I think a useful discussion needs to happen on what is to be moderated here, and how that is defined. Specifically I am asking the moderators or others for their thoughts on the following statements, and definitions. Right now it feels a little ambiguous and subjective:

• No name-calling or ad hominem attacks./  There is clearly no agreement on this. Even in specific circumstances, what constitues an attack is not clear. How are moderators defining this in a way that isn't subjective?
• No on-and-on repetitious, angry rants that marshal no supporting evidence, target an interlocutor, and have the effect of intimidating the interlocutor. Again, if this is not defined clearly and without agreement amongst moderators it will not be consistently enforced. How do you determine if a poster is angry based on a computer post, and what constitutes a rant?
• No threats of violence, even if metaphorical or aimed at no one in particular/ This seems clear.
• No taunting, mocking, or intimidation of an individual or a group on the basis of race/ethnicity, sex, disability (including mental illness), sexual orientation, religious preference, or spiritual practice. /Somewhat clear, but individuals routinely disparage the spiritual practice of others, and to my knowledge none of them have been banned, or warned. I remain open to being proved wrong.
• No speech acts that would be actionable under US criminal or civil tort law/ I don't even know what this one means. It sounds like something someone would shout at a civil war re-eneactment, waving a piece of paper meant to look important. I could look it up I guess, but it's 4 in the morning and I've been working on a grad school essay about Person Centered Therapy for the last few hours. I'd rather think of a recipe for tomorrow.

The Moderators will warn and, as a second step ban posters who are absolutely not willing to respect these rules. You can contact the moderators by using the Messaging system/ Does this actually ever happen?

If a system of moderation is not enforced, which it does not seem to be, why even write it up, and pretend?

• Do not criticize a person's character whatsoever.
• Do not disparage anyone or any group of people whatsoever.
• Do not post suppositions about the motives behind a person's actions, or explicitly link them with negative character traits, even if there is some perceived basis for doing so. 
• Do not directly or indirectly mock people's actions.
• Do not ask deliberately loaded questions that implicitly call a person's character or motives into question, or suggest some form of wrongdoing on their part.

• Do not demand that people do or not do anything (moderators exempt).
• Do not tell people to do or not do anything repeatedly, so that through the accumulative force of repetition, the initial direction becomes a demand.
• Do not deliberately say anything to anyone repeatedly, so that through the accumulative force of repetition, the initial statement becomes intimidatory or irritating.

• Do not disparage the spiritual practice of others without supporting your statements with substantive evidence.
• Do not disparage the opinions of others on anything without supporting your statements with substantive evidence.

If a posters seems to not understand what's on the DhO front page, coach 'em then chuck 'em.

If a poster seems to be trying hard to avoid understand what they are replying to, coach 'em then chuck 'em.

Edited for politeness.

Jenny's post from other thread, copied and pasted, but on topic.

"The root and solution to this problem ultimately rests with the site owner, who, after all, calls himself the "Overlord" of all that you survey.

I don't know whether you saw or heard about the blowup that occurred back in September, but it was long and ugly, and I was at the center of it. I ended up leaving here for quite a while and still post much less here than I did beforehand.

In the September event, in a thread posted by Sawfoot, I took offense at some remarks aimed at me that I felt were sexist and denigrating of those with mental illness. I objected that these comments were hate speech, and I complained to the moderators via private DhO messaging since the red flags didn't even work here at the time to flag content for mod attention.

The conflict continued for a day past when Florian and Nick were made aware of it. 

Nothing was done till I complained to Daniel Ingram himself after one of his long, grueling hospital shifts, and this was at 2 a.m., by phone to him at his house. After many hours working the ER, he had to log in and try to wade though that Sawfoot thread to look for the isolated comments I wanted gone. Fed up and tired, he decided to just delete the entire thread in question, citing his being being too fed up with having to wade through that mostly useless (merely contentious) thread. In short, he found the whole thread annoying, not just the comments I had objected to.

So next controversy erupted over the fact that Daniel dared to delete a thread from the forum. There were calls for it to be restored. He said and announced on here that this was indeed the first time that he had ever deleted a thread, and that it could not be restored even if he wanted to restore it, which I don't think he did. It was Sawfoot's post, as I say, and consisted at the beginning of Sawfoot's sparring with Florian over Florian's moderation of Sawfoot on another thread (and in general on threads where Florian has warned SF to knock it off).

Within hours of Daniel's deletion of Sawfoot's thread, a troll, a sockpuppet, logged on, and started attacking me on another thread. This puppet seized on one term I used in this other, provocative thread that followed up on the deleted one. 

This second thread was started by Adam. The term that I had used in passing on this second thread was "feminist theory," and this post-Sawfoot sockpuppet who suddenly logged in under a new account and false name proceeded to "shout" at me, hurl invectives at me, accuse me of trying to take over the DhO with a "feminist agenda," and so on.The puppet shouted at me for days, "GET OUT. GET OFF MY SITE." Everyone here pretty much stood around and watched this happen, to my moritification. I felt, seriously, like I had been violated in front of a community that stood by and did nothing, said nothing.

Florian did try to to stop it, a little late, but there is indeed a moderator bent toward nonintervention here, and that's what went down: nothing. 

Soon after all this, on Nick's suggestion, Daniel made me a moderator (without first asking me if I wanted to be one). I turned the role down, but Daniel asked me to do it again, so I reluctantly agreed to help.

I've never taken any moderation action whatsoever on this site, even though I'm still listed as a moderator and still have special moderator controls. Officially, I resigned from the position within a few weeks (if I remember correctly) of having it rather foisted on me. 

You see, at the time, the moderators (Florian, Katy, Nick, BCDEFG, and I), along with Daniel when Daniel wasn't completely swamped with his hospital hours, entered by email into intense discussions, with no little heat, about the current culture of the DhO, the trolling/sockpuppetry problems, the supposed rudeness and possible dharma uses (!) of such rudeness, the dangers of turning into something oppressive and smarmy, the vision for the future of the DhO culture, and how best to make that vision the reality.

I penned some basic beefed up forum rules, which Daniel did add to the landing page for the site. These rules are still there, although note that there is no rule against trolling or sockpuppetry, just rules against unlawful hate speech. 

At the time of these off-line discussions, I said to the other mods and Daniel that we cannot have rules with any teeth if we don't also have a reporting protocol for members, an enforcement protocol, and a concerted effort among moderators to consistently apply that protocol. I stand by this view.

Now, as with any issue in life, there are differing views among people about what an ideal forum culture and moderation protocol should be. Katy happened at that time to be completely opposite in view to mine. She voiced the opinion that "moderators" should be "hands off." She was against formulating a moderator enforcement protocol, preferring to leave things "loose and dirty." If I understood her correctly, she felt that she behaved confrontationally here prepath, when in the Dark Night. She felt that we should all be nurturing and forgiving of those individual members similarly situated, because people had done her that kindness.

Katy also voiced a view that I've seen many times voiced by others here on the DhO: that we who are insulted or shouted down or otherwise hurtfully rebuked should be using these instances as opportunities for our own practice. 

I could not disagree more with Katy's view of what community-supported practice is about. I attended a Tibetan Buddhist center for a year and a half before encountering MCTB. One thing I did learn from the monks and nuns there is that part of the practice, morality practice specifically, is to avoid ordinary trouble by all mundane, conventional, ordinary means available. In other words, don't go looking for trouble or suffering to "work with." 

My life gives me plenty of suffering to "work with," thank you very much, just by virtue of my drawing breath. This strange notion that the Dharma Overground somehow nurtures our practice by giving us something rotten to practice against is just twisted and wrongheaded. I would urge people here to think hard about the odd and, to my mind, unskillful notion that DhO should function as a dukkha obstacle fitness course. I stated to Katy at the time and still hold to the view that a moderator must keep his or her personal feelings and even personal practice separate from duty to the health of the community as a whole.

Now, at the time that these intense discussions among the mods were going on, it became clear to me that Katy, and I think to some extent BCDEFG, were philosophically reluctant to toughen moderation here and make it all rule- and protocol-bound. For Florian and Nick, there were considerations of time commitments that toughing up seemed to imply. I quit the discussions and asked to be removed as a moderator, citing my minority stance and no will among the others to change.

Daniel would catch up on his 500 emails and participate in these discussions. He also had other, private email conversations with me then and since about moderation of the DhO. It is no secret that Daniel thinks that the current iteration of the DhO--although not the worst in its history--is also far from the best. 

When I cited to Daniel the scarcity of women participating here and the masculinist rhetoric, metaphors, and feel of the site, Daniel asked me if I thought that maybe he, Daniel, weren't also persecuted here on the grounds of hisspiritual beliefs and practices. In short, he drew a parallel between "hate speech" based on gender and "hate speech" based on religious preference. He stated that he, the very owner of this site, no longer felts comfortable posting about his own practices here, particularly powers practices or happenings. Why? Certain trolls, disrespectful skeptics, and people either idealizing or vilifying him taunt him or give him much to wade through when he shares. Now, if the site's owner doesn't even feel safe and supported here, then we have a problem indeed, no?

Do you all want a forum on which high-level practictioners don't share and interact with youi?

Where are all the high-level practitioners who used to share here? Nikolai posted here a comment I read once to the effect that he too deliberately does not share much here (though he now also has a baby, which is a matter of time constraint, too). 

Without high-level practictioner-leaders here to model and steer the discourse, without community standards that are thoughtfully enforced for the good of the whole, we do indeed face Lord of the Flies. I have to admit that in private correspondence I will sometimes refer to the DhO as "the children," as in, "I have to continue to edit MCTB2 for Daniel, for the sake of the children."

What kind of community do we want this to be? We can weigh in, sure, but we've had many such weigh-ins and appeals to everyone's better impulses. One thing I've learned as a professional is that individuals cannot walk in from the outside of an entrenched organizational culture and change it from the grassroots. That won't work here, either--and least not timely. There needs to be leadership--steering, rules, protocols, and those willing to enforce them out of compassion for the community as a whole.

Note that I'm not advocating that this place become another Awake Network, or that the moderation here be heavy-handed or intolerant of some heat in a debate. But there does need to be something to hold the tide against descent into mere chaos that prevents our discussing and supporting one and all toward awakening.

A practical formidable hindrance is that Daniel's time is truly overcommitted. His work demands are more intense than people here generally realize but that I've come to know by way of being his book editor. The work on MCTB2, too, is daily and intensive, and most often it happens after he's worked many, many hours at a very intense job, at an equally intense pace. 

What is the solution? Well, first MCTB2 needs to be finished and out of Daniel's metaphorical hair (sorry, Daniel, hahahaha). Next, Daniel needs a steering or advisory committee, a standing one of mature practitioners dedicated to the continual improvement of the culture here, to moderation and the rules and understandings that membership here should enjoin.

Jenny"

God that was a great post by Jenny. I've always thought this place was a little bit too much of a clusterfuck. I suspect that a lot of lurkers remain lurkers who have a sweet spot of sincere practice and good communication skills because they see this place as being too harsh and dark. The ones who may not be super duper amazing and great and 3rd 4th MCTB path but a grade or two above what you'd find at some standard western Buddhist/meditation center who would benefit from interaction and also add fresh perspectives here and there.

This place needs more moderation and not too much more. If someone suggests this idea suddenly you get a few staunch people who think even a modicum of moderation will result in North Korea jr.

The Dalai Lama says he never met a person he didn't consider a friend. Well, I'd like to imagine he said right after, "Cuz I got secret service to take care of the ones I don't ^_^"

Likewise, I agree that if this place is to converge to a realistic flourishing of what can be expected with humans, stricter moderation will need to take place. There will be serious complaining at this, you see someone getting quite upset at the mere suggestion of this. Well, they'll just have to deal with it. Some people are going to have to lose, and I think the ones that we can loosely call consistently dramatic are the ones who will lose.

A friend to everyone is a friend to no one. Let's cut our losses and focus on a realistic quality that can beachieved over time with slightly stricter and sensible moderation. The first objection to this is, "what does that mean?" Which is a complex issue, but I think any reasonably mature adult can determine this. I have a list in my head of who I think is mature and who I think is immature and a gray area in between. I don't want to embroil myself in heated discussions at this moment in time so I shy away from this. But Jenny's suggestion, Kenneth Folk's suggestions, and what I can roughly imagine Daniel Ingram has in mind seem pretty fair and certainly not heavy a handed dictatorship. People's feelings will be hurt, but I certainly fall into the camp of taking action that will keep discussion both free to discuss whatever and free from out of control drama.

A lot of this drama is also rooted in people who fall hardcore into pragmatism vs. strict adhearance to traditional sutra and such. I can't help but feel Kenneth Folk's returning was a political disturbance to the unspoken political allegiances of this forum. It's a political battle, and the sides were unsurprising to me.

Dear Bill,

Thanks for moving this issue to a separate thread, which is what I really should have done, but I wanted to answer Kenneth.

The language of the rules is clear as language of any kind goes, but then I may think so because I drafted these rules single-handedly, and Daniel quickly posted them as a kind of emergency stop-gap at the time.I do not think that the current Kenneth-Katy blowup is due to a failure of these rules to be clear. Instead it is due to a failure of the moderation team and Daniel to finish the work I started here back in September: namely, 

• to rewrite the entire site landing page to be more in-your-face with policies, terms of use, and mission/vision

• to draft a members' violation-reporting protocol,

• to draft and publish out an enforcement protocol that the moderation team will consistently follow, and

• to consider technological ways to vet members and prevent anonymous sockpuppets.
  
  

I've not intervened in the current dispute, because I'm unclear whether I'm still a moderator. I did resign formally to Daniel back in September, and Florian removed me from the moderators' communication channel after I asked twice to be removed. I nonetheless am still listed as a moderator, and I still have moderator controls. Probably Daniel just never got around to having these removed.Anyway, moderation is not my special talent; editing is, and my hands are full enough with editing MCTB2. Until that is done, I'm overexteded already. Moderation is a thankless, unglamorous task. Although people fault the moderators, I do also feel for them in their position.

As for the rules above, again I find them pretty darned clear; however all language is metaphorical by nature, so as with all other discourse, ruling is ultimately by concensus of those with the power. So, name-calling, in a particular allegation, is whatever the mod team determines it is. 

As for long angry rants--those are definitely currently ongoing next door.  But notice the "and" in that rule. The target has to feel intimidated and therefore has to have reported the violation. The red flags now work. I don't know whether Katy or Kenneth has reported a violation to the moderators. It is unfortunate that all this broke out while Daniel and Florian are on retreat together for another week. SIGH.

I've not noticed lately mocking/taunting/intimidation of another's spiritual practice here lately. Can you link me to an example? Debate is not intimidating mockery, you know.The final rule is the clearest of all: Don't break U.S. laws on here. It is a kind of catchall for unlawful behavior. Also it is a warning against defamation for which in some countries a site own might be partly liable.

Note that for one of these rules to be enforced, my intention was that the person allegedly wronged officially report the wrong. Otherwise, the moderators are not obligated to intervene in a discussion.

You are correct in noting that the culture-improvement initiative was never finished. I resigned as a mod because there was no collective will to finish the job. 

Hopefully Daniel will see this thread. Or you can always email him the link. Lord knows I do that sometimes.

EDITS: typos and stupid formatting problems

Jenny, thanks for your thorough and thoughtful post on the Money and the Buddha thread. It helped me better understand what has been going on here.

By the way, I did try the flag button several times. I think it worked on one occasion, but more often, nothing happened and it didn't even light up red when I moused over it.

I feel encouraged that moderation is being seriously discussed on this thread (thanks, Bill), and at the same time, Jenny, you are right that Daniel alone has the power to change the culture or to stay hands-off and let the chips fall where they may. It does seem that the laissez faire approach has been thoroughly beta tested over these last several years, and we see where it has led. Hard to imagine it will spontaneously improve without some policy changes, including the will to enforce the existing guidelines.

I'm ever hopeful that together we can build a culture that supports healthy and safe discussion.

1) Clearly, civilized behavior in discussion is desirable, ideally necessary (internet behavior has special qualities that are problematic).

2) On the other hand, there's the danger of floating off in directions that have the tinge of a musty odor, like mushrooms (as in 'mushroom effect'). I sense pressure in this direction in some of the ideas here; and also find language that reminds me, though subtly, of lynch-mob mentality.

3) A basic principle not heard/read much here (yet, or that I missed), would be to distinguish persons from behavior (actions, words, thoughts -- here meaning words). If citing, analyzing, challenging verbal behavior, statements, positions, etc., as distinct from the person (ad-hominem-ness) becomes muffled, than we end up with a mushroom farm -- Anatta becomes masked-out by the psychological therapy approach.

4) An interesting distinction learned in the history of classical Chinese medicine: the difference between the treatment principles of "regulation" and "rectification" (both being translations, approximations of Chinese terms).

"Regulation" is understood, in this contect, as promoting, guiding towards psycho-physiological self-correction. Similar to but not identical with 'homeostasis', as the latter term refers to bio-chemical state or statis of equilibrium, while the former term pertains to dynamic process.

"Rectification" means enforcing conformity with certain standards. The concept arose as a social-political notion with the neo-Confucianism of the Song era (ca. 10th-12th-centuries, C.E.) -- an era marked by the resurgence of a "pure" Chinese cultural identity, purging it of all 'foreign' influences, most notably Buddhist ideas and practices that had become integral to Chinese cultural life (together with a high degree of social tolerance) in the preceding Tang dynasty. The the current "dynasty" (since 1949) -- the CCP -- is generally considered neo-Confucian in style, and, as 'neo-cons', in some repects resemble attitudes of some 'neo-cons' ('neo-Conservatives') in the USA. One saw the term a lot in the era of the "Cultural Revolution" -- people sent to hard-labor farms to correct their ideology; and this occurs yet today.
(Medically speaking, "rectification" means invasive, coersive therapy, as in, for instance, most modern pharmacology, surgical-, radiation- and chemo-therapies.)

Jenny,

      I don't want to include the link on this thread because I could see it as doing more harm than good, but my perception is that mocking of spiritual practice occurs often. I can send privately if useful.
      Regarding the language, and my search for clarity: I am not suggesting that the language is unclear or that you did a poor job of establishing a code of conduct . I am suggesting that the language in combination with the current moderation policy, which admittedly I do not understand fully, seems to be ineffective.

Bill

Chris, you're not a quick read, oblique sometimes even, but that's okay  I fear, though, you will be drowned out by louder voices. Thanks for chipping in.

Chris:

There is too much in the way of variety of approach to mind hacking here (pragmatism) for there to be significant danger of mushroom culture. All forums or gatherings of people for any purpose should have policies. Did the Buddha encourage his disciples to run wild? Or did he too have to lay down some rules?

I want a community that high-level practitioners, women, and people with powers practices feel safe about participating in. That isn't going to happen here if the Wild West mentality continues unchallenged. I'm challenging it, and if I lose the challenge, then I'll be gone, plain and simple. No loss? Okay. Who else is no loss? Is Daniel Ingram's reluctance to post on his own forum a loss to you, or not?

Humans are human first, regardless of attainments. This means where people congregate in numbers there will be politics, there will be power dynamics, and there will be conflicts. Who gets excluded when, in the name of avoiding what you are hyperbolically calling "mushroom culture" or "lynch mob" mentality, the chaos is allowed to derail discussion and reasonable debate for days on end? 

The true "mushrooms" here all those growing alone in the dark because there is no structure here to render them safe to participate.

Kenneth,

Daniel really does want a change here and came on here and said so repeatedly back in September. He was in favor of drafting new rules. I gave him a template I devised for filling in site vision, mission, and history, and a template for the rest of the decisions that would need to be made and the rest of the language that he would need to fill in to to have a workable and real moderation plan.

He also wanted to start banning known troublemakers.

The trouble is, as I said, that Daniel is stretched very thin these days. He needs to rely on a committee approach here, but back in September, there wasn't a collective will among the established moderators to buckle down and make change happen.

