A message to the moderators

[moment]

47 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

It´s an attempt at dialogue.  (oops...I noticed I left out the word "appears"...as in "the quote above appears to be...")

 

So, my friend,do you feel your skin thickening up?

Edited September 2, 2020 by moment

[steve]

18 minutes ago, ralis said:

It is not karma. Karma is a religious belief system and has no legal or any other basis to impose moderation on anyone. The universe is far too complex for anyone to “create their own reality” as you so stated. 

We will have to agree to disagree... 

My moderation is based on our rules.

If someone is given moderator privilege in a sub-forum, then goes on to insult anonymous members of our forum and permits others' insulting of members here by name, while restricting any comments from moderators or those who are targeted, I feel an obligation to respond. If you don't agree, that is your prerogative.

Actions lead to consequent actions, it is a very simple, descriptive observation. 

We can call it something else if that makes you feel better.

 

Each of our realities is created by our mind, entirely.

Simply my own view of our condition.

A very defensible position for another thread, perhaps.

[liminal_luke]

46 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

I will answer more fully later today, because I would rather get my training done for the day before wasting more time with people who have already indicated (especially Steve) complete contempt for me as seen in the last moderation thread about me.

 

But I need you to explain towards what end will this dialogue will lead? I already have no faith in ANY of you and no attempt at working with us seems to be present, so as Steve has said that it’s “karma” in justification for his vote of suspending me before, I repeat this and say that I am cynical and reserved about speaking unless there is a guarantee that 1) my opinions will be considered seriously, 2) you will NOT mock it while displaying said double standards, 3) that it is an act of good faith instead of a Witch Hunt and Spanish Inquisition.

 

My hope is that this dialogue leads to a place where everyone feels like they are a valued part of the Bum community.  I´d like for us to have a sense of working together towards the common purpose of productive -- maybe even fun -- conversation.  At it´s best this place could be the forum version of the bar in Cheers, a place where "everybody knows your name."  

 

I get that you feel unfairly maligned.  Me too!  Some members don´t have a very favorable view of the mod team.  I haven´t been especially singled out, probably because I´m less vocal than some, but I assume the general scorn includes me.  As moderators I suppose we´re supposed to rise above all this, but I can tell you that it´s not the vibe I´m hoping for in my participation here.

 

You say you want a guarantee.  I can´t possibly know what you will think or feel if you go down the road of explaining yourself a litle further.  Nor do I have any control over how my fellow mods might respond.  What I can tell you is that I don´t wish you harm.

 

[zerostao]

23 minutes ago, moment said:

I did not say it was a nanny state.  I asked at what point does TDB become a nanny state?  It was a purposely nuanced question, as a segue for the future.

I did not say you did say that. Im speaking and modding in the present. At any rate, you made a good point and worthy of thought and reflection. And not to look to the past either, when I tried a similar short timeout and when that restriction I placed I removed, the bum I was trying to slow down ended up with a 30 day suspension. The suspension was what I was hoping to avoid. 

We try things, it's often trial and error. Something that worked once may not work again. I strive for consistency. If I have a high strike zone, I want to be consistent with it. 

On my previous time serving as a mod here, at one time I was a lone mod, I did everything to avoid banning anyone. On that, I have changed. Or at least the way I look at it has changed. I was trying to keep a bum here and not noticing the bums leaving silently because of a toxic, ridiculing, insulting, disrespectful bum, that i allowed to stay.

To be clear, so there is no misunderstanding where I am as a mod, if I come to an opinion that any bum, despite perceived status,  is ridiculing , insulting, disrespecting, belittling other members, i will err on the side of removing a disrespectful bum rather than lose more silent ones that were not engaging in dealing out insults or disrespect. That is my take on civil egalitarianism. Im open to criticism. My hides been thicker than a rhinos a long time. We can stay on the trail of maintaining respectful civilty, no insults.  Or return to wild west, which do you think the overwhelming majority here prefers? 

I am in favor of transparency, I take full ownership of my actions. Im open to suggestions. And I have over a decade experience on this forum to draw from. I've made mod mistakes. And likely will again. Right now I'm calling high strikes. And I'm going to be consistent about it.

[steve]

36 minutes ago, moment said:

 

So, my friend,do you feel your skin thickening up?

 

Fuck yeah!

 

Spoiler

 

[ralis]

9 minutes ago, steve said:

We will have to agree to disagree... 

My moderation is based on our rules.

If someone is given moderator privilege in a sub-forum, then goes on to insult anonymous members of our forum and permits others' insulting of members here by name, while restricting any comments from moderators or those who are targeted, I feel an obligation to respond. If you don't agree, that is your prerogative.

Actions lead to consequent actions, it is a very simple, descriptive observation. 

We can call it something else if that makes you feel better.

 

Each of our realities is created by our mind, entirely.

Simply my own view of our condition.

A very defensible position for another thread, perhaps.

Now you are preaching Buddhist absolutes. First you claim all minds create their own reality, then you claim it is your own view. Please don’t try to assuage my feelings in the hopes I will feel better!

