Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
The Swami Situation.
    #3497578 -

Let's try to promote the spirit we want to encourage at this community by discussing this matter respectfully, without passing judgements on Swami, on other members, or on moderators, or making heated accusations about their motivations.


A contribution to the discussion:

I believe that the moderators genuinely felt that they were experiencing a belligerent and intolerant person causing unrest in the S&P portion of this community. I believe that they acted in the best interest of the community, and that they were not selfishly motivated. It is from this standpoint that I've formed the rest of my opinions on this matter.

Some will argue that Swami is merely a firm, down-to-earth person, and not an intolerant or angry person. Some will aruge that Swami is selfish, that he derrives entertainment value from destroying other people's less-than-consistent ideas. It is impossible to discover the truth. To ban someone because they are firm and down-to-earth is not justifyable. Swami was not banned for this reason. He was banned because the moderators perceived him to be an inflammatory presence detracting from the overall quality of discussion at S&P. Whether or not Swami actually is this way is open for discussion.

To ban someone because they put down others to bolster their own ego is not a violation of free speech, or of their rights. Being part of this community is a priviledge, not a right. When each of us created our membership, we agreed to abide by the guidelines upheld by the community. The beautiful part about this community is that each and every one of us has the opportunity to contribute to the formation of those guidelines. The same cannot be said about certain geographical communities. Whether or not the decision to ban Swami was misguided is open for discussion, but it is not cause to put our moderators under the microscope, to critcize them harshly, or to judge them. They are doing their best with what they have to work with, just like the rest of us.

It is indeed quite a dilemma. It is the job of our moderators to promote tolerance and peaceful discussion. In trying to fulfil that purpose, the moderators were confronted with a conundrum: "Do we tolerate the intolerant?"

I believe that the selfishly motivated confrontational behavior Swami appears to engage in on a regular basis should be discouraged. If the moderators perceived this behaviour in Swami, and are reasonably confident in that perception, then I am happy that steps are being taken to discourage it. If the moderators perception is mistaken, then I trust that we will focus on the good motivation behind their action, rather than the bad and unnecessary effects. I should hope that Swami would have the capacity to maintain an attitude of forgiveness for the mistake as well.


A personal opinion on the ban:

If Swami is causing a disturbance at S&P, and if Swami has been spoken to by the moderators about that disturbance, then it is Swami's responsiblity to adjust his conduct to be more in accordance with the guidelines upheld by this community. If Swami is the compassionately motivated realist that some insist he is, then he would not find it laborous to take a less inflammatory stance while simultaneously upholding his position, his point of view, and his freedom to express that point of view. For this reason, I believe that as long as it was properly motivated, the decision to ban Swami temporarily and for the reasons given by our moderators was a correct one.

However, a certain forseeable outcome is that the decision to ban Swami has had the opposite effect as was intended. Instead of promoting more productive, tolerant, and peaceful debate, the move to ban Swami has sparked an uproar which has contributed to less productive discussion, less tolerance of our moderators, and a much less peaceful atmosphere at S&P. This is regrettable, and in retrospect this is perhaps reason enough to see the decision to ban Swami as an incorrect one.

There is no reason for hatred toward Swami. There is no reason for hatred toward those who banned him. There is no reason for any animosity toward the community because of this situation. Let's try to handle this in a way that allows us to grow together, instead of fight among eachother.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: Ped]
    #3497700 -

:thumbup: :hippie:


--------------------
A plethora of music aspirations control my temptations of future revelations beyond "now". The percussion, and the heart beat of my love and devotion. The rhythm goes beyond, prying into the third eye, releasing the creativity held so far inside. The melodicies, through the out of tune pianos and broken classical guitars...there lies a beauty. A beauty as prevelent as the fire inside. To release these energies is pure ecstacy, to deveop these gifts is sacred. The vocality, so pure as can be, shying away from herself, lies within me. For the underlying serenitity, this is what I live for. I plea for harmony, and nothing more. Music equals love. Creation of love leads to the procreativity of the World, and it's spirals and puddles prevailing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: Ped]
    #3497749 -

Ped said:
He was banned because the moderators perceived him to be an inflammatory presence detracting from the overall quality of discussion at S&P. 


Whether or not this is the reason Swami was banned is open to discussion as well, and it is impossible to know the truth.

