<Add: post has been edited due to mediation with Soul and TINAE and may be further edited or deleted in time>
u/ExpressionOfTheSoul writes me: "If you're interested in discussing the things you brought up to me in the Emotional Healing forum, I suggest making a post about it on an appropriate forum and pinging me to it. Perhaps you could post it on one of the forums you mod or at the Conspiracies forum (If you want to post anything about me over there, go ahead). The mod decisions regarding the bans are final. There is a new post in the Expose religious extremism forum and a couple in the Bible Oddities forum you might be interested in discussing elsewhere." So it appears appropriate [to me] to collect a few facts about this account in one place for proper understanding.
[....] Since I don't understand the account's behavior, I'm just documenting it. (1) Soul appeared at Conspiracies last week and began posting [...] and I interacted and sought understanding. (2) Soul deleted all content and created three new forums (now four five) and posted welcome messages with guidelines but without sidebar rules. (3) I posted some questions in two of these, and Soul interacted with one of my comments [including questioning responsively]. (4) Soul permabanned me from both forums, I copied my unanswered questions [with preface] to his third forum, and he permabanned me from that forum as well. (5) Soul wrote the message above. Clearly Soul is interested in maintaining a positive persona in speech and also in permitting a number of aggressive actions in tools and logs, and in focusing on his new forums while accepting being pinged in other forums.
The ban reasons were "No proselytzing efforts." (SeekersOfTheWay), "Moderator discretion." (ExposeReligiousExtremism), and "No proselytizing, persuasion, or agenda pushing." (EmotionalHealing). I infer that Soul is not too interested in working out a consistent moderation policy but seeks to organize discussion in specific but often unpublished ways.
Though there might be much I'd want to say as to the several posts Soul has made, supportive and supplemental [including upvotes], for now I should probably stick to the questions that went unanswered (looking forward to Soul's answers), and try again in the fourth forum if I have any observations there. Those questions are:
I hope you don't mind my having a few questions about belief so that I know how to interpret the forum's purpose.
-
I see you're talking about theosis or divinization, as described in the Gospel of Thomas passim, and called in 1 Peter 1:4 being "of the divine, fellowshippers, by nature" (literal). That would be the meaning of "becoming Christ" (Anointed), because there are both the many applications of instantiations of Christ and the one central application of participation in Christ. It is rightly taught under the marriage metaphor by which one is the bride of Christ, thus the body of Christ, thus one with Christ, thus in various aspects indistinguishable from Christ: the bride is both a partial instantiation of the household that is named Christ, and a holistic participation in everything that Christ is and means. It doesn't appear Yeshua taught us to do anything different than he did (he taught us to do greater than he did), so it seems that in every way in which we are Christ he is also Christ. Q: Is it fair to uphold Yeshua as the model of the bridegroom with the follower being the model of the bride: that is, how could we have any better model for our lives than his life?
-
In this sense I would take your concern about "belief in" and "worship of" Christ. In my review of theology there is no belief in or worship of Christ other than what directs itself to belief in and worship of the Most High, and any sense in which it is applied to Christ the Body it is to be applied equally to Jesus and to his follower, in that bridal household metaphor. When Scripture speaks of "worshipping of" mortals it is to be worship of the image of God in the mortal, and the idea of "trusting" a mortal would similarly be limited to trusting God to work through the mortal; and Jesus honors those limitations in his teaching. Inferring from your other forum, you're rejecting absolutism, which would here involve trust and worship that is not directed to the Most High alone (even as in our actions we accord trust and reverence to humans freely). Q: Is that the kind of belief and worship that you're deprecating here?
-
You also speak of evolution (i.e. change), and in actual practice the most important evolution is that over a single life, because there is nothing for us at any moment that growth and improvement are abandoned; the open mind is always experiencing newness and volution. I've been investigating concepts of the "many lifetimes" ("reincarnation") and so I'd presume you're looking for more Abrahamic concepts like gilgul rather than more Hindu concepts like transmigration. It's complicated of course, so I have questions. Q: Are you looking at a multilife view that accounts for the constant evolution (change) in population totals, such that the billions alive today obviously did not all have continuous existence coming from past millennia? Most reincarnation views don't handle that very well, but I think gilgul does. I don't see the answer in Thomas or I would've brought that in.
