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. Patrick: that what you wrote was clearly an insult at two readily identifiable participants

    Just as RB’s was of Mung. You see one, not the other, however.

    I do appreciate your flirty last line though:

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

    Let’s hope she does too!!!

  2. Late to comment but I think it was a mistake for admins not to guano two guano-worthy comments. TSZ is becoming less welcoming to contributors with minority views and I don’t see the current decline reversing, especially with Lizzie’s continuing absence.

  3. Alan,

    I’m not seeing the connection.

    Neil and Patrick declined to Guano those two comments. How does that make TSZ “less welcoming to contributors with minority views”?

  4. Alan Fox:
    Late to comment but I think it was a mistake for admins not to guano two guano-worthy comments. TSZ is becoming less welcoming to contributors with minority views and I don’t see the current decline reversing, especially with Lizzie’s continuing absence.

    I agree with you that both comments should have been Guano’d, but I think this is a lose-lose situation. Guanoing both would have precipitated yet another interminable discussion in Moderation Issues. Guanoing neither seems to result in the same. Now that I’ve learned that, I intend to simply use my best judgement enforcing Lizzie’s rules and let the chips fall where they may. If some participants here are more interested in ranting and raving about site administration than discussing topical matters, that’s what they’ll do.

    I think that kind of nonsense is more off putting to potential new members than anything else except for our seagull commenters, frankly.

  5. Patrick: Now that I’ve learned that, I intend to simply use my best judgement enforcing Lizzie’s rules and let the chips fall where they may. If some participants here are more interested in ranting and raving about site administration than discussing topical matters, that’s what they’ll do.

    Easy for me, as admin emeritus, to sit back and criticise. I commend your declaration.

  6. Alan Fox: Easy for me, as admin emeritus, to sit back and criticise. I commend your declaration.

    You still have admin privs. Go ahead and start a mod war!

  7. Alan,

    Please update my latest post for submission, waiting in moderation.
    Cheers

  10. Sal wrote:

    Patrick guanoed a comment like that from me.The irony is you are saying that in defense of Patrick.

    I don’t hold Patrick’s guano decision against him too much, but I just have to point out it would be interesting to see what he does now.I thank him for spending time moderating this site, it’s a job I would never sign up for.

    Sandbox isn’t Noyau so I think the usual rules apply as they do in other threads.

    Why would you find it interesting? If you feel that any of my admin decisions have been biased, please raise the issue here.

  11. keiths wrote:

    I’ve said it many times, but I’ll say it again: Guanoing is a waste of time and effort, and rules that penalize honesty and reward dishonesty are bad rules.

    I agree with your last sentence completely, but this is Lizzie’s site and Lizzie’s rules. Perhaps when she returns she will adjust them to better align with the goals of the site.

    Personally I’d prefer an approach where everyone has the option of rating comments and the system learns who’s ratings each individual trusts. I’d also like to see something closer to the Usenet threading newsreaders with personal killfiles. That would eliminate the need for any moderation.

  12. Patrick,

    I agree with your last sentence completely, but this is Lizzie’s site and Lizzie’s rules. Perhaps when she returns she will adjust them to better align with the goals of the site.

    Yes. My complaint is against the rules, not against you for enforcing them.

  13. Why would you find it interesting? If you feel that any of my admin decisions have been biased, please raise the issue here.

    Patrick,

    First off, thanks for not guanoing that comment in sandbox. There was some ambiguity in what could be said in sandbox or anything in any thread.

    But I was pointing out the precedent that was set when my comment that used the phrase “making stuff up” was guanoed and Keiths used same kind of language.

    The problem is that when someone says something untrue or perceived as untrue in regards to what someone actually said, the other party can’t call it as such. I think the phrase “making up stuff” is not necessarily an accusation of lying, you do, or at least did in my case.

    I said, I didn’t think when I told Tom he was making stuff up that it was necessarily was an accusation of lying. Tom Mueller to this day has not refuted my claim he made stuff up about me saying I will invite my professors to mud slinging session at TSZ. I think Tom’s mind makes stuff up and he believes it. He thinks its true — but that doesn’t make him a liar.

