Is Nahm banned? Or just demoted?

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Yeah, it seems he really left the forum. Kinda sad, this place won't be the same without him.

Though the guy himself will probably break his ribs laughing. Think about it, a guy gets yeeted from spirituality forum for being too spiritual and Advaitan, "non-dual". 

He would chuckle and say there was no one to kick from the forum and no forum to leave

And Absolutely speaking he would be right!

[Thought Art]

31 minutes ago, RevoCulture said:

@Thought Art

Do you feel this is an all-or-nothing proposition?  Do you believe this thread appeared out of nowhere?  Are the expressions of others not valid in your eyes? 

Instead of "no shade on Nahm," should we consider something like "Let's help Nahm grow through community support?"

 

Nahm is a big boy

No shade on him from me

I like him. Even if he was hard to speak to on the forum for me personally. 

[Insane butterfly]

Nahm acted moronic!

He exposed his complete lack of wisdom and tremendous stupidity.

Thousands of hours of meditation, YouTube channels, years of work,so much knowledge, thousands of post full of diarrhea to end up at the end of the line.

This "it's just a thought" it needs to be considered.

This example tells as that this work is not a joke.

The forum started its downfall since aspects of the truth have being pointed. Christ had thousands of followers but as closer he was turning his followers to the truth he ended up with 12 students and the last one stubt him in his back! 

We are so primitive to accept that God realization will reveal us how primitive we are!!! That is the madness we live in.

Doesn't matter if you are alone or not, it won't change the fact that you want to fuck your brains out take a shit and drink blood, the thing that you are doing already but deluding your Self that you are something higher than that.  NO  this imaginary Self needs to THINK if he wants to stay stupid or not!

No one wants to realize what a shithole he/she is but only then he/she can clean up the mess

[StarStruck]

This thread exposes the toxic culture between mods. Several people made serious remarks about Carl and the other mods just blindly support a fellow mod while mods should be independent. 

If Leo wants to fix the culture on this forum it needs a top to bottom approach, not a bottom to top approach. He should get rid of toxic mods and mods that don’t understand their role. 

The role of mods should not be to cover each other’s ass. They are here to serve Leo and the community but unfortunate a lot of them develop an ego and spiritual ego. 

[Inliytened1]

@StarStruck why do you feel that way? The mod in question responded to you and said the interactions he had with you were based on multiple reports from other users.  He made a judgment call..whars the problem and how is that toxic?

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

This thread exposes the toxic culture between mods. Several people made serious remarks about Carl and the other mods just blindly support a fellow mod while mods should be independent. 

Mods are used to people regularly disagreeing with their decisions.

[StarStruck]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@StarStruck why do you feel that way? The mod in question responded to you and said the interactions he had with you were based on multiple reports from other users.  He made a judgment call..whars the problem and how is that toxic?

I’m not obligated to agree with extreme feminists on this forum. If I receive couple of reports from this fringe group on this forum that doesn’t mean I should get a warning.

The warning I got for being ideological and my opinion was basically the same as that of Leo. So why do I get a warning and Leo doesn’t get a warning?

This is what I mean. Carl-Richard misuses his power and uses his mod rights as a stick against his opponents. I’m not the only one with this complaint. 

Multiple people said Carl-Richard is in fact the ideological person, and he is a mod. If multiple people complain about this mod the problem is not the people. 

I’m one of the most easy going people you can meet. You can believe me when I say this. This is just my advice to Leo: he should break the back of the corruption between his mods, the mods should serve the community, not a fringe group and mods should be independent, not back each other’s ass. This is how corruption is created. 

The quality of the mods determine the quality of the forum. 

Edited February 22, 2022 by StarStruck

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

This is what I mean. Carl-Richard misuses his power and uses his mod rights as a stick against his opponents. I’m not the only one with this complaint. 

Multiple people said Carl-Richard is in fact the ideological person, and he is a mod. If multiple people complain about this mod the problem is not the people. 

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.

[Mafortu]

Mods should be invisible, as in... nobody should know who is a mod, it just creates weird power dynamics and unnecessary drama.

 

[Thought Art]

@Mafortu I will think about it but I think Mods being known a good idea. There is BS in every aspect of human social life. Get used to it. 

Mods do pretty well. They are unpaid randoms for the most part.

Just ape stuff (drama)

Edited February 22, 2022 by Thought Art

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Mafortu said:

Mods should be invisible, as in... nobody should know who is a mod, it just creates weird power dynamics and unnecessary drama.

 

I don't think that's a good idea, Mods are there to moderate, they need to be communicating with members and the members need to know that they are talking to moderators to establish that they have to follow their rules. The entire point of a moderator is that they have power.

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Mafortu said:

Mods should be invisible, as in... nobody should know who is a mod, it just creates weird power dynamics and unnecessary drama.

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

[Scholar]

I think people are pointing out a valid dynamic with moderators, which is one of the reasons why I wouldn't want to be a moderator.

