Rules Of The Road

2010-3-28 15:17:00

My Friends,

It looks like it is time to restate some of the guidelines that we want to dominate on the Keys.

Before I do so let me reiterate a brief history.

For the first few years of our existence we had an entirely unmoderated list. This was both good and bad. It was good in that people felt free to post anything they wanted. It also brought forth those who joined with a mission in their mind to prove me wrong or a false teacher.

This was both good and bad in its effect. It was good in that answering their objections brought forth quite a few teachings and parables that I might had otherwise not written.

It was bad in that it tested the patience of the members who just wanted me to proceed with the teachings in an orderly manner. Many also did not like the conflict, even though it resulted in some interesting teachings on the side.

Since I believe in maximum freedom I acquiesced to no moderation as long as possible. Finally, a couple posters came along who were obnoxious beyond belief and even breathing threats. These few forced us into a moderated list.

Thus had an interesting effect. Instead of going through moderation, the challengers to my teachings just dropped away. Apparently, if they could not violate the rules of civility and toss insults around liberally then they were not going to play at all.

Since going on moderation I have still been challenged by outsiders now and then. In addition to this members of the group are quick to ask questions or challenge me if anything I say does not register correctly with their soul or reasoning. This is a good thing as long as it is done civilly for it adds to clarification of the teachings. I certainly do not want to set myself up as a beastly authority that members are afraid to challenge.

Since going off moderation the largest problems have been created by good members. Among them are:

Making too many posts, especially off topic ones. The solution to this was to issue a guideline of three posts per day per member. This should particularly apply if the posts are off topic. I allow a little slack here if the members are in an intense discussion on an on topic issue.

Also I do not count any quote of the day toward the three posts.

Posts that are too far off topic. This problem is most prevalent with new members but sometimes seasoned ones fall prey to it.

Since the newer members are still on moderation the group does not see all the posts that are rejected. We reject most anything promoting commercial enterprises, another group, SPAM, or something completely off the wall, which would only divert us from our directed discussions.

Since most older members are not moderated sometimes a post or two will get through that would have been rejected if on moderation. We cannot do anything about that unless the member gets too far out of line - then we may place him or her back on moderation.

Posts of a personal nature. These are posts, usually by unmoderated members, that deal with personal issues that should be handled through personal email.
Arguments started between members. It is all right to a degree as long as the two are civil and it is of interest to the group but often they can go on too long and become a distraction. Lengthy disagreements such as these should be removed to private email.
Personal attacks. This has been the most difficult problem to deal with over the years as it usually involves members not under moderation. Any personal attack from a member under moderation is rejected and does not appear. Therefore, any personal attack appearing on the Keys is usually from an accepted member who I consider a friend.

Sometimes the attack is one-sided and sometimes two or more descend into this mode. In either case, I am reluctant to take action because of the affection I have for those who have been with me over the years. Even so, I have placed older members on moderation when necessary and will do it again. In fact several older members are on moderation even now, but I do not relish adding to the list.

There are some things members can do that may again place them on moderation:

Calling another member a liar or insinuating such. If you think the other person is saying something not true do not insinuate he is a liar, but merely point out what is not true. Maybe he is just making an honest mistake.
Pointing out the impure motives of another. This is always dangerous territory as the accused will feel insulted and the accuser may be mistaken. Maybe the accuser is completely wrong, for few are capable of reading the heart and intentions of another.
Using attack words such a stupid, imbecile, hypocrite, liar and others.
Strongly disagreeing with another member's point of view to the extent that they feel attacked. A number of members have done this and have sometimes scared off new members. This approach may not involve name-calling but one may come across so strong that the one attacked may feel like he is being called stupid or worthless.

This is a subtle area subject to interpretation so I just put it out there for reflection. The point is to remember that we are all friends and to treat each other accordingly.

Over the past few months there has been too many attacks of one member against another. This makes many sensitive souls afraid to even post and affects intelligent discussion that could be had by them.

Therefore, I have decided to take a different line of approach for the near future.

Anyone who makes what I consider to be an attack post will immediately be placed on moderation for at least a week. Then, when taken off moderation, if the attack continues, the length of the next moderation will be longer.

The greatest cure for argument is delay. A week or more off will generally diffuse whatever rancor is going on.

If a member is attacked and defending himself with civility then he probably will not be subject to moderation. I say probably because I may make an exception if he too is causing a distraction.