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. KN,

    Sure, he [keiths] didn’t pretend that Mung is posting in good faith, but so what? Two days ago there was a whole damn thread that should have been sent to Guano and only a few posts were.

    Neil can’t resist the temptation to indulge his personal grudges through the abuse of his moderator privileges, and that manifests in the extreme partiality that you note above.

    It’s remarkably bad luck that our two remaining moderators are among the most immature and untrustworthy people at TSZ.

    Neil knows that his behavior harms TSZ, but he doesn’t let that stop him.

  2. Alan,

    I’ve been contacting Lizzie for nearly two years now asking if she’d relieve me of admin responsibility.

    I’m glad to hear that. Your stint as a moderator has been a mess.

    In the interim, note that moderators at TSZ are not required to guano rule-breaking comments, and Lizzie has repeatedly stated her desire for moderation to be light rather than heavy. You could reduce the guanoing considerably, following Patrick’s excellent example, or even simply stop guanoing comments altogether.

    Admins are still needed for things like updating software, fetching comments out of the spam filter, and handling rare bannable offenses, but the guanoing function itself doesn’t appear to be necessary at all. We’ve done better during periods when the moderation here was light or nonexistent, and far worse when the moderation was heavier. Guano has been a net negative for TSZ.

    Alternatively, what about some sort of beauty contest for replacement admins? I’ve had my fill and I’d be very happy for others to give it a go. (Though Lizzie should be consulted, I think.)

    I agree that Lizzie should be consulted. It’s her blog, after all, and she’s paying the bills.

    I wonder if she would be amenable to trying a no-guano approach.

    If not, I still have a couple of proposals on the table for moderation as a subscription service. I’ll repost them below.

  3. First, Patrick’s excellent suggestion:

    I’d prefer the admins to have fewer privileges. In particular, I recommend eliminating the ability to move comments to Guano. The only authority the admins should have is to enforce the bannable offenses (spamming, doxing, and porn, basically). Aside from that, admins would focus on the mechanics of keeping the site up and running.

  4. Like Patrick, I recommend that Guano be eliminated entirely.

    Barring that, I’ve made two other proposals. Here’s the first:

    keiths, to Lizzie:

    Would you regard the following as a fair summary of your position?

    1. You don’t want to control what people write, and moving comments to Guano is not intended to punish or shame them.

    2. You don’t want to control what people read, which is why you’re adamant about not deleting comments.

    3. You do see moving comments to Guano as a housekeeping function that keeps the “living area” clean, so that people aren’t forced to step in shit as they they move about.

    Lizzie:

    Yes, although I don’t want to over do the “shit” metaphor.

    Yes, the “Guano” title is unfortunate, because it strongly implies that the comments therein were judged to be shit.

    I would prefer to phrase it as:

    3. I do see moving comments to Guano as a housekeeping function that keeps the discussion focussed on content by removing intervening posts that are not.

    Setting aside questions of technical feasibility, it sounds like the ideal solution would be a software solution in which:

    1. Comments would not be moved to Guano, but simply tagged as Guano, so that…

    2. …readers who desire “housekeeping” services would see only the comments that were not tagged “Guano”, and…

    3. …readers (like me) who do not desire “housekeeping” would see all comments in their original contexts.

    You wouldn’t be controlling what people write or what they read, and people could either opt in or out of the moderator-supplied “housekeeping” services.

  5. And a modified version of that proposal in which readers would not only choose whether to subscribe to moderation as a service, they would also choose their moderators:

    Lizzie could simply abolish the guanoing of comments, as Patrick and I have suggested, since it does more harm than good.

    Or if she wants readers who desire moderation to have access to it, then it could be implemented as a subscription service, as I’ve suggested before.

    Those like Patrick and I, who don’t want someone else filtering what we read, would opt out entirely. Others could opt in and choose their moderators from among all the commenters. Under this scheme, the only people subjected to Alan and Neil’s dipshittery would be those who unwisely chose them as moderators — a choice that could be reversed when its foolishness became apparent.

  6. Kantian Naturalist: On a related issue (and I’ve raised this before): I think it’s absurd that we insist on observing Lizzie’s rules. It was tolerably clear from the outset that this site was an experiment, but it’s one that she’s long since abandoned.

    Sure, but dumping the plan and rules of the experiment while keeping the website active simply adds experiment upon experiment, only this time without any plan, rules, order, or direction.

    Kantian Naturalist: The rules that she insisted upon aren’t really working.

