Moderation at TSZ

Elizabeth Liddle:

Yes. Can I remind thread-starters not to moderate their own threads, even though you technically have that capacity.

I have not yet found a way of setting permissions so people can post OPs and not have editing rights, so it is an honour system.

In any case, we do not edit posts, except to delete malware and porn links, or identifying info. No Loudspeaker in the Ceiling.

 

After reading this comment by Elizabeth I went and checked the moderation rules. It had been quite a while since I had had reason to read them and I discovered that they had been amended:

If you have author permissions, and post an OP, you may find you have the technical ability to edit comments to your post, and move them.  Please do not do so.  Rule violating posts will be moved by moderators, and it is a principle of this site that comments are not edited, deleted, or hidden.

I apologize to Reciprocating Bill for adding a comment to the end of one of his posts in violation of the principles of this site.

And for those who have been claiming or implying that I was refusing to own up to what I had done you’re just ignorant.

1. I put my name to the comment when I added it.

2. I admitted to having done it when Reciprocating Bill asked.

I see OMagain accused me of deleting his posts in an attempt to have my thread authoring ability revoked. Is there any reason to believe that’s true? I don’t see any option to delete a post.

 

38 thoughts on “Moderation at TSZ

  1. Most people who have followed UD know that you have a long sordid history of misrepresenting people’s comments and twisting them beyond recognition. That includes exchanges you have had here which you then scurry back to UD and shamelessly lie about. Why should anyone believe anything you post anywhere?

  2. Fair enough Mung. We move forward. Not sure what the crowing at UD was about, though.

  3. Also, why did you think that marking up someone else’s comment would be acceptable?

  4. While we are on the topic of editing other people’s posts, I occasionally do that to correct a typo. It’s usually to fix a broken html tag (bad “blockquote” for example).

  5. Neil Rickert:
    While we are on the topic of editing other people’s posts, I occasionally do that to correct a typo.It’s usually to fix a broken html tag (bad “blockquote” for example).

    Quick Mung – get that ‘equivalency’ up at UD, pronto!

  6. Mung:

    I apologize to Reciprocating Bill for adding a comment to the end of one of his posts in violation of the principles of this site.

    Thanks Mung. Apology accepted.

  7. I see OMagain accused me of deleting his posts in an attempt to have my thread authoring ability revoked.

    I’ll call a whambluance. I don’t trust you, as simple as that.

    And for those who have been claiming or implying that I was refusing to own up to what I had done you’re just ignorant.

    Your crowing at UD about it was what triggered many of the reactions I’m sure.

    Anyway, given (for example) the things you’ve said about Liz at UD it’s funny how butthurt you are over this. You can give it out but apparently you can’t take it!

  8. Mung is *still* shopping his tale of woe around UD:

    “Her justification was that I had edited that same post by Reciprocating Bill (I had indeed added a comment at the end). So that means the same post got edited twice! But that won’t happen at TSZ.

    LoL.”

    Again, Mung, why did you think that marking up someone else’s comment would be acceptable?

  9. “We do not change content.”

    What’s wrong with the OP author adding an annotation if it’s clear that it’s an editorial annotation?

  10. bill,

    Its rude. You should not talk over someone, you should talk to them. Plus an honest dialogue is how things happened chronologically, not with revisions,

  11. bill: What’s wrong with the OP author adding an annotation if it’s clear that it’s an editorial annotation?

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with that, if it is clear that it is an editorial annotation, and if it is clear who made that annotation.

    In the case of the particular event that started this discussion it was not at all clear.

  12. bill:
    “We do not change content.”

    What’s wrong with the OP author adding an annotation if it’s clear that it’s an editorial annotation?

    Firstly there is no need. If the OP wants to respond to a comment then s/he can use the Reply button.

    Secondly, it is against the site rules. On this site OPs are not moderators of their threads. At present, they have this facility technically,but are asked not to use it. I hope we can get a plug in that allows us to block the facility.

