Community guidelines revision

Great changes, Aminah! :pray: I just wonder why you decided to use ‘space to share’ instead of ‘place to share’ :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Much thanks, Vstakan!

:laughing: Now, ‘space’ to ‘place’… hmmm… I’m responsible for that particular one, and what I can say there is an answer to your question, but I fear it may well be lost to the mad logic of layers of continually jigging things about. My best guess, knowing my own predilections, is that at one point in the revising process there would have been either two 'space’s or two 'place’s very close to each other and this would have been a measure to avoid repetition which was subsequently rendered null and void through further evolution.

3 Likes

Thanks for the differentchecker link. It appears there are just different wordings of some guideline advice with only one significant rule change:

If posting to the Watercooler category please take particular care to make sure your post belongs there. As noted above, this forum is about Early Buddhist Texts. We do, nevertheless, have a Watercooler category for more informal, relaxed, light-hearted Dhamma exchange. Whether posts to this category are directly on the EBTs or not, there is an emphasis on the “cooler” part of “Watercooler”. It’s a place to support each other and make connections, not to prove a point or for heated debate so if a thread strays too far from this category’s purpose it will be moved or closed.

I would be interested to understand this new rule change regarding the wattercooler, especially since it’s the only rule change happening.

Do the topics posted in the wattercooler have to be about the dhamma or not ? Will the wattercooler still exist or will it be removed at some point, as some users have asked ?

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback dxm_dxm, I think you’ve touched on a very important issue.

The Watercooler will definitely still exist, but, speaking from my own impression of things, there is a wish to try to keep discussion there much more closely tied to the category description as a friendly, relaxed space, as some conversations tend to go off the rails and drag the environment of the forum down with it.

It’s not my place to say whether posts there should in all cases have direct connection to the Dhamma or not - that’s for others to determine - what I can say is that, irrespectively, I personally would interpret my task as a moderator as a responsibility to make sure that any post there meets the category criteria of being friendly, supportive, non-argumentative and the like and that promotes a kindly atmosphere across the forum more broadly. I think Erik_ODonnell’s suggestions would be especially helpful in this area although, I myself would love to see his idea taken up with every single post.

5 Likes

Great work @Aminah!

Might I suggest truthfulness be included in the guidelines as it is a core principle of Right speech. Discussions here aren’t a competition. I sometimes think people want to ‘win’ at all costs, and being highly intelligent the misinformation is quite subtle. Such people are brain-training themselves into being untruthful, taking them further away from their goal of Nibbana. It’s unfortunate and cannot be moderated. We can only hope they develop more self awareness.

Each time I sign off ‘with metta’, I actually do a moment of metta (AN9.20) , which is said to be of great benefit, so regret sacrificing it for the sake of tidiness.

I would actually like this forum less concerned with tidiness but more concerned with metta to each other and its implications.

Also what are we doing to make newcomers feel settled?

14 Likes

Hi All
I think the following is a bit pompous

If you are moderated in any way, please take the opportunity to appreciate the gift you’ve been given — to have someone willing to highlight your lapses and help you grow is a great Dhamma blessing.

I like “Accept admonition gracefully” though. How about something along the lines of “please take the opportunity to reflect and receive in good faith”

I also think there should be an explicit statement regarding racist, sexist, homophobic speech etc. + links to such speech.

:anjal:

9 Likes

Many thanks, Mat - just a quick line to note that I posted on behalf of all the moderators and the greatness of @Brenna, @Cara and @anon29387788 ought to be underscored muchly - I’m just a tag on apprentice. :slight_smile:

Also, I think your sign off practice is beautiful - I made cooing sounds and everything! I don’t think there’s anything in the guidelines, present or proposed, that interferers with your sign off, I think the point about tidiness is simply that there’s no need to add your name as every post is linked to your user ID.

I think the points you’ve brought forward are lovely. How would you formulate them within the context of the guidelines?

Again, much thanks. Speaking for myself, I kinda agree and I think I prefer your version.

