Let's be meaningful and polite here

[Arkady Shadursky]

I'd like to create a new thread according to the rules of this forum:

 

If your replies are removed and you feel you cannot freely express your views (or counter-points), then you are welcomed to start a thread where you can control the topic.   The requirements for the new topic must still agree with the expressed rules.

 

Because that is actually what I do feel. My posts with questions and counter-points to other member of this forum are being deleted due to Owner Permission policy.

 

I would like to ask admin if what I'm doing now is OK and doesn't violate and forum rules, because my main activity usually is to practice taoist methods.

 

My previous thread with questions and counter-points was removed, and that is why this time I ask first.

Thank you.

---

Arkady

 

[Kar3n]

I'd like to create a new thread according to the rules of this forum:

 

Because that is actually what I do feel. My posts with questions and counter-points to other member of this forum are being deleted due to Owner Permission policy.

 

I would like to ask admin if what I'm doing now is OK and doesn't violate and forum rules, because my main activity usually is to practice taoist methods.

 

My previous thread with questions and counter-points was removed, and that is why this time I ask first.

Thank you.

---

Arkady

 

It if perfectly fine to start threads on a topic you would like to discuss in a meaningful way.

 

The only issue I have spoken to about starting new threads is the repetitive nature of the quotes therein and the intentions behind them.

 

The whole point behind TDB is to discuss, to debate, to learn, to understand, and to grow as individuals and as a community.

[dawei]

I'd like to create a new thread according to the rules of this forum:

 

Because that is actually what I do feel. My posts with questions and counter-points to other member of this forum are being deleted due to Owner Permission policy.

 

I would like to ask admin if what I'm doing now is OK and doesn't violate and forum rules, because my main activity usually is to practice taoist methods.

 

My previous thread with questions and counter-points was removed, and that is why this time I ask first.

Thank you.

---

Arkady

 

It was not removed... it was moved.   Follow the arrow to the new location.

 

When folks start a thread trying to call out another member, it will likely not get the response nor remain in the location they believe it should be in.

 

You can any question but you cannot demand an answer, order people to go else where nor expect a thread of insults to be well received.    We'll have to see how your next one goes.

[Arkady Shadursky]

Thank you, dawei.
I'd like to be constructive and show Taoism from the side I see it.
I'll try to use the facts and evidences in the conversation to support my position
As Trunk said:
 

It's up to each member, not moderators, to sort out the truth (and other questions of quality) for themselves in conversation.  Moderators just keep the conversation civil within reasonable limits.  For issues of staff bias, members can contact the current admin.

 

One more question: Would these topics be still visible in that section (even being marked as "moved").

 

It if perfectly fine to start threads on a topic you would like to discuss in a meaningful way.

 

The only issue I have spoken to about starting new threads is the repetitive nature of the quotes therein and the intentions behind them.

 

The whole point behind TDB is to discuss, to debate, to learn, to understand, and to grow as individuals and as a community.

 

That is what I'm going to do now thanks Kar3n.

As the saying goes:
"The one who is pointing to your weakness is not certainly your foe;
the one who is pointing to your attainments is not certainly your friend".
---
Arkady
 

[Taomeow]

 

As the saying goes:

"The one who is pointing to your weakness is not certainly your foe;

the one who is pointing to your attainments is not certainly your friend".

---

Arkady

 

 

 

We have a tradition here of pointing out someone's weaknesses only when they ask for it explicitly.  "Please tell me what it is that's wrong with me in your opinion" would be such an invitation.  Barring an invitation, we (or at least those of us who are here to stay) leave others' weaknesses alone.  Friend or foe, please avoid trying to fix anyone unless they have invited you to fix them.

 

   Hope it makes sense to you and your peers, but if it doesn't, it's still useful to know that it's the consensual style of this particular place, and guests are expected to avoid breaking the hosts' furniture even if they find it less ergonomically sound than their own back home.  This is not a correction institution, not an inquisition trial, not a doctor's office, not a confessional, and the fuse the place is equipped with for those who mistake it for one of those is short.  Please keep that in mind and you and your peers will fit in just fine.

[thelerner]

I'd like to create a new thread according to the rules of this forum:

 

Because that is actually what I do feel. My posts with questions and counter-points to other member of this forum are being deleted due to Owner Permission policy.

 

I would like to ask admin if what I'm doing now is OK and doesn't violate and forum rules, because my main activity usually is to practice taoist methods..

FWIW, there is more leeway in PPD's, but if they're used to insult other members and groups, they can be liable for Moderator actions.   Generally most people are cool and it doesn't come up.  We like conversation and debate, we don't like name calling or getting personal.

