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.
Banning Evangelists??
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Who could be more sensible and, frankly, enlightening than our own dear Fede?
I say, if I wanted to risk getting banned, I'd ruther start responding disdainfully to inane posts than be needlessly quarreling with a person of good intentions. To me, a person's good intentions count for 95%. I believe we've covered this subject —of intentions— many times on this forum in our discussions on karma.
Also, for me, the salient point is that of conversation (dialogue) —not conviction or disputation or correctness or righteousness. NewBuddhist is an online Sangha where we come to be refreshed, not worn out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now if I wanted to start a battle (which I don't)...
(I touched on this matter a bit above.)
For myself, I rather loathe certain over-silly and inane responses to posts. Sometimes I think that they they are just too dismissive of subjects that matter to others and make light of the heartfelt expressions of other posters.
I believe that it would not be as disrespectful on my part to dish out a bit more of "What's your Point?" to superfluously irrelevant posters as I believe the posts are in themselves disrespectful. HowEver that may be, I do not feel that I have the right to break the peace of this Sangha by doing it in an abusive way. It could easily happen that I might fail from time to time in this endeavor to restrain myself, but I trust that —being called back to order by a moderator— I would recollect myself and make my amends. If I would willfully persist, then I should expect to be disciplined or banned.
I have to say that when I read MrZetterlund's (MrZ from now on) posts it rang some very large bells in my head. Sixteen years old, evangelist, says will not evangelise but then launches into the very same - this is all very familiar behaviour on Pagan and Druid boards. Certain evangelical churches run a kind of young leader scheme where future evangelists are asked to go and evangelise on the net where there is minimal risk to the person. It's a kind of hardening process to prepare them for the real face to face evangelism. I would guess that (if MrZ is indeed one of these young leader scheme trainees) he encountered exactly what his teachers told him and is now quite happy doing the same thing on a Heathen or a Wiccan board for extra credit.
It's unfortunate and causes some ill-feeling amongst the more live-and-let-live ethos of certain boards but if one gets a favourable response then you can bet that there are five more who are waiting to jump in.
I may be doing the young chap a grave disservice and if so then I apologise unreservedly, but his behaviour followed the pattern I have seen all too many times in the past rather too perfectly.
If this person came here to learn about Buddhism or share his personal truths/insights regarding Jesus and how they relate to one's overall religious experience would be one thing. Banning such a person could be seen as wrong, disrespectful, or that we were somehow fearful. Such was not the case. Mr. Z came here with one intention- to evangelize this forum. He didn't come here to have a free exchange of ideas. His views are predicated on being absolutely right, there is no room for anothers ideas. It is a very polarized position and one that comes from a position that no other belief or religion, save his, has anything to offer. This is utterly without wisdom. What would be the point in keeping him here? Seriously.
[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth."
[The Buddha:] "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth."
— MN 95
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
They're just over-achievers trying to make up for what Woody Allen would call their underachieving God.
___________________
from Love and Death (1975)
Boris: If it turns out that there IS a God, I don't think that he's evil. I think that the worst you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
Whoever runs this board has soul say on what happens. True.
Maybe, just maybe, the owners of this board are interested in what their members think about how this board is run.
Well, here's my take. Wasn't it Mark Twain who said he'd refuse to join an organization that accepted someone like himself?
Well, with that tongue-in-cheek thought in mind, let me say that it's the posters that largely run this board. They also drive me crazy —half the time— with their inanities and sloppy thinking, too. However, I realize I add my own thick thoughts here a lot also —though not excessively. A thousand posts in four and a half years with no hiatus longer than a month is not excessively garrulous nor loquacious.
The moderators here perform beautifully, all the while adding their thoughtful and elucidating ruminations. Bearing in mind that the idea of restraint in speech is a highly prized Buddhist ideal, those who wish unfettered speech here are, quite simply, bringing in values extraneous to essential Buddhist thought and practice.
It was Groucho Marx, Nirvy, who also said that a man is only as old as the woman he's feeling!
This is so true. I also moderate a highly ranked forum on meditation. Since E-sangha died our traffic, trolls and spammers have all increased.
For the first time we have some actual rules and T.O.S. though we basically run things in a very friendly and unrestricted way.
The point for us was that we wanted to be a community and not just another forum. Forum members donate 100% of the hosting fees and we have never had to have a set of dogmatic E-sangha style rules or heavy handed moderation.
I think the guys n girls running things here have done a good job, which I can assure anyone who has never tried, is not easy.
Seeing people banned from E-sangha for mentioning their personal lack of belief in rebirth or the like made me really wonder about Buddhist compassion.
By not having too many hard and fast rules it makes that job easier to get right in my experience.
