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. newton: Andy Taylor: Well, I caught him earlier on a 10-17.
    Barney Fife: Hat in a horse trough?
    Andy Taylor: Yeah.

    Hahaha. Excellent.

  2. walto: He did throw in a whole bunch of provisos I’d never heard of before.

    Yes. But Mung gave his own subjective interpretation of those, and used it as criticism. At least he should have provided a link back so that people could see this.

    All of those exceptions make sense to me: it’s stuff like that that shows the problem with Lizzie’s “statutory” approach to rules.

    But isn’t that because you are taking them as rules rather than as guidelines?

  4. I approved several posts by Frankie, but I put some of them in Guano during approval. One went to guano because it was a reply to something already in guano.

  5. Neil Rickert: At least he should have provided a link back so that people could see this.

    I was twisting what he said and putting words in his mouth. Why on earth would I want to provide a link back to it so that people could see this?

  6. Mung:
    I love it when Frankie shows up. By comparison, what a joy it must be to deal with me.

    You all make the desired point about ID and its proponetists.

  7. phoodoo: -Richard declares his role is to tweak the noses of others posters with vacuous crap designed to derail threads. Patrick says Richard is a great poster.

    You’ve said this before and I’ve asked for support. You didn’t give it then, so I’m asking again. Your posts have a history of not being truthful, so I’d like to clear this up. Thanks.

  8. Alan Fox: Patrick, you might note I drew Rumraket’s attention to the rules and made the judgement that as he was a relatively new poster that would suffice. As I remarked upthread, I used a little discretion, especially considering the amount of substantive material in Rumraket’s comment.

    Rumraket was “warned” here:

    Beating a dead horse (Darwin’s Doubt)

    Now read Rumraket’s comments going forward from that point.

    That is straight up delusional.

    You people live in opposite-land. Where up is down and where evidence for evolution is evidence against evolution. What the actual fuck.

    What the FUCK is going on inside your head right now?

    It’s starting to look like you’ve borrowed Mung’s Demon.

    But the posts were full of substance and not abuse, so he gets a pass. It’s the substance abuse exemption.

    p.s. I’m not asking anyone to do anything about Rumraket’s posts. We’re all grownups here. We don’t need the new nanny-state.

  9. Alan Fox: Patrick, you might note I drew Rumraket’s attention to the rules and made the judgement that as he was a relatively new poster that would suffice.

    Relative to what, Alan? When was Rumrake a relatively new poster, 2013?

    Rumraket: Truly idiotic.

    I could not have said it better myself.

  10. Posts put in Guano should be accompanied by an explanation- the following was not an insult and it was a direct response to a post:

    You don’t have any idea what is required. Ohno’s paper has never been actually demonstrated to be anything but flights of fancy. Developmental biology has not helped and deformed fruit flies is still all it can provide.

    All true

  11. Alan Fox,

    Patrick, you might note I drew Rumraket’s attention to the rules and made the judgement that as he was a relatively new poster that would suffice. As I remarked upthread, I used a little discretion, especially considering the amount of substantive material in Rumraket’s comment.

    Thanks for pointing that out. One of the problems with the recent rash of complaints is lack of context.

  12. Mung,

    Yes, well, I also believe in forgiveness and redemption. So while that may be your last word on the subject I will continue as if it isn’t.

    I approach it from the other direction. I’m working on letting go of my attachments to my expectations. It might smell like forgiveness and redemption, but it’s focused on the person I can actually affect.

  13. Mung,

    We’re all grownups here. We don’t need the new nanny-state.

    Could you please stop making comments I agree with? I’m getting whiplash. 😉

  15. Patrick: For someone who claims to want to talk about science, you inject your superstitions into discussions far more than you do evidence and reason.

    It was just a short little off the cuff comment agreeing with cubist.

    Your response tells me a lot about the things that bug you though and perhaps explains some of the moderation decisions you make.

    Patrick: My prediction is that you are going to again try to shift the burden of proof by asking questions rather than supporting your claim.

    what claim?

    The claim that rules can’t change inclinations is conclusively demonstrated here every day. 😉

    What more evidence could you possibly need?

    peace

  16. Neil Rickert: But isn’t that because you are taking them as rules rather than as guidelines?

    What? When did the rules become something other than rules? Who told you they were “guidelines”?

  17. Richardthughes: Hey Mung and Phoodoo, when are you going to be brave and fix UD’s moderation?

    You’re in the wrong “Moderation Issues” thread Richardthughes. This thread is for talking about moderation issues at TSZ. Are you trying to get this thread closed to comments by talking about the goings on at UD?

  18. fifthmonarchyman: The claim that rules can’t change inclinations is conclusively demonstrated here every day

    I’m not sure, but I think Neil just told me that the idea that they are rules was wrong all along, which means, I guess that the real question you should be asking is whether GUIDELINES (whatever they are, exactly) can change inclinations.

