Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
People with integrity don’t put conditions on behaving honestly. You made a claim. You can either support that claim, retract it, or leave it to readers to evaluate your character based on your refusal to do either.
I figured as much, patrick. I assume most people did.
That’s obviously not true.
I doubt it’s true even for Patrick-specific definitions of “integrity” and “honesty”.
walto,
Your inability to distinguish between Patrick’s actions as a moderator and his actions as a participant are duly noted.
Example?
DNA_Jock,
Duly-Shmooly. Leaving posts one knows oneself to be guano-worthy IS moderator stuff, Jock.
And by the way, here’s one of the posts I was talking about:
There’s not much question about it being rule-violative, and, IIRC, patrick admitted as much before today. He’s taking a different tack now for some reason, though he wouldn’t actually deny saying this stuff. He’s just been weirdly evasive–as well as insulting and sanctimonious, of course.
You can duly note that.
Your significant other asks “Do these pants make me look fat?”
Integrity requires protecting the relationship and the feelings of another human being more than honesty.
Provide him some evidence, hotshoe. It will definitely be worth your time and trouble!
Or if you think it’s not rule-violative, it passes only on a technicality. (Patrick didn’t outright say “Erik you are a goddamn liar”.) But Patrick’s disingenuous rule-evasions (see what I did there !? ) are certainly not the kind of open forthright honesty I expect from a person who supposedly values integrity more than compassion, manners, or common sense.
So the answer, no, not at all dear. But you do make them look two sizes too small would not be a good answer?
Heh.
I think the two fuckwads around here who are most likely to demand “evidence” are the same two fuckwads who are the least likely to be able to see it. And neither of them are named Frankie, Mung, fifthmonarchyman, colewd …
Well, you could give that answer a try. For science.
But don’t try it on anyone I know because I don’t want them to come crying to me that I told you to. 🙂
Dang it. You guys distracted me and I made a mistake in my knitting. 🙁
Walto,
I see a couple of problems in your apparent position.
Your position, IAUI, is that moderators are under a strict obligation to never knowingly make guano-worthy posts, and that failure to abide by this standard makes them unfit to be moderators. Why is that?
I disagree. I think that there is a question as to whether it is rule-violative. I think that it is, due to the inclusion of the word “deliberate”, but it’s debatable.
But there is also a perfectly reasonable difference of opinion as to whether it should be rule-violative. Again, I think it should be, but that’s a very subtle weighing of pros and cons, and I fully recognize that others will hold the opposite opinion.
Are you willing to defend the position that Erik was NOT being evasive? That his evasions did NOT constitute intellectual dishonesty and cowardice? That his evasions were NOT deliberate? Or are you conceding that Patrick’s comment was justified?
So, congratulations, walto. You appear to have caught Patrick acting, in his role as a contributor, in a manner that is arguably a violation of the rules. From this you wish to claim that he is unfit as a moderator.
Due to a failure to self-moderate, I guess.
I have an analogy that I wish to use, but I’ll wait and see if you really want to nail your colors to this particular mast.
I think it’s rule-violative myself. (a) I believe that patrick has conceded this himself in the past but then gave the sort of reasons you give below for ignoring that fact; (b) This case DOES seem clear to me, but, as I said to Neil, to the extent that the rules aren’t entirely clear moderators should be especially careful about ad homs. I believe all the others are.
Again, I think it’s rule-violative myself. Whether I think it should be or not is irrelevant. I’ve complained about the rules. So what? They are what they are. The moderators jobs are to enforce them impartially–not ignore them when they themselves break them.
Not just that. He could have said, “yeah you’re probably right.” But instead he responded by insulting me and being evasive. He’s extremely sanctimonious and, IMHO, doesn’t have the appropriate temperament for the job. His bullying of Erik (who I completely agree was being evasive) was disturbing to me. He doesn’t have the necessary impartiality, and seems to think that because of what he obviously takes to be his surfeit of “honesty and integrity” he’s above the rules he’s supposed to enforce fairly. You disagree. That’s fine.
Right.
