On being a moderator and a participant -

Nabadip - I agree that I tend to push certain ideals when it comes to the methodology of presenting information and so forth. However, I'd hate to think there aren't any universals at play here. Certainly, regardless of anyone's biases or lack thereof, everyone should be obliged to present the sources for their theories.

Of course, as you mention, theories cannot be absolutely proven. It goes without saying I am talking about presenting the proof, no matter how much or how little conclusive it may be. No thinking person can take seriously a presentation that offers no reasons whatsoever for believing in it.

With regards to:


To this I must object. I do not recall having ever intervened in the capacity of a moderator on the grounds of someone's differing bias. As a participant, I certainly voice out my disagreements, and often strongly at that, but I do not exercise my moderator rights such as editing or removing posts on such grounds.

Most cases that need notable moderation intervention are discussed in a separate moderators' area for a consensus decision before taking action, and frequently posts that are removed or edited are brought up by members concerned over the tone of the post in question.

I would be grateful if you explained how exactly I mix my positions as a moderator and a participant in a discussion. I take it as a serious allegation compromising the integrity of a moderator's position. Someone who misuses the rights of a moderator to advance his own bias in a discussion should resign from the task.

This is the only forum I am participating in (well, some small contributions to G-rep. aside) so I do not really have much experience in analyzing the mixture of moderator/participant roles. That is, I cannot compare it to any 'ideal'. But it seems to me that you are mixing the two a lot, possibly inevitably so. Of course not in the sense, that you are editing or deleting, that is more a technical side of the moderator's role to me. But you appear to impose views and rules ex cathedra so to speak, and this then appears to be the moderator speaking, but using the role as a simple participant. To clarify the mixture of mod/participant roles, let me speak in terms of levels and meta-levels. Sometimes when you enter a meta-level mode of speaking, I experience you as using the moderator-role, or at least the power that is inherent in that role. Power in the sense that Foucault assigned it to being generated in discourse.

For instance, in your response to jijaji in this thread



To me you appear to be speaking here as the moderator, or if you want: the owner of the site. The way you speak here about discussion material qualifies and disqualifies. It generates power, and displays it in a power-play. That is part of the "economy of discourse" , so do not take this reference to power personal. The personal side is only that you happen to be participant and moderator at the same time.

In the above quote you use a certain way of wording (maybe for lack of time to be more factual =sachlich: "half-witted scandal theories". That introduces a meta-meta-level in which "theories without evidence" are disqualified and ridiculed. If this is refering to "old tantric symbols", it may be scandalizing to you who have this vision of "the pure teaching" with evidence and reviewability. By presenting this twofold universe, you present yourself as the architect of this universe of discourse, the demiurg so to speak, the one-and-a-half-headed Brahma of the universe of GD .

Can be that all this is inevitable because someone has to manifest, and to maintain. The destiny of all that is created is also to be destroyed though...

To remain in the metaphor, perhaps it could be said that as the builder of this site you also need to be the maintainer while at the same time trying to be an ordinary mortal jiva, but then again being the prajapati trying to create more off-spring

But seriously. I think we should acknowledge that power is being generated in these discourses, and power is being used in varying degrees. That is the inevitable side. It appears to me that you do have the fear that by something being written here that does not fulfill the requirements that you are setting for everyone, a facticity may be created which then may get a life of its own. By continuing to impose those rules you make it clear who has the say-so here, what may be written and what not, and in this sense you are imposing a censorship. That may be your right, no problem with that, only it has all kinds of implications within the power-play of the discourses involved.

If you meant this in the sense that I am a moderator and thereby command a certain sense of power by merit of my holding that position, then yes indeed, I would say it is inevitable that the positions of a moderator and a participant are mixed. Is this not so in any and all fields of endeavor?

The only possible solution to this would be to bar moderators from participating, which I do not see as a viable solution. Aside the position of a moderator, we then also have the issues of someone being a senior member and thereby commanding a certain degree of "power", and possibly a good many other situations in which others may feel that someone speaks with a certain prowess and charisma, if you will, that commands an authority others lack immediate access to.



Looking at the example you cited in illustrating this, you may note the expression "for what I see", which is not - unless I am terribly mistaken in my understanding of the meaning of ex cathedra - a conventional way to speak "from the throne". Yes, I do hold views, and often views that are strong. What I see as the difference between that and speaking ex cathedra is that the said views are not imposed and enforced on the virtue of the position held.

If I were not a moderator and spoke strongly, then would this be seen as an issue of my speaking ex cathedra as a senior (in terms of presence in the forums) participant and an influential writer?



As noted, I see this as inevitable, short of my ceasing to participate - and I believe this applies for all moderators who actively participate in the discussions. Evidently it becomes more pronounced in my case, as I am among the more frequent participants in the discussions.

The inherent presence of a sense of power is inevitable. The concern should be in the abuse of the priviledges of a moderator. The said abuse takes place as a moderator either directly censores the posts of others by editing or removal to further his own view, or otherwise by the presence of an explicit threat for others to comply or become subjects of censorship.

In preventing this, we have clear principles for what warrants and what doesn't warrant moderator intervention. Additionally, we have several moderators to appeal to if a member feels he has been unjustly moderated.