[steve]

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

Now you are preaching Buddhist absolutes.

Just sharing my perspective.

You are welcome to your own.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything.

 

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

First you claim all minds create their own reality, then you claim it is your own view.

Precisely

 

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

Please don’t try to assuage my feelings in the hopes I will feel better!

Sorry...

Wouldn’t want that now would we?

 

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

42 minutes ago, zerostao said:

On my previous time serving as a mod here, at one time I was a lone mod, I did everything to avoid banning anyone. On that, I have changed. Or at least the way I look at it has changed. I was trying to keep a bum here and not noticing the bums leaving silently because of a toxic, ridiculing, insulting, disrespectful bum, that i allowed to stay.

To be clear, so there is no misunderstanding where I am as a mod, if I come to an opinion that any bum, despite perceived status,  is ridiculing , insulting, disrespecting, belittling other members, i will err on the side of removing a disrespectful bum rather than lose more silent ones that were not engaging in dealing out insults or disrespect. That is my take on civil egalitarianism. Im open to criticism.

 

(My bold added.) 

 

I completely agree with this, providing the member receives due warning, which in my experience they always do. And I thank all the moderators for their openness. I greatly appreciate their willingness to explain their actions and personally examine their motives for taking such actions. They have shown they listen to our feedback and modify their actions if they feel it's appropriate. For me, that's what makes Dao Bums a special place.  The moderation here is definitely not oppressive. 

 

However I fully appreciate that tolerance and introspection can only go so far without stressing out the moderators, in which case they must take actions they deem appropriate.  However, I sincerely hope no one needs to be suspended over this. In the context of this discussion, I think it's up to any member criticizing the moderators to thoroughly examine their own motives.  And when any member shows willingness to do that -- to find fault within themself rather than inappropriately blaming others -- then they have my full support, my admiration even. 

[liminal_luke]

21 minutes ago, Yueya said:

 

 The moderation here is definitely not oppressive. 

 

 

Thank you!  

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Thank you!  

 

 

 

Much appreciated,  but that doesn't mean I like your idea of this forum as a version of the bar in Cheers.  

 

As to this discussion, my bottomline is that the forum has a new moderation team and hence a new flavour. I’m interested to see how that plays out over time and want to give the moderators plenty of space to find their appropriate level of policing. I’ll continue to give any feedback I feel is appropriate, as I have done here in my OP.  I’m not a major poster but Dao Bums is important for me. I learn plenty from my largely silent, but deeply felt engagement here. It’s a vital part of my ongoing xing cultivation. Hence I try to be constructive in my involvement. 

 

While I see the importance of conflict for the reasons Jung expresses it in my OP quotation, that can only work when combined with rigorous personal introspection. Conflict with the aim of knocking the other person out is a dead end for inner growth. And it’s toxic for this forum, as we’ve all seen. 
 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Yueya

[Earl Grey]

12 hours ago, steve said:

Contempt?

- the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.

 

Please bear in mind that we’re talking about comments made in an elitist and restricted sub-forum set up by Earl where all unwanted comments are excluded.

 

Yes, Steve, contempt--you may say it's not contempt (and you didn't actually say it wasn't either), just as your attitude towards me in the last moderation thread indicated through your actions and comments made it unambiguous. 

 

I have no problem being characterized as elitist, because my definition of elitist is informed opinions rather than conjecture and false egalitarianism from self-initiates and Sensitive New Age Guys and Gals (SNAGGs). The main forum has already been proven to be a place that has all sorts of characters, so fine, let them do what they want and leave me to my corner with the few friends whom I have and trust posting there. You don't want me in the main forum, and I don't have any inclination to step out of my PPJ except occasionally because my participation is already marked with a scarlet letter. Your explanation before was that I was "bullshitting" and made no attempt--none of you--to ask me privately or publicly what I meant and justified it by saying that I have a history of "bullying and abuse" here for my last suspension.

 

What I have for an "elitist and restricted sub-forum" is a chess club in our own corner booth at this point, and everyone else can play jenga in the main bar counter that I don't mind joining in occasionally. What I don't want is people coming to our booth and playing tic-tac-toe or taking selfies of themselves sitting at our booth and claiming that they are part of the chess club when they've not only never played chess against us, but don't even know the rules of chess. I do not care if that's elitist with that kind of analogy. But I'm not stopping them from doing their own thing in the main forum or their own PPJ. However, in my PPJ, we're on topic and we are there to discuss seriously to complement each other's practice and understanding. We do not have the time to waste trying to correct know nothing know-it-alls, which is why I prefer my PPJ over the main board these days. 

 

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

I’m much quicker to intervene to defend those not given a voice... that’s karma.

 

So where were you then, Steve, when all this began months ago when Spotless began his post attacking me and a few of my friends (as well as people who weren't my friends), where you, silent thunder, and to an extent, liminal luke, attacked me, which he made no attempt to hide when confronted about it in the moderation thread for a whole mess of bans? Let's not forget that he posted that thread three times here in two sections, and then reposted it as well on dwai's new forum, daosnet. 

