SuttaCentral
if feels like since the introduction of this category this forum has seen more political debates than it had up until that point
my sense is that this category isn’t very useful and so i suggest it be discontinued
may sound a bit radical but this place has been more mellow without it, why do we need to heat it up?
I am not sure, can you change SC settings so that you don’t receive any notifications and see any new topics in the Watercooler category? If not, such an option would be great - or it could be made more visible.
I am also somewhat tired of the political discussions here (alas, they are proliferating not without my contribution, a wonderful reason to practice restraint), and they tend to derail from time to time, but my feeling is that they have been beneficial for both sides as they have given us precious insights into how we think, what we think is more skilful and why, and where we are maybe wrong. The Buddhists need a place where they could discuss politics ina Dhammic context and within reasonable limits, otherwise we all end up in political echo chambers. Political discussion need clever and respectful moderators, and the SC moderators are just that. Now, the question is whether the forum on a Tipitaka-centred website should be a place of political dialogue between Buddhists. No, I don’t think it is appropriate, it just happened to be so. Should the oolitical dialogue go on here? Most probably not really. But it should go on elsewhere in a friendly, respectful and open-minded manner, moderated by reasonable intelligent people, if we don’t want to find the Buddhist community split in two along ideological lines, just like the American or British society.
If political discussions are that unacceptable, a) establishing clearer rules for what can and cannot be said, or b) banning political discussions, would both be better than removing the Watercooler altogether, IMO.
Spot on.
I reckon it is fair to say EBTs are bold enough in terms of what topics of conversation are not worth proliferating on at all. Why should then a forum focused on EBTs not have clear guidelines on how its members should avoid or minimising them?
Everyone is free to have whatever political view of the world best fit their mind, hearts and moment in life.
If they really have to advocate these there are other channels and means like blogs, vlogs, books, etc.
I like the Watercooler. There have been some sweet posts there. Seeing the posts on the new Bhikkhuni monastery in Belgium, some of the science/mind youtube posts, even the Buddhist joke posts, makes me feel more connected to the community.
Even the recently locked discussion was interesting at the beginning - I appreciated Bhikkhu Jayasara’s comments on the origin of the quote, for instance. Then later it became the proverbial train wreck.
I’d rather see some guidelines about political discussion rather than closing the Watercooler.
Our moderators totally rock, by the way. 
If I remember correctly A while back there was an effort to try to get more ladies on the board, and in discussing with another forum that has a strong female presence, newbuddhist, one of the ideas was to have a more casual place where people in general didn’t need to feel like they had to be a buddhist scholar to contribute, which even I myself feel quite inadequate to respond in most posts here.
Besides, this place has always had a political undertone to it, even before the existence of the watercooler. This isn’t necessarily something intentional, just a product of many people sharing the same views. I think for the most part people here, even when they disagree, do so in a pretty civil manner.
One idea, if it’s feasible, is that of dhammawheel, they have the ability for people to straight up make invisible any channels they don’t want to see, so people can come on and not need to worry about seeing stuff too far removed from Dhamma.
it’s totally not about my dislike of receiving certain notifications, i don’t mind them at all, in fact i personally only receive notifications about direct responses to my own comments or mentions of my user name
it’s that the sight of locked topics, a result of activities which haven’t been practiced here until yesterday/today, kind of makes my bulb go on, as it reminds me of some other forums where policing is implemented quite actively, and this type of places i’m wary of, to me this is a sign of a not quite healthy atmosphere
this category just gave people a venue to discuss politics on, which they didn’t have previously, banning politics altogether will only aggravate this unhealthy atmosphere of policing and oversight or of their necessity
not knowing how heavily moderators had been involved behind the scenes i might err, but this forum seemed to me as being self-regulating as i personally haven’t witnessed cases which in my opinion would have warranted their intervention
[quote=“LXNDR, post:7, topic:4861”]
not knowing how heavily moderators had been involved behind the scenes i might err, but this forum seemed to me as being self-regulating as i personally haven’t witnessed cases which in my opinion would have warranted their intervention
[/quote]I think the moderation team is actually quite busy. I say this because, when I first joined this forum, I almost didn’t, because several trolls I had interacted with at DhammaWheel were quite active here, having not been banned yet. But they have either been banned or they gave up Dhamma trolling (hopefully!) because I have not seen them around for a number of months.
Moderation is a hard job, the better a job of it you do, the more it looks like you are doing absolutely nothing!
it’s only recently that i noticed the moderators started to give idea of their activities, for a very long time no word about moderating was spoken, so something must have changed
maybe it has to do with attempts of raising the D&D’s profile on the Web, which attract users with questionable motives
This is a great discussion, thanks for bringing it up @LXNDR!
Thanks for asking this question @Gabriel_L, this is something that we (the moderation team) are always working on. Politics isn’t really something that’s in our guidelines, and thus we’re trying to figure out how best to go about implementing and deciding upon a new set of policies when it comes to political discussions.
