Voting to ban members

long over due, went on far to long. same stormy i was as well tired of all the negativity she enjoyed bringing. Theres generally a reason for ppl like kyrin just to lash out at others some do it for a reaction which in my opinion got a thrill of doin it. seen it alot in school kids say and do stuff just because to see how far they are allowed to go. In my opinion Im sure she is shocked and proud of herself that she lasted this long honestly. most ppl turn their head and dont give them the time of day and some love a fight looking for a good debate for no cause or purpose just because but her level was not just a debate more degrading, demeaning, negative smark remarks had totally lack of respect of others ; stuff that didnt need that kind of response.. To me looking for attention to see who she can rumble with if u will ruffle some feathers. Done and Done... its whatever ppl will allow and what one is willing to put up with before they gain tired of such behavior....

I for one found value in kyrin and considered some of her imput valuable.
She mentioned in a pm about this vote to ban but there seemed from her pm no clear 'this is what rule you broke'
However most ban's seem to be overturnable so we will see

I'm not much in the way of running temples, but as far as forum's go, the ignore feature is a great one for this sort of situation. People who don't a certain other's persons posts can simply put them on Ignore, then they don't have to worry about it anymore

JamesSand wrote: I'm not much in the way of running temples, but as far as forum's go, the ignore feature is a great one for this sort of situation. People who don't a certain other's persons posts can simply put them on Ignore, then they don't have to worry about it anymore

The "Jedi" ability to disengage and remain at peace in the face of supposed conflict is severely lacking here. I see Kyrin's style as instrumental in delivering such an opportunity to learn to everyone in this place.

There is a time for tolerance, and there is a time for prudence.
There is a time for welcoming, and a time for safety.
There is a time to open one's arms, and a time to close one's fists.

As badly as I hate to say this, not everyone who passes through these digital gates belongs here; some don't belong here permanently, because of growth or refusal thereof, and some don't belong here at all, because their intentions aren't good.

Whatever happened, whichever decision was made, and whoever left our fellowship, these are things we need to remember going forward.

Ladies and Gentlemen of TOTJO,

Thanks to my training Master, Roz, I've been studying Philosophy and the first week of this went into the trial of Socrates. Before this Socrates was a well known name to me but I really didn't know the story about his trial. For all who know the story, which I'm sure is probably most of you, he was basically put on trial for political reasons because people didn't like his style of questioning people or what Philosophy would call "examination".

I have mixed feelings about Socrates just as I'm sure a lot of people did because his profession seemed to be to make others look foolish from a safe position. He would simply ask questions in a way that showed the other person was in error. If the other person isn't in error then the questions/examination is simply a series of testing that their logic or wisdom has to pass through.

I'm sure Socrates appeared very arrogant to people. He goes to the oracle at Delphi and the oracle says there is no one wiser than him. That of course could be understood in different ways and Socrates himself thought that it was other people who were arrogant; convinced of their positions and selling themselves as wise men for the youth to follow. Now days we have doctors using their degrees to push weight loss pills online, using very weak science and mostly the idea that they're smart, in order to sell it. Socrates was annoying. He was supposed to be. He was the gadfly of society. He was the gatekeeper, decimating bad ideas by examination.

I don't think Socrates did a "bang up job" at protecting people's egos during his examination. So even though no one could really point to something he said... they're egos were bruised enough to say things like "well he doesn't believe in the gods and teaches our kids against the idea"... and maybe he did or didn't. But maybe he didn't teach anything he couldn't fully examine or prove?

There are a lot of new people that come and may be turned off by the negativity they find. I myself have spoken about this. However, I would also argue that a flood of new ideas that aren't sufficiently examined are even more dangerous to TOTJO. Because "The Force" could be so many things people tend to come with their own preconceived notions about what it is and what it can do. For some it's physics. For others it's magic. Without checks and balances there will be clear schisms or "denominations" of people who believe The Force is this and people who believe the Force is that and the lines will be so political that neither side can examine the other.

If Socrates were here... WWSD? I know what Kyrin would do.

Did you ever have a job that was customer facing? With so many different kinds of customers it's more likely that you'll say something to offend someone much more than the guy who just stocks the shelves. Kyrin took on a role of "Defender of Truth". Yes, it is her Truth but you have to to prove that in order to get by her. You have to prove that what you're saying is objective reality and not something that purely makes sense in your own head. I don't simply like Kyrin. I love that about Kyrin. And I think many of us probably feel the same. Because you want that watchman on the wall.

Could Kyrin do better? Could she perhaps rub less people the wrong way or take more care not to leave people feeling insulted? Absolutely. But this doesn't happen out of malicious intent and that's what such a decision to ban, imho, should be about. Because we all make mistakes. We all experience emotions. We all have bad days. Thankfully we're not all in customer service jobs. Truthfully, I wanted to make a system that focused on debating because we can all do better and with training and a little more organization there would be far less "casualties". But it's not necessarily the person... that should be sacrificed. I believe there is want and need for a better "system" through which to debate ideas that simply goes beyond the normal dictates of a public online forum.

shameless plug: Verbal Combat: Aggressive Negotiations

As someone who regularly and happily engages with Kyrin I don't want her to be banned. Kyrin is our gadfly. She's supposed to annoy us. She's supposed to push us. She's supposed to provoke us. She's supposed to ruffle feathers. She's supposed to make us think. What makes her controversial at times is also what's good. People still talk about Socrates, not in terms of how he was so negative (which is a perception) and how he examined people, but how he contributed to Philosophy. Part of Kyrin's contribution is making sure that other contributions are intellectually honest and not just a bunch of beliefs looking for others to share them. I find incredible value in that. Don't you?

Socrates got to defend himself in court. I wonder if he knew that there was no saving him because it was a political decision. Look, understand me. I'm not 100% against the politics. I understand the reasons. The reasons are not wrong. Knights... you're not wrong. However, I would beg you to consider the virtue and value of the gadfly. And I would urge you to consider a forum dedicated to debating with a topics for friendly sparring/training and an arena for all out duels with a waiver/terms of use agreement before participation. I urge you to create a platform and a space where these (member only) debates can happen away from the sensitive eyes and judgments of others.

They say nature abhors a vacuum. So how do you know there wont be 10 more Kyrins in the future? I like the Kyrin we already have. But let's not run from the challenge. Let's face it head on through DEBATE. Maybe the person who wants someone banned should have to debate that person at the risk of themselves being banned? If that were the case would they still take the risk?

Knights, please consider all that I've said. Consider all that others have said. We can use this for a positive outcome; to create a new wing of the Temple dedicated to debating while simultaneously making the rest of the forums safer for those with thinner skin. You can restrict Kyrin's access to those other forums but let her debate and PM her friends. She may not be a Jedi like others but she's still part of this community.

Did you ever have a job that was customer facing? With so many different kinds of customers it's more likely that you'll say something to offend someone much more than the guy who just stocks the shelves.

Im a salesman. I comport myself a certain way to extract money out of people. At Totjo we have people doing the same, though for the purpose of feeding their ego, not money, and people falling for it too. It's infuriating from the perspective of someone wanting to see jediism grow, but it's also good fun to watch people who think they are special fall for starter tricks, wasting time and resources on irrelevance.

steamboat28 wrote: There is a time for tolerance, and there is a time for prudence.
There is a time for welcoming, and a time for safety.
There is a time to open one's arms, and a time to close one's fists.

As badly as I hate to say this, not everyone who passes through these digital gates belongs here; some don't belong here permanently, because of growth or refusal thereof, and some don't belong here at all, because their intentions aren't good.

Whatever happened, whichever decision was made, and whoever left our fellowship, these are things we need to remember going forward.

A pretty reply, but what I keep hearing in the background is: "we got tired of dealing with her and decided she doesn't belong here".

I have no vote on this, so I'm fine with whatever decision you make. Just don't try to dress it up pretty.

My idea:

I'd forgo a vote and instead, set up a system of publicly documented warnings, to be marshalled by the Security Officer, under the eye of the council.

Each warning post must include the rule that was broken, and how.

After a set number of warnings, temporary ban. Further warnings would be a permanent ban.

If the is uncertainty if a rule was broken, the knights/council can confer about it.

I think this would hopefully lower the chance of personal bias.

Leah Starspectre wrote: My idea:

I'd forgo a vote and instead, set up a system of publicly documented warnings, to be marshalled by the Security Officer, under the eye of the council.

Each warning post must include the rule that was broken, and how.

After a set number of warnings, temporary ban. Further warnings would be a permanent ban.

If the is uncertainty if a rule was broken, the knights/council can confer about it.

I think this would hopefully lower the chance of personal bias.

While that's certainly more fair I'm reminded of the attendance policy at my company which is a source of some controversy. Let me explain.

