The Veritas Society

The Auditorium => Main Hall => Voting Forum => Topic started by: kobok on July 15, 2013, 08:20:30 PM

Title: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 15, 2013, 08:20:30 PM
There has been a lot of discussion, and there have been ideas put forward on this topic.  So this is an alternate to the other proposal (http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php/topic,22103.0.html).  If both were to pass, we will only put into effect the one with the highest approval (you may support both, or only one, as you choose).  The proposed rule:

"People may not engage in behaviors that are both persistently disruptive and blatantly delusional."
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Theopholis on July 15, 2013, 09:47:01 PM
I'm okay with either, but this one boasts no penalty. What would be the action taken in this case?
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Akenu on July 15, 2013, 11:25:49 PM
I approve, but only if you specify how such case will be considered. You know, it's a pretty general rule and can range in a lot of topics, starting with talking about being haunted by invisible pink dragon turtle mutant werewolf alligators and ending with practicing demonology.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 15, 2013, 11:41:07 PM
I'm okay with either, but this one boasts no penalty. What would be the action taken in this case?

It would be the same as with any other rule.

Typical procedures are to ask for conformance, warn, and then if it persists establish a temporary ban.  (These procedures are the "best practice" goal for "normal" situations, but are streamlined in urgent cases, and adjusted for individual cases as needed to obtain conformance with the rules.)

I approve, but only if you specify how such case will be considered. You know, it's a pretty general rule and can range in a lot of topics, starting with talking about being haunted by invisible pink dragon turtle mutant werewolf alligators and ending with practicing demonology.

First, people having intelligent discussions about demonology and its associated theories and practices would be well within the encouraged goals of this community.  I don't think there's really a whole lot of room for confusion between that and the types of things the rule would apply to.  If someone's behavior is at all ambiguous, then the rule does not apply because it says "blatantly", meaning "obvious" and unambiguous.

If on the other hand someone is posting in many unrelated threads about invisible pink dragons as you say, and accusing other people of conspiring with the invisible pink dragons, then it would be time to keep the forums clean of such things.  We moderators have been dealing with these sorts of problems repeatedly over the years, but we have lacked a clear rule establishing some sort of standard for when to act.  So adding the rule is with the goal of keeping things fair and clear.  The goal is to FACILITATE interesting on topic discussions of the kind you are interested in, by making sure we have a written standard for when to get rid of this "blatant" category of disruption.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Neeros on July 16, 2013, 03:16:48 AM
I'll run with this one. :)
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Shinichi on July 16, 2013, 05:25:26 AM
No. Again, no moderator should have the right to decide what is "blatantly delusional" and what is not.

To use the pink dragon example, let's take a look at this thread (http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php/topic,4834.0.html), where Prophecy establishes that Hermetics (which for a while has been the largest group of magicians on this forum) accepts the existence of leprechauns, fairies, mermaids, giants, dwarves, gnomes, goblins, angels, demons, and several other things. There are a great number of people, including some on this very forum, who would consider believing in those things even (or, especially) as spiritual existences extremely delusional.

So why shouldn't someone be allowed to believe in a dragon on this forum, pink or otherwise, and discuss the magical operations in which one might work with them as spiritual entities, or as conceptual archetypes and constructs?
 
Even should someone be a disciple of David Icke and that circle of people, calling their personal beliefs delusional is insulting and a direct violation of other rules, and no moderator or any other member of this forum should have the right to establish that insult where ever they see fit. Disrupting behaviour or not.

Again, if someone is disrupting the forum, deal with him because he is disrupting the forum. Bringing in a personal opinion (because in the end, that is all this is, whether it ends up being true or not) of his mental state has nothing to do with whether or not he is violating other rules and making trouble in the community.



~:Shin:~
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 16, 2013, 08:52:05 AM
So why shouldn't someone be allowed to believe in a dragon on this forum, pink or otherwise, and discuss the magical operations in which one might work with them as spiritual entities, or as conceptual archetypes and constructs?

One has the right to believe in dragons now, and one would maintain that right even in the presence of the proposed rule.

Let me try to say this as clearly as I can so that people can understand it, to try to satiate this concern:  Having ANY belief, even an incorrect belief, does NOT make a person delusional.  Simply being wrong does not make a person delusional.  Being wrong about something that many people think sounds weird does not make a person delusional.