I gave up, and after a while Daniel sort of shifted from wanting to forge ahead and even ban some people to "Well, I just have faith that the bad will sink to the bottom, and the good will rise to the top." I don't know whether it is because Daniel is an emergency room doctor, because he is overextended, because he is an arahat, or some combination of these factors--but I've noticed that I have to get action or decisiveness out of him on any particular issue immediately, or the next thing arises for him and he's just gone. So, if there is a pause in the moderation improvement efforts, he is likely to be off and into the next thing that arises and the work is simply dropped into a big black hole.

I confirmed last night with one of the moderators here that after I quit, the talks about moderation stopped too.

Daniel has begun initiatives to have the site design redone so that it isn't so "masculine" in look and feel. He truly wants to be more inclusive of those groups of people who've been too something or other to participate here. So there is that.

As an editor-writer, I'm willing to help him clarify the language for the site portal, too, but the drive and decisions and whom to appoint to help actually moderate need to come from or at least through him. I've stated this much repeatedly to him. I'm not the only one with a voice, surely. I'm not inclined to keep being the one to fall upon my sword. I simply keep my distance from this forum so as to avoid the poison it gives off.

It will be fascinating to see what Daniel says to all that has transpired and been written here when he returns from retreat.

It might be nice if we'd all retreat a bit, too, and power out some metta for everyone in this community, for all.

Hey Kenneth, 

Little late in the day, but I wanted to explain what I meant by my post earlier today.

My intention was this, It seemed to me that in your opening post on Money and Buddha, it was like you had made a room, invited everyone in, then had thrown a beehive into the room.  Then when the bees were all stirred up, you seemed to be getting on to the Beekeepers, i.e. moderators,  for doing a bad job of containing the bees, which to me, looks like you let loose in the first place.  But, that is just from my third person perspective. Cause and effect, and yes I know there were earlier causes, ad infinitum...

And, sorry if my wording was a little harsh, perhaps other wording, or better explaining what my intentions were would have been better.  I seem to have trouble in coming across too vaguely, or cryptic sometimes.

But anyway, I have absolutley zero hard feelings towards either you or towards Katy.

It is rather unfortunate that some of the discussions have been centered around such a mundane level.

But, it will all arise and pass away.

So anyway, it is nice to meet you, sorry if I offended, welcome to the forum again, and hopefully we can all treat each other with a little more respect.

Maybe it is just a rough start

Hakuna Matata

Psi

P.S.  Also, maybe we are just a bunch of hard ass, dharma investigative types, and moderating us into some metta fest would be like herding cats  , This is a joke, right, are jokes still okay?  Is this gonna get banned?  Oh, crap, here we go....

All this because what Q&A means could not be understood? 

That joke has some wisdom in it.

Sorry to respond to this thread here, but it does fit the theme, and relates to moderators. 
Jenny's definition of a sockpuppet:
"That the DhO account created on the spot to attack me meets the definition of sockpuppetry is beyond question or dispute: It was created for the purpose of the attack and promptly disposed of once the thread was locked by the mods"

Other definitions of "sockpuppet":

An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sock+puppet

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[1] (wikipedia)

Definition of "convincing":
leaving no margin of doubt; clear.
synonyms: decisive, conclusive,
From <https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=convincing&gws_rd=ssl>

I am not sure which other moderators you are referring to. Claudiu, Florian, Nikolai, Katy, Daniel? Some of them, all of them? Other moderators, please chime in that you are convinced by the evidence. If you were convinced, why didn't you ban me? If I was a moderator and I thought the evidence was so convincing given the behaviour of the Bill avatar, then I would have banned the user. 

Below is the timeline and contents of my communications that are think are relevant, which were happening at the same time you and "other moderators" think I was simultaneously waging a hate campaign against you. I would also look to consider, along with the "convincing circumstantial evidence", whether the mode of communication of the Bill user/potential sockpuppet was consistent with my writing and posting style and the contents of my previous posts.

 Thread with user Bill Glamdring, first post in that threadby that user: 9/22/14 10:21 AM (I guess American time?) - last post 9/24/149:40 AM - 11 posts in total. Join date 9/22/14 F

Thead in question http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5587934?doAsUserId=U4FYRpmIICQ%3D%2F-%2Fmessage_boards%2Fmessage%2F419208%2F-%2Fmessage_boards%2Fmessage%2F551281> 

Communications:

EDIT: Communications redacted. Please PM if you want a copy.
And altered first sentence regaring moderators to be nicer. 

Hi,

The flag buttons work, there were several notifications sent over the course of that thread.

I have never seen the flag not light up red when moused over, that sounds more like a browser issue. If you could point to a specific post where this happens I can see if I can reproduce it.

Simon

Unless someone goes through the trouble of using proxies or similar it's entirely possible to check if an account is a sockpuppet for another account now. This was not possible last fall due to ip addresses being incorrectly logged in the DhO backend.

Simon

Thanks for your post, Psi. I will admit that I got angry at you and blew up, and I regret it (although the post where I blew up was aimed more at Katy, incorporating Claudiu as well as you). I don't like comparing people to the Republican Party, either directly or by implication. It's one of the worst insults I can think of (any Republicans out there, please forgive me). Seriously, though, this thread of moderation (pun intended) feels very healing right now. 

Hi Psi, 

I agree. This practice means nothing if there's clinging to something, including an argumentative state.

To Sawfoot's point, it's not genocide, but this sort of thing (righteous indignation / moral justification / self-righteousness)-- probably the longest most divisive thread in DhO history that had to be locked-- can cause more trouble if it persists without apology/ modifying conduct/ moving on sincerely. I'm sorry I took the bait set. 
Laurel, no worries. I come from a diverse family; it's not an insult to be assigned a political party name. As you might imagine, though, I'm more of a Green Party gal. 
_________________________
edit: attributing excerpts to authors

I agree with this.  I would also like to say that I appreciate the efforts of level headed moderators such as "Beoman Claudiu Dragonm Emu Fire Golem" and Nikolai to resist the considerable pressure to meet anyone's particular agenda.

I would also like to say that I appreciate the efforts of level headed moderators such as "Beoman Claudiu Dragonm Emu Fire Golem" and Nikolai to resist the considerable pressure to meet anyone's particular agenda.-CPM

Yes! Definitely. I was going to send pm's but I'll agree with you here in the knowledge they'll read it. And I think you too have been pretty level headed which has allowed you to spot level-headedness in others. The only thing I objected to was Nikolai's use of the word "bunghole";) just kidding.

I don't want to reopen wounds, but it seemed to me that they were in fact taking sides.

Yes, I can see that too I guess. I don't think a suggestion that does not insult is re-opening wounds, nor does your comment strike me as the inflammatory variety.

Edit: But maybe that's just because I like you. Perception is flimsy I guess.

Aw, shucks! But I guess I can just place my vote on the side of firmer moderation, and leave it at that. I doubt anyone here would be surprised!

It's a very sweet hope, but it does appear that the forum has gone in the opposite direction. Laurel alluded to Gresham's Law, in which "bad money drives out good," which may be an apt metaphor.

Less metaphorically, frequent posters with clear opinions and loud voices can easily drown out others who also have something worthwhile to say. This is even more likely to happen when the loud people are more interested in making noise than engaging in thoughtful discussion.

There is no question in my mind that it's possible to over-moderate a forum and stifle lively discussion. Daniel's commitment to keeping the DhO as free as possible is probably a large contributor to the popularity of the forum. So there is a balance to be considered; how much regulation/enforcement is too much vs how much chaos is too much? Jerry Springer will always be more popular then Charlie Rose; if we see them as two poles on a continuum, is it worth giving up some popularity for some stability, where stability leads to a higher signal to noise ratio? It's an open question.

Getting even more specific, I think KFD in its latter days was over-regulated, and I think DhO in its current phase is under-regulated. If Daniel agrees with that, we at least have a clear picture of the extremes, and we can imagine a middle ground.

Hi all,
I realize I am going against the apparent tides, but I really think the DhO needs less moderation and more awareness, eqanimity and humility (see Not Tao's recent post for a beautiful example of self-moderated behavior and speech)
I don't mean 'less moderaton and more meditation' in a vague or over-simplistic way, what I mean is that if everyone here reading this ('high level practitioners' and 'ordinary people' all - toungue in cheek) continually challenged themselves to real Buddhist standards of conduct and civility (or just 'good human standards') then when people start threads entitled 'Fuck Off' for instance - the commnunity comes together to support in a beautiful way - see that thread for what I mean, my computer won't let me paste. Calling that poster a troll (which he was but it was not done) would have stifled the opportunity to realize what actually happened - which was skillful and heartwarming
What else do I mean by less moderation?
For starters, I think the word 'troll' doesn't need to be thrown around so haphazardly. Though referred to many times, I didn't see any trolls in the posts that started this whole hullabaloo - just some very emotional people behaving in sometimes rude fashions. I also don't see what went down as any sort of emergency or call to action for more active moderation - I just saw strong views and strong emotions on both sides of the issue. No big deal. That said, I think it's wrong to question anyone's intentions or whether or not they are being disingenuous (which was done to more than a couple of dissenting posters on multiple occassions) but I don't think there should be a rule about not questioning people's intentions. For one it won't work. Second, it's an opportunity for practice - why we're all here. For the record I think everyone involved had good intentions, but just got caught up. It happens
Additionally, I don't think lifetime bans should ever be a consideration. I would suggest a first infraction ban of one month (however you powers that be out there choose to define an infraction). A second infraction maybe three months. If something happens again after three months away from the site, I think a one year ban is maximum enough and you can wash and repeat from there. People go through shit in the practice (as you guys well know) and I think it's skillful to cut them loads of slack. If someone really did come back year after year to disrupt the community, after one-year bans, I think you guys could deal with it, as committed dharma practitioners, and who knows, maybe it will lead to us to becoming better listeners, understanding each other better, and ourselves. I see an opportunity
Happy Sunday anyway! It's very rainy where I am

Daniel, I really like what you say. Not to be pedantic or anything, but it sounds like Rousseau's concept of a general will. Even the evil old man Machiavelli said that a people that has good customs needs very few laws. The one thing I'd ask you to do, though, is go back and read Katy's posts to and about Kenneth. Then put yourself not necessarily in his shoes, but in the shoes of someone who is new here or who lurks here, or maybe even imagine yourself on the receiving end of them. Would you feel as open-hearted as you do now? Or would a part of you, or of the possible shy lurker, start to get constricted inside?

