Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Locked
User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by rightviewftw » Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:14 pm

Greetings,

For all the nice things this discussion board offers it is not without problems. Now It is commonly accepted that;
From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded. These castes are natural in that they are the result of how people of different intellectual abilities relate to one another. This is based on research done by Leta Hollingworth in the 1930's and the more recent work of D.K. Simonton.
Source; http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/ ... chael.html
Where the "Clueless" are too stupid to productively participate or follow the public discourse, the "Followers" looking to "Leaders" for explainations, "Leaders" seeking counsel from the "Advisors" and the "Excluded" being the ones of the most profound ability being excluded due to being as a rule incomprehensible to the vast majority.

I personally see this play out in this community in the most morbid way where the Clueless routinely abuse the higher caste members. Now we do not have to look long before we see examples of this as it usually occurs on a daily basis. I will however cite one particular example that should be quite illuminating;
X wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:03 pm
Y wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:02 pm
*This body comes into being through conceit.
*And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
Fake Buddha quote.
Now what is referred to as Fake Buddha quote is a discourse of Ananda in the an04.159 where he gives a Dhamma teaching concluding with "Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."

Now this is proof that if Ananda or a person of equal ability himself was posting he would be abused and accused of "Fake Buddha Quote" or worse, by some members of this forum. Far too often do we see members call wrong on what is explained by the Sutta, i won't give examples just because i don't want to risk defaming people under the current ToS.

Now accusations such as "wrong view" or a "putthujhana" may seem trivial to most people but it is actually considered most offensive in Classical Theravada, as the commentaries pin it as potentially the worst accusations.

The reality of this forum is that unsubstantiated accusations such as wrong view, fake Buddha Quote are well-tolerated even when directed at individuals such as Ananda whilst calling someone "Clueless" will usually be deemed a breach of ToS.

So what actually happens is that the most worthless members who are unable to productively participate are free to abuse even the most valuable members with worst accusations and are being protected from harsh admonishment by the ToS.

Of course the loss of participation from the top-tier members is potentially devastating and this should be obvious. So my suggestion is to make structural changes to this forum aimed at facilitating a productive discussion and encourage participation of the higher caste posters, to appropriately exclude and to fight inappropriate exclusion.

I welcome people to weigh in with suggestions.

Practically i want to suggest creation of a sub-forum for Discussion/Debate where participants are encouraged to:

1. Give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer
2. Give an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer
3. Give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question
4. Put aside a question deserving to be put aside

5. stand by what is possible and impossible
6. stand by agreed-upon assumptions
7. stand by teachings known to be true
8. stand by standard procedure

9. Not to wander from one thing to another when asked a question
10. Not to pull the discussion off the topic when asked a question
11. Not to express anger & aversion and sulks

Further participants would be encouraged to refrain from;

1. Putting down the questioner
2. Crushing/Owning the questioner
3. Ridiculing him the questioner
4. Grasping at the little mistakes

Here members could be excluded from participation based on arbitrational rulings and alternative moderation. IE a group of representatives may be chosen to settle disputes and exclude members from participation in that particular venue. Ideally it would not be free-for-all by default and one would have to apply to join.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4501
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:32 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:14 pm
Now It is commonly accepted that;
From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded. These castes are natural in that they are the result of how people of different intellectual abilities relate to one another. This is based on research done by Leta Hollingworth in the 1930's and the more recent work of D.K. Simonton.
That's not commonly accepted. It seems to be a dated and clunky typology of political participation, and if I'd ever heard of it before, I'd forgotten it because it didn't seem useful. I'm not convinced of the wisdom of making changes on the basis of a favourite theory, but I think we should consider all proposals on their merits.
Practically i want to suggest creation of a sub-forum for Discussion/Debate where participants are encouraged to:

1. Give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer
2. Give an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer
3. Give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question
4. Put aside a question deserving to be put aside

5. stand by what is possible and impossible
6. stand by agreed-upon assumptions
7. stand by teachings known to be true
8. stand by standard procedure

9. Not to wander from one thing to another when asked a question
10. Not to pull the discussion off the topic when asked a question
11. Not to express anger & aversion and sulks
Points 1-7 would, I predict, lead to endless dhamma-lawyering as to what category questions are in, what is possible, and what teachings are known to be true, etc. Who gets to decide these things?