At the same time, in general terms, I do believe the point about admonition being a Dhamma gift is true and I don’t think it is an especially bad thing to be reminded of that occasionally. I’m a bit sorry about not managing to fit the line about Ven Sāriputta in - I have to put my hands up to that one… the section felt like it was getting a bit too long and what’s given in the version here was an attempt to reconcile everything in a reasonably concise way. Anyway, as I say, just my casual thoughts.

:anjal:

4 Likes

I would very much like to see the flagging guide!

3 Likes

Perhaps not directly on-topic, but here’s a recent study that highlights a couple of points that, IMO, are important to consider in this discussion:

"Title: Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions

Authors: Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Jure Leskovec
(Submitted on 3 Feb 2017)

Abstract:
In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion. While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger mechanisms: the individual’s mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling, and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news discussion community. This analysis reveals temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior shows that mood and discussion context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual’s history of trolling. These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like trolls."

The full paper is at:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.01119.pdf
or, in Ebook format, at:
https://files.clr3.com/papers/2017_anyone.pdf

Several of the many on-line reviews of the study also elucidate the problem
well, and some consider possible solutions.

The points that I find significant here are:

1: allowing any troll posting whatsoever tends to snowball into further
troll behavior;

2: in the presence of troll behavior, people who wouldn’t normally
behave so themselves are highly (I would suggest: dangerously) likely
to get sucked into similarly unskillful behavior.

5 Likes

[quote=“Aminah, post:1, topic:5204”]
We’ve been having a look at our community guidelines in effort to help us maintain this forum as a friendly space for Dhamma discussion.[/quote]

Friendly is good. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

Excellent work moderators and also all those who have added suggestions–beautiful, thanks!

Re: #14 new”
“One way to improve the discussion is by discovering ones that are already happening. Please spend some time browsing the topics here before replying or starting your own, and you’ll have a better chance of meeting others who share your interests.”

I think this is a really good point, especially since it seems there are increasing numbers of topics/discussions that are repeats, some even with the same or nearly the same discussion title. Obviously in a forum with so many discussions and topics a certain amount of overlap in discussions can’t be avoided, and it’s also not always easy to find and know whether a topic is already on the forum, and hence that one’s topic, idea, question or comment would be better placed in the earlier discussion. Or sometimes if a topic is very long, it’s better to start another one.

But I wonder what could be done to encourage and make it easier for everyone, especially new people (who aren’t familiar with past discussions) to pay attention to this guideline? It might be good to mention the search function. However I know sometimes I’ve searched for a topic but still can’t find it (even when I’m trying to find a previous discussion I’m remembering and want to go back to it). Sometimes this is because I’m not searching the exact right title or terms, or it could be that I’m remembering a topic that came up but was ‘hidden’ somewhere in another discussion, etc. One thing I’ve found helpful in discussions is when someone who recalls another discussion related to the topic posts a link to it.

Although implicitly covered in many other of the guidelines (eg #s, new version, 31, 33, 23–28, 17, 19, 59, 79, 81, 83 as well as in @Erika_ODonnell’s excellent suggestion of incorporating the ‘Advice to Rahula’ MN 61), I would like to see an explicite mention of the type of sarcasm that is really a mask for ill-will (or even subtly attacking). To me, some of what might be called sarcasm is not a problem at all, for example types falling under the category of humor (without ill-will) such as ironic or ‘real-life’ humor (which I quite enjoy) but I’ve also seen sarcasm on SC Discourse that really just seems to be a cover for an attitude of arrogance, superiority and even at times ill-will toward another person (so in that way, passive-aggresive though usually someone engaging in this does not recognize it as such…. but maybe they might be able to see they’re being sarcastic). Often this type of behavior seems to get worse as disagreements in discussions go on and on.

Also somewhat related, I recall a post by @sujato, probably in a discussion on trolling, in which he mentioned that it was unlikely in this type of forum that one could convince another of one’s view. If I find that post I’ll be more specific but I really agreed with it and thought it was helpful for people to consider when continuing to press a certain point. There’s definitely a time for ‘letting go’ (even of something that seems important)! In fact there’s a sutta (sorry, can’t recall which at the moment) about ‘right speech’ where the Buddha explicitly outlines when to make an effort ‘correcting’ (or something similar) someone and when to simply practice equanimity.

