Not too many forums allow people to just sit around to complain and debate about the rules. They do not waste time debating people about it, they just ban them if they cannot follow the rules, simple as that. I had comment earlier someone said to me "but the point you raise is that of a governing "we," to kick others out that don't listen, yet in the Venus Project, there is no governing "we" to prevent chaos, so what do you suggest. I mean we can't talk about living in a non-gov't system to live in, while governing forums. Its hypocritical."

First of all! How can you compare a forum website to a government offline, I mean really think about that, there is no comparison, this forum is just a communication tool and place to store and share information simple as that. Peter has clearly state that he wants clean site and purpose of mods is to help create a friendly forum environment for everyone to communicate in. If you get banned from the site so what, there other forums, start a facebook group and invite all your ZM friends to talk about anything you want.

This site is more than just a place for social networking, we want people to come to the site and feel inspired to do something towards real change. Do you think they want to come into a forum where there is bunch of spamming, flaming, people breaking rules, debating each other all day long like bunch of politicians in the House or Congress. I think not, Peter, Admin and myself, maybe other mods I cannot be for sure. Have talked about getting rid of the forums and just have site like the Venus Project site that does not have a forum and you know what they are getting allot things done. not wasting their time on a forum. They are getting outside doing things, talking to people, giving lectures,making videos etc. That is what we should be doing here in the movement, not spending all day long debating each other like politicians. We have rules and we want to keep the site clean and productive, because this site is not just about maintaining the forums.

You know not all who disagree gets banned. There are two users who feel using an equal income monetary system is better than an RBE, but they are still free to post here. Then there is one user who feels having the technology component is bad. He thinks its technology that is corrupt or that technology makes us corrupt even though we have stated, that technology is a tool, just like a simple hammer (heck even a simple hammer is technology). You can choose to bash nails into wood and build something or you can choose to bash people's skulls in. Doesn't make the hammer evil. Then there is a user who feels that the movement should advocate spirituality along with using the scientific method, and he started talking about bodily spiritual energies. I and others have said that spirituality is the end game result since people will have more time to discover and learn about the natural world instead of toiling away 9-5 40hrs/week doing some useless job. None of these people are banned. I could reveal their usernames but they may or may not like it.

AnotherYou wrote:
You see I can't say that before now I understood the issues with the main site and spam. I am not qualified to do more than speculate on that, and if you say these sorts of measures ostensibly improve the quality of the posts and the tone of the site. That's fine, and on the face of it that's an acheivement, and if it was the goal of this movement was to produce a concise and riff-raff-free website, I'd say we were well on our way.

However, we're not, and I'm left asking the question that if the site is free of contention. Where did it go? Peter, you acknowledge that there's an "anti-Z" group who seem to be trolling the sites and banding against it.

I mean fellas, this'd be a fantastic plan if we owned the internet. However there's a big world out there, where you're going to be talked about in scathing terms. Only out there you don't have the numbers to separate the heard and really address individual peoples points.


What's more, I'm sorry to repeat myself here, but you guys do have rules against spam. Ones that apply to all members.

Why do you continue to address things that may be happening as a result of disagreement with the movement as if they're what I'm defending?

If someone spams, insults, detracts, distracts or anything else that is directly harmful, that is against a rule for which there is a need. One against a state of mind is indefensable.

Nope. We do not own the internet. And people are going to make baseless accusations all the time. They are going to make Anti-Zeitgeist blogs and Anti-Venus Project blogs and waste hours and hours of their time trying to attack people who are trying to help the planet. I think the part you don't understand is that this is going to happen. The only people who have been banned from here for "disagreeing" were doing their anti-zeitgeist trolling on our forums. Now they have to go do it somewhere else. These people were not going to eventually come around.

Some of them claim to of formally been for this direction, but were engaging in debate tactics dependent on social stratification, ostracism, and other bullshit strategies that distract from the actual point and make an effort instead to just insult the person your debating with to attempt to look like you are "winning". The fact is we simply do not need these people.

