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,

    Things get better at TSZ when Guanoing is light or nonexistent, as when Alan is busy with “real life”, for example. Things get worse when Guanoing is heavy.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize “Hmm, maybe this Guano thing wasn’t such a great idea.”

    I have never had a comment sent to guano so I don’t see it as a big deal. When a comment is, I generally go to guano to read it. This site is very successful on a relative basis. I would not screw with it unless the reason is sound and not just the opinion of a few.

  2. Guano was Alan’s idea? I thought Noyau was Alan’s idea. Are you re-writing history again keiths?

    Reading comprehension, Mung.

    Where did I claim that Guano was Alan’s idea?

    That’s right. Nowhere.

  3. Just to save everyone from fruitless discussion, any significant changes to how this site operates will only happen with the intervention of the blog owner.

  4. colewd,

    I have never had a comment sent to guano so I don’t see it as a big deal.

    Because if it doesn’t affect colewd, why worry about it? Other people don’t matter.

    This site is very successful on a relative basis.

    Agreed, despite Alan’s hand-wringing. The moderation problem is one of the remaining blemishes.

    I would not screw with it unless the reason is sound and not just the opinion of a few.

    The reasons are sound and the interminable moderation kerfuffles aren’t lamented by only a few.

  5. Alan,

    Just to save everyone from fruitless discussion, any significant changes to how this site operates will only happen with the intervention of the blog owner.

    As if we didn’t know that, or as if that rendered discussion “fruitless”.

    You understandably get nervous when moderation is discussed, Alan. That’s because you are a big part of the problem.

  6. keiths: You understandably get nervous when moderation is discussed, Alan. That’s because you are a big part of the problem.

    It’s the plurality of view that makes this site interesting! 🙂

  7. keiths:

    There’s an easy way to accomplish that: forbid the Guanoing of comments.

    Allan:

    I actually support that, on balance. I have small reservations: I’m unsure how much it would actually reduce discussions about the discussion and what would happen if an unshackled Joe-G-alike rolled up.

    I suspect a Joe-G-alike would cause problems with or without Guano. What made Joe G so annoying was the idiocy and repetitiveness, not the rule violations.

  8. keiths: Where did I claim that Guano was Alan’s idea?

    Let’s pretend for a moment that Guano was Elizabeth’s idea. Why would Alan then think “Hmm, maybe this Guano thing wasn’t such a great idea” just because you don’t think it was such a great idea?

  9. Alan Fox: Just to save everyone from fruitless discussion…

    There you go again, interfering. We want fruitless discussion. We need fruitless discussion. We want to enhance our fruitless discussions with name-calling and insults and slurs and lying and misrepresentation like any decent blog.

    Just get out of the way.

  10. Mung,

    Let’s pretend for a moment that Guano was Elizabeth’s idea.

    We don’t have to pretend. It was her idea, doofus.

    Why would Alan then think “Hmm, maybe this Guano thing wasn’t such a great idea” just because you don’t think it was such a great idea?

    Reading comprehension, Mung. (Seriously, you have a major problem with it.)

    Where did I say Alan would think that? That’s right. Nowhere.

  11. keiths: Because if it doesn’t affect colewd, why worry about it? Other people don’t matter.

    Yes, that’s EXACTLY what he said you pathetic hypocrite who complains about people putting words in your mouth.

  12. keiths,

    The reasons are sound and the interminable moderation kerfuffles aren’t lamented by only a few.

    Can you expand on why the reasons are sound and who shares your thoughts on guano?

  13. colewd:
    keiths,

    I have never had a comment sent to guano so I don’t see it as a big deal.When a comment is, I generally go to guano to read it.This site is very successful on a relative basis.I would not screw with it unless the reason is sound and not just the opinion of a few.

    I have had several comments guano’d, and to be honest it was entirely fair when it happened.

  14. Rumraket,

    I have had several comments guano’d, and to be honest it was entirely fair when it happened.

    Sometimes it’s fair. Often it isn’t, particularly when Alan is involved.

    In any case, the primary question is not about fairness — it’s about whether Guanoing is a good thing for TSZ, or whether we’d be better off without it. Lizzie’s intentions were good, but Guano has worked poorly in practice.

    More on that in an upcoming comment.

  15. Rumraket: I have had several comments guano’d, and to be honest it was entirely fair when it happened.

    Same here.

    Speaking strictly for myself I have no problems with current TSZ moderation. I’d prefer TSZ if Lizzie were to return, but until then we’re waiting for Godot.

  16. I said my bit yesterday. I’m fine with Alan and Neil using their judgment, as I said, and their judgment is not to go with my idea. I am not the least bothered by that.

    Some of you are utterly fucking clueless as to how to treat people doing volunteer labor for you. Mung has posted thanks to Lizzie. Well, that’s fine. But the dollar-value of the contributions of Alan and Neil to TSZ is much greater than hers. How many people would put up with the shit they have? Whom do you think is going to replace them? Are free admins the result of quantum fluctuations?

    As for the biggest irritant at TSZ (not the parodist J-Mac), I’m telling you, ignor(commenter)ance is bliss. Those of you who have no problem with him would be doing those of us who do a favor by quoting only his substantive remarks, not his jibes.

  17. Mung:
    I volunteered to be an admin. That went nowhere

    That’s because the rules won’t let trolling shitheads be admins.

  18. Tom,

    You’re a smart guy, but you say the dumbest things sometimes.

    Some of you are utterly fucking clueless as to how to treat people doing volunteer labor for you.

    I appreciate some of what Alan and Neil do, like updating the software and fishing comments out of the spam queue. But don’t pretend that when they guano comments they are “doing volunteer labor for me.” They aren’t. I don’t ask them to guano comments, I don’t want them to guano comments, and I don’t benefit from their guanoing of comments. It makes TSZ worse, not better.

    And I certainly don’t benefit from this sort of crap. If you think that “oh, he’s not being paid” is justification for that kind of behavior, then think again.

    I think that when someone volunteers to do a job, they should do it. Being unpaid is not a license to say “Fuck you, I’ll do what I want.”

  19. Tom,

    Whom do you think is going to replace them? Are free admins the result of quantum fluctuations?

    Is Neil going somewhere?

    And if we eliminate Guano, the admin workload goes way down. It’s win-win.

  20. Not exactly a moderation issue, but a complaint and a plea.

    The bit on the left side of the page that records new comments frequently fills up quickly with garbage comments (you know who you are, or perhaps you don’t), pushing comments of substance off the page sooner than I can notice them. Then there’s only one way to tell if anyone has said anything: look up the post. This becomes more difficult when the post itself has been pushed off the front page, or even off the list of recent posts.

    Can something be done about that? I don’t think there’s a supply side solution; people will still continue to make useless comments no matter what. So is there a way to make recent comments visible or findable for at least a few days, even if traffic is heavy?

  21. John Harshman,

    I’ve cranked up the number of comments to be displayed to 100. If it causes problems I can always crank it back down.

    ETA You may not have noticed that comments are also available in pages of 50 on your dashboard (There’s a speech bubble top left). They are searchable, though the search engine is not brilliant.

  22. Alan Fox: I’ve cranked up the number of comments to be displayed to 100.

    And yet that 100 doesn’t even stretch back to the beginning of the day. A great fix would be if people you were ignoring were eliminated from the list too. Then anyone who was ignoring Mung and Phoodoo would be able to see what’s going on for several days in the past.

  23. John Harshman,
    There are many plugin add-ons written by the WordPress community and if anyone can spot one that might help sort wheat from chaff we can try it. Bigger changes can only be made to this site with server access, not an option without Lizzie’s consent.

    I’m reluctant to increase the number of comment links on the main page but I can crank up the number displayed on the comments listing in member admin panel. I have had it set at 500 comments before but it is then slow to load (though that may be down to my own limited bandwidth).

    Forum software allows many more options so maybe adding a functional forum to the site, initially pointing people in different directions depending whether they want to dogfight over religion or discuss other topics of interest would help. Again, we need Lizzie’s input for that. I haven’t heard from her yet.

  24. Other options simple enough to try:

    I could increase the number of posts displayed (currently 10 plus featured posts, if any) on the main page,

    I could increase the number of posts (currently 15) included in the list of recent posts on the main page.

  25. John Harshman,

    (you know who you are, or perhaps you don’t)

    Guily as charged, I guess, since I’ll talk to anyone. But I don’t see the people you deign to interact with as bringing a substantially higher standard of argumentation.

  26. There’s definitely much too much J-mac blathering on this site now. I suppose that before him it was something else–maybe me fighting with keiths or Patrick, Omagain trolling Murray, keiths insulting Alan, Gregory’s (allegedly drunken) rants, etc. But it’s hard to deny that the site is often (if not usually) befouled with useless garbage.

    This is a very bad time right now, certainly. About 75% guano.

  27. walto: There’s definitely much too much J-mac blathering on this site now. I suppose that before him it was something else–maybe me fighting with keiths or Patrick, Omagain trolling Murray, keiths insulting Alan, Gregory’s (allegedly drunken) rants, etc. But it’s hard to deny that the site is often (if not usually) befouled with useless garbage.

    This is a very bad time right now, certainly. About 75% guano.

    O’REY?
    J-mac is the cause of the very bad time a TSZ…silent sigh…
    You gonna have to put up with that unless Liz changes her mind…She invited UD people here… 😉 So…Here I am sent…

  28. J-Mac: J-mac is the cause of the very bad time a TSZ…silent sigh…
    You gonna have to put up with that unless Liz changes her mind…She invited UD people here… So…Here I am sent…

    The way that I look at it, you are part of the entertainment.

  29. Alan Fox: There are many plugin add-ons written by the WordPress community and if anyone can spot one that might help sort wheat from chaff we can try it.

    The ideal solution, which may or may not be possible, would be to let each person identify chaff using the “ignore” function, and have that apply to the “recent comments” list as well as the comments themselves.

  30. Allan Miller: But I don’t see the people you deign to interact with as bringing a substantially higher standard of argumentation.

    I think they bring a somewhat higher standard of serious engagement, though not necessarily of argumentation. And “substantially” might be a higher bar than “somewhat”. I could wish for a better class of creationists, but this is what we get.

  31. John Harshman,

    And “substantially” might be a higher bar than “somewhat”.

    There’s a continuum, I guess. Not sure where Erik, Bill and fmm would sit, were I to apply a razor.

  32. John Harshman: I think they bring a somewhat higher standard of serious engagement, though not necessarily of argumentation. And “substantially” might be a higher bar than “somewhat”. I could wish for a better class of creationists, but this is what we get.

    Rumraket September 4, 2017 at 8:51 pm
    This J-mac guy is my new favorite creationist. Keep going J-mac, by Christmas you’re sure to have made the whole rotten edifice come crashing down. This is where it all began, the collapse of Darwinism. And you’ll be the guy who did it.

    The higher standard of evolutionists/materialists would also help… especially the ones that can read the sources they refer to as well as the ones who have enough basic knowledge of sciences so that they don’t spread nonsense as science…
    Examples are available…

    BTW: I have no problem doing OPs on such themes, like non-random quantum mutations, quantum information conservation in relation to evolutionary theory…or big bang…

    How many people here would know what that is? Harshaman? He contradicts himself in “his own area of expertise whatever that is …lol

  33. walto,

    I don’t think that is a reasonable statement. J Mac has given many substantive posts even if you don’t agree with him. Compared to keiths, or Omagain or Richard, or Adapa or Glen? I don’t see how you can call him out.

  34. Neil Rickert,

    He talks about topics, he gives theories and conjectures. That’s a heck of a lot more than Omagain or Adapa does. And if you can’t see that, perhaps you shouldn’t be a moderator.

  35. Neil Rickert: For some meanings of “substantive posts”.

    Still waiting for your “substantive posts” on uncaused cause case …and the scientific evidence for the universe without beginning that you no doubt have… 😉

  36. phoodoo:
    Neil Rickert,

    He talks about topics, he gives theories and conjectures.That’s a heck of a lot more than Omagain or Adapa does.And if you can’t see that, perhaps you shouldn’t be a moderator.

    Is Neil saying J-mac shouldn’t comment here?

    No, he isn’t.

    Is Neil saying J-mac shouldn’t publish opening posts here?

    No, he isn’t.

    Is Neil entitled, no different from any other member here, to express an opinion or criticising other members’ statements?

    Yes, he is.

    ETA clarity

Comments are closed.