Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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??

edited June 2010 in NewBuddhist.com
Why? This section is meant for other religions to discuss. An evangelist is doing just what the Bible asks them to do (which I disagree with, but won't stop him). Preach the gospel to the 4 corners of the Earth. I think banning them gives off the wrong impression, as if we're insecure about our philosophy and intend on silencing, rather than giving them "a run for their money."


.
«13

Comments

  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited April 2010
    He was obviously a troll. I don't agree with banning in any circumstance, but the decision was in line with the policy here.
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Why? This section is meant for other religions to discuss. An evangelist is doing just what the Bible asks them to do. Preach the gospel to the 4 corners of the Earth. I think banning them gives off the wrong impression, as if we're insecure about our philosophy and intend on silencing, rather than giving them "a run for their money."
    .

    I agree wholeheartedly with banning Z and anyone else who wilfully breaks the rules and/or disrespects the site and members.

    Contrary to what people tend to think about the internet, there ARE owners and mods of sites who can ban people for going against site rules. This is a BUDDHIST site Trans. People can come here and discuss the Buddha's teachings, debate things (just look at how you push the envelope with the whole drugs stuff) and the like. But this is STILL a Buddhist site first and foremost. I for one do not appreciate people coming here, and trying to "sell" me their religion and tell me I'm wrong for what I believe.

    And as a side note, the Bible does not tell people to convert the four corners of the universe. In fact, Yeshua was really not that clear at first. I'm sure the newer translations have been twisted to fit whatever agenda the modern day church has. Secondly, if people don't like what they read or learn here, there are plenty of other sites they can go to. We don't have to prove or "give them a run for their money" That's NOT what Buddhism is about. That's ego talking.

    Respectfully,
    Raven
  • edited April 2010
    It seems there has been quite a lot of discussion on the topics concerning Christianity of late here on the newbuddhist forum. I have been part of this, by starting a thread that asked what we are to do with evangelical Christians when they attempt to convert you to their faith in God through Jesus. It took me two weeks to respond to a person who brought a book to me, after not having seen them in 30 years, that pointed to a fresh and new relationship with God through Christ. When i finally responded i did so in such a manner as to not offend her, and even say that parts of the book intrigued me. Though the book is evangelical in its' purpose, it was interesting to read a new approach to belief in God through Jesus.
    I read with some disappointment that a new member on this forum had been banned this morning for proselytizing. Though he was warned about doing so, he did defend his relationship with God through Jesus. Others answered him with mostly balancing remarks about what Buddhism teaches. At times it seemed that the discussion drifted into personal ridicule, of which for me is a waste of time and does no one any good at all.
    With all this said I do not think that a born again Christian is going to change their mind because they enter a debate on which religion or "way" is the correct or best one. And the same goes for the Buddhist that has come to understand the nature of their own mind. For me when it comes right down to it, these "debates" are like mixing oil and vinegar, and then adding a few spices . Makes a great salad dressing, but is not the salad itself, and is rarely drank by itself. When these debates occur they are like this dressing. There is nothing real to apply the words to. People use their practice to address real issues in their lives. Whether their practice is Buddhist, Christian, or Muslim, or Taoist, etc.....
    It is too bad that this type of intellectual diversion occurs. But so many of us get side tracked into the dialectical sparring that writing, and the internet lends itself to. I do think that both paths warn their followers to cease from such useless activity. At least, in my own experience, this type of dialogue leads to much speculation and defensive posturing, which in turn leads a person away form their intended practice.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    As many here know, I retain a profound affection for and use in the Christian scriptures and stories. In my own way, I have studied them as well as been inspired by them, although I have been too lazy to pursue my Hebrew studies.

    It is also true that I have a visceral rationalism, if that is not a contradiction in terms, which arises from an awareness, acquired no doubt in childhood, of unfairness, injustice and oppression, either to myself or to others. Thus, I came to a serious study of Buddhism, some decades ago, through exposure to the ideas of "engaged Buddhism", a form of Buddhism that prioritises our encounter with one another and the world around us.

