Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Time for Some Basic House Rules?
In an ideal World a 'Buddhist' Sangha should be able to 'Self Moderate'.
In theory - should everyone adhere to the basic principles and beliefs of 'Buddhism - everything should run smoothly. I have noticed particularly over the last few weeks that this theory when put to the test comes up short.
I personally believe that it is time to introduce some basic 'House Rules' which explain in simple terms, what is and is not appropriate or acceptable content on a 'Buddhist Forum'. However, instead of a set of 'Rules' arrived at and enforced by the Admin, I would put forward the suggestion that it is the members themselves that recommend what rules should be adopted. This would ensure that the 'Spirit' of Self Moderation was upheld, at the same time providing a Reference point from which decisions could be based.
Ultimately it is up to Brian as the Founder to decide if the time has arrived to warrant such intervention. I would ask for you guys to post your thoughts following my suggestion and what (if any) Rules or guidelines you would like to see in place. I am interested to know what views exist on this subject....feel free to shoot me down in Flames (Parachute Packed)!!
In theory - should everyone adhere to the basic principles and beliefs of 'Buddhism - everything should run smoothly. I have noticed particularly over the last few weeks that this theory when put to the test comes up short.
I personally believe that it is time to introduce some basic 'House Rules' which explain in simple terms, what is and is not appropriate or acceptable content on a 'Buddhist Forum'. However, instead of a set of 'Rules' arrived at and enforced by the Admin, I would put forward the suggestion that it is the members themselves that recommend what rules should be adopted. This would ensure that the 'Spirit' of Self Moderation was upheld, at the same time providing a Reference point from which decisions could be based.
Ultimately it is up to Brian as the Founder to decide if the time has arrived to warrant such intervention. I would ask for you guys to post your thoughts following my suggestion and what (if any) Rules or guidelines you would like to see in place. I am interested to know what views exist on this subject....feel free to shoot me down in Flames (Parachute Packed)!!
0
Comments
When having a discussion please refrain from personal attacks and give references to any quotes you use to back-up your point of view.
I agree!
Since I am a member of a Buddhist group (SGI) that is considered "unacceptable," and "invalid," or "just is not Buddhist" according to some people here at this site, I have decided that it would be in my best interests to leave. I regret leaving because of the fact that there are people here who have genuinely been nice to me and accept me and my beliefs; I will miss them. I hope that everyone here has a great year and I wish all the best for everyone at this site. Federica and Brian, as well as anyone else who moderates or otherwise works at or with this site, I want to say thank you for all your hard work that keeps this site available for those who wish to learn about Buddhism. Take care.
Adiana:usflag: :type: :wavey:
((((Big Hug))))
Adrian
No, Adiana, DO NOT LEAVE!!
:::
::
:
Post your own warnings to others if you feel strongly, you are always free to do that. But don't start banning matters of dharma.
Keep our voluntary member rules simple, but fair.
...but that's just my opinion.
::::
:::
::
:
Anyway, I agree with Wickwoman. People who are new to Buddhism have no way to know what is Buddhism and what is not. I know that I think about everything people post here and I'd rather not lose precious time thinking and researching things that are not Buddhist related. I'd also prefer not to be confused and thrown into a whirlwind of distraction by posts that have nothing to do with Buddhist practice.
I've learned more here than I could ever have done on my own. I've been wisely guided in the right directions and to things that I could verify on my own. I've been able to share my thoughts, I've come to understand finer points of The Path and I've been able to do so based on my growing trust in this community.
But when a new member arrives and starts posting things that are confusing and usually downright intelligible to me it slows my practice and learning. It really does. Luckily the tone of these posts have been arrogant, imperious, sarcastic, insulting and generally highly unskilled so it wasn't difficult to know that they weren't worthy of my time. Luckily as well there were those in this community who have earned my trust a thousand times over who were familiar with this sort of thing and pointed it out immediately which verified my initial reaction.
I don't have any suggestions on how to deal with this subject because I don't have enough experience with internet bulletin boards. And I don't know if what I've written here is of any help. But I do know that I will be using the "ignore" option for the very first time. LOL!
Much love and gratitude,
Brigid
I know what it feels like to want to go. Take some time to mull it over and know that you will always be welcomed back here with open arms.
