As 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.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Gregory,
You have no evidence or logic to support that assertion. I am doing Erik the courtesy of paying attention to what he writes and trying to understand it. That is aligned with the goals for this site. Erik’s behavior is not.
Conveniently ignore that you engage in ‘no faith’ as an atheist?
I agree that other participants should be allowed to draw attention to and document behavior that is of dubious good faith, but I think that the commentary should stay within the “Oh, is that so?” arena, rather than the more direct “You are a liar, Sir, and a rather dirty one at that.” (G Mikes, 1946). It’s my English upbringing.
But there’s a distinct shortcoming to this (the, as I understand it, current) approach: the incredulous participant remains uncertain as to whether spectators are also struggling to maintain the required assumption, or is he the one that is out of line.
I toyed with the suggestion of promoting a cultural adjustment, whereby other posters are encouraged to show support with comments of the form ” ^^this^^ ” or ” +1 “. But I don’t think that would end up raising the tone; rather there would be the risk of descent into Pharyngulesque “piling on”, and no-one wants that. Any popularity-based approach would be contrary to the goal of free and honest exchange of ideas. Rather, as you noted to walto, “The best response to bad speech is good speech ”
One thought I had : posters could respond to a comment they found dubious with “I would like to discuss this post on Noyau, if you are interested.” If the “confusing” poster declines to engage in the gloves-off environment, then readers can draw their own, private conclusions about the reason for their reticence. Perhaps they merely dislike being cross-examined. Slagging them on Noyau for their cowardice would be bad form (Oh God, not the English upbringing again!)
But I haven’t thought this one through, in particular its interaction with the challenge that thread-jacking represents. Additionally, I do not see any way that Lizzie’s goal can be achieved without having to tolerate incessant trolling. The challenge is in ensuring that trolling does not impair enjoyment of the site by honest posters. The scroll wheel is our friend, and Gregory’s strange obsessions are funny. Unless, perhaps, if you are one of his targets.
I inadvertently ninja’d Gregory : I did not see his posts above until after I hit submit.
Walto would like to know the basis for that theory. It seems almost surely false to me.
walto,
For me it’s a matter of making a virtue of necessity. Without free and open debate, new ideas and corrections to old ideas are far less likely to be shared. There aren’t any philosopher kings available to act as gatekeepers, and I’d be inclined to stop any who tried. I don’t want other people censoring me, so I don’t support censoring others.
The only alternative to speech is violence. Since there are a lot more nitwits, half-wits, and t-wits than rational people, keeping them talking is safer for us. Some of them even eventually learn something. Once in a very great while one of them even brings something new to the table.
Basically, good speech is the only viable option to respond to bad speech.
That doesn’t mean that we should argue with our rhetorical hands tied. If someone isn’t engaging in good faith, we should be able to call them on it.
It is a given that evolutionists do not post in good faith
What Patrick said. (SWIDT)
When I saw your request, I immediately thought of Churchill’s quote re democracy…to paraphrase/mangle:
“Good speech is the worst form of response to bad speech, except for all the others.”
or
What Patrick said.
ETA: “Guns kill terrorists. Education kills terrorism.” A lass who was shot in the face by a terrorist.
Well, I don’t want to argue this issue (again) here, but I refer you both to hotshoe’s eloquent posts on hate speech (which I read to my Intro class a year ago).
I’ll just say here that I think it’s empirically false that the best (i.e. highest utility) response to bad speech historically has been ‘good speech.’ It’s got a nice hi-falutin sound to it, but ‘freeze peach’ absolutism ignores the fact that there is no bright line between speech and other types of action; it’s a continuum. The ‘old sticks and stones’ adage is a myth.
Which site rule allows Alan Fox to create new threads and move comments to those threads from other threads?
Are we all allowed to have our own personal moderator for our threads?
Why can’t we just moderate them ourselves?
Funny that Brave Sir Mung and “Nutsack” phoodoo are the only ones whining because a very interesting thread wasn’t allowed to be derailed.
Highlights their true intentions here, doesn’t it?
For Patrick:
The Net Abuse FAQ
Not so much a rule, more of a guideline. Featured technical posts involve a huge amount of work by the author. This site very much appreciates their efforts and wants to give them the best visibility and encourage responses from interested parties. So, off-topic comments which clutter the comments section move to a linked open thread for general discussion.
If you want to author a technical thread and request that discussion could be limited to the subject of your thread, that would be no problem.
Can’t be done within WordPress, AFAIAA. Granting permissions to authors allows deleting and editing of posts which is forbidden and the “move posts” plugin only works with admin status. Restricting author status so that comments cannot be deleted or edited means author status can be made freely available to anyone who’d like it without any concern about loss of content.
Does Gregory suggest that is impossible for an atheist to act in good faith?
Does anyone here disagree with Lizzie’s stated aim to enable rancour-free discussion across a wide range of viewpoints? If they do, then this is likely the wrong site for them.
