Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:27 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:41 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
songhill wrote:
kirtu wrote:

Correctly moderated groups have a higher signal to noise ratio and much less misinformation.


First of all, what are the specific elements of a "correctly moderated" Buddhist forum? Misinformation is certainly not one of them—not in the TOSs I have read over the years. How do you determine misinformation? The term is too abstract. On one forum, I commented that Dogen's succession certificate (shisho) was a medieval forgery; I even included the citation. I was kicked out of the group. That wasn't about misinformation—it was censorship.


Sure, I would agree. Correct moderation is not easily definable but outright censorship is not what I had in mind.

eSangha took the stance that denying rebirth and karma was out of bounds and also was somewhat restrictive on the nature of enlightenment specifically wrt Zen experience even if such views are in fact representative of streams of Zen. It should not have been so restrictive while at the same time attempting to uphold the core of Buddhism. It was concerned with creeping New Age influences but could have employed a lighter hand.

As for misinformation per se not being represented in the TOS's - the eSangha TOS from memory did explicitly address denial of karma and rebirth. I don't remember whether it codified models of Buddhahood. It thus sought to restrict misinformation through these rules.

How would you improve moderation in general?

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
kirtu wrote:
How would you improve moderation in general?

Kirt


For starters, Dharma Wheel might do what some IV league schools do with the so-called "student evaluation" only apply it to moderators. A simple check-off rating list might be helpful after discussants post x amount of comments (e.g., 500). A 5 would be the highest rating for a moderator. 3 gets into the territory of "this moderator needs some help." Also the TOS rules need to be clearer and less ambiguous. There also needs to be a statement of the rights of discussants relating, for example, to academic freedom. The unintended consequences of this might make Dharma Wheel more helpful, demonstrating a concern for fellow discussants.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:27 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
songhill wrote:
kirtu wrote:
How would you improve moderation in general?


For starters, ... might do what some IV league schools do with the so-called "student evaluation" only apply it to moderators. A simple check-off rating list might be helpful after discussants post x amount of comments (e.g., 500). A 5 would be the highest rating for a moderator. 3 gets into the territory of "this moderator needs some help." Also the TOS rules need to be clearer and less ambiguous. There also needs to be a statement of the rights of discussants relating, for example, to academic freedom. The unintended consequences of this might make ... more helpful, demonstrating a concern for fellow discussants.


I meant in general. So you'd like a kind of evaluation of moderators and clearer TOS rules (I thought they were pretty clear on eSangha and other sites I have been on). When we start going down the "rights of discussants relating, for example, to academic freedom" route .... I'm not a big fan of "rights" because to some extent they are antithetical to an enlightened society and to enlightened speech and discussion (which I hope is what we are striving for). As an example, we have various rights controversies in the US on an hourly basis, some legitimate and some not so legitimate but all a logical evolution of the conflict between principle and codification of rules. I spent several years writing rules based expert systems for an intelligent system fielded by a Fortune 70 company and know that precision in rules is very difficult and much more difficult in social systems (and that Goedel proved essentially that we can't cover everything without resorting to a higher system - it is possible that deontic logic could cover this but it hasn't been applied to TOS systems to my knowledge [and anyway, people wouldn't really follow it without applying an executable system] - there's a mini-paper "Deontic Logic Applied to Discussion Board TOS").

I think it's appropriate to ask "Can't we all just get along?" without irony. And if not, why? People do need protections from powerful interests as we see demonstrably in the US and other nations demonstrating a significant degree of social inequality. Quite frankly some people would like to saction me at times for addressing US social problems (which I did strenuously on eSangha and was warned about a few times) and for being an open sceptic about the so-called progressive values of the major English speaking cultures but at the end of the day I'm not trying to insult or denigrate anyone or cause harm. Do/did people really need codified protections on boards like eSangha? I was surprised at some of the decisions by moderators there sometimes but usually it seems to me they got it right. Anyway, I think no one was banned for life and the intention was to facilitate open discussion without people being harmed or muzzled (a point that some dispute of course). But at the end of a banning (ugh .... :crying: - can't we find an alternative like a time out box from hockey or something) people could rejoin the board.

