But not only did they ban me, they deleted my posts, and erased all trace that I ever existed. Again, if reason is on their side, shouldn't they just be able to give said reason? I emailed this point to them, but no reply. Could it be that they didn't have an actual, rational rebuttal to my argument, but rather than admit it they just tried to pretend I didn't exist?

As someone who originally believed the HH Dalai Lama was an example of a “typical” Buddhist (smiley, kind, friendly etc.) it was a heck of a shock to discover this harsh and unfriendly environment in which every “error” was brutally corrected without any attempt to communicate or learn from the other person. And yet such exchanges were rarely if ever moderated – there seemed to be a concern for doctrinal purity, over common-all-garden compassion for other human beings.

You may assume I am talking about myself, and sure, I was extremely hurt by some of the things said to me personally. However, my principle concern is not my feelings getting hurt, but how the site treats other, far more vulnerable people, often attracted to Buddhism because of the peace it offers. Unfortunately, they sometimes find pitifully few examples of such peace on E-Sangha.

If I were a moderator of that site, I'd be extremely concerned about the many threads that start off as personal problems or newbie's struggling to understand unfamiliar concepts, then rapidly degenerate into flamewars. What kind of impression is that going to give of the dharma?

Namdrol and I go back a long way to the first aol BB, maybe 1996 or 7. That was pretty chaotic though nothing like the newsgroups of that time. Basically the forums became free for alls and very difficult for newcomers to glean helpful information except that dharma folks seemed to like to fight a lot. It served personalities like Ed Hollingsworth, [zenmar, banned from e-sangha], but rarely served Dharma.

I suspect N has input in keeping that chaotic beast under wraps. Too much control? Censorship is a dangerous protocol. I have stated as much on the forum without retaliaion from the mods. What is the balance between the two? Gentle pushing and wearing them down under their own terms of engagement. I am pushing open discussion on one banned topic and I notice some thawing. Maybe there is hope.

I am a low profile poster but well respected and have very deep credentials in the Tibetan Buddhist community. Maybe that makes me one of the so called ‘celebrity’ posters. I am also anonymous though a few people know me personally including Namdrol. Still I follow the rules by refraining from posting when I want to break dumb rules. There is no need to prove myself to anyone. It is a game, but not an ego game. Who am I defending, an anonymous screen name?

Having watched the digital on line buddhist community’s birth in the mid 90’s I can say it has not improved much except that the e-sangha forum is a safe place for newbies to interact with knows-it-alls, knuckleheads and genuine practitioners. There is good information and there is bad information.

One area that I applaud is the insistence of presenting some credential before posing as a teacher. No more fake roshi or lama ’so and so’. True, credentials can be falsified but at least that is something.

My main beef is with certain posters not the mods. I would propose that the e-sangha type community issue its own credential by allow members to vote on posters; and the yeahs and nays would be fixed to the posters’ avatars. There is so much bullshit. I, no doubt, would be one of the worst offenders..live by fire die by fire.

It would also hearten me that a buddhist forum is non-profit, though it takes money to make these things work well. That said, in the wider perspective, aside from Vinaya rules for the monastics, Shakyamuni never put the onus on money, just greed. Is e-sangha raking in major bucks? I doubt it.

Too much control? Most of the respondents here seem to be crying sour milk because of their personal experience rather than taking a wider view of the alternative results of too little or no control, with the Tendai episode a notable exception.

Accountability? That’s a joke no matter how you slice it. It is the internet, it is the illusion of pixels in front of you. We can all get over that. There is no accountability unless the organizers submit to another level of outside control, like if the members could drag their asses out and flog ‘em, an eye for an eye kind of thing.

In the end I use e-sangha, they use me [I count as a hit on their google ads]. Fair enough.

P

I agree the moderators are heavy-handed at times but – ultimately – they are doing their best to protect Buddhist teachings from the same distortions that practically destroyed the intended effect of teachings by men like Jesus and even Muhammad.

All the best on your path, with or without e-sangha.

with Metta.

But beside of this, its not a bad place.