If you, or anyone, has suggestions on practical measures that would alleviate these concerns, please feel free to post. I'll start with a clear delineation on when and how we moderate to spell out some of the principles in action, just in case they have been unclear to someone.

No PM needed, I feel that is like sneaking in the background in this situation, while everyone else who is co-reading, remains in the dark. I honor your appreciation and feelings expressed in your posts, yet we should not forget this is a discussion board, with all kinds of participants and levels of realization, one not being necessarily higher or lower than the other. Since your last trip to Vraja it feels like this board should be called Madhava-Braja-Rasaraj-discussion, and not GD anymore. The way you three present THE right way is increasingly difficult to witness. It is your right to do so, however, since this seems to comply with your board-rules.

I think to understand the situation even remotely, a thorough reading of what adiyen's link here presents, might be required



because I think you are talking on the basis of the American religious/secular situation to someone in Germany who is standing on an entirely different European religious/secular situation.

The way you assume you can teach someone else about right and wrong in religious expression appears to me to be a typical American approach, even though I cannot analyze it succinctly here in detail. I think you are real, the way you speak, but to a European this all sounds awfully self-righteous. I also think the way you address TarunGdas (and the way Madhavaji did on another occasion) is not proper, but probably it reflects the "new" GD style. The way people here, especially mods, go around telling participants how they should behave is... (well, I do not know the attribute) assuming too much authority? lacking insight into subjective processes? arrogant? I do not know if any of this applies, I only can tell you that this sort of approach is a heavy turn-off for any sincere seeker who has not gone thru the Iskcon brain-washing-machine before. It does not forbode well of what is ahead with the great Radha-kund authorities channeled into a new kind of east-western organization. It seems to be old wine sold as new one in newly found old vessels. (dunno if the pun works )

I see a lot of 'passive-aggressive' behavior being expressed here lately, which is frankly indicative of some inner struggle which is masked in unnecessary authoritarianism.

namaskar,

jijaji

The below excerpt from Nabadip is also relevant in this thread.

With regards to all those concerns about the moderators and the way they do their job.

1. The job of the moderators is to ensure that the Board Rules and Guidelines are maintained.

If you feel a particular moderator, with his moderating decisions, is conflicting with the said rules and guidelines, please bring it up first in PMs with the other moderators and then, if necessary, in a separate topic in the Community, Moderation and Feedback area.

2. If you have a problem with Board Rules and Guidelines.

If you have a problem with the rules and guidelines of this forum, please don't take it out on the moderators who are doing their job in upholding them. If you feel that something is wrong with the stated rules and guidelines, please start a topic to discuss what you feel should be changed, and how that would further the stated ideals of the forum.

3. If you have a problem with a participant who is also a moderator.

People, as participants in a discussion forum, are bound to have differing views. If you feel a certain participant is arrogant, agressive or otherwise not to your liking, please do not say Moderator X is arrogant and agressive - if the disagreeable behavior wasn't directly tied with his activities of a moderator, don't connect the two and make it look like your protest against the system.

I would certainly think it worthwhile to turn in my grave if I had an opportunity to read the GD while there, especially the constant exhortations by the mods what to do and what not to do. Also the way you are closing a thread, shutting it down, removing out of view and all is dictatorial to the highest degree. Do you intend to live in China?

Any managed establishment invariably comes with a particular set of rules of acceptable conduct, and the rules come bundled with an understanding that there is an element of authority that enforces the said rules.

If you have a problem with the rules or the way they are being implemented, please be specific and offer alternate solutions. On the other hand, if you feel that the only modes of management are Anarchy and China, I'm at loss over what to say. Do you believe in a need for rules?

Radhe!

Well, which rule gives a moderator the power to speak so heavily and rude to a board member?

Sure, Rasaraja does not feel the need to defend himself because whatever he says is right.

Great.

I think you have done that once where you felt compromised in your position (withdrawing a thread like that), as now Rasarajdas happened to be. You may think it is a disgrace to the deceased bhakta what we did, but that was not the point at all. The point is that free expression is totally negated, because you 3 or 4 (Jagat coming to help after being ousted also) seem to have interiorized some rules while there in Vraja, and now you pull it thru with an iron hand. Personally I only stay on because I have no other place to go. I find it intolerable the way you push through your doctrinarian way. Since I have little participation on most issues, it is not so important. But to see how a TarunGovindadas is fertig-gemacht (finished off) by some bhakta in the permanent glorification mode, it is just getting too much.

I do not think he spoke in the capacity of a moderator. Please read #3 of what I just wrote. If you have personal issues with someone, don't take it up as an "issue with moderators" unless it involves that person specifically in the capacity of a moderator.

Right.
Correct, dear Madhava.

I am glad that you, even as a moderator, never used such a tone in correcting me.


I received quite a lot of PMs in which the point is made that Rasaraja totally went off-line in his tone, but he is not accepting it and again all is shoveled under the carpet.

And if I would have answered in a way he did, you, Madhavaji, would have smashed me to pieces. But again I stand to my words:
Different people, different rights.

Talking about feelings seem to be anarchy to you, you who prizes analysis and dry theory on feelings so much

So if a moderator speaks in that role he should always use the moderator avator (if there is one).

As a second thing I propose that you guys STOP ordering people around as to what they should do and how they should behave in a thread, except here on the community board.

