Is the Spirituality Forum actually any good?

Benjamin Long said:Look, I would certainly laugh if I actually understood where the punchline was!

A staple member of this community—someone whose value went unrecognized by certain users and even the moderators alike—has officially stopped posting.

The fact that you find this amusing while I do not simply suggests that either you or I am missing the point entirely, don't you think?

Honestly, how are we supposed to mourn something we didn't even realize was there in the first place? It’s simple logic: if you don't know something exists, you can't miss it, and you certainly can't grieve it.

When someone tries to tell me I've lost something I never actually possessed... well, I can't help but find it a little ridiculous. What am I supposed to do—burst into tears? 😁

The Spirituality subforum needs to return to its religious roots, where it actually belongs. A significant number of users have stopped posting here for that exact reason. When you combine this with the fact that the moderators' criteria for what qualifies as "spirituality" seem based entirely on their own personal interpretations—which, by the way, they’ve never managed to clearly define—it leads to one inevitable conclusion: there is a calculated effort to diminish the influence of religion across the entire site. That’s pure politics. If that's the case, just move the whole subforum over to General Discussion.

For instance, look at the most popular thread in the Spirituality section, "TEKI on the forum." This was a unique, deep dive into spirituality itself, spanning over 200 pages and racking up roughly 140,000 views. It was shut down and moved to the Religion section simply because the moderators decided it didn't fit the current definition of "spirituality." Essentially, the staff doesn't care about driving traffic or engagement. Fine. If that's the goal, just start a private club instead.

steeleagle2 said:The Spirituality subforum needs to return to its religious roots, where it actually belongs. A significant number of users have stopped posting here for that exact reason. When you combine this with the fact that the moderators' criteria for what qualifies as "spirituality" seem based entirely on their own personal interpretations—which, by the way, they’ve never managed to clearly define—it leads to one inevitable conclusion: there is a calculated effort to diminish the influence of religion across the entire site. That’s pure politics. If that's the case, just move the whole subforum over to General Discussion.

For instance, look at the most popular thread in the Spirituality section, "TEKI on the forum." This was a unique, deep dive into spirituality itself, spanning over 200 pages and racking up roughly 140,000 views. It was shut down and moved to the Religion section simply because the moderators decided it didn't fit the current definition of "spirituality." Essentially, the staff doesn't care about driving traffic or engagement. Fine. If that's the goal, just start a private club instead.

Are you the same steeleagle2 who called moving "Spirituality - Free Style" from Religion to Philosophy the work of unfaithful evil forces? 🙏 🙏 🙏

V.

Edward Flores4 said:Basically, even if your core premise was something you cooked up back when you were just a kid, you'll always find some way to repackage it in a new light to fit your original agenda... right? 😁

Quinn:

It’s true that the quality of a forum depends on the quality of its users, but which users actually survive on the platform ends up being determined by which group the moderator belongs to.

Exactly.

Quinn:

Would you agree that every fool thinks they're brilliant while viewing everyone else as an idiot?

Maybe on the surface, sure, but deep down, even the biggest idiots know they aren't all that bright.
Quinn:

So, the moderator will perceive their own group as the "smart" one, regardless of whether they actually are.

Theoretically, yes—but we aren't talking about an idiot here, so there’s really no reason to panic. Just relax.

Quinn:

And they will moderate based on that perception.

Of course. That’s exactly why we have them!

Quinn:

So, essentially, what you’ve identified as the fundamental requirement for a high-quality discussion is actually entirely dependent on the style of moderation used.

Spot on. In the short time since Drake has stepped in as moderator... discussions have become noticeably more productive—aside from these little "attacks" on him, which I attribute to a certain crowd that’s rightfully worried about their survival now that they realize they belong to the non-constructive side of things.

Quinn:

True, but what if the moderator misjudges who the idiots are?

Shit happens.🙂

Quinn:

Hmm, yeah, but how exactly would you define "quality"?

Here’s a little visual for you 😁

Quinn:

Don't you think it's necessary for a moderator to actually understand the core subject matter if they want to weed out members who aren't contributing anything meaningful to the discussion?

By default, I don't hold convictions about situations that haven't even happened yet. Every single thread and every single conflict is its own unique beast. If we could just pre-define everything in advance, we wouldn't need people at all—we'd just hand the whole moderation job over to some basic computer script. But since that’s impossible, we rely on humans to step in and deal with things as they arise, rather than creating a massive headache by trying to solve problems that don't even exist yet.