The amount of people we have banned is a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction. If you look at the suspended user list a great deal of the people there are sock puppets for previously banned trolls. This is not a big problem. We are not at an epidemic here. But giving a lot of our energy and attention to try and prevent immature and insecure people who get their jollies by attacking people from the safety of their keyboards from doing what they were going to do anyway is not something worthy of our time.

VTV wrote:


Nope. We do not own the internet. And people are going to make baseless accusations all the time. They are going to make Anti-Zeitgeist blogs and Anti-Venus Project blogs and waste hours and hours of their time trying to attack people who are trying to help the planet. I think the part you don't understand is that this is going to happen. The only people who have been banned from here for "disagreeing" were doing their anti-zeitgeist trolling on our forums. Now they have to go do it somewhere else. These people were not going to eventually come around.


I'm here in support of the Scientific Method. I'll continue to support the tenets of the movement. However I can't support completely unsubstantiated fatalism. You cannot make indefinite and certain remarks like that without actually backing them up. What's more I won't refute them without having evidence to the contrary.

What I will say is how on earth do you know who will and won't make anti-Zeitgeist blogs? Do you think they're destined to do so or do you think that if they're in the right mindset and the right company for long enough there might be a percentage of them who will sympathise with our aims?



I don't think that part can easily be disputed, you'd best ask yourself the easier question of "is it better for the movement if we allow those who are respectful to the rules stay and discuss their skepticism or is there a better alternative".

I personally think Mr.O made a great point when he suggested there be a forum for the discussion of the movement. Since it will be a great place to assemble people around a discussion we all need to learn to have, both in real life and online. That is presenting the Venus Project in a convincing and honest light.





VTV wrote:

Some of them claim to of formally been for this direction, but were engaging in debate tactics dependent on social stratification, ostracism, and other bullshit strategies that distract from the actual point and make an effort instead to just insult the person your debating with to attempt to look like you are "winning". The fact is we simply do not need these people.


I'm pretty sure you just discribed me at a time in my life. I was an asshole. However I was fortunate enough to have conversations with people who saw different things in different ways and I eventually became confident in the heuristic that brought me here.

If I'd come to this site right away, I never would have joined. Consequently I never would have given DVDs to my friends and your subscriptions would be about 30 people shy of where they are now.

Do you not need me? Or is it that you don't think people can change?



VTV wrote:

The amount of people we have banned is a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction. If you look at the suspended user list a great deal of the people there are sock puppets for previously banned trolls. This is not a big problem. We are not at an epidemic here. But giving a lot of our energy and attention to try and prevent immature and insecure people who get their jollies by attacking people from the safety of their keyboards from doing what they were going to do anyway is not something worthy of our time.


Yeah, it's not a huge problem in practice. However my issue is with this sort of fallacy becoming dogma. I mean, you already acknowledge that people lie about the movement and say they were banned for "disagreeing".....


What's the solution to such dishonesty? WHY MAKE IT A BANNABLE OFFENSE TO DISAGREE OF COURSE!



VTV, I've been playing a game with my self lately, I'm trying to find ways to teach objectivity. So I've come up with a came called "how much?" and I play it anytime I'm discussing a new idea or concept with which I'm struggling. Here's how it goes.

Think of what it would take, in terms of evidence, to convince you to change your mind.

It might be tricky at first since you've been thinking in terms of convincing me (by the way I assure you I've played this with myself before posting on the site).

So what would convince you?



Presumably we're engaged in appraisals of reasoning and evidence. So figure out how much it would take for you to go the other way on the topic. Then figure out how little of that you would need.

Hypothesize if need be. But start to think in terms of yourself being wrong. It might give insight.

This occurred previously, when Peter denounced the author of CS as "mentally ill", and offered up a a particular definition of the term in which it may be true. However, this was a poor choice of communicative expression as the common meaning of the term is perjorative in the extreme, and it conveys a very negative idea that the Zeitgeist Movement considers people who disagree with their ideas as mentally ill, even if it may be it true under some specific, obtuse definition.

I would like you to put yourself in my position for a moment. I have silently endured perpetual attack from faceless cowards for 3 years now. I rarely respond to any of them. When I do, it means I felt the need to at the time. As of now, I realize I should have never bothered to address CS as all it did was give them some attention. Remember- CS is literally based upon attacking me and TZM now. That's it. It has nothing to do with "Conspiracies". If it wasn't for me, those kids would be at home only masturbating and playing video games wondering why they are in their 30s and have no life. Now they have an enemy - good for them - I couldn't care less. All it does is give me and the ideas I promote more attention and those who can actually think critically can see straight through their propaganda.

As far as Winston - this kid is only about "winning the debate" and nothing more. Truth is secondary to the external perception that he is correct. This is classic pathological behavior. It is mental illness by all accord and, sadly, he is not alone. Tons out there are hell bent on preserving their identity and assumed integrity by blindly holding on to their beliefs and prior statements regardless of new information or being disproven. It's called "ego". Did Zeitgeist: The Movie have errors? Yes - and I fixed them, as any diligent, self-respecting person should as we continue on our journey of discovery. We all make mistakes and it is having the integrity to realize that and adjust accordingly that is important. Now, anyone can view the full 220 page source guide and see what is what. You will now notice the data in that Guide is being utterly dismissed/ignored by this hateful subculture as well... go figure. Pathological Denial.

Please note- I made a budget film and put it online- then I made another and tried to start a movement to help push some sustainable ideas. I never did anything to anyone. I didn't hold people down to watch the films.. I didn't insult or attack anyone... until they started to attack me.

Here is the difference between me and most- I will not be inhibited by anything. Life is too short to waste tiptoeing over this and that. I will say what I feel is right and I'm sorry if anyone has a problem with that. Frankly, if most people did what they thought was actually correct while keeping an open mind and didn't let others put them down and install fear/inhibition - the world would be a much more open, progressive and enlightening place.

Thank you Neil and peter for taking the time to respond to me on this matter i appreciate you discussing this issue up front like this as i know you guys are both blue in face talking about things like this.
I would just like to clarify my position as i feel it may be getting slightly entwined with another viewpoint i don't hold.
Ok so firstly i agree people have to be banned from time to time and i think tanktop, v and the guys are more than fair in there warnings to users etc.
I am not suggesting we allow people to disrupt the site so the subset of arguments justifying the bannings are not necessary i already agree with you guys if anything you are to patient with some of these people.

My concern is simply that instead of using the site for members only and banning those who don't come around put up a section to debate and centralize the problem there. I outlined why in my earlier post.

I am sure as you said already V that you guys talked long and hard on the matter in the first place and made a decision based on your experience. What i am proposing is a possible alternative that gives us a middle ground and does not send the wrong impression or give people ammunition. I am not saying it will certainly work i don't know that it will but its worth a try if it leaves the lines of communication to people open and a chance to see how our ideas hold up to scrutiny.
As you said Peter:

Frankly, if most people did what they thought was actually correct while keeping an open mind and didn't let others put them down and install fear/inhibition - the world would be a much more open, progressive and enlightening place.

This is why i interjected on this conversation i am doing what i think is right but being open minded. I think we should reconsider our position. I have made my suggestion on what i think may be a solution or a least worth testing out so i hope you guys will think it over for a while.
Thanks for your time
Shane

AnotherYou wrote:
I'm here in support of the Scientific Method. I'll continue to support the tenets of the movement. However I can't support completely unsubstantiated fatalism.

OK. I will bite. Lets talk about the Scientific Method. In what part of the scientific method is ad hominem and personal attack conducive to actually learning the truth about a given subject?

In what part of the scientific method is repeating already dis-proven data over and over again conducive to changing the value of that dis-proven data?

In what part of the scientific process is it constructive to allow people on your research team who have a vested interest in seeing your project fail due to their own irrational emotional attachments to what you are trying to prove? Or disprove?

Would it be productive in any scientific endeavor to allow people with disruptive interests to simply show up at all of your meetings or in your communication mediums (chat rooms, forums) etc. with no intention to do anything but slow down or discredit your work? (In most cases for completely irrational motivations.)

How would it be beneficial to allow people into your research team who are there solely with the motivation of convincing the rest of your team that they should instead be working on his project?

