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)”

  3. J-mac,

    Bro, we’re in someone else’s house here. Whether unbeliever or believer, seems to me we show some deference to the way they run their house. Say what you want, but take your turn and be willing to share the podium. No need to make a theological issue out of it.

    I’m suggesting how we can cooperate. If you don’t like what goes on here and how you’re treated, you can make your own blog for free and draw readers to it.

    I’m here at TSZ to practice my communication skills. I do real outreach in other venues. This place is batting practice.

    Maybe you could ask your opponents here how you can be of better service to their interests. Love thine enemies.

  4. stcordova,

    This is shmultz Sal!
    If I were as strong believer as you claim to be, I would never compromise my beliefs to make the host of whatever feel good and to cooperate…though respectfully, which I can obviously improve.

    But sitting on the fence can get you shot from both sides…which it pretty much does…if you look at the thread… just in case you didn’t notice…

  5. Joe Felsenstein: 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?

    I think you misunderstood my intentions of posting Harshman’s work

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

    Oh, it is in the same scientific journal where the experimental evidence was published for the arrival of the fittest you based your whole life on…
    I don’t think you need a link, do you Joe?

  6. If I were as strong believer as you claim to be, I would never compromise my beliefs

    I’m not asking you to. I’m not suggesting you or I compromise our beliefs. I’m saying be willing to compromise on how we take turns on the podium.

    You’ve got some complaints about posting too many OP’s in too short a time.

    How about you ask some of those who are complaining what would be an acceptable rate or something. That’s not compromising your belief, that’s showing some respect to your neighbors here.

  7. stcordova: I’m not asking you to. I’m not suggesting you or I compromise our beliefs. I’m saying be willing to compromise on how we take turns on the podium.

    Fair enough! But that’s not the same thing we have been talking about today…

  8. stcordova: You’ve got some complaints about posting too many OP’s in too short a time.

    Why? Because they make Harshman look bad?
    Did you ever had that problem?

  9. stcordova: showing some respect to your neighbors here.

    Showing respect when it’s due…I have no respect for someone who bullies the entire blog into his own personal preference… Why should I? Who is he?

  10. J-Mac: stcordova: You’ve got some complaints about posting too many OP’s in too short a time.

    J-mac: Why? Because they make Harshman look bad?

    LOL! Well, that’s certainly a possibility, but the evidence suggests it’s more likely that some of your topics are just nonsense.

  11. Fair enough! But that’s not the same thing we have been talking about today…

    Well, apologies if I confused the issues.

  12. keiths, to Neil:

    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]

    Neil:

    What proposal.

    The one I just quoted, and the one we’ve been discussing in this thread. Why are you playing dumb, Neil? Alan has been doing the same. Where did the two of you get the idea that if you simply pretended there was no proposal, it would somehow magically disappear?

    Anything at all, even rate limiting, would need new posts to require moderator approval.

    No, Neil, and we’ve discussed that already in this thread. This is the ‘Moderation Issues’ thread. Can’t you, a moderator, be bothered to read it?

    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.

    Jesus, Neil. It was right here, in this thread:

    Alan:

    Taking on board opinions from members here, and after discussing with Neil, I’ve changed J-Mac’s status to “contributor”” which means that further OPs from J-Mac will require an admin to authorise publication. This will not be withheld unreasonably but, as Lizzie has said:

    …I am ultimately responsible for what appears on this site, and there are some things I am simply not prepared to host, just as a publisher… …is not obliged to publish anything, and by being selective is not denying free speech. I am a free speech advocate, but I remain of the view that there is a fairly clear line between regimes that ban publication and publications that select what they will publish.

    And you wrote this:

    On the other hand, deciding what is interesting to the readership is an editorial decision. It’s a decision that editors and peer reviewers routinely make.

    To paraphrase W.S. Gilbert, a moderator’s lot is not a happy one.

    It’s a terrible idea, which is why I responded:

    Christ, Neil. You’re a moderator, not an editor. We don’t want you “deciding what is interesting to the readership.”

    Why should you and Alan arbitrarily be granted that power, when it’s totally unnecessary and counter to the spirit of TSZ?

    It makes no sense.

  13. I dunno. Couldn’t there be at least some minimal standards of what constitutes a proper post? I would not consider an almost certainly fictitious account of a failed attempt to replicate some of Ken Dial’s work to meet those minimal standards. Surely if the bar is set low enough there’s something that can be done without compromising the integrity of the site.

  16. John,

    One man’s crap is another man’s treasure. I would rather keep the moderators out of it, particularly given their record of poor judgment.

    The fact that TSZ is nearly censorship-free* and open to OPs from our opponents is a pretty big deal. It seems a shame to bring censorship into the picture when it can easily be avoided by adopting a rate-limiting scheme.

    *Exceptions for things like Joe G’s “tunie” photo, the “outing” of commenters, etc.

