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. Patrick: I have moved a number of your recent comments to Guano because you are spamming other threads with material that belongs in Moderation Issues.Please follow the rules and keep all such discussion here.

    Now Patrick, if you are going to say I can only discuss things here, then you must answer my queries about you recklessly deciding that just because a post discusses you, it deserves to be moved.

    In fact, don’t you have a horrible conflict of interest by doing so?

    You are free to make any accusations you wish regarding Sal, but my innocent comments that mention you, somehow all are in violation of some new standard of rules.

    If moderators are free to say whatever they want, but stifle anything said about them, surely you can see how that is a problem. Worse still, you now don’t even feel the need to defend your outrageous behavior.

    Its no wonder you support Donald trump, You are now starting to come up with your own set of alternate facts. Is every post that mentions you by name now subject to removal? You are totally disgraceful.

  2. Patrick has no objective empirical evidence that any child has been abused by the accused. So he has to make shit up. How ironic is that?

  4. Mung:
    Oh, and I did establish that Patrick is in fact a liar. As such, he can’t be trusted.

    Since it has been established Mung is a habitual liar we have no reason to accept his assertions.

  5. Frankie: Each vote carries the same weight in its State.

    It does not carry the same weight in the choice of the president

    And voting, like natural selection, is an after-the-fact assessment.

    Can you assess design before it is tested? If so how do you know what you don’t know?

  6. Mung:
    Oh, and I did establish that Patrick is in fact a liar. As such, he can’t be trusted.

    Patrick is an evolutionist so that comes with the territory.

  7. phoodoo:
    Now Patrick, if you are going to say I can only discuss things here, then you must answer my queries about you recklessly deciding that just because a post discusses you, it deserves to be moved.

    I never said you can only discuss things here. I pointed out that the rules say that moderation issues should be discussed in this thread.

    I moved your comments for that reason alone.

    In fact, don’t you have a horrible conflict of interest by doing so?

    There is definitely a risk of conflict of interest when admins are also participants. If you feel that an actual conflict of interest has occured, please raise it with any of my fellow admins.

    You are free to make any accusations you wish regarding Sal, but my innocent comments that mention you, somehow all are in violation of some new standard of rules.

    Your comments, as you well know, are libelous, not innocent. Unlike my discussion about Sal, they are backed by no evidence whatsoever. Since you have demonstrated yourself to be an ignorant creationist unable to follow scientific arguments who wouldn’t be taken seriously even if you weren’t cowardly hiding behind a pseudonym, though, there is very little harm done.

    Its no wonder you support Donald trump

    I voted for Gary Johnson. I find both Trump and Clinton unfit for office. At least you managed to complete your comment as you started: utterly wrong and sounding stupid.

  8. Mung:
    Oh, and I did establish that Patrick is in fact a liar. As such, he can’t be trusted.

    Interesting projection coming from a known quote miner. It must be nice to have such a rich fantasy life, Mung.

  9. Admins:

    Can someone please explain what was wrong with this comment?:

    phoodoo January 25, 2017 at 5:31 am

    Adapa:
    LOL!Nobody melts down quite like our chubby little toaster repairman.

    ThereAin’tNoClappaLikeAdapaGotFromHisPapaNoDoctorCanZa ppaCausedaNeisseriaDoneAdapdaedandDaMo foBuboBurnsLikeCaponesDirtyWetCappa

  10. Patrick,

    This was not about moderation. I mean unless we are talking about moderating ones behavior when it comes to using Nutella and red clown wigs, but still, its not about moderation specifically!:

    When Patrick says its intentional abuse He knows a thing or two (or three yo) about intentional abuse!

    Is there anyone on this site who knows more about intentional abuse than Patrick? I mean he has probably informed all of the schools in his area about child abuse. Probably his neighbors too!

    Patrick not only knows intentional abuse, he practices what he preaches. And practices, and practices. Carnivals, ChuckECheese,… look where he practices is not important. The pointy is, animal balloons don’t make themselves, but if you can get some animals and some balloons (and maybe some Nutella), Patrick is here to tell you, he won’t just tell you what is child abuse, he will put on a one man (or two soon to be men) stage show complete with hand signs for the hearing impaired (do you think he is prejudiced), and evil goblins that will scare your knickers off.

    So don’t you dare question Patrick’s experience with child abuse. He is the Pied Piper in green leotards, with the velcro openings, of child abuse, ok?