  19. Richardthughes,

    How can we fix the problem that some of you just can’t seem to follow rules? Maybe you thought the rules at UD were only guidelines?

    Its amazing how many scofflaws exist on this site. Its like a voluntary Australia.

  20. walto: I think Neil just told me that the idea that they are rules was wrong all along…

    Do you think he was asking a rhetorical question?

    But isn’t that because you are taking them as rules rather than as guidelines?

    He never said the rest of us should take them as guidelines and not rules, just you. He’s a slippery one that Neil.

    Presumably, starting an OP on the guidelines will not be against the rules. I am so confused.

  21. phoodoo:
    Richardthughes,

    How can we fix the problem that some of you just can’t seem to follow rules?Maybe you thought the rules at UD were only guidelines?

    Its amazing how many scofflaws exist on this site.Its like a voluntary Australia.

    As far as I can tell, rationalists see violations as falling along behavioral lines, and theists see violations as falling along religious lines. This is distinct from the actual violations.

    I think this is human nature. If YOU get gigged, it’s because you did something against the rules. If *I* get gigged, it’s because the moderation is biased against my viewpoint. After all, I did nothing that those who disagree with me get away with all the time. At the site dedicated to proselytizing my views, moderation seems entirely even-handed, and only genuine behavioral violations are punished. And it’s only reasonable that those who agree with ME are invariably well behaved.

  22. I readily agree that under the current guidelines most of the posts in Guano belong in Guano. It’s the post that belong in Guano that are not in Guano that is the problem.

    But that’s only one of the issues currently under discussion, and frankly as far as I am concerned, among the least important.

    My greatest concern is that I posted an OP suggesting a rule regarding the posting of private email correspondence on the site and Elizabeth closed the comments without explanation.

    When I complained, my complaints were ignored and those threads were closed. I was told to raise the issue here.

    So I raised it here and it was still ignored.

    There is no rule justifying the closure of my thread.

  23. Admins, please Guano this post:

    Flint: MY heroes NEVER lie! Just because what they say is demonstrably false, and just because they couldn’t help but know this, is irrelevant. CALLING them on it violates the rules!

    See this thread if you need need guidance from Elizabeth who, though absent in body, is no doubt here with us in spirit.

    Thank you

    ETA: It’s simply an attempt to derail the thread. It’s gratuitous. It has no bearing on the topic under discussion in that thread, and on and on.

  24. Patrick: Thanks for pointing that out.

    He forgot to point out that Rumraket’s been posting here for at least two years.

    Relatively new he is 🙂

  25. Frankie: the following was not an insult and it was a direct response to a post:

    The first sentence is the problem. It comments on the poster rather than on the post. You should have omitted that sentence.

  26. walto: What? When did the rules become something other than rules? Who told you they were “guidelines”?

    It has been clear to me, that Elizabeth is taking them to be guidelines. I think she directly said that in the last couple of days.

  27. Mung: There is no rule justifying the closure of my thread.

    Other than it fits better in the meta-commentary of what is and isn’t permissible…

  28. Meta-threads have never before been against the rules or against the guidelines. That’s an entirely recent construct ginned up to help stifle dissent.

    Still asking Neil to justify closing my threads given that we’re only talking guidelines here and not rules. My threads violated no rules. That’s basically what Neil is admitting to.

  29. We should probably have a rule on new post spamming. Don’t take your behavioral cues from Barry and start a new thread when it should fit inside of an existing discussion.

  30. Mung:
    Admins, please Guano this post:

    See this thread if you need need guidance from Elizabeth who, though absent in body, is no doubt here with us in spirit.

    Thank you

    but you are evading the point of the post you quote. Let’s say, just for discussion, that someone tells a real porker according to every rational metric we have. Is it genuinely against the forum rules or guidelines to notice this?

    As far as I can tell, this depends entirely on who lied and who is pointing this out. And this raises an interesting question – SHOULD the determination be made according to whether a lie should be labeled as such, or should it be made according to the religion of the liar?

  31. I moved several comments to guano, from “Beating a dead horse”. The main problem with them was that they were unnecessary distractions from the topic discussion. They should have been posted in this thread instead of where they were posted.

  32. Richardthughes: We should probably have a rule on new post spamming.

    I don’t think we need a rule for that. The two newest threads I started were reactionary. The real issue as far as I am concerned was the closing of the thread “The War Against Barry A.”

    You’re free to consult the admins about whether or not I have attempted to start any new threads since those two.

  33. I’m not talking about a rule just for Mung, but one for us all. I think ‘centralized, streamlined and sensible’ is what we’re hoping for. We don’t need another Leviticus.

  34. Admins, this post of mine was moved to Guano from the “Moderation Issues” thread.

    This time I am going to request that it be returned to the “Moderation Issues” thread. It does not violate any rule or guideline.

    It does not reflect well on the admins of this site that we currently have admins:

    1.) telling outright falsehoods about moderation actions
    2.) expressly taking actions directly contrary to what Elizabeth has has explicitly stated are her wishes

  35. Neil Rickert: The first sentence is the problem. It comments on the poster rather than on the post. You should have omitted that sentence.

