Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
well, the anonymous setting I was talking about only blocks users that are logged in and want to come by without us knowing. Some sites have that blocked and do not allow it, but then all you need to do is log out to view the public parts of the site. For us it would, therefore, only work on people who wanted to read the private sections of our site and otherwise we would be forcing people who opted for that setting to use their log out and log in button more . If we would make our site only visible to logged in members, then we could apply that setting and get some results out of it.
Still, it wouldn't help with the anonymous proxy situations
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Concerning find dharma girl --In global shift of the habitual AP under MODERN NAGUALISM (QUOTE in post #44):
"(Note to Moderators.. find dharma girl is NO puppet!!!! ....)"
My wife registered with her credential (albeit per my request).
Besides, my wife isn't a sock. LOL
A spouse can't post?
Isn't it maritally so?-- "The two shall be as one flesh."
Teasing-No need to respond!
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
billy, as stated in our sock puppet policy "If there is a reason why you might be falsely identified as a sock puppet it is on you to inform us of this." And not just inform us after posting (and after we start wondering who you are) but before. And not just in any random thread, what do you think that I go through all the posts you have ever written just in the chance that somewhere in that bulk of message text is a little footnote to the mods about a possible false sock puppet identification? I mean, REALLY?
Plus it is find dharma girl who should read our rules before she posts, if you are not competent enough to inform her of them even though you have been around for a while.
I am sorry to have banned you find dharma girl, cause I know it is possibly not a nice feeling to get banned. However, the fact that it happened and that you were identified as a sock is on the both of you and billy. As such your banning was reasonably justified.
Find dharma girl broke the rules by not informing us when she started posting. Members should inform themselves of our rules and proper protocols. Find dharma girl had quite enough time to do that too, she was around for quite a while, she wrote her first post on 22nd February, billy made his (for me invisible) note on 15th March and I banned her on 1st of April. Time enough to actually check in on our rules and write to site mods and management, in the appropriate thread and way, and also to do the writing herself. We have had married couples here before, each posting under their own account, and they have informed me right away that this is the case so that they are not identified as socks.
billy and find dharma girl have been basically wasting my time, energy, and effort. I find that inattentive to me and rude.
I also do not understand why I was not informed after banning find dharma girl that she was not a sock puppet. Any reasonable person would have done that within a week. I wonder if billy's wife is not just a front for billy's sock puppet. Plus, for all we know his wife is imaginary
Since you say there is no need to respond, I take it that find dharma girl has no wish to be unbanned (especially since I did not receive any such info from her).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Hmmm. I want you to know I think you are clever.
To be candid, my 'motivation' PM inquiry was more a seed, a precursor to the more direct.
I don't like to use emoticons much. I like to allow for ambiguity, and let the viewer decide what tone and meanings are to be derived.
Still, I like to be explicit too at times. How am I doing there?
I have mentioned in several posts that I keep to principles precisely, but use repetition and give intentional embellishment as to my mastery of them for the reason you saw. I want to reinforce concepts and visualize attainment formation with loftier words I CAN grow into. I truly am free, watergaze. Yet, I continually increase the fire of this perception. Yet, I agree entirely (so I will remind myself to dispense) that concepts well internalized are only degraded by outward telling. Thank you.
Why would my wife suspect she did something wrong by posting after properly joining? That is, why would she stop, and say, "Hey, I better tell watergaze I am not a sock-puppet." Give me a reason why that would occur naturally to Susan (find dharma girl)?
My mentioning her participation in such context on the forum post does not negate her autonomy. She is not me. When she tries to post, and sees she is banned (if she asks me), what should I tell her is the reason for her bannishment?
Since I apparently have sway here on behalf of my wife, I would respectfully ask that she be unbanned (since you've done all this work anyway).