  11. Patrick: Interesting projection coming from a known quote miner

    Nice projection.

    unable to follow scientific arguments

    You don’t even seem to know what science is, Patrick.

  12. Patrick: Interesting projection coming from a known quote miner. It must be nice to have such a rich fantasy life, Mung.

    I caught you flat out lying Patrick. Are you really going to deny that?

  16. Patrick: I said the behavior he admitted to constitutes child abuse.

    No, you said he admitted to abusing children.

    But he didn’t admit to any such thing. Which makes you a liar.

  17. Patrick: Your comments, as you well know, are libelous, not innocent. Unlike my discussion about Sal, they are backed by no evidence whatsoever

    Quote of the day!

    You see phoodoo, Patrick’s comments accusing another member of child abuse are libelous, not innocent, but because Patrick thinks they are backed by evidence, it’s not against the rules to post them.

    There’s no double standard. Just a basic failure in reasoning.

    Let me give an example which should make it all clear. I love examples. Say you found out another member’s actual name and address and posted it here at TSZ. That would normally be against the rules. But as long as you think the information is factual and have evidence to back it up, it’s apparently ok. #PatrickModeration.

  18. Patrick: Moved a comment to Guano. Calling other people names, no matter how cleverly you think you’re doing it, is against the rules.

    Calling someone a child abuser is not calling someone a name?

    Would calling someone a pedophile be calling them a name?

  19. phoodoo: Please let me know which names we are allowed to call people here Patrick. Because I think you are a child abuser.

    Please, I am arguing we ought NOT be like Patrick in this regard. I’m sure he has many good qualities. And on some things he may need a little work. But let’s not use his bad behavior to excuse our own. Even if he is a moderator and ought to be leading by example.

  21. I consider phoodoo’s contributions currently border on spam. Reluctantly I’ve enabled pre-moderation for that account. Apologies to phoodoo for the inconvenience.

  23. Alan Fox,

    And adapa, acartia, OMagain, and Richie get to spam away at will without repercussion?

    The actions of you and yours are only allowed because it is Lizzie’s blog and she put you in charge. Those actions would never be allowed in a fair forum that was interested in the free exchange of diverse ideas.

  24. Alan,

    I did not post a photo of porn. Thus you have no justification for calling what I have done spam.

    What I have done is point out the utter hypocrisy and level of disgust YOU and Patrick have allowed this site to become. You have allowed an entire thread to be opened accusing Sal of child abuse. You have allowed Adapa, Richard, Dazz, Omagain, Newton and others to personally insult people at will whilst doing virtually nothing about it. I have pointed this double standards out NUMEROUS times and you have done nothing. You have a moderator in Patrick who is one of the biggest instigators of sleaze and name calling on the internet, little yet just this site. So every time you have allowed another piece of disgust to be permitted by YOUR side, I have simply done exactly the same thing, only using the techniques other posters have used, which YOU claimed were acceptable.

    If Lizzie experiment here was to see what happens when you let people say what they want, then this is the result you have gotten to. This site is a complete sewer, take a look around. Allowing an entire thread to basically call Sal a child molester was the last straw. And you are going to blame ME?? You are out of your fucking mind Alan.

    If you can’t see that the entire reason for my posts is to show very explicitly exactly what you have allowed, you are just to biased and blind to see anything. You think this site is now a place to have a serious discussion about science, when you have moderators accusing others of child abuse. And to Sal, who is exceedingly polite to pretty much all of you, even if I disagree with most of what he says?

    You have to shoulder more of the blame than me Alan. You have enabled this kind of shit. I asked if the posters were breaking the rules each time they called someone fat, or an idiot, or any of the other 1000 ad hominen attacks that occur on a daily basis, and your reply has been, “I see nothing wrong, well, it doesn’t break a rule, well, its borderline…blah blah, bullshit after hypocritical bullshit..

    So go ahead and ban me Alan, I don’t mind. You have been itching to do it. This was was started because Lizzie wanted to make a statement against Barry banning her. And you came along to help her. Now you have gone completely against what you claim this site promises, by saying it is ME who is responsible for the trash on this site, so you are justified.

    So good, ban me, are you proud now? Call people fat, IDiot, butthurt, losers all day long in your little circle jerk Alan. But don’t pretend you have done a better job of creating a civil place to discuss science Alan. Trying reading the cesspool you have promoted sometime Alan. Do you think this site is something Lizzie can be proud of?

