One person's contentious, snarky comment is another person's honest, heartfelt observation. That's part of the problem. That's the 'gray' area. But every so often there's someone who just gets so edgy and mean-spirited that everybody knows they're being contentious and engaging in inappropriate behavior. It's the moderator's job to know the difference. :-) Not always easy, I'm sure.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Kwan,

Have you seen contention in this thread?

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 12:26AM by Omega.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the other hand, it's much easier to recognize a
> personal attack, and delete it.
>
> "Nip it in the bud". (Somebody else said that. I
> forgot who)
It was Swami Sivananda to one of his Disciples,
Radha, who had told him she was doing something wrong....WY
[images.google.com]
[www.yasodhara.org]

>Kwan, Have you seen contention in this thread?<

A little bit of what I sometimes call 'snarkiness,' but not genuine out-and-out contentiousness, no. I didn't consider what took place on the thread worthy of expelling CB for a month, really; perhaps I thought a moderator could have chosen a few choice words of tactful insight to steer things in a more friendly and positive direction (in hindsight), but I didn't really pay much attention to it beyond noticing some banter going on between 2 or 3 parties. It didn't seem like a big fight to me, like some of the crazy arguments that we used to get on the political forum. I confess if the thread in question had really seemed highly contentious or inappropraite to me, I probably would have been following it more closely to see what would happen!

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

I am not changing any policy here on rawfoodsupport, but rather I am going to enforce the existing policy. I've included the existing policy below in case anyone forgot what they agreed to when they joined this forum.

Also, I definitely felt burned by what happened here with the Politics forum. The folk on this Off Topics forum agreed that creating a Politics forum would eliminate a lot of the contention and debate that was going on here, that was creating bad feelings among the group. Creating this forum required a lot of effort on my part, moving several thousand messages from the Off Topics to the Politics forum. On the bright side of that work, it felt good to have the anger energy that was in those political posts to no longer be in the Off Topics forum.

You can blame the failure of the Politics forum all on one person, but as we all know, it takes 2 to tango, and what happened was a lot of people sent an email to John and this got him upset and he deleted the Politics forum. If the people involved had kept to the agreement, which was to not go there if it was disturbing your peace, we would still have that forum today.

What I learned from this lesson is that the group consensus of what they think will work may not always work, and in fact is probably statistically no better than what I might think will work.

In some sense, I am glad John deleted the Politics forum. While it felt good to have that anger energy out of the Off Topics forum, it felt even better to have the energy off the entire website.

Another thread that really disturbed me was a recent thread that was very judgmental and critical of the leaders in the raw food movement. The existing policy prohibits this kind of behavior on the forum, and I will be more actively removing those that participate in this kind of severe judgment and criticism.

Another thing that bothers me is that people that are baiting and de-baiting members of this forum, to a point where things don't feel good anymore and it becomes necessary for them to leave. One can say people need to have a thick skin to participate in internet forums, but if that is true for this forum, I definitely should be fired.

So in case you forgot the existing forum policy, here it is:

====================================

Living and Raw Food Boards Policy

These boards are provided as a public service, courtesy of LIVING-FOODS.COM. Please post and reply to queries related only to the vegan/vegetarian living food lifestyle. LIVING-FOODS.COM, the webmaster and the designated board moderators take no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the comments made herein. By using this board, you agree to our disclaimer. We expect everyone to be kind and respectful to other posters.

Not Permitted on the boards:

* Foul language
* Rude, offensive, insulting or vulgar posts.
* Anything for sale or give away
* Asking for, or giving medical advice, or
* Requests for contributions
* Off topic posts, or posts not deemed proper for the category they are placed
* Slander of individuals or Organizations
* Advertisments of products, services or advertising of other web sites

All offensive and inappropriate posts will be deleted. Offenders will be banned from posting. Serious offenders will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The spirit of the Living & Raw Foods Community discussion forums is to support fellow vegan living foods health enthusiasts on their path to higher health and quality of life. This site is a privately owned, free site which is paid for by the Webmaster, and assisted by members. Please see the Members section of this site for membership information and benefits. The intent here is support and educate one another with:

• compassion
• kindness
• respect
• patience
• competance

Let's be mindful that:

1. Some people here are totally new to the living food diet concept and first impressions weigh heavily.

2. Some people here are in the process of healing and they are very sensitive, and it is inappropriate to try to "fix" their health problem with therapies or without their permission.