I, too, want to see people come together in a beautiful and supportive way. I'd rather see that than banning. But we need to train ourselves to do this. If someone indicates that he or she is in distress, people have to respect that. Maybe we need to learn how to indicate that we're in distress. There's a need on everyone's part to recognize that all humans have their vulnerabilities. 

ETA: This is something that would be necessary for any improvement to take place, even with stronger moderation (which I still support). 

Haha. I thought I'd diffuse the tension with a little toilet humour. And I got probably all of DhO to say bunghole in their minds a dozen times. 

Dear Sawfoot,

I'm not going down this rabbit hole with you. I could, but let's just not. You are exonerated, okay?

I'm needing to turn 100% of my attention, starting today, back to substantively editing MCTB2 so that Daniel doesn't return from retreat to find that all I've done is waste time rehashing what passed 6 months ago.

There was indeed a sockpuppet in September. The account was created on the date that attack began, hours after Daniel deleted your thread. Once the account was locked, that identity never appeared again. The screen name had all kinds of metaphorical implications. That in itself isn't any kind of digital DNA evidence. 

If you are concerned about your reputation here, then I hereby withdraw any accusatory implication toward you. To keep your reputation clean, behave well, practice well.

Love, your dharma sister,

Jenny

• I am for much stricter (ie, actual) moderation, which I'm very confident will be in the offing once Daniel returns from retreat.
• I also was a commentator on the "Fuck Off" thread, trying to support the OP, who was very obviously very distressed and needed support. I never once thought of calling on the moderators to do anything to that thread.

Number 1 and Number 2 are in no contradiction. You are therefore positing what, in classical rhetoric, we call "false dilemma." False dilemmas are often used by soft trolls. So consider your own motivations for posting as you do. Consider that others are watching.

Community weigh-in on these matters has been done ad nauseum. I've already said this, and the posts still exist here, are saved, so I'd advise you to try hearing the fact that what you are proposing has failed numerous times.

The change in moderation plan/policy will not be a grassroots effort, nor an opportunity for the victims to "practice" putting up with obfuscating bullshit.

I reiterate: Grassroots cultural improvement won't work with an organization this big and open. There will be top-down change here or no change at all.

If there is no change at all, then I will increasingly disappear from what has become in my eyes a largely unsupervised prepath Dark Night Yogi Dukkha Romper Room.

Along with me, gentler people, many people, many women, many anagamis and arahats, will stay away. I'm in private contact with a handful of anagamis and arahats. All but one has mentioned having left here because of the bad unchecked Intenet behavior.

My own path is progressing well. I just got another path this week and have had nondual 24/7 for 10 days now. Obviously, then, I don't need to continue on the DhO in order to gain insight from my own practice. The same is all the more true for practitioners who are "done" with insight practice altogether because they have taken enlightenment as far as it can go. So the question is, do those of you without these attainments want to be left in a lawless pen together, or do you want the guidance and advice and sharing of insight by those practitioners who are in fact enllightened and wise?

Fortunately, how this question is answered will finally be up to Daniel M. Ingram alone.

I’m neither completely awake nor completely asleep. I’m neither timid nor audacious. I have no interest in endless philosophizing, nor in verbiage for the sake of verbiage. I’m just an average pragmatic seeker, still on the ride, diligently practicing every day until I’m off the ride.

As a long time member yet seldom poster here on DhO, here's my view of this forum’s moderation policy: this forum is not a safe environment to explore awakening, via pragmatic means or otherwise; there are too many members clamoring for attention, aggressively clamoring for attention to their own points of view, over and over and over again. Not everyone is that way, and not all the time, but it happens enough to make some members hesitant about posting. Does this forum care about that? I don’t know.

From my perspective, the ideal forum has just enough moderation to allow a member to safely connect with others in an online environment. To me, that’s the key: allowing connection with others more knowledgeable who are able to act as a catalyst for transformation, while safeguarding the needs of those seeking to transform. This is a delicate balance, to be sure.  Too often members seek to not only invalidate another poster's thoughts, but to invalidate the poster him/herself (my definition of attack), when the alternative would be to simply offer an alternative to the original poster's thoughts, without resorting to an invalidating attack.

Aside from not fostering a sense of safety of expression, what bothers me most about this forum is that some members feel that they’re free to override the initial purpose of a given thread, simply because they feel that their need for expression is more important than the original poster’s desire to initiate said thread. And of course, there’s the endless “debate” that ensues, most of which is useless and seeks to shore up various points of view. That wouldn’t happen in a face-to-face encounter, but it’s a common occurrence in online discussion groups with poorly defined or poorly enforced moderation rules.

There’s also a lot of good that happens on this forum, and I’m thankful for that. I give a lot of credit to Daniel for initiating and supporting this resource. Thank you, Daniel, once again. Please be advised: it could be worse, but it also could be a lot better.

Metta.

Michael

Edit: to add thoughts re invalidation.
Edit 2x: typos

Nikolai: Yes, ha, I was only kidding. I consider that a skillful use of humour and did not sense hostility. Metta.-Bill

Hi, Laurel. Well, what a mess this has been, huh? 

I have to say that I've seen it coming. In fact I've been on private chat here with others while it was unfolding. Some comments there have been to the effect that, after what happened in September, it was just a matter of causes and conditions to click in place for moderation to come to the fore as an issue again.

I know Nikolai somewhat, and he seems a fair and gentle person, reluctant to judge and shut people down. I had a 3-hour chat with Claudiu Friday night and got to know him a bit better as a result. I in no way am suspicious of either one of these peoples motives. Claudiu does have a way that takes getting used to of pointing out, and really enjoying pointing out, the less obvious sides in altercations. 

One of the interesting conditions here in the present mess is that Florian, an effective, swift, and decisive moderator, in my experience, is away on a two-week retreat, digitally dark. Guess who is with him? Yep. Dan Ingram, also in the digital dark till Feb. 16.

My sudden understanding is that Katy had recently resigned as a moderator.

I never really was a moderator except "officially," having rejected the role back in September when it appeared that there were irreconcilable differences in moderation philosophy among the team. I thought it would be less disruptive if I left, since I was in the minority.

It is interesting to contemplate how all this may have been different if Florian and Daniel were here. I'm positive Daniel would have intervened rather quickly and tried to redirect the chaos into discussion.

Since I've been trying to focus on the issue of moderation itself, I wish to reiterate that I'm not taking sides for/against Katy/Kenneth here. Essentially, that is just a case study in a general pattern of lacking protocol and membership terrms of use here.

Jenny

Greetings all,

There is just nothing like the fine companionship of a dog to help one realise the importance of knowing each others language. how often i've wished i could put my dog at ease by explaining precisely why i cannot take him with me and when i will return.

But alas i cannot. the best i can do is speak the body language he knows, maintain consistency in behaviour and use his instincts to train, moderate and control him for his own safety in this aggressive territorial human dominated world with it's dangerous labour saving machinery that can easily prematurely kill him. Mainly i control him to protect him from us, not himself from himself. were i able to teach him by communicating the way we humans can his lessons would be swifter and he'd be even safer.

Now on a forum like this i don't expect to be controlled (moderated) as though i have the limited communication skills of a dog. on the contrary i expect to meet people who can openly speak their way out of our non sense with the best intentions they can muster, minds that have got past 1st base, 2nd or 3rd in that regard and have already offloaded most of their ancient paranoia and are now exploring the heights of a cool calm sensibility. i'm ready to awaken an intelligence that is stable, effortless and automatically benevolent, not controlled or moderated by the self or someone else's. we've been down that route for eons, it hasn't worked.

I'm ready to communicate with gutsy human beings willing to work fearlessly with each other to see and acknowledge and then rectify our errors in communication. If this isn't an environment where one can practice mental freedom and be 'out from control' of the whole human psyche (without taking offence) then i'm in the wrong place. i am so over pussyfooting around controllers. I wanna get rid of that shite once and for all so i can get on with more important things than endlessly self-reflecting. I wanna be 100% using this awakening intelligence to benefit of all life on this planet. I'm not here to serve ME forever and a day.

the only moderation i'd like to see here is the splitting off of threads when they inadvertently (as conversations tend to do) veer off into another interesting topic as these latest threads did. other than that people need to be shown their shite no matter how uncomfortable it may be to their precious sense of identity. how thats done is THE lesson for both parties.  

Internet forums need policies and moderation, period. Common sense. People are people first.

What has been going on here is a study in repeated failures to communicate. Failures due to lack of rules, protocols, and enforcement.

Make no mistake: Change will come to this forum.

If people want to harness and exploit hyperbole and false analogy to keep the soft softer or silent, then I do say to these people, "happy trails."

Wow, Simon. That's good to know. It seems to me that you should be at meetings of moderators when policy is set.

My post was so fast and short, maybe it's easy to dismiss, but I'm pushing it forward because I was kinda serious.  I'll amplify.

How you solve the problem depends on what you think the problem is.  Complex problems get complex solutions, easy problems get easy solutions.

I lean towards picking the easiest problem to pick off, fix that then see how it goes. If the 'fix' is bad, you know exactly what to reverse.  If the fix is good or ambiguous, you have probably simplified/clarified the situation somewhat and your next step will be more informed.

Complex solutions often are usually doomed from the beginning from bad influences and bad execution.  When things don't get better, it's not clear what to do next.

In either case, the first 'fixes' are usually wrong, so going simple is about having graceful recovery options.

Perhaps the simplest view of the problem is that some people really are trolls, as defined by: they don't pay attention to posting guidlines and their argumentative style seems to be tuned for using what people value against them and it ends up driving you crazy.  If this was a debate site maybe their style would be OK, but this place is a:  "resource for the support of practices that actually lead to beneficial,
fundamental mental, perceptual and emotional transformations."

Sure, give warnings, trial bans, whatever is skillful, but focusing on people that act like trolls is relatively simple to do.

