Moderation Issues (3)

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

4,124 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)

  1. Keiths, because I know the source of these complaints about me is just, never wrong, truthful, passionless, unbiased, etc., etc., I’m sure I really must be devaluing some of the things you’re really good at just as you say, though I really don’t mean to be doing that. All I can say in my defense is that there are just soooo many goldarn things you’re great at and that I and some of the other shitheads here are terrible at, it’s pretty hard to give them ALL the value they no doubt deserve. That’s on me, I know. I mean, will I try harder? You betcha I will! It’s just that I don’t think you should expect too much.

    I think my sentiments here said it best:

    walto:
    It’s really not right for you to be giving therapy away free like this, keiths! You’re going to get into trouble from those trying to protect the people (mostly dunces probably) who provide so much less value and then charge a lot for it!I know that this kind of generosity is just part of your make-up and so it’s hard for you to, I guess you could say, cork it (though that doesn’t sound very nice!), but I’m only thinking of what the various professional societies and other rent-seekers might say when they see posts like yours.

    And also, maybe we should think of struggling, possibly fresh out of school, therapists who need the work.Some are probably having babies and maybe looking for housing.How will they manage to make a living if those with twice (probably really more like eight times, but I don’t want to be mean) their skills are letting it all hang out for nothing the way you do over and over again?!

    But, on the other hand, fuck them.Sometimes good things just happen to bad people, right?I think it’s best if I just thank my lucky stars that you’re you and hope your generosity is as dependable as your lack of emotion, truthfulness, proofs, evidence, brilliance, rock-solidity, real arguments, non-puke-aversion, and all the other stuff I’m probably forgetting now, so maybe you could link to them. I mean when you get a chance.

    So, thanks, man. Like I keep saying,you’re the awesomest!

  2. That’s pretty lame, walto.

    The fact that I’m criticizing you doesn’t mean that I think I’m “the awesomest”.

    It just means that I’m criticizing you.

  3. keiths: In particular, they give cover to people like you who want to behave dishonestly without getting called on it.

    This from a person who claims the truth really does matter to him. What he really means is that the truth matters when it serves his purposes for it to matter. Otherwise, not so much.

    keiths, you obviously couldn’t be bothered to try to understand the argument I was making, or you’re misrepresenting it. That’s not the sign of an honest person.

  4. keith, I know you don’t think you’re the awesomest. I think you’re the awesomest, and so it’s kind of natural for me to think that you should too. But you’re so modest! (But since that’s part of what makes you so awesome it’s kind of a paradox me wanting you to admit it. So I just don’t know WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT!!)

    What I do know is that it must be frustrating as hell for you to have explain this stuff over and over and me still getting it all jumbled up like I do. But as your generosity is apparently limitless, I guess you don’t mind.

    I told you you shouldn’t expect too much from the likes of me!

  5. Mung:

    keiths, you obviously couldn’t be bothered to try to understand the argument I was making, or you’re misrepresenting it.

    What argument? Out of the blue, you said this:

    According to keiths all circles are identical.

    That was your entire comment, verbatim, and though I’ve asked you where you got that bizarre idea, you haven’t answered.

  6. walto,

    What I do know is that it must be frustrating as hell for you to have explain this stuff over and over and me still getting it all jumbled up like I do.

    I’m sure you understand the process:

    1. Experience strong emotions.
    2. Blurt out a falsehood in the heat of the moment.
    3. Regret it later when you can’t back it up.

    The problem is not that you’re confused about the process, but rather that you lack a skill — the skill of emotional self-regulation.

    It isn’t too late to learn, walto.

  7. keiths: What argument? Out of the blue, you said this:

    Yeah, well, you said this:

    In particular, they give cover to people like you who want to behave dishonestly without getting called on it.

    And now you admit that you haven’t been paying attention, which is precisely what I expect from you.

    What have I actually said about what I think about people who think others are being dishonest and how they ought to go about handling it? You won’t find anything about people being allowed to get away with dishonest behavior without getting called on it, myself included. That’s just you and your fevered imagination again. You should get control of it, for whenever it takes control of you it lies.

  8. keiths: It isn’t too late to learn, walto.

    It’s an opportunity to learn from the best, walto. Don’t squander it.

  9. Mung,

    You haven’t said it, you’ve demonstrated it.

    1. You have no qualms about being dishonest.
    2. You have no qualms about calling other people dishonest.
    3. But when someone calls you dishonest, then suddenly the rules become very important and must be enforced!

    You’re utterly transparent, Mung.

  10. Mung: It’s an opportunity to learn from the best, walto. Don’t squander it.

    I know you and keiths are both right, mung (although the agreement being from one of us shitheads gives me pause–I figure his awesomeness swamps your shittiness), but I think you both may be over-estimating my ability to improve my ways. (A) I’m rotten right to the fish head; and (B) I’m old as dirt.

    It gratifies me deeply that one such as Keiths hasn’t lost hope in me (less so with your shithead vote of confidence, mung, if you don’t mind me saying so), but I fear I’m bound to let y’all down YET AGAIN with my lying, repeated failures to ‘get it,’ etc., etc., etc. ETC.

    Anyhow, you can’t say I didn’t warn you. Bad as mung and Alan have been absolutely demonstrated to be time and time again, I’m like the king of the shitheads. There’s objective proof of it.

  11. keiths: 3. But when someone calls you dishonest, then suddenly the rules become very important and must be enforced!

    The actual facts mean nothing to you. So yes, you’re dishonest. I had nothing to say about the rules being broken until Patrick claimed the posts callling me dishonest were against the rules but that he wasn’t going to do anything about it other than petition Elizabeth to change the rules.

    So you just go on creating your alternate reality. I can’t wait for Alan’s poll, though I predict you’ll come up with your own alternate reality for that as well.

  12. Mung: If that were true you could provide links to your kingness.

    He’s got them already. There’s a recent one having to do with me asking keiths what he thought of my treatment of Catherine of Sienna. That was just one of many objective proofs keiths has brought forth of what I liar I am (and I fear will always be–in spite of his ready guidance and encouragement).

    And there are many, many other examples, if you don’t care for that one, mung. The proofs are there for all to see. There are links galore. You’ll just have to live with the fact that I am the king of the shitheads here. Alan will too.

    I will brook no competition from any of you lesser shithead wannabes.

    ETA: I have to say that I’m still struggling with my attempts to improve. One thing is that while I have all these excellent instructions on how to be less emotional, which is awesome, I’m obviously not ready for them, because I can’t even tell that I AM emotional. Seems like that would have to come first. I want to believe that I’m upset about something, but I don’t know what I’m supposed to be upset about (other than just being a shithead, which is of course). It’s a quandary.

    Again, though, I have warned everyone about my incorrigibility a couple of times at least. That’s not much, I guess, but it’s something.

  13. Mung:

    I had nothing to say about the rules being broken until Patrick claimed the posts callling me dishonest were against the rules but that he wasn’t going to do anything about it other than petition Elizabeth to change the rules.

    Exactly. As I said:

    1. You have no qualms about being dishonest.
    2. You have no qualms about calling other people dishonest.
    3. But when someone calls you dishonest, then suddenly the rules become very important and must be enforced!

    You even hysterically demanded Patrick’s resignation — twice:

    You’ve gone from moderating to advocating for one side over the other when one side is clearly breaking the rules. You should voluntarily step down. You’re clearly incapable of or unwilling to be objective.

    And:

    A moderator admitting that posts violate the rules and belong in Guano and taking no action is without excuse. It’s already been determined that accusing others of being dishonest is bad speech.

    Enforce the rules or resign.

    What a hypocrite you are, Mung.

  14. walto:

    There’s a recent one having to do with me asking keiths what he thought of my treatment of Catherine of Sienna.

    That wasn’t an instance of dishonesty — just of desperation.

    Your dishonesty was in claiming that I had raced through your book. The Catherine of Siena thing was just a desperate attempt to fish for information — after the fact — to justify your bogus claim.

