I think it's safe to say that there is actually very little of the above taking place on this forum. Including from moderators. However, one of the moderators said
What I understand from the above is that on DWE, the same thing as what is happening on DWT should happen, which means, in my opinion, discussing doctrinal points while referring constantly to the texts and seeing how they apply to various situations (because this is what happens on DWT). And then based on that, the discussion quoted above was locked down because it was not enough about "Dha(r/m)ma" and "engaged buddhism". I am not going to comment on the reason for such a double standard, but will only point out that said moderator himself has opened several threads to discuss purely politics, which seems rather odd after having made the above statement.And yes, you're right, it has nothing to do with spreading Dhamma; it's just more political discussion. And that's why we don't allow any more political discussions, even lounge type topics, even the popular music thread. Now DWT just focuses on Dhamma. And the same should be done here too; this is for discussion of engaged buddhism. So now that we've all had the chance to express our opinions, time to close this and return to discussing engaged buddhism.
Another thread was locked down by another moderator for the following reasons:
So, it is apparently not allowed to be only 2 persons momentarily engaging in a particular discussion. This is rather strange because that same moderator has posted at least 80% of the posts in the 3-pages long thread The War On Plastic, not to mention other threads about climate change. I am actually happy that he can spread the word out there about the issues he feels deeply about, but if he, as a moderator, prevents others from being able to do the same, by shutting down a thread because the average number of participants over a certain amount of time is not higher than 2, I think it is fair to point out the double standard.In the last five days, the conversation has been between only two people.
In the last X days (where X is much greater than 5) the conversation has had nothing whatever to do with the Dharma (however you choose to spell that).
The two people still interested may continue in private if they wish.
Meanwhile, I will lock the topic unless or until someone else expresses a wish for it to re-open (PM me with your reason).
Also, as I said earlier, what does "having something to do with dharma" mean, exactly? Certainly not discussing doctrinal points while referring constantly to the texts and seeing how they apply to various situations. In my opinion, looking for the truth about a particular situation is looking for the dharma of said situation. Therefore, when that happens in a conversation, it's a conversation about dharma. (That is of course the case only if the discussion is actually about looking for the truth, in a honest way, putting ego-affirming motivations aside, being ready to concede any point at any time to anyone if it is the intellectually honest thing to do.)
After reading both these statements from moderators, I can see that most of what I say here can easily fall in the categories they have singled out as reasons for censure (not enough engagement from other users, not close enough to doctrinal Buddhist discussion etc.). Therefore, for the sake of all participants, I ask the question:
What are the limitations to speech we should impose on ourselves when posting on this forum (of course beyond what is stated in the ToS), if we want to avoid the prospect of being silenced at any time for any of the above reasons?
I think users deserve to know what the rules are, so that they can have a minimum of transparency about what posting on this forum entails.