Moderation Issues (2)

cropped-adelie-penguin-antarctica_89655_990x7421.jpgAs the replacement Moderation page has developed the old bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, so here is yet another page for continuing discussion on moderating issues. The Rules can be found there so anyone with an issue should check that they are familiar with them.

2,308 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (2)”

  1. Gregory has been complaining about Alan’s decision to move one of his comments to Guano. He has asked “which word, phrase or sentence you think is Guano worthy.” Here are where I see violations of Lizzie’s rules in Gregory’s comment.

    Too many people here don’t distinguish between ‘ID’ and ‘IDT’ (theory, for those uninitiated into the conversation).

    And lo and behold, KN is practising philosophistry again. 😉

    “Address the post, not the poster.”

    “ID is consistent with methodological naturalism — as well as consistent with metaphysical naturalism.”

    As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    Ditto

    “Certainly those are all perfectly “natural” by my lights!”

    Again, your so-called ‘lights’ are very dim in comparison. You have little religious Jewish light to shine, for example. And this by itself clouds your intellect (clouds obscure sunshine, btw).

    “Address the post, not the poster.
    – This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
    – As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.”

    “if you think there’s a difference between science and metaphysics –as Newton did, as Leibniz did, and as did many great theistic scientists — then you’re already committed to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is nothing other than that distinction.”

    Have you actually read Paul de Vries’ article, which (apparently) coined the term MN, KN? You’re conflating several definitions of MN into one and seem not to realise it. Your ‘nothing other’ comment reveals a very weak and thin PoS, which makes sense since you are not trained in it.

    More of the same.

    ALL varieties of ‘naturalism’ are ideologies. Period. ‘Methodology in natural science’ need not be ideologically ‘naturalistic’ and that’s where your pro-naturalism (actually atheistic or at least confused agnostic) worldview breaks down.

    Ok, maybe this question will help shed ‘light’ on KN’s philosophistic approach to this topic: please give us 3 examples, KN, of what is ‘real’ and at the same time ‘not natural.’ Just 3 will be enough.

    “I’m arguing that Newton is a methodological naturalist…”

    Yes, that’s obvious, KN. But you’re also unqualified to do so. What you say is silly and it shows (to anyone who has ears that can hear).

    And again.

    Sadly, disenchantedly, anti-religious-Judaism, you (secularist apostate) are lost in the ideology of naturalism. Lizzie is too, in her apostacy. She blames (or praises) Dennett for this. Who do you blame, KN? Your childhood rabbi? All powerful science? Sellar-ars-out?

    Wrapping up with more personal abuse.

    Gregory, your pattern of bringing personal information into discussions is, frankly, creepy. It’s also against the rules. Stop it.

  2. Gregory,

    I’ve just moved another post of yours to guano. Your continual insulting of KN is becoming tedious in the extreme. Please stop.

  3. Obviously since Alan Fox refuses to give a specific example of where he thinks I insulted KN, the gesture is hollow biased atheism. He has avoided my direct questions privately and does the same here. That the kind of ‘mod/admin’ Lizzie seems to think has integrity at TAMSZ.

  5. Patrick

    Gregory, Your question has been answered in Moderation Issues.Modify your comment to not violate Lizzie’s rules and it won’t be moved to Guano.

    How is it possible to ‘modify my comment’ if slimy Alan Fox won’t specify, privately or publically what needs to me modified?! LOL – what a joke!

  7. As well as anything KN says being full of what comes out of a pig’s rear end?

    It is utterly fascinating to me, from a psychological point of view, that Gregory is actually unable to see why this remark (and many others he makes) is a violation of the rules.

  8. Alan Fox: I’ve just moved another post of yours to guano. Your continual insulting of KN is becoming tedious in the extreme. Please stop.

    He’s unable to stop insulting me. That would require some degree of self-control.

  9. Patrick, is there some reason you don’t renounce your “admin” status here at TSZ and subject yourself to the same vagaries of hypocritical “moderation” that most of the rest of us suffer?

    Lizzie has what she wants. She doesn’t need you to enforce it.

