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. walto:

    Patrick: My statement is an objective fact.

    How about your statement about whether I was trying and that I was content about some fantasy or other of yours. Was that an “objective fact”? Where’s your evidence for it?

    I think Patrick has a problem with the usual definitions of “objective” and “fact”.

    I can sympathize with that. I think I have the same problem – most of the time. I think it’s a problem particularly for really bright people. We are so used to knowing stuff other people don’t know, to understanding nuances that other people don’t, to inferring (correctly, as it usually turns out) what’s going to happen next from small signs that other people don’t put together correctly. We have supreme confidence in our own ideas because we know we’re good at thinking about what we see. If I’ve come to the conclusion that, say, some guy is a rude bastard, I’m very likely to feel that is an “objective fact” – because I’m always right, aren’t I.

    Honestly, I do try to acknowledge that I might be wrong, but it’s hard.

    And I bet it’s a lot harder for a certain type of dude whose self-image has never included “I might be wrong”. Hell, even “I might be wrong, but … ” is beyond the scope of some people.

    I’m one of the world’s biggest fans of BBC Sherlock. If you think about Patrick as Sherlock (only minus the stunning eyes, the helpful ethics, and the short friend) then maybe you can get a clue to why/how Patrick is so difficult to tolerate.

    Just something I was thinking about while having my coffee this morning. Enjoy your day!

  2. Patrick is an aspie?

    Sherlock has been portrayed as an Asperger’s person pretty much since the Jeremy Brett series. I don’t know of any series where the word is used.

    I frequent another forum that has four or five self-identified aspies. (Their name for themselves.) I don’t see this as patrick.

  3. hotshoe_:
    And I bet it’s a lot harder for a certain type of dude whose self-image has never included “I might be wrong”.Hell, even “I might be wrong, but … ” is beyond the scope of some people.

    I’m married. I’ve never had the opportunity to develop that particular problem.

    I’m one of the world’s biggest fans of BBC Sherlock. If you think about Patrick as Sherlock (only minus the stunning eyes, the helpful ethics, and the short friend) . . .

    Hey I have . . . at least one short friend.

  4. petrushka:

    I frequent another forum that has four or five self-identified aspies. (Their name for themselves.) I don’t see this as patrick.

    Yeah, after working in customer facing sales roles, the aspies want nothing to do with me. Until they need someone to make a phone call for them.

  5. petrushka: Sherlock has been portrayed as an Asperger’s person pretty much since the Jeremy Brett series. I don’t know of any series where the word is used.

    Well, this is getting pretty far off topic for this thread — but — I don’t think BBC Sherlock is intended to be portrayed as on the spectrum. YMMV. (I don’t like Brett’s portrayal, and the Asperger’s sense may be part of why I don’t.)

    Aspie is not what I was suggesting about Patrick.

    Nor myself, for that matter.

    Just that bright people have a common cross to bear in the form of mistaking our own (almost always correct) inferences/opinions for veritable “objective fact”.

  6. Patrick: If a participant can’t or won’t support a claim, that person should retract it.

    No, they shouldn’t. That’s not a rule. That’s not even a rule-of-thumb for forum life.

    You made that up on your own (authoritarian) say-so. Like Moses carving those stone tablets as if they were the word of the lord.

    YOU THINK they should retract it.

    YOU THINK that your opinion about them retracting it matches the goals of this site – and maybe you’re right that if it matches the unstated or inferred goals.

    But “provide the evidence I demand, to support your claim, or else retract it” is NOT in the rules. That’s a fact, Patrick.

    If you have any doubt about what I just said, please do feel free to re-read the rules and verify it for yourself,

    You might try not being an internet tough guy for a week or so. Try not stating your firm-and-well-considered-and-almost-certainly-correct opinion as if it were an objective fact. Practice a little self-control by prefacing your statements/demands/opinions with something like “I think that … ” or “I want you to … ” or “IMNSHO … ”

    You’d be a better human being for the practice.

    And we all want to be better human beings, right?

  7. I don’t believe Patrick has retracted his claim that that I tried X and was content that Y. He’s very concerned that others abide by rules that simply don’t seem to apply to him.