Point 8, 9, and 10 are already covered by the ToS.

I'm entirely in favour of point 11. Again, the ToS recommend that we be responsible for our own behaviour.
Further participants would be encouraged to refrain from;

1. Putting down the questioner
2. Crushing/Owning the questioner
3. Ridiculing him the questioner
4. Grasping at the little mistakes
I completely agree. Eliminating such behaviour would make this forum a far better place. Members are already strongly encouraged to refrain from these things, but where individuals are very keen to do these things, they can often become adept at offensive behaviour which stays just on the side of legality. It's very difficult to police an attitude of condescending malevolence which uses nuance, stock phrases of good will, and smiley emoticons.
Here members could be excluded from participation based on arbitrational rulings and alternative moderation. IE a group of representatives may be chosen to settle disputes and exclude members from participation in that particular venue.
Who chooses these representatives, on what basis, and what happens if they don't agree? Or what happens if they do agree, and enforce a particular view on that section?

More importantly, what happens if you, rightviewftw, have your application rejected?

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by rightviewftw » Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:40 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:32 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:14 pm
Now It is commonly accepted that;
From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded. These castes are natural in that they are the result of how people of different intellectual abilities relate to one another. This is based on research done by Leta Hollingworth in the 1930's and the more recent work of D.K. Simonton.
What is the exact basis for rejecting this? Looks like solid research to me.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:32 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:14 pm
Practically i want to suggest creation of a sub-forum for Discussion/Debate where participants are encouraged to:

1. Give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer
2. Give an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer
3. Give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question
4. Put aside a question deserving to be put aside

5. stand by what is possible and impossible
6. stand by agreed-upon assumptions
7. stand by teachings known to be true
8. stand by standard procedure

9. Not to wander from one thing to another when asked a question
10. Not to pull the discussion off the topic when asked a question
11. Not to express anger & aversion and sulks
Points 1-7 would, I predict, lead to endless dhamma-lawyering as to what category questions are in, what is possible, and what teachings are known to be true, etc. Who gets to decide these things?
1&4 are definitely not that hard to make out and certainly there is leeway
5-8 are mostly aimed at people coming up with wild suggestions like rejecting Sutta because they do not agree with it. Stand by procedure would be the procedure of these rules.
9&10 are made to filter out type of posters who are eel-wrigglers, clinging to their views and not interested in a discussion
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:32 pm
Who chooses these representatives, on what basis, and what happens if they don't agree? Or what happens if they do agree, and enforce a particular view on that section?

More importantly, what happens if you, rightviewftw, have your application rejected?
Who get's to arbitrate is up for a discussion and the initial group to review applications can be chosen by the popular vote following a public discussion.

I am very sad that you think it is the most important thing but If i get rejected i don't care at all and will happily do my own thing elsewhere. I frequently make determinations not to post anymore but when i see people asking for help and being given wrong answers it is hard to watch and i tend to talk myself into posting. It is hard to explain how little i care if i get excluded, frankly i would think it is your loss and just leave.

Surely i could find other ways of teaching, learning and talking about the Dhamma.

Also these rules are not going to turn out into Dhamma-lawyering, i have faith in the civility of people and the ability of Tathagata to formulate good guidelines for what is deemed as appropriate participation in a discussion: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer...
I take the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha as my refuge and the highest authority, what about you Sam Vara?
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4501
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:19 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:40 pm

