Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Three human beings with limited time working on a volunteer basis not managing to read every single word written here. Imagine that.
As noted on the Rules page, enforcement is, of necessity, stochastic. Everyone will therefore see a bias.
Moderation Issues is the only thread other than Noyau where that kind of rule violation does not result in the comment being moved to Guano. I agree with Mung that this should not be the case — only invective directed at admins should be protected here. Until Lizzie changes the rules, though, your pearls of wisdom will remain.
I think that the no-holds-barred approach should remain in force for this thread.
Here’s why:
phoodoo could have directed his ‘sniveling’ jibe at an admin rather than at me, which would still be protected under Patrick’s narrower carte blanche. But in either case, it’s Gregory who he is making fun of, really. Gregory should be free to respond to phoodoo (subject to the universal porn/malware/outing prohibition).
Well, I think with the new rules, my comment shouldn’t be moved even in the regular section. Because after all, it is mostly content.
The part about Camus of course is just a sidenote. Everything is content.
Dna Jock is a sniveling pussy that Gregory should also make fun of?
Well, probably.
It was literally impossible for you to have not read Rumrakets thread. It was immediately before Gregory’s post, it was the post Gregory was referencing in his post, and it was Gregory response to that very insult that you moved.
To not have seen Rumraket’s post would have meant that you had no idea what Gregory’s post meant, to have not read any other post than Gregory’s, nor any idea who or what his post was referring to, in which case there would have been no reason to move it.
So your rationale is completely and totally irrational. Its as if you just covered your eyes, saw Gregory’s name through the slits in your fingers and quickly deleted something without reading it.
Its laughable Patrick. Stop pretending. Because by pretending you didn’t see it, you are suggesting you are mentally retarded. Because that is the only way it couldn’t be seen.
Oho phoodoo!
What phoodoo doesn’t understand is that Gregory specifically is being targeted. So if they see a post by Gregory they read it and can ignore any surrounding context.
Mung,
Not only ignore it, they have to willfully not even read what Gregory is saying.
If Gregory writes, “Hey, Rumraket why did you just call me an asshole?” They have to pretend they don’t know that Rumraket just called Gregory an asshole.
Patrick is trying out his “No one has more respect for woman then me!” speech.
The crowd just chuckles.
It could have something to do with bedtime and real life too. You know, those times when you are not on the internet. I suspect they have moments like that. And when they get back to work (on this website), it’s mostly boring and annoying work.
Because commenters here are constantly bitching at each other, the site needs a close eye. A close eye can be ensured by having admins about half a globe apart in different time zones, so it would be more likely that there’s somebody watching all the time in some part of the world.
Maybe vote to get Vincent among the admins or something.
Erik,
I don’t think it had anything to do with time zones. Patrick moved Gregory’s post, which was a response to Rumraket. Rumrakets post was just prior to Gregory’s, and Gregory referenced that exact post in his reply.
So he would have had to have turned on the internet, looked for any post Gregory wrote, then simply moved it without looking at what he wrote, then turned the computer off.
When the posts that they miss are always the posts from the side they support, you can pretty much guess why they only miss them. Believe me, if you respond like Rumraket does, they won’t miss your post.
So what was I supposed to do, call colewd the egregious liar that he is? There’s something stupid, vile, and utterly dishonest about claiming “Glen you need to read carefully. Your whole response is out of context because you read ID guys when I wrote anti ID guys.” That’s dishonesty and avoidance of the actual issues that one might get from Mung, phoodoo, or the ever-delusional FMM.
The only thing that depended on his dishonest term “anti-ID guys” was the one statement, nothing else, and it occurred because it’s a stupid and tendentious term in the first place (that also fits his disingenuous and mindless accusation that evolution’s case all hung on knocking out creationism, while that was merely part of the necessary fight), the sort of junk thinking that one just sort of looks at as “here we go again.”
So he uses the misreading of his dishonest misuse of terms as a reason to ignore everything else that had nothing to do with his original dishonesty. That’s how discussions are wrecked by these liars.
Yeah, I don’t really care that my response is in Guano, but the preaching about the rules that generally reward Bill’s dishonesty while penalizing honesty in response is hardly welcome. No he’s not delusional per se, he’s a thoroughgoing liar (possibly not wittingly so, as not much of his tripe is witting), but one isn’t supposed to call him on his dishonesty, hence one has to resort to “delusional” in order to pretend that his comment was written in good faith.
It takes special powers of stupidity and dishonesty to write, “Your whole response is out of context” because of one misreading of his dishonest name-calling. Cole has those powers, and only by being delusional could he escape the appropriate conclusion that he uses lies to avoid dealing with the clearly in-context responses to his many other dishonest claims.
There’s something about the truth that needs telling, so I came to where one can relate truth.
Glen Davidson
Glen,
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. I think the rules need to be revamped because they too often allow bad actors to hide behind them. When someone is being demonstrably dishonest the rules shouldn’t protect them from being called on it.
However, this is Lizzie’s site so we have to follow her rules (except here and in Noyau). I hope she’ll poke her head back in sometime in the near future and address the problems that have been identified.
Patrick,
We await the second coming of Lizzie.
But does the second coming ever happen?
Glen Davidson
Whatever the rules are, they doubly apply to admins. Whoever does not understand this has no business being admin. And whoever does not agree with the rules, has also no business being admin.
phoodoo,
It’s apparently an Arago Effect kind of thing? 😉
At least to me, it does feel like I’m on automatic muffle, silence or guano here, which is o.k. too. Haven’t been visiting & don’t plan to again after 9 Nov. The only thing is that there may be one or a few who might wish to read my words, volunteered here with care & attention (sometimes more than others), speaking out against the philosophistry and the soulless mechanistic thought often on display by resident ‘skeptics’ of this site. Just saying that, so few words and with no hostility only accuracy … and you ‘Get a Night in the Box.’
So, that’s my role to atheist skeptics feeling unwell after out-tribe ‘digestive discourse’: “Gregory, all of this integral thinking and holistic aspirations, categorising and naming, reflexive sociological observations, the call to community proportionality (instead of mainly Victorian English strife!) in science, philosophy and theology/worldview dialogue, this call for peace and ‘purification’ of polluted wells, etc. … it’s all getting on my nerves & I don’t want to read it anymore. Change the channel, Queen Lizzie, so I can ‘ignore’ Truth-Tellers & Seekers from my screen, keep them away from my old modern, naturalistic mind.”
And thus, the (atheist miserable) Skeptical Zone moderation strategy (aside from policy): “Go spend a night in the box,” said the Fox, before packing his bags to go on vacation! =D LOL!
So yeah, uh-huh, I generally agree with phoodoo’s point. That isn’t entirely uncommon for phoodoo, other than his IDism promotion & apparent creationism. To purposely self-exclude (as so many before have done) in this age of inter-disciplinarity seems to me a shame. Well, he can answer privately if that is an issue. I prefer not to post here anymore, whether falsely & hippocritically guano’d or not.
This is *NOT* a Moderation Issues response. 😉
Weird that some posts I’ve responded to are appearing after my post on the thread….
Check the time stamps of the last few posts on the Wallace’s Doubt thread.
Maybe a time warp.
When do/did the Brits change from daylight savings time to standard time?
Materialist that you are, you simply don’t realize that this could be a miracle.
You may be a saint without knowing it.
Glen Davidson
Yeah, it’s the end of British Summer Time.
I was getting a “Slow down, you’re posting comments too quickly!” message because WordPress was confused by the timestamps.
walto,
One of my posts to John Harshman also mysteriously disappeared yesterday.
It doesn’t much matter though. John doesn’t respond to anyone who actually challenges his assertions.
Said the guy who says nothing except baseless assertions.
I think this points to a basic problem with TSZ. Many of us who are active here want to change the rules, because the rules are not working. But we can’t, because we feel an obligation to site’s founder, even though she’s not involved. At all.
Given this stalemate, I think we need to either reach out to Lizzie directly and ask her to return to participating at TSZ. If she doesn’t want to or doesn’t have time, we need to at least get her permission to change the rules as we need to. In a worst-case scenario, I suppose we can purchase the domain name from her and take her out of the TSZ picture entirely.
Lizzie continues to pay for the site hosting, so she is involved to that extent. I personally have no idea if she is lurking or just leaving the site to its own devices.
Overall I think the only problem with the existing rules, aside from a slight but manageable lack of clarity in some of them, is that they are not resistent to concerted attack. Being required to always assume that others are posting in good faith is a great guideline, until someone is deliberately and clearly not posting in good faith. Not calling others dishonest encourages civil discussion, until someone is deliberately and clearly dishonest. Noyau provides a mechanism for addressing those cases, so despite the problems we may be near a local optimum for online discussion.
As far as changing management, I am deeply opposed. Lizzie is a strong supporter of freedom of expression. There are people participating here who are not. I’m much more comfortable with her benevolent dictatorship than I would be with allowing more authoritarian rules.