I liked the following ( #14 old guideline), and wonder if it or something similar could be kept (perhaps added to #19, new guidleline)

“Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.”

By the way, I’ve always found it helpful when the moderators explicitly mention something in a discussion such as posting a ‘warning’ or friendly reminder or other things like saying they’re moving the discussion to another category or asking people to start a new discussion, etc. I think it’s a good reminder for all of us of what to pay attention to. Speaking of this, I remember there were recently some suggestions about making these guidelines much more visible on the site (or even always accessible via a link on each page) and I’m hoping the moderators will do that.

One last thing–I remember some time ago a member posting that he didn’t use the ‘like’ button and @sujato replying that it was valuable to do so though I can’t recall all the reasons why or how ‘likes’ specifically relate to the posts–does it make discussion/comments show up in a different order or…? Can someone explain more about this? Obviously I realize it’s a nice thing to let people know you appreciate (or particularly like or are grateful for) their post but what else is is significant, in terms of how the site operates, about ‘liking’?

Jut thought of one other suggestion, that is to say something along the lines of being a good example to others in how and what you post. This would certainly be in line with what the Buddha taught! I thought of this in reading @cjmacie’s post which pointed to how behavior can degenerate. And thanks to our moderators and so many others who are excellent examples!

9 Likes

Thanks for your reflections Deeele, but I’d just like to note that very clear parameters were set for this thread:

Please articulate any suggestions you have for the guidelines within these terms, or find a more appropriate place to explore your views.

2 Likes

Thank you Aminah

I think the guidelines are worthy. However, I would suggest to define the following terms:

  • Name-calling.
  • Ad hominem attacks.
  • Knee-jerk contradiction.
  • Passive-aggressive tactics.

These terms are rather secular or worldly in nature therefore I imagine more orthodox or older Buddhists who are not familiar with such contemporary secular jargon might need clarification.

As for the community in general, as long as the administrators & moderators act within the guidelines of the Buddha in DN 31, namely, to not act with agati (prejudice & bias) due to like (chandāgatiṃ), dislike (dosāgatiṃ), delusion (mohāgatiṃ) or fear (bhayāgatiṃ), i.e., treat all members the same & equally, I think the community will prosper.

Best wishes for your community aspirations :koala:

3 Likes

Here’s a summary of what likes do:

3 Likes

@Aminah, when in the grip of a defilement, what stops someone from performing an unwholesome act is morally wholesome shame and fear (hiri, ottappa). What gives rise to wholesome behaviour is right view, right mindfulness and right effort. It is said that behaviour in a given society is governed by (loka pala) moral shame and fear. In societies where that which is not moral is considered moral (wrong view) or there is no reason to think twice before doing the wrong thing (ie- no consequences of breaking the rules) defilements will be given free reign. No one starts with right view or free of defilements, a degree of effective rules are needed. This is up to the moderators as well as the forum users.

A dysfunctional society turns a blind eye. A society that develops, is happy to receive suggestions and help others grow. We intentionally accept governance and rules as it makes this a better place for ourselves and others. At a more subtle level gaming, one-upmanship, projecting blame on to others, misdirection and pretence spoil it for others and the person as well. No forum guidelines can manage such subtle defilements (kilesa). I guess that is what the practice is for.

I’m saying we all have role in this, ‘internally and externally’.

with metta

7 Likes

I couldn’t agree more emphtatically.

Yep. Here, the guidelines give us some kind of framework for negotiating exchange in this particular context and they become all the more effective when there is broad agreement amongst the community that they are worth upholding and, indeed, the community participates in upholding them. This is at least in part of the point of this thread, and seeking the input. So again, is there anything in your reflection you’d translate into an addition, or amendment to the proposed guidelines?

With metta.

1 Like

Just a matter of emphasis:

Please consider inserting a definition of Right speech, after the ‘Improve the discussion’ paragraph and before the ‘Be agreeable…’ paragraph. Most people remember what they read first and last!

with metta

3 Likes

Very nice, thanks Mat!