As to my mention of wanting future consideration of reinstatement into RF... I meant WAY in the future (not until at least October). As of now, I would not garner two positive responses to admission, let alone every single member. laugh
There is a 'Billy badmouth' joke where the teacher tells Billy his answer is wrong, but tells him she likes the way (reasoning) he thinks. So Billy returns the favor with a question about three women sitting together eating ice cream cones, asking which one is married. (google Billy or Johnny Badmouth jokes)
Anyway, my point is I like the way you think [or I'd like to know the way you think]. lol
I am still waiting on quid pro quo ... OMG
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
watergaze, please read the open letter to YOU. It is in welcome to your new home (stalker's playground). Thank you! I need you to see this, as it bears repeating anyway...
it addresses: the issue of integrity in private communications, and also of stalking in the stalker's playground. Agreements of confidentiality should be honored in personal exchanges. Period. Sometimes, personal exchanges (even without agreement of confidentiality) bear the obligation of privacy even if only implicitly. The latter etiquette is subject to context, and I won't elaborate details there. On behalf of my own trustworthiness, I exchanged well over a hundred PMs with someone on the site a year ago to share a practice, and have never spoken one word contained therein. If I agree to confidentiality, I am reliable!
I have a strongly stated position on the stalker's playground: Briefly, a stalker properly enters that space with an agenda of intent and purpose in a mutual interchange with the one stalked. By virtue of the stalker's unique position, that person SHOULD obtain to ruling that uniquely designated space.
I am not advocating concession by the stalkee, or prohibition of others entering and exerting adverse power. I am saying it is the right position of the stalker to powerfully command her/his intent, and do practically all that is possible to fulfill their purpose. That person, need focus on THAT alone, and is charged to dimiss all else that would come between the desired result.
If she/he is powerful enough in intent, then he/she will have success regardless of other persons. In this vein, whether an outsider is made to feel welcome or not, is the prerogative of the stalker. The stalkee may oppose, but typically adjoins the position of the stalker because of the power dynamics, or leaves the play area set by the stalker. For those that may not understand, each position is essentially stalking themselves for knowledge while assisting the other to do the same. It is a beautiful thing. Really, it is!
ADD: I want to assure you despite my rhetoric, that my profoundly strong intent is one that will prevail and bring goodness.
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
the questions concerning the banning of find dharma girl that you ask me in your last post have already been answered in my previous post, which is why it took me a while to respond cause I am not sure I actually need to repeat myself (so it did not have priority on my list of things to do) .
billy wrote:Why would my wife suspect she did something wrong by posting after properly joining? That is, why would she stop, and say, "Hey, I better tell watergaze I am not a sock-puppet." Give me a reason why that would occur naturally to Susan (find dharma girl)?
response found in my previous post: watergaze wrote:Members should inform themselves of our rules and proper protocols. Find dharma girl had quite enough time to do that (...)A new member's first instinct should be to read the rules of a place that they enter. Introduction subforum has the rules topic featured, it should not be hard to find.
billy wrote:When she tries to post, and sees she is banned (if she asks me), what should I tell her is the reason for her bannishment?
response found in my previous post: watergaze wrote:I am sorry to have banned you find dharma girl, cause I know it is possibly not a nice feeling to get banned. However, the fact that it happened and that you were identified as a sock is on the both of you and billy. As such your banning was reasonably justified.
Find dharma girl broke the rules by not informing us when she started posting. Members should inform themselves of our rules and proper protocols. Find dharma girl had quite enough time to do that too, she was around for quite a while, she wrote her first post on 22nd February, billy made his (for me invisible) note on 15th March and I banned her on 1st of April. Time enough to actually check in on our rules and write to site mods and management, in the appropriate thread and way, and also to do the writing herself.
And in addition let me respond to this:
billy wrote:Since I apparently have sway here on behalf of my wife, I would respectfully ask that she be unbanned (since you've done all this work anyway).I think Susan should be able to ask to be unbanned herself, if she wishes for it. I am not willing to do this through a third party. I think it is not a priority for her since I have not heard from her yet.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Suggestion:
Instead of banning socks, why not ban bad behavior.
Because let's be honest, l could easily pull off a Billy personality, with proxies, and people would be none the wiser. I can be a Dok, a Kris, a Shams, even a Sen. Many who truly learn CCs methods can present many personas.