A potential complexity trap: trying to design a moderation handbook that requries *everybody* to already be full time arahant moderators.  Let's err on the side of making it easy for sincere practitioners become arhants.

Spelling edit

Hi Laurel - I think you make a good point and I think there is certainly a trade off
That said, I'm not sure what a moderator would have done in the situation where katy was rude toward Kenneth - warned her and deleted her posts? Banned her? Apparently katy has already deleted her own posts and the threads were locked, though I am of the mind that threads should not be locked and people should not be able to delete their own posts (though I do not feel strongly at all on the matter)
Whichever way it goes I don't think it will affect me as I hope to be treating others (and myself) with respect
All the best : )

Jenny,

First thank you:
I agree with you: More stringent protocols are needed on a public forum and I would advocate on this one. In my own words, I agree with you,  Jen, and feel it's a smart healthy guideline we'd want in our communities in life and online life. 

Second, Kenneth, I apologize, I have been redacting and editing posts that I think you have sited for defamation of your character. I also wrote the mode team to lock-down or fully delete two problem threads in which at least a couple of parties have reported defamation [1].  Kenneth, please pin-point other posts you feel are defaming and if they are mine I will continue to redact them. 

As I wrote to a co-practitioner this week in a private email and shared with anonymized portions here publicaly I continue to wish you the very best with your students. If there is an "awakening" that is good to learn, then it benefits the community. I put "awakeing" in quotes because people have their own ideas of what that word means.

People have a right, thankfully, to self-identify as awakened and any way they want, to coach that, and to pay for such coaching.

There is more than one person who feels exposed to defamation this week and on this site so I'm making a sincere gesture to prevent people, myself included, from seeking compensation against financial harm and reputational harm and the like.  Daniel set up a cool site and so this is a huge learning moment on how to keep it going, and to Jen's credit, for the better.

Third, there have been people here using their professional emails to post and to post potentially defamatory comments, some of which emails are from public institutions which have policies against such personal uses.  It's worth considering defamation lawsuits can look-through. Consider using personal email accounts.

This  look through is why I insisted that moderators shut down two threads today, Kenneth's "Money and the Buddha" and Michael's "Q &A with Kenneth".  And this was agreed by mods,  if I'm not mistaken, and Simon, not a mod, but a generous IT person to my knowledge, was able to accomodate this action quickly. If anyone feels this is not satisfactory, please speak up. It was an action taken to prevent the owner of this site from any further liability for being a publisher of information people feel is defaming.

A person like myself or Kenneth of Jen who feels defamed can start their clock on "damages" and hold several sources accountable for their defamation, so a site like this one probably needs to have a nuclear option of deleting threads or locking them as invisibile, especially if its founder is away. 

Jen, I do think your points and your insistence on this will build a friendlier site and more practical one. As a "greenie" I am a bit more for regulation and I see that when someone indicates they're being defamed it's not just responsible to treat it seriously, it's friendly.

Kenneth, please again please let me know what needs to be removed further.  When threads open again (if they are not deleted as in September 2014, reasonably), if people don't return to self-edit, other's may flag defamatory posts to afford recogntion and resolution.

Thanks all.
___________
Note: I am having still technical glitches to posting so this may take several shots.
[1] This is because the site owner, "Supreme Overlord", apparently may not be reachable at the moment and similar owners of websites may be held liable for content published.

Hello Jenny,
I think it is safe to assume that katy was in some sort of 'distress' as well when she posted her rude remarks, unless you believe she was being intentionally malicious? The reason we are here discussing this matter now is because of those posts between katy and Kenneth, so do you think anyone was acting as a troll there or being disingenuous? If so, I respectfully disagree with you and I'm not sure how a moderator would have changed things other than deleting posts, locking threads, or banning members - all things which I do not support. Clearly this is just one person's (minority) opinion, and I am not concerned how things go because I try to treat people with respect and will not leave even if people don't always reciprocate - as I think there are lots of wise and caring people in the midst here to more than make up for the occassional troll. I say, flame away on me trolls! I will not be moved


I do not know what this means, would you care to be less opaque please? It sounds to me like you are suggesting that I may be a 'soft troll' even though I don't know what that means, so I can't even be offended : )
I hope people are watching (and reading and listening) - what does this statement mean exactly? Please be more direct with me, I can take it


I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'failed'


ok - I am assuming you are on the top and I am on the bottom? Or are we all (except D Ingram) on the bottom? Will we all get to express our opinions to Daniel Ingram in a democratic fashion or just those that are close to him personally? 


ok, you are post path correct? So, I guess that means that you and other awakened noble beings here have transcended the ability to offend others? I disagree with the characterization of what the DhO has become - it seems like a pretty well self-moderated place to me and mostly everyone here seem like decent well-meaning people. The occassional 'prepath Dark Night Yogi' flame seems few and far between, most people here seem to follow the golden rule - but again, we can agree to disagree


Congratulations, that is good. Completely transcending self-illusion, doubt in the Buddha's teachings, and attachments to rules and rituals will support you very much. IMO the same reason why you may consider not continuing on DhO for awhile is the same reason why others of higher attainments are not here either, and not because their gentle sensibilites are threatened, but I do not have any anecdotal evidence to back up that view


I think it's good you put 'done' in quotes. As long as Daniel M. Ingram decides it's good I support it. If that dirty troll Daniel P. Ingram has anything to say about it though, this place will surely continue on it's way to hell in a handbasket
Don't worry, I didn't forget that Others are Watching...

EDIT in blue

Yes, warn, delete, ban!  What happened was not good and some outside, out-of-band guidence brought to bear would have helped.  When it gets to thread locking, the system failed.

For all the good the thread did, you could have snipped it at the opening post and we'd all have been better off.  Or snip later.  My thought is, let's not be afraid to try more instead of the less that we have now.

I have noticed something happening to me recently Jenny, when i dare to look. i seem to be slipping or rather sliding sideways out of the psyche.  it becomes apparent when i see or hear statements like "people are people first" or when human communication failure is sheeted home to a "lack of rules, protocols, and enforcement". it seems to be a logic coming from an ancient time. these glimpses have an almost physical electric shock and rush of excitement to them,  then theres a return to a calm freefall that has no such barriers . when i read your "happy trails" regarding "people who want to harness and exploit hyperbole and false analogy to keep the soft softer or silent" the concentration required to make sense of it is like a sudden STOP that makes me slightly dizzy, almost like being on a fun rollercoaster between two worlds. one that uses no such logic and one that is made of it. very interesting

[quote=Daniel Leffler

"I disagree with the characterization of what the DhO has become - it seems like a pretty well self-moderated place to me and mostly everyone here seem like decent well-meaning people. The occassional 'prepath Dark Night Yogi' flame seems few and far between, most people here seem to follow the golden rule - but again, we can agree to disagree" 



Totally agree. And I would also like to thank Daniel and the people who contribute here for creating this fine ambience. 

I learnt a lot from the Money and the Buddha thread, especially about how the psyche still operates quite blatently even, in those claiming attainments. 

Rather than shutting down the thread and preventing anyone from accessing Kenneth's answers to questions, I would prefer that the troublesome posts be redacted, and for the thread to continue. Is there any reason why that can't be done?

Metta.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I am not the site owner nor am I counsel nor any expert. 

What I communicated is based on the site owner's own precedent action in September 2014 as well as attempting to limit any defamation once there was a flag for defamation letting the site mods know someone feels defamed. 

Please keep in mind that site owner is inaccessible at this time so rendering those two threads locked, unable to access by anyone (hopefully, DO LET MODS KNOW IF YOU CAN READ THOSE THREADS) seemed like the most protective, precautionary actions one can take in his absence when flags like defamation are raised. 

Edit*I also suggested deleting-- again, based on site owner's precedent-- if those threads/posts could not be secured in a private, unreadable manner till site owner returns. I don't like to delete threads, but I don't like feeling defamed and others feeling defamed and watching litigation fires spread on a site dedicated to excellent practice.


I think if you and Kenneth or anyone were to open a new thread and to actively flag posts found unacceptable, that would be possible.  If it gets out of hand and moderators/IT can't deal with it (remember: people are in different time zones, actually having family emergencies, caretaking elders, sleeping, going about their lives etc) then again I personally feel that the best way to protect those who feel defamed and the site owner and members is to make a thread inaccessible. 
 and invisible or even deleted until the owner of the site content may decide how to act for his own site.

Your thoughts, Michael?

____
Note: I am having posting problems still and don't wish to bother sleeping/busy mods so bear with me as I try all sorts of things to reply to your public inquery publically.

Hi Katy,

Thanks for your response.

I would be happy to open a new thread (Q & A with Kenneth Folk #2) and recap Kenneth’s answers from the first thread, with the understanding that the new thread will be solely for the purpose of concise practice questions for Kenneth to answer and any discussion or debate will occur in separate threads.

Metta.

Michael

Edit:  I can't speak for Kenneth, so I'm only speaking for myself as the original poster.
Edit:  typo

Hi Michael, 

In my opinion (as user and non-expert):

Be fast on flagging and know that in a small crew of moderators in different time zones (with families illnesses going on and work and life-away-from-forum) that a comment deemed defamatory can take many hours to delete. 

If too many such comments are flagged, the thread may have to be shut down, perhaps even the whole site. I can't know what the site owner wants, only what they've set as precedent under what  may be considered similar circumstances.

If I were in charge, that's what I'd do to because the site owner is not here to make executive decisions about what he is permitting to be published. 

I can make no promises: you're posting in a site who's owner is gone on the heels of a morning of defamation-flagging. Moderators might not be able to keep up if you experience a lot of inappropriate content.  I just don't know. I am opinining on what I think as a non-expert what is good for site users, but most importantly the site owner in absense.

Thanks Katy.

Loving kindness.

Michael

I do not see any problem with discussion and debate.  This is what prevents everyone from putting enlightened teachers on a pedestal, assuming they have all the answers simply because of their status and attainments.  At what point does this cross the line to the point where the posts need to be edited or deleted? I don't know. 

