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:
    J-Mac:

    That’s just the equivalent of posting it on your own blog.

    Like I said:

    I need me here so that you can kill your boredom…You couldn’t careless what I write here…

  2. keiths: What you’ve seen is crap like this and this.

    I agree that those are crap. I’ll note that both linked comments were written by keiths.

    And what you saw in this particular instance was a typically impulsive overreaction by Alan and Neil.

    How about a link to where I gave a supposedly impulsive overreaction. Because I haven’t a clue as to what you are referring to.

  3. J-Mac: What a waste of time on this blog!

    I never understood why you would waste your extraordinary talents on us. You’ll get a bigger audience in UDder Land. Your posts are vastly more informative than, say, 0’Dreary’s impressionistic takes on rewrites of inaccurate press releases about publications of science articles. You know more about quantum mechanics than everyone over there, except Banny Errington (who doesn’t know more than you do, but would outlawyer you in a court case regarding public-school instruction in quantum mechanics, and thus, according to Johnson’s Rules of Postmodern Science, knows more than you do). They need you badly in UDder Land. They would heap praise on you. Fifty thousand readers a week would see your posts. The more posts you crank out, the better. But you need to be clear on O’Torley’s Unwritten Rule: never, ever criticize a book on intelligent design.

  4. Tom English: I never understood why you would waste your extraordinary talents on us. You’ll get a bigger audience in UDder Land. Your posts are vastly more informative than, say, 0’Dreary’s impressionistic takes on rewrites of inaccurate press releases about publications of science articles. You know more about quantum mechanics than everyone over there, except Banny Errington (who doesn’t know more than you do, but would outlawyer you in a court case regarding public-school instruction in quantum mechanics, and thus, according to Johnson’s Rules of Postmodern Science, knows more than you do). They need you badly in UDder Land. They would heap praise on you. Fifty thousand readers a week would see your posts. The more posts you crank out, the better. But you need to be clear on O’Torley’s Unwritten Rule: never, ever criticize a book on intelligent design.

    J-Mac’s a veritable Philip Cunningham!

    Glen Davidson

  6. Tom English: His knowledge of video resources is indeed amazing. But has he disseminated notes on every single video he ever watched? Has he made any videos of his own?

    It’s time he does.

    Sad, though, if we should lose such a resource to a wider audience gifted with his knowledge.

    I’m willing to make that sacrifice for the greater good, however.

    Glen Davidson

  7. J-Mac: 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

    It’s a pleasure to see a consortium doing some real science, and presenting a well-supported and interesting conclusion. This was published in 2008. Did they know what J-Mac was going to write on this blog nine years later?

    Maybe J-Mac could indicate in which scientific journal J-Mac’s own ostrich work was published …

  8. Kantian Naturalist: Based on what I see her posting on Facebook, she has much larger concerns than TSZ.

    Not being a stalker, hadn’t thought to look. That’s food for thought. I can see why Lizzie might not be devoting much attention here!

  9. I would like to bring up a totally different issue: The “Ignore Commenter” button is way too prominent and too close to “Reply” buttons. Several times when I want to reply, I accidentally put the user on ignore. But I don’t see how it can be moved either. In normal forums, ignore is available on the profile page of users or in the account settings. This place is obviously not a normal forum and never will be.

  10. 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.

    Agree with John.

    In the interim I think it’s within moderator discretion to limit the foot print on the front page. I’ve tried myself to put the “more” tag such that only a small portion of the entire post is shown if I think it’s not going to attract too much interest.

    Alan and Neil can simply constrict a post to show the first two sentences so that TSZ has a more balanced front page look. Also I think mod discretion can decide which post go to the top.

    I suggest exercising this discretion more. Let Joe Felsenstein’s, Tom English’s, Shallit, Kantian Naturalists, John Harshman’s, Walto’s, VJ Torley’s posts be put at the top. Since they are published scholars, I think they’ve earned the privilege of being given top billing. Phoodoo and Robert Byers can be put closer to the bottom and Mung’s near the Mungpile. Everyone else in between.

  11. J-Mac: You couldn’t careless what I write here…

    You are so right. Your undeniable talents are wasted here, after all we just all secretly hate God and want to sin without fear of judgement.

