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.
I confess, I don’t understand the issue here. Why do some folk want to limit the topics generated? I personally don’t care that J-mac flooded the site with inane topics. I read some of them and ignored others. I read some of the comments and I ignored a bunch of others. It seems to work pretty well for me.
I guess my perspective is that I come here to read thoughts – both pro and con – on science, philosophy, religion, etc in general and on evolution (mostly) in specific. I comment from time-to-time on some thoughts, but mostly I just enjoy reading the exchanges.
Robin,
The issue is that front-page space is a limited resource. That creates a “tragedy of the commons” situation in which folks like J-Mac, by hogging far more than their share, impose a penalty on the readers and on the other contributors.
Once OPs scroll off the front page, they tend not to be discussed anymore unless someone is motivated enough to seek them out, or unless there are still comment links in the sidebar.
Neil:
keiths:
Alan:
She appointed you moderators, not editors. This is news to you?
Oh, the irony. You are fighting tooth and nail against Lizzie’s vision, then hiding behind her skirt when you are called on it.
You and Neil are advancing a scheme in which a contributor is singled out for second-class treatment, in which moderators arrogate to themselves the right to judge the contents of OPs, and in which they can censor those OPs they personally judge to be not sufficiently “interesting to the readership.”
You, Alan, have even spoken out against skepticism, claiming that it amounts to denying others “the freedom to think their own thoughts.”
Could you possibly be more out-of-step with Lizzie’s vision for TSZ?
Walto’s rate-limit proposal is in line with the TSZ ethos. Yours isn’t.
Let me once again suggest that improvement in the “ignore” function would fix nearly everything. Choose degrees of “ignore”: don’t see the ignored one’s comments, don’t see those comments in the “recent comments” sidebar, don’t see his OPs. Make it possible to do one, two, or all three of these to taste. Thus, every man his own censor.
You’re wrong. Lizzie asked her admins to be pro-active in her absence. As she said, she has final editorial control. It’s her site.
Nonsense.
Slippery slope arguments are pretty crap. This one is no exception. Neil and I compromised over an issue with a particular member, who currently needs admin permission to publish OPs. That’s it.
Oh the misrepresentation!
I guess I could. Thankfully, I’m not.
One (or is it two) OPs per member per month. Fine, let me know when someone exceeds their limit. What action do I take then?
John Harshman,
It would be great, John. Unfortunately, WordPress is limited in functionality. I don’t seem to be able to make this silk purse from the sow’s ear. If anyone knows of a suitable plugin, we can try it.
Shutting down the site completely. Leaving things as they are. Both simpler. 🙂
Occam’s Razor!
John,
That’s a potential longer-term fix, as is my proposal, but both of those require someone to modify the software.
The rate-limit proposal works in the interim, without the defects of Alan and Neil’s scheme.
What scheme? I’ve proposed none.
keiths:
Alan:
She didn’t instruct you to “do anything you want, for any reason.” Yet you’re pulling crap like this, which amounted to a “fuck you” to Lizzie. Granting more power to an infantile ass like you is not the way to solve the current problem.
keiths,
I can only repeat that you should raise these issues with Lizzie. You have her email address. If you can persuade her to spend a little time here, that would be fabulous.
Alan,
What do you accomplish by playing dumb? You know exactly what I’m referring to:
Granting more power? What are you on about?
keiths, I see nothing there about a scheme.
keiths:
Alan:
What slippery slope argument? I’m objecting to your actual, stated scheme, in which J-Mac is singled out and his OPs are subject to censorship based on moderator judgment regarding their contents.
Again, don’t play dumb, Alan. It isn’t necessary.
So you are asking me to change J-Mac’s membership status to author?
Alan,
That’s because you’re playing dumb. Who do you think you’re fooling?
keiths,
I really have no idea what you are on about with “granting powers”.
keiths,
What scheme, Keiths? I think you are hyperbolizing, as you seem to in all your interactions with me.
Alan if the limitation can’t be ex ante, then, yeah, I’d pull the rule-breaking OP until the first of the next month.
Keiths is right about this. I can already see an indignant post on some creationist site about singling out a religious poster for moderation status. There’s no reason for giving that satisfaction. As you can’t/don’t want to pre-screen everyone’s posts, don’t pre-screen anybody’s.