 

My PPJ is not meant to talk trash about people, it is to stay on topic and discuss cultivation without wasting time with scammers or self-initiates who think they can hack cultivation better than old traditions. It is also to avoid people trying to be profound by throwing in platitudes that have nothing to do with a topic, which is becoming a common irritating occurrence here. Remember when Walker tried to talk about Mr. Rogers last year and that ended up becoming a thread about conspiracy theories and politics of the American government and CIA? That is a problem with the general forum here, and while you try to moderate things before they get out of hand, there is unfortunately overkill that eliminates any growth in the conversation, as though you were weeding before the seeds have even had a chance to sprout. 

 

Now when you talk about karma, Steve, let's consider this: you seem to talk about cause and effect rather than any laws of karma or the fours kinds (because yes, there are several types of karma in the Vedic tradition). What you are doing here is you are furthering the karmic wheel of conflict in this crusade of yours against me by justifying my past behavior for your current vitriol against me.

 

And what selective memory you have: people I have had conflict with I have openly made amends with and openly apologized to both publicly and privately, whether Starjumper in my initial months as a new member in 2015 to gendao this year to even Josh when I found out he wasn't a troll account. Let's also recall my town hall meeting thread where I tried to find out ways for the community to get along and grow together. I suppose that all  this means nothing to you because you only see the crimes and refuse to see the growth trajectory from that. 

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

The universe is what we make of it.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

If you felt that from our previous interaction, I genuinely apologize. That’s not what I intend to convey at this moment or in the future.

 

Too late, Steve. Your actions here and in the last moderation thread mocking me and the situation don't convey any remorse or willingness to go beyond your caricature-like portrait of me. But if you are willing to drop the crap and actually show it in your actions, then I can take your words seriously, because right now, your recent actions have been communicating something else entirely.

 

I will give you the benefit of a doubt this once though. 

 

I've already resigned myself to my corner for the most part. I am not unwilling to work with the current zeitgeist and politics of the team, but immediate banishment and focus on select history that is much older than recent behavior is a serious problem. 

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

I acknowledge that I can be harsh.

 

Acknowledging is one thing, addressing it is another. 

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

I promise to abstain from any decision making on this topic if that helps any. I trust the team 100%

 

I doubt that will have any effect given that the well has been poisoned. 

[Earl Grey]

9 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

My hope is that this dialogue leads to a place where everyone feels like they are a valued part of the Bum community.  I´d like for us to have a sense of working together towards the common purpose of productive -- maybe even fun -- conversation.  At it´s best this place could be the forum version of the bar in Cheers, a place where "everybody knows your name."  

 

I've no problem with the idea of Cheers, but Ted Danson still had the worst taste and luck with women and Norm still needs to cut back on his alcohol intake. 

 

In all seriousness though, if you want something like Cheers here, then it has to be both ways--I've already been maligned (quite unfairly), and so far, there is more passive-aggression and double-standards relating to that than anything else now. 

 

Because you all value social harmony, I concluded that it's best to (mostly) remain in my PPJ and talk amongst my friends. We stay on topic and we have informed opinions--this is not something I find in the current zeitgeist not just because of mostly neophytes and self-initiates, but because there is a push to allow known scammers and dangerous practices proliferate in the name of civil conversation and egalitarianism.

 

What I have done in the past that has labeled me a "bully" and "abusive" has been the equivalent of telling someone not to drink and drive or text and drive. When you lose someone (and I have lost many people to various things in life related to inaction, within and outside cultivation), you will be more adamant about helping others. I lost someone dear to me because he was so adamant he was fine until I had to rush to the hospital to see he had become a vegetable, and in two months saw him die an undignified death. I knew he was getting into trouble. We all did. But he was so adamant that he was fine and we should mind our own business that we just let him be. And then we lost him. 

 

Instead, you see this as a violation of people's personal practice. So I throw my hands up and say fine, everyone else, do whatever the hell you want, and I will stick to my group, which I refer to as the chess club at our booth in the back. But if someone wants to join the chess club, applications are open, just don't come in here expecting to play tic tac toe or spend time texting on your phone and taking pictures saying you are a part of the club without actually ever playing the rest of us in a match or even knowing the rules of chess. 

 

10 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I get that you feel unfairly maligned.  Me too!  Some members don´t have a very favorable view of the mod team.  I haven´t been especially singled out, probably because I´m less vocal than some, but I assume the general scorn includes me.  As moderators I suppose we´re supposed to rise above all this, but I can tell you that it´s not the vibe I´m hoping for in my participation here.

 

Guilty as charged--I have nothing nice to say about the current moderation team and how things have been handled thus far--can you blame me? 

 

But with you, you've been the nicest, I will give you that. 

 

10 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

You say you want a guarantee.  I can´t possibly know what you will think or feel if you go down the road of explaining yourself a litle further.  Nor do I have any control over how my fellow mods might respond.  What I can tell you is that I don´t wish you harm.

 

I suppose we will have to take what we can get. Very well then. On to answering your questions.