    Whilst I appreciate that there are people who would rather see what separates us and our ideas from "them over there" with their ideas, both Christian and Buddhist writings have convinced me that common ground is safer than disputed ground. By "safer", I mean more conducive to benevolence and a grateful mind, which appear to me to underpin wise compassion. Thus, over the years, I have brought here, to a Buddhist forum, echoes and accounts of my travels in Christianity, in Earth religions, in science and medicine, in psychology, in history and archaeology. I have shared Christian prayers and celebrations, and have never been sanctioned for so doing.

    Western Buddhists live as a minority within wider societies and need to face the same questions as other minorities. We are lucky that we live when and where we do. We are unlikely to go to the stake or the gibbet for practising in our chosen way - so long as we remain within an over-arching, socially-imposed, local code. And it is not as if this benefit is available to everyone, even here in the West. The limits of this permission are currently being redefined by new laws and precedents: some overt religious talismans may be banned by employers and the state may make laws about dress codes, just like a nightclub or bar.

    But we really should remember that "when they came for the communists, I was not a communists and I did nothing". In the end, if we permit oppression and censorship, we shall be oppressed and censored ourselves.

    Which is not to say I hasten to add that the regime here at New Buddhist is harsher than elsewhere. On the contrary, I have found few more liberal fora, particularly among religious/spiritual/philosophical sites (You should try the philosophers if you want really nasty conversations) The problem is more fundamental.

    It lies in the delusion of "ownership".

    There is an important lesson that we can learn from being 'subjects'. In most Net fora, there is a group with access to editorial tools which we visitors do not have. I do say "most" because I know of at least one which operates on a fully co-operative basis and has done so for many years, to the regular enjoyment of members. The usual format is, of course, aristocratic and elitist in nature: a small, unelected group creating and enforcing their rules. This is usually justified on the basis of "ownership by creation", i.e. that one or more persons had the idea, designed the site and, possibly, spent money. I was amused, some time ago, to have been offered "ownership" of a forum, realising that this intangible mode of communication had now acquired phenomenal existence, it had become a 'thing'. Thus the next argument is "ownership by inheritance or gift".

    We may even have seen example of "ownership by invasio0n or conquest", just like the pattern of the business or imperialist world which we have copied into the Net.

    And we are back to the delusion that we can own anything but that may be another thread, another topic.

    Owners and moderators will edit, delete and ban because they can. That's all there is to it. They will decide, for us, what it is OK for us to debate and how we should 'behave ourselves'. We like them when they are 'on our side'; we dislike them when they aren't. And they do take a lot of tedious work off our hands, like deleting spam, avoiding libel actions, etc.

    Truth is: the moderators will decide which dogmatic statements to permit and which to ban, whose behaviours to encourage and which to sanction.

  • NewOneNewOne Explorer
    edited April 2010
    I think before he started talking, he should have gotten the books we recommended and then struck up a friendly talk. But to be young and nieve you think you can change the world. I hope that he still looks in Buddhism. Also I for one would not go into a Christian forum and talk about Buddhism. Each "religion" (I know that Buddhism is not a religion per say) holds things very dear. It's like going into a lions den with fresh meat. Your going to get ate alive. But again I hope that this taught him a lesson, he grew from this, and that he will still look into Buddhism.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    NewOne wrote: »
    I think before he started talking, he should have gotten the books we recommended and then struck up a friendly talk. But to be young and nieve you think you can change the world. I hope that he still looks in Buddhism. Also I for one would not go into a Christian forum and talk about Buddhism. Each "religion" (I know that Buddhism is not a religion per say) holds things very dear. It's like going into a lions den with fresh meat. Your going to get ate alive. But again I hope that this taught him a lesson, he grew from this, and that he will still look into Buddhism.

    I, too, hope that the way he was treated here does not put him off completely. If so, there is Kamma here too!
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited April 2010
    An evangelist is doing just what the Bible asks them to do. Preach the gospel to the 4 corners of the Earth. I think banning them gives off the wrong impression, as if we're insecure about our philosophy and intend on silencing, rather than giving them "a run for their money."
    The whole point of a moderated forum is that there are restrictions. There are places where an evangelist can preach the gospel to the four corners of the earth. There are forums that have been created to give people from different religions a place to debate. This forum obviously has other goals, and on the whole it is managed in a way consistent with its goals.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Having been a member here for quite a long time, I notice that there is no clear posting outlining forum rules.

