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."
walto,
I get that too, though not on every thread.
Also, when one presses ‘reply’, the resulting link only acts as a hyperlink if the replied-to comment is on the same page.
I take it that can’t be fixed?
Elizabeth said:
What if he doesn’t? What if Gregory shows no interest in calming down, in refraining from insults, in playing by the rules? What if being a troll is all that he wants to do — derailing discussions, throwing jibes and personal attacks, and never making a contribution to what others are talking about?
I know we’re supposed to act as if others are posting in good faith, but from what I can tell, Gregory has never indicated the slightest interest in doing so. Even Murray and Erik, for all the profound disagreements that I (and others) have had with them, at least try to make a good-faith effort to communicate. I don’t see that Gregory has ever done that.
My principle so far has been only to ban people for violating the minimal site-wide rules e.g. regarding outing, posting porn, malware.
I would rather leave the “game rules” as it were, for the “game” as played in the main blog posts.
However, if it turns out that moving Gregory’s posts to Guano (or possibly Noyau) is far too onerous, I may have to consider at least a temporary ban, because when he gets like this, it just floods the threads faster than any admin can conceivably keep up.
Elizabeth,
I don’t have an objection to that per se. It’s your site, so your rules. But I will point out that the rules for banning are so lax that it’s not permissible to ban anyone for trolling.
Not as the rules stand, KN, no.
I’m not a ban fan.
I just want the main discussions to be kept free of trolling.
But nor am I prepared to do other people’s self-control for them. So Gregory has been warned.
And of course no one here can resist prodding him further, that would be too simple. How can we possibly ignore this twit, this is just too amusing for us!
Was anyone actually complaining about him?
Define “complain”.
He’s a prodder, Mung, a very personal prodder. It’s hard not to prod back. I confess that he gets under my skin.
Mung,
FYI/FTR, I resisted. So that’s your theory in tatters, maniacal cackle etc.
One black swan is all it takes.
Gregory recently made an ugly comment directed at KN, which Neil has since moved to guano.
Then walto responded and put his finger on what was worrisome to me about Gregory’s comment: it smells like a threat against KN’s real-life employment.
I realize there’s nothing moderators can do if Gregory is — out in the real world — contacting or threatening to contact someone’s employers. Not that I think he actually is …
Can TSZ do anything about it in this zone?
I admit I breathe easier, myself, when I don’t end up on the receiving end of an angry man calling me names … so I admit I’m biased towards “less exposure to Gregory”.
Walto said
I’m not sure I want to second that, since I don’t want anyone to think I’m acting only in my own favor. Well, it’s not up for a “vote” anyways, but what do other folks think about this?
hotshoe, don’t you think the talk that suggested Gregory might have been drunk is similarly inappropriate?
I thought it was, actually.
I’m going to take Allan Miller as my guide here: Do Not Feed The Trolls.
hotshoe_,
There is already a rule against doxxing. Banning people for what they do off the site is far too UD-like for my taste (although, as always, “Lizzie’s site, Lizzie’s rules”).
The abusive comments are obnoxious and disruptive. Ultimately, though, they say far more about the writer than the target. I empathize with you, Lizzie, and others who have been the subjects of that unpleasant behavior. Aside from Guano, the best solution I have seen is individual kill files. I don’t know if the software under this site supports them.
Not really, I thought it was the charitable interpretation that excused his extra-concentrated meanness at that time. I figure Elizabeth assumes if Gregory were indeed drunk (or stoned), the lowered inhibitions of being drunk might be why he was suddenly saying such bad things. But that’s the point, isn’t it; if it’s a (temporary, chemical) lowering of his (relatively-acceptable) self control, then Elizabeth didn’t have to make an immediate decision about whether he could be trusted later, whenever he was back to “normal” and no longer under the influence.
I think calling someone “a drunk” as an insult might be about the same intensity to calling them “a fool”, so I probably wouldn’t take it seriously even if someone intended to insult Gregory with it; I just don’t think it’s a serious hurt. But what I saw Elizabeth say was clearly not meant as an insult at all, or even an overly-personal comment, but more the teacher-ly or doctorly “I can see you’re not at your best today. Why don’t you have a rest and a cup of tea and we’ll try again later.”
If I’m right that was what Elizabeth meant, then it was appropriate. If I’m not right, if that wasn’t what Elizabeth meant, if the intention behind commenting on possible drunkeness was to twist a knife, then no, not appropriate.
Yeah, yeah, intention isn’t worth the electrons it’s displayed with. Even so, comments have context, and in this case, in context, I hear a fair balance.
It’s not as if it’s scandalous to be perceived as drunk “on the internet”. Nor as if anyone speculated on ways to tattle on Gregory to his family or his employer or anyone who might care if he were actually drunk.
