Carl-Richard

Are you expecting the moderator, who during a course of a discussion is incrementally approaching a compromised position of bias, to be able to self-report this condition accurately? Is that also not a bit contradictory? The moderator himself has to make the call. You're expecting the moderator to not abuse his powers in order to not abuse his powers.

Sure, if Leo wants to establish some guideline for moderators that says that (currently our guidelines do not have that rule), then I would gladly accept that. However, it would make moderation extremely tedious, as virtually all moderation actions would have to be discovered by 1 moderator and then extracted by a 2nd moderator (if we count all verbal engagement with the topic as a marker for bias). Sure, it would probably lead to less abuse, but would it be worth it? There is a trade-off for everything. Granting somebody power is also granting them the ability to abuse.

That defeats the purpose of a moderator, because the moderator has to be engaged in the discussion to know the context of an eventual violation of the guidelines. You're essentially proposing that we need moderators to moderate the moderators.

We're not moderating with respect to every possible utterance like a debate moderator. We're moderating with respect to the guidelines. I will never argue with someone about a moderation decision before I'm making it. The arguing will only happen afterwards when people disagree.

Lmao, do you think that would ease people's minds about accountability? User feedback is important.

One person said I give out warning points willy-nilly while I actually only gave 2 warning points out of 17 that were given by 4 other moderators. Another person said I'm a bad mod without elaborating. You said I'm ideological. That's it.

Mods are used to people regularly disagreeing with their decisions.

@CultivateLove I'm not going to keep derailing the thread with you. Sorry if I made you feel bad by attacking you.

It's literally against the guidelines to use multiple accounts. You also used it to avoid post restriction on your main account

I see it's open season on mods this week

My interactions with you were initiated by multiple member reports about breaking the guidelines and I happened to agree. If you disagree with my assessment, then realize that you're not the first one to be confronted by a mod about such matters.

You have 17 warning points from 5 different mods, 2 of them were from me.

A list of definitions doesn't do anything if you don't have the experiential reference points to understand them. To give the impression that you can speak clearly about these things has an element of double bind. Here is the problem behind all confusion in spirituality: it's about an experience, and what you get from teachers in the form of words is never that. It doesn't matter if it's God-realization or non-duality.

If Connor Murphy is a spiritual teacher then I was a spiritual teacher when I was 19 ?

Ok.

@Scholar Good conversation. Dan joking about Destiny and Ana made my day

INFP Use it to discover yourself, not limit yourself.

In a larger context, it isn't. It always leads to "you don't understand, you have to experience it." To give the impression that you can speak clearly about these things has an element of double bind.

The God-realization talk has the same dynamic as the Neo-Advaita talk: it's all just pointers that don't make sense without an experiential reference point. In some sense, talking in riddles is a more consistent way of communicating this fact.

Do you think it's a joke?

The main criticism can be found at 8:46:

I'm talking about Leo.

Do you ever feel that you have trouble being understood yourself?

On that topic, even so-called good evidence is limited:

Well yeah, that hearkens back to earlier critiques. Some of it, not all of it. If you're going through the hassle to bring up studies in the first place, you better bring out the good stuff.