Literally no system can be without unintended consequences (Goedel again). But can't we maximize discussion and interaction without heavy handed rule based systems?

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:30 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Posts: 678
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I say let the members have the right to warn the mods. We have to turn the tables around on these power-hungry oppressors. Viva la Revolution! Image

Then once a mod has, lets say, a dozen warnings (we'll be generous) he/she is suspended for a month, to cool off. Three suspensions=ban.

Transparent and accountable government is the key. Down with dictatorship!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 64
It's hard to get the balance right, especially if the mods don't know anything about new members. Some people join sites to troll or push some weird agenda of their own, in which case (after a warning etc) they should be banned. I've seen a few sites where just about anything goes and it's not pretty either. No easy answers but courtesy and giving people the benefit of the doubt go a long way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Posts: 2327
Location: the Netherlands and India
Quote:
say let the members have the right to warn the mods. We have to turn the tables around on these power-hungry oppressors. Viva la Revolution!


I agree! But then you have to pay me a salary- at least enough to sponsor the monks in the house of my teachers at Sera.

(Just kidding)

_________________
In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,
I must obtain control over my own mind.
Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,
and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.
-Atisha Dipamkara
brtsal ba'i bkhra drin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
kirtu wrote:


I meant in general. So you'd like a kind of evaluation of moderators and clearer TOS rules (I thought they were pretty clear on eSangha and other sites I have been on). When we start going down the "rights of discussants relating, for example, to academic freedom" route .... I'm not a big fan of "rights" because to some extent they are antithetical to an enlightened society and to enlightened speech and discussion (which I hope is what we are striving for). As an example, we have various rights controversies in the US on an hourly basis, some legitimate and some not so legitimate but all a logical evolution of the conflict between principle and codification of rules. I spent several years writing rules based expert systems for an intelligent system fielded by a Fortune 70 company and know that precision in rules is very difficult and much more difficult in social systems (and that Goedel proved essentially that we can't cover everything without resorting to a higher system - it is possible that deontic logic could cover this but it hasn't been applied to TOS systems to my knowledge [and anyway, people wouldn't really follow it without applying an executable system] - there's a mini-paper "Deontic Logic Applied to Discussion Board TOS").

I think it's appropriate to ask "Can't we all just get along?" without irony. And if not, why? People do need protections from powerful interests as we see demonstrably in the US and other nations demonstrating a significant degree of social inequality. Quite frankly some people would like to saction me at times for addressing US social problems (which I did strenuously on eSangha and was warned about a few times) and for being an open sceptic about the so-called progressive values of the major English speaking cultures but at the end of the day I'm not trying to insult or denigrate anyone or cause harm. Do/did people really need codified protections on boards like eSangha? I was surprised at some of the decisions by moderators there sometimes but usually it seems to me they got it right. Anyway, I think no one was banned for life and the intention was to facilitate open discussion without people being harmed or muzzled (a point that some dispute of course). But at the end of a banning (ugh .... :crying: - can't we find an alternative like a time out box from hockey or something) people could rejoin the board.

Literally no system can be without unintended consequences (Goedel again). But can't we maximize discussion and interaction without heavy handed rule based systems?

Kirt


Historically looked at, the unintended consequences of heavily moderated discussion groups goes more or less the way of E-Sangha. ZFI and NewBuddhist are good examples. A rule system always exists not to mention a system of power. The rule system is internalized in the moderators, themselves, which is a capricious one. It is sort of like the "blue-caps" (state security) of the Stalinist era, in the sense that giving an infallible creature power, they will naturally abuse it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:22 pm
Posts: 417
Location: East Coast of Canada
songhill wrote:
giving an infallible creature power, they will naturally abuse it.
(I assume you meant "fallible".) This is the untrue orthodoxy of anarchism.

I can accept that if you give a large enough group of people power, some in the group will abuse it. It is untrue to say that they all will. Some people are made of better stuff than that.

Om mani padme hum
Keith


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:50 pm
Posts: 371
Dan74 wrote:
I say let the members have the right to warn the mods. We have to turn the tables around on these power-hungry oppressors. Viva la Revolution! Image

Then once a mod has, lets say, a dozen warnings (we'll be generous) he/she is suspended for a month, to cool off. Three suspensions=ban.

Transparent and accountable government is the key. Down with dictatorship!



:good:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:48 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
Only one way to deal with this.


_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:27 pm
Posts: 196
songhill wrote:
The lesson it did not learn is that moderating can be a double-edged sword. Owners need to do a better job of vetting and supervising their moderators. There should even be a term limit imposed upon moderators. There are ways to improve Buddhist discussion groups but, so far, I have not seen any good moderated discussion groups. They are being run as lite E-Sanghas.


But being a moderator can be very challenging, and is sometimes a thankless task. Maybe you should volunteer your services? :tongue:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
porpoise wrote:
songhill wrote:
The lesson it did not learn is that moderating can be a double-edged sword. Owners need to do a better job of vetting and supervising their moderators. There should even be a term limit imposed upon moderators. There are ways to improve Buddhist discussion groups but, so far, I have not seen any good moderated discussion groups. They are being run as lite E-Sanghas.


But being a moderator can be very challenging, and is sometimes a thankless task. Maybe you should volunteer your services? :tongue:


It might well be challenging and a thankless task—I agree—but most jobs are, included the ones that you get paid for. I have been involved in Buddhist discussions groups since before the Internet. Universal Zendo was the first Internet discussion group that I joined. It had an axe to grind. It was Japansy. Wouldn't tolerate Pali or Sanskrit terms—Japanese, yes. I think I lasted two weeks on it. Bottom line: Discussion groups are really systems of power. When you put moderators in positions of power, they usually abuse their position. BliefNet was one of the biggest abusers. After BliefNet, I really had to rethink who Western Buddhists really were. They weren't like Asian Buddhists—not by a long shot. Most seemed like they were on antidepressants and had mental issues. Others were recovering alcoholics. They didn't like to debate; didn't know very much about Buddhism, either—and were too damn lazy to learn. In fine, Buddhist discussion groups have some real problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Posts: 2327
Location: the Netherlands and India
Have you tried starting a board yourself running it along the guidelines you have proposed, Songhill? I would join if you did, and would be curious to see how things manifested using that paradigm.

_________________
In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,
I must obtain control over my own mind.
Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,
and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.
-Atisha Dipamkara
brtsal ba'i bkhra drin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
JKhedrup wrote:
Have you tried starting a board yourself running it along the guidelines you have proposed, Songhill? I would join if you did, and would be curious to see how things manifested using that paradigm.


You're welcome to come to my blog, The Zennist. I don't censor comments. You can kick-ass if you wish. I realized that when blogs came on the scene it was time to move on. So I created The Zennist blog which has been successful. You might enjoy it. It is really dedicated to achieving the gnosis of pure Mind and it ramifications which Western Buddhists have completely missed. The only reason I post here is to get a sense of where the newbie/prithagjanas are coming from. It helps in creating new blogs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm
Posts: 2755
No wonder you didn't like E-Sangha, Songhill (aka Zennist).
One of the reasons we had mods was to prevent people like you from spreading nonsense like Dark Zen there, so I can't say your opinion comes as a surprise.


Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
removed "profanity"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
Dechen Norbu wrote:
No wonder you didn't like E-Sangha, Songhill (aka Zennist).
One of the reasons we had mods was to prevent people like you from spreading BS like Dark Zen there, so I can't say your opinion comes as a surprise.


