//

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by 三江源

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

this is definitely an important topic to address, however I am at a loss of word and thought on the matter... I will keep an eye on this one...

[Marblehead]

Actually, I think the flowers of April are more vibrant and 'alive' than are the flowers of May.

[Birch]

I'd get slaughtered for thread fluffery. I don't think I'd be inclined to post much at all if this 'productivity' thing was involved.

I've been on forums with much stricter rules and it felt very uptight and much more clique-ish. Which is diametrically opposite to a situation conducive to engaging and sharing with others.

 

I think people are doing quite well policing themselves and I appreciate the way threads get moved if they fluff up too much. I do use the search from time to time and I know which posters have 'got it' so I read them often.

[Protector]

 

 

[Birch]

"I think a lot of times understanding is derived through the twists and turns a conversation can take."

 

This sits well with me but those who know know why:-) I've not adverse to structure but am towards control. The people exerting their influence to twist a thread are one thing, the people avoiding posting because their influence is unable to untwist it are another.

 

The number of times I've heard something along the lines that the 'high-level folks' have stopped posting because of yada yada is pretty impressive. Personally I find it somewhat, unhelpful to turn up at a forum, proclaim mastery, bag your students and then not return to contribute. But that's just me:-)

[Marblehead]

I will admit that I have, on numerous occasions, derailed a thread from its original topic.

 

This, generally, is not a conscious desire to distract from the original topic but rather that something someone said caused me to have a thought that was not directly related to the topic but yet there was a link in my mind between the concepts being spoken of.

 

If I don't speak to it at the moment it is likely that I would never be able to reformulate the thought later and state a new thread to discuss to topic.

 

This same thing happens with me in 'real' life. I will oftentimes be distracted from the original discussion by something someone said. It really is difficult to control one's spontaneous thoughts.

 

The way I look at it is that if there are still people who want to speak to the original post concept then the discussion can be reestablished after the distraction has been brough to full circle.

 

To limit one to what they can say is very dictatorial and limiting. I think that one of the reasons we have so many free-thinkers as members of this board is because we are allowed to be free-thinkers. Otherwise this board would become one of the herds Nietzsche spoke about. That would be sad, I think.

[Apech]

I think the 'no insult' policy has worked well for this place. It's too easy to just start hurling insults and because people can't they think more about what to post. So I like the fact that it's a bit more civilised than it used to be.

 

I don't ever want to see anyone controlling content as in censorship even if it's benign. I like the idea that people feel free to make a joke or add a tangential idea. I like the way threads go off on different directions cos it makes them lively like a real conversation. the trouble is when you have a few of the most active threads turning into an argument between certain members. Then it gets boring and dull. Going over the same ground again and again ... noooooo! (to quote the late demented Sinfest)

 

Paradoxically while liking the banter I'd like to see more serious structured resource material on here. The interview with Bruce Frantzis is one example where people can find out about a teacher/teaching in some depth .... I think this is good because for me TTBs has been a fantastic source of info on all kinds of systems and teachers who I'd never heard of ... e.g. Max, Jenny Lamb, Wang Liping and so on ... but instead of directing people to links you could have some more info on here as well as possibly an opportunity to ask questions of a teacher if they are willing to come on here.

 

I think maybe that the sub forums could be stricter in this sense. So if you post in Buddhist sub it should be about Buddhism and not anything personal or attacking or off subject ... if so it should be moved to General .. which should be left alone to roam widely around our subconscious. Just as the TTC sub worked by sticking strictly to the chapters of the TTC.

[gatito]

I think the 'no insult' policy has worked well for this place. It's too easy to just start hurling insults and because people can't they think more about what to post. So I like the fact that it's a bit more civilised than it used to be.

 

I don't ever want to see anyone controlling content as in censorship even if it's benign. I like the idea that people feel free to make a joke or add a tangential idea. I like the way threads go off on different directions cos it makes them lively like a real conversation. the trouble is when you have a few of the most active threads turning into an argument between certain members. Then it gets boring and dull. Going over the same ground again and again ... noooooo! (to quote the late demented Sinfest)

 

Paradoxically while liking the banter I'd like to see more serious structured resource material on here. The interview with Bruce Frantzis is one example where people can find out about a teacher/teaching in some depth .... I think this is good because for me TTBs has been a fantastic source of info on all kinds of systems and teachers who I'd never heard of ... e.g. Max, Jenny Lamb, Wang Liping and so on ... but instead of directing people to links you could have some more info on here as well as possibly an opportunity to ask questions of a teacher if they are willing to come on here.

 

I think maybe that the sub forums could be stricter in this sense. So if you post in Buddhist sub it should be about Buddhism and not anything personal or attacking or off subject ... if so it should be moved to General .. which should be left alone to roam widely around our subconscious. Just as the TTC sub worked by sticking strictly to the chapters of the TTC.

 

Bear in mind that there's no underlying difference bertween Buddhism, Vedanta, Taoism, Sufism, Esoteric Christianity, Esoteric Judaism etc.etc. etc.............

 

So it would be very difficult to moderate.

 

I like the libertarian socialism of TTB - it works well.

 

The fewer rules - the better

[Apech]

Bear in mind that there's no underlying difference bertween Buddhism, Vedanta, Taoism, Sufism, Esoteric Christianity, Esoteric Judaism etc.etc. etc.............

 

So it would be very difficult to moderate.

 

I like the libertarian socialism of TTB - it works well.

 

The fewer rules - the better

 

Socialism! ... hey don't use that word in Off Topic you'll be lynched

 

I agree that there is an underlying unity in the message of all those different religions ... but they are not the same either in philosophy or practice ... I would not be able to mod what is ok or not in Taoism for instance ... so ok its not easy ... but I still think it's an interesting idea to try to build up some kind of resource or resource directory ... maybe a better search facility might do it ... not sure ...

[Apech]

Perhaps if there were 1-2 moderators per sub category (with capacity for a sub moderator to be assigned to more than one sub if they were interested and sufficiently expert on the subjects) who only moderated within those subs, but not globally. I know this is an idea you and I have talked about before. In this way we could have subject matter experts determining what was on topic and what was not, and it would take some burden off of the global moderators.

Yes I think that's a possibility .... especially as most of it would be removing threads which start '**** sucks and doesn't work' or similar and also pruning threads which contain valuable content but then descend into bitching (yes it really does happen ha ha!). Very little would be deleted mostly moved .

[gatito]

 

Socialism! ... hey don't use that word in Off Topic you'll be lynched

 

I agree that there is an underlying unity in the message of all those different religions ... but they are not the same either in philosophy or practice ... I would not be able to mod what is ok or not in Taoism for instance ... so ok its not easy ... but I still think it's an interesting idea to try to build up some kind of resource or resource directory ... maybe a better search facility might do it ... not sure ...

 

LOL - good luck with that

 

True enough

 

Just pointing out that moderation is an already difficult task and that more rules might not be the simplest/easiest/best way

 

For example:

• I really wouldn't want to exclude Buddhists from expressing their understanding in the Vedanta Forum
• Should we have a specific sub-forum for different "types" of Buddhism?

[gatito]

Yes I think that's a possibility .... especially as most of it would be removing threads which start '**** sucks and doesn't work' or similar and also pruning threads which contain valuable content but then descend into bitching (yes it really does happen ha ha!). Very little would be deleted mostly moved .

 

I detest censorship myself

[gatito]

Perhaps if there were 1-2 moderators per sub category (with capacity for a sub moderator to be assigned to more than one sub if they were interested and sufficiently expert on the subjects) who only moderated within those subs, but not globally. I know this is an idea you and I have talked about before. In this way we could have subject matter experts determining what was on topic and what was not, and it would take some burden off of the global moderators.

 

Will the experts have certificates/qualifications?

[gatito]

No one has those things now. I would assume that the moderators would be chosen by Sean or by the existing moderators based on the quality of content they have contributed over time and an expressed interest in moderation. It is usually clear who has more understanding of specific subject matter based on how they are able to speak on the subjects. This suggestion also has the benefit of keeping the actual structure of moderation roughly the same as it is now, but with more understanding being applied to the topics in the sub forums than is currently the case. Members would literally be making no sacrifices to their existing ability to post if all forum rules are being followed.

 

How do you assess their "competency"?

 

Is (are) sean (or any of the moderators) "competent" in Vedanta?

[Apech]

 

 

For example:

• I really wouldn't want to exclude Buddhists from expressing their understanding in the Vedanta Forum
• Should we have a specific sub-forum for different "types" of Buddhism?

 

No I think comparison and debate should be encouraged. But I would exclude the "only buddhists know anything and vedanta is for low-life scum" kind of stuff ... if you know what I mean. There has been some of that.

 

generally I still see modding as very light touch ...

[Apech]

I detest censorship myself

 

[gatito]

 

You really do need to do something about your self-image.

 

I like you Apech - a lot!

[Protector]

Don't worry, guys. I've got this

 

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by 三江源

[eye_of_the_storm]

I detest censorship myself

 

As long as the insults are kept to a minimum... though, even then?

 

It takes 2 to tango... I think it is good practice.

 

I think if people just give things time... it all works out in the end.

 

All these... type of threads make me sad...

 

Thanks for the bit of light Sin

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

How many members can we accomodate, who post without concern for the quality of their contribution, or for remaining on topic. We all want to incorporate the random and playful .. how much of this can we accomodate and stiil be a forum worth reading?

 

My suggestion is that we self moderate and examine quite how self indulgent we have to be in our posts, or quite how much we contribute.

I can't answer your questions Cat. I know that to be serious all the time is boring after a little while. Some have more tolerance to boredom than do others. And then, some have less tolerance toward humor and silliness than do others.

 

Yes, self-moderation is good. But then, as we all are special and unique (different) there will be differences between the limits each individual member sets for themself.

 

Isn't it really up to the thread originator to guide the discussion in the direction they wish the discussion to go and to determine when it is time to joke around and it is time to remain serious about the discussion and speak to the thread's topic?

 

And then, as mentioned before on numerous occasions, there is always the "ignore" button.

 

It would really be disappointing to me if this board turned into something so structured that the members were afraid to say anything.

 

No threats or personal insults.

 

How far beyond this do we, and society in general, need to be limited and restricted? The answer to this, I think, remains with the board owner and the general membership.

 

I am still a Taoist although substantially modified. I love living spontaneously.

 

Now yes, my post above regarding the flowers was totally off-topic. This was intentional, you know. I wouldn't normally do something like that while a discussion was still on topic and the discussion was taking place honestly (no trolling).

 

But I will do my best to comply with the boards rules as long as I can feel I can be myself. If the restrictors become so demanding that I can no longer be my true self then I would have no reason to remain a member.

 

And as Lao Tzu said (paraphrased): The more laws a society has the more criminals that society will have.

[Apech]

You are clearly a terrible judge of character:

 

 

You really do need to do something about your self-image.

 

I like you Apech - a lot!