Do we care if people do things we have no control over, like socks, or should we care about decent behavior? The better question is what is within our realm of control. Socks cant be controlled. **** posts can be controlled. What makes more sense to moderate?
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
The sock policy at least takes care of the most blatant posers. And that makes a difference sometimes. This policy has been voted on by our members and it is clear that it is wished for.
The other stuff you mention.. banning bad behavior.. that is not mutually exclusive with a sock puppet policy and does not have much to do with this topic.
Plus, you can go and read the rules to inform yourself on our policy of posting.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
How do you know that sock puppets weren't the majority vote for this silly sock puppet policy? Members voted on the least secure method of keeping out trolls and THAT is what you go with?
So you manage a power spot on the internet by letting the trolls decide what is best? That's like Americans voting for Trump and then being surprised when the **** hits the fan. It's not a surprise. Also, you can't truly manage socks. The better trolls navigate around that. Yes, it'll catch the simpletons, but if we're going to have useless rules why not add in the rule that people can't be abusive. Currently, our site rules allow the equivalent of murder, but not theft. You can harass people until they're bloody, but no, you can't use socks to secretly compliment someone you like. A great master plan.
Actually, there are rules in place to deter harassment. Except those are rarely enforced. I'm not sure what's worse: having rules, but not enforcing them or having useless rules that cannot be enforced.
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
I talk to many people personally. Please direct your attention to topics that are shamanic and sorceric and stop twirling dust around for no practically useful reason. What you say about what we allow and not allow is misleading. There is a rule that people can't be abusive. Nothing about murder or theft is in the rules, but nothing illegal is permitted already by the larger yuku rules which we refer to as well.
We have the support forum also for the reason to be alerted when something is happening that we should intervene in. Hence if a party is being opressed, or 'murdered' (whatever you might mean by that I dont know), they can let us know and we will moderate it. Not sure what else you want... stop complaining already.
Why are we ot notified when you think harrassment is underway? That is the question I'd ask.
Talk about American politics elsewhere lol. Not everyone agrees with what you said so your comparison might miss its mark.
Right now the only troll at this site is you. How tragic is that?
Why is the issue of socks and us not being able to police all of them a thorn in your eye? Are you so worried that someone will get around to being an undetectable sock? why? Why does that matter to you? Self-stalk, recap, come back later.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Technically, I love Trump. He's a hilarious mess maker. My example was for people who dislike him for that reason. I could've used a water related comparison, but Trump was more efficient. I wasn't talking policy or personal belief, only that he's a **** starker (which he is).
You ask about why aren't the admins notified? Well. I guess Sen would be better at explaining the concept of intuition to you. If someone is being targeted for whatever reason, it's nice when bystanders step in and say something like, "Yo, knock it off." Wolves travel in packs and protect one another. An attack on a person is an attack on the group... hence, a pack ensures the individual is protected and sometimes when wolves are caught off guard, they don't have the resources available to say, "Help me."
It's the responsibility of the individual to protect themselves, but compassion and kindness help individuals grow in different ways. The unity of a group goes much further than individual effort.
I did self-stalk, where do you think I was for the last couple of months? lol That aside, I care about socks because hacking inefficient systems is what I do. It's my passion. I'm like a hacker, but instead of hacking technology I hack systems. Consider yourself Microsoft and I'm showing you where your weakness is. Accept it or not, at least you're informed.
You're welcome.
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
I already knew from the start that a thorough sock prevention is basically impossible. I was informed before you decided to talk on the matter. I put it into the considerations as I was commencing a talk with others about the option of making it a policy. I made sure people understood the limitations of our implementing such a policy before the implementation of the policy took place. Did you really think we were not aware of proxy servers and all that before you came by? Really? I somehow doubt that you had no idea we were not aware of these things. What is the reason for making a fuss of informing the place of stuff we already know? Not to mention you already had a round of informing us some months ago. Had you forgotten? In this sense, I cannot help but feel you are wasting my time.