I work at a manufacturer and some jobs are in the factory and some jobs are in the office. The company was very strict with the hours for factory workers and weren't for office staff. Well eventually someone sued so they created an attendance policy to cover everyone that was equally harsh. If you are late even by a second you get a point. Since it would be extremely harsh and eventually force them to fire even their best people, the points reset every 6 months.

We could do that here. I don't think anyone wants an unfair process or even for a person to be judged for something they did months or years ago. The past can inform our perception of the future but it shouldn't define it. I've had perfectly good debates with Kyrin and I'd really like to know exactly what rule is getting broken and where. Because for better or worse the people who are on the forums the most are what makes it feel more like a family. And you can't just delete or ban a family member without hurting the family.

Leah Starspectre wrote: My idea:

I'd forgo a vote and instead, set up a system of publicly documented warnings, to be marshalled by the Security Officer, under the eye of the council.

Each warning post must include the rule that was broken, and how.

After a set number of warnings, temporary ban. Further warnings would be a permanent ban.

If the is uncertainty if a rule was broken, the knights/council can confer about it.

I think this would hopefully lower the chance of personal bias.

We have a system like that. One disadvantage of this is the reporting can vary. For example at one point one member was going absolutely insane yet no mods were reporting the personnal attacks, wild accusations, legal and other threats.... but would fill another member's record with far-fetched theories of what they might have meant and the obscure way in which it broke the rules.

The knights were asked to vote as there were numerous complaints and accusations about this guest, yet the council could not find sufficient evidence of rulebreaking or otherwise noxious activity to warrant a ban. The VP membership affairs and one of the two security officers had been opposed to banning this guest.

Not that I have either the time or energy to find it, but I recall there being at least one temple thread outlining the code of conduct that temple members are/were expected to adhere to.

It's the task of individual temple members to stay informed, updated on, and compliant with these standards.

If people forget that this is a church and a recognized place of worship on an occasional basis, that is one thing.

Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Choosing to intentionally and willfully ignore multiple private and public warnings is also a glaring problem in and of itself, as it indicates a complete lack of interest in being a cohesive part of this community.

Although TOTJO offers itself to the public, it is not a public owned entity. It is a privately owned and operated church which (comparatively) asks very little from its membership.

I have this basic reminder in the footer of each post I make here, and it's unfortunate to see it's yet to catch on.

Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Who was it and what were the offenses?

Who was it and what were the offenses?

If you would like an itemized list, I'd be happy to provide you a (detailed) history of all previously banned members ranking either Apprentice or above. That is, when I have the time and energy to do so.

Otherwise, being a council member; I'm sure you have access to member records. I'm also sure you know which particular member(s) I'm referencing having been a key player in their public trials & consequent banning/excommunication.

EDIT:

In lieu of a complete list, here is the initial event I am referencing in the post above.

How to get excommunicated - and not even know why.

I've been the busiest Mod for many years now, but I tried to let others pick it up when I became Council Secretary a few years ago. So despite rens bs here, its more a case of very sparse and sporadic moderators coupled with the disinterest of Councillors in moderating. Yet I still do it if I happen to be online and see it, but I left Council Secretary role because I'd have less time.... but in accepting the differet natured role of Security Officer recently, I reported on questionable conduct of someone Council was trying todeal with in the 'questionable member thread' to supprt their decision making - until ren decided to misrepresent all this repeatidly in public as me acting biased lol. So Council then decided it would let Knights decide by vote.

I abstained anyway, but rens spinning bs again. I had to type this with my tv remote on the screen keyboard so probably wont reply as it a hand numb'er!

Kohadre wrote: Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Tu quoque fallacy. You are suggesting that because other members have been unfairly banned, Kyrin should be unfairly banned as well. Is consistency in bad policy more important than correcting it?

Manu wrote:

Kohadre wrote: Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Tu quoque fallacy. You are suggesting that because other members have been unfairly banned, Kyrin should be unfairly banned as well. Is consistency in bad policy more important than correcting it?

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. However, interesting interpretation.

Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

Kohadre wrote: Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

From my point of view, this is an improvement. Long standing members getting banned in the past would be a bad thing, so Kyrin (who by the way, has not been a Knight here and thus should not be held up to as high a standard as Knights are) getting cut some slack seems like an improvement to me.

I will grant you that Kyrin has been at times explicitly hostile; she's not into the whole passive-aggressive stealth disrespect that other members are so fond of. Both styles can be disrespectful. Only one style gets frowned upon.