Alan,
You know exactly what I’m talking about.
Readers are watching you deny the obvious, Alan. And you wonder why you don’t get the approval you crave?
Not sure if I’m following you, walto. Say we initiate a posting limit of one OP per member per month. Then a member posts two OPs in one month. That OP then gets republished after a month’s delay? That would involve a fair bit of work.
What precisely?
This might be fair if J-Mac had been censored at TSZ. All that has happened is that any future OP he wishes to publish requires admin approval. He’s not prevented from commenting here. He’s not prevented from complaining here. There were several complaints regarding his OP. My initial response was to ask people to smile and scroll. But quite a few of our members disagreed.
Remember this was a post about chasing chickens as experiment and misrepresenting evolutionary biology as Lamarckian. Is there no bar low enough?
Concern yourself with how you appear to others. And explain about the scheme. What scheme?
walto:
Right. Or if there’s concern about pulling an OP after it’s been published (and after comments may have been made on the thread), then leave it in place but change the author’s status so that future OPs require moderator action prior to publication. In other words, the moderators can enforce the rate limit on anyone who is unwilling or unable to adhere to it voluntarily.
Here’s the crucial point, Alan: J-Mac has not violated any rules by publishing eight OPs in 37 days. Yes, they are inane, but no, he has not violated the rules. You are punishing him for doing something that was perfectly allowable.
Far better to adopt a scheme that applies to everyone equally and does not punish the innocent. As walto says:
Too right there is! That is censorship
Oh fuck me! Just what has happened with J-Mac *face palm*
Wrong. Lizzie said she retains editorial control. TSZ is under no obligation to publish any crap.
What scheme?
keiths:
Alan:
Alan,
Listen to yourself. You’re aghast at the idea of censorship, and yet you’re proposing that you be allowed to censor J-Mac’s OPs. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit, um, contradictory?
No. Pulling an OP with comments is censorship. I’ve not censored J-Mac in any way whatsoever. As others have remarked, in a sense, he’s currently subject to a sort of peer review. I don’t know what future OP he might submit. If it contains more chicken chasing, I might ask for that to be edited out. I might ask for a snappier title, too.
Aghast! 🙂
I personally seldom look at the OPs until they appear on the sidebar. I have no idea how old they are.
I look at the sidebar and click on comments by people who are sane. Then I scroll up and down to see if there’s anything interesting, sometimes there’s a good discussion, an sometimes it’s just repetitive troll an response.
I really don’t want to waste time reading creationist drivel. I do like reading responses that obviously took time and effort to write.
keiths:
Alan:
No, because what I am suggesting would apply only after the rule was violated. You are punishing J-Mac for publishing a slew of OPs — something that was perfectly allowable under the rules. That’s unfair, it runs counter to the TSZ ethos, and it lends legitimacy to the martyrdom narrative of our opponents.
It’s a terrible idea. The rate-limit idea is far better.
keiths:
Alan:
Again, listen to yourself, Alan. Lizzie’s retention of editorial control does not turn J-Mac’s slew of OPs into a rule violation. If you disagree, then what rule has he violated?
The answer: none. You are punishing him arbitrarily and for no good reason.
Let’s ditch your poor approach in favor of the rate limit scheme, since the latter is much more compatible with the spirit of TSZ.
Agreed.
Though TSZ is within its rights to exercise editorial control over OP, I see no way of doing so without an express statement of purpose (as indeed most if not all professional journals have). I really don’t see how we all could agree to a statement of purpose, nor would some of us be comfortable with the current admins drafting one. If Lizzie were to return and exercise the prerogative of site ownership by giving TSZ a statement of purpose, the rest of us would have to accept it or go elsewhere. And I don’t see her return as imminent. Based on what I see her posting on Facebook, she has much larger concerns than TSZ.
In short, I don’t see any practical way for TSZ to come up with a statement of purpose, and I don’t see how the admins could justifiably exercise editorial control without one.
The other major advantage of limiting OPs to one author per month is that it’s fair. Everyone is treated the same way, and no one can claim censorship or claim that they’re being singled out for unfair treatment.