    Would that not avoid some unpleasantness?
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I do not subscribe to the beliefs Jared was selling. I believe I made my feelings clear in the thread though about the treatment of the kid. No matter the belief, treating people with compassion, loving kindness and respect are important. These are our brothers and sisters.

    Banning or not banning is a choice of the moderators, but how we treat people is a reflection on our own personal character. I hope our hearts are large enough, our minds clear enough, to relate to people who are not Buddhists. If we can't, who can?

    With sadness,

    Matt
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    I could understand had I banned him outright.
    but I outlined several recommendations in light of previous experience, and suggested he follow a particular course.
    On this Buddhist forum.
    I was advised I had severely pre-judged him and made assumptions. I was criticised privately for having infused my preambling welcome to him, with prejudice and discrimination.

    However, reviewing the threads in which he participated proved my foreboding and suspicions correct.
    I did try to warn him - and members - what would happen.
    And so it came to pass that all my earnest entreaties were mere barking at the breeze.


    I merely followed through and did what I advised I would do.
    Don't blame me, I didn't steer things this way.
    If what I forecast came to be, those participating have only themselves to blame.
    I feel my conscience is clear.
    and my Kamma likewise.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    federica wrote: »
    I could understand had I banned him outright.
    but I outlined several recommendations in light of previous experience, and suggested he follow a particular course.
    On this Buddhist forum.
    I was advised I had severely pre-judged him and made assumptions. I was criticised privately for having infused my preambling welcome to him, with prejudice and discrimination.

    However, reviewing the threads in which he participated proved my foreboding and suspicions correct.
    I did try to warn him - and members - what would happen.
    And so it came to pass that all my earnest entreaties were mere barking at the breeze.


    I merely followed through and did what I advised I would do.
    Don't blame me, I didn't steer things this way.
    If what I forecast came to be, those participating have only themselves to blame.
    I feel my conscience is clear.
    and my Kamma likewise.

    It is considered impolite to criticise or comment on a particular action by a moderator. Why? I really don't know: we are quite prepared to criticise politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. but moderators are excluded.

    Thus, I shall refrain.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    No, not at all.
    providing it is done skilfully.
    I have asked that if people wish to throw the book at me, then feel free to do so. I really don't mind. And I understand, to utilise the hackneyed quotation so beloved by many (With thanks to Abe Lincoln) that you can't please all the people all of the time.
    But openly criticising a Moderator on open forum is neither kind nor skilful.
    It's actually really bad form.

    It belittles and trivialises the role of that person; a role given to them willingly, and freely by the Forum founder.
    It demonstrates to visitors or new members that older and long-established members who criticise openly, have scant respect for the efforts of said Moderator to control a forum in such a way as to make it a safe and comfortable place to post in.
    I have occasionally received PMs of condemnation and criticism. I have also received letters of support and commendation, and more than one missive asking for help in dealing with the contributions of others.
    so I guess at times, I do have my uses then, huh......? ;)
    So much as I might try my best, doubtless some will be happy with that, others not.

    When I was a parent-elected Governor at my children's' primary school, I received a very good piece of advice from the deputy Head Teacher:
    he told me - " I don't always agree with Lesley (the Headmistress at the time). In fact, sometimes we have a right ding-dong in the office, over stuff to do with school and administration. But in public, I would never criticise or contradict her. I mean, what would that tell people about us here? So, never disagree with your boss in public - even though in private, you might go at it hammer and tongs. "
    I would never presume, nor assume to call myself anybody's boss, here.
    But it's simply a parallel.
    If you have a bone of contention to pick with me, about a matter on public forum here, by all means tell me.
    But I would ask that you both refrain from barbed comment on threads, (veiled or otherwise), and that you kindly confine such discussion to PMs.
    :)
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I have often wondered at our sheep-like ability to follow 'rules' without questioning them. Personally, as a moderator and administrator elsewhere, I have preferred to take the temperature of the membership openly, even posting PMs where necessary. I am aware that whatever the intentions of 'founders', 'owners' and moderators, there is no forum without the members.