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
I know I have even contributed to this thread, but my mind is diminishing a bit as I age.
I saw the Title of this thread, misread it, and wondered why they were
BURNING THE EVANGELISTS!
My word, that's a bit extreme, I thought. (Except on a Buddhist forum [God bless them!])
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952497,00.html
The problem of misunderstanding on God.
Buddhism is freedom of mind and never ban.
Own karma own consequences based on the attainment of living beings per se. Which means leading the wrong direction has a direct consequences on the peace-N-harmony for all.:)
I think the fact that this discussion is happening is a clear indicator that they do.
As a side note, I am a big supporter of the skillfully applied ban.
Its an unfortunate necessity.
I joined a plumbing/heating site to learn how to install my own residential boiler. That place devolved into democratic party bashing and talk of armed revolution when our new president took office. I promptly exited there also.
I joined here to learn about Buddhism. I read through many threads before I registered. The people that post here seem to be a friendly bunch willing to share their knowledge. If there were a lot of threads and posts arguing over Christianity vs Buddhism I probably wouldn't have even registered. How many others would do the same?
The administrator and mods have the right and responsibility to set the tone of this website. Well that's my two cents. Sorry if I offended anyone or stuck my nose where it doesn't belong.
The Master Hui Neng said further, "Seeing your own nature is merit, and equanimity is virtue. To be unobstructed in every thought, constantly seeing the true, real, wonderful function of your original nature is called merit and virtue."
"Inner humility is merit and the outer practice of reverence is virtue. Your self-nature establishing the ten thousand dharmas is merit and the mind-substance separate from thought is virtue. Not being separate from the self-nature is merit, and the correct use of the undefiled (self-nature) is virtue. If you seek the merit and virtue of the Dharma body, simply act according to these principles, for this is true merit and virtue."
"Those who cultivate merit and virtue in their thoughts do not slight others, but always respect them. Those who slight others and do not cut off the 'me and mine' are without merit. The vain and unreal self-nature is without virtue, because of the 'me and mine,' because of the greatness of the 'self,' and because of the constant slighting of others."
Namaste
ND.
I have often wondered if the forums and the internet are an evolutionary leap for mankind, or a step backwards.
All that being said, if a person ONLY tries to convince you of their point of view, and isn't interested at all in conversation, like a hell bent evangelical christian, or for that matter Buddhist, why do we have to communicate with them. They are not wanting to have a conversation, they are just trying to convince others that their view is the only view. So it is totally one sided. that is not communicating. They are stuck in themselves. And there is no use trying to discuss issues with them.
L'n'P,
Your concern is shared by others as well, including some of us who have been here for a number of years. There was a sea change in this site with the sinking of 'E-sangha' and BuddhaChat: a lot of the bile and bitterness that was expressed on those fora transferred here, along with - I have to admit - some very knowledgeable people. If you were able to look back two or three years, you would see that we welcomed Christians, Pagans, Muslims, etc. and engaged in both dialogue and friendship.
The tone has become far more exclusive and minatory, causing quite a few old friends to go elsewhere. If we are to judge by the current outcome, it would look as though this had been an objective: to squeeze out those of us who are not "true believers" but, rather, seekers along the way. I find this hard to believe, knowing as I do the mods, but I fear that the ability (or is it 'power'?) to close threads and to ban members has become more regularly used than hitherto.
Of course, this may be the result of the greater number of members and the unpleasant "I'm right and you're wrong" tone of many posts, along with great swathes of sutra postings, all too reminiscent of Christian or Islamic fundamentalist sites.
The question has often crossed my mind as to why I stay here when I read some of the postings. The truth is that having seen this place change from friendly and accepting, inclusive and supportive to what it has become, I am optimistic enough to believe that it can change back again. But then, I discovered, through my wanderings among real-life Buddhists, Christians, Sufis and Pagans, that, at the heart of all of them, is genuine optimism, so I challenge my innate pessimism that this is the best it can get.
After more than a decade of posting on various boards, I have come to realise that the best way to deal with those who are "stuck in themselves" is, quite simply, to disengage. Nothing obliges you to respond and, if you do, you have no one to blame but yourself. Closing threads is "nanny state" for no really good reason in many instances.
I recall a number of times having been contacted by the mods by PM and being asked, along with other regular posters, to avoid or ignore a particular poster. Closing threads was rarely if ever used and banning was a very last resort - the latter appears to remain the case, fortunately.
As I have never been asked, nor would I have accepted, to be a moderator here, I am not sure if the possibility exists, as it does on other boards that I administer and moderate, to pre-moderate a particular poster's contributions. This has been very successful elsewhere and avoids a general censorship approach.
