it if a few people think it's fascinating. Stackoverflow and other forums have a "no ChatGPT" rule. 2. About Figgles. If you don't want to answer her questions, say something simple and kind like: "Figgles, I don't want to answer most of your questions, so I'm going to ignore most of them. Take care." See. No need to lecture her about how she is "uncivilized", "insane", "malicious troll" loser at the bottom of some imaginary scale of humanity, etc. Then, if she persists in spamming the forum with tons of questions that are being ignored, okay, that probably requires moderator action at some point, later. Maybe she won't spam the forum like that, because she has her own blog/forum for that kind of thing. 3. About Reefs' identity, or Figgles opinions about it. Again, it's not that important. Zendancer and some others here have online identities with photos, videos. You can talk to them in person at retreats. On my part, I really like that, and I like the personal stories that (for me) give authenticity to the whole thing. (The impersonal + the personal; the archetype + individual.) But with some others, like Reefs, you have no idea who they are unless you trust his or her word on it. Fine. That's okay. Who cares. Misgendering Reefs should not be bannable offense. I'm not defending everything Figgles might do or did in the past. But don't invite someone back and then immediately berate them, and then ban them before giving things a chance to calm down. edit: misgendering someone a couple times should not be a bannable offense. Repeatedly doing it on purpose, after the person says they are a he or a she... that I have no opinion on. It gets into the whole trans thing, and I didn't mean to do that. 🤦♂️. I'm not learning ze/zer pronounces and all that! Haha. edit2: apologies to wikipedia. Their articles are written by humans and are usually higher quality than ChatGPT answers. But you get my point. 1) Yes, some sanity. I don't know why figgles thinks it's important to challenge Reefs gender, on and on. Truth is not so easy to come by, it only matters to some one, truth can't really be shared, we can't drill a hole into someone's head and pour in truth. 2) And then too, why does it bother Reefs? 3) What you think of me is none of my business. That appeared on my FB screen once upon a time, or maybe I wrote it on my FB screen, I think I read it somewhere once. Pretty good and succinct to live by. I think I'll add it to my signature. Solves a lot of problems. 1) Fun fact, just a few months ago Robert still considered Figgles gone full blown insane (or something along those lines) exactly because of that. 2) The misgendering isn't the issue. The trolling and crusading is the issue. 3) Bingo! However, I have to consider the forum as a whole. Maybe I haven't been clear enough. The question is, do you think Figgles can be reasoned with? And does her word mean anything? I say this with this post in mind: Hi there! Remember that your mission in this incarnation is to teach us the art of civil discussion by being a shining example. So show us the in-alignment, in-the-vortex, fun version of yourself that I still remember from our pavlina days as much as possible and this should be an enjoyable, satisfying and stimulating experience for all of us. And If you can manage getting used to the idea of agreeing to disagree on certain points being the better option in the long run for a thriving community than a truth or death approach, all the better. Please also keep in mind that no one here is under any obligation to answer any questions posed by anyone. If people want to engage with you, they will. If they don't want to, they won't. And you can't and shouldn't force them to by whatever means. Enjoy your stay! R All of that sounds reasonable. And the bolded is more than reasonable. I would never do that and do not even know HOW one would 'force' another on a forum to respond when they truly did not want to. I don't see her following thru with any of this. Hence the question.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 9:44:51 GMT -5
I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ I try not to get too involved in forum politics, but it seems like a storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. Your male energy couldn't be any clearer to me. So I consider that if figs really buys into all that then she probably isn't very perceptive and deluded in that respect. If she's just poking then it's no real biggie either. Just ignore it. It's not really hurtin anyone. Also, I think Tegan is a lovely name. I don't know if you have deed poll over there, but if you're name isn't Tegan you should seriously consider changing it to that. I know I am! Sure, it's silly. But we are long past the poking stage. You have to also consider the time and energy she put into this, the tenacity. Especially the way she went after Sharon. Anyway, thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 1, 2023 9:48:52 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the last expression of the "reefs is sharon" conspiracy theory was within the last year over on gab, and I think even within the last 4 months. I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ Crazy!?? Geez ouro actually believes he's a person. Doesn't get any crazier. Don't get yer panties in a bunch, Teegs. 😁
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 9:49:54 GMT -5
