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.

Not being a jerk [official admin thingy]

LincLinc Site ownerDetroit Moderator
edited February 2011 in NewBuddhist.com
We just had a new member who over the course of a day or two made a nuisance of himself and got banned.

We typically have a zero-discussion policy on bannings and discussion closings because it's simply not conducive to positive results. However, we welcome private concerns and the flagging of posts (the 'Flag' link above every comment - it works!) - it helps us inform those decisions. The moderators (Jason & Federica) and I often talk about what's going on privately and make course-corrections along the way.

This time, I want to broach the topic of a particular ban because I think it really highlights our primary rule here: "Don't be a jerk" (aka "talk like you're in our living room").

A Nichiren Buddhist joined and started repeatedly bringing up the Lotus Sutra. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I want to clearly discuss why he got banned.

His belief that "only the Lotus Sutra is valid" was fine. Annoying to most of us, perhaps, but not an offense. The problem started with how he chose to express that belief.

First, he started a "discussion" on his belief that was really just a defiant blog post. This isn't a blogging site. You have many options like Blogger or Wordpress available to you if all you want to do is write diatribes. A discussion implies engagement and 2-way exchange of ideas, and that's what this site is about. I question the motives of someone whose ideas are so fixed when they join a discussion community.

Second, his comments were obstinant and tone-deaf. Let me paraphrase how I interpreted several of his comments: "Your belief is invalid because it's founded on crap, this is the only right thing to believe, so here's the real truth." Now the question is "but if that what he thought, how can you say that without getting banned?" It's really not difficult: "I only recognize the authority of X, this is what X says about that, and therefore my belief is that the answer is Y." It's affirming your belief vs. disparaging others.

If you understand the world of difference between those 2 approaches, then you will always find yourself among friends here, even when you sharply disagree. If this member understood it, I'm sure there could have been many more interesting discussions to be had.
«1

Comments

  • You can never break through to a narcissist. Even when I kept insisting that he was going off topic, he felt that no matter what was being discussed, the Lotus Sutra is always the topic at hand. So annoying. A deserved ban in my opinion. Thanks Lincoln.
  • I was just working on some offending post about the Lotus Sutra, just to see where that would take us, but the moderator deleted the thread before I was ready.
    That's better I guess.
    :-/
  • I'm glad you saw that he wasn't to be taken seriously on a forum like this. Sensible. He was looking for a rise, or was so deluded that he's just incompatible with a forum like this at this point in time.
  • 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
    A factor I'd just like to mention is that we can't babysit you all, the whole time. Hard as it may be to believe, we all have lives outside of this forum, and given that we live on different continents, we can't be around the whole time.
    People have got to start taking responsibility for what they post. Moderators are here to ensure the site is a friendly, welcoming place for new Buddhists to come in and post, and find information, healthy debate and animated discussion.
    It grips my doo-doos when Moderators get criticised and accused of heavy-handedness in moderating, when in fact, if some members watched what they posted (or perhaps just shut up) the problem wouldn't escalate.
    You expect and require us to Moderate, but very often, the issue could have been avoided or played down, if some posts by existent members were more mindful.

    The best way to "kill a troll" is to not feed the flames.
    If everyone agreed to ignore a jerk, the jerk would deflate and become a joke, instead.

    I'm saying no more.
    Nirvana
  • I noticed he was banned and figured it was due to his proselytizing and preaching of the "one truth" of the Lotus Sutra. It is unfortunate that he was not interested in discussions, but instead chose to deny everything BUT the sutra to the exclusion of everything else. Reminds me of other religions...
  • Just wanted to add that I think it would be useful to have an official forum guidelines page, more than just "act like you are guests in our parlor." For many people that really doesn't mean anything, since for some people being in someone's living room means they have the ability to say what they want without being censored. I've noticed a lot of angry comments directed at this very fact, because comments get deleted and posters don't feel they were adequately warned or given notice.
  • edited February 2011

    It grips my doo-doos when Moderators get criticised and accused of heavy-handedness in moderating...
    I can only suggest you practice non-attachment fed. Let it slide. ;)
  • Good to know you're on the job, Lincoln. :)
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Thanks Lincoln and Federica for making an attempt to delineate a thankless task. When it comes to drawing lines in the sand, "don't be a jerk" sounds reasonable from where I sit...and single-minded proselytizing sounds pretty jerky to me.