    I fear that I am a democrat to my fingertips and find it hard to swallow autocracy or oligarchy. This site, however, was a pleasant place to be - and I hope it may become welcoming again, even to brash, young, ignorant searchers as well as to 'established' Buddhists, that it will come out of a safe, comfortable ghetto-mentality. I shall, therefore, make no further comment about the current rash of closed threads or banned members. It has become too risky for anyone who wants to stay when the rules are not published nor is any appeal possible.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited April 2010
    It is considered impolite to criticise or comment on a particular action by a moderator. Why? I really don't know: we are quite prepared to criticise politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. but moderators are excluded.
    Constituents do not criticize from the floor of the Senate during sessions of Congress, congregation members do not criticize from the pew on Sundays, nor do students stand to criticize their teacher during class. Likewise, critiques of moderators are quite allowed but they do not belong in public discussions.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Lincoln wrote: »
    Constituents do not criticize from the floor of the Senate during sessions of Congress, congregation members do not criticize from the pew on Sundays, nor do students stand to criticize their teacher during class. Likewise, critiques of moderators are quite allowed but they do not belong in public discussions.
    The only one of these claims which rings true is the religious one (I used to criticize my teachers all the time, and I was seen as a goody-twohoes for the most part), and none of them are useful analogies to the situation here. This is actually the first forum I've participated in with this policy. It's an understandable policy, but these normalizations of it are phony and undercut the legitimacy they're intended to foster.
  • edited April 2010
    Lincoln,

    I understand you point....but have you watched the news lately!? LOL! :) (joking)
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2010
    fivebells wrote: »
    I was seen as a goody-twohoes for the most part

    Best typo ever.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Heh.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I have to agree that the policy seems strangely totalitarian for the types of connectedness and acceptance that I always thought were a part of Buddhist practice, but it also is what it is, why fret?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    I'm afraid the dissenters are going to have to accept the fact that this isn't a democracy.
    I do what I do to the best of my judgement.
    I'm more flexible than others I've come across, elsewhere, let me tell you.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited April 2010
    I accept that, and I think you do a good job. Thanks.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    aMatt wrote: »
    I have to agree that the policy seems strangely totalitarian for the types of connectedness and acceptance that I always thought were a part of Buddhist practice, but it also is what it is, why fret?
    Connectedness and acceptance in Buddhist practice don't mean you roll over like an engaging 4-month old puppy and say 'kick me again, I can take it.'
    there's a difference between being liberal and being principled but still sticking to the 8FP as best you can.
    That the bird of muddled-foolishness fly over my head, I cannot change. That it crap on my shoulder, I can prevent.

    fivebells, Thank you.
    I appreciate it. :)
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited April 2010
    federica wrote: »
    Connectedness and acceptance in Buddhist practice don't mean you roll over like an engaging 4-month old puppy and say 'kick me again, I can take it.'
    there's a difference between being liberal and being principled but still sticking to the 8FP as best you can.
    That the bird of muddled-foolishness fly over my head, I cannot change. That it crap on my shoulder, I can prevent.

    Interesting analogies. I think your point of view comes across succinctly.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Lincoln wrote: »
    Constituents do not criticize from the floor of the Senate during sessions of Congress, congregation members do not criticize from the pew on Sundays, nor do students stand to criticize their teacher during class. Likewise, critiques of moderators are quite allowed but they do not belong in public discussions.


    Lincoln,

    I 'hear' you but I think your analogies would only stand up if, in the first instance, this were a democracy, or, in the second, if this was a 'church', or, third, if anyone here was in a teacher-student relationship.

    Why not acknowledge that, without a written set of rules, available to all, any decision taken outwith the sight of all must, of its nature, be arbitrary? Or, if this is not so, why not publish the guidelines that bind us? Without overt rules, you, as moderators, leave yourselves open to criticism - even if you try to suppress it in public. The only rule that is clear and set down is that moderators are above public criticism. What are the others?

