Poll

Do you approve of this alternate proposed rule change?

I approve
15 (68.2%)
I do not approve
7 (31.8%)

Total Members Voted: 22

Voting closed: July 22, 2013, 08:20:30 PM

Author Topic: Vote: ALTERNATE Rule change to handle disruption  (Read 10466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 15, 2013, 08:20:30 PM
Read 10466 times

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4984
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.  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."
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 15, 2013, 09:47:01 PM
Reply #1

Theopholis

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 96
  • Karma:
    10
  • Personal Text
    Achievement Unlocked: Stare at Candles
    • View Profile
I'm okay with either, but this one boasts no penalty. What would be the action taken in this case?
And if that doesn't work, try focal meditation.

July 15, 2013, 11:25:49 PM
Reply #2

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
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.

July 15, 2013, 11:41:07 PM
Reply #3

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4984
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 16, 2013, 03:16:48 AM
Reply #4

Neeros

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 206
  • Karma:
    13
  • Personal Text
    Shaolin Mage
    • View Profile
    • Shaolin Wahnam
The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.
- Sun Tzu

[18:22] <Rayn> That makes it worst. If the people can't practically apply and create effects, it is not so good.
[18:22] <metalforever_> okay, and who in the oec can do that? i would say very very few
[18:22] <metalforever_> their too busy fondling their psiballs

July 16, 2013, 05:25:26 AM
Reply #5

Shinichi

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 640
  • Karma:
    80
  • Personal Text
    The Eternal Student
    • View Profile
    • A Wolfe's Notebook
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, 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:~
~:Completed the 2013 Qi Gong Study Group:~

"There is no such thing as Impossible, it's merely a matter of understanding the mechanisms by which the Will can be made manifest into an objective reality." -- The Wise.

July 16, 2013, 08:52:05 AM
Reply #6

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4984
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 08:47:08 PM by kobok »
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 16, 2013, 09:57:28 AM
Reply #7

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1250
  • Karma:
    -17
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein

"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.
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

July 16, 2013, 01:27:30 PM
Reply #8

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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!
We can look but do we see and we can listen but do we hear? So what gets in the way?
👂u have to say because I don't do hints👂

July 16, 2013, 02:27:18 PM
Reply #9

Shinichi

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 640
  • Karma:
    80
  • Personal Text
    The Eternal Student
    • View Profile
    • A Wolfe's Notebook
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:~
~:Completed the 2013 Qi Gong Study Group:~

"There is no such thing as Impossible, it's merely a matter of understanding the mechanisms by which the Will can be made manifest into an objective reality." -- The Wise.

July 16, 2013, 05:01:47 PM
Reply #10

RanmaBushiko

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 101
  • Karma:
    -39
  • Personal Text
    Ki Researcher
    • View Profile
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 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.
An old Radki user, still working to refine how it was originally taught.  I've been studying since 1998, for 15 years of the stuff.

I've worked as a mentor online on AIM and MSN for the past 10 years of that time, as well.

If you want to ask me about Astral Projection, Radki, or anything else, I'll give you advice.

July 16, 2013, 06:03:22 PM
Reply #11

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4984
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.)
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 16, 2013, 06:21:12 PM
Reply #12

Constructman

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 304
  • Karma:
    9
  • Personal Text
    Nothing to read here
    • View Profile
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?

July 16, 2013, 08:18:32 PM
Reply #13

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4984
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

July 17, 2013, 12:54:40 PM
Reply #14

Watarimono

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **
  • Regular Member

  • 78
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    My eye
    • View Profile
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.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw