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. Mung: Isn’t accusing people of lying against the rules?

    Yes. Comment moved though I have sympathy with the view expressed.

  2. Alan is interfering with open discussion again:

    Mung:

    Been drinking the keiths koolaid?

    Alan:

    Mung,
    Rules!

    fifth:

    Mung:

    You have to wonder where keiths gets his ideas about what Christians ought to believe.

    I’ll wager it was from the twisted tiny piece of the gospel he picked up at Sunday school as a young child.

    Alan:

    fifthmonarchyman,
    See above! 🙁

    fifth:

    What rule am I violating exactly?

    Alan:

    None, exactly. I’m just getting a bad feeling…

    A competent moderator would think about whether a comment violated the rules before scolding a commenter. That didn’t occur to Alan until fifth confronted him. Then he sheepishly admitted that no rules had been violated.

    It’s a chronic pattern with Alan. React first, think later.

    It isn’t just the lying, the immaturity, and the abuse of moderator privileges that disqualify you from being a moderator, Alan. It’s also the sheer incompetence and lack of discipline.

  3. This is worth cross-posting:

    Alan,

    Why not allow others the freedom to think their own thoughts?

    That, in a nutshell, demonstrates why you are such a fish out of water at TSZ.

    You actually think that to argue against someone amounts to denying them the freedom to think their own thoughts.

    The whole idea of skepticism is repugnant to you. So why are you here, Alan? Lizzie wanted a place where people could voice their skepticism. Why are you so dead set against that?

  4. Why oh why would an all-powerful God allow a site where people could openly voice their skepticism? Therefore, God does not exist.

  5. Alan Fox: Mung: Isn’t accusing people of lying against the rules?

    Yes. Comment moved though I have sympathy with the view expressed.

    This is Alan’s method of moderation. But I have sympathy for the rules infractions, because a lot of people who break the rules have good intentions for breaking them, so maybe they should be able to…If you break the rules, but you are on Alan’s side, I kind of support your right…

    He is doing his best Trump impression, “You know, a lot of the White Supremacist, I have sympathy for them, they are some fine people, maybe they have a point, I hate to call them out…”

  6. I’m still marveling that someone who’s been at TSZ as long as Alan — and a moderator, no less — thinks that arguing against someone’s position is the same thing as “denying them the freedom to think their own thoughts.”

    It’s mind-boggling.

  7. Actually, thinking about it, that might work. Normal rules except in threads authored by Keiths, which are treated as extensions of Noyau. An experiment worth trying?

    Neil?

  8. Also worth cross-posting:

    Alan,

    Thanks to Keiths for finally confirming that pointing and laughing is the motivation.

    I said that laughing was one of the motivations, a fact that you are eager to overlook, in typically dishonest fashion. You have a lying problem, as you yourself have acknowledged.

    Mockery can be a very effective form of criticism, as we’ve discussed many times here at TSZ. But since you are opposed to skepticism, considering it an infringement of freedom, you naturally would like to see skeptical mockery disappear. Except when you hypocritically deploy it, of course.

    Fifth’s brilliant move — comparing God to Ted Bundy to make the case that they both are loving — was ripe for mockery and fully deserving of it. You, of course, are opposed. I can only imagine what a drab and uninteresting place TSZ would be if you had your way. Thank God (so to speak) you’ll be resigning soon.

    In the meantime, instead of continuing on your hopeless and quixotic quest to stamp out skepticism at The Skeptical Zone, why not get out of the way and let the grownups — those who can face skepticism and mockery without getting the vapors — talk?

  9. Alan Fox: Normal rules except in threads authored by Keiths, which are treated as extensions of Noyau.

    If he promises to stay out of threads he hasn’t authored, sure. Because that’s going to be the real issue. How he behaves in other threads. He needs to be kept on a tight leash, and who has time for that?

  10. keiths,
    If it’s worth saying, it”s worth saying twice.

    Anyway, what about my suggestion?

    Keiths authored posts shall henceforth have the same status as Noyau. Keiths understands that Lizzie’s rules apply elsewhere and there is no restriction on his posting comments in other threads other than the rules that apply to everyone. The experiment to continue for a fixed period (one month?) and thereafter reviewed.

    C’mon Keiths! It’s a scientific experiment. What’s not to like?

  11. Mung,
    I don’t agree. There’s no reason Keiths can’t comment wherever he wishes subject to Lizzie’s rules. Rule-breaking comments will be liable to being moved to guano.

  12. Alan,

    Anyway, what about my suggestion?

    It’s a dumb idea.

    Better to direct your energies toward learning

    a) what skepticism is;
    b) why skepticism is appropriate at a blog called The Skeptical Zone; and
    c) why skepticism doesn’t deny others “the freedom to think their own thoughts.”

    You’d be less of an odd man out if you learned those things.

  13. Maybe keiths will grace us with a new thread on skepticism and why it’s so wonderful and different from just normal everyday thinking.

  14. keiths: It’s a dumb idea.

    That’s unclear. Do you want to demonstrate it’s a dumb idea by going along with my suggestion or are you rejecting it out-of-hand?

  15. Alan:

    Anyway, what about my suggestion?

    keiths:

    It’s a dumb idea.

    Alan:

    That’s unclear.

    No, it isn’t.

  16. It’s a dumb idea, Alan. Of course I’m rejecting it.

    Instead of indulging your grudge, why not do something worthwhile, as I suggested here?

  17. keiths:
    It’s a dumb idea, Alan.Of course I’m rejecting it.

    That’s a shame. Seemed like a good compromise. Absolutely no restriction on what you want to say in OPs and comments. Bonus for Neil and I, no need even for us to read the threads. Can’t persuade you? Are you worried things might not pan out as you perhaps predict. It’s an experiment. What’s your beef?

    ETA oops

  18. keiths:

    It’s a dumb idea, Alan. Of course I’m rejecting it.

    Alan:

    That’s a shame. Seemed like a good compromise. Absolutely no restriction on what you want to say in OPs and comments. Bonus for Neil and I, no need even for us to read the threads. Can’t persuade you? Are you worried things might not pan out as you perhaps predict. It’s an experiment. What’s your beef?

    Alan,

    You’re an insecure guy with a grudge. Please explore that privately with a therapist rather than imposing yourself on everyone at TSZ.

  19. keiths, What would be your objection if we simply took that stance? Keiths’ threads from now on are free from moderation? I mean, as far as I can see, it’s win-win. Where’s the downside for Keiths?

  20. Alan,

    This is Lizzie’s blog, not yours. Stop inventing new rules. Are you ever going to learn that lesson?

  21. keiths:
    Alan,

    This is Lizzie’s blog, not yours.Stop inventing new rules.Are you ever going to learn that lesson?

    That reminds me, if you feel so strongly, then make your case to the blog owner. Why keep complaining here when conscience demands you take effective action?

    And this is bizarre! I’m offering to drop the rules you complain about so much on the threads you author. Dropping rules you complain about is inventing new rules? You’re not making sense!

  22. Alan,

    That reminds me, if you feel so strongly, then make your case to the blog owner. Why keep complaining here when conscience demands you take effective action?

    Why repeat the question when I’ve already answered it?

    Alan,

    You want to have it both ways: Hiding behind Lizzie’s skirt while making up my own rules?

    Both are true. You continually make up your own rules, and when you get called on it, you run and hide behind Lizzie’s skirt, sanctimoniously declaring that you’re simply upholding her “prime directive.” That’s bullshit, of course.

    I do agree with her aims.

    No, you don’t.

    1) Lizzie never said that she wanted her moderators to be liars. You have a chronic lying problem and have admitted as much.

    2) Lizzie never said that she wanted her moderators to abuse their moderator privileges. You do it repeatedly.

    3) Lizzie never said that she wanted her moderators to ignore the rules, making up excuses for why the rules shouldn’t apply to them. Or to take the job, but then argue “Oh, I never agreed to actually follow the rules. I gave no specific undertakings.” That’s pathetic, and you should be ashamed.

    4) Lizzie never said that she wanted her moderators to invent new rules for situations that did not require them and for which the existing rules were perfectly adequate.

    5) Lizzie never asked for a moderator who would guano a comment that violated no rules and then, when challenged on why he guanoed it, would respond “Because I can”, and refuse to move the comment back.

    “Because I can”, you said. You’re an ass, Alan, and unfit to be a moderator.

    If you feel so strongly, then make your case to the blog owner.

    I’m prepared to make my case. I also hope that Lizzie will read through this thread to see the kind of crap you’ve pulled in her absence. But remember, you promised to resign as moderator when she returns. Don’t renege on that promise! It’s very good news for TSZ.

  23. Again:

    You’re an insecure guy with a grudge. Please explore that privately with a therapist rather than imposing yourself on everyone at TSZ.

  24. KN,

    You are at The Skeptical Zone, and you are complaining that someone keeps disagreeing with you.

    Ponder that.

  25. keiths:
    KN,

    You are at The Skeptical Zone, and you are complaining that someone keeps disagreeing with you.

    Ponder that.

    There’s a difference between asking questions and being a jerk.

    Ponder that.

  26. KN just deleted a comment of his.

    For the record, here it is:

    keiths:

    Again:

    You’re an insecure guy with a grudge. Please explore that privately with a therapist rather than imposing yourself on everyone at TSZ.

