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,

    He’s gaming you folks, don’t doubt that, because he’s told you that already.

    I tend to take the default view that everyone is ‘gaming me’, but I play for entertainment. If they think tying people up in a corner of the internet serves a purpose …

  2. Patrick:
    hotshoe_,

    Unless it’s a violation of one of the banning rules, I don’t Guano comments directed at me.

    I’m not sure that last one (“A fellow atheist jumps in. Oh, smarty! Sad, empty, ignorant, bureaucratic soul.”) is a rule violation.It’s damn weird, though.

    Patrick, I’m the “sad, empty ignorant bureaucratic soul” that jumped in (to point out that Gregory doesn’t understand either “humanism” or “historicism”). And of course it’s a rule violation, just as nearly every other post Gregory has ever made here is. But as I believe it’s a bad rule, and because many of my own posts are also violative of it, I don’t complain.

    However, I do think it’s kind of funny that you think that might not be a rule violation. What part of “A fellow atheist jumps in. Oh, smarty! Sad, empty, ignorant, bureaucratic soul.” is not directed at a poster?

    And it’s not really that weird, either–at least for Gregory. It contains a bunch of insults and one kind of outy thing he’s got in his Walto dossier. It’s pretty much what he does. He’s a nitwit.

  3. phoodoo:
    Moderators-please explain why this post was moved to guano?
    ”

    Remember this was in a post where Tom English called Denise OLeeery a Click Bait Whore and he talks about the sadistic pleasures of bitch slapping her.

    What rule did I break, that he didn’t with his entire rant?

    I want my post restored to its original place.

    Yours shouldn’t be moved back. His should be moved here.

  6. phoodoo,

    Moderators-please explain why this post was moved to guano?
    ”

    Boo hoo Boo hoo, waa , waa, poor Tommy. They didn’t like your little algorithm that you spent so much time befuddling people with? So sorry.

    Were you trying to say something in your little crying rant here though?

    I really like when you call her O’Sneery. Wow, touche. You wield such a powerful cutting tool, you deaf, dumb and blind boy. Do you play a mean pinball too?”

    Address the post, not the poster.

  7. Adapa: My my, the King of Butthurt hasn’t lost his scepter.

    Adapa. would you please stop using that goddamned epithet against Mung?

    It’s immature and boring.

    It’s not true, either, which makes it even more pointless.

  9. Rumraket: I do. I say noone, regardless of their beliefs, can have objective morality.

    As you probably know, I don’t agree with you about this, Rumraket.

  10. hotshoe_: It’s immature and boring.

    And probably offensive to gay males. Not that Adapa cares about anti-gay bigotry in any meaningful way.

    Thank you

  11. walto,

    Patrick, I’m the “sad, empty ignorant bureaucratic soul” that jumped in (to point out that Gregory doesn’t understand either “humanism” or “historicism”). And of course it’s a rule violation, just as nearly every other post Gregory has ever made here is.

    I apologize for not recognizing that Gregory was referring to you specifically. I thought he was just on a roll.

  12. walto,

    Moderators-please explain why this post was moved to guano?
    ”

    Remember this was in a post where Tom English called Denise OLeeery a Click Bait Whore and he talks about the sadistic pleasures of bitch slapping her.

    What rule did I break, that he didn’t with his entire rant?

    I want my post restored to its original place.

    Yours shouldn’t be moved back. His should be moved here.

    Denyse O’Leary does not participate here, so comments about her are not subject to the rule about addressing the post and not the poster. It’s why referring to Joe Gallien as an ignorant, uneducated, abrasive, obnoxious, pathetic troll with below dull normal intelligence is not a rule violation while saying the same about, say, Frankie would be.

  13. Gregory opines:

    stcordova is an ‘attention whore’, an ‘attention slut’ and a ‘trollup.’ He’s gaming you folks,

    You got it all wrong. I hang around here because I like hanging around smart folks who ask tough questions and have critical thinking skills. Gaming them? I’d rather characterize it as playing chess with them and seeing if I can match wits. Some of the best fun I’ve ever had. To paraphrase Bill Dembski, “that’s my kind of fun.”

    I’m grateful for my critics. Truth be known, their attacks are my idea of a good time. Indifference is a far worse form of violence.

    Bill Dembski

  15. hotshoe_: Adapa. would you please stop using that goddamned epithet against Mung?

    It’s immature and boring.

    It’s not true, either, which makes it even more pointless.

    Actually it is true and there’s quite a few others here who thinks so too. What term would you prefer instead? Whiny bitch? Hypocritical chronic complainer? They both fit too.

  16. Adapa: Actually it is true and there’s quite a few others here who thinks so too.What term would you prefer instead?Whiny bitch?Hypocritical chronic complainer?They both fit too.

    How about no personal insults?

    What do you get out of it, anyways?

    What will you miss if you stop making “Mung is [insert something most people will see as insulting]” statements?

    Well, of course this applies to persons other than Mung, too, but I don’t see you writing in that style about most persons.

  17. Adapa: You may choose to ignore the stench of his dishonesty and hypocrisy, I choose to point it out. To each his own.

    Yep, sure. And when you choose to “point it out” using Guano-worthy overly-personal insults, then I’ll choose to point out comments of yours to get Guano’d.

    Fair deal.

  20. So draft rules:

    Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.
    For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading
    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!)
    Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. [purple text added 28th November 2015]
    This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
    As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    html fails me to make purple text which should be “content of” [the post] and “perceived failings of the” [poster]. Sorry.

  21. I would like to draw to the attention of the admins this post by Adapa. Not because it is Guano-worthy, but because it establishes the basis for why Adapa’s posts directed at me tend to violate the site rules of addressing the poster and not the post.

    It is clear that he is on a mission that has absolutely nothing to do with addressing the content of my posts.

    Now while I have in general chosen to just ignore Adapa’s posts and thus failed to draw them to the attention of the admins, this doesn’t mean the admins should ignore them and do nothing when they clearly violate the site rules.

  22. Adapa: What’s wrong with asking Mung to back up one of his unsupported claims? If he can’t do it then he is a liar for making it.

    God help us. Such logic.

    If a person makes a claim and fails to support that claim it does not follow that they are a liar for making the claim.

    Also, if a person makes a claim and fails to support that claim it does not follow that they cannot support that claim. And I think that making that assumption violates the site rules as well.

  23. Mung,

    I would like to draw to the attention of the admins this post by Adapa. Not because it is Guano-worthy, but because it establishes the basis for why Adapa’s posts directed at me tend to violate the site rules of addressing the poster and not the post.

    It is clear that he is on a mission that has absolutely nothing to do with addressing the content of my posts.

    Now while I have in general chosen to just ignore Adapa’s posts and thus failed to draw them to the attention of the admins, this doesn’t mean the admins should ignore them and do nothing when they clearly violate the site rules.

    Moved to Guano.

  24. Adapa,

    Please use Noyau for personal insults. If you think someone is violating the site rules or that the rules need to be modified to address a particular behavior, please just document the behavior by reference to specific comments and refrain from speculating about motivations in this thread.

  25. Adapa,

    You are accusing another participant of not posting in good faith. That is expressly against the site rules.

    I understand your frustration, but the only options available to you within the rules are to a) post to Noyau and/or b) provide links to the behavior you find offensive and explain why it violates the goals or rules of the site, without making accusations about the character or motivation of the person who’s behavior you are criticizing.

    I’d support loosening the rules in this thread to allow the kind of discussion you want to have, but I’m not Lizzie[1] so I can’t make that call.

    [1] If you get confused, I’m the one who has trouble walking in heels.

  26. Patrick: [1] If you get confused, I’m the one who has trouble walking in heels.

    I always thought you were just tipsy, but never felt I could say so without violating the site rules.

  27. Mung,

    I always thought you were just tipsy, but never felt I could say so without violating the site rules.

    Don’t make me post the pictures of me playing the Dame in a panto. Lizzie would have to create a retroactive rule to cover that immediately.

  31. Patrick,

    So saying your mother is a whore would be no problem, since she doesn’t post here right?

    Its bullshit and you know it. I addressed the substance of his post.

  32. phoodoo: So saying your mother is a whore would be no problem, since she doesn’t post here right?

    Boy, oh boy.

    Some folks just don’t get what it means to behave like a decent human being. I figure phoodoo’s mother is completely innocent of phoodoo’s failings. I guess she did the absolute best she could to teach right. Some folks, you just can’t learn ’em nothing. 🙁

  35. phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    So saying your mother is a whore would be no problem, since she doesn’t post here right?

    Its bullshit and you know it.I addressed the substance of his post.

    You’re right. Patrick’s rationale was ridiculous and simply invites ad hom’s against ‘non-posters.’ But as I’ve often said, it’s a bad rule. Lizzie should dump it, if only because it’s not implemented very much currently.

    Incidentally, admins, I’m addressing a poster here: phoodoo.

  36. walto,

    Patrick’s rationale was ridiculous and simply invites ad hom’s against ‘non-posters.’

    I’m just interpreting the rules as written. There’s a reason people dislike lawyers.

  37. Patrick:
    walto,

    I’m just interpreting the rules as written.There’s a reason people dislike lawyers.

    Yeah, except for the sad, etc. bureaucrat post (and, basically all of Gregory’s posts. Again, I don’t really blame you, but that rule is not followed “as written” by anybody here, and actually couldn’t be.

    BTW, admins, it now takes no fewer than six link clicks to get to the last page of “The Varieties” thread. And using the Dashboard doesn’t get one to the appropriate page either. This bug may end up being worse than the rules defects. I know at least that I’ll give up bothering once it starts taking 20 clicks to get to a particular page.

    So many programmers here and nobody can fix that?

  38. walto: it now takes no fewer than six link clicks to get to the last page of “The Varieties” thread

    My work-around:
    click to get to the wrong page, then EDIT the URL to remove everything after the last “/”. to the right of the thread name…
    Voila!
    I agree it’s annoying, to say the least.
    Edited for accuracy…

  40. “I hang around here because I like hanging around smart folks who ask tough questions and have critical thinking skills.” – stcordova

    Perhaps that’s why you don’t ‘hang around’ at UD anymore; not many ‘smart folks’ there?

    You seem sociologically ignorant and happy about it, stcordova. But the truth is that the ‘smart folks’ (as you call them) here *ALL* reject your YECism and IDism on very solid grounds! What a crack-up that logic makes, yeah?

    Where you would seem properly aligned (evangelical Christian interested in ‘science and religion’ discourse), though more difficult for the strange ideological position you now embrace, is at BioLogos Why haven’t you joined their Forum, where ‘smart folks’ who are theists (rather than the atheists/skeptics here) engage in “tough questions and critical thinking”? There’s even one flakey IDist there, a bulldog, whom you might like to pet again. 😉

  41. I hesitate to post something useful and informative on a thread usually reserves for pissing an moaning, but the following might help with getting to the last page of a multi-page thread:

    “http://theskepticalzone.fr/the-varieties-of-religious-language/”

    Simply removing everything after the thread title and backslash seems to work and be easy to do.

    Someone else already posted this, but maybe everyone didn’t see or understand it.

  42. Thanks, petrushka, I just figured that out myself, playing around with Jock’s suggestion. The last page on each thread has an address ending with

    /#comments

    You can’t always get to that by deleting stuff.

  44. walto:
    Hmmm. Tried that, but it just put me on the same page–5 clicks from the latest one…..

    It’s working for me but not if I just erase the /comment-# part of the url, have to erase the /comment-page part also.

  45. walto: BTW, admins, it now takes no fewer than six link clicks to get to the last page of “The Varieties” thread. And using the Dashboard doesn’t get one to the appropriate page either.

    Hi walto,

    If you scroll to the very top of the page and click on the DATE of the original OP it will always take you to the last page. That way you don’t have to click forward to get there. You might have to work your way back from the last page, but that seems easier to me.

  46. hotshoe_: It’s working for me but not if I just erase the /comment-# part of the url, have to erase the /comment-page part also.

    Just delete everything after the thread title plus “/”

  48. Can Elizabeth put Gregory into moderation since he clearly cannot moderate his own self?

  50. hotshoe_:
    Can Elizabeth put Gregory into moderation since he clearly cannot moderate his own self?

    And once he’s there, can Moderation be permanently removed to Neptune?

Comments are closed.