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.
I understand that William. And my responses to said rhetorical questions should indicate to you that I still don’t understand your perspective.
And I don’t care that you don’t give a crap about my opinions. I will note, however, that thus far, you’ve failed to explain your perspective on the matter, but I suppose you don’t give a crap about that either. Pity…
Is not banning as bad as banning?
Doesn’t seem a difficult issue for most here. But there are always some.
Glen Davidson
Much ado about nothing
Guanoing has not been indiscriminate, as far as I can tell.
In any case, the guanoed posts can still be read. I read them all (they show up in my RSS reader).
Although I have not moved any post to guano for several days, I do not see any problem with the ones that others have moved. Yes, I understand that phoodoo doesn’t agree. Please remember that moving a post go guano is not a punishment. It is done to keep the discussion running smoothly by moving distractions out of the way.
Why? Why is it more important to moderate comments on a news item than a non-news item? How can comments affect the “heart of the content”?
Apart from calling its correctness or validity into question on occasions?
And wouldn’t this be a good thing?
Robin
I cannot explain to you that it is my position that characterizing the person as “desperate”, or mocking the person as “a good foot-soldier …. Loyal, uninquisitative” or as a “…courageous soldier for the forces of light” are personal attacks. I can only describe that position or view to you. I also cannot explain to you that I see EL’s use of “disgrace” to characterize a set of posts and my use of “disgrace” to characterize a set of posts are about as equal as it gets.
Those are my views. This is why I (and I assume others) see the moderation here as biased. From my perspective, all you are doing in your rationales is finding interpretations that favor those you agree with. You could as easily find interpretations/rationales to the contrary.
That’s my perspective. You can either understand it, even if you disagree with it, or you cannot. From my perspective, the hair you are attempting to split over EL’s use of the word “disgrace” and mine is eye-rolling laughable.
“Is Guanoing Posts Indiscriminately More Ethical than Banning?”
Yes, yes it is.
Yes. Even your comments.
If one were interested in comparing the commitment to open discussion and free expression between Uncommon Descent and The Skeptical Zone, one could perform a simple experiment:
1) Post content similar to that at the top of this thread on Uncommon Descent, criticizing the removal of comments, the removal of entire threads, modifying comments without the author’s permission, and silent bannings.
2) Point to explicit examples of comments that should not have been removed.
3) Engage in discussion with the site owner about the criticisms raised in (1).
What you will find is that (1) is impossible except for a very few approved participants. (2) is impossible because comments are deleted,not simply moved to a different thread. (3) will get you banned, if (1) and (2) haven’t already.
If anyone casting aspersions on Lizzie still thinks that UD is a better forum, I encourage you to spend much more of your time there.
I’m sorry, but your logic is too retro for my tastes. I don’t think you can make that discrimination without being indiscriminate.
It has to be one of the more mild personal attacks I’ve ever seen here at TSZ.
Could you go find some personal attacks that were not Guano’d for us to use for comparative analysis?
Mung,
Oh, ouch I’m sure.
Indeed. I read that post and immediately thought Guano. I considered bringing it to the attention of the admins, but since it had only been recently posted at the time I read it, I thought I’d wait and see if any admin took action. And now we know how that turned out.
The fact is that the admins simply cannot keep up with the amount of Guano.
If they insist on continuing to send posts to Guano here is a suggestion:
If you, as an admin, think a post by a theist belongs in Guano find a post by a non-theist that also belongs in Guano and flip a coin to see which one gets sent to Guano. Leave the other one alone. Now, if someone asks for justification for why their post was sent to Guano you can just say, you lost the coin toss. Sorry.
Maybe some genius here can come up with a WordPress plugin to show the winners and losers.
Robin says I’m inquisitive. Richarthughes says I am not.
Regardless, which post of mine was Richardthughes responding to? His post was clear ad hom. Period. But this goes on all the time here at TSZ. The admisn can’t keep up.
Or maybe ad hominem is not irrational or illogical. Perhaps it’s a perfectly valid and logical way to arrive at a conclusion. Most people don’t think so, but hey, this is The Skeptical Zone. Rationality does not matter, except when it does matter.
No Robin, that is not even the post in question! I just told you what Sal said to Mung, he said, why aren’t you being brave and answering Keiths question. Then when I said it is Sal who wasn’t being brave, THIS post gets put into guano and not Sal’s!
Now is that more clear to you? The comment of calling someone not brave was Sal’s. It wasn’t about ANOTHER insult by Sal, it was that exact insult! See the hypocrisy now?
Surely NOW you will admit that , right? Right??
Like anyone here want’s to be your messenger boy over at UD.
Don’t shoot me, I’m just the quisling’s messenger!
You have Barry’s email address. Be your own messenger. Do you have a fear of being shot?
Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger quisling!
I don’t see how applying a scale concerning it’s strength is relevant. The question is, is it a personal attack:
It’s a statement about someone’s character (his bravery), so it’s certainly personal. And it’s a negative assessment of that character, so it strikes me that it’s an attack.
I’d love to see an explanation on how my assessment is inaccurate.
I don’t see how that would change whether Phoodoo’s qualifies as a personal attack. And since I’m not the one claiming the rules are applied inconsistently (oops…sorry…”indiscriminately”), I don’t see the exercise as beneficial to me personally. However, if you feel you have a dog in this fight, why don’t you go find a few to make your case?
I said you were a good footsoldier, Mung. That’s praise. We can’t all be generals, or Iraqi Ministers of Information.
Now, this is what the internet’s for!
I’m not. The sites are different. People who ask me to defend Barry or defend UD are barking up the wrong tree.
If there’s a logical way to get from whether or not I ought to be critical of Barry and UD to the conclusion that I ought not be critical of Elizabeth and the other admins and The Skeptical Zone I’d sure love to hear it.
Instead I see ad hominem.
🙂
Hmmm. I’ve had a revelation. Sometimes when ‘an embarrassment’ happens at UD, News quickly posts lots of articles and in no time the front page is clean..
Here, we have a quandary, Barry K Arrington, President of UD, who in his own words:
“To some, being a Christian might seem like having a divided mind, being passive or lacking focus. To me, it means having insight into how people think and behave, and having a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.”
has stated publically:
“The Statue of Liberty is OK. And so is ID”
Yet admitted privately:
“We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly.”
What do we get from our resident CDesignProponentists? Introspection? Clarification?
No, a flurry of activity including but not limited to Messenger shooting, Motive mongering and Moderation griping. Why not address the real issue?
Time for the “Most Skeptical” amongst us to step up..
phoodoo,
I think it’s the last paragraph. Shorn of the last paragraph, I’m pretty sure it would past muster. [eta – oh, and there’s something in the one before it too]
I’m glad you think so. I understand you’ve only recently returned. Many comments using the exact same attack on character have been direct at me and yet were not sent to Guano. So the admins clearly have a different opinion.
But like I always say, Lizzie’s site, Lizzie’s rules.
I’ll be happy to step up as soon as you post an argument.
No, Robin was quoting Richard and misstyped the word. Just like you misstyped “Richardhughes” above. It happens…
That’s the post he responded to.
Yes, it is an ad hominem, but so what? Ad hominems are not always fallacious (and in this case it isn’t as it demonstrates your bias). Nor are they in violation of the rules (I just checked). In this case, Richard is pointing out your bias in ignoring his question – a direct jab at the content (or lack there of) of your response. So where’s the issue exactly?
Actually it isn’t always and quite often is a very poignant way of demonstrating bias and hypocrisy in the content of one’s argument.
But that’s irrelevant to the actual issue. The real issue is, it’s not against the rules.
Geez…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Robin,
Robin, Let me say this one more time to you, you seem to be struggling with understanding it. The post by Sal was not this one. That is another insult by Sal, but not the one I am talking about. The post I was referring to was one (I am not going to go searching to find it) in which Sal said to Mung, “Be brave, answer Keiths question Mung!” It was an imperative sentence which implied Mung was NOT being brave for not answering Keiths asinine inquisitions (see the difference here Robin, I am insulting the questions Kieth was asking, not Keiths! Just like William was insulting the content of Lizzies post-irrational- rather than calling her irrational- which also got banned) .
Now do you understand? Sal was saying Mung was not being brave. I simply said if he is going to accuse Mung of that, then he needs to be held to his own standards. And that was guanoed!
Actually I don’t as I can’t find the post in question. You could link to it if you know where it is, otherwise you’ll just have to wait until I find it and can then reply to the actual content and context (not that I don’t trust your interpretation of the events or anything…)
Allan Miller,
Be specific than Allan, what line was against the rules? Saying one has no shame? Is that against the rules? Because I would be glad to help you find other instances where that and worse were said that weren’t put in guano if you need my help finding them.
Robin,
Robin, the point is the admin knows the exact post. It was a one line post for crying out loud, it said “Be brave Mung, answer Keiths question!”
Now assume what I am telling you is true (it is!) Do you see the problem now??
Again, if you feel you have a dog in this fight and want to demonstrate the inconsistency, feel free to post a couple of examples. So for the one concerning RichardHughes doesn’t seem to me to fit the bill.
Just fact finding. Are you fine with this? How does this admission make UD / ID look. Is it ethical by your standards? How should we classify UD / ID based on this?
phoodoo,
You need to develop the skill of identifying Guano-bait for yourself, I would suggest. I daresay you could pull up many examples of asymmetry. Without a wide-ranging study by an independent arbiter, who can say? I’m not unbiased, and neither are you.
I do feel that some of your Guano-ed posts from this thread did not look all that exceptionable to me. But I’m not the judge. Still, some of your colleagues such as WJM and fmm manage to avoid it almost entirely. Some of mine, like hotshoe, seem to leap gleefully into it!
But surely, if being Guano-ed bothers you, there is a simple remedy? Smiling urbanely when others get irate is a useful and admirable tactic, IMO.
Ahh…here it is!
Except, Sal isn’t saying it, he’s quoting KeithS.
Be that as it may, how exactly is asking someone to be brave and answer questions a personal attack? Keith repeats that request about a dozen times in the thread, but nowhere does he attack Mung with any statement like, “what a coward you are.” I don’t see how one can infer an implication of cowardice from a request for bravery, unless you are prenaturally aware that Mung is a coward and will refuse to answer based on that cowardice. If that is the case, maybe Mung should feel insulted, but not by Sal…
See above. No, I don’t see the problem in this case.
And in the case of certain current participants here who think this site is completely unethical — you know who you are — do feel free to spend all of your time at UD and none of your time here.
Allan Miller,
Nah, I am not going to change how I write.
As I said, I know a lot about the history of the skeptical communities efforts to censor and distort public discussion. Their entire existence is pretty much one of being a propaganda machine for their own political interests, be it promoting vaccines, genetically modified food, evolution, global warming, etc..So much so, that it is sometimes not easy to see their footprints all over mass media, because they are so pervasive. They are in bed with big pharma, big Agro, Academia…When you read a story about the safety of GMO’s do you think you are getting the most honest information? Not if the skeptic community can help it. When a whistleblower talks about what when on at the CDC involving vaccines, do you think the media covered this the way they should have? No, because the propaganda machine doesn’t like when you challenge the “scientific consensus”, one of their favorite talking phrases.
So, this is not just about Patrick and Lizzie and their stifling of me, these people are part of the skeptical community. They don’t only contribute here. They are followers of the Steven Novellas, Rebecca Watsons, Seth Shostacks, Degrasse Tysons, Neil Shubins, Eugenie Scotts, and the very long list of people who prefer you believe the same as them, and go to great lengths to spread their message .
Lizzie and Patrick do not operate only in the vacuum of this website.
phoodoo,
If you repost comments that went to Guano, those reposts will go to Guano too.
There is a dedicated thread to discuss moderation issues. Please use it.
Oh my, I think someone left out Purity Of Essence.
phoodoo,
Not even with your elevator.
LOL. I don’t see his posts anymore, but thanks for picking out this gem. So wrong, so often!
LOL!
I can’t conceive of a response, but that’s funny Patrick!
ETA:
I think this will have to suffice:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConspiracyTheorist
Wake up and smell the coffee!
Glen Davidson
Even atheists have schisms. That proves it’s a religion.
Guys, don’t screw that.
Glen Davidson
For some true believers, pretty close.
Glen Davidson
ff
True Believer is a personality type. It has little association with content.
I’m afraid I have a True Believer for a brother. At various times in his life he’s been a secular humanist, a John Bircher, a Last Thursdayist. He can’t seem to entertain uncertainty in anything. I shouldn’t need to add that his personal life has been something of a mess.
I disagree with Jerry Coyne about religion causing strife in the world. Religion is the water; strife and violence are waves in the water.
Thanks, Lizzie.
And this site isn’t a danger to rationality.
Mung,
In any movement, how important should holing one’s leaders accountable be?
You’re a laugh riot Mung! It’s not like your comment makes my response up thread go away. Nor does it rebut my points. Nor, for that matter, does it somehow demonstrate irrationality on my part.
But, good luck storming that castle there Mung!
Like keiths.
You ask questions, I don’t answer, and then from that you derive “the facts.”
Brilliant.