02-26-2017, 12:00 AM
To propose a scenario:
1. Person A is in the midst of an emotional moment.
2. Person B shows up to fix Person A through cruel stalking.
3. Person A defends themselves by engaging the stalk, to push back Person B, so that emotional turmoil will end.
4. Person B defends themselves by engaging the stalk, to push back Person A, so that emotional turmoil will end.
Neither Person A or Person B are perfect. Each is working on something. Each is justified within their own perspectives. Each are not justified by external perspectives. Everyone is trying to judge what is right, correct, appropriate, or decent behavior.
Maybe it is time to stop judging and thinking--and act.
If someone is inappropriate, address it. If someone hurts your feelings, say so. Cruel stalks occur when people are not giving themselves enough time to rest and recover from emotional turmoil. If feelings are hurt, express it, allow the person committing the offense to acknowledge and re-direct themselves, and when this occurs forgive them. If it doesn't occur, then implement the step program (limit posts, warn, ban--or any other procedure).
Personally, I know I often turn something minor (for others) into something huge (for me). Some things which are huge (for others), don't bother me at all. Everyone is different. Individuals vary in terms of personal principles, values, ethics, discipline, and appropriateness. Those things likely can't be enforced as they are internal mechanisms. We can't force people to change, we can only say, "These are our expectations for behavior, if you want to be here follow them. If not, we'll give you an opportunity to adapt to our rules and if you still can't learn our culture then you'll be removed." This approach makes it very impersonal and keeps the judgement focused on addressing the behavioral features instead of the internal mechanisms.
WG, will you be addressing internal mechanisms?
I'm uncertain how you would govern internal mechanisms in others. I can't imagine many people who would admit to being a monster. It's one of those things which often goes unseen within the self. I admit it because I recognize my monster tendencies. I'm willing and able to put those tendencies into words and share them with others to help them better understand me. I haven't met many who are willing to do this. For those unwilling to acknowledge, share, and address those tendencies then you'll need to devise a way to do this on your own (which is tedious). It's easier to address the behavior component instead of internal mechanisms. Internal mechanisms eventually find a way of manifesting into behavior anyhow. If there is an issue, it'll surface eventually.
With Regard to the Site:
Governing or placing judgment on internal mechanisms is almost the same as trying to govern or place judgement on dreaming experiences with a group. There are some areas we can't reach via the tonal. As owner of Sorcery, your realm is the site. It's inefficient to address every individual's internal mechanisms--restricting judgement to behavior will make things easier and more manageable.
With Regard to Personal Life:
The moments when judging internal mechanisms is useful is for personal boundaries. If there are people who cause you an excessive degree of inner turmoil, then distancing yourself is likely an excellent idea.
Personal Note and Opinion (my two-cents):
I recognize I'm someone who causes and has caused you a lot of inner turmoil. Distancing yourself from me was/is an appropriate response. Your personal friendship with me does create a conflict of interest between how you manage me within the scope of the site. Finding a way to separate the two will lessen the turmoil. You seem to have found an approach to this by being impersonal; I noticed the ADMIN tag has been removed That was a productive decision. You've separated friendship from duty.
I've been in positions where I was forced to do that (and thank God it never was internet based, but career based). It's not easy separating duty from emotions. Friends will understand when you discipline them for screwing up (after they've had time to cool off). If they don't understand, then they don't deserve you as a friend. That's been my perspective on things, which may or may not be ideal for others. The way I see things is I have a responsibility to many. If I put the MANY at risk for the FEW, then I'm doing something wrong. I'm hurting more than I'm supporting. I aim to help the MANY at the expense of the FEW.
In this respect, maybe the end justifies the means--I'm uncertain.
In a global perspective, if we were a planet of peace then we would not need to go to war. However, we are not a planet of peace yet. We can live in individual peace, but when the war arrives on our doorstep, action or inaction must occur. Inaction results in death. Action results in war. If a country is unwilling to fight for independence and/or survival, they'll be overtaken. I know it seems backwards, but the way to peace sometimes can be war. Just as the way to order, sometimes involves chaos. These aren't typically nice ways either.
Context and what we're hoping to achieve is important to consider when deciding if we're taking a personal or impersonal approach to judging others. When thinking of the ends, means, and justification it's ideal to consider that our personal opinions should be impersonal assessments when performing a duty. When we're determining something personal then opinions should weigh more heavily.
It's easy to say the end never justifies the means when the perspective is entirely personal. It's easy to say the end justifies the means when the perspective is entirely duty oriented. In the scope of the site (Sorcery) it's better to decide if that's a service of duty or services the self--once that's known then the actions flowing from that perspective will be easier to identify.
There are things greater than the self. Sometimes we have to choose whether we support the whole (the many) or the part (the self). Ideally we can support both. Unfortunately there are times when we're forced to choose. The only wrong choice is the choice made in opposition to the self. Accountability resides internally, not externally. Unfortunately duty has a tendency to be isolating as duty frequently requires the sacrifice of niceties.