I believe the gist of what we all felt reinforced in Vraja with regards to the ongoing exchanges online was:

1. Restricting the scope of discussions to themes that are relevant and positively conducive to Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhana, relevant and positively conducive defined in the way we read if it in the scriptures, and
2. Bearing that in mind, maintaining an atmosphere where Vaishnava-ninda, one of the greatest obstacles on the path of devotion, is not allowed room - whether with regards to each other, a third person or a group of Vaishnavas, orthodox or otherwise.

As noted, if you feel there is something terribly wrong with some of the rules, then I urge you to voice out the disagreeable principle and to offer a better solution. Without that, it is hard to do much about it.

When anyone does this ordering around business he should identify himself as the moderator, and not speak as Rasarajadas or Madhava etc. then it is becoming clear. Otherwise big Leo-ego can hide behind his moderator-job, since he is the one who has the say so how things should be said, and then claim he said it as humble participant, and not even answer the doubts voiced towards him.

Especially an almighty moderator should keep the principles alive and also he should be restricted in using harsh language up to hurting words...

Honestly, I felt really hurt, but right, who the heck cares...

Vaishnava-ninda was carefully avoided on the said thread, I believe, unless you want to construct it in that way that it was present there. Then mature discussion is indeed not possible anymore.

yes pretty successful in maintaining an atmosphere, where the maintenance person creates the situation that protest needs to be voiced.

Why don't you rather try to see that people have differing views of what occured, instead of filing a complaint about discriminatory treatment and returning to the "system is corrupt" theme.

If someone feels that the problem isn't with the rules, but rather the problem is that the moderators are corrupt and exploit the board to their selfish ends, then no-one is forcing anyone to participate. If the U.S. is bad, move to Canada. If GD is bad, participate in some other forum or start your own and teach us with your example by showing how you'll do it better.

Tarunji, in the end you are always alone, all this stuff here is only words put on a screen. Therefore watch it what you are saying about yourself. Do not over-expose yourself as Openmind did. See how the moderators never speak of their private lives, unless in positive terms. Try to cultivate the Rasaraj-glorification-mode. And collect a few hundred disciples who do the dirty work for you before you die. Then you might end up not alone, but the hero for so many. I am not joking, this is the bitter truth.

With the exception of this subforum where it would be superfluous, I am in the habit of marking "ex cathedra" moderator statements with a distinct color, often signing off as - Mod. Sometimes the same is obvious without color, such as in the final post of a closed thread where the closing of the thread is noted.

Most posts by moderators, even comments on the direction of a thread, aren't coming "ex cathedra" but are rather their views as a participant in the discussion. You may have seen threads where a moderator in the capacity of a participant suggests that the thread should perhaps be closed or split, yet no action has been taken. That's a perfect example of a mod speaking in the capacity of a regular member.



Do you mean to say that we should only apply the board rules and guidelines in this one subforum? I'm afraid that isn't an option, the rules apply board-wide.

Dear Madhava,
why dont you get my point?

I totally am comfortable with Rasaraja disagreeing with me.

I just claim that his arrogant tone was too much.
Simple as that.

And I never intented Vaishnava-ninda, for God´s sake.
I expressed my doubts and I told that it has nothing to do with BT Maharaja personally.

Look, again. So many people disagree with me. You mostly.
But like I said, I was hurt by the way of getting straightened out.



Talking about Vaishnava-ninda, I know that I am not a Vaishnava, but are those words agreeable in the wonderful realm of etiquette?
If this is the etiquette Mr. Super Moderator prefers, then I have nothing to do with etiquette.

Well Nabadip has spoken 100% what has been on my mind for a long time. I can only second it wholeheartedly. Madhava, you know very well that we have no other place to go, and that we have neither the knowhow or the time to start our own forum. You want to take advantage? You feel real satisfaction being left with a handful of sycophants applauding you? If you ban all critics you will, as predicted by Nabadip, be left with just your three cronies - Jagat, Rasaraja and Braja - and you can just cuddle each other up for the rest of your lives, and always agree with each other. With or without an admiring audience. Actually the only fault in Nabadip's post was China - I think the North Korean parliament is what you 4 guys are looking for.

If that has nothing to do with his being a moderator, then why don't you take it up with him personally over PMs.



As already noted in a PM to you, the problem I see in his message is his assessment of himself as an individual from whom you would agree to hear such words.

At any rate, if this is not directly relevant to his being a moderator, I do not see the point in having public trials over the issue. Contact other moderators over PM to resolve the matter.

But when he is imposing a rule he is speaking as the moderator, and should identify himself as such. Maybe that makes a difference in his approach, in his awareness how to choose his words. It is important that you notice that these are life and death issues. Our lives are touched, and possibly hurt, by what is being said. Others lives too, so we should be extra-careful. But the direct hurting is more important than some possible indirect, theoretical one.

That is the whole point.

My whole anger focused on that truth.

What?

Who would listen to such harsh words?

Just because we have been initiated together and seen us once I should accept him as my instructor?
I would but i miss the well-wishing attitude here....

So is this not arrogant, to assume I would fall to my knees to accept his glorious teachings and instructions?

Whatever, you stick to your opinions, I to mine.

All glories to the moderators.