    Think about it J-mac. Read Tom English’s post above too, I support the motion. They need your deep and broad scientific elucidations over on uncommon descent. No reason to waste your penetrating insights on us hopeless heathens. Better go where you can really make a difference.

  12. stcordova: Agree with John.

    In the interim I think it’s within moderator discretion to limit the foot print on the front page.I’ve tried myself to put the “more” tag such that only a small portion of the entire post is shown if I think it’s not going to attract too much interest.

    Alan and Neil can simply constrict a post to show the first two sentences so that TSZ has a more balanced front page look.Also I think mod discretion can decide which post go to the top.

    I suggest exercising this discretion more. Let Joe Felsenstein’s, Tom English’s, Shallit, Kantian Naturalists, John Harshman’s, Walto’s, VJ Torley’s posts be put at the top.Since they are published scholars, I think they’ve earned the privilege of being given top billing.Phoodoo and Robert Byers can be put closer to the bottom and Mung’s near the Mungpile.Everyone else in between.

    Is that what Jesus would do Sal?

  13. I need me here so that you can kill your boredom…

    Makes perfect sense. How’s the weather in there, J-Mac?

  14. stcordova: I suggest exercising this discretion more. Let Joe Felsenstein’s, Tom English’s, Shallit, Kantian Naturalists, John Harshman’s, Walto’s, VJ Torley’s posts be put at the top. Since they are published scholars, I think they’ve earned the privilege of being given top billing. Phoodoo and Robert Byers can be put closer to the bottom and Mung’s near the Mungpile. Everyone else in between.

    I don’t like that suggestion. One of the things I like about TSZ (and the Internet generally, to be honest) is that it has the potential to be radically egalitarian. No preferential treatment to someone’s ideas because of who they are, just let the ideas stand or fall on their own merits. In actual practice, as we all know, this has licensed the anti-intellectualism of “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”. But I like the principle and I’ll support it.

    Besides which, I don’t contribute to TSZ as a published scholar. (If I did, I’d use my real name.) I enjoy TSZ, but my contributions here aren’t part of my professional identity, and my OPs aren’t part of my research. Usually my OPs are ideas I had that I would not write about as part of my research.

    So while I like the idea of restricting the number of OPs per author per month, I don’t like the idea of preferential treatment or ‘top billing’.

  15. keiths:

    And what you saw in this particular instance was a typically impulsive overreaction by Alan and Neil.

    Neil:

    How about a link to where I gave a supposedly impulsive overreaction. Because I haven’t a clue as to what you are referring to.

    I’m referring to your agreement with Alan’s impulsive overreaction:

    After discussion with Neil, we’ve agreed that further opening posts from J-Mac will require admin approval for publishing. This will not be unreasonably withheld.

  16. keiths:
    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.

    I see this as a legitimate point to some extent, though my habit is to flip through the subsequent pages to see if there are topics I’ve not yet read. And mostly, I just click on the side stream to read the comments on the topics I’m interested in, so for me the “front page” real estate doesn’t have much impact.

    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.

    That’s true. As I note, I’ll flip to following pages, but you’re right, they don’t get the traffic of the front page topics. Fair enough.

  17. Neil,

    After initially agreeing with Alan’s scheme, you said you were fine with the rate-limit proposal:

    walto:

    I’d like to point out that my suggestion above was that EVERYONE be limited to, say, 20 or 24 OPs a year without leave of the moderators, not that J-Mac be singled out (even if his posts all are nonsensical and are the actual reason for any such rule).

    Neil:

    I’d be okay with that. I would be more inclined to go with 1 per week, rather than 24 per year — even if only because that is easier to track.

    I would prefer to limit by quantity (or posting rate) than to limit by content.

    Since you’re “okay with it”, and since the rate-limit proposal is superior and more in line with Lizzie’s aims, for all the reasons we’ve discussed so far, why go with Alan’s scheme?

  18. KN, to Sal:

    One of the things I like about TSZ (and the Internet generally, to be honest) is that it has the potential to be radically egalitarian. No preferential treatment to someone’s ideas because of who they are, just let the ideas stand or fall on their own merits.

    Yes, and that’s a major strength.