1. Person A is in the midst of an emotional moment.
2. Person B shows up to fix Person A through cruel stalking.
3. Person A defends themselves by engaging the stalk, to push back Person B, so that emotional turmoil will end.
4. Person B defends themselves by engaging the stalk, to push back Person A, so that emotional turmoil will end.
Neither Person A or Person B are perfect. Each is working on something. Each is justified within their own perspectives. Each are not justified by external perspectives. Everyone is trying to judge what is right, correct, appropriate, or decent behavior.
Maybe it is time to stop judging and thinking--and act.
If someone is inappropriate, address it. If someone hurts your feelings, say so. Cruel stalks occur when people are not giving themselves enough time to rest and recover from emotional turmoil. If feelings are hurt, express it, allow the person committing the offense to acknowledge and re-direct themselves, and when this occurs forgive them. If it doesn't occur, then implement the step program (limit posts, warn, ban--or any other procedure).
Personally, I know I often turn something minor (for others) into something huge (for me). Some things which are huge (for others), don't bother me at all. Everyone is different. Individuals vary in terms of personal principles, values, ethics, discipline, and appropriateness. Those things likely can't be enforced as they are internal mechanisms. We can't force people to change, we can only say, "These are our expectations for behavior, if you want to be here follow them. If not, we'll give you an opportunity to adapt to our rules and if you still can't learn our culture then you'll be removed." This approach makes it very impersonal and keeps the judgement focused on addressing the behavioral features instead of the internal mechanisms.
WG, will you be addressing internal mechanisms?
I'm uncertain how you would govern internal mechanisms in others. I can't imagine many people who would admit to being a monster. It's one of those things which often goes unseen within the self. I admit it because I recognize my monster tendencies. I'm willing and able to put those tendencies into words and share them with others to help them better understand me. I haven't met many who are willing to do this. For those unwilling to acknowledge, share, and address those tendencies then you'll need to devise a way to do this on your own (which is tedious). It's easier to address the behavior component instead of internal mechanisms. Internal mechanisms eventually find a way of manifesting into behavior anyhow. If there is an issue, it'll surface eventually.
With Regard to the Site:
Governing or placing judgment on internal mechanisms is almost the same as trying to govern or place judgement on dreaming experiences with a group. There are some areas we can't reach via the tonal. As owner of Sorcery, your realm is the site. It's inefficient to address every individual's internal mechanisms--restricting judgement to behavior will make things easier and more manageable.
With Regard to Personal Life:
The moments when judging internal mechanisms is useful is for personal boundaries. If there are people who cause you an excessive degree of inner turmoil, then distancing yourself is likely an excellent idea.
Personal Note and Opinion (my two-cents):
I recognize I'm someone who causes and has caused you a lot of inner turmoil. Distancing yourself from me was/is an appropriate response. Your personal friendship with me does create a conflict of interest between how you manage me within the scope of the site. Finding a way to separate the two will lessen the turmoil. You seem to have found an approach to this by being impersonal; I noticed the ADMIN tag has been removed That was a productive decision. You've separated friendship from duty.
I've been in positions where I was forced to do that (and thank God it never was internet based, but career based). It's not easy separating duty from emotions. Friends will understand when you discipline them for screwing up (after they've had time to cool off). If they don't understand, then they don't deserve you as a friend. That's been my perspective on things, which may or may not be ideal for others. The way I see things is I have a responsibility to many. If I put the MANY at risk for the FEW, then I'm doing something wrong. I'm hurting more than I'm supporting. I aim to help the MANY at the expense of the FEW.
In this respect, maybe the end justifies the means--I'm uncertain.
In a global perspective, if we were a planet of peace then we would not need to go to war. However, we are not a planet of peace yet. We can live in individual peace, but when the war arrives on our doorstep, action or inaction must occur. Inaction results in death. Action results in war. If a country is unwilling to fight for independence and/or survival, they'll be overtaken. I know it seems backwards, but the way to peace sometimes can be war. Just as the way to order, sometimes involves chaos. These aren't typically nice ways either.
Context and what we're hoping to achieve is important to consider when deciding if we're taking a personal or impersonal approach to judging others. When thinking of the ends, means, and justification it's ideal to consider that our personal opinions should be impersonal assessments when performing a duty. When we're determining something personal then opinions should weigh more heavily.
It's easy to say the end never justifies the means when the perspective is entirely personal. It's easy to say the end justifies the means when the perspective is entirely duty oriented. In the scope of the site (Sorcery) it's better to decide if that's a service of duty or services the self--once that's known then the actions flowing from that perspective will be easier to identify.
There are things greater than the self. Sometimes we have to choose whether we support the whole (the many) or the part (the self). Ideally we can support both. Unfortunately there are times when we're forced to choose. The only wrong choice is the choice made in opposition to the self. Accountability resides internally, not externally. Unfortunately duty has a tendency to be isolating as duty frequently requires the sacrifice of niceties.