ok..so the consensus is building for madame7 for moderator..
I vote for her..
please express your votes now and let's send this to tribe so she can get crown queen.
cheers!
I vote for her..
please express your votes now and let's send this to tribe so she can get crown queen.
cheers!
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
-
-
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Sun, April 27, 2008 - 7:01 PMMadame7 would be the best choice....... since no-one has spoken up on behalf of upholding the highest standards.... it seems those present would be better served by this tribe indulging the interests of those who are challenged by the idea of raw veganism as more than "just another option". Madame7 does seem to have the "Raw Spirit", and is likely to keep moving towards raw veganism as the most Optimum of all possibilities,... so I see her eventually fulfilling the role I would envision myself fulfilling had others spoken up on my behalf. -
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Sun, April 27, 2008 - 7:29 PMLets just keep to voting in this thread and leave the snobbish commentary to the other thread. -
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Sun, April 27, 2008 - 8:16 PMIf this were a raw foods potluck you (two) would be the guy, or guys, who bring a dish containing some cooked food.... and can't Fathom why Anyone might object...... but would instead accuse them of being "snobbish".
-
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Sun, April 27, 2008 - 7:56 PM -
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Sun, April 27, 2008 - 9:06 PMplease! let's keep this post for the voting ONLY.. -
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 12:41 AMuh, you guys might wanna read what i just wrote in the long trashy post. -
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 1:01 AMso are you declining the nomination? -
-
Re: madame7 for moderator
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 1:33 AMi'm not sure right now.
i don't want to do this if it's going to drag me down, if i'm going to have people sending me hate mail, calling me names, shit like that. That sounds like my last relationship. In fact, it sounds like most of my relationships. That's why i'm single--something about the way i was back then attracted negative drama. So i changed my Self into something cleaner, and for the most part, drama doesn't come looking for me...and if it ever does, it doesn't stick. Now i am attracting amazing, conscious, loving, honest beings every day, so i know i'm doing something right. If i am not a positive influence in this tribe, if people think i'm full of shit, or if i'm going to end up as a target for people who really ought to be dealing with their issues elsewhere, then not only do i not want to moderate, i don't even want to be here. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: madame7 for moderator
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 9:57 AMI haven't been following the monster post, because I don't need to be reading negativity, but if people have been attacking you I think that's complete bullshit. -
-
this post is meant for the voting ONLY..
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 10:09 AMplease! let's keep this post for the voting ONLY.. -
-
Re: this post is meant for the voting ONLY..
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 2:09 PMi guess the next step is to ask if anyone objects to my being moderator. This would be a good day for the lurkers to post.
after thinking about it overnight, i came to the idea of maybe giving it a shot just to get it done. But be it known that the first thing i would do as moderator is delete that other thread with the 200+ posts. I would hate to ditch this tribe entirely just because of a few people with crude social skills. Maybe it would help if i started that tribe i mentioned, one called Raw Spirit, for more devoted, religiously raw folks. That may take some of the pressure off of this one, so it can be more neutral in its mission. -
-
censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 2:35 PMI wish not to widthdraw my orignial vote for m7, but I urge that censorship is taken with the same seriousness as excluding members.
I am a big supporter of net neutrality, and deleting other people's expressions, as much as we may disagree with them, the style and substance, strikes me as orwelian...
So long as it is not overt hatred.. I think the postings should remain...even if someone where to say "I love fried chicken".. I think that should be a valid expression even in this raw vegan tribe...at least it should not be done in haste and unilateraly.. and always without self-interest. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 3:06 PMI would also object to the thread being deleted. There was a lot of unneeded hostility in that thread, but there was also a lot of great information.
Also, if you read the first half of the thread, it becomes apparent that the vast majority of people here are not 100% raw, though most are at least vegetarians (No fish or meat whatsoever). People come here to learn about raw foods, get recipes, and perhaps get inspired to increase their consumption of raw food and maybe some will end up becoming completely raw.
I voted for you because when you talked about feeling uncomfortable around Leslies hard edge that meant that you yourself would be less judgmental than him and accept people who are only casually curious and want to learn more about it.
