Moderation Issues (3)

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

0

4,124 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)

  1. Patrick: At the end of the day what matters are the ideas, not the baseless insults.

    Haha. Hoho. Hehe. Lack of belief in God or gods is not an idea.

    0
  2. walto: My own view of the hypocrisy question here is whether Patrick’s ruling stands that the remark “People who say X are idiots” is never(contra RB and me and guess you and Rich now) ad hom, while the assertion “Y is an idiot” always is. If that ruling stands, then Hotshoe, who simply restated it above, has (the lusting) Napoleon on her side, and you two squealers (plus RB and I) are wrong.

    It’s a farrago of strange bedfellows I tell you!

    I don’t know where I fit in with those cases, or where you think I fit in.

    But keiths case is unambiguously rule breaking.

    His comment to me that needs to be moved to guano consists of only two lines from him;

    [keiths sez] hotshoe:
    Well, Dumbest, you’re certainly welcome to step in and set me and Dumber straight.

    Rule breaking.

    No matter how anyone tries to spin it.

    No matter who happens to be on whose side.

    0
  3. hotshoe_: keiths comment here needs to be moved to guano.

    You must supply A REASON!

    Now if that don’t make yer pecker shrivel I don’t know what would.

    0
  4. keiths: Hotshoe labels me and fifth as “Dumb and Dumber”, but she can’t take it when I refer to her as “Dumbest”.

    You’re worse than Dumbest. You’re a self-deluded self-sanctified ASS. Your claim that _hotshoe “cant’ take” something you’ve said about her is just pure unadulterated Dipshitness. Hurry up and retire already. And be careful who you expose yourself to. You might regret it, if you aren’t too senile.

    0
  5. Hopefully the Convergence is far enough along for a simultaneous Mung/hotshoe meltdown.

    It looks like we might be headed in that direction.

    0
  6. Richardthughes: The Mung / Hotshoe convergence continues.

    Jealous, little man? Are we converging on what is true? God, that would truly suck, for all you pathetic liars.

    0
  7. Mung:

    Hurry up and retire already. And be careful who you expose yourself to. You might regret it, if you aren’t too senile.

    I notice that you keep mentioning my early retirement. Why are you so obsessed with it?

    0
  8. GlenDavidson: Kinda like a corpse turning into a zombie.

    Not really. There’s nothing sexual about a corpse turning into a zombie, unless you’re just some sort of freak.

    0
  9. keiths: I notice that you keep mentioning my early retirement. Why are you so obsessed with it?

    It is my opinion that people often use their retirement to do things they have never done before.

    Think keiths!

    0
  10. Mung,

    It is my opinion that people often use their retirement to do things they have never done before.

    So?

    0
  11. What a bunch of losers. No wonder you all look to _hotshoe to validate your manhood. But she’s not your mother.

    0
  12. hotshoe_: But keiths case is unambiguously rule breaking.

    His comment to me that needs to be moved to guano consists of only two lines from him;

    No question. The diifference of opinion was on Your post, not keiths, which is unambiguously rule-violating.

    0
  13. Mung:
    What a bunch of losers. No wonder you all look to _hotshoe to validate your manhood. But she’s not your mother.

    Mung, you’re a treasure sometimes.

    If I were not the only real mother on this board (nowadays, at least, with Lizzie sadly missed) that would have been … verging on creepy. But you scored; that’s literally laughing-out-loud funny to me.

    0
  14. walto,

    Hotshoe’s comment is also unambiguously rule-violating…

    A sign that keiths is almost certainly wrong here is that keiths is asserting something fifthmonarchyman admires as a “good job”.

    OF course it’s possible that when Dumb says “X”and Dumber says “Good job about X, Dumb” that they have coincidentally happened to hit on something that’s actually smart and correct.

    But probability is no, they’re just being mistaken together.

    …but neither comment should be Guanoed. What would it accomplish?

    The proper response to someone like hotshoe (or Mung) who can dish it out, but can’t take it, is to point out the hypocrisy — and laugh.

    0
  15. As I said, I think her post was rule-violating too, but your buddy Napoleon said the same type of post wasn’t–just a couple of days ago (even though the guy who posted it conceded it was). So, take it up with Patrick. Consistency is, like his thing.

    0
  16. walto: No question. The diifference of opinion was on Your post, not keiths, which is unambiguously rule-violating.

    Okay, got it, thanks sweetie.

    0
  17. hotshoe_: Are there any other moderators active at TSZ besides Patrick, or is he the sole survivor now?

    I’m still here. And I did read your earlier suggestion re guano.

    0
  18. walto: My own view of the hypocrisy question here is whether Patrick’s ruling stands that the remark “People who say X are idiots” is never (contra RB and me and guess you and Rich now) ad hom

    I don’t think I expressed a thought on the question one way or the other. Seems to be a case by case thing, and context matters.

    0
  19. Mung: I typically win bets made with retail store clerks.

    I generally just pay for my stuff and move on.

    0
  20. walto:
    As I said, I think her post was rule-violating too, but your buddy Napoleon said the same type of post wasn’t–just a couple of days ago (even though the guy who posted it conceded it was). So, take it up with patric. Consistency is, like his thing.

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so is it true that Patrick is, umm, unfoolish to be inconsistent in his moderation? Unfoolish to ignore comments in a vein of “everyone who says X is an idiot” from people on his side, while guanoing the direct response from his opponent Mung? Big minded if he inconsistently guanos my “Dumb says X” comment while ignoring keiths gratuitous insult that came next?
    Well, what else would we expect from the great mind – oh, never little, never accuse him of being small minded – that is the Napoleon of Moderation at TSZ? We expect great things!

    0
  21. keiths: The proper response to someone like hotshoe (or Mung) who can dish it out, but can’t take it, is to point out the hypocrisy — and laugh.

    I can dish it out but can’t take it since when? Poor self-deceived keiths. keiths should post his rule-breaking comments in Noyau, originally knows as the “whine cellar.” Originally established specifically for keiths. Whiner-in-chief.

    #WhinerInChief

    0
  22. Neil Rickert: I’m still here.And I did read your earlier suggestion re guano.

    Thanks for being here.

    Please tell my why, then, is keiths gratuitous insult – directed at me by name – and with no other content in his comment besides the insult – still standing in thread instead of moved to guano?

    What’s the factor that I’m not seeing?

    0
  23. Reciprocating Bill: I don’t think I expressed a thought on the question one way or the other. Seems to be a case by case thing, and context matters.

    I thought you’d conceded that your post should have been guanoed. Sorry if that’s not right. I thought it was ad hom, myself–because of the context–hotshoe’s too.

    0
  24. Mung: The Patrick Test:

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

    0
  25. newton: I generally just pay for my stuff and move on.

    Given your history of wagers with retail clerks I can’t say I blame you. Perhaps you should stop making such wagers.

    0
  26. walto: I thought you’d conceded that your post should have been guanoed. Sorry if that’s not right. I thought it was ad hom, myself–because of the context–hotshoe’s too.

    Yes, and it was ad hom, but not an instance of “Anyone who believes X is an idiot.” Rather, I intended Schopenhauer’s comment as a characterization of Mung, specifically.

    0
  27. Neil Rickert: I took into account the context of the post to which he was replying.

    That’s completely illegitimate, Neil.

    Keiths comment was inexcusable. I didn’t force him to reply that way. My comment about a hypothetical “Dumb” — which indirectly may have referred to him but certainly did not name him directly as Mr Dumb — is absolutely no cover for keiths choosing to break Lizzie’s rules to address me directly by name then call me Dumbest.

    Do your job, Neil, instead of hiding behind “context”.

    If you think my comment was provoking, but managed to stay within the rules, then tough shit. Keiths needs to grow skin in that case and you need move on to guano keith’s unequivocal (however provoked) rule-breaker.
    Or guano my comment anyways – whether I broke the rules directly, or not.
    Either way, keiths comment needs to go.

    I’ve known for at least a year that Patrick is a shit moderator. No surprise that he can’t treat me fairly in this case. I hope to be able to continue respecting your ability to be a fair moderator.

    0
  28. And Patrick is a moron. Because, you know, he just doesn’t get ad hominem. Unless it’s from someone he disagrees with. Or directed at women generally.

    0
  29. Mung: Given your history of wagers with retail clerks I can’t say I blame you. Perhaps you should stop making such wagers.

    Sometimes I must admit I bet them they aren’t true skeptics. The people behind me in line always nod approvingly my mastery of the turnabout.

    0
  30. hotshoe_: Keiths needs to grow skin in that case and you need move on to guano keith’s unequivocal (however provoked) rule-breaker.

    It is not his fault that he was circumcised. He can’t just grow back that skin no matter how hard he masturbates.

    0
  31. Mung: It is not his fault that he was circumcised. He can’t just grow back that skin no matter how hard he masturbates.

    It is worth the try

    0
  32. walto:
    That was kinda funny (in an adolescent way).

    I laughed anyhow.

    Seemed about the right level of discourse

    0
  33. hotshoe_: That’s completely illegitimate, Neil.

    Keiths comment was inexcusable.I didn’t force him to reply that way.My comment about a hypothetical “Dumb” — which indirectly may have referred to him but certainly did not name him directly as Mr Dumb — is absolutely no cover for keiths choosing to break Lizzie’s rules to address me directly by name then call me Dumbest.

    Do your job, Neil, instead of hiding behind “context”.

    If you think my comment was provoking, but managed to stay within the rules, then tough shit.Keiths needs to grow skin in that case and you need move on to guano keith’s unequivocal (however provoked) rule-breaker.
    Or guano my comment anyways – whether I broke the rules directly, or not.
    Either way, keiths comment needs to go.

    I’ve known for at least a year that Patrick is a shit moderator.No surprise that he can’t treat me fairly in this case.I hope to be able to continue respecting your ability to be a fair moderator.

    While you still haven’t provided any evidence for your opinion of my moderation decisions, I am aware of your animosity. That’s why I asked Neil to look at the comments in question rather than Guano’ing both of them.

    You’re rule lawyering. I enjoy doing that myself from time to time, but it doesn’t change the fact that what you wrote was clearly an insult at two readily identifiable participants and hence in violation of the rules. I asked Neil to deal with it in the hopes of avoiding yet another Moderation Issues flame war. That didn’t work so well.

    You’re capable of writing incisive, interesting comments. This bullshit is beneath you.

    0
  34. Mung:

    From The Rules: “Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.” The two statements are functionally equivalent.

    Call it the “broad brush” rule and don’t forget to apply it fairly.

    I call it reading comprehension combined with fluency in English.

    Is that an ad hominem? Because we all know you won’t.

    If you have an objection to a specific moderation decision I’ve made, please provide the details in this thread.

    0
  35. hotshoe_:
    . . .
    But keiths case is unambiguously rule breaking.
    . . .

    Rule breaking.

    No matter how anyone tries to spin it.

    No matter who happens to be on whose side.

    I agree. I also consider your original comment to be in violation of the rules. Neil has chosen to leave them in situ. I’ll support his decision.

    0
  36. Patrick: I also consider your original comment to be in violation of the rules.

    Like I said, consistency is kind of Napoli’s (can I call him that?) thang.

    0

Comments are closed.