    A bad Senator can be voted out; except in the C. of E., the law does not protect clergy from congregational criticism; and I have often challenged teachers. It would appear that forum moderators assume rights unavailable to others.

    Where I see what appears to be injustice or arbitrariness, I shall continue to speak up. It was one of the aspects of being a citizen (as in France or the US) as against being a subject (as in the UK) that I most admired. Maybe it will mean that you will decide to blackball me, too, despite the support that some of you have sought and received from me over the years that I have been a member here. I should be very sad if that were to be the case: it would demonstrate to me how far we have drifted from the earlier New Buddhist.


  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Simon,

    As we are guests in another's home, there are subjective requirements that have to be followed. We are not forced to reside here, and so must abide the best we can to the rules of the heads of the house. Even when we disagree with their decisions, it is their house.

    Deep breath :)

    Matt
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    aMatt wrote: »
    Simon,

    As we are guests in another's home, there are subjective requirements that have to be followed. We are not forced to reside here, and so must abide the best we can to the rules of the heads of the house. Even when we disagree with their decisions, it is their house.

    Deep breath :)

    Matt

    Matt,

    I have heard this argument time and again. This is not a house but a forum, we are not called 'guests' but 'members'. None of us was invited here.

    Again I say: publish the rules. Only then can we agree, and stay, or disagree, and leave.
  • edited April 2010
    I do not understand where the concept of "whatever is said" is automatically regarded as "valid". So much of what the Buddhist scripture says is in direct opposition to the concepts that are presented. Like for instance, "eternal life". We find that the "Buddha" directly teaches us that it is a mistake to think in such terms, the same goes with "cessation". When someone enters this forum with the INTENT to change our minds about the basic principles that we practice, and we answer them with quite opposing view points and they still continue to persist in trying to convince us of their viewpoint, which has NO basis in Buddhist practice, then what is the point of allowing this person to continue to harangue us? Who said that Buddhism is "democratic". I do not see that. It is very specific about its' methodology. It is not forgiving to wrong view. It is a concrete wall, that stops you dead in your tracks when your "speculating" about your precious philosophy ( not YOU personally ). The point being this person had no intent to learn to practice Buddhism, that was quite obvious. If one wants to follow and adhere to the principles of democracy, then they should go to a political forum. Just think of the fierce Zen folk, who bash one on the head for dullness and ignorance. This fellow got off quite easily for being so brash and confident in his fantasies.
    The Unitarian Universalists would have to put up with that type of attack. They have to accept every form of illusion and conjured philosophy. If one decides to behave that way, fine. But IMO, it is far from practicing Buddhism and letting others know what it entails.
  • SimonthepilgrimSimonthepilgrim Veteran
    edited April 2010
    dennis60 wrote: »
    I do not understand where the concept of "whatever is said" is automatically regarded as "valid". So much of what the Buddhist scripture says is in direct opposition to the concepts that are presented. Like for instance, "eternal life". We find that the "Buddha" directly teaches us that it is a mistake to think in such terms, the same goes with "cessation". When someone enters this forum with the INTENT to change our minds about the basic principles that we practice, and we answer them with quite opposing view points and they still continue to persist in trying to convince us of their viewpoint, which has NO basis in Buddhist practice, then what is the point of allowing this person to continue to harangue us? Who said that Buddhism is "democratic". I do not see that. It is very specific about its' methodology. It is not forgiving to wrong view. It is a concrete wall, that stops you dead in your tracks when your "speculating" about your precious philosophy ( not YOU personally ). The point being this person had no intent to learn to practice Buddhism, that was quite obvious. If one wants to follow and adhere to the principles of democracy, then they should go to a political forum. Just think of the fierce Zen folk, who bash one on the head for dullness and ignorance. This fellow got off quite easily for being so brash and confident in his fantasies.
    The Unitarian Universalists would have to put up with that type of attack. They have to accept every form of illusion and conjured philosophy. If one decides to behave that way, fine. But IMO, it is far from practicing Buddhism and letting others know what it entails.