    On the other hand, I have more than once been called a jerk in the past. :)
  • As another Nichiren Buddhist (from a different school than Chogetsu) I would like to say two things.

    First, he does this on practically every forum he joins, as well as on his own blogs. I think banning him was the right decision for this forum.

    Second, please don't judge all Nichiren Buddhists by the behavior of one of our bad apples. We don't all behave that way.

    Namaste, Engyo
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Thank you @Engyo, I was a starting to think this whole Nichiren thing was some sort of cult-like sect where everyone was like that (esp. since the guy had at least one cohort with him, Buku or something like that), and it was a depressing thought.

    Now I'm much less depressed. :D Could also have to do with the fact the guy's gone; he just had no respect for the beliefs of others whatsoever.

    And thank you very much @Federica and @Lincoln. I didn't mind at all that the guy had his own thread about the superiority of the Lotus Sutra; that was his thread. When he started interrupting everyone else's threads with responses that amounted to "whatever your problem is, don't worry about solving it... that teaching is inferior and unworthy of your time, there is only the supreme golden words of Shakyamuni in the Lotus Sutra and no other teaching can lead one to Buddhahood!" and then defending that view in someone else's thread, completely obfuscating the original post's questions... oy!
  • please don't judge all Nichiren Buddhists by the behavior of one of our bad apples. We don't all behave that way.

    Namaste, Engyo
    Thanks, Engyo. Good to know. :)
  • Thanks for working hard to keep the forum functioning, instead of a warzone.
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    I think I 65% agree with all of you. :nyah:

    To prevent you from asking why, I think you should have told him what the problem was and worked it out. We're partially here to learn, no?

    What's he gunna do, go to EVERY thread, and relate EVERYthing to our failure to read the Lotus sutra and understand the truth and ect.

    Even if he did, it would be funny, and we might learn something.

    That is all.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Fede did try explaining it, and was deleting his posts and he kept re-posting; no capacity for learning from his mistakes, and a great capacity for being obstinate even when he's told not to do something by a moderator multiple times.
  • I'm quite certain he was a troll. You guys on here don't know much about the internet, it seems.
  • The impression that I got was he really believed what he was saying, to the exclusion of all else and of reason itself. He really thinks he's supposed to try and convert people to save them, and that's not all that uncommon. I've known people offline like this, not generally Buddhists though...

    Trolls are usually making trouble on purpose, but this guy was making trouble because he doesn't know any better. Though I'm glad he's gone, we should still have compassion for his ignorance. Clinging so hard, being so blind, it will be difficult for him to free himself, don't you think? It's sad.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited February 2011
    I think you should have told him what the problem was and worked it out.
    We did communicate with him both privately and publicly, as we typically do in cases like this.
  • I think he did no better. Look around the internet. I can show you links. People like to pretend to be religious fanatics to make religious people look bad.
  • I do not think he was a troll, rather that he was outwardly trying to convince himself of what he thinks he believes. His posts gave me the sense that he wasn't quite secure about what he believed personally, which perhaps drove him to try and (quite forcefully) convince others.

    I think we assign the "troll" title too easily. It's easy to label someone a troll. It's harder to try and analyze why they might behave in that way.

    Though with all that said, I think you guys did the right thing. Hopefully this will give him some space to look back at what he tried to convey here and rethink his methodology.

    Thanks admins
  • edited February 2011
    I'm quite certain he was a troll. You guys on here don't know much about the internet, it seems.
    Folks -
    I have experience with this individual going back a decade; this is his normal behavior on any Buddhist board. He belongs to a very fundamentalist Fuju Fuse school of Nichiren Buddhism called Kempon Hokke. I suppose you could call him a troll, but not in the normal interwebz meaning of the term. I think he sees being banned from Buddhist sites as a badge of honor and a justification of his views. As far as returning and rethinking his methodology, I wouldn't hold my breath. What you saw here was fairly mild compared to some of the interactions he has had with other Nichiren Buddhists (whom he sees as actually heretical rather than just misguided).

    Namaste, Engyo
  • So you can discredit what he is saying and prove him wrong then? You can show that your version of Buddhism is superior to his???

    I see quite a lot of people knocking him, but no one actually able to discredit him in a straightforward, honest manner.

    I am wondering why this is??? Maybe it is because you cannot??
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    I think I can answer this one @december.

    One can not use belief to prove belief. The only thing that this individual would accept was that his beliefs said they were the only truth, not to believe in any other truth. All traditions of Buddhism teach what they claim is the path to enlightenment, but none of them can be proven as the authentic words of the Buddha, much less proven to be true and the others false. For that matter every religion in the world purports to have the truth, yet many of them are vastly different. And so can the words of religious texts themselves, making claims of truth and superiority, be taken at face value? Not really.

    Only by putting teachings into practice can the truth be known, not by clinging to the words themselves. The individual's clinging was not a problem, but his putting-down of all others and continued interference in other threads by disrespecting the beliefs, traditions and practices of others. This particular forum is a place where all are considered equal and expected to act with respect for each other, and when people fail to do that the moderators/admins must step in and take steps to keep the forum suitable for respectful conversation and debate.
  • johnathanjohnathan Canada Veteran
    @Cloud

    Very well said.
  • @johnathan, Thanks. I try, anyway. Even with that, someone's bound to not "get it". :D What can ya do?
  • I would like to restate that I think a list of forum guidelines would be useful. Please see my comment above.
  • 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 February 2011
    If people need forum guidelines to know how to behave on a forum, then maybe they shouldn't be posting.
    You know how you try to behave IRL? There you go.....
    I would say 5 precepts /8Fold Path covers pretty much all that's necessary.
    Post as if you were in our parlour having tea with our grandma.

  • I know you have said this before, but it's still pretty vague. Participating in online discussions may be new for some people, and there's also the issue of having a hard time expressing emotions, thoughts, etc clearly through a text based system. Also many people don't behave well IRL and may not be aware of it, as you can't really be "banned" from real-life discussion. Some people just don't work well without structured rules.

    Someone suggested having a list of bannable offenses, or a system in place so that people are aware that they are in danger of being banned. You do specify precepts and such, but newcomers might not know what those are or what they mean. This is more what I was thinking:

