Editing Rights Question

Is it really okay for Br. John to edit people's posts for personal issues at his whim? Is this not a problem for the organization?

I get not liking the Church of Jediism. I do. But going into people's topics and editing the link to his dedicated website of mockery seems an over-reach. Certainly doesn't seem like something a Jedi Site would support? He can claim not to be a Jedi, so having those type of sites to begin with can exist under that banner. But allowing him to edit a person's topic because of that personal distaste? Changing a link because of his own issue. Is that really the image and behavior this place wants to encourage?

To be clear - if the answer is yes, then cool deal. Or some form of yes by inactivity, then cool. I am just trying to discern what level of invasion is allowed here and how it is regulated. If that is - he is the founder so he can do what he wants. Again, cool deal. Just looking to understand what this group allows. Just seemed to me to be an over-reach and not really fall in line with behavior that might be normally encouraged. 0123456789

Technically the rule per the FAQ is no external links. Exceptions tend to be made for things like personal, off-site journals, vlogs, youtube channels, etc...

Editing a link from one URL to another. . . . That's... yeah no, not cool John. . . As it is, there's already a ton of discussion going on about moderators editing posts. It's one of the things that was commented on in the climate survey. To simply redirect the link because you don't approve of (and we know you don't) the founder of the other site is uncalled for and a bit inappropriate.

And thanks for posting this Opie. Greatly appreciated.

I spoke to John about it and I am sure he will speak for himself at some point. I fixed the posts to remove all links. Linking to general blogs or things about Jediism is fine but outside training sites is generally a no unless a request is made to Council as per the rules.

The reason for this at least to my understanding is that supporting outside sites puts our reputation linked to theirs and should they promote something less than legal or healthy we can become tied to that same support. Or at least that is my own view on not allowing links or openly supporting any particular site.

Opie Macleod wrote: Is it really okay for Br. John to edit people's posts for personal issues at his whim? Is this not a problem for the organization?

I get not liking the Church of Jediism. I do. But going into people's topics and editing the link to his dedicated website of mockery seems an over-reach. Certainly doesn't seem like something a Jedi Site would support? He can claim not to be a Jedi, so having those type of sites to begin with can exist under that banner. But allowing him to edit a person's topic because of that personal distaste? Changing a link because of his own issue. Is that really the image and behavior this place wants to encourage?

To be clear - if the answer is yes, then cool deal. Or some form of yes by inactivity, then cool. I am just trying to discern what level of invasion is allowed here and how it is regulated. If that is - he is the founder so he can do what he wants. Again, cool deal. Just looking to understand what this group allows. Just seemed to me to be an over-reach and not really fall in line with behavior that might be normally encouraged.

I don't go on your site and tell people your issues or criticize the way you do things. That would be rude. Especially if it was an issue that could be resolved with a PM. That would make me an You could have PM'd me and asked about it. You could have PM'd member affairs about it. The only person with a right to complain is the poster. The name of the place was still there. Do you think anyone here is not capable of finding Daniel Jones' for profit business named The Church of Jediism? Since you've decided to try and make a public spectacle out of it please continue and really do it right. Have another drink, then kindly tell me any facts I'm wrong about on http://BecomeTheFarce.com and I'll correct them. I'd also like to know how telling the truth about something is mocking something.

Br. John wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

A shit scabbed puckered asshole

. .

LMAO and this is why I love this place!!!!

Br. John wrote: I don't go on your site and tell people your issues or criticize the way you do things. That would be rude. Especially if it was an issue that could be resolved with a PM. That would make me

Warning: Spoiler!

an ass. A shit scabbed puckered asshole

. You could have PM'd me and asked about it. You could have PM'd member affairs about it. The only person with a right to complain is the poster. The name of the place was still there. Do you think anyone here is not capable of finding Daniel Jones' for profit business named The Church of Jediism? Since you've decided to try and make a public spectacle out of it please continue and really do it right. Have another drink, then kindly tell me any facts I'm wrong about on http://BecomeTheFarce.com and I'll correct them. I'd also like to know how telling the truth about something is mocking something.

