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,

    Agree. But we don’t need an embodiment of the negative stereotype the right loves to attack.

  2. Richardthughes: facts over relationships,

    Really? When’s the last time you disagreed here with keiths about anything?

    Or patrick or Jock or Glen or RB etc.? I mean, they don’t always even agree with each other–so this can’t be a fact thing. I’d say you’re a model team player, myself.

  3. Rich,

    Agree. But we don’t need an embodiment of the negative stereotype the right loves to attack.

    True. I wonder if she realizes that she is playing into their hands.

  4. walto,

    I believe I disagreed with RB over the Guano-worthiness of his post a few comments ago. Who else is on my team, so I know? Do we have a catchy name?

  5. keiths,

    By ‘they’ do you mean the libertarians she so despises? Government workers? Or just the people (not Trump!) that you and Patrick agree in not liking?

  6. Richardthughes:
    walto,

    I believe I disagreed with RB over the Guano-worthiness of his post a few comments ago. Who else is on my team, so I know? Do we have a catchy name?

    Hah- you disagreed with rb when he said he posted something inappropriate! Perfect.

    You really want me to come up with a name?

  7. I thought ‘Squealers’ was pretty good myself. You familiar with the character?

  8. Richardthughes:
    hotshoe_,

    I’d at least be a masculinist, which I’m not.

    Post on the regressive left in the near future, I think.

    Looking forward to it.

    Bernie is going down in flames and Hillary is about to be indicted, so I’m feeling some compassion for them today.

  9. Rich:

    Agree. But we don’t need an embodiment of the negative stereotype the right loves to attack.

    keiths:

    True. I wonder if she realizes that she is playing into their hands.

    walto:

    By ‘they’ do you mean the libertarians she so despises? Government workers? Or just the people (not Trump!) that you and Patrick agree in not liking?

    By ‘they’ I mean the people Rich was referring to: those on the right who attack the negative stereotype of feminists as “rash, over-emotional and lack[ing] critical thinking skills.”

  10. Rich:

    Post on the regressive left in the near future, I think.

    And the authoritarian left.

  11. By ‘they’ I mean the people Rich was referring to: those on the right who attack the negative stereotype of feminists as “rash, over-emotional and lack[ing] critical thinking skills.”

    So Trump defenders? Well, patrick says he’s got a crush on hotshoe, so maybe she’s got nothing to worry about with that demographic.

  12. Patrick:

    Your rule violating comment is “You’re making stuff up like you usually do.” That’s a claim that a particular participant is being dishonest.

    No it’s not. He said for example Transcription factors are made of RNA’s when in fact they are made of amino acids, then repeated it, and keeps repeating that nonsense. He pulls nonsense out of his brain to make arguments. For all we know he makes up “facts” and believes them or can’t distinguish his what his imagination makes up from what is real. Doesn’t make him dishonest, but the fact remains he’s attributing comments to me that I never made. He’s the one who kept egging me to invite my professors here to TSZ, and I never agreed. For all we know he thinks I said yes. In that case, he made up his own set of facts and sticks to those falsehoods.

    Personally I think he’s a bit of a flake that’s not too bright and is over matched in the exchanges so he’s off balance.

    I didn’t call him dishonest, that’s your interpretation. You’re over extending, you’re being presumptuous.

    But what should I say, “Hey Tom that’s false, retract it. What’s you’re excuse for repeating that falsehood? Support your false claim or retract it. Link to where I said it or otherwise issue an apology and a retraction for spreading false claims about me.”

    Would you guano that comment from me if I said it and kept repeating it till he fessed up to spreading falsehoods about me?

    The irony is I’m stating the truth and got my guanoed for stating the truth. He made stuff up, has been challenged repeatedly on his false accusation, and keeps repeating it. So you just want me to word things so that it’s not interpreted as an accusation of dishonesty. So can I say:

    “Hey Tom that’s a false claim about what I said, retract it. What’s you’re excuse for repeating that falsehood? Support your false claim or retract it. Link to where I said it or otherwise issue an apology and a retraction for spreading false claims about me.”

  13. stcordova: Personally I think he’s a bit of a flake that’s not too bright and is over matched in the exchanges so he’s off balance.

    Said the guy who wrote this:

    Although the existence of single young galaxy does not in and of itself prove a specially created Young Cosmos, if all the galaxies are shown to be young, even the ones which secular scientists argue are the earliest since the beginning of time, then the most natural interpretation is that the universe is young. The inference is almost inescapable.

    And much more: https://web.archive.org/web/20080621005229/http://youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/47

    Still think the universe is young Sal? Were you feeling overmatched in your debates with physicists not so long ago?

  14. YEC, on evidential grounds could be rescued if the problem of distant startlight and radiometric dating could be solved. In fact, research can proceed even if at least tentative solutions to these two major problems were being actively pursued. I for one, and the researchers at Loma Linda/GRI determined the C-14 dates for various fossils were absolutely fallacious. In fact, the provider of one of the C-14 data points in the 1970s, Reiner von Protsch, was found out in 2004 to have fabricated C-14 dates. It was no surprise to me or the researchers at Loma Linda/GRI. The evidence pointed to data being pulled completely out of the air.

    Let’s have a debate about C-14!

  15. stcordova: But what should I say, “Hey Tom that’s false, retract it. What’s you’re excuse for repeating that falsehood? Support your false claim or retract it. Link to where I said it or otherwise issue an apology and a retraction for spreading false claims about me.”

    Would you guano that comment from me if I said it and kept repeating it till he fessed up to spreading falsehoods about me?

    Although it’s one of his favorite constructions, he might….since the hypothesis is that YOU said it.

  16. I can fully understand Sal’s reluctance to invite his professors to see what he has written at TSZ.

  17. stcordova:

    Your rule violating comment is “You’re making stuff up like you usually do.” That’s a claim that a particular participant is being dishonest.

    No it’s not. He said for example Transcription factors are made of RNA’s when in fact they are made of amino acids, then repeated it, and keeps repeating that nonsense. He pulls nonsense out of his brain to make arguments. For all we know he makes up “facts” and believes them or can’t distinguish his what his imagination makes up from what is real. Doesn’t make him dishonest, but the fact remains he’s attributing comments to me that I never made. He’s the one who kept egging me to invite my professors here to TSZ, and I never agreed. For all we know he thinks I said yes. In that case, he made up his own set of facts and sticks to those falsehoods.

    Nonetheless, Lizzie’s rules prohibit accusing other participants of dishonesty. I don’t see any way of interpreting “You’re making stuff up like you usually do.” as anything other than an accusation of (repeated) dishonesty.

    I happen to disagree with that rule and the one about always assuming good faith even when there is clear evidence to the contrary, but Lizzie clearly rejected my suggested rule change.

    Personally I think he’s a bit of a flake that’s not too bright and is over matched in the exchanges so he’s off balance.

    That violates the rule about addressing the post rather than the poster.

    I didn’t call him dishonest, that’s your interpretation. You’re over extending, you’re being presumptuous.

    Please enlighten me as to how to interpret “You’re making stuff up like you usually do.” as something other than an accusation of dishonesty.

    But what should I say, “Hey Tom that’s false, retract it. What’s you’re excuse for repeating that falsehood? Support your false claim or retract it. Link to where I said it or otherwise issue an apology and a retraction for spreading false claims about me.”

    Would you guano that comment from me if I said it and kept repeating it till he fessed up to spreading falsehoods about me?

    The “What’s you’re [sic] excuse” sentence skirts the line of addressing the poster rather than the post, but otherwise I see nothing in your wording that violates the site rules.

    The irony is I’m stating the truth and got my guanoed for stating the truth. He made stuff up, has been challenged repeatedly on his false accusation, and keeps repeating it. So you just want me to word things so that it’s not interpreted as an accusation of dishonesty.

    That is what Lizzie’s rules require.

    So can I say:

    “Hey Tom that’s a false claim about what I said, retract it. What’s you’re excuse for repeating that falsehood? Support your false claim or retract it. Link to where I said it or otherwise issue an apology and a retraction for spreading false claims about me.”

    Aside from the questionable second sentence, which I personally would let slide, yes.

  18. Patrick: That violates the rule about addressing the post rather than the poster.

    How about accusations of cowardice or evil or hotness(!)? Do those address posters? How about the post that RB has conceded was ad hom? Does that?

    I really would appreciate it if you’d quit pretending there is any consistency to your moderation activities that don’t involve protection of yourself and your views. That ridiculous pretense is much more disturbing than the acts themselves. Fwiw, I don’t think that even your allies could possibly buy that you are fair-minded. They have other reasons for supporting you, IMO.

    Two legs better!

  19. Rumraket:
    @Patrick

    Well, if he really believes atheists don’t exist, why should he pretend to do it? Then it won’t be possible to have a conversation with him about what he really believes if he’s not allowed by the site rules to argue from his actual position. Personally I’m fine with him believing and arguing from that position. While I understand and appreciate why the forum rule exists, I think in cases such as this there could be made some leeway to accomodate his unusual beliefs.

    After all, even though I can understand that it is in some sense insulting to be accused of not arguing for what you really believe to be true, in point of fact the biblical interpretation he adheres to does actually strictly claim that “all men are without excuse” and this he then takes to mean that somewhere inside all people secretly believe. I don’t believe he’s actually trying to be an asshole about it, I rather take him to be honest about his beliefs.

    It seems to me a counterproductive strategy to try to circumvent his beliefs by (an ironically) strict intepretation of the forum rules.

    I’m with you, Rumraket.

    I really don’t get what’s so hard about this. If you find him (or anyone) particularly rude or annoying, simply ignore that person (or the post in question). I think guano should only be used when a poster is completely derailing conversation or being degrading. I mean…this is a message board for (in most cases) enjoyment with an attempt at perhaps learning something about a contrary POV. Everyone (as far as I can tell) is here by choice. So really, who’s in the best position to do something about someone you don’t happen to like or agree with?

  20. Patrick:

    How about it, fifthmonarchyman, are you able to park your priors by the door and consider for a moment the possibility that atheists actually do exist?

    It’s not possible. What you are effectively asking him is can he, ad arguendo, consider that he is wrong about his God. If he could consider such, he’d never have posted anything in the first place.

  21. Nonetheless, Lizzie’s rules prohibit accusing other participants of dishonesty. I don’t see any way of interpreting “You’re making stuff up like you usually do.”

    I disagree with your call umpire, but I can live with it. Thank you for your response.

    Please enlighten me as to how to interpret “You’re making stuff up like you usually do.” as something other than an accusation of dishonesty.

    FWIW, in debates where one side is losing, they sometimes start making up things in their mind and believe what they want to believe — self-delusion. They get called on their self-delusion and still repeat it. I called Tom out on a minor fact about biology that he was in error on — Transcription Factors are made of amino acids, not RNAs. He started pulling junk out of the air even after I showed several textbook definitions refuting his self-delusions.

    Tom now starts deluding himself that I said I’d invite my professors here to participate at TSZ. No way. Why would I bother my professors with this stuff. I communicate with them to get clarity on assignments and course content. I want to make the grade, not make trouble for myself in the class room. It’s stupid to get them involved in extra-curricular activity that doesn’t concern the course. Amazing Tom believes I would do this, and even more amazing he self-deludes himself that I actually posted a written promise at TSZ to that effect. He’s kind of a flake as far as stuff like that goes, imho.

    I have to call Tom out on evident self-delusions. Stuff about philosophy and religion, that is not as subject to verification and so there should be some leeway about what people believe in realms of uncertainty, but stuff like the chemical definition of Transcription Factors or whether I actually told the readers of TSZ that I was going to invite my professors to participate are questions that can be settled by a little further investigation.

    Tom’s position on these matters is nonsense and self-delusional. It’s tiresome and I’ll call him out on it.

  22. Me:

    Personally I think he’s a bit of a flake that’s not too bright and is over matched in the exchanges so he’s off balance.

    Patrick:

    That violates the rule about addressing the post rather than the poster

    My understanding is we can say stuff like this in a the moderation thread since we have a chance to express our opinions more openly.

    I try not to say stuff like this in regular threads.

  23. Robin:

    How about it, fifthmonarchyman, are you able to park your priors by the door and consider for a moment the possibility that atheists actually do exist?

    It’s not possible. What you are effectively asking him is can he, ad arguendo, consider that he is wrong about his God. If he could consider such, he’d never have posted anything in the first place.

    I’m more optimistic. I could, and have, participated in discussions where a god is assumed to exist, to see where that assumption leads. One of my kids is a huge Harry Potter fan and I’ve had similar discussions about the consequences of Potterverse magic. I’ve also had similar experiences in political discussions. I see no reason why fifthmonarchyman should be unable to place his priors in the container conveniently provided in the site’s foyer and give his interlocutors the respect of taking their statements at face value.

    C’mon, fifth. Give me a reason for my faith in you.

  24. stcordova:

    That violates the rule about addressing the post rather than the poster

    My understanding is we can say stuff like this in a the moderation thread since we have a chance to express our opinions more openly.

    I try not to say stuff like this in regular threads.

    That’s correct, my apologies.

    I do think that such invective should only be directed at admins here, but that’s not Lizzie’s current rule.

  25. Patrick: How about it, fifthmonarchyman, are you able to park your priors by the door and consider for a moment the possibility that atheists actually do exist?

    Robin:It’s not possible. What you are effectively asking him is can he, ad arguendo, consider that he is wrong about his God. If he could consider such, he’d never have posted anything in the first place.

    I’m more optimistic. I could, and have, participated in discussions where a god is assumed to exist, to see where that assumption leads.

    Right, but here’s the thing, to FMM, his concept of God is the very foundation of all knowledge. To FMM, God (and by association, God’s proclamations), is reality. To ask him to step outside that, or worse, assume for the sake of argument that God doesn’t exist is pretty much the same as asking a physicist to argue against the properties of the universe by assuming what it’s like outside the universe. There’s no way for anyone to assume such, even for an argument, because the concept doesn’t even make any sense.

    I really get the feeling the FMM views his concept of God the same way.

    One of my kids is a huge Harry Potter fan and I’ve had similar discussions about the consequences of Potterverse magic.I’ve also had similar experiences in political discussions.I see no reason why fifthmonarchyman should be unable to place his priors in the container conveniently provided in the site’s foyer and give his interlocutors the respect of taking their statements at face value.

    Sure…as have I (we can get into Middle-earth sometime if you want an example of esoteric ad arguendo…). But in both of your examples above, the participants in both situations at least acknowledge (on some level) that the conditions surrounding such concepts are speculative or have speculative elements that one can explore. I don’t think FMM could even consider (for even a moment) that there’s anything speculative about his concept of god.

    C’mon, fifth.Give me a reason for my faith in you.

    I will freely admit, here and now, that I’m really hoping to be proven wrong. 🙂

  26. Robin: Robin:

    I will freely admit, here and now, that I’m really hoping to be proven wrong. 🙂

    You win. Drinks are on me whenever you end up in NYC.

  27. stcordova: He [Tom] said for example Transcription factors are made of RNA’s when in fact they are made of amino acids, then repeated it, and keeps repeating that nonsense.

    Interesting. That’s not my recollection of the conversation. As I recall, Tom, commented that Transcription Factors could include RNAs — the class was not restricted to proteins. You disagreed and hung your hat on a random (wikipedia, potentially?) quote that included “Transcription Factors are proteins which…”
    Of course Tom is correct and (oh the irony) Sal is being a dinosaur. More importantly, Sal is mischaracterizing what Tom wrote in order to slander him.

    Oooh-errr, I found the interaction:
    Tom:

    Help me out here Allan… Not just protein, but RNA can also play the role of “transcription factor”? True or False

    Sal:

    I was going by the wiki definition. Am I mistaken to use it? Is there another convention?
    I’m not a biologist. [Sal quotes wikipedia:

    In molecular biology and genetics, a transcription factor (sometimes called a sequence-specific DNA-binding factor) is a protein that binds to specific DNA sequences, thereby controlling the rate of transcription of genetic information from DNA to messenger RNA.

    Allan (a biologist) answers Tom’s question:

    I’m no expert, but I’d say ‘true’. But the convention does appear to be to say they are proteins, and nucleic acid regulators are therefore something else! As an RNA-World-er, I’d say nucleic acids must have taken the role initially.

    I guess my recollection is pretty good!

    Sal is being dishonest.

  28. Patrick: I’ll mark that as a “No, I can’t.” from you regarding pointing to the rules you think were violated.

    PatrickLogic@ThePatrickZone. Give yourself a SelfPatrick on the back.

  29. keiths: Moving it accomplishes nothing worthwhile.

    An appeal to the pragmatic approach. That ought to be popular.

  30. keiths: This little teapot tempest is yet another demonstration of why Guanoing is a bad idea.

    Right. It’s not like the original thread got derailed.

  31. Reciprocating Bill: And Mung can’t take that!

    My responses were posted in Noyau, which is where your original post should have been posted. But Patrick was there to cover for you. And Richardthughes. and keiths.

    #TheFourDipshits.

  32. The Patrick Test:

    1. It was ad hom.
    2. What’s ad hom?
    3. Who cares? Ad hom isn’t against my rules.

  33. The objective empirical evidence indicates that Patrick doesn’t understand ad hominem.

  34. Address the ideas not the people, lol? How lame can it get?

    Sorry, didn’t mean to cast aspersions on people with physical disabilities by comparing them with people like Patrick.

  35. Mung: My responses were posted in Noyau, which is where your original post should have been posted. But Patrick was there to cover for you. And Richardthughes. and keiths.

    #TheFourDipshits.

    Mung, sometimes I’ve just got to applaud – like now – when you coin a perfect tag.

  36. hotshoe_: Mung, sometimes I’ve just got to applaud

    Careful, some jealous male might infer that we’re in love with each other.

  37. i hope this new relationship blossoms. It’ll be prime time viewing if it does.

  38. Rich:

    i hope this new relationship blossoms. It’ll be prime time viewing if it does.

    They’re meant for each other.

    Rich, earlier:

    But I still don’t understand the animus [toward Patrick].

    I do. Patrick is promoting an ethos of skepticism here, including an expectation that commenters should be willing to support their claims. Mung, hotshoe, and walto are all bad at that. They blurt out claims that they can’t back up, and it makes them look foolish.

    They don’t like looking foolish, so they blame Patrick (or whoever else is holding them responsible for their statements). They shoot the messenger instead of taking responsibility for their own poor performance.

  39. Mung: Careful, some jealous male might infer that we’re in love with each other.

    Just as you predict, two of the four dipshits show up demanding their share of the attention.

    Poor babies.

    Fragile masculinity.

  40. hotshoe:

    Just as you predict, two of the four dipshits show up demanding their share of the attention.

    Um, no. Mung can have you all to himself.

Comments are closed.