Few minutes ago, one of our analytical contributors deleted his account. Don't know what happened, but hope he will remember: he, his insights into frequencies and symbols, were a true gift to this community.
Until we meet again!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (100)
sorted by:
Hi, fren. You're one who would be missed just as badly under similar circumstances.
“Dooming” depends on definition. “Elon bad because xyz” or “Trump has always mingled with swamp creatures” etc can be just a different opinion, but to me, it's shills and dooming.
Do I want to silence that thing? Maybe not silence, but en masse those opinionists are annoying, distracting and trying to create a non-productive bandwagon. Do they offer any positive program, new ideas? Nope? So, they are shills and doomers.
Thanks you, Mrs.
<start script>
My view: I think there are gray areas. I would hope, and encourage, those who bring a contrasting view, for example regarding Musk, to express it, backing that up with reasoning, facts, and disclosure about personal bias. Within the framework of the purpose of the board, I think the mods certainly embrace and encourage diversity of approach. In fact, its critical.
But in a spectrum of opinions and views, there may also be expression of non-constructive, unhelpful views ala dooming, etc., and that can get mixed in. Which is why mods have the task of filtering out and separating wheat from chaff, to the best of their ability, on the basis of a few things, I suspect:
motivation: what is the poster/commenter seeking or trying to achieve?
net effect: does the comment, discussion, approach bring a net positive effect, or does it have a net negative effect on the purpose of the board?
The linchpin to everything is the purpose. Purpose is the reason for the existence.
In addition, as you allude to, yes, the mods (and the community as a collective, too) need to consider whether collectively, different accounts are seeking to undermine together, or whether they are simply misguided, etc. In the case of misguided, it's tough, because the mods need to balance benefit of the whole board with the need for the misguided individual(s) to have opportunity for growth (i.e. to remove, or not remove).
Ultimately, engagement with the board should be see as a fusion of TWO reciprocal purposes:
One, contribution to the board, the collective foundation of knowledge, reasoning, effort.
Two, an opportunity for personal growth, support, networking, and development.
Any genuine creation always has dual purposes fusing the whole (i.e. one) and the individual (i.e. two). Harmony between these two purposes is the bedrock of creative purpose.
If someone has a serious issue with the mods and how the board is being run, it may be an opportunity for reflection and self-growth by looking internally. Which is not to say this is always the case. Reasonable criticism of the mod team in the context of the board purpose is likely to be a constructive good thing, but IMO, should be coupled with a recognition of the work and value that the mods bring to the community.
<end pontification script>