Formal complaint against Suttacentral for unfair treatment and discrimination

Don’t ask me to add fuel to the fire with details, but in my mind, yes I do think so.


Oh my god , oh no no , my Buddha !!!

Just to clarify, mine wasn’t a statement of expectation; my experience has shown me to expect a fair amount of rudeness, so I do, but for the while that it is my job to curb the worst excesses of that I will endeavour to hold people to their agreement (by virtue of participation) to abide by the guidelines. The guidelines are basically a long winded way of saying, “please be reasonably kind”.

It is, however, so uplifting and inspiring to see that many do bring a much higher level of care to their engagement here, very well expressed by Gabriel’s comments:

To my mind approaches like this, which seriously and thoughtfully taken on the invitation in the guidelines to use the forum as “an opportunity to practice Right Speech”, is one factor (among others) that makes the the bother of being involved with this forum worth it. It is a little indicator (among others) that the forum can, indeed, serve the Dhamma, can support Dhamma practice rather than just generate a lot of pointless noise.

Returning to the issue of expectations, though, I should also note that in addition to expecting rudeness, I have come to trust reasonably regular outbreak of, some beautiful expressions of kindness, friendliness and support and much of that can be witnessed in this very thread. As such, thanks to all.


But isn’t that obvious already to those who heed it and will fly over the heads of those who don’t? My point is that, at a certain point, it doesn’t matter what one requests of others. Rude people will be rude. Tactless people will be tactless. You could request they avoid rudeness and tactlessness for a million years and they still would not understand what you’re talking about.

That’s not to say being polite and kind and pointing out politeness and kindness isn’t useful. It’s a good reminder and call to mindfulness, at least. My point is there are some who are not amenable to self reform and expecting them to behave any different than the way they do is setting oneself up for disappointment.


I concur! My thoughts were, “Now there’s an example of some compassionate ‘bossiness’!”

So many here are able to take these difficult and challenging moments and help ease the transition to understanding.

I am ever grateful to have found this forum and hope to see it flourish as a wholesome addition to our education.


First of all, here is a virtual and thereby Vinaya-allowable hug for the moderators and admins :hugs: (it’s been a rough week hasn’t it?). And here is a virtual hug for the whole community :hugs:.

I want to commend the mods on how patiently you’ve handled the past few days, I can’t imagine how many hours you’ve spent dealing with flags and messages from users who are for/against moderation. I also want to remind people (because the mods are far too polite to do so) that what you are seeing from them is only the surface level of deliberation, and that there is so much that happens behind the scenes to allow for this community to function. So thank you, anumodana! (Go have a nap!).

:rofl: Lol! I can’t handle much more talk about Pali declensions! :wink: I also deeply implore Ayya @vimalanyani not to leave this forum, you are an absolutely wonderful contributor who brings so much perspective and ingenuity to our community.

I am finding myself somewhat in agreement with Ilya on this (:sweat_smile:), in that I think we need to be very careful in how we use the community flagging protocol, as it could be used to subjugate users whose comments are right speech but also not consensual or ‘popular.’ For instance, I think there were some of Santa’s posts that were communally flagged that didn’t necessarily need to be flagged/hidden. Maybe we all need to gather with with marshmallows and hot chocolate around the Guide to Flagging (?).


Yes but rude people will not always be rude people and tactless people will not always be tactless people … Unless the Buddha’s teachings on impermanence is wrong, of course.


I was going to suggest reviewing the flagging , many are unnecessary and I sincerely think if you don’t agree with it just say you disagree . For the members No need to flag and overeacting . As for the mods I would suggest the same . Look at how many my post was hidden which I believes were very sensible .

Don’t take me as against anyone in this forum , I was questioned by few who
think I do . I disagree with your point but not against your self !

I am sincerely and truthfully wishing everyone here in the state of well being .
I will buy you a cup of coffee if I could !

I’ve only been skimming this discussion and have to admit I’ve missed some postings. But I just want to say I very much apprceciate the whole SC team and the moderators for all the work they do and how they handle Discourse.

Personally I think community flagging is quite effective and ‘safe’ (at least on this site) and I tend to trust the people who flag. I have only seldom flagged posts, and I certainly don’t do it because I simply disagree with the content or because it’s from a person whose way of expressing him/herself I don’t particualry care for. But some posts cross the line in terms of personal attacks, being disrespectful, causing harm, etc. and I am quite happy to see those types of posts removed (I would actually prefer removal rather than ‘content hidden’ assuming there are several flags. I think someone else mentioned how hiding posts in a way draws attention to them). I think the guidelines are very clear, appropriate and well done (and were put togetherwith a lot of room for community input) and I wholeheartedly support not only encouraging them, but ‘enforcing’ them when they are blatantly violated (and when repeated ‘encouragement’ falls on deaf ears).

As others have said, there are undoubtedly many places on-line where totally ‘free speech’, if it means expressing whatever one wants, whenever one wants and however one wants, is quite permissible. Personally I have no interest in that and would stop coming to this forum if that were the norm here. Ironically ‘free speech’ of this type isn’t so free at all if it has no regard for possible consequences. Then it can actually cause harm, not only to those whom it’s directed toward, but even more so for the person uttering it him/herself.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with people having different views and disagreeing with each other. And I think most people here demonstrate quite well how how one can engage in a discussion with people holding different views.

