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."
I’m not giving an opinion, Erik. I’m just saying that I know, from personal experience, that such positions are possible.
I’m not interested in what people “deserve” on this site, Erik (nor ever, frankly, but that’s for another thread). I’m interested in what we do to foster constructive discourse. When posts are moved to Guano they are not moved because the poster “deserves” some kind of “admonishment” but because they are in violation of the thread rules. They can be still be read, linked to and even reposted in the thread with the non-violating parts ommitted, or they can be reposted in noyau.
My sole reason for using any of the moderation tools of the board (moving; putting posters in moderation; banning posters) is to foster constructive discussion. It is not to “admonish” anyone.
I frequently agree with the views of the person whose post is being moved in fact, and do not find anything necessarily immoral in the fact they have expressed it (maybe a tad, in that I think it’s a bit inconsiderate to those that then have to move the post, but that’s it, and has nothing to do with whether it’s moved or not).
Yes.
In this case, none of us wrote anything worthy of guano and none of us moved anything to guano. The issue is not about guano. In fact, I obviously cannot move anything to guano, while he can, but he didn’t do it, because that would have been an even more gross violation of the site’s rules.
It’s about him accusing me of bad faith and bullying me for weeks. It’s about him accusing me of lack of integrity while having no integrity himself (adherence to the rules that he is supposed to uphold – instead he began changing the rules).
And now it’s also about his failure to meet the standard that you expressed: “…as long as it is not an accusation of bad faith.” He failed this, both as an interlocutor and as a moderator, but I understand that no clearer admonishment by name is forthcoming from you.
I’m not concerned about what is “worthy”. Guano is for posts that violate the rules for comments on the main page of this site. The topic we are discussing at the moment is whether it should still be against the rules to violate the “assume the other poster is posting in good faith” rule when there seems to be clear evidence that they are not.
I’m saying, at the moment, yes, it should still be against the rules. So yes, it is “about guano”.
The rule is not “you must post in good faith” but that you must assume that the other posters are.
If he didn’t move anything to guano, and you said he didn’t, then he wasn’t changing the rules. He is advocating for a change, but there is no change, at the moment I am not persuaded by the case for making a change.
No there will be no admonishment. He may have broken the rule. If he did, and I had seen it, I might have moved the post to guano. But I didn’t, and I don’t even attempt to insist that we have rigorous implementation of the rules. Each admin has a slighlty different moving threshold, and not every comment is seen by an admin.
As far as I am concerned, as long as some rule violating stuff is moved, it maintains the principle that the rules are supposed to be kept. If the ref misses a few fouls, that doesn’t mean the rules don’t exist. It just means that the refereeing system is a bit sporadic.
I’m happy with that. You don’t need to catch every speeding vehicle to implement a speed limit in a good-enough manner.
btw I have no problem with admins moving the posts of other admins to guano. I’ve moved my own in the past, if I realised I’d broken the rule.
And sometimes move responses to a rule-violating post as well. I used to accompany it with a general bit of rubric that no moral judgement was implied by the move, but I got out of the habit. Perhaps I should reinstate it.
I’m sometimes annoyed at HAVING to move a post, and a bit inwardly judgemental of the person who necessitated some extra mouse clicks, but I’ve moved posts I thoroughly agree with, and left posts I profoundly disapprove of, if the first violated the rule and the second didn’t.
Guano is absolutely irrelevant to the case at hand. The rule he broke was that he accused me of bad faith. He broke this rule and began advocating to change this rule. This is highly relevant. Moreover, he has demonstrated a character flaw: He is supposed to be moderating, but he has been aggravating. This is also relevant.
Understood. In return, you hopefully understand what I think of it even when I say nothing more about it now.
Lizzie, the least you could do would be to acknowledge that Patrick accused Erik of ‘bad faith’ and then tried to get you to change the rules to allow for his accusation. That’s not so hard, is it?
Of course you are. They’re all flaming atheists who comfort you in your apostasy.
Might that be a soft scolding of ad nauseam repetitive accusatory (“he has to…” / “he must…”) TAMSZ admin Patrick?
If Patrick repeats his 3 questions again, it should be immediately Guano’d or sent to Noyau. Will you at least commit to that?
No, it’s not hard at all. Patrick, like any other member of this site, can put the case for a change of rules. Walto and keiths have made the same case.
So far, I am not persuaded. So the provisional answer is no.
But I’m not going to go back to a thread I wasn’t part of and retrospectively move rules to guano, because this site does not operate a justice system. It simply implements a set of rules designed to foster constructive dialogue. Sometimes the system fails. Fine. Let’s move on, and try to do better in future.
