This is essentially the heart of the complaints by Sal, and Lizzie and co.
I say no, it is not. We have a situation here where Lizzie and Patrick can chose to remove any post they don’t like, for any reasons they create, without explaining why, and relegate it to a garbage dump section. And then they claim, that because technically someone could go into the dump and read the banished posts, that this is somehow ethical moderation.
This is absurd of course, because the post is then taken completely out of context, and it does not show what the post was in reply to. It really is just a smokescreen technique for the site to fight their war on ideas, without admitting they are practicing censorship.
They know full well it is unlikely to ever be read in guano, so what is the point of putting it there? It is simply so Lizzie can pretend she doesn’t censor, which is really a subtle lie. Barry admits that he is forced to ban some posters.
But there is one even bigger difference. Barry’s site is a content site! He has news, real news! His site is not predicated on comments, it is about providing information. It necessitates a certain amount of moderation, in order to maintain the stories as the heart of the content, not the invective spews of people like Richard or Patrick.
So whilst Sal and Lizzie complain about the moderation of Barry, let’s not be deceived by what they routinely practice here at TSZ. A long while back, I reposted the exact words of another posted who was espousing nonsense ideas. I reposted his lines to me, and my post was immediately put into guano by Alan, while the materialist was allowed to same the exact same thing. And just yesterday, when Sal was asking why Barry banned him, I said maybe Barry had more than just one reason for feeling Sal was a kook (clearly an on topic point and clearly within the rules). It was guanoed by Lizzie with no reply as to why.
Hypocrites. I personally feel this is worse than standards. This site was started as a hypocritical statement to Barry’s controlling of garbage at UD. Thus Barry’s methods are more ethical in my view.
Nuff said.
Your god never says why, so I would have thought you’d be used to that by now.
heh.
What’s your preference, then? Everything said by anyone stands? Lizzie start ‘doing a Barry’ and banning all who will not sign a simple statement of acceptance of some principle or other? Moderation done according to an objective ethical standard?
No, don’t answer; enough about friggin’ moderation already!
Allan Miller,
Well, Lizzie has said that one reason for starting this site was because she was banned by Barry, and she didn’t like that type of censorship.
So it seems she is just pretending not to censor, when in fact, putting posts in guano, which are not spam, and not just ad hominem attacks, is censoring. So I think this just adds more credence to Barry’s analogy that indeed the materialist treat debate as a type of ideological war.
I think having someone as partisan as Patrick as a moderator just reinforces that reality. Now, I actually don’t care that much about what happens at this site, its not that important, but I know enough about the skeptic community, and the nefarious ways in which they try to disseminate information, and skew the debate about topics relevant to society, that I see through what goes on here, and its just part of the larger ideological war that other skeptic societies engage in. It has has repercussions.
For instance, are vaccines for kids safe. Well, if you see the deluge of propaganda in the mainstream media, you would be considered odd for wondering if they are. But the fact is, much of the information about vaccines goes through the filter of the skeptic community, who really don’t care as much about truth as they do about following their accepted party line. Never mind that there are studies that seed doubts, or that the CDC admits to binning studies that showed links to vaccines and autism, these things don’t get into mainstream media often because of pressure from skeptic groups. I find this to be an obscene abuse of trust, and yet it is part and parcel of how so called science forums and groups operate.
This site is just a tiny cog in that wider effort to spin things.
phoodoo,
I’m sure an anti-vaxxer OP would be of more interest to most people here than more whinging about Guano (for which there is already a thread). Any chance of tossing us that chew toy?
phoodoo,
If you didn’t do so many personal attacks, you would be guanoed less often. Regardless whether the policy is even-handed or not, if you don’t do what you know full well leads to Guano, your prose remains where you placed it. If that’s what you want to happen, you know how to achieve it.
Allan Miller,
Does that mantra apply to everyone or just the non-materialists?
phoodoo,
Everyone.
Allan Miller,
Evidence to the contrary Allan.
Yes, yes it is.
Sometimes the banning is “silent”. That is dishonest.
Barry frequently lies about the reasons for a ban. That is dishonest.
Barry frequently deletes posts that offend him,destroying the evidence, such that there is no way a third party can see whether Barry is telling the truth or not. That’s pretty blatant dishonesty from a lawyer.
ROFLMAO What? Denyse’s incoherent ramblings? BA77’s copypasta? KF’s paranoid spewage?
And you are welcome to your opinion. But not your own version of the facts.
I look forward to your anti-vax post.
phoodoo
The contrary of what? I confirmed that I believe ‘my mantra’ should apply to everyone. Everyone knows what is likely to lead to being Guano-ed. Even if there were asymmetry in operation, it would not make that untrue, it would just mean that some could in fact probe the boundaries further and get away with it.
But better yet, IMO, if people leave the playground behind. Generally, I don’t think insults from either side make particularly interesting or edifying reading (unless they are funny. I give funny ones a pass).
Are you looking to get away with more, like those materialists? It seems strange how unfamiliar you theists are with the concept of ‘moral high ground’.
It’s nice to point out the hypocrisy once in a while, but given an ideology that has no moral or ethical standard and a political perspective that favors an idealist narrative over facts, it’s pretty much what one would expect.
William J. Murray,
You have a viewpoint on morality? Tell us more!
KeithS, can you make sure the ignore plug-in extends to posts started by entities also?
Thanks.
You can tell a lot about someone by what they find to be funny
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Indeed.
“War on ideas”!
Yes, because indiscriminate means no discrimination. The most indiscriminate guanoer would be a random number generator guanoing comments.
Were you complaining of discriminatory guanoing? If you think TSZ has been indiscriminate and therefore non discriminatory, what’s your complaint? If you think they’ve been discriminatory, “indiscriminate” is probably not the best choice of words.
Banning would prevent 100% of what you want to say being blocked from the places you want to say them, guanoing would be less than 100%, in your case about 99% (a liberal estimate).
Since 99% is less than 100%, and if you think less blocking is more ethical, then indiscriminate guanoing is more ethical.
But consider your words, would you prefer to be banned? You could self-ban. Would that satisfy your quest to be ethically treated? You could thus choose to be ethical to yourself.
stcordova,
Except that puts them in a conundrum. If they ban me, then they can’t complain about Barry’s site any more. So they are stuck.
So I am more than happy to point out the flaws of the skeptic movement.
phoodoo,
How many posters have been banned here, since the Dawn Of (TSZ-)Time? Lizzie wants contribution from both sides. That’s the whole point of the place.
The entire movement, due to perceived imbalance by one or even a few admins at a blog?
Oh noes Phoodoo has us caught in a logic bomb!
Why are you more prolific here than at UD, Phoodoo?
Allan Miller,
Of course she can’t ban anyone here, its a catch 22 for her. If she bans anyone, then she is forced to admit Barry was right. If she doesn’t she has to hear opinions she doesn’t like. Best to just let her admins use guano, and ignore the tough questions.
And to be honest, I agree with you, Lizzie does want to have some opposing viewpoints. But if she feels her side is fairing too poorly, then the safety valve is to obfuscate, ignore, or send to guano.
So I’d like to understand something from Phoodoo’s, William’s, and perhaps Mung’s perspectives.
I just reviewed Guano and found the moved post that Phoodoo appears to be griping about. Here’s a line from it:
I would like to understand how someone (Phoodoo comes to mind, but anyone can chime in) could argue that it’s not a personal attack.
Compare that sentence to two others Phoodoo complained were not moved when his was (which I take to mean he thinks they reflect the same rules violation his post holds (but that would then create an internal conflict with the first complaint, which would make his complaining rather moot, but I digress)):
And
So, how exactly do these two posts violate any TSZ rules? If they don’t, what exactly is Phoodoo complaining about, and on what grounds is William claiming hypocrisy?
phoodoo,
Except she banned Joe Gallien. But then again, as history shows, you’re always wrong about Lizzie’s motives.
“Is Guanoing Posts Indiscriminately More Ethical than Banning?” asks phoodoo.
The trouble is that for Uncommon Descent, we have no figures. Bannings are not announced or recorded at the site. Comments are deleted without warning and without record. So comparisons are difficult. However, at this site, we do have a record of all comments that have been moved from the mainstream to guano. There are only a couple of people on our banned list right now and one of those is posting here under another pseudonym.
We have a published (and evolving) set of rules and aims. For when admins fall short or overlook stuff, there is a thread where such issues can be raised and discussed.
Anyone can write an OP and have it published here (excluding defamation, libel, spam, porn) as demonstrated by phoodoo (as far as I can tell an ID proponent and defender of UD and Barry Arrington) in this thread.