Just my two cents…


It’s been a difficult thread, to say the least. IMHO I see no adequate reason for @vimalanyani to leave, or @santa100 to be banned. But how others react is not up to me. They are a loss to SC, however, but we will move on. They might visit us in another life possibly :wink:.

I think it is time to have much metta to ourselves and others; and give our gratitude to those who are trying their hardest to make SC and DD the best discussion forum in the world (sounds like it is actually, despite demands of perfection)!

With metta


Reading between the lines of some of the accounts above about admonition, I infer that the moderators were in contact with @santa100 following his public comments here, and that their decision was largely based on his response to those contacts, and not based solely on his public comments. So I don’t think the rest of us are in much position to judge their decision.


I think your point about expectations is absolutely spot on. Not quite being sure if you’re making a broad comment and responding to something you’ve taken from my posts, I would just like to point out again that I didn’t make any statement of expectation.

I think the guidelines can work at multiple levels. The most basic function they serve is to hold people to a common set of ‘rules’ whether or not it flew over their heads - it is a point of reference, even if it is ‘after the fact’, so to speak.

There are all sorts of ways that people respond to moderation, and one of them is to take on board the reminder of our guidelines without quibbling, even with warm spiritedness and humour. Naturally, there are more aggressive protestations against interventions, too.

Then there are more reflective ways to engage with the guidelines in general terms. As Anāgārikā Pasanna wrote above, she uses them to check that if/when she flags something it is on the basis of the guidelines rather than heated emotion. I recall at least one participant in the community guidelines consultation some months ago commenting that she wanted the guidelines to emphasise that forum use is an opportunity for Dhamma practice.

There may be many ways in which the guidelines can be taken as much more than just a redundant sprawl of words as is the seeming implication of your question, but I very much concede this is entirely dependant on how thoughtfully they are read. In a private message to someone, a while ago I myself once wrote, “shortly after the guidelines were updated, as someone really interested in cultivating Right Speech I set myself the playful exercise of referring closely to the guidelines every single time I was drafting a post; it was a fascinating experiment”.

I don’t think I quite agree with the assumption underlying this notion. Sure, in some cases it’s a convenient shorthand to talk of ‘rude people’ (although even then I’d be apprehensive about the label), but in many instances (certainly within my time as moderator) I can notice generally speaking quite decent people performing acts of rudeness. I certainly know I can write from irritability (much as I try to keep this in check) and I think most people not just ‘rude people’ have this capability.


Agree. This is what I called the balanced approach.

1 Like

I agree with this point. My only concern is the length of the suspension.

I agree.
Perhaps this makes the moderators work more difficult.
I have used flagging only once in internet forums. (Alert a troll)
I consider flagging as the emergency button in an express train.

I consider rude people as sick people even though sometimes I take firm action against them for the benefit of their own welfare. I see many people around me are in a lot of pain and suffering for some reason.

Of course they were! They have probably given that user ample chance to take a step back, breath, and calm down. Which the user turned down still and kept going on with the crusade of proving everyone else wrong. It’s already mentioned in the guidelines I read that mods will do that (but perhaps it would be good if mods can point this out in the future, because obviously people don’t know it). Community must be aware that mods are handling a situation and that it takes time and effort to do this respectfully and gently even toward the transgressor, and with the intention of restoring trust and confidence with them rather than to punish or supress them. Which is a lot of work by the way and I’d invite others to be concerned also about the comfort and respect for our mods and stop evaluating their work unnecessarily, especially when we as users can only hold one part of the elephant!

My certain impression is that if someone gets suspended here on this forum then they certainly had it coming! And if I myself being contacted by Aminah, Kay, or Cara, about something I said, my immediate spontaneous thought will be that I have most probably done something wrong! And hey, if after carefully examining the situation I judged that I did nothing wrong, I might point it out to them, but i will certainly apologise and comply anyways and move on. And mind you, this being the case though, as everyone knows, my wisdom far exceeds that of all three of them, combined! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

At this point it’s not about who’s right or wrong, but about showing just the basic level of civility and respect to the people running this place, and who welcome me and others in without asking for anything in exchange.


I thoroughly appreciate everyone’s input here, whether it’s critical and supportive or somewhere in between. I understand (and welcome the fact) that everyone wants to speak up for their sense of fairness and quite reasonably wants to advise, interrogate or just throw in their perspective to the discussion.

For my own part (which, again, is the only one I have a right to speak for), I am an adherent to the principle transparency and have tried to at least give some account of my view of the moderation process. I fully accept this will not be satisfactory to all.

To be open about just one more detail, this recent ride has been a rather punishing one (I only signed up to D&D to ask a question about the Khandhaka and this is a lot more than I bargained for! :wink: ) and it might be good if there were balanced expectations about exactly it is the mods can or should do and what it is fair to call for them to do.

This particular mod can’t give any more energy to this one and is off to work.

Most definitely so!

Which reminds me, hold the fort will you. Thaaaanks! Bye! :grin:


I feel so grateful for the work of you and other moderators! I just came back from my daily walk by the ocean. :ocean:

And while I was walking, it occurred to me, “Wow, it’s amazing. Have I ever worked with a group of people who have been so supportive and caring of each other, so careful and considerate in negotiating tricky waters?” And I thought, “No, I don’t think so, I don’t believe I have.”

I learn from you guys all the time, and owe you more than I can express.


Hahaha! HELP!!! :joy: