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.
Some ideas for dealing with an inappropriate OP:
Why not close the comments until the author fixes the post? Presumably you can also remove the post from the main page. Then the author doesn’t get censored, and doesn’t get a free bite.
Tom English,
Seems a bit Draconian to me, Tom. Lizzie has already voted with her
feetfingers anyway. I’m sure we can give Mung a little time to do the right thing.I can’t edit one of my recent comments that should be editable.
Dunno if it’s something I did myself, something wrong with my old old computer (but everything else seems to display correctly, just not the edit button) or if something just changed on this site between one moment and the next …
IF anyone has any suggestions – if it looks like something I need to fix on my end – I’m all ears.
And darn it, the edit button just spontaneously re-appeared for this comment. Way to make me look stupid. Or something.
Ah, well, guess that all’s well that ends well.
Nope, still not right. My comment in the other thread is still not editable, and it should not have timed out yet. Only been a few minutes. That thread wasn’t broken before — I had commented in it (and edited those comments like always) earlier today.
Over ar UD, KF has another FYI / FTR copypasta filled post, with comments closed.
I don’t think anyone arbitrarily ending a conversation is a good thing (certainly stop yourself at any time, but not the broader dialogue).
I’d like to therefore request we *never* do it and open up any closed threads. Here is an example:
Sorry about the *very late* objection. Happy to reconsider if a good reason is given, but I think this is at odds with our ethos.
I closed comments on a couple of threads myself after opening replacements as they became unwieldy (moderation issues and sandbox (cont’d)). If you want to discuss Kairosfocus’ latest sermon, Rich, you can author a new OP, linking back to a previous OP and comments as needed.
I do suggest (and wonder whether anyone else agrees) that the blog format is a bit frustrating regarding in-depth discussion. OPs scroll off the front page and comments get buried. It’s not easy to search through old threads and comments and there’s a lot of good stuff that gets forgotten. Lizzie tried out adding a forum to the site but that died with the first crash and subsequent move to a more reputable web host. I wonder if it’s worth considering reactivating a forum like “Symposium”
Alan Fox,
I think having one big thread is better than multiple small ones but that’s just me.
I’d be fine if anyone could reboot a conversation, but sadly it is just us ennobled few.
I can’t see an easy way to check which threads are closed to new comments but the majority seem still open. (They don’t close by default after a fixed time.) But it’s hard to keep track of comments on old threads in a blog format. I really think it’s worth trying a forum format like Symposium.
Mods, please. This place needs an ignore function, so Mung would know his appropriate place, which is in virtual limbo, hearing only his own echo. He is just attention-whoring and disrupting any sensible discussion.
UD and TSZ have a lot in common, but let’s keep the similarity in sensible limits.
yes, the truth hurts. nice to see Erik go screaming for the mods. A sure sign that he’s lost the argument.
Let’s explore a rational alternative.
Don’t say anything. Then Mung won’t be able to show how what you said is nonsense.
This site doesn’t need an ignore function. No site needs an ignore function. The first rule of an ignore function consists of a do not ignore function. Do not ignore anyone who disagrees with me.
Oh, well, in that case, I am all for an ignore function!
If anyone has experience of a suitable “Ignore” plugin, we could try it. What is the consensus regarding such a feature? Anyone can answer!
The solution is really rather simple, Alan.
Allow the creator of an OP to decide.
No new plugin required.
Mung,
I’ll register that as a “No”, then. Anyone else?
Hmm don’t know what happened, I tried to link to a couple of small graphs but the comment is now flagged as spam? How do I link to Photobucket pictures?
fG
I cleared the spam flag for that post. Too many links causes a post to be flagged as spam.
And I moved that post of yours to Moderation Issues.
As if.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Yeah, because I say things that are honest and true, which is punished here.
Creodont2,
Creodont2
Are you able to read your personal messages (see the “Messages” page)? Do you check emails for the address you registered with?
Is it a violation of site policy to point out that quote mining is lying?
I found two messages by Creodont2 in moderation.
I have approved one, and trashed the other. I invite other moderators to check trash and feel free to change what I did.
As long as you don’t say (or even imply) that the liar is the person who posted the quote-mine, you should be okay, as best I understand it. Pointing out that the person who posted the quote-mine is wrong should be fine; pointing out that the person who posted the quote-mine has fallen for somebody else’s lie, also fine; calling the person who posted the quote-mine dishonest, not fine.
Neil Rickert,
Lizzie decided that Creodont2 should be restricted from commenting until s/he agrees to abide by the rules, especially on “outing”. I see no harm in storing the comments that have slipped through in guano until Lizzie is reassured that Creodont2 will try to adhere to site rules in future.
cubist,
Sounds OK to me. We should not assume that people are being deliberately dishonest.
Neil,
I see you left the name of an individual who prefers not to have his real name used in the comment. I’m tempted to redact that. Thoughts?
Patrick,
Good point. I’ll redact.
I have to say, I think internet discussions might be more civilized if people were less concerned about being anonymous. I routinely ignore “anonymous” phone calls these days. I accept there are reasons why some people prefer to remain anonymous but I’ve not noticed any adverse result from posting under my real name.
Alan Fox,
I find myself editing out all the really good insults.
There’s such a thing as culpable negligence. I think quote mining should be forbidden unless there is a link to the original full source. Heresay, second party quoting should be discourage. Particularly if the quote is presented as evidence of an expert’s opinion.
I agree it is most frustrating when people quote and neglect to include the source. As I’ve occasionally forgotten myself, I can’t criticise others too severely. But I’d certainly provide an overlooked link on being made aware and it seems reasonable to expect anyone else to do the same.
Me too. You wouldn’t believe (or maybe you would) what I end up leaving out of my comments. Sort of like the internet version of “grumpy old man” writing a steaming letter in green ink, feeling better, and tossing it the bin.
I don’t think out-of-context quote extraction is lying per se. But third-party quoting is pretty annoying, full stop. Arguing using someone else’s words is just lazy. How do you argue with them, when the person who wrote them is not around to defend them? People just spray a few words and then chuckle off to do the gardening while you shadow-box their source. Or their many sources. BA77, I’m looking at you.
See also “respected evolutionist X/Nobel laureate Y” says … I bet they don’t say anything approaching “evolution is bollocks”. Unless the Nobel is for physics or chemistry.
I do find that my conversations on Facebook tend to be very slightly more civilized — less dehumanization, less obnoxious behavior, and no trolling — and that’s partly because they are (for the most part) not anonymous, though I do know people who use pseudonyms on Facebook. I go by a pseudonym here and related sites because I want to avoid any situation in which someone searching for me on line under my real name finds anything I post here instead.
alan, the so-called ‘rule’ here about so-called “outing” is a pile of inconsistent crap and you’re proving my point about catering to [redacted PM] just because he whines about people posting his real name.
My comment that was butchered by you:
“Yeah, so it’s okay for mung and alan and anyone else to post stcordova’s real name (Sal or Salvador) even though his username is “stcordova”, not Sal or Salvador. The only difference between stcordova and [redacted AF] (in this context) is that [redacted AF] whines about people posting his real name, and stcordova doesn’t. So, the so-called ‘rule’ against “outing” here only applies to posting the real name of whiners like [redacted AF]. And there is NO fucking “outing” in posting [redacted AF]s real name and/or information about his family that HE posted PUBLICLY on UD or elsewhere.”
You’re no different from [redacted AF] and his loud speaker in the ceiling bullshit.
Creodont2,
I approved your comment after redacting the name of someone who prefers to remain pseudonymous, even if that person is horribly incompetent at keeping personal details off the ‘net.
This is Lizzie’s site and we play by her, very minimal, rules. If you can’t see the difference between here and UD, that is more a reflection of your bias than of reality.
Note that I posted this as a separate comment under my own name, not as the loudspeaker in the ceiling.
Creodont2: I see a couple of comments from you in the filter, I can’t promote them if you use KFs real name chief. Thanks in advance.
Richardthughes,
I will not bow down to so-called “rules” that are unequally applied and just plain stupid.
Richardthughes,
And speaking of unequally applied, since the so-called “rules” here insist that people should be addressed only by their username, why are you calling me “chief”? Are you ‘outing’ me as an Amer-Indian, an African tribal leader, or a Naval Chief Petty Officer?
Oh yeah, and there’s also all of that name calling and accusations of lies, dishonesty, stupidity, ignorance, etc., against stcordova in the YEC threads, which of course are not moved to Guano, even though comments of mine (and some other commenters) that do NOT violate any so-called “rules” here ARE moved to Guano, and some of mine aren’t posted at all. It’s no wonder that the IDCs at UD ridicule this blog. They have good reasons to do so.
Have “rules”? Then apply them equally. Otherwise just HONESTLY admit that moderation is at the whim of the moderators.
“Unequally applied” is one thing. That may be fixed or at least improved.
I don’t know how to fix “plain stupid”. Do you have any suggestions? The aim here is to encourage dialogue across divides of ideology etc. It involves the biting of tongues sometimes. I know it is hard but I’m convinced it can be productive to try.
Creodont2
Lizzie and I have attempted to inform you by all the means available to us ( a comment, an email and a PM) that your account is suspended until you agree to abide by the rule on “outing”. That your comments keep appearing is because neither Lizzie nor I have had much experience in how to prevent suspended commenters from continuing to comment. Would you at least consider trying to stay in compliance with the outing rule?
ETA: You can reach me via alanfox@free.fr if necessary.
ETA2: You should find now that whilst you can view the site, you no longer have the capability to log in. This is reversible and does not affect any content you have previously posted.
Kantian Naturalist,
Sure. All you owe the audience is a performance. Even Kim Kardashian deserves a private life. 🙂 One trivial consequence of pseudonyms (say xplatorizing321) is that they resist shortening to a familiar form of address. I find it humanizes other commenters when you can address them as Fred, [Dot*] or Bill rather than xplat.
ETA:
*white male privileged mindset insidiously prevents Alan from using female first name as example*
Creodont2,
It’s less a matter of whim than time. I don’t read every thread in detail, so I’m likely to miss some rule violations. There are also some gray areas and my personal judgement generally leans to not sending comments that skirt those to guano. Others have a different default. If you think a comment has been unfairly sent to guano, raise the issue in this thread.
The outing rule is not a gray area. If you post the real name of someone who prefers to be pseudonymous, it will be redacted. It doesn’t matter who you are or what your views might be. This rule, in my experience, is applied rigorously and fairly.
On a personal note, you seem to have a big ol’ hate on for kairosfocus that is coloring your perceptions. Righteous indignation feels good, but it’s self-destructive. He’s just another loudmouth on the ‘net.
Creodont2 is unable to respond here, as that account is currently suspended pending an undertaking to comply with the “outing” rule in future.
Quoting Lizzie:
Lizzie,
May I draw your attention to an issue starting here where I felt I had no choice but to guano a comment by Glen, though sympathizing with his exasperation, where he feels he has no adequate response when a particular view of his is being misrepresented. I suggested he could insist on a retraction and apology. Do you agree if such is not forthcoming, it puts the person who does not withdraw (or defend, where a defence supported by evidence is warranted) in the position of posting in bad faith, and the comment worthy of being guanoed?
ETA clarity
Sal has quoted extensively from Woodmorappe, a fraud. He doesn’t stop at quote mining. He alters quotes. In my book that merits permanent banishment for everything Woodmorappe has written. It should not appear here in defence of arguments.
If Sal thinks W has made a valid point, Sal can go to the original literature and link to full text.
I do not know the details of his misquoting other TSZ members. The problem is it takes so much effort to track down the source. I think quote mining should not be tolerated.
petrushka,
I empathize with your frustration, but I think your idea goes against the spirit of TSZ as a venue for open discussion.
I think commenters should be allowed to make their own arguments, even if those arguments are poor, false, ridiculous, or unsupported in a moderator’s eyes.
The best defense against poor, false, ridiculous, or unsupported arguments is to point out that they are poor, false, ridiculous, or unsupported — and to explain why. Let the discussion be open, and may the best argument win.
I also think that Guano, the “good faith” rule, and the “address the post, not the poster” rule, though well-intended, actually backfire and make things worse at TSZ.
I’ll elaborate on this with an OP in the next couple of days.
Alan Fox,
I share the exasperation. The rule about assuming good faith shouldn’t prevent people from defending themselves from clearly dishonest misrepresentations.
However, I don’t think we have enough time or resources to adjudicate every disagreement. Adding an rule like what you are suggesting would take us down a path of increasing moderation which will inevitably lead to questions of fairness and, at best, a high volume of comments about meta moderation issues.
As much as it grates to have to do so, the only proper response I can see is to calmly and dispassionately point out the difference between what is being claimed and reality, with links to the original comments. If the offender refuses to either retract and apologize or defend their claim, that can be noted once and the offended party can refrain from further interaction with the offender on the grounds of no longer being able to assume good faith.
One possible alternative to this approach is to comment directly in Guano and note that you have done so in the original thread. I don’t know if Lizzie would consider that acceptable.
keiths,
Hear, hear!
While it’s a nice fantasy, a vise strategy hasn’t proven to work well in practice.
I agree with petrushka that quote mining is dishonest and shouldn’t be tolerated. The way to not tolerate it is to shine a bright light on it when it happens. Yes, that’s more frustrating work for the honest participants, but it beats having a cabal charged with enforcing honesty. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I see two separate points here: the particular and the general case.
The particular situation that put me in a quandary was not that a commenter was making a bad or false argument. It was commenter A saying commenter B claims X, commenter B saying no, I claim Y, and commenter A repeating commenter B claims X. Commenter B is frustrated and I suggest Commenter B should ask A to withdraw and apologize. My problem starts when B asks “well, what if A doesn’t?”
My suggestion is that commenter A has the burden to support the claim that commenter B claims X (which in the face of B saying no, I claim Y, seems untenable) or say, sorry, I was wrong and I misrepresented B’s claim and a failure to do one or other is bad faith. I’m not trying to suggest a new rule, I’m asking how to apply Lizzie’s rules to a situation that I don’t recall arising before.
I agree with this entirely. But is this site primarily about winning arguments? I think Lizzie’s initial aim:
suggests there is more to it than that. I was amused to see PZ Myers discussing the problems at Pharyngula with allowing the dominant view to steamroller any newbies. If PZ needs to think about rules to encourage a more civilized commenting atmosphere…
Anyway it’s Lizzie’s blog so let’s see what she thinks. And it will be interesting to read Keith’s OP.
keiths,
I’d agree.
I actually enjoy the detective work of catching a quote mine. Feels like research! I think we all know we are chasing our tails anyway, or should be aware. Others have undoubtedly already trod any path we may be on, many times.
Nonetheless, I think that something has to be in place to try and minimise rancour. Why do people take this stuff so seriously? 🙂