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. Mung: Oh, right, we had so many ‘Feature’ threads running here in the past Allan.

    Nothing to see here folks, move along. LoL.

    ffs, Mung, you really seem to be just stirring at this point.

    The reason I “featured” recent posts is because there is a rather long-standing “featured” post by Tom English that I want to keep as it is still being developed and the posting rate is rather slow. But I don’t want it right at the top of the page, because substantive newer posts aren’t so readily seen.

    So while it is there, I am also “featuring” other substantive posts, while they are still active. I’m not going to “feature” the posts on which I’ve closed comments, because they are, by definition, not active.

    And I have closed comments on them because I want people to comment on moderation issues HERE, not on the main page. If you want to link to or quote from one of the OPs that are sliding off the bottom you are perfectly free to do so.

    Honestly, what people take for censorship and repression is quite extraordinary.

    When Tom’s OP has run its course I will go back to regular time-stamp order. Until then, I am “featuring” new posts that are not about Moderation, and seem to me to be worth keeping up there for a bit.

  5. hotshoe_: I assume Mung is still smarting that none of us accept his amoral excuses for John Wells’ misconduct against Nick Matzke.

    hotshoe_: West is a petty demagogue, a frustrated Wedge-ist and IDiot in all senses of the word, using a time-honored fascist technique for stirring up the followers. His threat being implicit rather than explicit is not in his moral favor. Nor is it in your moral favor that you accept it as merely in “poor taste”.

  6. Mung: No. I’d start a thread on it, but it would probably get censored closed.

    Post it here Mung. I’ll read it.

  7. Mung: You said no one is forced to post here. Have you changed your mind?

    Or you can not post. Or post at another venue. New to logic?

  8. Mung: You said no one is forced to post here. Have you changed your mind?

    You don’t have to post it at all. But if you want to post it, you can post it here.

  9. Elizabeth: Most of which posts?

    typo. My posts.

    Posts that I made in the “Moderation Issues” thread were sent to Guano. One assumes they violated some rule that has yet to be defined.

    p.s. Not that they don’t belong in Guano, they do. But that’s not the point.

  11. Mung,

    Posts that I made in the “Moderation Issues” thread were sent to Guano. One assumes they violated some rule that has yet to be defined.

    How long ago? Elizabeth fairly recently made the rule change about not Guano’ing comments in this thread.

  12. Elizabeth: You don’t have to post it at all. But if you want to post it, you can post it here.

    Or I could just keep my mouth shut, and I’m sure everyone would just love that.

    Do you also advocate that people be compelled to keep religious speech to within the confines of their churches? They are free to talk as long as they do so in the appropriate place for it. That’s not censorship.

  13. Elizabeth: ffs, Mung, you really seem to be just stirring at this point.

    Allan’s comment wasn’t stirring, but when I respond to it I’m stirring.

  14. Mung,

    Not at all Mung. You’re the ideal advert for ID in my opinion.

    The rules affect us all. I was thinking of a thread “a tale of two emissaries” which would compare and contrast Lizzie’s behavior and contribution at UD vs. your’s here, but that’s probably better reserved for this thread.

  15. Richardthughes: Mung, how would you classify your contribution? How much science vs moderation moaning for example?

    What does this have to do with anything? A brief look at Elizabeth’s OP’s might be in order.

    But how about we visit a thread by Mung. Be sure to read the first comment:

    Pedant: If you have a case to make, why not stick your neck out and make it?

    I really wonder, if I were to go back and look at my OP’s, what we’d find as the first response to many of them.

  16. Mung: Do you also advocate that people be compelled to keep religious speech to within the confines of their churches? They are free to talk as long as they do so in the appropriate place for it. That’s not censorship.

    I don’t think anybody here is advocating that. But I’ve heard tell of one guy who was fairly adamant on the subject, saying, in part

    When you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, enter your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret.

    of course he didn’t say it in English, so his message may have gotten lost along the way…

  18. Mung,

    …because you are all so opposed to an echo chamber, unless it’s your very own echo chamber?

