I agree with Doug here. I've always thought it odd that although this group is called Fairfield Life, many of the most frequent contributors don't live here and have no connection to Fairfield and are also, in many cases, hostile to TM and the TMO. What are they doing here? Most of the local contributors stopped posting a long time ago; it would be nice to get some of them back so this could become once again a genuine community board with some relevance to our life here in Fairfield.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rick, would help a lot if you would at least add 'llundrub's > qualifier here to the FFL homepage description paragraphs, if you > will not drop the one phrase, "Pretty much any topic is fair game". > > At the least without some closure to the FFl universe you always give > us a black hole big enough for the newly arrived alt.TMer's with > their baggage or anyone from, Texas, with that phrase to drive any > unrelated subjects through to post on FFL. They have and they do & > We can't help ourselves when you have it so wide open and unqualified. > > The other paragraph is okay on the FFL home page that says: "We > often discuss the trials and tribulations of the TM Movement, which > may not interest some, but that's why God created the delete key. > Discussions also draw from diverse teachers such as Ammachi, Eckhart > Tolle, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Byron Katie, Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, > Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Shankara, etc." > > However, > > "Pretty much any topic is fair game. We have discussed spirituality, > politics, economics, morality and higher states of consciousness, > drug laws, evolution vs. creationism, enlightenment, advaita, > reincarnation, karma, Jyotish (Vedic astrology), yagya, Ayurveda, > dzogchen, tantra, channeling, vegetarianism, kundalini, celibacy, > sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, racism, UFOs, Buddhism, Hinduism, > Veda, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc." > > This would work much better for us and help us all then if you would > add: <"from FF or > > with ties to FF only. The rest of you fuck off." > > Would help a lot to preserve the effectiveness of FFL for the > community here if you would drop that first phrase & tighten it up > for us all thereby with the last. > > You've done a swell job owning this forum. It has helped a lot of > people over the years. It has got out of hand though because people > have not been able to self moderate it according to the too nice home > page description and the 'guidelines'. > > We could help ourselves more at the outset if you make these small > changes to the description of FFL. Not everyone needs to belong to > every group. The way you have it described is too broad and wide > open for people to abuse. Thank you in advance for your kind > consideration, > -Doug from FF > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote: > > > > When it comes to moderation, the way it should be is this: people > from FF or > > with ties to FF only. The rest of you fuck off. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of TurquoiseB > > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:47 AM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Reward vs. Punishment: a different kind of > > moderation > > > > > > Since the subject of moderation of this forum has > > come up, might I suggest a different *form* of > > moderation, one that I have seen work on other > > spiritual forums? It's a kind of "group moderation," > > one that definitely WORKS to keep the overall > > state of attention high and flaming to a minimum. > > > > What it involves is the "feedback loop." In my > > opinion (and in the opinion of the other forums > > on which I have seen this technique work), those > > who spend a lot of time trying to provoke head-to- > > head arguments or trying to insult or demonize > > other posters are -- bottom line -- seeking > > ATTENTION when they do so. > > > > Just don't give it to them. > > > > The compulsion to argue, or to provoke controversy > > is IMO a small s self phenomenon. What else "gets > > off" on proving itself "right," or on arguing with > > someone else? The small s self is seeking to > > *perpetuate* itself by constantly trying to stir > > up controversy, in which other small s selves will > > *interact* with it, and thus allow *both* small s > > selves to pretend for another few minutes that they > > exist, and are firmly in charge. > > > > An alternative is just for people posting here to > > be a little more mindful about the posts that they > > reply to. What I'm suggesting is that if you run > > into a post that strikes you as uplifting, positive, > > funny, or that otherwise made your day, respond to > > it by complimenting or agreeing with the poster who > > made the uplifting post. Get into a discussion with > > them. > > > > When you encounter posts that you consider negative, > > or insulting, or designed to start a fight, respond > > by NOT RESPONDING. Period. Don't give the small s > > self that was so lonely that the only way it knew > > how to interact with other human beings was to fight > > with them *any* feedback -- leave it alone in the > > dark, waiting for a response that never comes. > > DON'T get into discussion with such people. > > > > Think about it. This approach works equally well if > > you are a TM critic or a TM True Believer. If Vaj > > or Paul say something that you perceive as negative or > > calculated to start a fight, JUST DON'T FIGHT. If > > Judy or Peter K or Nablus say something that seems > > equally designed to be conflict-provoking, JUST > > DON'T RESPOND. > > > > The effectiveness of this approach is in its simplicity. > > All we have to do is REWARD the behavior we consider > > positive by giving it feedback, and NOT REWARD > > the behavior we consider less than positive by giving > > it NO feedback at all. No one needs to get drawn into > > any conflict they do not wish to participate in. No > > one has to get down and roll in the mud except those > > who obviously *like* rolling in the mud. > > > > This is what I'm going to try to do. Others can do as > > they please. My experience is that when forums have to > > descend to having someone act as official "moderator," > > to fight the negativity, that's pretty much the end > > of the forum. I'd hate to see that happen to FFL. But > > when the *members* of the forum just take it upon > > *themselves* to support the posts they deem positive > > via feedback, and to *not support* the posts they > > consider negative, via NO feedback, the negative > > situation tends to work itself out within a few short > > months. The compulsive flamers and arguers go somewhere > > else to get their argument "fix," because they can't > > get it on a forum on which almost no one responds to > > their provocations. > > > > Again, it's a simple formula, based on an age-old > > spiritual truth: "What you focus on you become." > > > > If you want to become argumentation, focus on (and > > respond to) the posts that are calculated to start an > > argument. If you want to become harmony and positivity, > > focus on (and respond to) only the posts that contain > > those qualities. > > > > Good luck. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