For me personally, I am going to remain a macrobiotic vegan, but as we are getting into the warmer months here I will be attempting a second run at an all raw or nearly all raw diet.... -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 4:11 PMone pending objection.
censorship will make it a certain objection. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 8:12 PMheh. That doesn't surprise me. Of course someone who sends me mean private messages will object to my moderating the tribe in which she spewed a load of nasty insults and immature attempts at "telling the truth". Well, hopefully we will consider the sources of the votes cast.
And as for deleting that thread, the only reason i suggested that is it seemed that some people were complaining about the negativity and how far people had strayed from discussion about the topic of raw veganism. I was thinking about all the other 900+ people who may be shy about posting here because of how heated things got in that one post. The idea wasn't censorship, it was in the spirit of making this tribe a welcoming place. I certainly never implied that any voices should be silenced...i just wish more people could vent their hostility elsewhere and then come here to talk about raw veganism. I guess if we had enough new posts about good stuff, that post would settle down to the bottom of the barrel and be forgotten about.
Ok does anyone else here hate me? -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 9:41 PMI think the other thread was all about Raw Veganism, especially in regard to "Raw Truth" vs "Proven Science". Should unproven beliefs be sold as facts? I dont believe they should be. That is not however an attack on the subjective experience, but on the pseudoscientific explaination. Should a person who is considering a raw diet have to believe every philosophical position advocated by some of the more prominent raw food authors? I really dont think so. Not every vegetarian gives up meat for the same reasons, and not every raw foodist is approaching it from the same perspective either.
Being moderator may require thicker skin. You have to put up with a lot without getting emotionally involved. Also, just because you have a personal issue with somebody does not mean that their vote doesnt count.
Im not sure at this point you would be the best choice for moderator, but I certainly dont hate you. If you do become moderator I dont think it would be the end of the world, but I would discourage censorship. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 10:44 PMI agree with everthing Sentience said..
Skepticism is not criticism.. and the scientific method is value neutral and should help not hurt raw vegans...
If someone makes general statements of objective truth, they should expect to be challenged..
If you don't want to be challenged then speak from the first person perspective and do not generalize.
..2 cents -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 11:49 PMI vote for M7
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Tue, April 29, 2008 - 11:51 PM>>Being moderator may require thicker skin. You have to put up with a lot without getting emotionally involved.<<
well i don't want to put up with a lot.
That's kind of where i was coming from when i wrote the rant in which i said i was out of here. I'm not out of here quite yet, just observing where things are going. I moderate a handful of tribes that i started, and there have only been two instances in which i've had to step in and break up a fight or put someone in their place. For the most part, the tribes just go on and i get to enjoy what people are posting, and sometimes i start a thread if the tribe gets slow. I don't have the time to constantly mediate arguments, and i'm certainly not into laying myself open to being personally attacked & called names for trying my best to do the right thing. Do you think that this is part of taking on the role as moderator, being willing to put up with that kind of shit? It's not that i am emotionally affected by people getting personal with me, it's more that i just don't think i should have to go there. It's pure dookie.
As for the scientific vs. experiential debate, i agree with you, Sentience. You're totally spot on with your assessment and i fully understand what you mean. My main point has been that it's possible, with some self-awareness and benevolent intent, to debate such matters without inserting personal digs or insulting someone's character. That part of the communication here is what has bothered me the most. I enjoy a healthy debate as much as anyone and i get a lot out of it--we only stand to gain from opening our minds and listening to each other.
Oh, and Alex, i speak from the first person perspective all the time, and i am challenged constantly. In fact, i'm being challenged so much in all areas of my life right now that i'm gonna go blog about it, to spare you all. I'll be back after i clear out my head. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 12:36 AMM7, earlier you said:
"Now i am attracting amazing, conscious, loving, honest beings every day, so i know i'm doing something right. "
I think you attracted this moderator position, because our members tend to be "amazing, conscious, loving honest beings."
Our main faults are being radically honest at times and ocassionaly failing to think things thru before we type and then regressing to name calling (typical of Tribe in general). Thankfully that doesn't happen often around here. BUT since most of us don't want a heavily censored tribe, I doubt we'd often need strict moderation. Your usual way of moderating by enjoying people's posts & sometimes starting a thread when things are slow would probably suit our tribe beautifully.