 

Now, let's go by looking at libelous slander. No one has been named, and the description could be anyone. I am thinking of at least several individuals, but the point I make is the behavior. 

 

Ever have a boss walk in on one of your water cooler talks and ask, "Who is this person you're talking about?" and everyone quickly says, "Nobody in particular!" to the point the boss grumbles because she can't frisk anyone since no names were named? Same principle here. Might not be hard to identify, but it's a talking point worth going over.

 

Again, however, I bring up double standards here: if it is insulting that I call someone an idiot but don't name them, then why was there the old Spotless thread (that has since been hidden), where you, Steve, silent thunder, and others ganged up on me for being a "sheriff"? You weren't attacking me, but you were certainly downplaying both his original post and my rightful irritation at it. 

 

How about all the passive-aggressive sniping here then that goes unmoderated? I don't report it because I can't be bothered to deal with the shit that is said up to now by members here for my behavior from many months ago, and it makes me wonder if what I consider to be overdue parking tickets is more akin to being a registered sex offender--the stigma will never go away, even if those allegations are false.

 

So if my calling people without naming them idiots requires more effort for anyone to prove who it is, it's still the risk of a bad judgment for a bad assumption, or insincerity.

 

But I guarantee you this: insincerity is something I am fucking incapable of being. If my temper earlier this year wasn't an indication, it's that insincerity, especially from false friends, pisses me off more than someone being a genuine asshole. 

 

If by your criteria this is unacceptable, I again must resign myself to accepting that this is the current legal definition and use that instead of the more common approach I meant that was still enough room for plausible deniability and lack of evidence for slandering anyone specifically in that sweeping statement about an idiot.

 

That statement of course speaks more about the behavior that I outlined to serious cultivators as dangerous, which for those who don't know who that individual is or those individuals are (and most won't if they aren't familiar with nearly year-old discussions), what will stay is the idea of what's wrong, not an imaginary person. And in following your criteria moving forward, then I will have to use milk and honey instead or ask for the only item available, a Shirley Temple, while wondering why the hell I'm expecting to get Yamazaki 25 whiskey because the bartenders here don't want to serve alcohol even if the sign says it's a bar called "Cheers". 

 

Still, I already don't trust the existing definitions in the bylaws here since they are not only applied with a lot of overreach, but other friends I have don't see them being used so much as abused and more personal bias towards people like me. 

[steve]

8 hours ago, Yueya said:

 

Much appreciated,  but that doesn't mean I like your idea of this forum as a version of the bar in Cheers.  

 

As to this discussion, my bottomline is that the forum has a new moderation team and hence a new flavour. I’m interested to see how that plays out over time and want to give the moderators plenty of space to find their appropriate level of policing. I’ll continue to give any feedback I feel is appropriate, as I have done here in my OP.  I’m not a major poster but Dao Bums is important for me. I learn plenty from my largely silent, but deeply felt engagement here. It’s a vital part of my ongoing xing cultivation. Hence I try to be constructive in my involvement. 

 

While you may not be prolific, your contributions are major as far as I’m concerned. When you take the time to post, I generally take the time to read and think about what you’ve written.  I am glad to hear you intend to continue and that our little community here is valuable to you.

 

8 hours ago, Yueya said:

While I see the importance of conflict for the reasons Jung expresses it in my OP quotation, that can only work when combined with rigorous personal introspection. Conflict with the aim of knocking the other person out is a dead end for inner growth. And it’s toxic for this forum, as we’ve all seen. 

 

This point deserves emphasis. 

Unfortunately, much conflict here has that flavor to me. Hopefully we can support a shift in that. 

[ilumairen]

12 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

 

So where were you then, Steve, when all this began months ago when Spotless began his post attacking me and a few of my friends (as well as people who weren't my friends), where you, silent thunder, and to an extent, liminal luke, attacked me, which he made no attempt to hide when confronted about it in the moderation thread for a whole mess of bans? Let's not forget that he posted that thread three times here in two sections, and then reposted it as well on dwai's new forum, daosnet. 

 

This is actually something I was hoping to discus. IMO it has become this odd sticking point we seem to be swirling around. And it is (again imo) a cause of confusion - greatly muddying the waters.

 

In my personal (non-mod) opinion what spotless did was throw down a gauntlet, and you were punished (in part) for picking it up. As a mod, I am now in a position to say, “yeah, starting a thread about someone to tear them down, even if you don’t expressly name them, isn’t so cool, and perhaps we (as a community) would like to reign this in.”

 

But now we’re stuck here.. where you have experienced it being acceptable (when directed at you), and will feel doubly lambasted if having moved to the other side of the equation you were to (again) be the one to be punished.

 

So my question to the community (and you) at this point is, do we want such indirect (but perhaps reasonably assumed to be about oneself to the “receiving” party) assessments and criticisms to be allowed (potentially as a catalyst to growth), or do we want them “disallowed” under the heading of “personally insulting”?

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

I doubt that will have any effect given that the well has been poisoned. 