Quote:
To ban someone because they put down others to bolster their own ego is not a violation of free speech, or of their rights.  Being part of this community is a priviledge, not a right.  When each of us created our membership, we agreed to abide by the guidelines upheld by the community. 


No one has claimed that banning of someone because they put down others to bolster their own ego is a violation of free speech or their rights, people are questioning whether Swami violated these so-described "guidelines". While our participation in this community is a privledge, and not a right, it is confusing that we have witnessed the banning of an integral member of the community when a good amount of members active in the past few days have not felt he has been deserving of that ban, or have seen evidence that could be honestly construed as being in violation of these guidelines. While we are here by privledge, and not by right, there would not be a community at all without us, and many of us care about the community and its other members, and wish the best for the community as a whole. In that respect, it is our right to directly face and analyze this entire situation, revolving around Swami's words and his banning, scrutinize the decision to the best of our abilities, and determine all factors involved.

Quote:
The beautiful part about this community is that each and every one of us has the opportunity to contribute to the formation of those guidelines.  The same cannot be said about certain geographical communities.


Which geographical communities would these be? Just because the power to contribute to the formation of these so-described "guidelines" is not fully realized or utilitzed does not mean it is not possible.

Quote:
Whether or not the decision to ban Swami was misguided is open for discussion, but it is not cause to put our moderators under the microscope, to critcize them harshly, or to judge them.  They are doing their best with what they have to work with, just like the rest of us.


Actually, it is cause to very closely scrutinze and analyze their actions to the very best of our abilities, for the best of the community, as they are in positions of higher power and have greater possibillity of control. I do not wish to be a part of a community where that power is misused, and the intended purpose of the forums I participate in are thereby compromised. In that respect, it is mine and your right to quest for this understanding.

Quote:
It is indeed quite a dilemma.  It is the job of our moderators to promote tolerance and peaceful discussion.  In trying to fulfil that purpose, the moderators were confronted with a conundrum:  "Do we tolerate the intolerant?" 


We've recently discussed this in Spirituality and Philosophy, and the most basic, simple view on this is that tolerance of intolerance is intolerance. Intolerance does not beget anything else than more intolerance. Not to mention the fact that in this particular situation, there was no clear reason to institute a ban against Swami that has been evidenced so far, merely an trickle of accumulation of vauge, so-described guideline violations, if they were interpreted correctly in the first place, and a sense of personal issues, which shouldn't really result in a banning at all...

Quote:
If the moderators perception is mistaken, then I trust that we will focus on the good motivation behind their action, rather than the bad and unnecessary effects.


Of course we must give full respect to the administration for the tasks they carry out and the possibillites they create, but if the ban has personal motivations behind it... I think they should be faced, instead of being swept away in a "we must only praise our leaders and celebrate their good qualities, not their faults". If we compare this general attitude to the realm of politics, and I think doing so is quite apt, the problem in doing this should be rather evident.

Quote:
If Swami is causing a disturbance at S&P, and if Swami has been spoken to by the moderators about that disturbance, then it is Swami's responsiblity to adjust his conduct to be more in accordance with the guidelines upheld by this community.  If Swami is the compassionately motivated realist that some insist he is, then he would not find it laborous to take a less inflammatory stance while simultaneously upholding his position, his point of view, and his freedom to express that point of view...........


Do you personally feel Swami has created a disturbance in Spirituality and Philosophy? In which ways? You have a certain way of alluding to your holding a view that Swami is "guilty of the charges", so to speak, but at the same time, appear to not want to actually say what you think... speaking in conditionals...

What is happening now as a result of Swami's ban, I am sure, was clearly forseen by those who banned him. It was obviously a very carefully considered decision with a huge list of implications... and as Swami really hasn't violated any rules at any isolated point in time, it seems as though there really is some unknown variables working behind the scenes.. beyond what has suspossedly occured between Swami and the staff in "private"... there is a huge chunk of past obviously fresh in mind of those involved with the decisions regarding this....  :shocked:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #3497755 -

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3496565/an/0/page/0

With all due respect, this forum only needs ONE Swami thread at a time :smile:

You posted a bit too late... can you please move this discussion into the other thread?

Thanks


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #3497763 -

Quote:
Which geographical communities would these be? Just because the power to contribute to the formation of these so-described "guidelines" is not fully realized or utilitzed does not mean it is not possible.



