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. John Harshman: 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.

    Pretty sure this is all available in forum format such as phpBB.

  2. Perhaps some sort of follow feature.

    That way John could just follow Sal around, because John is fixated on fighting young earth creationism. Anything else and he’s out of his comfort zone and just can’t handle it.

    Another option might be to only show the link to the most recent comment in a thread on the main page. That way you would display a link to no more than one comment per thread. You would be able to see active threads without all the cruft.

    This would I think solve John’s problem without making the site even more favorable to simply ignoring people you disagree with.

  3. Mung: John could grow up.

    Or learn how to use the Dashboard…which Alan suggested already…It’s easy…
    I guess not for everyone though… lol

  4. Alan Fox: 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

    That’s a relief…as my list of The Mysteries has grown extensively… 🙂

  5. Alan,

    Can you move keiths nonsense to guano that is just the continuation of his own OP nobody wants to discuss anymore? If not, can I do it? I wouldn’t want to abuse the privileges if you disagree…
    Thanks

  6. Neil Rickert: As far as I can tell, there is nothing substantive about uncaused causes.

    No kidding! How do you explain the universe without a beginning then?

    BTW: Does anybody get an impression I get that Neil is “in love” with Dawkins or perhaps with himself…? 😉

  7. J-Mac,

    Does anybody get an impression I get that Neil is “in love” with Dawkins or perhaps with himself…?

    No. IIRC Neil is not a fan of Dawkins, so your sneer is way off.

  8. Mung: But perhaps easier than growing up.

    For Harshman? Everything seems to be difficult these days…even remembering his own claims… 😉

  9. J-Mac,
    Absolutely not. Did I not make it clear to you already that whilst authors with post-edit permissions are technically able to edit and delete comments in their threads, they must not, and a condition of having that permission is a guarantee not to use it?

  10. I’d like to request that my post-edit permissions be restored. I violated the rule once a long time ago and took ownership for what I did. It won’t happen again.

  11. phoodoo, I can’t believe you’re calling the blast of garbage from J-Mac “substantive.” It’s just nonsense–which is unsurprising, since he himself admits he won’t read a book or article on this stuff.

    FWIW, I don’t say the same about your or mung’s or Sal’s or Vince’s or FMM’s posts (although FMM’s repetitiousness can definitely be off-putting). The only virtue I see in J-mac is that he’s industrious. But in this case, that’s another way of saying that he’s incredibly long-winded.

    Anyhow, I think it’s very unfortunate for this site how excited he is about continuing to shit the place up for the foreseeable future with his ignorant nonsense.

  12. walto: Anyhow, I think it’s very unfortunate for this site how excited he is about continuing to shit the place up for the foreseeable future with his ignorant nonsense.

    Neil and I differ just a little on this issue, Neil taking the relaxed view that his posts are harmless and need only an indulgent smile and an agile scroll finger. I’ve been adding “read more” breaks to limit their spread on the front page.

  13. walto:
    phoodoo, I can’t believe you’re calling the blast of garbage from J-Mac “substantive.”It’s just nonsense–which is unsurprising, since he himself admits he won’t read a book or article on this stuff.

    Why should I? If Joe and Tom, for example, didn’t read them themselves? If they did read, then it just tells you that reading something and retaining it are two different things…

    FWIW, I don’t say the same about your or mung’s or Sal’s or Vince’s or FMM’s posts (although FMM’s repetitiousness can definitely be off-putting). The only virtue I see in J-mac is that he’s industrious.

    I take it as a compliment…Why do you think it is?

    But in this case, that’s another way of saying that he’s incredibly long-winded.

    As in comparison to say… vjtorley? Sorry VJ… just trying to make a point…

    Anyhow, I think it’s very unfortunate for this site how excited he is about continuing to shit the place up for the foreseeable future with his ignorant nonsense.

    So you vented… So…you’d prefer to read the nonsense that you would like to hear and not as it is…I get it! It ain’t gonna come from me…

  14. Alan Fox:
    J-Mac,
    Absolutely not. Did I not make it clear to you already that whilst authors with post-edit permissionsare technically able to edit and delete comments in their threads, they must not, and a condition of having that permission is a guarantee not to use it?

    Fine! Just asked… I will deal with it differently then… 😉
    Thanks

  15. J-Mac: How do you explain the universe without a beginning then?

    There’s no evidence of a beginning, as far as I can tell.

    As far as I know, the view of most cosmologists is the evidence of the big bang is really the evidence of the coming into existence of time and space. So there was never a time before the big bang and there was never a time before the existence of the universe. So there was no beginning.

  16. Allan,

    Snappier post titles would be welcome too!

    The OPs could use some proofreading and copy editing too. Or complete rewrites, frankly.

    But not by the moderators.

  17. keiths: If you don’t want to be seen as a bottom feeder, stop acting like one.

    Please remind keiths to address the post and not his perceived failings of the poster.

    Thank you.

  18. Why is keiths not in the moderation queue? That is a serious question. He constantly violates the rules and refuses to adjust his behavior in spite of repeated warnings.

    He shows no interest in abiding by Elizabeth’s wishes for the site.

  19. Always amusing to see Mung, who doesn’t give a rat”s ass about the rules when he’s commenting, hypocritically whining to the moderators when someone else says something he doesn’t like.

    The truth hurts, eh, Mung?

  20. keiths: Always amusing to see Mung, who doesn’t give a rat”s ass about the rules when he’s commenting…

    Evidence please.

    When is the last time I called you a liar anywhere but Moderation Issues or Noyau?