Manu wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Kohadre wrote: Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

From my point of view, this is an improvement. Long standing members getting banned in the past would be a bad thing, so Kyrin (who by the way, has not been a Knight here and thus should not be held up to as high a standard as Knights are) getting cut some slack seems like an improvement to me.

I will grant you that Kyrin has been at times explicitly hostile; she's not into the whole passive-aggressive stealth disrespect that other members are so fond of. Both styles can be disrespectful. Only one style gets frowned upon.

There is a huge difference between using expletives within a post, and putting careful thought into an argument which differentiates from a conflicting viewpoint. There's an even greater difference from writing out a post to engage in debate, and writing out a post with the specific intention to emotionally charge specific member(s) with the end goal to incite a fight within the forums.

As far as "passive-aggressive stealth disrespect" is concerned, if any member on the forum has to put forth the effort to deconstruct an original post, and then look for specific things to become offended about, and then go further as to choose to become offended about them, I fail to see how that becomes the authors fault. Taking things out of context and then reinterpreting them in a response is a further attempt to incite arguments which otherwise wouldn't have, nor needed to exist.

As I interpret it, one of the key foundations of our doctrine is the ignorance or otherwise outright dismissal of emotion. As Jedi, we should seek to not feel, or at the very least not allow ourselves to be emotionally influenced by others.

To put forth an outright hostile presence within the community, and then seek to have that presence excused; accepted; and celebrated goes against my understanding of what this community was founded upon and what it seeks to accomplish.

Kohadre wrote:

Manu wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Kohadre wrote: Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

From my point of view, this is an improvement. Long standing members getting banned in the past would be a bad thing, so Kyrin (who by the way, has not been a Knight here and thus should not be held up to as high a standard as Knights are) getting cut some slack seems like an improvement to me.

I will grant you that Kyrin has been at times explicitly hostile; she's not into the whole passive-aggressive stealth disrespect that other members are so fond of. Both styles can be disrespectful. Only one style gets frowned upon.

There is a huge difference between using expletives within a post, and putting careful thought into an argument which differentiates from a conflicting viewpoint. There's an even greater difference from writing out a post to engage in debate, and writing out a post with the specific intention to emotionally charge specific member(s) with the end goal to incite a fight within the forums.

As far as "passive-aggressive stealth disrespect" is concerned, if any member on the forum has to put forth the effort to deconstruct an original post, and then look for specific things to become offended about, and then go further as to choose to become offended about them, I fail to see how that becomes the authors fault. Taking things out of context and then reinterpreting them in a response is a further attempt to incite arguments which otherwise wouldn't have, nor needed to exist.

As I interpret it, one of the key foundations of our doctrine is the ignorance or otherwise outright dismissal of emotion. As Jedi, we should seek to not feel, or at the very least not allow ourselves to be emotionally influenced by others.

To put forth an outright hostile presence within the community, and then seek to have that presence excused; accepted; and celebrated goes against my understanding of what this community was founded upon and what it seeks to accomplish.

So, I will admit openly right now that I have broken every rule above while learning my path here. I will actually admit to engaging Kyrin in this style, because I was pissed. That lead me a bit to reading everything less emotionally, suddenly I didn't dislike a lot of people I did. Kyrin know I still don't approve of all the ways she handled/s conversations. Directly, during this time we conversed during active conversation and forums, I noticed some improvement in tone. Knights if you have already voted mentioning this with is a mute point. But, I know this was approached before with Senan (and was being done well and by a knight and someone much more versed in argument than myself but that pairing mentor situation is something to mention.

I have to become very staunchly against banning in all honesty, unless, there is no solution or it's one of the major breaking of TOS and well, certain sets of morality and actions.

I can;t believe I am defending Kyrin (believe me, wouldn't have seen it coming about 2 years ago ). But it's bigger than just this instance. So, I ask this to get my point and why I have second thoughts too my older reaction. Is this now the line? This is the you are banned for directed, indirect and sometimes straight Dickishness?

I guess I just need to know that, because I think, it is exactly where we place this line that decided whether we as Jedi are acting emotionally or not. Obviously, there is more to this discussion with in the knights and council I am not privy too so, there is a place of ignorance in this response. Whatever the decision is or was honestly there were some solid grounds to it and I won't argue with the outcome.

Just a question and my 2 cents wrapped up into one.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos