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. keiths: along with dickheads like Mung and phoodoo running around pointing at people and screaming “Spam!”

    Someone has to do it. You want to leave it up to Patrick? What’s wrong with using volunteers?

  2. keiths:
    When the entire problem is being created by one commenter who by all rights, and in complete fairness, should have remained banned for violating a rule that applies equally to everyone here at TSZ; then the cleanest solution is simply to reban him.It’s clean and it’s absolutely fair.

    We don’t need a ghetto thread cluttering up the site, and we certainly don’t need endless meta-discussions about what constitutes spam, along with dickheads like Mung and phoodoo running around pointing at people and screaming “Spam!”

    It’s perverse to mess up the site like that on account of one commenter who in all fairness should already be banned.

    But . . . but . . . but . . . that would be us deciding that Lizzie made an error in judgement. I get an uncomfortable frisson at the very thought.

  3. Mung: Someone has to do it. You want to leave it up to Patrick?What’s wrong with using volunteers?

    Some volunteers are a bit too . . . enthusiastic.

  4. Patrick: But . . . but . . . but . . . that would be us deciding that Lizzie made an error in judgement. I get an uncomfortable frisson at the very thought.

    If Alan wants to go with two out of three, I’ll support him.

  5. Neil Rickert: If Alan wants to go with two out of three, I’ll support him.

    I just sent the two of you a PM. I can’t see an easy way to set up an AtBC like sanctuary for participants who don’t play well with others, so you have my reluctant vote too.

  6. keiths:
    My suggestion would be:

    1) acknowledge that Lizzie made a mistake in unbanning Frankie/Joe; and
    2) reban him.

    It isn’t unfair at all.The rule about bannable offenses still applies to everyone equally.Frankie violated it.

    ‘Ghetto’ threads are unnecessary.

    +1

  7. Patrick: But . . . but . . . but . . . that would be us deciding that Lizzie made an error in judgement. I get an uncomfortable frisson at the very thought.

    Most theists here already seem to be in agreement that Elizabeth made an error in judgment by granting you moderator status. It would certainly not be any surprise to me if she had made others as well.

    ETA: Will we be going back and undoing all her bad decisions?

  8. I think Mung, Phoodoo and Frankie should form a splinter colony, show us how its done and woo us with their free-thought utopia.

  9. Perhaps the moderators can take the next logical step to reduce off-topic comments and spam and make Moderation Issues strictly about, well, moderation issues.

    How about it boys?

  10. newton,

    So Frankie is ignoring most posters and declares victory because no one can refute his assertions.Nice.

    It’s rather a dubious claim though. The people who you’d think he would ignore are the ones he’s responding to. No-one else can be arsed. But if someone would let me know what it takes to be ignored by Frankie, I’ll get right on it.

  11. Patrick:

    But . . . but . . . but . . . that would be us deciding that Lizzie made an error in judgement. I get an uncomfortable frisson at the very thought.

    I know you’re (half) joking, but the tendency toward Lizziolatry has always mystified me. She’s a good person, and smart, but she certainly isn’t perfect.

    Alan:

    I suggest a suspension of posting privileges for, say 30 days.

    I would argue against a suspension and for a ban on the basis of the initial offense. Joe should not have been unbanned.

    The message being sent to commenters right now is “If you feel like committing one of the bannable offenses, go right ahead. We’re not serious about banning you. You’ll get at least a second chance, if not more.”

    The reason those offenses are bannable is because of their seriousness. If we don’t take them seriously, neither will the commenters who are tempted to commit them.

    We don’t need new rules, and we don’t need to reinterpret the existing rule so that Joe’s twaddle is classified as spam. He already violated the NSFW rule, and that’s all that’s needed to justify his banishment.

    And since the rules aren’t being changed or reinterpeted, we are clearly not moving in the direction of UD by doing so.

  12. Just to clarify, the Frankie account is suspended for thirty days. That is not subject to discussion. Admins will consider reinstatement after thirty days but will require some kind of assurance from Joe* as to future conduct. I’m not in favour of life-time bans but reinstatement is not automatic.