-
Q: Are you familiar with details of Oversouls that are evolving as various unique lives manifest? An Oversoul is an archetypal personality that connects lives in such way that we can speak of both continuity and individuality without running into the contradictions that often arise on the subject. The Oversoul manifests in many individuals, can appear in multiples at once (i.e. can increase in its number of representatives on earth), and is undergoing a communal learning process via the individual variations of the archetype. The Oversoul exists first in God's conception and variously in its manifestations. I trust that explanation is what you're going after.
That should suffice for now. I hope this gets discussion off on the right foot because practicing this life with reference to the past and to the next life includes ensuring we have the core absolutes agreed. As I noted separately, this is not done by dogma but by evolving hypotheses that model the mind of the Most High with ever-increasing accuracy and sufficiency.
Add: Fifth permaban from ExposingExtremism for posting a perfectly responsive news article with title "Exposing Extremism 25 Dec 23: Alleged members of extremist group indicted in suspected SoCal New Years Eve bombing plot. A federal grand jury indicted four people on Tuesday in connection with a suspected terror plot to bomb targets in Los Angeles and Orange counties on New Year's Eve." Stated reason, "Mod discretion-user has exhibited mod griefing behavior across multiple forums. Ban final. No appeals." Apparently Soul believes it's entirely rational to create lots of fora about religiously motivated extremism and gatekeeping, then to gatekeep answers to questions about his core methodology, and then to have essentially no rule because "moderator discretion" can always be used for permaban whenever no other rule applies. This is creating welcomes one by one and demolishing them one by one [....] I sought to be sensitive, but it appears to me this is just the same user as one or more previous incarnations who doesn't desire to question his own presuppositions with the assistance of others. I still believe in enough sensitivity to give him space to remove [curtail] his own extremism in protecting his beliefs against rational improvement, but remind everyone that there are always the two choices, contradiction or truth, and one had better either admit one is on the side of contradiction and nihilism or on the side of truth and self-awareness.
I'm not reading all that.
People will bitch about you spamming and this nigger is drama posting about a completely different set of forums.
Because he got banned by a nonChristian. Death to censorship.
The forums I made had rules that were accessible and enforceable (if they aren't listed in the sidebar, all you have to do is start reporting a post, select that it violates the forum's rules and then they're all there. That's where the community rules are listed that a mod adds under the manage rules tab). Swamp violated them in three of them with his proselytzing and got banned. His actions, behavior, and fixation towards me, current and in the past, warranted his removal from the fourth forum. Anyone who issues veiled threats towards me, and tries to manipulate me is not welcome on forums I mod. I tried giving Swamp a chance, and have tried to be polite, but I'm not going to endlessly endure his bad faith behavior towards me. The fifth forum was a revamp of the fourth, and Swamps ban carried over to it. I wasn't sure how to ban someone who hadn't posted yet, and had hoped Swamp would've just stayed away. He didn't though. He posted, and the ban was made official again, with the reason given. I made the bans at moderator discretion rule so someone like Swamp wouldn't be able to twist, reframe, and circumvent rules or try to exploit loopholes, or engage in behavior that would reasonably warrant a ban that the other stated rules did not encompass. If Swamp doesn't like that rule, as it states in the content policy athttps://help.scored.co/knowledge-base/content-policy/
Based. 😎
It's not that I don't like the behaviors, it's that they reflect really horridly on you and you're self-unaware of that.
I appreciate you honestly explaining that you don't know how to ban prior to contribution. That's a feature that you can access in the older interface by going to communities.win and then your forum, and then clicking Ban Management and supplying the exact username desired. That explains one oddity in the behavior.
One oddity is that you banned me for proselytizing before making the "no proselytizing" rule. (I didn't knowingly break a rule at any time; I asked questions in two, posted positive links in two, and got one discretionary ban for doing nothing.)
One oddity is that you basically define asking sincere questions as proselytizing, suggesting that you don't want to answer sincere questions.
One oddity is that you state upfront that you will not necessarily answer every sincere question, but you also intend to expose extremism, when extremism includes failing to explain sincerely questioned aspects of your beliefs.
One oddity is that you permaban for contributions that I intend to further the goals of the forum as stated (i.e. my neutral comment linking FFRF and my neutral link to ABC's report on extremism).
One oddity is that you treat my desire to interact with you on the level that you permit as bad faith. (If I have true things to share, they should be permitted, and, if I have false things to share, they should be easy to debunk rather than to ignore.)
One oddity is your reference to "the past" that may indicate your overlap with one or more similarly situated accounts that you don't want to admit. (I respect that but if you and I have a "past" beyond this current account then it would probably heal damage to admit it.)
