Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments, Linda, I’ve been turning over a number of brilliant points you made!
Just to following up on a few details:
I have to admit I get a little anxious at the prospect of outlawing sarcasm, as while I’m not proud of it, sarcasm is so deeply ingrained in me at present, that I’d probably have to boot myself out of the community.
More seriously though, while I really understand the important point you’re making, I do wonder about potentially trickiness in moderating around that. Do have an idea about how this point might be worded that would facilitate clear assessment of a violation? Can you readily define what would constitute that specific form of attack and how it might be easily distinguished from ‘good-natured’ sarcasm?
Possibly MN103…? That one notes that it’s fine to speak even if it will be troubling to you, or the other person gets upset, but you shouldn’t speak if, after assessment, you determine the other person can’t be established in the wholesome.
I’d, personally, also like to throw in one of my favourite pieces of advice from the Buddha (setting aside the suggestion to train oneself in such a way that leads to the end of all suffering completely): if relations go really screwy, cover it over with grass (MN104)!
To my own tastes this is a fabulous idea. Again, do you know how you’d like to see it formulated more specifically?
Indeed, which is why at times the spirit of your reformation cannot be implemented and why the spirit of your reformation can themselves breach the following guideline, namely:
Psycho-analysing other commenters.
Much of the reformation seems to be guided by emotion/feeling rather than by truth.
The Buddha guidance on speech is not exactly how you portray. For example:
Venerable Lord Gotama, of all those four kinds of people, the kind of person who does not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and does not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; is the kind of person who is the most beautiful and refined to me. What is the reason for this? Because this is fair and right with upekkha (equanimity).
Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever kind of person blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; this kind of person is the most beautiful and refined of these four kinds of people. What is the reason for this? It is fair and right because such a one knows the right time in those circumstances.
AN 4.100
There is a difference in Buddhism between the precept on speech and Noble Right Speech.
The precept on speech for laypeople is only to refrain from false speech, i.e., lying or dishonesty.
Where as Noble Right Speech, for those who have left the household life, is many fold, including honest, pleasant, cordial, beneficial, timely, etc, speech.
It can be difficult to set the high standard giving priority on “pleasantness” & “cordiality” (feeling & emotion) rather than factualness.
In summary, the usual combativeness on forums is generally debates over the teachings. It is not really anything personal. Once disagreements over the meaning of the teachings are seen as emotions such as ‘hatred’, etc, it all becomes pear shaped; it degenerates into psycho-analysing other commentators. This occurs because people feel threatened when their cherished views are threatened.
Competitive debate is part of Buddhism, as reported many times in the EBTs, such as MN 35:
Aggivessana, with your own dispute you being cross questioned, asked for reasons and we studying with you found you empty, useless and gone wrong. Have you said to these gatherings in Vesāli such a thing. I do not see a recluse, or brahmin, a leader of a crowd, a teacher of a crowd, or even one who acknowledges he is perfect and rightfully enlightened drawn into a dispute by me would not shiver tremble and sweat. Even a lifeless pillar drawn to a dispute by me would shiver and tremble, so what of a human being. As for you Aggivessana, there is sweat trickling down your forehead and some drops of sweat have pierced your over shawl and has fallen on the ground, on my body at the moment there is no sweat.
Saying that the Blessed One disclosed his golden hued body to that gathering. When this was said, Saccaka, the son of Nigan. tha became silent, confused, his form drooping, face turned down, unable to reply, sat down.
Then Dummukha the son of the Licchavis, saw Saccaka the son of Nigan. tha silent, confused, the form drooping, face turned down, unable to reply sitting. He said to the Blessed One; venerable sir, a comparison comes to me.
The Blessed One said, say it Dummukha.
Venerable sir, close to a village or hamlet, there’s a pond, in it a crab lives. Then a lot of boys and girls approach the pond, descend it and pull out the crab on to dry land. Whenever the crab puts out a limb, a boy or a girl would cut it and destroy it, with a stick or a stone. Thus the crab with all his limbs destroyed, is unable to descend to the pond as before. In the same manner, the Blessed One has cut, broken and destroyed, all the distortions of views and the restlessness of Saccaka the son of Nigantha, and it is not possible that he should approach the Blessed One with the intention of a dispute.
When this was said, Saccaka the son of Nigan. tha said thus to Dummukha the son of the Licchavis. Wait, Dhummukha, we have to discuss with good Gotama
The points you’ve raised in this last post don’t really hold, but once more, this thread is not for arguing such details. If your general feeling is that you do not support revisions to the community guideline, that’s fine. If you feel that there are worthwhile revisions to be made in addition to the strong suggestions you’ve already contributed, please feel free to set them out.
Thanks. I voted to support the revisions. I will help me personally develop qualities that I often deliberately overlook. I was merely pointing out the flaw you yourself revealed, how you would struggle to overcome your own sarcasm. This shows what a fine line the criteria are; how they are often based in subjective ‘perceptions’ of subjective ‘motives’ (i.e., psycho-analysis).
