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 .
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.
I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
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.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
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.User1249x 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.
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.
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
I only report posts that break ToS it so happens that some people post a lot off-topic and other crap.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:11 pmYou 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.User1249x 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.
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.
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
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.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.
Try again and explain why you deleted that thread. You can be honest, that's ok.
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
From the Complaints Procedure:User1249x 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.
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
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
Cat got your fingers... okSam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:41 pmFrom the Complaints Procedure:User1249x 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.
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
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
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.
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.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
Case and point, Sam Vara, this post of your's is meta-discussion. You should remove it.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
Comments about the forum are on-topic in the suggestion box, as it states in the heading: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.
Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Mike
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
Exaaaaaactly.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: I suggest having a consistent policy regarding the discussion of views
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?