    Please see this post.

    It consists of only the once sentence. It comments on the poster rather than on the post. It has no substantial content to otherwise justify it’s existence (the substance abuse exception).

  39. Neil Rickert: It is from several days ago, and has rolled off the main discussion area. It is not worth the trouble of moving it now.

    That’s ok. My point really is to question the wisdom of requiring admins to justify why they moved a post to Guano. My thesis is that for every post you can justify moving to Guano a post that violates the same rules/suggestions/guidelines can be produced which was not moved to Guano, using an US v THEM categorization.

    🙂

  40. Mung: My greatest concern is that I posted an OP suggesting a rule regarding the posting of private email correspondence on the site and Elizabeth closed the comments without explanation.

    When I complained, my complaints were ignored and those threads were closed. I was told to raise the issue here.

    So I raised it here and it was still ignored.

    Only if you weren`t paying attention. You seem much more interested in endless meta-discussion.

  41. As my gift to you all I will be taking a short leave of absence from the Moderation Issues thread. Merry Christmas.

  42. fifthmonarchyman,

    For someone who claims to want to talk about science, you inject your superstitions into discussions far more than you do evidence and reason.

    It was just a short little off the cuff comment agreeing with cubist.

    It is a pattern of yours.

    Your response tells me a lot about the things that bug you though and perhaps explains some of the moderation decisions you make.

    What bugs me is hypocrisy.

    My prediction is that you are going to again try to shift the burden of proof by asking questions rather than supporting your claim.

    what claim?

    Don’t be deliberately obtuse. In this thread it is not against the rules to point out that doing so is dishonest.

    You are claiming that a god or gods exist. Until you support that claim, any assertions about such an entity are vacuous.

  43. Mung,

    Admins, please Guano this post:

    Flint: MY heroes NEVER lie! Just because what they say is demonstrably false, and just because they couldn’t help but know this, is irrelevant. CALLING them on it violates the rules!

    See this thread if you need need guidance from Elizabeth who, though absent in body, is no doubt here with us in spirit.

    Thank you

    ETA: It’s simply an attempt to derail the thread. It’s gratuitous. It has no bearing on the topic under discussion in that thread, and on and on.

    I don’t believe that comment violates any site rule.

  44. Mung,

    Meta-threads have never before been against the rules or against the guidelines. That’s an entirely recent construct ginned up to help stifle dissent.

    No, it’s a new guideline intended to keep discussion of moderation issues in one place rather than polluting the site with multiple posts on the same topic.

    Neither you nor phoodoo are prevented from voicing your dissent. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest (and yes, it’s okay to point that out directly in this thread).

  45. For Patrick

    If you insist on restricting specific subjects to specific threads, turn this site into a forum. The idea that the site is a free for all unless the OP raises “moderation issues” is ludicrous.

    And don’t think that I did not notice that you were the censor admin who lobbied Elizabeth to close down my thread. You’re a hypocrite, Patrick.

  46. Patrick: With the latest “The War Against Barry A.”, TSZ is looking more and more like UD with posts focused on named individuals instead of ideas. As I noted earlier, I think that’s a bad direction and not aligned with the goals of the site.

    Your house, your rules, of course, but I do hope you’ll consider my suggestions.

    What were your suggestions Patrick? Elizabeth stated that the title of my OP did not violate any site rules.

    Any fair reading of the posts in that thread would result in the conclusion that the thread was not about Barry A.

    Upon reading the posts in that thread the conclusion that they are about any named individual is laughable.

    You advocate censorship, Patrick. You’re a hypocrite.

  47. Mung,

    : With the latest “The War Against Barry A.”, TSZ is looking more and more like UD with posts focused on named individuals instead of ideas. As I noted earlier, I think that’s a bad direction and not aligned with the goals of the site.

    Your house, your rules, of course, but I do hope you’ll consider my suggestions.

    What were your suggestions Patrick? Elizabeth stated that the title of my OP did not violate any site rules.

    Any fair reading of the posts in that thread would result in the conclusion that the thread was not about Barry A.

    Upon reading the posts in that thread the conclusion that they are about any named individual is laughable.

    That would explain why you mentioned Barry by name in the title.

    You advocate censorship, Patrick. You’re a hypocrite.

    Nope. What would be hypocritical is to have posts that violate the rules and goals of the site encouraged.

    I’m a free speech absolutist, but I’ve agreed to work within Lizzie’s rules here. In my view, your post violated the rule about not turning TSZ into a peanut gallery for other sites. I also think it crossed the line from discussing ideas to discussing people. If Elizabeth disagreed, that’s fine. Her site, her rules.

    Under no circumstances would I support deleting comments or posts.

  50. phoodoo,

    Under no circumstances would I support deleting comments or posts.

    More lies from Patrick.

    I don’t lie. Support your accusation or retract it.

Comments are closed.