Yueya

A message to the moderators

Recommended Posts

On 9/4/2020 at 11:24 PM, ilumairen said:

 

The tendrils have also, clearly imo, influenced your own actions and behaviors,  or this conversation would not be occurring.
 

 

Neither would be my dichotomy if not for the role of moderator, and my attempts to listen to the membership - yourself included. 
 

So to make this as simple as possible, either people here can voice concerns and criticisms directly related to others here without naming them, and this is ok, or it isn’t. It cannot be “not ok” when one individual is being referred to, and “perfectly fine” and “not against the rules” when another is.

 

 

 

 

First let me say, I did find pertinent discussion related to this, and shared a link to one of joeblast’s post in the moderation area so my fellow mods could get a better feel for what you are referring to.

 

Second, there have been individuals here who have viewed you in much the same manner you view joeblast. 

 

 

And as @Apech so eloquently put it we (as in the mod team) can end up hoisting ourselves by our own petard. 
 

Would the membership here actually want to place that much trust in my “wisdom”? Would you? 
 

Edit to add (and this is only written for personal consideration regarding the idea of wisdom and discernment): Do you believe it is possible this idea of wisdom and discernment played a role in what you referenced regarding doxing, and are you able to see how easily this as a model could fall into perceived favoritism?

 

 

Apologies for the late reply, my brief time here in the past week has really been diminished to passing comments that I have posted and responding to Steve in the private message he has sent, which I will send a follow-up to his response later.

 

On 9/4/2020 at 11:24 PM, ilumairen said:

The tendrils have also, clearly imo, influenced your own actions and behaviors,  or this conversation would not be occurring.

 

Yes, the issue here with Spotless is a lingering one because it was what I had mentioned to Steve (who is free to share my own PM to him just as he had said in our conversation that I can share it as well if need be) that I was made to be a caricature, and Spotless, who not only was extremely passive-aggressive with me, but he also never denied that he was talking about me when I called him out in the moderation thread, and worse, not once did anyone ever talk with me as a fellow person, instead making me to be caricature by associating me with a "frat club of the childish lower sewer mind". This stigma has remained persistent since then. 

 

This harkens me back to my high school freshman year when I was the new American kid in the international school. Everyone assumed I was all sorts of things from sounding like a cowboy (because they all assumed Americans were Texans) to being a serial killer because America has lots of serial killers like Charles Manson. These were stereotypes the international community's kids had of Americans, who were in the minority in our school. Yet for the first year, nobody actually approached me except for a few people who either didn't care about rumors or didn't believe them, and those who did believe the rumors were surprised when they actually were forced to work with me for class projects that I was nothing like these ideas of whom I should be. Likewise, people had parallel assumptions about me because I am of Asian heritage, and that I should know certain things and act in a certain manner, which I didn't because I was fresh off the plane from the states, so I was being held up to two contradicting stereotypes when convenient, saying more about the people observing than me as an individual, even if it is based off of shallow observations and personal histories. 

 

So really, the people who made me to be a frat boy of the childish lower sewer mind were also individuals who told me not to take it seriously, and then get surprised that I respond in a manner that displays my disdain for them? At the very least, I am Sir Kettle, and they are the Teapot family. 

 

 

On 9/4/2020 at 11:24 PM, ilumairen said:

Neither would be my dichotomy if not for the role of moderator, and my attempts to listen to the membership - yourself included. 
 

So to make this as simple as possible, either people here can voice concerns and criticisms directly related to others here without naming them, and this is ok, or it isn’t. It cannot be “not ok” when one individual is being referred to, and “perfectly fine” and “not against the rules” when another is.

 

This part here is where I have spent the bulk of my time drafting my response as best as I can to not sound like this is a defense statement or said with hostility, but now all I can do is hope that these points are considered. 

 

First off, let's be clear that there has been a lot of passive-aggression from silent thunder towards me (and others), and a lot of two-faced behavior, and in the moderation thread when it was announced that I was banned, he was the most vocal criticizing me, yet freeform had a comment that is suddenly no longer there about how friends don't speak in a manner of raising a glass and addressing everyone and nobody at the same time, they speak directly to them, or call them in, which silent thunder refused to do and justified his approach. It is a highly ineffective way of dealing with people and actually creates the caricature as opposed to dialogue and engagement that recognizes a fellow man. 

 

This passive-aggression from people like him is consistent and somehow it is just cunning enough to overlook and consider not passive-aggressive, but the behavior pattern is evident and aligned with his values. His behavior is somehow tolerated because it follows the egalitarian principle, but the odd thing is, the egalitarian principle here seems to enjoy the amateur over the craftsman when it comes to following a conversation. 

 

One way to address passive-aggression from a member's point of view is to directly call out the behavior and say, "Stop beating around the bush and speaking in riddles: what are you saying and who are you talking about?" and the dialogue can potentially continue, but if a moderator steps in, there should be a compelling encouragement to coax the answer out (coax, not force), but instead, we see dialogue completely shut down because of fear of hurt feelings or personal attacks, real or perceived. 

 

So in regards to my forum, let's observe how I've not mentioned or described silent thunder in either of the two threads in question. He may have the same opinion as one statement I made generally about idiots who think New Age is a valid framework, but the point I make is not to portray him or anyone in particular as something ad hominem, but the argument itself that is absurd and frankly common here, a view that I make no effort to hide all of my disdain for due to the problems of the average SNAGG (Sensitive New Age Guy/Gal) being someone who increasingly shares a lot in common with the alternative healing promoted by the Alt-Right now for coronavirus, and even before then, were saying things like "Reiki cures cancer" and "The Law of Attraction will give you what you want!" or "Be positive, because negative is terrible, no good, very bad stuff" (font and font color intentional) and putting themselves as a false equivalents to the Mohammeds (PBUH), Siddarthas, and Jesuses of history.  

 

While I can see how it can be perceived as an ad hominem, it is more a criticism of the view than the individual--hence me saying idiots. Now the next thing you'll say is that "Then how do we have dialogue when your forum is closed off?" and I say "How do we have dialogue if the people already showed they don't want to have dialogue because they're set in their views and see me as the same way, and then go on acting passive-aggressive to show they will never engage me?"

 

A pity that forum dialogue is voluntary and a moderator does not have the ability to encourage or order discussion in an online forum rather than an actual in-person forum. If people were ordered to talk and hash things out instead of being told to shut up or be shown the door, imagine how other potential for dialogue could turn out. 

 

On 9/4/2020 at 11:24 PM, ilumairen said:

First let me say, I did find pertinent discussion related to this, and shared a link to one of joeblast’s post in the moderation area so my fellow mods could get a better feel for what you are referring to.

 

Second, there have been individuals here who have viewed you in much the same manner you view joeblast. 

 

 

The comparison to joeblast is to me and others laughable because it posits that I am a bully who enjoys humiliating others for the sake of my own entertainment. Judging by the likes on the comment that Steve made in my moderation thread that I have a "history of abuse and bullying" (which I hope is now clear in our PM that it was a lot of mis-reading), I will address several of the individuals there and a couple more to show that it's a false comparison. 

 

Let's start with freeform, who, in response to waterdrop on the same thread, made a very pertinent observation:

 

Quote

Just to clarify - I don’t think waterdrop is a bad actor in this situation. Some personalities just don’t mix. And I think there’s some language barriers too.

 

I just wanted to interject because EG was painted as a troll, when in actual fact I think it was more a clash of personalities and/or communication styles. EG can be a bit abrupt and inpatient but from my experience his heart is in the right place.

 

Similarly I don’t think waterdrop needs to defend himself, he’s not done anything wrong. Hopefully, in time, a more productive dialogue and integration into the community will take place :)

 

Let us also look at flowing hands then, who I will not deny that I have had hostile interactions with, but in my own defense, I've simple defended myself against him and found him to be unable to have direct dialogue with or correct any wrong assumptions, which began on his part as we can see I said on this thread, which he summarily rejected:

 

 

Quote

I remind you, you began with the name-calling, and after I tried to explain that I wasn't even insulting you, you continued to call me names and belittle me. So after a while, I responded in kind. Right here, I merely said 

 

  Quote

While I respect your personal level of accomplishment, I can't agree with your assessment or simplification of Christian and Buddhist doctrines, which, even if I do not practice them, respect on some level, on top of the teachings of the Buddha and the Christ, or specifically, Siddartha and Jesus. 