When I first started reading the initial thread, and the furor that ensued, I noticed that poor Tarun-ji had been placed in the unfortunate position of Zugzwang, a somewhat obscure chess term when an opponent can not make a good move; forced by the rules to move, yet all choices hurt him. It can be crippling in the endgame, but early on it can make for interesting play. Game openings are up to about the 20th move. What post number spawned all this?

If Tarun-ji simply responded humbly apologizing and all that, well, nabadwip-ji had set this up as obsequious behaviour. If he responded from his gut, feelings would be stepped on, and he would be on the defence, but rallying the troops could enhance his position. The correct response is usually only determined in post-game analysis.

Man, I love chess so useful...

I do not think anyone has spoken about banning critics. To the contrary - a few posts back, I just invited everyone to offer feedback on the rules and guidelines of the forum based on which moderation is taking place. To this aim, I have now opened a new thread.

If you want to have the moderators accountable for their actions, there has to be a constitution to refer to that defines what can and what cannot be done. Then you can easily point out, "Ahha! In post #34561 Moderator Z is doing this, although in #3.1 of Moderation Principles it specifically says that!"

Well, those rules are already there, and if you'd like to have some of it changed, you'll have to voice out what exactly it is that needs to change. Complaints have to be on specific issues of which principles can be deducted. It is very hard to act on general complaints.

Fascinating...

Perhaps I have been undergoing some personal changes in the last few months, which have led me to lurk more and post less on GD.

On the other hand, perhaps I am posting less because of a fairly recent change in the tone, emphasis and priorities of GD.

Or perhaps both.

What is the goal of moderation, and what is the measure of successful moderation? If quality and quantity of forum participation is a measure, perhaps GD has slipped a bit lately, and leaves some room for improvement.

How wonderful it would be if there were some way for such divergent personalities (with equally divergent perspectives) as nabadip, Advaitadas, TarunGovindadas and Jagat to come closer together through forum discussions, instead of so often pushing farther apart.

But perhaps that's not a realistic goal. Perhaps the best we can hope to do is to develop a mature and practical appreciation of "appropriate boundaries" and learn to share with differing personalities in differing ways. Perhaps we need to build trust gradually and carefully, rather than assume that everyone here will be able to understand our hearts because of the words we type.

Certainly I perceive that before Madhava travelled to Vraja, there was for some time a more "inclusive" or "encouraging" or "supportive" vibe in the moderation here. Madhava accepted donations and encouragements from all sorts of folks, and was certainly donating his time and energy (and encouragement) in abundance to many of us on GD. I haven't seen as much of this since his return, but my perception of this is as likely to be my fault as his, and I suspect it has far less to do with any deliberate change in emphasis than it does with off-forum workload (his and mine and others').

Whatever the case, I hope we are all grateful for what Madhava and the other moderators are doing here. Obviously they will make mistakes -- sometimes not ending a fruitless discussion soon enough, other times moderating too harshly and discouraging what could have been interesting discussion. Still, I hope we can acknowledge all the good that they are doing, and give them all the honor, respect and appreciation their service has earned them.

Anyone who thinks moderating is easy should try it sometime. I feel fairly objective about these issues since I am not a primary participant here anymore, and also have a little experience on the other side of the board.

I recognize some truth on both sides of this debate, and I too wonder how I can walk a line between being a participant of my forum and expressing strong opinions without my "power" being seen as an impediment to the discussion. Truthfully, although we mods and forum owners have some power it's far more limited than it appears. We're not going to ban members for no good reason, and we know we can't get rid of everything that we object to, or even everyone we might not like--or we wouldn't have a forum left at the end of the day, having driven our members away.

I agree that Rasaraja sounded very harsh and some of us have commented privately that lately it seems like TarunGovinda is more and more being spoken to as if he were a child--even before that thread. Is it too hard to admit that?

I also am a little alarmed at the vibe that Tarunji must try to act more advanced than he happens to be, here near the beginning of his devotional journey (from my aged perspective). I think it is dangerous to his spiritual life to put on some kind of sadhu act. Certainly we all should endeavor to speak and behave respectfully, but it is a good thing to drag our shadow into the open and give it a good cleaning sometimes.

I didn't feel Tarun was trying to be disrespectful to Bhakti Tirtha, just trying to look at some of the feelings and doubts his death brought to the surface. Rather than banish the whole thread off to an inaccessible-to-guests area, I'd simply split it off, but that's just me.

If the mods at GD want it to have the atmosphere of a Vaishnava shrine, that is their right and it isn't so difficult as all that to hire a consultant for a few hours to help start a forum that reflects your different vision. There are lots of free forum software packages on the web also.

It is good to air these things publicly sometimes so that things are transparent and everyone feels free to have their say. One can only gauge how many members are unhappy with a public discussion. There are always those who merely try to tolerate things they aren't happy with but may come forward as they see others are unhappy too.

It is impossible to please everyone all the time, but I think the current Moderators have been doing a good job generally.

Mixed feelings about certain people and groups outside this immediate circle seem to always lead to conflict when their issues are raised. I have been part of this myself, and have been seeing such flareups for decades too, and I think its par for the course. No easy way out.

Also some devotees write more formally and elaborately (which can sound pompous, though is also very polite and respectful), while some are very informal (which has its own hazards of superficiality and propaganda). Some seem remote and 'too academic' but in such a diverse atmosphere this, I think, can be an advantage.