3. If you have no formal training as a health coach it is inappropriate to try to offer healing advice to people with illness (especially if you have limited information about the person's condition), except to relate first hand experience and recommend books, articles on this site and elsewhere, and health professionals. Refer people to the Resources/Practitioners page in this site for professional health & nutrition help.

4. If you are ill and seeking healing advice it is generally best to get advice and coaching services from a trained health professional -- there are a few such participants in this open forum, however this is not a healing guidance forum -- we recommend working with a professional health coach or hygienic or naturopathic doctor. Refer people to the Resources/Practitioners page in this site for professional health & nutrition help.

5. Everyone wants to be treated kindly. Do not fight here-- you are only fighting with yourself.

6. Our expression (the words we type) has a vibration which effects our own health in profound ways,

7. Becoming a "raw fooder" is a personal and unique journey and an emotionally sensitive process, and it's best if it unfolds at a gentle pace.

8. Pushing, judging and venting on fellow health enthusiasts is harmful to everyone here.

9. The eyes of the world are watching us -- we can choose to mirror the chaos of society, or we can choose to be co-creators of an exemplary community of health and compassion minded people. Let's choose to follow our hearts and give our selves and our community fellows the best.

10. If you are a new comer, please check the FAQ for answers to all the frequently asked questions before posting a message here.

Thank you for your cooperation.
The Living-Foods Team


BY REGISTERING AT THIS SITE TO USE THE BOARDS, I AGREE TO THE ABOVE POLICY, and ACKNOWLEDGE that my ability to use the boards may be terminated without warning for any reason.

pakd4fun,

My point was that Bryan suggests we try doing things way b.), and half of the posters vehemently disagree. This is the very definition of contention: contest. Irony, right?

Bryan,

Thanks for reiterating the rules. I see I must be more vigilant with my vocab : )

Pakd4fun--

I misspoke when I answered your question about contention on this thread. I was thinking of the other thread that this one evolved out of -- the 'Too Bad I Don't Believe in God' thread. (Long day, I guess!) But no, I didn't encounter what I considered to be contention on this thread at all either; well-crafted statements of concern, maybe a little anxiety and a smattering of anger, but no contentiousness.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

some related thoughts

Editorial: We need no law to define ‘hate’ speech
4:58AM Saturday Mar 19, 2005

Is there no end to political correctness? Yes, fortunately, there is. An overwhelming majority of submissions to a parliamentary select committee in Auckland this week told the MPs that a law against "hate speech" would be a step too far.

There is of course already a law against expressions which may incite racial disharmony. Those who sought a law against so-called "hate speech" wanted the same sort of protection to apply to religion, gender and sexual orientation.

Church leaders were among those who urged the select committee to drop the idea, gender defenders did not feature in the discussion. Among the few to appear in support of the proposal were the Aids Foundation and the Islamic Women’s Council.

The suggestion apparently had its genesis in the Film and Literature Board of Review when it learned from the Court of Appeal that no grounds existed in law for the board to rule as objectionable two Christian videotapes expressing disapproval of homosexuality.

Defenders of freedom of speech nearly always find themselves on the side of attitudes they do not share. It is possible to take a sympathetic view of homosexuality yet defend the right of others to express disapproval of it, just as one can practise a religion yet defend the right of others to condemn it.

It comes from the belief that the right of people to speak their mind is an elemental human right that should not be limited except where it directly threatens harm to others.

The Human Rights Act 1993 declares it an offence to publish, broadcast or utter in a public place material that is "threatening, abusive or insulting" and "likely to excite hostility against, or bring into contempt" any group on the grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origin.