Love,
Brigid
Reading this thread, I am struck by the fact that the very mention of "rules" has aroused such heat and such personal comments.
Abe, you make a good point about societies and rules but I think you miss an important point: the rules have to be applied. It is in the application of them that their skill or lack of it appears. In our societies, in the 'real' world, this application is in the hands of particular institutions such as police and judiciary, with appeal procedures, etc. This is a completely unworkable structure on a BB. Here, by definition, both the rules and the sanctions are established and carried through by a single person or a very small group. Out of this situation, we have all seen extremism and exclusivity arise.
I have only been a member of this group since September but have been struck by the light-handed (not light-fingered) way in which the board is managed.
It is my experience that storms occur. People will come and go. Some will stir up controversy and discomfort. Action such as banning them is likely to increase the discomfort rather than the opposite. It also leaves an aftertaste of "winners" and "losers" which is completely at odds with what Brian has achieved here.
Perhaps a real problem is in the concept of New Buddhist. We are a very mixed group. Some have a long practice, some are just starting. Some are ordained, some are householders. It is exactly this mix that has made this the 5-star oasis it has become.
On another board, the following is the 'strapline':
We want good intellectual discussions in good will. No poster has to prove his/her intellectual worth. Let's start from the assumption that we all belong in the discussion.
The exact wording may not be entirely appropriate but the sentiment seems more in tune with how I understand Brian's vision. Perhaps a "Mission Statement" would be more empowering than rules.
Places of Worship have certain rules and conventions that visitors are required to adhere to; failure to do so can result in at best, offence being given, and at worst, the offender being asked to leave.
I smoke. However in any house that I have ever lived in smoking indoors is not permitted. This my choice and is made clear in a pleasant way to any potential visitors. (There are no exceptions!)
I would have agreed totally with your suggestion as recently as only a month ago. I share and appreciate your idealistic stance; however, recent events have caused me to have a re-think......
I have a favourite saying which I have found has always stood me in good stead:
"In matters of Taste, swim with the current. In matters of Principle, stand like a rock".
Rules are part of what Kohlberg terms "preconventional morality". This is the morality which suits children and I suppose half-wits. Children, of course, need rules which act more like guidelines. Children are expected, by their parents, to obey the rules without question. But this is not morality in any sense of the word or idea.
That this site is discussing "rules" only means that some of you wish to be the big-daddy and the rest have to be the children. This is also what is termed as a parent/child transaction. Are you aware of what is entailed in such a speech transaction? OMG!
I don't think adults need such rules—and we certainly don't require moderators who are, for the most par, petty tyrants (e.g., Namdrol of E-Sanga). Those who feel the need for rules and moderators, should seek out a good psychologist—get a life!
These comments are from a person who is not in favour of having any "Rules".
I hope however that this post is left intact in order to illustrate and add weight to my and the other members' growing concerns for the well being of this forum.
No Harlan. The Triple Gem Sangha consisted only of NOBLE PERSONs (Pali, Ariya Savaka). They were big people; they didn't require petty rules. Remember too, as a matter of fact, the monk sangha is NOT the same as the Triple Gem Sangha. Anyone wishing to debate me (and I have to laugh), bring it on.
I would agree that post 25 is inflammatory, and such personal remarks are undesirable, but i would not delete it for the following reasons:
I am sure zenmonk (or any of us) is mature enough to ignore such remarks, and if any slanderous remarks are made zenmonk is able to defend himself (people are also aware not to take things said on forums as gospel truth).
The nature of the personal attack reveals something of the intent with which it is made, allowing for another marker for people to decide on its validity. Being quite rational minded i do not normally look at the tone of what is said, just the flow of logic, but in such cases of opinion and ethics more than logic is needed. For example, post 27 ends with the line 'get a life', a totally unnecesary remark at the end of what i thought a well crafted point, which belies the ill intent with which it is made, devaluing its entire content. As William Blake said ' a truth told with bad intent is worse than all the lies you can invent'.
