Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Alan,
No, it didn’t. The “offending” adverb had been redacted, and all that was left was a link to some guanoed comments.
Neil had no basis for moving the comment, as it didn’t violate any rules. Patrick is right not to endorse Neil’s action, and you are wrong — again.
keiths,
It’s the substitution of the word with “redacted” that is a raised digit. The ball went over the line.
Alan,
I told you already:
Nothing illustrates that better than this:
keiths:
Alan:
You’re not fit to be a moderator.
You have an odd concept of spite! Moving (let’s be clear, you are only complaining about your own comments that break site rules) comments to guano that break the site rules is “spiteful” and being spiteful is beneficial? There’s no sense in that.
Alan’s not fit to be a moderator. Neil isn’t fit to be a moderator. I’m not fit to be a moderator. That leaves johnnyb and things aren’t looking good for him.
Perhaps no one is fit to be a moderator. I find that proposition compelling.
Patrick,
You’re far more fit than Alan.
But TSZ sans moderation is indeed a compelling proposition.
Give it a break.
There was no offending adverb. The post itself was offending because it was a comment on moderation that was not in the moderation topic.
Additionally, the post itself was pointless. I had already provided a link to the guanoed comment.
The entire kerfuffle once again proves the point that Patrick and I have been making: Moderation makes TSZ worse. That’s especially true when it’s administered by abusive dipshits like Alan and Neil who lack maturity and self-control.
Patrick would like to see a TSZ in which moderators no longer have the power to guano comments. After all, moderators can’t abuse a power that they don’t have.
Alan and Neil are clinging to that power. After all, they can’t abuse a power that they don’t have.
The difference in attitudes is striking.
Start your own site. You can moderate it, or not moderate, however you see fit.
You can even make an announcement here at TSZ. People who prefer your style of moderation can move to your new site.
And, hey, if everybody moves then I can retire from moderation duties.
You’re clinging to power, Neil.
As for starting my own site, why would I do that? It makes far more sense to improve TSZ, by eliminating Guano or by implementing my “moderation as a subscription service” idea, than it does to start from scratch.
But that would mean less power for you, and that’s just not acceptable, is it?
I think it’s time to ban keiths for 30 days.
Mung,
Why not take a 30-day break from TSZ? Then you won’t have to read anything I write.
Mods, when I tried to edit the lengthy comment I just posted, (I just want to add italics in one place), I got a message that it could not be edited because it has been marked as spam. I took that personally!
And now the whole comment is gone! Can you put it back, please? It took a long time to write!
walto,
Done.
I have a thread i think, i hope, should be of interest in science/religion conflicts.
hopefully more interest then the others.
i sent it in and hope the powers notice so as to decide if allowable.
thanks.
Published.
A poem by Robert Byers:
I have a thread
i think,
i hope,
should be of interest
in science/religion conflicts.
hopefully more interest then the others.
i sent it in
and hope the powers notice
so as to
decide if allowable.
The second stanza is kind of messed up metrically, but the echoes of Martin Luther King in the first stanza are brilliant.
JoeG / Frankie sent me an email about his suspension. In the interest of transparency, I thought I’d share it here.
————————————————————————
From: Frank Huggins [donkeyfcd@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Suspension from The Skeptical Zone
Date: March 31, 2017 at 9:23:11 PM EDT
Hey Patrick- You still haven’t provided any evidence of my alleged spamming. Seeing that I have relatives in [state elided] perhaps we could meet to discuss it. It’s your call rugby boy. If you don’t present the evidence then we shall have that chat
————————————————————————
What do my fellow admins think? Is this evidence of the kind of change that should result in lifting the suspension?
Patrick,
I am underwhelmed.
The term “spam” has two meanings (in addition to being the name of a food product):
(1) Unsolicited advertising;
(2) High volume posting of unwanted and unwelcome messages.
I take it that when Alan complained about spamming, he was using meaning (2). When JoeG protests, I assume that he is using meaning (1).
I am shocked that you can’t see the sincerity and commitment to the goals of this site positively oozing from every syllable.
If it matters at all, I’m quite happy with Frank’s continued exclusion from TSZ. I had him on ‘ignore’ before, because none of his posts make the slightest positive contribution to any of our discussions.
Neil and Alan,
I have further communication from JoeG/Frankie to share:
————————————————————————
From: Frank Huggins [donkeyfcd@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Suspension from The Skeptical Zone
Date: April 2, 2017 at 12:10:37 PM EDT
Patrick, you are an ignorant fuck. I am not asking for, nor do I want reinstatement to TSZ. You people are hopelessly scientifically illiterate. What I asked for was evidence for spamming- evidence tat you have failed to provide. So clearly you are just as low as Barry Arrington and proud of it.
Moron Neil chimned in with:
(2) High volume posting of unwanted and unwelcome messages.
My messages are unwanted and unwelcome only because they expose you and yours as scientifically illiterate cowards. So of course you morons would say they are unwanted and unwelcome.
Try to hide in [town elided], Patty
————————————————————————
Now, a casual reader might think that this supports Neil’s view. However, I’ve had the good fortune to have recently been educated in the mechanism by which clear and obvious contradictions in the bible are
ignoredexplained away. Applying those techniques leads to the conclusion that, because Frankie is still reading the site, he clearly wants to become a member in good standing again, despite the literal meaning of his words.Whaddaya say, guys?
The mention of Barry is also clearly a plea for forgiveness at UD. Would one of the lurkers who posts there (yes, we know you are watching) please let him know?