Yeah, I consider the source, too. Basically, what E-Sangha did is called censorship in case it slipped by you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:37 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
It's quite simple: when you come to a site and register to use it you know that there are a number of regulations that you must abide by. You agree to abide by them. If you do not like the regulations then you just leave the site or not register. Nobody is forcing anybody to stay here. Joining the site means that you accept the regulations. If the you do not abide by the regulations you get warned, suspended and banned. It is that simple. Like it or lump it (really).

Now if you believe that censorship is always a negative thing, I will like to see what you will do when somebody rocks up to your blog site with the sole intention of trolling. I am sure you will readily change your tune.

A moderators (thankless) task is to keep conversation civil and on topic, to weed out trolls and spammers and to apply the Terms of Service. Of course a moderator may abuse their power, just like a member may abuse the PRIVILEGE of being allowed to post on the site. There are procedures for dealing with both of these problems.

To date I have not seen somebody be banned due to their views, I have only seen (and have applied) warnings, suspensions and bannings due to the manner in which a member communicated their views. I think that's a pretty good record (really).

And let us not forget that all the staff here are volunteers (suckers!!!). So feel free to cut us some slack!
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm
Posts: 1054
Location: Sunny California
So you are Zenmar, huh? Or he was a "character" invented by you. I remember those posts from the Tricycle board. They seemed very aggressive at the time. Didn't you and a friend go to "interview" Malcolm's elderly teacher at his house, under false pretenses? Or was that somebody else?


songhill wrote:
Dechen Norbu wrote:
No wonder you didn't like E-Sangha, Songhill (aka Zennist).
One of the reasons we had mods was to prevent people like you from spreading BS like Dark Zen there, so I can't say your opinion comes as a surprise.


Yeah, I consider the source, too. Basically, what E-Sangha did is called censorship in case it slipped by you.

_________________
My blog:
http://onsausalcreek.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
Yudron wrote:
So you are Zenmar, huh? Or he was a "character" invented by you. I remember those posts from the Tricycle board. They seemed very aggressive at the time. Didn't you and a friend go to "interview" Malcolm's elderly teacher at his house, under false pretenses? Or was that somebody else?


songhill wrote:
Dechen Norbu wrote:
No wonder you didn't like E-Sangha, Songhill (aka Zennist).
One of the reasons we had mods was to prevent people like you from spreading BS like Dark Zen there, so I can't say your opinion comes as a surprise.


Yeah, I consider the source, too. Basically, what E-Sangha did is called censorship in case it slipped by you.


Now what do you think, Yudron, would I do such a thing like that when I am capable of so much more? :guns:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
gregkavarnos wrote:
I will like to see what you will do when somebody rocks up to your blog site with the sole intention of trolling.


I let them troll as long as it is about Buddhism and not sex, booze, or whatever. I edit some of the comments when a commentator is Mr. Potty Mouth. But I never, as a general rule, reject comments. Comments tend to draw interest and add to my hits. Writing a blog can take many hours. A lot of background work goes into a blog especially when karma or rebirth are an issue. When a comment follows a blog, there is not that much to find fault with. Mainly the people who come to the blog are practitioners who have realized that seeing pure Mind is the alpha and omega of Buddhism.

Dharma Wheel is a horse of a different color as compared with a blog. DW is not publishing a product for a certain type of client. DW is about maintaining a forum - a public place - for the discussion of subjects of current interest in the field of Buddhism. The duties of a moderator can, therefore, vary from one Buddhist discussion group to another Buddhist discussion group. Some moderators have an ax to grind, others don't. E-Sangha looked at from this perspective was over-moderated and police-like. Namdrol was trying to get rid of any scent of heterodoxy which meant he assumed that his reading of Buddhism was totally orthodox when in fact it was anything but orthodox. Had he relaxed and cut back on moderators and encouraged, instead, a truly open forum, E-Sangha might still be running.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group