Does anyone here think the rules could be better formulated to achieve the stated aim? Lizzie has the final say on her own blog but I’m sure she will welcome helpful suggestions.
Can someone please clarify re: images.
Are *only* the 3 mod/admins allowed to post images? Do only Alan, Patrick and Neil have that privilege? Iow, others are *not* allowed to post images. Or is it only with mod/admin approval & assistance.
I ask because recently I asked one mod/admin to post an image and he did, but he edited it first, in a typical atheist unfashion. And one of the admins is in recent days ‘abusing the privilege’ (with anti-religious images, no surprise!).
I suggest either everyone can insert images (where mod/admins facilitate this evenly and without bias, cough, laugh) or no one can. Perhaps that’s too democratic though.
Can you please clarify if there is indeed to be a hierarchy of privileges at TAMSZ? Thanks.
Gregory,
Re images,
Only admins can post images in comments. There are plugins that will allow media to be posted in comments but the ones I have tried are incompatible with the theme we are using. I think trying an alternative theme might work but that would be a decision for Lizzie.
PS @ Gregory
Regarding “cropping”. I merely used the image address that was displayed at the address you linked to. The site software automatically sizes images. You should click on the image to get the image URL to be sure the right image is displayed.
The default status for genuine members is “contributor” which allows writing of OPs but needs an admin to publish. Active members who’d like to publish OPs are given “new author” status on request. This allows them to publish their own OPs but not post-edit them or delete or edit comments in their threads. “Author” status is available on request to trusted “new authors” who need it.
So, this is currently an accepted privilege of the few by Lizzie? I made clear my suggestion above.
Obviously if it is a theme question that is one thing. I’d ‘like’ to be able to post images. But to have a mod/admin abuse their privileges by posting images seems unfair.
This is a limitation of the software being used.
Hello Neil, It’s still a privilege. Simply calling it a software limitation does not address the issue of mod/admin privilege or abuse. Will you address that?
Yes, it’s a privilege, but it’s not one we voluntary chose. If someone can figure out a software fix, that would be great. In the mean time, posters should feel free to post links to editors, and shoot a PM to an admin to inser it as an image.
Elizabeth,
O.k. so this means anyone can get an image inserted in any post by sending the link to an admin? (E.g. you did this in a recent thread at my request, Lizzie, while Alan seemingly ‘cropped’ or at least didn’t make the effort to insert the image I identified.)
Patrick: I’m not in favour of changing the rules. Like you, I have a soft spot for anarchy, but there are other anarchic sites, and I think there’s a place for an archic. one.
I am certainly happy for people to invite others to take an argument to Noyau – but if the answer is “no” then, that’s it.
I realise we are not all that consistent about enforcing the rules, but I think that’s largely a matter of time, rather than anything else. Think of it like random speed traps.
Not sure what the issue is with Erik as I’ve been busy elsewhere (IRL and on the internet).
Yes indeed.
I have- with permission- an OP I would like to contribute. How do I do so?
There is a plugin “comment images” that works perfectly well for me on a wordpress site using the “twenty fourteen” theme. I’ve just double-checked trying to activate that plugin here and I get “fatal error”. It might just be incompatible with the “twenty eleven” theme we’re using. It’s possible trying a newer theme, say twenty fourteen, might solve things.
You now have contributor status. You can compose or upload an OP via your dashboard. Just let an admin know when it needs publishing.
hmm. Not sure I’m wild about twenty fourteen. Looks a bit fancy. I like our clean cold look.
Will think, and advice is very welcome!
Mung,
For Mung:
When Erik stops behaving in opposition to the goals of this site and demonstrates the minimal honesty and intellectual integrity to clarify his claim or retract it, I will stop pointing out that he is behaving in opposition to the goals of this site.
Yes. Post the link and drop a PM to an admin, with instructions to where to find the post (links to posts don’t seem to work that well).
Alan Fox,
Surely not. That would be equivocating on the meaning of “faith”. No good theist would ever argue that dishonestly.
Alan Fox,
That’s not all of Lizzie’s goals. Here’s the summary from the Rules page:
I’ve been arguing that failing to engage in good faith by explaining one’s claims and supporting them with evidence and reason when challenged is not aligned with these goals. Rancor-free is nice, but honest is essential.
I’ve already made one suggestion about modifying the “assume good faith” rule. That shouldn’t provide cover for people not participating in good faith.
What to do about people who persist in opposing the site goals is a difficult problem. I’m interested in hearing solutions to that.
Erik is refusing to either answer simple questions to clarify a claim he has made or to retract that claim. It is very clear that he is not participating in good faith according to the goals you’ve established for this site. When I have pointed that out, he has attempted to hide behind the “assume good faith” rule rather than actually changing to act in good faith.
My alternative rule change suggestion is that “assume good faith” be the default but that it should be acceptable to point out bad faith behavior when supported by evidence.
I hope you’ll consider that change. The rules should support the goals, not provide a shield for bad behavior.