I wonder if its possible that these "bigots" you're experiencing aren't just people who either have some fear, or some solid ideas of how the world works. I admit there are many threads I don't bother reading, as endless debates of the minutia of the world don't interest me.
I also witness a lot of real, loving, human connection here... where people rise to share wisdom and compassion with people who are looking to put roots into their own experiences or are afraid that their minds are un-tamable.
I love the perspective of "don't throw the baby out with the bath water", because it reminds me that it is in my mind that I determine where to focus my attention, and where I decide worth of a thing.
Follow your heart always of course JB, I just hope you hang around
With warmth,
Matt
All the best
NickiD
If you deprive us of your voice, how can we improve the tone of the site?
We will disagree on many things and I have made myself very clear in PMs. Whenever I do so, all I get back are defensive and self-justifying responses. Truly, I have tried to maintain an even tone in my comments and I am well aware of the difficulties of moderation. the one consistent aspect that has arisen each time the moderators' decisions are questioned is typified by Fede's post on the now-closed thread: we must not criticise in public. Why not? If you are sure that you have made the correct decision, then I suggest that you need to be able to stand by it - in public if necessary.
I don't think you have completely grasped how the current tone of confrontational argument, text swapping and thread closing has alienated some of your earlier friends or how doctrinaire and absolutist much of the debate has become.
For some time I wondered if it was I who was changing, the result of the slow but inexorable progress of my mental condition and, indeed, it may be so. If it is, I sincerely apologise. It does however seem to me that the whole tone of what was once a gentle and welcoming place, supportive of the seeker and open to those of us who try to follow the precepts without necessarily conforming to ideas of what is meant to others by "being a Buddhist" has become more harsh and judgmental.
Others have commented on the anti-Abrahamic bias of many posts and even threads. And where are our Pagan friends? Where our Muslims,? All those who were interested friends? What image of Buddhism are we projecting when we lay down the law or stifle debate? Not once in my reading of the sutras have I come across the Buddha advocating such a strategy, rather he seems to have gone out of his way to engage with those who disagreed with him.
Many of us here are moderators on other fora and know well the problems. When, some years ago, I was consulted, by PM, by a moderator-to-be, I counselled extreme caution in using the censorship tools at your disposal. Clear boundaries on use of language and personal attacks, I suggested, were the only valid reasons for intervention and that situation obtained for quite some time - years in fact. Do you not see how you have changed the ground rules and act in arbitrary and unchallengeable ways? This cannot be good for you because you have to assume the role of judge, jury and executioner.
I say all this because I hold this site in high esteem and great affection. It is the right and the duty of friends to point out when they think that those they love and admire are going wrong. It is my belief that you all need to take a step back and ask yourselves what you are truly trying to do here and if your methods are succeeding.
Finally, I am not complaining about "under-moderation", I am suggesting it. What do you have to fear from free debate, even if it means we have to ignore some unpleasant postings or to read the odd criticism of moderation decisions: nobody is above criticism and I have discovered, over my nearly eight decades, that there is more to be learned from criticism than from praise - just so long as I avoid my defensiveness and knee-jerk reactions.
That said, this (by its nature and name) is a place where someone new to the practice of Buddhism (in any of its myriad forms) can come to find information and support. If that person also wishes to debate Christians, then they can easily find such a site.
Now, I'm perfectly happy to answer questions about Buddhism from Christians who are interested in learning the answers, but not from those who only wish m to answer in order to give them a platform to proselytize from.........
Just my 2c of course. I think Lincoln & Co are doing a fine job here, myself.
I agree with Engyo that Lincoln and Co (I apologize to the and Co for not plugging your names as well but I don't know who you all are) are doing an excellent job...
I personally have nothing against banning... I'm sure it does not do anything for those who are placed in the position to do so but I'm sure those who have been recieved many warnings and chances to reconcile differences... With a forum this size and with ages as young as 12, and with people so green to the concept of Buddhism flitting into the forum daily, a certain level of decorum is surely necessary...
All I can say is thanks to the crew behind the scenes and keep up the good work, it is much appreciated...
Also, Jellybean, (sorry... I know you changed your name but you'll always be Jellybean to me) stick around would ya... your the best darn new members greeter a site could ask for and frankly I think you'd unknowingly be giving up a lot of personal growth if you simply left because of a few bad experiences...
What happens when any jerk can take the piss out of the moderators any time they want? They rally their cohorts and bully the moderators into leaving, because it isn't worth their time to ruin their nights with wading through their drivel and replying to it all. I protect the moderators so that they stay because they are a forum's most precious resource.