I have submitted a new post. Please add.
Cheers
Is there any chance that you can add a link, for the benefit of the non-Brits?
(Delaying publishing til you respond).
Neil Rickert,
Well, I was going to add some links about some videos I have seen, but I didn’t really want to influence anyone’s original opinions about the case first. I think most in England are quite familiar with it, and I will post a few different links later. I am curious what the prevailing wisdom is thus far.
There are so many conflicting opinions online, this is why I didn’t want to post anything yet.
Neil Rickert,
Its about the girl of a wealthy English couple that went missing while on vacation in Portugal.
Somebody has massively edited a post I made. Don’t you think that this is something only KF would do and it should not happen on this site?
Do OP-ers have the ability to edit comments under their posts? Are they allowed to?
The post http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/jeff-lowder-presents-one-of-the-strongest-rebuttals-against-theism-and-for-naturalism-i-have-so-far-seen/comment-page-3/#comment-148803
I think it was me, for some reason I have edit-priveleges in threads I start. I really don’t know how it happened, I just wanted to post a response, instead I think I accidentally clicked [edit] instead of [quote in reply]
My apologies, that really wasn’t intended.
The original poster does have the ability to edit comments. The rules say not to.
Rumraket — is it possible you accidentally edited a comment instead of replying to it?
ETA: Ninja’d by the inadvertent miscreant himself.
I have submitted a new post waiting approval
Denied.
I see it. It just repeats your oft-refuted claim that there is no theory of evolution. It also includes a quote-mine you’ve been corrected on. I don’t think this merits publishing in its current form.
Alan Fox,
I didn’t know that the rules for posting here were that you get to decide what has merit and what doesn’t.
That’s a new trick, even for you Alan.
LoL! How can my claim be “oft-refuted” when no one has ever linked to the theory? And what was the quote-mine?
So, far from refuting my claim is has become clear that my claim is correct as stated.
Alan needs to recuse himself from moderator duties. The following is supposed to show that I quote-mined a biologist when it supports my quote:
WTF?
I’m not the only admin. Perhaps other admins will disagree with my view.
I’ll repeat the OP Joe has asked me to publish is an assertion that there is no theory of evolution, despite the fact that I have summarized the the theory in my own words for him and there is a huge literature on the theory, starting with Darwin’s On the Origin of Species
Now if Joe wants to argue the merits of the theory of evolution in an OP, then that should be fine. Claiming a theory of evolution doesn’t exist is just plain daft.
I did.
Peter Wilders is a young earth creationist , do you have the untranslated quote?
Alan, you have NEVER linked to the theory of evolution. Your summation is useless without that. And Darwin’s wasn’t a scientific theory.
So it seems that claiming the ToE exists is just a standard bluff. But then again Alan thinks because the phrase gets millions of google hits the theory exists.
Publish the post and let’s see how others respond. Maybe someone will actually link to the theory. My bet is that won’t happen and we all know why.
And no one has linked to the theory of evolution. Claims to the contrary are just delusions.
That’s simply not true. I linked to a very good source in a comment previously. Here is another. The Talkorigins site introduction by Larry Moran.
As that’s demonstrably false, it’s worth noting calling others liars is against the rules of this site.
As another admin, I’m going to agree with Alan on this.
The “new post” is simply a repeat of what you have often said in comments, and it has already seen more than adequate discussion. I don’t see any point in opening a new thread on that topic.
I’m afraid I am forced to agree with phoodoo, Alan. While Frankie’s post is wildly inaccurate and does appear to contain a quote mine, it doesn’t include any of the bannable offenses. There is nothing in the rules that allows an admin to refuse to approve it. It I think we have to let it through and address its deficiencies in the comments.
Neil, what do you think?
Ninja’d by Neil.
I’m not going to start an admin war over this, but I think the two of you are overstepping the bounds Lizzie has set on admins. I will email her with my concerns.
I think the criteria differ between “what is allowed in a comment” and “what is suitable for an OP”.
Pure trolling is absolutely allowed in comments. As an OP, not so much, IMO.
As far as I know, you have the ability to simply approve the post.
I don’t know what the rules are, implied or otherwise, but surely there ought to be some consideration of quality. Frankenjoe is such a disgustingly stupid troll, and I can’t see why his mindless stupidity should extend beyond comments to actual posts.
Technically, the excruciatingly dull and hateful moron is banned from here, even if that rule has clearly been ignored for a long time. How does ignoring the rule that got him banned lead to following some rule that he can post his appalling stupidity on the front page?
Glen Davidson