    Sal tends to be overawed by credentials, which is why his OPs and comments are rife with credential puffery and references to “prestigious” this and that.

  19. Robin: I see this as a legitimate point to some extent, though my habit is to flip through the subsequent pages to see if there are topics I’ve not yet read. And mostly, I just click on the side stream to read the comments on the topics I’m interested in, so for me the “front page” real estate doesn’t have much impact.

    This just isn’t a problem. The sidebar is where it’s at. Right now it’s cluttered up with moderation issues, but usually it reflects what people are talking about.

    If I could make one improvement to the software, I’d have the ignore feature apply to the sidebar. A second possibility is to have hot topics float to the top, rather than remain in chronological order.

    Or have a sidebar that reflects hot topics.

  20. Here’s an idea: instead of limiting people’s posts, why not just sticky two or three of the “less inane” or more popular or whatever topics as the first three on the front page. Leave them stickied until comments drop below some threshold, say two a day or some such.

  22. petrushka: This just isn’t a problem. The sidebar is where it’s at. Right now it’s cluttered up with moderation issues, but usually it reflects what people are talking about.

    Yeah, exactly. That’s how I find topics to read here mostly .

    If I could make one improvement to the software, I’d have the ignore feature apply to the sidebar. A second possibility is to have hot topics float to the top, rather than remain in chronological order.

    Yes. Both of those would be good. As an alternative, I suggest we just sticky hot topics for now.

    Or have a sidebar that reflects hot topics.

    That would be nice too.

  23. keiths: After initially agreeing with Alan’s scheme, you said you were fine with the rate-limit proposal:

    I would still like to know what is this nefarious scheme that Alan supposedly proposed and that I agreed to.

    In my discussions with Alan, my actual proposal was rate limit. And I suggested that it be applied broadly, not just to J-mac.

  24. Neil,

    So you have nothing. You are just making stuff up.

    Um, no. My statement stands:

    And what you saw in this particular instance was a typically impulsive overreaction by Alan and Neil.

    In any case: Since you’re “okay with it”, and since the rate-limit proposal is superior and more in line with Lizzie’s aims, for all the reasons we’ve discussed so far, why go with Alan’s scheme?

    ETA: Just saw your last comment. I’ll respond below.

  25. J-Mac:You couldn’t careless what I write here…

    Now THAT is funny to me!

    Although not really true, in an ironic sort of way. Some of us are probably really careless with what you write here… 😉

  26. Neil,

    In my discussions with Alan, my actual proposal was rate limit. And I suggested that it be applied broadly, not just to J-mac.

    Then you guys need to work on your inter-moderator communications. Alan thought you had agreed to his proposal:

    After discussion with Neil, we’ve agreed that further opening posts from J-Mac will require admin approval for publishing. This will not be unreasonably withheld.

    [emphasis added]

  27. keiths: Alan thought you had agreed to his proposal

    What proposal.

    Anything at all, even rate limiting, would need new posts to require moderator approval. There isn’t any rate-limit built into the wordpress software.

    If Alan had ideas of suppressing posts based on content, then he never brought that up.

    As far as I can see, the only censorship plan is a figment of your own imagination.

  28. Robin: I confess, I don’t understand the issue here. Why do some folk want to limit the topics generated?

    Because one member, John Harshman, thinks the site ought to conform to his own special needs.

    If he has someone on Ignore he doesn’t want to see anything they write, even if it makes him look like a fool.

  29. Is that what Jesus would do Sal?

    If you don’t like a place, you can always walk away and shake the dust of your sandals.

    If you think this is a place for you to preach and evangelize, there are better places for that like say a church.

    If this is a place to learn and extend your thoughts and take criticism and correction form scholars, to practice your communication skills, then this is a good place for that. And then be reasonably courteous and considerate to people here who are willing to take time to read and respond to what your write. “Give honor to whom honor is due.”

  30. keiths: J-Mac, Do I really need to be grateful for TSZ?

    keiths: You don’t need to, but you certainly ought to.

    This is kind of hilarious. I started a thread so people could thank Elizabeth for this site. Not one single other member expressed thanks.

    No wonder Elizabeth is in no hurry to return. Perhaps it’s time to shut it down.