Oh ffs.
I don’t even KNOW if they are atheists! I’ve never discussed it with any of them! How the fuck would they “comfort me” even supposing that I was in need of “comfort”?
Just drop it, Gregory. Your obsession with my religous history is past tiresome.
No I will not.
Firstly, he is perfectly entitled to ask his questions. They do not violate the rules. Secondly, as I have made perfectly clear, I have no intention of even attempting to implement a zero-tolerance policy for rule violations. I will move rule violations when I see them. If I don’t see them, or if they are history and the conversation has now moved on, I probably won’t bother.
The only rule violations I will deal with as soon as I become aware of them are the site-wide rules regarding outing, malware and porn.
The other things are merely “game rules” for threads on the main page, and if people don’t want to play by them, they are free to take their discussions to Noyau.
And if I’d seen that post I would have moved it to guano because it was in violation of the rules (unless it was here – not sure).
Which is fine. It’s why we have this thread. Anyone can advocate for change to the rules, and, indeed, I have responded (minimally) by making a minor change to the wording.
Not sure what it’s relevant to. As I say, I encourage people to post any ideas for changes to the way this site is run here. You do not have to be an admin to do so.
good lord
Relevant to what????? You’ve said that “Guano is absolutely irrelevant to the case at hand.” So what on earth are you asking for?
If you don’t want me to move his posts to guano, what DO you want?
I’m not going to dispense with his services as admin, because he is doing a valuable job. Giving him access to the admin buttons gives him no privileges other than the capacity to move stuff to guano, which you state is irrelevant.
It gives him no special weight regarding changes in the rules, because those are made by me and anyone can make suggestions.
What is it you are actually asking me to do? Other than “admonish” Patrick”?
Which I will NOT do, as I’ve said. Sure he broke a rule, and then, as everyone acknowledges, made the case that it should not be a rule.
I’ve thought about it and I still disagree.
Case closed.
Lizzie, your answers are so predictable as to be laughable. Thus, it seems I have to speak more simply so that you’ll not dodge my questions when I put two separate issues in one sentence.
You dodged this. Do you really need a link to figure this out?
Yeah, it’s no surprise you won’t go any further than that.
How about this, Lizzie: I suggest you just don’t come back to TAMSZ (like your admins have been saying to others) and leave the sleazy militant anti-theist atheists to wallow in their own dehumanising pit of despair and denial. As for you Lizzie, the tone improves when you are here, since you are not a militant anti-theist, at least, even while you express your anger and disagreement with the Catholic faith in which you apparently previously lived.
Are you willfully ignorant of what is written on TAMSZ by your own nominated admins? Or maybe it’s not willful, just oblivious or can’t read, selective memory, etc. Alan, Neil and Patrick are all atheists. Anyone disagree?
Relevant to the site’s atmosphere, perhaps? Relevant to the participants’ ability to trust the standards of moderation, perhaps? Relevant to that the moderators uphold the site’s expressed aims, perhaps?
Yes, I was expecting a public admonition from you to him. Better still: his apology.
Nah, didn’t think so. Carry on.
OK, and so what I am doing here is clarifying that I DO want to maintain the rule, BECAUSE I want to try to maintain the site’s “atmosphere”. So if that is what you are asking, that is my response.
The only moderation that goes (apart from the rare ban) is moving posts. And you yourself have said that post-moving is irrelevant. So I’m not sure what “standards of moderation” you are referring to. That’s it. Moderation is post-moving.
Well, I have now clarified. Are we done?
I did not dodge it. If you want something more specific, yes, you can give me a link. But if Patrick accused Erik of bad faith in a main-thread post, he was violating the rules.
If it was here, or in Noyau, he wasn’t.
I can’t make any sense of this.
I don’t read everything on this site, as must be bloody obvious.
More to the point, I don’t give a damn whether they are atheists or not. I asked them to help me admin the site because they seemed to be decent, level-headed html competent people who shared my basic principles for how the site should work.
While we’ve occasionally disagreed, I continue to value the work they do, and have had no cause to revise my initial impression. Without them, the site couldn’t run.
We (used to) have this rule about good faith. Are moderators exempt from it? Patrick broke it. Are you saying he is free to break it again while accusing me of breaking it? Because this is precisely the behaviour that has aggravated the situation up to this point. It has been going on for weeks. Is he free to continue like this and not moderate himself?
We still do.
No.
Of course he is. So is everyone. But such posts would probably be moved to guano, if they were posted on a main-page thread.