    I took exception to you moderation decision, but I said I could live with it. I wanted to drive home a point that I think you missed a call. I’ve generally appreciated your work as a moderator, but I think you missed that call. I’m not going to pour out all the usual invective I’ve seen directed at you because I see you trying hard to be equitable, but I have to point out if you guano my comment and then don’t guano Keiths comment that was defending you, it has the appearance of bias. I felt some vindication about my point in other words.

    The alternative is you unguano my comment and when Tom Mueller or someone makes such an egregious accusation of stuff I said or didn’t say, someone should have the right to say “You’re making stuff up”. Maybe it’s a commentary on how their brain fabricates stories and distorts reality in a way they later accept as true to make them feel better. Simply saying “what you say is untrue, back it up” is not as accurate characterization as “you are making stuff up” because “you are making stuff up” is a forceful description of someone’s distortion of the truth.

    FWIW, I’m not following your exchanges with walto at all, I was just commenting on Keith’s phrase since he feels strongly enough to use the words on the lines of “making stuff up”. I was just pointing out the decision to delete such statements is not just nit picky, imho, it’s wrong because it is not technically a violation of the TSZ rules.

    Thanks for cutting me slack in the sandbox thread. But if you’re going to guano my comments and not others that use pretty much the same language, then it shows a lot of uneven moderation.

    Imho, the proper remedy would be to unguano my comment where I pointed out Tom Mueller made stuff up about me inviting my professors to TSZ. He made stuff up, and when I called him on this obvious untruth, he stop showing on the thread in question, and for that matter he stopped showing up to TSZ. If he shows up again, I call him on it using Patrick-approved wording.

  14. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if comments were never guanoed.

    Just wanted to point that out.

  15. stcordova: Patrick,

    First off, thanks for not guanoing that comment in sandbox.

    I did Guano keiths’ comment in The Sandbox, for the same reason I Guano’d yours that made the same accusation towards another commenter. By my reading of the rules, both are in violation.

  16. keiths:
    We wouldn’t be having this discussion if comments were never guanoed.

    Just wanted to point that out.

    But then what would we talk about in Moderation Issues? 😉

  17. Patrick:

    I did Guano keiths’ comment in The Sandbox

    Sal to Keiths:

    Sorry I got you in trouble Keiths, I wasn’t trying to tattle on you. Your guanoed comment was just collateral damage in my fight to make “you’re making stuff up” an acceptable phrase at TSZ.

  18. Okay, I need a complete new set of electronic equipment.
    Sal, try reading what you write.
    As you correctly note “you’re making stuff up” is a far more direct and insulting reply than “that is not true. Please support your statement…”

    stcordova: Simply saying “what you say is untrue, back it up” is not as accurate characterization as “you are making stuff up” because “you are making stuff up” is a forceful description of someone’s distortion of the truth.

    Exactly. And that’s why its a violation of the rules: you are addressing the poster, not the post, you are inferring their motivation for making a statement that is, in your opinion, false.
    My understanding is that the rules DO apply in Sandbox, but they DON’T apply here, you ignorant dishonest lump of shit.

    Oh, that felt goooood.
    🙂

  19. is a far more direct and insulting reply

    After Tom repeats the falsehood after being called on it repeatedly, I don’t feel much obligation to be polite. He owes me an apology, not the other way around.

    If this were a matter of him makings stuff up about genetics, I can let that slide, but attributing something about what I promised I would actually do, when I never made a promise of the sort, that’s more of infraction against me personally.

  20. My latest post in the Thorp, Shannon: Inspiration-thread is awaiting moderation. You guys asleep? 🙂

  24. Patrick:

    I don’t see what rule this comment in Guano violated.

    Neil:

    It replied to and quoted part of another post that had been moved to guano.

    None of which is against the rules.

    Come on, Neil. Don’t go all Alan on us.