One oddity is that you treat a neutral statement about the transparency and unintended consequences of your behavior as a threat. The fact is that when you put something on the net, even thinking you can delete it later, you give license to everyone on earth to point out what you've put out and its inconsistency with itself. As a mod I know cold that, the instant I even use what another might regard as chilling speech, I am at risk of being defamed anywhere else on the forum, or in the same place by a different account, or anywhere else on the net. My calling your attention to these facts, as a service to you, is not a threat. I have a right and interest to report neutral facts about my interaction with another if that interaction might be misunderstood.
One oddity is that you invite interaction and then you treat interaction as "manipulation" when it can reasonably be regarded as responsive to your invitation.
One oddity is that you "hope" I would stay away but you continue to issue open public invitations and to interact with me. A person who hopes another will stay away takes a few steps: (1) politely requests the other not interact; (2) avoids general invitations that contravene one's request (e.g., modifies invitations with language like "Christians not welcome"); (3) avoids pinging or replying to the other, as those are taken as invitations to reply; (4) avoids speaking about the other directly or colorably, as that is taken as an opportunity to allow the other to have equal time. These are common sense and so I share them with you in case you're one of the many here who didn't major in common sense.
One oddity is that you use a "discretion" rule, ostensibly to prevent circumvention of other rules, but which has the logical effect of permitting any ("unchecked) mod behavior you can rationalize. I respect your desire to justify that your behavior toward me was entirely rule-based, even retroactively, but it may be useful to admit that the existence of a tyrannical discretion rule indicates that you do make mistakes and that you are tempted to the same extremism you hope to expose.
This is you. If you want to continue to harbor such oddities it hurts your aura. That's not a threat, it's a law. Out of charity, I make some recommendations.
If you want a person not to interact with you, (a) say so clearly, (b) do not issue general invitations, (c) do not ping or reply to the person, and (d) do not talk about the person directly or colorably.
Give thought to your ways as they are not always The Way: (a) commit to the truth at all costs, (b) recognize that you can make mistakes and that you have, (c) when you find a mistake, admit it, cease it, and heal it, (d) when you criticize something (like extremism) consider first whether you are innocent of the same criticism.
Consider answering honest questions about your position such as (a) if Jesus is at least a Christ in the same way you and I are Christs, and (b) the difficulties with transmigration and the fewer difficulties with gilgul. It's okay to admit that the question will take time, that your answer is tentative, or even that you don't know all about it.
I could make more but let's see how you do with this much.
This is you→RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
At that point it just becomes entertainment, possibly at your own expense, and I don't want to foster that so I will minimize my own comments except when necessary.
This is you→RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
He banned you?
That's based af 😎
Merry Christmas again! Happy St. Stephen's Day. (Fresh cascade for u/ExpressionOfTheSoul and u/Thisisnotanexit.)
I agree with Soul on this and request this mediation hereby. Obviously "mediation" is defined as bilateral. Thank you both for your consideration. I see TINAE writing at the same time as me so will handle that separately.
Task 1:
Task 2:
Restatement of Task 1 (it appears this applies to Conspiracies only and not any other forum):
Statement of purpose:
My responsive statement of purpose: I would be willing to strike through and/or edit aspects of this OP that could be reasonably judged to violate the stated forum rules. I have no concern over whether Soul retains or deletes content so that's not a bargaining chip for me. I believe that further mediated discussion might reveal the specific objections Soul has to OP that would enable a more surgical solution that can be applied either by a content contributor, a mod, or an admin.
Task 3 (modified by subsequent statement):
Based on the public stated positions of the Reputation Campaign (which I see you've now reviewed), (1) it could be convened, (2) it does have power to remove its own members by its own processes (from which questioned members would naturally be recused so that they may speak for themselves instead), (3) it focuses on disrepute to the Scored platform and not to disrepute of one contributor against another (but disrepute to Soul should be fully covered by Soul's request for mediation herein), (4) Soul does not currently meet the public standards originally used for committee membership, and (5) it does have power to consider modifying its membership standards and admitting new members accordingly. Also (6) the committee is free to take Soul's statement itself as a sufficient petition to initiate discussion without action by TINAE, while we are each free to interact with the process in any way.
Assuming your willingness to present a formal verdict, TINAE, and assuming you do not have a rescheduling request responsive to this near deadline, that seems reasonable.
I can respect this request for disregard, speaking for myself, while of course other committee members are free to reinitiate proceedings for this reason and I do not speak for them, and of course any member can initiate for any other reason.
I don't have an immediately handy record on whether TINAE was offered or accepted membership in the Reputation Campaign, but she currently qualifies for membership as a mod of c/Gaming and c/Positive. That can be discussed.