I respect both Rasaraja's expressions on the passing of BT Swamiji, and Tarun's question about Karma. But perhaps they should not have been on the same thread.

One thing to remember is that Gaudiyaism is conservative. Madhava has been instructed to preserve an atmosphere of respectful inquiry, and I think he is doing a good job of balancing diverse threads within that rubric. Avoiding some topics is in the nature of conservatism.

What is appealing to me about Gaudiyaism is that within this conservative frame they manage to tolerate and respect diversity, not just as the current buzz goes, but in an enduring and ultimately ancient sense, where even survival depends on turning the other cheek. This type of attitude is foreign to western 'solve-the-problem' sensibilities. But I think we need to experience it. For one thing it is the basis of all non-chauvinistic religious inclination: 'The meek shall inherit the earth...'.

Radhe Radhe!

I indeed recognize that I was a bit emotional due to the nature of the thread. I apologized to Tarun Govinda das for making my comments in public when they should have been in private. So for that I am sorry. Personally I have realized that it is best that I stick to what inspires me in spiritual life and simply stay from those discussions or points which I find distasteful.

My intent with that thread was to talk of the heart of the situation we were witnessing. To me it is a very sensitive thought: to lose the direct association and access to ones Gurudeva. I found their response inspiring and wanted to wish them well. It wasn’t the question of karma or how to understand “when bad things happen to special souls” which I personally objected to. It was asking it in reference to an individual; especially knowing how many of here view IGM and their followers which can lead to unsavory results at a time where someone should at least be honored for the good they have contributed. I simply don't think it is proper to ask such questions in light of specific individuals and in a thread where their passing is being discussed. That was my sensitivity which I don’t feel ashamed of although I admit I should have handled it in a more private manner.

Regarding moderation it is not usual that any one moderator makes a decision on a post or thread. In general it is discussed in a Moderator forum. This is there to ensure that no one simply allows their personal view to drive their moderator duties rather that the group feels there is issues within a post/thread which go against board rules. The idea that the moderators scratch one another’s backs or agree on most points is a bit naïve. We are all very different individuals who undoubtedly have more in common than not but are still unique in our histories and experiences. Our agreement is more based on the intent of the board than particular points expressed on the board.

Rasaraja dasa

Radhe Radhe!

Just as I have recieved 1 PM and 6 e-mails thanking me for my comments... does that really mean anything in the real jist of things?

I don't require "rights" to speak my mind just as you don't. Have you sought permission everytime you have addressed others? I agree I should have been private about my feelings but I cannot take back time. I stand by the jist of what I stated because I believe it. Believeing it doesn't mean that I think I or assume that I am correct in absolute terms. I simply found your approach to be horrid and reacted as such.

I believe if you review your posts over the last year you will find many posts where you emote first and think later. Well just because I am a Moderator doesn't mean that I am not human and will never go through the same process; being a Moderator simply means that I have to live by and help cultivate the Guidelines of the Board.

Rasaraja dasa

Radhe Radhe!

@Rasaraja
Apology accepted.
Madhava told me that your only fault was that you thought I would listen to you. I didnt and I will not. Why should I accepted your tone even in a PM?
Like you said, when I am mature enough, I am more than welcome to PM you.
Thanks.

@Tapati

Thank you too, but this "down-looking"-issue will again be turned into:"Tarunji, stop wining."

If I would post the PMs I received from the some of the mods, well then good-night.

Yes, and we could probably publish a book off your track record at Gaudiya Discussions, and also post many of your PMs. Would that be interesting?

I would not make the quantity of posts in general a yard-stick. If anything, I've observed a trend in which quantity is sometimes inversely proportional to the quality of posts.

With regards to quality, how would that be assessed? I would submit that it be assessed by the quantity of those posts and threads that have successfully explored topics of Gaudiya Vaishnava theology and practice, whether in theory or in a manner directly relevant. I would assess the lack of quality by teh quantity of those posts and threads that have to a great extent focused on diverging from the topic and putting down each other or third parties, leaving no-one with anything worth the pain in the end.



If that is something you'd like the moderators to accomplish... Could you recommend some good spell casting correspondence courses, or perhaps direct me to a reliable source of magic potions?

Just about the only thing the moderators can do is to tell people to stay off topics that cause people to start blasting the hell out of each other, and to take practical measures towards eliminating and preventing such situations. And even for that, we get called the governments of China and North Korea. Then, if we interfere with a situation without taking sides, we are blasted for not doing anything about it, and if we do rule in someone's favor or reprimand someone, then we are self-righteous and arrogant, we are picking sides and what not.




Regarding appropriate boundaries, I have even directly recommended to some members that they stay out of certain kinds of discussions and let them pass for the best of everyone involved. But alas, such recommendations often fall to deaf ears and we get these disaster topics where fire and brimstones are freely available for all in abundant quantity. Should we enforce "appropriate boundaries"? I do not think that would be very welcome, we would then perhaps be Saddam, Khomeini and Qaddafi at the Socialist Republic of Turkmenistan.




The concern that arose was over the inclusiveness overshadowing the primary aims of the forum. Some of our current appellants, such as Advaitadas, were very vocal about their disapproval of the tone back then. Since then, we have taken a number of measures in an effort to bring the forum closer to its original ideals.