  10. Mung,

    Patrick, is there some reason you don’t renounce your “admin” status here at TSZ and subject yourself to the same vagaries of hypocritical “moderation” that most of the rest of us suffer?

    Lizzie has what she wants. She doesn’t need you to enforce it.

    Do you have a specific complaint?

  11. I think I’m ready to be an admin here now.

    I can’t think of anything more fun than flaunting all the site rules and getting away with it, as an admin. It’s what Lizzie wants.

  12. Mung,

    You’re definitely not ingratiating yourself with Patrick’s ‘now you see me, now you don’t’ impersonal objectivist hypocrisy, are you? 😉

    Let him repeatedly call people theists ‘cowards’ while at the same time asking non-atheists to keep persons out of the conversation, acting ‘nobly’ while being drenched in profane ultimate despair fluid. 🙂 That’s the kind of mod/admin Lizzie wants at TAMSZ!

  13. Mung:
    I think I’m ready to be an admin here now.

    I can’t think of anything more fun than flaunting all the site rules and getting away with it, as an admin. It’s what Lizzie wants.

    Mung do you think you can manage at least one post in the Moderation thread where you don’t act like a whiny butthurt baby?

  14. Gregory,

    Let him repeatedly call people theists ‘cowards’ while at the same time asking non-atheists to keep persons out of the conversation

    I call Erik a coward because of his behavior, not because of unrelated personal information.

    Sociology has really damaged you.

  15. Patrick, if you had even a shred of integrity you’d recuse yourself from anything even remotely associated with “moderation” activities at this site.

    But then, so would Neil Rickert and Alan Fox, who are either blind or equally compromised

  16. Mung:
    Patrick, if you had even a shred of integrity you’d recuse yourself from anything even remotely associated with “moderation” activities at this site.

    But then, so would Neil Rickert and Alan Fox, who are either blind or equally compromised

    Mung if you had a shred of honest you wouldn’t troll TSZ looking for ways to game the system, then whine like a sorry little bitch when people call you on it.

  18. walto:

    Gregory: drenched in profane ultimate despair fluid

    You sure you just didn’t piss yourself again?

    Oh my dear sweet god, he didn’t actually say that, did he?
    .
    .
    .
    checks up
    .
    .
    .
    He sure did.

    Go home, Gregory. Dayum, boy, you’re really something. Something not good that you need to deal with in private, preferably where you can sleep it off.

  20. Mung,

    Patrick, if you had even a shred of integrity you’d recuse yourself from anything even remotely associated with “moderation” activities at this site.

    But then, so would Neil Rickert and Alan Fox, who are either blind or equally compromised

    If you have a specific complaint, please make it. Include links to any comments supporting your concerns.

  22. Alan Fox,

    Can you show me the rule that says posts will be moved to Guano by Alan when Alan makes up the rule: “Tom would like to keep the tone civil and professional here.”?

  24. Alan Fox,

    This is the thread from which my comment was moved to Guano, even though my comment broke no rule. My comment should be put back.

    I have nothing against Tom English and I strongly support his efforts to expose IDiotic BS but there is no justification and no rule for giving him special status on this site. By doing that you are diminishing the status of everyone else here. Rules should not be arbitrarily made up because of who starts or comments in a thread.

  27. Reality, Please raise any complaint in the moderation issues thread and I’ll reply to it there. It’s off-topic here. If it’s OK I’ll move your comment (linked) and this one.

  28. Reality: but there is no justification and no rule for giving him special status on this site.

    It’s been done before, and will be done again, when there a technical essay that goes beyond the usual news or opinion piece.

  29. The Rulez:

    Do not use turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards. (there are plenty of places on the web where you can do that!)

    Oh well. Lizzie’s site, Lizzie’s rules.

    I think it’s time for the other mods here to back off and let Lizzie lead by example.

  30. Gregory, don’t worry about the outing policy here. Lizzie decides what constitutes outing here, not her cute little minions.

  32. I think the rule about not using this site as a “peanut gallery” for commenting on antics at other sites has gradually become more or less inoperative.

    At least, when it comes to discussing moderation policy at UD.

