Discussion about discussion

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

In a open forum setting is there —- a responsibility the OP has ? Things they “should “ be doing or have a responsibility to do? I know of threads started and never followed up and yet the chat still goes on. Years - later — they continue after the OP is long gone or archived subjects re birthed. Old lessons given years again now re taught. So - is the opinion of the OP moot when offense or request becomes present? Can it be respected ? Is that a choice and who can make it ? If it is made - the decision to respect it -in this setting can’t some one just post some where else and ask for its continued ness? (bad grammar I know)

The only responsibility I see the OP as having is following the rules of the forum. Once a subject is put into the wild it is no longer owned by the OP but the the active members of the forum and that means through all time. The OP may take responsibility for the opinions they express but they are not responsible for, nor do they own, the discussion about the subject itself.

I would agree with you but only depending on the impersonal nature of the subject matter. If you were posting a cat meme then of course that is simply something shared for consumption and who cares? But if the subject matter is personal then it is always personal. As stated in the definition of "my" I just quoted to Ren, my post is still my post. My thread is still my thread. My drawings are my drawings. My jokes are my jokes. My life is my life. Since people don't refer to the threads they started as "that thread that I started" ownership is naturally implied. Anything I share that I can call "my" ______ I own. And if I own it it should go without saying that I'm responsible for it. The degree to which one is responsible for the things they own or create depends. I'm responsible for my children until they're old enough to make all their own decisions and I'm not directly responsible, still, for everything they do. However... those are still my kids. I'm responsible.

If this forum lasts a hundred years your words will still be your words. And I would expect people who are quoting you to reference your name or forum handle. It doesn't cease to be yours later. Maybe you said something 10 years ago that you now disagree with. It would be understandable to take less responsibility but you can't change that you still said it and were responsible for saying it. Prominent people are finding this out first hand.

The OP's post is the foundation of the thread. Every other post is a response. Therefore the OP's first post is like the cover of a book. It's how you get to all the pages inside. It's how you identify the book. If the author doesn't want to be identified relative to however things get out of hand then they should have a right to request moderation because that's literally what moderation is for. They can't unsay anything they said or delete what people said that they don't like. All of those posts will continue for the record. But if the OP cannot have a reasonable expectation of fairness and sensible moderation then I would understand if most people simply chose not to post new topics. And is that what we want?

ZealotX wrote: What you suggest is basically saying someone said something. Let's talk about that thing regardless of who said it. While this would seem to have merit in theory, in practice what you're asking is for everyone to divorce themselves for everything they say and every idea they share so as to not be offended. You're moving the burden of offense onto the offended rather than the offensive person.

No, not at all. Everyone can be as involved in their own saying and as offended at reactions to it as they please. I have no objections to that whatsoever. I don't blame or shame anyone for their feeling offended, it is not any kind of burden in my view. Some of them will be unable to muster substantive responses because of their feeling of offense and while that is regrettable in the sense that there is one perspective we'd be missing out on because its holder is too offended to contribute it at the time, I can live with that, too.

I'm going to link to this thread (which was also locked) simply as a teachable moment.
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/122322-you-can-t-always-get-what-you-want?start=0

Even though no name was mentioned you'll see that the person who fit the shoe in question immediately responded because it was taken personally. And therefore the response was in-kind, according to the poster's perception and subsequent offense. And this occurred without a name being supplied. Was this idea, posted in "Open Discussion" divorced from the people originally involved? Clearly not. In this case the OP couldn't have known that his post would cause offense because he took precautions against it by not using names; trying not to make it personal. Why? Because if the person is known (like the OP of another thread) then now there is a person attached to that idea.

I do appreciate your healthy sense of humour. As you see from that original post, it was designed, through and through, to be a personal jab. No name was called, but offense was a primary, if not the primary purpose of that post, and it is rather explicitly and transparently so. I assume that your suggestion that the intention could have possibly been any different is in jest, because that is the single most charitable interpretation I can muster.