Perhaps you could do so in a way that doesn’t have you repeating the same three questions time after time in post after post.
Are we agreed that excessive multi-posting is spam?
I don’t agree. I think posting assertions and refusing to clarify them is dishonest.
Mung,
I am open to suggestions that do not allow Erik to respond with evasive tactics like asking “What questions?” He’s already shown himself to be more than capable of such dissembling.
Nope.
Well, the rule should be at least 50 times. There are still a few Neanderthal USAmericans who need to repeat things again and again to confirm how stupid they are.
One the one hand, Patrick has shown he simply doesn’t understand the language Eric is speaking; just like KN, he denies even the *possibility* of a ‘spiritual reading’ that speaks to content of the origin stories. And since it doesn’t seem he knows more than one language EnGliSh, with perhaps a few ‘Hispanic’ words to order beverages and find the toilet in Mexico, the odds of Patrick ever learning a new language that would help him understand are very small.
Erik speaks apparently 3 or more languages and has clearly explained the various ‘LEVELS’ of interpreting Scripture. Yet Patrick wants to go extra-scriptural based on his personal war (we don’t need to know the personal details) against literalists, of which Erik is not one.
And the atheists (including the other 2 admins) here, Neil, keiths, Alan Fox (well, at least he adds French!), DNA_Jock, hotshoe, walto, et al. apparently are as unilingual as Patrick. So, let’s Neanderthal another 50 posts before the limit of ad nauseam is reached or ‘spam’ is properly used to categorise it. 😉
Gregory,
No, I have repeatedly refuted this baseless assertion of yours. Erik made this claim:
There’s nothing special about his language. He is making a positive claim about a supposedly historical event.
There is no way to tell if Erik is a literalist or not, but his claim makes that conclusion at least possible. If he were to answer a few simple questions about his claim, we’d all know for sure.
Again, I don’t care about exegesis, I want to understand exactly what Erik is claiming about the particular historical event he claims occurred.
I hope I used words understandable enough that even a sociologist can stop making false accusations about the situation.
Do you know what a griefer is, Gregory?
Yes there is. He’s not. Stop being so obtuse. Learn something, if you still can.
Well, that’s a problem when the topic is “Varieties of Religious Language.”
You are out of place to DEMAND, as you continue doing, that Erik leave that topic to satisfy your personal fetish with literalism, historicism & POSITIVISM. Stop, breath, think, maybe even meditate (if that’s not too ‘religious’ for you) and hopefully come back with some sense, humility and respect in conversation.
It is YOU who is rejecting ‘common ground’ with your petty historicist insistence.
And what’s your profession, by the way? You seem fetishized also now with sociology.
You can’t fucking help yourself, can you?
Richardthughes,
And what are you, an agnostic worldview gangster parading as a retail cashier?
Gregory,
When someone makes this claim:
it’s not a huge logical leap to think that person might be a literalist.
That’s not the topic. The topic is Erik’s claim about a supposedly historical event. Exegesis has nothing to do with it.
Erik made the claim. He has an obligation to explain it and support it. Alternatively, he could retract it. He has no other options that demonstrate integrity.
If Erik wants to answer my first question (“When did the flood you claim happened occur?”) with “Never. It was not an historical event.” then I’ll happily drop the issue. Perhaps you can convince him to do so.
Gregory,
Just tweaking your nose, dear.
Oh snap! Something wrong with retail cashiers?
Maybe your personal ‘logic’ is not trustworthy (cf. EAAN). 😉
Yes, it is. That’s the topic of the thread. WTF are you talking about?!
If you wish to start another topic, do so, or try to fight with Erik in Noyau. It is quite obvious based on your personal flood fetish and insufficient linguistic capabilities, combined with your atheistic insensitivity to ‘spiritual reading’ that you are lacking wisdom to interpret Erik’s multi-sided answers to your ad nauseam repeated one-dimensional questions.
But hey, Patrick, you’re probably not guilty for lacking understanding or tact. It’s probably the fault of your mother or father or siblings or friends that you are a unilingual intolerant angry atheist human being. Right? Anyone but you is guilty for this! Isn’t this the kind of ‘admin’ strategy you’ve been employing while antagonising Erik?
This is the aggressive, forceful bullshit that stains Lizzie’s intentions. If she’s not ‘man enough’ or ‘straight-speaking enough’ to tell you, at least you need to hear it.
You and richardhughes are of course not ‘obliged’ to tell your professions. But if you had courage and pride in what you do, likely you would do so, even with your online anonymity protected. There are many fake ‘intellects’ here at TAMSZ, though, so I doubt you’ll risk it.
“Boo hoo, I’m just trying to understand” (sob, sniff), “I’m an honest good faith/no faith atheist” (cough, sputter, gollum), “please believe me!” 😉
How many times do you plan to repeat this question?
How many more times do you plan on spamming the boards with ID arguments based on dishonest equivocation?
Richardthughes,
Oh snap! Something wrong with retail cashiers?
At least you’re gangster. I’m just thug.