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. stcordova: Alan Guanoed my remarks attacking the stupidity of Glen Davidson’s comments, not Glen Davidson himself.

    Don’t word-lawyer me, Sal. You can call one comment stupid but a general reference to stupid comments is an attack on th commenter. And don’t get me started on provocation.

  2. GlenDavidson: By the way, there still is inadequate remedy for someone who lies wholesale like Sal does.

    I keep pointing this out. Do you have a suggestion for a rule change?

  3. stcordova:
    This is an attack on Glen’s arguments, not on Glen himself:

    The replies were a defense against the blatant lies you posted, not on you yourself then Sal.

  5. Mung,

    I always look in Guano. First thing. It’s usually worth a laugh or two.

    That’s why I don’t have anyone on Ignore. I’m more likely to click on someone’s comment if it’s Guanoed, even if I generally just scroll on by.

  6. Alan Fox:

    You can call one comment stupid …

    Yay! Thank you. I hope you mean I can call more than one comment stupid if I at least list which comments I deem stupid, or pathetic, or worthy of tard awards.

    All right:

    Glen said regarding mechanism of C14 contamination:

    “There’s a lot of silica and other inorganic matter in most coals”

    If I said:

    that was a comment worthy of a tard award of the day since Silica (Silicon Dioxide) has no carbon, much less C14 in it.

    That’s should be ok, and within the rules shouldn’t it?

    Oh c’mon Allan, there are not rules about being provocative. Provocative writing keeps TSZ interesting. I can always link to provocative comments to another site right, since Patrick keeps linking to Abby Smith remarks about me being a cottage cheese dripping vagina. You won’t guano links to such assessments of poster’s character will you?

    Or, after you guano something, I can always link to it to let the reader know what I actually said in response. Isn’t that fair?

    Can I link to my guanoed comments? Please. If Patrick can link to sites outside TSZ to highlight insults describing me as a cottage cheese dripping vagina, it only seems fair I can link to my guanoed comments.

    Look. I think I’m being mild compared to the provocation Glen is directing at me. Do you see how ballistic he’s going?

  7. stcordova

    That’s should be ok, and within the rules shouldn’t it?

    No Sal, taking someone’s words out of context and lying about what they meant is not OK. It’s no surprise a douche like you would think it’s OK though.

  9. stcordova: I think I’m being mild compared to the provocation Glen is directing at me.

    Depends on your perspective I think. Glen obviously thinks you’re being dishonest and spreading lies about him.

    Do you see how ballistic he’s going?

    Consider that he doesn’t find your comments to be mild.

  10. Alan Fox: It’s a moderation issue so further discussion should take place there. I agree there is a problem that the rules don’t currently address.

    People can defend themselves without resorting to invective. I honestly don’t see why the rules need to be modified to allow people to be nasty to each other.

    If someone just can’t help himself, and simply must spew hatred, they can do it in Noyau to their heart’s content, and just provide a link in the original thread.

    Like this:

    My response to Frankie can be found in Noyau.

    See how easy that is?

  11. Mung,

    People can defend themselves without resorting to invective. I honestly don’t see why the rules need to be modified to allow people to be nasty to each other.

    The strength of this website is that in the general discussions ad hominem attacks are discouraged but don’t result in disqualification of the participant.

    When you are saying someone is lying that assigns intent which I believe is against the rules in the discussion area. When someone says X is lying that is in the first place an opinion that requires support.

    In order to support this claim of lying, you need to show the claim is wrong and the poster knows it is wrong. This is hard to support so in a way the person who is accusing the other of lying is often at best making an unsupported claim or worst case lying themselves.

    Can anyone show a comment that a poster was lying and his intended dishonesty can be demonstrated?

    The respondent simply has to challenge the claim for support. If there is no support then the claim is successfully challenged as a valid claim.

  12. Alan Fox:
    Been laid low with a virus and Trumpression so not been reading or commenting.

    Seems to me that the idea of a move to guano is to quarantine rule-breaking comments but allow them to be seen by anyone who wishes. I quite like the Amazon system, where comments deemed “notmeeting standards” or some such are hidden but rendered visible by clicking a toggle.

    Hiding a comment (leaving it in it’s original place and still visible via a click of the mouse) would have the same effect as moving to guano, I think. Ideally, this would work by reader input and voting up or down but I don’t see anything with that sophistication available for free.

    I would love that. How’s your PHP?

    Do you know of any reasonably priced WordPress plugins with that functionality? I’d kick in a few bucks to end the Moderation Issues metadiscussion permanently.

  13. Mung: I always look in Guano. First thing. It’s usually worth a laugh or two.

    Anyone on Mung’s ignore list that wants to make sure he sees something you wrote, let me know.

  15. Patrick: Anyone on Mung’s ignore list that wants to make sure he sees something you wrote, let me know.

    You’re too kind. 🙂

  18. stcordova: Please.If Patrick can link to sites outside TSZ to highlight insults describing me as a cottage cheese dripping vagina, it only seems fair I can link to my guanoed comments.

    Pussy, not vagina. ERV called you a cottage cheese dripping pussy.

    Now, personally, I wouldn’t have done that. I like pussies.

    Would you rather I link to your Encyclopedia of American Loons page?

  20. colewd:
    . . .
    When you are saying someone is lying that assigns intent which I believe is against the rules in the discussion area.When someone says X is lying that is in the first place anopinion that requires support.

    In order to support this claim of lying, you need to show the claim is wrong and the poster knows it is wrong.This is hard to support so in a way the person who is accusing the other of lying is often at best making an unsupported claim or worst case lying themselves.

    There seem to be well-supported claims of quote mining. Do you consider that lying?

  21. Patrick: When they post NSFW material to the site we’ll talk.

    About what? Your cowardice or your inability to understand what is actually being debated?

  22. Frankie:

    When they post NSFW material to the site we’ll talk.

    About what? Your cowardice or your inability to understand what is actually being debated?

    About you being a piece of shit.

    Yes, I’ve been drinking. Fuck you.

  24. Patrick: About you being a piece of shit.

    And you, being a shit-eating cockroach, wants some? It could go with whatever you are drinking.

    But it won’t help with your inability to understand what is being debated

  25. Patrick: If a participant demonstrates a lack of good faith, for example by quote mining or other obviously dishonest behavior, call them out.

    There’s no rule that prohibits this, so the need for a rule to allow it is utterly superfluous.

  26. Mung: There’s no rule that prohibits this, so the need for a rule to allow it is utterly superfluous.

    There is no rule against being utterly superfluous.

    And even if there was, there is no rule against moderators breaking the rules.

  29. Mung: I honestly don’t see why the rules need to be modified to allow people to be nasty to each other.

    Me neither. What I’d like to see addressed are PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times) claims and arguments.

  30. Patrick: I would love that. How’s your PHP?

    Non-existent 🙁

    Do you know of any reasonably priced WordPress plugins with that functionality? I’d kick in a few bucks to end the Moderation Issues metadiscussion permanently.

    I’ll have a look. Anyone else who happens to know of something – we’re grateful for all helpful suggestions.

  31. Alan Fox: Me neither. What I’d like to see addressedare PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times) claims and arguments.

    If the Creationists had the spine or the scientific chops to honestly deal with the claims they wouldn’t be PRATTs.

  32. Patrick,

    There seem to be well-supported claims of quote mining. Do you consider that lying?

    It could be but it is hard to prove intent.

  33. colewd:
    Patrick,

    It could be but it is hard to prove intent.

    It is however easy to show beyond a reasonable doubt as is the case of Sal’s disingenuous quote-mining here.

  34. Alan Fox,

    Me neither. What I’d like to see addressed are PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times) claims and arguments.

    This is a tough one because science is always tentative.

  35. colewd:
    Alan Fox,

    This is a tough one because science is always tentative.

    But there are degrees as to how tentative specific conclusions are. Some things in science are so well supported by empirical positive evidence they are considered facts. Evolution over deep time in one such fact. The specific mechanisms may be debated but that evolution over deep time has occurred is denied only by liars or morons.

  36. Alan Fox: What I’d like to see addressedare PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times) claims and arguments.

    Do you have a proposed rule? Would admins be expected to send such comments to a PRATT equivalent of Guano? Would people making those claims be prevented from participating further until they support or retract them?

    A lot of the PRATTs are already addressed at the Talk Origins Index of Creationist Claims. Maybe the only necessary change is to refer to the appropriate section there and not respond further to such nonsense.

  37. Patrick: I was just checking TSZ after a few glasses while watching the Patriots win.

    I thought that might have something to do with it, lol. Are you hoping for Pats v Steelers?

  38. Mung: I thought that might have something to do with it, lol. Are you hoping for Pats v Steelers?

    That’ll be the most interesting for the New York crowd. I’m in Seattle at the moment for work, so I stayed out of the bars during the Seahawks game.

  39. Why was this comment guanoed? I didn’t call BK a tard personally, although his comment was tarded. Why is it permissible to call comments stupid, idiotic, irrational, but not tarded?

    Then Patrick starts saying BK shredded my responses. He did no such thing, unless Patrick swallows BK’s tard responses as a real rebuttal. Bk couldn’t even get which experiment I was referring to straight, much less give a rebuttal.

    Guano (2)

  40. stcordova,

    The idea is that you can characterise a particular claim, argument or assertion as stupid, daft, nonsensical as long as you explain why. Someone might claim, say, “the Earth is flat” and I might say it is a daft claim because there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

  41. Patrick: Do you have a proposed rule?

    More of a guideline. I already suggested that repeated unsupported assertions in the face of rebuttals could be considered spam but maybe the penalty of a ban is a bit Draconian. A short suspension, perhaps?

    Would admins be expected to send such comments to a PRATT equivalent of Guano?

    Don’t think that’s necessary.

    Would people making those claims be prevented from participating further until they support or retract them?

    Perhaps, if requests to desist are ignored, a short suspension, as I said.

    A lot of the PRATTs are already addressed at the Talk Origins Index of Creationist Claims. Maybe the only necessary change is to refer to the appropriate section there and not respond further to such nonsense.

    Sounds good.

  42. Alan:

    I already suggested that repeated unsupported assertions in the face of rebuttals could be considered spam but maybe the penalty of a ban is a bit Draconian. A short suspension, perhaps?

    That’s a terrible idea. Censorship is completely counter to the TSZ ethos and to Lizzie’s stated aims for the site.

  43. The idea is that you can characterise a particular claim, argument or assertion as stupid, daft, nonsensical as long as you explain why.

    I demonstrated why. I pointed out BK’s uncritical acceptance of Kirk Berche’s evaluation of the Taylor and Southon’s 2007 experiments. I gave reason’s why Berche’s evaluation was wrong, based on Berche’s selective cherry picking and non-sequiturs regarding Taylor and Southon’s 2007 experiment.

    And then BK acts like I was talking about the RATE experiments, when I wasn’t. RATE wasn’t immediately relevant to the point being made, namely flaws in Berche’s evaluation of Taylor and Southon, 2007. I have little patience for such idiocy. He can at least try to figure out which experiment I’m discussing. It shouldn’t be hard since I quoted this explicitly:

    In his 2008 critique Bertsche references the Taylor and Southon 2007 paper

    Then BK starts boasting that he refuted my point. He couldn’t even keep straight what experiment was being discussed. I mean, this experiment doesn’t have the word RATE in it does it? Look again:

    In his 2008 critique Bertsche references the Taylor and Southon 2007 paper

    BK couldn’t even get that the discussion was about what Bertche said of Taylor and Southon 2007 paper .

    OK, I’ll repeat:

    BK couldn’t even get that the discussion was about what Bertche said of Taylor and Southon 2007 paper .

    I supported my point several times. On what grounds then have I been refuted or can it be demonstrated I keep repeating a point that has been refuted. It’s Patrick that is perpetuating the false impression my point was refuted since he claims BK shredded my argument. BK couldn’t even keep which experiment was which straight, much less refute my arguments.

  45. The issue I’m seeking a resolution on was stated earlier:

    Why was this comment guanoed? I didn’t call BK a tard personally, although his comment was tarded. Why is it permissible to call comments stupid, idiotic, irrational, but not tarded?

    Then Patrick starts saying BK shredded my responses. He did no such thing, unless Patrick swallows BK’s tard responses as a real rebuttal. Bk couldn’t even get which experiment I was referring to straight, much less give a rebuttal.

    Guano (2)

    You then said:

    The idea is that you can characterise a particular claim, argument or assertion as stupid, daft, nonsensical as long as you explain why.

    I explained why BK the comment was a tard comment, and then my response still got guanoed! I explained why here, and my response is still in guano. I explained in the Glories of Global warming thread, and my response is still in guano.

    So why is this comment:

    Guano (2)

    still in guano since I’ve supported my assertion several times already?

    Who is the judge of when a comment is stupid enough to be called tard or not. Seems to me if it looks tard to me, and I’ve stated why, that should count as supporting my claim, even if the mods and admins don’t agree with my interpretation of the facts, and the facts are BK couldn’t even keep which experiment I was talking about straight even when I had them explicitly referenced, as in “Taylor and Southon 2007”. The fact BK can think “Taylor and Southon 2007” means “RATE” or that the supposed (I emphasize the word supposed) sloppiness of RATE has relevance to “Taylor and Southon 2007” is clear evidence of a mistake.

    Patrick further swallows this mistake uncritically by claiming BK shredded my arguments. BK can’t even follow them, much less shred them.

  50. Patrick writes here:

    In response to Alan’s subsequent comment asking for rule change suggestions, I propose the following:

    Change:

    “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.”

    to:

    “Initially assume all other posters are posting in good faith. If a participant demonstrates a lack of good faith, for example by quote mining or other obviously dishonest behavior, call them out. When the bad faith behavior has ceased, assume that the participant is again posting in good faith.”

    This proposal requires further discussion.

    Repetition is the issue I was trying to address. When does repetition of a quote mine or an unsupported assertion (especially when addressed previously) become enough of a problem? After ten? A hundred? Should there eventually be some kind of sanction at some point?

Comments are closed.