  17. John Harshman: Couldn’t there be at least some minimal standards of what constitutes a proper post?

    Who is going to set the standards? How will they be enforced?

    I would not consider an almost certainly fictitious account of a failed attempt to replicate some of Ken Dial’s work to meet those minimal standards.

    The creationists seem to think that the evidence for evolution is almost certainly fictitious.

    This is as much a debate about standards as it is about evidence. The creationists disagree with us about evidence, because they disagree with us about the standards for evidence. For creationists, their holy book is the standard.

  18. walto:

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

    Alan:

    Hey, come on walto! It was your idea. Pick one and support your choice.

    I’d suggest starting with a limit of one OP per two weeks. The limit could be adjusted if necessary, of course.

    Then detail how the score is to be kept.

    By simply looking at the publication dates of OPs to see whether they fall in the two-week window. If more than one OP from a given contributor falls within the window, that contributor is in violation of the rule. This is not rocket science.

    And what to do if an OP is published, collects comments, but falls foul of the limit.

    I addressed that already:

    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.

    Alan:

    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?

    I’ve got a better idea: stop guanoing comments. The time you save will more than make up for the small cost of the rate-limiting scheme.

  19. I suggest no need to make a rule, we can just try to cooperate. Beside, rates may change depending on the situation.

    What rate would make you all happy for the time being? Let someone write an OP and blast away at the comment section, especially on his own OP.

    That sounds reasonable to me.

    For now, I can abide by once every 2-week suggestion. How about anyone else?

    I’ll try to abide.

  20. Sal,

    I suggest no need to make a rule, we can just try to cooperate.

    If everyone follows the rule, it makes no difference whether we call it a rule or a guideline.

    The problem arises when someone flouts it. J-Mac is the real wildcard here.

  21. I’ll suggest a couple of very minor and I think friendly amendments to keiths’ proposal. I prefer 2 per month to 1 every two weeks. First, it’s easier for the moderators, I think, and second because if somebody really has two things to get off his or her chest within a couple days, I don’t see why we’d mind.

    Second, I think that in an instance in which not only has somebody gone over the limit but also drawn comments (so that the OP can’t just be pulled and delayed for a week or two), we might just try reducing the offender’s limit the following month–at least for the first (or first couple of) violation(s). Putting somebody on moderation after only one strike seems kind of harsh to me. (And when would they come off?)

    So, I’d recommend those two changes, but, as I said, I’m okay with keiths’ proposal as it stands too.

  23. 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.

    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’.

    I completely agree with this. Whether they’ve been published in peer reviewed journals or not, I’m pretty sure every single person who has ever posted a word here knows a helluva lot more about evolution than I do.

    As I’ve said several times before, to quote Woody Allen’s father in Hannah and Her Sisters, I don’t even know how this can opener works.

  24. stcordova,

    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.

    Apologies if I spoke out of turn. I don’t recall the exact circumstances, and one should not get too sore about what someone says on some particular day in the midst of everything else they have going on. I say a lot of stuff.

    But, a problem for me is that when someone posts a flurry of points, and points-within-points, it is the equivalent of a Gish Gallop. I have spent a lot of time and effort composing responses to you. I don’t have to do that either. But, when someone has gone to the trouble, it’s just courtesy to try and discuss that, rather than and here’s another thing, and another thing … and here’s another thing … and another. That was probably at the back of it although, as I say, I don’t really recall.

  25. Walto:

    I completely agree with this.

    SInce Walto agrees with KN, and also since KN stated his case against my earlier suggestion quite well, I withdraw my earlier suggestion for top billing.

  26. Allan:

    But, a problem for me is that when someone posts a flurry of points, and points-within-points, it is the equivalent of a Gish Gallop.

    Accusations of a Gish Gallop are fine. What I found disconcerting was a suggestion such modes of posting should be somehow hindered.

    Now that we have the ignore button, and also since I tend to just flood my own OP’s, I don’t see any reason to suggest moving my comments just because someone considers them spammy, especially if they are in my own OP.

    I try not to invade another author’s OP and just flood it and argue. If I really have issue with something, I might try to write my own OP response.

    Apologies for not being clearer about what I meant. Other than that, I think we get along fine all things considered.

  27. stcordova,

    Now that we have the ignore button, and also since I tend to just flood my own OP’s, I don’t see any reason to suggest moving my comments just because someone considers them spammy, especially if they are in my own OP.

    Well, at no point did I suggest anything editorial from anyone else. I’m not a fan of that kind of thing.

  28. Well, at no point did I suggest anything editorial from anyone else. I’m not a fan of that kind of thing.

    Apologies then from me to you for misinterpreting what you said.

  29. John Harshman: I would not consider an almost certainly fictitious account of a failed attempt to replicate some of Ken Dial’s work to meet those minimal standards.

