moderation & banning

[elucidate]

I am a true believer in the ignore list. Got 13 peeps on mine right now. If you choose not to read the same old stuff from person ABC or person ABC always sets you into reaction, ignore them. (though exploring reaction is a favorite of mine so I usually don't put people on for that ).

Angela has stated before that the ignore list is for people who are ignoring aspects of themselves...but when it comes to peace of mind, there's nothing quite like the peace of not having to look at certain peoples posts.

Yes, I may be missing an opportunity to work with triggers, or it may just be that the style that they write in is unbearable to my sensabilities, and I am better off just ignoring them

I do hope I'm not on your ignore list...but then again, I suppose it doesn't really matter in the end!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dharma

No Angela, your posts are true love.

I'm having a Schmoop Attack!

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by AaronB

Maybe a moderator was having a bad day and just felt like taking a few people out.

Just wanted to mention that this above doesn't happen. If any of us has a bad day, or is too personally involved in a discussion with someone to make an objective decision, we ask the others to take care of it.

We are more mature then to just take out our bad moods on innocent forum members...

(and besides.. banning people isn't that much fun. I usually get more satisfaction of hitting my pillows...)

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by Angela

If it weren't for the banning and moderating that goes on, it wouldn't BE an exact copy - I think it would be very, very different, to the point where the things you enjoy would probably not occur for you.

You don't see what gets people banned, because the moderators remove the egregious stuff. When people sign up to post here, we agree to abide by the rules of the forum, rules that are not arbitrary but that have been shown to be effective in generating extraordinary conversations. And then we keep our word to follow those rules, or we don't. Either way is fine. As with everything, there are consequences, and you get to choose how you respond to those consequences. You can choose to believe they're wrong and should not be, or you can choose to believe they're feedback and get the learning, or you can choose something else. In my opinion, choosing to believe something should not be is the epitome of craziness*, because, well, it is, and your *shoulding* makes zero difference, except to have you feel frustrated.

In the rules, it's very clearly stated what bannable and moderatable offenses are, and you agreed to them when you signed up to post. If you don't like banning and moderating, why did you agree to participate in a place where banning and moderating are clearly stated consequences of particular actions? I think it's because there's something to learn here.

*My definition of craziness: being present to no choice.

Sounds like I'm in a landmark forum...

They LOVED the idea of consequences. But they spoke the word in a funny way. As if one consequence had some subtle advantage over another. Of course they say it isn't so. It's just a consequence. But then there is a subtle assumption that there really is one formulation of reality that would be better than another. They pretend as if there is something real that could be threatened by some consequence. All along nothing real is ever threatened. If they were to teach that consequences don't matter, that no consequence has any capacity to effect the joy available to you in this moment, then their lesson would be complete. But they missed that part. DOHT!!!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by elucidate

...when it comes to peace of mind, there's nothing quite like the peace of not having to look at certain peoples posts.

Wouldn't it be nice to look at people's posts, and choose to have peace of mind regardless of what someone writes?

That said, there are some people's posts who my eyes just glide over without resistance or engagement... sort of an internal noise filter, I reckon. Even so, sometimes even those people say something that will occur like a presentation to my unconscious mind, and I'll be drawn in to engage. Sometimes those are some of the most valuable engagements, even -- I wouldn't prefer to prevent myself from seeing them.

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Just wanted to mention that this above doesn't happen. If any of us has a bad day, or is too personally involved in a discussion with someone to make an objective decision, we ask the others to take care of it.

We are more mature then to just take out our bad moods on innocent forum members...

(and besides.. banning people isn't that much fun. I usually get more satisfaction of hitting my pillows...)

That's great! But it would really be okay with me if I was banned because someone was having a bad day. To say that this isn't the case, that people aren't banned on bad days is like claiming that there actually are LEGITIMATE REASONS for banning people, other than bad days. But there aren't. There are only arbitrary reasons. And that's perfectly okay. There's nothing to justify. I get upset about people breaking my arbitrary rules all the time. I just like to admit that my rules are entirely arbitrary. I just made them up. Probably because my mom gave me orange juice instead of apple juice when I was two...

[elucidate]

Yes, that's a good way too.

When some people just drone on about the same stuff ALL the time and use the same vocab and sound like a broken record, it's also just as easy to not have to have them catch my eye and waste my time, since I know the content already...blah, blah, blah

Originally Posted by Angela

Wouldn't it be nice to look at people's posts, and choose to have peace of mind regardless of what someone writes?

