Um.. before I go any further I guess I should inquire to who the moderator is of this Topic. Since I made reference to being out of the loop in the rules of this forum and seemed to be shut out for scrutinizing the moderator who made character judgments about my mental capacities I just wanted to know how to approach this thread? Will I be deleted for disagreeing with the moderator this time as well?

Joesus, basically the only posts that get deleted here are blatant spam and blatantly offensive personal attacks. If additional posts are being deleted, an admin should be notified.

It seems HH has some issues. If in mentioning anything regarding his sarcasm and reference to my character or any disagreement towards his subject postings of late I've been deleted.
I just want to know what his rules are but he only suggests I'm uneducable as he put it and incapable of following his lead.
So I was wanting to know if he is moderating this topic before I respond in light of his goading.


By the way, nice retraction HH..

For the time being, HH will take a break from moderating this topic and the Enlightenment board until the issue of questionable post deletions is resolved. Sorry HH, but sometimes it's good to take a step back from things. You can trust me for the time being to keep things topical on this board.

Glad to see that you communicate with helpers on this forum prior to taking any decisions. Goodbye.

you did the same by deleting several posts without informing other mods and admins. This forum promotes open dialogue, not censorship, unless it's spam or personal attacks. I was under the impression that you needed to step back from this topic for awhile since you're letting it get too personal. If you want to leave over my action, it's your choice, but if you place yourself in my position I would hope that you would have done the same thing. Yes, I could have PMed you beforehand but there seemed little point since you would have taken offense anyway, and since you yourself have already taken actions, deleting posts, without communicating with other relevant people over it. It's not a question of mutual respect, HH. It's a question of doing what needs to be done to ensure open worthwhile dialogue and the exchange of ideas.

Ouch!!! I have the feeling you should have dealt with this issue through the PM system first, and not assume character reactions, Lucid. Stepping on long standing forum contributors and colaborators' toes in public... a tad tasteless?... From your own posting behavior I myself have noticed that you don't really keep-up with your own forum duties that well: I addressed an issue reagarding a forum member's complain reagarding her innability to post links, despite of her 100 plus posts (which seemed to go against Shawn's 10 posts minimum sandard) a while back to you and Shawn himself; to no avail. Where were you then? I hope permanent damage can be averted here with the impass we're facing here at this junture. HH is the greatest topic starter we have by far, amongst other things. His precense here is pivotal to ensure a smooth sailing through the subjects touched in the fourom. His scientific perspective is the underlined order that keeps the potential chaotic nature of the topics discussed in this forum in check and constructive in nature. And his poetic entries bonify him as the ultimate BM comtributor. So, pulling him by the ear out of the class-room for everyone to see was a blunder, in my opinion. I hope we can find a way to get over this impass in a reasonable manner. Personally I can tell you that 90% of my posts are a reaction to or a hope for a reaction from HH. So BM for me will look very different without his precense here; and not fot the better.

CB I wasn't trying to pull HH out by the ear but rather imposing a temporary time-out on a topic that has gotten unnecessarily personal and vitriolic for some reason. Somehow, a topic on enlightenment degenerates into empty name calling and deleted posts, and I should just stand back and let that happen? Yes, I probably should have PMed HH first. That being said, I have my standards and am enforcing what I believe is best for ensuring interesting dialogue. If someone on a thread starts unnecessarily taking things personally, then they should step back from the thread, either voluntarily or otherwise. This is not about stepping on toes or pulling someone out by the ear; it's about enforcing standards and encouraging free exchange of interesting ideas.

I would think that someone who doesn't take subject matter so personally in a public open forum would be better suited to be a moderator.
Starting topics of discussion makes for a busy participant but then making personal judgments regarding someones beliefs to manipulate topics toward personal interests doesn't show much psychological stability.
Tho you may be a personal supporter of HH and his mode of operation there are others who have had some issues as well. The most recent would be in the Topic he started regarding Schizophrenia and Marijuana. The poster "Xanadu" disagreed with the article and as the discussion heated up between HH and Xan.. so did the condescending remarks about Xanadu's intelligence from HH. When Xanadu finally left HH made the remark.
"My subtle method worked!"
Actually his method wasn't subtle at all but forward and emotional.
Personally I think a moderator should be capable of taking an opinion that goes against his own. From my own experience of having my posts deleted I would have to say when I met HH where he drew his line in the sand he wasn't very clear where the personal ended and the differences between free expression and topic boundaries were.

If you believe this type of psychological behavior is the standard for Brain Meta then it should be allowed by all supporters and participants rather than just by the moderator.
I don't think BM will suffer as a result of an inquiry into policy and practice.
I would think that one would be more forgiving in the growth of this forum rather than taking things personal and making attacks on anyone as the forum exemplifies the relationship between people and their beliefs.
Because someone thinks differently doesn't make them less and so I think that anyone who is cognizant of human interaction and the state of fear that exists between one belief and another would make all efforts to support all opinions and beliefs as they would have their own opinions and beliefs respected.

I don't think Lucid has a reputation for doing anything without clear thought and in this case the integrity of BM in mind.

In Short I disagree with you CB

I respect your decision, but I still think you jumped the gun. More dogma that we already have at BM is the last thing we needed. But it's going to be all that we're going to have the most of from here on.

That's a belief.
Are you suggesting BM operate without useful guidelines?

By the way, God is not democratic.

I rest my case.

what dogma, CB?

What case?

This thread is meant to hold discussion of the Hey Hey affair that erupted on the "The Problem with Enlightenment" thread. The relevant posts have been moved from that thread to this one, and are found above. In short, the issue revolves around whether my preemption of Hey Hey's post deletions without first consulting with him was warranted. I welcome any pro or con takes on the issue.

I have not read the entire thread for obvious reasons.

I would suggest that all moderators stick to an internal policy, create one if there is not one in place. Rants between moderators should not be witnessed by members or guests for that matter on any forum site. Its bad for the community and to be frank simply childish.

Creating a separate topic/discussion like this one is useless unless their are clear guidelines for moderators.

Whats done is done and its time to get back to the 'community'

Good point. This topic is now closed. Moderator and Admin Guidelines can be found here.