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. Alan Fox: *Except I maintain that Joe’s current style of posting amounts to spamming the site.

    Make your case, Alan. I bet Richie, OMagain, adapa, acartia all fair worse than I when it comes to spamming. Just because I don’t allow you and yours to get away with bald assertions doesn’t mean I am spamming.

    Look I get it- I threw down the challenge of challenges, you know no one will take me up on it and that pisses you off.

  2. Hi mods.

    how can I change my avatar to look like this?

    That for sure looks like something from outer space. And yes, it looks designed to me.

    Thank you

  3. Mung:
    Hi mods.

    how can I change my avatar to look like this?

    That for sure looks like something from outer space. And yes, it looks designed to me.

    Thank you

    Looks like the flying spaghetti monster… just saying

  4. Mung:
    Hi mods.

    how can I change my avatar to look like this?

    That for sure looks like something from outer space. And yes, it looks designed to me.

    Thank you

    Mung,

    You should be able to click on your profile in the upper right corner of the site page and select “Edit Profile.” You can then add the pic at the bottom of the page.

  5. Frankie: Look I get it- I threw down the challenge of challenges, you know no one will take me up on it and that pisses you off.

    Or everyone could ignore you and the results would be the same

  6. Alan Fox: The vast majority of members for most of the time find no apparent difficulty in staying within the aims laid down by Lizzie

    *This is another in a long line of many bald faced lies by Alan, for those who are just joining us.

    What Alan really means is that he ignores when others break the rules constantly, so that he can claim it is only the few theists who posts here who are the problem.

    Its a tired old guerilla skeptic strategy of his.

    But when he says he would like to ban folks, that part is certainly true.

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

    Then quit moderating Alan!

    Are you unaware that is an option?

  8. newton: Or everyone could ignore you and the results would be the same

    Not really. One way shows that you have courage and conviction. The other says you don’t have anything and are afraid to admit it

  9. Frankie: Not really. One way shows that you have courage and conviction. The other says you don’t have anything and are afraid to admit it

    It is more like turning off an annoying radio station which plays the same three songs.

  10. phoodoo: *This is another in a long line of many bald faced lies by Alan, for those who are just joining us.

    What Alan really means is that he ignores when others break the rules constantly, so that he can claim it is only the few theists who posts here who are the problem.

    This is not quite what he said, or what he probably means. I have noticed that the rules are stretched, and often outright broken, by quite a few posters here. The anti-science posters are very much in the minority, so if the same number of rule violators are in each camp, this is a larger ratio of the anti-science camp.

    We all see things through our own lenses. Through your lenses, evidently, you see a valiant struggle by theists against the favored atheists, due to atheistic moderation. Through my lenses, I see no fact-based or valid arrows in the anti-science quivers, so all they have to deploy is attacks, insults, and general sniping and whining. These weapons are sure to smell bad to pro-science moderators.

    What’s interesting is that you frame this tension as theist versus atheist (purely religious terms), while I see it as pro versus anti-science, in straight non-religious terms. So we keep talking past one another.

  11. newton: It is more like turning off an annoying radio station which plays the same three songs.

    And they’re bad covers of “walk the dinosaur”

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

    Okay. Convince your very close friend (not that there’s anything wrong with that) Joe Gallien to post the image that resulted in his banning on his blog. We can then have a jury of Barry “I wish I had the balls to be a bully” Arrington, KairosFocus, Denyse O’Leary, BornAgain77, and VJ Torley decide if it constitutes a violation of Lizzie’s rules as written.

    Them’s the best odds I can give you.

  13. Frankie: 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.

    You manage to spam the place quite enough as it is, Frankie.

  14. Alan Fox:
    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.

    I agree completely. Clearly that power hasn’t corrupted you enough. Take another hit.

  15. Patrick: Okay.Convince your very close friend (not that there’s anything wrong with that) Joe Gallien to post the image that resulted in his banning on his blog.We can then have a jury of Barry “I wish I had the balls to be a bully” Arrington, KairosFocus, Denyse O’Leary, BornAgain77, and VJ Torley decide if it constitutes a violation of Lizzie’s rules as written.

    Them’s the best odds I can give you.

    Yes. Joe knows he’s wrong and the image is indefensible. He posted it in a childish fit of rage. But his whole thing is never admitting he’s wrong. My vote is to can him and raise the tone. His comedy will remain at untelligent reasoning and it’s funny watching him get worked up and frustrated as all venues ( pro ID and not) ban him.

  16. Patrick: You manage to spam the place quite enough as it is, Frankie.

    Define spam and make your case- I challenge you. I bet the evos spam more than I do

  17. Patrick:
    Ignore

    No Patrick, I will use the entire thread that led up to my posting the link to make my case. You don’t get to tell me how to run my defense.