    Third, it is editing a contribution by someone else. Whether or not it is clear who did the edit, it is a principle of this site that we do not edit the content of people’s posts – they are the sole author of their contributions. The reason for this is related to the reason we do not delete posts, either, even if they break the rules. I believe people should own their words, in every sense. So your comment box or Post box is your own. All the mods will do, at most, is to fix formatting, or redact the narrow range of material that we do not allow: porn/malware/other people’s personal info.

  13. Richardthughes: I think there is an integrity to a comment that should not be breached.

    In principal, I agree with this. But I am not as troubled when the annotation, and who did it, is clear. It still tends to look rude (particularly as sometimes practiced at UD).

  14. Neil Rickert,

    Part of it (for me) is that dialogue should be symmetrical. One side should not have a toolset denied to the other. That’s not fair.

  15. Well, I don’t think it’s morally repugnant. But it’s pointless, and if allowed, would just open yet more doors to quibbling over what constitutes an “edit”. If Mung wants to repost his edit as a comment of his own, that’s find.

    But the rule is: we don’t edit content. That applies to additions as well as deletions.

    It’s unnecessary, often rude, and in any case, OPs should not be moderating their threads at all.

  16. I hadn’t realised (given the thread title) that I was responding to post by Mung, not a comment in the Moderation thread.

    No problem Mung. I hope Paul will write us a bit of script to keep things straight.

    Thanks for posting this.

  17. RTH:

    Mung is *still* shopping his tale of woe around UD:

    “Her justification was that I had edited that same post by Reciprocating Bill (I had indeed added a comment at the end). So that means the same post got edited twice! But that won’t happen at TSZ.”

    Perhaps his apology was really notpology.

  18. Elizabeth: I hope we can get a plug in that allows us to block the facility.

    It is easy to stop anyone editing threads. It is hard to separate the edit facility from the publish facility. A work-around is to use contributor status which denies the ability to edit but requires an admin to OK publishing.

  19. Reciprocating Bill:
    Thanks Mung. Apology accepted.

    I attempted to moderate a thread I started. It was my responsibility to be familiar with the moderation rules of this site. In that respect, I failed.

    Mea Culpa.

  20. Mung,

    That bit you just wrote was quite good. 🙂

    The needing to write *inside* of someone else’s comment is troubling, but you have been hanging with a bad crowd. Has Barry rubbed off on you?*

    Also the WJMesque scuttling to tell your tale of woe and false equivalency over at UD… Why Mung, why?

    *fnar fnar.

  21. Mung: I attempted to moderate a thread I started.

    How does putting a snarky comment inside another person’s post qualify as moderation?

  22. Richardthughes,

    Thank you. I am not even going to attempt to justify further my insertion of a comment at the end of Bill’s post. I already explained why I did it in the original thread. But I freely admit that I should not have done so, given the moderation policy here at TSZ.

    I’ve also accepted that it was my responsibility to be aware of the policy.

    Not sure what more I can say. 🙂

  23. Adapa: How does putting a snarky comment inside another person’s post qualify as moderation?

    You tell me. If it’s not moderation why is it covered in the moderation policy?

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?page_id=34

    Do you think I should take back everything I’ve said because what I did was not moderation and therefore did not fall under the moderation policy?

  24. Mung:

    Do you think I should take back everything I’ve said because what I did was not moderation and therefore did not fall under the moderation policy?

    I see. You though you were covered by UD’s moderation policy where inserting insults, deleting posts, and silently banning opposing views are the norm.

  25. Mung:
    Adapa, so you focus your anger at Barry towards me. Skeptical to the core.

    Well, you are the guy who posts “notpologies” here then runs right back to UD to post insults directed at TSZ and its members. Makes you quite the hypocrite wouldn’t you agree?

  26. Elizabeth said:

    “Whether or not it is clear who did the edit, it is a principle of this site that we do not edit the content of people’s posts – they are the sole author of their contributions. The reason for this is related to the reason we do not delete posts, either, even if they break the rules. I believe people should own their words, in every sense. So your comment box or Post box is your own. All the mods will do, at most, is to fix formatting, or redact the narrow range of material that we do not allow: porn/malware/other people’s personal info.”

    Yet the words that I quoted from a comment posted by kairosfocus HIMSELF at UD have been removed from one of my comments and the comment was moved to Guano, and I’m in moderation (the same thing as deleting my posts before they appear) . The link that I provided to kf’s words remains but the words themselves have been removed, i.e. illegitimately ‘edited’. What he posts on UD or anywhere else is NOT personal info. It is PUBLIC info.

    I have no problem with ‘owning’ what I post and I take full responsibility for it. I have NOT posted anything that is secret, offline, or threatening. KF is a chronic LIAR and FALSE accuser and I can prove it. Among other lying, falsely accusatory crap, kf said at UD:

    “16
    kairosfocusMay 12, 2015 at 4:21 am
    EL, you know exactly what has been going on for years centred at a cluster of hate forum and blog sites. That has now reached the point where the publishing of non online info in a local newspaper site (subsequently removed by the Editor on tort grounds once it came to his attention) indicates on the ground stalking of remotely connected persons.”

    That is a rancid crock of shit and a malicious LIE. I can easily PROVE that it’s a LIE. The words of kf that I already posted here (that have been illegitimately removed) and the link that I provided to his own words about his brother-in-law (and other family members) are more than enough to prove that it’s a LIE, but I have much more proof.

    Elizabeth, are you at all interested in the truth? Are you at all interested in showing that KF is a chronic LIAR and FALSE accuser? And are you at all interested in living up to YOUR words and alleged principles?

    See comments 13, 15, and 16 in this thread:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/elizabeth-liddle-runs-away/

    One of the things you should notice is that kf was obviously fully aware of the comment that I posted here that quoted kf”s own words about his brother-in-law (and other family members) and the link to his own words at UD when he posted the numbers 13 and 16 comments in the UD thread linked above. In other words, he knew that the information about his brother-in-law was PUBLICLY posted on UD by HIMSELF and that it does not require or indicate “on the ground stalking”. kf’s brother-in-law is also NOT a “remotely connected” person. kf is just making shit up, as usual, in his LYING and FALSELY ACCUSATORY attempts to portray himself and his family as persecuted and threatened victims. It’s ALL WILLFUL, MALICIOUS LIES.

    On my site (http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/) I will soon be posting some proof of kf’s LIES and FALSE accusations, and more about him.

  27. Adapa: Well, you are the guy who posts “notpologies” here then runs right back to UD to post insults directed at TSZ and its members.Makes you quite the hypocrite wouldn’t you agree?

    I’ll never accuse you of being in possession of the facts nor reporting correctly what you’ve observed. Fair enough?

  28. Neil Rickert: Personally, I don’t have a problem with that, if it is clear that it is an editorial annotation, and if it is clear who made that annotation.

    In the case of the particular event that started this discussion it was not at all clear.

    My adding Mung: as a prefix to my comment didn’t make it clear that it was a comment I added in a thread I started? What else would suffice?

  29. Elizabeth: Firstly there is no need.If the OP wants to respond to a comment then s/he can use the Reply button.

    Secondly, it is against the site rules. On this site OPs are not moderators of their threads. At present, they have this facility technically,but are asked not to use it.I hope we can get a plug in that allows us to block the facility.

    And here I admit I violated the site rules and will strive not to do so again. I also apologized for the violation and accepted responsibility.

    Elizabeth I believe people should own their words, in every sense.So your comment box or Post box is your own.

    I agree with Elizabeth. Own your words.

    Thank you Elizabeth for explaining the reasoning behind the policy.

  30. Mung: What else would suffice?

    [A bracketed comment (sets it off from the post) — Mung (author)]

    That would be far clearer.

    I’ll add, though, that people might not come back and reread something that they have already read. So a separate comment avoids that problem.

Leave a Reply