[Arkady Shadursky]

We have a tradition here of pointing out someone's weaknesses only when they ask for it explicitly.  "Please tell me what it is that's wrong with me in your opinion" would be such an invitation.  Barring an invitation, we (or at least those of us who are here to stay) leave others' weaknesses alone.  Friend or foe, please avoid trying to fix anyone unless they have invited you to fix them.

 

   Hope it makes sense to you and your peers, but if it doesn't, it's still useful to know that it's the consensual style of this particular place, and guests are expected to avoid breaking the hosts' furniture even if they find it less ergonomically sound than their own back home.  This is not a correction institution, not an inquisition trial, not a doctor's office, not a confessional, and the fuse the place is equipped with for those who mistake it for one of those is short.  Please keep that in mind and you and your peers will fit in just fine.

Taomeow,

 

I actually do speak in constructive manner. You can filter all my posts and will not find a single one with bad words and insults. I always want to talk constructive.

 

I believe that one should always be responsible for what he/she is doing. I can't hold the word for "peers" you mentioned, but I always responsible for what I personally do and I'm here under my real name so I'm not hiding behind anybody.

 

My actions are clear and what I was doing is just asking TT and awaken if they are having any support for their words accusing WuLiupai School. Unfortunately they didn't answer clearly and just kept accusing texts of Patriarch again and again. 

 

Please don't get me wrong, but insults to WuLiupai School are like insults to my family and I really concerned about good name of this School, so, can't just close my eyes and leave it as it is.

 

I totally agree with you that others' weaknesses should be left alone unless person will ask you to fix it. To tell you more I know that from my own experience. Back in time when my eyes just started to open I was feeling like "to fix everyone and everything around me without asking them at all"      I think everybody passed that initial stage, but I left that time far behind and I know that this wouldn't work.

 

Please try to see the difference between

"protecting good name of the School you have learnt a lot from"

and

"trying to fix someone with force".

 

Anyway   

If I personally somehow hurt your feelings please accept my apologize, I didn't mean to.

 

Now I'd like to stop discussing this issue and switch to Taoism again.

Thank you

---

Arkady

Edited December 14, 2016 by Arkady Shadursky

[Marblehead]

Yea!!!  We get to talk about Taoism again!!

 

(Well, actually I almost always am anyhow.)

[Taomeow]

Yea!!!  We get to talk about Taoism again!!

 

(Well, actually I almost always am anyhow.)

 

Who are you kidding, you incorrigible nietzscheist?

[dwai]

I'd also like to point out to people who are "debating", the logical fallacies that are bound to be used (inadvertently or deliberately) and *should* be avoided --

 

https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

 

 

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.

Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. For instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in existing societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection. This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, "The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime." But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, "The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty." Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument.

This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments (not presented by the proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully. Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same point; this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument. For further commentary on burdens of proof, see argumentum ad ignorantiam, above.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor, starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the expensive costless, etc.

It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution. The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence capable of justifying larger costs).

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. (I've found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.)

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum, which you should see for more details.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or ( they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"

Circular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the example above. They are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. The best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."

[Taomeow]

That's the list I mentioned in the Logic thread and was hoping to get pinned and studied!   Thank you, Dwai.

 

Scotty offered a more complete one, but this could be handy enough for starters. 

 

The expunging of the ad hominem fallacy specifically is the one that, if understood for what it is -- a prerequisite to all normality in human communication that helps avoid many (neurotically excavated) communication pits wherein the arguing parties fall so often and in such an ungainly fashion -- 

I would probably make the main fail/pass point if people's ability to have conversations with other people was somehow to be tested in a formal setting.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Taomeow

[effilang]

@dwai

 

[Arkady Shadursky]

I'd also like to point out to people who are "debating", the logical fallacies that are bound to be used (inadvertently or deliberately) and *should* be avoided --

 

https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Thank you dwai. That is great!

We have the same code policy in Russian and I really glad we are on one wave with you.

It would be so good if everyone could follow these simple rules

---

Best Regards

Arkady

[Arkady Shadursky]

We have a tradition here of pointing out someone's weaknesses only when they ask for it explicitly.  "Please tell me what it is that's wrong with me in your opinion" would be such an invitation.  Barring an invitation, we (or at least those of us who are here to stay) leave others' weaknesses alone.  Friend or foe, please avoid trying to fix anyone unless they have invited you to fix them.

I'm representative of WuLiupai School. I never asked anyone to "point my mistakes" (as it finally came up I didn't have any actually)

My School was covered with lies and defamed absolutely without any reason. I was waiting for moderators actions, but it was told to us that "we are carefully watching the discussion giving to everyone opportunity to speak out". After that all the discussion kept the same direction which was initially chosen by awaken and Taoists Texts.

