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 10960 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 17, 2013, 09:58:07 PM
Reply #15

RanmaBushiko

  • A Familiar Feature

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 101
  • Karma:
    -39
  • Personal Text
    Ki Researcher
    • View Profile
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?
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 17, 2013, 11:57:37 PM
Reply #16

Mind_Bender

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1135
  • Karma:
    89
  • Personal Text
    Deus ex Machina
    • View Profile
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.

"Spirit is in a state of grace forever.
Your reality is only spirit.
Therefore you are in a state of grace forever."

"As relfections of the Source, we are little gods."

"...part of me doesn't want to believe that auto-eroticism while crushing on a doodle (sigil) could manifest a check in the mail box, but hey, it did."

"Everybody laughs the same language."

July 18, 2013, 05:29:31 PM
Reply #17

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4985
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

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

July 19, 2013, 04:43:34 AM
Reply #18

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3341
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
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?

July 19, 2013, 06:45:27 AM
Reply #19

Theopholis

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 96
  • Karma:
    10
  • Personal Text
    Achievement Unlocked: Stare at Candles
    • View Profile
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.
And if that doesn't work, try focal meditation.

July 19, 2013, 06:57:04 AM
Reply #20

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3341
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
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?

July 19, 2013, 07:25:39 AM
Reply #21

Theopholis

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 96
  • Karma:
    10
  • Personal Text
    Achievement Unlocked: Stare at Candles
    • View Profile
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.
And if that doesn't work, try focal meditation.

July 19, 2013, 07:56:56 AM
Reply #22

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3341
  • Karma:
    -41
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
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.

July 19, 2013, 08:02:12 AM
Reply #23

Theopholis

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 96
  • Karma:
    10
  • Personal Text
    Achievement Unlocked: Stare at Candles
    • View Profile
Well, these are decisions within the Veritas Society ;)
And if that doesn't work, try focal meditation.

July 19, 2013, 11:08:02 AM
Reply #24

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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
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 19, 2013, 11:18:51 AM
Reply #25

Theopholis

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 96
  • Karma:
    10
  • Personal Text
    Achievement Unlocked: Stare at Candles
    • View Profile
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.
And if that doesn't work, try focal meditation.

July 19, 2013, 12:29:49 PM
Reply #26

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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
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 19, 2013, 12:49:46 PM
Reply #27

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 315
  • Karma:
    78
  • Personal Text
    Become.
    • View Profile
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.
(18:23) (@kobok) They taught me about that moth in college.
(01:06) (@kobok) (⊙ ‿ ⊙)

July 19, 2013, 12:58:33 PM
Reply #28

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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
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 19, 2013, 01:03:24 PM
Reply #29

Theopholis

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 96
  • Karma:
    10
  • Personal Text
    Achievement Unlocked: Stare at Candles
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 01:27:59 PM by Theopholis »
And if that doesn't work, try focal meditation.