  18. newton: It is more like turning off an annoying radio station which plays the same three songs.

    Yes, you are exactly like tat

  22. I’d like to propose a new rule, one that I am sure we will all be able to agree on. Child abusers will be banned.

    Now Patrick can make his case that Salvador is a child abuser and ban him. Everyone goes home happy.

  23. You’re a piece of shit Patrick, and unworthy of being a moderator here. If I were Salvador I’d sue you for defamation. Hell, I’m not Salvador, and I am no friend of Salvador, but I’d contribute to his legal fees if he ever does sue you.

    Salvador is not a child abuser and you are an utter ass for repeatedly saying that he is.

    Want to meet up in a parking lot?

  26. Mung: I’d like to propose a new rule, one that I am sure we will all be able to agree on. Child abusers will be banned.

    Ironically ,I think people who want to make up new rules should be banned,

  27. Mung:
    You’re a piece of shit Patrick, and unworthy of being a moderator here. If I were Salvador I’d sue you for defamation. Hell, I’m not Salvador, and I am no friend of Salvador, but I’d contribute to his legal fees if he ever does sue you.

    Salvador is not a child abuser and you are an utter ass for repeatedly saying that he is.

    Sorry Mung but teaching children lies like sal’s YEC “teaching” is considered by many to be a form of child abuse. You’re a big stinky piece of shit too for supporting such child abuse.

  28. Mung,

    You seem very, very, upset that I am pointing out that Sal Cordova’s real life behavior constitutes child abuse. A good example of him admitting to this is in the thread starting here. My interim summary explains exactly how he is indoctrinating children with lies. Further comments describing exactly why his admitted behavior is child abuse are here and here.

    If you disagree, please explain how Sal’s reprehensible behavior is not abusive towards children. ERV was too generous and easy on him.

  29. Patrick:
    Mung,

    You seem very, very, upset that I am pointing out that Sal Cordova’s real life behavior constitutes child abuse.A good example of him admitting to this is in the thread starting here.My interim summary explains exactly how he is indoctrinating children with lies.Further comments describing exactly why his admitted behavior is child abuse are here and here.

    If you disagree, please explain how Sal’s reprehensible behavior is not abusive towards children.ERV was too generous and easy on him.

    Patrick, evolutionists are indoctrinating the children with lies. But that doesn’t seem to bother you. In fact you condone it.

  30. Patrick, if you are so certain that Salvador is abusing children, report him to the appropriate authorities. No doubt they would love to hear from you.

    Be sure to bring your “objective empirical evidence” of his criminal behavior.

    Instead of reporting him to the appropriate authorities, you post on a blog. Because you really care about the abused children. You’re pathetic.

    Character assassination should not be permitted at TSZ. And admins ought not condone it nor participate in it.

  31. Mung:
    Patrick, if you are so certain that Salvador is abusing children, report him to the appropriate authorities. No doubt they would love to hear from you.

    Not everything that is unethical is illegal (and vice versa).

    What Sal is doing is vile. My only option currently is to point that out to him. If I knew where he was advertising his child abuse for money scam I’d do something about that.

    I notice that you ignored my challenge to defend his odious behavior.

  32. Patrick: . A good example of him admitting to this is in the thread starting here

    That is quite possibly one of the most despicable things I have ever seen, in terms of deliberately misinforming children. You’re right, that is child abuse. Intellectual child-abuse. He’s literally attempting to erode their ability to think critically about any subject they might take to conflict with their world-view.

    The very subject about which they should be thinking most critically. And yes, of course, that goes for everyone.

    “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.” – Richard Feynman

    Luckily, given what he has presented about how he teaches these children, there is still some chance they’ll one day discover just how utterly fallacious Sal’s “principles” are. They might one day come to understand what in philosophy is called the principle of total evidence.

    Every one of Sal’s arguments, examples and principles commits the fallacy of exclusion and violates the principle of total evidence. And this can be demonstrated to any rational person with an open mind.

  33. Patrick, I’m with you. What he’s doing is despicable. He’s literally teaching these children to think fallaciously.

  34. Rumraket:
    Patrick, I’m with you. What he’s doing is despicable.

    How far can you interfere in family business, where parents raise children in a particular culture and seek education options that reinforce those prejudices? I certainly regard it as unethical to lie to children abusing the position of parent (and by extension, the education system) and the trust of the child. What, other than making information available and ensuring the free exchange of ideas, can be done to ensure children receive an honest account of life, the universe and everything?

  35. I don’t have a solution for that other that what you suggest. I don’t think anything else can (or should) be done, than to ensure we stay in a society that ensures the free exchange of ideas and the right to unconstrained plurality of thought.