Someone like @Carl-Richard is very active in arguing with members, in which case he is kind of changing his role from moderator to member. There is a reason why in debates, the moderator is someone who is not participating in the debate. It gives them the ability to focus on moderation and be as unbiased as possible.

Once a moderator starts arguing with someone in the forum, they basically should stop considering themselves a moderator in the context of that conversation, to avoid A) being perceived to be biased in regards to moderation and B) to avoid being biased in regards to moderation. In that case, another moderator has to take the role of the moderator and consider the moderator participating in the conversation as another member, otherwise the lines kind of become blurry which we all know from the recent Dr K/Mr Girl drama, that it will lead to problems.

It's a bad move to have a moderator argue with a member in terms of content, and then start moderating them in regards to TOS violations. These two things should be considered separate processes and moderators, due to their role, should I guess tend to avoid arguing and focus on moderation.

 

[Loba]

Awww, sorry to see Nahm go, he has been a member here for years.
Love you Nahm, sorry all this happened.  

[RMQualtrough]

9 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Mafortu I will think about it but I think Mods being known a good idea. There is BS in every aspect of human social life. Get used to it. 

Mods do pretty well. They are unpaid randoms for the most part.

Just ape stuff (drama)

I moderated a forum, it was an extremely easy role, for dat dere power. The constant thread locking is embarassing.

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think people are pointing out a valid dynamic with moderators, which is one of the reasons why I wouldn't want to be a moderator.

Someone like @Carl-Richard is very active in arguing with members, in which case he is kind of changing his role from moderator to member. There is a reason why in debates, the moderator is someone who is not participating in the debate. It gives them the ability to focus on moderation and be as unbiased as possible.

Once a moderator starts arguing with someone in the forum, they basically should stop considering themselves a moderator in the context of that conversation, to avoid A) being perceived to be biased in regards to moderation and B) to avoid being biased in regards to moderation. In that case, another moderator has to take the role of the moderator and consider the moderator participating in the conversation as another member, otherwise the lines kind of become blurry which we all know from the recent Dr K/Mr Girl drama, that it will lead to problems.

It's a bad move to have a moderator argue with a member in terms of content, and then start moderating them in regards to TOS violations. These two things should be considered separate processes and moderators, due to their role, should I guess tend to avoid arguing and focus on moderation.

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.

[Mafortu]

Just now, Thought Art said:

@Mafortu I will think about it but I think Mods are a good idea. There is BS in every aspect of human social life. Get used to it. 

Just ape stuff

A "Get used to it" attitude is not a conduit for positive change. Look at reddit and all the toxicity that breeds with mod-related topics and witch-hunts.

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

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

If a topic gets closed. the user would simply get notified by the "moderation team" with the reason the topic got closed.
Feedback is given, and with faceless moderators the interaction feels less personal.

To double down, If I were Leo, I wouldn't post on the forums under his name. People just get WEIRD with him, and I am sure he knows it. Shit gets very unhealthy with parasocial relationships. I would just give my wise advice blended in with the crowd. 

Leo deleted the video where he explained why he deleted the solipsism video, its hard to watch but shit is getting to him and I wouldn't be surprised if one of these days he deleted the forums.

Things need to change.

[vizual]

@Mafortu So he took down the solipsism video, and then he took down the video where he explained why he took down the solipsism video? That's some inception shit

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Mafortu said:

A "Get used to it" attitude is not a conduit for positive change. Look at reddit and all the toxicity that breeds with mod-related topics and witch-hunts.

If a topic gets closed. the user would simply get notified by the "moderation team" with the reason the topic got closed.
Feedback is given, and with faceless moderators the interaction feels less personal.

To double down, If I were Leo, I wouldn't post on the forums under his name. People just get WEIRD with him, and I am sure he knows it. Shit gets very unhealthy with parasocial relationships. I would just give my wise advice blended in with the crowd. 

Leo deleted the video where he explained why he deleted the solipsism video, its hard to watch but shit is getting to him and I wouldn't be surprised if one of these days he deleted the forums.

Things need to change.

But then the mods wouldn't be able to participate in conversations.

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

You misunderstood my post, it was in regards to first arguing about content (for example something like debating whether Dr K is wrong), and then become active in the moderator role in the context of that conversation. I clarified why I thought that was problematic, it has nothing to do with arguing about moderation choices. I am saying that when you participate in a conversation, to avoid bias and perception of bias, you ought to put aside your role as a moderator, and if you think there is a violation ask another moderator to take over.

 

Example, I argue with Moderator Y about why it's wrong to consume animals, we argue and argue, then Moderator Y moderates our conversation. That is problematic.

What should happen is that once Moderator Y starts to participate in the argument with me, they ought to set aside their role as moderator and if they think there is a breach of TOS, notify another moderator to take a look at that so that someone who has no bias can look and make the decision.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Scholar