What is the exact basis for rejecting this? Looks like solid research to me.
Where is the research? The article you link to is about people with an IQ of >140 not thriving in elite professions. Such people would be, apparently, about 0.25% of those who regularly post here. Your account seems to be of a typology, and we need evidence that such a typology is more relevant and helpful than any other. Why not choose an elite based on Mosca or Pareto's theories?
1&4 are definitely not that hard to make out and certainly there is leeway
5-8 are mostly aimed at people coming up with wild suggestions like rejecting Sutta because they do not agree with it. Stand by procedure would be the procedure of these rules.
9&10 are made to filter out type of posters who are eel-wrigglers, clinging to their views and not interested in a discussion
I'm sure the intention behind them is good, but I don't think they are workable. I can think of several members who could happily dispute whether a question was properly categorical until their opponent reported their post. It would be changing the rules in the pig-wrestling competition.
Who get's to arbitrate is up for a discussion and the initial group to review applications can be chosen by the popular vote.
How would that improve matters? We already have the potential for the OP to specify how they want the ensuing discussion to go, and what counts as licit comment. If you want to eliminate what you consider to be time-wasters, make clear what you think time-wasting is, and ask the mods to enforce that.
I am very sad that you think it is the most important thing but If i get rejected i don't care at all and will happily do my own thing elsewhere. I frequently make determinations not to post anymore but when i see people asking for help i tend to talk myself into posting.
I wasn't being entirely serious, rightviewftw, just pointing out that these things have a law of unintended consequences. I'm very glad you continue to post here.
As i understand it some of moderators do not take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha
Don't they? I'm not sure what counts as taking refuge, but I was certainly never asked!
keep in mind that when you are arguing against these rules and guidelines you are arguing against the Dhamma and the Sutta Pitaka for all of the above suggested rules are prescribed by the Tathagata
I don't see any rules in the sutta you link to. It just describes people who are fit to talk to, and unfit to talk to. Sujato's translation is whether people are "competent to hold a discussion". I'm fine with that; I try my best, but I'm often unfit to talk to, and often meet people who are also unfit to talk to. My view is that we sometimes have to talk with people who are unfit to talk to, or are not competent in discussion.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:52 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:32 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:14 pm
Now It is commonly accepted that;
From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded. These castes are natural in that they are the result of how people of different intellectual abilities relate to one another. This is based on research done by Leta Hollingworth in the 1930's and the more recent work of D.K. Simonton.
That's not commonly accepted. It seems to be a dated and clunky typology of political participation, and if I'd ever heard of it before, I'd forgotten it because it didn't seem useful. ...
+ 1

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by rightviewftw » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:16 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:19 pm
Where is the research? The article you link to is about people with an IQ of >140 not thriving in elite professions. Such people would be, apparently, about 0.25% of those who regularly post here. Your account seems to be of a typology, and we need evidence that such a typology is more relevant and helpful than any other. Why not choose an elite based on Mosca or Pareto's theories?
You appear to have missed the general principal outlined in the article. Which is that those Leader-Follower, Leader-Advisor dynamics form and work best within a certain range of deviation. Therefore the dynamics will form in a community in which members are not selected based on having similar IQ. IE while in a general population those w 140+ tend to get excluded.Now i have not worked out distributions but roughly if you have a group of the lowest 50% of the population with IQs the castes will form but the people with IQ of 85-100 will be the Advisors, 70-85 will be the Leaders, 60-70 Followers and sub 60 will be the clueless. In Dhamma it would be different and IQ is not a measure of one's ability because a 130 iq Sotapanna is imo more valuable than a 160 iq puttujana. However i think IQ is probably the best predictor for ability to understand the Dhamma.

As for Mosca and the other person i will look into it, not familiar.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:19 pm
Who get's to arbitrate is up for a discussion and the initial group to review applications can be chosen by the popular vote.
How would that improve matters? We already have the potential for the OP to specify how they want the ensuing discussion to go, and what counts as licit comment. If you want to eliminate what you consider to be time-wasters, make clear what you think time-wasting is, and ask the mods to enforce that.
I just want the forum to be a place for study and Q/A where people do not get abused by half-wit morons who when presented with words that explicitly contradict them ask what are words and whether or not discourse is a fake.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:19 pm
I wasn't being entirely serious, rightviewftw, just pointing out that these things have a law of unintended consequences. I'm very glad you continue to post here.
If it does not work out it can be reversed. I don't see much of a downside to it. I also do not think that it is the best or the only option but it is the only one i got that has a chance of being approved. I do think that doing nothing to address the problems that we have is the worst option.