There is nothing scientific about the behavior of trolls. Their methods are based entirely on a set of principles that do not value anything intellectual. It is about dominance, and looking "better". It is not about being correct. This sort of nonsense has no place in a scientific debate.

It is also completely counter-productive to involve people in any work your doing who have no interest in your work. And in fact have an interest in your work failing, or convincing people to work on theirs instead.

You cannot make indefinite and certain remarks like that without actually backing them up. What's more I won't refute them without having evidence to the contrary.

I have already backed these remarks up. I have already demonstrated where the findings come from. I have done no less then five radio shows and blogs that took hours of my time on this subject specifically because people continue to refuse to "get it" because they are so concerned about protecting the rights of people to stop us from doing what we are doing. We acknowledge they have those rights. We also reserve the right to ask them to do so somewhere else. I don't go to the anti-cultist blog and insist that he turn his blog into a pro-zeitgeist blog. I also don't insist that he allow me to post on in his comments section. And when he deletes stuff I did post there I don't really expect otherwise. That's his effort. I think it is a wasted effort. But it his right to do that.

What I will say is how on earth do you know who will and won't make anti-Zeitgeist blogs? Do you think they're destined to do so or do you think that if they're in the right mindset and the right company for long enough there might be a percentage of them who will sympathise with our aims?

In an ideal world where communication is free of bullshit, free of ad hominem, non-sequitur, red herring, and other fallacies. And free of the "if you repeat the lie often enough" effect then sure. But that is rarely what takes place. Forums are a difficult place to gleam the truth from. It is far to easy for people to do things like answer your post and in their answer simply not addressing everything they are wrong about that you pointed out, to give the appearence that they are still "winning". It is far too easy to simply repeat faulty logic over and over again with the hopes that the opponent will just give up and let them have the last word and then appear to "win".

I don't think that part can easily be disputed, you'd best ask yourself the easier question of "is it better for the movement if we allow those who are respectful to the rules stay and discuss their skepticism or is there a better alternative".

I personally think Mr.O made a great point when he suggested there be a forum for the discussion of the movement. Since it will be a great place to assemble people around a discussion we all need to learn to have, both in real life and online. That is presenting the Venus Project in a convincing and honest light.

I think the best solution to your problem is to start your own message board and when people have these sorts of debates to invite them there. If you can keep it free of ad hominem and personal attack I will even participate and promote it on my radio show. But I do not advocate doing so here.

I'm pretty sure you just discribed me at a time in my life. I was an asshole. However I was fortunate enough to have conversations with people who saw different things in different ways and I eventually became confident in the heuristic that brought me here.

If I'd come to this site right away, I never would have joined. Consequently I never would have given DVDs to my friends and your subscriptions would be about 30 people shy of where they are now.

Do you not need me? Or is it that you don't think people can change?

I think that we will do far more damage and waste a lot more time in the long run by spending countless hours trying to get people to "grow up" when they should be doing that on their own. There is a person working for the Venus Project right now who at one time in his life thought it was an absurd idea. He eventually grew up, and now lives there taking care of the place while Jacque and Roxanne are gone. He didn't get there because Jacque and Roxanne spent countless hours working on him. He came to the realization all his own.

Part of the problem here, is that a lot of the people with the problems your suggesting are going to argue just for the sake of being rebellious. And are never going to get it until they mature on their own. They are free to do that. But for example when my three year old son has a temper tantrum when I am trying to do critical work for the good of our family I don't indulge his behavior and sacrifice the family as whole for him. I send him to his room and let him think about what he did wrong.

Yeah, it's not a huge problem in practice. However my issue is with this sort of fallacy becoming dogma. I mean, you already acknowledge that people lie about the movement and say they were banned for "disagreeing".....


What's the solution to such dishonesty? WHY MAKE IT A BANNABLE OFFENSE TO DISAGREE OF COURSE!

Not sure what point your trying to make here.

VTV, I've been playing a game with my self lately, I'm trying to find ways to teach objectivity. So I've come up with a came called "how much?" and I play it anytime I'm discussing a new idea or concept with which I'm struggling. Here's how it goes.

