Moderation Issues (3)

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

2,969 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)”

  1. keithskeiths

    Rich,

    Joe stays in moderation though. He spams every board he can find with his PRATTS otherwise.

    I think he should have remained banned. Anyone who can’t summon the smidgen of self-control required by the anti-porn rule is expendable.

  2. dazzdazz

    keiths:
    Rich,

    I think he should have remained banned. Anyone who can’t summon the smidgen of self-control required by the anti-porn rule is expendable.

    Agreed. Just ban him and if Lizzie comes back and feels like lifting the ban after seeing what he does then so be it.

  3. MungMung

    keiths: That’s right. The “ignore commenter” feature doesn’t constitute a “knit your own echo chamber” approach, and neither does my proposal.

    You want to know what I appreciate? I appreciate the complete absence of any argument.

    The “ignore commenter” feature doesn’t constitute a “knit your own echo chamber” approach because … And neither does my proposal because …

    I guess everyone should just take your word for it.

    Did Lizzie sign off on your proposal?

  4. MungMung

    dazz: Just ban him and if Lizzie comes back and feels like lifting the ban after seeing what he does then so be it.

    Lizzie lifted the ban. Perhaps you can appeal her decision to a higher authority. LoL.

  5. FrankieFrankie

    There is already plenty of peer-reviewed papers and experimentations in favor of ID. Blind watchmaker evolution? We are still waiting for a testable methodology.

  6. FrankieFrankie

    keiths:
    Rich,

    I think he should have remained banned. Anyone who can’t summon the smidgen of self-control required by the anti-porn rule is expendable.

    What porn? People like you who cannot support their claims should be banned. People who don’t have a smidgen of self-control to not stare at a disgusting picture- how long did you linger, keiths- should be ashamed.

    If what was linked to was porn then so was Lizzie’s posting of the statue of David.

  7. RichardthughesRichardthughes

    Frankie: What porn? People like you who cannot support their claims should be banned. People who don’t have a smidgen of self-control to not stare at a disgusting picture- how long did you linger, keiths- should be ashamed.

    If what was linked to was porn then so was Lizzie’s posting of the statue of David.

    Tell you what, post your “tunie” picture on your blog next to the statue of David. We’ve challenged you to this before. You won’t. We all know why.

  8. phoodoo

    keiths:
    Rich,

    I think he should have remained banned. Anyone who can’t summon the smidgen of self-control required by the anti-porn rule is expendable.

    Who decides what is porn?

  9. OMagain

    Frankie: If what was linked to was porn then so was Lizzie’s posting of the statue of David.

    Note how you carefully phrased that to avoid implying you are in fact the person who posted the picture. Why, are you ashamed? We all know you are Joe.

  10. AhmedKiaan

    Joe, you have a unique amount of anger issues. It’s like a fingerprint. And honestly, I feel bad for you. You’ve gotten to a very hateful place, and I hope some day you can get out of it.

  11. FrankieFrankie

    Well Ahmed, I hope that you get over your ignorance issues. Education usually fixes that but in your case education would be lost.

  12. Kantian NaturalistKantian Naturalist

    keiths: I think he should have remained banned. Anyone who can’t summon the smidgen of self-control required by the anti-porn rule is expendable.

    Agreed. I’ll never understand why Lizzie decided to lift the ban on Joe. The moderation is exceedingly light and perfectly transparent: personal attacks get Guanoed, NSFW posts result in banning, and everything else is fair game. It’s applied to everyone and it’s largely fair. I don’t object when my posts get Guanoed, because I know that I’ve broken the site rules by posting a personal attack. But what’s the point of having a rule that NSFW posts result in banning when the person who is banned can be reinstated at the whim of the site owner?

  13. RumraketRumraket

    I only ignore phoodoo and frankie. Frankie is a complete waste of time. Complete. Phoodoo is overwhelmingly a waste of time too.

    Why do I say this?
    I have to confess, it’s difficult having a conversation/argument/debate with the physical manifestation of angry religious and existential angst. Prideful ineptitude given form.

    A sycophantic, jealoux, (probably socially and sexually) frustrated and frothy entity who’s primary method of argumentation seems to amount to nothing more than caricature, mockery, insult, ridicule and blind assertion copulated with the fallacious declaration of incredulity.
    A beast entirely unafraid of being constantly wrong about absolutely everything, as long as it has an “outlet” for it’s feeling of disgust towards “that ridiculous” other thing it is so unfathomably and irrationally convinced is obviously false.

