Community guidelines revision

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).

Best wishes again. I trust it will be successful. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Hi friends,

@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

0 voters

4 Likes

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. :sweat:

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.

9 Likes

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. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

8 Likes

Hi @ Aminah,

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 :confused:

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”

3 Likes

Hi Suravira

I LOVE this idea.

I know what you mean. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I couldn’t find it in either the current draft or the original guidelines. But I really, really like it and perhaps it should be there.

2 Likes

Is it possible it is a tip that appears just the first time you post?

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?”

2 Likes

Perhaps @sujato would know?

I was hoping for a more substantive definition. What is flaming or griefing?

Those comments might be more useful.


As a bit of guideline for self moderation I find the insight above important.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

with metta

Kindly clean-up the attributions here (Feynman 2017-05-10 05:57:39 UTC #55). The 2nd quotation alone refers to the words of cmacie.

Perhaps. Or perhaps not! It seems like a version of the basic introductory guide, maybe?

1 Like

Hello, much thanks for this. @Cara has now posted the guide here:

5 Likes

I have made the mistake of discussing politics here a couple of times and have deeply regretted my decision in both cases. There are thousands of places around the web where people can discuss politics to there heart’s content. I don’t see why another one is needed.

5 Likes

I was confused about what “trust levels” were in the flagging guide so I googled it. Since the flagging guide is locked, here is the link to what they are from the Discourse co-founder himself:

Might not be a bad idea to add that link to the flagging guide.

4 Likes