    Code of Conduct

    1. Respect the Forum Staff: We provide a service in our free time to keep the forums running efficiently. We are all volunteers. Feedback is welcome in the NewBuddhist.com section and this is also the place to request assistance with forum software issues. If you believe an error has been made in moderation or other staff actions, please post politely and help us understand your perspective.
    2. Adult Content, Violence, Illegal Activity: Messages containing violent, sexually oriented, or illegal content or links to sites with this content will either be deleted or saved as evidence. Messages with links to or suggesting illegal activity will also be deleted. Posting or linking to any of these could result in a ban.
    3. Trolling, Attacks and Flaming: These are always forbidden.
    * Trolling is posting in a way that provokes emotional responses.
    * Attacks and derogatory terms of any kind are not welcome. This includes references to other operating systems and the companies that produce them.
    * Flames are messages that personally attack or call any people names or otherwise harass. These, along with any generally condescending posts will be edited or removed at the moderators discretion.
    * If a thread is flame-bait (appears to be intended to start an argument or is likely to cause an argument rather than enhance discussion, as in trolling), it will be locked or removed without notice. Individual flame-bait comments in a post may be deleted or edited at the moderators' discretion.
    * If the thread turns into an argument, it can be closed to further comment or removed without notice. Sometimes a moderator may delete certain portions in order to keep the discussion going, but that is not always possible since we are a staff of volunteers with limited time and numbers.
    4. Spam (unsolicited advertising): Spam will be removed and the account posting it will likely be banned. You are allowed to have links to personal sites in your signature and in your profile, and may post them in threads on occasion (just not often, please) as long as the content of the site linked does not include material that violates this code of conduct and if you are not posting any other form of advertising.
    5. Profanity: We have users of all age groups and of all tolerance levels where profanity is concerned. Right speech is required in this forum.
    6. Marijuana and Recreational Drug Use: These two topics have caused serious problems in the past and are now forbidden topics in the forums. Please find another venue to exercise your freedom of speech on these topics.
    7. Thread Drifting/Steering: Please keep discussions on topic. Topics that do not belong in the main sections belong in General Banter, if they fit the posted rules.
    8. Report Posts: If you have found a post or receive a private message that you feel is inappropriate or that violates the forum code of conduct, please use the report function to notify staff. Do not attempt to moderate discussions or correct other users yourself.
    9. Images: Be prudent in your use of images; they may help to explain something more clearly or indicate a problem you are experiencing better but you have to remember that not everyone has the same bandwidth. If an image is the best way of handling the information, please use thumbnails or keep your image to a small size and less than 100kb.
    10. Links: You may post links to sites with content that is acceptable according to this code of conduct. This is most useful when giving tech support and explaining a topic and then linking to a wiki page or Linux site with more information. You may also link to your personal site.
    11. Signatures: Forum signatures are limited to three lines of text, 10pt maximum font size. Signature content must conform to the same guidelines as all content in this code of conduct.
    12. Avatars: Images must comply with the content guidelines of this code of conduct. A discreet image from your religion is permissible if it is not ostentatious, disruptive, provocative, or for the purposes of proselytising.
    13. Multiple Accounts: Users may only have one active account. If you feel you have justification for requiring a new account, please contact an administrator to discuss your situation. Users who have multiple accounts without approval of an administrator may be penalized or banned.
    14. Private Messaging: Asking support questions via private messages is strongly discouraged. It is unlikely that users will respond to these requests and it defeats the secondary intent of the forums to be a resource for people seeking assistance using internet searches and forum searches.
    15. Editing of posts: When a post breaks guidelines and requires editing in order to bring it back under compliance with this Code of Conduct, the moderator should generally copy the un-edited post or issue an infraction which will keep a copy of the original post in the staff area. Only after the original post is preserved as evidence should the original post be edited. In the private message automatically sent when the infraction is issued the moderator should specify or describe which part of the Code of Conduct was broken.
    16. Thread Closing: Staff are not required to do so, but are requested to post an explanation in a thread that is closed when time permits. This is a non-exhaustive list of reasons a thread may be closed, but will give the general idea:
    * The thread has run it's course and posts have begun repeating themes
    * The thread has degraded into an argument
    * The thread topic is a duplicate of another current and active thread
    * The thread is very old.
    17. Closing posts/thread: If a post/thread would require a lot of work to bring it into compliance, or if editing the violations would result in a nearly blank post/thread, the post/thread should be closed.
    18. Staff: Staff are chosen by the site owners. Users who have demonstrated a consistent attitude of friendliness and kindness and who have shown a pattern of helpfulness in their posts may be contacted and invited to serve. Recommendations are made by current staff in the staff forums or other users by private message. All recommendations are considered. Due to time constraints and privacy issues the Forum Council is unlikely to comment publicly on these recommendations.
    19. Staff posting and moderating in the same thread: This is generally discouraged. Exceptions include when no one else is available or when content very clearly violates the code of conduct.
    20. Appeals: If you have a complaint about a staff action or believe an action was taken in error, the process for dealing with that is to first contact a moderator. You may appeal if you are unsatisfied. After these avenues have been exhausted, you may open a complaint with the Ubuntu Community Council.

    (I know a lot of the stuff isn't really applicable, I just slightly modified it from the Ubuntu Forums Policy page.)
  • That's the kind of guidelines I imagined would be posted somewhere and what I think others were asking for as well. I didn't make it very detailed or exceptionally relevant to the site, as I'd imagine the site owner and moderators would decide what was important enough to include in the code of conduct. I just thought I'd provide a general template for what I was imagining.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    hmm
  • hmm?
  • 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
    People tick the box, but I don't know anybody who reads them. And it doesn't stop anyone from contravening them, if that's what they're hell-bent on doing.
    Ths situation I think, is fine as it is.

  • The situation I think, is fine as it is.
    True words of wisdom, Federica.
    It is fine as it is.

  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    @mugzy You're asking me to form a system of government for a bloody internet forum and then report my actions before the committee for how they fit into the constitution. The answer is simply No.
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    That's the kind of guidelines I imagined would be posted somewhere and what I think others were asking for as well. I didn't make it very detailed or exceptionally relevant to the site, as I'd imagine the site owner and moderators would decide what was important enough to include in the code of conduct. I just thought I'd provide a general template for what I was imagining.
    The worst types of sites I have been on are when the moderators start getting involved in debate and effectively start censoring or curtailing discussion based on personal arguments and whiff-whaffs plus domineering, untransparent processes. That said, I agree it is probably a really difficult job for all our moderators here and for now NB is a 'cool' type of place with open conversations and adminy people who are quite cool, un-egoic, willing to listen and at least as far as I know (have not been back here that much to discuss since the changes) this place faciltiates free flowing discussions. I also do think that formal rules are secondary to what ACTUALLY happens as I have seen places with documented rules which are just used later for different systems of abuse. mugzy, enjoy the forum!

