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)”

  4. Neil,

    I recognized that Mung post as obvious sarcasm.

    I recognized it as attempted sarcasm of the drunken variety.

  6. Acartia:
    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.

    If I’d thought that suspending Frankie would result in fewer parrot pictures I would have argued more vigorously with Alan and Neil.

  8. keiths:

    There is also no rule requiring complaints to be lodged in the Moderation Issues thread.

    It will be amusing to watch keiths fight the battle all over again that I already fought and lost. 🙂

    It was a rule instituted by Elizabeth herself. It was just never put on to the rules page.

  9. Fight the good fight keiths! Surely you can succeed where I failed. You know, what with me bein’ all stupid and stuff.

  10. When I was growing up, the radio quiz shows always began with: “The judges decision is final. No correspondence will be entered into.”

    At an online forum where I participate, any public comment about moderation is deleted. There is a private way of commenting that is allowed.

    Anyone can see what was recently guanoed. Just look at the last few comments in guano. There’s never a point in providing a link to them.

  11. It was a rule instituted by Elizabeth herself. It was just never put on to the rules page.

    If there is such a rule, then someone should put it there or link to it from there. I would like to see it in her own words, not as interpreted by Alan.

    And even if there actually is a rule allowing the guanoing of moderation complaints, Alan is clearly abusing it.

    To guano the following comment on the basis of the single word ‘pointlessly’ is utterly ridiculous, rule or no rule:

    The second pointlessly guanoed comment can be found here.

    If Alan guanoes something, it should be done on behalf of TSZ, not on behalf of Alan.

  12. Well, the upside is that the more time keiths spends posting links to his guanoed posts the less time he has for writing more posts that break the rules. Seems like a win all around.

  13. keiths: If there is such a rule, then someone should put it there or link to it from there.

    Yes, I made that argument myself. 🙂

    I wish you the best, but this is ground that’s already been covered.

  14. Neil,

    When I was growing up, the radio quiz shows always began with: “The judges decision is final. No correspondence will be entered into.”

    At an online forum where I participate, any public comment about moderation is deleted. There is a private way of commenting that is allowed.

    Fortunately, Lizzie disagrees with that philosophy and wisely insists that moderation decisions be subject to public criticism. That’s especially important in Alan’s case, since he has a track record of abusing his moderator privileges.

    Anyone can see what was recently guanoed. Just look at the last few comments in guano. There’s never a point in providing a link to them.

    Yes, there is, and I’ve explained this to you before. I’d like you to listen this time.

    Not everyone reads a thread at the same time. Someone who reads it later should not be penalized by having to scroll up and down, trying to match guanoed comments to the threads they came from. If you put a link in the originating thread, you ameliorate that problem somewhat.

  15. And this whole kerfuffle is — once again — a demonstration of how moderation makes TSZ worse. Alan’s and Neil’s actions accomplished nothing useful, only generating yet another moderaton meta-discussion.

  17. Mung: It was a rule instituted by Elizabeth herself. It was just never put on to the rules page.

    Indeed. We’re expecting guests so I don’t have time for the moment to locate the primary source. It must have been about the time Lizzie closed comments on an OP of yours. Maybe you could help with a link to that thread.

  19. Mung,

    Thanks on behalf of Keiths for finding that. Quoting Lizzie

    If people want to ask questions about moderation, or discuss moderation actions, or the rules, then do it in Moderation Issues.

    Is that clear enough?

  20. Alan:

    Is that clear enough?

    No, it isn’t, actually. In that comment Lizzie is defending her decision to close comments on two threads and indicating that she wants moderation to be discussed in the Moderation Issues thread. She says nothing about establishing a new rule, and she did not update the Rules page — something she otherwise has done when creating new rules.

    She also says nothing about guanoing moderation-related comments that appear outside of the Moderation Issues thread.

    So as much as you would like to interpret her statement as giving you more power, it is not at all clear that it does.

    In any case, as I noted earlier:

    And even if there actually is a rule allowing the guanoing of moderation complaints, Alan is clearly abusing it.

    To guano the following comment on the basis of the single word ‘pointlessly’ is utterly ridiculous, rule or no rule:

    The second pointlessly guanoed comment can be found here.

