Shroomism said:

trendal is not fabricating anything when he says that many S&P members have stopped posting in this forum altogether because they feel that they cannot express themselves without having their threads and ideas ripped apart. In the 5 years that I have been modding here I have personally received at least 40 PMs by different people on this very subject. People who fear to post their beliefs and thoughts in this forum for fear of being lashed out on and having their character 'cut down to size' as it were.

---

Quote:

Personally, I have nothing against Swami. I also see him as a valuable contributor and a good person at heart.. however that does not mean he is above the rules and can belittle the members here.

---

I have not seen any evidence of Swami belittling members in Spirituality and Philosophy or breaking any rules. The one example that was presented was a clearly objective statement that was not a personal attack of any sort. Swami has never openly flamed anyone, and has shown a consistent level of respect for all posters, even though some might perceive a lack thereof merely because his points disagree with theirs, or because they have an overactive ego constantly imagining threat and attack, projecting more onto his statements than he ever intended or meant.

I find it amazing that people are constricting and controlling the discussion of ideas in a forum that is suspossedly conducive to open, spiritual debate... I find it harsh that we are not allowed to discuss these matters in our own forum, as this issue directly relates to the happenings of our forum. We are a small, personal community, and to seperate discussion of this in our community is simply a control tactic. Our freedom of expression on topics relevant to our forum is being limited and divided. It is proclaimed that spirituality is a very personal thing, and that is why we must allow everyone the space to express it, but others with power who disagree with how certain people express their spirituality and try to teach others spriituality prevent them from doing so.

I find it unbelievable that certain people had to completely disrupt the flow of Spirituality and Philosophy in this manner. Taking that first step of unnecessary control has created chaos in a natural order that was running itself properly. Banning Swami when he did no clear, objective, majority-critisized wrong is an action that belies the very essence of spirituality. It is the equivalent of Shroomism being arrested for drug possession, really. Far more people have acclaimed Swami for directly assisting in their spiritual growth and evolution than those who have bitched and moaned about his inability to allow spiritual discussion (probably the equivalent of an egotistical student who creates an uproar when a fair teacher gave him a deserving, but low, grade on a test).

I have lost a lot of respect for Trendal, I have lost a lot of respect for Shroomism, and if Kaiowas supported the banning of Swami, I have lost even more respect for him (as I personally know him, and such actions would contradict his character). I think it is sad that a whiny minority, with pre-existing emotional and social problems before they ever even interacted with Swami, is being catered to and favored over a majority of interactive posters who love and support the community in which they participate and grow in.

If we are continued to be alienated, I will no longer be able to participate in this community, as what would remain of the community would offer nothing towards the profound benefits it offered before this whole ordeal had to be provoked. Spirituality and Philosophy cannot exist in a space such as what this place inevitably will become if this trend continues... 


Peace.

we're still waiting for examples of Swami's offenses (with links, of course). If there are just sooo many and these are just sooo clearly in volation of rules, then it should not be difficult to pull up a few, no? As of the date of my posting, both Trendal and Shroomism (as well as those who support the ban) have yet to provide anything substantial  and they appear downright hostile when asked to present their case. I guess they are not interested in fairness, transparency, and our respect. Hopefully this is not true.

Quote:

If we are continued to be alienated, I will no longer be able to participate in this community, as what would remain of the community would offer nothing towards the profound benefits it offered before this whole ordeal had to be provoked.

---

bf6 said:

Why was he banned? Specifics please.

---

Essentially, people with observable problems with fundamental aspects of interacting with others felt emotionally attacked and angry with words that Swami typed, usually because Swami did not directly agree with them, and they felt the need to bitch and moan. Apparently banning a praised member of the community because a small handful of people have troubles with understanding basic thought processes solves the problem. 

The majority of posters in Spirituality and Philosophy seem to be agansit the banning of Swami. Aren't those the people that count?


Peace.

Todcasil said:

there is an ignore button if people find him to abbrasive.

---

Exactly. When the problem only lies in the eyes of a small group of people, the ignore button is essential, as the rest of us who have no difficulty seeing clearly do not have to suffer. The ban button should only be used if a poster is actually creating an objectively-perceivable disruptance of the flow of the discussion. Swami has never done that, and does not deserve to be banned.