I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I’ve b I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ . This weird fixation on your gender has been around for years. Its the fixation itself that would catch my attention. Unfinished business is the realm of the SVP, and not a truly realized being who would have no interest in holding grudges against itself on a non-duality forum such as this one where distinctions such as gender have no bearing on who one really is. Couple that with a tendency to call others liars without a shred of evidence and I think there is something a bit twisted going on here. Agreed. Laughter calls it "all ego all the time". However, that she can't tell fact from fiction would be in alignment with her dream/story ontology. So maybe now we know where that comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 9:53:03 GMT -5
I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ Crazy!?? Geez ouro actually believes he's a person. Doesn't get any crazier. Don't get yer panties in a bunch, Teegs. 😁 Don't get stuck on the details, the misgendering or misnaming. That's actually funny to some degree. It's sad though that she can't let go of it. So the issue is the negative energy and ill intent behind it. That's the problem that has to be dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 10:02:25 GMT -5
One more point re: Figgles behavior. I notice that I may have misinterpreted her use of the word civility. I go by the dictionary definition of the word, i.e. friendly, respectful, polite. But it occurred to me today that by civility she just means not being openly aggressive. Passive aggression would still fall under the umbrella of civility. But in my book, passive aggression is as unfriendly as open aggression and will be dealt with in the exact same way.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2023 10:33:37 GMT -5
Some suggestions / questions... 4. I'm not defending everything Figgles might do or did in the past. But don't invite someone back and then immediately berate them, and then ban them before giving things a chance to calm down. 4) Remember that the original idea behind the decision to have her back was to be done with this Figgles topic for good and finally move on as a forum, i.e. no more nostalgia, no more cross-referencing etc. between forums. The ideal scenario would have been that we can clear the air and then move on. The worst case scenario, which is where we are heading right now, would be that she falls back into old crusading habits and gets banned, but we then would move on anyway. So the way this is going to play out is in her hands and no matter how this is going to play out in the end, there will be closure on this Figgles topic, one way or another. If she becomes part of this community again, awesome. If she goes separate ways again, also okay.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 1, 2023 12:54:28 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the last expression of the "reefs is sharon" conspiracy theory was within the last year over on gab, and I think even within the last 4 months. I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. ... =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ The way I look at this: I create my own reality. So, experiencing frig, as is ... On one hand, that needs an interpretation I can learn from, get a guidance. On the other hand, that needs an investigation of the root cause, finding my limiting belief, then change it. Looking at frig as a Zeland pendulum may offer a quick but temporary relief, but if I don't address the limiting belief, then another manifestation will ensue. Both the interpretation and the limiting belief are personal, so yours are most likely different than mine. As a pendulum I put her on "ignore", and see her posts only when I am not logged-in, and I skip them with no emotion. I don't use the "ignore" to remove her, and others, to pretend they don't exist, but just as a reminder not to waste my time, because I don't care. As a moderator you also care about, and have a responsibility to the forum. It might be interesting to think in terms of interpretation and limiting belief from the point of view of the forum as a gestalt.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 1, 2023 12:58:45 GMT -5
It might be an hommage ... and lately it is fashionable to attribute feminine pronouns to gods and supreme powers Probably, frig just intends to annoy him. She has issues. That's done as a playful way of challenging preconceptions. Well, and it annoys Gopal. You know that this "and it annoys Gopal" boomerangs because it is a symptom of a limiting belief, that affects your reality in a way you don't want to ...
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 1, 2023 13:09:16 GMT -5
I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. ... I try not to get too involved in forum politics, but it seems like a storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. Your male energy couldn't be any clearer to me. So I consider that if figs really buys into all that then she probably isn't very perceptive and deluded in that respect. If she's just poking then it's no real biggie either. Just ignore it. It's not really hurtin anyone. Also, I think Tegan is a lovely name. I don't know if you have deed poll over there, but if you're name isn't Tegan you should seriously consider changing it to that. I know I am! Actually that is trolling, with the intention to annoy or aggravate. I perceive it as biggie.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 1, 2023 15:09:59 GMT -5
I actually didn't want to go there, but.. Thank you. ============ I try not to get too involved in forum politics, but it seems like a storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. Your male energy couldn't be any clearer to me. So I consider that if figs really buys into all that then she probably isn't very perceptive and deluded in that respect. If she's just poking then it's no real biggie either. Just ignore it. It's not really hurtin anyone. Also, I think Tegan is a lovely name. I don't know if you have deed poll over there, but if you're name isn't Tegan you should seriously consider changing it to that. I know I am!
Pillock!!
|
|