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.
I added the URL and changed the pronoun. Let me know if you need any other fixes.
I’m afraid that what s/he needs fixed may be beyond your abilities.
Thanks, Patrick.
Are you fucking stupid? Using a word and calling someone a word aren’t the same thing.
It’s not obvious? I thought it was obvious. It’s not like I’ve been trying to hide anything from you idiot-geniuses.
And you can take this and shove it Patrick. You’re perfectly capable of sending posts to Guano without someone having to make a case that it belongs in Guano.
I don’t have to point out rule violating posts to you nor do I have to make a case for why they violate the rules. That’s what you’re supposed to do, as a moderator. If you fail as a moderator it’s not because of me.
You know what the rules are and manage to enforce them without my help.
When you want to.
While I’ll pass on your first suggestion, I will note that moderation here is, of necessity, stochastic. Only Neil and I are actively performing admin functions so some comments will inevitably slip through the cracks. In those cases, I appreciate the missed rule violation being pointed out here. You are, of course, under no obligation to assist.
Just curious, I’ve experimented using the “ignore” feature and it’s not very effective. I find the scroll wheel works here just as well as it does over BA77 and KF when browsing comments at UD.
Additionally, the “ignore” plugin breaks the formatting, so I’m wondering how attached other commenters are to this option. Would it cause anyone grief if the feature were switched off for a day or two to see if the improved formatting outweighs the usefulness of “ignore”?
I have enough free time this week to lend a hand.
In general I don’t like putting people on ignore. I only have two people on ignore (Sorry Salvador, but you’re not one of them.). I don’t mind if it gets switched off.
I have to reserve judgment on that. I’ve never tried ignoring both keiths and Patrick. I’d hate to miss out on any of their mind-reading demonstrations.
If I do point it out here, please refrain from asking me why I think it’s a rule-violating post. You know full well that people are to address the ideas, not the person.
So by way of example, when keiths asserts that I am afraid to answer a question, that comment is aimed at me, as a person.
Here’s another fine example:
Both in an active thread in which you personally are an active participant.
I do understand that trailing along after keiths and shoveling up all his shit is a full time job which no one wants.
The reason I ask for which rule you think is being broken is that cases like this aren’t clearly over the line. If, in your first example, keiths had said “Mung is too cowardly to answer.”, that would be in clear violation of the rules. As he wrote it, it’s arguably a question about your behavior. Since Lizzie encourages a loose leash here, I’d allow it.
The second is also about your behavior rather than your character. Again, it skirts the line, and I do see your point.
Alan and Neil, I’d appreciate your thoughts on these two examples.
Regarding:
It’s a “when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” variant. It assumes that mung is afraid to answer. It parses as “you are afraid to answer. Why?” I’d say it games the rules.
Regarding:
It’s a general assumption that might be supportable, though I haven’t seen mung avoid responding to questions and challenges from other members on a regular basis. I’ve mentioned before that what’s missing in the rules is any sanction against a member repeating unsupported claims other than by treating it as spam which would be draconian.
In general, I think DNA_jock’s suggestion on rule interpretation:
(that Lizzie thought well enough to incorporate into the rules) very helpful.
I agree, but my inclination is to let it slide. Would you choose to Guano it?
I find this less close to the line than the previous one. Would you support Guano’ing it?
I had those in mind as well. I generally give the IDCists who participate here more slack than the “home team” and I tend not to Guano anything directed at me personally unless it breaks one of the bannable rules.
Now I’m talking myself into Guano’ing both comments that Mung mentioned. Any thoughts on how to improve consistency?
Patrick,
I think they fall under 6, now!
Kidnap Lizzie?
I’m in. I’ve some friends in England I haven’t seen in too long.
For what it’s worth, I think the exchange between myself and Patrick in the Patrickatheism thread is a good example of the sort of thing that either belongs in Guano or in Noyau.
What concept or idea are we discussing, exactly? LoL.
Peace, Patrick?
I’ll note that you started the thread, with a title and topic that already seemed marginal.
Have switched off the ignore feature for the moment.
Come on folks, you have to admit the comment threads look tidier.
“Ignore” can be easily switched back on if there is a need. Let me know here or PM me.
Those kinds of side discussions are when I really miss the Usenet threaded newsreaders. It was very easy to prune branches that deviated from the main topic.
Consider it dropped.
Ignore button reinstated. Thanks for the feedback! 😢
oh eff. So now I have to intentionally ignore OMagain?
I despise hypocrisy. Don’t we all? I created a thread calling into question the publishing of private email correspondence.
Elizabeth:
And then my thread was closed to comments. And now we have yet another thread. What a hypocritical stench.
Mung,
Presuming you are referring to the thread for discussing Vincent Torley’s review of Axe’s Undeniable I’m not seeing the connection. There’s nothing involving publishing of private correspondence and there is no issue of TSZ moderation policy mentioned in the OP.
Regarding the blog owner closing comments on some threads, whilst I said at the time I didn’t think it was necessary (people would have respected a request to discuss moderation issues in the dedicated thread – or, if they didn’t, some sort of rule or sanction could have followed), it’s Lizzie’s blog and she’s entitled to decide these matters for herself.
One thing Lizzie has made clear. Moderation issues can be discussed in the “moderation issues” thread and thus new OPs that raise moderating issues are unnecessary.