 

[liminal_luke]

@Earl Grey

 

Thanks for sharing more of your point of view.  I suspect my idea of the forum as the bar in Cheers does not enjoy anything like universal support.  Oh well.  Call me a Shirley Temple tippler if you must, but I prefer an environment where people don´t call each other idiots.  I do think you´re right to point out that you didn´t identify the idiot in question by name, clearly a mitigating factor.

 

On a personal note, I must admit that I´m a little put off by your PPJ with it´s rigid entry requirements and especially by your statement specifically prohibiting participation by moderators.  Needless to say, it´s not a policy that´s likely to endear you to the mod group. It feels as if you are thumbing your nose at us.  I suppose there´s nothing explicitly against the rules about nose thumbing.  We moderators ought to have thick skin and be able to roll with the punches.  Still, you might remember that the mod team is composed of human beings.  Policies that foment divisiveness and contention lead to (duh!) divisiveness and contention.     

Edited September 2, 2020 by liminal_luke

[Earl Grey]

4 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

This is actually something I was hoping to discus. IMO it has become this odd sticking point we seem to be swirling around. And it is (again imo) a cause of confusion - greatly muddying the waters.

 

In my personal (non-mod) opinion what spotless did was throw down a gauntlet, and you were punished (in part) for picking it up. As a mod, I am now in a position to say, “yeah, starting a thread about someone to tear them down, even if you don’t expressly name them, isn’t so cool, and perhaps we (as a community) would like to reign this in.”

 

But now we’re stuck here.. where you have experienced it being acceptable (when directed at you), and will feel doubly lambasted if having moved to the other side of the equation you were to (again) be the one to be punished.

 

So my question to the community (and you) at this point is, do we want such indirect (but perhaps reasonably assumed to be about oneself to the “receiving” party) assessments and criticisms to be allowed (potentially as a catalyst to growth), or do we want them “disallowed” under the heading of “personally insulting”?

 

 

 

 

 

Will respond later when I've rested tonight and finished training tomorrow.

 

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

@Earl Grey

 

Thanks for sharing more of your point of view.  I suspect my idea of the forum as the bar in Cheers does not enjoy anything like universal support.  Oh well.  Call me a Shirley Temple tippler if you must, but I prefer an environment where people don´t call each other idiots.  I do think you´re right to point out that you didn´t identify the idiot in question by name, clearly a mitigating factor.

 

On a personal note, I must admit that I´m a little put off by your PPJ with it´s rigid entry requirements and especially by your statement specifically prohibiting participation by moderators.  Needless to say, it´s not a policy that´s likely to endear you to the mod group. It feels as if you are thumbing your nose at us as a group.  I suppose there´s nothing explicitly against the rules against nose thumbing.  We moderators ought to have thick skin and be able to roll with the punches.  Still, you might remember that the mod team is composed of human beings.  Policies that foment divisiveness and contention lead to (duh!) divisiveness and contention.     

 

Will respond fully to this comment tomorrow night (my tomorrow) as well as mentioned above to ilumairen, but will say in short that it was predominantly reactionary because of the recent suspension that was unfair to me. I actually don't mind opening it up--I am just fed up with the muzzle placed on me and the newspaper being used to slap me and expecting me to still roll over and look cute after the abuse. 

[steve]

1 hour ago, Earl Grey said:

 

Yes, Steve, contempt--you may say it's not contempt (and you didn't actually say it wasn't either), just as your attitude towards me in the last moderation thread indicated through your actions and comments made it unambiguous. 

That was then, this is now. You have a clean slate with me. Ironically, I’ve been your biggest advocate in mod discussion about this current issue. At your request, however, I’ve now recused myself.

 

Quote

You don't want me in the main forum, and I don't have any inclination to step out of my PPJ except occasionally because my participation is already marked with a scarlet letter. 

I don’t feel that way at all. You are welcome in the main forum and I enjoyed seeing you participate recently.

 

Quote

So where were you then, Steve, when all this began months ago when Spotless began his post attacking me and a few of my friends (as well as people who weren't my friends),

I was not a mod at the time and generally stay out of the fracases. I have respect for several folks involved in that one and so I mostly kept my head down. I do recall defending you in one of those threads as someone I did not feel should be banned. I also supported (maybe even initiated, can’t recall for sure) lessening your suspension when it occurred.

 

Quote

where you, silent thunder, and to an extent, liminal luke, attacked me, which he made no attempt to hide when confronted about it in the moderation thread for a whole mess of bans? Let's not forget that he posted that thread three times here in two sections, and then reposted it as well on dwai's new forum, daosnet. 

I don’t recall attacking you but my memory isn’t what it used to be.

 

Quote

My PPJ is not meant to talk trash about people, it is to stay on topic and discuss cultivation without wasting time with scammers or self-initiates who think they can hack cultivation better than old traditions.

That’s good to know but the recent activity has included trash talking by you and others about members and mods in a restricted area where they are not welcome to defend themselves. For me, that is a problem. 

 

Quote

Now when you talk about karma, Steve, let's consider this: you seem to talk about cause and effect rather than any laws of karma or the fours kinds (because yes, there are several types of karma in the Vedic tradition). What you are doing here is you are furthering the karmic wheel of conflict in this crusade of yours against me by justifying my past behavior for your current vitriol against me.