    Non sequitur. And if it was an echo chamber, I wouldn’t come. I welcome people to debate with. I’d just prefer them to be on less of a hair-trigger over every perceived slight, is all, and dominating comments with their incessant moaning.

  19. Mung,

    Allan’s comment wasn’t stirring, but when I respond to it I’m stirring.

    I see it more as lampooning your suggestion that changing priorities on a blog amounts to censorship. I could have just said ‘it’s editing’, but took the sarcasm route. Suck it up, as someone might once have said. Certain versions of Mung might have recognised the temptation to go down the path I took.

  20. Elizabeth: OK, so you want a different set of rules for Moderation Issues than for the main page threads?

    I think it would be more accurate to say I would prefer “Moderation Issues” to be about Moderation Issues and not just another Noyau with Moderation Issues on top. 🙂

    In the most restricted sense I’d suggest allowing specific complaints about moderation actions [or specific complaints about a failure to take action] and moderators and only moderators to respond to those complaints, and no one else.

    That’s where I would start.

    If that’s too restrictive, I’d try to build on that. But to me that seems an excellent place to at least begin.

    At the other end of the spectrum I think that restricting anything that pertains to the rules or lack of a rule to this thread and this thread only goes too far. I think if I can put together a cogent OP on an issue that manages to transcend a complaint about something a mod did or did not do that I should be allowed to do so in an OP.

    I even seem to recall the moderators encouraging this at one time which led to some threads by keiths. What I absolutely do not recall is those threads being closed to comments because they violated some rule about where posts about moderation issues belonged.

  22. Elizabeth: So while it is there, I am also “featuring” other substantive posts, while they are still active.

    You are valuing some threads over others. Can we expect this from all the admins, or only you?

    This thread, which you featured, hasn’t had a comment since December 10. It was dead when you featured it and it’s still dead.

    This thread, which you featured, has had one comment in five days.

    We now have six “Feature” articles. Perhaps the first time ever at TSZ this has happened.

    I’m sure it’s all just coincidence.

  25. Mung: hotshoe_: I assume Mung is still smarting that none of us accept his amoral excuses for John Wells’ misconduct against Nick Matzke.

    hotshoe_: West is a petty demagogue, a frustrated Wedge-ist and IDiot in all senses of the word, using a time-honored fascist technique for stirring up the followers. His threat being implicit rather than explicit is not in his moral favor. Nor is it in your moral favor that you accept it as merely in “poor taste”.

    Exactly.

    I stand by my words in both comments, and the meaning is sufficiently clear if one has eyes to see.

    No person should excuse implicit implicit threats and covert accusations merely because they are not explicitly worded — which is how Mung excuses John West’s slime. If anything, it’s more immoral to be covert, as it makes accusations like West’s harder to defend against. As I said, West is nothing better than a Mafia thug, like “nice business you got, Matzke, shame if anything were to happen to it”.

    If Mung doesn’t see West and his actions that way, well so much the worse for Mung.

    Not surprisingly, since most of us aren’t amoral thugs, no one in thread agrees with Mung’s West-merely-poor-taste excuse. I may be mistaken that it bothers Mung that he can’t win points on that subject — I’d be happy to apologize if Mung thinks I should — but it’s a reasonable guess on my part.

    And I still don’t see where Mung gives any reason why that (innocent) comment from Dave Carlson should be dragged into this thread.

    And now i also have to wonder: why is my comment about the odious John West being dragged into this thread.

    It doesn’t break any rules and has nothing to do with questions of moderation. So, what gives?

  27. hotshoe_,

    The fact Barry is pushing something publicly that he does not believe privatley may be causing Mung some angst. So far he has basically shut down on the subject except to shoot the messenger. He is now, of course complicit, because he knows.

  28. Patrick: How long ago? Elizabeth fairly recently made the rule change about not Guano’ing comments in this thread.

    Posts from December 20th.