    The rule probably should be reformulated to allow some kinds of commenting on the way discussion is handled at UD. Especially since the bizarreness at UD keeps driving some of their denizens here.

  34. Joe Felsenstein:
    I think the rule about not using this site as a “peanut gallery” for commenting on antics at other sites has gradually become more or less inoperative.At least, when it comes to discussing moderation policy at UD.

    The rule probably should be reformulated to allow some kinds of commenting on the way discussion is handled at UD. Especially since the bizarreness at UD keeps driving some of their denizens here

    Lizzie already relaxed the “peanut gallery” rule for precisely that reason, Joe.

    ETA5: Peanut rule gallery relaxed a little (5th November 2012)

  35. I’d add that the rules are there to support the aims of this site. As Lizzie put it:

    But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground they share; what misunderstandings of other views they hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where their real differences lie.

    link

    I think this is a worthwhile aim and Lizzie has a flexible approach always intended to promote this aim. I hope everyone who contributes here shares this aim and I’m sure there are many different ideas about whether and how the rules should change to achieve it. A rule that isn’t working to this end can be dropped or modified – they are not carved in stone. Anyone with a feasible idea is welcome to put it forward here.

  37. petrushka: It’s been done before, and will be done again, when there a technical essay that goes beyond the usual news or opinion piece.

    And we’d really like to see a response from Winston Ewert. Which is why the bar on off-topic has been raised higher specifically for Tom’s article.

  38. Who exactly are the moderators/admins at this site? Can someone please submit a list of the ‘privileged’?

  39. Gregory,

    The admins are Lizzie, Neil Rickert, Patrick and Alan Fox. It’s Lizzie’s site so Lizzie is, of course, the final arbiter.

  40. It’s a simple double standard. Obviously Patrick is not going to Guano his own post. Alan Fox now knows Patrick’s post violates Lizzie’s rules. But ‘atheists of a feather flock together’, so Alan doesn’t Guano Patrick. And folks, that’s ‘justice’ TAMSZ-style! 😉

    If Alan were to do the right thing on-time, there would be no need for a discussion in ‘Moderation’ thread. It would simply be properly Guano’d. But hey, Alan seems lately to not want to play by Lizzie’s rules, rather embarrassingly.

    Send this post, Patrick’s post and the others related to it to Moderation. But make the right choice, Alan, by sending your fellow atheist mod/admin’s post to Guano. If not, you simply expose your ‘admin’ as a fraud.

  41. Understood. So Neil and Alan just willingly broke the rules against ‘outing.’ And Patrick is currently engaged in accusing a theist of posting ‘not in good faith’ (while repeating his “Hi, I’m an atheist, so I simply don’t understand ‘varieties of religious language’. Thus, I feel justified in repeating the same questions ad nauseam – like 30+ times – but anyone asking me about how my atheism affects my lack of understanding of ‘religious language’ is simply engaging in ad hominem posts, which I will moderate against”). Wow, this is a really ‘credible’ team of admins/mods at TAMSZ! 😉

  42. Alan Fox,

    Stop being an ass and Guano Patrick’s obviously rule-breaking post, Alan.

    Have you been in France too long that you don’t understand English anymore?

    Lizzie’s rule:

    “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.”

    “You are not participating in good faith to achieve those goals.” – Patrick

    How much clearer do you need it to be?!

  44. Alan Fox,

    What a joke. Patrick was posting, not as an admin, but as a poster. You’re creating an unnecessary hierarchy.

    This is not a case of admin vs. admin, but admin vs. poster.

    Simple: the post violated Lizzie’s rules. Move it.

    Otherwise, it looks like TAMSZ has a problem of atheist admin/mod collusion.

  45. Gregory,

    I’m an atheist, so I simply don’t understand ‘varieties of religious language’. Thus, I feel justified in repeating the same questions ad nauseam

    The issue is Erik’s positive claim about a supposedly historical event. Everyone here with the exception of you and Erik understand that. Do try to keep up.

  46. Elizabeth,

    I am asking for a rules clarification in order to put an end to the current bickering. Here is my position and my suggestions.

    The goals of this site, in your words, are:

    But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground they share; what misunderstandings of other views they hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where their real differences lie.