My current workload and economical situation is only a part of the equation, though admittedly a significant factor.

Frankly speaking, it also has to do with inspiration that comes about from the response of others. If despite my best efforts to cultivate discussions that deal directly with matters of great theological and subsequently practical importance I only see a couple of random replies, and if the only time people really get active is (1) with topics that are marginally relevant, (2) when you get to blast off IGM or (3) that deal with attempts to challenge or undermine our theology, I sometimes find myself wondering what I'm spending my time for.

If you bundle that with non-specific and repeated complaints about this and that and the other thing, and those who think I administrate and do system maintenance for living though without salary, then yes it is indeed a miracle I am participating as much as I even currently am. And quite frankly, yes I am sometimes pretty pissed about that. Now there you have it, everyone - a glimpse of emotion for the audience. Make sure you save that and quote it to me in the future.

Allow me to explain myself a bit more. I do appreciate the progress GD has made in the last 6 months or so, that is laudible. What needs improvement is the moderator team. Hope this will not be deleted for being 'ad hominem', but one of the four is a renegade offensive intellectual and the other three are brandnew on the traditional GV path. It's OK, somebody has to moderate the place, I understand that, but then if we must work with such a team, it is better they condescend less towards participants who are either their peers or their superiors, and listen more....

I have more to say on this, but perhaps later.....

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/curmudgeon

As I get older, one of my goals is not to become a crazy old grouch, a curmudgeon. That's hard, because I can feel a big inner pull in that direction. (Watch out, when you are old it could happen to you too!)

With regards to who's on the moderator team.

There are three basic qualifications aside the obvious, namely being a practicing Gaudiya Vaishnava who has the time and the interest for the job.

• The first is sufficient technical know-how and comfort with web technology.
• The second is an ability to work with a group of people and to be able to reach consensus decisions (as contrasted by "my way or the highway").
• The third is having a capacity to conduct oneself in accordance with the board rules and thereby an ability to not go overboard with issues such as critique of IGM or others one doesn't agree with.

If someone wishes to apply, please be my guest.

With regards to issues of seniority, juniority and all that - if there are clear principles according to which everyone is expected to conduct there shouldn't be much issues, as the rules shouldn't be bent so as to make a senior above them - though admittedly the moderators are guilty as charged, to an extent anyway, with some elder members onboard.

If there are specific complaints on inaproppriate moderator behavior (acting in the capacity of a moderator and displaying condescending behavior), please feel free to file complaints. I can't recall reading too many of those. Specific examples, we need that to have something to work on.

I can't condone magic aimed at controlling another's will--and that's what it would take. Otherwise, the spells would be a flyin' on my own forum.



I've come to the conclusion that moderators really can't win. Whatever we do or don't do is going to piss off somebody. So we just have to do our best and what we think is right. We get a lot of flack for requiring the bios...yet I think that really does help keep the troll population to a minimum and make us more respectful and caring. I know it loses us a few members--but I've seen the alternative and haven't liked the result.

I was referring to the latest PM´s on the issue of the passing-post.

Sure you can publish all my bad stuff, fine with me.

But some mods, again NOT YOU, dont admit their rude way of expressing themselves.



See Tapati, nobody adresses this issue, because they label it as the "Tarun Govinda -wining -show".

What I was pointing at is that the said reactions did not rise out of vacuum. You have a lengthy track record in the note pads of the moderators, and I am certain in the memories of a good many other long-time members.

There is a context to what has happened and what is happening. You cannot possibly imagine that reactions such as Rasaraja's arise out of the blue. Someone who wants to form an opinion on the issue would do well to read a good many of the past threads you've participated in.



You seem persistent on making this a public discussion and review of yourself by repeatedly bringing into public themes that have surfaced in PMs and PMs alone. You have at least five times set up a grand drama after escalating some topics and after taking feedback on the same in a very personal manner and declaring how you will now stop participating at GD, only to return after a couple of days as if nothing had happened. I have also had many discussions via PMs over some of these issues with you on many, many occasions, yet most of it seems to be falling on deaf ears. What do you expect the moderators to think after all this?

Basically incidents like the one recently witnessed invoke a "Oh no, here we go again with TG" reaction, and sometimes - as we saw in the case of Rasaraja - the frustration builds up and is expressed. If you are not willing to digest the fact that people aside your guru may have opinions and straight-forward feedback on your behavior, you may want to consider limiting your exchanges online, particularly in public forums.

Well, I certainly know what it is like to have that "there we go again" feeling with a particular member, even this early in my moderating experience. I still didn't see the need for harshness in that thread directed against him and Rasaraja himself has kindly and generously explained that he went a bit too far publicly.

I think it's worth examining whether the weight of past experience causes occasional over reaction, that's all.

It's equally valid that Tarun might want to examine his posting methodology, and perhaps delay actually posting until he digests a subject and has time to calm down, if that's the issue. One can make a post in Word, let it sit, come back and think about whether it should be posted or modified or discarded.

I have seen reactions to Tarun's posts previously that I thought were uncalled for in either content or tone or both, and I just wanted to mention as an observer that you might want to take a look at it.

After my retreat, if you like, I could sift through remembered topics for examples and PM them to you.