  31. Alan Fox: What scheme?

    The nefarious scheme.

    Alan Fox: I see nothing there about a scheme

    It’s hidden. That’s what makes it so nefarious.

    Alan Fox: What scheme, Keiths?

    Which scheme, not what scheme. Schemes. There’s always more than one.

  32. stcordova: Phoodoo and Robert Byers can be put closer to the bottom and Mung’s near the Mungpile.

    I don’t think that Mung is the kind of thing you can pile up.

  33. Robin: Here’s an idea: instead of limiting people’s posts, why not just sticky two or three of the “less inane” or more popular or whatever topics as the first three on the front page.

    I know, right? If people write interesting things they can be featured. But featuring posts can be abused and we’ve actually seen that in the past here.

    Who decides which posts are featured, and when we need a featured post in order to move other posts down the page, and how many we need?

  34. Neil Rickert: I would still like to know what is this nefarious scheme that Alan supposedly proposed and that I agreed to.

    It’s a hidden scheme. So it’s not like we can give you a link to it. Then just anyone would be able to see it. Then what kind of a nefarious scheme would it be. But we know it’s there. You’re not fooling anyone with this silly demand for evidence.

  35. Kantian Naturalist:

    I don’t like that suggestion. One of the things I like about TSZ (and the Internet generally, to be honest) is that it has the potential to be radically egalitarian. No preferential treatment to someone’s ideas because of who they are, just let the ideas stand or fall on their own merits. In actual practice, as we all know, this has licensed the anti-intellectualism of “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”. But I like the principle and I’ll support it.

    I’m not trying to disagree with you even though I obviously did disagree. My reasoning as far as my interest is that my side of the issues I think are embarrassed by Robert Byers, Phoodoo and Mung.

    Out of respect for this forum, I try to self-limit my actual number of OPs and just decide to flood my own OPs. I think that lets TSZ be a little more orderly.

    I think it is fair to ask authors to respect other authors use of real estate on the front page. Otherwise some give and take needs to happen. If someone likes to write tons of OPs, then in fairness to the other authors they have to give something in exchange. Giving up top billing I think is fair. The most fair of course would be rate limiting without top billing.

    And I should point out, I never got top billing here despite the fact one of the things I wrote here were research notes for a book headed for publication, another things I wrote here was presented at conference before faculty and deans and chairs at Christian universities, and another thing I wrote here were research notes for an idea that will over turn two papers one by Ohno in PNAS 1984 and the other by Okada in Nature 1983. I thought it deserved better billing than Mung, but it doesn’t matter since people have been kind to keep my discussions alive long after they’ve rolled off the front page.

    In sum, I have no problem with rate limiting of OPs. I would hope the participants here can self-rate limit.

    Finally, I did take exception to Allan Miller saying I was spamming the site by posting comments under my own OP. He doesn’t like the fact I was verbose, he doesn’t have to read my comments. He made that silly complaint, I believe, in my black swan discussion. That’s about the only thing that Allan ever said that really irritated me.

  36. stcordova: If you think this is a place for you to preach and evangelize, there are better places for that like say a church.

    Because you see, J-Mac, that’s what Jesus did. He went and preached only in the churches where only the saved could hear him.

    You asked why I have a low opinion of Sal? Add stupid comments like this one to the list.

  37. stcordova: I’m not trying to disagree with you even though I obviously did disagree. My reasoning as far as my interest is that my side of the issues I think are embarrassed by Robert Byers, Phoodoo and Mung.

    It could not make me happier to be counted among those who bring embarrassment to Salvador’s sides of the issues. 🙂

  38. stcordova: If this is a place to learn and extend your thoughts and take criticism and correction form scholars, to practice your communication skills, then this is a good place for that

    The scholars you so admire and exalt say Jesus didn’t create anything…or if he did, he did a lousy job and evolution through natural selection had to correct his bad design… If you want to take correction from these kind of scholars, you are definitely in the right place…

    When Jesus destroys this universe, and re-creates the new one, as by your own admission you believe, make sure he remembers to re-creates you as well in that new universe of his and doesn’t let dumb luck and evolution do it for him…

    I think you are familiar with this:

    Mat 7:21-23

    “21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.”