Yes, I resisted the urge to start another OP, lol.
Alan, I cannot send you a message.
No idea why not.
Adding code to comments has never been simple with the existing WordPress editor. I’ve just installed the Jetpack Markdown plugin but I haven’t activated it yet. With Markdown code can be entered simply by wrapping it in 3 backpacks (‘`’).
It doesn’t look like this plugin disables anything, but before I test it I thought I’d ask if anyone has experience with it. The biggest concern I have is that it may interfere with the LaTeX plugin (I’ll test that first).
Thanks in advance for any input.
Beginning testing. (Yeah, I’m impatient.)
Initial tests look okay. Please let me know if you see anything broken. A description of Markdown is available here.
I have submitted a post, please proceed
the mods are busy cleaning up the shit spewed by keiths and petrushka. It could be a while.
Can the admins please provide a list of the members who are required to beg their indulgence in order to post an OP?
Mung,
Anyone can check their own membership status via their member profile. Default status is “contributor” which allows writing of OPs but needs an admin to publish. “New author” status is available on request to regular contributors.
How are comments such as the following not in violation of the rules?
Instead of trying to score hypocritical Mung points, why not answer the questions being raised in that thread ?
Why don’t you learn to follow the rules, keiths? Then people might be more inclined to take your questions seriously. Hell, it might even make for a better site over all if you weren’t constantly insulting people. Why not just call fifth a “liar for Jesus” while you’re at it?
Why ought anyone assume that you post in good faith when you constantly demonstrate that you’re incapable of doing so? You are constantly dishonest and deceptive. You pretend to read minds and you engage in dishonest quote-mining, and you’re never wrong. You’re arrogant and condescending. What on earth is the point of debating with you about anything?
Have I missed anything?
ETA: You’re a know-it-all. You lack humility.
Grow up keiths, please. Your retirement will be the better for it.
Interesting how important the rules are to Mung when other people’s comments are being discussed, but only then.
If you think a comment of mine has violated the rules you can decide to bring it to the attention of the moderators here in this thread, or you can decide not to. If you choose not to, why is that anyone’s fault but your own?
I posted a thread. Still dumb about how to get it noticed for possible publication.
Mods,
Could one of you fix the first link in my new OP? It’s supposed to go here.
False suggestion.
First, you are a moderator of the website, so it’s unfeasible to ignore you. A true moderator (with the appropriate understanding of what it means to be a moderator) would know this and would not suggest this infeasibility.
Second, you owe me something. If you don’t know what I mean, the right thing for me to do is to leave.
Erik,
I don’t know what you mean, Erik.
Alan, you owe me the opportunity to show that you are full of intellectually insulting fallacies approximately every 1.5 sentence. I made the charitable offer here http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/what-is-a-decision-in-phoodoo-world/comment-page-40/#comment-143909
You owe it to me because:
– You took up the discussion with me. I didn’t ask you.
– Intellectual insults are insults, and insults should not occur too liberally, if a discussion forum is to have a tolerable atmosphere.
– The above point applies to moderators more than to regular members, because moderators are ultimately responsible for the atmosphere.
– Your fallacies are so egregious and disruptive, that you are in urgent need to have them demonstrated to you, so that you would be able to learn from them and avoid them in the future. Which would be oh so generous of me and overall beneficial to your website.
Since I had to explain this elementary stuff to you, the opportunity has now passed. You are incorrigible. But don’t take it too hard. You are not alone in this. Patrick had his fallacies demonstrated to him, but I’m sure he learned absolutely nothing.
If you think I have insulted you, you must be mistaken. But the opportunity is there for you to take up the issue in the thread or here if you think some of my remarks break the rules of this blog, or that moderating decisions have been wrong.
I see I didn’t respond to that. It may have been due to the perceived snark in the first line. I’ll go back and respond to it if that helps.
All members here are free to respond to or ignore comments as they wish. Participation for anyone is entirely voluntary.
I don’t think I’ve deliberatly insulted you personally. Certainly haven’t intended to though I have been irritated by your snarky tone.
Not my website. But rest assured that I consider people are doing this website a favour and a courtesy in commenting. I appreciate it and see it as a privilege for us to receive their thoughts.
I reject your suggestion that I’m incorrigible (insert Mandy Rice-Davies caveat here) but don’t worry about hurting my feelings. And you have no obligation to contribute to my education either but thanks for your efforts so far.
This is not the problem. I have no difficulty whatsoever ignoring personal insults. I think internet debaters should have a tough skin like that. Difficulty only arises when the insulter is a moderator. However, this is not the issue here.
The issue is intellectual insults. If you think through my last responses to Patrick, the issue should be clear. The issue is, for example, he accusing me of a fallacy by way of committing a more egregious fallacy himself and not proving mine. Or, while responding to a rather tight argument of mine, accusing me of mere assertion, staying himself on the level of mere assertion. Those are intellectual insults.
The paradox is this: Either you have been irrational beyond any measure, even though slowly ready to learn through hardships, or you were deliberate in the intellectual insults and possibly cunning even now. Let’s see if I can make up my mind which is the case.
+1
Given that moderator Patrick does not care about the opinions of others, why does he engage in debate with them?
Fixed (I think).