Again, I’ve never suggested that I’d be a good moderator myself or that I’d have any interest in the job. I’m not sure why y’all keep insinuating that that’s relevant. This seems to just be a repetition of patrick’s “Oh yeah, well you’re a bad person,” argument. Whether I am a shithead or a saint has nothing whatever to do with whether patrick is a good moderator. I don’t know why I need to keep explaining that.
Or job is to NOT enforce, impartially, either way. But job is not to enforce inconsistently based on the cheap criteria of whoever has pissed them off lately vs whoever they’ve been friends with lately.
Mebbe same reason sexual assault victim can only press charges if they’re a saint. Otherwise shut yer mouth and repent of yer own failings.
I have never insinuated that that’s relevant — I don’t think that it is, in fact.
You failed to answer my first question, viz:
as in, why are moderators under this strict obligation?
I guess I think it’s obvious that if someone both knows that some post is guano-worthy and doesn’t guano it, s/he is doing a bad job–at leat with respect to that post. And if it’s one’s own post, I take it that’s worse because it constitutes an abuse of power or privilege.
I don’t think I’d say that one or two such failings necessarily shows one to be “unfit”–but weaseling about it, insulting someone who suggests there was a mis-step, insisting there’s no evidence when one knows quite well there is, bullying, excessive self-aggrandizement, etc. together with such acts suggests to me that concern is at least warranted.
Extreme defensiveness doesn’t give much comfort. Hell, we all make mistakes and should be able to admit as much when called on them, even if what we’ve done was ‘not bad for gov’t work.’
ETA: can he just admit he screwed up and stop responding by insulting me or insisting there’s no evidence? Those seem to me to be the relevant questions with respect to ‘fitness’. The answers have not been promising to this point, IMHO.
Okay, good. You aren’t nailing your colors to that particular mast.
Well, now we’re into that he-said/she-said area. I have to admit I haven’t had the time or energy to keep track of all the times people here have offended you. I have better things to do than waste my time with that.
I disagree with Patrick about a lot of stuff (Trump, in particular: my “a little too ambitious maybe” quip was a too subtle allusion to the Boomtown Rats) and I find him pretty annoying at times. But I think he does a decent job as a moderator, and that’s the metric by which I assess moderators.
YMMV
Sorry I misunderstood your ‘nailing to the mast’ comment.
BTW, I too have not kept track of all the times people have offended me on this site. So we’re on the same page there!
Ok I was lying. 17 TIMES!
SEVENTEEN!!!
Not to quibble over semantics but being an admin here is not a job. Lizzie decided to set up and finance this site. Being entirely her fiefdom, she is solely responsible as to whether this site exists and who she invites to act as fellow admins. Fellow admins help as they wish and as they can entirely of their own volition. Come to that participation in this site is entirely voluntary for everyone, lurkers, commenters, contributors.
My understanding of Lizzie’s aims in setting up this site is that she intended to facilitate discussion across boundaries that seem to exist on other sites, notably but not exclusively at Uncommon Descent. The rules she formulated are supposed to support that aim. As she said:
If there were no rules here, I suspect this site would soon become an echo chamber no better than UD (where dissent is censored) or Pharyngula, (where dissent is flamed out).
That this site has had some success in carving out a better way of communicating is largely down to Lizzie’s personal style; her ability to to take commenters at face value and engage in a way that disarms verbal aggression and conflict. It would be wonderful if, when she has time to invest in the site again, she will not need to spend so much of it refereeing and reinforcing her aims and guidelines.
Be the change you want to see, folks. There are plenty of other sites that don’t require that effort.
PS, I’m really unable currently to spare enough time for reading comments, so moderating duties will fall to Patrick, Neil (and johnnyb if he has time, though following his links, I get the impression he has his hands full elsewhere.) I’ll continue to keep an eye on the “back-office” until Lizzie is back and may find time for the odd comment, still.
As Neil once remarked, moderating is a thankless task. It had its compensations but I’m not regretting having to give it up.
I’ll leave you with another comment by Lizzie:
So, bon courage, Neil and Patrick!
Thanks for your services, Alan. It must have been pretty unpleasant.
Best wishes, Alan. And thanks for all of your efforts.
Given that the prime visible effect of moderation is a move to Guano (or not) under their own judgement, I would like to thank ALL the moderators for their willingness to take on this role, and the splendid way they exercise their own (as opposed to anyone else’s) judgement.
Sometimes, I see a post that I would have moved to Guano. A mod may or may not have seen it. Sometimes, I see a post in Guano that I would not have moved. But in the end … I find myself unable to give a rat’s arse.
I suppose i a pissing into the wind to say that the people who complain the most about moderation are the same people I would least like to see become moderators.
All moderation issues could be avoided by asking — before hitting the post button — am I writing about an idea, or am I writing about another poster.
I believe you’re either number four or number five on that list yourself, petrushka. But I’m guessing you join me in having no interest in the post, so we’re OK.
Which list? I could imaging being near the bottom of the desirable moderators list.
But I can’t recall complaining about moderation here.
I do complain about time wasted complaining. I’m aware of the irony. But i invite the compulsive historians to compile a count of complaint posts. I doubt if I would make the top five.
Alan,
Love you my internet bro. Thanks for all you’ve done.
As I may have suggested (IIRC), now that we have the IGNORE button, let the thread authors declare NOYAU rules, meaning a free-for all just like NOYAU.
The purpose my suggestion is to alleviate the workload on the mods and admins. We might have less casualties, and then less issues about complaints of heavy handed moderation.
At least try it. If a mod sees the author has requested NOYAU rules, he can take a break.
The goal of this site was to allow readability, but well, if the workload on the mods is too much, there won’t be much of a site in the end since the mods could just end up quitting.
I hope this website stays afloat. I say that as an IDist and creationist. It’s one of the best venues if not the best venue on the planet to debate ID and creation and some aspects of the Christian faith.
Thanks to everyone who has worked so hard to keep this venue going.
Sal,
Not much to worry about there. TSZ is bustling, and the trend has been in the right direction.
It’s certainly better than UD, where the proprietor sees himself as losing a war and employs correspondingly desperate tactics including rampant censorship and suppression of dissent.
Actually, there is. Here’s the link to that comment so anyone who cares to can read it in its entirety without having to scroll backwards for multiple pages (some ellipses would have made it more clear that it’s an excerpt).
While we could have such fun debating ad nauseum whether or not my comment violates the rules, that would do nothing to address your claim:
You have still not provided links to any comments that show such an interaction.
Well, that’s better than Nazis at the door asking about the Jews in your attic example I was expecting, but it still isn’t analogous to this issue. walto made a claim (voluntarily, I presume). By doing so he accepts the burden of proof. That burden isn’t dependent on the behavior of anyone else.
Constructive rational discussion requires a committment to certain rules and ideals, including honestly meeting one’s burden of proof. By trying to impose an obligation on someone else before agreeing to either support or retract his claim, walto demonstrated a lack of integrity, in my view.
I sincerely hope that Lizzie rejects your resignation and leaves your admin privs in place until you’re able to devote more time. Don’t be a stranger.
Alan:
That is a quibble. It may not be paid, but it is a job. It’s a role, and it comes with responsibilities. Accepting the role means accepting the responsibilities. It’s beyond ridiculous to argue, as you have, that you shouldn’t be bound by the rules because you “gave no specific undertakings” to Lizzie.
Experience indicates otherwise. One of the smoothest periods we’ve had was when moderation was at a minimum due to the “moderation only upon request” experiment. You yourself noted the success of that experiment.
Eliminating moderation would make TSZ like a heavily censored site?
Again, that hasn’t been our experience. If it ever happened, of course, we could bring back moderation to see if the situation would improve.
All the more reason to reduce the amount of moderation at TSZ. Why force admins to do a thankless task that seems to cause more harm, on balance, than good?
Like Lizzie, I see no need for moderators to sit around and wait for decisions from her. Why should they, when they have a clear set of rules and precedents to follow?
There is no reason for a moderator to invent new rules for a situation that the existing rules are perfectly capable of handling.
That doesn’t follow. My comments outside of Moderation Issues, and even some in that thread, are made solely as a participant. They are just as subject to moderation as any others. In fact, I have had comments moved to Guano.
When that happened, even if I disagreed, I didn’t start an admin war by moving them back. There is no “abuse of power or privilege.”