 

I can't comment any further because unfortunately, I do not see analysis or depth of understanding in your arguments, but mostly judgments, and while your specific transmission of the Tao I respect, I do not see it as the authoritative view. 

 

which you took as an insult, as you said here:

 

  Quote

Well look at what you have written. You are insulting my Master Li Erh Xian Shi calling his words "not the authoritative view". You are then calling me crap and reinforcing this opinion by saying "so called Holy man". Are you challenging my status?  This is from someone who has made thousands of posts on all sorts of subjects on this site giving his opinion and judgements on many, many subjects. I have told you the truth, I cannot help how the world has turned out, how people have used religion for political manipulation and the manipulation of others. None of you know whether Jesus was alive or not, but like sheep you bleat the same stupid song that the establishment want you to know. The truth is very different and that's all I'm going to say about it.

 

You accused me of insulting your teacher for what? Not agreeing he has the authoritative view? Then you said I am "calling you crap", in your own words, because those are your words, not mine, as nothing in my message said it was crap--all I said was it was just a sect with its own view, not absolute. Then you assumed I was challenging your status, then you criticize me for my participation in the forum. 

 

Grow up.

 

I never was a hyena--I defended myself from your insecurities and what is now abundantly clear that it is also your need to engage in combat with people to reinforce your holy martyr status.

 

And since then, flowing hands has seen me as a joeblast, but his premise was on strawman arguments, especially alleging I said things I never said initially, and overreacting rather than taking me for what I meant and tried to explain, in addition to escalating it and then insulting me. He was defending himself when I never said anything.

 

The other two in more recent times don't need quotes--one was Mskied, whom both Ralis and Nungali can confirm that Mskied saw me as a troll, but the guy was already assuming a personal attack when what was initially given from Nungali was a fact check on Crowley and me later on saying Nungali was not trolling him. As the behavior and stubbornness increased, so did the fucks given about what he thought because everything challenging him was considered trolling, until he revealed himself to be dialoguing with himself and an alt-right troll who praised Hitler, which was why Sean banned him. 

 

The other was Heartbreak, and me being "mean" to him was because the guy was posting ridiculous things about Asian women and aliens, conspiracies, and how reddit and YouTube were his teachers. The misogyny and conspiracy theories go against what Sean himself said were not acceptable on the forum:

 

 

And in addition, in Sean's own words

 

Quote

In my leave, I've given Trunk the superpowers to help with any fires. Please be kind to him and to each other (but not to fascists, always be extremely mean to them whenever possible).

 

Would Sean be considered another joeblast? I ask considering how in the Marblehead remembrance party, he in his own words also said:

 

Quote

Just FWIW I say shit like "oh, will you go fuck yourself?" to close friends in a cheeky manner, as odd as that might sound. And even though I've been more severe here lately I never intend anyone real harm (except literal fascists I guess). I'm a weird human, but I think the loss of my tone of voice in text, combined with my "authority" here (still a strange role for me), can make me seem harsher than my actual personality which I believe is quite easygoing and loving. 🙏

 

I don't even know if Sean would be here long as a member if he were not the owner. 

 

Anyway, now that I mention Mskied and his disdain for Crowley above, I suppose the more appropriate comparison to me is not a troll, but an iconoclast. Aleister Crowley, Marilyn Manson, and many others used notoriety to play with the images the world projects onto them, which only a few can see is deliberate hyperbole (much like my wall) to act as gadflies, and yet that humor (also inspired by some bitterness with personal experiences to an extent) is lost and taken to make them literal demons to their critics, especially those who only go off of arguments based on hearsay. 

 

And while I have said this many times, it bears repeating from the work of Laozi (Lin translation):

 

Quote

81

True words are not beautiful
Beautiful words are not true
Those who are good do not debate
Those who debate are not good.
Those who know are not broad of knowledge
Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Sages do not accumulate
The more they assist others, the more they possess
The more they give to others, the more they gain
The Tao of heaven
Benefits and does not harm
The Tao of sages
Assists and does not contend

Sincere words, spoken honestly, may be blunt and direct. People who wish to avoid the truth will not find them pleasant.
Soothing, flowery words that appeal to vanity are not truthful. Such words distort reality in order to deceive or manipulate.
Those who are good in the art of living recognize the futility of arguments, and therefore wisely refrain from engaging in debates. Sages who possess Te let actions reveal their virtues; they have no need to explain themselves with words.
Conversely, someone who is overly argumentative - and thus constantly debates against others - is a person lacking the skill to live a life free of anger and stress. We should also beware of those who constantly explain themselves with glib words, for they do not possess real virtue.
Those who possess true mastery of knowledge have no wish to acquire shallow learning in a broad spectrum of subjects. Someone who really knows, understands that the great Tao lives in the heart. There is no need to search for the Tao all over the place.
Conversely, if someone claims to know something about everything, then chances are excellent that this person has little mastery of any one subject. Being obsessed with a wide variety of book knowledge is a sign of someone who has not yet found the Tao within.
Sages have no need to accumulate worldly knowledge or goods, because they find contentment and abundance in helping and giving. The more they render assistance, the more fulfillment they possess; the more they give to people, the more blessings and wisdom they acquire.
Sages recognize that the positive, uplifting Tao of heaven benefits all living things and does not harm them. In emulating this, sages also seek to benefit others by helping them, and refrain from harming them with contention.

 

On 9/4/2020 at 11:24 PM, ilumairen said:

And as @Apech so eloquently put it we (as in the mod team) can end up hoisting ourselves by our own petard. 
 

Would the membership here actually want to place that much trust in my “wisdom”? Would you? 
 

Edit to add (and this is only written for personal consideration regarding the idea of wisdom and discernment): Do you believe it is possible this idea of wisdom and discernment played a role in what you referenced regarding doxing, and are you able to see how easily this as a model could fall into perceived favoritism?

 

Sadly, the wisdom has already proven to be subject to personal bias, as evident in my recent suspension, which was based off of personal disdain rather than facts or existing rules, and worse, lack of clarity and direct dialogue. 

 

Wisdom is not a personal thing, by the way, it is a shared collective of knowledge and experiences. The need for fact checking is essential even if it gets in the way of discussion, but the killing of discussion via locking threads or suspensions is a quick way to create resentment. 

 

I hate to bring this up, but this is where facts and jumping to conclusions is really evident on the thread that we first interacted in. 

 

A thread started by Rene lamented about bullying of a member who got suspended, and when I jumped in and said that the facts were incomplete based on what she's saying, because she had no context of what went on or what posts and threads were hidden or deleted in the Flying Phoenix thread, or what was going on. She had lamented what she saw as bullying, but did not see the threats and trolling from the member DSCB57 in support of a known scammer, Ausar, and his many sock puppet accounts here. Instead, it led to her insulting me, and me getting into verbal jiujitsu with her, beginning with her getting mad that I said "Knock yourself out, lady". 

 

This is where you stepped in and asked about my misogynistic BS and Pilgrim explained that it encourages violence against women. For the record, the past couple years I have asked how "Knock yourself out, lady" is misogynistic or encourages violence against women to various ages and nationalities, and nobody can see either the misogyny or the call for violence in that sentence. Rene was acting based off of a perceived attack (the only one was the toenail comment because at that point she was being ridiculous to me and refusing any fact checking or context). 

 

And yet: I apologized for the sake of getting along, but in hindsight, I wish I stuck to my guns based on the pattern of everything going on here with the extreme aversion to not having a Cheers-like atmosphere where everyone gets along.

 

So our Flying Phoenix community, who had fended off a major scammer and then a troll who was defending the scammer, were never asked anything when the general forum who had no idea jumped to conclusions. This is worse because the posts supporting this were deleted or hidden.

