Moderation Issues (3)

Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.

2,969 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)”

  1. keithskeiths

    phoodoo,

    He [KN] is not your pimp.

    Find your own playmates.

    That’s what he was trying to do until Mung rejected him. Mung, of all people. Ouch.

    P.S. The whipped cream/Trump doll bit was lame, but the pimp thing wasn’t bad. You’re improving. 🙂

  2. PatrickPatrick

    Tom English writes, in another thread:

    It is ridiculous to have the arguments proceed in two threads. Vincent Torley is having a hard time adapting to the loss of his niche at Uncommon Descent. You will help him along by making your comments in the thread initiated by Jonathan Bartlett.

    That’s an excellent point. We should consider a rule about not opening up a new thread to comment on one that is already open.

    Thoughts?

  3. Erik

    Patrick:
    Tom English writes, in another thread:

    That’s an excellent point.We should consider a rule about not opening up a new thread to comment on one that is already open.

    Thoughts?

    Quite suspicious coming from an admin who openly rebels against rules he’s supposed to be enforcing.

    The apparent idea of the suggestion is of course to handcuff Vincent who likes to take a former blog post and respond to it in a blog post of his own, but how about taking someone’s comments in a thread and making a new blog post about them? Many, including Patrick, have done this.

    So the rule would need fine-tuning or otherwise it would be a matter of interpretation. But, all the same, Patrick’s interpretation of the rules permits outright rejection of some current rules, which makes the entire exercise of making new rules and fine-tuning them pointless.

    Yes, Vincent’s habit of starting his own blog post to respond to another recently opened blog post is kinda wild, but the only netiquette sin it commits is wordiness. He is so wordy that his response would not fit into one comment. The suggestion would effectively prevent him from responding to matters of his own interest. This is what the suggestion effectively would end up doing.

    I have a different suggestion. Learn to skim past non-essentials and if you need to reply in multiple threads at the same time, keep multiple browser tabs open.

  4. Alan FoxAlan Fox Post author

    Patrick: We should consider a rule about not opening up a new thread to comment on one that is already open.

    Seems a reasonable guideline to suggest keeping discussion on a current topic to one thread. But as Erik points out, more than one OP on a subject has happened many times before. Vincent’s reasons for writing an OP rather than a comment are fair enough, in my view. I don’t think we need a rule (yet anyway).

  5. PatrickPatrick

    fifthmonarchyman writes (elsewhere):

    Alan Fox: Don’t tell others what their views really are in the face of their express statements to the contrary.

    Again I’m not commenting on what other’s views are. I’m speaking about what everyone knows.

    You directly contradicted John Harshman’s statement of his own views.

    Anyone who can have a coherent discussion knows that the law-on contradiction is valid. This is true no mater what their views are.

    If someone was to claim that they did not know that the law of non-contridiction was valid while engaging in a coherent discussion. I would hope that this forum would allow me to point out the truth that they do actually know that the law of non-contridiction was valid.

    In fact to not share a truth like that would not be fair or edifying for my discussion partner.

    What you have written has nothing to do with your rudeness to John and the fact that such rudeness is against the rules.

    IMO If a forum prohibits the expression of obvious relevant truths like that is not conducive to the free exchange of ideas.

    You presented no “obvious relevant truths”, you basically just accused John of dishonesty.

    Alan Fox: And this is straying into moderation territory.

    You are the moderator you will do what you feel is right.

    Alan Fox: If you want to argue whether the rules are wrong or unfair, raise it in the moderation issues thread.

    I would not presume to intrude on your domain.

    The Moderation Issues thread is for everyone to discuss moderation issues, to keep the interruption of other threads to a minimum.

    Thank you once again for the privilege of posting here for the time being.
    If and when you feel you must ban or censor me I will happily resign myself to that fate and chalk it up to cost of following my convictions.

    The only allowed response to comments like those you made to John is to move them to Guano. Alan is, quite kindly and nicely in my opinion, explaining the rules to you and asking you to abide by them. Please do so.

  6. Erik

    When I close the browser/computer with TSZ and then reopen, no matter if in the same or a different browser/computer, I cannot edit my comments. I can only edit them by keeping the same browser session open. (To be clear, I have set my browsers to purge cookies when I close them.)

    This problem does not occur on any other website/forum for me, just here, but the inconvenience is so small that I have never mentioned it. Maybe this is what happened to Gregory too.

  7. dazzdazz

    Erik:
    When I close the browser/computer with TSZ and then reopen, no matter if in the same or a different browser/computer, I cannot edit my comments. I can only edit them by keeping the same browser session open. (To be clear, I have set my browsers to purge cookies when I close them.)

    This problem does not occur on any other website/forum for me, just here, but the inconvenience is so small that I have never mentioned it. Maybe this is what happened to Gregory too.

    Yep, noticed that too. Not sure if a bug or a feature, but it’s soooo dehumanizing…

  8. keithskeiths

    Typically poor judgment on Neil’s part. Moving those comments did nothing to make TSZ a better place.

  9. Alan FoxAlan Fox Post author

    Neil Rickert: He quoted most of a guano-worthy post.He can repost without those quotes.

    Indeed, it’s unfortunate if someone quotes a rule-breaking comment before an admin moves it. Logic demands the quote moves too. And the option is available for any member to repost minus rule-breaking content.

  10. MungMung

    Patrick’s a self-blinded hypocrite. But are Neil and Alan fighting a losing battle anyways?

  11. PatrickPatrick

    Mung:
    Patrick’s a self-blinded hypocrite. But are Neil and Alan fighting a losing battle anyways?

    If you have any evidence for your claims I would like to see it.

  12. waltowalto

    …so I could shit on it in my robotic fashion. After all, as a non-authoritarian I am uniquely capable of assessing claims regarding my own shortcomings.

Leave a Reply