    We disagree, I think, over whether he was treated with compassion and the tolerance we might hope to receive from others. That he may be deluded i grant you so those who wanted him out must now agree that we failed to convince him or to show him his errors by the example of our own kindness.

    I hope that, as a result, we hear no more of how 'badly' some here have been treated on other fora - you clearly have only yourselves to blame.

    If we are 'guests' here, the ancient rules of hospitality seem to be abrogated at will.
  • NewOneNewOne Explorer
    edited April 2010
    I'm going to have to agree with Simon. I think it would have been best that we gave him the recommendations of books to read and thats it. Never went on the "attack". If he started we should have just ignored him. He (A) would have went away or (B) actually read the books and knew where we were coming from. Fighting gets you no where and that is exactly where we are now.
  • edited April 2010
    I really didn't look at anything in that discussion as an attack. I found it very informative as a debate. I learned alot from it. If anything, I think the youngster was a bit overzealous and at times resorted to personal attack. Not the other way around.
  • skullchinskullchin Veteran
    edited April 2010
    After looking around I'm surprised this forum has no posted rules. This is the only forum I've ever seen that has no posted rules. What is the reason for this?
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2010


    Lincoln,

    I 'hear' you but I think your analogies would only stand up if, in the first instance, this were a democracy, or, in the second, if this was a 'church', or, third, if anyone here was in a teacher-student relationship.

    Why not acknowledge that, without a written set of rules, available to all, any decision taken outwith the sight of all must, of its nature, be arbitrary? Or, if this is not so, why not publish the guidelines that bind us? Without overt rules, you, as moderators, leave yourselves open to criticism - even if you try to suppress it in public. The only rule that is clear and set down is that moderators are above public criticism. What are the others?

    A bad Senator can be voted out; except in the C. of E., the law does not protect clergy from congregational criticism; and I have often challenged teachers. It would appear that forum moderators assume rights unavailable to others.

    Where I see what appears to be injustice or arbitrariness, I shall continue to speak up. It was one of the aspects of being a citizen (as in France or the US) as against being a subject (as in the UK) that I most admired. Maybe it will mean that you will decide to blackball me, too, despite the support that some of you have sought and received from me over the years that I have been a member here. I should be very sad if that were to be the case: it would demonstrate to me how far we have drifted from the earlier New Buddhist.



    Injustice? Black ball you? What's with all the dramatics, Simon? Remember when you voted against my idea of having some "suggested guidelines" in the Buddhism 202/Advanced Forum because "... I don't think they are necessary and may serve to reduce the scope of discussion. We are very well served by excellent moderation, light-handed and respectful. I see no real reason to ask for more"?
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited April 2010
    skullchin wrote: »
    After looking around I'm surprised this forum has no posted rules. This is the only forum I've ever seen that has no posted rules. What is the reason for this?

    The short answer is, because we never needed them. This site was created by Brian when he started his journey into Buddhism. As a "new Buddhist," he wanted to create a place where other new Buddhists could get together and talk in a friendly and relaxed way. It was never intended to be an "anything goes" arena for debate or anything like that. As Brian so succinctly puts it:
    The purpose of these forums is to provide a place for westerners to discuss Buddhism, ask questions about Buddha and his teachings, and to bring peace and happiness to all who visit. We are not on a mission to convert anyone, and we do not evangelize. Please keep your words and thoughts respectful and polite while you are visiting. We hope that you find peace in your endeavors.

    The site was very small for the first few years, and we simply didn't need any rules. We pretty much only had a small group of regular posters such as Fede, Simon and myself. Others came and went, but it seemed like larger sites such as E-sangha drew most of them away.

    Interestingly enough, there was a time when things got pretty heated. We had a lot people coming here to debate anatta. At the time, I was adamantly in the camp of "no self" and they were in the camp of "self." We had a lot of debate on the subject, as well as a bit of trouble with people creating multiple accounts who were being abusive and harassing the staff and other members. During this time, they needed some extra help as Fede was the only moderator, so Brian asked me to help out.