    ETA: keiths probably took my failures to call him a liar as evidence that he wasn’t a liar.

  21. keiths: And Neil proves my point by moving an honest comment to Guano and rewarding the quote miner.

    Honesty has nothing to do with it you idiot. Do you just not understand the rules at this site? You do. You just don’t care.

    You can be as honest as you like when outing someone here, but it will still get you banned, and “I was just being honest” won’t save your rule-breaking ass.

    Go ahead, try it.

  22. Mung

    Honesty has nothing to do with it you idiot.

    That’s my point, dipshit.

    The rules as they stand reward the dishonest and punish the honest. You are able to quote mine with impunity, while comments that call you out on it are guanoed.

    ETA: I should also note that moderators are not required to guano comments, so Neil’s action, which is against TSZ’s interests, demonstrates his own poor judgment as well as a deficiency in the rules.

  23. keiths: That’s my point, dipshit.

    Agreement then! Why can’t you find a way to agree withing the rules? And why can’t you find a way to disagree within the rules? I think it’s because you simply don’t want to.

    The rules as they stand reward the dishonest and punish the honest.

    This is false. And you’re repeating yourself. Boring. This is ground that has already been covered. And Elizabeth has never taken your side. Now it’s time for you to bury your head in the sand and refuse to face the facts. Perhaps some nice comfortable VR goggles would help.

    keiths: You are able to quote mine with impunity, while comments that call you out on it are guanoed.

    This too is false, and at this point, it’s safe to say that you are flat out lying. You need to face the fact that you are a demonstrable liar.

    Carry on, snake boy!

  24. Joe Felsenstein: Particularly since that “Joe” was not me, but a quote-mine creation by Mung.

    Joe F. accuses me of quote-mining, but his post was not sent to Guano.

    keiths: You are able to quote mine with impunity, while comments that call you out on it are guanoed.

    Except when they are not.

    keiths: You are able to quote mine with impunity…

    Demonstrably false.

  25. Mung:

    Joe F. accuses me of quote-mining, but his post was not sent to Guano.

    You’re once again making my point for me. Neil’s moderation is selective and biased. He was happy to guano my comment but reluctant to guano Joe’s. A system that grants moderation privileges to guys like Alan and Neil, who can’t keep their personal grudges separate from their moderation decisions, is doomed to fail.

  26. keiths: And it was Mung’s second quote-mine creation of the day.

    keiths accuses me of quote-mining. But his comment was not sent to Guano. keiths simply ignores any evidence that is contrary to his preferred narrative.

    Poor keiths. His opinions are quashed by the cruel and indifferent moderators, who are simply looking for any excuse they can find to send his posts to Guano.

    #FinalFantasy

  27. keiths: You’re once again making my point for me.

    You are deluded and need to seek professional help. Your martyr complex is a figment of your imagination. You accused me of quote-mining and your post was not sent to Guano either.

  28. keiths: You’re once again making my point for me. Neil’s moderation is selective and biased. He was happy to guano my comment but reluctant to guano Joe’s. A system that grants moderation privileges to guys like Alan and Neil, who can’t keep their personal grudges separate from their moderation decisions, is doomed to fail.

    Poor you.

  29. keiths: Anyone who reads the passage can see that you quote-mined Joe.

    keiths again accuses me of quote-mining. His post wasn’t sent to Guano.

    Poor keiths. The admins are targeting his posts and preventing him from accusing me of quote-mining. Utter bullshit, of course.

  30. Mung,

    You quote mined John and Joe yesterday and got caught both times. What are you whining about?

    If you don’t want to be seen as a bottom feeder, then stop acting like one.

  31. keiths: It was a blatant quote mine. Mung is a true bottom feeder

    You forgot to bitch about how the admins sent your posts to Guano and prevented you from being honest.

    It’s pretty clear that your charges against the admins are baseless. There have been multiple posts accusing me of quote-mining that were not sent to Guano. At least two of them were posts you made.

    You are simply not credible. You are, demonstrably, a liar.

    How pathetic of a liar you are, well, that remains to be seen. Will you retract any of your false claims? Probably not.

  32. keiths: You quote mined John and Joe yesterday and got caught both times. What are you whining about?

    I’m whining about your whining. 🙂

    You lied about the admins. Admit it. You won’t though, because not only are you a liar, you are also a coward.

  33. Neil Rickert: Moved another post to guano.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. 🙂

    It would appear that accusing someone of quote-mining is not against the rules, while accusing someone of being dishonest is against the rules.

    Being keiths is not against the rules. Being lying keiths is not against the rules. Being keiths accusing someone of quote-mining is not against the rules. Being keiths accusing someone of dishonesty is against the rules.

    keiths regularly tests those boundaries and whines when he gets caught crossing them, and accuses the moderators of bias.

    Pretty pathetic.

  34. keiths:

    The truth hurts, eh, Mung?

    Mung:

    How would you know?

    I can see you wincing and rubbing your ass.

    Mung, quoting Ben Franklin:

    The sting in any rebuke is the truth.

    Which is why you ran to the moderators when I said:

    If you don’t want to be seen as a bottom feeder, then stop acting like one. Your reputation is entirely self-inflicted.

    The truth hurts, and you wanted Neil to kiss your boo-boo and make it better.

  35. Mung,

    When is the last time I called you a liar anywhere but Moderation Issues or Noyau?

    That’s a pitiful attempt at a goalpost shift, even by Mungian standards. We were talking about rule violations in general, remember?

    Always amusing to see Mung, who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the rules when he’s commenting, hypocritically whining to the moderators when someone else says something he doesn’t like.

Comments are closed.