As for the well meaning protection of new members, i do not think it necessary to censor certain groups or opinions. This assumes that some people are in need of protecting, implying they have inferior reasoning skills. While many people here are new to buddhism (myself included) they are not necessarily new to thinking for themselves. The freedom of this forum allows contrary views to be expressed so that people can consider both sides of an arguement. Perhaps my view is tainted because i do not belong to any other forums and have not witnessed how forums can degenerate into name calling, but i think most here are far too mindful for that to happen.
So please do not start deleting posts, i fear it is a slippery slope where the line between good and bad gets ever hazier. I too advocate a mission statement precisely because it negates the need for moderation.
Thanks for listening
I did not join this site to watch people scoring points off each other, indulging in personal insults and being unkind and vindictive to each other. I am very glad I saw the compassionate side of Buddhism before the Trolls arrived. Had I arrived as a newcomer in the past two weeks I would have got a very distorted view of the Buddha's teaching, judging by his followers' behaviour.
I'm off. I can't bear to watch this site going down the pan. Thanks to the kind people who took time to help me in my quest - I wish you blessings.
Back in the day (I've been waiting a LONG time to be able to say that with conviction!) I was at a peace rally on Mother's Day and we had gathered at a park in Downtown Toronto where a stage and P.A. system had been set up. After a few scheduled speakers the floor was opened up to the public. A number of people got up and spoke their piece and although opinions varied, everyone was received with respect and applause. Everyone, that is, except this one poor guy who had an ax to grind. He didn't appear mentally ill, just furious, ignorant and in love with violence. He began to spew venomous hatred at everyone present (including children), issuing death threats to the rally organizers and peace loving people in general until it simply could no longer be tolerated. The security crew was approaching the stage and one of the organizers went up to the head security guy and said something in his ear. The security guys then just stood at the side of the stage while the guy kept ranting and spitting all over the mike and all of a sudden the crowd began to turn their backs to the stage. There were about 2 or 3 thousand people in the vicinity of the stage and we all just quietly turned our backs. There was no fuss, he wasn't removed from the stage. He was just deprived of a listening audience. It was the greatest thing I'd ever seen. He kept yelling for another minute or so but I heard the confusion in his voice and his volume slowly decreasing and doubt creeping in. He mumbled something then left the stage. The security men then took him away to visit the police, I suppose because uttering death threats is against the law. Another person took the stage and we all turned back around and continued where we had left off after we'd been so rudely interrupted. It was really something. He didn't even get a picture or a mention in the papers. LOL!
If we can't come to an agreement as to what kind of rules could be instituted to prevent this from happening in the future, may I humbly suggest we try the "ignore" option? It's lovely to come here knowing I won't be faced with any of that man's yucky grossness. If none of us respond to him and use the "ignore" option in the cpu it may be effective. It does leave out those who aren't in the know but if he receives no response and is not invited to engage it may lessen the trouble he is so needy to create. Just a thought.
Love,
Brigid
Aside from personality conflicts, and ignoring the different levels of communication abilities/styles, and putting aside the idea that many people are 'mentally ill' at various points in their journey (and we can elect to ignore or acknowledge their need to be heard): is this all about censorship?
(As aside: I am aware that sometimes zen compassion comes with a stick, but being sucked into a debate about credentials won't help someone who really needs to hear medicine words.)
He also said: "In opposition lies true friendship."
That sentiment is also found in Buddhism.
Those are contained in the Vinaya. They grew organically as situations occurred that warrented them. This link may be of use:
Vinaya Pitaka - The Basket of the Discipline
As I said earlier I am interested in receiving as many viewpoints as possible. Both you and Brigid make excellent points. The whole crowd turning it's backs on that Man was a passive yet powerful demonstration. I would be concerned that should the Admin of this Forum decide not to censor, delete, or ban abusive posters that the net result could be disasterous. This would be a high risk strategy encouraging potentially more "Flamers" etc..safe in the knowledge that they will never be 'Moderated'.
The upside would be that the Admin and the members of this forum would be 'virtually' unique in it's handling of this issue.....Brave or Foolish?...Tolerant or Blinkered? The Jury is out on this one! Whatever decision is reached will have a profound impact on this Sangha.
