Is the Spirituality Forum actually any good?
in Spirituality ·
@Edward Flores4
Thanks for the posts, for two reasons.
First off, I was starting to lose hope that anyone would actually grasp what I meant regarding my—well, let’s call it "unbiased"—stance toward the users here (though anyone reading with a bit of common sense should have figured it out anyway).
Second, you saved me a ton of time on explaining myself—honestly, I probably wouldn't have phrased it any better.
Anyway, since this topic keeps coming up for some people—let’s lay out the facts.
"Objective objectivity"—the idea that some computer runs an algorithm on your posts to spit out a perfect score—doesn't exist. So, unless I get replaced, you're stuck dealing with me 🙂.
All that's left is the possibility that a moderator uses their own judgment to evaluate things based on the rules and how they see the situation. (As for the objectivity of moderation and answering specific complaints, I'll be posting a follow-up on my blog soon—though Edward Flores4 has already covered the essentials).
The forum rules come first.
Second, in my opinion, comes the actual purpose of this forum, which is tied to how most participants—including myself—view it.
This thread itself is the place where ideas can be shared, personal perspectives offered, and constructive suggestions made regarding the forum's purpose and content. That goes for everyone.
However, for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around, a handful of users decided it would be much more entertaining to use this thread (and that other one—even if their intentions differ) just to attack me.
To me, the core purpose of this forum is discussing spirituality. Since "spirituality" isn't exactly a strictly defined term, it's up to both you and me to set some boundaries (and share our visions) so we have a framework for our discussions.
While I think you can find a spiritual element in almost everything, in a narrower sense, we're talking about topics like self-discovery, the nature of the world, consciousness, altered states, philosophy, religion, ethics, psychology, sociology, history, and how individuals, groups, or humanity have pursued spiritual growth. [That includes everything from various development techniques—including those "woo-woo" methods—to meditation, prayer, chanting, yoga, karma yoga, concentration exercises, visualization, positive thinking, astrology, tarot, I Ching, Aikido... and a whole laundry list of other practices].
Of course, it’s unlikely any two users will agree perfectly on what constitutes spirituality, but I don't see that being a problem. It only becomes a problem when someone refuses to respect other viewpoints and fanatically insists their vision is the only truth, trying to convert others—which, frankly, is the exact opposite of what spirituality is all about.
Besides, you're all here, not at a sports bar, a political rally, or a church!
So, this is the general framework. It leaves room for nearly all expressions of spirituality, and through that variety, we can build a high-quality community. That is, assuming people actually write. As Edward Flores4 pointed out, you guys create the forum, not me.
I'm just here to make occasional corrections—not because I feel like playing cop, but because I see it as a way to improve the environment for everyone participating.
Right now, two major adjustments are underway. They stem directly from the rules, but they've been difficult to define and enforce until now.
1. Rigorous oversight of how participants express themselves.
In my view, things like insulting someone's family, calling people idiots or morons, telling people to check themselves into mental institutions, suggesting medication for certain issues, making arbitrary or derogatory comments about someone's character or actions—none of that is acceptable.Using solid data and actual quotes, then just constant attacking...
It doesn't help the discussion or the quality of this board—honestly, there’s no place for it here, (especially not in the spirituality section).
Most people already get this—look, we all have bad days where we snap at someone, it happens—but a handful of users seem hell-bent on pushing this exact style of "conversation."
Usually, it starts when people disagree. Instead of just calmly stating their piece and letting the other person be who they are—since you can't force a change of heart anyway—it turns into some sort of "Battle of the Alamo" where everyone starts firing wildly.
So, don't be surprised if I pop into a thread just because I see the signs of things going south. It's better for the community, and better for you (fewer strikes and warnings).
2. Cracking down on off-topic chatter.
We've got several informal cliques or "factions" floating around here with blurry boundaries—the tech gurus, the political junkies, the psychedelic crowd, the anti-political crowd, the offended, the free-thinking artists, and the general chatters.
For some weird reason, every single one of these groups acts like they own the place—trying to drag their specific niche into every single thread.
It usually looks like this:
Topic – "Butterflies in Madagascar”
- I saw some amazing butterflies in Madagascar once.
- Sure, but did anyone actually see them?
- That's nothing compared to the butterflies I see when I'm tripping.
- Wait, how can we talk about butterflies while the moderator is breathing down our necks? He's such a jerk.
- How can you even discuss butterflies when the main guy left the site and everything is falling apart?
- Anyway, let's talk about elephants in Asia instead.
Everyone belongs somewhere—though my particular little sect seems to have dwindled down to just one member. 😢
Look, I don't have any beef with any of these groups, but any off-topic rambling—basically forcing your group's specific drama or obsession onto a random topic—will be deleted, and eventually, the rules against it will get much stricter..
I think it's enough that we have one enlightenment school, one psychedelic thread, one thread for politics, one for the mods, one chat room, one thread for moderation issues, and one for suggestions to improve the site (other than firing the mod 🙂)...
All other threads should stay focused on their intended subjects.
Obviously, anyone can state their opinion in any thread, but intentionally—or even accidentally—hijacking a whole discussion to steer it toward one of those niches mentioned above won't be allowed.
If you have an issue with this, please make a reasoned argument.
@ Donna, this post is 😂
Please, following what I wrote above, refrain from trying to diagnose other members. You're at 10 strikes now. 😢
Thanks for the rest.
PS
The janitor is coming by to clean up the mess and toss the trash 😍, though I think it’s a shame to wipe out this whole chat (there are some good points in here), so I'll only be deleting the most egregious stuff.
