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."
Alan Fox,
Yet you still want even more powers to censor Alan. Makes one wonder.
faded_Glory,
I agree, which is why I suggested a rule change intended to keep moderation discussions in just this one thread. I look forward to what Lizzie might come up with over the holidays.
I understand your goal in suggesting this and I don’t at all disagree that turning every thread into a copy of Moderation Issues is disruptive, but there are at least two reasons I can’ support your idea. First, this is supposed to be a forum for rational discussion among people with very different views. We’re not going to hear disparate views if people think there’s a risk they’ll be denied the ability to participate. “Chilling effect” and all that.
Second, I suspect your idea would result in even more complaints about the admins and Elizabeth and probably lead to sock puppets being use to disrupt the substantive threads even more.
(Plus, I don’t want to throw people in the dungeon. I can support Lizzie’s very reasonable rules, but at heart I’m a free speech absolutist.)
Keeping comments about moderation in the Moderation Issues thread seems to me to be the least invasive approach and focuses on the content of the comments not the character of the commenters.
Me too. One of my core principles when dreaming up this place was that not just the rules, but also the moderation should be about “addressing the post not the poster”. I’m happy to move posts to a [visible] “dungeon”, but not people.
The only people I will take action against, are people (and bots) who post porn, spam malware or personal info, and the only action I will take is banning them, on the principle that those rules are the conditions under which people post here, and if they don’t want to keep them then they don’t post here.
And even then, I’m open to readmitting the banned if they undertake to keep to the rule (or otherwise suggest to me, actively or passively that they probably will).
Not at all. The only option we admins have is to move rule-breaking comments to guano. Comments about moderation should be posted in the “moderation issues” thread. I’m suggesting that moving a complaint about moderation to this thread and replying to that complaint is less hassle for me and for the complainant than me moving it to guano, posting a comment saying why, and inviting the complainant to repost the complaint in this thread. Lizzie does not agree and she’s decided to restrict moving comments only to guano.
But I’m still 100% in favour of Lizzie’s goals and will continue to support her and those aims as long as I’m able and as long as she finds my support useful.
Your site, your rules. It is a shame that the noise levels have been drowning out the signal, lately. Having Guano just seems to generate more posts that need Guanoning, a downward spiral that risks actually killing the site off.
I don’t like the ‘ignore’ function because even the worst troll may have something of value to say, from time to time. Plus, it fragments conversations making them difficult to follow.
Trollgarden would not be a permanent isolation, it would simply offer an opportunity for some cooling off and reflection, for a couple of days. I suspect that the overall quality of posting would improve, over time. It sure seemed to work with the kids!
And no, it is not censoring. People are still allowed to post anything they want in Trollgarden and anyone who wants to read and/or engage them could do so there.
But, your site, your rules.
fG
I have a problem with hypocritical behavior whether it comes from atheists (aka “partisan hacks”) or theists (aka “moderators”). In fact, I have a problem with such behavior when it comes from moderators or non-moderating trolls who apparently have nothing better to do than annoy people by whining about either imagined or extremely minor slights.
Go see a nice xmas movie or something.
I like your idea very much myself, FG, and, in fact we already have Noyau (originally dubbed “the whine cellar” I believe), that could be used for that purpose. [NO NEED FOR ANOTHER META PLACE!!]
Ha, banning someone to a whine cellar doesn’t seem much of a punishment! Next, the comfy cushions!
fG
faded_Glory, to Lizzie:
There is a solution on the table that addresses all of those concerns and which Lizzie likes. We just need to figure out how to implement it:
keiths,
keiths, it would be interesting to try that, but I suspect it would still make conversations with guano in it hard to follow. Posts that respond to guano-flagged posts would still be readable but without context, leaving it to the reader to figure out the missing parts. I myself would probably quickly tire from that and just skip the entire thread. Your mileage may vary.
The best threads are the ones without any guano in them at all, wouldn’t you agree? So how to get to such a world without throwing away the baby with the bathwater?
fG
One aspect of the solution on the table that you don’t mention, because I didn’t, is that I think it works at Daily Kos because the discussion is in tree-format. So if a discussion goes off on a tangent, and some people want to take part and some don’t, other people can continue from where the branching started.
In fact, with a tree structure, you almost don’t need the “hide” facility” at all – they do it at Daily Kos to keep down the trolls. But one way the two work together is that once a post is is rated into invisibility, all subsequent responses to that post are invisible as well (unless you want to unhide hidden posts).
I think the two things go together. I’m not sure they work apart.
Quite frankly, I think the moderation here is fine and I don’t see the need for changing any rules. The only people who are complaining about the rules are those who refuse to abide by them, because they refuse to refrain from personal attacks, snide remarks, insults, and barbs directed at other commenters. Their inability or refusal to control themselves is not a failure of moderation, nor does it require a change in the rules.
However, if we could change the structure of comments so that trolls don’t derail conversations with their nonsense, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
fG:
We already have that problem. Under the new proposal, it would affect only those who subscribe to the “housekeeping” service.
If you mean threads in which no guano is posted in the first place, I think it can’t be done — unless you impose measures so draconian as to violate the ethos of TSZ.