It is a people problem really, if it was up to me id just make some accounts read-only for a while and see if they change their ways.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:19 pm
keep in mind that when you are arguing against these rules and guidelines you are arguing against the Dhamma and the Sutta Pitaka for all of the above suggested rules are prescribed by the Tathagata
I don't see any rules in the sutta you link to. It just describes people who are fit to talk to, and unfit to talk to. Sujato's translation is whether people are "competent to hold a discussion". I'm fine with that; I try my best, but I'm often unfit to talk to, and often meet people who are also unfit to talk to. My view is that we sometimes have to talk with people who are unfit to talk to, or are not competent in discussion.
The way i imagine this plays out irl is that people who are of wrong views and quarrelsome get harshly admonished and if they do not reform they get expelled from groups and assemblies, they are not tolerated.

Here they are tolerated and are causing a lot of disturbance. I just wish something was done and i am not really complaining or demanding a change, i don't care all that much. However i do think it would be a huge improvement if regulations were geared towards censoring the wicked one way or another.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4501
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:52 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:16 pm
You appear to have missed the general principal outlined in the article. Which is that those Leader-Follower, Leader-Advisor dynamics form and work best within a certain range of deviation.
I can't find any of that in there at all. The only mention of deviation relates to the SD or dispersion of characteristics within IQ categories. The article is about the under-representation of very high IQs in elite jobs, and the problems besetting those with such genius-level intelligence. Where does it say all that other stuff that you put in quotes as if someone else said it? -
From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded. These castes are natural in that they are the result of how people of different intellectual abilities relate to one another. This is based on research done by Leta Hollingworth in the 1930's and the more recent work of D.K. Simonton.
The "excluded" are those super-bright people whose personal characteristics debar them from elite positions their IQ would otherwise suggest. Hollingworth was a psychologist who studied gifted children. Nowhere is there any mention of five "castes", based on IQ, and nowhere are democratic meritocracies mentioned. If you think that is what is being said, could you please provide direct quotes from the article? Nor is this stuff "commonly accepted". I've never heard of it before, and I don't accept it. Could you direct me to some other sources where this "five caste" theory is quoted with approval? (I might, of course, just have a very low IQ - count me as one of the "Clueless"!)
I just want the forum to be a place for study and Q/A where people do not get abused by half-wit morons who when presented with words that explicitly contradict them ask what are words and whether or not discourse is a fake.
Nobody wants to be abused, of course, but perhaps what looks like explicit contradiction is a genuine disagreement as to the meaning of terms and suttas; and it's OK to cast doubt on the authenticity or appropriateness of suttas if done in an appropriate manner. And again, if you want to rule that out of a thread, just state it at the outset. All posts doing that would then be off-topic.
It is a people problem really, if it was up to me id just make some accounts read-only for a while and see if they change their ways.
I'm sure some members have similar suggestions regarding me and you, so how do we resolve that one? If people break the ToS repeatedly or egregiously, they are warned and suspended.
The way i imagine this plays out irl is that people who are of wrong views and quarrelsome get harshly admonished and if they do not reform they get expelled from groups and assemblies, they are not tolerated.
So now it's not really about what the Buddha proscribed, it's about how you think this actually works in real life? Well, there are other options. One of them is that we acknowledge that people have different opinions to us, even about things we hold dear and consider to be self-evident. We understand that some of these people are not competent to hold a discussion. So we either try to show them how to develop those discussion skills, or we do our best to understand what they are saying, and don't take it personally. We develop toleration. Sure, we could ban them. We could kill them. But I'm happy with my option, if I can remember to live up to it.

