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. sal should start a “go fund me” page to raise funds to sue Patrick and this site (Lizzie) for defamation of character.

  2. stcordova: It’s an attack on my character. Whether true or not isn’t the issue.

    Actually, it is.

    The problem with the “rules” (presently weakened by their absurdity) is that clearly your dishonesty affects everything that you write, and becomes the major issue with all of your posts. Naturally, you don’t improve your odious character, just whine that you’re called on it.

    Glen Davidson

  3. If they had supported it and demonstrated it was a fact, how could it be?

    Lying saying something false when the person knows its false. That’s different from making a mistake because one believes something is true when it’s not.

    Because that is so difficult to establish willful intent beyond reasonable doubt, and because attributing in the comments willful intent for nefarious reasons is outside the present rules, Patrick’s comment is in violation of the rules.

    I suggest changing the rules and Patrick can call me liar all he wants, and then he should stop guanoing my comments when I call someone out for being a troll.

  4. Actually I’d like less moderation and loosening of the rules. I want Patrick to have the freedom to insult me all he wants without the appearance of a hypocritical moderator.

    C’mon Patrick, why don’t you lobby for loosening the rules, then you can say what you really feel without impunity or the appearance of hypocrisy.

    Right now, all you can do is link to Abby Smith’s description of me as a female private part dripping with cottage cheese (as you have done so many times at TSZ already).

    Just say what you want to say to me publicly, don’t pull an Barry Arrington on me and try to do it through private channels.

  5. stcordova:
    Lying saying something false when the person knows its false. That’s different from making a mistake because one believes something is true when it’s not.

    Uttering an untruth knowingly with the intent to deceive. However Patrick claimed you were engaging in lying by omission :a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.

    I believe it was in reference to your choice corncerning the fossil record in your teaching.

    Because that is so difficult to establish willful intent beyond reasonable doubt,

    Since you are not under legal jeopardy, a preponderance of evidence would probably be sufficient

    and because attributing in the comments willful intent for nefarious reasons is outside the present rules, Patrick’s comment is in violation of the rules.

    I agree,

    I suggest changing the rules and Patrick can call me liar all he wants,

    That is already in the rules,but when he does the comment should either be in Noyau or moved to guano.

    and then he should stop guanoing my comments when I call someone out for being a troll.

    You are breaking the rules, it should be in guano. Just as it would be unfair to you to give Patrick special treatment, it is unfair to everyone who chose to follow the rules and not call someone a troll to give you special permission to call someone a troll. You are responsible for your own actions.

  6. GlenDavidson: Actually, it is.

    The problem with the “rules” (presently weakened by their absurdity) is that clearly your dishonesty affects everything that you write, and becomes the major issue with all of your posts.Naturally, you don’t improve your odious character, just whine that you’re called on it.

    Glen Davidson

    So it’s OK that evolutionists’ dishonesty affects everything they write and it becomes a major issue with all their posts? Really?

  7. stcordova:
    Actually I’d like less moderation and loosening of the rules. I want Patrick to have the freedom to insult me all he wants without the appearance of a hypocritical moderator.

    Start your own blog or post it in Noyau.

    C’mon Patrick, why don’t you lobby for loosening the rules, then you can say what you really feel without impunity or the appearance of hypocrisy.

    He has repeatedly, I assume you are unaware of that

    Right now, all you can do is link to Abby Smith’s description of me as afemale private part dripping with cottage cheese (as you have done so many times at TSZ already).

    I always liked Abby, she had a lot of enthusiasm.

    Frankie believes that since you know what he is like,you are forewarned about any link he posts therefore he is not responsible.

    Just say what you want to say to me publicly, don’t pull an Barry Arrington on me and try to do it through private channels.

    Patrick seems pretty public about his opinion of you

  8. stcordova: I suggest changing the rules and Patrick can call me liar all he wants…

    Patrick can call you liar in Noyau without breaking the rules, and he can call you a a liar in Moderation Issues without breaking the rules. There’s no need for a rule change.

    …and then he should stop guanoing my comments when I call someone out for being a troll.

    Yes, the mods are odious lying hypocrites.

  9. I’m afraid I have to agree that this comment breaks the rule that members should not accuse each other of lying.

    It seems reasonable to expect the rules to be applied fairly. I confess I don’t seem able to find enough time for monitoring and moderating that is currently required. I’ve already advised Lizzie she needs to find a replacement. It would be good too if the rules were collected into one place and clarified or simplified.

    I still think the aim to create a venue that facilitates discussion across widely differing points of view is a worthy one. I get the impression at least some members at least think so too. On the other hand, with the current optical political* situation in the US, it feels as useful as rearranging deckchairs on SS Trumptanic.

    ETA thanks Glen

  10. Alan Fox:
    I still think the aim to create a venue that facilitates discussion across widely differing points of view is a worthy one.

    And yet your actions say otherwise.

    On the other hand, with the current optical situation in the US, it feels as useful as rearranging deckchairs on SS Trumptanic.

    You mean the wild imaginations of fear mongers. And why should that prevent what Lizzie envisioned? Do tell…

  11. Frankie: So it’s OK that evolutionists’dishonesty affects everything they write and it becomes a major issue with all their posts? Really?

    What is your excuse?

  12. Alan Fox: It seems reasonable to expect the rules to be applied fairly. I confess I don’t seem able to find enough time for monitoring and moderating that is currently required. I’ve already advised Lizzie she needs to find a replacement. It would be good too if the rules were collected into one place and clarified or simplified.

    thanks for the doing the thankless job,

  15. The political situation in the US is just fine. The new President is just getting things in order. His priorities are different than the the last President. The new President actually cares about the USA and its citizens and is taking steps in that regard.

    How many Islamic countries would open their borders to the skinheads and white supremacists of the US? How many would be open to letting out junkies in?

    I think it is good thinking to inconvenience a vast minority of people in order to protect us.

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

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/trilobites-the-dangers-of-too-little-reading/comment-page-2/#comment-163900

    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.

    I wrote that as a participant, not as an admin.

    The last line is in violation of the rules. It should be Guano’d. It’s still true.

    The first line is simply an observation of what you admitted to doing. If you don’t like what it says about your character, stop doing it.

    ETA: Moved the comment under discussion to Guano.

  17. stcordova:
    C’mon Patrick, why don’t you lobby for loosening the rules, then you can say what you really feel without impunity or the appearance of hypocrisy.

    I have. There is no hypocrisy.

    Just say what you want to say to me publicly, don’t pull an Barry Arrington on me and try to do it through private channels.

    I do. I genuinely wish you didn’t behave so reprehensibly, but nothing has changed over the years I’ve seen you on the ‘net so I don’t expect you to change soon.

  18. Alan Fox:
    I’m afraid I have to agree that this comment breaks the rule that members should not accuse each other of lying.

    I disagree. Here’s the comment in full:

    stcordova:

    When I teach creation to college biology students, I avoid the fossil record altogether.

    So you lie by ommission.

    Proverbs 12:22: Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

    (That shoots down your Pascal’s Wager position, too.)

    I am not simply randomly accusing Sal of lying. I am pointing out that his admitted behavior is lying by omission. I’m addressing the content of his comment, as required by the rules.

    It seems reasonable to expect the rules to be applied fairly. I confess I don’t seem able to find enough time for monitoring and moderating that is currently required. I’ve already advised Lizzie she needs to find a replacement. It would be good too if the rules were collected into one place and clarified or simplified.

    I still think the aim to create a venue that facilitates discussion across widely differing points of view is a worthy one. I get the impression at least some members at least think so too. On the other hand, with the current optical political* situation in the US, it feels as useful as rearranging deckchairs on SS Trumptanic.

    Frankly, I think Lizzie’s experiment here is unsuccessful if measured by her goal of “the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie. In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties.” In particular, I think her final sentence has been demonstrated to be naive.

    I do, however, think her goal is laudable. If I have time this week I’ll pull together an OP to discuss what changes would support it.

  19. Thanks Alan Fox.

    I have no problem personally with Patrick having the freedom to call me a liar. I don’t like it, but I defend his right to speak his mind.

    I just think if we have policies about how we go about our business here at TSZ, Patrick should try to set an example to encourage compliance. Otherwise if the policies are too cumbersome to enforce, maybe some things can be changed.

    Thanks, Alan.

  21. If dazz can call me fucking retarded then it is OK for me to call dazz ignorant and a coward.

  22. Patrick: In particular, I think her final sentence has been demonstrated to be naive.

    Yes, more’s the pity. I’m reminded of Maynard Smith and his ESS’s. There’s a niche for cheats in any system.

  23. Look guys, I came here for a variety of reasons. I proved at least some creationists are willing to defend their views and engage in forum where critics of creationism can take the shots at the creationists.

    At least for me now, if I run my own forum or blog and close it out to commenters, I can’t be accused of not trying to engage the opposing viewpoints at least once in a while.

    I’m happy to start moving on, partially. But if I move on and start banning people from my forum and blog, at least I can say I gave the opposition a pretty good chance to engage my point of view uncensored.

    I’ll try to help TSZ out since TSZ helped me out when I was exiled from UD.

    But I’d appreciate it if you guys don’t go around saying I ran way from my critics, and that’s why I left TSZ. It seems to me like we just don’t get along, we have different values and goals. Ok?

    I’ll try to cooperate and help. I appreciate guys like Alan Fox and Neil Rickert and a few others here.

  24. stcordova: At least for me now, if I run my own forum or blog and close it out to commenters, I can’t be accused of not trying to engage the opposing viewpoints at least once in a while.

    I can’t recall you engaging in a meaningful way.

    That you repeated PRATTs I’ll agree.

    Glen Davidson

  25. Patrick: I am not simply randomly accusing Sal of lying. I am pointing out that his admitted behavior is lying by omission. I’m addressing the content of his comment, as required by the rules.

    You are ascribing bad intent,misleading students, to his statement. If Sal went further and said the reason why was to mislead his students, your case is better.
    Perhaps you should have asked why he has made that choice

  27. We’ve all got work to do, but I think Sal is on an upward trajectory. And at this point there’s no reasoning that will deYEC him.

  28. Frankie: How many Islamic countries would open their borders to the skinheads and white supremacists of the US? How many would be open to letting out junkies in?

    No need, Trump is President, they are happy here.

  30. Patrick: ETA: Moved the comment under discussion to Guano.

    Proving yet again that you were abusing your role as an admin. It ought to have been moved by one of the other mods.

    Patrick: I wrote that as a participant, not as an admin.

    Everything that you write is with your admin hat on. You are an admin who participates. You get away with all sorts of shit just because you’re an admin. You can become an equal participant by relinquishing your admin privileges, which is something you should have done long ago.

  31. Patrick: If I have time this week I’ll pull together an OP to discuss what changes would support it.

    Let’s get it all out there. Ping your buddy keiths. Doesn’t he still owe us a long-ago-promised OP too?

  32. I don’t have time now to respond to comments above. I’ll find time later or join in discussion on Patrick’s OP.

    I think mung’s latest OP on the Discovery Institute’s promotion of Tom Bethell’s Darwin’s House of Cards is evidence that there should be a higher bar (than for comments) set for OPs, especially with regard to the issue of plagiarism and copy-pasta.

  35. Mung:
    Everything that you write is with your admin hat on.

    That’s simply not the case. The admin role here is heavily circumscribed by the rules, unlike at UD for example. If you think a comment by an admin breaks the rules, you have the ability to raise the issue here in Moderation Issues, just as with any other commenter.

  36. Patrick: To be fair, there is one other person banned (for refusing to abide by the rule against outing).

    Apologies, Joe , the only person banned who didn’t out someone

  37. Patrick: If you think a comment by an admin breaks the rules, you have the ability to raise the issue here in Moderation Issues, just as with any other commenter.

    I’ve done so twice, and it’s been complete utter silence and lack of response.

    Post it in Moderation Issues they say. Remind me why.

  38. I sent a thread through the system. i never remember who to contact and so I will try it here.
    thanks.

  40. newton: Apologies, Joe , the only person banned who didn’t out someone

    That is incorrect, I am also (proudly) banned.

    Having ones comments forced to go through a moderation queue before being allowed to be published is in fact a ban, because this implies that not all posts from some posters are allowed to be published-which is explicitly against stated site rules.

    The punishment for a post which breaks the rules is supposed to be that it gets moved. But it is still published. By putting some posters in moderation, you are censoring their views before they are made public. And the moderators are unaccountable to anyone, and can therefore refuse any post they want, for no reason.

    That is a ban.

  41. Our dear moderators can’t seem to decide what kind of site they really want, and they can’t agree on what Lizzie wants. The Limbo-Skeptical Zone.

    I think one reason Lizzie’s rules say to address the post, not the poster [Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster] is to avoid having people tell lies about other people. But Patrick is allowed to write slanderous lies about others and get away with it. So now we have to find a way to bend the rules to allow that sort of bad behavior for some, but not for others.

    The Queen is dead. Long live the Queen.

  42. newton: You are ascribing bad intent,misleading students, to his statement. If Sal went further and said the reason why was to mislead his students, your case is better.
    Perhaps you should have asked why he has made that choice

    Sorry for the delay in replying, I’ve been thinking about your suggestion. I’ve decided to ignore it. 😉

    In the general case you are right. If the statement about leaving the fossils out of a class were made by someone else I probably would have asked more questions to understand the motivation.

    This isn’t someone else. This is Sal Cordova, a creationist with a long, sordid online history available to anyone who can stomach reading it. He has demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty and smugly described his goals of indoctrination too often to deserve any benefit of the doubt.

    Assuming good faith is an admirable trait. Attempting to engage others in productive discussion is as well. At some point, though, extending those courtesies becomes sanction of bad behavior. Sal has long since passed that point. The only appropriate response to him now is to call him out on his intellectual and emotional abuse of children and his dishonest attempts to indoctrinate older students.

  43. Patrick: The only appropriate response to him now is to call him out on his intellectual and emotional abuse of children and his dishonest attempts to indoctrinate older students.

    And that is the only appropriate response to evolutionists. This should make for an interesting future here

  44. Mung: I’ve done so twice, and it’s been complete utter silence and lack of response.

    Post it in Moderation Issues they say. Remind me why.

    I suspect there is some admin burnout, given the high volume of . . . creationist quality comments we’ve been provided with of late.

  45. phoodoo: That is incorrect, I am also (proudly) banned.

    Having ones comments forced to go through a moderation queue before being allowed to be published is in fact a ban, because this implies that not all posts from some posters are allowed to be published-which is explicitly against stated site rules.

    No, you’re not banned, phoodoo. None of your comments are deleted. All are eventually published.

    Alan put you in the queue requiring your comments to be reviewed by an admin. This allows those that violate the rules to be immediately moved to Guano. I’m sure he’s willing to discuss the situation with you and remove you from that queue when the two of you reach some agreement.

  46. Mung:
    Patrick is allowed to write slanderous lies

    Please demonstrate that anything I’ve written about Sal is a lie. Let’s see your defense of his admitted behavior.

    I predict more whining and no defense.

  47. Patrick: Please demonstrate that anything I’ve written about Sal is a lie.Let’s see your defense of his admitted behavior.

    I predict more whining and no defense.

    You have accused him of child abuse without any evidence that any child has been abused.

  48. Mung: Proving yet again that you were abusing your role as an admin. It ought to have been moved by one of the other mods.

    Nonsense. I’ve moved my own comments to guano before now.

  49. Patrick: Please demonstrate that anything I’ve written about Sal is a lie.

    Please demonstrate that I sanction child abuse or retract your slanderous lie.

  50. Alan Fox: Nonsense. I’ve moved my own comments to guano before now.

    Fantastic job of missing the point!

    How many of your posts has Patrick sent to Guano and how many posts by Patrick have you sent to Guano?

Comments are closed.