I have a deep respect for Leslie's spirit, experience & knowledge and his willingness to share with us what he knows. I also get a lot out of Sentient, Cali, Alex, & yes even The Mandrill's posts. I like it best when we all keep our differences of opinion (even as they pertain to "scientific facts") on a respectful, if not lighthearted, level.
Hopefully things will soon settle back down to our usual helpful & supportive state. Having a good moderator like you could help us stay in that state by steering us in your light, sensible, positive, and sometimes maternal way.
Again, you've got my vote M7. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 9:03 AMWow Lyoness! what a breath of fresh air!
I love your grace! -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Wed, April 30, 2008 - 12:45 PMyes, i appreciate your tone and your respect for everyone here.
thank you. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 10:33 AMdude, the objection is due to the censorship. not because of hate.
--side note: at no time was it said that anyone hated you.--
if you are going to censor things due to difference of opinion, then that would clearly constitute an objection.
however, if that was a miscommunication, then cool... you would still get my vote over leslie's.
i would like to see other options though, but since there hasn't been any, we should wrap this up.
i am obviously not here enough, and am apparently too much to be moderator. so that eliminates me.
if there are no other nominee's, is this thing finally over?
-
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 11:36 AMApparently, I seem to be a sycophant.. whatever that means..
Despite the mute point and due to the mere appearance of conflict of interest, I recant my vote for m7.. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 4:11 PMI think M7 rawks, and generally speaking would make a great moderator. But I'm a little off put by the idea of a non-vegan moderating a vegan tribe (even if she is moving in that direction). I still say it should be Sentience. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 4:28 PMI have no great attachment to moderating this tribe, and no strong objection to M7. However, if there is not even one other raw vegan willing to step up who has been here longer than me, I would be willing to submit to a final run-off between me and M7 and will not be upset regardless of the results. Whatever makes the tribe happy.
Like I said, I am only seasonally raw, and base my diet primarily on vegan macrobiotics, but I do have some experience with raw food preparation and food balancing.
Whatever the people want I will agree to, so if anybody really has strong feelings about this, go ahead and make a final run-off vote.
-
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 5:28 PMI'm still willing to do the job, as a long time committed raw vegan. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 5:34 PMI think you were overwhelmingly voted against. If you really want to be in the final run I would propose instant run-off so that people could choose their first and second options. Otherwise it would not be fair to divide the vote.
I would rather see M7 win, not because i dont respect your dedication but because you can be overbearing and wanted the position so you could censor your critics. Im not going to run at all unless we do run-off.
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 5:42 PMLeslie, I would love to see you as a moderator.. It would warm my heart...but I have some reservations about you.
I will vote for you if you promise these things:
-- not to censor, exclude or admonish people who disagree or are disagreeable...
--that you would strive for a democratic approach not a dictatorial one.
--that you would consider yourself a steward of this tribe, not an owner of it
--that you would consider the consensus of it's member more than your own, pertaining to anything..including changing the tribe's title and it's mission statement..
--that you shall not act unilateraly, ever.
--and that you will step down upon a simple referendum vote by it's members
if you can promise all that, you have my vote. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 5:48 PMIm skeptical. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 5:59 PMYes Sentience, I can see evidence that Lesie may turn this tribe into something exclusive and intolerant of differing views or styles of expressions..
but I think the man really wants to be moderator and I am sure he can do a fine job.. he just needs to commit to doing it.. he already got his tribe that can be all about a exclusion and intolerant to anything he wants.. so he can consider this tribe "where the brain-dead addicted infidels abide" and he would not have a problem with that
if he promises what I request.. then he has my vote.. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 6:09 PMI wonder if he could honestly promise all that and commit to it.
Personally, I wouldnt vote for him until I had seen a consistent demonstration of a changed attitude, but I will stand behind whatever the tribe wants. If we do this I would propose run-off.