Being persistently and blatantly delusional is about having a persistent drug-induced or psychiatric condition which results in severely disordered thinking and a protracted inability to differentiate fiction from reality to a severe enough extent that it makes rational discussion impossible.  We're talking about people who in many cases from one day to the next will hallucinate entire conversations and interactions with people here, or who will in the midst of illness persist in hallucinations in direct contradiction to things right in front of everyone's faces.  I once witnessed an entire lengthy conversation where a person went from accusing the people on TV of watching him and talking back to him, straight into a detailed description of how the original versions of the bible had colored pictures but they were removed by a conspiracy which he then concluded I was directly involved in.  THIS level of delusional behavior truly exists, and exists here, and we moderators have been trying to deal with it for many years.  Not only are moderators, who we specifically select for good objective decision making, fully capable of noticing this sort of extreme delusional state, but so too is pretty much every member of this community.  These are not ambiguous matters of belief or censorship (which would not be tolerated), but cases of disruption due to extremely delusional states.

if someone is disrupting the forum, deal with him because he is disrupting the forum

I would not and cannot support a broad rule prohibiting any "disruption" because that would be far too general, and people could interpret that to ban just about any behavior they don't like.  Arguing could be considered disruption.  Challenging ideas could be considered disruption.  Expressing ideas which contradict someone else's beliefs could be considered disruption.  Those are the sorts of disruption we want.  People should be disrupted now by good sensible questions and intelligent challenges, and then provoked to think.  So for this reason the proposed rule is much more specific and only addresses a specific narrow category of persistent disruption from blatantly delusional behavior that we DO experience and HAVE had to deal with which serves no constructive purpose for this community.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 16, 2013, 01:27:30 PM
Sorry but I say NO!

There is no difference between the two rules and it is again down to 'if I like or don't like the way you smell scenario' or some one is different to some one else.

Kobok for some one who is so strong in belief about your right to support your countries freedom/constitution laws I do not understand why you are even contemplating such a law (rule). (music plays star spangled banner as we picture Lincoln in his pantheon). I may not agree with giving 5 year olds, guns which kill their sisters but I defend the right for the father to do it if he so desires!  :confused:

Searcher
With love and peace to all, but when needed dig in deep and true!
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Shinichi on July 16, 2013, 02:27:18 PM
Kobok, I understand what is being done. Vertias needs a "standard," a definition for what is inappropriately disruptive and what is not. That is fine and good. I support that.

What I do not support is that this particular rule uses the perceived mental health of an individual as the basis for that standard. Despite what I know is the purest and most noble of intentions, this comes down to being nothing more than an "if you are a loud retard that annoys us, the bouncers will kick you out" kind of rule. That is a very rude way to put it, but that is what it is.

I have had my own experiences with both delusional and extremely annoying people, both on this forum and off of it, and I fully understand that Veritas needs a standard such as this. But I cannot support this particular one, or any other rule that uses the mental health of a member as a standard for action taken against them.


"People may not engage in behaviors that are both persistently disruptive and blatantly delusional."


What is the difference between this rule and the other proposed rule? I am not sure I understand.

It is pretty much the exact same rule, it has simply been reworded in a way that makes people feel better about it. Politics, my dear Rayn. Politics. :P



~:Shin:~
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: RanmaBushiko on July 16, 2013, 05:01:47 PM
I have to ask, by what standards are you judging people to be "highly disruptive and delusional"?  By some people's thinking, I'M delusional because I think Radical Ki has salvageable elements, in some of it's techniques, that I practice even today.  Am I being "highly disruptive" for daring to say that it still could be salvaged, or writing articles on that basis?  Because Koujiryuu's called me a troll before, and what you might take as being ok, might be considered by other people to be horribly offensive.

We all have our own beliefs, and I have to agree with Shinichi wholeheartedly on this.  Especially with the fact that most "rational, sane people" think that Psionics, Magecraft, and everything else means WE'RE all highly disruptive and delusional for "daring to talk about such horrible things that are of the devil", as my church once called it.  Or you could call it "Dark paths leading you away from the Church" like they did too, or so on, or so forth.

Each of us has grown in our own ways, and what one might claim is insane, might be because some of us have no better way to word things.  I certainly didn't know that I'm Invoking my Ki when I use it, until I talked with Shinichi about it, and he told me that that's what it's called.  *Shrugs*

If someone, to use Shinichi's point, was being chased by an invisible pink dragon, it could be a construct, it could be something attempting to prey into that person's fears, they could be delusional, or it could really be a pink dragon that somehow wound up on the physical plane, and can't move back to a higher one!  Or, it could be some sort of being or construct, or entity, that would, as Akenu said, be haunting them as "invisible pink dragon turtle mutant werewolf alligators".  How do you know it's not like that Nrvnqsr Chaos guy from Tsukihime?  Someone that's made out of hundreds of animals, that he absorbed and became one with, that's slowly unmaking him in the process?  Or a construct made to resemble that?  You can't really tell at all what something is unless you talk with them, and learn more about their situation.  (For the Record, http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Nrvnqsr_Chaos (http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Nrvnqsr_Chaos) as a reference).

Judging a book by it's cover can be the most horrible thing to do when dealing with anything out of the realm of "science" in which the rest of the world seems to want to dwell in. 

For a personal example of this, I personally had problems with that entity that gave me problems for years, but I called it "Black Ops" because someone said the being reminded him of the weird stuff he'd heard the military was doing years earlier.  What it was, was far and above scarier, and Shinichi noted that it had the classic signs of Magical Warfare behind it's mindfucks and attempts to mess with me and those I was friends with, and in communication with.