A useful tool that perhaps might make it easier to be a moderator (also perhaps a participant) in a forum such as this is the "Warn Bar" which is used on a Buddhist E-Sangha website. Perhaps because it is less personalised, in that you see a percentage mark on a bar on your screen if the mods are concerned about your postings.

Perhaps this could be used here to, to warn people if their tone is inappropriate. They may just take that on board and back off. So it might be less hurtful than various words used in postings to try to warn people if their tone is inappropriate.

Incidentally, on the Buddhist sangha, they have never yet (in over a year) had to use the warn bar. This prompted me to admire how well they manage most of the time to communicate with 140 people online at once... however their "Leaving" thread* suggests that online arguments appear there too some of the time (but it seems to be Christian-bashing rather than Buddhist in-fighting).

......just for fun
see How to be an Annoying Buddhist.

* this thread is in the Coffee Lounge at E-Sangha...along with "Shaved Head", "Does Everything in the Universe Vary" etc etc

CUl8r

interesting forum

Speaking of feedback and now that we're going all democratic, would someone like to see a feature where threads and/or posts could be rated by all full members?

I had thought of recommending something like this awhile back, ala Slashdot & the like.. might be a good idea.

just wanted to follow up on this a bit. I have been spending some time on E-sanga and find it to be a great forum with many thoughtful members and topics anyone on a spiritual path would find of interest, from Interfaith Marriage to Free Will and so many other interesting topics in general,

Of course they have some heated debates but they seem to handle it quite well..especially considering

E-sanga:
Our members have made a total of 216,215 posts
We have 6,468 registered members


ahimsa now,

jijaji

Just reading this 'How to be an annoyiing Buddist' thread, and it's brilliant!
Recommended to anyone interested, not just Buddhists

I was reading that as well, there are some very good subjects being discussed over there and for anyone really..

Sometime ago TarunGovindadas announced that he was not going to participate in discussions here anymore. I supported his decision then and still do now. This because personally I think that a decision like his is progressive in most cases. Tarun leaves again and I just wished he had not left in such a sad manner - I was sad on reading his last words of farewell. Maybe he will come back yet again, but for now it simply is too disturbing for me to think of what might be going on in his heart regarding the whole incident, hence these comments I present. I cannot help the strong impression I get that Tarun felt as if betrayed by those he had trusted, mistreated even in his feelings and then left to his own pain. He did seem to be arguing like a child who were being punished further for pointing out obvious flaws in the tutors’ methods…

The internet as a medium is one still under construction, but there is actually no construction plan here; we make it as we go. Still for us this is a place for acts of devotion, thus for us the main rule to abide by still is vaisnava behaviour. No matter what we are concerning ourselves with at any particular moment and WHERE the event takes place, the ruling ingredient in vaisnava exchanges is always love and affection. Logic, reason, objectivity, and even order are to support that, otherwise they may actually interfere with the cause of love and affection. Even a child knows when affection (love, prema, bhava, dedication, commitment, etc. etc. etc.) gets bulldozed over by personal agendas. And please any one, don’t read this as a personal accusation of any sort, I am implying only that, being imperfect, we do make mistakes, and in many, many circumstances the mistake we make will simply be that of being a little shy of being less preachy and defensive, and more accommodating. Charity begins at home, people shouldn’t be leaving an assembly of vaisnavas feeling deflated, betrayed, etc. In Jaiva Dharma Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur shows how vaisnavas behave towards anyone according to varying qualifications, of frames of mind and heart. In BT’s example, he shows that even those who at first may appear inimical to vaisnavas while in the latter’s own place of residence and worship, will be treated in such a way that they hear exactly what they need to hear and still leave with a sense of wonderment and encouragement to come back.

Again, this being the internet I can easily see where some of us may have to be the ones who will fall through the cracks; become those unfortunate casualties within the dynamics of The Greater Cause. But even within this idea the element of progress has to be there for the cause to be one that makes us a community. By definition a community is automatically undermined when any of its part is neglected in even the most seemingly inconsequential way. In any case, what Tarun was arguing wasn’t whether he was being coherent or not in his expressing himself. He was inquiring on consistency. And even as he was fully entitled to such by the direction the discussion took, his inquiry was being neglected. (This is called power play, an ancient game that might just be nearly facilitated to infinity by the chaotic medium at hand.)

Tarun trusted his peers for shelter. Was he wrong in putting his trust there? He shouldn’t be. His difficulty was when he saw inconsistencies. There is openness here to inquire into inconsistencies experienced in IGM in the past and in the present. In fact, the alternative movement is precisely alternative because of IGM. So, if any flaw is to be found here, it at least should not be the same as any allegedly found in the IGM experience. Tarun saw that scrutiny of IGM is allowed here up to the point where very personal aspects of its members’ characters and lives will be openly critiqued. (It is called neutrality, discussion, everyone’s right to search.) From such exercise there is the expectation that, where those things found to be in need of an alternative course, there will be simply that, an alternative. Tarun saw, on one hand, that there is this license to freely question IGM but, on the other hand, when came his turn to question, he got into trouble. He felt the inconsistency and he then began questioning THAT. The blow of “mercy” came when, in his bewilderment in not receiving a response to his initial questioning, counting for support on his surrender, he plunged into the consequent promised net of love and affection. But when he took the plunge, there was no net there, he fell in to a vacuum! He saw that, just like in IGM, here in the alternative zone, one may easily find the door in but just as easily be suggested out. And as he put it, “I felt really hurt, but right, who the heck cares...” Just once, just for a change, I would love to hear a straight and personal answer to that question…

His issue is or has been everyone’s issue at some point. We have seen that everyone’s story is pretty much the same, “I was there in that environment and at some point, my expectations betrayed, my feelings hurt, I felt lost because no one cared.”