Those phrases fall a long way short of direct physical harm to racial groups, and those seeking a wider prohibition of hate speech are entitled to ask why it should not be equally unlawful to speak about homosexuals or a religious group in a manner that is "abusive or insulting" and likely to "bring them into contempt".

It is difficult to find a distinction in principle. But ethnic protection goes too far. Strictly applied, the foregoing phrases forbid anyone speaking unkindly of Australians.

When the Human Rights Act was updated in 1993, the question was already being asked: is there an end to political correctness?

Now at least excessive speech-control is not to be applied more widely. The committee chairwoman, Dianne Yates, declared after just one day of hearings that the exercise was "a little luxury". There was no policy and no bill before the committee. It supposedly took it upon itself to test the water.

The Government will be supremely grateful to see the committee drop the exercise, especially in election year. The relief in the Beehive is evident in a letter from Justice Minister Phil Goff to the Herald complaining that our report gave an impression it was a Government proposal to ban hate speech. It is open to anyone to suspect this inquiry could not have started without at least the tacit consent of the leadership of Parliament’s largest party. It is hardly a cause the Opposition would have led.

Hate speech is hard to define but easy to identify. Most of us recognise it when we hear it. We need no law to despise it.

Please do not publish people's email address that are not your own on this forum unless you have the permission of the person's whose email you are about to make public. Omega post the admin's business email, and sending emails about forum business to his personal or business email is not appropriate. You can send a private message to admin if you want the admin's attention.

I consider this a form of harassment, and as such, I will deal with it.

Wow, stay off the site for a day and a half and jeez...

I want to be able, as a farmer who grows organic fruit and veggies, to discuss the latest crazy legislation trying to go through the system (as it affects us as raw foodists and healthy, conscious beings) and to engage in healthy debate, as long as it is not insulting or degrading. I do not wish to engage in sophomoric banter, and I feel that it is easy enough to just not participate in that, although I have gotten caught up a little in some of the political discussions that ended up going nowhere.

"Not Permitted on the boards:

* Foul language
* Rude, offensive, insulting or vulgar posts.
* Anything for sale or give away
* Asking for, or giving medical advice, or
* Requests for contributions
* Off topic posts, or posts not deemed proper for the category they are placed
* Slander of individuals or Organizations
* Advertisments of products, services or advertising of other web sites"

I think I have seen most of these "forbidden" posts on this board and have maybe been a participant (I tend to have a bit of a potty mouth at times). I think that maybe we should be reminded that this is supposed to be a positive system of support and start from there, anew. We need to look at our commonality. It would be a shame if we were so caught up in our squabbling that we missed a horrendous bill passed (or something) that totally ruined our ability to live the healthy life we all profess that we want for ourselves and each other. We need to rethink our place here on this board, search within ourselves and approach this with a fresh outlook. We have something special in common, folks. Let's remember this and start supporting each other again.

Bryan, it's good to hear your concerns, and I'm glad the rules aren't being changed.

In particular, I want to express my appreciation to you for sharing with us how you felt "burned" after doing all the work to separate the "politics forum" from the "other topics" forum. I hadn't thought of that, but now that I know, it does seem perfectly understandable.

We're all human though, so please try not to be disappointed with us. I think that separating the two forums was a worthwhile effort that everyone was hoping would succeed. No one could have known how it would be until we tried it. You deserve much credit for going along, and for doing all the work.

As for the thread that bothered you, and the baiting, I agree that many of those posts were against the rules that we all did agree to. Any time you decide to step in and give a warning, and/or anytime you delete an offensive post and let that action be known, I think you will have much support for doing that. Just bust right in there and do it!

As long as your action is taken in response to personal attack(s), rather than pleasant discussion or debate, I can guarantee you'll at least have my support. In fact, I'd be happy to see such action more frequently, as I believe that more immediate action may help in avoiding more drastic consequences - like suspensions - in the future (hopefully, anyway).

Bryan, I've never seen you delete one single post without just cause for it. People may disagree with the decision to delete the politics forum, but that was John's decision and not yours.

I also want to extend my appreciation for what you said about having a thick skin. I think my own skin is on the thick side, but some are more sensitive. Were you implying that you are one of those more sensitive individuals? We should all try to be aware of each other's sensitivities. It may be harder for us thick-skinned folks to remember that sometimes.