Quinn:

I’d suggest you maybe refrain from commenting on a text when you clearly haven't grasped the point. Maybe try reading the controversial passage a few more times:

If I were you, I wouldn't bet on assumptions about what I failed to understand—you’re going to end up losing those bets quite frequently.

Quinn:

Well, since it seems you're struggling a bit, let me give you a clear example: Peter (Department Manager): The best soccer player in the world is Rolando! Ivan: Yeah, totally! Rolando rules! Steve: No way, Beckham is a hundred times better. Ivan: Beckham? You're an idiot! Steve: And you have no clue what you're talking about! Peter: (slaps Steve with a clipboard) You told Isaac he had no clue, which means you insulted him. Steve: But he called me an idiot first! Peter: True, but Ivan says Rolando is the best, and since I also believe Rolando is the best, that means Ivan is right.

In this little scenario, everyone involved is an idiot. Using a term like "the best" is obviously arbitrary, purely subjective, and impossible to prove. A moderator in this situation could easily just ban Peter, Ivan, and Steve... because honestly, it's pretty clear none of them are using their brains.

If you actually realize you're an idiot, then you aren't really an idiot!

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, how are we supposed to mourn something we didn't even realize was there in the first place? It’s simple logic: if you don't know something exists, you can't miss it, and you certainly can't grieve it.

When someone tries to tell me I've lost something I never actually possessed... well, I can't help but find it a little ridiculous. What am I supposed to do—burst into tears? 😁

Nobody is claiming you lost something you didn't have—they're saying you screwed over something someone else actually owned.

Just a united front here with all the precious lithium-stock spammers on this board.

Enivej,
if these lithium-obsessed spammers are the ones the mods consider "esteemed members," then this whole forum is a lost cause.

And that is the main point from the very beginning.

@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.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, this guy is easily one of the sharpest minds on the forum—honestly, if you aren't paying attention to his posts, you're basically missing out on the only real substance around here.

Nah, it's just not true.
It’s pretty damn obvious, honestly. Case closed. Right here. .
Look, when the moderators over at the Philosophy Forum have an IQ that barely scrapes 140—which, let’s be honest, isn't exactly rocket science—it stops being just their own little problem. It’s not just about them being clueless or unable to wrap their heads around basic concepts; it becomes a massive headache for everyone else stuck in their orbit. It’s like living next door to someone who can't figure out how a toaster works—eventually, you're the one dealing with the smoke.
Honestly, George walked out on this whole forum because you people are just too mentally stunted to get it.
Honestly, because of how mentally stunted you all are, Percival keeps getting kicked off the Philosophy Forum—even though half the mods and users around here are constantly begging him to come hang out on their own boards.
Honestly, it’s because you guys are all so mentally stunted that I’m actually forced to hang out on this forum with some total shady characters—even if their wisdom is, frankly, nothing short of phenomenal.
Because of your sheer mental incompetence, some user named Sanja got banned from the forum—and honestly, she was just trying to point out the exact same issue for months on end. Most of us thought she was just being dramatic, and yeah, I'll admit it, most of us were totally leaning towards believing those narrow-minded moderators. Typical.

Look, when we're talking about mental limitations here—and I’m sticking to what I said at the jump—I honestly think we’re looking at an IQ north of 140. Anything less? Yeah, that's where the real issues start.

So, look, dear mods—honestly, go ahead and lose it if you want. You can take offense if that’s where you're headed, because clearly, you can see exactly how much I respect you guys.

Quinn:

I guess you could call me a hiker, though that feels way too polite for someone who spends half their life dodging rattlesnakes and sweating through three shirts a day just to stare at some rocks. Honestly, calling myself a "mountain climber" sounds like I’m trying to sell you overpriced gear from REI, but let's just say I spend a lot of time getting lost in the backcountry. It's a lifestyle, I suppose—if your idea of a good time is blisters, questionable trail mix, and wondering why on earth anyone finds peace in being exhausted and dirty. But hey, that's just how I roll. kaže: Look, we gotta stop treating this like some abstract concept—you need to make it personal, Benjamin Long from Denver... it’s not even about the "approach" itself, it's about the guy actually doing the approaching who creates the whole damn problem in the first place. Look, let's get one thing straight—there isn't actually a problem with the Philosophy Forum itself. At all. What we're dealing with here is just you having these massive expectations for what a subforum should be... and honestly? That's on you. The issue isn't the board; the issue is your own expectations. It's you, man. Period.

The problem isn't Benjamin Long—honestly, she isn't even asking for anything. She’s just hoping. Same as me, really.