Some people don’t seem to care for the way that I choose to make a point. Suck it up folks.
People are being forced to post in Moderation Issues and there is in fact a rule requiring people to post in Moderation Issues in spite of Elizabeth saying that the exact opposite is the case. Fine. It’s her site. She can run it how she wants. Let’s just drop the pretense.
It also appears that the “no rules” policy for comments in the Moderation Issues thread is also being run on whim and fancy in spite of Elizabeth proudly proclaiming the wisdom of the “no rules” policy for this thread. Fine. It’s her site. She can run it how she wants.
I’m not opposed to following the rules, I’m opposed to undocumented rules being enforced. More so when the enforcement directly contradicts what Elizabeth has explicitly stated is [or is not] the case.
I’m also opposed to having a perfectly legitimate thread I started to discuss the wisdom of allowing private email correspondence to be published on this site closed on a whim and without explanation. What rule or rules did my OP violate?
I also think that if I have a suggestion for a new rule that I should not be forced to post it in Moderation Issues. If you are going to continue censoring my dissent over the ideas promulgated by this site you should probably just close up the site and let everyone find something better to do.
You not only disagreed with me, you used your powers to close my thread that questioned the wisdom of allowing and even encouraging such behavior.
Shame on you. That’s censorship.
No such rule exists.
Why don’t you just create a thread for IDists and restrict their comments to that thread and then try to put sugar on it by telling then you’re doing them a favor?
This is just absurd.
It’s probably appropriate that she’s trying to make a joke out of it.
Mung,
Why not? This thread is exactly where that kind of suggestion should be discussed. It’s even linked from the Rules page.
Meanwhile, posts that directly attack and insult me as a person are left untouched.
A recent example:
I am beginning to consider the possibility that there is in fact some sort of institutional blindness among the admins here where before I thought there was just too much Guano for them to keep up with.
Mung,
I don’t see how Dave’s comment breaks any rules. Could you please explain?
I wasn’t sure where you stood. That’s why I left your name out of my OP. So thanks.
But you were lobbying to have my thread closed, so it made me wonder. And it wasn’t for raising “moderation issues” outside the moderation thread, iirc. But now all of a sudden that’s what this has become about?
Mung,
… because while the site exists people are compelled to come here?
ME! ME! ME!
😉
In general though I have no opposition to the idea. I think it it may need a little more flesh on it or a minor tweak.
As I stated previously to Elizabeth, this thread needs to have the same rules as other threads so that it doesn’t turn into another Noyau. Let’s not have this thread be just another place where people can avoid Guano. Perhaps only moderators should be allowed to reply.
If you want to discuss a particular act of moderation or failure to act I think this is the place. Just make it a rule and stop claiming there is no such rule while enforcing a rule that doesn’t exist [yet].
But if someone wants to discuss a larger issue that isn’t a complaint about a moderator act or the failure of a moderator to act, such as whether a new rule might be required, IOW, something that affects the larger community and the overall ethos of the site, I think that can and should deserve it’s own OP and thread.
It’s just unfortunate for you all that Elizabeth got caught doing something ethically questionable. It’s not a reason to repress the criticism. Don’t you think that people who come here for the fist time ought to know that if they send Elizabeth a PM that she sees nothing unethical about publishing it for all to see? To me, that’s front page news.
p.s. I think it’s extremely hypocritical to spam the front page with “Feature” threads to make less savory subjects disappear from view. It’s censorship.
And as I replied that is Not Going To Happen. The whole point (as I already explained) is that in THIS thread people should be free to accuse the admins of not acting in good faith, and to address the poster (i.e. the admin) not the post (which is irrelevant). So no, to apply the rules to this thread would negate the entire point of having it.
Mung,
Yes, it’s equally extremely hypocritical to put headline news on the front page of a newspaper when equal time should be given to sports, the Funnies and “Dear Sir” rants. Talking of which, every one of the latter received should be published. Damned censors, they’re everywhere. Can’t a troll catch a break?
I have no desire to repress the criticism. And I didn’t “get caught” – that implies I was trying to do something underhand and regrettably got found out.
Quite the reverse – what I did was entirely open, which is precisely the ethical problem you had with it.
And while you are free to question the ethics, I will continue to defend my position. I do NOT think that there is an absolute moral duty on any any recipient of correspondence to keep it secret unless given permission by the sender. There my SOMETIMES be a moral duty to do so, and indeed, in my job there is frequently such a duty, and which I observe meticulously.
Equally, in my view, there is SOMETIMES a moral duty to publish the contents of correspondence.
And certainly, the recipient of an email from someone who is accusing them of some serious ethical or legal violation, as in Sal’s case, has, in my view, the right to publicly defend themselves against that allegation. There is, for instance, no way of Sal knowing who Barry shared that accusation with.
And if the accusation also affects a third party (me and people Barry thinks of as the TSZ denizens) then they too have, in my view, a right to examine the evidence and mount a rebuttal.
But all that is secondary to the fact is that I was not “caught out” in “ethically questionable” actions – I did something perfectly openly, and some people, including you, disagreed with me over the ethics.
That is fine. We will probably continue to disagree, as we do over the ethics of quite a lot, probably.
No, it is not. It is not even “spam” let alone “censorship”.
Put it in the rules and make the rules clear.
Do people remember when I added a comment to a post by Reciprocating Bill [loudspeaker in the ceiling]? I was told it was against the rules and after re-reading the rules I apologized and haven’t done it since.
Don’t say there’s no rule forcing anyone to post in Moderation Issues and then act like people are somehow violating a rule that doesn’t exist when they don’t follow the rule that doesn’t exist. Elizabeth.
Perhaps if you had sent Patrick’s repeated posts all saying the same thing as spam and sent then to Guano much of the current conflict could have been avoided.
Moderators acting badly can be fixed by moderators ceasing to act badly. No doubt that will affect the trend with regards to comments about moderation. Now there’s an idea we can test.
Aaargh, it’s more of a guideline.
[/piratemode]
Which has been referenced many, many times; I would estimate every week since the inception of this blog.
I don’t see myself accepting a position as an admin at a site where three of the current admins see nothing wrong with publishing my private correspondence. We may as well have all admin discussions open for all to see.
Will you all be publishing each others comments about Gregory?
Mung,
Short version: Trolls will play up till they get what they want. Which is UD.
What do you mean “act like”? I have simply asked people to post moderation issues in moderation issues.
What’s wrong with that?
Firstly, there aren’t any, that I am aware of.
Secondly, if there were, the answer would be no.
On the other hand if someone were to email me accusing me of being part of a world-wide conspiracy to publish private emails, I would probably have no compunction in publishing that email.
Elizabeth,
Are we mentally conflating private emails with doxing? Some private emails that contain personal information that may identify someone is clearly wrong, I think. Emails that show someone has publicly been pushing a viewpoint that they privately think isn’t true I’d be inclined to share if I thought it protected others.
As long as administrators are held to the same standard. When they are not, and when they get to make up their own rules, there will be problems.
Remember when there was no Noyau thread?
Then there was, and posts started getting moved to Noyau.
And then there was the Patrick v Erik spamfest.
And then it was a wonderful day for TSZ when Barry Arrington got exposed.
And now comments are just being closed off.
I post a link to a clear and unambiguous ad hominem and the admin says huh?
Hmm. I assume Mung is still smarting that none of us accept his amoral excuses for John Wells’ misconduct against Nick Matzke.
But why he’d bring up a fake complaint against (innocent) Dave Carlson here, I don’t know.
Or funny.
Maybe that’s just me, though.
Glen Davidson
This is so obviously false that it’s not even funny.
Remember Noyau [The Whine Cellar]?
Why not run off to UD and fix that where this seems to be a much bigger problem?
What “clear and unambiguous ad hominem”?
Not one I can see …
Maybe you need to refresh yourself on the definitions of “ad hominem” and perhaps also “clear” and “unambiguous”.
…because you are all so opposed to an echo chamber, unless it’s your very own echo chamber?
Speaking for myself, I’d be delighted to have as many opinions as possible represented here. It’s what the site is for.
I certainly do not want an “echo chamber”.
I see no connection between confining discussion of Moderation Issues to a thread entitled Moderation issues and an echo chamber.
I see a great deal of connection between providing a Moderation Issues thread in which people are free to lob as much criticism as they like at the admins, and offering OP slots to anyone who requests them and trying to run a site that does not become an echo chamber.
I also see that providing a set of rules are simply “game rules”, violation of which does not entail banning, but merely the moving of a post out of thread, the further provision of a special thread where consenting adults can let off steam at each other if they wish, and a stated policy that no posts will be deleted or hidden or edited, except for a narrow range of site-wide rule violations (which do result in banning) is the kind of thing that ought to encourage a wide range of participation.
But it doesn’t. Which saddens and puzzles me.
Elizabeth,
You misunderstand. It is important that TSZ is no better than UD, and that UD is not broken.
Explain why most posts were sent to Guano then? What rule did they violate when there are no rules?
And from the fact that in this thread people ought to be able to accuse the admins of not acting in good faith [a point I could also debate if there is anyone reasonable around worth having a debate with], it does not follow that people ought to be allowed to say anything at all about anyone other than the admins in this thread.
Is it ok to out people in this thread? No? Why not?
It is obviously possible to have special rules for special threads. That’s what you did for Noyau. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing and you know it. This is just you stamping your foot and being obstinate.
You are basically forcing people to post in a thread which then opens them up to all sorts of abuse that would not otherwise be allowed if they started their own OP and thread. This is so obvious that even I can see it.
Sure you can dissent, as long as you don’t mind heaps of Guano getting piled on you. It’s good for you!
Most of which posts?
Oh, right, we had so many ‘Feature’ threads running here in the past Allan.
Nothing to see here folks, move along. LoL.
Mung,
Mung, how would you classify your contribution? How much science vs moderation moaning for example?
OK, so you want a different set of rules for Moderation Issues than for the main page threads?
OK, well I can think about that. That could work.
You are so confused.
I’d post an OP on it, but since you’re an admin that would obviously belong in “Moderation Issues” and get closed.