  15. Wow, I can’t get ANYTHING right! I knew it was proof of SOMETHING anyhow. Let me try to be more accurate: my asking you that question was proof of desperation associated with my earlier lying. Then I lied about what it was a proof of!! That’s like deception squared!!

    I’m a lying desperate, emotional liar! There’s no telling what I might do next! You think plodders like mung and Alan can hold a candle to me!?! HAH!

    I’m just sorry you’re gonna be busy this weekend so there won’t be additional delving and opportunity for improvements–which I know is so good for me and, really, is a model to all who post here, even if I waste the goodness you’re emanating all the time. I hope others here appreciate this stuff as much as I do (haha–like that’s even possible)!

    What can I say but…Thanks again, man! You’re the awesomest!

  16. I just love how keiths makes an honest attempt to change the subject. 🙂

    But it still comes in second best to him quoting himself as evidence that he is right.

  17. walto,

    Let me try to be more accurate: my asking you that question was proof of desperation associated with my earlier lying.

    Now you’ve got it.

  18. keiths, to walto:

    Your dishonesty was in claiming that I had raced through your book.

    Mung:

    Do you deny it?

    Yes. It took me over a week, and probably closer to two. I would read a little bit each night, and it was reliably soporific, for which I am grateful.

  19. keiths: It took me over a week, and probably closer to two.

    For a book written by walto I think that qualifies as racing through it.

  20. I think my posts are hard to get through, if that matters. There’s one I wrote yesterday that can’t get past the first paragraph. Again, that’s on me. Doubly.

    BTW, mung. Don’t ask him about st. Catherine. He hates that!!

  21. Folks

    May I suggest we reserve this thread for discussion of specific moderation issues and use the noyau thread for the fun stuff.

  22. You know, I made that very suggestion to Elizabeth and she was staunchly against it. It was a very reasonable request, I thought.

    We don’t need a second Guano named “Moderation Issues.”

  23. Mung: I made that very suggestion to Elizabeth and she was staunchly against it.

    Your suggestion makes sense to me. I recall her saying applying the usual rules would limit discussion on moderation in this thread, which then limits moderation action to persuasion. I don’t recall her saying this should be treated like another noyau. If people insist on posting comments here that belong better in noyau, then so be it. Just seems very practical to keep this thread for moderation discussions, which is why I’m asking people to consider it.

  24. Alan Fox: …which is why I’m asking people to consider it.

    The remaining admins should get together and change the rules concerning the Moderation Issues thread. What do you have to lose, keiths having another hissy fit?

  25. Mung:
    You know, I made that very suggestion to Elizabeth and she was staunchly against it. It was a very reasonable request, I thought.

    We don’t need a second Guano named “Moderation Issues.”

    I agreed with you then and still do. The rules have to be loosened a bit in Moderation Issues in order to be able to discuss whether or not particular comments violate the rules, and to allow people to vent at the admins. That doesn’t mean all rules have to be suspended. That’s what Noyau is for.

    We may see Herself sooner rather than later. Hopefully she’ll address this.

  26. Patrick, I hope you’ve reconsidered your intent to step down as a moderator, and I mean that in all sincerity.

  27. Maybe, Alan, but my own sense is that part of Patrick’s fear of governmental power is based on self-reflection. He’s seen what he himself has done with a bit of authority and has inferred from that not only what HE would do with a great deal more, but also that others must be bound to take the position that in their own cases they may have important enough “principles” in mind to allow them to violate rules that therefore only pertain to “others.” I mean, I’m sure he gets on some level that saying people lack ethics or calling them liars is violative of the rules here. But he’s convinced that that simply doesn’t matter when HE does it.

    Violations on his one part are, you know, ok, because they represent a reaching toward some principle that he’s decided is “higher” or more important to the general good than whatever rule he may be breaking at the moment.

    As I said, I think his recent OP is wonderful. But ability of that type doesn’t necessarily make for a good moderator. In Patrick’s case there’s too much sanctimony for that role–and this personal quality of his has (IMHO) also infected his political views. I mean, it’s natural for one who believes one’s own positions are always more sensible than those of nearly everybody else, to conclude that democracy ought to be abandoned in favor of “enlightened self-interest,” so long as the determinations are made by the enlightened rather than the (often tyrannical) masses/government drones. In other words, it’s unsurprising to see those with extremely high opinions of their own talents tending toward libertarianism. They know best, after all.