The real issue here—and I’m being dead serious—is the mods. They’re out here acting like absolute tyrants, constantly belittling people and throwing insults around just because they can. It’s the same old story: if you dare to have an opinion that doesn't perfectly align with their little echo chamber, you’re getting hit with a red card or a straight-up ban. It’s pathetic, honestly. They aren't moderating; they're just gatekeeping.
Look, the real issue here is the moderators—but let’s be honest, the problem also lies with a lot of these forum dwellers like you, who just conveniently look the other way whenever things get unfair.

Honestly, I think I might just steal normall's avatar.
In case you haven't figured it out yet—yeah, I am a hypocrite of biblical proportions.

.................

Just a little something for all the angry people out there to help them snap out of it.

Just so we're clear—normall actually changed his avatar a while ago. 👍

@ darkseal15
If you actually channeled even half the energy you spend on this—and those little jabs at me—into writing about spirituality, we’d probably be living in some kind of utopia by now.

Brenda Cook4 said:Drake, congrats on the moderator gig!

Thanks, though—given how things look right now, I’m not entirely sure if there's much to celebrate. 🤷 😬
Any ideas on how to fix this place up?
One suggestion of mine—stop lurking and actually post something interesting once in a while. 🙂

casualtiger2 said:Dustin got served. Happy now? Made your day?
Your little "intellectual suicide" comment isn't exactly the height of polite conversation either—but hey, it’s not my job to babysit grown adults. 🤷

PS
You can forget about that whole "Temu" thing regarding Richard Walker79.
As everyone here has noticed (and it’s not just limited to this board), he basically ghosted him for reasons that seem totally irrelevant to me, and then started telling every single forum member that they're a complete joke and that he's fed up with them—and he's doing it across multiple different threads.

1. Dustin didn't get "served"—he took a theatrical stage slap (you know, like when actors pretend to get hit in movies?)
You still haven't explained where I supposedly got three instances of 20-dollar fines for posts that weren't insulting.


(I know two of them—I actually dared to put a smiley face 😂 on one of your comments—but the third one?)

2. Donna Corleone was the one who actually kicked off the thread about casualtiger2, did you miss that?
Or are you implying that there's nothing good anyone could ever say about casualtiger2?
I never said he didn't do what he did, nor did I say his ban was unjustified.
I was simply pointing out a possible reason for the sudden fallout, based on my own perspective.
(Donna was also talking about the cause of the blow-up, didn't you notice? Nope... that's called selective hearing.)

3. If someone stubbornly insists that a person is something they clearly aren't—even when it's being laid out plainly right in front of them—that is the definition of intellectual suicide.

On the flip side, what exactly are you basing that "chicken coop" insult on?

Basically, you can't even distinguish between appropriate labels and the ones that are out of line.

So, once again: this forum is doomed.

@ Look, Gregzo, don't even sweat it—this forum is going to run my way eventually. 😁
The reason Dustin got banned is pretty obvious and totally justified (and honestly, it’s just a three-day suspension, not a lifetime ban).
I can't speak for Ja Sanju, but I’m convinced the mods at the time had their reasons—if it's even remotely similar to what darkseal15 is complaining about, then I actually feel for them.
The real question is why those people were banned in the first place. It's simple: they didn't follow the rules and tried—out of pure conviction, 🙄—to "save" the place, which really just meant tearing it apart.
Why is there never any talk about banning the long-time members who have been here for years with completely different perspectives? No matter who is moderating, the focus always stays on the same few people. Most users don't even have a single strike against them, yet nobody says a word.
Why is that? Personally, I have a gut feeling it all comes down to—well, basic upbringing.

darkseal15 said:1. Dustin didn't get "served"—he took a theatrical stage slap (you know, like when actors pretend to get hit in movies?)
You still haven't explained where I supposedly got three instances of 20-dollar fines for posts that weren't insulting.


(I know two of them—I actually dared to put a smiley face 😂 on one of your comments—but the third one?)

2. Donna Corleone was the one who actually kicked off the thread about casualtiger2, did you miss that?
Or are you implying that there's nothing good anyone could ever say about casualtiger2?
I never said he didn't do what he did, nor did I say his ban was unjustified.
I was simply pointing out a possible reason for the sudden fallout, based on my own perspective.
(Donna was also talking about the cause of the blow-up, didn't you notice? Nope... that's called selective hearing.)

3. If someone stubbornly insists that a person is something they clearly aren't—even when it's being laid out plainly right in front of them—that is the definition of intellectual suicide.

On the flip side, what exactly are you basing that "chicken coop" insult on?

Basically, you can't even distinguish between appropriate labels and the ones that are out of line.