  14. FrankieFrankie

    Rumrat posted a great definition of evolutionists:

    A sycophantic, jealoux, (probably socially and sexually) frustrated and frothy entity who’s primary method of argumentation seems to amount to nothing more than caricature, mockery, insult, ridicule and blind assertion copulated with the fallacious declaration of incredulity.
    A beast entirely unafraid of being constantly wrong about absolutely everything, as long as it has an “outlet” for it’s feeling of disgust towards “that ridiculous” other thing it is so unfathomably and irrationally convinced is obviously false.

    Thanks, rumrat

  15. FrankieFrankie

    Kantian Naturalist: personal attacks get Guanoed,

    That is false- as for NSFW people shouldn’t be on blogs during work time and they shouldn’t be using company computers for non-work related issues.

    No wonder businesses are failing- employees are dicking off rather than doing actual work.

  16. phoodoo

    Rumraket:
    I only ignore phoodoo and frankie. Frankie is a complete waste of time. Complete. Phoodoo is overwhelmingly a waste of time too.

    Why do I say this?
    I have to confess, it’s difficult having a conversation/argument/debate with the physical manifestation of angry religious and existential angst. Prideful ineptitude given form.

    A sycophantic, jealoux, (probably socially and sexually) frustrated and frothy entity who’s primary method of argumentation seems to amount to nothing more than caricature, mockery, insult, ridicule and blind assertion copulated with the fallacious declaration of incredulity.
    A beast entirely unafraid of being constantly wrong about absolutely everything, as long as it has an “outlet” for it’s feeling of disgust towards “that ridiculous” other thing it is so unfathomably and irrationally convinced is obviously false.

    I challenge anyone to make a caricature out of that!

    Its impossible I say!

  17. PatrickPatrick

    Frankie: What about the ID PRATTs? The BS about the who, how, why and when- all of which come AFTER design has been determined and is studied- comes to mind

    PRATT stands for Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. The second word doesn’t apply to arguments against intelligent design creationism.

  18. FrankieFrankie

    Patrick: PRATT stands for Previously Refuted A Thousand Times.The second word doesn’t apply to arguments against intelligent design creationism.

    Yes there are “arguments” you and yours bring up about ID that have been refuted thousands of times. OTOH you and yours cannot say how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes

  19. PatrickPatrick

    Kantian Naturalist:
    . . .
    One point, though, is that I think it’s unreasonable for us to be bound by Lizzie’s rules. She’s not here, and she hasn’t been here for a while. I don’t think it makes sense for us to be bound by rules when the person who implemented those rules isn’t part of the community that is affected by those rules.

    As others have already pointed out, Lizzie pays for this site. That alone would be sufficient reason to follow her rules while here. She also started and set the initial tone here. It’s her experiment. It’s great that you’re participating in it and your suggestions are no doubt more than welcome, but ownership and the final decisions rest with her.

    . . .

    The people who are actually part of the community should be the ones to decide on what the rules should be that govern the community.

    No. The “community” is just a collection of individuals, each with their own values and goals, participating on a shared resource. If you don’t like some aspect of that interaction yet you value other aspects, encourage others to modify their behavior. Lead by example. Be the change you want to see.

    If that means that we need to purchase TSZ from Lizzie and pay for site upkeep ourselves, I’m fine with that.

    That would give the new owners the right to change the rules. It could easily destroy the site if our more authoritarian participants end up in control.

  20. FrankieFrankie

    I have a challenge for those who want me banned:

    A debate on the merits of ID vs evolution by means of blind and mindless processes- see Coyne’s description

    For example my opponent will have to say how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of those blind and mindless processes and I will have to say how we determined vision systems were intelligently designed.

    If I lose or cannot support ID I will leave. If you lose or cannot support your position, you leave

  21. PatrickPatrick

    Pedant:
    This place used to be fun to come to, with Kantian Naturalist and Walto weighing in on epistemological issues.

    Since Frankie (aka Joe Gallien, joe g, joe, joseph, john paul, ID guy, jim, frisbee kid, frankie, virgil cain, etc.) started stinking up this place with its belligerent claptrap, it’s become a bore, and those better angels of our nature have stayed away.

    I hope the admins can find a way to clean up this recent pollution without violating any site-specific principles of fair discourse.

    I don’t disagree with anything you say. All I can do within the rules is recommend you use the “Ignore Commenter” functionality. Unfortunately, that means you still see replies to those who’s only goal is to disrupt the site and get attention.

    There are technical solutions to a larger part of the problem, but WordPress doesn’t support them natively. Hopefully we’ll find something that let’s users hide the subthreads infected by those individuals.

    The hard answer is to convince everyone to simply not respond to the obviously ineducable trolls or at least to limit responses to a single thread.

  22. PatrickPatrick

    Frankie:
    . . .
    as for NSFW people shouldn’t be on blogs during work time and they shouldn’t be using company computers for non-work related issues.
    . . . .

    This is a perfect example of why I cannot disagree with Alan’s decision to keep you in pre-emptive moderation. You have given no reason to trust that you won’t break one of the bannable rules if you’re not monitored.

    In case you really don’t understand: NSFW is a shorthand for the type of material that Lizzie doesn’t want on this site at any time. Everyone participating here should respect that very simple rule.

  23. FrankieFrankie

    Patrick: This is a perfect example of why I cannot disagree with Alan’s decision to keep you in pre-emptive moderation.You have given no reason to trust that you won’t break one of the bannable rules if you’re not monitored.

    In case you really don’t understand:NSFW is a shorthand for the type of material that Lizzie doesn’t want on this site at any time.Everyone participating here should respect that very simple rule.

    NSFW is shorthand for “not safe for work”. It has nothing to do with this site.

    And Patrick, I don’t care about the moderation. It just proves my point- the mods here are hypocrites.

  24. newton

    Frankie: I have a challenge for those who want me banned:

    The only reason so far for you to be banned is your previous behaviour.Having a debate would not change history.

  25. FrankieFrankie

    newton: The only reason for you to be banned is your previous behaviour.Having a debate would not change history.

    My previous behaviour was only unacceptable to the extremely biased. I would love to take my case in front of an impartial jury.

  26. newton

    Frankie: My previous behaviour was only unacceptable to the extremely biased. I would love to take my case in front of an impartial jury.

    Biased in what way?

  27. MungMung

    Patrick: PRATT stands for Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. The second word doesn’t apply to arguments against intelligent design creationism.

    That’s a PRATT!

  28. FrankieFrankie

    Mung: Another argument for why I should also be a moderator here!

    Everyone should be a moderator here. It will work like this- when people post their comments go into a moderation que. Anyone but the author has the right to publish the comment or not. You can just let it sit there. And if you author an opening post you get to moderate that thread- anyone can allow the posts but you can move them to guano if they are off-topic.

  29. Alan FoxAlan Fox Post author

    newton: I am beginning to think you want it too much.

    And power corrupts. I didn’t want it at all and now look at me!

  30. Neil Rickert

    newton: I am beginning to think you want it too much.

    I took Mung to be saying that he meets the apparent requirement (according to some) of being a hypocrite. That is to say, I took it a self-deprecating humor.

  31. newton

    Neil Rickert: I took Mung to be saying that he meets the apparent requirement (according to some) of being a hypocrite.That is to say, I took it a self-deprecating humor.

    Me too.

  32. newton

    Alan Fox: And power corrupts. I didn’t want it at all and now look at me!

    “The Emperor of the kingdom dolorous / From his mid-breast forth issued from the ice; /And better with a giant I compare / Than do the giants with those arms of his; / Consider now how great must be that whole, / Which unto such a part conforms itself. / Were he as fair once, as he now is foul, / And lifted up his brow against his Maker, / Well may proceed from him all tribulation. / O, what a marvel it appeared to me, / When I beheld three faces on his head! / The one in front, and that vermilion was”

  33. Alan FoxAlan Fox Post author

    Just to pour oil on the embers, I don’t think Joe should have been allowed to resurrect himself as a sock. Either the ban should have remained or it should have been lifted on the original registration with a caveat as to future conduct.

    Water under the bridge, now.*

    The vast majority of members for most of the time find no apparent difficulty in staying within the aims laid down by Lizzie, which were to facilitate communication between people of widely-differing views. For the most part, moderation actions are unnecessary. The vast majority of members seem to understand that a move to guano is a “ref’s whistle” to indicate when the game rules are broken and not censorship or condemnation. I try to emulate Lizzie’s approach in looking to de-escalate when I happen to notice tempers rising. Lizzie has a talent for taking people at face value that can be disarming and encouraging to meaningful discussion. I regret she’s currently unable to find time to participate because without her influence I fear the blog will lose its way.

    *Except I maintain that Joe’s current style of posting amounts to spamming the site. Whilst it is on one level cruelly amusing, it would also appear to be a turn-off for other members: members that may be voting with their feet. If it were my sole choice, I’d impose a suspension pending some undertaking as to future behaviour.

  34. newton

    Frankie: Everyone should be a moderator here.

    They are with their own comments

    It will work like this- when people post their comments go into a moderation que.

    Queue , sort of like you are?

Leave a Reply