    Also, I’m not sure when he made the particular “that person should retract it” claim quoted above, but I note that just yesterday he said he was convinced by you (i.e., hotshoe) that his retraction obligation claim was actually wrong. So, if the retraction proclamation hotshoe has quoted above post-dates patrick’s claim that he now (i.e., yesterday) supports the slightly more nuanced (though still not particularly thoughtful) position that he said he adopted yesterday, then it’s one more inconsistency coming from that quarter, and one more reason he isn’t moderator material.

    Come back, Alan!

  8. walto:

    Patrick is a self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious trollertarian who has very little understanding of the nature of warrant but likes to talk about it anyhow.

    Too funny. Perhaps walto would like to demonstrate his superior “understanding of the nature of warrant” by sharing the evidence for these two claims of his:

    I wrote a book on that subject (keith read it in about seven minutes, so I guess it’s a page-turner 🙂 ).

    And:

    Hahaha! Your eyes are turning brown again, keith– as everyone here well knows, you’re the biggest liar and quote-miner in these parts.

  9. Good ones, keiths! You guys should definitely stick together. Similar skill sets.

    I don’t believe you’ve yet told me what color your eyes actually ARE though. How can I further improve myself if you won’t divulge??

    ETA: changed “typical” to “similar.” (Although “typical” would have been ok too, it’s not what I meant).

  10. Perhaps walto would like to demonstrate his superior “understanding of the nature of warrant”

    BTW, keiths, thank you for suggesting that I have superior understanding of the nature of warrant!!! Coming from you that’s really big! Can you say why you think I have that (“provide evidence for it” is I think the the terms you two like to use, and I want to emulate you whenever I can!), because none of my friends or family will believe that you have put that high praise on me without it!

    So thanks in advance!

    ETA: Added the quote from you I’m so proud of!

  11. hotshoe_:

    If a participant can’t or won’t support a claim, that person should retract it.

    No, they shouldn’t. That’s not a rule.That’s not even a rule-of-thumb for forum life.

    It is a rule for applying skeptical tools to the goal of determining what is more likely to be true.

    I’ve made the case as well as I can in my comment above. Are you disagreeing that Hitchens’ Razor is a good skeptical guideline or are you disagreeing that this is not a skeptical forum? Or both?

  12. Like walto, hotshoe tends to blurt out accusations that she can’t or won’t defend. For example:

    I’ll agree outright that for the last two decades Dawkins has acted as a cluelessly-offensive shit to, well, everyone who’s not him or his white boy Oxbridge pals.

    And:

    Of course I’m biased; he’s [Dennett is] my hero because he’s a non-theist who’s not a typically sexist jingoist asshole like the others nominated as the Four Horsemen of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens).

    Is it a coincidence that walto and hotshoe, who can’t back up their claims, are the same two people who are whining about being asked for evidence? At a site called “The Skeptical Zone”?

    I don’t think so.

  13. keiths: Is it a coincidence that walto and hotshoe, who can’t back up their claims, are the same two people

    Oh no!! Maybe they AREN’T really two people! Yikes! Has anybody looked into that??

  14. keiths: can’t or won’t defend

    Good. Can’t OR WON’T – that provides the wiggle room for you to be correct and telling the truth rather than making up lies about me, even though making up lies probably feels more natural to you.

    keiths: who CAN’T back up their claims

    Oh, too bad, you were doing so well at hiding your natural inclination to make up lies about people you’ve taken a stand against.

    Too bad, shitlord keiths can’t hide his true nature for long.

    Suck it, keiths. Sometimes you just don’t get what you want.

  15. {Note to self: Ask keiths about his blood pressure: he’s dredging up quotes from years back now: he must be really flipping out. Make sure I mention to him that a guy who just gives, gives, gives needs to think about himself at least once in a while!! He’s always so worried about MY emotions. Who is thinking about HIS?????}

  16. To complete the picture of hotshoe’s hypocrisy, observe her reaction to fifthmonarchyman in the following exchange:

    fifth:

    Allow me to ask a clarifying question. Suppose I said I completely understand Neo Darwinism because I studied it in grade school and reject it because it obviously leads to bestiality.

    Would a critic be justified in suggesting that perhaps I did not quite understand what I was rejecting?

    Would you consider him rude if he did it respectfully?

    hotshoe:

    Suppose you mustered up a grain of consciousness and realized that your phrase is just the same as the texts which, historically and currently, christians use to excuse murdering millions of innocent people, Suppose you mustered up a grain of shame at choosing to equate “Darwinism” with “bestiality” even for a hypothetical example against those your faith tells you are enemies. Suppose you mustered up a grain of your professed christianity and reflected on the fact that your conduct here only drives every witness further and further from anything to do with any kind of religion which induces people like you to behave so badly.

    It’s not good for you personally, and it’s not good for the cause you supposedly serve.

    I’m telling you this not as your friend — because I could never be friends with a person like you — but as an empathetic human being who is concerned for your spiritual value which you are degrading by indulging yourself in words like those.

    What do you benefit when you score a cheap shot here and lose your soul?

  17. keiths:

    Is it a coincidence that walto and hotshoe, who can’t back up their claims, are the same two people who are whining about being asked for evidence? At a site called “The Skeptical Zone”?

    hotshoe:

    keiths:

    who CAN’T back up their claims

    Oh, too bad, you were doing so well at hiding your natural inclination to make up lies about people you’ve taken a stand against.

    So you’re asserting that you and walto can back up those claims?

  18. Suck it, keiths.

    No matter how much you try to bully me into responding the way you want with your demands for “evidence”, or to shame me with your whining about “hypocrisy”, you can’t ever move me.

    I mean, you might have been able to persuade me, as a friend, in the beginning, if you hadn’t always been such an obnoxious asshole. But that chance – if it ever were a chance – has long passed.

    You lose.

    Stop. Or don’t. I don’t care. We can do this for the whole rest of your life, and you’ll never win. If you ever get tired of it and just stop, I’ll never notice. I only notice you now because I’m bored.

    Sometimes you just don’t get what you want.

  19. keiths: So you’re asserting that you and walto can back up those claims?

    Liar, liar, keith.

    Your little fig-leaf of a question mark to cover your lie … good try, keiths!

  20. keiths: At a site called “The Skeptical Zone”

    That has grown to be one of my absolute faves. Only the few (the proud) can live up to that name! The rest of us are insufficiently skeptical or not zoney enough and maybe shouldn’t even come here.

    WE’RE TRYING THOUGH!! (…in spite of what Patrick says about that!!–I have the evidence of my grunting, which I don’t think he can hear for some reason.)

  21. hotshoe,

    It follows directly from your accusation.

    1. I stated that you and walto can’t back up your claims.
    2. You said I was lying about that.
    3. If my statement was a falsehood, as you claim, then it follows that you and walto can back up your claims.

    Good luck.

  22. How can we?? You won’t tell us what color your eyes are!!! X>{

    I feel like you don’t really want us to help you help us. 🙁

  23. Plus which, I’ve already conceded that maybe you don’t read as fast as I originally gave you credit for.

    But I told you I don’t love you any less for that.

    I don’t know what to do. 🙁

    I could write another song, maybe!!!

  24. Patrick: Are you disagreeing that Hitchens’ Razor is a good skeptical guideline or are you disagreeing that this is not a skeptical forum? Or both?

    Both.

  25. Patrick: It is a rule for applying skeptical tools to the goal of determining what is more likely to be true.

    Are we talking objective truth or subjectively true?

  26. keiths: Like walto, hotshoe tends to blurt out accusations that she can’t or won’t defend.

    It’s not a crime. Not even close.

    What you think people ought to do or that they ought not do is about as binding on them as a stream of whipped cream on a hot day.

  27. Mung,

    I’d hate to miss any of your bon mots. Neil has started a separate thread for the discussion of burden of proof. Please do join us there.

  28. keiths: To complete the picture of hotshoe’s hypocrisy…

    Therefore … uh …

    I just love how the logic goes absolutely nowhere. Perfect example of ad fem.

  29. I don’t know if this is the place to point this out but I can’t comment on Allan Miller’s latest thread on Kirk Durston’s repeat of the Hoyle-Axe fallacy.

  30. Rumraket:
    I don’t know if this is the place to point this out but I can’t comment on Allan Miller’s latest thread on Kirk Durston’s repeat of the Hoyle-Axe fallacy.

    It seems that comments are disabled.

    I’m not sure if that was intended or was by mistake. I’ll give Allan time to comment before I decide whether it needs fixing.

  31. Checking spam, I noticed two posts by a member. They are several days old.

    I think they went to spam due to having a number of links. But they seemed familiar, so the member had probably reposted.

    I moved them to trash, which I think most people can see if they know where to look. Let me know if you want them restored.

    (To move spam to trash:
    step1: mark it as not spam; this puts it in moderation.
    step2: look at pending messages, which have a trash option.)

    To find trash, go to the dashboard page, then to comments, then to trash. I usually keep trash around for at least a week before deleting.

  32. I’m guessing that you took the word “delusion” as necessarily an accusation of mental illness.

    It is not. Merriam-Webster:

    2
    a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
    b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

    I was using the word in sense 2a. I do not believe that walto and hotshoe are mentally ill, but they are definitely wrong about the “team play” idea.

    Please move the comment back to the original thread.

  33. keiths:

    What is your justification for moving that comment to Guano? Be specific.

    Alan:

    Because I can, Keiths.

    And there you have it, folks. A perfect illustration of why Alan is unfit to be a moderator.

  34. keiths: A perfect illustration of why Alan is unfit to be a moderator.

    What do want to achieve here, Keiths? Do you really support Lizzie’s aim to referee a site where people with widely-differing views can find where they disagree without rancour?

    Your comments suggest not.

  35. keiths,

    And there you have it, folks. A perfect illustration of why Alan is unfit to be a moderator.

    I disagree. Moderators who refuse to brook any argument assist in actual content remaining visible, which I would consider a worthy aim.

  36. Allan,

    Lizzie wants the Moderation Issues thread to be a place for discussion of moderation issues. The thread title is a hint for the tone deaf.

    Alan does not want to explain his moderation decision here, most likely because he knows he cannot justify it.

    Alan often comes into conflict with Lizzie’s aims and rules for TSZ, though he usually pretends otherwise. He’s even argued that he is not bound, as a moderator, by Lizzie’s rules because he “gave no specific undertakings” when he accepted the moderator job. That’s utterly ridiculous.

    He simply isn’t fit to be a moderator. His immature “Because I can” response above is just the icing on the cake.

  37. Alan,

    Do you really support Lizzie’s aim to referee a site where people with widely-differing views can find where they disagree without rancour?

    We’ve been over this before:

    keiths January 23, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    Alan,

    Seconding Patrick, there would be no need for moderators, rules, moderation threads etc if members could just manage to exchange views without rancour.

    Yet when controversial issues are discussed, rancor tends to follow, because people are people. That includes you, Alan.

    Don’t forget that your own ethical lapses — including the false accusations you made against me several months ago, which were followed by your admission that you have a lying problem — are often fueled by rancor.

    Lizzie wants real, imperfect people, including you, to be able to comment here, so she doesn’t demand rancor-free discussions or pretend that they are a realistic expectation.

    You tend to project your wishes onto Lizzie rather than listening to her. She has stated more than once that she doesn’t want TSZ to be a particularly polite place. The rules aren’t intended to eliminate rancor (nor could they). They are intended to keep substantive discussions from degrading into substanceless flamefests.

    When you volunteered for moderator duty, you agreed to moderate within the boundaries set by Lizzie’s rules. You are acting as a proxy for her. This is her website, not yours. Try to keep your own unhelpful wishes and desires out of your moderation decisions and things will go much more smoothly.

    Stick to Lizzie’s rules instead of inventing your own.

  38. keiths,

    I’m care-taking for Lizzie until she returns. Until then, as my time permits, I’ll continue to supports her aims for her site as I understand them. You are one member and I take note of your comment.

  39. Alan,

    Lizzie has made it clear that this thread is for the discussion of moderation issues.

    You moved my comment to Guano. What rule did my comment violate, and in what sense was it a violation? Be specific.

  40. keiths,

    Discussion of moderation belongs in this thread. Comments on moderation in other threads break that rule. Such comments go to guano.

Comments are closed.