Who here would call me insane for claiming that "Black Ops" was coming to get me, and consider me insane until they had the whole story?  Everyone, that's who.  Who would judge me immediately as being highly disruptive and delusional?  Again, everyone.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 16, 2013, 06:03:22 PM
By some people's thinking, I'M delusional because I think Radical Ki has salvageable elements, in some of it's techniques, that I practice even today.  Am I being "highly disruptive" for daring to say that it still could be salvaged, or writing articles on that basis?

That would absolutely and unequivocally not relate to this rule.  Such discussions are plainly and clearly a legitimate discussion of systems, styles, and approaches, which will remain as encouraged as it is now.  (Although people similarly retain the right to criticize and strongly challenge your proposals of salvaging it, as part of that healthy and encouraged debate.  You should not misinterpret such criticism and challenges as at all relating to moderation.  Staff are actively aware of the need to NOT use moderation powers under ANY rules to win debates, and we actively check and balance each other to make sure this does not happen.  Any such instance of it should be reported to a member of Council.)
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Constructman on July 16, 2013, 06:21:12 PM
I'm mainly concerned that the moderators may not be able to accurately pinpoint delusional disorder on the internet. Extreme cases may be easy to spot but more subtle cases of delusional disorder may be difficult to identify, which may either result in a false accusation or ignorance of a truly delusional individual. A delusional rant may be mistaken for a mere fit of rage, or vice versa. Could you provide some specific examples (quotes/links?) of what would constitute delusional behavior to the point of disruption?
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 16, 2013, 08:18:32 PM
Extreme cases may be easy to spot but more subtle cases of delusional disorder may be difficult to identify

Subtle cases tend to not present a problem in the first place.  So the proposed rule only applies to "blatant" cases, which as you say, are easy to spot.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Watarimono on July 17, 2013, 12:54:40 PM
Would there be a component where the intention of the behaviour would be to disrupt the open exchange of ideas in a  malicious manner, contrary to  Veritas' purpose? (I dont know if Veritas has a mission statement or not)

There is a lot of room for interpretation, but I can see why. It would be hard to draw a solid line where the means of the disruptive behaviour could be so varied it would need to be handled on a case by case basis, and the potential for 'mod abuse' would be there. (not that I am implying in any way that abuse would ever occur, just that probably in every instance this was enforced the argument could be made based on the ambiguity of the rule.)

But sometimes the decisions need to be made by the people able to make the decisions, to allow the community to function as it should.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 17, 2013, 09:06:49 PM
Would there be a component where the intention of the behaviour would be to disrupt the open exchange of ideas in a  malicious manner

Specifically no, which from my perspective is part of the reason for this rule.  While SOME people exhibiting these sorts of extreme behaviors exhibit malice and have intention to disrupt, many others are benevolent in intent, but so disordered that they are just incapable of even realizing what they are doing.  (I know this sounds extreme, but if for some reason you haven't seen it here before a mod has taken care of it, I assure you it happens.)

It would be hard to draw a solid line where the means of the disruptive behaviour could be so varied it would need to be handled on a case by case basis, and the potential for 'mod abuse' would be there.

There is a great deal of potential for mod abuse under just about any rule that can lead to bans, and I don't think this one has any more such potential than others.  There are only a few things that really protect from mod abuse, and those include systematically choosing good mods, keeping in place checks and balances from other staff members, and review of moderator decisions.  I think we have been doing all of those things pretty well for a while, which is why there has been a pretty broad consensus of mods not being abusive here.  And we will attempt to continue those in the same manner.


I think what some of the non-staff considering this vote don't realize is how a rule like this helps the staff to NOT abuse their power.  For example, a person comes along and makes a post that seems pretty blatantly delusional to everyone reading it.  Now when this sort of thing happens, there is often a call for someone to ban the person.  Many times a member shouts to some mods that the person should be banned.  People will say things like, "It's the same as trolling!"  BUT, if this rule passes, now we have a guideline for this situation.  Under the rule, that post wouldn't qualify, because the single post, even if it seems crazy to everyone reading it, isn't "persistently disruptive".  So now the mods have a guideline telling them not to act on that post, and the mods have a guideline to use in reviewing each other's bans.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: RanmaBushiko on July 17, 2013, 09:58:07 PM
Maybe it would be fair if it was decided for how much counts as repeatedly disruptive, then.  No offense, but how often should it be before someone is shown to be "persistently disruptive"?  10?  20?  49, as the bible says for you to forgive others?
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Mind_Bender on July 17, 2013, 11:57:37 PM
No. I have been seeing this word 'delusion' thrown around this forum by a few of the the teachers and seem to be respected members (Karma) to ideas they think are delusional (of which I am guilty here and there, I am sure), such as psychich vampirism, communion with the one, apotheosis, etc. If a poster writes a sentence such as, "I invoked Scahoodle the Dead Tree Accumulator and my annual income doubled" might sound a little off, but any of us into chaos magic knows this is a possibility, or if they commune with angels, have yearly flights to a distant galaxy- it might sound a little ookey, but for them it is quite real- not delusional, just a subjective reasoning that others condemn them for (or it is quite real and we just haven' t experienced it).