If Buddha lived in the real world...it had rules to ensure right conduct. I can't say I understand the link (I have to absorb it)...but perhaps a wiser head could model something on that for the forum?
http://www.christianforums.com/rules
Oh and I see Rule #4 would certainly need some amendments. But, the general idea of Christian Forums is to promote intelligent conversation absent childish behavior. And this thread makes it obvious this site does need such policing.
I'm deleting all irrelevant and unneccesarily personal posts. Please respect this.
There are as many Vinayas as sects of Buddhism. Some Vinaya didn't have rules (e.g., the Lokottaravadins). The Vinaya is of much later composition. The Pali Vinayapitaka was composed around A.D. 100 according to Dr. Nakamura.
Original Buddhism had no rules in the sense this forum is looking for, which will be enforced against those who upset the fragile egos of the group. Early Buddhists were governed by the Patimokkha which is as follows:
Thanks for the tip Brigid - yes that is much better. OK, having shut the window to drown out the irritating buzz - let's get back to business.
Oh I must tell you this one - Have you heard of the Rev Ian Paisley? He is a fundamentalist Protestant in N Ireland - real hell raiser and sulpher breather. I saw an excellent cartoon of him the other day, stood in his pulpit, brandishing an iron spiked club bellowing "Blessed are the peacemakers!" ...... rofl - makes you giggle a bit, dunnit?
Laughter - antidote to anger and balm to the truly irritated. BB
(PHEW!)
I am watching dudley do right at the moment.
Well, as the old Latin saying goes - Noli Illigitimi Carborundum! :ukflag:
:rockon:
Perhaps it is a symptom of the decline in educational standards that being able to read Latin makes one overeducated. It used to be a minimum requirement.
Languages die, let them. It's more worrying that i was never taught grammer at school.
I didn't appreciate, when I was learning Latin at school, how very useful it would turn out to be later on in life.
In answer to your question, this is my viewpoint:
This bill will stifle discussion and debate. It is a ridiculous imposition on our freedom to express our views. This is a tolerant, secular country - this law is set to drive wedges between people with different faiths and different intellectual beliefs. If someone is obviously rabble-rousing there are laws already in place to deal with them. One of the most sacred things in this world is intellectual independence and the freedom to express ideas and beliefs. What next, a law that stops us criticising our own government?
In more detail, then, there are no direct parallels, because as I said, there are already enough laws in place to offer protection whilst still retaining the right to Freedom of Speech.
However, there are no rules (laws) already in place, on this forum!
I have decided at this point that there is certainly nothing further I can add to encourage anyone to consider the suggestion I first posted.
However, I wll add this: It is known to many that Federica is my partner, and as such, it will not have gone unoticed that she has refrained from either posting or moderating in this thread.
I have suggested that she resign. Ultimately on this question the decision would be hers, and rightly so.
Every single time, without exception, that Federica has attempted to implement a modicum of control or Moderation, she has been criticised either by the "offender "or by other members of the forum. She has entered into long correspondences with people on matters she has found necessary to moderate on.
With Rules and Regulations in place, her word ordinarily, as Moderator, should not come under such critique or question. She has up until now fenced and fielded her side admirably, and inspite of negotiating choppy waters, and controversy I believe she has everything to be proud of.
However, when the Forum founder came in and unilaterally deleted many posts here yesterday, citing them as being off-topic and offensive, (although many of the posts were termed politely), not one person confronted or challenged him.
It seems astonishing to me that nobody has realised that this was done on personal impulse as there are no rules in place that dictate what is on or off topic! Therefore, his moderating was arbitrary and as a result of a knee-jerk reaction. Other threads have gone off topic. None of these have been moderated, I see....:scratch:
Whilst Federica has received many plaudits in private praising her for her light touch, she has equally received a considerable amount of personal attacks and "baiting". In conclusion, I have suggested that until such time as she is furnished and equipped with a set of rules or guidelines upon which she can rely, under these currently difficult circumstances, she refrains completely, from moderating. As stated before though, her actions are up to her. But I believe the current situation is sufficient to illustrate that hers is a thankless task.
I accused her yesterday of becoming too "attached" to this forum, leading to her agreeing with me, this morning. I however believe that she is guilty of nothing more, than caring. Although in Buddhism we often hear the phrase 'Nothing is permanent', it would be a great shame to see this Sangha fracture and disintegrate before its' time.