If you and I are sparing with a lightsaber and I see an opening, I'm going to stop short of actually cutting you. If I cannot anticipate the harm that my lightsaber can cause during a non lethal duel then I have no business wielding a lightsaber. And as novel an idea as it might sound you cannot swing a lightsaber against another lightsaber without understanding there is a real person attached to and holding the other weapon.

Lightsabers are glowing chainsaws that are an edge in every direction that can cut thorugh pretty much anything that isn't Superman. I will entertain comparisons between lightsabers and intellectual discourse if and when one of the purposes or effects of the latter becomes physically dismembering the wielder's foes.

If someone is telling you they believe in Santa Claus your job is not to debate them on the existence of Santa Claus. Yes, you may disagree just like every other person on the forum. However, if that's their personal belief then it isn't just an idea. It's personal.

Since you do not employ me, with all due respect, you do not get to decide what is or is not my job. That being said, do feel free to search through the journals to find me debating anyone's personal beliefs when unasked for. I'm not saying it didn't happen - it did, once, if memory serves, sometime in either December of 2011 or early 2012, so do feel free to find it, if you must. I'm sure I'm far from the only one to make that mistake. However, I daresay this is not a widespread problem. My point is, there is a section dedicated to personal expression that is explicitly stated to be beyond discussion and hence debate, and most of us respect that most of the time. If someone posts their Santa beliefs up for open discussion, then my job is to choose whether to participate in the discussion or not. How personal the belief is to them may factor into that decision, but it is ultimately my choice to make and no amount of the poster's personal attachment to the post absolves me of that freedom.

If someone calls your mother names and says "hey, why are you upset? I wasn't talking about you so don't take it personal." that's stupid. It is personal because that's your mom.

Both of these are stupid arguments. It's neither necessarily non-personal just because it is about my mom rather than myself, nor is it necessarily personal just because she happens to be my mom. I think it is rather reductive and demeaning to say that one cannot think objectively (as far as one ever can, that is) about something one happens to have personal attachments to. Granted, simply calling her names may not be any kind of objective assessment - positive or negative - of her character to begin with, but then I wouldn't take those cheap shots any more seriously than I do this argument.

I'm not saying never debate anything personal. There are times in a discussion I may include a personal experience, someone I know, etc. However, whether it is fodder for the other person to use is based on my intended purpose in bringing it up. I expect people to be sensitive with such things and it should be discussed only with my invitation. If I resend that invitation that should also be respected.

I disagree. Whether you gave the initial spark to a conversation or not, if it has evolved to be between other individuals, your freedom extends as far as to disengage from it. You can voice your displeasure with the continuation of the discussion, too, and you do not have to tolerate it on any territory you have dominion over. But you are not entitled to others disengaging from it entirely at your behest any more than you are entitled choose what others are free to discuss generally. After all, they could formally disengage from the discussion you began, just as you demand, and the very next second start a technically "new" one on the very same topic, at pretty much the same point they left off at before. If in your opinion they are free to do that, then they might as well have continued uninterrupted and you are not free to shut down discussions you start in any practical sense. If they are not, then you, by claiming the might to arbitrarily forbid the beginning of a new discussion, become the arbiter of what people are allowed to speak about in general.

Religion and politics are typically thought to be too personal to discuss causally for this reason. If you don't really know the person then you don't really know what you might say that will offend them. And if someone doesn't care whether or not they're offended then in my opinion that person should refrain from discussing private or personal matters. Because while it may "just" be an idea to you, it's not "just" an idea to them. Therefore consent is necessary.

Consent to what? Every topic anyone wishes to discuss may be too personal for someone somewhere out there. I refuse to retrieve their consent every time I open my mouth. I assume that they implicitly consent to participate in the discussion the moment they start or engage with it, and I can do nothing to force them to stick with it for any longer than they wish to. If person A wants to discuss topic X with person B, I find it ridiculous to demand that they first make sure persons C₁ through C_n consent to that discussion taking place at all.

ZealotX wrote: As stated in the definition of "my" I just quoted to Ren, my post is still my post. My thread is still my thread. My drawings are my drawings. My jokes are my jokes. My life is my life. Since people don't refer to the threads they started as "that thread that I started" ownership is naturally implied.