If we are indeed worried about external links reflecting poorly on TOTJO, should we not worry about how it reflects upon this Organization when a senior member publicly insults a person asking a legitimate question in a forum titled "Confused? Ask for Help"?

Also, is such an inflammatory response likely to achieve the desired result of stopping this issue on its tracks, or does it only add to the fire?

I am confused. Please do help.

I could be wrong, but I believe you've missed the point of Opie's post, John.

That is to say, it wasn't to call to attention whether or not the facts on your site were accurate or not.

Rather, the point of his post was to question the legitimacy of the moderating that was being conducted. That is to stay, instead of enforcing the rules as they're posted on the site (no external links), you instead allowed a personal bias to impact your moderation against a single link. I say personal bias because you have made, and continue to make, your opinion against Jones plainly obvious across this site.

If the issue had been with the links themselves, then the appropriate action would have been to do as MadHatter did, which is to have removed both links entirely. The fact that all you did was change one link from the actual site being referenced to a site of your own creation only enforces the impression that the moderation was done out of a personal bias rather than a legitimate enforcement of the rules of the site, which thus makes the moderation illegitimate.

Such questioning falls into line with current discussion at TOTJO, which is the moderation of posts and when it's done legitimately and illegitimately has been called to question as of late. Sure, Opie called out your action, but that's because it is just the most recent example.

So the real discussion here isn't about the site you redirected the link to, but if the redirection was a legitimate or appropriate form of moderation (it wasn't) and what TOTJO considers a legitimate and appropriate form of moderation.

Just my two cents. I could be wrong.

[hr]
On a bit of a site note, I'd caution not to take Opie's questioning personally, which it seems you have.

I also wonder... Have you considered the fact that your constant actions regarding Jones and his site only help to bring attention to him while conversely delegitimizing your position. That is to say, the more you comment negatively against Jones, the more attention people pay to him and the more you make it look like a personal vendetta. In turn, your actions in instances such as this look illegitimate because you appear to have been acting from a point of personal biases rather than actual legitimate enforcement of community rules.

I know I've commented to you about it in the past regarding other issues, but as the proclaimed president and a member of the council, you have an obligation to consider how your actions reflect upon TOTJO. Meaning, by using an official act (moderation of a post) to push that apparent personal agenda (your dislike of Jones resulting in you changing a link in a post to a site of your own creation), you make it appear as though that that is the official stance TOTJO takes towards the issue. And as has been stated in both the original thread in question, and in multiple other threads about multiple other issues, such an official stance doesn't actually exist

You could have simply said in a separate post "I don't approve of Jones, and this is why (link to your site)" and left it at that (the appropriate course of action). Instead you turned it into an official matter through the use of moderation, and thus this entire conversation began.

Leadership isn't above scrutiny... even from guests

Again, just my two cents. I could be wrong. I'll see my way out now.

It is a fact that a position of responsibility as Br. John's can take its toll with the many complaints he must address all the time. I am sure we can all find the ressources in our hearts to forgive this slip. An apology would go a long way though.

Flojade wrote: It is a fact that a position of responsibility as Br. John's can take its toll with the many complaints he must address all the time. I am sure we can all find the ressources in our hearts to forgive this slip. An apology would go a long way though.

Are you trying to tell people how they should feel (that they should forgive Br John)? Or to tell Br John that its time for an apology? You have as much right as anyone to give your opinion on what you see, but do you believe that you know this situation and these peoople well enough to be qualified to decide who should feel what, and who owes who an apology, to tell other people what they should feel and what they should to do)?

Do you even know what the hell is going on here? Lol

Dont take this personally, please. If youre going to tell people what they should do, how important is it, do you think, to really understand why theyve done what theyve done? Do you understand the history here? Are you engaging with therelevant parties personally to find out why they feel the way they feel and why they act the ways they act?

