As the original Moderation page has developed a bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, I thought I’d put up a 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.
26th June 2015: the bug has now affected this page so there is now a new Moderation Issues page here.
Joe, I’m sorry if my involvement has contributed to making TSZ less interesting for you. FWIW, I have mostly the same sort of reaction to technical threads on evolutionary theory. I mostly just skim them, because they’re beyond me. I did, however, start a thread on epigenetics recently: it didn’t generate a ton of interest I don’t think, although it was helpful to me.
I didn’t realize that the real purpose of the cite is to discuss evolution. When I joined I noted there were threads on politics, art, culture, etc. as well as a large bunch on philosophy.
walto,
You’d have to ask Elizabeth what the “real purpose” of the site is. All I know is that its content has drifted from mostly analyzing arguments against evolutionary biology to mostly advanced-level discussions of philosophy.
These things happen in scientific journals too. The highly-visible Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has lots of papers on molecular biology but very few on mathematics. It’s supposed to cover both, but fewer mathematicians submitted papers, so fewer were published, and that led to fewer mathematicians reading the journal, which led to even fewer submitting papers, and so on in a death spiral leading to the near-extinction of mathematics in that journal.
I find Larry Moran’s site a great place to understand how ID supporters get the latest science wrong. What I appreciate is that Larry often provides an explanation of some new scientific paper and how ID supporters have misunderstood or misrepresented the ideas. I enjoy your contributions there, Joe. The discussion is usually fresh and informing.
However, in the last 18 months or so that I have spent reading TSZ, I found the evolutionary material much less interesting most of the time. It tended to go round in circles on the same topics: second law of thermodynamics, whether one could naturalize mental content in an evolutionary framework, why evolution today is not just Darwin’s understanding of natural selection, Dembski’s stuff. And I thought the discussants supporting ID rarely tried to engage seriously with the scientific and philosophical arguments which countered their position.
Now I know many think that philosophy in subject to going around in similar circles. But at least there are more of them and they have bigger radii. Further, when it is philosophy full informed by the latest science, I think that circularity can be avoided (I’m thinking of metaphysics and QM, philosophy of mind and neuroscience/psychology, and naturalized ethics).
I haven’t seen any new arguments from the ID movement. In fact, I have seen any really new ID arguments since Paley.
The current mode of argument is to take any new discovery, note how it contradicts some dogma from 50 years ago, declare that science is wrong, therefore Jesus.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Unfortunately I don’t see much new in philosophy either. Lots of new terminology, but nothing that I could call progress. I don’t see anything in philosophy equivalent to the wide agreement among scientists of all nationalities and political ideologies. I don’t see any philosophical equivalent to the international space station or CERN.
When I took intro philosophy 45 years ago, the prof started the class by saying everyone is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. It was intended to be amusing, but it seems approximately as true today as it did then. Which is more true than not.
Joe,
Lizzie never meant to restrict or even focus this site on evolution-related topics:
If you’d like to see more discussion of evolution and ID, I would encourage you to write some OPs on those topics. They don’t have to be elaborate (though they can be, if you’re willing!). You can simply pose a question (e.g. Mathematics and logic), quote a paper, or link to a video or blog post (e.g. An astonishingly lame argument from Alvin Plantinga), and that will often be enough to stimulate a vigorous discussion.
What are the big new agreements or discoveries in Anthropology, Russian Lit, and Sociology? What’s the international space station equivalent in Music Theory?
keiths:
walto:
It isn’t “hairsplitting”. It’s “stating the obvious”.
Did Lizzie want civil comments to be Guanoed for ‘addressing the poster’? The answer is obviously, unequivocally “no”.
petrushka,
There is progress in philosophy, as flaws are identified in old arguments and new and better arguments and concepts are developed. Philosophy of mind is a good example.
You have to read some philosophy in order to see that, however. If you ignore philosophy because you think it never progresses, then you’ll fail to notice the progress it does make.
Exactly. The humanities entertain, but do not “progress.” I happen to enjoy music — mostly old — but have never been entertained by music theory. I’ve seen seminars by theoreticians like Milton Babbit, and attended workshops by composers like John Rutter, but the theory is over my head or outside my range of interests.
I’ve never been interested in the social sciences as sciences. I don’t see much science. They sometimes entertain. I’s say Russian lit, like most lit, is better read than talked about.
Keith, I think you are extremely pretty. I used to not like your voice very much, but Alan told me that was as much my fault as yours bcause it’s not like you can help it. So I’m sorry for that.
Best wishes always,
Walto
walto,
You’re confusing the question “Is this comment civil?” with the question “What should be done with civil comments?”
Whether a comment is civil can be a judgment call, but whether Lizzie intended for civil comments to be Guanoed is not, as I’ve already explained.
You agree that my comments were civil. That means that they shouldn’t have been Guanoed.
Alan made a mistake.
Alan,
No. As I pointed out to walto:
If someone complimented you for being “generally insightful”, would you warn them against “addressing the poster” and fling their comment into Guano? Obviously not. The rule was never intended to apply to civil comments.
Your real reason for guano’ing my comments is revealed by your immediate response after moving them:
I saw your warning, but your warnings do not absolve you of the responsibility to honor Lizzie’s rules when making your moderation decisions. Non-rule-violating comments, such as the two in question, do not belong in Guano.
This episode is another good example of why less moderation is better. Moderation, particularly when ham-handed, tends to exacerbate problems rather than resolving them.
Walto’s rages subside, often quite quickly. Guanoing or (as in Neil’s egregious case) censoring are simply not needed in these cases.
For a while, Alan’s policy was to guano comments only if the “target” requested it. I hope we can get back to that more sensible policy.
Had it been applied in this case, my comments wouldn’t have been guanoed, and this whole discussion wouldn’t have ensued.
As is everything else! And I, for one, take that as more than a coincidence.
Plus, you’re so pretty!
XOXXOXXO
W
Fine, then. No need for me to repeat it.
keiths:
Alan:
That’s right. You can focus instead on the rest of my sentence:
Alan,
What ever happened to this?
It was working well. Why have you abandoned it?
Just an observation from someone not involved in the dispute over moderation.
Grow up, people. There is no way to be a perfect moderator, particularly when people skirt the edges of acceptability.
Complaining about moderation at a site that doesn’t ban people or edit posts or delete posts because they disagree with the management, is just infantile.
petrushka,
I’m not asking for perfection, petrushka, just a light touch and an honest attempt at consistency.
That’s silly. Those sharp limits on moderators’ powers are a big part of what makes TSZ such a great place. That makes it more important, not less, to call out abuses of power when they happen.
Take this latest instance. What did Alan achieve by arbitrarily singling out my comment and moving it to Guano? It satisfied his desire to indulge a personal grudge, but it didn’t make TSZ a better place. It made it worse, by causing yet another discussion of ham-handed moderation.
What’s the point of moving a comment to Guano if doing so will just make TSZ worse?
I agree with the petrushka who wrote this:
Worse for whom? This didn’t start with me making whimsical moderating decisions. It started with you and your tenacity in wishing to be the last man standing in discussions. I see several other members walking away. TSZ is intended to be a place where people of differing views can communicate without rancour. I think this is an admirable objective.
Worse for whom?
Absolutely! In an ideal world there should be no need for moderation.
Keith, I tried emailing you previously at the address you registered with but got no response. That you think I bear you some sort of grudge is something I’d like to discuss with you but I’ve come round to Wesley Elsberry’s thinking that it is better done privately.
You can contact me at the address indicated on the dashboard.
keiths:
Alan:
Worse for everyone, including you. You’re on the hot seat again for another bad moderation decision.
Had you left my comment alone, Gregory would have vamoosed (as he did anyway, and as he always does when someone challenges him to provide an actual argument), and the thread would have proceeded normally. Instead, you created another moderation brouhaha by arbitrarily picking my comment for Guanoing, in keeping with your recent grudge-fueled pattern.
It certainly turned out that way.
So you, Alan Fox, decided that The Skeptical Zone should heretofore become more of a Skeptical Up to a Certain Point Zone, that you, not the participants, would decide when exchanges should end and when the participants were being too “tenacious”, and that you, Alan Fox, would create a new rule to allow yourself to begin whimsically moderating people whom you deemed to be too tenacious, and all of this instead of simply following Lizzie’s rules, as you agreed to do when you volunteered to be a moderator? Please.
You are not here to invent your own rules or to take out your frustrations via your moderator role. Again, what happened to the following?
It was working well. You should have stuck with it.
In the actual world there is very little need for moderation, as that experiment showed. Guanoing comments, especially in such a partial and inconsistent way, makes things worse, not better.
I disagree. Your moderation affects all of us here, and the events in question occurred publicly, so our discussion should also be public. If you really want me to provide links and quotes that show why I think you are holding a grudge, I will do so. However, I’m guessing that you’d rather I didn’t remind everyone of those events.
What I’d really like is for you to remind yourself that this is LIzzie’s blog, not yours, that you volunteered to uphold Lizzie’s rules instead of inventing your own, that your moderator position is not a vehicle for expressing your grudges, and that the best moderation is impartial and very light, as your experiment showed.
Fair enough.
Moderators,
Could one of you check to see why this comment is being held in moderation in the “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” thread? Thanks.
Test
Yes, that went into moderation.
I think I have fixed the problem.
It obviously went into moderation because it is too abstruse.
Raising a moderation issue for Robert Byers, who is unhappy at my “untrue accusations” and “hostile abuse.” If he is correct then my posts should be moved to Guano.
(Keiths and Walto thread)
On Feynman’s sexism:
http://goo.gl/P6frqX
Jews, liberals,
and women in the one comment.
http://goo.gl/nOAQtR
I think that is sufficient for now. Moaning Byers will be directed here.