Whatever the case, I'm glad to see this all getting aired. I hope you and Kwan and John are able to have a uniform strategy for consistent and effective moderation as we all move forward. I think input from all of us should bring about some helpful insight. Like everything else in life, the finished product may require some experimentation and practice.

The optimal result will probably not be perfect, but will hopefully allow for a minimum of contention and a free flow of information.

Bryan, what do you think of the idea of allowing political discussion on the "other topics" forum as long as it only has to do with food/health issues?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 07:49AM by suncloud.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not changing any policy here on
> rawfoodsupport, but rather I am going to enforce
> the existing policy.

Great decision. Thanks Bryan.

> In some sense, I am glad John deleted the Politics
> forum. While it felt good to have that anger
> energy out of the Off Topics forum, it felt even
> better to have the energy off the entire website.

As moderator, you had the power to remove the main source of negative energy on that board in an instant. You chose not to do so.

As a consequence, suncloud and I initiated an alternative way of getting rid of that energy, which was to petition John to eliminate the board entirely.

> Please do not publish people's email address that
> are not your own on this forum unless you have the
> permission of the person's whose email you are
> about to make public.

John's business email is a public and not a private address.

> Omega post the admin's
> business email, and sending emails about forum
> business to his personal or business email is not
> appropriate. You can send a private message to
> admin if you want the admin's attention.

John has never complained to me when I've contacted him at his business address about forum matters.

> I consider this a form of harassment, and as such,
> I will deal with it.

If I were to post the corporate email/mailing address of a Fortune 500 CEO on this forum, and encouraged people to contact him or her about an issue of concern, that would not constitute harassment.

The email that I posted is a public, BUSINESS email address.

That said, since I do notice a living-foods.com email address in the admin profile, it would probably make more sense for forum users to contact John at that email address instead, if the need ever arose.

However, as Bryan has shifted gears from his initially proposed board policy changes, my concerns have been alleviated and I am no longer suggesting that forum users contact the site owner about this matter.

Bryan, if possible, please delete the last two sentences from this post:

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

(from "It sounds..." to "...you feel."

Thanks.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another thing that bothers me is that people that
> are baiting and de-baiting members of this forum,
> to a point where things don't feel good anymore
> and it becomes necessary for them to leave.

Hi Bryan,

Can you please explain what "de-baiting" is?

Thanks.

Omega Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I were to post the corporate email/mailing
> address of a Fortune 500 CEO on this forum, and
> encouraged people to contact him or her about an
> issue of concern, that would not constitute
> harassment.

(Late edit)

Make that:

If I were to post the corporate email/mailing address of a Fortune 500 CEO on this forum, and encouraged people to contact him or her about an issue concerning the CEO's involvement in a different business, that would not constitute harassment.

However, it would definitely make more sense to contact the CEO at the more relevant address.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I highly suggest everyone breathe, and take your
> time before responding emotionally on this thread
> or any other. A little time away from a computer
> may put a different perspective on what you read
> in any post.

This is stellar advice and definitely applies to me, as in retrospect I feel that I over-reacted in my first post earlier today and lost my cool.

I know I've been apologizing alot lately, but... sorry Bryan.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 10:45AM by Omega.

"All offensive and inappropriate posts will be deleted. Offenders will be banned from posting. Serious offenders will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

Following through with this policy is key to having the kind of board you (and I) want Bryan. Remember the policy states "posts will be deleted" and not the entire thread .

Suncloud, Bryan once deleted an entire thread that was several pages long because of one person's ' rude posts, and all without warning. I was in the middle of a post I had spent an hour on, no one even saw it before it was deleted. So, even though you have never seen Bryan delete a post without just cause, I am here to tell you that he has deleted many without just cause, dozens in that case alone.

I had already made myself scarce when the political forum was separated and then removed. I remember reading how happy many people were when it was decided that it would be separated. The thing I knew at that time, and what I am saying now, is the only thing that will make people, some people, follow rules of social etiquette is to follow through with the policy quoted above, not by removing the subjects talked about. Cb was rude to Lana Wolfe (was that her name?) for absolutely no reason on a completely non-political thread she had started. I admire Bryan for reprimanding him the way he did. It was embarrassing the way CB replied to her. My point is, if someone is going to be rude, you can't stop them by removing the things they (we) can discuss. Punishing everyone for a few socially inept posters only creates animosity.

I believe the policy already in place can and will work if moderators are diligent about following through. If there is a question about rude behavior, a grey area, then a warning might be in order. Just as in parenting, consistency is key!!!

I think having more than one moderator will be most helpful. I don't know how Bryan manages to have a life being the only one.

I am so happy this thread was started and I have been given the oportunity to share my thoughts about all this. Thank you Bryan.

I also want to thank Bryan for a difficult job here as well, and I agree that maybe a co-moderator would be helpful. I agree in retrospect that removing offending posters for varying amounts of time, depending on the severity of the infraction, is probably a better idea than removing a whole forum and no longer being able to discuss very important issues that can seriously affect our whole lives. It's a tough call for sure, though.

Bryan, I also want to thank you for managing this huge forum, dealing with all of our interactions, day in and day out. It can't be an easy job. There is a reason that this forum is the clear choice for so many of us, out of all the raw food forums on the web; behind it are two great people-- you and John Kohler-- who put a great deal of time and energy into maintaining its integrity and keeping it viable and meaningful.

I am in complete agreement with those who are asking for the censure or warning, and ultimately the removal of seriously offensive posters, rather than the removal of threads or topics, as I think this will solve many of the problems we have faced on this board and will give us much greater ability to have healthy and enlightening conversations with one another on the wide range of topics that concern us, including health-related political issues.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Thanks Bryan for posting your thoughts about this. About a month ago i got a return email from John regarding something (unrelated to contention or abuse) on the board that I asked him. He told me he does not involve himself in the day to day monitering of the boards ... from this i got the sense that he probably doesnt want to be bothered with these issues

Personally i would be sad to see the negativity of free for all politics come back , considering there are litteraly thousands of political forums out there to go to discuss on. however if the politics relate to raw foods and health then I think we should be able to post an discuss those issues that are relevant to us.

regarding the bashing of raw food gurus ...do you mean the paul nison stuff ? If so i have to mention something that kinda bugs me about folks like Paul ..that come on and throw out some sensational ideas and then when asked questions directly respond by saying "buy my book" or "its in my book !" or "watch my vid that you can buy at .." , i think if they are going to come to a disscussion forum then they should discuss ..not promote or try to sell ..

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

>regarding the bashing of raw food gurus ...do you mean the paul nison stuff ? If so i have to mention something that kinda bugs me about folks like Paul ..that come on and throw out some sensational ideas and then when asked questions directly respond by saying "buy my book" or "its in my book !" or "watch my vid that you can buy at .." , i think if they are going to come to a disscussion forum then they should discuss ..not promote or try to sell ..<

Good point, Jodi. I think the main reason people bash raw food gurus on this board is because there are too many instances of self-serving advertising thinly disguised as friendly advice or conversation (or sometimes adversarial challenges to other raw food gurus' concepts), posts that perhaps should be caught by the moderators and deleted as inappropriate.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

I think people are bringing up some very important and valid concerns, and I appreciate, Bryan, that you're allowing us to air them.

The policy does state: "All offensive and inappropriate posts will be deleted". We don't expect entire threads to be deleted. That's not what the policy says.

Take CB's thread on religion for example: "It's too bad I can't believe in God." As far as I'm aware, not one single post was deleted. If there's no justification for deleting a single post, then there should be no justification for deleting the entire thread, and certainly no justification for deleting the entire topic of religion.

I don't know how many complaints go to the monitor everyday. Maybe it's 100, and it's impossible to respond to all of them. But if it's a manageable number, then I do think the monitor(s) should respond to each complaint by coming to the thread and addressing the problem. If the monitor feels the problem is minor, then a reminder to remain civil may be in order. If the monitor feels the complaint was well justified, then the offending post(s) should be deleted - not the entire thread.

The post by CB to Lana Wolfe is a case in point. CB asked Lana Wolfe if she is David Wolfe's mistress. I don't know if anyone complained about that specific post. I didn't. But if someone did, or if the moderator saw it, then IMO, the moderator should have come onto the thread, deleted the post, and informed everyone that an offensive post had just been deleted.

When people see posts like that staying up on the forum, it's a signal to them that offensive posts are allowed on the forum. All the threats in the world won't change a thing, if the policies are not being enforced by the moderator.

Bryan, please don't take these criticisms personally. These are meant as "constructive criticisms." Please, will you delete the "mistress" post to Lana Wolfe? CB is already suspended, but the post is still offensive, and sends the wrong message.

There should be no need to delete entire threads or entire topics, and possibly no need to suspend individuals, if the policy of deleting offensive posts is enforced.

I thought Jgunn brought up a very good point about selling stuff on the forum.

If Paul Nison wants to come on the forum to discuss whatever, then fine. But he should be made aware that if he promotes his business on the forum, his posts will be deleted. That's the policy of the board.

Back to the Lana Wolfe thing. Basically, this is an advertisement. Each of the people on the link (except for Bryan) is selling something. They should be informed that their free advice and wisdom is perfectly welcome; but advertisements for their books/articles/products/paid counseling are not.

If it IS welcome, that's fine, but then please change the policy! There should be some consistency!

The thing is, if the moderator will stick with enforcing the policies, then I believe there will be a much better likelihood of the rest of us sticking with the policies. And there will be no need for drastic measures.

Please also consider the possibility that Omega and others (including me) might not feel the need to go to John, if monitoring concerns were being more consistently addressed.

End of "constructive criticism". Hope it's OK.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2009 08:35PM by suncloud.

Thank you Bryan, I too appreciate that you're addressing our concerns.

I have some other suggestions on ways to go forward, but think that I have said enough publicly. If you would like to hear anymore, please pm me and let me know. I'd like to help.

geeez
i guess nothing hasn't already been said
i don't know what qualifies as contention or simply passion
but at any rate
irregardless
respect is key
and i guess that too is up to perception

c'est la vie

woah,

hows it going LaV?

[www.giveittomeraw.com]

The problem with restricting topics related to religion is that so many people relate the reasons why they changed to raw food diets in part to their religion. A Raw Foods group in Meetup.com in Dallas, one of them claimst to be Christian and sent me scripture that expresses why its right ot be a raw foodist.You see for some people Raw Food IS literally a religious moral issue with them.............

The problem with restricting topics related to religion is that so many people relate the reasons why they changed to raw food diets in part to their religion.

The problem with restricting topics is what it is, with censorship there is no debate. only select talk. If people are rude then delete,When politics were on the board people could say things like the hispanics are ruinning Ca. that was pure racism. but it was never censored. I just think censorship is not an answer
for the problems that come up in debates. I feel the forum should be freed
of the restrictions, I dont think it is fair to use censorship for control
of topics, thats a bad route to clean negs.
Lapaz rhb. FREE THE TOPICS PLEASE!

There are plenty of places to debate politics on the internet. This issue is really not up for debate.

You canot seperate the two













That means we canot discuss some health issues then, my point, Legionella disease, Drs. Vitor Yu and Janet Stout top long time reserchers for the VA on the diease
were fired and forced out, 18,000 people are infected with this disease every
year in America, And now the govt comes in and destroys all related to legionella
reserch 30 years worth. and the med folks are very upset over this. itwas like a book burning, and yes very political and very real. Bryan if we take the politics out its like a gag then we cant even talk about the detruction of very
important medical reserch that efects many lives.

My understanding was that clearly health-related political threads are now okay on the Health-Related Off-Topic Forum. Am I incorrect? They rarely become contentious, and lately we've been having some sorely needed discussions about current legislation that could drastically impact our food supply. It's my fervent hope that we may continue to do so without fearing expulsion from the board or removal of the threads in question.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]