Moderating yourself is sometimes difficult, though I have done it.
But I have clarified the rule. If Patrick feels uncomfortable with it, I’m sure he will let me know.
Well, to help you out, the situation had become uncomfortable for onlookers back on October 31 http://theskepticalzone.fr/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-28/#comment-89368
walto,
Patrick,
If this is not self-admitted expression of pre-contemplated malicious intent by this moderator to poison a main thread, then I don’t know what is. Plus he has actually followed through with it all these weeks. You see it in every post onwards in that thread.
Yes, Patrick did that and broke the rules, repeatedly in a main-thread post, not in this thread or Noyau. And neither you, nor Alan, nor Neil ‘admonished’ him or moved his rule-violating posts. Do you not see that as a problem? I even took flack from Alan for pointing it out. You(r admin team) just let Patrick’s antagonising, harassing, belittling words pass, repeatedly.
At the very least, if you(r admin team) don’t ‘admonish’ him or move those posts, and now that you have clarified that it is still against the rules, Patrick should apologise. Alan and Neil clearly failed (willfully or not is another issue). But the responsibility is Patrick’s not to do it again. Does he even recognise his own violation? Will he acknowledge it now?
And you don’t even know what they have said themselves on your blog? Don’t you know anything about the fact that MOST of the people posting at TAMSZ are atheists/agnostics/skeptics?! Is that because you “don’t give a damn” if you’re an atheist (or quasi-Buddhist) or not!?
I agree with you, Lizzie, that moderators/admins are needed and provide a helpful voluntary service. I too appreciate it, when it is fair. The point is TAMSZ is mainly a pit of atheists (unrepresentative of ‘normal’ society), so you have little else to choose from, i.e. ‘normal’ people who are religious. That most ‘normal’ people don’t TRUST atheists is simply a fact of life, the sources, consequences and reasons for which have never been faced on this site.
And you have yourself wondered aloud why more IDists from UD don’t come here or theists (who are not the idiots, uneducated hillbillies that most atheists here paint them as) who are scientists. This example of TAMSZ admin ‘Patrick’ smacking ugly and unrepentant in the Varieties of Religious Language thread, completely unprepared to actually discuss ‘in good faith’ religious language without resorting to petty one-dimensional ‘did it happen?’ historicism and positivism, shows why they don’t. That is, if your wondering was sincere, which I am required to believe by the ‘good faith’ rule of the site 😉
Having been struck down by the worst case of man ‘flu that my wife has ever seen in, well, ever, I haven’t been able to contribute much to the recent discussion.
Catching up, I see I didn’t need to.
Nope, can’t help myself. I’m sorry I can’t endorse Patrick’s suggestion of holding people’s feet to the fire when they avoid answering reasonable questions. This isn’t the Spanish Inquisition and all contributions are voluntary. The comfy chair maybe, but that’s it.
Elizabeth apparently hoped this to be a matter of a few posts to be guanoed. But how to guano a character flaw? This will be interesting. (Nah, not really.)
EL said:
No, they probably would not be, unless they were posted by someone the moderators disliked.
The main problem here is the inability of TSZers and at least a couple of the moderators (three, including EL) to allow for the fact that most people do not argue, debate or discuss in the literal/reductionist manner demanded by many proxy-atheistic regulars here. They want every debate framed by and limited to a process that serves their literal/reductionist proxy-atheistic interests.
Well, to be fair, it’s not that they “want” it so framed and limited, but rather because they see any other kind of process as non-legitimate. The see what is an inability on their part to comprehend the nature of the other person’s framework as obfuscation, lying, equivocation or “weaseling” on the other person’s part.
The language and concepts of religion/spirituality do not always translate into the world of the literal/reductionist. Where the former attempts to use terms to explain, the latter latches those terms into their framework and insists on that meaning, and that further explanation conform to the landscape of the literal/reductionist.
Not sure how much of this is sarcasm, so I will apply my default rule of taking it literally.
No, I did not hope any such thing. I wanted to know what the problem was, and what people wanted me to do about it. Patrick wanted a change in the rules. I considered it, but my interim decision is no.
I’m still not sure what you want, unless it’s for me to admonish Patrick for a character flaw.
If that’s it, then the answer is also no.
It might conceivably have been that you wanted either Patrick’s posts sent to Guano, or for me to take away Patrick’s ability to send stuff to Guano, but you have explicitly said that Guano is irrelevant. I agree.
So, as I said, I think we are done.
I disagree. Lizzie’s analogy to the refereeing of a sport is on point. Some infractions will be missed. In fact, the folks with the whistles here give more leeway to the ‘visiting’ team, which is how it should be IMHO. By way of illustration, nobody guano`ed any of Erik’s posts that accused other commenters of not posting in good faith.
The bleating about biased moderation is both sad and, independently, misplaced.
ETA y to analog…
Better: His apology for his month-long reign of terror, during which he apparently sincerely believed that he was operating for the good of this site, a belief which is at variance with the expressed opinion of the rest of the moderators.
OK, I’m listening.
Yes, this is a problem. It is exactly mirrored however, on UD, which is interesting. All those words (“obfuscation”, “lying”, “equivocation”, “weaseling”) have been used against me by regulars on UD.
I think this reflects the very real fact that the two “sides” (actually there are far more than two, but let’s reduce it to two for simplicity) don’t even share the same terms of reference. As with the Vietnam talks, we haven’t even got as far as agreeing on the shape of the table.
That is why the rules are as they are – to encourage BOTH sides to consider that, despite the fact that from one side, the other person appears to be obfuscating, lying, equivocating, weaseling, etc, the possiblity that that is exactly how it appears in reverse from the other side as well.
That is exactly why I said, regarding the disagreement between Eric and Patrick, that I could understand, at least in principle, being in a position where what one side sees as a straight question is seen from the other as fundamentally ill-formed.
It’s why I am not inclined to change the rule. Sure, there will be times when people in reality are lying, obfuscating etc (aka trolling) but I don’t think that is the case with any regular here. I don’t think we are good troll-bait. I think everybody honestly thinks that the “other side” just doesn’t get it
But I don’t think the answer is to moderate differently (and I deny that I moderate in any way that attempts to frame the debate) – I think it is to doggedly, if not entirely consistently or rigorously, continue to implement the “good faith” rule.
That is true. I don’t even accept the word “literal/reductionist”
My goal is precision and clarity. I think it’s possible. I’ve read theologians who are admirably clear.
It’s just difficult.
There was no reign of terror.
I don’t happen to agree with Patrick’s way of responding to you. But it was still entirely possible for you to ignore all of his posts. So it wasn’t a reign of terror.
I don’t actually know what “proxy-atheistic” is supposed to mean.
Yes, a few posters are more literalistic than I like. But then I don’t much care for WJM’s style of arguing either.
Well, I’m not going to argue over where the balance of probabilities lies. You are probably right that moving posts is rarer than violations are. I’d rather keep the touch light, however.
I am going to argue against the implication of bias, though. Apart from the fact that moderators are bound to “dislike” someone whose posts they keep having to “fifty-seven”, as I call, it, I’m not at all convinced that there is much bias involved. Speaking for myself, my instinct tends to be to move posts from “my” side more readily than posts the other way, on the grounds that if I can see violations in a post I basically agree with, it is more likely to be a true violation than in a post I don’t.
Perhaps Alan, Neil and Patrick would like to give some input – how often they fifty-seven a post, what they weigh up before doing so.
If you have been paying attention, Patrick made it very sure that I could not ignore all of his posts. He challenged my integrity, honesty, and good faith. These things actually matter to me. He was intent on destroying my reputation. Plus he is a moderator. How does it work to ignore a moderator? So, yes, it has been reign of terror. Show properly that he has been unacceptable as a moderator. Pretty please.
Since you object to Patrick repeating the same question, maybe you could turn on a little self-awareness and notice that you are doing the same as what you complain Patrick does: repeating the same question …
You’re not going to get an answer you like, even if you ask pretty please. You’re not going to get Patrick admonished or removed as admin or whatever. But you keep asking, and asking, and asking.
Wake up, Erik!
Elizabeth,
Understood. For anyone else still interested in Erik’s claim, my further comments will be in the original thread, Noyau, or the new thread on possible rule changes, as appropriate.
Patrick,
Just repeat it again, Patrick, 5 or 10 or 50 times, because it is obvious you think we are DEAF and that you are entitled with your asinine ignorant demands.
In my case, not very often. I’ll move posts when I see a problem. But an occasion rule violation that doesn’t seem to be generating a sequence of such posts, I often let pass.
He does not have that capability, unless he takes it beyond this web site.
Neil Rickert,
Well, that’s true. ‘Patrick’ is not publically known. Neither is ‘Erik.’ But ‘Patrick’ started the accusations verging on slander. That is obvious.
Neil probably wouldn’t side with a theist, even provided with evidence (which he can easily gain from reading the thread). And that’s a so-far denied problem of ‘skeptic’ moderation on this site.