So I’m against editorial control on grounds of practicality, and in favor of limiting OPs to one author per month on grounds of fairness.
Alan:
You’re arrogating the right to censor J-Mac’s OPs, and Neil is doing the same. What is wrong with you guys? Lizzie has been against censorship (except in extreme cases, such as “outing”) from the get-go.
Why are you advocating censorship when there’s a suggestion on the table that avoids it and also fixes the other defects in your scheme?
Frankie was banned for posting a bunch of comments – .something that was perfectly allowable under the rules.
Mung,
“Frankie” was originally banned for linking to his infamous “tunie” photo, and his ban should never have been rescinded. That was a mistake, and the second banning was a bit of a train wreck on the part of the moderators.
The proposal does not punish J-Mac. Who is to say whether he will try to publish 10 (inane) posts in a month? If from now on he publishes 2 (inane) posts a month, then he will not be in violation of anything and the proposed rule will not in any way punish him.
Joe,
Right, whereas Alan’s and Neil’s current scheme does punish him — despite the fact that J-Mac didn’t violate any rules by publishing his slew of inane OPs.
Judgment is essential. No one can write a set of rules covering all situations that will arise at a site like this. It is no coincidence that the forum members who want everything to be governed by rules are anonymities bent on behaving as obnoxiously as the rules permit.
Some members act as though the community determines how the forum runs. This is Elizabeth Liddle’s blog. This page is where we raise issues and make suggestions. Lizzie never indicated that she would do more than to listen to what we had to say. The notion that if you can make the best argument, then the blog should run as you say, is flatly wrong.
Everyone talks about rules, but it seems to me that what Lizzie did was to set forth principles, and to convey what she hoped would be the spirit of the forum. (I know that I have been a disappointment to her at times, and I am trying to do better.) What I’ve seen from Neil and Alan is a good-faith effort to administer according to Lizzie’s principles. There’s no way for them to proceed, but to use their judgment. And the only person whose judgment of their judgment counts is Lizzie. (In fact, I feel guilty using the American spelling of judgement.)
Tom,
No, you haven’t.
What you’ve seen is crap like this and this. “A good-faith effort” my ass.
And what you saw in this particular instance was a typically impulsive overreaction by Alan and Neil.
A much better alternative was available to them, as pointed out by walto and others.
Given Lizzie’s attitude regarding censorship, why on earth would the moderators ignore that and choose an approach that embraces censorship? Why would they choose an approach that punishes a single commenter for behavior that didn’t violate any rules? Why would they appoint themselves editors with the power to refuse publication of OPs they deem “not interesting to the readership”?
Anyone who’s spent time at TSZ knows that all of those characteristics run counter to Lizzie’s vision. Why adopt such a faulty approach when a much better alternative is available — one with none of those defects?
We’re stuck with Alan and Neil for the time being, at least, but that hardly means we should remain quiet when they make poor and impulsive decisions that are bad for TSZ and against Lizzie’s aims.
So…It looks like it wasn’t Alan’s idea to get me censored after all…
A few members applied pressure on Allan and Neil, and voila…
So…all this smultz about Lizzie’s rules and so on was not true after all…
I’m just wondering who that could be… Any Ideas?
I guess this pressure to get me censored wouldn’t have anything with this, would it?
Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds
John Harshmana, b,c, Edward L. Braund,e,c, Michael J. Braunf,g,c, Christopher J. Huddlestonf, Rauri C. K. Bowiea,h,i, Jena L. Chojnowskid, Shannon J. Hacketta, Kin-Lan Hand,f,g, Rebecca T. Kimballd, Ben D. Marksj, Kathleen J. Migliak, William S. Moorek, Sushma Reddya, Frederick H. Sheldonj, David W. Steadmanl, Scott J. Steppanm, Christopher C. Wittj,n, and Tamaki Yurid,f
Abstract
Ratites (ostriches, emus, rheas, cassowaries, and kiwis) are large, flightless birds that have long fascinated biologists. Their current distribution on isolated southern land masses is believed to reflect the breakup of the paleocontinent of Gondwana. The prevailing view is that ratites are monophyletic, with the flighted tinamous as their sister group, suggesting a single loss of flight in the common ancestry of ratites. However, phylogenetic analyses of 20 unlinked nuclear genes reveal a genome-wide signal that unequivocally places tinamous within ratites, making ratites polyphyletic and suggesting multiple losses of flight. Phenomena that can mislead phylogenetic analyses, including long branch attraction, base compositional bias, discordance between gene trees and species trees, and sequence alignment errors, have been eliminated as explanations for this result. The most plausible hypothesis requires at least three losses of flight and explains the many morphological and behavioral similarities among ratites by parallel or convergent evolution. Finally, this phylogeny demands fundamental reconsideration of proposals that relate ratite evolution to continental drift.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13462.full
What do you think? Doesn’t it look suspicious?
