Why was the body of dattaswami's post deleted?

[Adam B]

Why was the post deleted along with closing the thread.

I read Datswami’s post and didn’t find anything particularly offensive about. If I remember correctly (I now don’t have the option to re-read it for myself) the post was referring to being attached or proud of doing good deeds, not that one shouldn’t do good deeds.

I have a major issue with the deleting of posts. It is a small step down the road toward the group-think and cult-like behavior that we are often (wrongly) accused of. It implies that not only are we afraid of what was posted, but our organization also does not have enough confidence in our member’s ability to think for themselves to discern truth.

I fully recognize that this user has a habit of posting authoritative, broad-sweeping sermons without actually responding to other posters, and also does not provide discourse and discussion (he talks at people not to them). That is why I breeze through his posts and don’t read them thoroughly. However, I think deleting what has been written simply because it is contrary to Wahnam principles is a terrible mistake. If you want to ban him or close threads that’s one thing, but deleting the post itself implies totalitarian fear.

Let people use their minds and make their own decisions.

-Adam

[Chiahua]

I had similar feelings when the posts were deleted. After all, the moderators retained posts by a legion of dissenting posters, some civil and many otherwise. At the same time, I did an "active topics" search, and his output bordered on spam.

[Adam B]

Chuiahua,

If that's the case then, then ban him from the forum. The reason for the delete had nothing to do with spam or the number of his posts. The problem I have is with this.

Contrary preachings like the ones by dattaswami are dangerous; they can induce some wrong perspective and mislead the virtuous student.

I'm sorry, but that is utter and complete bullshit. I think the forum members have shown time and time again their ability to think clearly for themselves. I can't remember the last time I saw a post deleted, and there's been tons of disrespectful, misleading, and just plain wrong crap posted on this forum.

They're dangerous?

They're so dangerous that merely reading them is harmful to "virtuous students?" I read them, actually I skimmed them because most of what he posts is trash, and didn't feel any different. The point is I'm capable of making that decision for myself as I think most of the other members are.

The idea that other people's words are so dangerous that they must be erased is quite frankly something I would not expect from a high level member of the Wahnam family.

I'm not going to post anymore in this thread, though, until Maxime has a chance to respond.

-Adam

[Andrew R]

Mike,

I see where you're coming from bro. When I saw that dattaswami had posted something like 10 new threads, I read maybe half of one and then stopped reading them all because they were not really peaking my interest. I too unfortunately cannot really comment on what he wrote, since I didn't read it. The part that remains is quite ridiculous: "The soul develops ego during its lifetime by helping other souls."

But, I don't think that keeping students ignorant to the malevolent is the correct path. Parents who over-shelter their children often end up with drug addicted wild kids, how is this different? Students need to be able to see everything to find out what is right or wrong for themselves, not have it be told to them. Also, leaving a thread with strange comments like that could easily lead to a valuable discussion, ultimately leading to a greater lesson for students, rather than saying, "This person is wrong, we are right, therefore enough of him."

On the other hand, seeing someone post a bunch of threads all at once seems a little spammish. But, what if every one of those threads contained the secret to life? Guess we won't know.

[Andrew]

Dattaswami's recent threads have now all been deleted and I have banned him from our forum. If people would like to read his preaching, I suggest they do so in his house.

Why did I delete the threads and ban him? Simple. We don't want spammers here .... and that is exactly what he was doing ... spamming our forum. We have already given him several chances (maybe others hadn't noticed) to show he is not a spammer. His last chance just expired.

Adam,

Thanks for being honest about your concerns. I agree with them to a certain degree. However, I would ask you to check your tone in that post. Whether you agree or disagree with what others do or write, please make your comments here in a civil and respectful manner.

[Adam B]

Andrew,

I have read my posts multiple times throughout the day. It was disrespectful to refer to Maxime's comment as bullshit. The way I used rhetorical questions to convey sarcasm was also disrespectful. I apologize for doing these two things. It was an error in judgment.

I do, however, stand by the content of my posts and the intensity they were meant to convey.

We've seen so many people on this forum (Kaitan, Sifu Stier, Mr. Balls, BGM1, among many others) who posted views contrary to WahNam philosophy and principles. Eventually the non-WahNam members would invariably retort with accusations of group-think, brainwashing, cult mentality, etc. after their arguments proved to be unsuccessful. I've always been proud of not only how our Moderators answered and handled these situations, but even more, the great restraint showed in terms using their power. I know a lot of those times it would have been a lot easier to ban someone or erase their posts.

