moderate fairly

[Peter]

It is not fair to allow personal attacks from some users
and delete in-kind responses from other users.

It is not fair to allow some users to question the motives of the monks charged with preserving the scriptures
but disallow other users to question the motives of those users who would question those monks.

Moderate fairly guys, even if you are strongly invested in one side over the other.

[tiltbillings]

Moderation, as you know, is not a science. We are trying. It would help for all of us to keep in mind that we can all contribute by a more skillful approach of being mindful of what we say and how we say it.

Of these the worse is he who to one angry
Replies with wrath.
Do not reply with wrath to one who's angry
And win a battle hard to win!
You course then for the weal of both,
Yourself and of the other one.
You understand the other's angry mood,
Remaining mindful and at peace. -- S i 162

[Annapurna]

I thought it was fair moderation to delete ad hominem attacks. .

[David N. Snyder]

Moderate fairly guys, even if you are strongly invested in one side over the other.

Hi Peter,

I don't think any one 'side' is invested in more here at Dhamma Wheel. For the moment I am just an admin., not moderating.

Bhante Dhammanando and Ben would probably place themselves in the Mahavihara Classical Theravada.

Retro and tilt probably lean towards the Modern Theravada; therefore, an even distribution to the main perspectives within Theravada.

edit: On a second reading, I see you could be referring to mods. individually, not DW as a whole. Never mind then, about my references to DW as a whole. 'Ad hominems apparently were removed from posts from both sides in the Women can't get enlightenment thread.'

[genkaku]

Dear Peter -- I agree with you ... and that is not an ad hominem attack.

"Ad hominem" means "to the man" and refers to comments about hairdos, clothing, and other personal adornments. But the term can be conveniently extended by those who feel under attack to include biases, religions, philosophies and the like. Thus, someone may say something idiotic or questionable about Buddhism and a respondent may question the foundation of the argument without being accused of attacking the (wo)man making that argument.

Of course some people are so attached to their philosophies (some Fundamentalist Christians come to mind, but they are not alone) that they interpret any questioning or counter-argument as a personal, slanderous assault on ... dum-da-dum-dum! ... The Truth. This is as unfortunate as it is common: How can you claim to like me if you don't like what I like?

As suggested above, I think it behooves all of us to think twice about what we may say. But equally, I think it behooves all of us to think twice about what we may hear.

[Ben]

Hi all

I've been distracted from my mod duties as a result of organising and coordinating an interstate move.

At Dhamma Wheel I have actively encouraged the membership and participation of people from non-Theravadin backgrounds to complement their practice and study by using the facility here to learn about and discuss the Theravada. There are Mahayanist and Vajrayanist practitioners as I am sure there are members who have not taken refuge in the Triple Gem. To ensure that we have an environment that welcomes all so that they may learn and benefit from this unique and precious path, I ask that you be patient, extend generosity of spirit.

Dhamma Wheel is a venue for practitoners to discover and discuss the Theravada. That means, that even in places like the 'lounge' a Theravadin point of view will predominate. Members unfamiliar with the structure of the forums here should review the terms of service and special guidelines for individual fora. Discussions that are acceptable in one forum, maybe completely offtopic in another. The Classical and Abhidhamma sub-fora are for those members who wish to develop a greater understanding of the Abhidhamma and the Tipitaka and the ancient commentaries. In those fora, those sources are considered authoritative for the purposes of discussion. In those fora, personal opinions, personal interpretations based on study or one's faith in the supreme wisdom of a teacher, insights gained from one's own meditative experiences, revelations from contact with devas, are all off-topic. Posts that argue that critique or question the tipitaka, early commentaries and later scholars faithful to the 'classical' point of view are off-topic. I ask that all members respect the boundaries of discussion that is permitted in each fora.

I also ask that all members reflect on what they about to submit and review whether it is faithful to the spirit of mutual respect, friendliness and is beneficial to oneself and others.
Thanks for your time and cooperation.
Metta

Ben

[Individual]

It is not fair to allow personal attacks from some users
and delete in-kind responses from other users.

It is not fair to allow some users to question the motives of the monks charged with preserving the scriptures
but disallow other users to question the motives of those users who would question those monks.

Moderate fairly guys, even if you are strongly invested in one side over the other.

If you have a specific issue, please bring it up. Otherwise, you have posted very good advice. The moderators should moderate fairly.

[Individual]

Dhamma Wheel is a venue for practitoners to discover and discuss the Theravada. That means, that even in places like the 'lounge' a Theravadin point of view will predominate. Members unfamiliar with the structure of the forums here should review the terms of service and special guidelines for individual fora. Discussions that are acceptable in one forum, maybe completely offtopic in another. The Classical and Abhidhamma sub-fora are for those members who wish to develop a greater understanding of the Abhidhamma and the Tipitaka and the ancient commentaries. In those fora, those sources are considered authoritative for the purposes of discussion. In those fora, personal opinions, personal interpretations based on study or one's faith in the supreme wisdom of a teacher, insights gained from one's own meditative experiences, revelations from contact with devas, are all off-topic. Posts that argue that critique or question the tipitaka, early commentaries and later scholars faithful to the 'classical' point of view are off-topic. I ask that all members respect the boundaries of discussion that is permitted in each fora.

I worry about my own speech there, that is, given the predominance of Mahayana and Theravada comparisons. It looks a bit silly for Mahayana Buddhists to keep bringing up Mahayana in a Theravada forum. It looks like proselytizing, which is just awful.

[Ben]

Thanks Individual

I think the important thing is, as you have suggested, to moderate one's own behaviour.
Because this is a Theravada forum, there will be comparisons between Theravada and the other great traditions. But the place to make those comparisons is not the Classical or Abhidhamma sub-fora. Within fora like General Theravada, Dhamma free-for-all, so long as members remain respectful then the presentation of a non-Theravada point of view for comparison or to give a particular context, is not going to be a problem.

Everyone should feel comfortable here. One should not feel that by entering Dhamma Wheel that it is an exclusive club for Theravadins only. We are all here to learn and for the companionship of our friends on the path. I can say that I owe a great debt of gratitude to my Mahayana and Vajrayana friends for teaching me so much about Buddhism and myself.
Metta

Ben

[Cittasanto]

I have never seen moderation where it wasn't needed.
I have seen people over react to something said and need moderating as a result.
moderate ourselves and accept that we step out of line and need telling from time to time

[Jechbi]

My suggestion is, before you post something about another person's faults, ask yourself whether you would be comfortable sending the message by PM to that person instead, out of the public eye. If the message is really worthwhile, that's going to be more effective anyway. Nobody likes their warts pointed out publicly.

[Annapurna]

Dear Peter -- I agree with you ... and that is not an ad hominem attack.

"Ad hominem" means "to the man" and refers to comments about hairdos, clothing, and other personal adornments. But the term can be conveniently extended by those who feel under attack to include biases, religions, philosophies and the like. Thus, someone may say something idiotic or questionable about Buddhism and a respondent may question the foundation of the argument without being accused of attacking the (wo)man making that argument.

Of course some people are so attached to their philosophies (some Fundamentalist Christians come to mind, but they are not alone) that they interpret any questioning or counter-argument as a personal, slanderous assault on ... dum-da-dum-dum! ... The Truth. This is as unfortunate as it is common: How can you claim to like me if you don't like what I like?

As suggested above, I think it behooves all of us to think twice about what we may say. But equally, I think it behooves all of us to think twice about what we may hear.

Dear Genkaku, here is what Wiki says:

Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument.

It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

[Moderator edit]

A

[tiltbillings]

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

Psychologically and spiritually "analyzing" or "characterizing" others -- especially in a negative manner --, with whom one is in discussion/debate, is not appropriate to this forum and will be considered an ad hominem. Though the moderators here will moderate as necessary, it is really up to the participants of Dhamma Wheel to practice Right Speech and to be considerate of others no matter how much they may annoy you, no matter how wrong you think they are. Address the ideas presented, not the individual's supposed personal short comings as a meditator or as a scholar or what their supposed motivation might be.

[Annapurna]

My suggestion is, before you post something about another person's faults, ask yourself whether you would be comfortable sending the message by PM to that person instead, out of the public eye. If the message is really worthwhile, that's going to be more effective anyway. Nobody likes their warts pointed out publicly.

That's a good suggestion.

Nobody likes their warts pointed out publicly.

Plus, the Buddha said we shouldn't:

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

If I fail anybody here, please PM me.

[Cittasanto]

Here is another few tips

try to not be self rightious,
know it all,
or look how $h17 your opinions are in comparison to mine so when moderation is needed the person is crying because they flew off the handle about being the victim when they started it all because of one of the above

Look to ourselves before blaming others