Sorry but you are just wrong here. The owner of the material posted here is not the property of the poster. It becomes the property of the temple. This is clearly stated in the terms of use for this board. You either comply with those or you dont post here.

As a Church any posts made on the forums become part of our records and we have the right to keep those records

Y’all do realize we are on google and search engines on the world wide as well ... each post and statement is stored and archived. Does anyone know the logistics or actual “wholeness” of that? @ ren or brj or any one with that knowledge???

I think the extent of ownership being discussed is as a reference to creation, not possessiveness of usage. Like how a Knight recently wanted no-one using their journal content out of context for discussions, and a Councillor decided to take that as if they were somehow exerting restrictions on the hosting of that content on the site. It seems to be missing the point, for some reason deliberate or accidental.

The point is the topics sometimes have meaning and attacking that topic is attacking those meanings. It tends to stop people being personal and discussing vulnerabilities, which of course is where the real growth can happen. Now I know some folk will use that as trigger to cry weakness and hiding, but that would be ignoring there is an effective way and an ineffective way to deal with those things... indeed that is what is trying to be discussed, some folk think being supportive and exploratory is more effective and some folk think being mocking and argumentative is more effective.

And so pretending its not deliberate provocation for a second, the confusion might be that ignoring the association between poster and replies as a justification for ignoring the persons connection to their topic post is of a concern to some because it has and is creating an environment where posting is becoming considered a waste of time - for its seen that the forum activity shifts away from its intended purpose as a Jedi forum to just another anything goes forum. I'm not sure if its to exercise defensive obfuscation in reply to responses or just sheer boredom, but for many its not Jediism and so bug out.

Adder wrote: I t
some folk think being mocking and argumentative is more effective.

What folk is that exactly? I would not characterize any deep exploration of serious subjects here typically contain either of these elements.

Let me clarify something to you.

I am not at all advocating that no one can ever be offended or that the PC police should be on scene, guns drawn, ready to serve and protect everyone on the internet who may or may not have snowflake tendencies. I certainly do not. And what those people do with their time is their own business. If they see people negatively that's their view. As much as I'd like to put a good public face on TOJO to enable a positive environment that can sustain growth, at the same time no path is right for everyone. I'm pragmatic.

Instead, you should understand my opinion within the context of protecting only one person in any one particular thread; that being the person who started that thread. Participants can disagree but if the OP is met with disrespect or personal attacks or too much negativity in general then that discourages people from posting new topics which gives me less conversations to partake in and enjoy and hence I spend less time on this site than I'd like. Therefore, it not only negatively impacts them but myself as well as a participant on this forum. It is always possible on any forum, for the "air" to become so toxic that the only people that want to participate are the ones making it toxic. And if "open discussion" is code for "say the wrong thing and a mob will leap down your throat" then eventually people will get the point and there will be fewer and fewer discussions. I remember checking for topics for weeks if not months without seeing anything.

As you see from that original post, it was designed, through and through, to be a personal jab

Was it though? What was it that made it into a personal jab? Are you somehow more aware of the internal thought processes of the OP, or were you reacting as a member of the audience and simply felt that it was negative towards the unnamed individual in question? Was it the implication that there was something this person didn't know?

I will entertain comparisons between lightsabers and intellectual discourse if and when one of the purposes or effects of the latter becomes physically dismembering the wielder's foes.

Um... with all due respect... it's a metaphor. Just like how the different religions use "Sword" as a metaphor of truth of which I'm sure you are already familiar.

Since you do not employ me, with all due respect, you do not get to decide what is or is not my job.

Indeed I do not. You are correct. But I would venture to assume that you also do not collect a paycheck to debate people on online forums. If I am wrong then I need you to tell me how you got that job so I can apply too. Because that's cool. So when I say it's not your job, I literally mean it's not something you are required to do or something you're getting compensated for; meaning that it is entirely optional-as in not a must-as in not a need to be fulfilled, quelled, subdued, consummated, etc. You do not "need" to be here at all(not a jab), so being here to debate is even less so unless the Council has some type of new program that I'm unaware of.