 

Some participants used spam-posts consisting of 1 sentence, false logic, and pretending they are not understanding what we all talking about etc. All that - is soaping(getting away) of the real sense hiding behind plenty of words.

 

Is it pleasant for members to read such a discussion? Do they see much sense in it?

 

A.A.Khokhlov is giving the translation, pointing to specific fragments of treatise etc., we are posting informative posts.

 

And what we have in the reply? - "All that is nonsense, your translation of this character is wrong".

Is that a discussion?

 

Have you seen any translations by Taoist Texts in last topics? No. While A.A.Khokhlov was publishing words of Patriarch's more and more for all the members of the forum, not only to continue the discussion.

 

Translation is a work while spamming and trolling is not at all.

 

Every forum member can make his/her own opinion on where is a real contribution with translations and opinions based on Tradition and words of Patriarchs and where mostly are trolling attempts which are not just making no contribution at all but even breaking the meaning of what is actually meaningful.

---

Best Regards

Arkady

[FondOfDao]

Well my posts were deleted by "Taoist Texts" as well. He doesnt seem to be meaningful and polite to me.

I can see of no reason why his behavior gets no response except the case if he is a forum admin.

[FondOfDao]

I want to say. I like this forum very much, and I would like to thank all the crew doing nice job!

But I was expecting a respect from the taoists here and not such offensive posts: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/42694-checking-liu-huayang/page-13#entry724800

 

And I was even unable to give any answer to that as my further posts were being deleted.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, for whatever the reason discussion of different practices have almost always inspired arguments.  It's not the people, really, it's the subject matter.

 

I guess it's about defending what we feel is right.  My practice is good for me therefore it is the best practice in existence.  All others are faulty.

 

It would be nice if we could find a way to talk about the positive aspects of various practices without comparing our practice with an aspect of another practice that we think is negative.

 

But I will say that once the arguments digress to the point of personal insults the Moderators will get involved and none of us really want that.

[FondOfDao]

When a child wants to pick a flower from the lawn saying "it is just one flower, there are a lot of flowers there, nothing would change", his mother says him: "What do you think the lawn would look like if everyone thinks like you picking "just one flower"?"

 

So if Taoist Texts can post such offensive images - then everyone can. Imagine what the forum would look like in this case. His behavior simply provokes others to do the same. Isn't it what trolling is about?

 

I vote for everyone to obey the same rules and for moderators to help us all refrain from anything that would be offensive to another person.

Edited December 15, 2016 by FondOfDao

[Arkady Shadursky]

Yeah, for whatever the reason discussion of different practices have almost always inspired arguments.  It's not the people, really, it's the subject matter.

 

I guess it's about defending what we feel is right.  My practice is good for me therefore it is the best practice in existence.  All others are faulty.

 

It would be nice if we could find a way to talk about the positive aspects of various practices without comparing our practice with an aspect of another practice that we think is negative.

 

But I will say that once the arguments digress to the point of personal insults the Moderators will get involved and none of us really want that.

Absolutely agree. 

Actually if I could I would Thank you twice for that reply   

 

I see clearly that awaken doesn't like WuLiupai much and as everyone can see she doesn't keep her opinion with her.

Instead she is insulting WuLiupai School directly and those posts are still available for every forum member.

 

I see here direct violation of the forum rules and the greatest concepts you provided now in your post.

But if it is not, please explain me where I'm wrong?

Thank you.

---

Best Regards

Arkady

[sagebrush]

.perennials

Edited December 16, 2016 by sagebrush

[Kar3n]

Absolutely agree. 

Actually if I could I would Thank you twice for that reply   

 

I see clearly that awaken doesn't like WuLiupai much and as everyone can see she doesn't keep her opinion with her.

Instead she is insulting WuLiupai School directly and those posts are still available for every forum member.

 

I see here direct violation of the forum rules and the greatest concepts you provided now in your post.

But if it is not, please explain me where I'm wrong?

Thank you.

---

Best Regards

Arkady

 

I am sad to say that you are mistaken about direct violations of the rules of the forum.

 

Any person, at anytime can reject or refute a system of practices based on their own experiences and belief system. When people take a personal approach to the people practicing said systems or traditions that is where the violations come into play.

 

For instance, your calling out awaken and Taoist Texts in almost every post and topic rather than posting with the intent to share information or teachings, the intent is perceived as a jab at another person to get even in a sense and really has nothing to do with content. Actions like this are boarder line in the rule book and raise the eyebrows of the staff.