This made me think a bit- this community will never be a real community because the power to revolt does not exist. Perhaps we should stop treating it as a community?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: vampirism]
    #3497805 -

As long as you have the power to leave, you have the power to revolt.

What do you think you're doing? You're questioning Administrative action because that action is unclear. This is a WISE and PEACEFUL way to revolt. I see nothing wrong in questioning Staff or Administrative actions. You're revolting right now. Nobody's stopping you.

I don't blame you for doing this... I just suggest it stay in ONE thread.

Otherwise, there'll be 40 Swami threads... and then... there'll be 39 locked Swami threads.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #3497961 -

>> Whether or not this is the reason Swami was banned is open to discussion as well, and it is impossible to know the truth.

I understand that. That's why I opened my post by stating from what position I was formulating my opinions. In a sense, I was "taking a side" with the moderators, not because I necessarily agree with their decision, but because at this moment I'm inclined to trust their motivation.

I feel that it's necessary to approach this issue without drawing further distinction between Swami and those who banned him. That's why I'm trying to centre this discussion on the motivation of the moderators, rather than their actions. It's important, I believe, to trust the good intentions of the moderators until there is reason not to. At this time, I've yet to encounter any reasons not to. Of course, like all things, that is not involnerable to change.


>> No one has claimed that banning of someone because they put down others to bolster their own ego is a violation of free speech or their rights, people are questioning whether Swami violated these so-described "guidelines".

Granted.


>> Actually, it is cause to very closely scrutinze and analyze their actions to the very best of our abilities, for the best of the community, as they are in positions of higher power and have greater possibillity of control. I do not wish to be a part of a community where that power is misused, and the intended purpose of the forums I participate in are thereby compromised. In that respect, it is mine and your right to quest for this understanding.

I agree that it's always appropriate to remain alert and to scrutinize those in positions of leadership. My concern is that this is being done in an unrealistically negative and hateful light. It seems that some of us are so guarded against the misuse of power that any use of that power is seen immediately by some as detestable injustice. When there is such fundamental distrust of community leadership, the integrity of the community begins to break down. The leaders are paralyzed from any kind of action, the members interact with each other in fear, and trouble makers are free to run amuck.


>> Not to mention the fact that in this particular situation, there was no clear reason to institute a ban against Swami that has been evidenced so far, merely an trickle of accumulation of vauge, so-described guideline violations, if they were interpreted correctly in the first place, and a sense of personal issues, which shouldn't really result in a banning at all...

This is a tricky one to navigate because it essentially implies that as long as one has sufficient verbal talent to slip under the radar, they can be as abusive as they like without breaking the rules. Essentially, they can violate the spirit of the law without violating the letter, and therby escape discipline or ensure their martyrdom when action is finally taken against them.

By the same token, however, if we enforce the spirit of the guidelines instead of the letter, the potential is there for badly motivated moderators to impose their own dictum with a series of administrative moves justified by technicalities and half-truths.

Two vital ingredients are needed here: trust in our moderators, and moderators worthy of our trust. It is a ferverent hope of mine that the moderators we have are worthy of the trust I and others are investing in them.


>> Of course we must give full respect to the administration for the tasks they carry out and the possibillites they create, but if the ban has personal motivations behind it...

Then it is indeed unjustified, and we have a whole new set of problems that pretain not just to Swami and S&P, but to the community as a whole.


>> Do you personally feel Swami has created a disturbance in Spirituality and Philosophy? In which ways? You have a certain way of alluding to your holding a view that Swami is "guilty of the charges", so to speak, but at the same time, appear to not want to actually say what you think... speaking in conditionals...

I do believe there was sufficient cause to bring this action against Swami. From my point of view, Swami appears to be a bit of a double-sided figure. On the one side, he frequently attests to his concern for the integrity of other's thinking, and his compassionate mission to help others be of sound judgement. He has developed a bit of a following with this stance. On the other side, he seems to take delight in destroying other people's ideas, specifically graviting toward those posts which are easiest to disassemble. This does not seem like compassionate behavior. Furthermore, what compassionately driven individual takes it upon themselves to impose on others what they believe is a better way of thinking?

Though, simply because I view Swami's behavior this way does not mean that his behavior is this way. However, I am fairly confident in this point of view. If I were a moderator, I know that upon encontering this perception, I would take similar steps for the good of the community. Since the moderators seem to share this view on Swami's behavior, and since I trust their good intentions toward the community, I agree with their decision.

That the moderators have the best intentions toward the community first in their mind is just a point of view. That Swami's behavior is selfish and inflammatory is just a point of view. It could well be the opposite, that Swami behaves with the best intentions and that the moderators have a selfish vendetta against him. Let's talk about it.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: Ped]
    #3497992 -

Lets, but talk about it in the OTHER thread.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: Rose]
    #3498011 -

>> With all due respect, this forum only needs ONE Swami thread at a time

With this thread, I'm trying to promote a certain standard of discussion that might lead peacefully to the truth at hand.  Not only am I trying to get to the bottom of The Swami Situation (Copyright Ped 2004 :smile: ), I am trying to foster a less closed-off, less dejected, and a more open, more trusting spirit in this community.  It is quite possible to trust our leadership and reap the benefits of that trust without leaving ourselves volnerable to abuse.  When we can take this skill and apply it to the people in our lives, we can uncover a tremendous amount of peace. 

Had I attempted to sway in this direction a thread which already possessed it's own momentum, I would surely be wasting my time.  For this reason, I believe that this thread differs from the others on this issue and is worthy of it's own place in the forum listing.


--------------------


:poison: Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud :poison:
Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: Ped]
    #3498048 -

I understand, and that is EXACTLY the tone needed in the other thread right now.

Join in. Please. This thread will likely be locked anyway, just because of the redundant nature of its topic.

You have great points, make them in the other thread... please.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: Rose]
    #3498472 -

It comes down to trendal being a previous mr.mushrooms nuthugger and shroomism losing his preacher status to swami some years ago.

Both people who clearly had something against swami collaborated on this.

The rest of the mods are all coming together around them to add some kind of "seal of approval", but its nonsense.

Shroomism used to love all the crazies that hung on his nuts about the grey's, but now he has lost all crediblity for many reasons and is just non-existant. No one wants to hear his new-age shit anymore, and it eats him alive.

Shroomism and trendal should do the right thing and resign as mods. Mr.mushrooms made a huge stink abusing power in S+P and caused a lot of problems for a while, when he left things got better. It is time to change the guards.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Edited by looner2 (12/14/04 04:36 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: Ped]
    #3499519 -

There is no reason for hatred toward Swami. There is no reason for hatred toward those who banned him. There is no reason for any animosity toward the community because of this situation. Let's try to handle this in a way that allows us to grow together, instead of fight among eachother.

:thumbup:


--------------------
suicide a permanent solution to a temporary problem

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: looner2]
    #3500223 -

Looner, that made me spew my drink!! :lol: God, that was funny! The truth is usually the funniest thing. I wouldn't have put it that way, but I think you hit the nail on the head there.

BTW, is it true that FuckNuckle = Mr.Mushrooms? Cause I heard he left because Swami called him out on something he pulled, and FuckNuckle had it out with Swami right before this ban. It would explain a lot about the ban wouldn't it? Like you said, MM cultivated a lot of friendships with the mods here.


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Swami Situation. [Re: zorbman]
    #3500259 -

zorbman said:
BTW, is it true that FuckNuckle = Mr.Mushrooms?


no.


--------------------
Anno cock? Is that some kind of Greek liquer? -Geo's all-knowing sex slave
Scat's way better than mud cause it's warm. -Ythan 4/23/07

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Feedback and Administration > Website Announcements and Feature Feedback
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An open letter to Mods/Admins from Swami
( 1 2 all )		 Phluck 3,898 23 12/16/04 02:08 AM
by geokills
* Yet more unbelievable Swami bias! Swami 452 4 10/23/05 11:56 AM
by geokills
* Remove Swami's Ban
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )		 spudamore 25,304 237 12/13/04 07:05 PM
by geokills
* the irc situation
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Senor_Doobie 12,604 107 01/31/04 05:41 PM
by geokills
* fate of the op situation in irc Calbha 902 5 01/31/04 03:16 AM
by Alien
* My Concentrated View On All Of This
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 fireworks_godS 16,365 190 12/18/04 01:35 PM
by FreakQlibrium
* Thoughts on my banishment
( 1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 )		 Swami 25,562 342 12/30/04 04:49 AM
by geokills
* Can we have a scat-free discussion about S&P?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 RoseM 13,691 182 10/03/05 12:56 PM
by MAIA

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Ythan, Thor, Seuss, geokills
1,048 topic views. 0 members, 45 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.