    *and that’s not going to be a small hurdle.

  13. I think that’s a mistake, for reasons given above.

    What’s the rationale for a suspension as opposed to a ban? What specific assurances will you be requesting from Frankie?

  14. My 2 shekels…

    I don’t think banning Joe will have the intended effect. That is, I don’t see Joe as the problem, but rather an instigator. He’s an obnoxious git, particularly on subjects he’s least familiar with and he has no desire to engage in discussions for the sake of the subject. It seems to me he just uses sites such as TMZ as a social place to vent his frustrations. Whatever. But the fact is the problems with TMZ are not people simply venting frustration or posting nonsense; it’s the amount of content-free noise (as others have pointed out). Joe isn’t making all (or I would argue, most) of that content-free noise – the continuation of such discussions is. No one – myself included – has any obligation to respond to Joe. That we feel a need to is our own problem. As I’ve said, I happen to find it entertaining myself, but I recognize that I’m being selfish to others if I just keep rebuttal goading the nonsense on and on and on. So, I apologize for my part in contributing to the content-free noise. I’ll try to exhibit a bit more self-control in the future.

    As for Joe, I vote to reinstate him after 30 days. He is an obnoxious voice, but I personally believe all voices should allowed in a place like this.

  15. Alan Fox, Neil Rickert, and I, acting as admins of The Skeptical Zone, have unanimously concluded that Frankie’s behavior over the past several weeks constitutes spam. The software underlying TSZ does not have the capability to allow other users or the site admins to eliminate the impact of concerted disruption attempts. Given those restrictions, we have decided to suspend the Frankie account for 30 days, effective immediately.

    Should the person using the Frankie pseudonym wish to participate at TSZ after those 30 days, he or she should contact me by email to patrick (at) softwarematters (dot) org. I will arrange for a discussion with the other admins on the acceptable behavior required for reinstatement.

    I’ll send this to the email address registered to Frankie and will also post it on his personal blog.

  16. keiths:

    But . . . but . . . but . . . that would be us deciding that Lizzie made an error in judgement. I get an uncomfortable frisson at the very thought.

    I know you’re (half) joking,

    Maybe a bit more than half.

    but the tendency toward Lizziolatry has always mystified me.She’s a good person, and smart, but she certainly isn’t perfect.

    Not perfect, but she has a fantastic ability to maintain a calm poise in online discussions regardless of how obnoxious those she argues against become. Her behavior at UD was impeccable and Barry demonstrated his nasty, thin-skinned, authoritarian nature by banning her for the crime of making his regulars look really, really bad.

    I want to be like Lizzie when if I grow up.

  17. Robin:

    As for Joe, I vote to reinstate him after 30 days. He is an obnoxious voice, but I personally believe all voices should allowed in a place like this.

    I agree. Better tools would allow each person to limit the amount of disruption he can cause.

  18. Patrick,

    I want to be like Lizzie when I grow up.

    Me too! In all seriousness, I think it helps being a girl. Many blokes just want to ‘win’, whatever actual winning may look like.

  19. Patrick: I will arrange for a discussion with the other admins on the acceptable behavior required for reinstatement.

    Once you and the other admins work that out please post if for all of us to see. For whatever the “acceptable behavior” should turn out to be, it should apply to all, equally. If not why not?

  20. JMung,

    What part of “not open to discussion” do you not get?

    Moderation decisions are always subject to discussion at TSZ, Mung. That’s an important principle and it’s exactly why Lizzie created the Moderation Issues thread.

    Perhaps Alan meant to say that the decision would not be altered in response to discussion.

  21. As predicted:

    we certainly don’t need endless meta-discussions about what constitutes spam, along with dickheads like Mung and phoodoo running around pointing at people and screaming “Spam!”

  22. Richardthughes:
    Do we have a rule about sock puppetry? Just trying ti get ahead of what’s next.

    Don’t put ideas into peoples heads. Anyway, tat shouldn’t be hard to spot.