 

I kindly ask you to let go, let go of what you perceive to be attacks against you. It feels personal when someone disagrees with my practice so vehemently, so I understand, but, at the same time I take it as a lesson and use the angst and anger it causes me as a cultivation tool, rather than justification to add to a cycle of discontent.

 

I like the old saying about sticks and stones, a lot.

[Arkady Shadursky]

Ok.
My following questions are for administrators only.

1) Are messages like following regarded as a personal insults or somewhat else?

Hey Awaken

 

As you see they are pretending to give you an examination.

 

Like they are professors to whom you should show what you know.

 

Please do not fall into the trap the trolls set up for you.

 

They intend to wear you out, then puff cheeks and tell that you are wrong, to offend you and to make you stop posting.

 

They want to steal your ancestors' heritage.

 

Please do not feed these cultural thieves.

 

if they tell you what to do, just tell them where to go.

 

They do not know anything.

2) Should a critique of a system be constructive and argued or the phrases like "they ingoramuses, know nothing, only make money etc" with the only argument "I know it" are ok?

3) In case a person is promoting his own no-name system and a one sees this system/approach doesn't seem to be working is it ok to critique that system or approach the same way (i.e. system of user123 doesn't seem to work because of ... and ...)

 

Once again: the questions I ask don't mean I am going to criticize more and more. Once the case has been studied it would be meaningless to return to it again and again. 

 

But I need to understand what forum staff and other members would/should do in case we see such an attack again.
Thank you.
---
Best Regards
Arkady

[Jeff]

 

Ok.

My following questions are for administrators only.

 

1) Are messages like following regarded as a personal insults or somewhat else?

2) Should a critique of a system be constructive and argued or the phrases like "they ingoramuses, know nothing, only make money etc" with the only argument "I know it" are ok?

3) In case a person is promoting his own no-name system and a one sees this system/approach doesn't seem to be working is it ok to critique that system or approach the same way (i.e. system of user123 doesn't seem to work because of ... and ...)

 

Once again: the questions I ask don't mean I am going to criticize more and more. Once the case has been studied it would be meaningless to return to it again and again. 

 

But I need to understand what forum staff and other members would/should do in case we see such an attack again.

Thank you.

---

Best Regards

Arkady

 

 

 

I would agree that post seems to be over the edge.  I would suggest you report it for mod review.

[Kar3n]

 

Ok.

My following questions are for administrators only.

 

1) Are messages like following regarded as a personal insults or somewhat else?

The post you quoted has already been addressed with the originator. It is time to let it go.

2) Should a critique of a system be constructive and argued or the phrases like "they ingoramuses, know nothing, only make money etc" with the only argument "I know it" are ok?

​The use of the word ignoramuses came from your camp with no repercussions, but you expect there to be for others? It does not work that way here.

3) In case a person is promoting his own no-name system and a one sees this system/approach doesn't seem to be working is it ok to critique that system or approach the same way (i.e. system of user123 doesn't seem to work because of ... and ...)

Sure, just do not start with personal insults against the practitioner/s.

 

Once again: the questions I ask don't mean I am going to criticize more and more. Once the case has been studied it would be meaningless to return to it again and again. 

Funny, I seem to remember saying the same things over and over, again and again when staff is questioned, criticized and told how to moderate the forums.

 

But I need to understand what forum staff and other members would/should do in case we see such an attack again.

The best thing to do is to report it and let staff deal with it. I read everything, I see exactly the intentions and what is going on. I saw all of this mess unfolding before it even happened, but I gave folks the opportunity to work through disagreement and find some common ground. It never happened.

 

​This thread is a great example of how disagreement can come full circle and folks find a way to effectively communicate even though they began on opposite ends of the spectrum.

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/23453-yogiraj-satgurunath-siddhanath/?p=723703

Thank you.

---

Best Regards

Arkady

 

And to you, Arkady, the very best.

 

 

I would agree that post seems to be over the edge.  I would suggest you report it for mod review.

It has already been discussed.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Kar3n
formatting

[Arkady Shadursky]

Kar3n,

 

The post you quoted has already been addressed with the originator. It is time to let it go.

It very good you mentioned that. Now members of the forum wouldn't think that Taoist Texts somehow beyond common for everyone rules. Thank you.
 

 

 2) Should a critique of a system be constructive and argued or the phrases like "they ingoramuses, know nothing, only make money etc" with the only argument "I know it" are ok?

​The use of the word ignoramuses came from your camp with no repercussions, but you expect there to be for others? It does not work that way here.

Here I'm not asking about emotional side of the already solved situation, but about the future.
I would like to ask the administration to answer this question please, so I and every member know what should we do in such case and what we shouldn't.
Thank you.
---
Best Regards
Arkady