That said, there are some people's posts who my eyes just glide over without resistance or engagement... sort of an internal noise filter, I reckon. Even so, sometimes even those people say something that will occur like a presentation to my unconscious mind, and I'll be drawn in to engage. Sometimes those are some of the most valuable engagements, even -- I wouldn't prefer to prevent myself from seeing them.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by AaronB

That's great! But it would really be okay with me if I was banned because someone was having a bad day. To say that this isn't the case, that people aren't banned on bad days is like claiming that there actually are LEGITIMATE REASONS for banning people, other than bad days. But there aren't. There are only arbitrary reasons.

The point is that getting banned because a mod is having a bad day isn't part of the arbitrary rules.

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by Angela

And people who are interested in practicing effective communication would likely walk away from a forum in which egregiously ineffective communication techniques flourish -- techniques like refusing to take responsibility, blaming and shaming, name-calling, no-integrity behavior (not doing what you agree to do), etc.

I like all the landmark-ese here, because it still echoes around in my mind at times. I'm so glad you can speak it too. It is off subject thought but it constantly catches my awareness. Am I derailing my own thread?

Refusing to take responsibility: Another landmark way of saying something wrong happened without wanting to say something wrong happened. Except the expression on their face is something other than a light hearted smile. Try convincing a landmark forum leader that he's not in a light hearted smiley mood though. They HATE that! And then they say something in a serious tone. If nothing is wrong then why the serious tone?

Integrity: Do what you agree to. Or else, again, something bad happened. The smile is off their face again and again there's the somber tone.

I guess that summs up my experience of landmark. They let their happiness depend on some result (or agreement). They consider failure of some agreement to be reason for seriousness, but not unhappiness. They won't say that having integrity is better than not having integrity. But just read their facial expression and you can see which one they prefer.

And all in all I LOVED landmark because they actually believed in what they were talking about. Even if they seemed to attached to results at times I like listening to people who really believe in anything. Much higher levels of consciousness than average there.

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

The point is that getting banned because a mod is having a bad day isn't part of the arbitrary rules.

The point of her response was that the rules for this forum are fair, and banned on a bad day would not be fair. I was considering whether or not fairness really matters. Once I consider some rules to be fair, then I'm judging rules as if they were legitimate structures based on The Truth of The Universe. They're not. They're arbitrary. And that's okay. Getting banned on a bad day was just an arbitrary example used to say that fairness is not important in order for me to be happy.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by AaronB

If nothing is wrong then why the serious tone?

I think I smell a gremlin.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by AaronB

Getting banned on a bad day was just an arbitrary example used to say that fairness is not important in order for me to be happy.

Then I'm going to ban anyone who talks about Landmark

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think I smell a gremlin.

Ha! You're good. Yes I just indicated serious is "less good" than not serious. How the hell am I supposed to enforce my rules with you around? You know how hard you make it for me when you keep pointing them out?!?!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Then I'm going to ban anyone who talks about Landmark

D'oh!!

Originally Posted by AaronB

Ha! You're good. Yes I just indicated serious is "less good" than not serious. How the hell am I supposed to enforce my rules with you around? You know how hard you make it for me when you keep pointing them out?!?!

D'OH!!!

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by AaronB

The point of her response was that the rules for this forum are fair, and banned on a bad day would not be fair.

Nope The point of my post was to that we would not ban anyone BECAUSE of a bad day.

We ban people for breaking forum rules, which you agree on when you sign up. If you disagree with the rules you have at least a few options:

1. sign up anyway, break the rules and get banned
2. Sign up, stick with the rules and have a happy time
3. sign up, write to steve to change the rules
4. don't sign up.

And there are probably a lot more choices to choose from...

Originally Posted by AaronB

I was considering whether or not fairness really matters. Once I consider some rules to be fair, then I'm judging rules as if they were legitimate structures based on The Truth of The Universe. They're not. They're arbitrary. And that's okay. Getting banned on a bad day was just an arbitrary example used to say that fairness is not important in order for me to be happy.

Fairness matters to me. Fairness is "judging" people on the rules that are known beforehand, and not making them up as you go along just because you don't like someone.

If I'd ban people because I was having a bad day, or because I didn't like them, there would be several people less on these boards...

I think this is such a heavy topic for me (and possibly for other mods) is because most of us have big issues with banning people. Not for spam. If someone is just spamming and not making any useful contributions that is easy.