  23. Alan Fox: Don’t put ideas into peoples heads. Anyway, tat shouldn’t be hard to spot.

    I do believe “Joe”, “JoeG”, “Frankie”, “Frisbee Kid”, and “IDGuy” have all figured that one out…

    ETA: Oh…forgot about “John Paul”. There’s probably a few I’m not even aware of…

  24. Alan Fox: Just to clarify, the Frankie account is suspended for thirty days. That is not subject to discussion. Admins will consider reinstatement after thirty days but will require some kind of assurance from Joe* as to future conduct.

    Which amounts to a life-time ban given Joe’s pathological inability to admit that he has ever said or done anything that is wrong.

  25. Acartia: Which amounts to a life-time ban given Joe’s pathological inability to admit that he has ever said or done anything that is wrong.

    I think they should boot keiths and force him to admit he was wrong in order to get back on.

  26. Acartia:

    Which amounts to a life-time ban given Joe’s pathological inability to admit that he has ever said or done anything that is wrong.

    Let’s hope so. This could be the one time that trait actually works to our advantage.

  27. Now that Joe is gone, am I still allowed to post pictures of drunk parrots? I have become rather fond of them. Except when they drink my beer.

  28. Robin: I do believe “Joe”, “JoeG”, “Frankie”, “Frisbee Kid”, and “IDGuy” have all figured that one out…

    Don’t forget Virgil Caine.

  29. I simply don’t understand why keiths continues to think that the rules simply do not apply to him.

    This post accuses me of being a compulsive liar.

    If keiths desires to post something that violates the rules, he can post in in Noyau, where it will be protected from moderation.

  30. The truth hurts, eh, Mung?

    Lizzie has made it clear that she is not trying to control what people write, via her chosen rules. Since you don’t seem to like that, perhaps you would be happier at Lonely Joe’s blog.

    He needs a friend, and TSZ can certainly spare you.

  31. keiths: Lizzie has made it clear that she is not trying to control what people write, via her chosen rules.

    iirc, Lizzie didn’t establish Noyau. You’re certainly free to write whatever you like. But you should not be surprised, and have no ground for complaint, if it ends up in Guano. If you simply insist on violating the rules, post your comments in Noyau.

  32. The sting in any rebuke is the truth. Doesn’t mean you’re not violating the rules.

    Which is why the rules haven’t had their desired effect. They punish the honest and reward liars, including you in particular.

    If you dislike it when people point out your dishonesty, that’s good, and all the more reason for people to continue doing it. We want to deter you from lying rather than encouraging it.

    You’re not a good enough person to curb your lying on your own, and Jesus isn’t helping, so social disapproval is our best remaining option. And clearly it does sting you, which is what we want.

  33. keiths:

    Lizzie has made it clear that she is not trying to control what people write, via her chosen rules. Since you don’t seem to like that, perhaps you would be happier at Lonely Joe’s blog.

    He needs a friend, and TSZ can certainly spare you.

    Mung:

    iirc, Lizzie didn’t establish Noyau.

    Actually she did, after ditching Alan’s failed W(h)ine Cellar idea. But that’s not what I’m talking about.

    I’m talking about the fact that she doesn’t want to control what people write anywhere, not just in Noyau, and that she doesn’t want guanoing to be seen as a punishment or a rebuke. The moderators (and Alan in particular) tend to forget that.

  34. keiths: I’m talking about the fact that she doesn’t want to control what people write anywhere, not just in Noyau, and that she doesn’t want guanoing to be seen as a punishment or a rebuke. The moderators (and Alan in particular) tend to forget that.

    You are completely and utterly correct. Elizabeth didn’t establish Guano and didn’t post any guidelines for sending posts to Guano.

  35. You are completely and utterly correct. Elizabeth didn’t establish Guano and didn’t post any guidelines for sending posts to Guano.

    What are you talking about? Are you drinking, Mung?

Comments are closed.