    Failure to enforce the rules works even less. Debating the rules democratically with internet trolls will never even begin to work. Better to close the dump altogether.

    The way to make the threads here somewhat readable is to block a few guys, but since they are basically the only active guys, it makes more sense to move on elsewhere.

  7. Reposting a comment regarding my second proposal:

    phoodoo,

    It seems you still haven’t figured it out, so here are the obvious ways in which you would benefit under my proposed moderation scheme.

    Right now your comments are hidden from everyone when they are guanoed. If your arch-nemesis Alan — who I agree has done a poor job as a moderator — nixes your comment, no one sees it unless they take the trouble to seek it out in the Guano thread.

    Under the proposed scheme, when Alan nixes your comment, each commenter will still see it in its original location unless they have granted sufficient moderation power to Alan or to someone else who has nixed your comment.

    It also means that unless you choose Alan as one of your moderators, he has no power whatsoever over the comments from others that you see.

    It vastly reduces the power of Alan, or any other moderator you distrust, to affect your audience and your experience here at TSZ.

    It also fits perfectly with Lizzie’s stated goals (and the TSZ ethos) of not interfering with what people write, nor with what they read.

    On the other hand, the people who won’t like it are a) those who want to control what other people say and read, b) those who see the current moderation scheme as a desirable means of punishing commenters, and c) those like you and Mung who habitually play the martyr and would be sorry to lose that moral cudgel.

    Lizzie has rejected those rationales, and wisely so, in my opinion.

  8. And:

    Neil,

    The proposed scheme is far better.

    Right now, readers who wish to read all comments are punished for that:

    1) Sometimes they don’t even know that a comment has been guanoed, because the moderator doesn’t mention it in the thread. In that case they can miss it completely.

    2) Even if the moderator does mention it, there is usually no link to the guanoed comment(s). The reader has to open the Guano thread, scroll down, and try to find the comments that came from the particular thread.

    3) There is no indication of which thread the guanoed comments came from, nor where in that thread they were located. The reader has to figure that out, or else give up.

    Under the new scheme, none of that extra work is required. Readers who see moderation as having negative value can opt out of it completely, so that every comment is visible to them. Readers who do see value can opt in and choose their moderators. Once readers set up their preferences, the filtering (or non-filtering) is handled for them automatically, with no extra work required.

    Again, Lizzie’s stated desires are

    a) not to interfere with what people write, or punish them for it;
    b) not to interfere with what people read; or punish them for it; and
    c) to provide a ‘housekeeping’ service for those who desire it.

    The proposed scheme satisfies those goals, but the existing scheme does not.

    Right now, ‘housekeeping’ is mandatory for readers, and it forces them to do extra work if they want a completely free and open discussion. The proposed scheme levels the playing field, giving all readers the ability to choose the level of ‘housekeeping’ they desire. They even get to choose their housekeepers.

  9. Alan Fox: Lizzie holds the contract with the server and the domain is registered to her and without access to the server or rights over the domain name, there is always the possibility that the site will disappear at next renewal.

    This. And, of course, she is paying the bills.

    Beyond that, it is a fact of nature (or Internet nature) that people are always complaining about moderation. It happens at every site where there are moderators. Some sites make such complaining an offense that is subject to banning, and that does keep the volume of complaints down. However, I do not suggest that be tried here.

    In a recent thread, people have been discussing the point that nothing real is perfect. Likewise, there’s no such thing as perfect moderation.

    For the most part, there are reasonably good discussions going on here. So maybe we can put up with imperfect moderation.

  10. Neil,

    Beyond that, it is a fact of nature (or Internet nature) that people are always complaining about moderation. It happens at every site where there are moderators. Some sites make such complaining an offense that is subject to banning, and that does keep the volume of complaints down. However, I do not suggest that be tried here.

    In a recent thread, people have been discussing the point that nothing real is perfect. Likewise, there’s no such thing as perfect moderation.

    For the most part, there are reasonably good discussions going on here. So maybe we can put up with imperfect moderation.

    That’s as inane and self-serving as if Donald Trump were to declare:

    Beyond that, it is a fact of nature that people are always complaining about politicians. It happens in every society where there are politicians. Some countries make such complaining an offense that is subject to imprisonment or execution, and that does keep the volume of complaints down. However, I do not suggest that be tried here.

    People say that nothing is perfect. That goes for politicians, too.

    For the most part, America is a reasonably good place to live. So maybe we can put up with imperfect politicians.

    So everybody pipe down and stop complaining about me.

