Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Assumes facts not in evidence. God you’re pathetic. Nothing makes me happier than to disagree with you about something. Yet I agree with you about getting rid of Guano. Because I’d be unhappy it Guano was abolished. That makes so much freaking sense. Think, keiths.
You hate Guano and want to be rid of it. Because you hate Guano and want to be rid of it I love Guano and want to keep it. Nothing makes me happier than that you be unhappy. Yet I agree with you that we ought to get rid of Guano. Because that would just make me so unhappy. Think, keiths.
LoL. Did I mention how pathetic you are?
This is not difficult, Mung.
You are in fact a weak and ineffective commenter who relies on the rules — and on dishonesty — as weapons you can deploy against superior opponents. So of course I think you’d be unhappy if deprived of those weapons.
Imagine if you actually had to rely on your intelligence and your knowledge when debating here, without resorting to those other crutches. It would be a frickin’ disaster for you.
1. It’s not the crowd that’s running this forum. Each of the several people responsible for administration stands head and shoulders and navel above Shyster Arrington, who in fact has campaigned for censorship in Colorado. Furthermore, there is credible evidence that Barry has made use of the strategic lawsuit against public participation. [“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.”]
2. The best of people is not perfect. I see time and again that you emphasize the bits that suit the story you want to tell, and miss the overall significance. (I know that you’re not always doing this consciously, because you often provide sufficient context in your quotes for me to see that the phrases you highlight do not mean what you want them to mean.) Thus I recognize that your ignorance of the general characteristics of TSZ administrators, and your preoccupation with the one and only banning of a participant, are not the least uncharacteristic of you.
3. Posting on my own blog, back in 2010, I listed the 16 of me whom I could recall having been banned at Uncommon Descent. See “Wasted Days and Wasted Nights?” I linked to an ATBC thread documenting threats and bannings at UD. At the time, it comprised 23 pages. Now it’s up to 37 pages. Do please read at least the first entry, by Reciprocating Bill.
4. Is what you do here really what you want to do with your life? Is it merely a replacement for more-destructive forms of compulsive use of digital devices? If so, then there’s got to be a way to transform your present compulsion into one that’s rather more constructive.
ETA: administrators.
I guess that would depend on your criteria for “ better”.
If the ability of participants to incessantly discuss the fairness of and freely air their grievances concerning moderation is a good thing then this places is better the the BA model.
Perhaps a good way to test which system is “ better “ is to protest Joe’s or someone else’s banning at UD and judge the reaction and determine which you prefer. We know the reaction here.
Never thought you did. Just pointing out the if the avoidance of hypocrisy is a good thing then phoodoo’s status was equally subject to his broad interpretation of what constitutes porn.
Sooner or later Joe is going to be banned from wherever he participates, that seems to be a brute fact of the universe.
If banning Joe was a mistake which seems doubtful ,she did allow him to continue to post as Frankie. Too late for what ?
The fact that your opinions are do not disappear into to thin air at the whim of the management would imply that your opinions do count for something and have an intrinsic value.
Who will be first to put himself on ignore. My money is on dazz.
FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
A shame that the comment numbers went away with the new plugin.
No, they didn’t. For example, your comment is number 196434. You just can’t tolerate numbers that high.
Don’t be an idiot, Mung. Even you know what I’m talking about.
Perhaps he meant put themselves on ignore on accident.
And never realize it.
You should see a little box with a little x in it next to your name. Click on it.
Next to my name where?
Mung,
You’re a useless prick.
John,
Pay no attention to Mung. He’s trying to get you to put yourself on ‘Ignore.’
To put someone on ‘Ignore’, you click on the boxed ‘X’ next to the timestamp in their comment. Note that there is no such ‘X’ for comments in this thread — the Moderation Issues thread — for some reason.
To read the announcement, which is about the new plugin, click on ‘Messages’ (in the black bar underneath the penguins at the top of the page), then click on ‘Announcement’.
keiths,
Thanks. I’ve put him back on ignore, because not only is he a useless prick, he’s an actively malicious prick.
I would say that this plugin is inferior to the old one because after you ignore him he still takes up space on the screen.
I don’t see this X thing anywhere. Neither next to timestamp or otherwise.
Rumraket,
Did you see my caveat?
No. Really?
Why do you think I posted my respsonse to John in Moderation Issues where the little box doesn’t show up?
Could you be any more of a moron.
So your complaint is that I’m underemphasizing your useless prickishness?
I liked the old ignore better. The new one lets me see people I blocked in threads outside of this one, for example, plus I see their names in the thread.
I think Sal wants to run it sort of like his tax plan. Just let everyone choose how the site works for them. For some their posts are always featured. Some choose to let their posts be moderated, some choose no moderation, some allow themselves to post porn, some don’t allow themselves, in some versions only some people can start new OP’s in some all can, some have advertising, some don’t. In some versions posters would choose if they allow calling other posters like Sal liars, in some they wouldn’t. In some versions keiths wouldn’t be allowed his incessant uninformed childish temper tantrums, in other versions…, well, no one would choose another version. But anyway.
Website ala carte!
I also don’t like that you can’t “ignore” in moderation issues. Why should someone be forced to encounter Mung and/or Phoodoo here, even if not elsewhere?
John Harshman,
Yes, they don’t start being worth reading here, when they’re not elsewhere (aside from the rare context check).
I assume that this thread was deliberately excepted (any other?), and I can’t see why.
OTOH, I can’t see what it hurts to see blanked-out comments.
Glen Davidson
Ahh that explains it, thank you.
I see that the new “ignore commenter” plug in only works on posts, not pages. I’ve created a new “Moderation Issues” thread as a page so this feature will work for those that would like that option.
The new thread is Moderation Issues (4).