    Says the guy who picks a fight with everyone if they say anything he disagrees with, no matter how minor.

    Had second thoughts, eh? Did you think you could delete it before I noticed and responded to it?

  27. KN’s comment, before he deleted it, came before the one in which I wrote:

    Speaking of grudges…

    Too funny.

  28. keiths:
    KN just deleted a comment of his.

    For the record, here it is:

    Says the guy who picks a fight with everyone if they say anything he disagrees with, no matter how minor.

    Had second thoughts, eh? Did you think you could delete it before I noticed and responded to it?

    I’ve learned the hard way that trying to have a reasonable conversation with you is a waste of my time, because you’re more interested in scoring points than in questioning your own dogmatic convictions. That’s why I rarely respond to your comments. It’s just not worth it.

  29. KN,

    You make quite a few poor arguments, and when you do I disagree with you. That’s life at TSZ. I’m not going to coddle you on account of your insecurity.

    Meanwhile, don’t delete comments. Didn’t you learn anything from the previous fiasco, in which you deleted all your threads (threads, not comments!) in a fit of rage and they had to be restored by a moderator?

    Cultivate some impulse control, dude.

  30. keiths: Had second thoughts, eh? Did you think you could delete it before I noticed and responded to it?

    ok, let me see if I understand this. KN observes that you pick a fight with everyone if they say anything you disagree with, no matter how minor. He deletes his comment. But you pick a fight anyways over a comment that you disagree with, even one so minor as this.

    I guess KN was right. And you’ve just proved him right.

  31. Mung,

    When Alan and KN complain about skepticism at a blog called The Skeptical Zone, it makes sense to point out that their expectations are a bit, um, confused. We’re supposed to be skeptical here. That’s harder on some egos than others.

    Perhaps you think that KN’s sentiments are “minor” and unimportant, but he clearly doesn’t.

  32. keiths: Perhaps you think that KN’s sentiments are “minor” and unimportant, but he clearly doesn’t.

    Minor enough for him to have deleted them. Yes. Probably didn’t want to get attacked over such a minor thing by someone who disagreed with him. Someone like you. Boy did he fail to see that one coming!

    He’s got you down to a T though. You’re so predictable. When I say that I’m playing the fiddle and you’re dancing to the tune I’m playing he probably actually understands that and agrees with it. Too bad he is not a better musician or he’d have you doing the jig too.

    It’s so easy to set you off, I really don’t understand why more people don’t do it. It’s certainly amusing to me.

  33. Mung,

    There’s no need to delete a comment because it’s “minor”. KN posted it in a fit of pique, then tried to delete it when he came to his senses. Unfortunately for him, it was too late.

    It was an all-too-characteristic KN tantrum. There was the time he deleted Barry Arrington’s comment; the time he deleted all of his threads, which I mentioned above; and now this.

    Like Alan, he gets swept away by emotion and does foolish things that he later regrets.

    ETA: There was also the time he claimed that Sam Harris “thinks we should kill anyone who looks Muslim.” KN is an irresponsible hothead.

  34. keiths: Like Alan, he gets swept away by emotion and does foolish things that he later regrets.

    Damned if he leaves the post there. Damned if he deletes it. That’s just so very keiths of you.

  35. Mung,

    There’s a third option: Think before posting, especially when angry.

    Was that really so hard to figure out?

  36. keiths: There’s a third option: Think before posting, especially when angry.

    Do they teach emotion reading at the same school where you learned mind reading?

  37. Yes, Mung. It’s a special esoteric skill possessed by only a few.

    No one else could possibly have inferred that KN was angry.

  38. keiths: No one else could possibly have inferred that KN was angry.

    Are you talking about scientific inference or keiths inference?

  39. keiths: No one else could possibly have inferred that KN was angry.

    Given the paucity of people who saw his post, I’d err on the side of a dearth of people inferring anything at all about KN.

  40. Mung,

    Given the paucity of people who saw his post, I’d err on the side of a dearth of people inferring anything at all about KN.

    I reposted it, doofus.

  41. Mung: ok, let me see if I understand this. KN observes that you pick a fight with everyone if they say anything you disagree with, no matter how minor. He deletes his comment. But you pick a fight anyways over a comment that you disagree with, even one so minor as this.

    I guess KN was right. And you’ve just proved him right.

    Yep.

    But I’ve put keiths on Ignore Commentator, thereby joining Gregory and Robert Byers in the illustrious company of people with whom a reasonable conversation is utterly futile.

  42. Don’t kid yourself, KN. It has everything to do with your fragile ego, and nothing to do with my supposed inability to carry on a “reasonable conversation””.

Comments are closed.