Think of what it would take, in terms of evidence, to convince you to change your mind.

It might be tricky at first since you've been thinking in terms of convincing me (by the way I assure you I've played this with myself before posting on the site).

So what would convince you?

Presumably we're engaged in appraisals of reasoning and evidence. So figure out how much it would take for you to go the other way on the topic. Then figure out how little of that you would need.

Hypothesize if need be. But start to think in terms of yourself being wrong. It might give insight.

In order to understand what it takes to convince me of something, first of all you should probably know more about me.

1. I have long since eliminated any sort of "fanboyism" or "blind devotion" to anyone. I was always skeptical in the first place. But my time in the Ron Paul movement, watching as how that movement was turned into something I could not be part of for example, (and the mentoring of a certain former Senator who showed me why I was not seeing the flaws in that movement in the first place) taught me to be very careful of allowing myself to be convinced by any social benefit from holding any view. One of the principle reasons I trust Jacque and Peter so much is that I have in fact disagreed with them and when I presented a well constructed argument they listened, and changed their mind. I could not get that out of the Ron Paul movement. But if they did not agree I also didn't think it would be my right to spam their email boxes until they just got sick of it enough to give me my way. And that is what a lot of these people want to do that you want us to indulge here.

2. I have detached any connections between my self esteem and being "wrong". I now seek the truth vigorously. And the reason I sometimes am perceived as never admitting when I am "wrong" is because when I do it is often so anti-climatic and seamless that people do not take notice. When something is wrong I stop supporting it. Not long ago I was a Libertarian, and Free Market advocate. Now I am a spokesman for a movement that is the exact opposite of Free Market as far as principles. Did I flip flop under social pressure? Hardly. I took gigantic amounts of social flack with a lot of friends of mine for abandoning that model. (Still do, in fact.) It didn't even phase me. Because their approval of me has ZERO to do with the validity of my beliefs.

So this being said, what did it take for Jacque Fresco during my first watching of Zeitgeist Addendum to convince me that the Free Market was flawed and the Resource Based Economy solution was the solution?

A well reasoned argument. That was in concurrence with my own expiriences of the subject. And the moment I sensed the truth I abandoned the previous falsehood.

Right now, you are asking me what would convince me to change my position on something that I have just spent the last year contemplating on, gathering data about, talking with other people doing the same thing in reference to.

You are asking me to ignore the obvious evidence that has been replicated over and over again.

You are asking me to endorse a point of view that several people I respect have abandoned some time ago because they realized we were right. Or instead ran off and behaved childishly when we finally reached a final decision about the policy on how to handle it that they didn't like for no reason other then an irrational fear or resentment of authority.

The only way I could change my position is if suddenly the entire world changed the way they are communicating. If some of these people were not close minded to the point of being fanatics. If some of these people had more maturity and recognized their behavior was not helping anything but assuaging their own insecurities in a way that is not healthy.

In other words, unless all of the circumstances involved changed in a way that we cannot make happen. Those people have to choose to change themselves. You can lead a horse to water, that will not make it drink. And the world doesn't have time for us to invent new ways to force a horse's head into the water while at the same time causing the horse to recognize that it should of wanted to drink in the first place.

From what I've read, this thing has been blown WAY out of proportion in my opinion. It's not that hard to figure out.

1.) This website and forum was created for people wanting to learn more about The Zeitgeist Movement and communicate with other like minded people.

2.) This forum is for people WHO HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK and have a pretty good understanding of our goals and how we wish to achieve them. That's the reason why new members are required to take that quiz to post topics. To make sure you know what your actually talking about.

3.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to identify people who are "discussing" from people who are deliberately try to start fights and egg them on. People who are just here to bash and flare other people up are not welcome here and will most likely be banned on the grounds of simply "being an ass".

If you disagree with our direction, fine. Kindly and quietly leave. If you want to start fights just for the hell of it, we will "escort" you out with a ban.

From what I've read, this thing has been blown WAY out of proportion in my opinion. It's not that hard to figure out.

1.) This website and forum was created for people wanting to learn more about The Zeitgeist Movement and communicate with other like minded people.

2.) This forum is for people WHO HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK and have a pretty good understanding of our goals and how we wish to achieve them. That's the reason why new members are required to take that quiz to post topics. To make sure you know what your actually talking about.

3.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to identify people who are "discussing" from people who are deliberately try to start fights and egg them on. People who are just here to bash and flare other people up are not welcome here and will most likely be banned on the grounds of simply "being an ass".

If you disagree with our direction, fine. Kindly and quietly leave. If you want to start fights just for the hell of it, we will "escort" you out with a ban.

First off, #1, & #2 contradict each other, it's for people who want to learn more about it? Yet they have to do homework? What's the point of the forum if they have to do homework? is #3 a rule?

Why does it have to be for people who've done their homework? Shouldn't it be a central place for people to get educated and talk to people within the movement? Shouldn't it be open to anyone? Why do we have a test for people? Doesn't it sway people who are just curious? Aren't we working against humanity if we are doing this? If we ban people aren't we hurting ourselves? People aren't really motivated, so they might just take information that someone says that happened to them. When people complain it's on a personal level, everyone knows how it feels to be out casted, so you feel sympathy and don't question what he's complaining about in the first place. So uh.. yeah.

I agree that it's been blown out of proportions, but it has opened the door to something else. Maybe we have something wrong with our awareness approach? Scientific experiment anyone?

Lj1221 wrote:
From what I've read, this thing has been blown WAY out of proportion in my opinion. It's not that hard to figure out.

1.) This website and forum was created for people wanting to learn more about The Zeitgeist Movement and communicate with other like minded people.

2.) This forum is for people WHO HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK and have a pretty good understanding of our goals and how we wish to achieve them. That's the reason why new members are required to take that quiz to post topics. To make sure you know what your actually talking about.

3.) You don't have to be a rocket scientist to identify people who are "discussing" from people who are deliberately try to start fights and egg them on. People who are just here to bash and flare other people up are not welcome here and will most likely be banned on the grounds of simply "being an ass".

If you disagree with our direction, fine. Kindly and quietly leave. If you want to start fights just for the hell of it, we will "escort" you out with a ban.

First off, #1, & #2 contradict each other, it's for people who want to learn more about it? Yet they have to do homework? What's the point of the forum if they have to do homework? is #3 a rule?

Why does it have to be for people who've done their homework? Shouldn't it be a central place for people to get educated and talk to people within the movement? Shouldn't it be open to anyone? Why do we have a test for people? Doesn't it sway people who are just curious? Aren't we working against humanity if we are doing this? If we ban people aren't we hurting ourselves? People aren't really motivated, so they might just take information that someone says that happened to them. When people complain it's on a personal level, everyone knows how it feels to be out casted, so you feel sympathy and don't question what he's complaining about in the first place. So uh.. yeah.

I agree that it's been blown out of proportions, but it has opened the door to something else. Maybe we have something wrong with our awareness approach? Scientific experiment anyone?

There is tons of information on the movement page and The Venus Project page. Not to mention the films and orientation video, lectures, and guide. There is also the radio address, FAQ, and Knowledge Base. Those are the central places where people should be learning more about the movement.

The forum is the place where people who have read over and watched the material can discuss them, talk with people from other chapters, and exchange information related to the movement and TVP. The forum is open to everyone to view, but you need to know what you are talking about when you post threads. That's why the quiz was put in place.

If people are not motivated enough to at least skim through the information and educate themselves, then why would they come straight to the forums pretending they know what they are talking about?

I don't see how being expected to know the key concepts of the movement before discussing it is "working against humanity". All the information you need to have a good understanding of what we are doing here is pretty much spoon fed to you.

It is up to those curious individuals to take the initiative to not be ignorant by doing some very simple research. If you persistently come into the forums to rant and rave about topics that have been answered many times in the wealth of material provided on the website and try to discredit that information WITHOUT EVEN TAKING A LOOK AT IT, then you will be banned after being warned.

After all the hard work the people who have made this movement what it is today, it's not to much to ask people to put the effort into learning about it.