Ban for disruption, blatant arguing, off topic posting (I would say 5-10 blatently offensive, non-sensical or off topic replies/posts). Being banned from a metaphysical forum because some screen name and avatar thinks they are delusional is not only offensive, arrogant, judgemental and ignorant, but can be a major blow to a human beings self-esteem and spiritual practice. Maybe change the word 'delusional' to 'incomprehensible'.

To conclude, some people are just rude, stupid and immature so they post randomness and nonsense because they are bored or story tellers trying to get a perspective, but there is no way one can judge delusion over the internet, as I doubt anyone on this forum is actually that psychically sensitive or cares enoguh to actually metaphysically check if the person is mentally ill- and this would be pretty delusional in and of itself to most people and even psychics.

Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 18, 2013, 05:29:31 PM
Maybe it would be fair if it was decided for how much counts as repeatedly disruptive, then.  No offense, but how often should it be before someone is shown to be "persistently disruptive"?  10?  20?  49, as the bible says for you to forgive others?

That would be a matter of moderator discretion and judgment, as with most rules.  How many lines on the IRC must be pasted before something counts as flooding under the flooding rule?  Context and many other things are taken into account.  You don't want a blanket rule of hard thresholds, because exact counts aren't what ultimately matter to ANY of us.  It's better if the detailed implementation of all the rules is goal-oriented toward having a good community with solid discussion, and counts are adjusted as necessary in each case to achieve that goal within the spirit of the rules.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Akenu on July 19, 2013, 04:43:34 AM
Maybe it would be fair if it was decided for how much counts as repeatedly disruptive, then.  No offense, but how often should it be before someone is shown to be "persistently disruptive"?  10?  20?  49, as the bible says for you to forgive others?

That would be a matter of moderator discretion and judgment, as with most rules.  How many lines on the IRC must be pasted before something counts as flooding under the flooding rule?  Context and many other things are taken into account.  You don't want a blanket rule of hard thresholds, because exact counts aren't what ultimately matter to ANY of us.  It's better if the detailed implementation of all the rules is goal-oriented toward having a good community with solid discussion, and counts are adjusted as necessary in each case to achieve that goal within the spirit of the rules.


Moderators are still people, with all the advantages and disadvantages. How about to modify the rule so there will be some kind of a public referendum where all members can choose what to do with the case?
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Theopholis on July 19, 2013, 06:45:27 AM
The moderaters have been voted in by the community. If anyone felt they were unsuited to make such decisions, they have had a chance to make that known. I realize that those of us (myself) who got here later have had less of a say in the matter, and that's simply part of joining an existing community.

Personally I feel like it's important that we trust the mods with the power given to them. Any one who betrays this trust can (will, I'm sure) be removed from their position. If there are moderators your currently do not trust, you should bring that up with the staff.

If you do not empower your leaders to do their jobs well, then they are bound to do poorly.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Akenu on July 19, 2013, 06:57:04 AM
Theopholis: Not trusting someone or believing that he still is a human person are two very different things. Or do you disagree with referendum, the most democratic technique?
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Theopholis on July 19, 2013, 07:25:39 AM
Oh, I don't like or agree with democracy much at all. But that's not really relevant, the forums run on it, and I am able to use and respect the system regardless of what I think of it.

In democratic countries, do you vote on each decision the government makes, or do you vote to choose leaders who are capable of making those decisions on behalf of their country?

In the case of someone who is merely disruptive, but not at all delusional, or delusional but not at all disruptive, or many other cases, a referendum may well lead to a ban that ignores the rules based on the feelings of the members who happen to be actively posting at the time, members who may have a strong bias against a person simply because their beliefs clash in some way. It is better, because of this, to appoint calm, and objective persons who are capable of withholding personal bias and feelings to make such decisions, and to provide them with a clear set of rules to abide by. If both the rules and the moderaters are chosen by the community then the community has quite directly, and democratically, already made their decision, and the moderater simply ensures that the rules are objectively carried out.

Yes, the moderaters are just people, and they make mistakes just like everybody else. It is not whether they are perfect, but whether we trust them to make good decisions, and to admit and correct their mistakes, that is important.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Akenu on July 19, 2013, 07:56:56 AM
We choose leaders that do decisions "within" our countries, but anything important "external", starting with joining unions and ending with signing contracts with other countries is usually based on referendum.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Theopholis on July 19, 2013, 08:02:12 AM
Well, these are decisions within the Veritas Society ;)
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 19, 2013, 11:08:02 AM
And how would we get on with regards to biblical issues?