  36. Mung,

    Did you really think that you, of all people, could pull off righteous indignation? Your moral high horse looks something like this:

  37. See it Alan??? You missed it again?:

    Richardthughes January 20, 2017 at 12:30 am

    Frankie,

    What claim was that, my portly friend?

    Missed it again Alan?

    Go peddle you wares there to that leaned crowd, then. Here you are simply an object of amusement. 😉

    No, you just can’t find anyone who breaks the rules but Frankie can you?

    But you’re just a porn posting troll so I think we’ll laugh at you.

    But you’re just a porn posting troll so I think we’ll laugh at you.

    Until you can admit that there are plenty of people who routinely break the rules which you ignore, I will keep throwing this shit, and that bullshit line of yours back in your face

  38. Alan Fox: How far can you interfere in family business, where parents raise children in a particular culture and seek education options that reinforce those prejudices? I certainly regard it as unethical to lie to children abusing the position of parent (and by extension, the education system) and the trust of the child. What, other than making information available and ensuring the free exchange of ideas, can be done to ensure children receive an honest account of life, the universe and everything?

    Call out the Sals of this world who profit from poisoning the well of knowledge.

    Not a whole lot else to do that doesn’t lead to the government deciding what is truth for society at large. That’s typically disastrous.

    Glen Davidson

  40. GlenDavidson:

    Alan Fox: How far can you interfere in family business, where parents raise children in a particular culture and seek education options that reinforce those prejudices? I certainly regard it as unethical to lie to children abusing the position of parent (and by extension, the education system) and the trust of the child. What, other than making information available and ensuring the free exchange of ideas, can be done to ensure children receive an honest account of life, the universe and everything?

    Call out the Sals of this world who profit from poisoning the well of knowledge.

    Not a whole lot else to do that doesn’t lead to the government deciding what is truth for society at large.That’s typically disastrous.

    Glen Davidson

    Agreed, with both you and Rumraket. While the idea of one of his students coming back after learning what Sal did to him and delivering the curb stomping he so richly deserves is lovely, in practice the best antidote for bad speech is good speech.

  41. Joe over on the Biological Evolution – What is Being Discussed Here thread sez:

    The only reason you can persist is due to the heavy bias of the moderators.

    J’accuse!

    Anyway…just ‘cuz I’m curious, what rule(s) do you feel I broke or am breaking there Joe.

  42. Robin:
    Joe over on the Biological Evolution – What is Being Discussed Here thread sez:

    J’accuse!

    Anyway…just ‘cuz I’m curious, what rule(s) do you feel I broke or am breaking there Joe.

    You have not responded to the OP and you have refused to support your claims. Yours are pure spam

  43. I don’t understand why my proposed rule advocating the banning of child abusers is being ignore by the admins. Is child abuse not worse than posting porn? Seriously.

    Do you have to run it by Elizabeth? Is that the problem?

    Let’s formalize it:

    This site shall not provide a forum for child abuse. If an admin determines that a member of this site is a child abuser, that member shall be banned from the site.

    If an admin accuses a member of child abuse without “objective empirical evidence” of said abuse, that admin shall be stripped of his or her admin abilities and banned from the site.

    An admin who is aware of child abuse who does not report it to the authorities shall be stripped of his or her admin abilities and be banned from the site.

    An accusation of child abuse by an admin who also fails to report it to the authorities shall be deemed sufficient grounds for a determination of a lack of objective empirical evidence. The admin will be stripped of his or her admin abilities and banned from the site.

    An association of the terms child abuse, child abuser, or other synonymous terms with a member shall be deemed an accusation of child abuse.

    This site has a zero tolerance policy towards child abusers and abusers of the charge of child abuse.

  44. I’m also still wonder why a post accusing Salvador of being a child molester has not been sent to Guano.

    If Alan and Neil lack the balls to confront the defamatory statements made by Patrick, perhaps the time is ripe for a new sheriff in town.

  45. Mung:

    I don’t understand why my proposed rule advocating the banning of child abusers is being ignore by the admins.

    Perhaps it’s because you’re an ass whose opinions are not valued.

  46. keiths: Perhaps it’s because you’re an ass whose opinions are not valued.

    Perhaps you’re an ass whose opinions are not valued.

  47. keiths appears to be in favor of child abuse at TSZ. I bet he’s in favor of porn at TSZ too.

  48. porn at TSZ is bad

    child abuse at TSZ is not bad

    at TSZ, porn (bad) is worse than child abuse (not bad)

    This is where we are.

  49. It’s ok to say that keiths is a child abuser, because that is not against the rules here at TSZ.

Comments are closed.