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.
Hear. Hear. Park your priors is a rule that no one follows.
Sounds like theists in general to me actually.
You ask god questions, it does not answer, and then from that you derive “the facts.”
No comment.
Well, that’s a fact. A fact which seems a bit too obvious to bother stating.
But suit yerself.
Now my posts included at least one typo. But you’ve removed whole words. Didn’t you cry about Sal changing other people’s posts? What does that make you?
Edits!
Hee hee. I admit that’s how I read the original, too.
I had to look three times before I realized what’s missing.
I don’t know that it’s technically possible with the current software, but there are a couple of choices that strike me as preferable to blind guanoing.
1. In the guano thread, attach a link to each post moved there indicating the thread and position that it originally came from. That would still leave the comment invisible in the main thread, but it would help retain the context and meaning of the moved post. They would be invisible, but less “disappeared”.
OR
2. Do something similar to the way comments work at Ars Technica, where a comment that meets with disapproval becomes hidden, but still remains within the thread, and can be opened and read with a click, if the reader chooses to. That way you don’t have the offensive stuff in your face, but it is freely accessible to those who want it.
Either way, I think, would be an improvement over the current method.
First post here.
In regards to the OP, moving a post to guano is more ethical than banning. At least the post is still accessible and the poster still can contribute. I do like Ilanitdave’s suggestion.
It strikes me as telling that the posters the most upset about the guano issue, are those that seem to have almost unbridled posting privileges at another site where the mods and admins are “on their side”. They come here where they are treated like everyone else and are expected to abide by the same rules, and they appear to have an issue.
Thanks Lizzie for this site. I’ve read your posts with interest at other sites (mainly Talk Rat) for a while.
As we’re going for comparisons, this popped up at UD:
“99
Upright BiPedDecember 16, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Comment removed.
(I’m not going to give you cover from the beating that BA is already giving you)”
I guess we’ll never know!
Quano iS more ethical then banning.
its the right and duty of the bosses to control offensive and derailing comments.
IT is a discussion board and not a insult one or change the subject one.
TSZ is very moderate . If one can’t get along here then one must look at themselves as the origin of trouble.
I don’t want to read stupid insults. I am a serious creationist and believe creationism moves forward in argument and investigation.
Long live Guano. I don’t think I’ve been put there.
I recently, I think, been banned or almost banned from a blog called sandwalk. i’m not sure. I don’t know the reason and its not anything I said as I say always the same thing for years. no problem then.
Its unfair and unkind and a werriness to have vto walk on tippytoes.
Evolutionists should ease up as they hit the nuke button too quick.
my stuff is okay and even if wrong or sloppy sometimes, I don’t notice, its not deserving of public rejection from polite discourse.
How perfect, perceived, does a creationist have to be!!
TSZ is the only place I have not been banned or threatened. THE ONLY ONE.
i know i’m good but why such a fear quotient of my opponents.
YES it seems the nice guy gets the boot. Plenty of jerks stay on with these blogs.
I think its because I’m Canadian. Sandwalk is Canadian but thats whats it like here.
The wrong side can’t take it. I know this. Psychology.
I like the way this site is run. Nobody gets banned.
llanitedave,
Now this is one of the smartest things said in a while here.
The part that is unethical about guano is the admin knows you can’t see the context to where and why it was said.
I would add one more thing, it should show who put the post in guano. The moderators sometimes claim that if you have a problem with a post that was put in guano you can ask about it in moderation, but if the moderators refuse to answer your question about why, it is a pointless use of time to ask why. They just ignore the question (although to Alan’s credit he seems to always at least respond).
Patrick,
Have you addressed my query as to why they were put into guano Patrick, what the hell?
You asked, HERE, for an example of when the guano was used inappropriately to stifle discussion, I gave you some examples, then all you did was delete those comments??
Are you trying to do your best Sal Cordova impression Patrick?
You still owe me that apology!
phoodoo,
Because you perceive more of ‘your side’s’ posts being moved from one part of the site to another (almost invariably, those moved do contain some kind of insult) this is part of the Global Skeptic Konspiracy? Yeesh. I hope no-one brings Wikipedia up (d’oh!).
Funny thing is, and you can create an OP about it and say what you like within it, provided insult is avoided.
Nor should you, but you know The Consequences (the parallels with objective morality are rather juicy). If someone wanted to paint the GSK in a bad light, and felt that Guano-ed posts helped achieve that aim, one would, of course, carry on creating posts in the specific hope that they got Guanoed (and that others would keep their end up by insulting yet not being Guanoed). It’s a crazy scheme, but dammit it might just work!
Allan Miller,
There are essentially FOUR regular posters here from UD, me, Mung ,William and Gregory, and all FOUR of us agree that the moderation is totally biased against our posts, and all FOUR of us have given clear examples of where hypocrisy in the standards has been shown.
If every non-materialist who posts here agrees the moderation is a problem, its probably a problem Allan.
Edit: And Filthymonarch
phoodoo,
An equally valid explanation of your collective perception is bias in your perception. Like I say, you are not independent judges, and neither am I. I don’t perceive the bias of which you speak. I do see a lot of pointless moaning and attempts to make capital out of something rather ridiculous – You moved my post! What about this one?.
Anyway, whadayagonnado? You know you are talking to a member of the Global Konspiracy, don’t you?
I like this one. I’ll look for a plugin that supports it.
Here are some explanations from Patrick for removing posts. I will let others who have some intellectual honesty to judge if this is the standard that other posts are judged by:
Quote (from Patrick):
–Accusing Lizzie of playing games, particularly without evidence, is addressing the poster not the post.
–Accusing Lizzie of creating this site as “revenge porn” violates both the address the post rule and the good faith rule.
–Accusing another participant of whining is addressing the poster, not the post.
–Calling another participant names (saying Barry may believe Sal to be a kook), even by proxy, is against the rule of addressing the content of the post not the poster.
Now, does anyone here think Patrick is totally full of shit? Be honest.
Allan Miller,
I guess its not a perception bias Allan, if I can point you to plenty of other posts where people said others are whining and their posts don’t get removed, huh Allan? I think more like a hard data bias.
Skeptics still believe in evidence right?
I for one think this site is unfair and biased against non atheists and I think that UD is unfair and biased against ID critics
What I find amazing is that this surprises anyone. Of course humans are selfish biased and xenophobic. It is our nature. We all are rotten to the core.
The genius of the US experiment in my opinion is that our founders knew this and took extraordinary care to specifically set up the rules in order limit the ability of those in power to harm the powerless. That is why you have things like federalism and equal adversarial apposing branches of government with multiple ways to appeal the actions of those in charge.
Even the US model is woefully inadequate and buggy and is always on the verge of collapsing into tyranny or anarchy.
Do we honestly expect an obscure website to be any better?
peace
I’m not a materialist.
It doesn’t surprise me. But while I agree this site is biased against the ID proponents here, I don’t agree it is AS biased against them, as UD is biased against evolutionists.
It is a false equivalence to just say “they’re both biased” and then pretend as if they’re both equals. They aren’t.
I disagree. I think most people generally do what they believe in the moment is best/right, but that some times they let their emotions get the better of them.
There’s no person who ever got a statue made out of him who wasn’t some kind of son of a bitch or another. But some people are more rotten than others.
I believe this website is much, MUCH better than the US government. I don’t believe anyone here is in it for profit or personal ambition. That goes for both the ID proponents and evolutionists who post here. I believe we all genuinely say what we mean and believe is true. That nobody who posts here has an opinion on the discussed matters that has been “bought” by private corporate interests.
Of course we do what we think is right. Even despots think they are doing the right thing
peace
I don’t believe Patrick to be totally full of shit. I’m being honest.
Most of the serious moderating problems started when Patrick began being an admin here. He has no business being a moderator here. Why would Lizzie have chosen him?
As long as he continues as a moderator, a moderator who has said he is basically at war with non-materialist (although he no claims he doesn’t like the war metaphor) then meta discussion about the use of this site will continue.
Its unanimous. Get rid of him Lizzie.
Yeah, but lucky for us most people aren’t despots. We clearly aren’t all “rotten to the core”. Every person is not another Stalin, or George Bush, or Bin Ladin.
That’s socialism vs. capitalism.
Unanimous: I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Phoodoo: I think that words means what we think it means.
Ha hahah hahahahhaha.
“Unanimous”
Hahahhaha hahah hahahhhahhaha.
Pretty sure Patrick has been an admin as long as the rest of us.
Well, phoodoo, you seem to have generated quite a bit of meta-discussion yourself; Here you are having a go at me. 😉
Not unanimous. I have every confidence in Patrick as a fellow admin.
fifthmonarchyman,
What bias are you seeing?
Theists are welcome to comment and post here. They are not banned simply for disagreeing with the site owner. Everyone here can expect to have their beliefs and arguments challenged. That’s not bias, that’s eliminating the privilege that religious beliefs get in many other places.
Amazing how neutrality looks like bias to them when they’ve been used to undeserved deference their whole lives.
phoodoo,
Your ability to pick posts in a manner that supports your position does not constitute a ‘hard data bias’, if there is no control for confirmation bias. I think it would take a disinterested observer (if they could be arsed) to sift through the site, and Guano, and make an unbiased assessment. You are not such an observer.
As I have said, I disagree that some of your Guanoed posts were Guano-worthy. And I have seen posts (by both sides) that might have been Guanoed but weren’t. But then, I don’t much care either way. I would support a ‘hide post’ option for implementation rather than moving, but you’d probably complain about that too.