Perhaps if the majority of the S and P posters saw Swami as a nuisance who is interupting spiritual and philosophical debate, his ban would be necessary, but there is actually a greater percentage of people that directly attribute Swami for greatly helping them learn important spiritual lessons. Swami is not a moron and does not have ill intents - his purpose is clear to those who are open to learning from him.

It is one thing for an individual to not want to read another's words, it is another for them to feel they have the righteousness to take away other's right to read that person's words.   


Peace.

Phluck said:

How about a new rule. If you don't want people to debate with you, put a note in your opening post saying "opposing viewpoints frighten and confuse me, and I don't want to hear them", and then it's against the rules to debate in that thread.

---

Either that, or direct posters who do not wish to have open idea exchange with others, which includes the possibillity that their ideas might be challenged, to the Pub.


Peace.

Quote:

i really don't even go in to s&p that often

---

eric_the_red said:

i have and i really don't even go in to s&p that often.

---

Then you really don't know enough of what goes on in there to form a reality reflecting conclusion on what has been happening, right?

Point out some specific examples so we know exactly what you consider to be belittlement of others, so we can judge for ourselves whether or not your opinion is well justified.


Peace.

Quote:

zorbman said:

Quote:

i really don't even go in to s&p that often

---

---

Amber_Glow said:

What really seems to be at question here is whether you are allowed to question other's beliefs, ideas, explainations, etc. in the S&P forum.  This issue is bigger than just Swami.

---

Indeed, Swami is simply the embodiment of this.

While Spirituality and Philosophy isn't hardcore debate complete with complex rules, it does have the general theme of presenting ideas and discussing them in a relaxed, open manner. Everyone plays a part in this in their own way, and questioning and analyzing these ideas is crucial.

It seems the problems occur when individuals enter into this with emotional attachments to their ideas, feeling the need to defend agansit them and force them onto others, or when they will not discuss points with others... they often initate personal issues that do not involve the direct discussion and completely derail the topic....

It certainly isn't Swami that flys off the handle and steps over the line.


Peace.

Quote:

Most of the time, mods overlook Swami-trolling... but over the course of SEVERAL YEARS, Swami finally made a big enough blip on the radar to be banned...

---

If such described Swami-trolling is really that subtle, hard-to-detect, and only can result in a ban after many years of accumulation, perhaps it isn't that much of a big deal? If there aren't single, isolated incidents that are deserving of a ban, why take time and energy to let it build up over five years to finally result in a ban?

I'm sorry, but it still seems to me that there is another variable here that has more to do with this than anything else, and that is of personal, emotional residue, going beyond "Swami-trolling" or anything else....


Peace.

Cervantes said:

He was... TWICE.

There was just considerably less drama surrounding his bannishment.

---

Does the fact that the reasoning is consistent justify the reasoning itself?


Peace.

Cervantes said:

It's true... you can't please all of the people all of the time.

---

You can always please a small but vocal number of people though, right? 


Peace.

Morrowind said:

Up until the point that any evidence is presented, alot of people will not be pleased.  Your tactics including handling of information match up perfectly with America's during Iraq.  It is clear that Swami will be gone for *some* reason involving mods and PMs.

---

I've often considered plausible parallels to the current status of the American government... somewhat baffling considering the nature of this webiste... of course, that is the way power can be.... 


Peace.

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Ah.... the old "well if that's the case what about ***" strategy.

Pretty childish.

---

Quote:

Diploid said:
despite what you're trying to imply, the 38 out of 43 distinct posters to the thread is more than enough statistical evidence to extrapolate the will of the community

---

Diploid said:

It makes me wonder why you're defending the mods when they've clearly made a mistake.

---

Quote:

notice swami is still there belittling people

---

Quote:

Cervantes said:
Please trust us. I'm sure nobody on the Staff wants to piss you guys off by censoring details. This is a complicated matter, with a long history. Much of the HARD evidence exists only in PRIVATE.

We'd love to give you more detail, and if you are patient, we may just do that...

Let's face it, Swami doesn't troll, he Swami-trolls... 

Swami-trolling is a very subtle, hard to detect, and hard to punish form of trolling.

Swami-Troll: verb: 2004
Definition: To troll subtly over a long period of time until people FUCKIN' SNAP!
"Dude, watch out, you're being Swami-trolled."
"Kevin, let's Swami-troll grandma until she has a stroke."
Swami-trolled, Swami-trolling, Swami-trollery.

Everybody Swami-trolls once in a while... Swami does it all the time.

Most of the time, mods overlook Swami-trolling... but over the course of SEVERAL YEARS, Swami finally made a big enough blip on the radar to be banned... we understand, from your perspective, he has acted this way since he became a Shroomerite. Why on Earth should he be banned now... he's been posting the same way for YEARS? Well, the fact is, we've been asking him to slightly adjust his behavior for YEARS... and he never has. Only NOW, did he get a ban.

Unlike MOST bans, there is no culminating event that constituted Swami's ban. Rather, he was banned so he could discover exactly what we were asking of him.

Swami, also, thumbed his nose at the last STAFF warning he received.

In effect, he Swami-trolled the very mods who were trying to help him avoid banishment. The mods took the bait, because they'd been Swami-trolled ONCE too often... and they banned the hell out of Swami.

You may not like this reasoning, but THAT is your reason.

I'm sorry, details are hard to find... because Swami-trolling is not as SELF CONTAINED as regular trolling... also, some of his actions took place in private.

I hope this helps you all understand the situation better.

I stand behind Swami's ban, but most of you have made VALID points, and there is nothing wrong with asking for clarification from the Staff. You are probably all afraid the SAME thing could happen to you. You shouldn't worry. Swami is the master of Swami-trolling, the rest of us have some work to do to catch up with him... Besides, it took YEARS for Swami to be banned for his Swami-trolling.

Please, keep this discussion positive, we are listening... and we have been working on this, behind the scenes, for quite some time. I know, publicly, our actions may seem odd, and detail is scarce, but there is a logic behind our actions, and we do never intend to be SOOOO skimpy on the details.

Thanks,
Cervantes

---

Can I call this "cervantes-bullshitting"?  It'd be kind of like regular bullshitting but ever so much more subtle-like. It might be hard for some of you detect cervantes-bullshitting, the wind direction can be a factor, but trust me, the signs are there.  I figure if I keep repeating "cervantes-bullshitting" about another 12 or 13 times in this one post you might all forget that I'm not really saying anything substantial and just remember the phrase "cervantes-bullshitting".  Feel free to drop it into your everyday forum lexicon.

I have to agree with most of the others supporting swami, I've seen nothing but vague ethereal hints at some larger dark menace that only people 'in the know' can really see.  Although we can't actually be shown this elusive swami-trolling, it has slowly tainted these public forums for years like dark-matter.  I can totally see how people should just accept this on trust, National Security and all that.

Maybe the mods should post some more user-name cliches ("holy shit you totally edamed my car!") so we can all note each others' habits and behaviours and decide what we like and what we don't. Why stop the personality modification at just one person?  Maybe you could implement a user time-limit that gives you 3 years to become a universally loved non-asshole or you're out?  At the end of the 3 years the users with the red flashing hand-crystals can be judged in a 'am-i-banned-or-not' personality contest.

Why should the mods have all the fun?  Where's the community spirit?!


No offence intended Cervantes, but I thought that was a feeble explanation.

Cervantes said:

Swami broke the rules. SEVERAL times.

---

Quote:

Much of the HARD evidence exists only in PRIVATE.

Wait a minute.

What are you talking about?

I thought this was about Swami's *** PUBLIC *** postings where he 'repeatedly' broke the rules.

How can the evidence be private?

Is this about Swami's PMs? Are there S&P rules governing private PMs?

I'm confused. How can relevant evidence be private?

---

Quote:

I wish the mods could step back and look at the double-speak that is flowing from their fingers. The fact that it has required 5-6 of them to all join in on the fight to make their non-existent points shows a real lack of credibility and desperation. We are LAUGHING at the nonsense of the whole lot of you. Put your tail between your legs and admit you were wrong.

---