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.
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.
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.
Quite right! At the same time, my personal view is that one of the most important parts of the community guidelines (current & proposed) is the bit under the “Skilful participation” heading:
Engage in discussions that make this forum an interesting place to be — and avoid those that do not.
I myself would extend this to taking up and avoiding responding to comments within discussions rather than just discussions as a whole.
Mods can respond to things that are flagged up, but I kinda reckon the overall quality of content here depends on the community at large taking responsibility.
Dan, FWIW, I have always found these posts of yours to be thoughtful and beneficial. Just yesterday, I was reading the Summer Tricycle, and there is a discussion there about politics and Buddhism. Many people feel that Buddhist teachers should avoid political issues; others feel there is a nexus between Dhamma/Dharma and political issues. I fall in the latter group, and would always welcome your perspectives on social, global, political issues that resonate with Dhamma themes. I feel that these issues that concern the health and welfare of people and the planet are too important to not have strong Buddhist voices involved. There is an art and a science as to how this integration is done, but I feel that in the right context, it can be very beneficial. You have added to the positive side of the equation with your thoughtful posts, in my view.