I welcome insightful comment about general moderation; I won't tolerate "I think he should be unbanned!" en masse from people who haven't been spending their precious free time trying to cope with the unpleasantness that happens behind the scenes. That's disrespectful, unhelpful, and counterproductive to the sort of community you wish to participate in.
I frequently feel as though you think I'm an untried hand at this or that I haven't both tried and witnessed the approaches you advocate. Sir, I have watched what happens when you do not or under-moderate a forum, and it is something neither of us wishes to be associated with. I have watched it not once, not twice, but thrice to varying degrees. They are either gone or permanently small, stuck with their dozen insiders who chase away newcomers. NewBuddhist will not be the fourth I watch follow that path.
If you feel the forum has truly taken a turn for the worse, I submit it is because we have become less watchful as the pace of discussion as picked up and our moderating team has remained, essentially, the same size.
Lastly, of course the community changes. How you remember NewBuddhist from 5 years ago cannot be how it is today - that is impossible regardless of moderation. It is simply the nature of a community. Nor was our past as rosy as you paint it - like any open community, we have had our share of suffering and conflict along with harmony. That you choose to remember the happy parts is heartening. That you focus on the negative in the present - that I cannot explain.
You are right, of course. I apologise to you and to all here for the tone of recent posts. I shall try to refrain from posting when I am suffering my increasingly unpleasant episodes of pain and confusion after days without sleep. At least last night my medication worked (for once).
My advice to all: don't get old; dementia, even in its early stages, is a bugger.
A big hug for you, Simon dear
.
Thank you, Dazzle. I needed that.
Nios.
It's deplorable that community moderation is still in its infancy and that software support is weak. For example, for my own forum, I would like to see a single-click voting system that supports multi-facetted votes in order to build member reputation and some simple automatic form of pre-moderation.
Youtube has done some work in this direction. Youtube video comments that have been voted down several times aren't immediately visible to the public, unless an expand button is clicked. This feature alone would be quite useful in forum software.
It would help moderators to identify trouble spots faster, for example by viewing voting histograms. I also like the feedback feature of Ebay and I think the principle is applicable to forum software as well.
Cheers, Thomas
Truthseeker, very interesting ideas. I like where your head is.
... or decreases with group compassion. If someone is making a personal attack, if it hurts our minds, isn't it our issue? It seems like any response that isn't a direct and compassionate is unskillful. I do cling to a potent dislike of capital punishment... which is in essence what banning from a board is, because to our community, members die. If Buddhist's can't make room in their minds and hearts for those who are less than perfect, this world is screwed.
Yes, yes... I know, and have been told on several occasions... "compassionate idealism is fine in theory, but lets get real." Mods do what they have to do and I accept that for what it is.
I think as a community, if we respond more compassionately and directly to people who speak discursively, then we, as members, can help maintain a board where peacefulness and respect are cultivated. Accepting that someone is mad or clings to their views shouldn't be unobtainable. I don't suggest we roll over, but responding with compassion isn't very difficult if one is not also clinging to wrong views of self.
With warmth,
Matt
I'll ditto that.
personally, if it's of any comfort to anybody, I strive to the best of my ability to keep the 'personal' out of it.......
I for one certainly don't propose to ever even think of exploring the option of going down that road.
Nope.
Love,
Boo
I would like to point out, though, that there's a world of difference between someone who simply tells us things we hate to hear and (the "evangelist") who insists on his own way, dictating verbatim what we must believe and shutting his ears to the essence of our response.
The former is someone we might very well profit from; the latter reveals an utter unreasoning character and an incivility which only martyrdom could possibly excuse.
Hey ND:
Please don't forget that people can pretty much act whichever way they like while hiding behind an alias, especially if they've got nothing invested in a forum. It kinda comes with the territory that is the internet. Please just dismiss them as people who are trying to have fun at the expense of others and therefore not worthy to be considered candidates for friendship with a true lover of humanity such as yourself.
I'm sorry if you feel rather isolated at present, but I assure you that we all do at least at times (if not most of the time). A reason for this Isolation: People naturally need to be listened to more than they feel the need to listen; hence, one could pen the most beautiful thought in the world and it might take 120 years for it to be broadly cast about with the weight it deserves. I work in geriatric medicine, and believe me, I think the most important thing I do is to listen to the dear old folks and let them know it. Indeed, If I'm really too busy to listen deeply, I make a point to appear to be listening actively and to respond with a loving and caring attitude. Some people need to be listened to more than others, too.
Gosh, It's been so nice to see the reflections of a nice young man like yourself, and I will miss reading your posts should you stop. I have an icon of you, as it were —another 12-yr-old—Christ teaching the Doctors of the Law in the Temple. To me, it is a beautiful icon of Wisdom.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.