    It got to the point where I decided that it might be good to have some suggested guidelines, which would have only applied to the Buddhism 202/Advanced Forum that had recently been created to put these often pedantic debates. They weren't even rules, just suggestions that I hoped people would "take into consideration." I even put up a poll to get member's feedback. However, most of the members didn't like the idea. So, accepting that it wasn't very popular, I dropped the matter and things eventually settled down on their own.

    But since E-sangha has been down, we've been getting a lot of new members, and the increased traffic is bringing in more people that, like it or not, the staff feels should be banned. I don't know if Brian or Lincoln will ever decide to post any forum rules, but even if they did, I doubt that the criticism of the staff would cease.
  • NewOneNewOne Explorer
    edited April 2010
    Swanny wrote: »
    I really didn't look at anything in that discussion as an attack. I found it very informative as a debate. I learned alot from it. If anything, I think the youngster was a bit overzealous and at times resorted to personal attack. Not the other way around.


    I used "attack" losely. I agree that he was abit overzealous. Like I said in my earlier post. He should have took the suggestions of the books and left it like it was, but instead he tried to convert. But from the way he talked, he must have been young. My guess is that he just "found Jesus". I remember that time in my life. It was great for about 8 months then Reality sunk back in. Never really happy. He's honeymoon will end and we may never know what will happen. I just hope that he still will look into buddhism at some point. Maybe not right now but later in life.

    Ty
  • skullchinskullchin Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Thanks Jason, that was helpful :)
  • skullchinskullchin Veteran
    edited April 2010
    NewOne wrote: »
    But from the way he talked, he must have been young. My guess is that he just "found Jesus".

    His profile said he is 16.

    I know what you mean though. I was quite a zealous evangelical when I first decided to pursue spirituality. It was probably what I needed at the time though.
  • edited April 2010
    Oh yeah, he seemed very intelligent and mature (for his age). :) I think he'll be just fine...
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited April 2010
    I 'hear' you but I think your analogies would only stand up if, in the first instance, this were a democracy, or, in the second, if this was a 'church', or, third, if anyone here was in a teacher-student relationship.
    I was making the analogies to highlight the idea of appropriate venue, not on whether the criticism was appropriate. I apologize if the premise was flawed.

    I have no qualms with a discussion such as this. What I find troublesome is when personal or heated issue is taken with moderating decisions, but then again I find that sort of energy troublesome no matter what it is directed at.
    Again I say: publish the rules.
    skullchin wrote: »
    I'm surprised this forum has no posted rules.
    As Jason notes, it is posted in every forum under the heading "Welcome to our site." That they are not numbered, labeled, or more explicit is by design.
    Without overt rules, you, as moderators, leave yourselves open to criticism
    In my experience, formalized lists of carefully-worded rules do little to alleviate criticism and do much to encourage pedantic hair-splitting and second-guessing.
    Where I see what appears to be injustice or arbitrariness, I shall continue to speak up.
    I expect nothing less from you, sir.
    it would demonstrate to me how far we have drifted from the earlier New Buddhist.
    The earlier NewBuddhist with exactly the same guidelines and a staff roster that's barely changed in half a decade? ;)
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited April 2010
    Directed at Simon's "rash of banned members" comment - let's go by the numbers:

    Collectively, we've only banned 47 real people in 7 years (I don't include blatant spammers/spambots as real people). Federica's share of that is a paltry 16.

    We've banned 8 people so far this year, so yes, 2 per month is up a lot from our average of once every 2 months. Consider, however, that in March 2009 we had 80 new members; in March 2010 we got 189. What you see as a rash I see as surprisingly consistent.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited April 2010
    I think banning them gives off the wrong impression
    I think banning them gives the impression that we will serve as a soapbox for evangelism as much as we will evangelize ourselves. That is to say, not at all. :ninja:
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Lincoln wrote: »
    In my experience, formalized lists of carefully-worded rules do little to alleviate criticism and do much to encourage pedantic hair-splitting and second-guessing.
    That's my experience also. Basically, publishing formal rules would only change the content of complaints, without changing their spirit or reducing their quantity. People complain because they are being stopped from doing something they want to do. Publishing rules just alters the way they justify the things they want to do.

    As a moderator on another forum, my experience is that the most important function of rules is making it easier for mods to take punitive action. It's easier to delete a post if it violates a specific rule than if it seems vaguely not in the spirit of some general guideline. But maybe that's just me.
  • edited April 2010
    Lincoln wrote: »
    I think banning them gives the impression that we will serve as a soapbox for evangelism as much as we will evangelize ourselves. That is to say, not at all. :ninja:

    It's not that I'm promoting evangelism, but rather promoting some good old fashion debate. Something that apparently has a bad rep around here. Even Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries hold formal debate sessions, take a look:

    <object width="380" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fWAEkOyzG8s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fWAEkOyzG8s&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

    .
  • edited April 2010
    burn him at the stake! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    christian HEATHEN!!
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited April 2010
    burn him at the stake! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    christian HEATHEN!!
    I'd appreciate it if you were more thoughtful about what and when you post. I don't see how to read that other than as ill-considered and disrespectful.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Lincoln wrote: »
    I'd appreciate it if you were more thoughtful about what and when you post. I don't see how to read that other than as ill-considered and disrespectful.

    Yes, yes!

    You could read it as:

    "burn him at the stake! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    christian HEATHEN!!"

    The rest of it appears to be born of your need to protect? Remember Pietro is a Zen idiot... :)
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    It's not that I'm promoting evangelism, but rather promoting some good old fashion debate. Something that apparently has a bad rep around here. Even Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries hold formal debate sessions....

    .

    Trans, nobody is stifiling debate.
    And I'm not going to go over all my previous discussion all over again, by way of an explanation. Just read my previous posts. (I'm sure you probably already have, anyway.)

    The thing about Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries holding formal debates is an irrelevant argument.

    First of all, the monks areall 'debating' Buddhist doctrine.
    Secondly, this isn't a monastery full of Buddhist Monks.
    Thirdly, nobody can see/hear/face/stand next to/keep company with anybody else on here.
    Fourthly, the discussion with MrZ was not so much as a debate, as a slow and painful execution.....:D The poor kid really didn't stand a chance.
    The forum for advanced practitioners is an excellent one for free, 'almost anything goes' animated, lively discussion.
    You're welcome to start a debate there if you'd like. Feel free.
    Rules or respect, civility, courtesy and tolerance apply, as ever. Other than that, debate away.,
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited April 2010
    Have you ever considered an "anything goes" section of the forum, where only the most egregious transgressions will be suppressed? It would be a natural dumping ground for threads going bad, too.

    Even better, you could set it up so that it's unindexed by search engines, and opt-in for users (you don't even see it unless you're on the ACL.) Small crowd consisting mostly of assholes, less incentive to bring an ego out to ham it up for an audience...
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited April 2010
    That's one for Brian and Lincoln.
  • edited April 2010
    federica wrote: »
    Trans, nobody is stifiling debate.
    And I'm not going to go over all my previous discussion all over again, by way of an explanation. Just read my previous posts. (I'm sure you probably already have, anyway.)

    The thing about Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries holding formal debates is an irrelevant argument.

    First of all, the monks areall 'debating' Buddhist doctrine.
    Secondly, this isn't a monastery full of Buddhist Monks.
    Thirdly, nobody can see/hear/face/stand next to/keep company with anybody else on here.
    Fourthly, the discussion with MrZ was not so much as a debate, as a slow and painful execution.....:D The poor kid really didn't stand a chance.
    The forum for advanced practitioners is an excellent one for free, 'almost anything goes' animated, lively discussion.
    You're welcome to start a debate there if you'd like. Feel free.
    Rules or respect, civility, courtesy and tolerance apply, as ever. Other than that, debate away.,

    Fair enough.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited April 2010
    fivebells wrote: »
    Have you ever considered an "anything goes" section of the forum, where only the most egregious transgressions will be suppressed?
    Have you ever considered digging an open sewer in the middle of your garden? :crazy:
This discussion has been closed.