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."
Elizabeth,
I agree that a rule requiring posting in good faith would be impossible to enforce. Unfortunately, the lack of that rule combined with a rule to always assume good faith gives free rein to people who really aren’t posting in good faith. That has a negative impact on the quality of the discussions here.
You know my personal “red in tooth and claw” preference, so I won’t pitch that again. One alternative that might help is to flesh out the site goals a bit and make them part of the guideline (non-bannable offense) rules. Examples of how to engage in good faith and the kinds of interaction you want to see here, for example.
I’ve just looked in Guano. I don’t see clear evidence of anti-theist bias, and most of what is there is stuff I think should have been moved. Frankie, Adapa, and Gregory probably have the most posts there (so that’s a 2 to 1 bias) but tbh I think that actually reflects the posting style of those three posters. I also see posts from both Patrick and Alan, so it’s not as though admins are averse to moving admin posts.
I’d rather keep post moving to a minimum, but I’m not inclined to abandon all implementation of the rules, nor indeed the rules. I don’t think there’s a perfect solution, but I don’t want to adopt a worse one. If JohnnyB doesn’t have time to join us I will think about another possibility for theist admin.
I also note that the main function of the admins is to keep the site functioning on the technical end.
Richardthughes,
Difficult as Lizzie has recently indicated a preference not to guano moderation complaints and replied to the comment. I absolutely agree that phoodoo is wrong but there is the possibility he’s misread a comment. The onus is on phoodoo to provide a link.
Alan Fox,
Fair enough. I recall him motive – mongering previously (“Lizzie is ashamed of the skeptical zone”) and I think he does himself a disservice.
Yes, I have. I think I’ll stick with this.
Elizabeth,
I may have Guano’d one before reading this. If anyone complains I’ll move it back.
Sorry about that, but I think this is right. I don’t think people complaining about moderation should have to assume that the admins (including me) are “posting in good faith”. That seems circular to me.
“You are posting in bad faith” seems a perfectly legitimate response to an admin who, say, refuses to move a post or refuses to move it back.
Wrong, quite possibly (and I hope always!) but a legitimate complaint.
phoodoo,
I have successfully chased down Rumraket’s comment and moved it to Guano.
Moving such theists posts as in Guano would actually helps the theist and ID case! Sheesh, I wouldn’t want my Church students reading “theist friendly” guano postings from Gregory and Frankie.
If Lizzie ever makes it a rule to post in good faith it will get very quiet around here very quickly.
A component of posting in good faith: upon asking a participant a question and receiving a good faith reply, one responds to that reply.
Thanks, Patrick.
Corresponding in good faith?
Why is
guano, while
not guano?
Wait, let me guess. Needing a hug is not a failing, but needing to grow up is?
Jesus.
Well, I won’t because I don’t think it’s possible to tell. Stupidity and ignorance are always possible alternatives. Or indeed, the possiblity that I have missed the point.
It is my honest view that I think most people believe what they post. I don’t see why anyone would post anything else, unless they were deliberately trolling (which is always possible). It may mystify you as to why I miss what is blindingly obvious to you, but it also mystifies me as to why you seem to miss what is blindingly obvious to me.
I wanted, and still want, this site to be a place where we start from the assumption that the other person really believes the apparent crap they spout (I jest – smart people can differ profoundly for good reasons). Mostly I think the problem is not that people disagree about the answers to questions, but about the framing of the question itself – only they cannot see that they are reading the question differently.
And I think that’s really interesting. And solvable. Whenever I’ve “come round” in an argument, it’s not usually been because I see where I was wrong, but because I see that the question I’ve been asking is not a useful question – that it is “ill-posed”.
But before that insight, I simply could not understand why other people did not find my answer to it obvious.
I think the site is wonderful. I just ignore and scroll past most of the pissing and moaning. Rather than complaining about trolling or baiting, I just exercise the scroll wheel.
I’ve worn out two mice.
So, allegedly has Richard Gere…
Elizabeth,
I agree, but that’s not the only meaning of “good faith.” In my view, good faith also entails a willingness to abide by the rules of rational discussion. That means accepting the burden of proof when you make a claim, engaging with other people openly and honestly, addressing the real issues raised rather than ignoring them or responding to straw men, and being willing to retract a claim when you can’t support it. This is where I see discussions getting derailed here.
Batshit crazy can be discussed. Refusal to support the site goals makes discussion impossible.
Lizzie,
Don’t overlook
1) people who dissemble in order to deny or cover up their mistakes, and
2) people who make false accusations against their interlocutors.
Everyone is always so mean to keiths! They lie when he (generously) brings to their attention a mistake they might have made, and then they attack him and accuse him of so many awful things!
I hate all those people.
FWIW, however, making a false accusation would only entail posting in bad faith, if the accuser knew the accusation was false. That is, it’s a red herring, since anything one may say here may be false. And anything one may say here may be known to be false. Doesn’t matter whether it’s an accusation.
But I really do hate all those people who annoy keiths. X>{
Having a bad day, walto?
Which happens regularly.
There appear to be commenters who like to push buttons and commenters whose buttons are easy to push. Entertaining? Possibly. Does it contribute to the free exchange of ideas and honest communication? Don’t think so.
Alan,
There are also commenters whose buttons get pushed when someone disagrees with them and explains why, which is exactly the kind of thing that is supposed to happen at TSZ.
On a wave of optimism, I tried reinstalling the plugin that would allow the posting of images in comments as the upgrade to WordPress 4.4 has solved the page bug (fingers crossed it’s a permanent fix.) Unfortunately, “Comment Images” still crashes on activation so apologies to members who would like to put images in comments. I’ll keep working on it.
agreed.
Thanks!
I am talking about the same old thing that you were supposed to end but that has not ended: Patrick is patricking a main thread.
As to “rise to the bait”, I (hopefully) understand what it means now. I used the phrase improperly in the previous post.
And you should not ask me what you are supposed to do. As the owner of the website with self-evidently the most powers and as a moral person you must know what to do in the situation, and do it promptly. You failed the first time when it was all laid out before you clearly enough. Now when you choose to play the fool, you are an enabler.
Have you been reading Jerry Coyne?
Missing posts
This might be related to the “fixing” of the page counter bug.
My feed reader shows comment “http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-35/#comment-98598”. But when I try to pull that up, I don’t find it. When I read through the appropriate page (last page) of that thread, I don’t find it. But I do find it on the comments page (via the dashboard).
I was going to make this a reply to the post where Alan suggested that the page counter bug was fixed. But I am not finding his post on that, either.
Neil,
Alan’s comment is here:
http://theskepticalzone.fr/wine-cellar/comment-page-18/#comment-98234
Where does your feed reader show it as being?
Could that problem be due to the fact that a couple Gregory comments have been guano’d from that thread in the last hour?
Would that make the reader-link go to the right page but not to the right comment?
Comments/page numbers seem to be working perfectly for me, from the sidebar. Great for me! Maybe not so great for everybody else.
No, that should not be the problem. The particular comment was by Patrick. And comments moved to Guano show as Guano on the dashboard comments page.
But the missing ones are perhaps not showing up in that sidebar.
(ABE) the comment that I indicated to be missing does show up in the sidebar. But, when I click on it, it takes me to the top of the post rather than to that missing comment. And note that it is near the bottom of the sidebar, so will soon roll off.
Thanks, found it.
I didn’t look for that in my feed reader. I visually scanned the page and didn’t see it. I guess I didn’t scan carefully enough.
It is possible several months ago when I deleted one of my own comments in the 1 hour window that one of Petrushka’s replies to it got deleted. I remember Alan contacting me about a missing comment.
Given this, it may be an experiment someone can duplicate.
Sal
How are we coming on that “you must recant” rule?
Need help with the wording or the penalty for failure to recant?
Another observation:
This comment by Patrick came after petrushka’s, and the sidebar correctly reflects this order.
However, on the comment page itself, Patrick’s comment (with a timestamp of December 10th at 12:31 am) is displayed above petrushka’s (with a timestamp of December 9th at 11:50 pm).
HT to Alan for apparently fixing the link issue. Nice to click on a link and go there for a change. 🙂
Huh. Dunno. I don’t see an option for changing my time zone on my profile, but I bet that’s what caused the post-time apparent discrepancy. If Petrushka’s profile clock is off by an hour … or Patrick’s is, either way.
That’s interesting.
I think I know why. Patrick’s comment is a reply to keiths. So it was placed after the comment to which it was replying.
I’m not sure why it is doing that. It previously did not do that if nested replies were turned off (as they are). So this is a change in behavior.
The post that I indicated as missing might be for the same reason. It is probably a reply to a post that was moved to guano, and that move probably messed up the logic.
If I can suggest a slight amendment to an earlier suggestion. In the spirit of Noyau, if a discussion is started, and “howler monkey rules” or “Noyau rules” are stated in the OP, then it seems to me that lets the commenters know some substantial relaxation in civility is permitted. Some come here to TSZ because they want some Noyau action. This is actually providing a means of more freedom of expression.
The reason for this is so the admins and mods are freed up, and people wanting to boycott such venues are free to do so. If Gregory wants some Noyau, he can have all he wants in Noyau threads.
If Frankie wants to play by Noyau rules, it seems to me if he has the freedom to do so, at least people will be warned up front in his discussions they can expect Noyau. The mods and admins won’t have to be involved. If a commenter wants to wade into such discussions, he does so at his own discretion. No need to come to the mods and whine later that “Frankie called me names and told me to F-off.”
Example: Gregory can start a “howler monkey rule” thread, and the topic will be what he thinks of the TSZ admins. If most of TSZ chooses to boycott the discussion, he’s at least had his chance on the podium. He should have even less excuse then to complain about his posts being moved to guano. He can feed on as much guano as he wants in his own howler monkey chamber.
If he still persists after being given such freedoms, then that’s only evidence he’s not here to speak his mind only, but to stalk and harass others, and that is not posting in good faith, imho.
Admins:
Just want to let y’all know I’m grateful to whomever has been keeping up with Gregory’s slime against stcordova, and Guano’ing it as appropriate.
Well done, thanks!
At least now you know that Gregory is being targeted.
Or slime.
Ayep.
More Saturday afternoon fun.
Gregory is complaining that I moved two posts of his to Guano. They are timestamped at 4:00 pm and 5:06 pm today. If any admin agrees with Gregory that they do not violate the rules, please say so and I’ll defend my decision.
Mung has now posted the full content of one of those comments to the thread from which it was originally moved to Guano. This demonstrates a loophole in the rules. Mung isn’t technically breaking any rule, so there is no basis to Guano the comment. However, this provides a way for two or more people to work together to violate the spirit of the rules.
Any suggestions?
If this were a USAmerican football game, Patrick would be thrown out of the game for ‘targetting’. The post should be reinstated, which breaks no TAMSZ rules. If Patrick was *actually* interested in guano’ing *all* posts that focussed on poster not post, easily 10% of the posts at TAMSZ would be moved. (E.g. not a single thing that richardthughes posted *at* me would ever see a main-thread again.)
I’m o.k. with guano’ing the one, but the other isn’t even close to guano’able, regardless of whether or not the admin who did it recently wanted to change the rules after breaking them himself.
bloody kids.
Yes, they violate the rules. I don’t think there’s a loophole. If Mung posted the whole thing in another thread, then it should be moved to Guano, unless it was in Noyau I guess.
Gregory,
I hesitate to repost your abusive invective against Sal, but since you seem intent on misrepresenting your behavior, here are the parts of your comment that violate the rules:
“But then stcordova arrived and turn genuine dialogue upside-down with his gaming YECism.”
That’s an accusation of not posting in good faith (“gaming”).
“The YECists, in my view, are amongst the most disgustingly hypocritical and egotistic, stubborn, myopic ‘theists’ around the world today. stcordova is one of them.”
That’s an instance of addressing the poster rather than the post.
“He realises he can’t game me. So he simply complains because his YECism/IDism is such a joke.”
Another accusation of not posting in good faith.
I realize you have difficulty distinguishing between actual answers and evasions, but I didn’t know until now that you were unable to tell the difference between addressing the content of a post and the character of the poster. I hope I’ve made myself clear enough for even a sociologist to understand.
I would have thought a social scientist would be good at this. Or perhaps social science doesn’t even make the distinction. The medium is the message and all that.
This coming from an admin who EXPLICITLY accused another posted IN THAT SAME THREAD of not posting in ‘good faith.’ At the very least, Patrick should be excused from his MODERATION PRIVILEGES for the remainder of that thread in which he has proven himself a bully. If Neil or Alan wish to guano, then let them. Patrick is INVALID for that thread based on his asinine repetitive aggression towards a single poster, for which he tried to change the site rules.