    You have established a few rules to support achieving these goals. One of those rules is “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.” That is a good principle, but it can fail when participants are not posting in good faith. In those cases the rule can be used as a shield to protect behaviors that interfere with the goals.

    I see the goals as primary and the rules as supporting structures. When a rule prevents the achievement of one or more goals, the goal should take precedence.

    In this particular case, Erik’s behavior is not aligned with your goals. I have demonstrated that he is clearly not participating in good faith. The rules should not prevent calling out such behavior. To the extent they do, they are not supporting the site’s goals.

    I suggest one of the following changes to the rules. Either

    a) Eliminate the rule about assuming others are posting in good faith. This is my anarchic preference.

    or

    b) Change the rule to “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith until such time as their behavior makes that assumption untenable. Be generous in reestablishing the assumption of good faith when the bad faith behavior has changed.”

    I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.

  47. Patrick:

    b) Change the rule to “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith until such time as their behavior makes that assumption untenable.Be generous in reestablishing the assumption of good faith when the bad faith behavior has changed.”

    I second this idea. While the original rules were noble sadly they also allowed people like Mung and Joe G (Frankie) to game the system. Both of those have clearly shown their hypocrisy in posts at other places.

  48. Patrick,
    I sympathize. Separately, I agree with your assessment that the goals of this site are primary, and the rules of engagement are secondary, being designed and modified over time in an effort to achieve those laudable goals.
    However, I am not convinced that either of your proposed rule changes would be effective in promoting those goals. The challenge would be in the determination that “their behavior makes that assumption untenable”. That’s a judgement call, and would represent another opportunity for posters eager to game the system to whine at our volunteer moderators.
    By way of hypothetical illustration, Erik might conclude (or pretend to conclude) that my statement “I am not an atheist” is untenable. He would then be at liberty to endlessly repeat his claim that I am an atheist and accuse me of posting in bad faith. I would find that more annoying than his current behavior; as a matter of fact I have rather enjoyed assuming that he is posting in good faith, and trying to gently point out to him his failures in logic and comprehension, in an attempt to emulate Lizzie’s behavior at UD. I will admit however that it gets old after a while, that I lack Lizzie’s Job-like patience, so although I feel justified in calling him “clueless” and “slow”, based on the good faith assumption, it does reach a point where stronger, rule-breaking epithets seem more in order…
    I would rather let the record show the behavior, and hope that the rational readers, at least, would come to their own conclusions, rather than have to endure a whole new meta-topic of entitled, unseemly whining (<– that’s a criticism, not a complaint 😉 )

    Footnote: Despite what Reality might think, I reckon that only your comment “You are not participating in good faith to achieve those goals.” crossed the line. I understand the distinction you were trying to draw, but IMHO it sails too close to the wind. “Out and out falsehood”, on the other hand, is entirely within the rules, and anyone who thinks otherwise…errr, how to put this…needs to think a little more.

  49. DNA_Jock,

    However, I am not convinced that either of your proposed rule changes would be effective in promoting those goals. The challenge would be in the determination that “their behavior makes that assumption untenable”. That’s a judgement call, and would represent another opportunity for posters eager to game the system to whine at our volunteer moderators.

    Fair point. Those intent on gaming the system will find a way to game the system.

    Despite what Reality might think, I reckon that only your comment “You are not participating in good faith to achieve those goals.” crossed the line. I understand the distinction you were trying to draw, but IMHO it sails too close to the wind.

    That’s why I think the rules need adjusting. When Erik is clearly acting in opposition to Lizzie’s stated goals by refusing to engage in good faith, other participants should be allowed to point that out (with evidence, of course). I’m not married to the rules changes I proposed. Do you have any suggestions that don’t leave the handcuffs on those of us who want to support the site goals?

  50. It is Patrick who is refusing to engage in ‘good faith.’ Actually, he is engaging with ‘no faith’. He is an atheist with no basis for morality (other than some sociological humanistic relativism). What a silly dilemma he is trying to force on Lizzie, as one of her 3 atheist mods/admins.

Comments are closed.