    I don’t see Neil, Alan, or Lizzie do that sort of thing. I’m also wondering what the hell ever happened to jonnyb’s promise to moderate and/or to Lizzie’s intent to give somebody from “the other camp” that role. I think it would be great to have Patrick pass the baton to somebody from the dark side myself. But until somebody else steps up to the plate and Lizzie comes back, I’m not sure it makes sense for anybody to step down.

  28. Mung:
    Patrick, I hope you’ve reconsidered your intent to step down as a moderator, and I mean that in all sincerity.

    Thanks. As I said here and in my email to Lizzie, I’m happy to help as long as she likes. Since she’s paying for the hosting for this site, she deserves admins who will follow the rules she’s laid out. I found a case where I couldn’t do so in good conscience.

    I do hope she’ll choose to spend a bit more time here. The place needs a woman’s touch. (I’m going to go hide from hotshoe_ now.)

  29. walto,

    Thank you for your thoughts on the qualities Lizzie should look for in an admin. Clearly not behaving in a sanctimonious manner, say by smugly suggesting New Year’s resolutions for other people, is important. I’d also suggest that not being hypocritical enough to accuse others of sanctimony after doing so is another trait to look for.

    We also wouldn’t want people who actually value concepts like honesty, integrity, and honor. Much better to have someone for whom those are simply words without meaning and who mocks others for thinking they’re important. Someone who has spent their life leeching off others and who has nothing that wasn’t taken from someone else by government force, in other words.

    After all, those kind of people aren’t likely to value freedom of expression too greatly, so they’d be much more willing to control what other people can say here. Clearly this site needs more authoritarians.

    I look forward to hearing more about your vision of how to improve The Skeptical Zone, on Lizzie’s return.

  30. Patrick, I take it from your sarcastic remarks above that you don’t think I should be a moderator. That’s as may be: I have no interest in being a moderator.

    Your comment consists of nothing but red herrings. The question before us was whether YOU make a good moderator. And I see from your response that in addition to the stuff I’ve already mentioned, I should have added something like “some ability to understand what the hell is being discussed here.”

  31. walto:
    And I see from your response that in addition to the stuff I’ve already mentioned, I should have added something like “some ability to understand what the hell is being discussed here.”

    I know what’s going on here. As my kids would put it, you’re “throwing shade.” The problem for you is that you suck at it.

    ETA: To keep this on topic for Moderation Issues, please list any moderation decisions I’ve made, aside from refusing to enforce one rule with respect to comments on Mung’s quote mine of Krauss, that you feel were incorrect in some way. Make your criticisms specific.

  32. Mung, Why do you bother? “[D]on’t waste your time playing with a community that gets you down.” There’s really very Liddle positive in this majority atheist ‘skeptic’ community, even while it properly denudes the IDM home base Discovery Institute’s hypocrisy, incredulity and lack of sincerity. So what, you want to donate to the DI 100% because of your faith, even while there are other, better options? That doesn’t mean you should continue to waste breath here, does it.

  33. Patrick,

    Patrick, as I’m sure you know, I’m talking about your calling people liars (Erik, e.g.,) and without ethics (me, e.g.). There are lots of such examples, keiths can provide links to you, I’m sure.

    You’ve already indicated that you think those posts are merited, whether they were rule-violative or not. This isn’t really that complicated. You think the rules don’t apply to you when you have what you consider a sufficient reason for breaking them.

    For that reason, I believe you are a poor moderator. Your response that I am a shmuck is kind of irrelevant.

  34. “I’m a lying desperate, emotional liar!”

    Welcome to the atheist miserable skeptical zone! ; )

  35. walto:
    Patrick,

    Patrick, as I’m sure you know, I’m talking about your calling people liars (Erik, e.g.,) and without ethics (me, e.g.). There are lots of such examples, keiths can provide links to you, I’m sure.

    You’ve already indicated that you think those posts are merited, whether they were rule-violative or not.This isn’t really that complicated.You think the rules don’t apply to you when you have what you consider a sufficient reason for breaking them.

    For that reason, I believe you are a poor moderator. Your response that I am a shmuck is kind of irrelevant.

    So you have no complaints about my actions as an admin nor do you have any evidence that I’ve misused my admin privileges, but you contend I’m a bad moderator because I’ve pointed out your ethical failings when I was posting as a participant.

    That’s not exactly a strong case.

  36. Patrick: So you have no complaints about my actions as an admin nor do you have any evidence that I’ve misused my admin privileges, but you contend I’m a bad moderator because I’ve pointed out your ethical failings when I was posting as a participant.

    That’s not exactly a strong case.

    Why do you think it’s not an abuse of your moderator privileges to leave posts you know to be rule-violative where they are? All you’ve done above is shown one additional reason that you’re a bad moderator. Add to the others I’ve already given your insufficient grasp of the moderator’s duties.

  37. Incidentally, Patrick, these are pretty pathetic responses you’re making. Repeating insults in response to criticisms to which you have no actual reply is not exactly demonstrating your moderation chops.

    Me: You know X is rule-violative and yet you don’t remove X.

    You: Yeah well you have no ethics.

    Brilliant. You should definitely not be a moderator.

    ETA: And as I’m being repeatedly assaulted with your insults with respect to my lack of ethics here, I’d like to remind others that your basis for that claim was that as I work for a government agency, I am therefore a thief and a charlatan. I understand that is your position, but I’m not sure that everyone reading your insults shares it.

  38. walto:
    Me: You know X is rule-violative and yet you don’t remove X.

    You: Yeah well you have no ethics.

    Brilliant.You should definitely not be a moderator.

    Please provide a link to any comments supporting this claim. The only rule violating comments I’ve deliberately not moved to Guano are those in response to Mung’s quote mining of Krauss.

  39. Please. You can get the links from keiths. Are you now denying saying that Erik is a liar and that I lack ethics in substantive threads? You haven’t done so before; you’ve simply indicated that you felt they should stay anyhow (because they make the site better or something).

  40. walto: Why do you think it’s not an abuse of your moderator privileges to leave posts you know to be rule-violative where they are?

    It is still a judgment issue, as to whether a specific rules violation is serious enough to warrant action.

  41. Patrick: You made the claim.Support it or retract it.

    I have supported it. And by the way, the last time I succumbed to your request for additional “evidence” (that time for a claim for which I’d already provided two dispositive links), you just ignored the about 15 additional links I provided. As I said, that you’ve said those things repeatedly isn’t controversial, and you’ve never denied it before now. (If that’s what you’re actually doing. I really have no idea, since your responses to my complaint about your moderation tactics have largely consisted in insults to date.)

    Look, this isn’t really worth a ton more pixels. I think you’re a bad moderator. Your response to this is that I’m a bad person. Got it.

  42. Neil Rickert: It is still a judgment issue, as to whether a specific rules violation is serious enough to warrant action.

    Maybe. My own view is that moderators should be particularly careful not to engage in ad homs for that very reason.

  43. walto: I have supported it.

    No, you have not. You’ve refused to link to any evidence support your claim that I have failed to remove comments that violate the rules after having those comments pointed out to me (excluding the recent Mung issue).

    Your behavior thus far is indistinguishable from someone who simply wants to lash out by hurling baseless accusations. If you’re comfortable giving that impression, fine. If not, support or retract your claim.

  44. OK, Patrick. First I’d like to hear you deny that you’ve called Erik a liar and said of me that I lack ethics (on threads that were neither Noyau nor Moderation) and that if I provide links to such posts to yours you will immediately resign as moderator. Then, I’ll go find a few examples for you. Otherwise, I have better things to do than waste my time for your enjoyment.

    A: Do you deny posting what I’ve said you’ve posted?
    B: Will you resign immediately upon seeing such posts?

    You give me two affirmative answers and I’ll get back to you. Otherwise fuck off.

Comments are closed.