    Go fuck yourself pal. I am not going to let you decide what I can and can’t say, when the entire gist of this site is one sided childish insults. I am the problem? Frankie is the problem?

    Take a look around sometime fool. You have already thrown the rulebook out the window, don’t blame me.

    So no problem, I will just make fun of you on UD when I feel like it. Lizzie said this site is against banning people, but now you have broken that rule too.

  25. phoodoo: Lizzie said this site is against banning people, but now you have broken that rule too.

    You’re not banned, phoodoo. Comments from your account will be released from the moderation queue after review by an admin. Comments that are deemed to break a rule will move directly to guano. If you can convince admins that you will abide by the rules in future, the pre-moderation restriction can be lifted.

  26. Reminds me a bit of myself about a year ago. 🙂

    Well, before getting all pissed off and firing a response I went back and read my posts. They really were unnecessary.

    January 9, 2016 1:22 am

  27. Mung,

    You are wrong Mung. Frankie was treated wrong. Sal was treated wrong.

    Sure its just a stupid site with a bunch of skeptic trolls, but if you don’t speak out against it, you encourage other skeptics to do the same things online. There is a bad movement, where materialists with a point of view want to squlech whatever information they can online. They do it on Wikipedia, they do it on science web blogs, they even do it on NPR. Its almost impossible to get real, unbiased science information online anymore, because so much of it is told with the bullshit skeptic spin.

    But saying, of just play nice with them here, they will improve, you just encourage more of their bad behavior. Its like the weak skinned liberals in congress who say, oh, well, we have to pick our battles with Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, or they won’t listen. Well, guess what they aren’t listening to you either.

    Alan can’t site a single post of mine that breaks rules, anymore then all the other of their hacks breaks. They used the excuse that they have to squelch Frankie because he posted one lousy photo. But I didn’t do that. I didn’t break a single rule that every one of those other people I mentioned didn’t break.

    So Alan can pretend its not a ban, but its also against the rules Lizzie made. If you let the Alan Foxes, and Patricks and Larry Morans decide how information is posted online, you are giving them way too much credit.

    What rule did I break? They can’t name one, so now they make up new rules. But I am proud of it Mung. Letting Patrick call people child abusers. Letting Richard and Adapa try to make fun of Frankies weight. Letting Larry Moran call all people who don’t believe in his neutral bullshit Idiots-that’s being a pushover Mung. I am not a pushover.

    I am glad they banned me. They have no shame.

    I wear my Pink Pussy Hat proudly Alan. You had no right to claim I am the problem. Screw you. You won’t get an apology from me. You have no balls.

    And BTW Mung, if people are allowed to say WHATEVER they want in the moderation thread, what justification is there for putting my posts in this thread in a que? There is none.

    Kiss my Pink Pussy Hat Alan.

  28. Mung:
    You see phoodoo, Patrick’s comments accusing another member of child abuse are libelous, not innocent, but because Patrick thinks they are backed by evidence, it’s not against the rules to post them.

    If you’d care to defend Sal’s behavior, I’m more than willing to consider your arguments. Thus far all you’ve presented is whining.

    Let me give an example which should make it all clear. I love examples. Say you found out another member’s actual name and address and posted it here at TSZ. That would normally be against the rules. But as long as you think the information is factual and have evidence to back it up, it’s apparently ok.

    Outing is a bannable offense. In fact, the only person who is currently banned and has not been allowed back was banned for outing.

  29. Mung: Calling someone a child abuser is not calling someone a name?

    Not when it is based on their admitted behavior and explanations of why that behavior constitutes child abuse.

    Would calling someone a pedophile be calling them a name?

    Do you have evidence to back it up or is it just libelously lashing out at someone who’s comments you don’t like?

  30. phoodoo:
    You have allowed an entire thread to be opened accusing Sal of child abuse.

    VJ Torley started that thread to defend Sal.

    So go ahead and ban me Alan

    He didn’t ban you, he put you in pre-moderation so that an admin has to approve your comments. If you agree to stay within the rules he will remove the restriction. I suggest you work it out with him in private messages.

  31. phoodoo: Its almost impossible to get real, unbiased science information online anymore, because so much of it is told with the bullshit skeptic spin.

    ROTFL

  32. phoodoo: Frankie was treated wrong. Sal was treated wrong.

    Yes and Yes.

    Letting Patrick call people child abusers.

    Is wrong.