If they are genuinely disruptive and nasty, as opposed to inconveniently argumentative, then report them. And, again: if you want a certain type of discussion ("Categorical answers only, please!") then specify that in the OP.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by rightviewftw » Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:46 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:52 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:16 pm
You appear to have missed the general principal outlined in the article. Which is that those Leader-Follower, Leader-Advisor dynamics form and work best within a certain range of deviation.
I can't find any of that in there at all.
Leta Hollingworth studied profoundly gifted children. She reported them as having IQs of 180+, which was a R16 score. As such, on today's tests this equates to 159+. Her conclusion was that when IQ differences are greater than 30 points, leader/follower relationships will break down or will not form. It establishes an absolute limit to the intellectual gulf between leader and followers. She also concluded that there was an D15IQ 'sweet spot' of best outcomes from 123 to 144.
...
Much more recently, D.K. Simonton found that persuasiveness is at its maximum when the IQ differential between speaker and audience is about 20 points. While he has not studied this effect among those with very high IQs, it is assumed that it follows ratio IQs at the high end. This has been corroborated with empirical studies of manager and leader success, which peaks between a 1.0 and 1.2 standard deviation differential.
...
We already know that elites have an average IQ of about 125 (R16 128) which implies that the audience that is to be convinced by the elites has a mean R16IQ of 108 (D15IQ is about the same under 120 IQ). People with R16IQs below 98, after Hollingworth, are not effective followers and in a modern meritocracy are essentially disenfranchised and in the public discourse, essentially 'The Clueless'. It means that the 'The Followers' in the public discourse have a R16IQ mode of 108 R16IQ and 'The Leaders' have a R16IQ mode of 128 (125 D15IQ). These calculations provide us with a theoretical understanding of why the intellectually elite professions so consistently have mean D15IQs of 125.
...
Polymathica is targeted at the upper 5% of the population in intellectual sophistication. This is approximately equivalent to D15IQs above 125. Leaders will, characteristically, have R16IQs over 148 (D15IQ 147) and up to 178 R16IQ (166 D15IQ). Advisors will have D15IQs of 161+.
Stuff like this? When i say commonly accepted i mean accepted by smart people in general. I realize that some people do not accept much of the IQ theory.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:52 pm
Nobody wants to be abused, of course, but perhaps what looks like explicit contradiction is a genuine disagreement as to the meaning of terms and suttas; and it's OK to cast doubt on the authenticity or appropriateness of suttas if done in an appropriate manner. And again, if you want to rule that out of a thread, just state it at the outset. All posts doing that would then be off-topic.
I will make a comment; sometimes i contemplate trolling this forum just to demonstrate how much ridiculousness i could get away with (virtually unlimited). I won't do because i do not want to mislead anybody. However my point is that the line between what is a legitimate disagreement and what constitutes blatant trolling is non-existent on this board.
I'm sure some members have similar suggestions regarding me and you, so how do we resolve that one?
They don't get a say:) Nobody cares what those people think. What i mean is that if it is put up for a public discussion i think very few will want you removed, vast majority will want you to stay and the smarter people will want you to stay and will make good arguments for keeping you and this will not be the case for everyone. Some people will have strong cases for removal, weak at best case for non-removal and most wise people will agree if not the majority of gen pop that they are better silenced. It's what i think anyway.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:52 pm
So now it's not really about what the Buddha proscribed, it's about how you think this actually works in real life?
These are not mutually exclusive.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:52 pm
One of them is that we acknowledge that people have different opinions to us, even about things we hold dear and consider to be self-evident. We understand that some of these people are not competent to hold a discussion. So we either try to show them how to develop those discussion skills, or we do our best to understand what they are saying, and don't take it personally. We develop toleration. Sure, we could ban them. We could kill them.
This is a valid position but i would argue that it will not lead to realizing the full potential of a Dhamma forum on the internet and is not a good option comparatively.
because of this;
If a fool be associated with a wise man even all his life, he will perceive the truth as little as a spoon perceives the taste of soup.
Verse 206: It is good to see the Noble Ones (ariyas); to live with them is always a pleasure; not seeing fools is also always a pleasure.

Verse 207: He who walks in the company of fools has to grieve for a long time. Association with fools is ever painful, as living with an enemy; association with the wise is a pleasure, as living with relatives.

Verse 208: Therefore one should follow a resolute, intelligent, learned, persevering and dutiful ariya; follow such a virtuous and wise man, as the moon follows the path of the stars.
I personally think it is actually foolish to participate because it is quite painful and i am sure i am not the only person who finds it unpleasant.
Therefore what you suggest actually comes at a cost of some people choosing not to participate due to abuse and "a toxic enviroment".

Thus i think that doing nothing to remove the quarrelsome results in a huge net loss due to trying to do the impossible on account of compassion and forbearance. It is a Noble thing you are trying to do but i don't think it works out in practice.

Imo this forum has people who are established in Right View but there are not many. I think the objective should be attracting more of those, rather than educating the hopeless in the manner of civil discourse.

I don't see my favorite posters participate much. So i would like to ask why do you think that DW attracts so few monks and learned lay people?
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by rightviewftw » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:22 am

Also another verse for not participating with unhinged people around;
Don't sacrifice your own welfare
for that of another,
no matter how great.
Realizing your own true welfare,
be intent on just that.
What i deduct from these quotes is that i should not participate on this forum as it is now because it is actually bad for my practice. Even if i don't like seeing what i believe to be people being misguided, i should let it happen because i know that if i engage it might turn quarrelsome and be burdensome for me.

I like posting ofc so it is not like i am going to stop participating if nothing changes or will continue if something does change. Just saying how i see it.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4501
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:46 pm

Stuff like this? When i say commonly accepted i mean accepted by smart people in general. I realize that some people do not accept much of the IQ theory.
It appears to depend on how you define "smart people". If you have to be "smart" to accept this, then we have a tautology. Otherwise, few people seem to accept it.
my point is that the line between what is a legitimate disagreement and what constitutes blatant trolling is non-existent on this board.
You might be right, in that it's a matter of judgement on the part of all concerned, with no appeal to objective truth. But it's more likely to be the result of different perceptions. Often, you have reported posts for reasons which I cannot agree with. I might be wrong in my judgement there, and so might other mods. But on the other hand, it might be your judgement that is wrong.
Nobody cares what those people think.
They care what they think.
These are not mutually exclusive.
They aren't, but you need a stronger argument than that. Citing a sutta is citing an authority. Saying how you think things would pan out is fine, but if someone else thinks that it would pan out differently they could make a similar case. Your view gains authority when you show it to be necessarily aligned to something we trust, like the Buddha's word, or something similarly foundational.
I personally think it is actually foolish to participate because it is quite painful and i am sure i am not the only person who finds it unpleasant.
Therefore what you suggest actually comes at a cost of some people choosing not to participate due to abuse and "a toxic enviroment".
Again, you might be right, but I see little evidence for it. You can't find it all that painful, because your rate of posting is very high. The main point for me here is that we have the tools to eliminate a lot of the toxicity already. We just need to use them. For example, I removed a post that you reported a couple of hours ago. If people specify what they want in their OP; are mindful that their verbal behaviour has an impact on others; and if they report breaches of the ToS, then there is no need to divide members up into "leaders", "clueless", "wicked", and so on.
Imo this forum has people who are established in Right View but there are not many.
How do we determine who they are? What is the criterion that we must look for in their posts?
I don't see my favorite posters participate much. So i would like to ask why do you think that DW attracts so few monks and learned lay people?
Despite you linking them, I think these are best dealt with as two separate issues. I don't know who your favourite posters are, but I'm sorry that you are missing them here. I don't have much to compare it with, but DW does seem to attract monks and learned lay people.

User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by JamesTheGiant » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:56 am

The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded.
Can we please add a new category, "The Complainers".

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4501
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:57 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:22 am
Also another verse for not participating with unhinged people around;
Don't sacrifice your own welfare
for that of another,
no matter how great.
Realizing your own true welfare,
be intent on just that.
What i deduct from these quotes is that i should not participate on this forum as it is now because it is actually bad for my practice. Even if i don't like seeing what i believe to be people being misguided, i should let it happen because i know that if i engage it might turn quarrelsome and be burdensome for me.