Just to note though, it was the Buddha wot said that, not me - I didn’t even quote him in this particular case. Still, if I’m going to be misquoted, this is the absolutely best possible way. :wink:

1 Like

Oh sorry! I keep making that mistake… :confused:

2 Likes

A general point, if I may: The energy and attitudes in this endeavor are, IMO, to be commended, and should encourage effort to support them. Somewhere back in some thread I earlier commented on a (perceived) “infection” of unskillful behavior creeping into some discussions here, as is already a problem in many, yes, even Buddhist forums; and added a note of hope or confidence, looking to SuttaCentral to be able to handle this better than other forums.

0: A minor point: “space” is interestingly more apropos in cyber-space (internet) than “place” – the latter connotes a delimited locus, as in a physical place/location, where the former includes expansiveness, boundarylessness (to borrow a term from Steven Levine) of the mind, especially the awakened mind.

1: Peter_Durham 2017-05-08 19:58:55 UTC #13
Accept admonition gracefully
A subtle but crucial point – recognizing, and deepening with equanimity, the limits of one’s own viewpointedness, and the willingness to restrain, or better, relinquish it. People might offer testimonials of instances where they’ve learned by this.

c.f. Also below (4) on correction procedures being carried-out off-line

2: Peter_Durham 2017-05-08 19:58:55 UTC #13
I also think there should be an explicit statement regarding racist, sexist, homophobic speech etc. …”
That list of hot-topic areas (racist, sexist,…) has become sort of standard, in many countries, conditioned by law. Practically speaking and on the basis of experience here (and in other “Buddhist” forums), I believe it may be worthwhile to extend it (perhaps as it may relate to “racist”) to include speech that may be offensive or inflammatory with regard to nationality, social, cultural or political systems. Especially the politics, with its flaming hot-button issues around the globe. In “international” forums culture-bound beliefs can collide and trigger unskillful re-activity. Though serious Dhamma practice should mitigate this, many of us are not that highly developed, and conditioned latent-tendencies (anuseti) still powerful.

3: Linda 2017-05-09 04:05:03 UTC #18
I liked the following ( #14 old guideline), and wonder if it or something similar (perhaps added to #19, new guidleline)
(#14. The topics discussed here matter to us. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.)
(#19. You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it …”)

(I noted also, s/w puzzled, that deletion. ) All too often a reaction is to not only disagree, but also to “hijack” the thread. Other times there may not be disagreement, but someone may just steer the whole discussion heavy-handedly in the direction of their own take on it or s/w related pet interest. The following does appear to address that:
#106 Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a New Topic (found under the share a link icon).

Is might be perhaps also worthwhile to allow OP authors (the ones who initiate threads) some right to invoke this to defend their topic against hijacking?

(from another thread: “Sujato: “And yes, ‘off-topic and redundant to the point of drowning threads’ is clearly flag-worthy!”)

4: Linda 2017-05-09 04:05:03 UTC #18
…helpful when the moderators explicitly mention something in a discussion such as posting a ‘warning’ or friendly reminder or other things like saying they’re moving the discussion to another category or asking people to start a new discussion, etc.
This overlaps 3 above, but also brings up the possibility, when the moderator is challenged and multiple back-and-forth posts ensue, that such elaboration be quickly taken off-line, to a PM thread (like happens with a formal flagging). There have been times when such discussion has occurred, and it seemed like a moderator was getting sucked into “feeding” a trolling outbreak by trying to reason with someone who was a just further stimulated by the attention.

5: Not being timid about flagging.
When the issue is taken off-line (PM thread) it allows the “offender” a hearing in which to perhaps justify their actions without that discussion tempting others to pile-on (the contagion of troll behavior as in the scientific study cited above). But it also allows moderators to perhaps help the author of a somehow unworthy or misled flag to better understand and adapt to the perceived problem, without having to be dressed-down in public.

6: Working the moderators too hard? When done well, and after a period of adaptation on the part of posters as well as moderators, their workload could actually become easier over time.

4 Likes