    Now, before I tell you something very interesting about Dr. Dial’s experiment, I would like you to take a close look at the video, and tell me whether you see anything fictitious about Dr. Dial’s set up…

    I will give you a tip: try to compare to what degree did the environment of the experiment resembled the real environment of the supposed evolutionary change… I think you will find it quite fascinating… 😉

  30. J-Mac, why are you still here wasting your time with all these losers who are so clearly jealoux of you? Go to uncommon descent where there are people who will deeply appreciate your insightful work. You won’t regret it, I promise.

  32. Rumraket:
    J-Mac, why are you still here wasting your time with all these losers who are so clearly jealoux of you? Go to uncommon descent where there are people who will deeply appreciate your insightful work. You won’t regret it, I promise.

    What are you trying to tell me Rum?

    I comment on UD from time to time… Not as much as I used to…

  34. stcordova: Well, at no point did I suggest anything editorial from anyone else. I’m not a fan of that kind of thing.

    Apologies then from me to you for misinterpreting what you said.

    Sal, you’ve been getting better about indicating who you’re quoting, but you didn’t here. Again, all you have to do is highlight the portion of the text you want to include and hit the “quote in reply” button. The name of the poster will automatically appear in your response.

    Thanks.

  35. J-Mac,

    Is the minimum quota for OPs required too to remain the member of TSZ?

    No. The rate limit we’re discussing would be a maximum, not a minimum.

  36. J-Mac: Is the minimum quota for OPs required too to remain the member of TSZ?

    Excellent suggestion. If we are going to have quotas let’s have quotas!

    Whatever happened to civility? If someone is creating too many OPs or generating too many posts, ask them to consider changing.

    The real problem is that the real problem is the content of the OPs. Why can’t we stop lying to ourselves about that?

    It really is about censorship.

  37. J-Mac,

    What are you trying to tell me Rum?

    I comment on UD from time to time… Not as much as I used to…

    Why not ask Barry to publish your inane insightful OPs?

  38. keiths: The rate limit we’re discussing would be a maximum, not a minimum.

    He’s asking why there won’t be a minimum too you doofus.

  39. Mung,

    It really is about censorship.

    No, it isn’t. J-Mac (or anyone else) can load as much crap, on multiple topics, into his OPs as he desires. He can even go full vjtorley if he likes.

    The limit is on the rate of OPs, not their length or their contents.

  40. Mung,

    He’s asking why there won’t be a minimum too you doofus.

    Because it’s a dumb idea, dipshit. Which is no doubt why you were so enthusiastic:

    Excellent suggestion. If we are going to have quotas let’s have quotas!

  41. Mung: Excellent suggestion. If we are going to have quotas let’s have quotas!

    Whatever happened to civility? If someone is creating too many OPs or generating too many posts, ask them to consider changing.

    The real problem is that the real problem is the content of the OPs. Why can’t we stop lying to ourselves about that?

    It really is about censorship.

    Of course it is all about censorship and one person only… The initiative to do that didn’t even come from admins…It came from Harshman who instigated the bulling of the admins (with a few others) because I tried to replicate Dial’s experiment…
    What’s Harshman going to do when my turn comes to post an OP with the video footage of the experiment?

    Who is he going to bully then?

  43. J-Mac,

    I don’t like him…

    So? You’re not doing it for him. You’re (presumably) doing it to get your message out.

  44. J-Mac,

    Of course it is all about censorship and one person only…

    There’s no censorship under the rate limit proposal, and it applies to everyone equally.

  45. keiths: So? You’re not doing it for him. You’re (presumably) doing it to get your message out.

    Why would I be doing it for Barry? I fail to see the connection…I was already accused of being BA77 even though we disagree on many issues…

    Who’s next?

  46. keiths: There’s no censorship under the rate limit proposal, and it applies to everyone equally.

    So,when I post my OP with the video footage of the experiment you will be ok with that and you will not support Harshamn in the bulling to take it down? Right?

  47. J-Mac,

    Why would I be doing it for Barry? I fail to see the connection…

    That’s the frikkin’ point. So what difference does it make whether you like him, if all you want to do is get your OPs published there?

  48. J-Mac,

    So,when I post my OP with the video footage of the experiment you will be ok with that and you will not support Harshamn in the bulling to take it down? Right?

    If you actually go to the trouble of running an experiment, in good faith, and taking video of it, I’ll bet that even John won’t ask for it to be taken down.

  49. keiths: If you actually go to the trouble of running an experiment, in good faith, and taking video of it, I’ll bet that even John won’t ask for it to be taken down

    What are you talking about? Why would I do any differently than the first time? The only difference is going to be a video camera…

    BTW: Do you really believe that Dial’s ex was done in good faith?

  50. keiths: The limit is on the rate of OPs, not their length or their contents.

    So?

    So you fail at logic. Like we didn’t already know that.

    People wouldn’t be complaining if it were not for the content. So it’s an attempt to affect content. IOW, censorship.

    And your logic fail rationalizations do nothing to change that, and your conclusion doesn’t logically follow. Try again Irrational Boy.

Comments are closed.