 

I'm going to stop here and say that the PPJ was inevitably going to reopen once the message has been made, and it's been made. Now the dialogue needs to eventually find a new path forward and I need to decide what I'm doing.

 

The zeitgeist of this forum now is that you all want an egalitarian place that to me reads more like a SNAGG-friendly environment, which I see as dangerous for both physical and mental health and have direct experience with people doing that, such as poisoning themselves with alternative therapies and merely calling it healing crisis. 

 

Where does Earl Grey fit into all this?

 

For one option, I have less time to be here and contribute much to the general area due to this current paradigm, and can make sparse statements here and there while focusing on both my PPJ and managing the FP thread of Terry Dunn.

 

Another option, I can just pack up and delete my entire PPJ, disable my personal messenger, and say goodbye, but that is the nuclear option and it's not a very good one either. 

 

The next one posits that if I am banned at some point to request that the PPJ and all its contents be deleted from history.

 

What is likely going to happen as this dialogue continues if it hasn't ended yet is to figure out not what I do, but what the entirety of the forum does, not just Earl Grey, not just the moderators, but everyone

 

My suggestion: you know those comment boxes in some restaurants? Have a dialogue there and let people say things even if abrupt, allow people to vent and don't insta-ban or suspend unless someone is really being a jerk. So create a thread and let people speak, even those most critical of you and don't use suspensions and bans as the band-aid--be members first and look to other solutions.

 

I mentioned Judge Chick to Steve and to others before. If interested, we can discuss him as a potential inspiration for future moderation. 

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

 

Apologies for the late reply, my brief time here in the past week has really been diminished to passing comments that I have posted and responding to Steve in the private message he has sent, which I will send a follow-up to his response later.

 

 

Yes, the issue here with Spotless is a lingering one because it was what I had mentioned to Steve (who is free to share my own PM to him just as he had said in our conversation that I can share it as well if need be) that I was made to be a caricature, and Spotless, who not only was extremely passive-aggressive with me, but he also never denied that he was talking about me when I called him out in the moderation thread, and worse, not once did anyone ever talk with me as a fellow person, instead making me to be caricature by associating me with a "frat club of the childish lower sewer mind". This stigma has remained persistent since then. 

 

This harkens me back to my high school freshman year when I was the new American kid in the international school. Everyone assumed I was all sorts of things from sounding like a cowboy (because they all assumed Americans were Texans) to being a serial killer because America has lots of serial killers like Charles Manson. These were stereotypes the international community's kids had of Americans, who were in the minority in our school. Yet for the first year, nobody actually approached me except for a few people who either didn't care about rumors or didn't believe them, and those who did believe the rumors were surprised when they actually were forced to work with me for class projects that I was nothing like these ideas of whom I should be. Likewise, people had parallel assumptions about me because I am of Asian heritage, and that I should know certain things and act in a certain manner, which I didn't because I was fresh off the plane from the states, so I was being held up to two contradicting stereotypes when convenient, saying more about the people observing than me as an individual, even if it is based off of shallow observations and personal histories. 

 

So really, the people who made me to be a frat boy of the childish lower sewer mind were also individuals who told me not to take it seriously, and then get surprised that I respond in a manner that displays my disdain for them? At the very least, I am Sir Kettle, and they are the Teapot family. 

 

 

 

This part here is where I have spent the bulk of my time drafting my response as best as I can to not sound like this is a defense statement or said with hostility, but now all I can do is hope that these points are considered. 

 

First off, let's be clear that there has been a lot of passive-aggression from silent thunder towards me (and others), and a lot of two-faced behavior, and in the moderation thread when it was announced that I was banned, he was the most vocal criticizing me, yet freeform had a comment that is suddenly no longer there about how friends don't speak in a manner of raising a glass and addressing everyone and nobody at the same time, they speak directly to them, or call them in, which silent thunder refused to do and justified his approach. It is a highly ineffective way of dealing with people and actually creates the caricature as opposed to dialogue and engagement that recognizes a fellow man. 

 

This passive-aggression from people like him is consistent and somehow it is just cunning enough to overlook and consider not passive-aggressive, but the behavior pattern is evident and aligned with his values. His behavior is somehow tolerated because it follows the egalitarian principle, but the odd thing is, the egalitarian principle here seems to enjoy the amateur over the craftsman when it comes to following a conversation. 

 

One way to address passive-aggression from a member's point of view is to directly call out the behavior and say, "Stop beating around the bush and speaking in riddles: what are you saying and who are you talking about?" and the dialogue can potentially continue, but if a moderator steps in, there should be a compelling encouragement to coax the answer out (coax, not force), but instead, we see dialogue completely shut down because of fear of hurt feelings or personal attacks, real or perceived. 

 

So in regards to my forum, let's observe how I've not mentioned or described silent thunder in either of the two threads in question. He may have the same opinion as one statement I made generally about idiots who think New Age is a valid framework, but the point I make is not to portray him or anyone in particular as something ad hominem, but the argument itself that is absurd and frankly common here, a view that I make no effort to hide all of my disdain for due to the problems of the average SNAGG (Sensitive New Age Guy/Gal) being someone who increasingly shares a lot in common with the alternative healing promoted by the Alt-Right now for coronavirus, and even before then, were saying things like "Reiki cures cancer" and "The Law of Attraction will give you what you want!" or "Be positive, because negative is terrible, no good, very bad stuff" (font and font color intentional) and putting themselves as a false equivalents to the Mohammeds (PBUH), Siddarthas, and Jesuses of history.  

 

While I can see how it can be perceived as an ad hominem, it is more a criticism of the view than the individual--hence me saying idiots. Now the next thing you'll say is that "Then how do we have dialogue when your forum is closed off?" and I say "How do we have dialogue if the people already showed they don't want to have dialogue because they're set in their views and see me as the same way, and then go on acting passive-aggressive to show they will never engage me?"

 

A pity that forum dialogue is voluntary and a moderator does not have the ability to encourage or order discussion in an online forum rather than an actual in-person forum. If people were ordered to talk and hash things out instead of being told to shut up or be shown the door, imagine how other potential for dialogue could turn out. 

 

 

The comparison to joeblast is to me and others laughable because it posits that I am a bully who enjoys humiliating others for the sake of my own entertainment. Judging by the likes on the comment that Steve made in my moderation thread that I have a "history of abuse and bullying" (which I hope is now clear in our PM that it was a lot of mis-reading), I will address several of the individuals there and a couple more to show that it's a false comparison. 

 

Let's start with freeform, who, in response to waterdrop on the same thread, made a very pertinent observation:

 

 

Let us also look at flowing hands then, who I will not deny that I have had hostile interactions with, but in my own defense, I've simple defended myself against him and found him to be unable to have direct dialogue with or correct any wrong assumptions, which began on his part as we can see I said on this thread, which he summarily rejected:

 

 

 

And since then, flowing hands has seen me as a joeblast, but his premise was on strawman arguments, especially alleging I said things I never said initially, and overreacting rather than taking me for what I meant and tried to explain, in addition to escalating it and then insulting me. He was defending himself when I never said anything.

 

The other two in more recent times don't need quotes--one was Mskied, whom both Ralis and Nungali can confirm that Mskied saw me as a troll, but the guy was already assuming a personal attack when what was initially given from Nungali was a fact check on Crowley and me later on saying Nungali was not trolling him. As the behavior and stubbornness increased, so did the fucks given about what he thought because everything challenging him was considered trolling, until he revealed himself to be dialoguing with himself and an alt-right troll who praised Hitler, which was why Sean banned him. 

 

The other was Heartbreak, and me being "mean" to him was because the guy was posting ridiculous things about Asian women and aliens, conspiracies, and how reddit and YouTube were his teachers. The misogyny and conspiracy theories go against what Sean himself said were not acceptable on the forum:

 

 

And in addition, in Sean's own words

 

 

Would Sean be considered another joeblast? I ask considering how in the Marblehead remembrance party, he in his own words also said:

 

 

I don't even know if Sean would be here long as a member if he were not the owner. 

 

Anyway, now that I mention Mskied and his disdain for Crowley above, I suppose the more appropriate comparison to me is not a troll, but an iconoclast. Aleister Crowley, Marilyn Manson, and many others used notoriety to play with the images the world projects onto them, which only a few can see is deliberate hyperbole (much like my wall) to act as gadflies, and yet that humor (also inspired by some bitterness with personal experiences to an extent) is lost and taken to make them literal demons to their critics, especially those who only go off of arguments based on hearsay. 

 

 

Sadly, the wisdom has already proven to be subject to personal bias, as evident in my recent suspension, which was based off of personal disdain rather than facts or existing rules, and worse, lack of clarity and direct dialogue. 

 

Wisdom is not a personal thing, by the way, it is a shared collective of knowledge and experiences. The need for fact checking is essential even if it gets in the way of discussion, but the killing of discussion via locking threads or suspensions is a quick way to create resentment. 

 

I hate to bring this up, but this is where facts and jumping to conclusions is really evident on the thread that we first interacted in. 

 

A thread started by Rene lamented about bullying of a member who got suspended, and when I jumped in and said that the facts were incomplete based on what she's saying, because she had no context of what went on or what posts and threads were hidden or deleted in the Flying Phoenix thread, or what was going on. She had lamented what she saw as bullying, but did not see the threats and trolling from the member DSCB57 in support of a known scammer, Ausar, and his many sock puppet accounts here. Instead, it led to her insulting me, and me getting into verbal jiujitsu with her, beginning with her getting mad that I said "Knock yourself out, lady". 

 

This is where you stepped in and asked about my misogynistic BS and Pilgrim explained that it encourages violence against women. For the record, the past couple years I have asked how "Knock yourself out, lady" is misogynistic or encourages violence against women to various ages and nationalities, and nobody can see either the misogyny or the call for violence in that sentence. Rene was acting based off of a perceived attack (the only one was the toenail comment because at that point she was being ridiculous to me and refusing any fact checking or context). 

 

And yet: I apologized for the sake of getting along, but in hindsight, I wish I stuck to my guns based on the pattern of everything going on here with the extreme aversion to not having a Cheers-like atmosphere where everyone gets along.

 

So our Flying Phoenix community, who had fended off a major scammer and then a troll who was defending the scammer, were never asked anything when the general forum who had no idea jumped to conclusions. This is worse because the posts supporting this were deleted or hidden.

 

I'm going to stop here and say that the PPJ was inevitably going to reopen once the message has been made, and it's been made. Now the dialogue needs to eventually find a new path forward and I need to decide what I'm doing.

 

The zeitgeist of this forum now is that you all want an egalitarian place that to me reads more like a SNAGG-friendly environment, which I see as dangerous for both physical and mental health and have direct experience with people doing that, such as poisoning themselves with alternative therapies and merely calling it healing crisis. 

 

Where does Earl Grey fit into all this?

 

For one option, I have less time to be here and contribute much to the general area due to this current paradigm, and can make sparse statements here and there while focusing on both my PPJ and managing the FP thread of Terry Dunn.

 

Another option, I can just pack up and delete my entire PPJ, disable my personal messenger, and say goodbye, but that is the nuclear option and it's not a very good one either. 

 

The next one posits that if I am banned at some point to request that the PPJ and all its contents be deleted from history.

 

What is likely going to happen as this dialogue continues if it hasn't ended yet is to figure out not what I do, but what the entirety of the forum does, not just Earl Grey, not just the moderators, but everyone

 

My suggestion: you know those comment boxes in some restaurants? Have a dialogue there and let people say things even if abrupt, allow people to vent and don't insta-ban or suspend unless someone is really being a jerk. So create a thread and let people speak, even those most critical of you and don't use suspensions and bans as the band-aid--be members first and look to other solutions.

 

I mentioned Judge Chick to Steve and to others before. If interested, we can discuss him as a potential inspiration for future moderation. 

Your loss to this forum would be a grave mistake for all, including yourself! Few have have contributed as much to this forum as you have and possibly no one has in such a short period of time.  Yet, you would also lose much, not having contact here, with people like myself, who truly care for you.  Then there is the fresh blood coming in, that needs strong direction and you give that with the knowledge to back it up.

I am impressed with your growth lately, in that, you are moderating yourself, while growing stronger in your own defense.  That is one hell of a balancing act!  

The mods have a very tough job and they are trying hard to make connections (this continuing and improving dialogue shows that).

I think that in the future though, some types of PMs, (that MAY have led to unnecessary scrutiny and actions by mods) should be scrutinized more closely, as indirect attacks that have nothing to do with actual rule-breaking.

Edited by moment
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to Yueya's original post, conflict gives us all the opportunity to further our spiritual cultivation.

 

When our beliefs are challenged, we are challenged personally. Our sense of self, is no more than a giant swirling ball of beliefs. 

 

Ego work is very important and one can always check themselves and their progress with how they react when their own ego is challenged. 

 

Quote

You've been scared of love and what it did to you
You don't have to run, I know what you've been through
Just a simple touch and it can set you free
We don't have to rush when you're alone with me

 

Sometimes to win the battle one must surrender to succeed. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

 

My suggestion: you know those comment boxes in some restaurants? Have a dialogue there and let people say things even if abrupt, allow people to vent and don't insta-ban or suspend unless someone is really being a jerk. So create a thread and let people speak, even those most critical of you and don't use suspensions and bans as the band-aid--be members first and look to other solutions.

 

 

Does this thread qualify as a comment box?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Does this thread qualify as a comment box?  

 

Not yet. When an official one is opened dedicated to that and  the ground rules are set, then it counts. An anonymous one and a public one would both help--the anonymous one can be used so mods can choose a point and then bring it to the public thread to discuss. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I still feel that this can be a good solution if implemented properly. Albeit it might result in a more formal tone and tenor, but over time, more gentle and compassionate exchanges might become the norm... :)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Earl Grey Thank you for taking the time to compose such a meaty (and well thought out and presented) reply.

Here is the post you were looking for (it’s still available):

 

 

At the moment, I don’t have the time to address your concerns and points in a manner such sincerity deserves, but will return to them.

 

Again thank you for your willingness to engage in dialogue, and place your concerns on the table.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

 

Apologies for the late reply, my brief time here in the past week has really been diminished to passing comments that I have posted and responding to Steve in the private message he has sent, which I will send a follow-up to his response later.

 

 

Yes, the issue here with Spotless is a lingering one because it was what I had mentioned to Steve (who is free to share my own PM to him just as he had said in our conversation that I can share it as well if need be) that I was made to be a caricature, and Spotless, who not only was extremely passive-aggressive with me, but he also never denied that he was talking about me when I called him out in the moderation thread, and worse, not once did anyone ever talk with me as a fellow person, instead making me to be caricature by associating me with a "frat club of the childish lower sewer mind". This stigma has remained persistent since then. 

 

This harkens me back to my high school freshman year when I was the new American kid in the international school. Everyone assumed I was all sorts of things from sounding like a cowboy (because they all assumed Americans were Texans) to being a serial killer because America has lots of serial killers like Charles Manson. These were stereotypes the international community's kids had of Americans, who were in the minority in our school. Yet for the first year, nobody actually approached me except for a few people who either didn't care about rumors or didn't believe them, and those who did believe the rumors were surprised when they actually were forced to work with me for class projects that I was nothing like these ideas of whom I should be. Likewise, people had parallel assumptions about me because I am of Asian heritage, and that I should know certain things and act in a certain manner, which I didn't because I was fresh off the plane from the states, so I was being held up to two contradicting stereotypes when convenient, saying more about the people observing than me as an individual, even if it is based off of shallow observations and personal histories. 

 

So really, the people who made me to be a frat boy of the childish lower sewer mind were also individuals who told me not to take it seriously, and then get surprised that I respond in a manner that displays my disdain for them? At the very least, I am Sir Kettle, and they are the Teapot family. 

 

 

 

This part here is where I have spent the bulk of my time drafting my response as best as I can to not sound like this is a defense statement or said with hostility, but now all I can do is hope that these points are considered. 

