I have closed comments on two recent threads, The War Against Barry A. by Mung, and Barry Arrington’s Bullying, by stcordova.
I am more than happy for people to discuss here views expressed in OP’s at Uncommon Descent, not least because one of the functions this site serves is a place in which people can continue conversations started at UD, or discuss issues raised at UD, if they are banned at UD. However, I do not want it to dominated by discussions of the rights and wrongs of UD moderation policy. UD is Barry’s site and he is entitled to select who posts and what is posted there. We have a different set of policies here, and so a different style of discussion.
The interesting point, that Barry gave contradictory public and private opinions (followed by the fascinating phenomena of our resident IDers not caring not requiring honesty from their leaders) was lost in moderation squabbling. When you can start a thread over how badly moderated you are, you’ve at least got some voice….
Yes. There’s some serious meta in that alone.
I don’t suppose that Barry’s public vs. private opinion on how ID (etc.) is doing is really all that new or unprecedented, though. I mean, does anyone think (at least among those who do think) that IDist “thought leaders” really believe that ID is wholly different from creationism, when IDists don’t even dare to officially disagree with YECs over the age of the earth?
Likewise, could Barry really suppose that ID was moving triumphantly along, as UD has dwindled to a few echo-chamber members along with very few who are both allowed and willing to disagree with them there?
But as propaganda is pretty much what ID is about, what’s the problem? I don’t recall there being any real standards at UD or among IDists in general, just a political alliance.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Lizzie and company want their own kind of echo chamber here, let’s not kid ourselves Glen. EVERY opposition poster has said the moderation is done poorly here, that’s a scientific consensus. Do skeptics know what that means?
It means opposition posters here know as much about moderation as they do about biology.
petrushka,
Oops, you just broke Patricks rules. That didn’t take long.
Which rule is that? Link?
Lizzie:
The topic discussed on the “The War Against Barry A” thread was the ethics of Sal’s public disclosure of the contents of Barry’s email message, and Mung’s suggestion that a rule be devised prohibiting that behavior.
phoodoo,
The rules are made up by Patrick, so there is no link. Basically the one rule is that there are allowed to be double standards. You can call someone a fuckwad all you wish, as long as you don’t believe in a God.
phoodoo:
Rumraket:
Technically, you need to call him a fuckwad in order to test his hypothesis. 🙂
With the added benefit of alliteration when joined to his nym.
And you can behave as you do, as long as you do? Is that it?
Lizzie wrote:
Bugger!
I started composing a post on the thread titled Does ID Rest on Metaphysical Claims About Dualism and then trashed it on seeing your earlier comments.
I’ll try and find time to resurrect it. (Unless anyone else has already picked up on it.)
Elizabeth, I hope you can do me a favour. I saw the Ignore Commenter at the end of Richard’s comment. Thinking it was a link (it was blue after all) I pressed it. Oops. Richard has disappeared. That was not my intention.
Acartia,
Go to your Dashboard and click on the gear icon in the left sidebar. Then you will be able to restore Rich’s comments.
But do you really want to? 🙂
keiths,
Thanks Keiths. If we could only get Barry to employ the ignore commenter tool. I wouldn’t have to risk tendinitis scrolling past Bornagain’s, Virgil’s and Mapou’s comments.
I have closed comments on a number of threads that have been created about moderation at TSZ.
The place to discuss moderation is in Moderation Issues. There are two reasons for this:
The first is that the game-rules do not apply in Moderation Issues – there, commenters can complain as much as they like about any lack of good faith they perceive in the way the site is moderated.
The second is that the main page is for discussing stuff other than the site itself, and I do not want it dominated by meta-threads about the site. If all you want to talk about here is TSZ, there is no point in having TSZ.
I would also point out that closing comments is NOT “censorship”: ou are free to say what you like in Moderation issues – you actually have more freedom there; nor do I delete a damn thing. Everything anyone posts on this site remains visible to read.
Nor is stickying non-meta threads to the top of the front page the equivalent of covering cat-shit. It is simply a way of making sure that the front page “features” actual topics for discussion, not discussion of moderation that belongs in Moderation Issues.
If people want to ask questions about moderation, or discuss moderation actions, or the rules, then do it in Moderation Issues.
So here we have the stated reason, from Elizabeth herself, why my thread was closed to comments. However, my thread, which Elizabeth closed, had nothing to do with moderation policies at UD. Did Elizabeth lie, or was she simply misguided and mistaken?
You seem very quick to resort to that conclusion. I’d say it is utterly unwarranted with regard to Lizzie.
There’s another possibility. That, like most folks here, she is fed up with interminable discussion on moderation and acted to encourage those who need to raise moderation issues to use the appropriate venue to discuss moderation – the moderation issues thread. Her comment preceding yours is pretty clear.