This instance was the first time I've felt a moderator used his authority inappropriately. I was outraged not because of what was deleted, but for the explicit reasoning behind it. Maxime has the authority to arbitrarily delete what I or anyone else posts, but more significantly has shown a willingness to delete a post explicitly because it is "Contrary." Censorship due to conflicting ideas/ideals by labeling them "dangerous" is a very slippery slope. I feel at least some type of response from from Maxime is warranted in addressing this.

-Adam

[Jordan]

But, I don't think that keeping students ignorant to the malevolent is the correct path. Parents who over-shelter their children often end up with drug addicted wild kids, how is this different?

I think we all would agree that spamming threads is not what this forum is for. I honestly do not see this as an act to "over-shelter" anyone nor do I believe that banning those who spam will create a desire for others to spam (and if they do they will be banned too )

This instance was the first time I've felt a moderator used his authority inappropriately. I was outraged not because of what was deleted, but for the explicit reasoning behind it. Maxime has the authority to arbitrarily delete what I or anyone else posts, but more significantly has shown a willingness to delete a post explicitly because it is "Contrary." Censorship due to conflicting ideas/ideals by labeling them "dangerous" is a very slippery slope. I feel at least some type of response from from Maxime is warranted in addressing this.

As far as I can see, Maxime was/is just doing his job, which we should be grateful for as he is not obligated to do this. I am sure he is acting in the best way he can and certainly if you have an issue with this then you can take it up with Maxime a little more tactfully.

Any way, be thankful you have only the ONE complaint about the moderation here.

[Andrew R]

The reason I said it was like sheltering was because it was initially not treated wholly as spamming. Only the certain part of dattaswami's posts that was considered to be not virtuous was removed. It would be one thing if it was immediately decided that all of it was spam, and it was all removed, but that wasn't the case.

While I understand Maxime's point, it could easily have been seen as censorship by an outside party. Ya feel me?

Drew

[Maxime]

Dear Adam,

thank you for the apology. Indeed, I was not asking for it, you are the one benefiting.

When quoting someone, please make sure that you are extracting the good quote in relation with the good thread. Otherwise this might bring confusion.

If I remember correctly (I now don’t have the option to re-read it for myself) the post was referring to being attached or proud of doing good deeds, not that one shouldn’t do good deeds.

and you attached the following quote of mine:

Contrary preachings like the ones by dattaswami are dangerous; they can induce some wrong perspective and mislead the virtuous student.

This is wrong. My response was only refering to a single particular post from Dattswami whih is NOT the one you are refering to. In the post I mention, the message from Dattswami was clear that helping others might nurture the ego which is evil -- hence helping others bring evil. This is different from your reading.

Now, despite the fact that I have no obligation to answer, but since there are some confusion, I shall take the time to make things clearer.

1- I deleted almost all Dattswami's threads because they were spamming. It was important to clear the forum. Please note that I did not refered to all the threads as 'dangerous' and 'contrary'. But that was my mistake in my response, I was not clear enough and I apologize for it; I was only refering to the post I responded to (and which you confused with another one).

2- I too have a concern with censorship and use of power, please let me assure you this. That is why I choose to let one of Dattswami's thread opened in order to let people express themselves, and deleted others to clear the forum. If you had noticed, Alex McLeod took that opportunity and offered his view. Later on, Andrew Sihing choose to delete all the remained threads.

3- Now back to the post I deleted. It was also a last warning for Dattswami, which he didn't grasped. Regarding our members' mental clarity and self judgement, you might have enough clarity to see, but it is my duty to take care of my juniors; at some point in my life (not so long ago), I would have been dragged down by such preachings -- my mind was weaker. This is the reasons why I have responded to this particular post, in order to point out the negative teachings of it. I could have deleted this whole particular thread as spamming, but its particular content raised my eyebrow, so, I choose to respond.

Maxime has the authority to arbitrarily delete what I or anyone else posts, but more significantly has shown a willingness to delete a post explicitly because it is "Contrary." Censorship due to conflicting ideas/ideals by labeling them "dangerous" is a very slippery slope. addressing this.

Adam, moderating a forum is not an easy task. My action had nothing to do with censorship --or at least in my mind it is not (it would have been faster to delete the thread so that nobody can see it), it was a way to point out both to Dattswami and our members that there was a conflict of teachings here. We cannot please everybody, we must be soft (no censorship) yet firm (make sure that both quality information and good spirit is maintained). I honestly do my best.

The particular post of Dattswami (which it seems, you missed and confused with another one) was dangerous for a weak mind. Words can be dangerous -- please do not forget that even the Lord Buddha said words were more important that deeds. A single word, in a weaker mind, can undermine confidence, mislead the Soul and bring harm. Do not underestimate the power of words.

it could easily have been seen as censorship by an outside party.