Of course, then, Gregory comes back today and with his choice of words seems to be indicating that he doesn’t want us to read him as trustworthy, even if he’s relatively restrained and sober. He sure picked a bad day to say something that sounds threatening.
I don’t think the two cases are very similar after all.
Yes, I recommend that.
Don’t feed them alcohol! erm, who’s buying the next round?
You may be right, hotshoe, but I took her remark as less of a “Man, somebody would have to be half in the bag to say shit like that!” and more along the lines of “I know he’s got a problem so, I’m giving him time to sober up.” The latter is the kind of stuff that could be used against somebody in the real world.
Ack! we agree again 🙂
As I recently said to Gregory, you must be talking about that other Mung.
Oh, and it’s not like Elizabeth herself has never posted while “slightly tipsy.”
Right, Elizabeth?
That’s probably how she recognized the symptoms.
hotshoe_,
I agree with hotshoe_’s interpretation. That was how I read it when I first saw it.
I see your concern, walto.
One of my stepparents was a drug dealer, so was my first serious boyfriend. (Dead now, can’t hurt ’em.) I don’t think I’m too blasé about what can happen when TPTB find out you’re doing something you’re not supposed to be doing.
And I’m really not willing to admit that I care less about the chance of harm if it’s Gregory who I, umm, don’t much care for.
Here’s what:
People are foolish to think that a level of pseudonymity is any protection on the internet if anyone is actually looking for your identity. “Gregory” and “hotshoe” are both equally vulnerable to being linked to meatspace lives. I do have the blessing of being a real nobody while we’re given to understand that Gregory is a somebody in some pond somewhere; it’s no real difference.
But there’s no reason to think that anyone is actually interested in piercing Gregory’s identity to cause him trouble at his work. Sure, hackers might end up messing with him just by chance and just for fun, but it won’t be because he was labeled “drunk” one night on one tiny WP blog thread.
Even if the HR department at his work has started trawling the web for bad news about their employees, they aren’t going to be in the least bit interested if they stumble across these un-explicit comments and pick up an implication that Gregory has a problem with being drunk (or with being a mean asshole, which might be the other implication of his recent spate of guano.)
Men don’t get in trouble for being drunk “on the internet”. Men don’t get in trouble for being mean to women “on the internet”. (Be mean enough, and the gamers and reddit denizens will make you into a hero and send you money!) It’s not a firing offense to get drunk, unless maybe you work for Muslims, or insult your boss whilst drunk. Getting drunk once in a while is a positive virtue for Catholics and Americans. 🙂 (Sorry, Gregory, that probably doesn’t help you any.) Having an ongoing problem with sobriety is (usually) not a firing offense — in the best case it may be cause for an intervention which could turn out to be a blessing — and in the worse, any negative consequences would be a result of the ongoing meatspace intoxication, not of one night here.
So even if Elizabeth meant exactly what you took her remark to imply (which I maintain she did not) and even if someone at Gregory’s work somehow happened to see it also, I still don’t get that it’s a problem worth worrying about.
But I’m glad you’re watching out for our welfare. Keep poking at me if you think I’m doing something harmful to someone other than myself.
Freaking aye hotshoe_
Ever played World of Warcraft? You would probably be a Horde character.
You raise a good point, walto. tbh, I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you are right, it does contravene my own rules.
I do not want to ban Gregory, but on the other hand, if someone floods the site with a bunch of rule-violating posts, I cannot expect the admins, and do not have the time myself, to keep shovelling them to Guano – so a temporary ban was one solution. A temporary ban makes sense to me if someone is apparently temporarily in a state where they can’t exercise self-moderation. Which happens.
I judged that Gregory was in such a state, and so I proposed that we do a temporary ban if the flood of guano didn’t abate.
So the rationale for a temporary ban would have been on the assumption that the flood was the result of a temporary state.
But I agree that I need not, and should not, have spelled out the nature of the temporary state I was assuming. I should simply have told Gregory that I would have to ban him for 24 hours if he posted more guano.
Or, possibly, PM’d him, but I do prefer to do things openly if possible.
So yes, point taken.
If that happens again, I will have no qualms about banning Gregory. He has already been warned about this.
I have had the experience of people attempting to contact my employers over something I said on the internet – more than once, actually. It was very scary, even though I knew I could defend myself on all occasions.
But having a defence is no guarantee that you will be exonerated.
Let’s set the record straight with walto and his accusations against me so that they should cease.
The ONLY way I could possibly have known to follow the trail was because you yourself linked to your published book on this site right after you joined. Otherwise, how could I have known? You initiated it. Please stop blaming me for your self-outing actions.
Similarly, if ‘outing’ someone is a problem, then TSZ moderator Neil Rickert is guilty and should apologise or remove the thread (with the understanding that linking to threads at TSZ is not against the Rules): http://theskepticalzone.fr/?p=5121
KN approved of it publically. And KN is guilty himself for previously posting under another name at TSZ (if you go back to 2012 and look, it even has the same avatar on his different member name).
Why then is TSZ blaming me for this? (That one devious Uncommon Descent blogger IDist bulldog is another question and Lizzie and I have privately come to agreement.)
There was absolutely NO threat made regarding KN’s employer. I haven’t contacted them and won’t do so. But sometimes things he says are contradictory to that private employer’s publically stated values, e.g. his anti-family talk. As I interpret the Rules, there’s nothing wrong with reminding him of that contradiction. It’s not like I’m asking him to ‘out’ himself again since he has chosen a pseudonym.
Actually, there is. As I said, it is extremely scary to have someone publicly “remind” you that you are in some perceived violation of your employment contract. And my concern, as I have said before, is that information is all too easy to google. I do not want anyone’s employer finding it easy to discover posts here where such allegations are made.
And they are precisely what not only the “outing” rules here but also the “address the post not the poster” rules are designed to prevent. If a poster here is expressing views that are at odds with those of their employer, that is irrelevant to their argument. Address the views they express, not the alleged views of their employer.
Now I understand that as a sociologist you are interested in the social context of people’s views and values. And conceivably they are worth discussing.
But not on this site, if it involves reference to the real life context of a member.
And you know what folks, it would be simply nice, if one of the moderators would politely ask ‘hotshoe’ to change her attitude from this: “I’m fine with being a rude, mean, insulting ass.” She said that about herself and should own up to it. No, imo that is not fine behaviour for communication, even on-line. But not a moderator at TSZ nor Lizzie has identified a problem with that attitude, which is displayed in hotshoe’s ideology and worldview.
Understood, Lizzie. So, what’s your call on the Rickert (KN outing) & walto (self-outing) history at TSZ? walto can complain & accuse all he wants, the evidence goes against him: http://theskepticalzone.fr/?p=4516&cpage=4#comment-48101
keiths also repeated that here: http://theskepticalzone.fr/?page_id=4447&cpage=12#comment-61606
I have no problem with people saying that they are rude mean insulting asses. I only have a problem with them not sticking with the game rules. Hotshoe gets posts moved to guano just as you do, Gregory.
And, as always, that does not reflect any moral judgement on my part. I can be a rude mean insulting ass too, and sometimes it’s called for.
Just not here.
I believe you’d already outed me prior to my book mention, Gregory, in one of your weird, aggressive, nasty personal attacks. You also mentioned a college I was teaching at, although you like to purposely get the name wrong.
You should look this stuff up instead of depending on keiths, who was posting for another purpose, to point out (correctly) that HE hadn’t outed me at this site. Anyhow, all the posts are here, so I can look it up. I think you’re wrong (again) though.
I will withdraw my accusation and apologize if I’m mistaken, and, as you now seem to be conceding that outing behavior is inappropriate, if the facts are not as you claim, I’ll expect you to apologize for your behavior, instead of writing posts to excuse yourself as you have above.
Ok, I looked it up. It all took place on or around April 11, 2014 in the Plantinga thread. Gregory was all fired up because while I was defending Plantinga’s analytical skills, I was criticizing his use of them. And he indicated that my criticizing Plantinga for being a Christian apologist was as bad as others here criticizing him for being stupid. He seemed maddest at KN, however, and said something like [I’m paraphrasing] “What makes you so sure we don’t know who you are? Maybe you left some identifying material around when you signed up here.”
It was clear that KN and I knew did one another’s identity and I mentioned maybe a twitter connection could happen. I also suggested to him that he ought to look at a particular book, . And Gregory (innocently?) asked “What book is that?” So I linked a reference to my book on Everett Hall. Since then I’ve heard about “Farmington” and heard speculations about what my employer does and doesn’t know on several occasions.
So the question of who outed who is a little murky. I definitely linked my book, before he started making personal attacks, and apologize for suggesting otherwise, but I think I might have been played a little. He was very interested in both KN’s and my identity.
And KN was a bit ambivalent about anonymity. In a single prior post he indicated that he was concerned about what any prospective employer might think about the time he spent here, but concluded that he didn’t care if people knew who he was.
I have a similar concerns: I like to use the internet for fun and not feel constrained about expressing my views or being silly. But I’m not retired yet.
I don’t consider it ‘personal attacks’. Well, in any case, apology accepted.
Yes. I assume everyone here knows my real identity by now, by my own choice. The main reason why I still use the “pseudonym” is that I want to avoid a situation in which someone is doing a Google search on me and finds anything that I’ve posted here. Not because I’m embarrassed by what I post here, but because the sheer amount of time I spend here might not reflect well on me in professional circles. (Unfortunately, posting on a group blog doesn’t count as “community service” for tenure and promotion.)
hotshoe_,
Sounds like a GamerGate post might provoke some interesting discussion.