This is the kind of thing that offended the delicate sensibilities at UD.
A quick note on the state of the site.
There appears to be a comment in moderation (awaiting approval). It has been that way all day.
I am unable to approve it. Something is broken. When I try to get to the comments page or the dashboard, I get either a blank page or an out-of-memory message.
Hi Neil
Lizzie seems to have glitch in hand. Ignore my comment on your personal blog as events have moved on.
Thanks. Yes, things seem to be working again. (I’ll trash your comment on my blog, since it is off-topic).
The problem was with a plug-in apparently. Right now, all plug-ins are disabled. I guess we could try adding them carefully one by one.
This was included in the message from TSOhost:
“My advise is to use wp Super cache instead of w3 total cache”
Not sure what that means yet!
Hope to see a bit more of you all in the New Year 🙂
I notice the stripped-down site is much faster. I do miss the comment preview and quote plug ins thought.
@ Neil;
No problem. I didn’t have your email to hand other than via TSZ which I couldn’t access!
I hope so and I’m sure everyone else looks forward to hearing from you, as time permits.
Edit comment reinstalled. Feedback appreciated.
Hi Allan, I don’t see any edit option when I post a comment.
All plugins have been deleted. I reinstalled a few and reactivated the edit plugin. Someone else has deactivated it so I presume someone else is working through which plugin was causing problems.
The media file seems intact, so if the avatar plugin were reinstalled, normal service can be resumed. You can use “Gravatar” in the meantime.
As I don’t want to confuse the issues, I’ll leave off reintroducing plugins until it is clearer if Lizzie or someone else has a strategy for re-adding people’s favourites.
If anyone wants to recommend a plugin they know is reliable and useful, please add a comment.
I vote for “edit comment button”, “comment preview” and “quote comment”. I suspect putting the Akismet spam filter back in place might be a good idea too.
Just noticed comment links not working from latest comment list on index page. Any suggestions gratefully received!
ETA
Problem seems to be with older posts only. It works with recent posts and apparently with posts as pages. I guess that’s not much of an issue.
I thought I had replied. But it looks as if I closed the browser tab before submitting my reply.
I look at your recent “Circularity” comment. The timestamp is a link. That link contains “p=5190&cpage=3#comment-58323”. And that link works in my browser.
The link on the front page, and the link in my RSS reader both say “cpage=2” instead of “cpage=3”. And that doesn’t work.
If the software were running on my computer, I would probably reboot. That papers over many such small bugs. There’s probably a page counter datum somewhere that wasn’t properly updated.
In my browser (Chrome) the most recent 3 comments on the Recent Comments list on the TSZ front page take one only to the thread, but not to those comments. And those comments are not on the thread. These are the comments by Byers, socle, and Alan Miller.
A comments black hole, maybe?
For me they are there, I just have to click on “newer comments.” They’re on the top of the next page of the thread.
Glen Davidson
This is an old bug, revisited. It seems to be a side effect of one of the plug-ins.
Glen and petrushka:
OK, I see that I too can find the missing comments by clicking on “Newer comments”.
The bug is that a clock on them in the New Comments list on the home page takes me to the wrong comment. There is a “Newer comments” link there but I should not be there in the first place.
Oops, I meant to type “a click on them” …
Just noticed we had about 10,000 spam posts in the pending file, so I’ve cleared them out and reinstated Akismet.
We also have around 60,000 spam registrations. They don’t cause an immediate problem but they must fill up memory so I’m tempted to clear them out too. I can filter by number of days since last log-in. If I run a bulk delete with say 365 days as a filter, the downside is that registered subscribers (not admins, contributors, authors etc) who have not logged in for over a year will have to re-register if they want to comment.
Do we need something like a captcha for logging in?
Thoughts, anyone?
I did not see any “pending” entries when I last checked (yesterday some time). Somebody must have dumped a lot of spam over a short period.
I’ve wondered about deleting old non-current members. But I hesitate. For that will also remove any thread authored by that old member. I’m not sure what it will do to comments by that member.
Maybe 2 years ago, something broke and we all had to sign up again. Some old threads might now be listed as authored by one of those spammer registrants.
If there’s a way of removing the members without removing any associated old threads or comments, that might be safer. I did not see an obvious way of doing that.
There’s no problem with threads or posts, as I’m only looking at subscribers. I look at the subscribers list for any names I recognize and otherwise plausible or non-spam names and promote them to contributor category. After double-checking for any subscriber that looks at all plausible, I think it is safe to delete the remainder.
We got 5-600 more spam registrations so I’m trying “stop spammers plugin. Let me know if there are any problems.
“Stop Spammers” appears to do what it claims. Zero spam registrations since it was activated. If anyone is trying to register and is having difficulty please let me know.
alanfoxATfreeDOTfr
Have cleared out about half the spam registrations but please let me know if this has caused any issues.
Cheers