That’s generally my approach too. And when I do move a post I often move a bunch of responses, even if they don’t actually violate the rules.
Thanks Patrick.
I was talking within the confines of this web site. And you know it, because we are discussing his activity as a moderator here. He does not run the world outside this web site, thankfully.
Alan Fox,
You can’t disagree with me — we’re both
evilatheists!(I don’t know if Alan is an atheist or not.)
Well, Alan has said so here. So, consider yourself informed.
And do you also not know if Neil Rickert is an atheist either? He has said so here. Consider yourself informed.
Perhaps, Patrick, do you not know if you are an atheist? You have said so here. Consider yourself informed.
Any disagreements or retractions from the TAMSZ admins?
Well, that verges on slander.
I moderate with a light touch. Most of what I do as moderator, is fix broken html tags. And I don’t pay any attention to whether the author is a theist. My main consideration is for the readers of this site.
Yesterday morning, I found three posts in the moderation queue. They were all by a theist. I approved all of them.
I’m probably the next most likely to move a post, other than yourself. I try to learn from you as you seem to have a real knack of “de-escalating” when matters get heated. The element that makes me consider a comment for guano is if it seems unkind or mean. Dehumanising your perceived opponent, if you like. Disagreeing does not have to mean insulting.
Eric could simply answer the questions. Or explain why he can’t answer.
As it stands, Eric is attempting to claim the high ground. His unspoken premise is the he is smarter than the rest of us.
With Gregory, it isn’t unspoken.
Within the web site, your reputation mostly comes from what you post yourself. Patrick cannot damage that (unless he changes your posts, and I don’t think he has done that).
Elizabeth,
For me it seems to come in waves. There might be no rule violating comments for a week, then everyone gets stroppy on the same day. As you’re aware, I tend to lean far to the side of free expression. I only Guano comments that contain content-free name calling, particularly when vulgarity is involved.
I try to evaluate the people I usually agree with a bit harder than those I disagree with, to avoid bias. That could be my own confirmation bias speaking, though. Perhaps I remember Guano’ing Alan Fox more than Frankie.
Much of this site is dehumanising. It comes with atheist ideologising. E.g. you’d send many of ‘hotshoe’s self-confessed intentionally MEAN posts to Guano if you had a modicum of balance.
Patrick cannot damage me? In his own words, by his spamming he has proven my lies, cowardice and dishonesty. Look at what is going on in Noyau as we speak.
Please stop belittling the matter. I’m getting the impression that you are picking a fight here.
I’m not sure where I have said that. I think I have indicated that I usually say that I am non-religious.
In said thread, Erik has the ‘high ground’ as he is actually staying on topic. The atheists, who both know and understand little have diverted into historicism and positivism, while they completely ignore the possibility to discuss “varieties of religious language.”
It’s not a question of being “smarter” than others, though it doesn’t hurt to acknowledge an academic vs. an armchair ‘thinker’ (which the internet is famous bad at). It more about readiness to learn, which Patrick has demonstrated he is not, based on his ad nauseam repeated questions that ‘fundamentally’ miss the point of the conversation Erik is read and willing to have.
KN is a good example, though he bailed on the thread. He spoke favourably of ‘spiritual interpretation.’ But then it was obvious that atheists Jews don’t provide any content to what that means. So KN left, self-offended by the reality of his empty philosophistry. Otherwise, not a coherent position was raised against Erik’s generous contribution. (And folks, Erik & I don’t share the same worldview, so otherwise why on earth would I defend him!?) Erik has taken the high ground in the face of hostile, arrogant, myopic, repetitive nonsense from one of TAMSZ’s admin. But no atheist here is likely to give him credit for that.
Patrick’s opinions are not proof of anything. They are his opinions.
When Patrick “spams” his questions, that changes my view of Patrick, but it has no effect on my view of Erik.
Based on what they have posted, both walto and hotshoe_ seem to be reacting in the same way that I react. And my best guess is that others also react in much the same way.
Your reputation here depends on what you post, not on what Patrick posts.
Oh, and by the way, if KN is reading this — his reputation depends on what he posts and not on what Gregory posts about him. On the other hand, Gregory’s reputation is badly damaged by what Gregory posts.
So calm down, and stop worrying about what Patrick posts.
Oh, honey, do tell.
Which of my (recent) comments do you specify should be moved to Guano (for balance!!) — and why, specifically? Which rule(s) do I break? Don’t just vaguely wave your hands about.
Let’s not get into ancient history here – although it would be delightful to me if the only examples you can find are ancient – there’s no point in you demonstrating that you can carry a grudge for years. We already know that.