Getting people to pipe down and play nice is not the same thing as mediating conflict. So, what are you trying to accomplish? Actual resolution, that leaves all parties feelig acknowledged and reinvested in their community, or just to shut people up so they dont express any kinds of feelings that make you uncomfortable?

Br. John wrote:

Opie Macleod wrote: Is it really okay for Br. John to edit people's posts for personal issues at his whim? Is this not a problem for the organization?

I get not liking the Church of Jediism. I do. But going into people's topics and editing the link to his dedicated website of mockery seems an over-reach. Certainly doesn't seem like something a Jedi Site would support? He can claim not to be a Jedi, so having those type of sites to begin with can exist under that banner. But allowing him to edit a person's topic because of that personal distaste? Changing a link because of his own issue. Is that really the image and behavior this place wants to encourage?

To be clear - if the answer is yes, then cool deal. Or some form of yes by inactivity, then cool. I am just trying to discern what level of invasion is allowed here and how it is regulated. If that is - he is the founder so he can do what he wants. Again, cool deal. Just looking to understand what this group allows. Just seemed to me to be an over-reach and not really fall in line with behavior that might be normally encouraged.

I don't go on your site and tell people your issues or criticize the way you do things. That would be rude. Especially if it was an issue that could be resolved with a PM. That would make me an

Warning: Spoiler!

ass. A shit scabbed puckered asshole.

You could have PM'd me and asked about it. You could have PM'd member affairs about it. The only person with a right to complain is the poster. The name of the place was still there. Do you think anyone here is not capable of finding Daniel Jones' for profit business named ]The Church of Jediism? Since you've decided to try and make a public spectacle out of it please continue and really do it right. Have another drink, then kindly tell me any facts I'm wrong about on http://BecomeTheFarce.com and I'll correct them. I'd also like to know how telling the truth about something is mocking something.

Become the Farce? Seriously? This is why the Jedi community will never advance, because the leadership is too busy tearing each other apart rather than growing together.

EDIT: If you put as much work into tearing apart this book as you did training, you'd really be a Grandmaster.

Great good gods, I'm not even sure where to begin or what to say.

I didn't see the original issue, I'm gathering someone posted about another website and one of our mods edited it to link to his libel website?

This is not the kind of etiquette I want to see in this community and I do not support it. Thank you Mad for getting involved. I've put myself on a mini vacation until Tuesday, but couldn't miss seeing this when I went to share some of my crafts and some work I'd promised a while ago.

Anyone can complain about an issue they see. It's what we do to help each other and support each other. It's a part of our Knight's Code "I will defend the helpless" and I'm sure if I went into our Doctrine I could find bits there too that support that. We all have the right to question what we feel might be wrong. Sure there may have been other ways to handle it but I feel Opie did it professionally and not incorrectly.

Folks, please feel free to ask about problems and issues you see. To me, or any other Knight you feel comfortable with talking to if you don't feel comfortable posting on the forums. This is what we need to foster the kind of community I feel like we are trying to grow into. If we're not open to criticism, we won't go anywhere at all.

I would also like to point out that situations like this can be avoided and minimized by the establishment of and respect towards a clear line of duties, responsibilities, and rights to the leadership roles of the site, by all members of leadership and consequences therein...

Maybe something to consider discussing in that whole Pax Templi thing you guys are working on behind the scenes or something similar.

So far there's mockery, tearing down, and libel. The notion that merely because someone says they're a Jedi, or an organization has Jedi in its name, makes them good and worthy and entitled to respect is a pile of sour owl poo. There's other questions and issues I'm not ignoring just not addressing yet. One at a time. This is not directed at a single person but several. If the shoe fits ....

Please show me any statement that is not true on BecomeTheFarce.com - if it's all true with verifiable references then please explain how it's mockery, tearing down, or libel (libel must be a false statement).

Again, you missed the point of the thread, John.