Look at my OP and comments:
It stinks of retaliation…
If I submit my next OP, with all the scientific references to the papers about the uniqueness of ostrich urinary storage (bladder like), the lack of keel in ratites- flightless birds (breastbone to which the flight muscles of flying birds are attached) and maybe even add that ratites have heavy, solid bones, while flying birds have lightweight, hollow ones.
Is Harshman is not going to send himself and his gang of bullies after Allan and Neil, is he? Or, the OP like that is just going to be as good as killed?
I mean, at this point I don’t even have to do any experiments on ostriches or emus or any ratites because even though apparently all 10 billion species on earth are evolving and transitioning into other species, how likely is it for them to evolve keel or hollow bones again to fly? It was a miraclevolution when ratites apparently lost their flying ability not only to obesity, as some article claimed, but there were more evolutionary miracles on the way of becoming ratites…
So, let’s not fool ourselves what really caused the retaliation of Harshman and his gang of bullies…
Everyone, in the right frame of mind, can easily point them out… Those are the once who’s reputation is on the line here…None of them are willing to through away many years of their work and have some J-mac dude make them look like s..t…
Let’s face it; they are here to boost their self-esteem and not feel unappreciated by some unknown dude…
So, why should I even bother to post here? If I submit a post on backwards causation or quantum time referral with experimental data showing that information processing in human body runs back in time, who here is going to be able to interpret it and censor it? Harshman? English? How about Felsenstein? Maybe Jeffrey Shallit can be of help?
What if I submit and OP on non-random mutations with the data showing that quantum coherence restricts mutations in a similar way 2 pocket roulette does? Who is going to interpret that data to censor it? The Harshman Trinity? Maybe Tom can help calculate the odds…
So, give me one real reason why I should continue to post here?
I have better and much more interesting things to do than write OPs that are going to be censored in order to boost some of regulars’ self-esteem and make them read what they want to hear…
J-Mac,
Well, one reason is that unless you start your own blog, you’re unlikely to find another venue that will publish your inane crap.
You should be grateful for TSZ, even if you (and everyone else) end up rate-limited.
J-Mac,
Hopefully they won’t be, if Alan and Neil’s unwise censorship scheme is replaced by the rate limit proposal.
1. Because it pisses some people off.
2. Because the fish are always biting.
Grateful? You probably lost your mind…
Discovery Institute has it’s conference next month…I’m thinking of submitting a couple of my ideas on QM vs evolution just to see if they like it…
I’m writing a synopsis for a book/subscription website that I promised a publisher few months ago…
I have family-2 kids and a dog
I’m researching religions/Bible/Torah/Quoran/Spirituality purpose of creation/life/universe, if there is a God/ID…
Do I really need to be grateful for TSZ? lol
Thanks Mung!
I can always count on you for a chuckle…Don’t ever change! 😉
J-Mac,
You don’t need to, but you certainly ought to.
Again, who else is going to publish your inane crap?
It’s in the eye of the beholder…
What’s Facebook for?
J-Mac:
That’s just the equivalent of posting it on your own blog.
Like I said:
What have I been talking about?
Harshman wants a personalized setting on a personal blog he does’t own because….He wants to read what he wants to hear and argue with people who boost his self-esteem… Why? Because he studied some birdies many years ago nobody remembers about and his studies have shown results that they were suppose to show…otherwise… nobody would pay attention to his personal preferences today if they didn’t…
What a waste of time on this blog!