I like posting ofc so it is not like i am going to stop participating if nothing changes or will continue if something does change. Just saying how i see it.
If there are unhinged people around, then one can still participate without sacrificing one's own welfare. Everyone here is protected by the ToS and their own wisdom.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by rightviewftw » Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:00 am

JamesTheGiant wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:56 am
The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded.
Can we please add a new category, "The Complainers".
how would that fit in or are you just taking a stab at me for trying to improve the forum? In the latter case wow, really intelligent contribution, please marry my daughter.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by rightviewftw » Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:04 am

I think there is not much point in me further trying to convince you but i will adress the portions of your post that i found interesting.
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 am
You can't find it all that painful, because your rate of posting is very high.
I find it extremely unpleasant. I often cringe when seeing certain people post and i get very annoyed and frustrated at times. I don't normally talk to people irl so the socializing i do on the forum is pretty much all of the socializing that i do apart from buying groceries. I post a lot because it keeps me thinking about the Dhamma and i think that i know answers to some of the questions or am occasionally able to point out mistakes.
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 am
The main point for me here is that we have the tools to eliminate a lot of the toxicity already. We just need to use them. For example, I removed a post that you reported a couple of hours ago.

I am sure he will make another one soon enough and i am certain that deletion of the post made no preventive impact.
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 am
If people specify what they want in their OP; are mindful that their verbal behaviour has an impact on others; and if they report breaches of the ToS, then there is no need to divide members up into "leaders", "clueless", "wicked", and so on.
People are already divided based on the merit and prior development.
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 am
Imo this forum has people who are established in Right View but there are not many.
How do we determine who they are? What is the criterion that we must look for in their posts?
Well you can try coming up with top 10 people you perceive to be smartest and see how many of them are aligned with each other of major and minor points and compare their doctrines to the Sutta

Other than that a person probably has to become Ariyan and see the fourfold round for oneself.
I don't see my favorite posters participate much. So i would like to ask why do you think that DW attracts so few monks and learned lay people?
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:51 am
I don't have much to compare it with, but DW does seem to attract monks and learned lay people.
Please...
Ven. Dhammanando - 1.16 posts per day (active)
Ven. Pesala - 1.08 posts per day (active)
Ven. Gavesako - 0.50 posts per day (active)
Ven. Samahita - 0.79 posts per day (inactive)
Ven. Kumara - 0.28 posts per day (active)
I know of 6 more with < 0.05 posts per day (inactive or effectively inactive)

Yes there are 4 monks who occasionally post here and we are lucky to have 3 posts a day.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Make structural changes to promote competence and productive discussion

Post by retrofuturist » Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:05 am

Greetings,

As per ToS 4...
At Dhamma Wheel, we respect your intellectual and spiritual autonomy. As such, the staff here will not enforce reverence to anyone or anything, nor censor speech gratuitously. In keeping with this respect for your autonomy, we expect you to be personally responsible for your own emotions and responses.
A logical consequence of this is that we have a flat non-hierarchical member structure. In other words, we leave it for people to decide for themselves what is true and false, what is worth listening to and what is not etc.

Respecting the spiritual and intellectual autonomy of members, means we do not in any way attempt to rank and categorise people into a hierarchial structure - such as that required to enable a model containing "The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded." ...

Rather, there are simply "Members"... and it just happens to be that a small handful of these members (i.e. staff) also monitor ToS compliance. But when it comes to the Dhamma, all members are simply members, and speak as members. Even the ordained are regarded simply as "members". How you decide to listen to, and regard members, is a personal matter for you to decide, in accordance with ToS 4.

The flat structure of this forum is intentional. If certain members crave a more authoritarian model with an "elite" class (appointed by whom and on what criteria?) they're welcome to create and lord over such a hierarchial Dhamma discussion forum, but we have no interest in telling you what to think, and who to listen to, so Dhamma Wheel will not be that. Our only requirement of members is ToS-adherence, which is primarily behavioural, and not based on view.

With that said, the suggestion is noted, declined, and the topic closed.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trekmentor and 8 guests