I believe if there was any failure on the part of IGM, such thing sprouted not from its philosophy departments, (tattva, sidhanta), but from their lack of willingness and preparedness to follow up on the needs of their members. In my opinion, if there is going to be any alternative to the nontraditional experience, the real central argument has to be brought upfront. The alleged missing link in Sarasvati Thakur’s movement should be treated with more objectivity, i. e., dropped as an instrument of defense or attack on either side of the divide. It has not being a thoroughly balanced line of arguing anyway, for if it is a fact that the Sarasvatas will have to accept that they have a new disciplic succession, the other side, the so called tradition, will have to accept that a new line was created precisely because the established one, which came to be called The Tradition, was not going to be a fool proof system. These two things must be equally accepted so the debate can move on to where the interest of everyone really lies: A support system where all Gaudiyas can be accommodated.

This brings us back to love and affection; ours is a movement of feelings. We must care for those who have come so close to us as to open their hearts unconditionally. I think there is merit in Tarun’s public display of emotion. It meant trust. And so it must be honored in perhaps a better manner than just a brief silence after the closing of the door.
Do we care?

These days I honestly find myself wondering at times whether I care or not. Not in any particular case, but in general with regards to the forum here. If most others don't care, then how much should I invest of my own energy, to give of myself, and why?

Once upon a time, I had a dream of an oasis on the internet. A place where people would gather to explore the teachings of Sri Rupa and others, to relish narrations of Krishna's qualities and sports, and to enlighten each others on topics of devotion.

All too much of the time I find that those very topics that are the raison d'être of the facility are sadly neglected. Most people don't seem to have much at all to say on such topics, not even a curious question to fluff up more themes of interest.

I find myself wondering whether the market is already saturated with goods and they are no longer in demand; or perhaps there are no customers with interest for the product; or perhaps the goods are spoiled or sub-standard, worthless for the audience of devotional gastronomes?

If people wish to make the forum a ground for bashing IGM and reviewing topics that have little direct relevance, and if people who take a keen interest in topics the facility was created for are counted with one hand's fingers, and on top of that I find people consistently complaining about this and that and the other thing, it forcibly prompts me to re-assess my priorities in the service I try to render to the Vaishnavas out there with whatever meager skills I have at my disposal.

That's all for today, for all of those who may wonder why I have lately spent less time online, and for anyone else who cared to read this far.

I think it is a natural question in the minds of all forum moderators everywhere: how much time do I invest? Knowing that I must sustain that for the entire time the forum is in existence? How much control do I really have over the actual forum content? There is only so much a moderator can post to guide topics in a positive direction. We do have jobs and lives and sadhana to attend to.

I firmly believe that everyone at a forum bears some percentage of responsibility for how it goes and how satisfying it is. One can't sit back and just expect the moderators to conjure positive threads and posts out of thin air for their enlightenment or entertainment.

If everyone wants a sweet mood of bhakti then everyone has to contribute to it. If everyone wants an end to preoccupation with igm, then move discussions away from that tired old debate. If everyone wants an atmosphere of mutual respect and compassion, then refrain from making the snarky, disrespectful posts. But don't sit there and wait for the mods to always swoop in and make it perfect for you.

A message from Tarun Govinda Das:

We are all students. I hope to learn from you, Tarun.

JAI SRI GURU!

People are different and remain different, independent of diksha and sadhana and progress therein. Tarunji, you will always be a heart-revealer, somone who shows his inner reflections, hurts and joys, while Madhavaji will always be interested in researching arguments and developments of katha in objective sources, while Rasarajdasji will always cause admiration through his large gestures towards others, Advaitadasji will always have his energetic manner of shastric presentation... and each and everyone has their hopes, and desires and projections of what the common reality should be like. So let's allow each one to play their unique part, and let's learn from each other as far as possible, but also respect the limitations of each one of us to learn and to change. No one really changes radically ever, changes are slight and mostly in ways of perception rather than ways of expression. What we see here on the Internet is always the expression, never the person behind it all.

I agree we are all so different than the internet persona masks we adopt here to convey our beliefs, learning, ego, anger, joy, etc. with our re-edited responses to other persona masks.

It is quite difficult to finds ones 'original face' with the on-line lifestyle as we are covered with persona masks.


~one can debate well if all sides are known, to debate a side does not indicate belief in what is being debated~

Esoteric means the "inner" (eso-), in the sense of the inner consciousness; the contemplative, mystical or meditative transpersonal perspective.

This is something different from the ordinary everyday understanding of things, and can only be understood by intuition or higher mental or spiritual faculties.

The opposite of Esoteric is Exoteric, which means the "outer" (exo-), i.e. the outer or surface or everyday consciousness.

This includes both the scientific-materialistic and the conventional (or literal) religious perspective..

Seems there are two types out there the Esoteric and the Exoteric..



aacha