    Letting Richard and Adapa try to make fun of Frankies weight.

    Is wrong.

    Alan can’t site a single post of mine that breaks rules, anymore then all the other of their hacks breaks.

    There’s a clear double-standard. Agreed.

    And BTW Mung, if people are allowed to say WHATEVER they want in the moderation thread, what justification is there for putting my posts in this thread in a que? There is none.

    If you had kept your comments to this thread things would be different I think.

  33. Patrick: If you’d care to defend Sal’s behavior…

    I don’t have the same fixation as you. I’d much rather discuss your behavior.

  34. Mung: Yes and Yes.

    Is wrong.

    Is wrong.

    There’s a clear double-standard. Agreed.

    If you had kept your comments to this thread things would be different I think.

    You mean if I would have played nicer, and kowtowed more, and said please, oh pretty please, maybe just maybe sometimes they would have allowed me to have almost as much rights as the materialists who can do whatever they want?

    No thanks Mung.

    You haven’t learned much from the Trump election.

  35. Mung:

    If you’d care to defend Sal’s behavior…

    I don’t have the same fixation as you. I’d much rather discuss your behavior.

    You might want to read your comments before hitting the “Post” button.

    Your refusal to defend Sal’s behavior is indistinguishable from an inability to do so.

  36. phoodoo: You mean if I would have played nicer, and kowtowed more, and said please, oh pretty please, maybe just maybe sometimes they would have allowed me to have almost as much rights as the materialists who can do whatever they want?

    You have the same rights plus now a special one

  37. phoodoo: I wear my Pink Pussy Hat proudly Alan. You had no right to claim I am the problem. Screw you. You won’t get an apology from me. You have no balls.

    And BTW Mung, if people are allowed to say WHATEVER they want in the moderation thread, what justification is there for putting my posts in this thread in a que? There is none.

    Probably a software issue.

  39. I’ll note that I found some comments that were bare youtube links. The spam filter picked them up. I have released three, and trashed the other as a duplicate.

    Try adding some commentary to those youtube links if you want to make it less likely for the spam filter to trap them.

  41. Patrick’s accusation that another member is guilty of child abuse has done absolute wonders for the site. Way to go Patrick!

  42. Mung:
    Patrick’s accusation that another member is guilty of child abuse has done absolute wonders for the site. Way to go Patrick!

    Less of an accusation and more of a categorization based on Sal’s admitted behavior. If you disagree with my conclusion that Sal’s behavior constitutes intellectual and emotional child abuse, please present your argument.

    Or keep whining. Your choice.

  43. Patrick: Unlike your purely objective (albeit unsupported) sanctioning of intellectual and emotional child abuse?

    I think this comment, accusing me of “sanctioning of intellectual and emotional child abuse” violates the site rules. Please review and handle. Thank you.

  44. PRATT question:

    If saying there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution is a PRATT, what refuted it seeing no one has linked to it? Or do you have a different meaning for “refuted”?

    Predicted responses:

    personal attack
    double talk
    Obfuscation
    The cowardly cracker distraction

    ( Who said it is a PRATT? would be an honest answer)

  46. Phoodoo,

    Again I suggest you moving to Frankie’s blog, untelligent reasoning. You’ll be the only commentator who isn’t in moderation and you’ll get the readership you deserve.

  48. I don’t think Patrick’s comment is within the spirit of forum rules to facilitate orderly discussion:

    Trilobites: the dangers of too little reading

    No, an observation of lying by omission.

    Your history is your undoing, again. …

    You’re not a good person.

    It’s an attack on my character. Whether true or not isn’t the issue. If a moderator can be free to do that to a defenseless commenter, then the rules at TSZ need to be changed.

    I’ve suggested thread authors moderate their own discussions and set the rules for how the discussion is to be handled.

    Patrick is abusing his position as moderator.

    If an IDist said:

    Patrick you are lying by omission.

    Your history is your undoing, again. …

    You’re not a good person.

    Would that comment be a violation?

  50. stcordova: It’s an attack on my character.

    Yes it is. Not that any of the moderators care. In fact, they condone it. Sanction it even. I suggest putting Patrick and the other mods on Ignore as they are showing themselves to be quite irrelevant. Or leave the site altogether.

    Patrick is abusing his position as moderator.

    Yes, he is. If he were not a moderator I doubt he’d be getting away with his slanderous personal attacks on other members.

Comments are closed.