But it’s not the end of the world, is it? Even if there is bias, you are complaining because you can’t be as unpleasant as the atheists. Why would you want to be?
That’s the UD tag line: And now for something completely deferent.
Yes, there’s a bias against posts with a low signal to noise ratio. May I suggest that all four of you work to increase the amount of signal and reduce the amount of noise that is in your posts.
Your statement seems to be predicated on the idea that there is some substance to be brought forward in favor of their claims.
Glen Davidson
Alan Fox,
I agree in the past you did the same thing as Patrick. Remember when you guanoed my post which was EXACTLY the same word for word as Olegts’s? That was funny wasn’t it Alan. You didn’t apologize for that, but I thought perhaps you had learned that it makes your site look like a joke. I guess you haven’t learned.
So if you say you support Patrick, where William has just given you an entire list of hypocrisy, you are obviously not interested in doing an honest job as well. If you want the site to be an echo chamber, where you and Patrick can have a circle jerk, then that is what you get. Don’t pretend to be what you aren’t Alan.
Accusing someone of whining or playing games gets you guanoed? Get real Alan. Go polish off Patrick.
Allan Miller,
Not the end of the world at all Allan. But it is the end of this site pretending they are a neutral platform to discuss things. Patrick wants a circle jerk echo chamber, fine. He is just another Sal in my opinion. As I said, I know the skeptics game. They do it all over the internet. They don’t want opposition, they want Patrick and Richard. That’s what they will get.
There but for the grace of God Go all of us. There is no dramatic difference in mine or your natures and the natures of those folks. We are all human
I’m sure that if you asked each of those folks they would tell you that they only did what they thought was best/right
peace
Pretty much the same bias that all the other outsiders see here.
I don’t want to go into to specifics for fear of being called a baby and a whiner in addition to all the other things I’ve been called here 😉
not sure I’d agree with that one 😉
peace
Not a competent post here . I post regular on UD and TSZ. There is no moderation problem here by any reasonable measure.
Kindness, respect, intelligence is easy for every adult.
Including ignoring minor injustices, if they exist, and hoping our unjustices are ignored. We all ignore are own.
Finally the owners and workers of a blog get the benefit of the doubt and the right to be more sensitive. Its their salary by the rest for providing the blog.
I read this site much more than I post, but I don’t see much high-handed guanoing, and I see plenty of threads where completely incompatible positions are presented compellingly by advocates of all sides. Certainly this is both more entertaining and more informative than UD, where the echo chamber has been enforced, sometimes very strictly.
From where I sit, this is the distinction between a school and a church. Here in school, multiple views are welcomed (but bad behavior is discouraged). In church, the underlying purpose is completely different — to convert while preserving doctrinal purity. Perhaps many posters here have that goal, but the site itself does not.
Flint,
Multiple views at UD are welcome also. Just don’t have bad behavior. So you should like the moderation at UD.
Patrick,
I’ve been thinking about it and on second thought I should have held my tongue.
I am a guest here and as such I am completely at the mercy of the host.
As such I should not have questioned the rules of the house and how you choose to enforce them.
Carry on. I will try and bow out gracefully.
Hopefully we can interact on other topics
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I don’t necessarily agree with that view. You are not a guest, you are a contributor. The site doesn’t exist without contributors. Without you, and I , and everyone else, it is just Lizzie talking to herself. So you have as much right to your opinions as everyone else, and you are not subservient to Patrick’s wishes.
That is actually a huge difference between here and UD. UD offers content. It can exist with no discussion threads at all. People could read the news and form their own opinions. Here doesn’t offer content, it offers, you, and me, and everyone else’s opinion. And people come here to read people’s opinions.
You are not a guest, you are the content. Screw Patrick.
From the sound of squealing, I’d say someone caught his tinkie winkie in the door. Not referring to any TSZ poster. Must be audio bleed from another forum on the server.
This does not accurately reflect my experience. To the best of my knowledge, only one person has been banned here, and that was for posting outright pornography. Conversely, bannings have at times been done wholesale at UD. Many if not most of those posting here have been banned at one time or another.
Also, I have noticed that posting pornography would be a banning offense regardless of ideology, at either site. Whereas it would be silly to deny that ideological disagreement has been the overwhelmingly dominant banning offense at UD.
I admit I haven’t been there in a while, so my only clue about recent moderation there is comments about Barry here.
Flint,
The people who were banned at UD must have done something wrong, just like the claim that the people who posts get moved, or banned here must have done something wrong. You can’t have it both ways.
So if Lizzie got banned from UD, she must have just not been willing to follow the simple rules. Why couldn’t she do that?
I suppose I could ask those who read UD regularly: Do they now present news, in the sense of neutral information from which readers can draw fully informed conclusions? Last I read (the Denyse days), the “news” would have put Pravda to shame.