So, in answer to phoodoo’s question: first, comments are not moved to guano indiscriminately. Anyone can look through those comments and judge for themselves whether a move was merited. And yes it is more ethical to retain a rule-breaking comment in the quarantine of guano rather than delete it. And yes it is more ethical to not ban members except as a last resort where requests for rule compliance go ignored. And yes it is more ethical to announce a ban publicly rather than silently erase a commenter and their complete commenting history without any acknowledgement or explanation.
Robin,
That’s only one example of many Robin, but let’s take that example. That was a REPLY to Sal who said that exact same thing to Mung, claiming Mung was not being brave by not answering Keiths questions (and whose post did not warrant being sent to guano). Strange huh?
So even this innocent little sample you pointed out turns out to be another great example of hypocrisy.
Thanks for bringing it up.
I didn’t technically complain about banning, I complained about the changing explanations given.
1. because I’m a YEC and advocated on behalf of Mark Armitage at UD
2. because of stuff I said OUTSIDE of UD at TSZ
If you admit I was banned because of what I said outside of UD, that’s well, kind of funny.
That should be a new part of the stated moderation policy at UD.
I don’t have personal problem with such a moderation policy, but maybe you can go over yonder to UD and suggest that policy be made clear, because up until now such policies have only been announced in harassing e-mails to me.
Moved a comment to guano.
phoodoo,
I am obliged by site rules to accept that you seriously think that to be the case.
phoodoo,
That’s a strong accusation against Lizzie’s integrity. Do you have examples of comments that have been sent to Guano that made a strong point against one of Lizzie’s arguments and that did not violate the rules?
If not you owe her an apology.
Try the “ignore commenter” button and see if it works.
Lizzie has banned three members, in all. The reasons were made public and there is an option for any banned memeber to request reinstatement.
If Lizzie bans anyone, it will be after a public announcement and for gross violation of the rules. Bans do not happen here merely on the whim of the blog owner and especially not for disagreeing with the blog owner.
Lizzie is the most patient person I know for addressing views she disagrees with.
I’d like to see you back up that allegation with examples.
Not really. Here’s Sal’s comment (assuming this is the one you were referring to):
Now, how exactly is that is that a personal attack, particularly when Mung responded three posts down with, “You finally noticed!”?
So far I don’t see it. Care to explain why you think it is?
Or, feel free to point to any other of the many other examples. So, far it appears you’re just complaining that your personal attacks are being sent to guano, but based on the rules, that’s how it’s supposed to work. Seems to me you could rectify the situation by…you know…not posting personal attacks.
It does! Thanks
Robin,
So, in your world:
“RichardHughes: You’re a good foot-soldier, Mung. Loyal, uninquisitative.”
and
RichardHughes: “Well put. Is there any ethical obligation to expose Barry’s desperate public and private viewpoints?”
…are not personal attacks on Mung or BA?
Do you not know that Mung, as part of his wry style of humor,regularly takes insults and accepts them as praises? Do you not see that RTH meant that comment as an insult?
Didn’t BA post here? Doesn’t he still have posting privileges? Or is there a time limit/contribution threshold that, if not met, allows derogatory personal characterizations?
Robin,
EL called my thread at UD “a disgrace”.
Immediately after, I called the bulk of her posts here “a disgrace”.
My comment was immediately guanoed by Patrick. When I asked why (since I was commenting about the content of her posts), Alan came to his defense. It was basically only after several comments about this and some cajoling by SC that EL removed her own post to Guano, and then denied it was a tacit admission that it was as guano-able a post as mine.
Now, how should one interpret these actions? First, guanoing my post was wrong, because my comment was explicitly about the content of EL’s posts. EL’s post was also within the rules, as it was about my thread/posts (she later admitted that she found my posts to be “a disgrace, along with the fact that many at UD didn’t complain about my position and even defended it).
So, why did my post get guanoed in the first place, when it immediately followed a post by EL that used the same exact word to characterize a set of posts at UD, and hers not? I think bias is the most reasonable answer. Now, if EL is not tacitly admitting that her post was as guano-able as mine, thus demonstrating this bias, why did she then guano it after SC said she should as a demonstration of good faith?
The only reason to do it that I can see, given her position that it was not as guano-able as my own post that was guanoed, is strictly for appearances sake.
And my explanation in moderation issues still stands. Here’s the link to WJM’s complaint.
To me they are not personal attacks in any way. Mung actually agrees with the first statement, so that one is moot. As for Barry’s desperate public and private viewpoints, on what basis would you say such a characterization is an attack. Seems an apt observation, but personal bias aside, simply saying “desperate” doesn’t seem to me to raise the statement to the level of a personal attack.
Sure. How does that change my observation or the point? Calling Mung a “good foot-soldier. Loyal and inquisitive is hardly a personal attack given the “Big Tent” agreement displayed by most theists. And Mung does display those characteristics. So where’s the personal attack?
Do you not see that RTH meant that comment as an insult?
I am well-aware that Richard was being sarcastic with the intent to drive home the point that Mung’s loyalty implies hypocrisy. I personally don’t see pointing out hypocrisy as a personal attack.
As far as I know, Barry still has posting privileges here. But since I don’t see Richard’s comment about Barry as derogatory (see above) I don’t see what your point is. Noting “desperation” doesn’t strike me as any more a personal attack than noting that someone is “flailing” in their pointless responses. Like Denyse’s “News” has become so much flailing at this point. Oooo…now there’s an insult…(/sarcasm)
I’ve suggested (for the third time), if Barry shows up here and says he’d prefer not to have discussion of the e-mails he sent to me at TSZ visible, that I think the mods and admins could honor that request.
Barry could then post his e-mails to me at UD if wants so he can defend himself, and keep my dissenting opinion of what he said from being posted. That would be perfectly fine with me. TSZ is not the only place for such a discussion to be hosted and neither is UD.
He could do us the courtesy of just showing up and saying, “I’d appreciate a removal from public view of the discussion about the e-mails I sent to Sal.” That would be a starting point to get the process going. I don’t think that is too much to ask.
Heck, you could even go to UD and be the messenger guy and say, “Hey, Sal suggested the discussion about your e-mail to him be removed from public view. I’ll go back to TSZ to tell them you want it removed if you want.”
Now you’re in a position to help your friend Barry. I can’t help my “friend” Barry because I’m supposedly banned (sheesh, I don’t know my status, am I’m on some sort of auto-moderation queue assignment).
William J. Murray,
Desperate was an autocorrect mistake – I was going for disperate.
Of course they are not … to you. So?
I did not ask you to explain to me, or to try to help me understand, why you and others here do not think those examples are cases of personal attacks.
You said you wanted to understand our point of view on this. Reiterating your personal view and defending it is **not the same as** accepting an explanation with quotes offered to promote your understanding.
She called your thread “a disgrace to UD.” I personally think the same thing after reading it.
Actually you didn’t. You called them, “a disgrace to rational thought.” That to me is not equivalent. Yours directly questions Lizzie’s rationality. I would take that personally.
From my perspective, I would have left your comment in guano and left Lizzie’s where it was. I see a distinction of object category between the two posts. But, this is a meritocracy and some folks are a bit more lenient than others. You won the day William. Congrats…
As I stated, to me your comment is an implied swipe as Lizzie’s rationality. That to me is a personal attack.
Yep, which is comment on the integrity of UD as a site and a cultural mindset. It’s not a personal attack on anyone in specific from my perspective, so it falls within the rules here.
See above for my take. I see your post and her post as having completely different and distinct targets.
Which is why I would not have moved her post. Alas, I’m not a moderator here. Maybe you should be thankful that those who are moderators here are more (*ahem*) “moderate” than I am.
Ah, disparate!!! That makes sense and is not insulting at all.
Richardthughes,
I have the same problem with ‘asshole’, which is very close to ‘you make a very valid point’ in my keyboard namespace …
What do you mean, “so”? You asked. What else were you looking for?
If that’s the case, it’s not clear from your post. How exactly am I supposed to read:
…as anything other than a request for my opinion on said comments and how they are or are not personal attacks?
William, if you ask me a question, I’m going to answer it from my perspective. If your intent was to try and help me understand your perspective, why not just state outright what your perspective is?
stcordova,
Oh, gee, could I? COULD I????!!!
Yippee!
What on Earth makes you think Mr. Arrington and I are “friends”?
Robin,
My “questions” in that post are rhetorical because I go on to answer them in order to help you understand the perspective you asked for help in understanding.
I don’t give a crap about your interpretations or rationales of why you don’t consider those statements personal attacks.
DoublePlus Good, WJM!