 

First off, let's be clear that there has been a lot of passive-aggression from silent thunder towards me (and others), and a lot of two-faced behavior, and in the moderation thread when it was announced that I was banned, he was the most vocal criticizing me, yet freeform had a comment that is suddenly no longer there about how friends don't speak in a manner of raising a glass and addressing everyone and nobody at the same time, they speak directly to them, or call them in, which silent thunder refused to do and justified his approach. It is a highly ineffective way of dealing with people and actually creates the caricature as opposed to dialogue and engagement that recognizes a fellow man. 

 

This passive-aggression from people like him is consistent and somehow it is just cunning enough to overlook and consider not passive-aggressive, but the behavior pattern is evident and aligned with his values. His behavior is somehow tolerated because it follows the egalitarian principle, but the odd thing is, the egalitarian principle here seems to enjoy the amateur over the craftsman when it comes to following a conversation. 

 

One way to address passive-aggression from a member's point of view is to directly call out the behavior and say, "Stop beating around the bush and speaking in riddles: what are you saying and who are you talking about?" and the dialogue can potentially continue, but if a moderator steps in, there should be a compelling encouragement to coax the answer out (coax, not force), but instead, we see dialogue completely shut down because of fear of hurt feelings or personal attacks, real or perceived. 

 

So in regards to my forum, let's observe how I've not mentioned or described silent thunder in either of the two threads in question. He may have the same opinion as one statement I made generally about idiots who think New Age is a valid framework, but the point I make is not to portray him or anyone in particular as something ad hominem, but the argument itself that is absurd and frankly common here, a view that I make no effort to hide all of my disdain for due to the problems of the average SNAGG (Sensitive New Age Guy/Gal) being someone who increasingly shares a lot in common with the alternative healing promoted by the Alt-Right now for coronavirus, and even before then, were saying things like "Reiki cures cancer" and "The Law of Attraction will give you what you want!" or "Be positive, because negative is terrible, no good, very bad stuff" (font and font color intentional) and putting themselves as a false equivalents to the Mohammeds (PBUH), Siddarthas, and Jesuses of history.  

 

While I can see how it can be perceived as an ad hominem, it is more a criticism of the view than the individual--hence me saying idiots. Now the next thing you'll say is that "Then how do we have dialogue when your forum is closed off?" and I say "How do we have dialogue if the people already showed they don't want to have dialogue because they're set in their views and see me as the same way, and then go on acting passive-aggressive to show they will never engage me?"

 

A pity that forum dialogue is voluntary and a moderator does not have the ability to encourage or order discussion in an online forum rather than an actual in-person forum. If people were ordered to talk and hash things out instead of being told to shut up or be shown the door, imagine how other potential for dialogue could turn out. 

 

 

The comparison to joeblast is to me and others laughable because it posits that I am a bully who enjoys humiliating others for the sake of my own entertainment. Judging by the likes on the comment that Steve made in my moderation thread that I have a "history of abuse and bullying" (which I hope is now clear in our PM that it was a lot of mis-reading), I will address several of the individuals there and a couple more to show that it's a false comparison. 

 

Let's start with freeform, who, in response to waterdrop on the same thread, made a very pertinent observation:

 

 

Let us also look at flowing hands then, who I will not deny that I have had hostile interactions with, but in my own defense, I've simple defended myself against him and found him to be unable to have direct dialogue with or correct any wrong assumptions, which began on his part as we can see I said on this thread, which he summarily rejected:

 

 

 

And since then, flowing hands has seen me as a joeblast, but his premise was on strawman arguments, especially alleging I said things I never said initially, and overreacting rather than taking me for what I meant and tried to explain, in addition to escalating it and then insulting me. He was defending himself when I never said anything.

 

The other two in more recent times don't need quotes--one was Mskied, whom both Ralis and Nungali can confirm that Mskied saw me as a troll, but the guy was already assuming a personal attack when what was initially given from Nungali was a fact check on Crowley and me later on saying Nungali was not trolling him. As the behavior and stubbornness increased, so did the fucks given about what he thought because everything challenging him was considered trolling, until he revealed himself to be dialoguing with himself and an alt-right troll who praised Hitler, which was why Sean banned him. 

 

The other was Heartbreak, and me being "mean" to him was because the guy was posting ridiculous things about Asian women and aliens, conspiracies, and how reddit and YouTube were his teachers. The misogyny and conspiracy theories go against what Sean himself said were not acceptable on the forum:

 

 

And in addition, in Sean's own words

 

 

Would Sean be considered another joeblast? I ask considering how in the Marblehead remembrance party, he in his own words also said:

 

 

I don't even know if Sean would be here long as a member if he were not the owner. 

 

Anyway, now that I mention Mskied and his disdain for Crowley above, I suppose the more appropriate comparison to me is not a troll, but an iconoclast. Aleister Crowley, Marilyn Manson, and many others used notoriety to play with the images the world projects onto them, which only a few can see is deliberate hyperbole (much like my wall) to act as gadflies, and yet that humor (also inspired by some bitterness with personal experiences to an extent) is lost and taken to make them literal demons to their critics, especially those who only go off of arguments based on hearsay. 

 

And while I have said this many times, it bears repeating from the work of Laozi (Lin translation):

 

 

 

Sadly, the wisdom has already proven to be subject to personal bias, as evident in my recent suspension, which was based off of personal disdain rather than facts or existing rules, and worse, lack of clarity and direct dialogue. 

 

Wisdom is not a personal thing, by the way, it is a shared collective of knowledge and experiences. The need for fact checking is essential even if it gets in the way of discussion, but the killing of discussion via locking threads or suspensions is a quick way to create resentment. 

 

I hate to bring this up, but this is where facts and jumping to conclusions is really evident on the thread that we first interacted in. 

 

A thread started by Rene lamented about bullying of a member who got suspended, and when I jumped in and said that the facts were incomplete based on what she's saying, because she had no context of what went on or what posts and threads were hidden or deleted in the Flying Phoenix thread, or what was going on. She had lamented what she saw as bullying, but did not see the threats and trolling from the member DSCB57 in support of a known scammer, Ausar, and his many sock puppet accounts here. Instead, it led to her insulting me, and me getting into verbal jiujitsu with her, beginning with her getting mad that I said "Knock yourself out, lady". 

 

This is where you stepped in and asked about my misogynistic BS and Pilgrim explained that it encourages violence against women. For the record, the past couple years I have asked how "Knock yourself out, lady" is misogynistic or encourages violence against women to various ages and nationalities, and nobody can see either the misogyny or the call for violence in that sentence. Rene was acting based off of a perceived attack (the only one was the toenail comment because at that point she was being ridiculous to me and refusing any fact checking or context). 

 

And yet: I apologized for the sake of getting along, but in hindsight, I wish I stuck to my guns based on the pattern of everything going on here with the extreme aversion to not having a Cheers-like atmosphere where everyone gets along.

 

So our Flying Phoenix community, who had fended off a major scammer and then a troll who was defending the scammer, were never asked anything when the general forum who had no idea jumped to conclusions. This is worse because the posts supporting this were deleted or hidden.

 

I'm going to stop here and say that the PPJ was inevitably going to reopen once the message has been made, and it's been made. Now the dialogue needs to eventually find a new path forward and I need to decide what I'm doing.

 

The zeitgeist of this forum now is that you all want an egalitarian place that to me reads more like a SNAGG-friendly environment, which I see as dangerous for both physical and mental health and have direct experience with people doing that, such as poisoning themselves with alternative therapies and merely calling it healing crisis. 

 

Where does Earl Grey fit into all this?

 

For one option, I have less time to be here and contribute much to the general area due to this current paradigm, and can make sparse statements here and there while focusing on both my PPJ and managing the FP thread of Terry Dunn.

 

Another option, I can just pack up and delete my entire PPJ, disable my personal messenger, and say goodbye, but that is the nuclear option and it's not a very good one either. 

 

The next one posits that if I am banned at some point to request that the PPJ and all its contents be deleted from history.

