|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2008 6:30:04 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaslight on May 6, 2009 10:27:25 GMT 10
The title of this topic seemed appropriate for a discussion of Masonic discipline -- an extension of something raised in the Masonic Communication Using Computers topic -- but from a different point of view. A point of view which is probably contrary to what Bro Theron had in mind.
In the Masonic Communication topic Bro Philip referred to his policy of restricting forum subscription in the interest of harmony.
My concern is that, in both lodges and discussion boards, even the most meticulous screening cannot prevent occasional outbreaks of disharmony and drastic cures are sometimes necessary.
In lodges, we take great care in investigating candidates before balloting and initiation. Once accepted, however, some members begin to exhibit unsavoury traits that were either hidden or unnoticed during the application procedure.
Most rituals I know give advice on what to do when at variance with a Brother, or when his behaviour begins to overstep the mark. If a friendly word doesn't help and the disharmony continues, the Master can always resort to use of the gavel. But if that doesn't help, the next resort is usually bringing some kind of Masonic charge.
Indiscriminate use of Masonic charges, edicts, etc. to stifle opinions and opposition is, I think, what Bro Theron had in mind. Not a month goes by without some GM, somewhere, throwing his weight around and bringing the Craft into disrepute.
It seems to me that Masonry often exhibits a bipolar tendency when dealing with disharmony and dissent: either under-reacting or over-reacting. I have no solutions to this problem (if it is a problem, and not just a personal obsession), but feel that no amount of legislative reform will help. What I'd love to see is the spontaneous generation of some kind of Masonic environment in which natural selection would make the disruptive elements sufficiently uncomfortable to move on and out without triggering aggressive responses or recrimination.
This post is long and windy for a reason: I'm trying to avoid giving specific examples, of which I have many. (Hence the obsession.)
Flickering Gaslight
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 6, 2009 21:38:43 GMT 10
The title of this topic seemed appropriate for a discussion of Masonic discipline -- an extension of something raised in the Masonic Communication Using Computers topic -- but from a different point of view. A point of view which is probably contrary to what Bro Theron had in mind.
In the Masonic Communication topic Bro Philip referred to his policy of restricting forum subscription in the interest of harmony.
My concern is that, in both lodges and discussion boards, even the most meticulous screening cannot prevent occasional outbreaks of disharmony and drastic cures are sometimes necessary. Thank you Bro. Gaslight for your thoughtful and thought provoking post. I guess my preference is that no issue, as such, be banned just for the sake of preserving harmony. Rather, I feel that the more controversial an issue may be, the more care the participants need to take, so as to stay on topic, by avoiding such things as personal attacks and gratuitous vulgarity. As is stated in the "news fader" on the home page here: " Controversy is acceptable, disagreement is welcome and humour is encouraged, so long as credibility and civility are maintained." |
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 7, 2009 19:03:46 GMT 10
It seems to me that Masonry often exhibits a bipolar tendency when dealing with disharmony and dissent: either under-reacting or over-reacting. I have no solutions to this problem (if it is a problem, and not just a personal obsession), but feel that no amount of legislative reform will help. What I'd love to see is the spontaneous generation of some kind of Masonic environment in which natural selection would make the disruptive elements sufficiently uncomfortable to move on and out without triggering aggressive responses or recrimination. In the context of masonic forums such as this, we perhaps might also keep in mind the conditions of use to which all members are required to agree before registration. In the case of Proboards forums, these include: I too am troubled by the specter of legislation encroaching on free speech, especially among adults. However, I also recognise that, if the disruptive elements do not feel sufficiently uncomfortable to move on and out, those who find them offensive will do so instead (with the disruptive remnants perhaps thus characterising much of on-line communications). Sadly, I too have no sure solution, only this experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaslight on May 7, 2009 22:58:40 GMT 10
I too am troubled by the specter of legislation encroaching on free speech, especially among adults. However, I also recognise that, if the disruptive elements do not feel sufficiently uncomfortable to move on and out, those who find them offensive will do so instead (with the disruptive remnants perhaps thus characterising much of on-line communications). I've seen this happen all too often. On one bulletin board I used to moderate, three new subscribers in a row were driven off by the same loud-mouthed member. I eventually banned him for repeated cross-posting to other boards but by then it was too late. The damage had been done. I've explored almost every forum and topic you've set up, and as far as I can see, you've laid down a solid infrastructure for future debate, your choice of topics and quotations serving as clear guidelines for the kind of discussions you expect. The only negative factor so far is the number of subscribers. My guess is that you'd need to get into three figures for a statistical chance of gathering a solid core of regular contributors. I can think of at least a dozen articulate and responsible posters I know would be at home here and would boost the input, but they all belong to other forums or mailing lists and would probably not want to spread their online activities too thin (unless they resort to cross-posting). |
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 8, 2009 6:52:35 GMT 10
For now, I guess my best strategy is to persist in hope.
|
|