I have no crusade and feel no vitriol.

The main reason I am here is because I really like some of the members and consider them friends.

 

Honestly, if any other member did precisely what you did I would respond in kind. You are exerting a huge amount of energy to making this about me, the forum, the mod team, anything but you. How easy would it be to simply look at the facts and say, ‘oops, sorry folks, maybe it wasn’t right to call other members stupid idiots in an area where I can prohibit them from defending themselves. I’ll try to rein it in a bit.’

 

Quote

 

And what selective memory you have: people I have had conflict with I have openly made amends with and openly apologized to both publicly and privately, whether Starjumper in my initial months as a new member in 2015 to gendao this year to even Josh when I found out he wasn't a troll account. Let's also recall my town hall meeting thread where I tried to find out ways for the community to get along and grow together. I suppose that all  this means nothing to you because you only see the crimes and refuse to see the growth trajectory from that. 

That’s all good stuff and does mean something to me. It doesn’t, however, give you immunity.

 

Quote

Too late, Steve. Your actions here and in the last moderation thread mocking me and the situation don't convey any remorse or willingness to go beyond your caricature-like portrait of me. But if you are willing to drop the crap and actually show it in your actions, then I can take your words seriously, because right now, your recent actions have been communicating something else entirely.

If it’s too late, so be it. That’s your choice.

Actions here in this thread? I simply shared the quote from your ppf to show you the insult we were reviewing when you denied insulting anyone. I felt I was doing you a favor by being transparent and giving you the opportunity to respond. As I said, you have a clean slate with me. I’ve already offered an apology and I’ve advocated for you in mod discussions. You seem to be demonizing me at this point, which is fine. I can handle it... tough hide and all.

 

Quote

 

I will give you the benefit of a doubt this once though. 

 

I've already resigned myself to my corner for the most part. I am not unwilling to work with the current zeitgeist and politics of the team, but immediate banishment and focus on select history that is much older than recent behavior is a serious problem. 

I’ve mentioned nothing of the past in this thread, that’s all you.

 

Quote

 

Acknowledging is one thing, addressing it is another. 

Done and done 

 

Quote

I doubt that will have any effect given that the well has been poisoned. 

 

If anyone has poisoned my fellow mods, it is not me. 

[senseless virtue]

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

So my question to the community (and you) at this point is, do we want such indirect (but perhaps reasonably assumed to be about oneself to the “receiving” party) assessments and criticisms to be allowed (potentially as a catalyst to growth), or do we want them “disallowed” under the heading of “personally insulting”?

 

What I am writing below is not meant personally to you, but I wanted to comment on your ideas.

 

I indirectly addressed this concern in my Vitriol topic that I recommend everyone to read.

 

In my opinion there exists no wise categorical solution to the problem of direct and indirect personal slights. Why? It's an issue of the relationship between people, not what is said or how it's delivered.

 

A friend can say to me rude things even in public because I know he or she has my back covered and absolutely means well. Even strangers and enemies can say uncomfortable things about me publicly because it's his opinion and right to explain his stance if I'm not somehow fitting his expectations, and the same goes for me against him. It's clear and defined.

 

Example: @steve once addressed me in a stern and confrontational manner when I neglected to properly address wisdom practices in internal arts, as if energy work was somehow enough to consider. I felt he was being a dick how he made his point, but it was a very instructive lesson that I have kept reaping rich rewards ever since. Thanks steve!

 

This issue only becomes confusing when there are really thin skinned people who haven't learned to set personal borders firmly and may feel everything overwhelmingly offensive or argumentative, which will lead to a pressure for stricter enforcement of no insults policy because it's a common decency to offer others respite. The irony is that the thin skinned in turn use their whining to cross personal borders when they unilaterally start demanding so and so compliant behavior from others in order to maneuver others around their own unstable and weak personal borders. Why the hell should this be a sign of civility if we completely catered to such demands? I can already think of one person who certainly used the tactic I just described in recent memory. As a somewhat related note, the severest forms of abuse are always when a manipulator keeps shifting the perception of personal borders and then the victimized person loses the clear track of who this other person is — A friend or foe? Why can't I understand how he really wishes to relate to me? — to which the manipulator always inserts the trope he didn't do anything wrong, but it was always the victim's fault for failing to take care of this or that.

 

Okay, so what's beyond friends and enemies? It's the lukewarm people who don't clearly define their relation to me that are a concern, even in forum environments. They don't actually talk to me, we haven't formally gotten introduced, and yet they seem to know me better than I myself when he needs to refer to me. That's what any bully essentially is: He may come over and trashes me directly or he may indirectly hurt me by spreading mean gossip behind my back, but most importantly, he never relates to me as a person but as an object and plaything devoid of human value that is put aside when the "need for fun" is over.

 

Do you now see why Earl Grey might have felt so bitterly abused? Otherwise, you wouldn't understand the pain because you haven't related to him despite his cries.  I've tried my best to help people reconcile, but I can only do so much. Either you understand this point and work to resolve it or this drama may keep cycling on and on.