    Politicians aren’t perfect, but that’s no reason for Americans to passively put up with — or settle for — the egregious crap that Trump pulls. Moderators aren’t perfect, either, but that’s no reason for TSZers to put up with — or settle for — the crap that you and Alan pull.

    We can do far better.

  11. Neil Rickert: This.And, of course, she is paying the bills.

    She is indeed, for the moment.

    Beyond that, it is a fact of nature (or Internet nature) that people are always complaining about moderation.It happens at every site where there are moderators.Some sites make such complaining an offense that is subject to banning, and that does keep the volume of complaints down.However, I do not suggest that be tried here.

    In a recent thread, people have been discussing the point that nothing real is perfect.Likewise, there’s no such thing as perfect moderation.

    For the most part, there are reasonably good discussions going on here.So maybe we can put up with imperfect moderation.

    Seems to me we should wait for some feedback.

    In the meantime, it is open to anyone to set up a site (blog, forum, whatever) more inline with their preferences. They don’t need Lizzie’s agreement for that.

    Or

    Anyone is able to contact Lizzie and make their case or present their ideas, purchase the domain name, whatever.

  12. keiths: Politicians aren’t perfect, but that’s no reason for Americans to passively put up with — or settle for — the egregious crap that Trump pulls.

    What are you waiting for? Sort it!

  17. Alan Fox,

    Regarding Robert Byers’ racist comment, I would have said, in another time, “Off with his [virtual] head.” In the present milieu, with the right attributing its worst attributes, including opposition to free speech, to the so-called left, I think the politic response is to give Robert a one-more-time-and-you’re-out warning.

    Playing devil’s advocate (perhaps anticipating the response to banning him), I observed in the title of my post that “There are only two sides, and you are on one or the other of them.” It’s rather an odd thing to identify two sides, and then to prohibit a commenter from revealing that he’s on the side that I regard as evil, and that he regards his side as the right side. I did, in a sense, invite the sort of comment that he made. His behavior should be judged in the context of a particular, and quite unusual, thread. He’s never, to my knowledge, behaved similarly in the past, and I doubt that he’s inclined to behave similarly in the future.

    Not playing devil’s advocate, we’ve just learned something remarkable about Robert Byers. Who knows what else clusters with his YECism? Not that I’m sure we’ll ever find out, I am interested in knowing more about him.

  18. Alan Fox:
    Robert Byers,
    Notice to Robert Byers:

    This site does not support or promulgate racist views. Your account is currently in moderation. My thought is to close your account permanently but I will consult with Neil and Lizzie.

    I really don’t see how Lizzie’s rules (which we insist upon despite her lack of participation or interest in TSZ) could allow for suspending an account due to morally odious views.

    And I don’t see what’s different about this time. Byers has said plenty of racist and anti-Semitic stuff before. This is no different. There’s no line here he hasn’t crossed already.

  20. Tom English: I suppose that I shouldn’t have said anything about his past behavior, as many of his comments as I ignore.

    One of the reasons why Byers comments here is that he was banned from Uncommon Descent for his racism and anti-Semitism. Even the creationists realized he was making them look bad.

  21. Kantian Naturalist: Lizzie’s rules (which we insist upon despite her lack of participation or interest in TSZ)

    Isn’t she paying the bills? I think we should form a nonprofit TSZ Foundation, and buy the site from her, assuming that she’s willing to let go of it. Are you interested?

  22. Don’t have time to say much, now. But “being in moderation” means only that Byers’ comments will need to be released by an admin before appearing publicly.

  23. Tom English: Isn’t she paying the bills? I think we should form a nonprofit TSZ Foundation, and buy the site from her, assuming that she’s willing to let go of it. Are you interested?

    I’m definitely interested, but I don’t know how much it costs to maintain a site like this. My finances are pretty tight at the moment.

  24. Alan Fox:
    Don’t have time to say much, now. But “being in moderation” means only that Byers’ comments will need to be released by an admin before appearing publicly.

    On what grounds? He hasn’t broken any rules of TSZ. He hasn’t attacked any TSZ personally, he hasn’t outed anyone, and he hasn’t posted any porn. How can you justify putting him in moderation if he hasn’t broken any rules of TSZ?

    Don’t get me wrong — I’m all in favor of banning Byers outright. But we have our hands tied because we have committed ourselves to upholding Lizzie’s rules, and Lizzie’s rules assume that everyone here is reasonable, rational, and committed to discovering the truth through productive conversation. There’s nothing in Lizzie’s rules that allows us to deal with people like Byers.