    If Alan guanoes something, it should be done on behalf of TSZ, not on behalf of Alan.

    It’s the abuse of moderator privileges that is the important issue here. I’ll have more to say about that in a later comment.

  24. keiths,

    Whether or not Lizzie codified it on her rules page makes no difference. We are on her site (in her living room). She made it very clear the level of behaviour she expects of her guests.

    I have been guanoed on several occasions. And every time that it happened, I thought that it might happen when I made the comment.

    Keiths, I have enjoyed most of your comments (I am a fan of well crafted sarcasm), but most of your comments about moderation have been childish. If you are unhappy with the moderation here, setting up your own blog is easy and free.

  25. Acartia,

    I think your judgment is off in this case.

    I’ll have more to say in a later comment, but right now I’m focused on the topical stuff and commenting on those threads.

  26. Moderators,

    Unless Tom English has the ability to modify his OPs, it may be up to you to correct his egregious mistake. He has confused “our” William J. Murray with the more famous William J. Murray, son of atheist activist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, in his latest two OPs.

    From Republican Senator John McCain chooses his words carefully…:

    But there’s more than that to my decision to post the video. We presently have a Chrumptian propaganda piece, “Trump Hysteria,” on the front page of The Skeptical Zone. The putatively reverend author, William J. Murray, goes so far in his support of Trump as to endorse torture (see the comments section).

  32. William J Murray is a common name. There’s no reason to think that anyone is confused. Tom makes it clear who he’s talking about. Keiths is not giving our readers enough credit. I think we can work out that Tom is being mischievous. I know Barry Arrington fell into confusion on an earlier occasion but I doubt any of our readers will.

    ETA looking at the thread, perhaps not! 🙂

    Anyway, Tom can edit his own posts. ETA2 I see he has. 😉

  33. Alan,

    William J Murray is a common name. There’s no reason to think that anyone is confused. Tom makes it clear who he’s talking about.

    Christ, Alan. Read the quote from Tom again:

    But there’s more than that to my decision to post the video. We presently have a Chrumptian propaganda piece, “Trump Hysteria,” on the front page of The Skeptical Zone. The putatively reverend author, William J. Murray, goes so far in his support of Trump as to endorse torture (see the comments section).

    He then went on to post the video of the “putatively reverend” William J. Murray, who is not the author of the “Trump Hysteria” thread.

    He obviously confused the two.

  34. keiths: Read the quote from Tom again

    Can’t do that. Didn’t read it before. It’s sorted now so relax. Can’t be doing your blood pressure any good!

  37. So “Can’t do that” is obviously false.

    I’m also amazed that you couldn’t be bothered to read my short comment, which had already answered the questions and objections you subsequently raised.

  38. keiths: Unless Tom English has the ability to modify his OPs, it may be up to you to correct his egregious mistake.

    I see that Tom has made some changes.

    My initial (and, I think, correct) reaction to this request, is that keiths lacks standing to make such a request.

  39. My initial (and, I think, correct) reaction to this request, is that keiths lacks standing to make such a request.

    Come on, Neil. Everyone here has the “standing” to point out errors and ask that they be corrected.

  40. keiths: So “Can’t do that” is obviously false.

    I can’t have more if I haven’t had any yet. I can’t read something again if I haven’t yet read it. I thought you were well read. Not familiar with Lewis Carroll? Tant pis!

  41. I see. So you were simply being pedantic instead of acknowledging that you should have read my short comment.

  42. keiths: I’m also amazed that you couldn’t be bothered to read my short comment…

    You shouldn’t be. I don’t have time to read every word of every comment. There are commenters to whom I pay more attention to than others, especially when they’re quoting text. 😉

  43. Alan,

    That comment comprises only eight lines of text in my browser window, and it raised an important moderation issue.

    Do your job. When someone raises a moderation issue, read what they write.

  47. Alan,

    If you want to keep making excuses for yourself, be my guest.

    I’m on to other threads.

  48. keiths: I’m on to other threads.

    bites tongue

    I’m just in an irrepressibly good mood today. We’ve had the most wonderful sunny day and we got stuff done in the “garden”. So I just can’t take Keiths (or myself) seriously! Great therapy for Trumpression.

Comments are closed.