You and I kobok are polar opposites in many things. One such area is Christianity; in the UK gay marriage is high on the agenda as it as just been made legal and we are hearing a lot of moaning and positioning from so called Christians (you know my background) who call it immoral because it say so in the bible (so they have been told). Could the rule be used because this topic is against collective mod thinking?

I have tried to take this rule to one of many possible outcomes and you and the other mods may see this example as never happening and you standing by open morals but what are you leaving the next set of mods will they be as understand and use the rule to meet their stance?

In other words you are not just making this rule for now!

And like other times will the mods stand up and say that they have banned people and for why?

Searcher
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Theopholis on July 19, 2013, 11:18:51 AM
I have tried to take this rule to one of many possible outcomes and you and the other mods may see this example as never happening and you standing by open morals but what are you leaving the next set of mods will they be as understand and use the rule to meet their stance?

In other words you are not just making this rule for now!

And like other times will the mods stand up and say that they have banned people and for why?

I don't really understand the first half of your post Seacher, but in response to the other half:
The community votes on it's mods. You, and the rest of the community are, and forever will be, responsible for picking mods that you feel can uphold the rules to an acceptable standard.

I don't think the current mods see this as "never happening"; if they did they wouldn't bother to propose the rule.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 19, 2013, 12:29:49 PM
Ok Theo

Me and kobok argue and we both try to score points off the other while putting the other down. I was bought up a fundamental protestant but rejected it for what I see as a more plausible explanation while kobok is still within that fundamental Christian society and lets be fair his choice but I will not accept majical ideals as Christian based to influence others.

So Gay partnerships/marriage to Christians fundamentalists is a no go area, Personally I could not give a dam either way but I respect the right of the individual to be able to do and have the same rights as others regardless of gender, culture or creed. This rule therefore goes against my philosophy that everyone as the same rights and that we must stand up when this is effected.

Now do you understand the first part

Under this rule me posting this can be deemed as meeting the rules criteria

Searcher
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Impervious on July 19, 2013, 12:49:46 PM
Ok Theo

Me and kobok argue and we both try to score points off the other while putting the other down. I was bought up a fundamental protestant but rejected it for what I see as a more plausible explanation while kobok is still within that fundamental Christian society and lets be fair his choice but I will not accept majical ideals as Christian based to influence others.

So Gay partnerships/marriage to Christians fundamentalists is a no go area, Personally I could not give a dam either way but I respect the right of the individual to be able to do and have the same rights as others regardless of gender, culture or creed. This rule therefore goes against my philosophy that everyone as the same rights and that we must stand up when this is effected.

Now do you understand the first part

Under this rule me posting this can be deemed as meeting the rules criteria

Searcher
No; seriously, what are you talking about? This post probably would meet the "rules criteria," because what you are saying is not relevant, and doesn't seem to make much sense. The way you put words together no sense make.

Also, kobok is one of the most liberal Christians I have ever met. If you are trying to say he opposes gay marriage, I am almost 100% sure he's all for equal marriage laws. (Even if he wasn't, what would that have to do with these forum rules? Hint: We aren't banning people on the basis of their sexuality; we'd be banning people based on their posr content. This is a reasonable thing to do on an online forum.)

Please try to make more sense, or at least make somewhat relevant points.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 19, 2013, 12:58:33 PM
Here is a bigger hint:

It is called bias!

Here's what wiki says about it:

Bias is an inclination of temperaments or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives in reference to objects, people, or groups. Anything biased generally is one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.

And you still cannot see why the rule is wrong?

Searcher
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Theopholis on July 19, 2013, 01:03:24 PM
Ah, okay. I kind of see what you mean Searcher. I agree with you that everyone should more or less have equal rights. However, I think you misunderstand the fundamental nature of the forums, as well as what this rule is really about.

Imagine for a moment that you own a huge house, and you invite thousands of guests into your huge house to have dinner and discuss philosophy. You're a kind-hearted and accepting individual, so you let absolutely anyone into your huge house, showing no discrimination of any kind. But then, one of the guests starts throwing their food at the other guests. They prevent proper discussion by shouting loudly and refusing to hear anyone out. And to top it all off, they start smashing your windows and lighting things on fire.

What do you do? You kick that person out. Not because they happened to be an orc, but because they are ruining everybody else's meal and discourse, and they are potentially about to cause harm to one of your other guests (and this most certainly can be the case in metaphysical groups as well).

This doesn't mean that you're going to kick all of the orc-people out of your house. No, those who have behaved well are still welcome.

You have also not taken away any of the fundamental rights of the individual you did kick out. They still have their right to free speech, and whatever else. They can throw food, shout loudly, and light things on fire in their own house, and maybe even at another party that happens to be a food-fight-fire-party. But they are no longer welcome to do so in your house.


If you are still having trouble understanding, I recommend that you try actually opening up your house to the world as in the example above. Some times you just have to live it to get it.

Also, I'm quite sure you are wrong about kobok.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Impervious on July 19, 2013, 01:13:37 PM
And you still cannot see why the rule is wrong?
No, I cannot. As has been stated, this rule is not biased against any kind of person; it is biased against a certain kind of behavior. All of our rules are. We don't care if someone acts delusional because they're mentally ill, or because they just want to "troll" people. We don't care if people are being disrespectful to others because they are just mean, or because they are having a bad day. The rules apply equally to EVERYBODY. We are NOT discriminating against a group of people, nor would we ever do that.

EDIT: Here is an example of what I mean: Your argument is akin to saying that a law prohibiting murder is discriminating against sociopaths, because they are more likely to murder someone than the average person is. Perhaps technically the law is discriminating against sociopaths, because it may be harder for them to follow the law, but the law still applies equally to everybody.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 19, 2013, 01:25:49 PM
You don't seem to have lost it Theo and I accept your house analogy, but what if it is an open house where the 'committee' decides who's worthy and who's not worthy? Lets say they do this via a voting system.

Lets remind ourselves of the proposed rule

"People may not engage in behaviors that are both persistently disruptive and blatantly delusional."

It is not SMART (specific, measureable, attainable, result orientated nor time related)

Searcher

PS (I love a good PS) where does this leave Mod Rhetorices?

PPS (PPS's are not as good as PS's) it is sometimes called the butterfly wing effect Rhet
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Impervious on July 19, 2013, 01:32:26 PM
PS (I love a good PS) where does this leave Mod Rhetorices?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're implying that I am in violation of the proposed rule, I'm quite sure I'm not.

PPS (PPS's are not as good as PS's) it is sometimes called the butterfly wing effect Rhet
I don't get what that has to do with anything.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Theopholis on July 19, 2013, 01:37:12 PM
It is not SMART (specific, measureable, attainable, result orientated nor time related)

I agree that the rule does not meet these criteria. There is a grey area in determining whether someone is delusional, and again when determining if the "persistently" factor has been met. This is why we appoint mods we trust to make these decisions, and who we can trust to not issue a ban if the case is still in the grey area, but to merely warn the offender.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 19, 2013, 01:39:22 PM
Rhet

You've gone against kobok! well against the proposed rule.

Maybe it would be sensible to get agreement and understanding between the mods about the rule first before it is bought to the members?

Searcher
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Impervious on July 19, 2013, 01:42:24 PM
Searcher:

Could you explain how I've done that?  :confused: I'll admit that I have if what you say makes sense. If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 19, 2013, 01:46:21 PM
No, I cannot. As has been stated, this rule is not biased against any kind of person; it is biased against a certain kind of behavior. All of our rules are. We don't care if someone acts delusional because they're mentally ill, or because they just want to "troll" people. We don't care if people are being disrespectful to others because they are just mean, or because they are having a bad day. The rules apply equally to EVERYBODY. We are NOT discriminating against a group of people, nor would we ever do that.


".......and blatantly delusional......."

You say he can while he say he cannot!

Searcher

Edited to avoid confussion
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Impervious on July 19, 2013, 01:52:26 PM
You took my quote very much out-of-context. I said "We don't care if someone acts delusional BECAUSE" of any specific reason. I was clearly saying that someone's reason or motivation for acting delusional is ultimately irrelevant to this rule. We only care THAT they are acting persistently delusional, not WHY they are acting that way.

I actually agree with kobok's rule, even if I think the wording could be improved upon. In-context, my statements reflect this.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 19, 2013, 02:08:43 PM
It is now not out of context Rhet - it's the whole thing!

If you think the wording is wrong get it amended before it comes into force!

How can you accept something you think is wrong - please explain because this old English man is confused as to why your agreeing

"even if I think the wording could be improved upon"
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Mind_Bender on July 19, 2013, 03:29:57 PM
I agree with the rule as it has been more clearly explained, it's just using the word 'delusional' that seems to be the biggest problem. I see using delusion as a key word is misleading and still quite rude. It may not seem like it to us that perceive our posts as more 'rational' than another, but it makes it sound discriminating. I already gave an example of how being band via this rule could cause a crack in someones self-esteem or sanity (if they are delusional beyond posts into real life).

Being a good friend to a crises counselor, who's mother and step-father counsel the criminally insane and own the county program, I really find offence to any word or statement that accuses another of a mental illness- it is just as bad as a racist comment. I agree with the rule, but once again, change the word 'delusion' to something not of the psychoanalytical field. Psychology is a touchy subject, and unless you can diagnose the poster with 'delusion' (which none of us can over a computer screen) then the word is out of context (via the rule itself) and offensive and as a respected forum, based on individual freedom and spiritual truth, we should seek not offend others or throw clinal words around.

'A false belief or opinion' (or delusoon) is no reason to ban a person and is against the rules of this forum anyway.

Blatant disruptive behavior that is off-topic or is just a potato strangler from Alabama should be banned. I totally agree- bit there is no reason to call it  DELUSIONAL, but as it is, non-sense and gibberish.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Mind_Bender on July 19, 2013, 04:15:55 PM
Moderators are still people, with all the advantages and disadvantages. How about to modify the rule so there will be some kind of a public referendum where all members can choose what to do with the case?