Suggesting that, because someone puts something personal in the open discussion forum, it means that their feelings about it are no longer relevant, I think is insensitive and rude. If people want to continue an off topic conversation that has developed from the OP then they should start a new thread as proper forum etiquette dictates(https://www.thespruce.com/forum-etiquette-1216951). If they want to keep talking about something personal belonging to the OP without their continued consent then I can't approve of that. And leaning on forum rules and claiming ignorance of the law is no defense (not talking about you personally) is ridiculous. Rules and laws are made to protect people. A bunch of lawyers ignoring the heart of the law is the very thing Jesus decried the most and I understand why. For anyone who wants to be a Jedi but doesn't care about others and doesn't seek to protect others... I just don't understand that person. Perhaps it is the age we live in as they say chivalry is dead. Not to me.

Both of these are stupid arguments.

Nice! I was waiting for this, actually. Calling someone's arguments stupid can be pretty insulting. You could have just disproven them if you were so inclined. The categorization is extra and doesn't benefit me in the slightest. Then again, the purpose isn't to benefit me, is it? You go on to say that it isn't necessarily either personal or not. You could have simply said you could choose whether or not to take it personally which is a normal response. However, whether or not you choose to take such a slight personally doesn't change the intent if it is designed to be personal; i.e. insulting your mom. It IS personal because it is YOUR mom. Again... you don't have to take it that way. That's your choice. And that's my "stupid" argument. Whether you choose to be offended or not does not remove responsibility from the offensive party.

If person A wants to discuss topic X with person B, I find it ridiculous to demand that they first make sure persons C1 through Cn consent to that discussion taking place at all.

Though not "Stupid", this argument seems to be a red herring since never once did I say anyone other than the OP should have consent and part of the reasoning behind the consent is partially due to the personal nature of the OP's thread and their thoughts, feelings, and opinions, that their thread represents. No one else NEEDS to participate, therefore I wish we could stop acting like there is some kind of overriding need that requires the SAME thread continue against the wishes of its original creator. The moment the light bulb turns on that any persons wishing to continue the conversation can simply create a new thread then that's exactly what they should do. You don't have to file an application to start a new thread. There is no inconvenience beyond giving it a new name and inviting the other people into it who also wish to continue. Why is it such a big deal to people that the OP's thoughts and feelings don't matter and should be ignored because we want to ignore the "new topic" button? Why is it worth upsetting someone to do something that would upset no one else? And MAYBE... if people did that then the OP could keep their original thread going for the purpose THEY, as the creator, intended rather than have their intended purpose derailed (derail - obstruct (a process) by diverting it from its intended course.). And yes, saying that once they post it (again, not responding to you personally) it's community property is a dubious defense for any attempt to hijack someone else's thread.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: As stated in the definition of "my" I just quoted to Ren, my post is still my post. My thread is still my thread. My drawings are my drawings. My jokes are my jokes. My life is my life. Since people don't refer to the threads they started as "that thread that I started" ownership is naturally implied.

Sorry but you are just wrong here. The owner of the material posted here is not the property of the poster. It becomes the property of the temple. This is clearly stated in the terms of use for this board. You either comply with those or you dont post here.

As a Church any posts made on the forums become part of our records and we have the right to keep those records

As a web developer and as someone who has run online forums before I can tell you that's not what it means. It simply relates to usage and is a means to escape certain legal liability. When you post something on someone else's website you are giving that site and its operators permission to display and retain that post. It is a type of legal consent.

Consent... funny that.

In some ways I kind of feel like I'm arguing against a fictional authoritarian regime telling me that everything I say here is owned by them and therefore they can do whatever they like with it. That's not necessarily the case. And the reason why websites have to ask your permission is because the law is designed to protect people's creative rights, not websites or authoritarian regimes. But just because you post doesn't mean you can't also delete a post. I mean come on. You gotta keep in mind why rules exist in the first place.