Or SJWs. Or Tim Hunt.
Mung,
When I played (just to keep my kids company, honest!) the Horde players were much more cooperative and generally pleasant than the Alliance.
Richardthughes,
SJWs? I suppose attracting the Pharyngula Phlock would increase site traffic. Since there’s no advertising, though, that’s all downside for Lizzie.
Gregory, sweetheart, you do seem to have a bizarre idea of the duties and obligations of the mods/admins here. Why on Earth do you think they should do something about me when I self-identify as a “rude mean ass’? Seriously, why? Is it because no mean people are allowed to speak, ever? Elsewhere, but not here at kinder-gentler TSZ?
Is it because there’s something inherently wrong about admitting to being rude when I properly should cover up and play at being polite? Would you take my posts seriously if I couched them in fake-nice language the way some others do? Really, would you? I might consider curbing my style if I thought your response would be other than knee-jerk rejection either way. When all I’m going to get is knee-jerk anyways, I might as well enjoy being sarky in the process.
Why is my attitude supposed to be a problem for the mods when my actual words in my actual comments are what they have to deal with according to the rules? There is no rule at TSZ against attitude. There isn’t even a rule against being wrong. So if I’ve got an attitude, and my attitude steers me wrong, it’s still none of the mods business as long as the actual content of my comments doesn’t go out of bounds.
Ya know, if we all look back at your posting history after I first made that “rude mean ass” comment, we see that you’ve held it against me ever since. Why, Gregory? What deep down basic principle have I offended so badly?
I’ve been meaning to ask you that for weeks, but it never seemed like the right time. Well, now I’m asking.
For what it’s worth, I think Gregory’s comments directed towards me are not so egregious. I am perfectly willing to let them persist in what ever thread they are posted.
Sal,
While investigating petrushka’s vanishing comment problem, I found this taunting comment of yours in Trash:
Did you delete this comment from your thread?
Also, do you know what happened to petrushka’s comments?
Everyone has the option within the time window to delete or edit their own comments, though such deleted comments move to trash from where they can be reinstated as appropriate. Authors have the technical ability to edit and delete posts they have published and also edit and delete any comments in that thread. I would be amazed if Sal is not already aware that this technical ability must not be used – it is strictly against the rules.
I have PM’d Sal about this and temporally changed his status from author to subscriber pending clarification. In the mean time, I may have found a solution to the problem in general.
Just trying a change to the permalink structure. Please let me know in this thread if this causes 404 errors.
Just for the record, I am not certain that comments disappeared. When I looked again, two of three comments were present. I don’t know what happened to the third.
I probably did it, petrushka. I’m THAT diabolical.
Who instituted the special rule that posts could be moved to Noyau rather than Guano, and why was that rule not published?
Why do posts that “belong in Noyau” not belong in Guano?
I’d like to report an odd incident from yesterday morning. It appears that my IP address was blocked.
1. When I tried to visit TSZ using my tablet, I kept getting timeout messages. It seemed odd, because I was able to access other sites.
2. I tried accessing TSZ through my computer, and it also timed out.
3. I tried accessing TSZ using my phone (over 4G/LTE) and it worked.
4. I tried again on my tablet and computer and they both continued to time out.
5. I started to get quite suspicious at that point, since these are the exact symptoms you would expect if my IP address had been blocked. The phone, which was communicating with the cell tower, was using a different IP address from my computer and tablet, which were talking through my router.
6. I tried a bunch of times using my computer, and it continued to time out. Yet every time I used the phone instead, it worked.
7. I used whatismyip.com to get my IP address, which ended in .230 . I confirmed that I was still unable to reach TSZ.
8. I rebooted my router and verified that the IP address was the same, as expected. I still wasn’t able to access TSZ.
9. I powered down my modem. When I powered it back up, I had a new IP address (as expected) ending in .123 . (I still have that address.)
10. When I tried to access TSZ through my computer, it worked. Ditto for my tablet.
In summary, the symptoms were a perfect match for an IP block, and WordPress provides that capability — Barry uses it at UD, for example.
I find it very suspicious that my IP address appears to have been blocked the morning after Neil falsely accused me of harassing him.
I would therefore like to ask him directly:
Neil, did you block my IP address?
I cannot prove that you did, but the circumstances appear quite suspicious, to say the least.
keiths,
If you don’t have a fixed IP but are assigned an address dynamically, blocking your IP address is not going to be very effective.
I find your suspicions a little paranoid and the allegation against Neil laughable, but if you want PM me wtih the affected IP address and I’ll look into it. You might consider the Akismet spam filter blocks IPs automatically/
IP addresses are pretty stable these days. I tried to get my provider to change my address once and was told they weren’t allowed to do that. I’ve also noticed that banks use a mostly stable IP address as a layer of identification. If you travel, you get the challenge questions.