I actually see many many great practice threads right now in the recent posts section.  If someone doesn't want to listen to people debate certain topics then they can close the thread and open one of those instead.  However, people like to be entertained and often these threads tend to get far more views than the practice oriented ones.  

People complaining about what is happening to this forum are likely getting sucked into the entertainment of these threads and then complaining about how there are no practice-oriented threads when there are clearly plenty of them and they outnumber the debate threads by quite a bit, but people just aren't reading and responding to them as much because they aren't engaging their emotions and aren't as entertaining to read.

For example, I just did a count.

There are at least 12 threads about practice in the recent posts section and only about 3 separate threads have debates going on in them.  If you don't want to read the debates then don't read them, close the thread, and open one of the copious threads on practice.  

My two cents.

Okay, just keep in mind I have no authority. I am still somehow on the mod list and that may be helpful to have since there are so few mods. I don't know.

But what I've written here is just my non-expert opinion in how people who feel defamed, users, and the site owner might be best protected in the site owner's absense and yet keep the site up.

I also proposed shutting the entire site down (not that I can or know how) and if anyone feels that shutting down the site is the way to protect them from defamation or other issues until the site owner returns, they should say so by communicating in private or public, knowing a reply and action could take many hours.

This are just my non-expert thoughts..

I applaud you sir! A voice of reason.
Listen to this guy! You [redacted rampant insults. - Claudiu]

[redacted insult. - Claudiu]!


[redacted insult. - Claudiu]!

Reading all those sincere threads is the only thing that still makes me come back to this site.

All this other crap about self promotion, whining about moderation, threatening about imposing some stupid rules, claims of false attainments make me wanna vomit.

Ha! LMFAO. And agreeing 100%
Can we toughen up and fucking chillax at the same time people?
Sticks and stones...

Alright! Let's test out this more-moderation approach, which I think is well worth a try. ftw, tone it down. No name-calling, and don't be abusive.

Claudiu, Moderator

For the record, I have not threatened to sue anyone, and don't intend to; it's not even on my radar screen.

Katy, thanks for redacting or deleting posts on the "Q&A with Kenneth Folk" thread that I flagged as defamatory. If it were up to me, I would prefer to leave threads open, or at least read-only, rather than deleting them entirely; it seems more sensible to remove a few posts than to kill an entire thread, since long threads like "Q&A with KF" or "Money and the Buddha" represents many hours of work from quite a number of posters, and are consistent with the mission of the site, which is to openly discuss practice and practice-related ideas.

Hi Kenneth, 

It's great to hear from you. I sent you a PM and just didn't know your process or feeling on this.

I hope you can understand that as soon as I saw your flagging with defamation issues I considered action had to be taken to protect your sense of defamation, site users and the site owner. I had to give myself a quick tutorial in defamation and the Internet and seeing as the suits can be broad and deep, I went with the best action I could imagine as a de facto mod, non-expert in defamation law, and as a site user in response to a claim of defamation. You weren't the only one to mention defamation in those threads and an alert about defamation might not even need to be flagged: it could just come as a big letter from someone's lawyer and voila-- bad times.

So the risk of not acting quickly or inaction or inadequate action seemed to far outweigh any desire to act slowly or less comprehensively. Further, the site owner took the action of deleting a whole thread in September 2014 when a user raised what could be considered a similar issue. So looking a precedence and risk, exposure to mods, users and site owner, that's the course of action I suggested: close and make invisible the thread, and if that can't be assured, delete. I don't like that route either, but that's the route that easily protects all the various stakeholders from reputational and financial and other hardships.

_________________________________________
edit x3 typos, clarification first sentence second para

For the record, I agree, but now that the large, dark specter of legal action is involved I've reluctantly agreed to leave the thread hidden (not deleted) until Daniel gets back to make a decision. It may be worthwhile to open a "Q&A with Kenneth Folk Part 2" thread to continue the conversation since the original thread won't be unlocked for at least a week.

I cannot believe you took this so seriously ???

this is the new DhO I guess 

if that knocks his cotton socks off, imagine what a week of every season of Game of Thrones would do  

Some thoughts in no particular order:

I like what Chris has to say: distinguish persons from behavior (actions, words, thoughts -- here meaning words).

If your buttons are getting pushed here or if you are intentionally pushing the buttons of others here then you probably have some stuff that needs to be dealt with and this place is probably better than somewhere else to work on it - nasty as that can get. That being said, if you don't want to be confronted with your greed, hatred, and delusion - best not post it on the www.

Generally, I think we do a pretty good job these days of keeping things civil. If things do blow up then it can be useful to go back and review that thread and ask ‘What was my role in all of that?’. I think if we did that with this last one - the way to have avoided it is brain dead simple.

My experience over my years on this rock is that everything eventually gets bogged down by bureaucracy and at that point the vitality they once had is pretty much beaten out of them. But vitality and life just pops up somewhere else - not to worry.
I like that.

I like that too.

I like the idea of breaking long forking threads into smaller pieces - including moderators coming in to do the carving up if the cats and dogs need to be pulled apart and given separate cages.

Active and lively debate has a long history in Buddhism.

Personally, I'm a sucker for adolescent humor. When Daniel Ingram and I get together, we make each other laugh to the point of tears with jokes Beavis and Butthead would be proud of. On the other hand, I don't tell jokes like that around my mother-in-law. So it seems that timing and setting matter.

I try to imagine what I would think of ftw's comment if I were a woman. At least three women have participated directly on this thread, and this is a public forum, so any number of women can read it. Would I think "[insult]" is funny when used as a putdown? Doubt it. "[insult]"? I'm guessing that to most women that isn't really very funny at all. I ask myself, if I were a woman, would I even consider participating on this forum? I don't think I would. Frankly, I'm kind of in awe of the women who put up with this rubbish and grace us with their presence. It must feel like being a cub scouts' den mother.

The case that the forum is fine, as it is, seems undermined by the fact that ftw felt comfortable posting that joke on a thread dedicated to sober discussion about the culture of the site.

But then imagine if you were a guy that was actually <funny word removed by moderators>?! Ten times worse I'm sure

EDIT: a funny word was removed in my post by moderators to make it nonsensical, I won't replace it now

Women have always been far less sanctimonious and more emotionally honest than men have ever imagined. they have also always had the capacity to be far more fun, confident and intelligent than men have ever given them credit for. were it not so and they really were as meek and mild and helpless as partriarchs have prefered to fantasise, it would never have been necessary to cloister and veil them. yet here in this day and age on 'a thread about moderating' (not a practice thread) a gallant male steps forth to remind women yet again of their genteel place and of how they must surely be insulted by this bit of light hearted rambuctious sexual wordplay used for no other reason than to express humorously the senselessness of controlling the awakening of intelligence.   

re: Daniel Leffler (2/8/15 12:43 PM as a reply to Kenneth Folk. )
"I don't think lifetime bans should ever be a consideration…."

What about future lifetimes (aka rebirths)?

Such a ban would be truly terminal for arahants.

re: Jenny (2/8/15 3:20 PM as a reply to Laurel Carrington.)

"Claudiu does have a way that takes getting used to of pointing out, and really enjoying pointing out, the less obvious sides in altercations."

His running analyses of aspects of argumentation (attack vs insult vs rudeness, etc.) I found to be one of the high points of the "discussion" – I felt there was something positive to learn there. Had both parties engaged him in that I imagine it could have become even more educational or 'transformative'. (One party didn't respond, that I remember; the other pointedly resisted). Unfortunately, at that point emotions and side-taking had set in and gelled. (And one sees in this thread some haven't quite gotten over it.)

That kind of analysis (that Claudiu invoked) is something that goes on regularly among the moderators? Exposing some of that to public awareness (and feedback), I, for one, would find worthwhile. Like some of the info offered by Kenneth and others (logical fallacy variants) – knowing such things, I find, tends to get assimilated into one's own reflective awareness in both reading and posting.

Perhaps we should seek more precision here in defining 'troll' (verb)?  

Mythologically, troll (noun) seem to be basically an outsider, foreigner in some sense, who is perceived as lurking about and as threatening.

How would 'trolling' be distinguished from simply scanning, browsing? And how this discerned relative to simply a perception on the part of those who feel their discussion is being ruffled by some outsider? And differentiating it from 'hijacking', or running off into an unrelated sub-thread (the same?)?

These questions are asking for some exploratory clarification, as I (likely many of us, as has been mentioned) do nose around looking for something of interest to engage with, as well as having experienced the input of others as s/w unwelcome.

The first substantial thread I authored here – "What is phenomenology (here) [in DhO]" –was visited by a wide range of curious intrusions (more than half the volume of the longish thread).

matthew sexton offered: "trolls, as defined by: they don't pay attention to posting guidlines and their argumentative style seems to be tuned forusing what people value against them and it ends up driving youcrazy".

But it seems others also use the term in a less extreme sense.

Earlier I wrote:

"3) A basic principle not heard/read much here (yet, or that I missed), would be to distinguish persons from behavior (actions, words, thoughts -- here meaning words). If citing, analyzing, challenging verbal behavior, statements, positions, etc., as distinct from the person (ad-hominem-ness) becomes muffled, than we end up with a mushroom farm -- Anatta becomes masked-out by the psychological therapy approach."

Upon review, I've found the gist of this point actually did come up earlier:

RE: Money and the Buddha Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem - 2/6/15 11:02...

"… it ['personal attack'] appears to be another term for an ad hominem: "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.""

A related point also can be seen in a major strategy in that famous little book from the 1970's: "Getting to Yes" (by Fisher and  Ury), about cultivating negotiation skills. The way it's put there is to avoid hammering away at each other from fixed positions and demands (dukkha and clinging), and rather investigate the needs and desires underlying such positions, demands. That can open a much larger domain of possible solutions, and possibly some way both sides can be satisfied (sukha, at least temporarily).

In fact, DhO debate-type threads might have a much different tone if this book (or it's sequel "Getting Past No") were required reading on joining.

Sometimes it's helpful to simplify.

Each of us has his or her vision of the ideal DhO culture, none of which is inherently better or worse than any other.

Some people might like a forum for post-structural analysis as well as scholarly discussion of Buddhist texts.

Some people might like a forum about how to correctly interpret the authority of Buddhist texts.