Never knew flame war existed till today! New word for an old dog! Thank you ZealotX

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Never knew flame war existed till today! New word for an old dog! Thank you ZealotX

Yeap, some select quotes;

"Flaming is the online act of posting insults, often laced with profanity or other offensive language on social networking sites. These insults may turn into flame wars where two or more individuals unite to exchange or unite against a third party with verbal attacks. Many attribute the emergence of flaming to the anonymity that internet forums provide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

"a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

The later seems softer and intended to be for a more enduring presence, while flaming is more overt. It's not abnormal for moderation to specifically address those things elsewhere online. Trolling often tries to avoid detection by technicalities in the rules. So attacking the rules is also common. Not to suggest all rules are good rules - depends on the intended function of the forum if they are working or not.

Ima have to mark those near quibbler in my meditation journal and keep those.
Thanks you as well Adder !

ZealotX wrote: For anyone who wants to be a Jedi but doesn't care about others and doesn't seek to protect others... I just don't understand that person. Perhaps it is the age we live in as they say chivalry is dead. Not to me.

I found this comment quite fascinating. I would venture to say that you have an incredibly limited view of what it means to be a jedi. This is not to say your definition is bad but that you are dismissing the wider range of meaning and thus discounting others definition of what it means. You seem to want to protect others from themselves in this conversation. I and others seek to protect them from falsehood in their lives. I see the second position to be much more productive in the end. It is the catalyst for growth.

Care and protection are aspects of the light path only... And highly subjective.

Character is something that can be present in discussions as well as compassion. Both are often chosen and rarely automatic regardless of label.

ren wrote: Care and protection are aspects of the light path only... And highly subjective.

We're not talking about peoples paths, we're talking about the rules. I agree there is some subjectivity there, but only so much. The only excuse would be ignorance, and that is easily overcome by explanation. So no, the focus is just different. Being selfish is self care and protection, and so the underlying mechanisms of it are known. So if deliberately chosen not to be exerted to others for something like following rules, then they are still responsible. If the path does not align with the rules, then either the rules are not suitable for the intended purpose of the site, or the person is breaking the rules.

But you'd be right in explaining the attitude of the troublemakers I suppose.... and obviously that explains why its like it is and why we have the problems we do. Because if the dark Jedi path etc criticize the light Jedi path then I guess the criticism can go both ways and we end up where it all goes around in circles. Since its not why light folk are here, they leave. So I'm not sure going into a discussion about the natures of different Jedi paths is really relevant.... but rather why I've been saying it fundamentally depends on what the site is trying to achieve. If its conflict among differing Jedi paths because there are Jedi paths which create conflict, then it will be either conflict or empty of other Jedi paths.

So if that is the intent then perhaps considering saving the light folk their valuable time and just change the purpose of the site as such? Unless its deliberate of course in which case the site could be seen to abusing those on the light path.... LOL, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as webdev and say you made it open to all and are just happy with the status quo because your not on a light path.

You miss the point of this discussion entirely. It is not about the rules in any form. It is about the spirit of conversation.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You miss the point of this discussion entirely. It is not about the rules in any form. It is about the spirit of conversation.

There are no limits on the spirit, or indeed path, the only limits are the rules which are unfortunately necessarily open to subjective interpretation. That subjectivity is being explored and so can incorporate examination and comparison of the spirit... but that is no reason to put the cart before the donkey. So no, I'd argue I haven't and that you perhaps you have, but case in point its just more of the going around in circles because I've been saying this same thing many times to the same people.

For example, your reply. Perhaps a simple hack is to avoid aggravating adverbs which misrepresent the scope of the disagreement. If your first sentence omitted the word 'entirely' it would have said the same thing, been more likely to be correct and less likely to be taken as a personal attack. If the rules say don't attack someone it could fairly be interpreted as don't demean them in trying to make a point... and covert demeaning language tends to sneak in when disagreements are modified by language to exaggerate and introduce emotions into debate, turning them towards becoming arguments ie trolling.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: For anyone who wants to be a Jedi but doesn't care about others and doesn't seek to protect others... I just don't understand that person. Perhaps it is the age we live in as they say chivalry is dead. Not to me.