Thanks for the posts, for two reasons.
First off, I was starting to lose hope that anyone would actually grasp what I meant regarding my—well, let’s call it "unbiased"—stance toward the users here (though anyone reading with a bit of common sense should have figured it out anyway).
Second, you saved me a ton of time on explaining myself—honestly, I probably wouldn't have phrased it any better.
Anyway, since this topic keeps coming up for some people—let’s lay out the facts.
"Objective objectivity"—the idea that some computer runs an algorithm on your posts to spit out a perfect score—doesn't exist. So, unless I get replaced, you're stuck dealing with me 🙂.
All that's left is the possibility that a moderator uses their own judgment to evaluate things based on the rules and how they see the situation. (As for the objectivity of moderation and answering specific complaints, I'll be posting a follow-up on my blog soon—though Edward Flores4 has already covered the essentials).
The forum rules come first.
Second, in my opinion, comes the actual purpose of this forum, which is tied to how most participants—including myself—view it.
This thread itself is the place where ideas can be shared, personal perspectives offered, and constructive suggestions made regarding the forum's purpose and content. That goes for everyone.
However, for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around, a handful of users decided it would be much more entertaining to use this thread (and that other one—even if their intentions differ) just to attack me.
To me, the core purpose of this forum is discussing spirituality. Since "spirituality" isn't exactly a strictly defined term, it's up to both you and me to set some boundaries (and share our visions) so we have a framework for our discussions.
While I think you can find a spiritual element in almost everything, in a narrower sense, we're talking about topics like self-discovery, the nature of the world, consciousness, altered states, philosophy, religion, ethics, psychology, sociology, history, and how individuals, groups, or humanity have pursued spiritual growth. [That includes everything from various development techniques—including those "woo-woo" methods—to meditation, prayer, chanting, yoga, karma yoga, concentration exercises, visualization, positive thinking, astrology, tarot, I Ching, Aikido... and a whole laundry list of other practices].
Of course, it’s unlikely any two users will agree perfectly on what constitutes spirituality, but I don't see that being a problem. It only becomes a problem when someone refuses to respect other viewpoints and fanatically insists their vision is the only truth, trying to convert others—which, frankly, is the exact opposite of what spirituality is all about.
Besides, you're all here, not at a sports bar, a political rally, or a church!
So, this is the general framework. It leaves room for nearly all expressions of spirituality, and through that variety, we can build a high-quality community. That is, assuming people actually write. As Edward Flores4 pointed out, you guys create the forum, not me.
I'm just here to make occasional corrections—not because I feel like playing cop, but because I see it as a way to improve the environment for everyone participating.
Right now, two major adjustments are underway. They stem directly from the rules, but they've been difficult to define and enforce until now.
1. Rigorous oversight of how participants express themselves.
In my view, things like insulting someone's family, calling people idiots or morons, telling people to check themselves into mental institutions, suggesting medication for certain issues, making arbitrary or derogatory comments about someone's character or actions—none of that is acceptable.Using solid data and actual quotes, then just constant attacking...
It doesn't help the discussion or the quality of this board—honestly, there’s no place for it here, (especially not in the spirituality section).
Most people already get this—look, we all have bad days where we snap at someone, it happens—but a handful of users seem hell-bent on pushing this exact style of "conversation."
Usually, it starts when people disagree. Instead of just calmly stating their piece and letting the other person be who they are—since you can't force a change of heart anyway—it turns into some sort of "Battle of the Alamo" where everyone starts firing wildly.
So, don't be surprised if I pop into a thread just because I see the signs of things going south. It's better for the community, and better for you (fewer strikes and warnings).
2. Cracking down on off-topic chatter.
We've got several informal cliques or "factions" floating around here with blurry boundaries—the tech gurus, the political junkies, the psychedelic crowd, the anti-political crowd, the offended, the free-thinking artists, and the general chatters.
For some weird reason, every single one of these groups acts like they own the place—trying to drag their specific niche into every single thread.
It usually looks like this:
Topic – "Butterflies in Madagascar”
- I saw some amazing butterflies in Madagascar once.
- Sure, but did anyone actually see them?
- That's nothing compared to the butterflies I see when I'm tripping.
- Wait, how can we talk about butterflies while the moderator is breathing down our necks? He's such a jerk.
- How can you even discuss butterflies when the main guy left the site and everything is falling apart?
- Anyway, let's talk about elephants in Asia instead.
Everyone belongs somewhere—though my particular little sect seems to have dwindled down to just one member. 😢
Look, I don't have any beef with any of these groups, but any off-topic rambling—basically forcing your group's specific drama or obsession onto a random topic—will be deleted, and eventually, the rules against it will get much stricter..
I think it's enough that we have one enlightenment school, one psychedelic thread, one thread for politics, one for the mods, one chat room, one thread for moderation issues, and one for suggestions to improve the site (other than firing the mod 🙂)...
All other threads should stay focused on their intended subjects.
Obviously, anyone can state their opinion in any thread, but intentionally—or even accidentally—hijacking a whole discussion to steer it toward one of those niches mentioned above won't be allowed.
If you have an issue with this, please make a reasoned argument.
@ Donna, this post is 😂
Please, following what I wrote above, refrain from trying to diagnose other members. You're at 10 strikes now. 😢
Thanks for the rest.
PS
The janitor is coming by to clean up the mess and toss the trash 😍, though I think it’s a shame to wipe out this whole chat (there are some good points in here), so I'll only be deleting the most egregious stuff.