I agree (sorry for the double post). I think a lot of non staff members have alot of good to say and should be respected for their honest opinions. Sure, I was voted in, but I give myself no higher authority even as Veritas Teacher and would-be moderator.

A certain members posts seem to be deleted every week or so and I honestly have  no clue why, as the posts are actually quite sane and informational- I ask, beyond mere staff opinion, why these posts are deleted (Recycle Bin), unless the poster opted for this (which doesn't make sense being that you can delete your own posts), or something else I am not privy to.

That is mainly an example why certain posts for ban should be left in the hands of staff and well-respected and knowledgable members (new and old), not just staff pointing fingers, even for good reason. It is a Society after all, and in my beliefs at least, a society is run by leaders and not alike. The leader only holds power because of the people's power, and as a forum proudly called Veritas, we should uphold this idea of a spiritual Society.

Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Impervious on July 19, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
EDIT: Basically not at all relevant on my part. Sorry y'all.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 19, 2013, 09:00:57 PM
How about to modify the rule so there will be some kind of a public referendum where all members can choose what to do with the case?

While I like and have encouraged direct voting for issues like this rule and appointing mods, I would actually oppose public referendums on individual bans because of what would be necessary to make it work.  It would basically require that in each case moderators make public posts revealing all the dirty laundry of what problems someone made on the chat and forums, which would often involve quoting from posts that were so problematic they have already been deleted.  This would amount to a regular practice of publicly pointing out, accessibly to google, all the problems with someone who is mentally ill so that the community as a whole can authenticate the person as ill and vote them out.  There's no need to try to shame people with severe problems, or publicly ostracize them.  We've had a number of members who cause problems simply because they can't even figure out what's real even regarding events on a minute to minute scale.  While we have a need to keep the conversations in this community going, the disruption they cause often isn't malicious, and doesn't deserve public exposure like that.

You and I kobok are polar opposites in many things.

Thank you.

in the UK gay marriage is high on the agenda as it as just been made legal and we are hearing a lot of moaning and positioning from so called Christians (you know my background) who call it immoral because it say so in the bible (so they have been told). Could the rule be used because this topic is against collective mod thinking?

In no way, shape, or form, could this rule have anything to do with the topic of gay marriage or any related issues.  There isn't even any tangential relationship.  (Nor do you apparently understand the moderators here very well.  Probably a third of the staff is either gay or bi, and nearly everyone on staff, myself included, is a strong supporter of gay marriage and gay rights.)

kobok is still within that fundamental Christian society

That's off-topic, but just because it's a ridiculous assertion I'd like to point out that in no way, shape, or form am I a fundamentalist.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Enchia on July 20, 2013, 03:44:01 AM
Its funny to see that the one who is most likely to be effected by the new rule is then one who is most strongly opposed to it. It makes it seem that his is quite self aware of his behavior.

Also I sort of agree with the fact that the term 'delusional' is kinda vague and that between delusional and simply disagreeing there is a grey area. However some critical reflection on the part of the moderators should do the job perhaps in colliberation with the member in question.

Quote
While I like and have encouraged direct voting for issues like this rule and appointing mods, I would actually oppose public referendums on individual bans because of what would be necessary to make it work.  

I would even go as far as stating that it is very undesirable no just impractical. Even though rules might be based on democratic principles the implementation of it should never be a direct democratic construct. First of all if would be very impractical if not impossible to maintain such a structure. Second of all it would be very undemocratic if the majority decides over the faith of a single person because it does not lead to justice, it is often inconsequential (if someone is liked or not might influence the voting), it might cause tension within the community between those who support and those who oppose etc. Third of all it raises the question of who is responsible for what. What is the role of the members and what is the role of the staff in following and maintaining the rules and do you want your members to have those responsibilities and in turn do they want to have those responsibilities? And last of all what justifies making this rule democratic while the other rules are not?

Also, keep it realistic about it. If it turns out the rule is not working well we can always change it. It isn't like we are make state legislation or something like that.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 20, 2013, 04:32:37 AM
Sooner or later some one had to?

From now on I shall know Enchia as the leaker of truths

Kobok I am too thankful for not sharing your outlook on life BUT I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE IT! It doesn't change other things though? Like always you focus in on the detail and loose the concept or you ignore the concept in favour of the detail. We English call it not being able to see the wood for the trees or looking but pretending not to see! And I am not interested in any individuals sexual orientation so that comment is lost on me or are you trying to tell us something and I've missed it, sorry if I have.

So to others ask yourselves (during meditation, we are on a metaphysical site) what is the rule for? who is the rule for? and is it personal? Now amend your vote!