 

PS. Writing about this topic now and recently on Vitriol has made me understand my own bad experiences related to abuse and bullying. It's starting to feel so clear now.

Edited September 2, 2020 by virtue

[steve]

47 minutes ago, virtue said:

 

What I am writing below is not meant personally to you, but I wanted to comment on your ideas.

 

I indirectly addressed this concern in my Vitriol topic that I recommend everyone to read.

Interesting that you make this suggestion in a post addressing direct and indirect personal slights...

Do you really expect me to want to read a topic in a forum where I am expressly unwelcome and not permitted to respond?

How do you think that makes me feel?

Do you think it makes me want to explore the deep insights of the elite group from the sidelines?

 

On a related note, I am giving some thought to whether we should permit such elitism here. 

It seems harmless enough but can be hurtful and offensive to the excluded crowd.

I personally find it to be in strong opposition to the spirit of the forum. 

Perhaps a topic for another thread, at very least a moderator discussion.

 

The problem of members offering unwanted input is easily remedied with the ignore function.

 

47 minutes ago, virtue said:

In my opinion there exists no wise categorical solution to the problem of direct and indirect personal slights. Why? It's an issue of the relationship between people, not what is said or how it's delivered.

 

A friend can say to me rude things even in public because I know he or she has my back covered and absolutely means well. Even strangers and enemies can say uncomfortable things about me publicly because it's his opinion and right to explain his stance if I'm not somehow fitting his expectations, and the same goes for me against him. It's clear and defined.

I think you're correct. And these issues are magnified by the digital and anonymous medium.

 

47 minutes ago, virtue said:

 

Example: @steve once addressed me in a stern and confrontational manner when I neglected to properly address wisdom practices in internal arts, as if energy work was somehow enough to consider. I felt he was being a dick how he made his point, but it was a very instructive lesson that I have kept reaping rich rewards ever since. Thanks steve!

You're quite welcome.

I'm very glad what I said was helpful and I'm sorry I came across as a dick.

I'd love to see what was said for my own education if you happen to remember the thread.

 

47 minutes ago, virtue said:

This issue only becomes confusing when there are really thin skinned people who haven't learned to set personal borders firmly and may feel everything overwhelmingly offensive or argumentative, which will lead to a pressure for stricter enforcement of no insults policy because it's a common decency to offer others respite. The irony is that the thin skinned in turn use their whining to cross personal borders when they unilaterally start demanding so and so compliant behavior from others in order to maneuver others around their own unstable and weak personal borders. Why the hell should this be a sign of civility if we completely catered to such demands? I can already think of one person who certainly used the tactic I just described in recent memory. As a somewhat related note, the severest forms of abuse are always when a manipulator keeps shifting the perception of personal borders and then the victimized person loses the clear track of who this other person is — A friend or foe? Why can't I understand how he really wishes to relate to me? — to which the manipulator always inserts the trope he didn't do anything wrong, but it was always the victim's fault for failing to take care of this or that.

 

Okay, so what's beyond friends and enemies? It's the lukewarm people who don't clearly define their relation to me that are a concern, even in forum environments. They don't actually talk to me, we haven't formally gotten introduced, and yet they seem to know me better than I myself when he needs to refer to me. That's what any bully essentially is: He may come over and trashes me directly or he may indirectly hurt me by spreading mean gossip behind my back, but most importantly, he never relates to me as a person but as an object and plaything devoid of human value that is put aside when the "need for fun" is over.

 

Do you now see why Earl Grey might have felt so bitterly abused? Otherwise, you wouldn't understand the pain because you haven't related to him despite his cries.  I've tried my best to help people reconcile, but I can only do so much. Either you understand this point and work to resolve it or this drama may keep cycling on and on.

 

PS. Writing about this topic now and recently on Vitriol has made me understand my own bad experiences related to abuse and bullying. It's starting to feel so clear now.

You make some valid points. 

Another valid point for me is that it is not up to you or I to determine how thin or thick-skinned a member should be.

They are who they are. Hopefully they are here because they are working on themselves.

Likely they are here because they are struggling with challenges in their lives and are looking for guidance, support, and community.

Another consideration is that defining who is thick and thin-skinned may not be as easy as you make it sound.

We may or may not agree on who qualifies for those labels here. 

 

I appreciate your attempts at supporting reconciliation.

I genuinely want the same thing. 

 

[senseless virtue]

26 minutes ago, steve said:

I'm very glad what I said was helpful and I'm sorry I came across as a dick.

 

You shouldn't apologize because sometimes it's necessary to be a bit blunt. You were entirely honest to yourself and to the point you made, and this precisely helped me to gain most of it. My assessment back then was colored by what seemed like a sudden change of tone in interacting with you, but it has changed for better because I recognize I had a noteworthy flaw and too thin skin to admit I was wrong. There was nothing wrong in what you did in my opinion.
 

There may be other points that I may address in your post later, but this is all for now.

Edited September 2, 2020 by virtue

[liminal_luke]

Seems to me there´s something of a cultural divide.  Some Bums, Virtue and perhaps Earl Grey, seem to value thick skin and consider thin skin a character defect.  They think that "sometimes it´s necessary to be a bit blunt."  That there´s nothing wrong with being a "dick" on occasion and it´s incumbent upon the those who interact with the dick in question to buck up and not take things personally. (Feel free to correct me if I´m mischaracterizing your position.) 

 

This is not my way.  I think the insult policy should be strictly enforced.  Any allusions to calling another Bum an idiot, no matter how oblique, ought to result in at least a warning. I think we should step lightly when critiqueing each other and calling each other out.  Actually, I´d prefer we can critiques and call outs altogether unless someone specifically asks for feedback. It´s possible that I´m at the far end of the curve in this regard.  As a moderator, I´m apt to seem heavy handed to those who prefer a more rough-and-tumble forum.  I make no apologies for this.  I´m simply doing what I believe is best for the forum, as most any of us would.  As a moderator, I´m firmly in the anti-dick camp.  (Now there´s a sentence I never thought I´d write.) For those who believe that dickishness is A-OK, well, I might not be your moderator of choice.

Edited September 2, 2020 by liminal_luke

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, zerostao said:

There are five active reports in today relating to those two threads.

We are looking it over. The locks may very well be temporary. That is one possiblity.  We will update you after we've reviewed it.

A reminder, that insulting members is against forum rules. As far as criticism for the moderation, that's not an issue for me. If it helps, fire away!  Being a humble flawed bum myself, before another 5 reports show up, perhaps, I locked the threads pending review. 

 

 

 

 

Really ?     

 

I would disagree with that, of course  ,   due to your previous reactions  ....  'ceptin the thread got removed .

 

.... that thread  where I was talking openly about some issues here and airing them  ..... the sort of thing  Yueya seems to be referring to  here ?  .... that one where I was reprimanded for being  'disruptive '  ....  when it actually  started  to cleared the air  ... but then it disappeared .

[Geof Nanto]

I have no answers to these heartfelt comments about our interactions here. I listen and I feel. The references to thick and thin skins are important,  reminds me of something speculative I wrote last year: 

 

A couple of weeks ago while I was sitting on the veranda of my studio a flametail finch flew inside through the open door and got itself trapped against a fixed window, flapping frantically against the glass. (I live on a forested acreage and have a studio located about 200 metres from my house.) I tried catching it by throwing a light cotton T-shirt over it but it kept evading my attempts to wrap it up. Easy enough to cover it with the T-shirt but difficult to find such a tiny bird underneath it. After a few attempts I was simply able to grab the bird and hold it in my hand. The whole time I was trying to project calmness and loving-kindness. 

 

Now the special thing, the magical thing that awoke a new realisation within me, came about from something I've felt many times before and I'm sure we've all felt without any special realisation. This time feeling the vital essence of that tiny bird, warm and full of wild life, terrified, heart beating frantically, but not struggling found a deep resonance within me. I only held it for a few seconds, just long enough to carry it out the door and across the veranda to release it. That magical thing, that vital essence is something all animals have, including we humans. It’s something hidden within our skin, within my skin. We all have it, yet it’s intensely individual. It’s my soft inner core that I must protect at all costs. It’s my animal nature that connects me with all my fellow animals and life in general. 

 

 For me, that ‘little bird’ inner essence is what I need to nurture and slowly expose so that it may grow ‘self-so’ into a diamond body, an indestructible core. It’s my Buddha nature in embryonic form. The normal process is to grow a thicker skin for protection by developing a strong ego and social persona; both necessary to function in society. My revelation here is to relate this external event with my growing awareness of my inner core as something other than my familiar conscious me. It has its own life-force, like that little bird. I have it within me, yet when I feel into it I can feel how it’s connected with the same essence in all other people, indeed all life. It's both strange and amazing to feel this mysterious 'something' within me. I want to allow it to grow so that it shows me the way, not vice versa. I know in its fragile state I can kill it with my own expectations. 

 

 

[zerostao]

12 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Really ?     

 

I would disagree with that, of course  ,   due to your previous reactions  ....  'ceptin the thread got removed .

 

.... that thread  where I was talking openly about some issues here and airing them  ..... the sort of thing  Yueya seems to be referring to  here ?  .... that one where I was reprimanded for being  'disruptive '  ....  when it actually  started  to cleared the air  ... but then it disappeared .

I didnt remove it. I was still discussing when it was removed. I didnt reprimand  you. Any other concerns you'd like to voice?

Edited September 2, 2020 by zerostao

[Nungali]

8 minutes ago, zerostao said:

I didnt remove it. I was still discussing when it was removed. I didnt reprimand  you. 

 

Really ?   Maybe 'reprimand' was the wrong word  . How about  ;    'expressing near outrage ' ?

 

hard to tell now though since its gone and I cant reference it . 

 

So really I suppose I should clam up  now .   I am one to ask , in such circumstances for a direct quote . Since now thats impossible for me  . . . . . . . .    .       .                       .                         .                                   .