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.
On topic/off topic & what defines them as such.
how
Veteran Veteran
A recent thread was recently cleared of content deemed to be off topic about a Jukai ceremony
If I start a thread about something I take seriously, and others respond with humor, are those responses off topic?
I am wondering what folks think is "off topic" and when the responses that an OP objects to should be edited out?
0
Comments
I like peanut butter sandwiches.
This is a difficult concept, @how.
In a verbal discussion, conversations often drift here and there. It seems that is often not allowed here on this forum...and yet everybody (yes, EVERYBODY) does it from time to time.
Maybe the question should be about the level of moderation that happens on the forum? Over-moderated forums are a little stifling, under-moderated forums are a little chaotic. Getting the balance right can't be easy for the moderators.
@how:
Is this a really question about off-topic posts, or actually about how moderators (ie, I) perform?
Lately I think the moderation on the forum is quite good. (Except of course when they moderate me!). But I read @how's post as trying to get a better grasp of what is and is not "on topic".
I think a little variation and diversion is no bad thing; that is after all, how normal discussion goes.
But if the topic is of a serious nature, and there are questions of Buddhism, ethics, morals or interpretation, I do try and steer it as close to the subject matter as I can.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never posted a topic that anyone responded to in precisely the same tenor or direction with which I meant the topic to go. Ever. It's like throwing confetti into the air: Who knows which way the wind will blow? I've gotten used to it.
That said, I am grateful that someone is willing to shoulder the moderator's thankless task. I mean that literally since sorting out what is b.s. and what is sincere ... well, I wouldn't like to attempt it... and I am grateful that someone else is willing to put their ass on the line: Some stuff is just over-the-top or too-virtuous-to-swallow or too cranky or too ad hominem ... but it takes a deft and daring touch to make that call. Will it always be spot on? I doubt it. Is it necessary? I think it is.
I've participated on other Buddhist sites where moderators have gotten very righteous and demanding and holy enough to choke a horse and ... well, enough of that shit is enough. Things around here strike me as moderate ... or at least I'm willing to get my ass kicked from time to time ... right, wrong or indifferent.
I think humour, except under very serious circumstances, as in the case of somebody sharing a singularly tragic personal experience, is never off-topic.
Especially if the humour is not intended to offend the people involved or to mock the subject of the thread.
All threads invariably get derailed with a couple of comments and then naturally get back on track.
On other forums where people take their subject and their own person too seriously, the atmosphere is definitely stale. Even the topic loses in brilliance.
One site in particular is deserted en masse by the hour precisely because the administrator stringently stifles, in my opinion, every single iota of humour in the comments. She's hyper-vigilante, and as soon as you get too personal or too informal, she rails you back on track with a smack. She's like the principal in Jane Eyre's orphanage.
Humour is like a pattern of tension release and clearing the air before our ego begins to buy too much into its own story. Amidst all this pervading impermanence, the only luxury we can afford is to make humour something permanent.
As the person who probably got the Jukai thread moderated by my comment, I should say why I made my comment, that was also moderated out - I believed the devotion and sincerity behind the OP was being drowned out, and was trying to get the thread back to that. It was not my intention to have any comments deleted, but I believe @Federica had given the author the chance to respond to the option of removing comments.
I did. Suffice to say she was unhappy.
I felt in this case to prevent major fall-out it was probably easiest and best to comply.
'Nuff said.....
.
That American bloke, what's his name? He's famous - Ah, William James said, "Humour is wisdom dancing".
I love William James. He also said: "We don't laugh because we're happy. We're happy because we laugh."
@federica
I questioned why you removed the postings you did on the initial thread and found your answer understandable and tagged it as insightful. You have been nothing but tolerant of my loose Canadian/English usages here.
Qualifier. I posted no humorous comments on the Jukai thread and only asked the OP to explain what she found disappointing in the responses. That and her answer were also removed with the other posts deemed off topic.
Although I didn't post it, I thought that the humorous postings were actually an "on topic" response to the presentation of Jukai as a cow that not everyone finds as sacred as the OP.
So this is part of my question about what is on topic and what is not.
Are the feelings of the OP, germane to whether it's considered on topic or not?
I get removing those posts to support the three treasures but the supporters of any sacred cow usually tolerate nothing less than unquestioning reverence and are always disappointed by anything less than that..
Unless this forum is actually a sanctuary or platform for sacred bovines where bowing is the only response that is tolerated, I think that disappointment just comes with the territory.( a public declaration )
Well, if we wish to be precise, any posts considered on-topic, are those which are directly pertinent to the title of the thread, and which address the opening post submitted by the thread starter.
Any posts considered off-topic are those which do not contain even a tenuous link to the title of the thread, or which omit to address all or any of the opening post submitted by the thread starter.
If however, the thread has flowed and meandered in a logical manner towards another matter, whether it is loosely connected to the OP, or not, and has included constructive input from two or more members, then I as a moderator would not consider that to be 'off-topic'.
On the other hand, if a thread is requesting the opinions of other members on, for example, how to deal with the wishes of a dying relative who wants to have their life brought to an earlier end than would naturally occur - and the topic is sharply turned in the direction of the wisdom of eating GM tomatoes - then that would be deemed off-topic.
Are you trying to say that GM tomatoes are not a recipe for a shortened lifespan?
IF one were to definitively illustrate that said relative had the opportunity to fulfil their own wish by eating said tomatoes - because indisputable AND irrefutable proof existed that carrying out such an action had this desired effect - that would not be off-topic.
Otherwise, I'd consider it to be manipulating a thread to one's own advantage.
Rather like the wonderful, great and late Quentin Crisp who loathed being invited onto chat shows - yet not being permitted to chat about the things he wanted to chat about, but was made to conform and respond to fed questions accordingly.
" I mean, it's outrageous! I had the most wonderful mother whose intelligence and savoir faire were second to none, and I was being asked about this booooring, dreadful private viewing of some simply awful pieces of art that frankly had me falling asleep with boredom where I stood, and so the young man asked me, 'what do you think of so-and-so's work?' to which I replied, 'I absolutely hated it, unlike my mother, who...."
Nicely done, Mr Crisp, nicely done....
My initial inclination to @Barras disappointment at people's humorous jibes was 'shame on you and shame on your 'teachers'. That is not what I posted. Now it is. @federica response I fully understand and appreciate.
. . . and now back to putting sacred loo rolls on ones head . . . (YinYana refuge ceremony)
.
>
In that case, well colour me guilty of jumpin' the jiggedy-jive!
And as the person who handed in the loo paper, my apologies again to @Barra.
I saw @anataman's sheep on the loo, @federica mentioning the lack of loo paper on the picture, and I just could not resist putting the paper cherry on top of the joke.
No harm was intended but honestly, if we sacralise everything at the expense of desacralising humour, let samsara take possession of our souls.
(P.S.: I don't encourage here a derailment of the thread with definitions and/or non existence of 'soul' in Pali and Sanskrit)
Lets just have a big belly laugh and forget it ... \ lol / ...
Please, let's leave our bellies out of this. I would win, hands down.
>
>
I'm afraid to ask.......
Am I on the list? For cod's sake, I can bring my own roll if need be......
I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha and all enlightening beings from all traditions, past present, future and multidimensional. So help me Cod. Amen.
Wanna bet ?