-
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 6:14 PMMy position, as stated several times, is Support for those who are not necessarily raw vegan, as well as those who are. I will challenge patterns of assertion that raw veganism "is not for everyone" because this undermines the resolve of those intending to work towards becoming raw vegan.I don't intend to censor such assertions, but to confront them. When those making such assertions resort to attacking my character (which is what precipitated my own fairly-made counter character-assessments) ... and demonstrate a trollish pattern, then it behooves any moderator to be willing to boot the offender after fair warning to desist in such behaviors that subvert the climate of openness and civility. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 6:24 PMI choose veganism because I want to reduce animal suffering and exploitation, and I want to reduce my environmental footprint. Many vegetarians only adopt the environmental or health considerations, which is fine, or perhaps they only go as far as boycotting the factory farms, which certainly makes a positive difference if you do only that.
I made an effort to adopt a raw lifestyle because of the impact on health, mind and body. For me its a different kind of issue from veganism which is a perspective on the ethics of animal exploitation. Raw foods has a different set of considerations from veganism, which from my perspective are more health oriented than they are oriented around animal exploitation.
I think your position that every single person will always be healthier on a raw diet is overbearing and in some cases could even be potentially harmful. I think some people with certain health considerations might not do so well on a diet that works for you.
I am concerned about your stated goal to kick people out of the tribe for behavior you disagree with. You have demonstrated an ability to be just as offensive and combative as others you refer to as trolls, but you feel that because you have the moral high ground its justified. I could easily see you starting fights then booting people for responding. Thats why I would vote for the non-vegan before I would vote for you. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 7:03 PMThe only people who would not benefit from raw vegan diet are those whose state of being is Too far Compromised by a lifetime of eating cooked foods. Cooked foods are always the source of the problem, as there is not any inherent need for cooked foods as a matter of natural inclination.
If I reflect back obnoxiousness at those who project it upon me,...... that is a matter of self-defense, not to be confused as being the 'source' of that behavior. I don't employ this except in Response to its initiation and perpetuation by others. I don't start personal attacks on others, and I Do work with the basic issues when being confrontational. This Is the raw vegan tribe, and if people are to be supported regarding the basic issues, the moderator has to be willing to uphold basic raw vegan philosophy in the face of those who habitually and methodically detract from it, for whatever justifications presented. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 7:25 PM"Cooked foods are always the source of the problem"
I find this position absolutely irrational in defiance of all medical reason. I believe that there are other causes of illness besides cooked foods. Im not denying that cooking affects the nutritional quality of foods, just that your claims are more than can be believed.
"If I reflect back obnoxiousness at those who project it upon me,...... that is a matter of self-defense, not to be confused as being the 'source' of that behavior."
We are each fully responsible for our own actions. I dont believe its necessary to call people names, even when others do it to you. Attacking somebodies positions are different from attacking the person behind it.
But anyway, I propose a run-off vote. If by some chance I win, Ill submit myself to a revote if anybody else wants the position in three months time. I also have no objections to M7, and would also endorse a less overbearing raw vegan if somebody else wants to volunteer.
-
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 7:40 PMThere can be accidents and some genetic irregularities, and other negative influences.... that's a no brainer. What we Deal with here is dietary related issues, and the obvious implication of what I am saying is cooked foods are always the problem...... not a Lack of Cooked foods. There may be other problems.... but if you are eating cooked foods.... This Is The Problem (that you can control.... if you learn how) a problem that is always present unless you are a raw fooder.
Why do you attack me personally, then state it's not necessary to do so, as if you are not a perpetrator? Take responsibility for initiating and perpetuating discord. -
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 7:46 PMIm attacking your positions, which you might find offensive, but I am not calling you names or engaging in ad hominem attacks. I am engaging your positions. If you consider attacks on your stated positions to be attacks against your very being, you are going to have problems.
I dont believe that raw foods is the only right way to eat. I am very interested in raw foods however, and believe it has benefits over a conventional mixed diet. If you want to debate the specifics, I would suggest making a new thread. We all need to try harder to stay on topic, myself included.
-
-
Re: censorship is a serious action, IMO
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 9:58 PMOh good grief, y'all's confrontation has spilled into yet another thread.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