The question at hand isn't to discuss the validity of the content of the site you created.

It's to discuss the validity of the action you took in moderating a link to redirect to your site in lieu of the site it originally linked to, because you personally don't like that original site.

Yes people have commented their opinion about your site, but that's still not the actual issue at hand...

Br. John wrote: So far there's mockery, tearing down, and libel. The notion that merely because someone says they're a Jedi, or an organization has Jedi in its name, makes them good and worthy and entitled to respect is a pile of sour owl poo. There's other questions and issues I'm not ignoring just not addressing yet. One at a time. This is not directed at a single person but several. If the shoe fits ....

Please show me any statement that is not true on BecomeTheFarce.com - if it's all true with verifiable references then please explain how it's mockery, tearing down, or libel (libel must be a false statement).

I may have the definition of libel incorrect, I meant it to be more "mud slinging" than anything. But I don't have the spoons or care to go fact checking because it just doesn't mean that much to me (I didn't read more than the titles on the page). But this isn't about respect for another website, this is about respect for OUR website, TotJO, how we handle things here, how we respect our members and rules, and how we respect ourselves.

As a personal note, I do appreciate websites that put the time into fact checking and making those facts available. Snoops is one of my favorite places to visit.

I don't go on your site and tell people your issues or criticize the way you do things.

Two things. First I didn't tell anyone your issues. You have clearly made those known by your responses here. Secondly, if I am acting out of line and abusing my administrator abilities - then not only would you be more than welcome to criticize, but the members would support you in doing so (as seems to be the case here, thankfully). Of course I'd need to actually abuse that responsibility first. But by all means. Swing by my place.

That would be rude.

No, it would be honest. It would be fair. It would be holding Jedi and Administration accountable. Besides - you make it seem like I came here. Sought out a post. And then made an issue of it. I replied to a post, noticed edits. That made me curious. And I noticed the transgression. Decided to ask about it because it directly impacts me as a poster here.

You could have PM'd me and asked about it. You could have PM'd member affairs about it.

Do you know why it being public upsets you? Because you know what you did was wrong. If you truly felt that what you did was okay, you wouldn't respond in this manner. Yes, I could have kept things under the table. But that is not my style. I saw something that I found issue with and I asked if it was the norm. Because that directly impacts my own involvement with this Community. I post here too (albeit rarely), so having understanding of how loose the editing rights are for mods and admins is a direct concern. Especially since I have in the past been a part of forums that would edit and change and even delete posts of its members at the whim of those in-charge. And I am not going to invest my time and energy into a place if that investment isn't respected. So I asked.

The only person with a right to complain is the poster.

lol No. All members here have a voice. And it is their right to speak up when they see something questionable happen. If I saw a person being robbed, I can still report that to the police - it isn't only the victim with the right to complain. Not only that but anyone who posts on this website should have a honest concern of editing at a whim. Sure it is his post today - might be my post tomorrow and another's post the day after. Staying silent because it didn't happen to me is not only logically flawed, but just never going to happen.

Have another drink

Really? How old are you again?

As for the rest - the other people seem to have understood my concern (nod to Jedi Kit and Jedi Light). What is the accepted level of moderation at this forum? That has been answered to a certain level. Along with appropriate action of editing done according to the standard posting rules of the website. In which I express my appreciation to the mature Jedi involved in that (Special Shout Out to Jedi Light and Jedi Hatter). As I said - you are allowed to make and dedicate whatever resources you want to websites mocking other people and groups. That isn't my concern. Only the apparent misuse of admin ability. Which again is simply something I wanted to know for myself so I can adjust my own involvement as necessary.

Thank you TotJO Knights and Mods - appreciate the response. May the Force be with you. 0123456789

End result:

Is the way this was handled by leadership appropriate?

If not, how do we go about fixing it?

Are there currently things in the works to address the issue already?

What can be done until such things are released to advance the goals of community building?