Searcher
With love and peace and yes even to kobok (no axes to grind from me)
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Enchia on July 20, 2013, 05:01:45 AM
Quote
From now on I shall know Enchia as the leaker of truths

Normally I would say Yeeej, but coming from you I'm not sure how I feel about that comment. Just saying.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 20, 2013, 05:16:31 AM
They say that the weak shall inherit the earth, from your efforts enchia you are in the lead pack, may I suggest knitting as apposed to metaphysics as it is acceptable if you drop one!

Searcher
Always with love and peace - never anything else
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Silver_Archer on July 20, 2013, 06:10:55 AM
And I am not interested in any individuals sexual orientation so that comment is lost on me or are you trying to tell us something and I've missed it, sorry if I have.

You brought up sexual orientation in the first place. The only reason anyone is talking about it is because of you.

...Or did you already forget?
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Searcher on July 20, 2013, 06:21:43 AM
No body as forgotten anything SA, but I will repeat if you misread:

Many times in metaphysics we discuss concepts via detail so concentrating on the detail and not the concept leave one short of understanding. This omission of looking at the concept however can by missed by not reading properly or not reading properly because of bias or by fear of treading that route.

But back to the original post and rule

If the rule is against the American constitution (which in it's current form it is) as a proud American which way have you voted SA?

Searcher
Love and peace
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Silver_Archer on July 20, 2013, 08:26:46 AM
If the rule is against the American constitution (which in it's current form it is) as a proud American which way have you voted SA?

...I'm not American.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Vecna on July 20, 2013, 01:54:53 PM
Please kindly cease with the personal attacks, and return to discussing the subject of the vote.

~Vecna
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Mind_Bender on July 20, 2013, 03:38:02 PM
I would even go as far as stating that it is very undesirable no just impractical. Even though rules might be based on democratic principles the implementation of it should never be a direct democratic construct. First of all if would be very impractical if not impossible to maintain such a structure. Second of all it would be very undemocratic if the majority decides over the faith of a single person because it does not lead to justice, it is often inconsequential (if someone is liked or not might influence the voting), it might cause tension within the community between those who support and those who oppose etc. Third of all it raises the question of who is responsible for what. What is the role of the members and what is the role of the staff in following and maintaining the rules and do you want your members to have those responsibilities and in turn do they want to have those responsibilities? And last of all what justifies making this rule democratic while the other rules are not?

I think with the few of us that are more outspoken then others it wouldn't be so hard to up keep a democratic ideal  with this rule (Veritas is already very democratic as it is), but I understand where you're coming from.

 With almost 20,000 members and less (far less) then 100 members that show they actually care what happens to this forum and says something about it, referendum can work. Of course, I admit I am very new to this forum business, but I also think that what some staff members might call delusional can really help others understand these obscure practices in a unique light.

I am really not too attached to the referendum ideal... as long as the wording is different, because like you said, other rules that are not democratic here help keep this forum running smoothly. I like the rule, agree, but not with the wording.
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Steve on July 20, 2013, 09:09:35 PM
Regarding the referendum thing, and the comment that someone made about using referendums for everything, that would be insane. No democracy holds referendums for every little thing that happens. That's why we have rules instead, so that those who are voted into positions of leadership don't have to continually bug their "constituents" on every little topic. The fact that we, in this forum, actually have a say on every single rule is a huge step in a positive direction, compared to any country's democracy you'll find on the face of this planet.


Back to the topic of the word delusional, perhaps a different, more precise, term should be used, such as "incoherent". For instance, "People may not engage in behaviors that are both persistently disruptive and blatantly incoherent." As we're not putting people's personal views and beliefs on trial, but the rule is trying their ability to present themselves in a social setting, I think a word that applies to the aspect of communication between people is more proper than a word that relates to a person's internal struggle at relating to the external world.

This change would NOT cause problems with people who merely don't speak/write English very well, as the criteria for communications being disruptive would still need to apply but they wouldn't apply if the only "problem" is in the poster's ability to string together sentences according to formal English rules.

This vote is only two days away from ending, and if it gets passed as is but still people dislike the term "delusional", then we could start an "official" discussion thread on the matter. Then if we come to some sort of consensus through discussion about a better wording for the rule, then we can always start up a new vote as a request to change the one word of the rule that seems to be drawing all of the contention.

~Steve
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: kobok on July 22, 2013, 06:16:43 PM
Approved with 100% of the staff vote and 68.2% of the member vote.

(EDIT:  I inadvertently posted this 2 hours before closing, but the vote at closing remains unchanged from what I posted.)
Title: Re: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption
Post by: Mars on September 19, 2013, 04:27:35 AM
There has been a lot of discussion, and there have been ideas put forward on this topic.  So this is an alternate to the other proposal (http://forums.vsociety.net/index.php/topic,22103.0.html).  If both were to pass, we will only put into effect the one with the highest approval (you may support both, or only one, as you choose).  The proposed rule:

"People may not engage in behaviors that are both persistently disruptive and blatantly delusional."


I'd agree with the rule, but don't you think its difficult to define delusional ? To any psychaitrist we all likely would be delusional for what we believe in and are practicing ?