More email from Frankie!
————————————————————————
From: Frank Huggins [donkeyfcd@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Suspension from The Skeptical Zone
Date: April 4, 2017 at 10:16:20 AM EDT
Ok Patty, I gave you a chance to support your claim and you failed. Just remember I gave you the chance.
————————————————————————
Alan and Neil, do you still don’t believe he’s contrite?
He sure doesn’t come across as contrite.
JoeG/Frankie is now asking for clarification on the reason for his suspension:
————————————————————————
From: Frank Huggins [donkeyfcd@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Suspension from The Skeptical Zone
Date: April 5, 2017 at 11:14:35 AM EDT
Hey dumbass, until you actually stop being a little coward and provide the evidence to support your claim, I cannot show contrition. Are you really that stupidly desperate?
Do your employers know how cowardly dishonest you are?
————————————————————————
I’m a bit swamped at the moment so I’ll leave it to Alan and/or Neil to respond to his polite inquiry.
I’ll take that as an indication of his respect for the site rules.
My suggestion to JoeG, is that he stick to posting at his own blog. And, for the record, I am actually following his in my RSS reader.
Two emails from JoeG/Frankie in the same day. I am a fortunate man.
————————————————————————
From: Frank Huggins [donkeyfcd@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Suspension from The Skeptical Zone
Date: April 5, 2017 at 12:51:35 AM EDT
LoL! So you are both stupid and desperate. That is what we already knew. You do realize that I have been asking for clarification ever since you cowards suspended me. And like the ignorant cowards that you are you have failed to produce any.
I wonder if your employers know that you are this stupid. I will have to ask them.
————————————————————————
Neil, dude, you don’t have to do that to yourself!
JoeG/Frankie writes to Patrick thus:
Well, OK, then. I’m very happy to comply with his wishes.
JoeG apparently asked:
I’ll ask my employers when they hand me my next pay check.
So I can take him off ignore?
When are you guys going to finally lock keiths up in the moderator jail?
Have you just been too busy gagging theists so you haven’t had the time?
Hey phoodoo, where you been?
Trump’s doing a hell of a job, no?
He does actually make substantive posts, even though I often disagree.
If you would put more substance and less noise in what you post, then I’m pretty sure that Alan would take you off the “goes to moderation” list.
Neil Rickert,
Atheists deciding what is substance in the theist’s posts?
No thanks Neil. Use whatever excuse you like, rewrite the rules however you like, try to censor dialogue all you like, I don’t mind….You get keiths.
As a point of information, phoodoo is not under any commenting restriction, currently. He has the status of contributor. This means he can compose an OP but needs an admin to publish it.
?
Alan Fox,
As a point of information, this does not make up for the excuses for the moderators at this sites efforts to favor one side and control the dialogue here. It continues…you get keiths. But he is an atheist, so you don’t mind because he favors your agenda.
Make up any rule you want Alan.
I’m not trying to make up for anything. The fact is you are able to post here without restriction, other than subject to the same rules that apply to everyone.
Rules apply to all members, including admins.
Rules exist to promote the aims of this site. The fundamental aim is to maintain a venue that encourages rancour-free dialogue across a wide diversity of view.
Alan Fox,
The rules don’t apply the same to everyone Alan, that is an outright lie. What rules allows you to make my posts be approved by moderation before posting? What rule allows you to decide the “substance” of my posts? What rule allows you to decide posts you don’t like are spam?
What rule allows you to lie without recourse?
There is no rule that allows you to block my posts simply because you don’t like them. That is a rule completely made up by you. This was after you had repeatedly moved my posts with no justification.
Maybe Mung was willing to play your games and ignore the duplicitous and unscrupulous moderators.
Not me. Keep keiths Alan. Keep your guerilla skepticism. Keep your lies.
phoodoo – your entire schtick is to complain that you [theists] can’t be as big a fuckwit as any atheist here.
phoodoo,
Yes, Alan is a prick, and yes, he’s a bad moderator.
But no, his prickishness is not reserved for theists. Did you miss this, for example?
WINNING!
I haven’t put Alan or Neil on Ignore yet.
It’s an option that I took reluctantly in your case as you seemed intent on posting a flurry of content-free unresponsive comments. No comment of yours remains unapproved, though some that were deemed rule-breaking moved to “guano”.
If you are referring to OPs, then Lizzie, through her admins, reserves the right to editorial control.
Frequency, repetition, relevance, responsiveness…
I think Lizzie was wise to insist that commenters don’t accuse each other of lying.
There was a period when your comments were held for approval prior to publishing. No comments disappeared. All are visible though some moved to guano. Currently, you have an unrestricted ability to post comments.
I actually enjoy your contributions here, phoodoo, and I hope you are not too discouraged from continuing to participate.
keiths,
@ Keiths
At least try to put the right links in.
Here is my comment that exercises Keiths. And there’s context if anyone else is interested.
“If you are referring to OPs, then Lizzie, through her admins, reserves the right to editorial control.”
Who is ‘Lizzie’? She is reserving nothing, no rights, no control. This place was at least tolerable with fuzzy Lizzie, who didn’t want it to become what it has: a sewer of discontentment for anti-IDists atheists and agnostics. That was not the ‘best case scenario’ by far, which is probably why she doesn’t care about TSZ anymore.
Carry on then with your empty ‘skeptic’ authority, Alan.
Likewise!
Alan,
As if the context would exonerate you.