Edit: This is my basic OODA Loop for this stuff. Did we observe something inappropriate, we orient on the issues at hand and how we can address it, we make a decision on what is currently ongoing and what we can do to improve, and then we act to support the desired result.

Sometimes people that have no knowledge th history can have a more objective perspective Ob1.
Knowing the specifics is not necessarily compulsory as all human conflicts emanate from the same patterns.
I didnt order anybody to do anything but it is true I incited.
Whatever the nature of the conflict compassion is always a good answer where there is pain.
For some my action was bad for some it was good.
I appreciate your feedback.

Speaking of moderator abuse, Master Opie, how about the entire site you deleted with no way to recover it? Years of posts and discussions gone. I was correctly moderated here. Our system worked. I'm 57 btw.

Let me begin by saying that I am disappointed that these issues continue to pop up, and I don't think it has been handled as well as it could have been up to this point. It is my duty as a Security Officer and a Knight Adviser to weigh in and attempt to explain in the most transparent manner possible how we are addressing this issue at the Council level, so here goes...

Nakis wrote: End result:

Is the way this was handled by leadership appropriate?

There was a variety of responses and non-responses from various leadership, so I need to be specific. Br. John moderated a post and changed a URL link. This action is not explicitly defined as right or wrong in our site rules, but the various opinions from members and some leadership here show that some deemed this action inappropriate, and we need to address this with the current review of our policies. It must also be pointed out that this action was taken by our President and Founder who has full moderation privileges that he can choose to use at any time.
While the rules still certainly apply to him, it should be noted that as Moderators, we also have to police each other as fairly as possible. This takes courage, good judgment, and regretfully also some political finesse. MadHatter, as a Moderator, Councillor, and VP of Membership Affairs took said action and edited the original post again to be in line with our current policies for posting external links. Kit has expressed her opinion as a Councillor as well, and I commend her for being vocal about the issue quickly.

I am offering my personal response here and now. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. There is additional conversation that is taking place among other Councillors, but until we can address it openly as a group, we will not be able to offer a consensus or official opinion of the Council on this. It is being addressed though, and it will be taken into account as we make adjustments to our policies and create the Pax Templi document addressing acceptable behavior here. According to the way Council is run, we need to have these frank conversations and come to an agreement via vote on policy changes. These conversations can be contentious and heated, which is why we try to keep them out of the otherwise relatively peaceful environment of the Temple.

Nakis wrote: If not, how do we go about fixing it?

It will become a discussion point as we address the current website policies and procedures as well as the expected behavior of members and administration here. Everyone has their own opinions and they all need to be heard before we rush to conclusions. That includes opinions expressed by the membership in the recent poll as well as comments in threads like this one. It is a lot of information to consider.

Nakis wrote: Are there currently things in the works to address the issue already?

Yes, we were already working on revisions to the rules and regulations currently in place. The issue of appropriate moderation has been raised a lot recently, and as a Security Officer I take this issue very seriously. We want to get it right when moderating, and we're trying to create more fair and more clear guidelines for all moderators of the site.

Nakis wrote: What can be done until such things are released to advance the goals of community building?

First, discussions like this are helpful to Councillors as we attempt to address these recurring issues. I appreciate the attempts by all here to keep this conversation polite and constructive. Please continue to do so, and if you find yourself getting angry or emotional, please take a moment to collect your thoughts before responding. Together, we are all seeking a place that is engaging and challenging, but also fair and compassionate. It is a difficult tight rope to walk at times, but please know that it is always our goal to make this Temple a place people can enjoy spending their valuable time in.

As part of my responsibility to you all as guests, members, and fellow officers, I encourage any of you to PM me with your concerns or post your questions in response to any post I make in the forums. Sometimes conversations are better held in the privacy of PMs, but I also understand the need to inform everyone of what we are actually doing to address issues like this as they happen. I will always do my best to be honest and forthcoming with the information I have available to me.

At your service,
~Senan