Some people might like a forum for adolescent jokes.

All of these are fine in my opinion, and I think I too would enjoy and benefit from all of those discussions.

But the mission of the DhO has already been written, and it is none of those things.

The DhO is, according to the home page, 

"a resource for the support of practices that actually lead to beneficial, fundamental mental, perceptual and emotional transformations. It is a place where everything related to the support of practice may flourish, including where to go on retreats, what techniques may lead to what, an in depth look at the maps of possible states and stages, discussions about how to determine what experience was what, and in general anything that has to do with actually practicing rather than what typically occurs in, for example, standard meditation circles and forums. Here you will find a robust and variable community of people with a wide range of experience levels, perspectives and interests, though all loosely bound by the same basic principles of empowering, helpful, engaged knowledge and exploration of the possibilities of the mind and how it may be modified to reduce suffering and enhance wisdom."

The only question, then, is how best to foster that kind of discussion. The signal to noise ratio of the site in its current phase is very low, and the opportunity cost for failing to fix it is high; the unnecessarily contentious and sometimes toxic environment here can drive away people with a great deal to offer. This is not speculation. I hear it again and again from some of the most advanced yogis I know. Take a moment to imagine a Dharma Overgound where more people feel safe to post, both newbies and sages. What would that look like?

Edit: I've edited this post to remove names, because I realized it's unfair and intellectually dishonest to speculate about what other people want, especially in a way that casts them in a bad light.

Sometimes it _IS_ good to really simplify things.

[EDIT: redacted by request due to a potential "false light" claim: "A cause of action arising under the common law where a person is portrayed in a way which, while not technically false, is misleading and likely to cause embarrassment to that person." [link]; "A publication [...] made with actual malice [...] which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons)" [link]. Don't be gratuitously offensive. - Claudiu]

Other people actually have no vision of what DhO _should_ be! They like it just the way it is. It's really interesting how Signal to noise ratio as you put it corresponds to your new arrival to DhO. Something to think about.

FTW is showing us what call a kind of trollish response:  ignore the real/helpful content/sugestion, impune motives, use hot words, make an offer that is clearly unreasonable.

Edit: OMH, am I doing it too?  hmm, how to focus on (trollish) content?  Ignore?  I don't really want to explain trollism, except to point it out.

I'll try:
Kenneth shows up expecting what's on the front page of the website to be 'in play' and finds some noisy people that ignore the stuff on the front page and complains about it.  I feel the same way.

Hi ftw,

My inbox has blown up this past couple of days with people feeling defamed here. Short of deleting your post, I'd like to give you the chance to  edit it. Can you please re-word your post so that it isn't seen as incendiary. If you don't, we as mods may have 
to take the action of deleting the post. Regardless of what people want, the mods feel the pressure to do more moderation. Your post is not in the spirit of this community. You could make a critique sound much more diplomatic. For example:



At least you don't make it directly personal and witht he questions allow others to be able to respond without feeling like they have been attacked and defamed and also others can respond cordially to offer their take on the answers. 

I wish everyone could just take a chill pill. I hope people are putting in double the amount of energy or focus into their actual practices that they put into these types of thread. 

Nick (mod)

thanks for removing my name Kenneth and I agree that it's dishonest to question other people's intentions, unfortunately it isn't the first time. And even though you removed the names themselves, I'm not sure you have removed your incorrect views. You are free to read some of my other posts and decide if your negative views toward me and others you noted are still correct. I thought ftw provided some good levity at a time when everyone seemed to be taking themselves, their views and their emotions way too seriously. If you want to make jokes that everyone will get and not be offended by at all, good luck, they won't be funny. Just to bring this full circle, the Dalai Lama says you will not make it through this lifetime without laughter. hahaha once in awhile. It's good for us

Also, if you guys are making a list of new rules, may I suggest that one rule be that we not question each other's intentions - ever. That seems to me to be the only respectful starting point to any conversation that will involve a true sharing of thoughts and ideas

It seems like a lot of posters here have forgotten how offensive the original MCTB was - it was relentless, that's why many people liked it. Daniel had had enough with all the PC bullshit and indulging in our own oh-so-fragile baggage, and he was ready to mercilessly lay into everyone to prove his point - he had to put little lightening bolts by the chapters where he lambasted entire cultures. Maybe we need those little lightning bolts here, so people that are extra sensitive won't have to read those posts

IMO comedy is by it's nature offensive, if it's not you're not doing your job (paraphrasing Bill Maher)
Maybe people need to be a little offended once in awhile, and then practice. I'm actually offended that everyone is so offended, and then I have the opportunity to observe my thoughts and sensations, and come back to balance. I'm wishing all well that read this - I've said it before but I would like to repeat, we can all disagree without taking things personally and without questioning each other's motives, it's not so hard

Nicl,

Do you think that if people considered posting on this forum part of their "actual practice" there would less of these types of thread and less need for people to take chill pills?

Your inbox can take it. Imagine what it would be like if people would call you @2AM about forum issues. Now that would be some crazy shit eh?
Do what you have to do. I meant what I said. In fact, I was never so sure about it.

The only question of yours that I have time and inclination to answer is the one about who is on the "top" and who constitutes the grassroots (what you are choosng to call the "bottom").

This site, including this forum, is owned by Daniel M. Ingram. Moderations style, policy, rules, and protocols will be decided by Daniel M. Ingram, for it is his site.

Shall I say that yet again? Okay: This site and all decisions appertaining belong to Daniel M. Ingram.

Will he poll the grassroots yet again for yet another list of 200 differing personal opinions about how he should run his site before he finally takes decisive action to curb these recurrent, disruptive blowups, not to mention the general rudeness and nastiness that goes unchecked here? I don't know, but were I a betting woman, then I would bet not.

Some people on this thread are speaking to me as if I am imposing something on them. I'm not the owner of this site. I impose nothing. I'm not even a moderator any longer.

Having for a short time been a moderator, however, I do know that Daniel holds close counsel with his tech admin and appointed moderation team to make and effect decisions concerning policy, protocols, aesthetics, and usability of this site , which he has the perfect right to do because--once again--this is his site.

Jenny

Daniel Ingram was in his 20s when he wrote most of MCTB. He's now 46. He has, thank goodness, grown up (well, mostly :lol.

You can expect MCTB2 to be a very different book from MCTB--a high dharma classic. Not quite Jack, but not MCTB, either.

There won't be lightning bolts in this edition, either, as there won't be a need for them when editing is done. If you are looking for Reddit, then please feel free to go there.

"Politically Correct" is a term that was invented by ultra conservatives to continue their campaigns of oppression against women, ethnic and racial minorities, and other protected classes. 

I would suggest that, if you are sincere, you note what this site is about and stop trying to bait and inflame. You frequently troll this site. That's what I'm saying. Got it?

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are baiting or inflaming or trolling. I have to apply the "no name-calling or ad hominem attacks" rule here equally. Saying that someone is trolling is a personal attack, an attack on someone's character. So be warned.

Claudiu, Moderator

For the record, FTW is the one who originally hurled sexist remarks at me back in September. 

So why am I not surprised that he's violated the now published rules against Hate Speech?

I don't think Daniel is going to be amused when he returns from his retreat, not at any of what has transpired here. I'm cheered by confidence that all this will serve as inspiration for him to effect change at long last.

Yes, the men's lockeroom stuff does get tedious here. No wonder so few women post here (What? Like 3 maybe?)

No, it is not. He is trolling. He does it all the time. DW and I were discussing it just last night. I stand by my saying he is trolling, because he is.

Lol. [redacted personal attack. - Claudiu]
Care to elaborate who deleted all of your furious posts from the original threads?
Care to elabotate who deleted your posts from a thread in powers section where you blatanly attacked in a very rude sexist matter OP? And you have mod powers right?

[redacted taunting. - Claudiu]

Well, that's not an argument. But nevertheless, it is a personal attack, because you are attacking his character. It is a the very least an ad hominem: "responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments". By calling him a troll, regardless of whether he is a troll, you attack his character and do nothing to address what he's actually saying. The rule on the front page is "no [...] ad hominem attacks". If you'd like to propose a modification to the rule that allows you to call people trolls then I am willing to hear it.

W T F

Moderators, I cannot find a flag for ftw's original post, which Daniel Laffler has joined in on. This is SEXIST HATE SPEECH. 

I call upon you to enforce Daniel's published rules against sexist hate speech in his absence, and to do so right now.

I'm copying this to my hard drive for evidence.

Thanks!

Jenny

Last warning. Next step is a ban.

Claudiu, Mod

Jenny!

Help is on it's way!

Hmm... I'm no English teacher, but... wait.

Actually I am an English teacher! Or at least I have a Masters Degree in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, and I'm qualified to teach K-12 as well as adults in the State of New York.

So I feel reasonably qualified to weigh in here. Saying that someone is trolling is not an attack on someone's character; it is an observation of their behavior. The observation may or may not be accurate, but it is nonetheless not a character attack. As for ad hominem, my understanding is that it would technically only be an ad hominem if it were used to divert attention from the argument someone was making, instead turning attention to the person making the argument in an effort to undermine the credibility of that person, and indirectly discredit the argument.

Short version: it's neither a personal attack nor an ad hominem to call someone out for what you sincerely believe is trolling behavior. In fact, calling someone out for trolling behavior is part of best practices for dealing with trolling according to Webroot. Trolling behavior is well defined, so although there is some room for interpretation, it's not nearly as fuzzy as some here have recently suggested.

From Dictionary.com:

Trolling

Digital Technology, Informal.

• to post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on(the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose ofupsetting other users and provoking a response.
• to upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages orcomments.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trolling

Heh. Go ahead. Who'd want to be a part of this circus anyway.

Ok, thanks, Jenny, I appreciate you retracting the claim given its defamatory nature.

Just in reference to this paragraph I have highlighted in red.

A sockpuppet, by the commonly used definitions, is an account used by someone else for the purposes of deception - on a forum context it would be someone who already has account on the forum. This is a different definition from somebody who has created an account for the purposes of making an attack, using a pseudonym, (who isn't likely to use their real name).

Your argument as stated in this post is based on three premises (ignoring any other reasons):

The user was a sock puppet because the user name had metaphorical implications
The user was a sock puppet because the account was created several hours after a contentious thread was deleted
The user was a sock puppet because once the account was locked, the identity never appeared again

A person using a pseudonym who isn't a sock puppet may use also a name with metaphorical implications, and would seem just as likely to. And that user once their account has been locked, may not return. The fact that identity was never used again is not evidence for it being a sock puppet, because that argument just as easily can be applied to an anonymous lurker turned poster. If it was a sockpuppet, why didn't they return? If it was not a sockpuppet why didn't they return? It has hard to speculate either way. Note that some estimates put the ratio of lurkers to posters to something like 90/10. Or more. Nor the fact that the account was created after the thread was deleted is also not evidence pointing towards a sock puppet as opposed to a lurker. The argument could be applied either way.

Your statement "There was indeed a sockpuppet in September." is a statement of your belief, it is not a statement of fact, unless you are privy to other information that I not aware of. I happen to think for various other reasons that it was not a sock puppet but a "troll" (much as I dislike that word) but without evidence to the contrary I cannot be certain of this.

Nice try, FTW. Not going down that rabbit hole again, as I already answered all this 6 months ago, and you know it. Sorry to disappoint you, as you are obviously looking for an extended fight.

I have work to do now, folks. 

Jen

Everyone say hello to the most heavily moderated thread in DhO history.

Alrighty, a ban it is. I'll discuss with other mods whether this should be temporary or permanent.

Claudiu, Mod.

Sawfoot,

I don't think this site at that time had the ability to lock accounts. I was a moderator at the time, and I never heard mention among some 500 emails with mods and Daniel that "Bill Glamdring's" account had been locked or could be locked. It was the thread itself that was locked.

Also, I'm a certified paralegal. Calling you that sockpuppet, if I were to, which I'm not, would not be "defamatory in nature" at all.

Look up the elements of defamation under U.S. or English law, and you'll see that not all the elements of that tort would be fulfilled were I calling you a sockpuppet. All elements of a cause have to be proved for the tort to be actionable.

People on this thread, including Claudiu, don't seem to understand what defamation is by legal definition. 

Jenny

I have a PhD in English and taught university-level rhetoric for a decade.

Kenneth is correct. BTW, I'm the one who drafted those rules. 

Thanks for weighing in. What would make something a character attack in that case?


I agree. I understood Jenny as turning attention away from Daniel's argument (essentially, that we shouldn't moderate as heavily) to Daniel himself (the person making the argument). If Daniel is trolling then his argument is discredited. Hence: ad hominem. To be more explicit, whether Daniel is trolling has no bearing on his argument. However it would have a bearing on whether to ban him for example.

Dear Kenneth,

In your expert opinion as a teacher of the English language, is starting a thread implying other users on this forum are "reactionary nincompoops" (I believe that is the expression used by the OP, but I can't check because the thread was deleted because it appeared to provoke and upset other users) an example of trolling behaviour? Or would that be a case of an ad hominen attack, with the purpose of diverting attention from the argument someone was making, instead turning attention to the person making the argument in an effort to undermine the credibility of that person, and indirectly discredit the argument?

I ask because because I have heard that the best practice in dealing with trolling beahviour (according to Webroot) is calling the person out on their trolling behaviour, so I just want to be sure before I call them out on their trolling behaviour. 

I await in earnest for your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Sawfoot_

You've been through this thread like a human bottle of tipex!

B. B, early on in this thread, made a number of good suggestions including:
“Do not post suppositions about the motives behind a person's actions, or explicitly link them with negative character traits, even if there is some perceived basis for doing so.”

This style follows the general pattern of:
- Paint someone with a trivial, dogmatic, etc. motive.
- Position yourself as above such motives.
- From that false position offer some paternalistic wisdom.

In a recent response to something I wrote, you used this style several times - in one post. You may not be aware that you are doing this. If you find that there is a need to understand someone’s motive why not just ask them?

As far as my own motives for being here, I thought my rather lengthy posts on your wetpaint site describing my own experiences in working with those old teachings (in which you commented btw), would have been sufficient. It seems we have very different views of what constitutes awakening based on our respective experiences and practices.

- End of response to Kenneth -

Generally speaking, no amount of moderation will stop people from using manipulative styles of communication - dhammawheel offers many examples of this - it just refines the technique - very Darwinian I suppose.

Today I was reading through a talk given by Upasika Kee Nanayon (died 1979)  - A lay woman teacher in Thailand. She wrote: If we don't look inward, we make the mind dark and murky. Then when sensory contact comes, the mind can easily get all stirred up. So I ask that you make an effort to peer carefully inward to see what's there in the mind, to see how things arise, to see how mental labels and fabrications arise.

She makes a good point and if the intention is dark and murky then that will come across regardless of what words are used.

re ftw: amazing how someone could go so ballistic so quickly. Seems like they pass the troll duck test with flying colors.

Plenty of comedians get away with "hate speech". It's as if... it's as if context supplies information about the intent and 'meaning' of words. Then, Nazi-level enforcement of rules seems silly.

Yes, I believe that is a clear example of trolling. As for ad hominem, probably not. Without naming someone directly, ad hominem probably doesn't apply, although I suppose you could make a weak case for it. Jenny could probably weigh in here. Great question, though.

Could you go into which elements were not fulfilled? It seems to me they all were, but you have more expertise than me. From the EFF:


1) Yes, by being on a forum.
2) It is a statement of verifiable fact - "Sawfoot was that sockpuppet". If false, then it is a false statement of fact.
3a) It is of and concerns Sawfoot.
3b) If true, it harms the reputation of Sawfoot.

EDIT: It looks like there's also the element of negligence: "A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement."

From dmlp.org:

So is this the unfulfilled element - that you didn't act negligently?

is this considered trolling?

[snipped irrelevant image. - Claudiu]

 Ah, gee, shucks, thanks Kenneth. I thought it might be a good question, but I wasn't sure. It is nice to get some positive feedback for a change. I am going to go to sleep tonight with a warm glow, and get back to my practice, as after all, practice is what this place is all about. 

All the best, 

Sawfoot_

Yes, don't do that.

Claudiu, Mod

Hello everyone, 

 Replying to the all, via original post, but this is just a suggestion to all,  I would like to share this excerpt of Pragmatism, full article in link below excerpt, if anyone is interested.  

So , in regards to Moderation, First off, let us moderate ourselves.

Again, this is just a suggestion.

And, if you are like me, and forget to follow the suggestion sometime in the future , just remind yourself, and start the training from that moment forward.

Any activity is regarding both internal and external activity i.e. inner thinking, outer speech, other physical actions, etc

Regarding any activity, one should reflect:

“Is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskilful activity, with painful consequences, painful results? If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both, it is an unskilful activity with painful consequences, painful results, then any activity of that sort is absolutely inappropriate for you to do. But if, on reflection, you know that it is not leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it is a skilful activity with happy consequences, happy results, then any activity of that sort is appropriate for you to do.”
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh463-p.html


Psi

P.S. I am sure any of you can point out my flaws, past instances of Wrong Speech and whatnot, so if you want to do that, fine, I will try to be easliy admonished.

Wow, and I thought we could all agree that Bill Murray in Ghostbusters was awesome 
Live and learn
Let me try this:
If you are not in any way offended by anything I've posted in the past, you were not in any way offended by what ftw posted on this thread and you would like to see the 'irrelevant image' that was redacted by your well-meaning protector BCDEFG, you do not think I am a troll in any way whatsoever, and you take full sole responsibility for the potentially very damaging image you are about to see, freeing me, Daniel Leffler, 100% from any liability at all and any damages that this image may wreak on your potentially fragile sensitivities, then and only then, click here 
I hope that's copacetic 

Honestly, not much is going to offend me at this point in life, and I love comedy.  Though, when it gets too vulgar, it is just not funny to me anymore.  I am more of a Jim Gaffigan, Brian Regan, Don Friesen kind of comedy fan myself.

This is not to say I will not shake my head in disbelief at some of the postings, perhaps even my own 

And sometimes people are accused of trolling, and I am like, What???  Where???

And , can't we have a little fun? When it is appropriate, of course.  Jeez 

But, seriously, Daniel, upwards of 90% of what you post here is actually steeped in Wisdom, and can see most of your efforts at calm rational discussion are at times generally either not followed, acknowleged, understood, or just ignored.  But, not always, when you speak what is true, many will understand, but just not respond externally.

And, indeed, sometimes we just do not know how or when someone is going to react, and what they are going to react to.

And, I am not here to tell anyone what to say or not to say.

Psi

Thanks Psi, I've enjoyed our conversations in the past
I'll go to bed tonight not worrying about any of this nonsense and I'll be done with it for good, it's just an internet forum, though I do value the community very much
I can imagine today's enemies being friends later and vice versa, everyone here means well
It reminds me of a Zen story that you probably know:


We already crossed the mud - I hope everyone here can just leave the girl there too

I don't think we've crossed the mud.  We're still in the swamp, wallowing around a forum where there are some noisy people that don't seem interested in what the forum is about, I call them trolls.

The trolls, as I see them, like it the way is now, and their contributions to this thread are to keep the status quo.  They also contribute a lot of totally watered down wishywashy non-practice related fluff that lowers the value of 'recent posts' and dilutes the obviousness of their yuckyism.

If there was a way for me to convenientely get 'recent posts' from a select group of contributors, or a selection of sub-forums, that would be a help to me.  But these ideas get into more complex solutions that I feel could easily be unnecessary if the moderators provided incentive for posters to follow the guidelines on the existing front page of the website.  Or, just get Daniel to change the front-page guidelines to match what we have now and I'll find it easier to let go of my expectations or figure out another way to get what I want from here.

Edit: just venting, but hopefully of some value, an addition to my problem with 'trolls'.  They seem to bend over backwards to not understand what is in a post and spin the conversation off topic.  They seem to care more about hoisting someone by their own petard or with lousy logic than having and representing their own point of view.  Often their point of view is a bunch of balanced fluff that adds up to zero.