So, once again: this forum is doomed.

Then why don't you just walk away if it's really such a hopeless situation?! 🤷

casualtiger2 said:Then why don't you just walk away if it's really such a hopeless situation?! 🤷

Do you realize you actually asked me a question?
Isn't it common sense to provide an answer?

(That’s just how I was raised—if someone asks you something, you answer them, and you try to make sure they actually understand what you're saying.
It seems to me you might have missed out on that particular lesson growing up.
I also notice that your idea of "good manners" involves calling people mentally deficient or throwing psychiatric labels around on a forum—something certain highly regarded members, like Donna Corleone, seem to enjoy doing.)

When I first signed up here, you had objections and questions for me too—and I made sure to address them.

In response to my reply, all those forum members you hold in such high regard had a mountain of follow-up questions, answers, wrong assumptions, and diagnoses—and once again, I did my best to respond to everyone politely.

If you look back at my earliest posts, you can see how much interest I initially had in this community.

Everything since then has been fueled by—well, by your questions.

So, regarding the question:

casualtiger2 said:Then why don't you just walk away if it's really such a hopeless situation?! 🤷

the answer is:

My upbringing won't let me, because I'm constantly stuck answering your questions.
(Instead of you, acting as the moderator, answering mine.)

Goodbye.

casualtiger2 said:@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.

, plus one thread on DMT, one on Ayahuasca, one chat room, one thread regarding moderation, and one for suggestions to improve the forum (other than firing the mod 🙂) …

If you disagree, please provide some actual arguments.[/I]

🙂
I really wouldn't bother writing this, but since you asked for an argument...😉
I’ve already told you my thoughts on drug terminology; using such broad terms isn't ideal when there are much more sophisticated, scientific terms available.
There isn't actually a specific psychedelic thread. There is just a general drugs thread—which used to be titled "Drug Abuse Under the Guise of Spirituality."
Since that thread was renamed, we were basically left with just the word "drugs."
And look, just the other day, some guy struggling with heroin addiction comes in trolling about having spiritual visions...
That simply isn't true, and you should know that, casualtiger2. History records the use of psychedelics for spiritual purposes, not narcotics or sedatives.
It’s honestly baffling to me that you don't realize how many different cultures have used ethnogenic substances for spiritual, shamanistic, or religious reasons.
I get that it might not interest you personally, but it's something you really ought to know and respect.

If the administration wants to police conversations about psychedelics, then they need to either ban the topic entirely or stop interfering with freedom of speech.

steeleagle2 said:The Spirituality subforum needs to return to its religious roots, where it actually belongs. A significant number of users have stopped posting here for that exact reason. When you combine this with the fact that the moderators' criteria for what qualifies as "spirituality" seem based entirely on their own personal interpretations—which, by the way, they’ve never managed to clearly define—it leads to one inevitable conclusion: there is a calculated effort to diminish the influence of religion across the entire site. That’s pure politics. If that's the case, just move the whole subforum over to General Discussion.

For instance, look at the most popular thread in the Spirituality section, "TEKI on the forum." This was a unique, deep dive into spirituality itself, spanning over 200 pages and racking up roughly 140,000 views. It was shut down and moved to the Religion section simply because the moderators decided it didn't fit the current definition of "spirituality." Essentially, the staff doesn't care about driving traffic or engagement. Fine. If that's the goal, just start a private club instead.

Wait, are you actually the same steeleagle2 who asked the moderators to lock the Teki thread? 😕

The real version:
Dervis:
"As the person who started this thread, I'm asking the moderators to please close it down."

I’m proposing we lock this thread for at least seven days. Let’s make it unanimous.

I think everyone’s pretty much said their piece about the site (and me)—some actually offered constructive feedback, while others have basically decided this place is a lost cause.
So, since we’ve hit rock bottom and the "majority" seems to think this forum is an absolute disaster, our only real option is to just shut the whole thing down.

Just kidding—I know you all secretly love this place and that it’ll live forever. 🙂
Bottom line: we’re at the bottom. And you know what that means? Things can only go up from here!
Since we’ve pretty much exhausted the debate over moderation and suggestions, you might as well get to "work"—use all that creative energy to actually write some high-quality posts about spirituality.
That’ll—100%, I’m certain of it—raise the bar for the entire community. 😁
I’m especially looking to those who think this place is hopeless; if you can spot what’s terrible, I assume you know what greatness looks like, too. So, step up and show us what "great" actually looks like. Given how many of you there are, I’m sure the results will follow. 😉

Anyway, happy writing! 👍