@dxm_dxm brought up this question, and since the moderators don’t really have a set answer, I thought I’d put it up to a poll/discussion. Currently, as is in our guidelines and the way we are moderating, posts in the Watercooler must contain/relate to the Dhamma.
Posts in the Watercooler should have to relate to the Dhamma
Posts in the Watercooler should not have to relate to the Dhamma
It may be good to consider what posts in Watercooler should not be about.
I like the idea of posts about politics, wars, terrorist attacks,etc not being desired here - and therefore being openly discouraged. I know it may sound unpleasant to many but even posts about the politics of global climate change.
I am mostly concerned about how the inevitable ugly debates about such things usually may end up at being associated with SuttaCentral.
I am not sure if you have already noticed but if you use Google and search for something and SuttaCentral you may see results that point to D&D’s threads and posts.
I recommend we should keep the discussions, debates and fights of D&D separate from the blessed and liberating words preserved at SuttaCentral.
I agree. Let it be a place for topics such as the recent one about internet neutrality, or about scientific stuff, documentaries etc.
It would be great to keep politics out of it. But keeping politics out of it would also mean removal of topics about gender or climate change. If keeping such topics out is not possible and the policy will be used only to remove topics about victims of communism or abortion or school vouchers for example, then many might feel the policy is unfair. In that case, a complete removal of the watercooler category would be welcomed rather than a policy of selective political discussion being allowed, with some political topics removed while others not. That would completely miss the point of the rule.
I may be losing my mind, but somewhere on this site I once saw some guideline that said something like "Think of contributing to this forum as an opportunity to practice right speech more than … (can’t remember). But I really liked that - I really liked the idea of a forum where we go first to practice right speech, and second to share Dhamma ideas, etc. It actually encouraged me to post, as I sometimes question whether I belong here - my interest being primarily practice.
For me “a space to share Dhamma ideas, understandings and questions, where the practice of Right Speech underpins all conversation” doesn’t quite give the same priority. I acknowledge, however, that I may be the only one who feels like this, and I may have dreamed up the guideline anyway.
Yeah, I know what you mean about sarcasm (including “the trickiness of moderating around that”), and in fact I almost decided not to mention it because of this. I like your term ‘good-natured’ which is what I meant about some kinds of sarcasm not being a problematic, also that certain kinds of ‘good-natured sarcastic’ humor can at times, actually help prevent or diffuse a difficult situation. In addition, personally I wouldn’t want this type of guideline to cause people to ‘worry’ about every little thing they post; that could have a negative effect of overly inhibiting the natural flow of a fruitful discussion. Well, I guess I’m making a case here for just leaving any mention of sarcasm out
But regarding putting some mention of it in, the only thing I can think of at the moment would be to refer to it as an example in relation to something else. For example, under passive-aggresive: “One example of this kind of behavior could be seen in back-handed sarcasm through the use of condescending language (or ‘a condescending tone’)”, or saying something meant sarcastically, e.g. “thanks a lot”, when you actually mean quite the opposite.” I realize even something like this veers into difficult territory, judgement about a person’s intentions…
Overall, I think the best approach is to use quotes from the Buddha (as already being done and as suggested further) to support the excellent points already made in the guidelines. In the end we can only each look into our own mind and honestly reflect on where our intentions and responses are coming from. And we can still be deluded:-) I love your reminder of the teaching in MN104. Also, yes MN103 is the sutta I was thinking of–thanks. I find it very clarifying and powerful.
As for your last question, hmmm, not sure about a specific formulation…the more I think about it, the more I think it may already be sufficiently covered, implicitly, in the guidelines. If it seems helpful to add, perhaps just a simple ‘reminder’ statement near the end of the more specific points: such as: “Remember, our own behavior, as reflected in the tone of our posts, speaks volumes. Let’s support and remind each other through being a good example ourselves”
I agree with this idea and voted “yes”. But it’s a hard thing to regulate, because any issue X can be turned into dhamma issue by reformulating it as “What would the Buddha say about X?”
Hum. I enjoy your point! How about simultaneously?
My wording is clumsy but here goes:
A space to share Dhamma ideas, understandings and questions using ght Speech, simultaneously strengthening our skill in Right Speech as a practice of the dharma.
Politics is everywhere when it’s seen as competition over, or differing ideas about, the use of limited resources. If “resources” are understood broadly then politics are found nearly everywhere.
The critical difference I propose is whether the communication about the politics is effective and productive on balance or not.
Now that definition comes from secular psychologist Chris Argyris, known his work on effective communication, but it appears to closely parallel key elements of Right Speech.
I can appreciate the demand on time of the moderators but I suggest not depending entirely on flagging. The situation can escalate quickly by the time it is flagged …and flagged again.