  25. One of my comments blew right past the link limit and went to auto-moderation. It has lots of photos of birds.

    I’m requesting for the comment to be released if that’s OK.

  27. I have approved the post (i.e it is released). But I am not agreeing that the post is okay.

    Thanks!

  28. I have a post in the Jonathan McLatchie still doesn’t understand Dembski’s argument-thread awaiting moderation.

  30. Alan Fox, why have all my messages been disappeared?

    It appears that I cannot message you or anyone else. And past messages to me and from me have all been disappeared.

  31. Mung:
    Alan Fox, why have all my messages been disappeared?

    It appears that I cannot message you or anyone else. And past messages to me and from me have all been disappeared?

    I’m pretty sure the messages are still on the database. It may have to do with a recent plug in update. Check your settings on your messages page. Have you changed password or email address? Anyone else with the same problem?

  32. This morning, at the top of the page I see a link that says “You have three unread messages.” But it doesn’t lead anywhere. I can’t get to those messages at all. My message page seems to show old messages only.

    ETA: Hi, mung! Where you been?

  33. walto: This morning, at the top of the page I see a link that says “You have three unread messages.” But it doesn’t lead anywhere. I can’t get to those messages at all. My message page seems to show old messages only.

    For me, it said “4 unread messages”.

    I was able to find those messages. I had previously read all of them.

    Maybe we have a swampman version of messaging that does not have the right causal connections that are needed for memory.

  34. Neil Rickert: Maybe we have a swampman version of messaging that does not have the right causal connections that are needed for memory.

    🙂

  35. walto: This morning, at the top of the page I see a link that says “You have three unread messages.” But it doesn’t lead anywhere. I can’t get to those messages at all. My message page seems to show old messages only.

    That’s fine then. I think you’ll find that some of your old messages are marked unread (must have been a glitch when updating the plugin) and if you click them*, the alerts will disappear.

    *scroll through old messages and find those marked with a red “unread”

  37. phoodoo writes:

    You could always just ask Patrick to censor the dissenters even more here Tom if your sensitive little ears hurt too much. I mean, I know he is already trying his best, but I am sure he can make up some more excuses to move posts.

    If you have any examples of me misapplying or unfairly applying the site rules, please bring them up here. If you cannot, an honorable person would apologize.

  38. Is it permissible to quote and respond to guano comments in Noyau?

    Sorry for raising the question again if it was addressed elsewhere already.

    Sal

  39. stcordova: Is it permissible to quote and respond to guano comments in Noyau?

    If you want to call even more attention to something that was probably true, even if forbidden.

  40. stcordova:
    Is it permissible to quote and respond to guano comments in Noyau?

    Sorry for raising the question again if it was addressed elsewhere already.

    Sal

    There are no rules (aside from the bannable offenses) in Noyau.

  41. There are no rules (aside from the bannable offenses) in Noyau.

    Thanks for such a quick response. You da man!

  43. I posted a thread for option to be on TSZ. as usual i’m dumb about procedure but its there.

  45. Mung:
    I’d like to see Patrick begin to enforce the rules. Be my bitch for a change.

    I recently moved several comments to Guano. What other rule violations do you think the admins have missed?

  46. I’d like to believe you’re sincere Patrick, I really would. But people ought not engage in self-deception. This is an objective truth.

    Look at my posts which were sent to Guano, which were clearly complaints about other posts that were not sent to Guano.

  47. Mung:
    I’d like to believe you’re sincere Patrick, I really would. But people ought not engage in self-deception. This is an objective truth.

    Look at my posts which were sent to Guano, which were clearly complaints about other posts that were not sent to Guano.

    I am making a sincere offer to address rule violations. I’m not going to spend the time to go back through old comments. If you provide links, I’ll take a look.

  48. I think mung should set his own blog. With upright biped. I’d visit.

  49. Patrick: If you provide links, I’ll take a look.

    I provided links in the original posts which were sent to Guano. And quotes. So pardon me if I doubt your integrity.

Comments are closed.