I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Post Reply
User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:57 pm

I recently made a thread to discuss some teachings of a person who has an account on this forum (Doot). I thought it similar to the threads where the teachings of Ven. Nyanananda viewtopic.php?t=9614 , teachings of Ven. Waharaka here viewtopic.php?f=46&t=26749&start=120 , the teachings of Ven. Buddhadasa viewtopic.php?t=379 , the teachings of Ven. Subhuti who is btw also a member of the forum discussed here; viewtopic.php?f=43&t=32189 or the recent thread about the teachings of Dr. Lalith Ranatunga from Sri Lanka discussed here; viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23858

However the thread was instantly deleted when i wanted to discuss the views of our friend Doot :jawdrop: .

Now what is the reason for this, should i have posted it in connection to other paths? I am allowed to scrutinize the teachings of other people but not Doot? Is member Cappuccinno's views ok to discuss? Are my views ok to discuss? Is there a list?

Now i am extremely curious on what basis in the ToS the decision was taken? Because i would like to know in case i want to have some discussion of views deleted on that same premise.

Either we can discuss the views of anybody or we can't discuss the views of anyone.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2735
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by DooDoot » Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:55 pm

If the matter involves Doot, Doot has already let it go. The Buddha said:
In the same way, monks, the eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.
:ugeek: :heart:

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:11 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:57 pm

Now what is the reason for this, should i have posted it in connection to other paths? I am allowed to scrutinize the teachings of other people but not Doot? Is member Cappuccinno's views ok to discuss? Are my views ok to discuss? Is there a list?

Either we can discuss the views of anybody or we can't discuss the views of anyone.
You can discuss any views, providing they are relevant and are in the correct section. If, however, you have been incessantly bickering with a particular member, reporting virtually every post they make, and resurrecting old posts of theirs with a simple "Oh, no it's not!" contradiction of their last point, then naming them as the topic of a new thread would appear to be unnecessarily inflammatory.

It would be perfectly acceptable to start a new topic based on something another member had posted, but a thread dedicated to them was in this context a generalised ad hominem attack.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:16 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:11 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:57 pm

Now what is the reason for this, should i have posted it in connection to other paths? I am allowed to scrutinize the teachings of other people but not Doot? Is member Cappuccinno's views ok to discuss? Are my views ok to discuss? Is there a list?

Either we can discuss the views of anybody or we can't discuss the views of anyone.
You can discuss any views, providing they are relevant and are in the correct section. If, however, you have been incessantly bickering with a particular member, reporting virtually every post they make, and resurrecting old posts of theirs with a simple "Oh, no it's not!" contradiction of their last point, then naming them as the topic of a new thread would appear to be unnecessarily inflammatory.

It would be perfectly acceptable to start a new topic based on something another member had posted, but a thread dedicated to them was in this context a generalised ad hominem attack.
I only report posts that break ToS it so happens that some people post a lot off-topic and other crap.
Attack on view is attack on person? ok expect more ad-hominem reports from me.

Let me get this straight,
So if i have been incessantly bickering with someone and make a thread to discuss their views, that is ad-hominem? If i respond to their posts that is also ad-hominem? What exactly is "incessantly bickering"? Never saw such term in the ToS
you have been incessantly bickering with a particular member, reporting virtually every post they make, and resurrecting old posts of theirs with a simple "Oh, no it's not!" contradiction of their last point, then naming them as the topic of a new thread would appear to be unnecessarily inflammatory.
Why do you lie? Thread got deleted before ressurection of old topics. I reported only 2-3 post out of probably 6+ of this particular member today and this also happened after you deleted that thread. You can't say that X happens in the context of consequenes.

Try again and explain why you deleted that thread. You can be honest, that's ok.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:41 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:16 pm
Why do you lie? Thread got deleted before ressurection of old topics. I reported only 2-3 post out of probably 6+ of this particular member today and this also happened after you deleted that thread. You can't say that X happens in the context of consequenes.

Try again and explain why you deleted that thread. You can be honest, that's ok.
From the Complaints Procedure:
If you have a complaint about an act of moderation...

Attempt to resolve the issue with the moderator in question first (if known, and if online) via PM

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:44 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:41 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:16 pm
Why do you lie? Thread got deleted before ressurection of old topics. I reported only 2-3 post out of probably 6+ of this particular member today and this also happened after you deleted that thread. You can't say that X happens in the context of consequenes.

Try again and explain why you deleted that thread. You can be honest, that's ok.
From the Complaints Procedure:
If you have a complaint about an act of moderation...

Attempt to resolve the issue with the moderator in question first (if known, and if online) via PM
Cat got your fingers... ok

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:51 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:44 pm

Cat got your fingers... ok
No, just following the procedure and not engaging in meta-discussion here.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:14 pm

I'm coming out of DhammaWheel hiding to say this, but if meta-discussion is not allowed, you need to get rid of this suggestion box.

It's nothing but metadiscussion. Like this post that I don't feel bad about posting. Because the rules against metadiscussion are a) stupid and b) constantly broken.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:38 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:51 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:44 pm

Cat got your fingers... ok
No, just following the procedure and not engaging in meta-discussion here.
Case and point, Sam Vara, this post of your's is meta-discussion. You should remove it.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:47 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:38 pm
Case and point, Sam Vara, this post of your's is meta-discussion. You should remove it.
I'll let it stand, thanks. Every moderating comment is ipso facto meta-discussion: what else could it be?

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16452
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:52 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:14 pm
I'm coming out of DhammaWheel hiding to say this, but if meta-discussion is not allowed, you need to get rid of this suggestion box.

It's nothing but metadiscussion. Like this post that I don't feel bad about posting. Because the rules against metadiscussion are a) stupid and b) constantly broken.
Comments about the forum are on-topic in the suggestion box, as it states in the heading:
Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
:heart:
Mike

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:29 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:47 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:38 pm
Case and point, Sam Vara, this post of your's is meta-discussion. You should remove it.
I'll let it stand, thanks. Every moderating comment is ipso facto meta-discussion: what else could it be?
Exaaaaaactly.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:09 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 8:29 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:47 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:38 pm
Case and point, Sam Vara, this post of your's is meta-discussion. You should remove it.
I'll let it stand, thanks. Every moderating comment is ipso facto meta-discussion: what else could it be?
Exaaaaaactly.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure of the point you are making. Is it that there should be no moderation because it contravenes the recommendation to avoid meta-discussion; or that the recommendation to avoid meta-discussion should be scrapped because moderators have to engage in it? Or something else?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests