Complaints on moderator decisions or behavior - File them here if PMs don't work

If you feel that a moderator or the moderators have made inappropriate decisions or conducted in an unacceptable manner, and if you either haven't found a resolution via PMs with them or feel the mere attempt of trying that is hopeless, please file your complaint in this thread.

When filing a complaint, please be sure to 1) provide a direct link to the incident in question and 2) a brief summary on why exactly you feel it is inappropriate, and how it should have been handled in your best estimate. Please do not file general complaints in this thread.

I do have some personal outstanding issues with each of the moderators, I dont know if I have the stomach to dig it all up again though.

One reform I can think of is that a moderator shouldnt have the right to singlehandedly close a thread when participants feel he is doing that to avoid losing a certain debate. A participant should be able to call a poll to see if there is enough support for continuing a thread that a moderator wants to close to save his face.

Outstanding personal issues with the moderators are beyond the scope of these threads, and moreover something that has little to do with them as moderators.

Most threads that are closed are discussed by the moderators in the moderators discussion area prior to closing. They are generally either threads that go on and on about IGM, go nowhere at all, or primarily feature members picking on each others. If you have specific cases, please post direct links to the said threads.

For reference, all threads that have been closed during the last six months:

Passing of H.H. Bhakti Tirtha Swami
Assaulting Other Parivars
Poll about when to leave an IGM guru.
Gaps in the Saraswata Guru-Parampara
that forum
Brahmajyoti
Strange gossip about Baba
Advaitin tradition and definitions
Tradition and Compromise..where to draw the line?
Matsya's rasik sampradaya
Jesus and the Raga-marg
welcome tala
Are homosexuals welcome?

There is at least one instance in which I have an issue with a moderator that does have something to do with him as a moderator, but as I said, lets first see if I have the appetite for this....



'either' this or....?



That is not the point. I am making a general proposal, not just for the past but also for the future.

The issue you referred to is your issue with Jagadananda, and it is the opinion of all the moderators and a good many others that the friction between you seems to be there on all possible levels and appearing in all possible mediums, and there is therefore little anyone aside the two of you can do about it as far as these forums are concerned.


Sorry, I was in the middle of editing my post.

Wrong, it is with Rasaraja.

Oh? I'm glad you have sorted out your disagreements from last year over name-calling and so forth with Jagat, then.

Can you point me to places where the said disagreements took place? Is it the issue with the thread, "Diksha-paramparas in the Western World"? I have a copy of the message he sent you concerning your behavior in that thread and one post that was removed, and that post was in breach of many of our forum guidelines, beyond a doubt. I do not recall hearing of your getting back to him concerning his message.

Who says I did? There are so many outstanding issues, I dont know if I want to disturb my mind with them anymore though....



Rasaraja deleted one of my posts. For the rest, see my above answer........

Though this is basically off-topic here, since you brought it up yourself...

1. My current issues with Jagad are entirely and solely based on his outrageous behaviour on this board in June 2004, and not on his (also not very clean) conduct in India in the 1980s.
2. All the moderators? How could they know? Have they been in India with Jagat and me in the 1980s?



No? One tall young moderator, from another subarctic country, sided blindly with Jagat all along the way in June 2004, right into the abyss. So it is a question of moderators, plural case, not at all a personal feud between J and me.....
So far for this can of worms.........

betal_nut was complaining to me that her posts were banned without any proper explanations, she suspected it was because she made critical remarks (rightly so) about Radhakund babajis....

Radhe Radhe!

Being that I have removed 2 posts during my entire time as a moderator and one was Advaitas then it is clear which post is being talked about.

When someone’s point is illustrated through such descriptions as "throw an atom bomb on your Guru's ashram" and "have sex with your mother" while then going on to make straight assumptions and reference that two of the moderators, one of which was not myself, basically believe they are nitya siddhas and then the reference to "pissing and shitting", hunting brahmans and one of the moderator's fallen IGM Guru... that is why it was removed. You could have made all of the points you wanted to make without everything above which clearly violate multiple sections of forum Guidelines.

Rasaraja dasa

Radhe Radhe!

All closed threads or removed posts are addressed in a Moderators forum. All such threads/posts are reviewed to ensure that its removal was indeed proper due to violation of forum Guidelines. The Moderators then write a PM to the individual(s) which addresses why. If at anytime someone is unhappy with the answer they are more than welcome to address their questions and/or concerns with another moderator.

Rasaraja dasa

1. I find that very hard to believe, given the extremity of your reactions towards just about anything and everything he says or does. Many people, including one respected mahatma to whom you complained of him, have been wondering about depth of and the driving force in your animosity towards him.
2. By hearing from others and deducting from 1.



Indeed I did defend Jagat back then, not the least due to repeated attempts to misconstrue what he said. It remains to be proven that I did that blindly, though I do remember people coming up with numerous possible motivations on why I might have done that.

She is a moderated member. We did explain to her what it means. Regardless, it seems she did not understand what it means.

Why is she moderated? She didnt applaud you 4 loud enough?

1. The proof is there in all my exchanges with him since the start from this forum in february 2002 up to june 2004 - they were cordial and friendly. If it rooted in the 80s I would have been hostile to him from the beginning.
Regarding the respected mahatma - did he ever read the threads of June 2004? Did you show him? He would understand my rage for sure.....
Shall I show him?



There is no 'other' than Jagat himself. Its like asking Marx if communism is OK.

Why dont you quote the context?

That is exactly the problem which should be reformed. It is decided among 'good old boys' moderators - so the outcome will be unanimous huh? Why not answer my request for a poll?

Ah, that is why you deleted your post in which I quoted Narottam's 'gaurangere sangi gane nitya siddha kori mane' (yes yes when you and Jagat called Rupa Gosvami a p*** and sh*** human being) and the purport by your Guru Maharaja, to which you replied 'Well then I dont agree with him on that....'

Are you sure you want to re-open that debate Madhava? I do have the unedited version backed up you know, and sent copies long ago to others.....

Radhe Radhe!

Here you go minus the removed material:



Your points read just fine without the "throw an atom bomb on your Guru's ashram" and "have sex with your mother" comments and the character judgements that some of those speaking with you wanted to hunt brahmans or considered themselves Nitya siddhas.

Throughout the conversation whenever someone even mentioned a question or opinion regarding your presentation that a Guru of Brahmin birth is of such heightened importance you continually point that to even ask such is an offense to Srila Sanatana Goswami yet you wouldn’t even attempt to answer why all the items listed under the lengthy vizeSa-lakSana section are not of equal importance to you? Furthermore if you were going to present HBV as “take it or leave it” for your one particular point it will make one wonder and question if you are just treating HBV as your “box of chocolates that you can just pick and choose from” or if you indeed hold that same faith and reverence toward the entire HBV.

To take such a natural question and turn it into justification to attack someone is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at Gaudiya Discussions. If you can’t discuss an issue and a perceived lack of consistency from your end then do not participate in the conversation.

I stated that if you would like to re-word your post to not include such ridiculous personal attacks then you are free to do so. I asked that you simply stick to your points on HBV and the discussion at hand and leave personal attacks out of your post.

Rasaraja dasa

I am reminded of that famous Zen story about the two monks crossing a river. One helped a young girl across by carrying her on his back. He put her down on the other side and the two monks continued on their way. After several kilometers, one turned to the other and said, "You know, you're a monk. It was really wrong for you to carry that girl on your back. She was so good-looking, you could have fallen from your vows of celibacy."

The other answered, "Brother, I put the girl down on the other side of the river. Why are you still carrying her after all these hours?"

In the same way, I think it would be interesting to see how many times Advaita has quoted my statement in full, never sparing a "shit" or a "piss" until this last post when the two words merited stars.

Perhaps we should examine the context of that specific statement.... Oddly enough, it is relevent to the very discussion at hand of death. Bhakti Tirtha Maharaja's disciples are enjoined by the same shastras as you to NOT see their spiritual master as a human being.

Where does humanity and this "human-like form" of Krishna and the saints divide and where does it intersect? Mahaprabhu went to the toilet, otherwise Gopala Guru would not have been able to tell him to chant while doing his business. Lokanath Goswami went to the toilet, otherwise Narottam would not have been able to perform the most humble service of cleaning after him. Madhavendra Puri was incontinent, allowing Ishwar Puri to set the standards of Guru seva. So I assume that with these exceptions, all the rest of Gauranga's parshads never defecated or urinated.

My point was, is and will continue to be, that saints are human beings. If we do not recognize that they are humans, we will never fully understand what their meaning is for us, who are all too human. This was, I believe, Nabadip's point in the discussion with Tarun Govindaji.

If you look back at the original posts, you will see that I apologized very early on for using language that might offend the more sensitive and self-righteous among you. I apologize again, as I do for my mysterious peccadilloes of the 1980's. It is hard to read Advaita's posts without being obliged to think that there is something more to his irascibility than any specific event, statement or action on the part of any moderator or anyone else.

Advaita, with all due respect, if you want to be the "elder statesman," the "brahmin" or whatever, then I get the impression you are going to have to show a little more substance. However, if our members agree with you, I am quite ready to accept the vox populi.

So feel free to start a poll. Any member can start a poll any time they like.

If that is the predisposition you're approaching the issue with, then may I suggest that it is not very constructive and is unlikely to further your concerns at all.

While it's on the air, why don't we have the entire post reproduced here. Emphasis in red (used sparingly, feel free to color more in red), referring to Rasaraja's notes on elements we considered objectionable, either as direct ad hominem or as insinuations of issues you know are not factual.

* * * * *

You and your eggplants! Because some Vaishnavas eat eggplant while that is forbidden in HBV you will dismiss all shastric rules? It is all relative - throw an atom bomb on your Guru's ashram, have sex with your mother, anything goes because someone is eating eggplants? You want proof that Sanatan Gosvami's verdict on brahmin birth and maryada is worth something? Then look at CC Antya 4, where he burned his footsoles to avoid touching Jagannatha's pujaris! Look at Mahaprabhu's appreciation for that before you start looking the eggplants out of someone else's mouth. Sanatan Gosvami honored brahmins both in theory (HBV chapter 1) and in practise (CC Antya 4), and he was not a 24-year old boy from Finland who knows next to nothing about India and brahmins. Regarding Narasingha, one should not even look at the face of such a person, let alone form a coalition with him. (vide SB 4.4.18) This person is driven by hate and envy, and even simply opening a file or webpage by him will contaminate the mind with the same. Find your own quotes to support your envy and your pride.

And about varnashram being obsolete? So guna and karma, which decide someone's birth (B Gita 13.21) is now also obsolete? Everything just became a big mass of coincidence? Nitya siddhas now take birth in Finland and Canada instead? The Gosvamis wrote their books for just a few centuries or decades or so, not for all time to come? Again, Raghunatha das Gosvami's Manah Siksa is a box of chocolates that you can just pick and choose from?

gurau gosthe gosthalayisu sujana bhu-sura gane....sada dambham hitva ratim apurvam - Note the words 'sada dambham hitva' - "Always give up false pride and have great love for the gods on earth, etc." Note always, not just a few decades, and then the hunting season is open for brahmins....

And then to Rasikananda - I hope you will be able to distinguish between a nitya siddha like him (sorry, most devotees here disagree - be it tacitly - that Rupa Gosvami is a pissing and shitting human being, as you and Jagat so finely said here on these pages last June) and a fat German Swami who gives diksa to Indian princes and Brajabasi Brahmins...

* * * * *

Just fyi, for anyone who doesn't know, a moderated member may post, and their post remains invisible to other members until the moderators review it and either make it visible or discuss why it's not considered appropriate. It's a useful way to avoid banning someone when you really want to try to work with them.

I believe that would depend largely on who's interpreting it for him.



Well, you've already summarized or paraphrazed most of it to him, if memory serves - and may I add, in a manner I personally did not consider reflecting the situation fairly.

Out of sheer curiosity, what would it take for you as a remedial measure for Jagadananda to undergo to stop your having an issue with him?

* * * * *

If if is of any interest, here is a thread from August 2004 that may concern you.

Wow! Such detailed charges and counter-charges, hurts and offenses and misunderstandings! To simplify matters a bit, I would like to suggest (only partly in jest) a simple code of conduct that could apply both to moderators and participants:

1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Before you hit the "Add Reply" button, ask yourself: "Why am I posting this?" If you can't come up with a defensible answer, or have any doubt about the usefulness of your post, don't post. Perhaps you might send it instead as a PM to a trusted friend, and then only post it publicly after you have seen your friend's reaction.
3. Listen to advice. If enough people agree about your own flaws, they may all be wrong, but it's worth doing some serious introspection just in case they might be right. Even if they are wrong, it's still worth doing some serious introspection to figure out why they came to their wrong conclusion.

Finally, for those moments when you are feeling like a victim and are starting to think that everybody around you is too mean, or too neophyte, or too whatever, consider this:

I feel obliged to say here I'm with Madhava on this one and I don't understand your current complaints, Advaita. The aim is to preserve a sober atmosphere of inquiry and thats all the the mods seem to me to be trying to do. In fact the tone here now is just what I thought we wanted when we were complaining last year.

Membership of any group involves give-and-take. Being senior also means becoming wiser from experience. Realising that the possible often falls short of the ideal, valuing the precious gifts the Lord grants us. Seeing the glass as half full, not half empty.

Now it may be that in specific cases the mods have been overenthusiastic in their seva, cracked down too hard in some cases, or used disrespectful or too casual language. But they've shown they're willing to improve. Point out the specific cases and then give them a chance to hone their skills. What else can we reasonably expect?

If only members realized how many times moderators bite their tongue and keep their hands off the keyboard...

It seems to me that the current standards of this forum contradict the very meaning and concept of a forum. Forums should welcome disagreement and debate. Otherwise, it is just a private club that should be open only to invited guests.
If you maintain an open forum for everybody to see and read, but then restrict the ability of so many people to respond, challenge or debate, then you are simply operating a proganda machine - not a forum. If the forum is open to public viewing, but not open to criticism and debate then its not really a forum at all.

When a forum only allows one party, one group or one sect to vent propaganda without challenge or debate, then that betrays unfairness and weakness.

If the general public is not allowed to respond to the forum, then it should be closed to viewing by the general public and the forum should be open only to the small handful of people who fit the stereotype of the forum operators.

I think everyone is right here, in as far as everyone follows his own nature and what he or she perceives as duty. Disagreements are there because we are different persons with different perceptions, and differing interpretations of what and how something should be done. The crux is that we project differing ideal models to which everyone should conform and perform, and if not everyone is doing that, we are unhappy.

The main problem in interaction is this that people tell each other what the other should do. What could be said is that in my kind of world such and such would be appropriate. But to shout at another person: "I am shocked you are doing this, you should rather do that", fails to take into account the other person's nature, and its limitations and amounts of freedom, and his/her life-experience.

We Gaudiyas who deal with such a bulk of ideals are especially endangered to lose our orientation because everyone seems to know exactly what that orientation should be like for oneself and the other. Personally I think we can take all those ideals, instructions and all only as a light shining in the dark of night, giving us some guidance, some direction in which way we could grope.

Remembering that I am really blind even though seemingly seeing, I can recognize that and venture another step in the dark, knowing that is the same for everyone else to the left and to the right, behind and infront of me.

~Hell is other people~
Jean-Paul Sartre

~Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful~
Friedrich Nietzsche

Perhaps Kshamabuddhi could share with us his idea of exactly what this "one-party" state is that runs Gaudiya Discussions? I recall that you tried your own propaganda site that no one came to. This site is, on the whole, a repository of nectar, concerted debate, and hopefully friendly behavior. I have no doubt it can change or be improved.

* * * * *

One insight I really liked on reading Garuda's book came in his commentary on chapters 30 and 31 of the Rasa Lila, which is basically a concept of community. Like the gopis who have been abandoned by Krishna, we are all, no matter how different from one another, searching for him in the dark woods. We ask the questions that burn in our heart--where is Krishna? How do we find Krishna? How can we win him over? What have we done to deserve being abandoned? And so on.

The gopis are a community in search of Krishna, united by their bond of love for him. They become even more strongly united when they join under Radha's leadership, recognizing her superior fortune, and her "superior" pain.

This is the meaning of LalM 3.39 (see UN 9.44), which I quoted on these forums some time ago Here. (But scroll through that thread.). The gopis are at first jealous of Radha, or admiring, or indifferent, but when they see the depth of her loss when she too is abandoned, they all naturally become her followers.

My point here is not that we all need to follow one leader, because our leader is Radha alone, but that we need to recognize that our problem is that we are lost in the woods, and the reason is that the person we have come looking for has absconded. And why? Who knows? Is it because we are proud or faulty in other ways, or is it just because he is trying to stir up our emotions?

No matter, we are in these woods together, and we will not find him by blaming each other for what has happened to us. But as a group, we can win his heart by singing and praying together for his mercy.

This most recent flareup started becasue Rasaraja was moved by Bhakti Tirtha Maharaj's final moments. If we analyze carefully what happened after that, we will see that Rasaraj rightly or wrongly (without exercising moderating powers) perceived a negative bias toward Bhakti Tirtha because of his Iskcon background.

Tarun, who is Rasaraj's godbrother, was the source of this perceived bias. Tarun unfortunately has some trouble expressing himself. He further complicates the problem by seizing on any disagreement as some sign of negativity on the part of (especially) Madhava or Rasaraj. This immediately complicates the situation, because what started out as a rather minor disagreement ends up exploding--as I said, a tempest in a teapot.

Had we moderators, as others have observed, seen where things were going and quickly split that thread, we may have avoided a lot of problems.

Perhaps we could say that forums like this one do function better as a medium if we treat them somewhat more intellectually, rather than with the informality of a chatroom. The two media are inherently different. When we chat, we get immediate feedback. It has the advantage of immediate response and also immediate correction of misunderstanding. It is closer to conversation, and multiple conventions have arisen whereby body language can be simulated through the keyboard--shorthand, smileys, etc. Furthermore, a chatroom situation is more intimate than a forum, which allows for more openness about one's emotional states.

A forum requires us to approach things more thoughtfully. We should think of most of our posts as articles written for an informal publication--or even as letters to the editor. In other words, a wider audience that may or may not be immediately sympathetic to us as individuals.

Most of the trouble in this forum has come not from people who have a cogent point of view to express (whether it is positive or negative in the opinion of the moderators), but from those who have a confused concept of how to handle this medium.

This means not only in posting, but in reading. All these warnings not to press too quickly on the "send" button are partly due to the fact that we respond to "triggers" in someone's post, rather than to the overall argument. This is a result of sloppy reading. If anything, this is where Rasaraj went wrong.

Distrust everyone whose only impulse is to punish the powerful.

I like the 'original' 'raganuga discussions' better than the present 'Gaudiya discussions' or the sub division 'Rupanuga discussions' , which are gravitating more towards 'vaidhi discussions'.
When I joined this group three years ago, it was quite different.
I even selected a forum name 'anu-raag' to match with 'raga-anuga'

The concept of forum as a "free for all" forum is only one of the many definitions we find for the word. A forum may also be restricted in its scope of contributors, a fact that is reflected in dictionary definitions such as "a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities".

While a propaganda machine may be overstating it, I don't think anyone will deny the fact that Gaudiya Discussion serves a very clear educational function. While a forum as "the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business" is for all citizens, Gaudiya Discussions is not really aimed for the populace who yearn for bread and circus. The target genres of Gaudiya Discussions are very clearly defined.

If someone doesn't feel comfortable with the aims and subsequent limitations of the scope of Gaudiya Discussions, then this most certainly isn't the only forum in existence, and anyone is free to start their own, as you have once done.

Thankfully you are there to help us to keep the right focus. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same adhikara, and we are all buffetted by the weight of worldly concerns.

Mahaprabhu's mercy will keep us on the right track.

~One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star~

Friedrich Nietzsche

That is a gem, Vamsi. Thanks.

It seems that there can be a tendency to take GD very seriously and seek fulfillment, acknowledgement and other forms of ego satisfaction/gratification here, often unnaturally. Participation becomes a surrogate for other, real world relationships ...but ends up mirroring them. I've often caught myself saying something careless or even cruel here and then realized that it mirrors something I've said to my wife.

And, strange as it may seem to some, that is why I am happy with the other moderators: their offline manners, their dealings with the world in which we live, and, more importantly, their ability to form relationships with others is something I have personally witnessed. They are true moderates, with a mood toward synthesis. I'm not claiming they are perfect but, simply, they are the kind of people I'd be proud to introduce to my mother.

It's too easy to be a renegade and critic, never venturing to put forth an alternative that requires you to work and sacrifice. I know because that has been my way of being for so long but I've been forced to change through marriage, parenthood, and work. I also personally choose to not live in the shadows of bogeymen--IGM, "the moderators," USA , or whatever. We do an injustice to ourselves, to others and to the richness of life each time we create these monsters that too conveniently embody things we apparently oppose. While general tendencies are a reality, wholesale homogenization is lazy and ignorant. If we find bogeymen at every turn, there's likely something wrong with us.