  • I"d like to add one: when someone posts a new OP, don't criticize it or dismiss it as "silly". Leave it for others to enjoy. Different strokes for different folks: what appears to be a frivolous thread (the one asking if there were any Bodhisattvas in modern times was one) may be a delightful topic to others. It's rude to diss someone's thread.

    I used to enjoy the age diversity on this site. Two teen members who tended to post interesting OPs (though not always) got banned yesterday, and I don't know why. Can anyone explain?
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Oh really? How awful. (first reaction) Yeah I agree with c_w - just because one person thinks it's stupid, doesn't mean it is. Too much intervention can stir the fun tracks the other way. And seriously - just go against the point of free, flowing good discussion.For example, disagreement is not 'bad', discussion is just like that sometimes. And why did people get banned :( Oh well, I don't know enough about it all but I hope everything is cool here.
  • @mugzy You're asking me to form a system of government for a bloody internet forum and then report my actions before the committee for how they fit into the constitution. The answer is simply No.
    Sorry that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. I just copied it from Ubuntu and quickly modified it (they have the stuff with the appeals policy, etc) so of course a lot of it was irrelevant. What I was getting at was the general layout of rules, not that the specific rules would be set for this board.

    It was only a suggestion, since I have noticed many members get upset about being banned or having posts deleted. I thought it might be helpful.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited February 2011
    I know you guys never believe me, but I've been doing this a while. I've done it with posted rules, and I've done it without. In my experience, the latter works better. I'm not doing it because I hate rules. I'm doing it because I think it creates great communities to not have "THE RULES" because then the moderators and members have to actually THINK about what they're saying, not roll down some checklist of things they *technically* didn't violate.
  • Okay, that's a much clearer answer. I won't ask for forum rules again.

    Just to reiterate my previous comment I wasn't suggesting a strict code with a committee, etc at all. I just googled "forum rules" or something and picked the first one that came up. It was only a rough approximation.
  • I like it how it is. I think a forum's regulation is more about the judgement of the moderators than a set of rules. ie you have ruled rule x is not needed. The only purpose of rules is so someone can act like an ass and then say 'I'm not violating the rules'.
  • Thanks, Lincoln, I understand now why Journey was banned (I checked the Rules thread).
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited February 2011
    The only purpose of rules is so someone can act like an ass and then say 'I'm not violating the rules'.
    This. This x1000.
  • Oh, right. I've heard of that happening on other forums. Good one, Jeffrey (and Linc).
  • Thanks. Some forums rules work, but its always on well moderated ones (like this one). If its not well moderated rules won't help. But I like this one with rules not stated. It almost makes you 'on your best behaviour'. And another negative about rules is when you get backbiting between members it gives them additional ammunition against eachother 'You broke rule 5.1' 'Oh yeah no I didn't and your breaking rule 3.2'...
  • It appears to be assumed that we (the members) know when someone has been banned. This is certainly not true in my case unless I come across this sort of thread or am consulted (as has been the case in the past). Perhaps it would be good for the sort of openness that we mostly seem to favour if @Lincoln or another simply opened a thread, posted the name and closed the thread again. After all, we no longer have access to a member list.
  • Another good point. Because in the past, people who have been banned have somehow managed to continue posting, until a mod or admin runs them off the site.
  • LincLinc Site owner Detroit Moderator
    edited February 2011
    @compassionate_warrior That was a simple mis-click by a moderator.

    @Simonthepilgrim I gotta think about that. I hate to stop and have these big to-dos and explanations every time someone decides to piss in our soup. It's exhausting.
  • Previous forums I have been in have an appelation 'new buddhist for 10 posts' 'site friend for 50 posts' whatever... The point isn't that part because nobody cares.

    But if they are banned it will say Banned by the forum name. In their archived posts. That way a member will know if someone was banned.
  • Hopefully people will not be banned for disagreeing. Anyway I generally like openness.
This discussion has been closed.