Sounds legit.
You are free to interpret what you like about others, but others are generally accorded the right to interpret themselves for themselves. Admin has generally been silent about the right for inactive users or forums to be reclaimed or dispositioned, including when inactivity has lasted more than 1 year; but it appears that in extreme cases, such as credibly reported death of a user or admin-judged platform maleficence, they have been willing to step in. So 2 years isn't regarded as a bar to one's account rights here. But that should be academic, since any member can convene the committee, and I am likely to do so after taking sufficient consideration.
u/Thisisnotanexit, since Soul is now formally requesting interaction ban, I'm in general agreement as long as specifics are clearly defined, and so I will not ping him and will address my comments to you.
As I said, all my contribs to Soul's forums (including those to the forums of an earlier account of his) were presented in good faith and with consideration of the rules as then stated; for instance, the first questions I asked in his new forum came before his "no apologetics or proselytizing" rule was stated. Most people regard the sharing of sincere questions as a means of growth rather than "endless religious arguments", and Soul himself used the technique of sincere questions when I first contributed there.
When I commented on a BibleOddities post with only a positive link, I was banned at moderator discretion for "griefing" the mod, so that showed me that Soul was not really thinking through his claim that Christians are welcome to comment providing they follow other rules. Since mod discretion is a rule, I pointed out that effectively means there are no rules because any rationalization in the mod's mind is treated as a new rule. I'm hopeful Soul realizes this in time after being shown it a few different ways, as it helps the forward progress he seeks.
Like the above, on this issue I am solely responding to his statements about me for context, as I've stated I reserve the right to do. If we bypass the question of judging his own forums and stick to judging this one, that can be handled in the details of the voluntary interaction ban.
That's a question for admin so perhaps neither you nor I should be involved in Soul's prosecution of that question.
That's not in evidence; what he told me five times is that I was permabanned without clear reference to published rules other than his own rationalizations.
Parts 1-3 can be deemed to have begun already, with the detail noted that either of us pinging or replying to the other, or commenting or posting in the other's forums, or creating posts mentioning or clearly referring to the other or the other's forums, would indicate a truce, requiring a new interaction ban to be agreed afterward. I would presume that, just as I would not make a generic reference to forums about Bible discrepancies or the like as it could be regarded as being a post "about" Soul, Soul would also not make a generic reference to forums about Christianity or the like as it could be regarded as a post "about" me and other mods.
Part 4 is more problematic because I haven't seen voluntary interaction ban to work when users remain free to speak to third parties about the other (i.e. to gossip). If I were to agree to that, nothing would stop me from defaming Soul across the board in various comments and regarding even the slightest effort from him to allude to correcting the record as a violation of the agreed ban where my hypothetical gossip would not be a violation. So I continue to insist that this be better stated. His comment itself can be regarded as jumping in and trying to start interaction with you when I was discussing him with you, so clearly the concept needs a start time rather than just a generic statement. Similarly, if in the future he were to claim that Reputation Campaign is defunct because no member had chosen to act on his deadline, that would be untoward and would be gossip that is easily contextualized by this conversation. I had thought he'd answered my first question, but it appears I need to repeat it: "Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?" If he wants the freedom to talk about me without according me the freedom to contextualize what he says about me on the same platform, I find that a double standard. So I'd continue to suggest that part 4 should be something like "For each of us not to discuss the other recognizably with other users".
I don't see any spiritual benefit to anyone by any capitulation to his stated part 4, because it accords us both the right to unlimited gossip against each other. Perhaps though he merely means by "jumping in and trying to start interaction" that one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages. But if he means more than this the problem I mentioned remains.
Enforcement of the ban has not been stated. It would be very simple for either of us to perceive that the other had broken the terms and to justify any other breaking on that perception. Presumably we'd need a clause that you'd be available to hear claims of violation indefinitely or for a set term, and that a perception of violation would not permit further violation by the other without your express ruling and perhaps a reopening of mediation.
Having recognized that he can do this, he appears to be declining in his interest to continue to prosecute his requests of you. So I'll come to a brief review that seems to cover his stated points.