 

What is likely going to happen as this dialogue continues if it hasn't ended yet is to figure out not what I do, but what the entirety of the forum does, not just Earl Grey, not just the moderators, but everyone

 

My suggestion: you know those comment boxes in some restaurants? Have a dialogue there and let people say things even if abrupt, allow people to vent and don't insta-ban or suspend unless someone is really being a jerk. So create a thread and let people speak, even those most critical of you and don't use suspensions and bans as the band-aid--be members first and look to other solutions.

 

I mentioned Judge Chick to Steve and to others before. If interested, we can discuss him as a potential inspiration for future moderation. 

 

The last part of this thread is to your point regarding passive aggressive behavior here. This particular member states "Clinton-Weinstein Tendency" which could mean any number of things, but when I asked for an explanation he posts another photo. I just wish that mind games would cease without playing guessing games.

 

Reference to the last page of this thread.

 

 

 

 

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum to my last post.

 

 

The Alt-right bashing of Hillary Clinton Pizzagate conspiracy theorists that flourished some time ago on this forum seemed to be in the past and yet a photo of Hillary Clinton with a convicted sex offender is posted this morning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course, the only reason anyone would post a photo of Clinton with her known associate and sometime surrogate Harvey Weinstein is because they're pizzagate conspiracy theorists. And not because, you know, he was her known associate.

 

I mean, if you like, I could instead talk about other creeps she pals around with:

 

Hillary and Henry: Clinton's Relationship With Kissinger - ABC News

Edited by SirPalomides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

....

The zeitgeist of this forum now is that you all want an egalitarian place that to me reads more like a SNAGG-friendly environment, which I see as dangerous for both physical and mental health and have direct experience with people doing that, such as poisoning themselves with alternative therapies and merely calling it healing crisis. 

....

 

It has stopped, it seems, being an open public forum for interested participants with a level playing field approach to ideas and opinions.   Apparently now it's more important how people feel about what you say than what you actually say, what knowledge you may be able to impart.  Have people been offended - is there passive/aggressive voice involved?  Do your ideas fit with my orthodoxy my dogma about what is right-think in a particular subject area?  Are you being nice about it?  Can you speak in the form of language that doesn't disturb me?  Can you leave my sacred cows to safely graze?

 

Well, my friends, sharpness and wit, satire and irony, humour, banter and sometimes even rudeness and anger.  The occasional put down - disgust with stupidity - a sharp analytic mental knife.  All these things are sacred to gods of all ages.  They purify and uphold truth which is greater than opinion, shine light into undiscovered landscapes and are kinder than seeming kindness itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

It has stopped, it seems, being an open public forum for interested participants with a level playing field approach to ideas and opinions.   Apparently now it's more important how people feel about what you say than what you actually say, what knowledge you may be able to impart.  Have people been offended - is there passive/aggressive voice involved?  Do your ideas fit with my orthodoxy my dogma about what is right-think in a particular subject area?  Are you being nice about it?  Can you speak in the form of language that doesn't disturb me?  Can you leave my sacred cows to safely graze?

 

Well, my friends, sharpness and wit, satire and irony, humour, banter and sometimes even rudeness and anger.  The occasional put down - disgust with stupidity - a sharp analytic mental knife.  All these things are sacred to gods of all ages.  They purify and uphold truth which is greater than opinion, shine light into undiscovered landscapes and are kinder than seeming kindness itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

195.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

I hate to bring this up, but this is where facts and jumping to conclusions is really evident on the thread that we first interacted in. 

 

A thread started by Rene lamented about bullying of a member who got suspended, and when I jumped in and said that the facts were incomplete based on what she's saying, because she had no context of what went on or what posts and threads were hidden or deleted in the Flying Phoenix thread, or what was going on. She had lamented what she saw as bullying, but did not see the threats and trolling from the member DSCB57 in support of a known scammer, Ausar, and his many sock puppet accounts here. Instead, it led to her insulting me, and me getting into verbal jiujitsu with her, beginning with her getting mad that I said "Knock yourself out, lady". 

 

This is where you stepped in and asked about my misogynistic BS and Pilgrim explained that it encourages violence against women. For the record, the past couple years I have asked how "Knock yourself out, lady" is misogynistic or encourages violence against women to various ages and nationalities, and nobody can see either the misogyny or the call for violence in that sentence. Rene was acting based off of a perceived attack (the only one was the toenail comment because at that point she was being ridiculous to me and refusing any fact checking or context). 


 


I am actually glad you brought this thread up. Although, I must say what you present above isn’t quite what I read there.


Here is a link to the short thread, if anyone is interested in reading it, and not just going by the presented highlights and play by play:

 

 

I believe the point rene was making was as valid then as it is now, and actually rather pertinent to this discussion:

 

Quote

 

Please take care in deciding who's opinions are welcome here and who's are not.

If there are clear violations of the TOS, do what you must, swiftly and without hesitation.

But when a call may be more subjective - to protect this or that (idea or member) - kindly pause to consider if what you feel needs protection in the first place - actually does.

 


Also of note, names once again were not used..


*****


My question towards you was indeed rather pointed, but still very much a question which left you an out with the phrase “comes across as.” An out you did not take, instead opting with, “Let it go, or don't. I did!” (Which clearly you did not.)

 

And I still have no idea why you typed lady in the manner you did, or mentioned toenails and pretty cuticles. And I honestly don’t really care at this point. To my mind, you were being defensive where there was little need.. and offended.

 

Which brings us to these lists of offenses. I am sorry, really I am, for all the suffering and offense you have endured here, but I can’t give you what you want because quite frankly I do not actually understand what it is you want. And every time I have tried, it gets all turned around, with these great narratives which may make perfect sense to you, but don’t always align with what I see.

 

What is it that you actually want here? Please take some time to consider this, and then speak plainly and directly - hopefully with a little less narrative about others and more heart from yourself.

 

Quote

And yet: I apologized for the sake of getting along, but in hindsight, I wish I stuck to my guns based on the pattern of everything going on here with the extreme aversion to not having a Cheers-like atmosphere where everyone gets along.

 

If this refers to your apology to me, I will consider your apology to have been issued under personally manifested duress, and therefore null and void. 


And while we are here, nobody else has the power to poison my perception of you, and in spite of a pm I suspect you should remember sending, I have advocated for you to the extent I am honestly able - without tripping some personal dissonance for myself.

 

Quote

 

Another option, I can just pack up and delete my entire PPJ, disable my personal messenger, and say goodbye, but that is the nuclear option and it's not a very good one either. 


Isn’t this similar to what you presented to the last mod team?

 

 

Edited by ilumairen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilumairen said:


I am actually glad you brought this thread up. Although, I must say what you present above isn’t quite what I read there.


Here is a link to the short thread, if anyone is interested in reading it, and not just going by the presented highlights and play by play:

 

 

I believe the point rene was making was as valid then as it is now, and actually rather pertinent to this discussion:

 


Also of note, names once again were not used..


*****


My question towards you was indeed rather pointed, but still very much a question which left you an out with the phrase “comes across as.” An out you did not take, instead opting with, “Let it go, or don't. I did!” (Which clearly you did not.)

 

And I still have no idea why you typed lady in the manner you did, or mentioned toenails and pretty cuticles. And I honestly don’t really care at this point. To my mind, you were being defensive where there was little need.. and offended.

 

Which brings us to these lists of offenses. I am sorry, really I am, for all the suffering and offense you have endured here, but I can’t give you what you want because quite frankly I do not actually understand what it is you want. And every time I have tried, it gets all turned around, with these great narratives which may make perfect sense to you, but don’t always align with what I see.

 

What is it that you actually want here? Please take some time to consider this, and then speak plainly and directly - hopefully with a little less narrative about others and more heart from yourself.

 

 

If this refers to your apology to me, I will consider your apology to have been issued under personally manifested duress, and therefore null and void. 


And while we are here, nobody else has the power to poison my perception of you, and in spite of a pm I suspect you should remember sending, I have advocated for you to the extent I am honestly able - without tripping some personal dissonance for myself.

 


Isn’t this similar to what you presented to the last mod team?

 

 


My short initial response before I get busy again so you know to prepare yourself for the more relevant points in your post in the longer post I’ll make later (not necessarily today):

 

 I see you’re focused on the Rene thread rather than the actual issue of moderation here, so I’ll respond to this first. You say Rene makes valid points but you do not see the history I refer to with Ausar, and @virtue can chime in and let you know exactly what happened with the turmoil in the Flying Phoenix thread—context once again, IGNORED.

 

And reading that thread, because you seem to think “knock yourself out, lady” is misogynistic still, nobody I know of all the women I continue to ask of all ages and nationalities to their befuddlement can see what’s misogynistic or asking for violence there. It is no different from me saying, “knock yourself out, man.” Furthermore, clipping toenails is not gendered either, even “pretty little cuticles” seeing most idiots who do that in public like in airports or bus stops I’ve seen doing it were some of Los Angeles’ most hipsterish guys.

 

This so far is reinforcing my idea that your discernment as a moderator ignores what I said about the Flying Phoenix context and presuming misogyny. How then, can what you read be something you’re certain of like reading an insult (from sarcasm of all things) towards thelerner in my last suspension?

 

Lastly, my apologies in my last post are NOT related to the PM you are referring to at all.

 

My longer response to more relevant points will follow when able.

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Earl Grey, why would you present things, if you did not want me to consider and discus them?


*****

 

Nobody said anything about violence; you are presenting an inaccurate narrative. Here is the post:

 


Rene’s general point was something I felt could be used as a touchstone here, and I do see validity in it.

 

BTW Of course the mentioned apology is not related to the mentioned PM; they were two separate things - presented as two separate paragraphs.

 

Edited by ilumairen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

This so far is reinforcing my idea that your discernment as a moderator ignores what I said about the Flying Phoenix context and presuming misogyny. How then, can what you read be something you’re certain of like reading an insult (from sarcasm of all things) towards thelerner in my last suspension?

 

Would you prefer I also recuse myself regarding moderation which concerns you?

 

25 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

My longer response to more relevant points will follow when able.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ilumairen It seems you are completely ignoring the actual and very serious issue about the Ausar debacle in favor of grasping straw man arguments in that thread which Rene started and which had an entirely flawed and biased premise. Now it's time to take three steps backwards and start seeing the entire big picture.

 

I will try to be clear, but acknowledging the Ausar's scam and associated malice has been a consistent issue with this mod squad.

 

Before Sean took over there were or had been three big issues that were rocking the board, from more global problems to more localized:

 

  1. toxic alt-right friendly atmosphere
  2. a freaky astral sex cult
  3. Ausar's scam and attempted character assassination of Terry Dunn

 

Listing the same items in terms of acute seriousness and predatory behavior:

 

  1. Ausar's scam and attempted character assassination of Terry Dunn
  2. a freaky astral sex cult
  3. toxic alt-right friendly atmosphere

 

The problem then is that there was a reverse relation between the danger and its visibility on the board like in real life true criminal activity thrives under neglect and the lack of watchfulness. It's furthermore explained explained by the fact that Sifu Terry, Earl Grey, and even myself, we all spent a lot of hours in countering both the orchestrated and spontaneous disinformation and malice initiated by Ausar. There were many people who were unwittingly playing to Ausar's fiddle and for a while it seemed like every bitter voice suddenly came out of the woods to have unfair jabs at Sifu Terry, Grandmaster Doo Wai, the Bak Fu Pai family arts, or the Flying Phoenix system. You have to realize that Ausar was asking a lot of money ($10,000) from TDB members and had actually been successful in duping some gullible people by selling fabricated and dangerous meditations. It was reported that the duped individuals would "see entities" after those meditations, which suggests that the inauthentic meditations caused some degree of neurological damage.

 

In this context Rene's initial post was seriously mistaken and misleading:

 

Quote

Please take care in deciding who's opinions are welcome here and who's are not.

If there are clear violations of the TOS, do what you must, swiftly and without hesitation.

But when a call may be more subjective - to protect this or that (idea or member) - kindly pause to consider if what you feel needs protection in the first place - actually does.

 

She simply didn't have much clue what was going on.

 

Amusingly, it wasn't too long ago that I again had to write a rebuke against Ausar when his "meditations" were offered around here without any precautions, but thelerner, in his moderator capability, was really lenient and clearly not understanding the issue in its heart. It took a lot bitching from me before he and Trunk reacted at all. Do the mods exist to enforce polite rules and social etiquette, or are the policies and mods here to keep this place actually safe from all types of predators and disinformation that could lead to people getting hurt? I have seen few of the mods and some other people opine that even this type of mistakes can be good for wisdom, but I find such sentiments disheartening and alarming in the context of overall wisdom and ethical integrity.

 

tl;dr: Some people did a huge work for busting the nuts of a crazy scammer and his ignorant puppets, but in the end they get no recognition but misunderstanding and disdain.

Edited by virtue
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, virtue said:

 

@ilumairen It seems you are completely ignoring the actual and very serious issue about the Ausar debacle in favor of grasping straw man arguments in that thread which Rene started and which had an entirely flawed and biased premise. Now it's time to take three steps backwards and start seeing the entire big picture.

 

I will try to be clear, but acknowledging the Ausar's scam and associated malice has been a consistent issue with this mod squad.

 

Before Sean took over there were or had been three big issues that were rocking the board, from more global problems to more localized:

 

  1. toxic alt-right friendly atmosphere
  2. a freaky astral sex cult
  3. Ausar's scam and attempted character assassination of Terry Dunn

 

Listing the same items in terms of acute seriousness and predatory behavior:

 

  1. Ausar's scam and attempted character assassination of Terry Dunn
  2. a freaky astral sex cult
  3. toxic alt-right friendly atmosphere

 

The problem then is that there was a reverse relation between the danger and its visibility on the board like in real life true criminal activity thrives under neglect and the lack of watchfulness. It's furthermore explained explained by the fact that Sifu Terry, Earl Grey, and even myself, we all spent a lot of hours in countering both the orchestrated and spontaneous disinformation and malice initiated by Ausar. There were many people who were unwittingly playing to Ausar's fiddle and for a while it seemed like every bitter voice suddenly came out of the woods to have unfair jabs at Sifu Terry, Grandmaster Doo Wai, the Bak Fu Pai family arts, or the Flying Phoenix system. You have to realize that Ausar was asking a lot of money ($10,000) from TDB members and had actually been successful in duping some gullible people by selling fabricated and dangerous meditations. It was reported that the duped individuals would "see entities" after those meditations, which suggests that the inauthentic meditations caused some degree of neurological damage.

 

In this context Rene's initial post was seriously mistaken and misleading:

 

 

She simply didn't have much clue what was going on.

 

Amusingly, it wasn't too long ago that I again had to write a rebuke against Ausar when his "meditations" were offered around here without any precautions, but thelerner, in his moderator capability, was really lenient and clearly not understanding the issue in its heart. It took a lot bitching from me before he and Trunk reacted at all. Do the mods exist to enforce polite rules and social etiquette, or are the policies and mods here to keep this place actually safe from all types of predators and disinformation that could lead to people getting hurt? I have seen few of the mods and some other people opine that even this type of mistakes can be good for wisdom, but I find such sentiments disheartening and alarming in the context of overall wisdom and ethical integrity.

 

tl;dr: Some people did a huge work for busting the nuts of a crazy scammer and his ignorant puppets, but in the end they get no recognition but misunderstanding and disdain.

 

For clarity's sake of what Rene was referring to in her "Not my place." thread, it is this thread with the last comment from dawei as a mod at the time:

 

 

EDIT: I would like to also add Rene's "obvious" post does not have any actual references, but only vague accusations, and is another instance of the board's dysfunctional communication culture and indirect referencing. Memory can fail and then it opens for witch hunts, and in this case, because there was no context, the offense here is now taken out of context and Ilumairen is using the cliche of "narrative" to shit on the explanations. 

 

Everyone uses the term "narrative" but it seems like they don't know what it actually means or how to use it anymore from overusing it. 

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for sharing pertinent information @virtue.

 

Thank you for sharing the pertinent thread @Earl Grey.

 

I saw the following in the thread:

 

Quote

Unfortunately, this is not a democracy or a public place with the respective rights and privileges, this is a privately-owned and managed forum. You do not get the same rights and privileges in a public park as you would a guest of a private individual in their home. Those who would call someone's rules tyrannical and totalitarian are often like this lovely young American gentleman here:

 


And now, after being characterized as grasping at straws (not sure how much time you guys believe I have free in a day, or how much of that time you believe I should spend tracking down the lengthy complaints EG has about things which occurred before I was a mod, but it certainly isn’t as much as presumed), I am done.

 

If present concerns arise, please bring them to my attention. Otherwise, I am sorry for all the myriad ways individuals felt wronged before I became a mod, but I cannot do a damn thing about any of it.

 

Be good to each other; don’t be good to each other - whatever. Just follow the rules.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

Thank you for sharing pertinent information @virtue.

 

Thank you for sharing the pertinent thread @Earl Grey.

 

I saw the following in the thread:

 

 


And now, after being characterized as grasping at straws (not sure how much time you guys believe I have free in a day, or how much of that time you believe I should spend tracking down the lengthy complaints EG has about things which occurred before I was a mod, but it certainly isn’t as much as presumed), I am done.

 

If present concerns arise, please bring them to my attention. Otherwise, I am sorry for all the myriad ways individuals felt wronged before I became a mod, but I cannot do a damn thing about any of it.

 

Be good to each other; don’t be good to each other - whatever. Just follow the rules.

 

"Be good to each other; don’t be good to each other - whatever. Just follow the rules."--Exactly!  No enforcement beyond the rules.  No complete thread shutdowns, no stretching of the rules, to loosely cover tenuous perceptions of PC violations. That is what is needed to keep this a vibrant open forum.

Edited by moment
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, virtue said:

 

@ilumairen It seems you are completely ignoring the actual and very serious issue about the Ausar debacle in favor of grasping straw man arguments in that thread which Rene started and which had an entirely flawed and biased premise. Now it's time to take three steps backwards and start seeing the entire big picture.

 

I will try to be clear, but acknowledging the Ausar's scam and associated malice has been a consistent issue with this mod squad.

 

Before Sean took over there were or had been three big issues that were rocking the board, from more global problems to more localized:

 

  1. toxic alt-right friendly atmosphere
  2. a freaky astral sex cult
  3. Ausar's scam and attempted character assassination of Terry Dunn

 

Listing the same items in terms of acute seriousness and predatory behavior:

 

  1. Ausar's scam and attempted character assassination of Terry Dunn
  2. a freaky astral sex cult
  3. toxic alt-right friendly atmosphere

 

The problem then is that there was a reverse relation between the danger and its visibility on the board like in real life true criminal activity thrives under neglect and the lack of watchfulness. It's furthermore explained explained by the fact that Sifu Terry, Earl Grey, and even myself, we all spent a lot of hours in countering both the orchestrated and spontaneous disinformation and malice initiated by Ausar. There were many people who were unwittingly playing to Ausar's fiddle and for a while it seemed like every bitter voice suddenly came out of the woods to have unfair jabs at Sifu Terry, Grandmaster Doo Wai, the Bak Fu Pai family arts, or the Flying Phoenix system. You have to realize that Ausar was asking a lot of money ($10,000) from TDB members and had actually been successful in duping some gullible people by selling fabricated and dangerous meditations. It was reported that the duped individuals would "see entities" after those meditations, which suggests that the inauthentic meditations caused some degree of neurological damage.

 

In this context Rene's initial post was seriously mistaken and misleading:

 

 

She simply didn't have much clue what was going on.

 

Amusingly, it wasn't too long ago that I again had to write a rebuke against Ausar when his "meditations" were offered around here without any precautions, but thelerner, in his moderator capability, was really lenient and clearly not understanding the issue in its heart. It took a lot bitching from me before he and Trunk reacted at all. Do the mods exist to enforce polite rules and social etiquette, or are the policies and mods here to keep this place actually safe from all types of predators and disinformation that could lead to people getting hurt? I have seen few of the mods and some other people opine that even this type of mistakes can be good for wisdom, but I find such sentiments disheartening and alarming in the context of overall wisdom and ethical integrity.

 

tl;dr: Some people did a huge work for busting the nuts of a crazy scammer and his ignorant puppets, but in the end they get no recognition but misunderstanding and disdain.

 

" Do the mods exist to enforce polite rules and social etiquette, or are the policies and mods here to keep this place actually safe from all types of predators and disinformation that could lead to people getting hurt?"

 

Edited by moment
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Thank you for sharing pertinent information @virtue.

 

Thank you for sharing the pertinent thread @Earl Grey.

 

I saw the following in the thread:

 

 


And now, after being characterized as grasping at straws (not sure how much time you guys believe I have free in a day, or how much of that time you believe I should spend tracking down the lengthy complaints EG has about things which occurred before I was a mod, but it certainly isn’t as much as presumed), I am done.

 

If present concerns arise, please bring them to my attention. Otherwise, I am sorry for all the myriad ways individuals felt wronged before I became a mod, but I cannot do a damn thing about any of it.

 

Be good to each other; don’t be good to each other - whatever. Just follow the rules.

 

I haven't even given my long, adequate response yet. 

 

This response of yours sounds like frustration, and let's be clear that my concern isn't an issue with previous mods--it was how you read the situation presented and didn't look at context clearly until virtue helped out here, as well as pushing it as though the problem is merely my personal narrative rather than something worth considering--which is the issue of nobody is looking at context. And you were dismissing my explanation it appears in favor of Rene's, but the point from earlier was that I am only asking you hear us out rather than writing it off as me being a lunatic obsessed with his own victim narrative (hyperbole used here to illustrate the point, not quoting you). 

 

So how you're reading things and how I'm trying to communicate my issues somehow isn't running congruent. 

 

This sigh of frustration you appear to be giving doesn't show interest in dialogue evolving as this gets hammered out and aired out simultaneously. 

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

 

I haven't even given my long, adequate response yet. 

 

This response of yours sounds like frustration, and let's be clear that my concern isn't an issue with previous mods--it was how you read the situation presented and didn't look at context clearly until virtue helped out here, as well as pushing it as though the problem is merely my personal narrative rather than something worth considering--which is the issue of nobody is looking at context. And you were dismissing my explanation it appears in favor of Rene's, but the point from earlier was that I am only asking you hear us out rather than writing it off as me being a lunatic obsessed with his own victim narrative (hyperbole used here to illustrate the point, not quoting you). 

 

So how you're reading things and how I'm trying to communicate my issues somehow isn't running congruent. 

 

This sigh of frustration you appear to be giving doesn't show interest in dialogue evolving as this gets hammered out and aired out simultaneously. 

omg, I didn't even read the last one, too long.  If you have a point, try to keep to short.  (I didn't think you were using hyperbole at all)

 

It also occurs to me.  For all your bitching about New Age, - if you tried to join a serious, no New Age site, you'd be thrown off or laughed off because you're involved in Akashic Readings.  I have no problem with it, but it is considered New Age to many.  Tolerance isn't so bad.  It's what keeps you here, tenuously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thelerner said:

omg, I didn't even read the last one, too long.  If you have a point, try to keep to short.  (I didn't think you were using hyperbole at all)

 

It also occurs to me.  For all your bitching about New Age, - if you tried to join a serious, no New Age site, you'd be thrown off or laughed off because you're involved in Akashic Readings.  I have no problem with it, but it is considered New Age to many.  Tolerance isn't so bad.  It's what keeps you here, tenuously. 


“If”, you predict with certainty.

 

But so far, the opposite happens on those other sites I am on, actually! 🤣

 

...probably because it has roots in Indian Vedantic teachings and is something found in the works of Rudolf Steiner and Madame Blavatsky, who came LONG before New Age even if they have influenced a lot of New Age ideas...not to mention that I make no false equivalence with New Age and traditional wisdom...

Edited by Earl Grey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites