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 9488 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

July 19, 2013, 01:03:24 PM
Reply #30

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.

July 19, 2013, 01:13:37 PM
Reply #31

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 315
  • Karma:
    78
  • Personal Text
    Become.
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 01:21:35 PM by Rhetorices »
(18:23) (@kobok) They taught me about that moth in college.
(01:06) (@kobok) (⊙ ‿ ⊙)

July 19, 2013, 01:25:49 PM
Reply #32

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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
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, 01:32:26 PM
Reply #33

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

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

July 19, 2013, 01:37:12 PM
Reply #34

Theopholis

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

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

July 19, 2013, 01:39:22 PM
Reply #35

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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
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, 01:42:24 PM
Reply #36

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

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

July 19, 2013, 01:46:21 PM
Reply #37

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 02:02:11 PM by 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, 01:52:26 PM
Reply #38

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

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

July 19, 2013, 02:08:43 PM
Reply #39

Searcher

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1017
  • Karma:
    -66
  • Personal Text
    Yes they bite😈
    • View Profile
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"
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, 03:29:57 PM
Reply #40

Mind_Bender

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1135
  • Karma:
    88
  • Personal Text
    Deus ex Machina
    • View Profile
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.
"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 19, 2013, 04:15:55 PM
Reply #41

Mind_Bender

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1135
  • Karma:
    88
  • Personal Text
    Deus ex Machina
    • View Profile
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.

"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 19, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
Reply #42

Impervious

  • Veritas Moderator
  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 315
  • Karma:
    78
  • Personal Text
    Become.
    • View Profile
EDIT: Basically not at all relevant on my part. Sorry y'all.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 09:14:52 AM by Rhetorices »
(18:23) (@kobok) They taught me about that moth in college.
(01:06) (@kobok) (⊙ ‿ ⊙)

July 19, 2013, 09:00:57 PM
Reply #43

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 4983
  • Karma:
    171
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
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.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

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

July 20, 2013, 03:44:01 AM
Reply #44

Enchia

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1018
  • Karma:
    28
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 03:52:40 AM by Enchia »