(1) You issue a ruling as to what either of us have done against Conspiracies rules with your recommendations as to discipline, allowing us to decide whether to accept the discipline as binding since we can only discipline ourselves. (2) I review OP and make initial voluntary edits; you include any other recommended edits in your ruling; and if Soul finds the edits incomplete he continues to negotiate in that process. (3) We deem his first terms agreed "1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other." (4) For the moment, we deem my interpretation of his fourth point agreed (seeing as if he disagrees he can merely clarify in continuing negotation): "one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages." (5) If Soul finds those interpretations incomplete, he continues to negotiate in the above process. (6) Any claims of ban violation would need to be handled, such as by you using the method above; if Soul wishes to make other plans in advance of this possibility, he would need to negotiate that too.
If this is agreeable and he gives no action for a reasonable time after your ruling and my edits, or if he continues to seek mediation within boundaries we all agree on, then we should be able to implement it. I would likely post the agreed details in a forum like CommunitiesConflict and/or SwampRangers, without pinging him, as to make such a post would still be within the terms stated, and he would be free to post separately to CommunitiesConflict or his own forum as well.
I am willing to be corrected but it is my understanding in recently speaking with Eots that they do not trust my judgement so I am at a temporary loss of how to move forward with resolving this conflict between you two.
That's why I framed the last two paragraphs in terms that apply even if he chooses to cease interacting. At a minimum I trust you to rule formally what you'd do as a mod disciplining me, and I trust you to reoffer mediation if he should complain that I've broken some term that he thinks we've agreed to.
quoting SwampRangers warning
Me- I don't think there is discipline to be had in this instance on either party. I am willing to reoffer mediation.
This all seems to me like 2 parties in disagreement and mod powers are used for rule breaking, which has not be done in this forum, to my knowledge. If I've missed some infraction, I trust you and u/ExpressionOfTheSoul to let me know and I can look closer.
His next.
I'll give him credit for putting his rules in the report function and not the sidebar as counting as publication, but this does not make the rules public knowledge if nobody thinks to click the report function. So I'll withdraw a statement if it neglected that aspect that I was unaware of.
I posted FFRF content in a non-Christian forum because I believe it's a good voice for that forum and (if I were asked) I also believe that Christianity stands up well against that voice being the best representative of its enemies. The fact that I want to find ways to reach out to Soul, including posting content I disagree with but that I think is a voice that can be heard anyway, shouldn't be regarded as bad. Unless he can find a way to define "proselytization" fairly so that it applies to what I did and not to what he did.
Similarly, since "gnostic" is undefined by gnostics I can certainly claim to be a gnostic: I love gnosis and fight pseudognosis. u/Ranger164 appears to have spoken sincerely and with love of gnosis too. Another great thing about gnostics is no two prominent ones have ever gotten along historically; so it's natural that his gnosis doesn't agree with mine, or that of u/Ranger164 for that matter. I am indeed unaffiliated with "religion" as I am the most unbound any person can be, bound to only one eternally (nobody can be totally unbound because that would be to have bound oneself to unboundness, which is far less preferable). But I do make voluntary commitments, and I think Soul is okay with that idea, especially since by asking for mediation he is entering a voluntary commitment. I learned over 2019-2022 to be all things to all men, and to be sincere and respectful to all principles of men; but some people don't understand this yet and find my ability to reconcile diverse poles as if I'm contradictory without their ever hearing the reconciliation. But I think that's because people have not yet worked through what it really means to commit to noncontradiction (truth) alone.
I accept his amending clarification to Part 3 in his words "3. Each of us to not create [] call out posts and meta posts about one another." My previous concern there had been about his freedom to comment indirectly without right of reply. When I want to not interact with another person, I seek not to refer to that person even indirectly; but it appears he wants a different agreement, which is fine if bilateral and equal.
Since he is reading my comment and since he makes no reference to my suggestions about our right to contextualize comments by pinging third parties elsewhere, or our right to appeal to you about perceived violations, or further changes to OP, those matters can proceed to draft format. I made a mistake above that his side point rightly notes, that I should have said "comment" rather than "post" above, so I'll correct that. I'll post a draft in the welcome comment at CommunitiesConflict.
Coming to be implies a process of separation...meaning implies a measurement taken into possession. Anointment prevents friction during a process, while possession destroys anointment by friction.
Theo (god) implies everything...logy (logic) tempts one to contemplate everything or nothing.
Change implies the linear progression of action into reaction...evolution aka ex (out) volvere (to roll) tion (action) shapes linear progression into circular regression.
From God to being...where's the circle?
Connecting destroys variance and uniqueness.
a) How do agreeing minds protect various unique lives?
b) Why does agreed imply A GREED?
c) Core/cor - "heart"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/core
As one lays ones ear on ones pregnant wife's belly to discern each various unique living heart...what necessitates agreement?