I’m so sorry you feel this way LXNDR, more policing was certainly not our intention. Like @Suravira said, the discussion was starting to become “…[a] proverbial train wreck” and was skewing away from Dhamma, and so we decided to close the conversation until we figured out what we wanted to do.
I personally think it would be a terrific idea to get your (all D&D users) input on what you would like the role of politics to be on this forum. My personal opinion is that political discussion should be very limited on this forum. I still think we should keep the Watercooler, but from what I’ve observed it’s tremendously difficult to have a discussion about politics while retaining right speech.
Yeah, I don’t really know how I can give you guys an insight into our moderating activities…we are quite busy. Feel free to ask questions!
[quote=“Brenna, post:10, topic:4861”]I personally think it would be a terrific idea to get your (all D&D users) input on what you would like the role of politics to be on this forum. My personal opinion is that political discussion should be very limited on this forum. I still think we should keep the Watercooler, but from what I’ve observed it’s tremendously difficult to have a discussion about politics while retaining right speech.
[/quote]
I agree 100%. Political discussions on forums almost always turn into dumpster fires.
Should topics about modern and contemporary politics be formally disencouraged here in SC D&D?[poll]
But how are we defining politics? Is discussing the validity of reestablishing the bhikkhuni lineage politics? (It is certainly political in some places!) Is discussing various types of buddhist engagement with the world politics? Is discussing monastic engagement, i.e. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Buddhist Global Relief politics? Is discussing racism in Buddhist organizational structures politics?
I can’t vote until we have a definition.
Memes, you tube videos, unsubstantiated “facts” and links to fringe political figures from the extremes are what should be discouraged from political discusion in my opinion.
A link and discussion around an article like the “Lion’s Roar” article is in my opinion suitable, appropriate even, for a Buddhist community.
In that particular thread it is fairly clear where the thread went off (just about at the beginning) and the main cause.
This is a very important point, one could even say that the recent post " the politics of the Buddhas genitals" and some of the responses could be considered delving into politics. so I’d say some discussion is in order for a definition to be hammered out.
I would personally be fine in dealing with the “politics” within buddhism, such as the Bhikkhuni order, or even discussing how “involved” someone should be in politics, or the pros, cons, and concerns related to a more engaged Buddhism etc, although those too tend to devolve further out over time.
who determines if a fact is a “fact” ? or who is a “fringe” political figure?
Hi Bhante
Unsubstantiated “facts”. And in my opinion who are “fringe political figures from the extremes” is actually fairly straight forward.
I think any political developments of Buddhist interests is in, but maybe not party politics?
That’s a tricky one. Even the fact checker websites are not really 100% reliable, and even the most ridiculous things will turno out to be true. I mean, would you have taken someone seriously eight years ago if they would tell you about the extent of the NSA web surveillance? I would surely have said they are kooked out and should stay out of the discussion with their ridiculous conspiracy theories.
That’s an even trickier one. One fringe political figure from the extremes was elected President of the United States recently, other people who used to be fringe political figures are gaining more and more following over here in Europe. Of course, if we are talking about Holocaust deniers or fully fledged fans of Hitler, Mao, or Stalin, it is more or less clear. Yet, I personally find it difficult to be sure where fringe political views end and the mainstream begins - especially since the mainstream has discredited itself so much in the eyes of so many people. Are anarchists, libertarians or libertarian anarchists fringe political elements? How about nationalists? Communists? Monarchsists?
To be perfecly clear, those two ideas of yours are fine, even great, they just need and more clear-cut and workable definition.
Very good point. I reckon this is up for moderators to define.
If you don’t feel comfortable to vote that’s okay, your point is made. I unfortunately cannot change the poll anymore.
The reason I came up with three options was exactly to make room for this sort of “grey zone”.
Moreover, I tried to words things towards giving moderators an idea of how receptive would people be to some pro-forma boundary definition of topics D&D team may not be willing to have discussed here, even if in Watercooler category.
The thing is that the notorious Lion’s Roar article claimed to promote the interests of all Buddhists (and I think even sincerely believed to be doing so), but one of the major arguments of many people including myself was that is actually promoting party politics. I mean, it is often fairly difficult to discuss one thing without taking the other into consideration, and it is okay. I have to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but I find that free exchange of opinions between Buddhists of differing political views, guided by the principles of the Right Speech, is mostly beneficial for all people willing to take part in the discussion. Still, when we end up talking about the recent events in the Syrian war - instead of merely mentioning it as an argument used to make a point pertaining to the initial discussion topic - it doesn’t feel right.
Maybe stricter rules for not going offtopic, especially in political discussions, could be a good thing - as well as an opportunity to opt out of the political discussions wholesale as it is done on the Dhamma Wheel forums.