But if someone makes useful contributions and then just goes off the deep end and starts insulting other people for example? That is very difficult for me personally to ban them. I'd prefer that they just log off and stay logged off until they get it together again...

Banning is not so easy that I would "just do it".

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by AaronB

Edit: Why are police officers so unhappy? If Steve Pavlina were a cop he wouldn't be upset as he gave me a speeding ticket. He'd welcome me to speed again. Plenty more tickets where that came from. And then when I lost my temper and got out of the car (in real life cops HATE it when I do that... but I do it anyway...), he would laugh at me so hard as he took me to jail. His sides would probably be hurting.

It seems like most police I interact with are pretty happy. And pleasant. And helpful, too.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by AaronB

Aren't all rules and principals arbitrary? Of course they all have a reason from some perspective somewhere. But there doesn't really exist a fundamental set of rules. For me at the moment I like the idea of throwing all my principals in the dung heap, considering all rules to be completely arbitrary, taking the right and wrongness out of the whole thing, and seeing them simply as a description of expected responses to certain behavior. That's fine. Every person I meet seems to have a different rule set that they judge others by anyway.
..
It's a rule, which means it's arbitrarily chosen to meet some arbitrary purpose that someone at sometime arbitrarily recognized as being significant to their happiness. Who cares why? Not my job.

That sounds like exactly how I see rules and laws.

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Nope The point of my post was to that we would not ban anyone BECAUSE of a bad day.

We ban people for breaking forum rules, which you agree on when you sign up. If you disagree with the rules you have at least a few options:

1. sign up anyway, break the rules and get banned
2. Sign up, stick with the rules and have a happy time
3. sign up, write to steve to change the rules
4. don't sign up.

And there are probably a lot more choices to choose from...

My focus is very rarely on what the rules are. The idea of "am I breaking a rule right now?" doesn't occur for me often. If it did I would probably be writing it into every post because I generally write about what is on my mind. Can I really "carry" these rules around and think clearly about what it is that I want to say? To me that would feel like driving with the breaks on. I like learning to clearly express whatever shows up for me rather than formulating something that seems appropriate based on a complicated rule set.

It seems so far whatever I'm doing it seems to work pretty well here. I really value what other people say and people seem to value what I say. I think with that focus none of the other rules are necessary. Though I have expressed upset before and I'm happy at this moment to not be banned. I think you guys do a really good job because you don't ban me. What more could I ask?

Originally Posted by ssandra

But if someone makes useful contributions and then just goes off the deep end and starts insulting other people for example? That is very difficult for me personally to ban them. I'd prefer that they just log off and stay logged off until they get it together again...

Banning is not so easy that I would "just do it".

It sounds like some banning occurs as a result of an intense moment. I get intense at times and can make no promises how I might behave any time in the future. But I still listen to what is being said to me and at this moment in my life it doesn't take me long to recognize when prior conditioning has taken over. I love that this forum can both push my buttons and help me find my buttons. Angela is great for me because she sees my buttons way too easily. It's like she doesn't even have to try. She just points at the neon signs.

I bet a lot of people get kicked out because of the retaliating against authority response. When someone feels threatened they respond in different ways. I have had a retaliate against authority program operating for much of my life. My emotional state feels like I'm asserting the validity of where I'm standing, even if I'm standing on thin ice. What is helpful to me is when someone recognizes that my response is entirely based on fear and is being used as a protective mechanism. I like it when people help me out rather than throwing me out, but I certainly don't expect to be helped if I'm feeling hostile. That is much more the exception rather than the rule. It is because of the rare few that have helped me in the midst of me feeling hostile that at this time in my life I am no longer controlled by my hostility.

[moonrambler]

This whole thing is just a game. When you decide to play a game, whether it's poker or baseball, there are some rules you have to follow.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

This whole thing is just a game. When you decide to play a game, whether it's poker or baseball, there are some rules you have to follow.

When you play poker, there are some rules in the minds of the people playing. You can choose to follow them or not. In a casual game, there won't even be any enforcement if you break and someone notices you broke them. In a tournament or with the mob boss downtown, there will be some action in response if you don't follow the rules and someone notices that you didn't follow the rules. You can still choose whether to follow the rules or not; you don't have to follow the rules.

[AaronB]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

This whole thing is just a game. When you decide to play a game, whether it's poker or baseball, there are some rules you have to follow.

I like that. I notice that the rules of the game I'm playing in my life are often changing. It seems when life was hard for me I was playing a game that I couldn't win. Now I'm playing a game that's ridiculously easy to win.

For me the challenge is to realize the game is all in my mind. That's the only place where a rule can have any effect. It's games within games. Identifying a higher level game that contains a lower level game makes the lower level game much more enjoyable to play. I can follow all the rules of a lower level game. Or not. It's up to me. Because in the bigger game with the bigger rules, it's okay for me to break the little rules if I choose to. It's all an available option under the GREAT BIG RULE SET we assume to be reality.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Dharma

I am a true believer in the ignore list. Got 13 peeps on mine right now. If you choose not to read the same old stuff from person ABC or person ABC always sets you into reaction, ignore them. (though exploring reaction is a favorite of mine so I usually don't put people on for that ).

The ignore list here isn't really an ignore list anyway.

It's a giant, gaping, blatant reminder that the person you ignored is posting.

I mean, if you DON'T put them on IL, your eyes can tend to glide right over their posts sometimes and you don't even catch it.

If you do, however, it blatantly stands out: YOU CAN'T READ THIS POST BECAUSE [PERSON] IS ON YOUR IGNORE LIST.

And then there is the "click here to read post" option, that you can't help but click now that you know that person is on your ignore list.

On another forum, the ignore list is more seamless (they probably had to mod vbulletin to do it)...when you IL them, their entire post and any trace of them disappears entirely and the only reminder that someone is on your IL is if you look at the number of the post and sometimes you see it skips one.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

You can still choose whether to follow the rules or not; you don't have to follow the rules.

Usually you have to follow the rules if you want to keep playing. Like you can't reach across the table and grab another guy's cards and look at them. You can't decide that your pair of fives beats a full house and grab all the winnings and run out the door. How many times are they going to put up with that?

[James81]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

How many times are they going to put up with that?

Hmmm, prolly 2 or 3 times maybe.

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Usually you have to follow the rules if you want to keep playing. Like you can't reach across the table and grab another guy's cards and look at them. You can't decide that your pair of fives beats a full house and grab all the winnings and run out the door. How many times are they going to put up with that?

Agreed. Good point.

[Mounds]

If I ever became a mod, I'd immediately ban all the other mods and rule the forums. After I take over the forums, I'd move onto my next target... the internet.

All your base belong to us.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

It seems like most police I interact with are pretty happy. And pleasant. And helpful, too.

Ha! I need to start interacting with different police!

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Ha! I need to start interacting with different police!

When I was in EMS uniform, the police were pretty awesome. Even the tough female cops were friendly as can be.
When I'm in street clothes, they're generally not as pleasant. With almost any authority position, I think you have to adopt a certain demeanor. It's because of the kind of people you normally deal with. If you don't adopt a cold, emotionless front, your not going to last. Even paramedics do it. Go on a ride along and listen to the kind of verbal abuse those guys get.
Anyhow, I think it comes with the territory. Don't take it personally.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Mounds

When I was in EMS uniform, the police were pretty awesome. Even the tough female cops were friendly as can be.
When I'm in street clothes, they're generally not as pleasant. With almost any authority position, I think you have to adopt a certain demeanor. It's because of the kind of people you normally deal with. If you don't adopt a cold, emotionless front, your not going to last. Even paramedics do it. Go on a ride along and listen to the kind of verbal abuse those guys get.
Anyhow, I think it comes with the territory. Don't take it personally.

Yeah, the way the police have treated me has always been really weird. I've begun to wonder if I look like someone on a special list or something! Like when my mom gets pulled over for a traffic violation, they don't focus on her, but on me. "Who's that girl? How are you related? How old is she?"

WTF?

[Plays With Life]

It seems like even when a police officer pulls me over, the interaction becomes pleasant pretty quickly. Maybe I chat pleasantly, or something. I always end up chatting with police officers who pull me over.

Mexican police officers and military (the military does road blocks to check for weapons) have always been extremely pleasant, in every interaction I've had with them. So many people have told me about unpleasant interactions with Mexican police, and corruption in Mexican police. I think a reform has happened, or something. Or I just look like a celebrity, so they want to be really nice to me.

But even when a Central American police officer pulls me over and demands a bribe, I still enjoy the interaction. I usually end up chatting pleasantly with them, too. Or kind of laughing to myself when they look SO disappointed that they can't find anything wrong with papers that would justify demanding a fee. The interaction usually ends with a sense of comradery.