Consistancy

Brick wrote: I do worry that preventing us from talking about 'sensitive subjects' will seriously stagnate conversations here. Religion, abortion, Black Lives Matter, gender are the most obvious example of subject which people are extremely sensitive about. In the past we've had many, many threads on all these topics. Are we now banned from discussing them, lest another user feel 'antagonised'?

I suspect, or I'd like to think at least, the answer to that would be no. But it's not really very clear, is it?

The answer is these topics are fine to talk about. The actual wording is

Do not antagonize another member based on history or another sensitive subject.
Do not personally attack others in public or in PM
Dialogue about ideas and do not attack people
Take breaks when needed

I paired these together because it is clear when looking at as a whole it is about intent, listening to others when they ask to be left alone on a particular topic and listening to mods etc if asked to stop. Basically, it's like trolling. Sure we cant always point to it clearly, sometimes it can seem like trolling when it's not, but we more or less know it when we see it and will ask things to be settled before taking action. So long as people are discussing ideas and not people they should be fine. If a person does not wish to engage on a topic with you leave them alone about it. If a mod says cool it for a bit then cool it and probably talk to the mod to ensure no misunderstanding is had.

Often people make a bigger idea of what could happen vs what the intent of the rules are. The intent is to prevent a user from say harassing someone about their religion after being asked to stop by the person or a mod. Its vauge because as I said before its impossible to write a rule for all situations and people are clever when they want to insult someone or give them a hard time. So leeway is needed to handle that sort of thing.

A good example, swearing and personal attacks are against the rules. If I said to someone foxtrot uniform charlie kilo, yankee oscar uniform. That would technically not be a swear or insult IF reading at face value. But if you use the NATO phonetic alphabet or other similar military alphabet its easy to see what is being done. If the rules are black and white no action can be taken. If leeway is given then we can act to stop someone who thinks they are slick

As someone who made it a sport to unlock locked threads i can only say that banning , blocking , locking and other measures only work with a clear explanation , not more guidelines and rules. Firstly the Temple cannot afford a policeman to watch over all the threads and posts ( believe me we have tried and failed , or fell asleep) Secondly , as a Temple one would expect people to behave , give eachother the benefit of the doubt , be grown up enough to deal with critisism , have an open mind , are not here to win arguments but to learn from them , be able to change ones mind etc ...Thirdly to have say in matters even if that pisses of the higher up in ranks , to be able to speak ones mind , unhindered by the whiny elements and people that feel sorry for themselves because they are not understood in real life , ones gender or political , preference ,favorite music should not have to matter here , because we are here to learn .

If you try to cut out the negativity out of a learning enviroment , you are left with an empty shell pretending to be Jedi , this is not only an illusion but also dangerous to those who think they are safe here , because they are hollowed out instead of kicked into shape to put it rudely.

I think one thing to do for the higher ranks is to start rude topics themselves and challenge us to be mellow

From my perspective, there is one common denominator between all antagonizers and all those who react sensitively, and unfortunately this is something that the concept of Jediism seems to breed because of its conceptual nature: self-righteousness. This has been an element behind just about every good and bad intent here, with people trying to either out-jedi each other, or to put themselves apart from the rest by "rebelling against the sheep". It is this mentality that creates most people's tendency to come into any topic, read someone's post with a mis-informed assumption already decided and ready to fire without questioning for clarity or without intent on approaching from someone else's shoes. It is self-righteousness that manifests the generalized concepts of the "special snowflake" as well as the "troll".

The bad news, is that due to the natural concept of Jediism (being all about "virtue" and the such), combined with the fact this temple is on the internet, you're never going to get rid of this. Create as many rules, regulations, IP lessons, etc, and it won't change much. The good news is that the sooner any single one here really understands this (the nature of their own self-righteousness as a Jedi and how it screws with their interactions with others), the sooner one can learn how to set it aside to open up more cooperative communication and forgive the others for their own,

Doctrine of the Jedi Order.

Just stopped by to check messages. Happy to see it's business as usual here at ToTJO.

Kohadre wrote: Doctrine of the Jedi Order.

Just stopped by to check messages. Happy to see it's business as usual here at ToTJO.

Good to see you , i know you are well , stay well :laugh:

Proteus wrote: From my perspective, there is one common denominator between all antagonizers and all those who react sensitively, and unfortunately this is something that the concept of Jediism seems to breed because of its conceptual nature: self-righteousness. This has been an element behind just about every good and bad intent here, with people trying to either out-jedi each other, or to put themselves apart from the rest by "rebelling against the sheep". It is this mentality that creates most people's tendency to come into any topic, read someone's post with a mis-informed assumption already decided and ready to fire without questioning for clarity or without intent on approaching from someone else's shoes...

Mhm, and what do you propose should be the punishment for this kind of wrongthink, then? What is just retribution, in your opinion, for not displaying clearly enough that you were indeed thinking what someone else wanted you to think, or for not showing sufficient signs of feeling the way someone else wanted you to feel?

See, the problem here, in my humble opinion, is that any of this is made out to be something that ought not happen, much less be tolerated. This, as far as I can see, may only end in one of two ways: Either those new rules remain tame and meaningless, because of the impossible demand made of any plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant's guilt, or they will be means of total and unabridged tyranny, because of the impossible demand made of any defendant to demonstrate their innocence. If I am missing a third option here, I'm all ears.

The bad news, is that due to the natural concept of Jediism (being all about "virtue" and the such), combined with the fact this temple is on the internet, you're never going to get rid of this. Create as many rules, regulations, IP lessons, etc, and it won't change much. The good news is that the sooner any single one here really understands this (the nature of their own self-righteousness as a Jedi and how it screws with their interactions with others), the sooner one can learn how to set it aside to open up more cooperative communication and forgive the others for their own,

What of this, by the way, does not reek of that same "You're doing the Jedi thing all wrong. Here, let me show you..." that you are alleging is the root of so much of this?
Do we think of ourselves that we are correct, be it morally or factually, at least on the one thing we are speaking of at any given time? Maybe, sure. I do, I reckon. Why should I set that aside? I feel no shame in it. And I daresay it may well not get in my way much either: I'm happy to defend my position until I cease holding it. I'm happy to cease holding it once my reason is shown to me to be faulty, too...
Hah, well, but aren't I now alleging my own open-mindedness, huh, aren't I in merely saying this being just that kind of self-righteous. Pretending like my self-righteousness is holier than thine, that it doth not my path block nor my speaks with others. Well, of course we can frame it as bragging, as a shameless display of self-righteousness. Indeed, any attempt at defending oneself against your assessment, and any general disagreement with it, could be framed so. Is that a fair characterization, though, or a charitable reading?
Few, I reckon, would disagree with you, that of course immaturely high opinions of oneself can get in the way of productive communication. I don't know how commonplace a problem that specifically is here either, or how the general ideology of TOTJO (to the extent that there is one) breeds or attracts people with flaws like that. But I would question just how often that turns out at the root of conflicts with the first half dozen or so names that come to mind when you think of TOTJO and controversial people, just from what I gathered in the past interacting with them. This is also reducing the content of those conflicts to personality flaws, as if there is no legitimate debate to be had on the subjects themselves that are raised. Surely, that is not what you meant to imply, but it is an easy leap to make, wouldn't you say.

It is often said that conflict stems in many forms but the root is selfishness and or greed. The “thirst” - if you will.
As a modern day Jeddist , our doctorine isn’t solely belonging to us. It’s taken from a whole world of ideas and basic beliefs each society and groups or cultures acknowledge some how some way as - relevant.
Our doctorine is for the individual and for them alone - and one will only find conflict with the individual interpitation they- themselfs have with it. One of the main stems of conflict can be called “ I’m right and your wrong.” It’s a common one and transcends everything. To be able to acknowladge the inherit worth of all and then to act out of that idea and subscribe or revert to I’m right your wrong - is often where conflict plays its most best role. It’s truly the humans best wrestling match to date. I’m not funny preach or lecture any one about themselfs. Not my cup of tea. I know me and the freedoms I have expected and wish them at some part or even some level to any one willing to take for their own.

Here - the conflict common is - your wrong and then a slew of blind hate or name calling or even strategic lacking at ones idea or faith or stance. In a place that - as I teach- each as a human is capable and has the right to choose their own Jedi ism- faith beliefs practices and version and even to what length and balance and usage- it gets difficult to impose boundaries. The obvious are easy- it’s the small little - skirts around or the indirect insults and the indirect hate that we are simply trying to avoid.
I don’t lock a thread . If I see a problem I personally ask the moderators to do and act according to what we have trusted them to do. For the most part - it works. The problem is the in between and when is long enough. ? That’s the question we ask and how to better - not combat or punish - but what’s a better way to handle it ?

Mhm, and what do you propose should be the punishment for this kind of wrongthink, then? What is just retribution, in your opinion, for not displaying clearly enough that you were indeed thinking what someone else wanted you to think, or for not showing sufficient signs of feeling the way someone else wanted you to feel?

Well, to clarify, I'm not speaking in any manner that concerns punishment. What I express is a simple observation. When I watch how people here interact, I'm merely observing to learn more about human social behavior in different contexts, and the presence of self-righteousness is simply what I observe (whether good or bad, its just what it is). But by punishment, If you mean consequences though, then that's easy - what you get is what we have now. It's just the way it is.

See, we have people who have caught on to these kinds of things and have learned how to respond with a certain manner of ethic that takes this into consideration, and you have others who just mouth off whatever they very well please with little concern about it. It just perplexes me that after the natural consequences of others lashing back occur in one way or another (be it council locking threads or someone else trying to shoot holes in a post), they sooner or later take complain about it. One would think they must have known what they were asking for when putting out their words with little regard to what might happen next.

But this is just the way of things in any such community as this one. You can't really do anything actually about it. What we have in rules are more ways that we work around it. The thing is, not only can it not be avoided or "fixed" or punished, but the more one tries, the worse it will get. This is why when various kinds of administrative or moderated action is taken, someone complains about it. We can't not moderate of course as that would result in the same result as moderating too much (or in the wrong ways). I feel this is just a matter of the temple not pressing so hard on itself about its own natural tendencies, tendencies which are a result of the natural DNA of Jediism. It's not good or bad, it's just a feature, and one that I suppose members would get benefit of understanding.

Well this topic has gone down the rabbit hole.

We're discussing the potential rules and otential additions or changes to them, not the perceived philisophical issues that could arise from implementing such rules.

Arisaig wrote: Well this topic has gone down the rabbit hole.

We're discussing the potential rules and otential additions or changes to them, not the perceived philisophical issues that could arise from implementing such rules.

But why is it we can talk about one and not the other?

By all means, please do continue discussing how you guys would like to shape the rules. My input is simply for helping to consider what the rules may or may not affect (so that when in the future people are wondering "well, we did this and yet, this is still happening!", you might at this point have an idea as to why, or if it's considered in the first place, you'll know what you might be wasting your time on and what you won't be wasting your time on).