    Lizzie herself is enough of a pragmatist that if she were here, she might relax or alter those rules in light of the situation. But since she isn’t, we’ve committed ourselves to a dogmatic and rigid adherence to those rules.

  26. If TSZ wants to denigrate YEC even more than it’s denigrated, keep Robert Byers here at TSZ. I kicked him out of my forum (CreationEvolutionUniversity), not because he was a racist, but his remarks were so stupid he made other creationists look bad.

    At the time I didn’t think Byers was racist.

    If you want to make theists and ID proponents look bad, let Gregory and Phoodoo stay.

  27. stcordova,

    I’d reconsider if I were you. Byers has the effect of making you look rational by comparison, and that seems to your advantage.

  28. FWIW,

    I appreciate the outrage expressed by some regarding the reprehensible things people say. I have no view on whether they should be moderated or tossed.

    I don’t think it is off limits to talk about the biological differences and races or sexes on a scientific basis. For example, there was a scientific study based on what body characteristics women found physically attractive that said Asian males are the most undesirable form. As far as I know the study was carried out or at least promoted by someone who was Japanese. I personally wasn’t offended. Women are attracted to height, and as far as I can determine, Asian males are not as tall on average as other races. Height is an empirical distinction that is scientifically measurable.

    I think there are physiological differences in the brains and sensory systems of men and women. I for one accept that women can distinguish colors better then men. Therefore they perceive the world differently just for that reason. I noticed how particular they were regarding color in clothing and decoration of the home. I don’t believe that was a purely cultural development.

    I don’t think these discussions should be off limits.

    If Byers wants to be Byers, leaving him here at TSZ is a really good way to showcase YECs obey the stereotypes.

    Sorry Robert, I’m not trying to direct this at you personally. I didn’t say stuff to you before because you profess Christ, but now I’m saying it because you’re a disgrace to the cause. I’m embarrassed to be associated to you as if I don’t have enough things to be embarrassed about.

    Eh, as I thought about it. Maybe you can let him have his say. One can’t fight racism or evil ideas by suppressing free speech….

    Like I said, I only tossed him cause I thought his remarks were embarrassing to my side of the isle.

  30. I’m definitely interested, but I don’t know how much it costs to maintain a site like this. My finances are pretty tight at the moment.

    Less than $20 a year if you do it right.

    I have several blogs that are place markers like that.

  31. Christ, Alan. You’ve done it yet again. Invented yet another rule instead of sticking to Lizzie’s.

    It is not news that Byers is a racist, sexist idiot. The fact that he is allowed to comment here is not an endorsement of his views, and never was.

    Whence this lack of impulse control on your part? Why must you overreact?

    I’m reminded of the time you got the vapors and wanted to take action because Joe G used the words “scrotum” and “taiwithnt” in Noyau.

    The question is not whether you feel comfortable with any particular comment. It’s whether the rules — Lizzie’s rules, not yours — permit you to take action.

  33. Kantian Naturalist: On what grounds? He hasn’t broken any rules of TSZ. He hasn’t attacked any TSZ personally, he hasn’t outed anyone, and he hasn’t posted any porn. How can you justify putting him in moderation if he hasn’t broken any rules of TSZ?

    I agree.

    Don’t get me wrong — I’m all in favor of banning Byers outright. But we have our hands tied because we have committed ourselves to upholding Lizzie’s rules, and Lizzie’s rules assume that everyone here is reasonable, rational, and committed to discovering the truth through productive conversation. There’s nothing in Lizzie’s rules that allows us to deal with people like Byers.

    I agree, except for the banning bit. He is espousing utterly despicable views, but utterly despicable views still get the benefit of ‘free speech’ protection. Some former commenters here would probably find my views on gender somewhat despicable; where do you draw the line?

    Lizzie herself is enough of a pragmatist that if she were here, she might relax or alter those rules in light of the situation. But since she isn’t, we’ve committed ourselves to a dogmatic and rigid adherence to those rules.

    Perhaps. The current rule set is quite crafty, but it leaves TSZ open to incessant and potentially disgusting trolling. The question becomes, how best can TSZ protect its conversations from such detritus.
    I think the key here is to not get upset. It’s the emotional reaction that is the troll’s pay-off.
    One could ignore the provocation completely. This runs the risk of appearing to consent, thanks to “qui tacet…”
    One could calmly disagree: “Utterly false, Robert.”
    It’s only when the volume of trolling interferes with people who wish to have a productive conversation that the trolling becomes problematic.
    Counter-trolling really doesn’t help matters. Yeah, I know. Sometimes I can’t help myself; it’s just so much gosh-darned fun.
    The best response to bad speech is good speech. And education. The two best responses to bad speech are humour, good…
    I’ll come in again.

  34. KN,

    But we have our hands tied because we have committed ourselves to upholding Lizzie’s rules, and Lizzie’s rules assume that everyone here is reasonable, rational, and committed to discovering the truth through productive conversation.

    That’s simply not true. If the rules were based on such assumptions, then there would be no bannable offenses, for instance.

  35. DNA_Jock: The two best responses to bad speech are humour…

    I agree. What with all the bad speech around here this site should be a laugh a minute.

  36. In reference to KN’s question:

    I just created the following website for free, and it will be free for as long as WordPress makes it free:

    About

    Let’s call it TSZ-2 for short.

    I suggest this alternate site be run by a simple rule, the author of a thread determines the rules.

    We can simply put TSZ-2 or some other name in the menu bar and people can go there if they want. That way we don’t have to change the rules here.

    Authors here can cross post.

    I have some need of doing this because I’m about to release my Nylonase paper and I want a place people can deposit their comments about my paper.

    Alan Fox and Neil are invited to be co-admins as I regard their conduct here at TSZ admirable. Heck, even though I occasionally despise what Tom English says about me, he can be a co-admin. KN, Walto, Joe Felsenstein can have any role they want if they want it. In fact, if Alan Fox wants to be Admin, he can freaking invite who else he wants to be co-admin.

    But given the rule I suggested, there is not much need for guys to be admins except to actually do technical stuff.

    This is also a way we can experiment without gutting this site. If TSZ-2 fails, it’s no big loss to me. The primary purpose for me is to get feedback and valuable correction and criticism on stuff I’m publishing.

  37. stcordova: Alan Fox and Neil are invited to be co-admins as I regard their conduct here at TSZ admirable.

    So up yours keiths. Salvador has spoken.

  38. Further on Robert Byers,

    All that has happened so far is that Byers comments, for the moment, are held for approval by an admin for approval. If it were my site, I think I would need convincing arguments not to ban him. As it is, I will try and contact Lizzie and also see if Robert wants to retract, reconsider or defend his comments.

    My initial concern here is that I don’t want to be seen as unconcerned about hosting comments that could be considered actionable.

  39. DNA_Jock: Perhaps. The current rule set is quite crafty, but it leaves TSZ open to incessant and potentially disgusting trolling. The question becomes, how best can TSZ protect its conversations from such detritus.

    First, if that’s the problem, Byers is the wrong person to be annoyed with. He isn’t trolling, and he doesn’t post that often. The problem would consist of those who post hundreds of pointless one-liners that clog up the feed. I presume you know who that is. The “ignore” function mitigates but does not eliminate the problem. Not sure I see a solution.

  40. stcordova,

    Can we hope to get more details about your “everyone decides where their tax dollars are going because Sal hates some people” plan there?

  41. Also, this is the first time I have noticed Robert express racist views here. Prior to this, I considered him harmless. Unredeemable perhaps, but harmless. Now I’m not so sure. I don’t think Robert is open to persuasion or reason so would those who think we should continue to allow him a platform here to express racist views would like to explain what the point of that would be.

    ETA ungarbling

  42. @ phoodoo.

    Do you really not understand what I found objectionable about the comment of yours I guano’d?

  43. The current rule set is quite crafty, but it leaves TSZ open to incessant and potentially disgusting trolling.

    There are two issues:

    1. people want some rule changes
    2. we can’t really have rule changes officially because this is Lizzie’s site

    I think it is an admirable quality that the Admin’s have tried to obey Lizzie’s vision as if it were some divine obligation to keep one’s contractual commitment. I totally respect that.

    So the question first is who should buy the site from Lizzie if she will put it up for sale. UncommonDescent went through that process, when UD went from Bill Dembski to Barry Arrington.

  44. stcordova: 2. we can’t really have rule changes officially because this is Lizzie’s site

    I see it as abandoned property. We can do whatever we want with it.

  46. stcordova: There are two issues:

    There are several issues, some particular and some general.

    Regarding the general issue as to whether and how TSZ continues as a site, perhaps a dedicated thread might be best.

    Regarding specific moderating decisions, people can discuss them here.

  47. DNA_Jock: He is espousing utterly despicable views, but utterly despicable views still get the benefit of ‘free speech’ protection.

    This site, I think, is hosted on a European server.

Comments are closed.