Eventually the non-WahNam members would invariably retort with accusations of group-think, brainwashing, cult mentality, etc. after their arguments proved to be unsuccessful.

I have a major issue with the deleting of posts. It is a small step down the road toward the group-think and cult-like behavior that we are often (wrongly) accused of. It implies that not only are we afraid of what was posted, but our organization also does not have enough confidence in our member’s ability to think for themselves to discern truth.

I fully understand this concern, believe me. But I will be direct with you: whatever you do in life, you will always have people pointing the finger at you telling you are the bad guy, even if you prove the contrary everyday. This does not mean that we should not care about others; but when a farmer is plowing a field, he concentrates on his field, not his neighbour's.

Now please do not forget that we are a Shaolin Martial Art school. A martial art school is not a democracy, nor is it Woodstock.

We try our best not to hurt people in many ways and we have to plow the field making sure our legumes are of good quality. Once again, if I have upset you, then I am very sorry -- but I assure you I try my best to make things running smoothly and efficiently.

One last thing: you called me 'high level member of the Wahnam family'. Please don't. I am not. I am just trying my best to be a deserving student.

Please do not hesitate to contact me for anything.

Shaolin Salute,

[Adam B]

Apologies

Well, multiple apologies are in order. I just received a PM from my Sifu. I'm posting it because I've seen Wahnam members on the forum instantly change their tune before, and was always curious what exactly brought it about. I think it's only fair to be open about my reasons in this case.

Dear Adam,

I just returned from the UK, and I saw your post about Dattaswami. You need to check your tone, and quick. It's not appropriate for you to rudely question me and Andrew in public like that. To make matters worse, you referred to Andrew as simply "Andrew", not "Sisook Andrew". This is unacceptable. Adam, you're the one on a slippery slope here.

You could have politely asked about the decision, and you could even disagree with the answers. But openly and rudely attacking your sifu and your sisook in the open forum is not cool. We don't have to explain our decisions to you. But of course, if you ask politely, we probably will. Dattaswami is a spammer. He's been warned several times, and there is much going on behind the scenes that you are not aware of, as is usually the case.

Meanwhile, I was in the UK, and Maxime was doing his best to handle the forum in my absence. More importantly, you can rest assured that Andrew, myself, and Sifu Wong have the forum under control.

You had better do something to clean up the mess in that thread.

-Sifu

The first time I read this PM, I took it is an ultimatum, and was quite honestly a little upset by it. After calming down a bit and reading it a few more times, I realize that Sifu Anthony, as usual, is right. The I issues I had concerns with are still important to me, but I went about addressing them in completely the wrong way. This post is not simply to "clean up the mess" but a sincere apology.

While my posts were meant to address the specific way SiSook Maxime handled that situation, I implied publicly that my Sifu, SiSooks Andrew and Maxime, and Sigung Wong don't know what they're doing. There was no need to "air dirty laundry" in public when the issues could have been easily addressed with one or two PM's. I've always found it disgusting when professional athletes made negative comments about their coaches or teammates to the media, and here I've essentially done the same thing.

The manner in which I argued was also unnecessarily aggressive and rude. Furthermore, I know Maxime is in a new position as a moderator, and I should have given him the benefit of the doubt (I know it's not an easy role, and I'm sure there is a learning curve to it as well).

I would also like to extend an apology to SiSook Andrew and SiSook Maxime for addressing them improperly. There is really no excuse for omitting this simple courtesy that has such a significant meaning. My previous three posts showed a disregard for and lack of respect toward proper kungfu etiquette, which ironically is more for my (the student's) benefit than anything else.

I hope that Sifu, Sisook Andrew, SiSook Maxime, and Sigung will accept my apology.

-Adam

[AriJ]

Spam...

Hello Brothers and Sisters,

I just want to add my toughts on this issue.

Most of the threads of this user has been 100 % pure spam: They have had nothing to do with our school and apparently they did not intrest forum members. My opinion is that forum moderators have been very patient with Dattaswami. These posts have simply been boring and out of place. I personally have chosen not to read his posts for a while.

While censorship is generally a bad thing, censoring spam is certainly different issue. I just want to say that forum moderators have been doing very good job in managing this forum. Please keep it up!

Br,
AriJ

[Andrew R]

I think by now we can all agree that it was for the best to rid of Senor Dattaswani. I don't think it's worth continuing the argument of "he said this, she said this" type dillio.
Happy time,
Drew