Precisely.
You’re welcome. 🙂
I second that.
** casts pinch of salt over left shoulder ** Petrushka, please don’t invoke the devil here.
No, he doesn’t.
What can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
And you have absolutely no evidence that walto “accepts the burden of proof”.
You just look like an bullying self-justifying arse. Dude, we know not everyone likes you. Trying to force everyone to agree that you’ve been stainless by bludgeoning them to death
with demands for “proof” is not the way to change their minds about liking you.
RIght, your view. You don’t seem to notice any irony in your prior actions as if “your view” is objective. In a world where there is no god handing down objective morality or Truth with a capital T, you slapped down a god’s-eye-view statement
Did you carve that into stone when you handed it down – or did Moses do the carving?
You were wrong to say that as if it were objectively true, when it’s nothing more than your internet dudebro opinion.
Now, if you were a person who had the integrity you claim to value so much, you’d admit that was only your personal view – and a goal you might wish others to live by as well – but it’s not an objective rule everyone else has to live up to, or else.
Interesting. We have reached the core of our disagreement, just as Lizzie hoped when she set up the site:
Thank you for participating in that exercise with me.
Well, thank you for at least not trying to bully me. I can respect that.
Dumb question: If one makes an assertion of fact without accepting the burden of proof, is one being honest?
I know there are things I believe to be true that I can’t prove or even provide evidence.
But I would not present them on a public forum as anything other than my belief or my opinion.
I share your view and believe that failing to accept the burden of proof for one’s claims demonstrates lack of commitment to honest, reasoned discussion. Apparently hotshoe_ disagrees.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s a dumb question, sorry. Yes, I make assertions of fact – completely honestly – and without accepting “burden of proof”.
When I say “The sky is blue” I have no intention of proving that to anyone. Nor will I accept you asking/telling me that I have to provide “evidence” as anything other than an internet argument technique.
Leaving aside any philosophical question of what “proving it” would consist of … why under god’s blue heaven would I be obligated to answer your ask merely because you wasted a moment of your time asking it? You (a collective you) don’t own any rights to the output of my mind.
Now I accept that as a consequence you may choose not to believe that I have stated a fact, and you may also choose to go on to mock me for not accepting the burden of proof.
And I reserve the right to choose to answer for the sake of getting into an argument or because – hope springs eternal – I take my own pleasure in providing education and supporting information for whomever might be listening.
But if so, I do without undertaking any burden of proof in my own mind. Your problem if you don’t believe me. Not my problem.
You can say the sky is blue ’til you are sky in the face, but what if you say everyone, including atheist really believe in god?
What if I say living things are intelligently designed by an entity having specific goals and intentions, and that those goals and intentions are obvious to any honest person?
It strikes me that serious but controversial statements made without the intention of providing evidence are disingenuous.
Statements can be trivial (the sky is blue; I had toast and jelly for breakfast) or statements can be substantial.
The nature of the evidence necessary to meet this or that burden is generally a subjective matter. Burden issues are notoriously difficult, so I’ll just note here that when the issue at hand involves something patrick disagrees with, the burden of satisfying him simply cannot be met. No links, no direct quotations will do it. It’s a silly goose chase and nothing more. (He’s much easier when it comes to conclusions such as which others he’s encountered on the internet lack ethics, but I take it that’s just accidental.)
Anyhow, I encourage anyone who doubts this not to take my word for it, but to simply read the last couple of pages of this thread and the Trump thread and see for themselves.
In sum, it’s my own view that when it comes to substituting moral indignation for argument, nobody holds a candle to my sanctimonious buddy patrick. But again, I don’t want people to take my word for this (as DNA_Jock has suggested, I am a prickly/sensitive soul myself), so I heartily believe everyone should have a look for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
Some of this “burden of proof” stuff doesn’t make sense.
The burden of proof is on the person who want to persuade others. If you are just asserting your own view, and don’t care whether others agree, there is no burden of proof.
Well, good luck to you.
But if you want to put it in the school curriculum, then that’s a whole different issue.
Untrue. The fact is that you haven’t tried. You’re content to spin your narrative and hurl your baseless accusations.
Carry on.