    I might not be as religious as you are, and I may not have your faith in Jesus’ abilities in the re-creation of the universe, but I certainly know where to draw the line… Well… that’s just me…

  39. J-Mac,

    I studied graduate-level Quantum Mechanics from an atheist. Would you rather I learn it from someone who is not a physicist merely because that person is a Christian?

    Matt 23:3
    “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you,”

    So Jesus taught that there is a time and place to learn from unbelievers.

    You also accused me of not being a believer merely because I was supportive of the knowledge God has given the unbelievers here. I just showed you from the scripture, your ideas are wrong.

  40. stcordova: I studied graduate-level Quantum Mechanics from an atheist

    So did I, but he couldn’t correct my believes on who created the laws on quantum physics, what make the nonliving matter animate, and that in closed system the 1 and 2 laws of thermodynamics applies, including life…

  41. stcordova: You also accused me of not being a believer merely because I was supportive of the knowledge God has given the unbelievers here. I just showed you from the scripture, your ideas are wrong.

    Quite the opposite… I just don’t have your style…

  43. Neil Rickert: In my discussions with Alan, my actual proposal was rate limit. And I suggested that it be applied broadly, not just to J-mac.

    Good. And I hope it has now been agree to. October 1 is approaching quickly. What, precisely IS the limit to be?

  44. Neil Rickert: Anything at all, even rate limiting, would need new posts to require moderator approval. There isn’t any rate-limit built into the wordpress software.

    C’mon, Neil. There’s a difference between counting and assessing the interest value of posts by one particular member.

    Can we stop with the bullshit and just hear what (if anything) you two are planning to do?

  45. stcordova: I think it is fair to ask authors to respect other authors use of real estate on the front page. Otherwise some give and take needs to happen. If someone likes to write tons of OPs, then in fairness to the other authors they have to give something in exchange. Giving up top billing I think is fair. The most fair of course would be rate limiting without top billing.

    Yes. Quite right.

  46. stcordova: So Jesus taught that there is a time and place to learn from unbelievers.

    To learn the very info that contradicts the bible you so often quote???

  47. Just a quick comment, as it’s all I have time for at this moment.

    Regarding feasible housekeeping changes, I’m happy to make any that help with member’s reading experience. Being stricter with the “read more” break is fine with me. Increasing the number of posts shown on the front page is also a simple change.

    Regarding a fixed limit of OPs per member, I remain unconvinced because it’s a solution to a problem we don’t have and overkill for the particular problem a considerable number were objecting to. I also think it is technically messy to implement.

    Regarding the “ignore” plugin. I agree it’s far from perfect. Lizzie hates how it messes up comment boxes and left it in place reluctantly. If anyone wants to have a go at modifying the plugin or can find a better one let me know. (Preempting more pearl-clutching) Of course mods should be developed and tested off-site.

    Regarding the status-quo, I’m not yet seeing any other specific way of operating here that is available that is substantively better in keeping to Lizzie’s aims and ideals. Feel free to keep the proposals coming.

    People are welcome to change those aims and ideals off-piste. I’m playing with Elkarte at the moment, myself.

  48. walto: Good.And I hope it has now been agree to.October 1 is approaching quickly.What, precisely IS the limit to be?

    Hey, come on walto! It was your idea. Pick one and support your choice. Then detail how the score is to be kept. And what to do if an OP is published, collects comments, but falls foul of the limit. Don’t know about Neil but I’m spending far too much time on this already. What about somebody volunteering as additional admin? Lizzie thought six or seven would be good. Are you up for it?

    Anyone?

  49. Sal: My reasoning as far as my interest is that my side of the issues I think are embarrassed by Robert Byers, Phoodoo and Mung.

    Which side is that? You mean the side of your personal interests?

    Personally, I would rather be counted with Robert, Phoodoo and Mung that with you Sal, though we know Robert needs some corrections with his radical views…but who doesn’t? Who made me the judge? Who made you the judge, Sal?

  50. stcordova: Matt 23:3
    “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you,”

    You missed the best part Sal!

    Mat 23: 4

    2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 All their deeds are done for men to see. They broaden their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6 They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 the greetings in the marketplaces, and the title of ‘Rabbi’ by which they are addressed.…

Comments are closed.