If anything you are enabling people to go be more efficient socks by spreading information around. This is counter-productive to our effort and we are not thankful.
Your claim of exposing weaknesses does not make sense enough for me.
I imagine in a country like the old time Holland, there were bikes unlocked and they never got stolen (it was famed for this). You would go there and steal the bikes so people see they have to lock them like in other countries because otherwise someone MIGHT steal them. Someone like who? YOU? The people who lived there did not do that. Of course, times change and many decades later as the situation changed so did the habits of the people. Bikes are locked now. The old time Holland does not need someone like you to expose its weakness. The weakness is not life threatening and actually it is not a weakness at all. It only could be seen as one with the arrival of people who take advantage of things. And once that happens then the way things are done change naturally. There is no need for a person who prematurely wants everyone to lock their bikes. Just makes stuff hard on others and bashes their head against something that is not harming anything or anyone. And wasting time. Because the people want to go about their business and not argue about having to lock their bikes to be more secure in a place with no bike thieves.
There will always be ways how to exploit a system and arbitrarily exploiting it does not always make sense. Given there is no danger anyway (we are not guarding nuclear missile launch codes) it makes no sense to focus attention that is well occupied elsewhere into this - especially since there is no practical proposition in your talk at all. You say the policy cannot be perfectly enforced, yes, but that is old news. Do you have any way how we can enforce it better? NO.
So, again, our sock puppet policy has a purpose. Even if we can only see the most obvious socks. Usually, those are the ones that need to be most curbed anyway. The other part of sock puppets is not a problem. Each person who participates in discussion here at the moment is enough of an individual on their own and learning to follow the rules. Things are better, not worse. The only thing that is out of sorts is you. And if you are doing this to show us things can be out of sorts then it really is the least helpful thing of all. Of course things can be out of sorts. DUH. People can always be out of sorts, but luckily for us we have a group of people now who are trying to be more respectful. So stop complaining already and focus on what the site offers like others to learn and grow and share. If you do not want to do that then I do not know why you are here.
Your caring about the sock policy is arbitrary and nothing practical will come of it for us to continue this discussion. If in the future you learn of ways to help this policy, please let us know. Otherwise, the issue is closed for now. If we were only to have the policy if it were bulletproof then the site would degenerate. We are not going back to 3 versions of everyone running around. If one sock escapes us, still better than having 8 of them be here as if that were what is normal.
The other stuff in your post is off-topic and I really do not want to repeat myself again. I'd say stuff I already told you many times before. So, just stop repeating already and move to more constructive things.
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
I already knew from the start that a thorough sock prevention is basically impossible. I was informed before you decided to talk on the matter. I put it into the considerations as I was commencing a talk with others about the option of making it a policy. I made sure people understood the limitations of our implementing such a policy before the implementation of the policy took place. Did you really think we were not aware of proxy servers and all that before you came by? Really? I somehow doubt that you had no idea we were not aware of these things. What is the reason for making a fuss of informing the place of stuff we already know? Not to mention you already had a round of informing us some months ago. Had you forgotten? In this sense, I cannot help but feel you are wasting my time.
If anything you are enabling people to go be more efficient socks by spreading information around. This is counter-productive to our effort and we are not thankful.
Your claim of exposing weaknesses does not make sense enough for me.
I imagine in a country like the old time Holland, there were bikes unlocked and they never got stolen (it was famed for this). You would go there and steal the bikes so people see they have to lock them like in other countries because otherwise someone MIGHT steal them. Someone like who? YOU? The people who lived there did not do that. Of course, times change and many decades later as the situation changed so did the habits of the people. Bikes are locked now. The old time Holland does not need someone like you to expose its weakness. The weakness is not life threatening and actually it is not a weakness at all. It only could be seen as one with the arrival of people who take advantage of things. And once that happens then the way things are done change naturally. There is no need for a person who prematurely wants everyone to lock their bikes. Just makes stuff hard on others and bashes their head against something that is not harming anything or anyone. And wasting time. Because the people want to go about their business and not argue about having to lock their bikes to be more secure in a place with no bike thieves.
There will always be ways how to exploit a system and arbitrarily exploiting it does not always make sense. Given there is no danger anyway (we are not guarding nuclear missile launch codes) it makes no sense to focus attention that is well occupied elsewhere into this - especially since there is no practical proposition in your talk at all. You say the policy cannot be perfectly enforced, yes, but that is old news. Do you have any way how we can enforce it better? NO.
So, again, our sock puppet policy has a purpose. Even if we can only see the most obvious socks. Usually, those are the ones that need to be most curbed anyway. The other part of sock puppets is not a problem. Each person who participates in discussion here at the moment is enough of an individual on their own and learning to follow the rules. Things are better, not worse. The only one whirling the dust is you. And if you are doing this to show us things can be out of sorts then it really is the least helpful thing of all. Of course things can be out of sorts. DUH. People can always be out of sorts, but luckily for us we have a group of people now who are trying to be more respectful. It would be great if you hopped on that boat. So stop complaining already and focus on what the site offers like others do to learn and grow and share. If you do not want to do that then I do not know why you are here talking about anything.
Your caring about the sock policy is arbitrary and nothing practical will come of it for us to continue this discussion. If in the future you learn of ways to help this policy, please let us know. Otherwise, the issue is closed for now. If we were only to have the policy if it were bulletproof then the site would degenerate. We are not going back to 3 versions of everyone running around. If one sock escapes us, still better than having 8 of them be here as if that were what is normal.The type of discussions that were around during the time of socks was not what we want here now.
The other stuff in your post is off-topic here and stuff we already talked about and I really do not want to repeat myself again. I'd say stuff I already told you many times before. So, just stop repeating already and move to more constructive things. Use the places at the site to share and work on things related to sorcery, shamanism and self-work. Fixing little things around the site that are not perfect - like the sock puppet policy (which first of all cannot be perfect in the current state of the technological world) - will not help you move forward. Arguing about whether one should have edit and delete will not help you. Those are just distractions. And I for one want to focus on real things. Not 'battle windmills'.
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
I already knew from the start that a thorough sock prevention is basically impossible. I was informed before you decided to talk on the matter. I put it into the considerations as I was commencing a talk with others about the option of making it a policy. I made sure people understood the limitations of our implementing such a policy before the implementation of the policy took place. Did you really think we were not aware of proxy servers and all that before you came by? Really? I somehow doubt that you had no idea we were not aware of these things. What is the reason for making a fuss of informing the place of stuff we already know? Not to mention you already had a round of informing us some months ago and before that too (this is the third or fourth time you mention the same thing using three different accounts - each time you already had a response from us). Had you forgotten? (read the posts above) In this sense, I cannot help but feel you are wasting my time.
If anything you are enabling people to go be more efficient socks by spreading information around. This is counter-productive to our effort and we are not thankful.
Your claim of exposing weaknesses does not make sense enough for me.
There will always be ways how to exploit a system and arbitrarily exploiting it does not always make sense. Given there is no danger anyway (we are not guarding nuclear missile launch codes) it makes no sense to focus attention that is well occupied elsewhere into this - especially since there is no practical proposition in your talk at all. You say the policy cannot be perfectly enforced, yes, but that is old news. Do you have any way how we can enforce it better? NO.
It is not our aim to have a perfect policy, our aim here is to provide a functional enough platform that people can use to learn, grow and share.
So, again, our sock puppet policy has a purpose. Even if we can only see the most obvious socks. Usually, those are the ones that need to be most curbed anyway. The other part of sock puppets is not a problem. Each person who participates in discussion here at the moment is enough of an individual on their own and learning to follow the rules. Things are better, not worse. The only one whirling the dust is you. And if you are doing this to show us things can be out of sorts then it really is the least helpful thing of all. Of course, things can be out of sorts. DUH. People can always be out of sorts, but luckily for us we have a group of people now who are trying to be more respectful. It would be great if you hopped on that boat. So stop complaining already and focus on what the site offers like others do to learn and grow and share. If you do not want to do that then I do not know why you are here talking about anything.
Your caring about the sock policy is arbitrary and nothing practical will come of it for us to continue this discussion (there is no where to continue it, that is why you keep repeating yourself). If in the future you learn of ways to help this policy, please let us know. Otherwise, the issue is closed for now. If we were only to have the policy if it were bulletproof... then the site would degenerate. We are not going back to 3 versions of everyone running around. If one sock escapes us, still better than having 8 of them be here as if that were what is normal.The type of discussions that were around during the time of socks was not what we want here now.
The other stuff in your post is off-topic here and stuff we already talked about and I really do not want to repeat myself again. I'd say stuff I already told you many times before. So, it does not make sense to repeat stuff and better to move to more constructive things. I find it would be better to use the places at the site to share and work on things related to sorcery, shamanism and self-work. Pinting over and over to little things around the site that are not perfect and probably never can be - like the sock puppet policy (which first of all cannot be perfect in the current state of the technological world) - will not help you move forward. Arguing about whether one should have edit and delete will not help you. Those are just distractions. And I for one want to focus on real things. Not 'battle windmills'.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Yes, the site has already been discussing socks for a long while now. However, what I'm pointing out is that your application of rules is silly. The new information I offer is that while you have a rule against socks, you don't enforce it. You have your own sock. You've been aware I've had a plethora of socks and did nothing. Billy has socks, you do nothing. JJ has socks. Sen. SW. We all have them (for legit reasons. Socks are useful and productive at expressing various selves and functions). You made rules about no harassment of other members and infrequently enforce those rules. The point I make is--why bother having rules you can't abide by? My new suggestion is to toss the rules and do as Wolfie did: just say *** it and mod when it pleases you. That way, you're not misleading patrons by having rules you've barely followed or enforced.
My point is--why do you feel like you need to have rules? You can govern in any fashion you want. Wolf didn't have rules. If you see something questionable, you can just address it. Rules are an okay starting point, I guess, but if you're breaking your own rules or ignoring others breaking rules then rules become a burden to your quality of life. Either follow your own rules or get rid of them. Or I guess you can continue being a hypocrite. I think you could do better than that though.
Posts: 20
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2019
I need to have another account with access to the Admin Panel for security reasons. If something happens to this watergaze account then what? This account does not take part in the discussions and is purely administrative. You do not need to bring that up at all. But you do, ask yourself why.
It is not the same as people posting as if other people to support themselves and their arguments or to argue with others or whatever.
You switched your account. I gave you leeway to decide which one you want to use. I did the same for Nagual Human at one point. It is a temporary thing. But yes, I have been lax towards you and it was not good. I thought you can manage yourself. My bad.
The others you mention I am not aware of or their sock puppets have been active before we implemented the policy. Same with the socks you had before we implemented the policy. I said old socks that do not become active are not relevant to us, we do not need to ban them if they are a thing of the past.
And the other issues with enforcement. One cannot police everything. Again a topic we have already talked about.
I am sure there is a clause in the rules saying it is not our duty to act on everything (why? because that would require a 24/7 oversight - not possible for us)
Rules are there for people to read who dont know how to behave otherwise. I found out things that should be common sense are not. So it is there to help people find their common sense. It is a service to this community .
So much to you throwing around the term hypocrite. Stop focusing on me already and focus on yourself.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Shhhh. Go read my post in the admin thread. I address this nonsense there.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Nagual Menagerie (in Admin/Mod log) wrote:You asked me good questions on whether or not I focus on the wrong things. I suppose the answer to that is "you are right, Watergaze." You are right in the sense that all of my complainings, whining, and apparent misery have been fictitious. I don't really care about the things I've been commenting on this week. My posts weren't about the site. My posts were about you, lovely. That is the beauty of intuition--to intuit that a post isn't about socks, but about attention. I desired your attention, briefly.
(...)
Consider the sock issue closed  as well as reflections on your character and leadership style. You've heard me and that's enough for me. Good luck.
glad that has been cleared up...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
|