I found this comment quite fascinating. I would venture to say that you have an incredibly limited view of what it means to be a jedi. This is not to say your definition is bad but that you are dismissing the wider range of meaning and thus discounting others definition of what it means. You seem to want to protect others from themselves in this conversation. I and others seek to protect them from falsehood in their lives. I see the second position to be much more productive in the end. It is the catalyst for growth.

That is interesting indeed. So what if I said that I wasn't dismissing anything and that anyone using the term "dark Jedi" is basically creating their own fantasy? What if I said that term has no basis in reality because even Timothy Zahn, who coined it, is not in favor of its use and only used it at the time because it was (then) the best they had to work with. And therefore this "squishy" term should be depreciated?

Jedi refers to an "order". When "dark Jedi" (actually fallen or rogue Jedi) left the order and eventually created their own they were "Sith". And we can have stimulating intellectual discussions all day but I doubt I will ever call fallen Jedi anything other than Sith or regard such as anything as legitimate as what I consider to be canon any more than many on this site seemed to passionately disagree with a certain member posting their own beliefs. If you have your own beliefs regarding the use of the term Jedi and what it means to you then why should this be considered by others something that they should also accept? What makes you any different from the other poster, crafting a narrative around your own beliefs?

Is it limited not to accept someone else's views outright? Do you have legitimate peer reviewed evidence to back up your personal understanding of the term Jedi? And since you are at "Temple of the Jedi Order" why should others align their views to your own when you are coming to "our" site with your personal views that I have never found sanctioned or expressly accepted by any doctrine of the same? And yet, why should your view enjoy some kind of legitimized status when you question the beliefs of a professed Jedi?

Or perhaps your beliefs are special because they're yours (emphasis on yours as opposed to mine or ours). You talked about truth but you want me to accept your (alternate) definition of a word common to my vocabulary; a definition, which to me, is a falsehood. But you want to use the Open Discussion forum to seek truth and remove falsehood in others. Should we not start with someone closer to home? Why do you get to have a different (alternative) definition of the term Jedi? How is THAT not a falsehood? Is it a question of how many people believe it? Because if it's about numbers than doesn't that legitimize virtually all other religions? Tell me. Why is your belief about the term Jedi not a falsehood and moreover, why should I accept it to the extent that my view is "incredibly limited" if I don't?

@Zealot, Who is using the term Dark Jedi? I for one find the term oxymoronic. I would agree with you whole heartedly that Dark Jedi is not a thing, the term in that case would be Sith, I agree. Actually Jedi does not refer to an order, it refers to a philosophy. TotJO refers to an order. There are many orders with differing Jedi all possessing individual philosophies. (Of course this is beyond the fiction and in real life. I don’t live my life according to a fictional Sci Fi movie and so I see no need to quote fictional “Jedi Cannon” as a basis to justify my position.)

I have never said anyone should accept my views of what it means to be a Jedi. And in fact the difference is that I invite anyone to challenge them, debate them, and tear them apart! So thank you for this reply, I encourage such things when it comes to my belief systems and I believe it is a service to do such things so I appreciate you caring enough to take the time. One of the differences I do see in my personal views vs this other believer you refer to is that mine are a worldview based on subjective opinion and as such not subject to empirical evidence as the other one that is contradictory to actual provable history. There is a big difference there. So in my case I do not need peer reviewed evidence because I’m not claiming anything contrary to accepted evidence.

As for coming to “your” site, I fail to see why you would disqualify me in that way? My views conform to the doctrine here just as much as anyone’s. I have written about this in my IP journals while I was studying here. I believe it is in the interpretation that you are finding issue with my views. I interpret the doctrine in a different way than you may. Does that make mine wrong and yours right? If so I would like to know how? There are no “alternate definitions” being used here, possibly only differing interpretations. You say I want to remove falsehood in others. Well once again you take a limited view of my thoughts. Instead think in broader terms. I want to remove falsehood in ALL, including me. I challenge you to take up that sword with me just as I have done with others. That is why I am here!

So I am a Jedi, albeit one not to your liking. But what makes my philosophy wrong vs just not to your taste?