    The exchange between myself and Adapa actually started a bit further upthread from this post, but that post was the spark.

    My response can be found in Guano.

  29. Richardthughes: The fact Barry is pushing something publicly that he does not believe privatley may be causing Mung some angst.

    Are you trying to get this thread closed to comments too?

  30. Mung: Are you trying to get this thread closed to comments too?

    Not at all, Mung. I’m trying to start the healing. I imagine you feel a bit like the iraqi information ministers family right now, but we’re here to help.

  32. Mung,

    How long ago? Elizabeth fairly recently made the rule change about not Guano’ing comments in this thread.

    Posts from December 20th.

    The exchange between myself and Adapa actually started a bit further upthread from this post, but that post was the spark.

    My response can be found in Guano.

    My understanding is that no comments in this thread should be moved to Guano.

    Elizabeth (I hope you see this) — Is this correct?

  33. Yes, it is correct.

    I am taking note, and thought, and will post something after Christmas. Right now, I’d better get on with doing stuff.

    A merry Christmas to everyone!

  36. Mung,

    Don’t worry about it Patrick, it’s not like I want them moved back, lol.

    You have but to ask.

    Plus, this makes the rules for this thread explicit (again). Thanks for that.

  38. Richardthughes, you really ought to do a better job of researching your claims.

    Apart from the recent threads that I’ve opened over the past few days, mostly as a result of comments being closed off in this thread, a review of my past threads this year (2015) yield the following two:

    Shoveling Guano at TSZ

    Moderation at TSZ

    And that second one is where I apologized to RB.

    First comment in that thread (honor goes to Adapa):

    Adapa: Most people who have followed UD know that you have a long sordid history of misrepresenting people’s comments and twisting them beyond recognition. That includes exchanges you have had here which you then scurry back to UD and shamelessly lie about. Why should anyone believe anything you post anywhere?

    Not Guano? Seriously?

    I would say that a survey of the facts would indicate that I take far more shit than I ought to without complaining about it.

  39. Mung,

    Richardthughes, you really ought to do a better job of researching your claims.

    What claim(s) of Richard are you disputing? Quotes, please.

  45. For this thread a wish for a good Airing of Grievances seems more in order.

    So Happy Festivus, everyone.

  46. Elizabeth: Recent Posts

    Would you consider admitting that your admins DON”T do a good job, and that posting here as a non-atheist means that you have to put up with stupid shit, including stupid shit from your own Admins!, and that by saying you agree with your admins, that you are also one of the problems? No I imagine you wouldnt.

    Instead what you prefer is a separate thread for complains about moderation, in which your pitbulls are free to say even MORE stupid shit, without their posts being moved, whilst if a non-atheist has any real valid complaints about their treatment here, you will simply move that complaint to a place where it can get lost in your other shit. Again, you can’t even understand the problem Lizzie.

    You still haven’t answered, is it Ok for me to call your posts scurrilous? First Alan said this was OK, since he was the one doing it, then when I said I will say the same thing, he then he will call it spam, if I don’t explain why it is scurrilous (apparently he doesn’t need to bother).

    The problem is you stand by admins who are hypocrites, so any rules you want to make are meaningless if they decide when to use them.

  47. Alan Fox,

    Right Alan, EVERYONE can make an argument about why they think THEIR cutting remark is a valid one! Don’t you fucking get that by now?? YOUR reason for saying my post is scurrilous must be a valid one, because you said it! This is what is meant by being a hypocrite. And what if I don’t agree that your insulting remarks were Ok, and my weren’t? What if I think well, Lizzie does in fact have referees who favor her side (you just proved it), and if I say this, you get to insult, but I don’t?

    Well, at least there are no rules here, so Go Fuck yourself Alan. Having a site where YOU decide which insults you like and which you don’t is utter bullshit Alan. And THAT’S why this is the popular topic here!

Comments are closed.